assignment

Please find the attachment. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you.

Assignment sample and book is attached.

Of course, do NOT copy and paste from these examples–doing so violates University Academic Honesty policy, in syllabus; violates the intellectual property of the student author, and undermines the trust and collaboration that benefits all of us.

Ch<

p>/

Video

ADD

NAME OF YOUR GROUP with short des

ription including

how YOU are/were related to this group

Assessment Tool and Results (as

minimum C level, use assessments in

text as exemplified in “note

ook”, cite

text page #)

MY Managers

Guide

–

How This

Helps Me in the Workplace

a,b

11 a, b

IS IT A GROUP? Why?

–

TYPE varieties : primary,social,collectives, category

–

COMPOSITION

–

ORIGIN (if you do NOT know this, explain why)

1,3

BOUNDARIES

—

how permeable/open ,

closed ( See Ch 3)

SIZE

–

number of possible relationships

( quantify);

OVERALL (TASK, RELATIONSHIP) DYNAMIC Interaction/

Interpersonal Relations)

INTERDEPEN

DEN

3 a,b,c

Formative Processes

–

INCLUSION & IDENTITY

–

Need to Belong,

Identity and Inclusion, Social Identity

4 a,b,c

Formative Processes

: FORMATION

–

Who Joins, Affiliation,

Attraction

5 a,b.c

Formative Processes

: COHESION and Development/

Entitativity

Influence Processes Structure

NORMS

6 b

Influence Processes Structure

: Group ROLES

6 c

Influence Processes Structure

: RELATIONS

a,b,c,d

Influence videos: Majority, Minority, Influence Sources and

INFLUENCE (in Juries as example )

8 a,b,c,d	Influence Processes: POWER Milgram, Power Bases & Tactics, Power Hierarchy, Power Metamorphic
9 a,b,c	Influence Processes: LEADERSHIP in Groups, Emergence, Effectiveness You MUST include your own Leadership Grid self-assessment and one for the leader in your group (YOU assess the group leader by yourself) https://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/files/2010/10/Leadership-Matrix-Self-Assessment-Questionnaire
10 a, b,c	PERFORMANCE Processes: Social Facilitation, Social Loafing, and Social Combination
11 a,b,c	Performance Processes: TEAMS Types, Composition and Process, Training case example
12 a,b,c	Performance Processes: DECISION MAKING, Polarization and Group Think
13 a,b	Conflict Processes: CONFLICTin group(s): Causes, Escalation/DeEscalation,
14 a,b,c	Conflict Processes: INTERGROUP CONFLICT Causes, Biases, Improvement
15	Contextual Processes, overall –change, collective and crowd behavior, etc.
SUMMARY	Group strength & improvement areas with recommendations	–how each element of group processes helps you in the work place

ADD YOUR NAME HERE to appear on EVERY PAGE

Ch
/

Video

ADD NAME OF YOUR GROUP with short description including

how YOU are/were related to this group

Assessment Tool and Results (as
minimum C level, use assessments in

text as exemplified in “notebook”, cite

text page #)

MY Managers
Guide
—
How This
Helps Me in the Workplace

1
a,b

11 a, b

IS IT A GROUP? Why?

–
TYPE varieties : primary,social,collectives, category

–
COMPOSITION

–
ORIGIN (if you do NOT know this, explain why)

1,3

BOUNDARIES
—
how permeable/open ,

closed ( See Ch 3)

SIZE
–
number of possible relationships

( quantify);

OVERALL (TASK, RELATIONSHIP) DYNAMIC Interaction/
Interpersonal Relations)

INTERDEPEN
DEN
CE

3 a,b,c

Formative Processes
–

INCLUSION & IDENTITY
–
Need to Belong,
Identity and Inclusion, Social Identity

4 a,b,c

Formative Processes
: FORMATION
–

Who Joins, Affiliation,
Attraction

5 a,b.c

Formative Processes
: COHESION and Development/
Entitativity

6 a

Influence Processes Structure:

NORMS

6
b

Influence Processes Structure
: Group ROLES

Influence Processes Structure
: RELATIONS

a,b,c,d

Influence videos: Majority, Minority, Influence Sources and
INFLUENCE (in Juries as example )

1 | ADD YOUR NAME HERE to appear on EVERY PAGE

Ch/

Video

ADD NAME OF YOUR GROUP with short description including

how YOU are/were related to this group

Assessment Tool and Results (as
minimum C level, use assessments in
text as exemplified in “notebook”, cite

text page #)

MY Managers Guide–How This

Helps Me in the Workplace

1a,b

11 a, b

IS IT A GROUP? Why?

1 -TYPE varieties : primary,social,collectives, category

-COMPOSITION

-ORIGIN (if you do NOT know this, explain why)

1,3 BOUNDARIES—how permeable/open , closed ( See Ch 3)

SIZE-number of possible relationships

( quantify);

1 OVERALL (TASK, RELATIONSHIP) DYNAMIC Interaction/

Interpersonal Relations)

INTERDEPENDENCE

3 a,b,c Formative Processes- INCLUSION & IDENTITY-Need to Belong,

Identity and Inclusion, Social Identity

4 a,b,c Formative Processes: FORMATION- Who Joins, Affiliation,

Attraction

5 a,b.c Formative Processes: COHESION and Development/

Entitativity

6 a Influence Processes Structure: NORMS

6 b Influence Processes Structure: Group ROLES

6 c Influence Processes Structure: RELATIONS

7 a,b,c,d Influence videos: Majority, Minority, Influence Sources and

INFLUENCE (in Juries as example )

MaxVoelker B2654521

Group Processes

My assessment

My managers Guide

Is it a group? Why?

• You an excellent writer-clear
and focused; after this chapter,

please use short phrases vs

entire, whole sentences, so it

remains “to the point”

(because you have so many

elements to define/exemplify).

• IDEA—paste your
reasons/definitions (green) in

THIS column, so you tally all

the assessment(s) in this

column, to show your rationale

for this particular item—is it a

group, why?

• After definition, and when
you’ve done all the details

below, RETURN to this first

row/and summarize why it is a

Group or TEAM, using

specific elements …in other

words, answer “Why” with the

evidence/elements you identify

in your soccer team :

In this Document I will be looking at

my soccer team and determining if we

are a “Group”. I do not currently work

and have very little work experience

however I feel a lot of the concepts

that are discussed in the book can also

been seen in team sports. We are still

a group who all share the same goal.

Much like any other work team and I

am part of a soccer team.

Chapter 1 discusses how groups are

identified. They claim a group is “two

or more individuals who are

connected by and within social

relationships”. Therefore, I feel my

soccer team fits this description very

well.

Max Voelker B2654521

TYPE

Kindly BOLD the element so (on my

end) I can see it more quickly—I’m

grading 60 group assessments, plus

YOU will be able to see that you have

addressed every element, before you

turn in your final version, as last

“quality check” before saving as

Word, then as PDF and uploading

PDF

Add definition for Secondary group

here

My group type is a secondary group

of 30 student athletes who train and

study together (do all 30 actually

study together every day? Study what,

when?) every day in order to achieve

a common goal.

I actually found it very (word

missing—e.g. interesting, informative

??)to place my group as we share

characteristics of both primary groups

and secondary groups. I ended up

going with secondary as the book

states “Their boundaries are also more

permeable, so members can leave old

groups behind and join new ones, for

they do not demand the level of

commitment that primary groups do”.

Although being a part of a soccer

team does require the commitment of

a primary group the fact that players

to tend to come and go (explain how

or when, do they come and go every

week, during the season, because they

become ineligible or because coaches

dismiss them, or what?—I never

realized this about our college

teams…_) made me decide that it

was more a secondary group.

Being able to identify the different

types of groups and understanding

how the individuals interact with each

other in them will allow me to

determine how to speak and approach

people depending on what group I am

with that individual. For example, I

know in my primary group I can be

very straight forward and express

things openly because we all have the

same goal and willingness to achieve

whereas if I can only identify with

someone on a “categories” level I will

have to change my approach as I do

not understand that individual very

well and therefore must take a more

cautious approach.

Max Voelker B2654521

Composition –add definition for

Composition here

Bolded here because it emphasizes the

fundamental requirement for being a

group vs collective or crown.

So when we get to Norms, roles (Ch

6) and leadership ( ch 9) you can refer

back to this section, or simply cut and

paste it again, perhaps with a few

more specifics (you’ll assess different

group roles and your own, and what

you speculate to be your coach’s

leadership style

In chapter 1 the book discusses the

adventure expedition team on Mt.

Everest. I feel this is very similar to

my soccer. Although it is not as

extreme as climbing Mt. Everest every

individual in our group has their own
specific talents, weaknesses,

attitudes, values, and personality

trait. That is why we have positions

in soccer. One individual is a better

keep than he is outfield player and

therefore he plays in goal, one is a

better defender than attacker and

therefore he plays defines etc. just

like the group that climbed Everest

every player in our team each part

defines the whole team. We are quite

lucky in our group we all want the

same goal. We aim to go to the

nationals and all want to become

better soccer players so we can

continue to play in the future. By

having this same or similar goal it

allows us to focus and really push one

another at becoming the best possible

versions of themselves. However it

could not be done without our

manager and captain. The easiest

thing a person can do in life can quit.

When you are being pushed it is really

easy to want to give up, but our

manager and coach are really good

at making sure that motivation stays

high so no reaches that point.

This section made me realise how

important it is to have different roles

withing a group. Just like the group

that climbed Everest they needed

everyone’s expertise in order to

succeed. this showed me that in order

to have a successful group it is

important to identify leaders and to

identify the strengths and weaknesses

of each individual in a group. Without

this structure it will be very difficult

for a group to succeed as there is no

direction and you are likely to see

people give up.

Max Voelker B2654521

Origin My soccer team falls into the planned

group category “deliberately formed

by its members or an external

authority for some purpose”. Our

group was formed by our head coach

as he was the individual who picked

the players. We are very organized

and task based. We have practice

everyday at 7 am with the expectation

that everyone will arrive on time and

give their maximum effort so we can

prepare for games on the weekend.

Our membership criteria is defined

clearly. We must come to practice on

time, follow the rules that have been

set by our coach, focus on classes and

present the program in the best way

possible. If we do not follow these

rules, we are no longer a part of the

team and therefore no longer

members. We have captain and vice

captains who are responsible for

relaying the information to the rest of

the team. They are in theory the

players “managers” if someone

doesn’t show up to a meeting it is

their fault because that is their main

job to keep everyone up to date with

what is happening.

I believe learning about the different

types of Origin groups was very

beneficial because it gives me or a

manager an idea of how to classify

groups. The manager may set up a

formal group that is set a task but

amongst that group a subgroup or

emergent group may form. If a

manager is able to identify this

emergent group he may be able to

create a more productive group in the

future because he recognises that they

work well together or he will be able

to split it up as they are unproductive.

EXCELLENT INSIGHT, MAX!!

Max Voelker B2654521

Boundaries define, (I won’t keep

repeating this, you get the suggestion )

My soccer team is very much a closed

group. Once the squad is decided for

the season no one can be added to it.

I feel this has many benefits. People

are given the chance to meet and get a

really good understanding of their

peers. This means when they work

together, they know how to motivate

them and the group becomes very

cohesive in a very short period of

time. It also allows us to identify who

the leaders are and who we can reply

on to ask for help.

the relationship that link members to one

another define who is in the group who is

not. A group is boundaried in a

psychological sense those who are in a

group are considered members and those

who are not part of the group are

outsiders.

I found it very important to learn about

Open and closed groups. Having an open

group means that members can come and

go as the please with no consequences.

Whereas closed groups are the

membership roster changes more slowly.

From the reading I would say that having

closed group is much more effective for a

business setting as people have a better

understanding of each other and will act

more as a group therefore being more

productive. In addition, closed group are

more cohesive therefore they will be more

likely and willing to work together in the

future

Max Voelker B2654521

Size I consider our group quite big with 30

players in it. This means there are a lot

of “social ties” in our group. The book

gives us the calculation to determine

how many social ties are needed to

connect all members. N(N-1)/2. This

means for our group of 30 we would

have 30(30-1)/2 = 435. After reading

the chapter it became very apparent

this in fact a group of 30 is still

considered rather small. The book

claims that once a group reaches over

150 it is difficult for all members to

connect. Therefore, I believe it is safe

to say that our group of 30 still makes

it very easy.

I believe we have no “sub-Groups” in

our group as everyone is connecting

on a regular basis and when we meet

we always meet as a team. This means

everyone is present at every meeting

and everyone is given the opportunity

to express themselves if they feel they

have to.

Gaining an understanding about group

sizes was very beneficial for me. I

have always been a strong believer

that smaller groups tend to work better

as it people tend to feel safer and

speak up more when they are

surrounded by people they know and

feel comfortable with. The textbook

and group dynamics video 1 A also

confirmed this. One thing I found

really interesting that was mentioned

in the video is that, when the number

of people in a group increase the

number of people who speak tend to

fall. In the example that is provided he

states that in a 8 person group the

main speaker ends up speaking about

45% of the time whereas the next only

speaks around 15% of the time. I

found gaining this knowledge helpful

as I believe for a group to be

successful most if not everyone must

express their opinion. This allows a

group to gain more knowledge from

everyone so people can see and

understand why people take different

approaches. But the evidence

suggests that the more people you

add to a group the more

authoritarian a group leader

becomes.

Max Voelker B2654521

Interaction / Interpersonal relations

Max Voelker B2654521

Interdependence

Max Voelker B2654521

Formative Process: Inclusion and identity I also completed the following self-

assessment that determined whether I

was a individualist or a collectivist.

From my answers I was able to

determine that I was a collectivist.

This mean I put the groups interests

and goals above my personal interests.

I feel this would be very mutual

amongst our group as we all make

sacrifices in some way to make sure

we are going to succeed.

Max Voelker B2654521

Formative Processes: formation

Max Voelker B2654521

Formative Process: Cohesion

Max Voelker B2654521

Influence Process structure: Norms

Max Voelker B2654521

Influence Process structure: Group Roles

Max Voelker B2654521

Influence Process Structure: Relations

Max Voelker B2654521

Influence Videos: majority, minority,
influence sources and influence

Max Voelker B2654521

Influence Process: Power

Max Voelker B2654521

Influence Processes: LEADERSHIP

in Groups, Emergence,

Effectiveness

Max Voelker B2654521

PERFORMANCE Processes: Social

Facilitation, Social Loafing, and

Social Combination

Max Voelker B2654521

Performance Processes: TEAMS

Types, Composition and Process,

Training case example

Max Voelker B2654521

Performance Processes: DECISION

MAKING, Polarization and Group

Think

Max Voelker B2654521

Conflict Processes: Conflicting

group(s):

Causes, Escalation/De-escalation,

Max Voelker B2654521

Conflict Processes: INTERGROUP

CONFLICT Causes, Biases,

Improvement

Max Voelker B2654521

Contextual Processes, overall –

change, collective and crowd

behaviour, etc.

Max Voelker B2654521

SUMMARY –how each element of

group processes helps you in the

work place

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill

MGT 3323 Group Processes “Notebook” for Group Assessment
A Text-Based Workbook for Understanding Group Processes and Assessing a Work Group

Developed with MGT 3323 Students
with

D. Forsyth, Group Dynamics, 7th Ed., 2019 and his Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/johndonelson/videos

Not for duplication or distribution outside of MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill, Associate Professor due to copyright laws

Students’ Objective: Connect text directly to group analysis assignment, to accurately apply course concepts, evidence, and terminology, with logical and

practical recommendations for improvement of group processes

Course Schedule and Notebook (using selected copywritten text diagrams)

YOU must use ADDITIONAL text material from assigned chapters to earn more than a C final grade –use videos to further inform your written assignment

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4
Week 5

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8

You select a work group you know well and use Text and Author Vidoes to “assess” your work group: name and briefly describe your results (usually no more

than ½ a page per characteristic, including name of assessment tool from text/notebook) . See the Type of Group example on next page:

Ch 1, 3, 11
Overviews–Introduction to Group Dynamics, its Study, Inclusion and Identity, Teams
Course Syllabus Overview and Expected Deliverables and Learning Outcomes
Assessing Group Dynamics
Assessing Groups v Teams
Ch 4 Formation & Ch 5 Cohesion and Development
Assessing Group Formation, Cohesion and Development
Ch 6 Structure: Group Norm, Roles and Relations
Assessing Group Structure
Mid-Term -Text and Videos Ch 1-6
Ch 7-8 Influence and Power
Assessing Influence and Power
Ch 9-10 -11 Leadership, Performance and Teams
Assessing Leadership and Performance
Ch 12-13 -14 Decision Making and Conflict
Assessing Decision Making and Conflict
Recap and Final Assignment: My Manager’s Guide to Assessing Group Dynamics

https://www.youtube.com/user/johndonelson/videos

Owner
Highlight

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 2

Type: My work group TYPE is a CATEGORY of 9 faith-based bible study members or

My group type is a SOCIAL GROUP of 7 coworkers on the weekend shift in a pharmacy. We are also a CATEGORY of all pharmacy technicians

On the next page is your Final Assignment “rubric” and Assessment Outline you will summarize in Word, with EACH CAPPED GROUP PROCESS:

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 3

FINAL ASSIGNMENT Rubric and Table of Contents for
MY MANAGER’S GUIDE TO ASSESSING GROUP DYNAMICS (55% final grade)

(YOU assess a work group you know well, using text tools and author
text,videos, no more than 1 page per Chapter/Group Process IN CAPS

Text Ch & Author Video Link My
Assessment
(as minimum
C level, use
assessments
in text as
exemplified in
“notebook”)

MY
Managers
Guide–
How This
Helps Me
in the
Workplace

IS IT A GROUP? Why? Video: Groups Hold the Secret to the
Universe
Welcome to Study of Groups
Text and Author Video: 1 a &b b; 11 a & b
Optional Ch 2 a, b

-TYPE varieties : primary,social,collectives, category 1

-COMPOSITION

-Origin

BOUNDARIES—how permeable/open , closed ( See Ch 3) 3

SIZE-number of possible relationships
( quantify);

Interaction/ Interpersonal Relations, OVERALL (TASK, RELATIONSHIP) 1

INTERDEPENCE 1

Formative Processes- INCLUSION & IDENTITY-Need to Belong, Identity and
Inclusion, Social Identity

Ch 3 Inclusion and Identity a, b, c videos

Formative Processes: FORMATION- Who Joins, Affiliation, Attraction Ch 4 Formation a,b & c videos

Formative Processes: COHESION and Development/ Entitativity Ch 5 Cohesion a, b & c videos

Influence Processes Structure: NORMS Ch 6a video Structure Norms

Influence Processes Structure: Group ROLES Ch 6 b video Structure: Roles

Influence Processes Structure: RELATIONS Ch 6c video Structure: Relations —Who is
connected to whom? Social network
analysis

Influence videos: Majority, Minority, Influence Sources and INFLUENCE (in
Juries as example )

Ch 7 Influence videos a, b, c & d

Influence Processes: POWER
Milgram, Power Bases & Tactics, Power Hierarchy, Power Metamorphic

Ch 8 Power a, b, c & d

Owner
Highlight

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 4

Influence Processes: LEADERSHIP in Groups, Emergence,
Effectiveness

Ch 9 Leadership videos a, b, c
You MUST include your own Leadership Grid self-assessment and
one for the leader in your group (YOU assess the group leader by
yourself) https://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-
medicine/files/2010/10/Leadership-Matrix-Self-Assessment-
Questionnaire

PERFORMANCE Processes: Social Facilitation, Social Loafing, and
Social Combination

Ch 10 videos a,b & c

Performance Processes: TEAMS
Types, Composition and Process, Training case example

Ch 11 videos a,b. & c

Performance Processes: DECISION MAKING, Polarization and Group
Think

Ch 12 videos a, b & c

Conflict Processes: CONFLICTin group(s):
Causes, Escalation/DeEscalation,

Ch 13 videos a & b

Conflict Processes: INTERGROUP CONFLICT Causes, Biases,
Improvement

Ch 14 a,b & c

Contextual Processes, overall –change, collective and crowd
behavior, etc.

SUMMARY –how each element of group processes helps you in the
work place

In following pages are key group assessments (questions, tables, diagrams) from the text, which you learn and use to assess your work group;

You may choose additional tools from the text, so long as EACH CAPPED GROUP PROCESS has a specific assessment source from the text, as the basis for your

brief assessment results.

https://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/files/2010/10/Leadership-Matrix-Self-Assessment-Questionnaire

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 5

P. 129

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 6

Cohesion and Development pg. 138

-Use to assess your group’s level of development

Cohesion and Development pg. 142

-Use to analyze group development

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 7

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 8

Group structure (norms, culture, roles, inter-member relations, social network analysis) pg. 162

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 9

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 10

III h. Group Structure pg. 171

– (Optional)

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 11

III h. Group Structure pg. 174

– (Optional) Group socialization in terms of roles

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 12

. Group Structure pg. 178

– (Very Important) Is it you or a conflict?

– Role conflict/ambiguity example: Supervisor is not fulfilling a role because he/she is overwhelmed with other work

– Note: Role Conflict here includes 3 sources/types of role-related frustration/stress

– Role ambiguity, inter-role conflict, person-role conflict

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 13

Group structure pg. 183

– Aim to define the communication network in your work group

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 14

Group Structure pg.188

– The informal structure of your team (fill out per group)

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 15

Group Influences pg. 195

-Types of conformity and nonconformity

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 16

III I. Group Influences pg. 197

-(Optional)

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 17

III I. Group Influences pg. 199

-Speculate about the conformity & nonconformity

(This will be helpful to speculate why that’s going on)

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 18

Group Influences pg. 203

– Speculating why someone is acting inappropriately (per professor – like a jerk)

– conformity and nonconformity reactions to influence

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 19

Group Influences pg. 209

– Assessment tool to figure out what’s going on in your group

III I. Group Influences pg. 216

– (Optional) Communication rates

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 20

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 21

Power pg. 239

– The formal power

– Formal vs. informal leader

– See also: http://openknowledge.nau.edu/1643/7/Pielstick_CD_2000_FrankeWPS_00-04%281%29

http://openknowledge.nau.edu/1643/7/Pielstick_CD_2000_FrankeWPS_00-04%281%29

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 22

Power pg. 242

– Assessment: What to look for; How do i know what form of power they have

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 23

Power pg. 244

-Use as a tool

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 24

Leadership pg. 269

-What kind of leadership style does the leader have?

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 25

Leadership pg. 272

– (Optional) Leadership Emergence

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 26

Leadership pg. 273

– (Optional) Important to have a reading of it

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 27

Leadership pg. 281

– checklist: if your leader has any of these characteristics

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 28

. Leadership pg. 286

– Leadership Grid: What kind of style of leadership does a leader have? Assess YOURSELF AND YOUR GROUP LEADER using pdf at

https://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/files/2010/10/Leadership-Matrix-Self-Assessment-Questionnaire

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 29

Leadership pg. 290

– What is your motivation style?

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 30

Leadership pg. 296

– Determination: what kind of leader you have (the conclusion)

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 31

Performance pg. 319

– Look at the risks for Social Loafing and make your determination

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 32

Performance, Creativity, Tasks pg. 328

– A summary of the potential productivity of groups – working on various tasks – the kind of work that has to be done

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 33

. Decision-making, Groupthink and conflict resolution pg. 343

– The different types of teams

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 34

Decision-making, Groupthink and conflict resolution pg. 359

– The teamwork process model – how put together your team is.

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 35

Decision-making, Groupthink and conflict resolution pg. 396

– (Optional) If you think your group engages in groupthink

Copywritten Materials from Class Text– Not for Duplication or Distribution Outside MGT 3323 Group Processes with Dr. Sandra Gill 36

Decision-making, Groupthink and conflict resolution pg. 433

– How your group deals with conflict

No later than March 13, 2022 11:59pm Submit YOUR MANAGER’S GUIDE TO GROUP DYNAMICS: Recommendations for Improved Work Group & Teams

with full citations, if any besides text and Dr. Forsyth’s videos (links to readings, other assessments, etc.)

cengage.com/mindtap
Fit your coursework
into your hectic life.

Make the most of your time by learning
your way. Access the resources you need to
succeed wherever, whenever.
• �Get more from your time online with an easy-to-follow
five-step�learning�path.
• �Stay�focused�with�an�all-in-one-place,�integrated�
presentation�of�course�content.
• �Get�the�free�MindTap�Mobile�App�and�learn�
wherever you are.
Break limitations. Create your
own�potential,�and�be�unstoppable�
with�MindTap.
MINDTAP. POWERED BY YOU.
08851_end03_ptg01_hires.indd 1 21/09/17 12:22 PM
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

SEVENTH EDITION
GROUP
DYNAMICS
Australia • Brazil • Mexico • Singapore • United Kingdom • United States
Donelson R.
FORSYTH
University of Richmond
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions,
some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed
content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right
to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For
valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate
formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for
materials in your areas of interest.
Important Notice: Media content referenced within the product description or the product
text may not be available in the eBook version.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Printed in the United States of America
Print Number: 01 Print Year: 2017
Group Dynamics, Seventh Edition
Donelson R. Forsyth
Product Director: Marta Lee-Perriard
Product Manager: Star Burruto/Nedah Rose
Project Manager: Seth Schwartz
Content Developer: Kendra Brown, LD
Product Assistant: Leah Jenson
Marketing Manager: Heather Thompson
Digital Content Specialist: Allison Marion
Digital Project Manager: Jayne Stein
Manufacturing Planner: Karen Hunt
Sr. Art Director: Vernon Boes
Cover Image Credit: ju.grozyan/Shutterstock
.com
Production Management, and Composition:
Lumina Datamatics, Inc.
Intellectual Property
Analyst: Deanna Ettinger
Project Manager: Betsy Hathaway
© 2019, 2014 Cengage Learning, Inc.
Unless otherwise noted, all content is © Cengage.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright
herein may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means,
except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, without the prior written
permission of the copyright owner.
For product information and technology assistance, contact us at
Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706.
For permission to use material from this text or product,
submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions.
Further permissions questions can be e-mailed to
permissionrequest@cengage.com.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017952406
ISBN: 978-1-337-40885-1
Cengage
20 Channel Center Street
Boston, MA 02210
USA
Cengage is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with
employees residing in nearly 40 different countries and sales in more
than 125 countries around the world. Find your local representative at
www.cengage.com.
Cengage products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.
To learn more about Cengage platforms and services, visit www.cengage
.com. To register or access your online learning solution or purchase
materials for your course, visit www.cengagebrain.com.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

to Claire Llewellyn
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Brief Contents
PREFACE xv
1 Introduction to Group Dynamics 1
2 Studying Groups 30
3 Inclusion and Identity 62
4 Formation 93
5 Cohesion and Development 126
6 Structure 156
7 Influence 192
8 Power 230
9 Leadership 264
10 Performance 301
11 Teams 338
12 Decision Making 372
13 Conflict 409
14 Intergroup Relations 444
15 Groups in Context 479
16 Growth and Change 514
17 Crowds and Collectives 545
REFERENCES 579
AUTHOR INDEX 667
SUBJECT INDEX 684
iv
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Contents
PREFACE xv
1 Introduction to Group Dynamics 1
1-1 What Are Groups? 2
Defining Groups 3
Varieties of Groups 5
Characteristics of Groups 8
1-2 What Are Group Dynamics? 17
Dynamic Group Processes 17
Process and Progress over Time 19
1-3 Why Study Groups? 21
Understanding People 22
Understanding the Social World 25
Applications to Practical Problems 25
1-4 The Value of Groups 25
Chapter Review 27
Resources 29
2 Studying Groups 30
2-1 The Scientific Study of Groups 32
The Individual and the Group 32
The Multilevel Perspective 35
2-2 Measurement 37
Observation 37
Self-Report 43
2-3 Research Methods in Group Dynamics 46
Case Studies 46
Correlational Studies 47
Experimental Studies 50
Studying Groups: Issues and Implications 51
v
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

2-4 Theoretical Perspectives 53
Motivational Perspectives 53
Behavioral Perspectives 54
Systems Perspectives 55
Cognitive Perspectives 56
Biological Perspectives 57
Selecting a Theoretical Perspective 57
Chapter Review 58
Resources 60
3 Inclusion and Identity 62
3-1 From Isolation to Inclusion 63
The Need to Belong 64
Inclusion and Exclusion 66
Inclusion and Human Nature 72
3-2 From Individualism to Collectivism 75
Creating Cooperation 76
The Social Self 79
3-3 From Personal Identity to Social Identity 83
Social Identity Theory: The Basics 83
Motivation and Social Identity 86
Chapter Review 90
Resources 92
4 Formation 93
4-1 Joining Groups 94
Personality Traits 95
Anxiety and Attachment 98
Social Motivation 100
Men, Women, and Groups 102
Attitudes, Experiences, and Expectations 103
4-2 Affiliation 105
Social Comparison 106
Stress and Affiliation 108
Social Comparison and the Self 111
4-3 Attraction 114
Principles of Attraction 114
The Economics of Membership 120
Chapter Review 122
Resources 124
vi C O N TE N T S
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

5 Cohesion and Development 126
5-1 Sources of Cohesion 127
Social Cohesion 128
Task Cohesion 130
Collective Cohesion 131
Emotional Cohesion 132
Structural Cohesion 134
Assumptions and Assessments 136
5-2 Developing Cohesion 137
Theories of Group Development 137
Five Stages of Development 137
Cycles of Development 142
5-3 Consequences of Cohesion 144
Member Satisfaction and Adjustment 144
Group Dynamics and Influence 145
Group Productivity 146
5-4 Application: Explaining Initiations 148
Cohesion and Initiations 149
Hazing 151
Chapter Review 153
Resources 155
6 Structure 156
6-1 Norms 158
The Nature of Social Norms 158
The Development of Norms 159
The Transmission of Norms 161
Application: Norms and Health 162
6-2 Roles 164
The Nature of Social Roles 164
Role Theories 166
Bale’s SYMLOG Model 170
Group Socialization 172
Role Stress 175
6-3 Intermember Relations 178
Status Relations 178
Attraction Relations 180
Communication Relations 182
6-4 Application: Social Network Analysis 185
Mapping Social Networks 185
C O N T E N T S vii
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Applying Social Network Analysis 187
Chapter Review 188
Resources 190
7 Influence 192
7-1 Majority Influence: The Power of the Many 194
Conformity and Independence 194
Conformity or Independence 196
Conformity across Contexts 197
Who Will Conform? 202
7-2 Minority Influence: The Power of the Few 205
Conversion Theory of Minority Influence 205
Predicting Minority Influence 206
Dynamic Social Impact Theory 208
7-3 Sources of Group Influence 210
Implicit Influence 211
Informational Influence 212
Normative Influence 213
Interpersonal Influence 215
When Influence Inhibits: The Bystander Effect 218
7-4 Application: Understanding Juries 220
Jury Dynamics 220
How Effective Are Juries? 223
Improving Juries 224
Chapter Review 226
Resources 228
8 Power 230
8-1 Obedience to Authority 231
The Milgram Experiments 231
Milgram’s Findings 233
The Power in the Milgram Situation 236
8-2 Social Power in Groups 238
Bases of Power 238
Bases and Obedience 243
Power Tactics 243
8-3 Social Status in Groups 246
Claiming Status 247
Achieving Status 249
Status Hierarchies and Stability 251
viii C O N TE N T S
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

8-4 The Metamorphic Effects of Power 253
Changes in the Powerholder 253
Reactions to the Use of Power 257
Who Is Responsible? 260
Chapter Review 261
Resources 263
9 Leadership 264
9-1 Leading Groups 265
Leadership Defined 266
What Do Leaders Do? 268
Leadership Emergence 270
The Leader’s Traits 271
Intellectual and Practical Skills 274
The Leader’s Look 276
9-2 Theories of Leadership Emergence 278
Implicit Leadership Theory 278
Social Identity Theory 282
Social Role Theory 282
Terror Management Theory 283
Evolutionary Theory 284
9-3 Leader Effectiveness 285
Styles and Situations 285
Leader–Member Exchange Theory 289
Participation Theories 291
Transformational Leadership 294
The Future of Leadership 295
Chapter Review 297
Resources 299
10 Performance 301
10-1 Social Facilitation 303
Performance in the Presence of Others 303
Why Does Social Facilitation Occur? 306
Conclusions and Applications 310
10-2 Social Loafing 313
The Ringelmann Effect 313
Causes of and Cures for Social Loafing 315
The Collective Effort Model 318
C O N T E N T S ix
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

10-3 Working in Groups 320
The Process Model of Group Performance 320
Additive Tasks 322
Compensatory Tasks 322
Disjunctive Tasks 324
Conjunctive Tasks 326
Discretionary Tasks 328
Process Gains in Groups 328
10-4 Group Creativity 330
Brainstorming 330
Improving Brainstorming 332
Alternatives to Brainstorming 333
Chapter Review 335
Resources 337
11 Teams 338
11-1 Working Together in Teams 339
What Is a Team? 340
When to Work in Teams 340
Varieties of Teams 342
A Systems Model of Teams 346
11-2 Input: Building the Team 347
The Team Player 348
Knowledge, Skill, and Ability (KSA) 350
Diversity 352
Men, Women, and Teams 354
11-3 Process: Working in Teams 356
Interlocking Interdependence 357
Coordinated Interaction 358
Compelling Purpose 360
Adaptive Structures 360
Cohesive Alliance 361
11-4 Output: Team Performance 364
Evaluating Teams 364
Suggestions for Using Teams 366
Chapter Review 368
Resources 370
x C O N TE N T S
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

12 Decision Making 372
12-1 The Decision-Making Process 373
Orientation 375
Discussion 377
The Difficulty of Discussion 380
Making the Decision 382
Implementation 384
12-2 Decisional Biases 387
Judgmental Biases 387
The Shared Information Bias 390
Group Polarization 392
12-3 Victims of Groupthink 395
Symptoms of Groupthink 396
Defective Decision Making 399
Causes of Groupthink 399
The Emergence of Groupthink 400
Alternative Models 402
Preventing Groupthink 403
Chapter Review 405
Resources 408
13 Conflict 409
13-1 The Roots of Conflict 411
Winning: Conflict and Competition 411
Sharing: Conflict over Resources 417
Controlling: Conflict over Power 421
Working: Task and Process Conflict 422
Liking and Disliking: Relationship Conflict 423
13-2 Confrontation and Escalation 424
Uncertainty ! Commitment 425
Perception ! Misperception 426
Soft Tactics ! Hard Tactics 426
Reciprocity ! Retaliation 429
Irritation ! Anger 429
Few ! Many 430
13-3 Conflict Resolution 431
Commitment ! Negotiation 431
Misperception ! Understanding 433
C O N T E N T S xi
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Hard Tactics ! Cooperative Tactics 434
Retaliation ! Forgiveness 436
Anger ! Composure 437
Many ! Few 437
The Value of Conflict: Redux 438
Chapter Review 440
Resources 442
14 Intergroup Relations 444
14-1 Intergroup Conflict: Us versus Them 447
Competition and Conflict 447
Power and Domination 450
Intergroup Aggression 452
Norms and Conflict 454
Evolutionary Perspectives 455
14-2 Intergroup Bias: Perceiving Us and Them 457
Conflict and Categorization 457
The Ingroup–Outgroup Bias 458
Cognitive Biases 459
Stereotype Content Model 461
Exclusion and Dehumanization 462
Categorization and Identity 465
14-3 Intergroup Conflict Resolution: Uniting Us and Them 466
Intergroup Contact 466
Cognitive Cures for Conflict 470
Learning to Cooperate 473
Resolving Conflict: Conclusions 475
Chapter Review 475
Resources 477
15 Groups in Context 479
15-1 Places 481
A Sense of Place 482
Stressful Places 485
Dangerous Places 488
15-2 Spaces 489
Personal Space 489
Reactions to Spatial Invasion 492
Seating Arrangements 495
xii C O N TE N T S
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

15-3 Locations 497
Types of Territoriality 498
Group Territories 499
Territoriality in Groups 502
15-4 Workspaces 506
The Person–Place Fit 506
Fitting Form to Function 508
Chapter Review 510
Resources 512
16 Growth and Change 514
16-1 Growth and Change in Groups 515
Therapeutic Groups 516
Interpersonal Learning Groups 521
Support Groups 525
16-2 Sources of Support and Change 527
Universality and Hope 527
Social Learning 530
Group Cohesion 532
Disclosure and Catharsis 534
Altruism 535
Insight 535
16-3 The Effectiveness of Groups 536
Empirical Support for Group Treatments 536
Using Groups to Cure: Cautions 539
The Value of Groups 541
Chapter Review 541
Resources 544
17 Crowds and Collectives 545
17-1 Collectives: Forms and Features 547
What Are Collectives? 547
Gatherings 550
Crowds 552
Mobs 554
Panics 555
Collective Movements 558
Social Movements 560
C O N T E N T S xiii
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

17-2 Collective Dynamics 563
Contagion 563
Convergence 565
Deindividuation 566
Emergent Norms 570
Social Identity 571
17-3 Collectives Are Groups 572
The Myth of the Madding Crowd 573
Studying Groups and Collectives 575
Chapter Review 576
Resources 578
REFERENCES 579
AUTHOR INDEX 667
SUBJECT INDEX 684
xiv C O N TE N T S
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Preface
Welcome to the study of groups and their dynamics. The theories, researchfindings, definitions, case studies, examples, tables, and figures that fill this
book’s pages have just one purpose: to describe and explain all things related to
people and their groups. Why do we join groups? What holds a group together?
Do our groups change over time? How do groups influence us and how do we
influence them? When does a group become a team? Why do some groups get
so little done? What causes conflict in and between groups? What are groups,
and what are their essential qualities? These are just a few of the questions
asked, explored, and answered in Group Dynamics.
Understanding people—why they think, feel, and act the way they do—
requires understanding their groups. Human behavior is so often group behavior
that people must be studied in context—embedded in their families, friendship
cliques, teams, organizations, and so on—rather than in isolation. Understanding
the social world—its politics, institutions, cultures, and conflicts—also requires
understanding the intersecting and continually interacting groups that form soci-
ety. Understanding yourself—why you think, feel, and act the way you do in any
given situation—also requires understanding groups. In groups you define and
confirm your values and beliefs and take on or refine your identity. When you
face uncertain situations, you gain reassuring information about your problems
and security in companionship in groups. You are most who you are when
you are with others in groups.
Understanding groups is also eminently practical. Much of the world’s work is
done by groups and teams, so efficiency, achievement, and progress—success itself—
depend on understanding the strengths and weaknesses of groups. Productivity in
the workplace, problem-solving in the boardroom, learning in the classroom, and
even therapeutic change—all depend on group-level processes. Groups, too, hold
the key to solving such societal problems as racism, sexism, and international conflict.
Any attempt to change society will succeed only if the groups within that society
change.
F E A T U R E S
This book is about groups, but it is not based on experts’ opinions or common-
sense assumptions. It offers, instead, a scientific analysis that draws on theory and
research from any and all disciplines that study groups. The book reviews
xv
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

hundreds of theories and thousands of empirical studies that test those theories,
all in an attempt to better understand what makes groups tick.
■ Organization: The chapters progress from basic issues and processes to the
analysis of more specialized topics. The first two chapters consider questions
of definition, history, and methods, and they are followed by chapters
dealing with group formation, cohesion, development, and structure. The
book then turns to issues of influence and productivity in groups and
teams, before examining groups in specific contexts. The order of chapters,
however, is somewhat arbitrary, and many may prefer a different sequence.
■ Cases: Each chapter begins with a description of one specific group and its
processes. These cases are not just mentioned at the start of the chapter and
then forgotten, but are used throughout the chapter to illustrate theoretical
concepts, define terms, and explore empirical implications. All the cases are
or were real groups rather than hypothetical ones, and the incidents
described are documented events that occurred within the group (although
some literary license was taken for the case used to illustrate the dynamics of
juries).
■ Citations and names: This analysis is based on the work of thousands of
researchers, scholars, and students who have explored intriguing but unex-
plained aspects of groups and their dynamics. Their influence is acknowledged
by citations that include their names and the date of the publication of the
research report or book. In some cases, too, the researcher or theorist is
identified in the text itself, and those citations identify his or her discipline,
first name, and last name.
■ Terms, outlines, summaries, and readings: The text is reader-friendly and
includes a number of pedagogical features, including a running glossary,
chapter outline, detailed chapter summary, and suggested readings. The
approximately 500 key concepts, when first introduced, are set in boldface
type and defined at the bottom of the page. The first page of each chapter
asks several questions examined in that chapter and also outlines the chap-
ter’s contents. Each chapter uses three levels of headings, and ends with an
outline summary and a list of sources to consult for more information.
C H A NG E S F R OM T H E S IX T H ED IT IO N
This book follows in the footsteps of such classic works as Marvin Shaw’s Group
Dynamics: The Psychology of Groups (1978), Paul Hare’s Handbook of Small Group
Research (1976), and Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander’s Group Dynamics
(1968). But when those books were written, nearly all of the research on groups
was conducted by psychologists and sociologists who mostly studied ad hoc
groups working in laboratory settings. Now, nearly every science has something
to say about groups, teams, and their dynamics. And not just anthropology, com-
munication, education, management and organizational behavior, and political
xvi PR EFA CE
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

science, but also legal studies, biology, and even physics offer insights into issues
of group formation, process, and function. As the study of groups continues to
thrive intellectually and scientifically, new findings are emerging to explain cohe-
sion, conformity, development, identity, networks, justice, leadership, online
groups, multicultural groups, negotiation, power, social comparison, hierarchy,
and teams. This edition strives to summarize the current state of scientific
research in the field.
Changes to this edition include the following:
■ Updating and clarification of the content: The book remains a research-oriented
examination of group-level processes, within the psychological and socio-
logical traditions. Topics such as influence, leadership, and cohesion are
examined in detail, but so are emerging areas of interest, such as multilevel
analyses, group composition and diversity, multiteam systems, social net-
works, neural mechanisms, and new interpretations of classic studies (e.g.,
the Milgram experiments).
■ Depth of coverage and engagement: To increase readability and engagement,
each chapter has been revised to reduce its length, to improve the flow, and
to increase clarity. High-interest material is presented in focus boxes, and
each chapter includes self-assessment exercises that ask readers to apply
chapter concepts to themselves and their groups.
■ Increased focus on interdisciplinary work in the study of groups: Since many disci-
plines study groups and their processes, the text continues to expand its
coverage to draw on all fields that investigate groups and teams (e.g., team
science, behavioral economics, and social network analysis), but grounds
newer findings in foundational theories and methods.
■ Both theory and application are amplified: Research findings are examined in
detail, but when possible these findings are organized by more general
theoretical principles. Given the use of groups in organizational, political,
military, and industrial settings, the text examines such applied topics as
team performance, productivity, leadership, and conflict.
M I N D T A P
■ MindTap®, a digital teaching and learning solution, helps students be more
successful and confident in the course—and in their work with clients.
MindTap guides students through the course by combining the complete
textbook with interactive multimedia, activities, assessments, and learning
tools. Readings and activities engage students in learning core concepts,
practicing needed skills, reflecting on their attitudes and opinions, and
applying what they learn. Instructors can rearrange and add content to per-
sonalize their MindTap course, and easily track students’ progress with real-
time analytics. And, MindTap integrates seamlessly with any learning man-
agement system.
PREFACE xvii
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

INSTRU CTOR SUPPL EM EN T S
The instructor companion website (www.cengage.com/login) contains everything
you need for your course in one place.
■ Download chapter PowerPoint® presentations and the instructor’s
manual.
■ Access Cengage Learning Testing, powered by Cognero®, a flexible,
online system that allows you to import, edit, and manipulate content
from the text’s test bank or elsewhere—including your own favorite test
questions—and create multiple test versions in an instant.
For more information about these supplements, contact your Learning
Consultant.
ACK NO WL E D GM E NT S
Most things in this world are accomplished by groups rather than by single indi-
viduals working alone. This book is no exception. Although I am personally
responsible for the ideas presented in this book, one group after another helped
me along the way. The scientists who study groups deserve much of the credit,
for this book summarizes the results of their intellectual work. Within that
group, too, a subgroup of experts provided specific comments and suggestions,
including Kevin Cruz, University of Richmond; Verlin Hinsz, North Dakota
State University; Steve Karau, Southern Illinois University; Norb Kerr, Michigan
State University; Glenn Littlepage, Middle Tennessee State University; Cheri
Marmarosh, George Washington University; Scott Tindale, Loyola University;
Chris von Rueden, University of Richmond; and Gwen Wittenbaum, Michigan
State University. My colleagues and students at the University of Richmond also
helped me fine tune my analyses of groups. The members of the production
teams at Cengage and at Lumina Datamatics also deserve special thanks for
their capable efforts. Kendra J. Brown, in particular, provided continual guidance
as the manuscript was transformed into a published book.
I have been lucky to have been part of many wonderful groups in my
lifetime. But one group—that small coterie of Claire, David, Rachel, and
Don—deserves far more than just acknowledgment. So, thanks as always to the
best of all groups, my family, for their love and support.
—Donelson R. Forsyth, Midlothian, Virginia
xviii PR EFA CE
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 1
Introduction
to Group
Dynamics
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Groups come in all shapes and sizes and their pur-
poses are many and varied, but their influence is
universal. The tendency to join with others in
groups is perhaps the single most important char-
acteristic of humans, and the processes that unfold
within these groups leave an indelible imprint on
their members and on society. Yet, groups remain
something of a mystery: unstudied at best, misun-
derstood at worst. This investigation into the
nature of groups begins by answering two funda-
mental questions: What is a group and what are
group dynamics?
■ What are groups?
■ What are the four basic types of groups?
■ What distinguishes one group from another?
■ What are group dynamics?
■ Why study groups and their dynamics?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
1-1 What Are Groups?
1-1a Defining Groups
1-1b Varieties of Groups
1-1c Characteristics of Groups
1-2 What Are Group Dynamics?
1-2a Dynamic Group Processes
1-2b Process and Progress over Time
1-3 Why Study Groups?
1-3a Understanding People
1-3b Understanding the Social World
1-3c Applications to Practical Problems
1-4 The Value of Groups
Chapter Review
Resources
1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Groups are and always will be essential to human
life. Across all cultures and eras we have lived,
worked, thrived, and died in our families, tribes,
communes, communities, and clans. Our ancestors
protected themselves from dangers and disasters by
joining together in groups. Early civilizations—the
Aztecs, Persians, Greeks, and Romans—organized
their societies by forming legions, assemblies, pub-
lics, legislative bodies, and trade associations. For
time immemorial, people have gathered for civic
and religious purposes, including worship, celebra-
tions, and festivals.
So why study these groups? The answer is not
complicated: Groups hold the secret to the
universe—the human universe, at any rate. The
rare individual—the prisoner in solitary confine-
ment, the recluse, the castaway—is isolated from
all groups, but most of us belong to all manner of
groups: from our small, close-knit groups such as
families or very close friends to larger groups of
associates and colleagues at school or where we
work, to the very large groups of people with
whom we share an important quality that creates
a psychological bond between us all. Given we
spend our entire lives getting into, getting out of,
and taking part in groups, it’s best to not ignore
them. Even better, it’s best to understand them:
to recognize their key features, to study the psycho-
logical and interpersonal processes that continually
shape and reshape them, and to learn ways to help
them function effectively.
1- 1 W HA T A R E G R O UPS?
Fish swimming in synchronized unison are called a
school. A gathering of kangaroos is a mob. A three-
some of crows cawing from their perch on a tele-
phone wire is a murder. A gam is a group of whales.
A flock of larks in flight is an exaltation (Lipton,
1991). But what is a collection of human beings
called? A group.
The Adventure Expedition: Groups and Their Dynamics
On May 10, 1996, just after midnight, the members
of the Adventure Consultants Guided Expedition
crawled from tents pitched high on Mt. Everest to
begin the final leg of their journey to the top of the
world. The group included ten clients who had paid
hefty sums to join the expedition; guides who set the
climbing lines, carried provisions, and helped climbers
along the way; and Rob Hall, the team’s leader. Hall
was one of the most experienced high-altitude clim-
bers in the world; he had scaled Everest four times
before.
The climb to the summit of Mt. Everest is a care-
fully orchestrated undertaking. Teams begin the
ascent in the middle of the night to reach the peak
and return in a single day. But if their progress up the
mountain is too slow, even a midnight departure is not
early enough to get them up to the top and back
down safely. So groups typically establish and adhere
to the turnaround rule: If you have not reached the
summit by 2 PM—at the very latest—your group must
turn back.
The Adventure Expedition broke that rule. The
most experienced climbers reached the summit by early
afternoon, but other group members continued their
dogged ascent well after caution demanded they turn
around. Many of them suffered from oxygen depriva-
tion, for the atmosphere above 24,000 feet is so thin
that most hikers breathe from tanks of compressed air.
Even these supplements cannot counteract the exhaus-
tion that comes of climbing treacherous, ice-coated
terrain, and many suffered from confused thinking,
nausea, and dizziness. Yet, they may still have managed
to climb to safety had it not been for the storm—a
rogue blizzard with 60-knot winds that cut the climbers
off from camp and any hope of rescue. When the storm
lifted the next day, four members of the Adventure
Expedition were dead. The victims included two clients
(Douglas Hansen and Yasuko Nanba), a guide (Andrew
Harris), and the group’s leader (Rob Hall). Hall guaran-
teed his clients that they would reach the top of the
mountain and return safely; he could not keep that
promise (Krakauer, 1997).
2 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

1-1a Defining Groups
The Adventure Expedition was, in many respects, a
unique collection of people facing an enormous
challenge. Rob Hall, its leader, deliberately created
the group by recruiting its 26 members: climbers,
guides, cooks, medical staff, and so on. Its members
were united in their pursuit of a shared goal, as is so
often the case with groups, but some of the members
put their own personal needs above those of the
group. The members not only interacted with each
other face-to-face in a physical space, but they also
used technology to communicate with one another
and with people who were not part of the team. But
Adventure Expedition, although unique in many
ways, was nonetheless a group: two or more individuals
who are connected by and within social relationships.
Two or More Individuals Groups come in a stag-
gering assortment of shapes and sizes, from dyads (two
members) and triads (three members) to huge crowds,
mobs, and assemblies (Simmel, 1902). Sociologist
John James was so intrigued by the variation in the
size of groups that he took to the streets of Eugene
and Portland, Oregon, to record the size of the 9,129
groups he encountered there. He defined a group to
be two or more people in “face-to-face interaction as
evidenced by the criteria of gesticulation, laughter,
smiles, talk, play or work” (James, 1951, p. 475).
He recorded pedestrians walking down the city
streets, people shopping, children on playgrounds,
public gatherings at sports events and festivals, patrons
during the intermissions at plays and entering movie
theaters, and various types of work crews and teams.
Most of these groups were small, usually with only
two or three members, but groups that had been
deliberately created for some specific purpose, such
as the leadership team of a company, tended to be
larger. His findings, and the results of studies con-
ducted in other settings (e.g., cafeterias, businesses),
suggest that groups tend to “gravitate to the smallest
size, two” (Hare, 1976, p. 215; Jorgenson & Dukes,
1976; Ruef, Aldrich, & Carter, 2003).
Who Are Connected Definitions of the word
group are as varied as groups themselves, but a com-
monality shared by many of these definitions is an
emphasis on social relations that link members to one
another. Three persons working on math problems
in separate rooms can hardly be considered a group;
they are not connected to each other in any way. If,
however, we create relationships between them—
for example, we let them send notes to each other
or we pick one person to distribute the problems to
the others—then these three individuals can be con-
sidered a rudimentary group. Neither would we call
people who share some superficial similarity, such as
What Groups Do You Belong To?
Some may bemoan the growing alienation of
individuals from the small social groups that once
linked them securely to society-at-large, but the sin-
gle man or woman who has no connection to other
men and women is an extraordinarily rare human
being.
Instructions: Most people belong to dozens of
groups, but we can become so accustomed to them
that their influence on us goes unnoticed. Before
reading further, make a list (written or mental) of all
the groups to which you belong.
Interpretation: Did you include your family?
The people you work or study with? How about
your roommates, housemates, or classmates? All of
the people you have friended on Facebook? How
about people of your sex, race, and citizenship
and those who share your political beliefs? Are
African American men, Canadians, and Republicans
groups? Are you in a romantic relationship?
Did you include you and your partner on your list
of groups? Some people’s lists are longer than
others, but a list of 40 or more groups would not
be unusual.
group Two or more individuals who are connected by
and within social relationships.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

eye color, a favorite football team, or birth date,
group members for we expect them to be connected
to each other in socially meaningful ways. A family is
a group because the members are connected, not just
by blood but also by social and emotional relation-
ships. Adventure Expedition was a group because
the members were linked by the tasks that they
completed collectively and by friendships, alliances,
responsibilities, and inevitable antagonisms.
By and Within Social Relations The relations
that link the members of groups are not of one
type. In families, for example, the relationships are
based on kinship, but in the workplace, they are
based on task-related interdependencies. In some
groups, members are friends, but in others, the
members are linked by common interests or experi-
ences. Nor are the relationships linking members
equally strong or enduring. Some relationships,
like the links between members of a family or a
clique of close friends, are tenacious, for they have
developed over time and are based on a long history
of mutual influence and exchange. In others, the
ties between members may be so fragile that they
are easily severed. Every individual member of the
group does not need to be linked to every other
person in the group. In the Adventure Expedition
group, for example, some people were liked by all
What Is a Group?
No one definition can capture the many nuances of the
word group. Some definers stress the importance of
communication or mutual dependence. Still others sug-
gest that a shared purpose or goal is what turns a mere
aggregate of individuals into a bona fide group. Even the
minimal number of members needed for a true group is
debated, with some definitions requiring three members
but others only two (Moreland, 2010; Williams, 2010).
■ Categorization: “Two or more individuals …
[who] perceive themselves to be members of the
same social category” (Turner, 1982, p. 15).
■ Communication: “Three or more people … who (a)
think of themselves as a group, (b) are interdepen-
dent (e.g., with regard to shared goals or behaviors
that affect one another), and (c) communicate
(interact) with one another (via face-to-face or tech-
nological means)” (Frey & Konieczka, 2010, p. 317).
■ Influence: “Two or more persons who are inter-
acting with one another in such a manner that
each person influences and is influenced by each
other person” (Shaw, 1981, p. 454).
■ Interdependence: “A dynamic whole based on
interdependence rather than similarity” (Lewin,
1948, p. 184).
■ Interrelations: “An aggregation of two or more
people who are to some degree in dynamic inter-
relation with one another” (McGrath, 1984, p. 8).
■ Psychological significance: “A psychological group
is any number of people who interact with each
other, are psychologically aware of each other,
and perceive themselves to be in a group” (Pen-
nington, 2002, p. 3).
■ Relations: “Individuals who stand in certain rela-
tions to each other, for example, as sharing a
common purpose or having a common intention-
ality, or acting together, or at least having a
common interest” (Gould, 2004, p. 119).
■ Shared identity: “Two or more people possessing
a common social identification and whose exis-
tence as a group is recognized by a third party”
(Brown, 2000, p. 19).
■ Shared tasks and goals: “Three or more people
who work together interdependently on an
agreed-upon activity or goal” (Keyton, 2002, p. 5).
■ Size: “Two or more people” (Williams, 2010, p. 269).
■ Social unit: “Persons who recognize that they
constitute a meaningful social unit, interact on
that basis, and are committed to that social unity”
(Fine, 2012, p. 21; Kerr & Tindale, 2014).
■ Structure: “A social unit which consists of a number
of individuals who stand in (more or less) definite
status and role relationships to one another and
which possesses a set of values or norms of its own
regulating the behavior of individual members, at
least in matters of consequence to the group”
(Sherif & Sherif, 1956, p. 144).
■ Systems: “An intact social system, complete with
boundaries, interdependence for some shared
purpose, and differentiated member roles”
(Hackman & Katz, 2010, p. 1210).
4 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the other group members, but others had only a
few friends in the group. In some cases, such as
groups based on ethnicity, race, or gender, the
connection linking members may be more psycho-
logical than interpersonal. But no matter what the
nature of the relations, a group exists when some
type of bond links the members to one another and
to the group itself (Bosse & Coughlan, 2016).
1-1b Varieties of Groups
No one knows for certain how many groups exist at
this moment, but given the number of people on the
planet and their groupish proclivities, 30 billion is a
conservative estimate. Groups are so numerous that
the differences among them are as noteworthy as
their similarities. Figure 1.1 brings some order to this
challenging miscellany by distinguishing between four
types of groups: primary groups, social groups, collec-
tives, and categories.
Primary Groups Sociologist Charles Horton
Cooley (1909) labeled the small, intimate clusters
of close associates, such as families, good friends,
or cliques of peers, primary groups. These
groups profoundly influence the behavior, feel-
ings, and judgments of their members, for mem-
bers spend much of their time interacting with
one another, usually in face-to-face settings with
many of the other members present. Even when
the group is dispersed, members nonetheless feel
they are still “in” the group, and they consider
the group to be a very important part of their
lives.
In many cases, individuals become part of primary
groups involuntarily: Every member of Adventure
Expedition was born into a family that provided
for their well-being until they could venture out
to join other groups. Other primary groups form
when people interact in significant, meaningful
ways for a prolonged period of time. For exam-
ple, and unlike Adventure Expedition, some
climbing teams have summited so many moun-
tains on so many expeditions that these groups
are more like families than expeditions. They
“continue, with more or less the same people in
them, for a very long time” (McGrath, 1984,
p. 43), and affect the members’ lives in significant
and enduring ways. They are broad rather than
limited in their scope.
Cooley (1909) considered such groups to be
primary because they transform individuals into
social beings. Primary groups protect members
from harm, care for them when they are ill,
and provide them with shelter and sustenance,
but as Cooley explained, they also create the
primary group A small, long-term group characterized
by frequent interaction, solidarity, and high levels of inter-
dependence among members that substantially influences
the attitudes, values, and social outcomes of its members.
Groups
Primary groups
Families, close
friends, small
combat squads
(fireteams),
etc.
Social groups
Coworkers,
teams, crews,
study groups,
task forces, etc.
Collectives
Audiences,
queues, mobs,
crowds, social
movements, etc.
Categories
Men, Asian
Americans,
New Yorkers,
doctors,
Britons, etc.
F I G U R E 1.1 A fourfold taxonomy of groups and examples of each type.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

connection between the individual and society
at large:
They are primary in several senses, but chiefly
in that they are fundamental in forming
the social nature and ideals of the individual.
The result of intimate association, psycho-
logically, is a certain fusion of individualities
in a common whole, so that one’s very
self, for many purposes at least, is the
common life and purpose of the group.
Perhaps the simplest way of describing this
wholeness is by saying that it is a “we.”
(Cooley, 1909, p. 23)
Social (Secondary) Groups In earlier eras, peo-
ple lived most of their lives in primary groups that
were clustered together in relatively small tribes or
communities. But, as societies became more com-
plex, so did our groups. We began to associate with
a wider range of people in less intimate, more pub-
lic settings, and social groups emerged to structure
these interactions. Social groups are larger and more
formally organized than primary groups, and
memberships tend to be shorter in duration and
less emotionally involving. Their boundaries are
also more permeable, so members can leave old
groups behind and join new ones, for they do
not demand the level of commitment that primary
groups do. People usually belong to a very small
number of primary groups, but they can enjoy
membership in a variety of social groups. Various
terms have been used to describe this category of
groups, such as secondary groups (Cooley, 1909), asso-
ciations (MacIver & Page, 1937), task groups (Lickel,
Hamilton, & Sherman, 2001), and Gesellschaften
(Toennies, 1887/1963).
Social groups, such as the Adventure Expedi-
tion, military squads, governing boards, construc-
tion workers, teams, crews, fraternities, sororities,
dance troupes, orchestras, bands, ensembles, classes,
clubs, secretarial pools, congregations, study groups,
guilds, task forces, committees, and meetings, are
extremely common (Schofer & Longhofer, 2011).
When surveyed, 35.7% of Americans reported they
belonged to some type of religious group (e.g., a
congregation) and 20.0% said they belonged to a
sports team or club. The majority, ranging from
50% to 80%, reported doing things in groups, such
as attending a sports event together, visiting one
another for the evening, sharing a meal together,
or going out as a group to see a movie (Putnam,
2000). People could dine, watch movies, and travel
singly, but most do not: They prefer to perform
these activities in social groups. Americans are
above average in their involvement in voluntary asso-
ciations, but some countries’ citizens—the Dutch,
Canadians, Scandinavians—are groupier still (Curtis,
Baer, & Grabb, 2001).
Collectives Some groups come into existence
when people are drawn together by something—
an event, an activity, or even danger—but then the
group dissolves when the experience ends.
Any gathering of individuals can be considered a
collective, but most theorists reserve the term for
larger, less intricately interconnected associations
among people (Blumer, 1951). A list of examples
of collectives would include crowds watching a
building burn, audiences seated in a movie theater,
line (queues) of people waiting to purchase tickets,
gatherings of college students protesting a govern-
ment policy, and panicked mobs fleeing from dan-
ger. But the list would also include social movements
of individuals who, though dispersed over a wide
area, display common shifts in opinion or actions.
The members of collectives are joined by their com-
mon interest or shared actions, but they often owe
little allegiance to the group. In many cases, such
groups are created by happenstance, convenience,
social group A relatively small number of individuals
who interact with one another over an extended period
of time, such as work groups, clubs, and congregations.
collective A relatively large aggregation or group of indi-
viduals who display similarities in actions and outlook. A
street crowd, a line of people (a queue), and a panicked
group escaping a fire are examples of collectives, as are
more widely dispersed groups (e.g., listeners who respond
similarly to a public service announcement).
6 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

or a short-lived experience, and so the relations join-
ing the members are so transitory that they dissolve
as soon as the members separate.
Categories A social category is a collection of
individuals who are similar to one another in some
way. For example, citizens of Ireland are Irish,
Americans whose ancestors were from Africa are
African Americans, and men who are sexually attracted
to other men are gay. If a category has no social impli-
cations, then it only describes individuals who share
a feature in common. If, however, these categories
set in motion personal or interpersonal processes—if
someone celebrates St. Patrick’s Day because of his
Irish heritage, if people respond to a woman differently
when they see she is an African American, or if a gay
man identifies with other LGBTQ persons—then a
category may be transformed into a highly influential
group (Abrams, 2013).
As social psychologist Henri Tajfel (1974)
explained, members of the same social category
often share a common identity with one another.
They know who is in their category, who is not,
and what qualities are typical of insiders and out-
siders. This perception of themselves as members of
the same group or social category—this social
identity—is “that part of an individual’s self-
concept which derives from his knowledge of his
membership of a social group (or groups) together
Are People Bowling Alone?
The numbers tell the tale. In 1975, people reported
playing card games together, like poker and bridge,
about 14 times a year. By 2000, that number had been
halved. In the 1970s, 50% of the people surveyed agreed
that their family usually eats dinner together. By the end
of the century, only about 33% reported regular family
meals and the family vacation was also becoming rarer.
Today fewer people report visiting with neighbors fre-
quently and they are less likely to join social clubs, such
as the Kiwanis and garden clubs. As the political scientist
Robert Putnam (2000) wrote in his book Bowling Alone,
in the 1960s 8% of all adult American men belonged to
a bowling league, as did nearly 5% of all adult women.
However, even though the total number of bowlers in
America continues to increase over time, fewer and
fewer belong to bowling leagues.
Putnam concluded that Americans’ withdrawal
from groups and associations signals an overall decline
in social capital. Like financial or economic capital,
social capital describes how rich you are, but in inter-
personal terms rather than monetary or commercial
terms. A person with considerable social capital is well
connected to other people across a wide variety of
contexts, and these connections provide the means for
him or her to accomplish both personal and collective
outcomes.
Putnam’s findings suggest that the types of
groups people join are changing. People are not as
interested in joining traditional types of community
groups, such as garden clubs, fraternal and professional
organizations, or even church-based groups. But some
types of groups, such as book groups, support groups,
teams at work, and category-based associations (e.g.,
the American Association of Retired Persons), are
increasing in size rather than decreasing. Individuals
are also more involved in online associations, interac-
tions, and networks, such as Facebook. These social
groups are the ubiquitous “dark matter” of social cap-
ital, for they knit people together in social relations but
are often overlooked in tallies that track the number
and variety of more formal and official groups (Smith,
Stebbins, et al., 2016).
social capital The degree to which individuals, groups,
or larger aggregates of people are linked in social relation-
ships that yield positive, productive benefits; analogous to
economic capital (fiscal prosperity), but determined by
extensiveness of social connectedness.
social category A perceptual grouping of people who are
assumed to be similar to one another in some ways but dif-
ferent in one or more ways, such as all women, the elderly,
college students, or all the citizens of a specific country.
social identity An individual’s sense of self derived from
relationships and memberships in groups; also, those
aspects of the self that are assumed to be common to
most or all of the members of the same group or social
category.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

with the emotional significance attached to that
membership” (Tajfel, 1974, p. 69).
But social categories can also influence the per-
ceptions of people who are not part of the category.
When perceivers decide a person they encounter is
one of “those people,” they will likely rely on any
stereotypes they have about the members of that
social category to formulate an impression of the
person. Social categories tend to create divisions
between people, and those divisions can result in
a sense of we and us versus they and them.
1-1c Characteristics of Groups
Each one of the billions of groups that exist at this
moment is a unique configuration of individuals,
processes, and relationships. The Adventure Expedi-
tion mountaineering group, for example, differed in
a hundred ways from the other teams of climbers on
Mt. Everest that season. But all groups, despite their
uniqueness, share some common features. Some of
these features, such as the size of the group and the
tasks they are attempting, are relatively obvious ones.
Other qualities, such as the group’s cohesiveness or
the permeability of the group’s boundaries, must be
uncovered, for they are often overlooked, even by
the group members themselves.
Composition: Who Belongs to the Group? To
understand a group, we must know something about
the group’s composition: the qualities of the indi-
viduals who are members of the group. The Adven-
ture Expedition team, for example, differed from the
other teams on Mt. Everest that year because each
member of that group was a unique individual with
specific talents, weaknesses, attitudes, values, and per-
sonality traits. Hall, the group’s leader, was a world-
class high-altitude climber. Andy Harris, a guide, was
outgoing, physically fit, and passionate about climb-
ing, but he had never been to Mt. Everest before.
Beck Weathers, Frank Fischbeck, and Lou Kasischke
were all clients: Weathers was “garrulous,” Fischbeck
was “dapper” and “genteel,” and Kasischke was tall
and athletic (Krakauer, 1997, p. 37).
Groups may be more than the sum of their parts
but each part defines the whole (Moreland, 2013). A
group with a member who is naturally boisterous,
mean-spirited, hard-working, chill, or close-minded
will be different from the group with a member who
is domineering, self-sacrificing, lazy, anxious, or cre-
ative. A group with many members who have only
just joined will differ from one with mostly long-
term, veteran members. A group whose members
differ from each other in terms of race, sex, eco-
nomic background, and country of origin will differ
from a group with far less diversity. Were we to
assign 100 people to twenty 5-person groups, each
group would differ from every other group because
it joins together 5 unique individuals.
Boundaries: Who Does NOT Belong? The
relationships that link members to one another
define who is in the group and who is not.
A group is boundaried in a psychological sense;
those who are included in the group are recognized
as members and those who are not part of the
group are excluded outsiders. In some cases, these
boundaries are publicly acknowledged: Both mem-
bers and nonmembers know who belongs to an
honor society, a rock band, or a baseball team.
But in other cases, the boundaries may be indistinct
or known only to the group members themselves.
A secret society, for example, may not reveal its exis-
tence or its membership list to outsiders. A group’s
boundary may also be relatively permeable. In open
groups, for example, membership is fluid; members
may voluntarily come and go as they please with no
consequences (and they often do), or the group may
frequently vote members out of the group or invite
new ones to join. In closed groups, in contrast, the mem-
bership roster changes more slowly, if at all. But,
regardless of the reasons for membership fluctuations,
open groups are especially unlikely to reach a state of
equilibrium since members recognize that they may
lose or relinquish their place within the group at any
time. Members of such groups, especially those in
which membership is dependent on voting or meeting
stereotype A socially shared set of qualities, characteris-
tics, and behavioral expectations ascribed to a particular
group or category of people.
composition The individuals who constitute a group.
8 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

a particular standard, are more likely to monitor the
actions of others. In contrast, closed groups are
often more cohesive as competition for member-
ship is irrelevant and group members anticipate
future collaborations. Thus, in closed groups, indi-
viduals are more likely to focus on the collective
nature of the group and to identify with the
group (Ziller, 1965).
Size: How Large Is the Group? Jon Krakauer
(1997), who chronicled the experiences of Adven-
ture Expedition as it attempted its climb of Mt.
Everest, admitted he was unsettled by the size of
the group: “I’d never climbed as a member of such
a large group … all my previous expeditions had
been undertaken with one or two trusted friends,
or alone” (p. 37).
A group’s size influences many of its other features,
for a small group will likely have different structures,
processes, and patterns of interaction than a larger one.
A two-person group is so small that it ceases to exist
when one member leaves, and it can never be broken
down into subgroups. The members of dyads (e.g.,
best friends, lovers) are sometimes linked by strong
emotional bonds that make their dynamics so intense
that they belong in a category all their own (Levine &
Moreland, 2012). Larger groups can also have unique
qualities, for the members are rarely connected directly
to all other members, subgroups are very likely to
form, and one or more leaders may be needed to orga-
nize and guide the group.
A group’s size also determines how many social
ties—links, relationships, connections, edges—are
needed to join members to each other and to the
group. The maximum number of ties within a
group in which everyone is linked to everyone
else is given by the equation n(n – 1)/2, where n
is the number of people in the group. Only one
relationship is needed to create a dyad, but as
Figure 1.2 illustrates, the number of ties needed to
connect all members grows as the group gets larger.
Three relationships would be needed to join each
member of a three-person group, but six, ten, and
fifteen relationships are needed to link the members
of four-, five-, and six-person groups. Even larger
groups require even more ties. For example, a
group the size of the Adventure Expedition (26
members) would require 325 ties to completely
link each member to every other member.
Because of the limits of most people’s capacity
to keep track of so many social relationships, once
the group surpasses about 150 individuals, members
usually cannot connect with each and every mem-
ber of the group (Dunbar, 2008). In consequence,
in larger groups, members are connected to one
another indirectly rather than directly. Beck
Weathers might, for example, be linked to guide
Mike Groom, and Groom might establish a bond
with Jon Krakauer, but Weathers may not get to
know Krakauer. In even larger groups, members
Are Social Networks Groups?
Social networks are in most respects very group-like.
Their members are linked to each other by social
relationships, which can vary from the inconsequen-
tial and ephemeral to the deeply meaningful and
long-enduring. Networks, however, lack clear
boundaries that define who is in the network and
who is not. To become part of a social network, an
individual need only establish a relationship of some
sort with a person who is already part of the net-
work. In most social networking sites, for example,
the only requirement to join a network is the accep-
tance of a link request from someone already linked
to others in the network. If Helen and Rob are
already linked, then Pemba can join their network by
establishing a relationship with Helen or Rob. In
consequence, social networks tend to be more fluid
in terms of membership than groups with clearly
identified boundaries, but they can also attract
more diverse members to their ranks (Svensson,
Neumayer, Banfield-Mumb, & Schossböck, 2015).
social network A set of interpersonally interconnected
individuals or groups.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

may only feel connected to the group as a whole,
or to subgroups within the larger group (Katz et al.,
2005). Larger groups are more schismatic than
smaller ones; they more easily break up into smaller
groups.
Interaction: What Do Members Do? Groups
are the setting for an infinite variety of interper-
sonal actions. If we were to watch a group for
even a few minutes, we would see people doing
all sorts of things: talking over issues, getting into
arguments, and making decisions. They would
upset each other, give each other help and support,
and take advantage of each other’s weaknesses.
They would likely work together to accomplish
difficult tasks, find ways to not do their work,
and even plot against the best interests of those
who are not a part of their group. Many of the
most interesting, influential, and entertaining
forms of human action are possible only when peo-
ple join with others in a group.
Sociologist Robert Freed Bales (1950, 1999),
intrigued by the question “What do people do
when they are in groups?” spent years watching and
recording people in relatively small, face-to-face
groups. He recognized the diversity of group interac-
tion, but eventually concluded that the countless
actions he had observed tend to be of two types:
those that focused on the task the group was dealing
with and those that sustained, strengthened, or weak-
ened interpersonal relationships within the group.
Task interaction includes all group behavior that
is focused principally on the group’s work, projects,
plans, and goals. In most groups, members must coor-
dinate their various skills, resources, and motivations
so that the group can make a decision, generate a
product, or achieve a victory. When a jury reviews
each bit of testimony, a committee discusses the best
course of action to take, or the Adventure Expedition
plans the approach they will take to the summit, the
group’s interaction is task-focused.
But groups are not simply performance
engines, for much of what happens in a group is
relationship interaction (or socioemotional interac-
tion). If group members falter and need support,
others will buoy them up with kind words, sugges-
tions, and other forms of help. When group mem-
bers disagree with others, they are often roundly
criticized and made to feel foolish. When a
coworker wears a new suit or outfit, others in his
or her work unit notice it and offer compliments or
criticisms. Such actions sustain or undermine the
Two
members
Three
members
Four
members
Five
members
Six
members
F I G U R E 1.2 As groups increase in size, the number of relationships needed to link each member to every
other member increases. Only one relationship is needed to form a dyad (two members), but 3, 6, 10, and 15
relations are needed as groups increase in size from three to six members. In even larger groups, the number of
relations needed to link all members to each other becomes so great that some members are only linked indi-
rectly to each other.
task interaction The conjointly adjusted actions of
group members that pertain to the group’s projects,
tasks, and goals.
relationship interaction (socioemotional interaction)
The conjointly adjusted actions of group members that
relate to or influence the nature and strength of the emo-
tional and interpersonal bonds within the group, includ-
ing both sustaining (social support, consideration) and
undermining actions (criticism, conflict).
10 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

emotional bonds linking the members to one
another and to the group. We will review the
method that Bales developed for objectively record-
ing these types of interactions, Interaction Process
Analysis (IPA), in Chapter 2.
Interdependence: Do the Members Depend on
Each Other? The acrobat on the trapeze drops
to the net unless her teammate catches her out-
stretched arms. The assembly line worker is unable
to complete his work until he receives the unfin-
ished product from a worker further up the line.
The business executive’s success and salary are deter-
mined by how well her staff complete their work; if
her staff fail, then she fails as well. In such situations,
members are obligated or responsible to other
group members, for they provide each other with
support and assistance. This interdependence
means that members depend on one another; their
outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experi-
ences are partially determined by others in the
group.
Some groups create only the potential for
interdependence among members. The outcomes
of people standing in a queue at a store’s checkout
counter, audience members in a darkened theater,
or the congregation of a large mega-church are
hardly intertwined at all. The individuals within
these groups can reach their goals on their own
without making certain their actions mesh closely
with the actions of those who are nearby. Other
groups, such as gangs, families, sports teams, and
military squads, create far higher levels of interde-
pendency since members reliably and substantially
influence one another’s outcomes over a long
period of time and in a variety of situations.
But even the interdependencies in these tightly
meshed groups are rarely invariant or undifferen-
tiated. As Figure 1.3 suggests, in symmetric
groups with a flat, nonhierarchical structure, the
Why Do Humans Have Such Big Brains?
Humans have done well, evolutionarily speaking. Their
large, sophisticated brains provide them with the means
to store and share information, solve problems, and
plan for future contingencies. To account for the rapid
development of humans’ intellectual prowess, conven-
tional explanations usually suggest big brains helped
early humans find food and shelter and survive envi-
ronmental threats. But what if humans’ brains devel-
oped to deal with the mental demands of group life?
Anthropologist Robin Dunbar’s (2008) social brain
hypothesis assumes that group life is more psycholog-
ically demanding than a more isolated, independent
one. With groups come not only survival advantages,
but also substantial amounts of new information to
continually process. Individuals must be able to recog-
nize other members of the group, track shifting pat-
terns of alliances and coalitions, and remember who
can be trusted and who is likely to refuse to share.
To deal with the increasing complexity of their social
worlds, humans’ ancestors needed bigger brains
capable of processing more information.
Dunbar tested this hypothesis by studying a vari-
ety of group-living species. When he correlated the
size of the average group for a species with the brain
size of the species, he discovered that species with
bigger brains did tend to live in larger social groups.
Dunbar’s findings also suggest that, given the size of
the human neocortex, humans were designed by evo-
lution to live in groups of 150 people or less; anything
more would overload humans’ information-processing
capacity. Dunbar sees evidence of this constraint in
his studies of the size of naturally occurring groups.
Although the size of traditional hunter-gatherer soci-
eties varies with habitat, in many cases, they range up
to—but not over—150 members. Until recently, small
communal villages and townships included about 150
people. Armies often organize soldiers into divisions of
about 150 soldiers. Some businesses and organizations,
too, have learned that productivity and solidarity suf-
fer when too many people work in one place. If they
need to expand their operation, they do not add more
people to an existing plant; instead, they build an
additional plant next to the old one and fill it with
another 150 personnel. Dunbar’s recommendation:
To avoid taxing the processing capacity of members,
limit your groups to 150 members or fewer.
interdependence Mutual dependence, as when one’s
outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experiences
are influenced, to some degree, by other people.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

influence among members is equal and reciprocal
(Figure 1.3a). But more typically interdependen-
cies are asymmetric, unequal, and hierarchical. In
a business, for example, the boss may determine
how employees spend their time, what kind of
rewards they experience, and even the duration
of their membership in the group (Figure 1.3b).
In other cases, the employees may be able to
influence their boss to a degree, but the boss influ-
ences them to a much greater extent (Figure 1.3c).
Interdependency can also be ordered sequentially,
as when C’s outcomes are determined by B’s
actions, but B’s actions are determined by A
(Figure 1.3d).
Structure: How Is the Group Organized?
Group members are not connected to one another
at random, but in organized and predictable pat-
terns. In all but the most ephemeral groups, patterns
and regularities emerge that determine the kinds of
actions that are permitted or condemned: who talks
to whom, who likes whom and who dislikes
whom, who can be counted on to perform partic-
ular tasks, and whom others look to for guidance
and help. These regularities combine to generate
group structure—the complex of roles, norms,
and intermember relations that organizes the group.
Roles specify the general behaviors expected of peo-
ple who occupy different positions within the group.
The roles of leader and follower are fundamental ones
in many groups, but other roles—information
seeker, information giver, and compromiser—may
emerge in any group (Benne & Sheats, 1948).
Group members’ actions and interactions are also
shaped by the group’s norms that describe what
behaviors should and should not be performed in
a given context.
Roles, norms, and other structural aspects of
groups, although unseen and often unnoticed, lie at
the heart of their most dynamic processes. When peo-
ple join a group, they initially spend much of their time
trying to come to terms with the requirements of their
role. If they cannot meet the role’s demand, they might
not remain a member for long. Norms within a group
are defined and renegotiated over time, and conflicts
often emerge as members violate norms. In group
meetings, the opinions of members with higher status
carry more weight than those of the rank-and-file
members. When several members form a subgroup
within the larger group, they exert more influence
on the rest of the group than they would individually.
When people manage to place themselves at the hub of
the group’s information-exchange patterns, their influ-
ence over others also increases.
If you had to choose only one aspect of a group
to study, you would probably learn the most by
studying its structure. The Adventure Expedition’s
structure, for example, improved the group’s overall
efficiency, but at a cost. When researchers surveyed
(a) Symmetric
interdependence
with reciprocity
(b) Hierarchical
interdependence
without reciprocity
(d) Sequential
interdependence
without reciprocity
(c) Hierarchical
interdependence with
(unequal) reciprocity
A
C DB
B CA
B CA
A
C DB
F I G U R E 1.3 Examples of interdependence among
group members.
group structure The organization of a group, including
the members, their interrelations, and their interactions.
role A socially shared set of behaviors, characteristics, and
responsibilities expected of people who occupy a partic-
ular position or type of position within a group; by
enacting roles, individuals establish regular patterns of
exchange with one another that increase predictability
and social coordination.
norm A consensual and often implicit standard that
describes what behaviors should and should not be per-
formed in a given context.
12 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

expert mountain climbers asking them to evaluate the
wisdom of hiking in a team with a clear chain-
of-command versus one with a less leader-centered
culture, these experts favored a hierarchical structure
for its efficiency. However, they also warned that such
groups were not as safe as groups that were more
egalitarian, since members were less likely to share
information about threats and concerns. These
researchers then confirmed the experts’ prognosis by
examining the records of 5,104 group expeditions in
the Himalayas. Sure enough, more climbers reached
the top of the summit when they hiked in teams with
hierarchical cultures, but more climbers also died in
these groups during the expedition. The researchers
concluded: “Hierarchy, structurally and as a cultural
value, can both help and hurt team performance”
(Anicich, Swaab, & Galinsky, 2015, p. 1340).
Goals: What Is the Group’s Purpose? Humans,
as a species, seem to be genetically ready to set goals
for themselves—“what natural selection has built into
us is the capacity to strive, the capacity to seek, the
capacity to set up short-term goals in the service of
longer-term goals” (Dawkins, 1989, p. 142)—and
that tendency is only amplified in groups. A study
group wants to help members get better grades. A
jury makes a decision about guilt or innocence. The
members of a congregation seek religious and spiritual
experiences. The team Rob Hall created, the Adven-
ture Expedition, pursued its goals relentlessly and, for
some members, fatally. The groups Bales (1999) stud-
ied spent the majority of their time (63%) dealing
with goal-related activities and tasks. The members
of groups pursue their own goals, but because their
goals are interdependent, groups promote the
pursuit of other members’ goals and group-level
goals (Fitzsimons, Finkel, & vanDellen, 2015).
The goals groups pursue are many and varied.
One approach to their classification suggests that a
broad distinction can be made between intellectual
and judgmental tasks (Laughlin, 1980). Another
emphasizes three different categories: production,
discussion, and problem-solving goals (Hackman
& Morris, 1975). A third model, proposed by social
psychologist Joseph E. McGrath (1984), distin-
guishes among four basic group goals: generating
ideas or plans, choosing a solution, negotiating a
solution to a conflict, or executing (performing) a
task. As Figure 1.4 indicates, each of these basic
categories can be further subdivided, yielding a
total of eight goal-related activities.
■ Generating: Groups concoct the strategies they
will use to accomplish their goals (Type 1:
planning tasks) or create altogether new ideas
and approaches to their problems (Type 2:
creativity tasks)
■ Choosing: Groups make decisions about issues
that have correct solutions (Type 3: intellective
tasks) or questions that can be answered in
many ways (Type 4: decision-making tasks)
■ Negotiating: Groups resolve differences of
opinion among members regarding their goals
or decisions (Type 5: cognitive conflict tasks) or
settle competitive disputes among members
(Type 6: mixed-motive tasks)
■ Executing: Groups do things, including taking
part in competitions (Type 7: contests/battles/
competitive tasks) or creating some product
or carrying out collective actions (Type 8:
performances/psychomotor tasks)
McGrath’s task circumplex model also distin-
guishes between conceptual–behavioral tasks and
cooperation–conflict tasks. Groups dealing with
conceptual tasks (Types 2–5) generally exhibit high
levels of information exchange, social influence, and
process-oriented activity. Groups dealing with behav-
ioral tasks (Types 1, 6, 7, 8) are those that produce
things or perform services. Members of these groups
perform a series of motor tasks that range from the
simple and relatively individualistic through to the
complex and highly interdependent. Conflict tasks
(Types 4–7) pit individuals and groups against each
other, whereas cooperative tasks require collaboration
(Types 1–3, and 8). Some groups perform tasks from
nearly all of McGrath’s categories, whereas others
concentrate on only one subset of goals.
Origin: Founded or Formed? Groups tend to
fall naturally into two categories: planned groups,
which are deliberately formed by its members or
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

an external authority for some purpose, and emer-
gent groups which come into existence spontane-
ously when individuals join together in the same
physical location or gradually over time as indivi-
duals find themselves repeatedly interacting with
the same subset of individuals. People found groups
(planned), but they also find them (emergent).
Arbitration boards, civil rights groups, commis-
sions committees, expeditions, juries, legislative bod-
ies, military units, musical groups, research teams,
self-help groups, social agencies, sports teams, study
groups, task forces, therapy groups, trade associa-
tions, veterans organizations, work groups, and the
Adventure Expedition are all examples of planned
groups; they tend to be organized, task-focused,
and formal. Such groups generally define their
membership criteria clearly, and so at all times they
know who is and who is not in the group. They
often operate under a set of bylaws, contracts, or
similar regulations that describe the group’s accept-
able procedures and practices. The group’s structure
may even be formalized in an organizational chart
that defines who has more authority than others,
who reports to whom, and how subgroups within
the overall group are connected. Such groups,
despite their overall level of organization and defini-
tion, may also lack emotional substance. They may
be characterized by considerable routines, ceremo-
nies, and procedures, but they may also be devoid of
any warmth or emotional depth.
Quadrant I
Generate
Conceptual
C
o
n
fl
ic
t
C
o
o
p
e
ra
ti
o
n
Behavioral
Quadrant III
Negotiate
Quadrant IV
Execute
Quadrant II
Choose
Generating
plans
Generating
ideas
Executing
performance
tasks
Solving
problems
with
correct
answers
Deciding
issues
with no
right
answer
Type 3:
Intellective tasks
Type 8:
Performances/
psychomotor tasks
Type 4:
Decision-making
tasks
Type 7:
Contests/battles/
competitive
tasks
Type 2:
Creativity
tasks
Type 1:
Planning
tasks
Type 5:
Congnitive
conflict tasks
Type 6:
Mixed-motive
tasks
Resolving conflicts
of viewpoint
Resolving conflicts
of interest
Resolving
conflicts
of power
F I G U R E 1.4 McGrath’s circumplex model of group tasks.
SOURCE: McGrath, J. E., Groups: Interaction and Performance, 1st Edition, © 1984. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
14 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Emergent groups, such as audiences at events,
bystanders at a crime scene, crowds, customers at a
club, gangs, families, friendship networks in work
settings, mobs, people waiting to board an airplane,
and all manner of queues and lines, arise over time
and through repeated association of the eventual
members. These groups are not explicitly orga-
nized, but they often develop elements of structure
as members determine what kinds of behaviors are
expected of members, who is more or less liked,
who leads and who follows, and so on. Such groups
often have unclear boundaries, for they allow
members to come and go rather than requiring
them to join in a formal way. They have no written
rules, but they likely develop unwritten norms that
define what behaviors are appropriate and what
behaviors are inappropriate. Unlike planned groups,
membership in an emergent group is sought as a
means in and of itself: people don’t join to gain
some goal but because they find satisfaction in asso-
ciating with the group members.
Social psychologists Holly Arrow, Joseph E.
McGrath, and Jennifer L. Berdahl (2000) extend this
distinction between planned and emergent groups by
asking a second question: Is the group created by
forces within the group (internal origins) or forces
outside of the group (external origins)? Arrow and
her colleagues combine both the planned-emergent
dimension and the internal-external dimension to
generate the following fourfold taxonomy of groups:
■ Concocted groups are planned by individuals or
authorities outside of the group. A team of
laborers digging a trench, a flight crew of an
airplane, and a military squad would all be
concocted groups, since those who created
them are not actually members of the group.
■ Founded groups are planned by one or more
individuals who remain within the group. A
small Internet start-up company, a study group,
a expeditionary team, or grassroots community
action group would all be founded groups.
■ Circumstantial groups are emergent, unplanned
groups that arise when external, situational
forces set the stage for people to join together,
often temporarily, in a unified group. A group
of travelers stranded together when their bus
breaks, a mob breaking shop windows and
setting parked cars on fire, and patrons at a
movie theater would be circumstantial groups.
■ Self-organizing groups emerge when interacting
individuals gradually align their activities in a
cooperative system of interdependence. Parties,
gatherings of surfers waiting for waves just off-
shore, drivers leaving a crowded parking lot
through a single exit, and a half dozen adolescents
who hang out together are all organized groups,
but their organization is generated by implicit
adjustments of each member to each other
member.
Unity: How Cohesive Is the Group? In physics,
the molecular integrity of matter is known as cohe-
siveness. When matter is cohesive, the particles that
constitute it bond together so tightly that they resist
any competing attractions. But when matter is not
cohesive, it tends to disintegrate over time as the
particles drift away or adhere to some other nearby
object. Similarly, group cohesion is the integrity,
solidarity, social integration, unity, and groupiness
of a group. All groups require a modicum of cohe-
siveness or else the group would disintegrate and
cease to exist as a group. Close-knit, cohesive
groups suffer little from turnover or intragroup
conflict. Cohesive groups hold on to their members
tightly, and members usually value their member-
ship, and are quick to identify themselves as mem-
bers. A group’s cohesiveness, however, is often
based on commitment to the group’s purposes,
rather than on social bonds between members.
Individuals may not like each other a great deal,
and yet, when they join together, they experience
powerful feelings of unity as they work collabora-
tively to achieve an important end (Dion, 2000).
group cohesion The solidarity or unity of a group
resulting from the development of strong and mutual
interpersonal bonds among members and group-level
forces that unify the group, such as shared commitment
to group goals and esprit de corps.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Entitativity: Does the Group Look Like a Group?
Observers back at basecamp who watched the
Adventure Expedition climb that day did not just
see single individuals scaling Everest through their
binoculars and telescopes: They saw an intact,
organized group making its way ever upward
(Viesturs, 1996).
Social psychologist Donald Campbell (1958a)
coined the term entitativity to describe the extent
to which a group seems to be a single, unified
entity—a real group. Campbell grounded his anal-
ysis of group entitativity in the principles of percep-
tion studied most closely by gestalt psychologists
(e.g., Köhler, 1959). The researchers identified
these principles in their studies of the cues people
rely on when perceptually organizing objects into
unified, well-organized wholes (gestalts). An auto-
mobile, for example, is not perceived to be four
wheels, doors, a trunk, a hood, a windshield, and
so on, but a single thing: a car. Similarly, a collec-
tion of individuals—say four young men walking
down the street—might be perceived to be four
unrelated individuals, but the observer may also
conclude the individuals are a group. Entitativity,
then, is the “groupiness” of a group, perceived
rather than actual group unity or cohesion.
Entitativity, according to Campbell, is substantially
influenced by similarity, proximity, and common fate,
as well as such perceptual cues as pragnanz (good form)
and permeability. Say, for example, you are walking
through a library and see a table occupied by four
women. Is this a group—four friends or classmates
studying together—or just four independent indivi-
duals? Campbell predicts that you would, intuitively,
notice if the four have certain physical features in com-
mon, such as age, skin color, or clothing. You would
also take note of the books they were reading, for if
they were studying the same subject, you would
assume they share a common goal—and hence are
more likely to be a true group (Brewer, Hong, & Li,
2004; Ip, Chiu, & Wan, 2006). Their emotional dis-
plays would also provide you with information about
their entitativity. If the women all seem to be happy or
sad, then you would be more likely to think the group
is responsible for their emotional state and that the
group itself is a unified one (Magee & Tiedens,
2006). Proximity is also a signal of entitativity, for the
smaller the distance separating individuals, the more
likely perceivers will assume they are seeing a group
rather than individuals who happen to be collocated
(Knowles & Bassett, 1976). The principle of common
fate also predicts perceived entitativity, for if all the
members begin to act in similar ways or move in a
relatively coordinated fashion, then your confidence
that this cluster is a unified group would be bolstered
(Lakens, 2010).
Social psychologist Brian Lickel and his collea-
gues (2000) investigated Campbell’s theory of enti-
tativity, asking people to rate all sorts of human
aggregations in terms of their size, duration, perme-
ability, amount of interaction among members,
importance to members, and so on. These analyses,
as they expected, yielded four natural groupings
that were very similar to the four categories listed
in Figure 1.1 (which they labeled intimacy groups,
task groups, loose associations, and social catego-
ries). Primary groups, such as professional sports
teams, families, and close friends, received the high-
est entitativity ratings, followed by social groups
(e.g., a jury, an airline crew, a team in the work-
place), categories (e.g., women, doctors, classical
music listeners), and collectives (e.g., people waiting
for a bus, a queue in a bank). These findings suggest
that people are more likely to consider aggregations
marked by strong bonds and frequent interactions
among members to be groups, but that they are less
certain that such aggregations as crowds, waiting
lines, or categories qualify as groups (Lickel et al.,
2000, Study 3). They also suggest that social
categories—which include vast numbers of people
whose only qualification for membership in the cat-
egory may be a demographic quality, such as sex or
nationality—were viewed as more group-like than
such temporary gatherings as waiting lines and audi-
ences and, in some cases, task-focused groups
(Spencer-Rogers, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2007).
entitativity The apparent cohesiveness or unity of an
assemblage of individuals; the quality of being a single
entity rather than a set of independent, unrelated indivi-
duals (coined in Campbell, 1958a).
16 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

1 – 2 W H A T AR E G R O U P
DYN AMICS?
Why did the Adventure Expedition end tragically?
The answer lies, in part, in the motivations, actions,
and intentions of the individual members of the
expedition: Hall’s decision to continue climbing late
into the afternoon, client Doug Hansen’s intense
desire to reach the summit, client Jon Krakauer’s
superb mountaineering skills, and guide Andy Harris’s
mental confusion in the high altitude. But a full
accounting of the expedition and its outcomes must
also recognize that the individual climbers were
members of a group, and that the interpersonal pro-
cesses that unfolded in that group significantly influ-
enced the thoughts, emotions, and actions of each
one of the group’s members.
1-2a Dynamic Group Processes
The word dynamic comes from the Greek dynami-
kós, which means to be strong, powerful, and ener-
getic. Dynamic implies the influence of forces that
When Does a Group Look Like a Group?
The sociologist W. I. Thomas stated that “if men define
situations as real, they are real in their consequences”
(Thomas & Thomas, 1928, p. 572); this statement is
now known as the Thomas Theorem. Applied to
groups, this theorem predicts that if people define
groups as real, they are real in their consequences.
Once people think an aggregate of people is a true
group—one with entitativity, as Donald Campbell
(1958a) suggested—then the group will have impor-
tant interpersonal consequences for those in the group
and those who are observing it.
This shift in thinking—construing a group to be a
true group rather than many individuals—triggers a
series of psychological and interpersonal changes for
both members and nonmembers. As entitativity increases
members identify more with the group and its goals, they
value their membership more, and they feel more
bonded to the group (Castano, Yzerbyt, & Bourguignon,
2003; Jans, Postmes, & Van der Zee, 2011). When mem-
bers feel they are part of a high-entitativity group, they
are more likely to think that they fit well within the
group, they believe that they are similar to other group
members in terms of values and beliefs, and they are
more willing to accept the consequences of group-level
outcomes as their own (Mullen, 1991). For example,
when researchers repeatedly told women working in
isolation that they were nonetheless members of a
group, the women accepted this label and later rated
themselves more negatively after the group failed—even
though the group existed only in their perceptions (Zan-
der, Stotland, & Wolfe, 1960). Even children as young as
5 years of age know they can count on others in their
group to help them and share with them: but only if the
group is high in entitativity (Plötner et al., 2016).
Entitativity also influences those who are not in
group, often biasing their judgments, attitudes, and
intergroup actions. As entitativity increases, perceivers
are more like to perceive the group members in stereo-
typical ways, since they expect that the group members
are essentially interchangeable: they are thought to be
all the same (Rydell et al., 2007). A sense of essentialism
may also permeate perceivers’ beliefs about groups that
are high in entitativity. They may assume such groups
have deep, relatively unchanging essential qualities
that give rise to their more surface-level characteristics
(Yzerbyt & Demoulin, 2010). In consequence, even
though entitativity is difficult to pronounce, its influence
on people is not to be underestimated. Thinking a group
is real makes the group real in the eyes of those who are
in it and outside of it.
Thomas theorem The theoretical premise, put forward
by W. I. Thomas, which maintains that people’s conception
of a social situation, even if incorrect, will determine their
reactions in the situation; “If men define situations as real,
they are real in their consequences” (Thomas & Thomas,
1928, p. 572).
essentialism The belief that all things, including individuals
and groups, have a basic nature that makes them what they
are and distinguishes them from other things; a thing’s
essence is usually inferred rather than directly observed and
is generally assumed to be relatively unchanging.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

combine, sometimes smoothly but sometimes in
opposition, to create continual motion and change.
Group dynamics, then, are the influential inter-
personal processes that occur in and between
groups over time. These processes not only deter-
mine how members relate to and engage with one
another, but they also determine the group’s inher-
ent nature and trajectory: the actions the group takes,
how it responds to its environment, and what it
achieves. For example, groups tend to become more
cohesive over time. Larger groups often break down
into smaller subgroups. In most groups, one person is
allowed to exert more influence over the other mem-
bers. Even in the most temperate of group climates,
disagreements can lead to prolonged conflicts. Why?
Because these processes occur with predictable regu-
larity in groups.
These processes are reviewed here, but only
briefly: for the rest of this book is devoted to the anal-
ysis of the dynamic processes that create groups, sustain
them over time, and ultimately, determine their fate.
Formative Processes In April 1996, the mem-
bers of the Adventure Expedition group assembled
in the village of Lukla, at the foot of Mt. Everest, to
prepare to climb the world’s tallest mountain. The
climbers exchanged some pleasantries over the
evening meal, but were reluctant to discuss their
personal views and values with people they knew
so little about. As Krakauer (1998, p. 37) recounts,
“I wasn’t sure what to make of my fellow clients,”
and concluded: “they seemed like nice, decent
folks.” But this period of reserve did not last long.
As their initial inhibitions subsided, the climbers
began exchanging information about themselves
and their goals. Recognizing they needed the
group to survive the climb, they appraised one
another’s experience, strengths, and weaknesses.
Once at basecamp, they spent nearly all their time
with their own group, and actively excluded from
the circle of compatriots those who were not part
of their team. As reliable alliances took root, the
group achieved a rudimentary level of cohesion.
Chapters 3–5 examine the personal and interper-
sonal processes that turned these strangers into a true
group. Chapter 3, Inclusion and Identity, suggests that
groups satisfy a very basic human need—the need to
belong—and the consequences of shifting from an
individualistic, self-focused orientation to a group-
level perspective. Chapter 4, Formation, explores the
personal and situational forces that prompt people to
join groups or remain apart from them, as well as the
part interpersonal attraction plays in creating stable rela-
tionships among group members. Chapter 5, Cohesion
and Development, reviews theory and research exam-
ining one of the most central concepts in the field of
group dynamics, cohesion, the many factors that
increase the unity of a group, and the way those factors
wax and wane as the group changes over time.
Influence Processes No group would exist for
very long if the members refuse to coordinate
their actions with the actions of others in group.
Once Krakauer, Weathers, and the other climbers
agreed to join the Adventure Expedition, they were
no longer entirely in control of their actions and
outcomes. Members of groups, to get along with
one another, must often go along: They must find
their place in the group, comply with the group’s
standards, accept guidance from the group’s leaders,
and learn how to best influence one another.
A host of group processes operate to transform
individuals, with their own personal motives, incli-
nations, and preferences, into a socially coordinated,
smooth-functioning collective. Chapter 6, Struc-
ture, argues that in even the most rudimentary of
groups structural processes organize the group’s
procedures, interaction patterns, and intermember
relations. Members take on specific roles within
the group that generate regularities in their actions,
and they accept and conform to the group’s norms
that define what the group expects of them. Dis-
tinctive networks of communication and influence
often develop in groups, as some members of the
group enjoy strong, positive interpersonal ties with
others in the group but others’ capacity to influence
others atrophies.
group dynamics Interpersonal processes that occur
within and between groups; also, the scientific study of
those processes.
18 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

A group is a complex social system—a micro-
cosm of powerful interpersonal forces that significantly
shape members’ actions—and Chapters 7, 8, and 9
examine the flow of information, influence, and
interaction in that microcosm. Chapter 7, Influence,
looks at the way group members sometimes change
their opinions, judgments, or actions so that they
match the opinions, judgments, or actions of the
rest of the group (conformity). Chapter 8, Power,
extends this topic by considering how group members
make use of social power to influence others and how
people respond to such influence. Individuals in the
group who are more influential than others are often
recognized as the group’s leaders, and Chapter 9,
Leadership, examines the processes that determine
who emerges as a group’s leader and their effective-
ness when in that position.
Performance Processes The climbers equipped
themselves with ropes, tents, snow axes, and all man-
ner of cold-weather gear as they prepared for their
arduous ascent of Mt. Everest. But, even more critical
than their equipment was their personnel, for no one
has succeeded in climbing Mt. Everest alone. It is a
task so daunting, so complex, and so dangerous that it
required the combined skills and energy of a group.
Groups get things done. Across the gamut of
human experience, we find example after example
of interdependent individuals pooling their personal
efforts to reach specifiable goals. Chapter 10, Per-
formance, examines the processes that facilitate and
inhibit people’s performance in groups and con-
cludes that groups outperform individuals when
interpersonal processes boost members’ motivation.
Chapter 11, Teams, continues the analysis of group
performance by examining the unique features
of groups whose members are highly interdepen-
dent, task-focused, and productive. The Adventure
Expedition functioned as a team in most respects.
Unfortunately, when the group members encoun-
tered obstacles during the summit to the top of
Mt. Everest, they made the wrong decision: they
continued to climb, when caution warranted retreat-
ing back down the mountain. The processes that
guide groups’ choices and decisions are examined in
Chapter 12, Decision Making.
Conflict Processes Conflict is omnipresent in and
between groups. When conflict occurs in a group, the
actions or beliefs of one or more members of the group
are unacceptable to and resisted by one or more of the
other members. These tensions tend to undermine the
cohesiveness of the group and cause specific relation-
ships within the group to weaken or break altogether.
Many group and individual processes conspire to
create conflict in a group, but as Chapter 13, Conflict,
explains, the most common sources are competition,
disagreements over the distribution of resources, power
struggles, uncertainty and disagreement over a deci-
sion, and personal antipathies. Some conflicts turn
member against members, but others turn group
against group. Intergroup relations, the subject of
Chapter 14, can be harmonious and cooperative, but
in many cases they are rife with tension and conflict.
Contextual Processes An analysis of the Adven-
ture Expedition group would not be complete if it
failed to take into account the group’s location: one
of the coldest, most remote, and dangerous places on
Earth.
All groups are embedded in a social and envi-
ronmental context, and Chapter 15, Groups in
Context, considers how the physical environment
affects a group’s dynamics. Chapter 16, Growth and
Change, reviews the use of groups to promote
adjustment, human development, and therapeutic
change, including helping, supportive, and
change-promoting groups. Chapter 17, Collectives,
concludes this analysis by examining processes that
influence people when they are part of larger, more
diffuse, but nonetheless very influential groups,
such as mobs, crowds, and social movements.
1-2b Process and Progress over Time
The members of cliques, teams, crews, families,
gangs, peer groups, military squads, professional asso-
ciations, clubs, congregations, and the like are linked
to one another by social relationships, but these rela-
tionships are rarely static. The dynamic processes that
occur in groups and summarized in Table 1.1—
emerging patterns of likes and dislikes among the
members, shifts in influence and power as members
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 19
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

T A B L E 1.1 Major Topics in the Field of Group Dynamics
Chapter and Topic Issues
Foundations
1. Introduction to group dynamics What are groups, and what are their key features? What do we want to
know about groups and their dynamics? Why study groups and their
dynamics?
2. Studying groups What assumptions guide researchers in their studies of groups and the
processes within groups? How do researchers study groups? What theo-
retical perspectives guide researchers’ studies of groups?
Formation and development
3. Inclusion and identity Do humans prefer inclusion to exclusion and group membership to isola-
tion? What is collectivism? How do group experiences and memberships
influence individuals’ identities?
4. Formation Who joins groups, and who remains apart? Why do people deliberately
create groups or join existing groups? What factors influence feelings of
liking for others?
5. Cohesion and development What is cohesion and what causes it? How do groups develop over time? What
are the positive and negative consequences of cohesion and commitment? Do
initiations increase members’ commitment to their groups?
Normative influences and interaction
6. Structure What are norms, roles, and networks of intermember relations, and how
do they organize groups? How and why do these structures develop and
what are their interpersonal consequences?
7. Influence When will people conform to a group’s standards, and when will they
remain independent? Do nonconformists ever succeed in influencing the
rest of the group? How powerful is social influence?
8. Power Why are some members of groups more powerful than others? What
types of power tactics are most effective in influencing others? Does
power corrupt? Why do people obey authorities?
9. Leadership What is leadership? Who do groups prefer for leaders? Should a leader be
task-focused or relationship-focused? Is democratic leadership superior to
autocratic leadership? Can leaders transform their followers?
Working in groups
10. Performance Do people perform tasks more effectively in groups or when they are alone?
Why do people sometimes expend so little effort when they are in groups?
When does a group outperform an individual? Are groups creative?
11. Teams What is the difference between a group and a team? What types of teams
are currently in use? Does team building improve team work? How can
leaders intervene to improve the performance of their teams?
(Continued)
20 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

vie for social status, pressures put on individual mem-
bers to adhere to the group’s standards, the eruption
of conflict and discord as members find that others
do not share their beliefs or interests—continually
change the group and the relationships among mem-
bers that the group sustains.
But nearly every theorist who has ever wondered
about some aspect of groups and their dynamics has
also speculated about regularities in the way groups
change over time. In most groups, the same sorts of
issues arise over time, and once resolved new processes
are initiated that further change the nature of the
group and its members. Educational psychologist
Bruce Tuckman, for example, identified five process
stages in his theory of group development (see
Figure 1.5; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen,
1977). In the orientation (forming) phase, the group
members become oriented toward one another. In
the conflict (storming) phase, conflicts surface in the
group as members vie for status and the group sets
its goals. These conflicts subside when the group
becomes more structured and standards emerge in
the structure (norming) phase. In the performance
(performing) phase, the group moves beyond dis-
agreement and organizational matters to concentrate
on the work to be done. The group continues to
function at this stage until it reaches the dissolution
(adjourning) stage. As Chapter 5 explains in more
detail, groups also tend to cycle repeatedly through
some of these stages as the members strive to maintain
a balance between task-oriented actions and emotion-
ally expressive behaviors (Bales, 1965).
1 – 3 W H Y S T U D Y G R O U P S ?
If you were limited to a single word, how would
you describe the activities, processes, operations,
and changes that transpire in social groups? What
word illuminates the interdependence of people
T A B L E 1.1 Major Topics in the Field of Group Dynamics (Continued)
Chapter and Topic Issues
12. Decision making What steps do groups take when making decisions? Why do some highly
cohesive groups make disastrous decisions? Why do groups sometimes
make riskier decisions than individuals?
Conflict
13. Conflict in groups What causes disputes between group members? When will a small dis-
agreement escalate into a conflict? Why do groups sometimes splinter
into subgroups? How can disputes in groups be resolved?
14. Intergroup relations What causes disputes between groups? What changes take place as a
consequence of intergroup conflict? What factors exacerbate conflict?
How can intergroup conflict be resolved?
Contexts and applications
15. Groups in context What impact does the social and physical setting have on an interacting
group? Are groups territorial? What happens when groups are over-
crowded? How do groups cope with severe environments?
16. Groups and change How can groups be used to improve personal adjustment and health?
What is the difference between a therapy group and a support group?
Are group approaches to treatment effective? Why do they work?
17. Crowds and collective behavior What types of crowds are common? Why do crowds and collectives form?
Do people lose their sense of self when they join crowds? When is a crowd
likely to become unruly?
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 21
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

in groups? And what word adequately summarizes a
group’s capacity to promote social interaction, create
patterned interrelationships among its members, and
bind members together to form a single unit?
Kurt Lewin (1951), recognized by many as the
founder of the field, chose the word dynamic.
Groups tend to be powerful rather than weak,
active rather than passive, and fluid rather than
static. Lewin also used the term group dynamics to
describe the scientific discipline devoted to the
study of these dynamics. Later, psychologists Dor-
win Cartwright and Alvin Zander supplied a formal
definition, calling it a “field of inquiry dedicated to
advancing knowledge about the nature of groups,
the laws of their development, and their interrela-
tions with individuals, other groups, and larger
institutions” (1968, p. 7).
But let’s return to the question asked at the
beginning of the chapter: Why study groups? Why
investigate the nature of groups and their dynamics
when one can investigate brain structures, rocks, cul-
tures, biological diseases, organizations, ancient civi-
lizations, or even other planets? In the grand scheme
of things, how important is it to investigate groups?
1-3a Understanding People
Groups may be everywhere, doing just about
everything, but they stand outside the limelight
that shines on most people’s explanation of what
makes the world go around. Consider, for example,
the well-known face–vase visual illusion. This
image can be construed as either a vase or the
faces of two individuals looking at each other (see
Figure 1.6). Illustrating the figure–ground gestalt
Exchange of background personal
information, uncertainty, tentative
communication
Orientation (forming)
Dissatisfaction, disagreement,
challenges to leader and procedures,
cliques form
Conflict (storming)
Cohesiveness, agreement on
procedures, standards, and roles,
improved communication
Structure (norming)
Focus on the work of the group, task
completion, decision making,
cooperation
Performance (performing)
Departures, withdrawal,
decreased dependence, regret
Dissolution (adjourning)
F I G U R E 1.5 Stages of group development. Tuck-
man’s theory of group development suggests that groups
typically pass through five stages during their develop-
ment: orientation (forming), conflict (storming), structure
(norming), performance (performing), and dissolution
(adjourning).
F I G U R E 1.6 The face-vase-group ambiguous fig-
ure. Most people, when asked to describe this image,
report two interpretations—either a vase, or two faces—
but few mention the third interpretation of this ambig-
uous image: a group with two members conversing.
22 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

principle of perception, when people report seeing
a vase, the image of the vase becomes the figure,
and the individuals become the ground. Con-
versely, when people report seeing two individuals
looking at each other, the faces become figure and
the vase retreats into the background. But the
image hides yet a third image—a two-person
group—but the group is rarely noticed.
Because people, when they encounter a group
of some type, tend to see only the individuals in
these groups and not the groups themselves, they
resist explanations that highlight group-level influ-
ences. Even though people speak of such concepts
as teamwork, leadership, and cohesion, they tend
to translate these group-level processes into indi-
vidualistic ones. Why was Adventure Expedition
cohesive? Because the individual members were
very focused on achieving a goal they valued.
Why did Hall push the group beyond its limits?
Because he was a driven, high achiever. Why did
Jon Krakauer live? Because he was highly skilled.
The well-documented fundamental attribution
error (FAE) occurs because perceivers are more
likely to attribute a person’s actions to personal,
individual qualities rather than external, situational
forces—including groups (Ross, 1977). Perceivers
are also often surprised when the same individual
acts very differently when he or she changes
groups, for they feel that personal, individualistic
qualities are the primary causes of behavior, and
that group-level processes should play only a
minor role in determining one’s outcomes. Early
researchers were not certain that studying groups
would yield scientific insights beyond those gener-
ated by studies of the individuals who were mem-
bers of the groups (Allport, 1924).
Group researchers, however, are convinced
that if one wishes to understand individuals, one
must understand groups. In one of the earliest
experimental studies in the field, Norman Triplett
(1898) verified what is too often forgotten—that
people behave differently when they are part of a
group rather than alone—and this group effect has
been documented time and again in studies of
motivation, emotion, and performance. (Many
have suggested that Triplett’s study marks the
start of the scientific investigation of interpersonal
processes, but in all likelihood the field’s roots
reach even further back in time; see Stroebe,
2012.) As Cooley (1909) explained, people acquire
their attitudes, values, identities, skills, and princi-
ples in groups. As children grow older, their peers
replace the family as the source of social values
(Harris, 1995), and when they become adults,
their actions and outlooks are then shaped by an
even larger network of interconnected groups
(Barabási, 2003).
But groups also change people in ways that are
not subtle at all. The earliest investigations of
groups described the abrupt changes in people’s
behavior when immersed in crowds, and many
concluded that the person who is a member of a
group is very different, psychologically, than the
person who is all alone (Baumeister, Ainsworth, &
Vohs, 2016). People, when in groups, conform to
group pressures, and as a result engage in all sorts of
behaviors that they would never do had they been
isolated from the group’s influence. And although
in many cases the group’s influence is short-lived
and ends when the person leaves the group, people
who join religious or political groups that stress
secrecy, obedience to leaders, and dogmatic accep-
tance of unusual or atypical beliefs (cults) often
undergo fundamental and relatively permanent
changes in their beliefs and behaviors.
Theories about groups have also proven to
be particularly resilient, scientifically speaking,
when put to an empirical test. In the last 100
years, researchers have conducted more than
25,000 studies involving over 8 million partici-
pants. A review of these studies suggests that
much can be learned by studying people’s atti-
tudes, cognitions, personalities, and relationships,
but one area of study surpassed all others in
terms of providing an explanation for human
social behavior. Leading the way, across all 18
fundamental attribution error The tendency to over-
estimate the causal influence of dispositional factors while
underemphasizing the causal influence of situational
factors.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 23
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Is Living in Groups a Cultural Universal?
Without exception, humans in all societies join with
other humans to form groups, but because each
society is unique in its traditions, culture, and
ecology, the groups within any given culture may
display unique interpersonal processes. The groups
of the Ghorbat of Central Asia and the Balkans are
highly egalitarian with no permanent leadership
roles and no hereditary positions of authority. The
Kpelle of Liberia, before Westernization, formed
secret societies within their villages based on
animal magic, and members reaffirm their bonds by
performing certain sacred rituals. The Hubeer and
the Rahanweyn of Somali cited kinship ties as the
basis of their groups, yet many of the groups
included “adopted” individuals who were unrelated
to anyone in the group (Human Area Relations
Files, 2012).
Social and organizational psychologist Geert
Hofstede’s theory of national cultures offers one way
of identifying similarities and differences in values
and cultural norms. In the late 1960s, Hofstede,
working with a large international corporation
(IBM), collected data about the beliefs, outlooks, and
perspectives of employees in countries located all
over the world. He then used these data to describe
the culture-specific beliefs, traditions, practices, and
philosophies shared by members of a group or
region; what Hofstede calls “the collective program-
ming of the mind” (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov,
2010). His analyses identified a number of key
dimensions that underlie variations in cultural out-
looks, including:
■ The Power Distance Index (PDI) is an indicator
of inequality within a given culture, across
individuals, groups, and classes. When PDI is
low, cultures strive to minimize inequalities in
the distribution of power within society, but
when PDI is high, both those with and without
power accept hierarchy as the natural order of
things.
■ Individualism (IDV) contrasts group-centered and
more individualistic cultures. In more individualis-
tic cultures, ties between people are looser, for
each person focuses on his or her own needs (or
those of their immediate family). In collective
cultures, people are integrated into cohesive
groups that support them in exchange for their
loyalty.
■ Masculinity (MAS) refers to the extent to which
masculinity and its associated elements—
competition, assertiveness, machismo—are
manifested in the culture’s practices, including
role expectations associated with men and
women.
■ Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) describes the
extent to which the culture’s practices minimize
uncertainty and ambiguity, generally by develop-
ing extensive social and legal guidelines, empha-
sizing security, and adopting religious or
philosophical beliefs that define how one should
behave.
These dimensions of variation leave their mark on
the group dynamics that occur within cultures. For
example, in cultures with high levels of power distance
(e.g., Russia, Panama, Malaysia) rather than low levels
(e.g., Austria, New Zealand, Israel), people prefer a
group’s leader to be directive rather than participative,
and they are less interested in seeking feedback about
their impact on others in the group. They are more
likely to trust others in the group but do not express
that trust openly since they are more guarded in dis-
playing their emotions. The degree of individualism,
too, has marked effects on group processes. Most
Western, industrialized cultures are individualistic—
the United States, Australia, and Great Britain have the
highest scores on Hofstede’s individualism dimension—
whereas Eastern countries and those with more
agrarian rather than manufacturing economies tend to
be more communal (e.g., Columbia, Pakistan, Thai-
land). Chapter 3 considers the impact of these cultural
differences on a number of group processes, for
individualism is associated with self-promotion, con-
frontation, and independence, whereas collectivism
increases accommodation, compromising, the degree
of identification with groups and organizations,
and a preference to work in teams (Taras, Kirkman, &
Steel, 2010).
These differences in group processes across cul-
tures should not be altogether unexpected. Humans in
all societies join with other humans to form groups, but
the groups within any given culture may display unique
interpersonal processes, as may the individuals within
those groups and cultures. In consequence, even when
a finding is obtained in one particular country, it is best
to exercise caution before generalizing those findings
to other people, places, and situations.
24 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

topics examined in the review, was the scientific
study of groups and their dynamics (Richard,
Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003).
1-3b Understanding the Social World
The study of groups and their dynamics is not only
essential for understanding people, but also for
understanding organizations, communities, and
society itself. Groups are the interpersonal micro-
structures that link individuals to society. Societies
of all types, from the tribes of hunter/gatherers to
postindustrial societies, are defined by the small
groups that create them. Just as characteristics of
the specific individuals who belong to a group
shape that group’s basic nature, so the groups within
a social system determine that society’s culture and
institutions. Legal and political systems, religious
institutions, and educational and economic systems
are based, at core, on small groups and subgroups
of connected individuals. As sociologist Gary Alan
Fine (2012) writes, “the group, a level between self
and society, should properly have a central place in
sociological theorizing. … it creates allegiance;
members know each other, come to create a culture
and shared history, and can use the group as a basis of
connection to the larger society” (p. 32).
1-3c Applications to Practical
Problems
These days, anyone who wants to get something
accomplished should probably understand groups
and their dynamics. Groups are now the makers,
the builders, and producers of nearly everything
the world needs and consumes. Groups, too, are
the world’s deciders. Who judges guilt and inno-
cence? Juries. Who will decide how to maximize
an organization’s financial success? The company’s
executive team. Who will plan and execute a mil-
itary operation: elite forces such as the U.S. Navy
SEa, Air and Land teams (SEALs). Even medical
doctors, who once worked alone in their practice,
now more often than not are part of a medical
team whose members each perform functions
vital to the health of the patient. Groups, too,
are often used by those in mental health fields to
help individuals find the motivation to change
their thoughts and behaviors.
This pragmatic orientation gives the field of
group dynamics an interdisciplinary character.
Although the listing of disciplines that study group
dynamics in Table 1.2 is far from comprehensive, it
does convey the idea that the study of groups is not
limited to any one field. As A. Paul Hare and his
colleagues once noted, “This field of research does
not ‘belong’ to any one of the recognized social
sciences alone. It is the common property of all”
(Hare, Borgatta, & Bales, 1955, p. vi).
1 – 4 T H E V AL U E O F GR O U P S
In 1996, the Adventure Expedition climbed to the
top of the world’s tallest mountain. The group did
not survive that climb, however, for the one that set
off for the summit at midnight on April 10 never
returned. Some of the individual members man-
aged to descend from the peak but the original
group itself was gone.
For centuries, philosophers and scholars have
debated the value of groups. Groups are often the
arena for profound interpersonal conflicts that end in
violence and aggression. Even though group mem-
bers may cooperate with one another, they may also
engage in competition as they strive to outdo one
another. When individuals are members of very large
groups, such as crowds, they sometimes do things
that they would never do if they were acting indi-
vidually. Many of the worst decisions ever made in
the history of the world were made not by lone,
misguided individuals but by groups of people
who, despite working together, still managed to
make a disastrous choice. The Adventure Expedition
provides a case in point, for this group failed to take
advantage of the expertise and skill of its members.
Given these problems, perhaps “humans would do
better without groups” (Buys, 1978a, p. 123).
This satirical suggestion—Eliminate All
Groups!—is a reminder that groups are neither
all good nor all bad. Groups can and do result
in challenges, hardships, and even disaster for
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 25
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

their members and for society. Yet, they are so
“beneficial, if not essential, to humans” that “it
seems nonsensical to search for alternatives to
human groups” (Buys, 1978b, p. 568). Through
membership in groups, we define and confirm
our values and beliefs and take on or refine our
social identity. When we face uncertain situations,
we join groups to gain reassuring information
about our problems and security in companionship.
Even though we must sometimes bend to the will
of a group and its leaders, through groups we can
reach goals that would elude us if we attempted
them as individuals. Our groups are sometimes
filled with conflict, but by resolving this conflict,
we learn how to relate with others more effec-
tively. Groups are the bedrock of humans’ social
existence, and we must accept the charge of
understanding them.
T A B L E 1.2 Interdisciplinary Interest in Groups and Group Processes
Discipline Topics
Anthropology Groups in cross-cultural contexts; meetings and gatherings; evolutionary
perspectives
Architecture and design Planning spaces to maximize group–environment fit; design of spaces for groups
(e.g., offices, classrooms, theaters)
Business and industry Work motivation; productivity in organizational settings; team building; goal set-
ting; management and leadership
Communication Information transmission in groups; discussion; decision making; problems in
communication; networks
Computer science Online groups and networks, computer-based groups support systems, computer
programming in groups
Criminal justice Organization of law enforcement agencies; gangs and criminal groups; jury
deliberations
Education Classroom groups; team teaching; class composition and educational outcomes
Engineering Design of human systems, including problem-solving teams; group approaches to
software design
Mental health Therapeutic change through groups; sensitivity training; training groups; self-help
groups; group psychotherapy
Political science Leadership; intergroup and international relations; political influence; power
Psychology Personality and group behavior; problem solving; perceptions of other people;
motivation; conflict
Science and technology The science of team science; creativity and collaborative discovery
Social work Team approaches to treatment; community groups; family counseling; groups
and adjustment
Sociology Self and society; influence of norms on behavior; role relations; deviance
Sports and recreation Team performance; effects of victory and failure; cohesion and performance
26 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P TE R R E V I E W
What are groups?
1. No two groups are identical to each other, but
a group, by definition, is two or more indivi-
duals who are connected by and within social
relationships.
■ Groups vary in size from dyads and triads
to very large aggregations, such as mobs
and audiences. The most commonly found
groups include only two or three members
(James, 1951).
■ The relations that connect members vary
in type, strength, and duration; some are
more psychological than interpersonal.
2. Definitions of groups vary, with some focus-
ing on such qualities as communication,
influence, interdependence, shared identity,
and so on.
What are the four basic types of groups?
1. A number of different types of groups have
been identified.
■ Primary groups are relatively small, person-
ally meaningful groups that are highly
unified. Cooley (1909) suggested such
groups are primary agents of socialization.
■ Members of social groups, such as work
groups, clubs, and congregations, interact
with one another over an extended period
of time. Such groups are a key source of
members’ social capital (Putnam, 2000).
■ Collectives are relatively large aggregations
or groups of individuals who display
similarities in actions and outlook.
■ Members of a social category share some
common attribute or are related in some
way.
2. Social categories, even though based on
similarity rather than interaction, often influ-
ence members’ social identity (Tajfel, 1974) and
perceivers’ stereotypes.
What distinguishes one group from another?
1. Composition: Each person who belongs to a
group defines, in part, the nature of the group.
2. Boundaries: Groups’ boundaries define who is
a member and who is not, although open
groups and social networks are more permeable
than closed groups.
3. Size: The number of possible relations in a
group increases exponentially as groups
increase in size. The social brain hypothesis
suggests humans’ advanced cognitive capacity
evolved to meet the informational demands of
living in large groups (Dunbar, 2008)
4. Interaction: Bales’ (1950) Interaction Process
Analysis (IPA) system distinguishes between
task interaction and relationship interaction.
5. Interdependence: Groups create various types of
dependencies among members (e.g., unilateral,
reciprocal).
6. Structure: Group interaction is patterned by
group structure, including roles, norms, and
interpersonal relations.
7. Goals: Groups seek a variety of goals, such as
those specified by McGrath (1984): generating,
choosing, negotiating, and executing.
8. Origin: Planned groups (concocted and
founded) are deliberately formed, but emergent
groups (circumstantial and self-organizing)
come into existence gradually over time
(Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000).
9. Unity: Group cohesion, or cohesiveness, is the
unity of a group.
10. Entitativity: The perception of entitativity
(groupness), according to Campbell (1958a),
is substantially influenced by common fate,
similarity, and proximity cues within an
aggregation.
■ Research conducted by Lickel and his
colleagues (2000) suggests that people
spontaneously draw distinctions among
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 27
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

primary groups, social groups, collectives,
and more general social categories.
■ The Thomas Theorem, applied to groups,
suggests that if individuals think an aggre-
gate is “real”—a true group—then the
group will have important interpersonal
consequences for those in the group and
for those who are observing it (Thomas &
Thomas, 1928).
■ Groups that are high in entitativity are
assumed to have a basic essence that defines
the nature of their members (essentialism).
What are group dynamics?
1. Group dynamics are the interpersonal processes
that occur in and between groups over time,
including the following:
■ Formative processes, such as the need to
belong to and affiliate in groups, contex-
tual factors that promote the formation of
groups, and the development of group
cohesion (Chapters 3–5)
■ Influence processes, including aspects of
group structure (norms, roles, relation-
ships), conformity and dissent, social
power, obedience to group authority, and
leadership (Chapters 6–9)
■ Performance processes, such as group
productivity, social motivation, working in
teams, and collaborative decision making
(Chapters 10–12)
■ Conflict processes within groups—
intragroup conflict—and between
groups—intergroup conflict (Chapters 13
and 14)
■ Contextual processes that are dependent on
the group’s physical setting and specific pur-
pose, including change-promoting groups
and large collectives (Chapters 15–17)
2. Tuckman’s (1965) theory of group develop-
ment assumes that over time most groups
move through five stages: forming, storming,
norming, performing, and adjourning
Why study groups and their dynamics?
1. Lewin (1951) first used the phrase group
dynamics to describe the powerful processes
that take place in groups, but group dynamics
also refers to the scientific study of groups
(Cartwright & Zander, 1968).
2. Individuals are commonly members of groups
rather than isolated from them, so to under-
stand people one must understand groups.
■ Due to the fundamental attribution error, the
influence of groups on individuals is often
underestimated, particularly by individuals
raised in more individualistic, Western
cultures.
■ Groups alter their members’ attitudes,
values, and perceptions. Triplett’s (1898)
study of group performance demonstrated
the impact of one person on another, but
some groups (primary groups, cults, etc.)
influence members in substantial and
enduring ways.
■ A review of 25,000 studies indicated that
hypotheses about groups yielded clearer
findings than studies of other social
psychological topics.
3. Groups influence society.
■ Groups mediate the connection between
individuals and society at large (Fine, 2012).
■ Hofstede’s theory of national cultures
identifies the key dimensions of variation
that influence groups and their members,
including power distance, individualism,
masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance
(Hofstede et al., 2010).
4. Applied studies of groups and their dynamics
yield solutions to a number of practical pro-
blems making the study of groups relevant to
many professional and scientific fields of study
(Hare et al., 1955).
5. Despite the many problems caused by groups
(competition, conflict, poor decisions), humans
could not survive without groups.
28 C H A P T ER 1
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

RESOURCES
Chapter Case: The Adventure Consultants Guided
Expedition
■ Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer (1997) is an
engagingly written description of the group
that attempted to climb Mt. Everest in 1996
(see, too, Boukreev & DeWalt, 1997).
Introduction to Groups
■ Encyclopedia of Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, edited by John M. Levine and
Michael A. Hogg (2010), is a two-volume,
998-page compendium of current knowl-
edge about groups and their relations, with
over 300 entries ranging from action research
to xenophobia.
■ Group Processes, edited by John Levine (2013),
includes chapters on all the key topics and
processes in the field of group dynamics,
including group composition, affective
processes, conflict and negotiation, influence,
performance, and decision-making.
Groups: Characteristics and Processes
■ “Elements of a Lay Theory of Groups” by
Brian Lickel, David L. Hamilton, and
Steven J. Sherman (2001) reviews the
perceptual processes that determine when
a group will be considered to be a true
group or just a gathering of unrelated
individuals.
■ Small Groups as Complex Systems by Holly
Arrow, Joseph E. McGrath, and Jennifer L.
Berdahl (2000) uses systems theory to
examine the formation, performance, and
dissolution of small, performance-focused
groups.
Contemporary Group Dynamics
■ “Prospects for Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations Research: A Review
of 70 Years’ Progress” by Georginia
Randsley de Moura, Tirza Leader, Joseph
Pelletier, and Dominic Abrams (2008)
documents the growing interest in group-
level analyses of interpersonal behavior
across a range of disciplines.
■ Tiny Publics: A Theory of Group Action and
Culture by Gary Alan Fine (2012) provides
a compelling argument for recognizing
the fundamental impact that groups and
group processes have on individuals,
organizations, communities, and cultures.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMIC S 29
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 2
Studying
Groups
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Just as researchers in the natural sciences use exact-
ing procedures to study aspects of the physical envi-
ronment, so do group researchers use scientific
methods to further their understanding of groups.
This chapter reviews the emergence of group dynam-
ics as a field of study before examining three key
components of the scientific method—measurement,
hypothesis testing, and theorizing. Researchers must
measure as precisely as possible group processes, col-
lect evidence to test the adequacy of their predictions
and assumptions, and develop theories that provide
coherent explanations for the group phenomenon
they study.
■ What assumptions do researchers make while
studying groups and their dynamics?
■ How do researchers measure individual and
group processes?
■ What are the key characteristics of and differences
between case, correlational, and experimental
studies of group processes?
■ What are the strengths and weaknesses of case,
correlational, and experimental methods?
■ Which theoretical perspectives guide researchers’
studies of groups?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
2-1 The Scientific Study of Groups
2-1a The Individual and the Group
2-1b The Multilevel Perspective
2-2 Measurement
2-2a Observation
2-2b Self-Report
2-3 Research Methods in Group Dynamics
2-3a Case Studies
2-3b Correlational Studies
2-3c Experimental Studies
2-3d Studying Groups: Issues and Implications
2-4 Theoretical Perspectives
2-4a Motivational Perspectives
2-4b Behavioral Perspectives
2-4c Systems Perspectives
2-4d Cognitive Perspectives
2-4e Biological Perspectives
2-4f Selecting a Theoretical Perspective
Chapter Review
Resources
30
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The Red Balloon Challenge Team won the
DARPA challenge not only because the members
were social network experts but also because they
were experts at working together as a team. DAR-
PA’s problem was too much for any single person
to solve: It required the skills, energy, and creativity
of a group whose members knew how to combine
their individual talents in group-level processes that
maximized their efficiency. And how did the team
acquire this knowledge of networks and groups?
Through research. As Sandy Pentland, the team’s
leader, explained, “If you want to get people to
coordinate or change their behavior, you have to
first and foremost deal with the existing web of
relationships, rather than treat people as isolated
individuals” (quoted in Chu, 2011). The team mea-
sured the strength and extent of the social network
they were building, both locally and globally. They
tested their assumptions about group processes in
order to identify assumptions that were not tenable
and ones that were consistent with their observa-
tions. They also sought to understand, more fully,
why their approach to the challenge succeeded
when others failed. They even developed a theory
of social mobilization processes that specified the
parameters of the “recursive incentive mechanisms”
The Red Balloon Challenge Team: The Science of Groups
“Find The Balloons!” was the challenge issued by
DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency)
on October 29, 2009. The contest’s rules were simple: If
you were the first to report the location of ten bright
red weather balloons tethered at fixed locations across
the continental United States, the $40,000 prize is
yours. DARPA announced the contest just one month
before the date they would be hoisting the balloons to
push competitors to be creative in their approach to
the problem. DARPA considered the search to be
unsolvable using conventional information-gathering
methods.
When Dr. Alex “Sandy” Pentland learned of the
challenge he asked his colleagues at Media Lab at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) if
they wanted to give it a go. Enthusiasm for the
contest built quickly, and before long Riley Crane,
Galen Pickard, Wei Pan, Manuel Cebrian, Anmol
Madan, and Iyad Rahwan joined with Pentland to
develop a method for finding the balloons in the least
amount of time. They had to work fast to devise
a strategy and put it into play, but they were
nonetheless confident: “We figured that we had a
chance of winning, because this was the sort of
thing we were expert at” (Pentland, 2014).
How could such a small group—only seven
strong—possibly locate all those balloons scattered
across the continental United States? The Red Balloon
Challenge Team knew that social media resources such
as Twitter and Facebook could be harnessed to find
the balloons, but they were unsure of how they could
convince people to share their observations with the
team. They debated alternatives, such as monitoring
Twitter for posts like “I saw a big red balloon on my
way to work today” or offering a portion of the prize
money to Internet celebrities with many Twitter and
Facebook followers. But then, just a few days before
the deadline, a new idea emerged during their discus-
sions. Instead of just offering a reward to the first
person on the Red Balloon Challenge Team to find a
balloon, why not also reward the person who invited
that person to the team? And why stop there? Why
not reward the entire chain of people who linked the
balloon finder back to their team? To implement this
idea, the team built an online registration page and
then used email, Twitter, and Facebook to promise
$2,000 to the first person who submitted the correct
coordinates for a single balloon, $1,000 to the person
who invited that person to the challenge, $500 to the
person who invited the inviter, and so on.
As the message passed from person to person
across the Internet, thousands of people registered to
be searchers but even more important—they also asked
their friends to join. The result: Their team’s system
spawned a geographically broad, dense network of
highly motivated balloon searchers. So when DARPA
deployed the balloons at 10:00 AM on December 5,
2009, the Red Balloon Challenge Team’s network went
into action. Eight hours and fifty-two minutes later, the
team contacted DARPA with the verified coordinates of
the balloons in Oregon, Texas, Arizona, Tennessee,
Florida, Georgia, Virginia, California (2), and Delaware,
and DARPA declared the Red Balloon Challenge Team
the winner (DARPA, 2010).
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 31
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

responsible for their network’s success (Pickard
et al., 2011).
Group dynamics is more than a set of facts and
information about groups. It is also the means of
accumulating information about group processes
through scientific research. This chapter briefly
reviews the emergence of the scientific study of
groups before examining three key components of
the scientific method—measurement, hypothesis
testing, and theorizing—used by researchers to
study, explore, and understand groups.
2 – 1 T H E S C I E N T I F I C S T U D Y
OF GRO UPS
Group dynamics—the scientific field devoted to the
study of groups and their dynamics—was not estab-
lished by a single theorist or researcher who laid
down a set of clear-cut assumptions and principles.
Rather, group dynamics resulted from group pro-
cesses. One theorist would suggest an idea, another
might disagree, and the debate would continue until
consensus would be reached. Initially, researchers
were uncertain how to investigate their ideas empir-
ically, but through collaboration and, more often,
spirited competition, researchers developed new
methods for studying groups. World events also
influenced the study of groups, for the use of groups
in manufacturing, warfare, and therapeutic settings
stimulated the need to understand and improve such
groups.
These group processes shaped the field’s
paradigm. The philosopher of science, Thomas
S. Kuhn (1970), used that term to describe scien-
tists’ shared assumptions about the phenomena they
study. Kuhn maintained that when scientists learn
their field, they master not only the content of the
science—important discoveries, general principles,
facts, and so on—but also a way of looking at the
world that is passed on from one scientist to
another. These shared beliefs and unstated assump-
tions give them a worldview—a way of looking at
that part of the world that they find most interest-
ing. The paradigm determines the questions they
consider worth studying, using the methods that
are most appropriate.
What are the core elements of the field’s para-
digm? What do researchers notice when they
observe a group acting in a particular way? What
kinds of group processes do they find fascinating,
and which ones do they find less interesting? We
examine these questions by considering some of the
basic assumptions of the field and tracing them back
to their source in the work of early sociologists,
psychologists, and social psychologists. We then
shift from the historical to the contemporary and
review practices and procedures used by researchers
when they collect information about groups (see
Kerr & Tindale, 2014).
2-1a The Individual and the Group
When anthropology, psychology, sociology, and
the other social sciences emerged as unique disci-
plines in the late 1800s, the dynamics of groups
became a topic of critical concern for all of them.
Sociologists discovered groups influence a society’s
religious, political, economic, and educational social
systems. Anthropologists’ investigations of the
world’s cultures noted similarities and differences
across among the world’s small-scale societies. Political
scientists’ studies of voting, public engagement, and
political parties led them to the study of small groups
of closely networked individuals. Gustave Le Bon
(1895), in his book the Psychology of Crowds
(Psychologie des Foules), concluded individuals are
transformed when they join a group. And the pre-
eminent psychologist of that period, Wilhelm
Wundt (1916), published his book Völkerpsychologie;
sometimes translated as “folk psychology,” but
another translation is “group psychology.” It com-
bined elements of anthropology and psychology by
examining the conditions and changes displayed by
social aggregates and how groups influence mem-
bers’ cognitive and perceptual processes (Forsyth &
Burnette, 2005).
paradigm Scientists’ shared assumptions about the phe-
nomena they study; also, a set of research procedures.
32 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Levels of Analysis Early theorists disagreed about
the level of analysis to take when studying groups.
Some favored a group-level analysis, for they recog-
nized that humans are the constitutive elements of
groups and that groups and their processes have a
profound impact on their members. Others advo-
cated for an individual-level analysis that focused on
the person in the group. Researchers who took this
approach sought to explain the behavior of each
group member, and they ultimately wanted to
know if psychological processes such as attitudes,
motivations, or personality were the true determi-
nants of social behavior (Steiner, 1974, 1983, 1986).
Sociological researchers tended to conduct
group-level analyses, and psychological researchers
favored individual-level analyses. Sociologist Émile
Durkheim (1897/1966), for example, traced a
highly personal phenomenon—suicide—back to
group-level processes. He concluded that indivi-
duals who are not members of friendship, family,
or religious groups can experience anomie and,
as a result, are more likely to commit suicide.
Durkheim strongly believed that widely shared
beliefs—what he called collective representations—are
the cornerstone of society. He wrote: “emotions
and tendencies are generated not by certain states
of individual consciousness, but by the conditions
under which the social body as a whole exists”
(Durkheim, 1892/2005, p. 76).
Other researchers questioned the need to go
beyond the individual to explain group behavior.
Psychologist Floyd Allport (1924), for example,
chose the individual in the group, and not the
group itself, as his unit of analysis when he wrote
that “nervous systems are possessed by individuals;
but there is no nervous system of the crowd” (p. 5).
Because Allport believed that “the actions of all are
nothing more than the sum of the actions of each
taken separately” (p. 5), he thought that a full under-
standing of the behavior of individuals in groups
could be achieved by studying the psychology of
the individual group members. Groups, according
to Allport, were not real entities and warned of the
group fallacy: “An individual can be said to ‘think’
or ‘feel’; but to say that a group does these things has
no ascertainable meaning beyond saying that so
many individuals do them” (Allport, 1962, p. 4).
He is reputed to have said, “You can’t trip over a
group.”
The Group Mind The idea of group mind (or
collective consciousness) brought the group- and
individual-level perspectives into clear opposition
(Szanto, 2014). Many have noted that group mem-
bers often act together, particularly when the
majority of the members share the same views,
attitudes, intentions, and so on. But early commen-
tators on the human condition, noting how people
sometimes engage in unusual forms of behavior
when in large crowds, suggested that such groups
may actually develop a group mind—a single, shared,
unifying consciousness. Le Bon (1895/1960, p. 23),
for example, wrote “Under certain circumstances, and
only under those circumstances, an agglomeration of
men presents new characteristics very different from
those of the individuals composing [the group].”
Durkheim, too, suggested that groups, rather than
being mere collections of individuals in a fixed pattern
of relationships with one another, were linked by an
“esprit de group” (group mind), for “A collectivity
has its own ways of thinking and feeling to which
its members bend but which are different from
those they would create if they were left to their
own devices” (Durkheim, 1900/1973, p. 17).
Researchers who preferred to study individuals
in groups and not groups themselves were willing
level of analysis The focus of study when examining a
multilevel process or phenomenon, such as the individ-
ual-level or the group-level of analysis.
group fallacy Explaining social phenomena in terms of
the group as a whole instead of basing the explanation on
the individual-level processes within the group; ascribing
psychological qualities, such as will, intentionality, and
mind, to a group rather than to the individuals within
the group.
group mind (or collective consciousness) A hypo-
thetical unifying mental force linking group members
together; the fusion of individual consciousness or mind
into a transcendent consciousness.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 33
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

to concede that group members often act as if they
were of one mind—they all respond very
similarly—but they rejected the idea that group
members shared a single conscious mental state. All-
port, for example, conducted extensive studies of
such group phenomena as rumors and morale dur-
ing wartime (Allport & Lepkin, 1943) and confor-
mity to standards (the J-curve hypothesis; Allport,
1934, 1961), but he continued to question the sci-
entific value of the term group. He did, however,
eventually conclude that individuals are often
bound together in “one inclusive collective structure”
but he could not bring himself to use the word
group to describe such collectives (Allport, 1962,
p. 17, italics in original).
The Reality of Groups Allport’s reluctance to
accept such dubious concepts as group mind helped
ensure the field’s scientific status. Researchers have
never found any evidence that group members are
linked by a psychic, telepathic connection that
creates a single group mind. But just because this
group-level concept has little foundation in fact
does not mean that other group-level concepts are
equally unreasonable. The Red Balloon Challenge
Team, for example, may not have shared a group
mind, but their work was significantly influenced
by group-level processes that could not be entirely
reduced down to individual members’ qualities.
Consider, for example, the group’s norms about
exchanging information, apportioning of work load,
and expressing emotions. As noted in Chapter 1, a
norm is a standard that describes what behaviors should
and should not be performed in a group. Norms are
not just individual members’ personal standards, for
they are shared among group members. Only when
members agree on a particular standard does it function
as a norm, so this concept is embedded at the level of
the group rather than at the level of the individual.
The idea that a norm is more than just the sum
of the individual beliefs of all the members of a
group was verified by Muzafer Sherif in 1936. Sherif,
Do Groups Have Minds?
Researchers continue to debate the idea of a group
having a mind, but most people are quite willing to
attribute a “mind” to a group.
Instructions. Rank these groups, from 1 to 5, giv-
ing a 1 to the group you feel can be credited with a
mind (the capacity to think collectively), a 2 to the next
most mindful group, and so on.
___ Twitter users
___ U.S. Congress
___ Boston Red Sox
___ Tax lawyers
___ Citibank
Interpretation: When psychologists Adam Waytz
and Liane Young (2012, p. 78) asked people to review a
list of groups and indicate if each group on the list had
a mind (“the capacity to make plans, have intentions,
and think for itself”), they discovered that general cat-
egories of people, such as all blondes or Facebook users,
were not thought to have minds, but that smaller, more
cohesive aggregates—such as organizations (e.g., Bank
of America), teams (e.g., Boston Red Sox), and decision-
making groups (e.g., the Supreme Court)—received
higher ratings of mind.
Interestingly, they also discovered a trade-off
between the group- and individual-level conceptions
of mind: as judgments of group mind went up, esti-
mates of individual mind went down. Those who were
members of groups that the perceiver thought had
mind-like qualities were viewed as less mindful indivi-
duals, whereas those individuals who were members
of groups that did not seem to have group minds were
viewed as having minds of their own. Because attribu-
tions of mind to groups increased along with percep-
tions of the group’s cohesiveness (entitativity),
members of low-cohesive groups were held more
accountable for their group’s actions, whereas mem-
bers of highly cohesive groups were given less personal
responsibility. Here, the group was held accountable,
since it was thought to have a “mind.” (The people
who took part in this study ranked the groups as fol-
lows: U.S. Congress (1), Citibank (2), Boston Red Sox (3),
Tax lawyers (4), and Twitter users (5).)
34 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

a social psychologist, deliberately created norms by
asking groups of men to state aloud their estimates of
the distance that a dot of light had moved. He found
that the men gradually accepted a standard estimate
in place of their own idiosyncratic judgments. He
also found, however, that even when the men
were later given the opportunity to make judgments
alone, they still based their estimates on the group’s
norm. Moreover, once the group’s norm had devel-
oped, Sherif removed members one at a time and
replaced them with fresh members. Each new mem-
ber changed his behavior until it matched the
group’s norm. If the individuals in the group are
completely replaceable, then where does the group
norm “exist”? It exists at the group level rather than
the individual level (MacNeil & Sherif, 1976).
Lewin and Interactionism The debate between
individual-level and group-level approaches waned,
in time, as theorists developed stronger models for
understanding group-level process. Lewin’s (1951)
theoretical analyses of groups were particularly
influential. His field theory is premised on the prin-
ciple of interactionism, which assumes that the
actions, processes, and responses of people in groups
(“behavior”) are determined by the interaction
of the person and the environment. The formula
B ¼ f(P,E) summarizes this assumption. In a
group context, this formula implies that group
members’ reactions (B) are a function (f ) of the
interaction of their personal characteristics (P)
with environmental factors (E), which include fea-
tures of the group, the group members, and the
situation. Lewin believed that a group is a unified
system with emergent properties that cannot be
fully understood by piecemeal examination. Adopt-
ing the Gestalt dictum, “The whole is greater than
the sum of the parts,” he maintained that when
individuals merged into a group something new
was created and that the new product itself had to
be the object of study.
Many group phenomena are consistent with
Lewin’s belief that a group is more than the sum of
the individual members. A group’s cohesiveness, for
example, goes beyond the mere attraction of each indi-
vidual member for one another. Groups sometimes
perform tasks far better—and far worse—than might
be expected, given the talents of their individual mem-
bers. Groups sometimes (although rarely) unite mem-
bers so intensely that members’ sense of personal
identity is overwhelmed by a collective one. In some
groups, patterns of thought, feeling, and action emerge
spontaneously without any deliberate intervention by
the group members (Kozlowski et al., 2013). Some
groups possess supervening qualities “that cannot be
reduced to or described as qualities of its participants”
(Sandelands & St. Clair, 1993, p. 443).
2-1b The Multilevel Perspective
In time, the rift between individual-level and group-
level researchers closed as the unique contributions
of each perspective were integrated in a multilevel
perspective on groups. This perspective does not
favor a specific level of analysis when examining
human behavior, for it argues for examining pro-
cesses that range along the micro–meso–macro con-
tinuum (see Figure 2.1). Micro-level factors include
the qualities, characteristics, and actions of the indi-
vidual members. Meso-level factors are group-level
qualities of the groups themselves, such as their cohe-
siveness, their size, their composition, and their struc-
ture. Macro-level factors are the qualities and processes
of the larger collectives that enfold the groups, such as
communities, organizations, or societies. A multilevel
analysis of the Red Balloon Challenge Team, for
example, would not consider just the member’s per-
sonal qualities (a micro-level factor), or just the
group’s outstanding teamwork (a meso-level factor),
B ¼ f(P,E) The law of interactionism that states each
person’s behavioral, cognitive, and emotional reactions
(“behavior”), B, are a function of his or her personal
qualities, P, the social environment, E, and the interac-
tion of these personal qualities with factors present in the
social environment (proposed in Lewin, 1951).
multilevel perspective The view that recognizes that a
complete explanation of group processes and phenomena
requires multiple levels of analysis, including individual
(micro), group (meso), and organizational or societal
(macro) level.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 35
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

or the intellectual climate of MIT (a macro-level
factor), but how all these factors (and many more)
combined to generate a highly effective group.
Social psychologist Richard Hackman and his col-
leagues’ studies of performing orchestras illustrate the
complexity of a multilevel approach (Allmendinger,
Hackman, & Lehman, 1996; Hackman, 2003). In
their quest to understand why some professional
orchestras outperformed others, they measured an
array of micro-, meso-, and macro-level variables. At
the micro-level, they studied the individual musicians:
Were they well-trained and highly skilled? Were they
satisfied with their work and highly motivated? Did
they like each other and feel that they played well
together? At the group-level (meso-level), they con-
sidered the gender composition of the group (number
of men and women players), the quality of the music
the orchestra produced, and the financial resources
available to the group. They also took note of one key
macro-level variable: the location of the orchestras
in one of four different countries (the United States,
England, East Germany, or West Germany).
Their work uncovered complex interrelations
among these three sets of variables. As might be
expected, one micro-level variable—the skill of
the individual players—substantially influenced the
quality of the performance of the group. However,
one critical determinant of the talent of individual
players was the financial health of the orchestra;
better-funded orchestras could afford to hire better
performers. Affluent orchestras could also afford
music directors who worked more closely with
the performers, and orchestras led by the most
skilled directors performed better than expected
given the caliber of their individual players.
The country where the orchestra was based was
also an important determinant of the group mem-
bers’ satisfaction with their orchestra, but only when
one also considered the gender composition of the
orchestras. Far fewer women were members of
orchestras in West Germany, but as the proportion
of women in orchestras increased, members became
increasingly negative about their group. In contrast,
in the United States with its directive employment
regulations, more women were included in orches-
tras, and the proportion of women in the groups was
less closely related to attitude toward the group.
Given their findings, Hackman and his colleagues
concluded that the answer to most of their questions
about orchestras was “it depends”: on the individuals
in the group, on the nature of the orchestra, and on
the social context where the orchestra is located.
Macro-level
Meso-level
Micro-level
F I G U R E 2.1 A multilevel perspective on groups. Researchers who study groups recognize that individuals (micro-
level) are nested in groups (meso-level), but that these groups are themselves nested in larger social units, such as organiza-
tions, communities, tribes, nations, and societies (the macro-level). Researchers may focus on one level in this multilevel
system, such as the group level, but they must be aware that these groups are embedded in a complex of other relationships.
36 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

2-2 M EASU REME NT
Good science requires good measurement. As the nat-
ural sciences developed, improved telescopes, micro-
scopes, scales, meters, and gauges all contributed to
better data, which in turn led to more precise descrip-
tions and more comprehensive theory. Similarly, the
science of groups could not progress until researchers
developed methods for measuring more precisely the
qualities of individuals who were in groups, but also
the characteristics of groups and the processes that
occurred within them. Early observers spoke of both
individual-level qualities, such as attitudes, values,
beliefs, traits, leadership skills, and the like and group-
level qualities, such as imitation, contagion, group
beliefs, and solidarity, but only when they devised
means of measuring these process did the study of
groups transform from speculation to science.
2-2a Observation
Researchers who study groups often begin with
observation: watching and recording a group’s
activities and interactions. Groups are complicated,
multifaceted, and dynamic, but they are observable.
We can watch the members communicating with
one another, performing their tasks, making deci-
sions, confronting other groups, seeking new mem-
bers and expelling old ones, accepting direction from
their leaders, and so on. When researchers document
executives’ daily meetings (Morrill, 1980), study
recordings of a ship’s crew as it copes with a serious
equipment malfunction (Hutchins, 1991), accom-
pany members of a gang as they deal with challenges
from other gangs (Venkatesh, 2008), go online with
a raid group in World of Warcraft (Brainbridge,
2010), or infiltrate a doomsday group that predicts
the end of the world (Festinger, Riecken, & Schach-
ter, 1956), they are using observational methods.
Observation may involve overt observation, covert
observation, or participant observation.
Overt and Covert Observation Researchers
who use overt observation make no attempt to
hide what they are doing from the people they
are studying. Sociologist William Foote Whyte
(1943), for example, in his classic ethnography
Street Corner Society, openly discussed his identity
and interests with the groups in the neighborhood
he studied. When he became interested in the life
experiences of a group of young men who joined
together regularly at a particular street corner in
their neighborhood—a street corner gang—he
joined one of the groups: the Nortons. He let the
Nortons know that he would be studying their
behavior for a book he was researching.
Other researchers, in contrast, prefer to use
covert observation, whereby they record the
group’s activities without the group’s knowledge.
Researchers interested in how groups organize them-
selves by race and sex in schools sit quietly in the
corner of the lunchroom and watch as students
choose their seats. To study gatherings of people in
a public park, a researcher may set up a surveillance
camera and record where people congregate through-
out the day. So long as researchers observe people in
public places, and the things people are doing in those
places do not expose them to “risk of criminal or civil
liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial
standing, employability, or reputation,” then such
research is considered ethically permissible (Office
for Human Research Protections, 2009).
Participant Observation Some researchers
observe groups from a vantage point outside the
group, say by studying video recordings of group
meetings. But some researchers, like Whyte, use
participant observation: they watch and record
observation A measurement method that involves
watching and recording the activities of individuals and
groups.
overt observation Openly watching and recording
information with no attempt to conceal one’s research
purposes.
covert observation Watching and recording informa-
tion on the activities of individuals and groups without
their knowledge.
participant observation Watching and recording
group activities as a member of the group or participant
in the social process.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 37
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the group’s activities and interactions while tak-
ing part in the group’s social process (Pratt &
Kim, 2012). Whyte went bowling with the
Nortons, gambled with the Nortons, and even
lent money to some of the members. He worked
so closely with the group that Doc, one of the
key figures in the Nortons, considered himself
to be a collaborator in the research project with
Whyte, rather than one of the individuals being
studied (Whyte, Greenwood, & Lazes, 1991). A
diagram of the Nortons, shown in Figure 2.2,
includes a member named “Bill”; that would be
Bill Whyte himself.
When researchers immerse themselves in group
settings like those sampled in Table 2.1, their
accounts are often detailed, nuanced, and compel-
ling, depending on the skill and experience of the
observer. Observation yields a particularly rich type
of data: the actual words used by members in their
discussions and conversations, impressions drawn
from nonverbal expressions, information about the
members’ appearance and location in relationship
to each other, and the sequences of behaviors that
Who Are the Subjects: Groups or Individuals?
Researchers who study groups must be careful to not
study only individuals (trees) or only groups (forests), but
both the individuals and the groups (the forests and the
trees). Imagine, for example, you were curious about the
relationship between group members’ loyalty to their
group and how well the group performs. So, you contact
20 of the groups that took part in the DARPA find-
the-balloons contest, ask five members of each group
about their group loyalty, and also record how many
balloons their group tracked down. But, when it comes to
analyze the data, you face a basic question. How many
subjects are in your study: 20 groups or 100 individuals?
The answer depends on the level of analysis you
take in your study. If you undertake a micro-level
analysis, you may predict that members who have
been in a group longer tend to be more loyal to the
group or that members with certain personality char-
acteristics will contribute more to the group. But if you
shift upward to the group, or meso-level, the group
will be your unit of analysis. You may decide, for
example, to average together each member’s
responses to the “Are you loyal?” question to get an
index of group loyalty, but only if most of the mem-
bers give similar answers to this question. You may
also rephrase the question so that it asks about the
group: “Are most members loyal to the group?”
Researchers must also exercise special care when
examining their data so that they do not attribute
effects caused by group-level processes to individual-
level processes and vice versa. You might be thrilled, for
example, to find that members’ individual loyalty scores
predict the regularity of their attendance at meetings,
until you realize that people who are in the same
groups have unusually similar loyalty scores due to
some group-level process. When you explore further,
you discover that members’ loyalty is determined not by
each member’s commitment to the group, but by the
loyalty norms of the groups. As a result, most of the
variability in loyalty is not between people but between
groups, so that when you take into account which
group a person belongs to, the effect of individual-level
loyalty disappears (Kenny & Kashy, 2014).
Long John
Doc
DannyMike
Angelo
Fred
Lou
Nutsy
Frank
Joe
Alec
Carl
Tommy
Bill
F I G U R E 2.2 The core members of the Nortons, the
street corner gang described by William Foote Whyte in his
book Street Corner Society. Lines between each member
indicate interdependence, and members who are placed
above others in the chart had more influence than those in
the lower positions. Doc was the recognized leader of the
group, and Mike and Danny were second in terms of status.
Whyte (“Bill” in the diagram), the researcher, was con-
nected to the group through Doc (Whyte, 1955).
SOURCE: From Street Corner Society by W. F. Whyte, p. 13. Copyright
© 1943 by University of Chicago Press. Reprinted by permission.
38 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

unfold within the group over time. In many cases,
observers can record the actions and events that
transpire in the group more accurately than can
members caught up with the group’s interaction.
Given the complexity of groups and their dynam-
ics, researchers who use participant observers are
enjoined to improve their records by keeping
notes during the course of the observation and
using these records to develop a more detailed
account of the latest group episode as soon as
they can following each period of observation
(Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011).
Reactivity and the Hawthorne Effect Whyte, as
a participant observer, gained access to information
that would have been hidden from an external
observer. His techniques also gave him a very
detailed understanding of the gang. Unfortunately,
his presence in the group may have changed the
group itself. Doc remarked, “You’ve slowed me
down plenty since you’ve been down here. Now,
when I do something, I have to think what Bill
Whyte would want to know about it and how I
can explain it. Before, I used to do things by
instinct” (Whyte, 1943, p. 301).
T A B L E 2.1 Examples of Ethnographic Research
Type of Group Summary Key Concepts
Street corner gangs
(Whyte, 1943)
Study of groups in an economically challenged
neighborhood in Boston (“Cornerville”), focusing on
a group of men in their 20s who congregate on a
Norton street corner
leadership, status and perfor-
mance, mutual obligations,
social injustice
Doomsday group
(Festinger, Riecken, &
Schachter, 1956)
Analysis of a group that formed around a woman
who believed the end of the world was approaching
and the group’s response when the prophecy was
disconfirmed
cognitive dissonance, communi-
cation following belief
disconfirmation
Work teams
(Roy, 1959)
Describes the rituals used by a group of workers
performing highly repetitive tasks that increase
group cohesion and provide entertainment over the
course of the workday
rituals, cohesion, conflict, group
socialization
Mushroom collectors
(Fine, 2003)
Examines the activities and interpersonal dynamics
(trust, keeping secrets, storytelling) of voluntary
communities (mycological societies) who search for
edible mushrooms (morels)
interpersonal trust, social
exchange, cohesion, leisure
organizations
Search and rescue
teams (Lois, 2003)
Reports the dynamics of a search and rescue squad,
including status allocations and group-level
mechanisms that control individual’s attempts to
claim heroic status
emotion management, edge-
work, heroism and altruism,
social support
Inner city gangs
(Venkatesh, 2008)
Describes the inner workings of the Black Kings, a
group of young men living in public housing in Chi-
cago, revealing the economy and stability of a com-
munity that nonmembers considered dysfunctional
and unstable
negotiation, intergroup conflict,
economic factors that sustain
alternative community practices
Online groups
(Bainbridge, 2010)
Reports the complex dynamics of altruism, competi-
tion, and leisure in the online multiplayer game
World of Warcraft
rituals, trust and deviancy,
sources of group satisfaction
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 39
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

This tendency for individuals to act differently
when they know they are being observed is often
called the Hawthorne effect, after research con-
ducted by psychologist Elton Mayo and his associates
at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric
Company. These researchers studied productivity by
measuring how workers reacted to changes in the
work place. First, they moved one group of women
to a separate room and monitored their performance
carefully. Then they manipulated features of the work
situation, such as the lighting in the room and the
duration of rest periods. They were surprised when
all the changes led to improved worker output. Dim
lights, for example, raised efficiency, but so did bright
lights. Mayo’s team concluded that the shift members
were working harder because they were being
observed and because they felt that the company
was taking a special interest in them (Mayo, 1945;
Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939).
Reviews of the Hawthorne studies suggested
that other factors besides the scrutiny of the research-
ers contributed to the increased productivity of the
groups. The Hawthorne groups worked in smaller
teams, members could talk easily among themselves,
and their managers were usually less autocratic than
those who worked the main floor of the factory, and
all these variables—and not observation alone—
contributed to the performance gains. Nonetheless,
the term Hawthorne effect continues to be used to
describe any change in behavior that occurs when
people feel they are being observed by others (see
Chiesa & Hobbs, 2008; Olson et al., 2004).
Are Researchers Studying Online Groups?
When people think of a group, they tend to think of a
gathering of individuals in some specific location, but
all kinds of groups—from support groups, work teams,
clubs, and gamers—congregate via the Internet. These
groups go by various names—cybergroups, e-groups,
virtual teams, and online groups—but they all rely on
computer-based information technologies to build and
sustain social relationships among the members (see
Amichia-Hamburger, 2013).
Researchers use a variety of methods to study the
dynamics of online groups, including participant obser-
vation (Ducheneaut et al., 2006; Nardi & Harris, 2006).
The sociologist William Sims Bainbridge (2007, 2010),
for example, studied, via participation, a number of
groups, including the Process Church of the Final
Judgement, Scientology, the John Birch Society, and
Hare Krishna, but for 2 years, he spent 2,300 hours as
Maxrohn (a priest), Catullus (a blood elf), and a number
of other alts in WoW. As a new member (noob, newb,
nubie), he learned the world’s implicit rules pertaining
to privacy, vulgarity, sharing, and collaboration. He dis-
covered, for example, that it is unethical to take loot
(resources, rewards) that one has not earned or does
not need, and a person who gains a reputation for such
misbehavior (a loot ninja) will be shunned by others. He
“leveled up” his character over time by taking on
quests, developing skills and crafts, and by learning
tricks and techniques by socializing with other players in
the taverns, towns, and cities. When he reached the
point where he could attempt more difficult instances,
he joined a guild and in time became its leader.
Bainbridge’s experiences, as reported in his book
The Warcraft Civilization, attest to the similarity
between group-level processes in WoW and in offline
environments. The groups in WoW displayed a range
of human motivations, from apathy to altruism to
greed. Players established various types of social con-
nections with each other, from weak acquaintance ties
to more robust alliances that eventually created
friendships in the non-WoW world. Players also
worked together effectively to achieve their goals but,
in some cases, failed miserably despite the best of
intentions on the part of all players. As one researcher
concluded, the groups within WoW are “not that dif-
ferent from groups in the physical world like clubs,
sports teams, or even workgroups in organizations.”
This comment, ironically, was made by Kartuni, a
character in WoW, played by social network researcher
Nicolas Ducheneaut during a research conference con-
vened in WoW itself (Bainbridge, 2010, p. 221).
online group (or e-group) Two or more individuals
who interact with each other solely or primarily through
computer-based information technologies (e.g., email,
instant messaging, and social networking sites) rather
than through face-to-face interactions.
Hawthorne effect A change in behavior that occurs
when individuals know they are being observed or studied.
40 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Structuring Observations Whyte conducted a
qualitative study of the Nortons. Like an ethnog-
rapher, he tried to watch the Nortons without any
preconceptions so that he would not unwittingly
confirm his prior expectations. Nor did he keep
track of the frequencies of any of the behaviors he
noted or quantify members’ reactions to the events
that occurred in the group. Instead, he watched,
took notes, and reflected on what he saw before
drawing general conclusions about the group.
Qualitative methods generate data, but the data
describe general qualities and characteristics rather
than precise quantities and amounts. Such data are
often textual rather than numeric and may include
verbal descriptions of group interactions developed
by multiple observers, notes from conversations
with group members, or in-depth case descriptions
of one or more groups. Such qualitative observa-
tional methods require an impartial researcher who
is a keen observer of groups and one who is careful
to remain objective (Dollar & Merrigan, 2002).
Structured observational methods offer
researchers a way to increase the objectivity of
their observations. Like biologists who classify liv-
ing organisms under categories such as phylum and
order or psychologists who classify people as to per-
sonality type, researchers who use a structured
observational method classify each group behavior
into an objectively definable category. First, they
decide which behaviors to track. Then they
develop unambiguous descriptions of each type of
behavior they will code. Next, using these behav-
ioral definitions as a guide, they note the occur-
rence and frequency of these targeted behaviors as
they watch the group. This type of research would
be a quantitative study, because it yields numeric
results (Meyers & Seibold, 2012).
Sociologist Robert Freed Bales developed two
of the best-known structured coding systems for
studying groups (Bales, 1950, 1970, 1980). As
noted in Chapter 1, Bales spent many years watch-
ing group members interact with each other, and
he often used the Interaction Process Analysis
(IPA), to structure his observations. Researchers
who use the IPA classify each behavior performed
by a group member into 1 of the 12 categories
shown in Figure 2.3. Six of these categories (1–3 and
10–12) pertain to socioemotional, relationship interac-
tion. As noted in Chapter 1, these types of actions
Did They Watch the Same Game?
Social psychologists Albert Hastorf and Hadley Cantril’s (1954) classic “They Saw a Game” study demonstrated just how
easily one’s biases can influence what one “sees” a group doing. They arranged for college students from Dartmouth
and Princeton to watch a film of their two teams playing a football game. The game they showed the students was a
particularly rough one, with a number of penalties and injuries on both sides. But when Hastorf and Cantril asked
Dartmouth and Princeton students to record the number and severity of the infractions that had been committed by
the two teams, Princeton students were not very accurate. Dartmouth students saw Princeton commit about the same
number of infractions as Dartmouth. Princeton students, however, saw the Dartmouth team commit more than twice
as many infractions as the Princeton team. Apparently, the Princeton observers’ preference for their own team slightly
distorted their perceptions (see Jussim et al., 2016).
qualitative study A research procedure that collects and
analyzes nonnumeric, unquantified types of data, such as
verbal descriptions, text, images, or objects.
structured observational methods Research proce-
dures that create a systematic record of group interaction
and activities by classifying (coding) each overt expres-
sion or action into a defined category.
quantitative study A research procedure that collects
and analyzes numeric data, such as frequencies, propor-
tions, or amounts.
Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) A structured cod-
ing system used to measure group activity by classifying
each observed behavior into one of 12 categories, such as
“shows solidarity” or “asks for orientation” (developed
by Robert F. Bales).
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 41
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

sustain or weaken interpersonal ties within the
group. Complimenting another person is an example
of a positive relationship behavior, whereas insulting
a group member is a negative relationship behavior.
The other six categories (4–9) pertain to instrumen-
tal, task interaction, such as giving and asking for infor-
mation, opinions, and suggestions related to the
problem the group faces. When using the IPA,
observers must listen to the group discussion, break
the content down into behavioral units, and then
categorize. If Riley, during a meeting to plan out
the red balloon hunt strategy, asks to no one in
particular “Should we use the online database at
smart-ip.net to confirm IP addresses?” and Galen
answers, “Yes,” observers write “Riley–Group”
beside Category 8 (Riley asks for opinion from
whole group) and “Galen–Riley” beside Category
5 (Galen gives opinion to Riley). If Manual later
angrily tells the entire group, “We are never going
to get this finished in time,” the coders write
“Manual–Group” beside Category 12 (Manual
shows antagonism toward the entire group).
Bales (1999, xvi) once wrote, “I have always felt
the compulsion to ground my thinking in empirical
data.” In consequence, he improved his system as he
continued to study groups in a variety of contexts.
Shows solidarity, raises other’s status,
gives help, reward
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL
AREA:
POSITIVE
REACTIONS
TASK AREA:
ATTEMPTED
ANSWERS
TASK AREA:
QUESTIONS
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL
AREA:
NEGATIVE
REACTIONS
1
2A
B
C
D
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Shows tension release, jokes, laughs,
shows satisfaction
Agrees, shows passive acceptance,
understands, concurs, complies
Gives suggestion, direction,
implying autonomy for other
Gives opinion, evaluation, analysis,
expresses feeling, wish
Gives orientation, information,
repeats, clarifies, confirms
Asks for orientation, information,
repetition, confirmation
Asks for opinion, evaluation,
analysis, expression of feeling
Asks for suggestion, direction,
possible ways of action
Disagrees, shows passive rejection,
formality, withholds help
Shows tension, asks for help,
withdraws out of field
Shows antagonism, deflates other’s status,
defends or asserts self
a b d e fc
F I G U R E 2.3 Robert F. Bales’ original Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) coding system for structuring observa-
tions of groups. Areas A (1–3) and D (10–12) are used to code socioemotional, relationship interactions. Areas B (4–6)
and C (7–9) are used to code task interaction. The lines to the right (labeled a through f) indicate problems of orienta-
tion (a), evaluation (b), control (c), decision (d), tension management (e), and integration (f).
SOURCE: Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem-solving. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(4), 485–495.
42 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

His newer version, which generates more global sum-
maries of group behavior, is called the Systematic
Multiple Level Observation of Groups (SYM-
LOG). SYMLOG coders use 26 different categories
instead of only 12, with these categories signaling
members’ dominance–submissiveness, friendliness–
unfriendliness, and accepting–opposing the task ori-
entation of established authority (Hare, 2005).
When a group begins discussing a problem, for
example, most behaviors may be concentrated in
the dominant, friendly, and accepting authority cat-
egories. But if the group argues, then scores in the
unfriendly, opposing authority categories may begin
to climb. Chapter 6 uses SYMLOG to describe
group role relations.
Reliability and Validity of Observations Struc-
tured observation systems, because they can be used
to record the number of times a particular type of
behavior has occurred, make possible comparison
across categories, group members, and even different
groups. Moreover, if observers are carefully trained, a
structured coding system, such as IPA and SYMLOG,
will yield data that are both reliable and valid.
■ Reliability: a measure’s consistency across
time, components, and raters. For example,
if a rater, when she hears the statement,
“This group is a boring waste of time,” always
classifies it as a Category 12 behavior, then
the rating is reliable.
■ Interrater reliability: consistency across
raters. For example, if different raters, working
independently, all code the statement similarly,
the rating has interrater reliability.
■ Validity: the extent to which the technique
measures what it is supposed to measure. The
IPA, for example, is valid only if observers’
ratings actually measure the amount of rela-
tionship and task interaction in the group. If
the observers are incorrect in their coding, or if
the categories are not accurate indicators of
relationship and task interaction, the scores are
not valid (Bakeman, 2000).
Given the greater reliability and validity of struc-
tured observations, why did Whyte take a qualitative,
unstructured approach? Whyte was more interested in
gaining an understanding of the entire community
and its citizenry, so a structured coding system’s
focus on specific behaviors would have yielded an
unduly narrow analysis. At the time he conducted
his study, Whyte did not know which behaviors he
should scrutinize if he wanted to understand the
group. Whyte was also unfamiliar with the groups
he studied, so he chose to immerse himself in field-
work. His research was more exploratory, designed to
develop theory first and validate hypotheses second, so
he used an unstructured observational approach. If he
had been testing a hypothesis by measuring specific
aspects of a group, then the rigor and objectivity of
a structured approach would have been preferable.
Qualitative methods, in general, “provide a richer,
more varied pool of information” than quantitative
ones (King, 2004, p. 175).
2-2b Self-Report
Whyte often supplemented his observations of Doc,
Mike, Danny, and the other Nortons by asking
them questions: “Now and then, when I was con-
cerned with a particular problem and felt I needed
more information from a certain individual … I
would seek an opportunity to get the man alone
and carry on a more formal interview” (Whyte,
1955, pp. 303–304).
Systematic Multiple Level Observation of Groups
(SYMLOG) A theoretical and structured coding system
for recording the activities of a group and the overall
behavioral orientation of members (developed by Robert
F. Bales).
reliability The degree to which a measurement tech-
nique consistently yields the same conclusion at different
times. For measurement techniques with two or more
components, reliability is also the degree to which
these components yield similar conclusions.
interrater reliability The degree to which two or more
raters agree.
validity The degree to which a measurement method
assesses what it was designed to measure.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 43
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Self-report measures, despite their variations,
are all based on a simple premise: if you want to know
what a group member is thinking, feeling, or planning,
then just ask him or her to report that information to
you directly. In interviews, the researcher records the
respondent’s answer to various questions, but question-
naires ask respondents to record their answers them-
selves. Some variables, such as members’ beliefs about
their group’s cohesiveness or their perceptions of the
group’s leader, may be so complex that researchers
need to ask a series of interrelated questions. When
the items are selected and pretested for accuracy, a
multi-item measure is usually termed a test or a scale.
Sociometry Psychiatrist Jacob Moreno (1934), a
pioneer in the field of group dynamics, used self-
report methods to study the social organization of
groups of young women living in adjacent cottages
at an institution. The women were neighbors, but
they were not very neighborly, for disputes continu-
ally arose among the groups and among members of
the same group who were sharing a cottage. Moreno
believed that the tensions would abate if he could
regroup the women into more compatible clusters
and put the greatest physical distance between hostile
groups. So he asked the women to identify five
women whom they liked the most in a confidential
questionnaire. Moreno then used these responses to
construct more harmonious groups, and his efforts
were rewarded when the overall level of antagonism
in the community declined (Hare & Hare, 1996).
Moreno called this technique for measuring the
relations between group members sociometry.
A researcher begins a sociometric study by asking
group members one or more questions about the
other members. To measure attraction, the
researcher might ask, “Whom do you like most in
this group?” but such questions as “Whom in the
group would you like to work with the most?” or
“Whom do you like the least?” can also be used.
Researchers often limit the number of choices that
participants can make. These choices are then orga-
nized in a sociogram, which is a diagram of the
relationships among group members.
Figure 2.4 is a sociogram, redrawn from Whyte’s
original chart of the authority relations in the
Nortons (see Figure 2.2). Each member of the
Nortons is represented by a circle, and lines are used
to indicate who is most closely connected to whom.
In Figure 2.3, the members have been arranged so
that individuals with more connections to other
members are located near the center of the figure
and those with fewer ties occupy the perimeter.
Social Network Analysis Sociometry was an
early form of social network analysis (SNA), a
Tommy
Frank
Joe
Alex
Nutsy
Carl
Mike
Long John Danny
Fred
LouAngelo
Doc
F I G U R E 2.4 A network graph of the Nortons. Doc,
the group’s leader, had direct ties to five of the group
members, but two members—Nutsy and Angelo—linked
Doc to the rest of the group’s members.
self-report measures Assessment methods, such as
questionnaires, tests, or interviews, that ask respondents
to describe their feelings, attitudes, or beliefs.
sociometry A method for measuring the relationships
among members of a group and summarizing those rela-
tionships graphically (developed by Jacob Moreno).
sociogram A graphic representation of the patterns of
intermember relations created through sociometry. In most
cases, each member of the group is depicted by a symbol,
such as a lettered circle or square, and relations among mem-
bers (e.g., communication links and friendship pairings) are
indicated by lines from one member to another.
social network analysis (SNA) A set of procedures for
studying the relational structure of groups and networks
mathematically and graphically. Using information about
the relationships (ties, edges) linking members (nodes, ver-
texes), the method yields member-level indexes (e.g., cen-
trality and betweenness), group-level indexes (e.g., density
and cohesiveness), and a graphic representation of the unit.
44 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

set of procedures for studying the relational structure
of groups and networks graphically and mathemati-
cally. SNA yields information about individual
members, relationships between pairs of members,
and the group’s overall structure. At the level of
the individual group member, Figure 2.4 indicates
which Norton had more connections with others
and who had relatively few. Doc, for example,
would be the “star” of the group (see Table 2.2).
Not only is he linked to five of the other members,
but his connections also have more connections as
well. Notice, too, that one group member—
Nutsy—is the bridge between two large subgroups
within the group. In such a position, Nutsy could be
a gatekeeper who determines what information is
passed back and forth from the peripheral members,
like Frank and Carl, to the more central members,
like Doc and Mike (Carboni & Casciaro, 2016).
Social network analysis also yields information
about cliques, schisms, hierarchies, and other rela-
tional regularities and oddities in the overall orga-
nization of a group (Contractor & Su, 2012). The
Nortons, for example, was a centralized group, for a
small number of group members (Doc, Nutsy) were
tied to many members, but the majority of the
members had only one or two links. The group’s
network of relationships, however, is not a very
dense one. In this group of 13 men, 78 relationships
would be required to link every member to every
other member (see Chapter 1). But Figure 2.4
shows only 20% of the possible ties (16 relation-
ships) are in place in the Nortons. Chapter 6 exam-
ines, in more detail, the use of social network
analysis in the study of groups and their structures.
Reliability and Validity of Self-Report Measures
Self-report methods, such as sociometry, have both
weaknesses and strengths. They depend very much
on knowing what questions to ask the group mem-
bers. A maze of technical questions also confronts
researchers designing questionnaires. If respondents
do not answer the questions consistently—if, for
example, Dejun indicates that he likes Gerard the
most on Monday but on Tuesday changes his choice
to Claire—then his responses are unreliable. Also, if
questions are not worded properly, the instrument
will lack validity, because the respondents may mis-
interpret what is being asked. Validity is also a prob-
lem if group members are unwilling to disclose their
personal attitudes, feelings, and perceptions or are
unaware of these internal processes.
Despite these limitations, self-report methods
provide much information about group phenom-
ena, but from the perspective of the participant
T A B L E 2.2 Examples of Group Roles from Sociometry
Role Description
Neglected (isolate) Member who is infrequently chosen by any members
Rejected (unpopular) Member who is disliked by many members
Popular (star) Member who is most chosen, well-liked by many
Controversial Member who is liked by many but also disliked by many others
Sociable (amiable) Member who selects many others as their friends
Unsociable (negative) Member who selects few others as their friends
Cliques Members of a subcluster within the group
Couples (pairs) Members linked by reciprocal bonds
Gatekeeper Member located at a hub or subhead of the group’s social network who can control
the flow of information
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 45
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

rather than the observer. When researchers are pri-
marily interested in personal processes, such as per-
ceptions, feelings, and beliefs, self-report methods
may be the only means of assessing these private
processes. But if participants are biased, their self-
reports may not be as accurate as we would like.
Self-reports may also not be accurate indicators of
group-level processes, such as cohesiveness or con-
flict, or psychological and physiological processes
that people are either not aware of or not able to
accurately assess.
2-3 R ESEARCH METH ODS IN
G R OUP DYN AMICS
Good measurement alone does not guarantee good
science. Researchers who watch groups and ask
group members questions can develop a detailed
description of a group, but they must go beyond
description if they are to explain groups. Once
researchers have collected their data, they must use
that information to test hypotheses about group phe-
nomena. They use many techniques to check the
adequacy of their suppositions about groups, but
the three most common approaches are case studies
of one or more groups, correlational studies of the nat-
urally occurring relationships between various aspects
of groups, and experimental studies that manipulate
one or more features of the group situation.
2-3a Case Studies
One of the best ways to understand groups in gen-
eral is to understand one group in particular. This
approach has a long and venerable tradition in all
the sciences, with some of the greatest advances in
thinking coming from the case study—an in-
depth examination of one or more groups. If the
groups have not yet disbanded, the researchers may
decide to observe them directly, but they may also
cull facts about the group from interviews with
members, descriptions of the group written by
journalists, or members’ autobiographical writings.
Researchers then relate this information back to the
variables that interest them and thereby estimate the
extent to which the examined case supports their
hypotheses (Yin, 2009).
Conducting a Case Study Researchers have
conducted case studies of all sorts of groups: adoles-
cent peer groups (Adler & Adler, 1995), artist circles
(Farrell, 2001), the casts of Bollywood films
(Wilkinson-Weber, 2010), crisis intervention
teams in psychiatric hospitals (Murphy & Keating,
1995), cults (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter,
1956), drug-dealing gangs (Venkatesh, 2008), fami-
lies coping with an alcoholic member (Carvalho &
Brito, 1995), focus groups (Seal, Bogart, & Ehr-
hardt, 1998), government leaders at international
summits (Hare & Naveh, 1986), guilds in online
game worlds (Nardi, 2010), industrialists and inven-
tors (Uglow, 2002), Little League baseball teams
(Fine, 1987), mountain climbers (Kayes, 2006),
naval personnel living in an undersea habitat (Radl-
off & Helmreich, 1968), presidential advisors
(Goodwin, 2005), religious communes (Stones,
1982), rock-and-roll bands (Bennett, 1980), fans of
rock-and-roll bands (Adams, 1998), search-
and-rescue squads (Lois, 2003), sororities (Robbins,
2004), sports fans (St. John, 2004), social networks
(Pickard et al., 2011), support groups (Turner,
2000), the Supreme Court (Toobin, 2007), and
advisory groups making critically important deci-
sions pertaining to national policy and defense (Alli-
son & Zelikow, 1999; Janis, 1972). Although once
considered to be questionable in terms of scientific
value, case studies that are carried out with care and
objectivity are now widely recognized as indispens-
able tools for understanding group processes
(‘t Hart, 1991; Yin, 2009).
Social psychologist Irving Janis’s (1972) study
of decision-making groups illustrates the value of
a case study. Although groups such as the Red Bal-
loon Challenge Team make wise decisions that des-
tine them for success, in other situations, groups
case study A research technique that draws on multiple
sources of information to examine, in depth, the activi-
ties and dynamics of a group or groups.
46 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

generate more mistakes than insights. Janis investi-
gated such groups, focusing on groups that made
famously bad decisions: the presidential advisory
team that supported a covert invasion of Cuba in
the 1960s, the military leaders who failed to ade-
quately plan for the defense of the U.S. naval base
at Pearl Harbor, the group that recommended the
escalation of the Vietnam War, and so on. Relying
on historical documents, minutes of meetings, dia-
ries, letters, and group members’ memoirs and pub-
lic statements, Janis analyzed the group’s structure,
its communication processes, and its leadership. His
analyses led him to conclude that these groups suf-
fered from the same problem. Over time, they had
become so unified that members felt as though they
could not disagree with the group’s decisions, and so
they failed to examine their assumptions carefully.
Janis labeled this loss of rationality caused by strong
pressures to conform groupthink. Chapter 12
examines Janis’s theory in more detail.
Advantages and Disadvantages All research
designs offer both advantages and disadvantages,
and case studies are no exception. By focusing on
a limited number of cases, researchers often provide
richly detailed qualitative descriptions of naturally
occurring groups. If the groups have disbanded
and researchers are relying on archival data, they
need not be concerned that their research will sub-
stantially disrupt or alter naturally occurring group
processes. Case studies also tend to focus on bona
fide groups that are found in everyday, natural
contexts. The Red Balloon Challenge Team, for
example, was a bona fide group, for it came into
existence during the course of members’ everyday
life experiences (Putnam, Stohl, & Baker, 2012).
Studying such groups—ones that have history and
are pursuing goals that the group itself has chosen
using its own procedures—provides a different kind
of data than studies of groups concocted by research-
ers in the laboratory. Case methods are also particu-
larly appropriate when the phenomenon of interest
has been documented but the processes that produced
it and are influenced by it remain unknown. A case
study, too, may be used when the researcher has no
way of imposing methodological controls in the situ-
ation (Griffin & Bengry-Howell, 2008; Yin, 2009).
These advantages are offset by limitations.
Researchers who use the case-study method must
bear in mind that the group studied may be unique,
and, unless they embed their work into a general
theoretical conceptualization, their findings may say
little about other groups’ dynamics. Also, if the
group being studied is a contemporary one, research-
ers can use quantitative measures to document some
key variables, but if the study is primarily qualitative
they must deal with issues of objectivity. In addition,
the essential records and artifacts may be inaccurate
or unavailable to the researcher. Janis, for example,
was forced to “rely mainly on the contemporary and
retrospective accounts by the group members them-
selves … many of which are likely to have been
written with an eye to the author’s own place in
history” (1972, p. v). In the case of the Bay of Pigs
group, when many key documents were eventually
declassified, they suggested that the group did not
experience groupthink but instead was misled delib-
erately by some of the group members (Kramer,
2008). Finally, case studies imply but cannot confirm
causal relationships. Janis believed that groupthink
was causing the poor decisions in the groups he stud-
ied, but actually some other unnoticed factor could
have been the prime causal agent.
2-3b Correlational Studies
Researchers who conduct correlational studies (or
nonexperimental studies) do more than just describe
groups and their dynamics: they also test the strength
of the relationship between the variables that they
measure. Social psychologist Theodore Newcomb
(1943) used this research procedure in his classic
“Bennington Study” of college students’ political
groupthink A set of negative group-level processes,
including illusions of vulnerability, self-censorship, and
pressures to conform, that occur when highly cohesive
groups seek concurrence rather than objective analysis
when making a decision (identified by Irving Janis).
bona fide groups Naturally occurring groups, such as
audiences, boards of directors, clubs, or teams, compared
to ad hoc groups created for research purposes.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 47
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

attitudes. As a professor at Bennington College,
Newcomb noticed that when his students first entered
school, most of them were conservative, but by the
time they graduated, they had shifted to become
more liberal. In fact, in 1936, fully 62% of the
first-year class preferred the Republican presidential
candidate. But only 15% of the juniors and seniors
endorsed the Republican candidate; suggestive
evidence of a profound shift in political beliefs.
Newcomb believed that the first-year students
were changing their political beliefs to match the pre-
vailing politics of Bennington. The younger students
were, in effect, accepting seniors as their reference
group, which is a group that provides individuals
with guidelines or standards for evaluating themselves,
their attitudes, and their beliefs (Hyman, 1942). Any
group that plays a significant role in one’s life, such as a
family, a friendship clique, colleagues at work, or even
a group one admires but is not a member of, can func-
tion as a reference group. When students first enrolled
at Bennington, their families served as their reference
group, so their attitudes matched their families’ atti-
tudes. The longer students remained at Bennington,
however, the more their attitudes changed to match
the attitudes of their new reference group—the rest of
the college population. Their families had conservative
attitudes, but the college community supported mainly
liberal attitudes, and Newcomb hypothesized that
many Bennington students shifted their attitudes in
response to this reference-group pressure.
Newcomb tested this hypothesis by administering
questionnaires and interviews to an entire class of
Bennington students from their entrance in 1935 to
their graduation in 1939. He found a consistent trend
toward liberalism in many of the students and rea-
soned that this change resulted from peer-group pres-
sure, because it was more pronounced among the
popular students. Those who endorsed liberal atti-
tudes were (1) “both capable and desirous of cordial
relations with the fellow community members”
(Newcomb, 1943, p. 149), (2) more frequently cho-
sen by others as friendly, and (3) a more cohesive
subgroup than the conservative students. Individuals
who did not become more liberal were less involved
in the college’s social life, or they were very family-
oriented. These reference groups changed the students
permanently, for the students who shifted were still
liberals when Newcomb measured their political
beliefs some 25 years later (Newcomb et al., 1967).
Conducting Correlational Studies Correlational
studies are so named because, at least initially,
researchers indexed the strength and direction of
the relationships among the variables they measured
by calculating correlation coefficients. A correla-
tion coefficient, abbreviated as r, can range from -1
to +1, with the distance from 0, the neutral point,
indicating the strength of the relationship. If New-
comb had found that the correlation between stu-
dents’ popularity and liberal attitudes was close to 0,
for example, he would have concluded that the two
variables were unrelated to each other. If the corre-
lation was significantly different from 0—in either a
positive or a negative direction—his study would
have shown that these two variables were related
to each other. The sign of the correlation (- or +)
indicates the direction of the relationship. If, for
example, the correlation between popularity and
liberal attitudes was +.68, this positive correlation
would indicate that both variables increased or
decreased together: The more popular the student,
the more liberal his or her attitude. A negative cor-
relation, such as –.57, would indicate that the vari-
ables were inversely related: More popular students
would tend to have less liberal attitudes. Thus, a
correlation is a handy way of summarizing a great
deal of information about the relationship between
two variables. Researchers do not always analyze
their data by computing correlations, but the term
reference group A group or collective that individuals
use as a standard or frame of reference when selecting
and appraising their abilities, attitudes, or beliefs; includes
groups that individuals identify with and admire and cat-
egories of noninteracting individuals.
correlation coefficient A standardized statistic that
measures the strength and direction of a relationship
between two variables. Often symbolized by r, correla-
tions can range from –1 to +1.
48 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

correlational study continues to be used to
describe studies that rely on measuring variables
rather than manipulating them.
Advantages and Disadvantages Researchers use
correlational designs whenever they wish to know
more about the relationship between variables. Are
group leaders usually older than their followers? Do
groups become more centralized as they grow
larger? Do people who are more committed to
their group tend to express attitudes that match
their group’s position? These are all questions
that researchers might ask concerning the relation-
ship between variables. When coupled with valid
correlational study A research design in which the
investigator measures (but does not manipulate) at least
two variables and then uses statistical procedures to
examine the strength and direction of the relationship
between these variables.
What Correlates with College Parties?
Most people drink alcohol collectively. College stu-
dents, for example, sometimes drink alone in their
dorms or apartments, but group drinking is more the
norm. In fact, in the course of an evening, students
often drink in one group after another. Early in the
evening they “pregame” in dyads or other small
groups. They then continue drinking in larger
groups—in bars, at parties in private homes, or frater-
nity and sorority organizations located near campus
(Burger et al., 2009).
Parties are difficult to study. Asking people about
the party they attended the night before would likely
yield invalid data, as they may not remember the
details and they may edit their reports to avoid
embarrassment. So when psychologist John Clapp
decided to study this unique type of group, he assem-
bled a team of observers and interviewers and trained
them to enter parties and collect data. Every Thursday,
Friday, and Saturday night, the teams would patrol the
area around campus, looking for parties. Some nights,
they found only 2 or 3, but on others as many as 20;
the average number of parties was 7. The team then
chose, at random, four parties to study that evening. If
the hosts agreed to take part in the study—and most
did—then seven-person crews, carrying notebooks and
clip boards and wearing “College Drinking Survey”
sweatshirts, entered the party and recorded such
variables as number of guests, rowdiness, loudness of
the music, kind of food available, type of alcohol and
drugs being used (e.g., beer, mixed drinks, shots,
marijuana), and the distribution of people in the
physical location. Clapp’s team did not interfere with
the natural progression of the party—he was con-
ducting a correlational study. But the team did
administer short questionnaires to partygoers and
checked their Breath Alcohol Concentration, or BrAC,
as they entered the party and again when they left
(Clapp et al., 2007, 2008).
Some 224 parties later, the researchers concluded
that group-level factors influenced people’s BrACs.
When alcohol consumption was the party’s primary
activity, participants had higher BrACs, particularly if
they thought that others were drinking excessively. If
the party’s primary activity was socializing among the
guests, then participants drank less. Parties where the
students played drinking games also yielded more
intoxicated guests, as did parties where people were
costumed (e.g., theme parties and Halloween parties).
Women, in particular, had higher BrAC levels at theme
parties compared to men. Students’ intoxication levels
dropped as the parties increased in size, disconfirming
the idea that the students become more uninhibited in
large groups. This effect, however, may have been due
to the logistics of gaining access to alcohol rather than
inhibition. The larger the party, the longer it took
students to get a drink.
Clapp and his colleagues, by combining various
types of data, succeeded in shedding light on one of the
most dynamic of groups—the college party—and their
correlational findings suggest ways to minimize the
health risks of these groups. Curtailing alcohol con-
sumption can be accomplished through relatively simple
alterations of group goals and norms. To shift the
group’s goals to focus on socializing rather than drinking
per se, hosts should discourage drinking games and
avoid theme parties with costumed partygoers. Because
people also drink more to keep pace with others’ degree
of intoxication, hosts should not make it too easy for
their guests to drink excessively. Banning shots and kegs,
providing food, and encouraging social interaction are a
few ways to increase the social value of the event and
minimize the harm done by drinking too much alcohol.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 49
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

measures, correlational studies clearly describe these
relationships without disrupting or manipulating
any aspect of the group.
Correlational studies, however, yield only lim-
ited information about the causal relationship
between variables because the researcher does not
directly manipulate any variables. Newcomb’s data,
for example, indicated that the attitude changes he
measured were related to reference-group pressures,
but he could not rule out other possible causes. Per-
haps, unknown to Newcomb, the most popular stu-
dents on campus all read the same books that
contained arguments that persuaded them to give up
their conservative attitudes. Newcomb also could not
be certain about the direction of the relationship he
documented. He believed that individuals who joined
the liberal reference group became more liberal them-
selves, but the causal relationship may have been just
the opposite: People who expressed more liberal atti-
tudes may have been asked to join more liberal refer-
ence groups. Although these alternative explanations
seem less plausible, they cannot be eliminated, given
the methods used by Newcomb.
2-3c Experimental Studies
How did Sandy Pentland, the organizer of the Red
Balloon Challenge Team, lead the group? Did he
set out a clear agenda, allocate tasks to each mem-
ber, and then intervene regularly to reward those
who were working hard and sanctioning anyone
who was not contributing at a high rate? Or was
he a more collaborative leader who let the group
plot its own course and make its own decisions as it
worked to identify the one best way to solve DAR-
PA’s challenge?
Psychologists Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, and
Ralph White examined the effectiveness of differ-
ing styles of leadership in one of the first experi-
mental studies of groups. They arranged for 10- and
11-year-old boys to meet after school in five-
member groups to work on hobbies such as wood-
working and painting. The adults in charge of the
groups adopted one of three styles of leadership:
autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire. The autocratic
leader made all the decisions for the group; the
democratic leader let the boys themselves make
their own decisions; and the laissez-faire leader
gave the group members very little guidance
(Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939; White, 1990;
White & Lippitt, 1968).
The researchers observed the groups as they
worked with each type of leader and measured
group productivity and aggressiveness. When they
reviewed their findings, they discovered that the
autocratic groups spent more time working (74%)
than the democratic groups (50%), which in turn
spent more time working than the laissez-faire
groups (33%). Although these results argued in
favor of the efficiency of an autocratic leadership
style, the observers also noted that in some (but
not all) groups with an autocratic leader, productiv-
ity dropped considerably whenever the leader left
the room for any length of time. The boys in some
of the autocratically led groups were also more hos-
tile, more destructive, and more likely to single out
one member to be the target of almost continual
verbal abuse. The researchers believed that this
scapegoat provided members with an outlet for
pent-up hostilities that could not be acted out
against the powerful group leader.
Conducting Experiments Lewin, Lippitt, and
White’s study of leadership styles was an experi-
ment. First, they identified a variable that they
believed caused changes in group processes and
then systematically manipulated this independent
variable by giving groups different types of leaders
(autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire). Second, the
researchers assessed the effects of the independent var-
iable by measuring factors such as productivity and
aggressiveness. The variables that researchers measure
experiment A research design in which the investigator
(1) manipulates at least one variable by randomly assign-
ing participants to two or more different conditions, (2)
measures at least one other variable, and (3) controls the
influence of other variables on the outcome.
independent variable Something that the researcher
changes in an experimental study while holding other
variables constant and measuring the dependent variable;
the causal mechanism in a cause–effect relationship.
50 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

are called dependent variables because their mag-
nitude depends on the strength and nature of the
independent variable. Lewin, Lippitt, and White
hypothesized that group leadership style would influ-
ence productivity and aggressiveness, so they tested
this hypothesis by manipulating the independent vari-
able (leadership style) and measuring the dependent
variables (productivity and aggressiveness).
Third, the experimenters tried to maintain
control over other variables. The researchers never
assumed that the only determinant of productivity
and aggressiveness was leadership style; they knew
that other variables, such as the personality charac-
teristics and abilities of the group members, could
influence the dependent variables. In the experi-
ment, however, the researchers were not interested
in these other variables. They therefore made cer-
tain that these other variables were controlled in the
experimental situation. For example, they took
pains to ensure that the groups they created were
“roughly equated on patterns of interpersonal rela-
tionships, intellectual, physical, and socioeconomic
status, and personality characteristics” (White &
Lippitt, 1968, p. 318). Because no two groups
were identical, these variations could have resulted
in some groups working harder than others. The
researchers used random assignment of groups to
even out these initial inequalities.
Advantages and Disadvantages When research-
ers conduct experiments, they manipulate one or
more independent variables, assess systematically
one or more dependent variables, and control
other possible contaminating variables. When the
experiment is properly designed and conducted,
researchers can make inferences about the causal
relationships linking variables. If the investigators
keep all variables constant, except for the indepen-
dent variable, and the dependent variable changes,
then they can cautiously conclude that the inde-
pendent variable caused the dependent variable to
change. By conducting an experiment, Lewin and
his colleagues could say more than “leadership is
related to group productivity;” they can say “leaders
cause changes in group productivity.”
Experiments offer an excellent means of testing
hypotheses about the causes of group behavior, but
they are not without their logistical, methodologi-
cal, and ethical problems. Researchers cannot
always control the situation sufficiently to manipu-
late the independent variable or to keep other vari-
ables constant. Lewin and his colleagues, for
example, had considerable difficulty manipulating
their independent variable in a systematic way (see
Chapter 9). Moreover, to maintain control over the
conditions of an experiment, researchers may end
up studying closely monitored but artificial group
situations. Experimenters often work in laboratories
with ad hoc groups that are created just for the pur-
pose of research, and these groups may differ in
important ways from bona fide groups. Although
an experimenter can heighten the impact of the
situation by withholding information about the
study, such deception can be challenged on ethical
grounds. Experiments can be conducted in the field
using already-existing groups, but they will almost
necessarily involve the sacrifice of some degree of
control and will reduce the strength of the research-
ers’ conclusions. Hence, the major advantage of
experimentation—the ability to draw causal
inferences—can be offset by the major disadvantage
of experimentation—basing conclusions on con-
trived situations that say little about the behavior
of groups in more naturalistic settings (these issues
are discussed in more detail by Driskell & Salas,
1992; Reis & Gosling, 2010; Wittenbaum, 2012).
2-3d Studying Groups: Issues and
Implications
Researchers recognize that all conceptual analyses
of groups, no matter how intellectually alluring,
must be tested with procedures that meet the field’s
scientific standards, but those who study groups face
some unique logistic and statistical problems. Group
processes including leadership, communication, and
dependent variable The resultant outcomes measured
by the researcher; the effect variable in a cause–effect
relationship.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 51
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

influence are notoriously difficult to document
objectively, for many of the traditional tools of
the social scientist fail to provide sufficient detail
when the subject of study is a group. Researchers
who study groups must also deal with a host of
methodological and statistical problems that the
researcher who studies only isolated individuals
can avoid. “The enduring and often indeterminate
time frame of ‘real’ groups, to say nothing of their
inherent complexity, makes their systematic study a
daunting exercise” (Kerr & Tindale, 2014, p. 188).
Selecting a Method Researchers use a variety of
empirical procedures to deal with these complexities.
Some observe group processes and then perform a
qualitative analysis of their observations, whereas
others insist on quantitative measurement methods
and elaborate controlled experiments. Some conduct
their studies in field situations using bona fide groups,
whereas others bring groups into the laboratory or
even create groups to study. Some undertake explor-
atory studies with no clear idea of what results to
expect, whereas other research studies are designed
to test hypotheses carefully derived from a specific
theory. Some study group phenomena by asking
volunteers to role-play group members, and others
create elaborate computer-based simulations of
group processes (see Hollingshead & Poole, 2012).
Researchers have even begun developing tools that
will allow them to immerse individuals in simulated
groups that seem to be real but are actually created
by virtual environment technologies (Sivunen &
Hakonen, 2011).
This diversity of research methods does not
reflect researchers’ uncertainty about which tech-
nique is best. Rather, the diversity stems from the
unique advantages and disadvantages offered by
each method. Case studies limit the researcher’s
ability to generalized broadly, but some phenomena
are difficult to study by any other method. Corre-
lational studies are limited in causal power, but they
yield precise estimates of the strength of the rela-
tionships between variables. Experimentation pro-
vides the firmest test of causal hypotheses, but
experiments sometimes require studying groups in
highly contrived settings. The solution, then, is to
study groups using multiple methods, for all “meth-
ods have inherent flaws—though each has certain
advantages. These flaws cannot be avoided. But
what the researcher can do is to bring more than
one approach, more than one method, to bear on
each” (McGrath, 1984, p. 30).
Ethics of Group Research Group researchers,
given their commitment to learning all they can
about people in groups, pry into matters that other
people might consider private, sensitive, or even
controversial. Observers may watch groups—a sports
team playing a rival, a class of elementary school
children on the playground, a sales team reviewing
ways to improve their productivity—without telling
the groups that they are being observed. Researchers
may deliberately disguise their identities so that they
can join a group that might otherwise exclude them.
Experimenters often manipulate aspects of the
groups they study to determine how these manipu-
lations change the group over time. Do researchers
have the moral right to use these types of methods to
study groups?
In most cases, the methods that group research-
ers use in their studies—watching groups, interview-
ing members, changing an aspect of the situation to
see how groups respond to these changes—raise few
ethical concerns. People are usually only too willing
to take part in studies, and investigators prefer to get
group members’ consent before proceeding. If they
do watch a group without the members’ knowledge,
it is usually a group in a public setting where mem-
bers have no expectation of privacy or where their
identities are completely unknowable (de-identified).
Group researchers strive to treat the subjects in their
research with respect and fairness.
In some cases, however, researchers have used
methods that raise more complex issues of ethics
and human rights. One investigator, for example,
used participant observation methods in a study of
men having sex with one another in a public rest-
room. He did not reveal that he was a researcher
until later, when he tracked them down at their
homes (many of them were married) and asked
them follow-up questions (Humphreys, 1975).
Other researchers, with the permission of a U.S.
52 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

district judge, made audio recordings of juries’
deliberations without the jurors’ knowledge.
When the tapes were played in public, an angry
U.S. Congress passed legislation forbidding
researchers from eavesdropping on juries (see Hans
& Vidmar, 1991). In other studies, researchers have
placed participants in stressful situations, as when
researchers studied obedience in groups by arrang-
ing for an authority to order participants to give an
innocent victim painful electric shocks. The shocks
were not real, but some participants were very
upset by the experience (Milgram, 1963).
These studies are exceptional ones, and they
were conducted before review procedures were
developed to protect participants. Present-day
researchers must now submit their research plans
to a group known as an Institutional Review
Board (IRB). The IRB, using federal guidelines
that define what types of procedures should be
used to minimize risk to participants, reviews each
study’s procedures before permitting researchers to
proceed. In most cases, researchers are expected to
give participants a brief but accurate description of
their duties in the research before gaining their
agreement to take part. Researchers also use meth-
ods that minimize any possibility of harm, and they
treat participants respectfully and fairly. An investi-
gator might not need to alert people that they are
being studied as they go about their ordinary activ-
ities in public places, but it is best to let an impartial
group—the IRB—make that decision.
2 – 4 T H E O R E T I C A L
PE RSPECTIVES
Researchers do not just develop ingenious methods
for measuring and studying group processes. They also
develop compelling theoretical explanations for group
phenomena. Scientists gather empirical evidence, but
they also use this evidence to test the strength of
hypotheses derived from theoretical models and gen-
eral principles. Theories provide the means of orga-
nizing known facts about groups and so create orderly
knowledge out of discrete bits of information. Theo-
ries also yield suggestions for future research. When
researchers extend existing theories into new areas,
they discover new information about groups, while
simultaneously testing the strength of their theories.
Researchers have developed hundreds of theo-
ries about groups and their dynamics. Some of these
theories are relatively narrow, for they focus on some
specific aspect of groups. Others, in contrast, are
broader in scope, for they offer general explanations
for groups across a wide variety of times and con-
texts. These theories, despite their variations, often
share certain basic assumptions about what processes
are more important than others, the types of out-
comes they explain, and the variables that are most
influential. This section reviews some of these basic
theoretical perspectives on groups but with the
caveat that these approaches are not mutually exclu-
sive. Most theories embrace assumptions from more
than one of the motivational/emotional, behavioral,
systems, cognitive, and biological perspectives.
2-4a Motivational Perspectives
Why do some people vie for leadership in their
groups? Why do some people shy away from
groups, whereas others join dozens of them? Why
did the Red Balloon Challenge Team throw cau-
tion to the wind and take on the work of finding
the balloons? The answers to these “why” questions
often lie in people’s motivations and emotions.
Motivations are psychological mechanisms that
give purpose and direction to behavior. These
inner mechanisms can be called many things—
habits, beliefs, feelings, wants, instincts, compul-
sions, drives—but no matter what their label, they
Institutional Review Board (IRB) A group, usually
located at a university or other research institution, that
reviews research procedures to make certain that they are
consistent with ethical guidelines for protecting human
participants.
motivation Wants, needs, and other psychological pro-
cesses that energize behavior and thereby determine its
form, intensity, and duration.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 53
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

prompt people to take action. Emotions often
accompany these needs and desires; feelings of hap-
piness, sadness, satisfaction, and sorrow are just a
few of the emotions that can influence how people
act in group situations. The words motivation and
emotion both come from the Latin word movere,
meaning “to move.”
Motivational approaches offer insight into a
wide range of group phenomena, for they focus
on the “generative aspect of human behavior, on
the forward-moving, internally driven aspect of
behavior” (Kelly & Spoor, 2013). Why, for exam-
ple, do most people seem to desire to join with
others in groups rather than remain alone? Motiva-
tional theories suggest that groups are an excellent
way for members to satisfy some of their most basic
needs. Psychologist Abraham Maslow’s (1943)
well-known hierarchy of needs, for example,
describes a ranked series of basic human motives,
including physiological and safety needs, belonging-
ness needs, and the need for esteem and respect.
Applied to groups, his motivational theory suggests
that groups are the most popular of choices for most
people because they satisfy these needs. Groups, with
their greater resources, offer members food, shelter,
and other essentials for survival. Groups offer protec-
tion from harm (“safety in numbers”), and they can
care for members who are sick or injured. Groups, by
their very nature, create a sense of belonging for their
members and, by accepting and supporting them, are
a source of prestige and esteem. Groups, from a moti-
vational perspective, are a useful means of satisfying
psychological needs (Kenrick et al., 2010).
Emotions, too, play a role in prompting indi-
viduals to seek membership in groups rather than
remain alone. Studies of well-being suggest that
one of the ways that people maximize their happi-
ness is by joining with other people in groups—
people who are happiest are the ones who report
being linked to others in positive social relationships
(Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). To be sure, groups, by
rejecting and mistreating members, can be sources
of extremely negative emotions such as loneliness,
despair, sadness, and shame, but groups are also
the source of such positive social emotions as con-
tentment, pleasure, bliss, joy, love, gratitude, and
admiration (Hareli & Parkinson, 2008).
2-4b Behavioral Perspectives
Many theories about groups draw on the seminal
work of psychologist B. F. Skinner (1953, 1971).
Skinner’s behaviorism was based on two key
assumptions. First, Skinner believed that psychologi-
cal processes, such as motives and drives, may shape
people’s reactions in groups, but he also believed that
such psychological processes are too difficult to index
accurately. He therefore recommended measuring
and analyzing how people actually behave in a spe-
cific context rather than speculating about the psy-
chological or interpersonal processes that may have
instigated their actions. Second, Skinner believed
that most behavior was consistent with the law of
effect—that is, behaviors that are followed by positive
consequences, such as rewards, will occur more fre-
quently, whereas behaviors that are followed by neg-
ative consequences will become rarer.
Social exchange theories use Skinner’s
behaviorism to explain how relationships are initi-
ated and sustained through the reliable exchange of
rewards and the imposition of costs by individuals
and groups (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961; Thibaut &
Kelley, 1959). These theories stress the economics
of membership by suggesting that members con-
tribute their time and personal resources to their
groups in exchange for direct, concrete rewards,
such as pay, goods, and services, as well as indirect,
emotion A subjective state of positive or negative affect
often accompanied by a degree of arousal or activation.
hierarchy of needs An ordering of needs from the most
basic and biologically necessary to the more social and
psychological needs, such as aesthetic and actualization
needs (developed by Abraham Maslow).
behaviorism A theoretical explanation of the way
organisms acquire new responses to environmental sti-
muli through conditioning (learning).
social exchange theory An economic model of inter-
personal relationships that assumes individuals seek out
relationships that offer them many rewards while exact-
ing few costs.
54 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

socioemotional rewards, such as status and admira-
tion. These exchanges create relationships among
members and their group that are strengthened
when (a) the rewards are valued ones and any
costs created by the group are minimized, (b) the
members trust each other to fulfill their obligations
over the long term, (c) the exchange is judged to be
a fair one with fairness defined primarily by mutual
adherence to the norm of reciprocity, and (d) mem-
bers develop a commitment to the group as indi-
cated by increased affective attachment, a sense of
loyalty, and an authentic concern for the other
members’ and the group’s well-being. If, however,
groups make too many demands on members—
meetings, time commitment, investment of personal
resources, and giving up involvement in other
groups—then members are less likely to maintain
their membership (Cress, McPherson, & Rotolo,
1997). Social exchange theory suggests that people
join with others in groups because membership is, in
a sense, a good deal (Cook & Rice, 2006).
2-4c Systems Perspectives
Researchers in a variety of fields, including engineer-
ing, biology, and medicine, have repeatedly found that
unique results are obtained when a system is formed by
creating dependency among formerly independent
components. Systems, whether they are bridges, eco-
logical niches, organisms, or groups, synthesize several
parts or subsystems into a unified whole.
A systems theory approach assumes groups
are complex, adaptive, dynamic systems of interact-
ing individuals. The members are the units of the
system who are coupled one to another by relation-
ships. Just as systems can be deliberately designed to
function in a particular way, groups are sometimes
created for a purpose, with procedures and stan-
dards designed with the overall goal of the system
in mind. Groups can, however, be self-creating and
self-organizing systems, for they may develop spon-
taneously as individuals begin to act in coordinated,
synchronized ways. Just as a system receives inputs
from the environment, processes this information
internally, and then outputs its products, groups
gather information, review that information, and
generate products. Groups are also responsive to
information concerning the context in which they
operate and their impact on that context and will
adapt in response to feedback about their actions.
Just as the relaying of information between interde-
pendent units is a key concept in systems theory, so
the communication of information between members
plays a central role in group systems. Systems theory
suggests that parts are, to an extent, interchangeable—
specific units can be swapped in and out with no
discernable impact on the system—but in some
cases, because groups are built up of closely entwined
parts, they can change to an extraordinary degree
when one of their constituent components changes
(Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000).
Systems theory provides a model for under-
standing a range of group-level processes, including
group development, productivity, and interpersonal
conflict. Input–process–output (I–P–O) models
of group productivity are systems theories that
emphasize inputs that feed into the group setting,
the processes that take place within the group as it
works on the task, and the outputs generated by the
system (see Figure 2.5). Inputs would include any
factors that are present in the group setting, including
members’ individual qualities (e.g., their skills, experi-
ence, and training), group-level factors (e.g., group
structure, cohesiveness), and macro-level factors
systems theory A general theoretical approach that
assumes that complex phenomena are the result of the
constant and dynamic adjustments that occur between
and among the interdependent parts of the whole.
Applied to groups, systems theory assumes that groups
are open systems that maintain dynamic equilibrium
among members through a complex series of interrelated
adjustments and processes.
input–process–output (I–P–O) model Any one of a
number of general conceptual analyses of groups that
assumes raw materials (inputs) are transformed by internal
system processes to generate results (output). For exam-
ple, an I–P–O model of group performance assumes that
group-level processes mediate the relationship between
individual, group, and situational input variables and
resulting performance outcomes.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 55
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

(e.g., organizational norms, cultural context). These
input factors all influence the processes that take
place within the group as members interact with
each other, including communication, planning, con-
flict, and leadership. These processes transform the
inputs into outputs, which could include aspects of
the group’s performance (e.g., products, decisions,
errors) but also changes in the factors that serve as
inputs to the system (feedback). If the group performs
poorly, for example, it may become less cohesive or it
may seek out new members. Members of successful
groups, in contrast, may become more satisfied with
their group and take steps to make sure that the group
uses the same procedures to solve the next problem
(Ilgen et al., 2005; Littlepage et al., 1995).
2-4d Cognitive Perspectives
A group’s dynamics, in many cases, become under-
standable only by studying the cognitive processes
that determine how members gather and make sense
of information. When people join a group for the
first time, they immediately begin to form an
impression of the group. This perceptual work
prompts them to search for information about the
other group members, rapidly identifying those
who are outgoing, shy, and intelligent. Group mem-
bers also search their memories for stored informa-
tion about the group and the tasks it must face, and
they must retrieve that information before they can
use it. A group member must also take note of the
actions of others and try to understand what caused
the other member to act in this way. Thus, group
members are busy perceiving, judging, reasoning,
and remembering, and all these mental activities
influence their understanding of one another, the
group, and themselves (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath,
1997; Hodgkinson & Healey, 2008).
Consider, for example, the impact of groups on
the human memory system. Cognitive researchers,
in their studies of memory, have discovered that
people have better memories for actions and events
that they are personally connected to and that
thinking about themselves when processing infor-
mation prompts them to encode the information
more deeply. This self-reference effect can be
demonstrated, for example, by asking people to
answer a question about each word in a long list
of words. If the question is a superficial one, such
as “Does the word start with a vowel?” then people
remember very few of the words when their mem-
ory is later tested. But, if they were asked “Does the
word describe you?” their memories are signifi-
cantly improved. The self, however, is not the
only source of improved memory. When this
experiment was repeated, but with a question
about groups added, a group-reference effect
occurred. Instead of asking “Does this word
describe you?” respondents were asked “Does
this word describe your group?” (family, univer-
sity, or social category). When their memories
Input Process
Feedback
Output
F I G U R E 2.5 An input–process–output (I–P–O) model
of group dynamics. A systems theory approach assumes
that individual and interpersonal processes mediate the
relationship between input factors and outputs. Inputs
could include any factors in the situation that feed into the
group’s processes, including aspects of the group members,
the group itself, and the situation where the group is
located. Processes include leadership, communication,
influence, and so on. Output includes products, decisions,
and other deliverables, but also (a) changes in the group
and its members, such as increased cohesion and satisfac-
tion and (b) feedback providing input to the system.
cognitive processes Mental processes that acquire,
organize, and integrate information including memory
systems that store data and the psychological mechanisms
that process this information.
self-reference effect The tendency for people to have
better memories for actions and events that they are per-
sonally connected to in some way.
group-reference effect The tendency for group mem-
bers to have better memories for actions and events that
are related, in some way, to their group.
56 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

were later tested, they were able to remember
as many of the words as were subjects in the
self-reference condition. These findings suggest
that “groups have the potential of providing an
organizational framework to aid memory” (Johnson
et al., 2002, p. 270).
2-4e Biological Perspectives
Group members can solve complex problems,
communicate with one another using spoken
and written language, build and operate massive
machines, and plan their group’s future. But
group members are also living creatures whose
responses are often shaped by physiological,
genetic, and neurological characteristics. When a
group member is experiencing distress, other
group members experience changes in heart rate
and blood pressure as they respond sympatheti-
cally to their fellow member’s distress (Fusaroli
et al., 2016). Men who seek to gain positions of
higher status in the group tend to be those who
have elevated levels of the testosterone hormone
(Dabbs & Dabbs, 2000). The neuropeptide oxyto-
cin, produced in the hypothalamus, increases the
likelihood that people will treat other members of
their group in positive, prosocial ways, although it
also increases rejection of outgroup members
(De Dreu et al., 2010). Specific areas of the brain
associated with receipt of rewards are activated when
individuals conform to a group’s judgments rather
than disagree with others (Klucharev et al., 2009).
Social psychologist James Blascovich’s (2014)
biopsychosocial (BPS) threat/challenge model, for
example, traces differences in group members’ per-
formance back to their physiological reactions to
evaluation. His model suggests groups that feel
their work is challenging respond very differently,
physiologically, than do groups that feel threatened
by the complexities of the tasks they are attempting.
The Red Balloon Challenge Team, for example,
was filled with confidence as it began its work to
solve the DARPA problem (“this was the sort of
thing we were expert at,” Pentland, 2014). Blasco-
vich and his colleagues find that such groups exhibit
performance-enhancing changes at a physiological
level, including increases in their cardiac output
(CO). Those who doubt their ability and so feel
threatened rather than challenged, in contrast, exhibit
little or no CO increase. To confirm this relationship
between challenge/threat response and group perfor-
mance, Blascovich and his colleagues measured how
members of sports teams responded when thinking
about their ability to perform well as part of their
team (baseball). They confirmed that those group
members who displayed changes in cardiac function-
ing that indicated they felt challenged and not threat-
ened performed better when they were part of their
team during its regular season (Blascovich et al., 2004).
These findings suggest the Red Balloon Challenge
Team was particularly well-named.
2-4f Selecting a Theoretical
Perspective
Group dynamics is rich with theory. Some of these
theories trace group processes back to psychologi-
cal processes—the motivations of the individual
members, the mental processes that sustain their
conception of their social environment, and even
their instinctive urges and proclivities. Other the-
ories focus more on the group as a social system
that is integrated in the surrounding community
and society.
These different theoretical perspectives, how-
ever, are not mutually exclusive paradigms, strug-
gling for the distinction as the explanation of group
behavior. Some researchers test hypotheses derived
from only one theory; others draw on several per-
spectives as they strive to describe, predict, control,
and explain groups and their members. Just as the
questions “How should I measure this aspect of
the group?” and “How should I test my hypothesis
about groups?” can be answered in more than one
way, no one solution can be offered in response to
the question “What theory explains group behav-
ior?” Many of the greatest advances in understand-
ing groups have occurred not when one theory has
been pitted against another, but when two or
more theories have been synthesized to form a
new, more encompassing theoretical perspective.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 57
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C HAPT ER R EV IEW
What assumptions do researchers make while
studying groups and their dynamics?
1. The field’s basic assumptions and procedures,
termed a paradigm by Kuhn (1970), were
shaped by such early researchers as:
■ Le Bon (1895), a social theorist best
known for his book on the psychology of
crowds and mobs, Psychologie des Foules.
■ Wundt (1916), a psychologist who wrote
Völkerpsychologie.
■ Durkheim (1897), a sociologist who
argued that society is made possible by the
collective representations of individuals.
■ Allport (1924), a psychologist who avoided
holistic approaches to groups.
2. Early researchers adopted varying theories and
methods in their initial studies of groups.
■ Sociological investigators (e.g., Durkheim,
1897) tended to adopt a group level of
analysis.
■ Psychologists focused on individuals (e.g.,
Allport, 1924) and warned of the group
fallacy.
■ Researchers debated the existence of a
group mind, but individuals often attribute
mind-like properties to groups (e.g.,
Waytz & Young, 2012) and Sherif (1936)
created a group-level process (norms)
experimentally.
3. Lewin’s (1951) field theory assumes groups are
often greater than the sum of their parts.
■ Lewin’s law of interactionism assumes that
group processes are a function of both the
person and the environment; B = f(P, E).
■ A multilevel perspective recognizes that indi-
viduals are nested in groups, and these
groups are usually nested in larger social
aggregations, such as communities and
organizations.
■ Hackman’s (2003) studies of orchestras
illustrate the importance of examining
micro-, meso-, and macro-level factors
when investigating group dynamics.
How do researchers measure individual and group
processes?
1. Observation involves watching and recording
events transpiring in groups. Varieties include
overt observation, covert observation, and participant
observation, which Whyte (1943) used in his
study of corner gangs.
■ Covert observation reduces the biasing
influences of the Hawthorne effect.
■ The study of online groups, such as that
conducted by Bainbridge (2007), suggests
such groups display dynamics that are
similar to those of offline groups.
2. Qualitative studies require the collection of
descriptive data about groups, but quantitative
studies require the enumeration and quantifi-
cation of the phenomena of interest.
■ Hastorf and Cantril’s (1954) study of stu-
dents’ perceptions of their college football
team demonstrate the potential for bias in
perceptions of groups.
■ Observers, when using structured observa-
tional measures, assign each action to a
specific category.
■ Bales’ (1950) Interaction Process Analysis
(IPA), a standard group coding system,
classifies behaviors into two categories:
relationship and task interaction.
■ Bales’ (1999) SYMLOG (Systematic
Multiple Level Observation of Groups)
expands the original relationship-task dis-
tinction to dominance–submissiveness,
friendliness–unfriendliness, and accepting–
opposing task orientation/authority.
3. Reliability and validity are essential qualities of all
measures, for they must be consistent and they
58 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

must measure what they are designed to
measure.
4. Self-report measures ask group members to
describe their own perceptions and
experiences.
■ Moreno’s (1934) sociometry method asks
members to report whom they like the
most. The nominations are used to gen-
erate a sociogram, or visual image of the
interpersonal relations in the group.
■ Sociometry was an early form of social net-
work analysis, which can be used to gener-
ate both member-level and group-level
indexes of the group’s structural features.
What are the key characteristics of and differences
between case, correlational, and experimental studies
of group processes?
1. A case study is an in-depth analysis of one or
more groups based on interviews with mem-
bers, observation, and so on.
■ Janis (1972) used a case-study design in his
analysis of groupthink in government
decision-making groups.
■ By studying naturally occurring, bona fide
groups, case-study researchers can be more
certain that the processes they study are
not artificial ones influenced by the
research process.
2. In a correlational study, the investigator, rather
than manipulating aspects of the situation,
gauges the strength of the naturally occurring
relationships between such variables.
■ Newcomb (1943) examined the relation-
ship between members’ political attitudes
and their popularity in the group in an
early study of reference groups. Other inves-
tigators have examined the group-level
factors that correlate with alcohol con-
sumption in festive groups (Clapp et al.,
2008).
■ Nonexperimental studies are usually called
correlational studies because the magnitude
of the relationship between variables is
often expressed as a correlation coefficient.
3. In an experiment, researchers examine cause–
effect relationships by manipulating aspects of
the group situation (independent variables).
■ Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) studied
the impact of autocratic, democratic, and
laissez-faire leaders on groups by conduct-
ing an experiment. They manipulated the
independent variable (leadership style),
assessed several dependent variables (aggres-
siveness, productivity, etc.), and limited
the influence of other possible causal fac-
tors by controlling the situation and
assigning groups to experimental condi-
tions at random.
■ Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s study indi-
cated that productivity was high in both
democratic and autocratic groups, but that
the participants were more aggressive in
the autocratic groups.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of case,
correlational, and experimental methods?
1. The conclusions drawn from case studies can
be highly subjective, but they stimulate theory
and provide detailed information about natural,
bona fide groups.
2. Groups studied in experimental settings may
not display the dynamics of naturally occurring
groups, but experimentation provides the
clearest test of cause-and-effect hypotheses.
3. Correlational studies provide only limited
information about causality, but they yield
precise estimates of the strength of the rela-
tionship between two variables and raise fewer
questions of ethics for researchers.
4. Researchers also exercise care when selecting
the level of analysis and when analyzing their
findings so as to not attribute effects caused by
group-level processes to individual-level pro-
cesses and vice versa. Researchers who study
multilevel processes must be ever wary of
interdependence in their data.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 59
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

5. Most group research raises few ethics issues, but
researchers are required to have their work
approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Which theoretical perspectives guide researchers’
studies of groups?
1. Theories that focus on members’ motivations
and emotions, such as Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy
of needs theory, explain group behavior in terms
of members’ wants, needs, drives, and feelings.
2. Theories based on Skinner’s (1953) behaviorism,
such as social exchange theory, assume that indi-
viduals act to maximize their rewards and
minimize their costs.
3. A systems theory approach assumes that groups
are systems. An input–process–output model
(I–P–O model) of group performance exem-
plifies the systems approach.
4. Cognitive theories assume that many group
processes are understandable only after consid-
ering the cognitive processes that allow members
to gather information, make sense of it, and
then act on the results of their mental apprai-
sals. For example, the self-reference effect improves
memory for information that is relevant to the
self-concept, but the group-reference effect
improves memories for group-related
information.
5. Biological perspectives, such as Blascovich’s
(2014) threat/challenge model, study the rela-
tionship between physiological mechanisms
and group behavior.
R E S O U R C E S
Chapter Case: The Red Balloon Challenge Team
■ Social Physics by Alex Pentland (2014) not
only provides an analysis of the Challenge
Team, but also the assumptions and impli-
cations of Pentland’s theory of social physics.
Group Dynamics: History and Issues
■ A History of Social Psychology: From the
Eighteenth-Century Enlightenment to the Sec-
ond World War by Gustav Jahoda (2007) is
a fascinating history of the early emergence
of social psychology in general and group
dynamics in particular.
■ “A History of Small Group Research” by
John M. Levine and Richard L. Moreland
(2012) provides a detailed review of the
development of the field of group
dynamics, divided into the following eras:
first 50 years, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and
1980s and beyond.
Studying Groups
■ “Methods of Small Group Research” by
Norbert L. Kerr and R. Scott Tindale
(2014) examines the techniques and
measures used by investigators in a wide
variety of group research.
■ Research Methods for Studying Groups and
Teams, edited by Andrea B. Hollingshead and
Marshall Scott Poole (2012), is an excellent
compendium of methods, techniques, and
tricks to use when studying groups.
Research Methods
■ Applications of Case Study Research by
Robert K. Yin (2009) explains the logic
behind case studies and offers a precise set
of procedures to follow to carry out a
study that will yield valid results.
■ Street Corner Society by William Foote
Whyte (1943) remains one of the best
examples of applying the case-study
method to understanding a group’s
dynamics.
■ The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in
Psychology, edited by Carla Willig and
Wendy Stainton-Rogers (2008), draws
together 33 chapters dealing with all aspects
of qualitative research procedures, including
60 C H A P T ER 2
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

ethics, ethnography, observation, inter-
viewing, discussion analysis, and so on.
Advances in Group Research Methods
■ “The Design and Analysis of Data from
Dyads and Groups” by David A. Kenny
and Deborah A. Kashy (2014) reviews the
statistical procedures to use when data are
collected from intact groups.
■ Theories of Small Groups: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives, edited by Marshall Scott Poole
and Andrea B. Hollingshead (2005),
describes, reviews, and synthesizes the full
range of theoretical perspectives in groups,
including evolutionary approaches,
network approaches, and feminist and
functionalist perspectives.
S T U D Y I N G GR O U P S 61
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 3
Inclusion and
Identity
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Groups transform the me into the we. Even though
each group member is capable of surviving indepen-
dently of the group, the need to belong is usually stron-
ger than the desire to remain independent of others’
influences. But if group members act only to maximize
their own interests and not those of the group, then
their membership—and the group itself—would be
short-lived. This chapter examines the processes that
determine this alignment of individual and collective
pursuits. Once the members join in a group, they can
seek their own goals (individualism), and they must
also contribute to the collective (collectivism). This
intermingling of individual and collective motives
blurs the boundary between the self and other, result-
ing in a collective, group-level identity.
■ Do humans, by nature, seek solitude or
inclusion?
■ When do people put the group’s needs before
their own?
■ What processes transform an individual’s sense
of self into a collective, social identity?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
3-1 From Isolation to Inclusion
3-1a The Need to Belong
3-1b Inclusion and Exclusion
3-1c Inclusion and Human Nature
3-2 From Individualism to Collectivism
3-2a Creating Cooperation
3-2b The Social Self
3-3 From Personal Identity to Social Identity
3-3a Social Identity Theory: The Basics
3-3b Motivation and Social Identity
Chapter Review
Resources
62
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Patrick and Peak illustrate what has been called
the “master problem of social life”: The connec-
tion between the individual and the collective,
including groups, organizations, communities, and
society itself (Allport, 1962). Many people who
were interested in joining Peak attended the
required orientation and training sessions, but
soon discovered that Peak required too much of
them. They remained on the group’s fringes, for
they resisted Peak’s mandate that members act for
the good of others rather than for themselves.
Others, like Patrick, learned to put the group’s
interests before their own personal needs. They
did not just join Peak; they identified so strongly
with the group that their sense of self came to be
defined by it (Ellemers, 2012).
This chapter examines three essential processes
that combine to transform lone individuals into
group members: inclusion, collectivism, and iden-
tity. Through inclusion, individuals change from
outsiders into insiders by joining a group. Through
collectivism, members begin to think about the good
of the group as a whole rather than what the group
provides them. Through the transformation of iden-
tity, individuals change their conception of who
they are to include their group’s qualities as well
as their own individual qualities.
3-1 F ROM I SOLATION TO
IN CLU SION
Some species of animals are solitary. The cheetah,
giant panda, orangutan, and opossum remain apart
from other members of their species and congregate
in some cases only to mate or rear offspring. Other
animals, such as chimps, hyena, deer, and mice, are
social creatures, for they usually forage, feed, sleep,
and travel in small groups. What about humans? Do
Peak Search and Rescue: From Individualism to Collectivism
When Patrick first heard about Peak Search and Rescue
he knew he wanted to join. Peak (a pseudonym) was
an all-volunteer emergency response group based in a
mountainous area in the western region of the United
States. Peak first formed when several local outdoor
enthusiasts recognized the need for better organized
and equipped searches for missing, lost, stranded,
trapped, and injured hikers. Over the years, the group
has grown to include 30 active members as well as
many others who supported the group’s activities as
needed. Patrick wanted to become one of those
members.
Patrick, an avid rock climber and hiker, thought
that joining this group would be a good way to
sharpen his wilderness skills, meet people, and perhaps
gain their admiration and respect. Peak’s members
risked their own lives to save others, and Patrick
relished the idea of joining the ranks of these heroes.
He soon learned, however, that the Peak members
eschewed the hero label. Members who set themselves
above others, showed off, or acted in ways that
increased the risk of harm to other members or to
those they were rescuing—any self-glorification—fell
quickly from the group’s graces. As one of the group
members explained, “If you feel like you have to
belong to a group like this to make yourself look bet-
ter to other people, you know, take it somewhere
else” (Lois, 2003, p. 55).
Patrick was by nature self-confident, extraverted,
and thrill-seeking, and he struggled to reconcile his
natural egoism with Peak’s collective focus. When he
first joined, he pushed to take part in rescue efforts
long before the group felt that he had earned the right
to full membership. He spoke of personal goals, of
wanting to “learn things from these guys” rather than
contributing to the group (Lois, 2003, p. 74). But, in
time, his individual, personal self grew quieter, and his
group-level, collective self flourished. He took part in as
many missions as he could and stepped in and filled any
role that needed filling. He preferred the excitement of
leading the search teams, and also took on the more
routine tasks such as monitoring communications from
the basecamp and maintaining the equipment. He
learned to never speak of his individual exploits fol-
lowing a rescue, and he publicly accepted the blame for
the risky actions he took during his early years in the
group. He learned to act for the good of the group
rather than for self-gain (see Lois, 1999, 2003).
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 63
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

people tend to keep to themselves, guarding their
privacy from the incursions of others, or are humans
group-oriented animals who prefer the company of
other people to a life alone?
3-1a The Need to Belong
Healthy adult human beings can survive apart from
other members of the species, yet across individuals,
societies, and eras, humans consistently seek inclu-
sion over exclusion, membership over isolation,
and acceptance over rejection. Social psychologists
Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary (1995, p. 497)
argued that humans have a need to belong: “a per-
vasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum
quantity of lasting, positive, and impactful interper-
sonal relationships.” They likened the need to
belong to other basic needs, such as hunger or
thirst. A person who has not eaten will feel hun-
gry, but a person who has little contact with other
people will feel unhappy and lonely. In this sec-
tion, we review the evidence that backs up their
claim that group membership fulfills a generic
need to establish positive, enduring relationships
with other people.
Solitude and Social Isolation Aristotle famously
suggested that “Man is by nature a social animal; and
an unsocial person who is unsocial naturally and not
accidentally is either unsatisfactory or superhuman.”
Henry David Thoreau disagreed with Aristotle, and,
to prove his point, spent two years relatively
secluded at Walden Pond. He deliberately kept his
social contacts to a minimum, explaining:
Society is commonly too cheap. We meet at very
short intervals, not having had time to acquire
any new value for each other. We meet at three
meals a day and give each other a taste of that
old musty cheese that we are. Certainly less
How Strong Is Your Need to Belong?
The need-to-belong hypothesis assumes all humans desire to be included in groups, but this need is likely stron-
ger in some individuals than in others. Leary and his colleagues developed the Need to Belong Scale (NTB Scale)
to measure these variations.
Instructions: Several items from the NTB Scale are listed below. For each of the statements, indicate the
degree to which you agree or disagree by circling a number where:
1 ¼ Strongly disagree
2 ¼ Moderately disagree
3 ¼ Neither agree nor disagree
4 ¼ Moderately agree
5 ¼ Strongly agree
1. I try hard not to do things that will make other people avoid or reject me. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I want other people to accept me. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I do not like being alone. 1 2 3 4 5
4. My feelings are easily hurt when I feel that others do not accept me. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I have a strong need to belong. 1 2 3 4 5
Scoring: Only a subset of the full scale is listed here, but you can calculate a tentative estimate of your
belonging score by summing the 5 numbers you circled. A score of 13 or lower indicates a low need to belong, a
score between 14 and 18 is average, and a score of 19 and above is a high score. (For more information see Leary
et al., 2013.)
need to belong The generalized desire to seek out and
join with other people, which, when unsatisfied, causes a
state of tension and want.
64 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

frequency would suffice for all important and
hearty communication. (Thoreau, 1962, p. 206)
Spending time alone, away from others, can be
pleasant, even rejuvenating. Patrick, the Peak
member, if asked how he felt about being isolated
from others while he hiked, would likely say he
found enjoyment in the self-discovery, contempla-
tion, and increased spirituality that occurs when
one is physically isolated from others (Coplan &
Bowker, 2014). People say I can “discover who I
am,” “determine what I want to be,” “meditate and
reflect,” “try out some new behaviors,” “recover
my self-esteem,” “protect myself from what others
say,” and “take refuge from the outside world”
when alone (Pedersen, 1999, p. 399). Some philo-
sophers, writers, and inventors reach the apex of
their creativity during times of isolation, when
they were not distracted by other people (Averill
& Sundararajan, 2014).
But most people, both young and old, find pro-
tracted periods of social isolation disturbing. Isolated
individuals, such as stranded explorers, secluded scien-
tists, prisoners in solitary confinement, and so on,
speak of the psychological costs of their ordeal: fear,
insomnia, memory lapses, depression, fatigue, and
general confusion. Prolonged social isolation has
been identified as a risk factor for the onset of a num-
ber of psychological disorders, including depression,
paranoia, and the disordered thought characteristic
of schizophrenia (de Sousa et al., 2015).
Social and Emotional Loneliness Although
group memberships are not often considered as
essential an interpersonal relationship as friendships
and love relationships, the relationships that groups
create and sustain can become so intimate and
involving that they serve as a buffer against feelings
of isolation and loneliness. Loneliness is not the
same as being alone, for in some situations, people
are not troubled by isolation or a relative paucity of
relations with others. Loneliness, instead, is an aver-
sive psychological reaction to a perceived lack of
personal or social relations. Emotional loneliness
occurs when the problem is a lack of a long-term,
meaningful, intimate relationship with another per-
son; this type of loneliness might be triggered by
divorce, a breakup with a lover, or repeated roman-
tic failures. Social loneliness, in contrast, occurs when
people feel cut off from their network of friends,
acquaintances, and group members. People who
have moved to a new city, children who are rejected
by their peers, and new employees of large compa-
nies often experience social loneliness, because they
are no longer embedded in a network of friends and
acquaintances (Green et al., 2001). Both types of
loneliness create feelings of sadness, depression, emp-
tiness, longing, shame, and self-pity.
Some groups alleviate loneliness by fostering
both intimate and social relations (Shaver &
Buhrmester, 1983). College students report less
loneliness when they start college if they belong to
a cohesive, satisfying group (Asher & Weeks, 2014).
Members of groups with extensive interconnections
among all the members were less lonely than members
of groups with less dense networks (Pressman et al.,
2005). Children with friends—even friends who
were considered odd or unusual by their peers—
were less lonely than friendless children (Asher &
Paquette, 2003). People who belonged to groups
(e.g., service organizations, religious or church organi-
zations, business or professional organizations, and
social clubs) were healthier and happier than indivi-
duals who did not (Harlow & Cantor, 1996)—and
these effects were stronger still when people contrib-
uted their time to several organizations rather than just
one (Pilliavin & Siegl, 2007). Those with more con-
nections to others survive environmental disasters,
cope more effectively with traumatic events, and live
longer lives (Charuvastra & Cloitre, 2008).
All groups are not equally effective in buffering
their members from both forms of loneliness. Transi-
tory, impersonal collectives do little to ease either
social or emotional loneliness. Sitting with other peo-
ple in a theater or striking up a conversation with a
stranger on a bus creates a connection momentarily,
but only groups that sustain stable, reliable alliances
loneliness Cognitive and affective malaise, which can
include sadness, dejection, self-deprecation, and boredom,
experienced when one’s personal relationships are perceived
to be too few or too unsatisfying.
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 65
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

among members can ward off social loneliness
(Furman & Buhrmester, 2009). Likewise, only groups
that connect people together in an intimate, meaning-
ful way reduce feelings of emotional loneliness. Having
many superficial relationships with others is far
less satisfying than having a few high-quality rela-
tionships characterized by high levels of social sup-
port, mutual caring, and acceptance (Hawkley &
Cacioppo, 2010). In consequence, groups that
create connections among their members, such as
amateur athletic teams, social clubs, or work groups,
will reduce members’ feelings of social loneliness, but
only more intimate, involving types of groups—
families, romantic couples, or very close friendship
cliques—will meet members’ social and emotional
needs (Stroebe et al., 1996).
3-1b Inclusion and Exclusion
The members of Peak did not welcome people to
their meetings with open arms. The group guarded
its solidarity fiercely, and it required newcomers to
prove themselves by withstanding a period of deliber-
ate exclusion. One member recalled feeling like an
outsider for months, even though she faithfully
attended meeting after meeting: “they didn’t really
care if I was there or not … no one said hello to
me, no one said, ‘Welcome, thanks for coming’”
(Lois, 2003, p. 80).
Ostracism People’s need to belong is slaked
when a group accepts them, but they are the
most satisfied when a group actively seeks them
out. In contrast, people respond negatively when
a group ignores or avoids them, and this negative
reaction is exacerbated if the group ostracizes, aban-
dons, or banishes them (Molden et al., 2009). To be
isolated from others due to circumstances or acci-
dents is one thing, but to be deliberately ignored
and excluded by others—ostracism—is particu-
larly distressing (see Figure 3.1; Leary, 1990).
The word ostracism dates to the Greeks, who
voted to punish members of the community with
banishment by inscribing their names on potshards
called ostraca (Williams, 2007). Contemporary forms
of ostracism range from formal rejection of a mem-
ber from a group—as when a church excommuni-
cates a member or a club permanently bans a
Is Loneliness Contagious?
A group usually wards off feelings of loneliness, but not
if the group is filled with lonely people. Social network
researchers, studying the way such physical ailments as
heart disease and obesity are passed along from one
person to another, discovered that loneliness also
spreads within groups (Cacioppo, Fowler, & Christakis,
2009). By measuring loneliness at different times,
researchers found that people who were not initially
lonely were more likely to become lonely if they were
linked to a lonely person. As a result, loneliness occurred
in clusters or at the fringes of the network, possibly
because lonely individuals were socially isolated. Loneli-
ness also depended on degrees of separation. In a social
network, members are interconnected, but often
through intermediate members. Frank might be friends
with Jill, and Jill might be friends with Ed, but Frank
might not even know Ed. So, Frank’s and Ed’s degree of
separation is two, as it takes two links (Frank to Jill, and
then Jill to Ed) to link them. People were 52% more
likely to be lonely if connected to a lonely person at one
degree of separation, 25% more likely to be lonely at
two degrees of separation (e.g., the friend of a friend
was lonely), and 15% more likely to be lonely if linked
at three degrees of separation (e.g., a friend of a friend
of a friend was lonely). Loneliness was no longer conta-
gious at four degrees of separation.
degrees of separation In social network analysis, the
number of steps or relationships needed to link one person
in the network to another specific person in the network.
ostracism Excluding one or more individuals from a
group by reducing or eliminating contact with the person,
usually by ignoring, shunning, or explicitly banishing them.
66 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

patron—to more subtle interpersonal tactics such as
the “silent treatment” or the “cold shoulder.” Cli-
ques of adolescent girls, for example, use the threat
of exclusion and ostracism itself to control the
activities of members, with excluded girls finding
that they are suddenly outcasts instead of trusted
friends (Adler & Adler, 1995). Many religious soci-
eties shun members who have broken rules or tra-
ditions. People who work in offices and business
often report feeling left out and alone because
others avoid them and exclude them from their
conversations and lunches (Robinson & Schabram,
2017). In some cases, too, members are not delib-
erately excluded, yet they feel as though they are
out of the loop: that they do not know things that
others in the group do, and that the information
they are missing is relevant to the group’s social or
task activities. Individuals who feel out of the loop
experience more negative moods, they feel less
competent, and they do not feel as close interper-
sonally to the other group members. These conse-
quences are more pronounced if they feel that the
group has deliberately turned against them rather
than mistakenly overlooked them (Jones & Kelly,
2013).
Conclusions drawn from these studies of every-
day ostracism are supported by experimental studies
that place people in situations where they feel they
are being excluded in some way. Social psycholo-
gist Kipling Williams (2007) and his colleagues, for
example, often use the “ball toss” method. They
arrange for people in a waiting room to begin
Are Humans the Only Ostracizing Species?
Even nonhuman groups practice ostracism. A variety of social species, including wolves, bees, and primates,
sometimes exclude an individual from the group—usually with fatal consequences. A shunned male chimpanzee,
for example, would be forced to live at the periphery of his group, but remain ever vigilant against straying out-
side his home group’s territory—for lone male chimps are usually killed if they are caught by patrolling chimps
from a neighboring troop (Goodall, 1986).
AcceptanceRejection
Maximum
exclusion
Active
exclusion
Passive
exclusion
Ambivalence
Passive
inclusion
Active
inclusion
Maximum
inclusion
Group
rejects or
ostracizes
person
Group
actively
recruits
member
Group
welcomes
member
Group
allows
member
to join
Group
neither
accepts nor
rejects
individual
Group
ignores
person
Group
avoids
person
F I G U R E 3.1 The inclusion–exclusion continuum. When individuals are actively sought out by groups, they expe-
rience maximum inclusion. When groups actively ostracize, people experience maximum exclusion (Leary, 1990).
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 67
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

some activity, such as tossing a ball to one another.
Unbeknown to the subject of the study, all the
others are part of the research team and they delib-
erately exclude the real subject from the game.
Other studies use the “life alone” method, which
involves giving people personality tests that indicate
their future would be a solitary one. They are told:
“You’re the type who will end up alone later in
life. You may have friends and relationships now,
but…. these are likely to be short-lived and not
continue…. Relationships don’t last, and … the
odds are you’ll end up being alone more and
more” (Twenge et al., 2007, p. 58). Other studies
have people meet briefly in a “get acquainted” ses-
sion before picking partners or teams. Those tar-
geted for exclusion are rejected by everyone else
in the group (Nezlek et al., 1997).
Reactions to Exclusion Most people respond
very negatively to ostracism and exclusion. When
asked to describe their feelings, excluded people
report feeling frustrated, anxious, nervous, and
lonely, whereas those who are included in
the group feel relaxed, friendly, and comfortable
(Williams & Nida, 2017). Many feel they have
been betrayed by the other group members, and
they sometimes report frustration, shock, and sur-
prise. Whereas people who are included value their
experiences in the group, the excluded sometimes
feel as if they are invisible—as if they do not even
exist socially. The desire to belong is so strong that
people respond negatively even when rejected by
a group whose members they dislike intensely. In
one study, researchers arranged for politically lib-
eral college students to be rejected by two mem-
bers of a socially vilified outgroup—the Ku Klux
Klan. Even though the students reported that they
hated this group, they were still upset when
the Klan first excluded them (Gonsalkorale &
Williams, 2007).
Williams’s (2007, 2009) temporal need-threat
model of ostracism, summarized in Figure 3.2, calls
this initial response to ostracism the reflexive stage. It
is characterized by a flood of negative feelings—
pain, disappointment, and distress—that all serve
to signal that something is wrong. This period of
negative emotions and confusion is followed by
the deliberative, reflective stage. Patrick, when first
rejected by Peak, probably reviewed the experi-
ence, searching for an explanation for the way he
was treated, and, depending on this analysis, he
likely would have adopted a specific behavioral
strategy to minimize the negative effects of exclu-
sion. If, however, Patrick was never able to gain
acceptance in this group or another group, then
he would reach the resignation stage: alienation,
helplessness, loss of self-worth, and depression.
Fight-or-Flight Response Some people, facing
exclusion, fight their way back into the group (a
fight response), or they avoid further rejection by
seeking membership elsewhere (a flight response).
Minimal Signal Reflexive Stage Reflective Stage Resignation Stage
If ostracism episodes
persist over an
extended time
Detection of
ostracism
Pain
Attend, appraise,
and attribute:
• Motives
• Meaning
• Relevance
Depleted resources:
Inability to fortify needs
• Alienation
• Depression
• Helplessness
• UnworthinessNegative affect
• Sadness
• Anger
Need threat Need fortification
F I G U R E 3.2 The temporal need-threat model of ostracism.
SOURCE: Adapted from Williams, 2009.
68 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

This fight-or-flight response is a common reac-
tion of people when they face stressful, threatening
circumstances, and Williams suggests it is motivated
by a desire to gain a sense of control in a deleterious
situation. Those who display the fight response may
confront group members directly, attempt to force
their way into the group, insist that the group
exclude someone else, or derogate those who
have excluded them. They are also more likely to
engage in a number of self-defeating behaviors,
such as taking unnecessary risks and procrastinating.
They also become less helpful toward others and
more competitive overall. In more extreme cases,
they may lose their temper and try to harm the
group in some way (DeWall & Twenge, 2013).
This type of reaction is more likely when the exclu-
sion is overt, unwarranted, and unexpected. People
who are blindsided by rejection are more likely to
fight back (Twenge et al., 2001, 2007).
Those who display a flight response, in contrast,
attempt to withdraw physically or psychologically
from the situation. Rather than tolerate the inatten-
tion, those who withdraw inhibit their relational
tendencies, keep to themselves, or seek acceptance
by some other group (Park & Hinsz, 2006). In one
series of studies, researchers created social exclusion
in a variety of ways (e.g., reminding people of a
time they were excluded, giving them feedback
suggesting they would end up living their life
alone) and then measured participants’ desire to
socially reconnect. All these manipulations triggered
an upswing in the desire to make friends and a
willingness to work with others—but with new
people and not with those who excluded them
(Maner et al., 2007).
Withdrawal, however, can exacerbate social
isolation, for those who too frequently exit
rejection-threatening situations may be viewed as
unfriendly, unapproachable, and detached by their
peers (Doll, Murphy, & Song, 2003). In rare cases,
withdrawal also triggers a general shutdown in
behavioral and emotional reactivity. Such indivi-
duals report little change in mood or emotion
other than numbness and lethargy when rejected;
they freeze up (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006). Emo-
tional numbing following exclusion is more likely
in cases of extreme social injury and insult and, even
then, occurs only rarely (Bernstein & Claypool,
2012; Gerber & Wheeler, 2009).
Tend-and-Befriend Response Patrick, perhaps
because he is a naturally outgoing and very self-
confident person, did not respond by fighting or
fleeing from the group (Shaver & Mikulincer,
2013). Instead, he coped with his initial rejection
in socially positive ways. He volunteered to take on
unglamorous but necessary tasks, kept his opinions
to himself, and tried hard to conform to the group’s
risk management and teamwork norms. He displayed
what social psychologist Shelley Taylor (2002, 2006)
calls the tend-and-befriend response. He did not
struggle against the group, but instead supported it by
backing up others, making sure members’ needs were
met, reducing risk (tending), and doing what he could
to strengthen his connection to others in the group
(befriending). Even as the group rejected him, he
continued to express an interest in becoming part of
the Peak’s team and treated his new acquaintances
positively.
Those who tend-and-befriend rather than
fight-and-flee seek social reconnection: They are
more sensitive to social cues, more willing to
work hard for the group, and even tend to uncon-
sciously mimic the actions of those around them
(Lakin & Chartrand, 2013). Those who have
recently been excluded or who feel lonely are far
more attentive to and more likely to remember
accurately the details of a group’s interaction:
fight-or-flight response A physiological and psycho-
logical response to stressful events characterized by the
activation of the sympathetic nervous system (increased
heart rate, pupil dilation) that readies the individual to
counter the threat (fight) or to escape the threat (flight).
tend-and-befriend response A physiological, psycho-
logical, and interpersonal response to stressful events char-
acterized by increased nurturing, protective and supportive
behaviors (tending), and initiating and strengthening
relationships with other people (befriending).
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 69
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

They are searching for social cues that will help
them find a way to gain acceptance in the group
(Pickett & Hess, 2017). They become more socially
perceptive, for they are better able to tell the differ-
ence between a false, forced smile and a genuine
(Duchenne) smile (Bernstein et al., 2008), but
they do tend to focus their attention on people
who are responding positively rather than nega-
tively to them (DeWall, Maner, & Rouby, 2009).
Williams and his colleagues demonstrated the
earnestness of the excluded in the ball-toss situation.
Excluded participants, when later asked how much
they liked the other two group members, rated their
partners more negatively when they had been ostra-
cized. Women who had been ostracized, however,
worked harder on a subsequent collective task, appar-
ently to regain acceptance by the rest of the group.
Women were also more likely to blame themselves
for their ostracism (e.g., “I have trouble making a
good impression with others”). Men, in contrast, did
not compensate by working harder nor did they take
the blame for their rejection (Williams & Sommer,
1997). These sex differences are consistent with differ-
ences between men and women first identified by
cyberostracism Excluding one or more individuals
from a technologically mediated group interaction, such
as a computer-based discussion group, by reducing or
eliminating communication with the person.
Does Online Ostracism Hurt as Much as Face-to-Face Rejection?
Groups are now, more than ever, located online.
Such groups, although unique in many respects, are
still groups; they develop norms, admit new mem-
bers, identify goals, and experience conflict. Mem-
bers of such groups take the lead, offer suggestions,
ask questions, and influence one another. And, in
some cases, they ostracize one another. Facebook
friends unfriend each other. Players in online gaming
communities are never asked to join in a raid. No one
ever retweets some people’s tweets. Online groups
can be just as cold-hearted as face-to-face (offline)
ones.
Given that the members of computer-based
groups communicate at a distance and are, in some
cases, completely anonymous, one might think that
such cyberostracism is relatively inconsequential. But
studies of online ostracism suggest otherwise. In one
study, Williams and his colleagues invited people on
the Internet to play Cyberball: a simulated ball-toss
game where players passed a virtual disk from one
group member to another. Players could choose whom
they would throw the disk to, and the game indicated
who had the disk, where it was thrown, and whether
or not the receiver dropped the throw. In actuality,
however, the other two players were simulated, and
the participants were randomly assigned to one of
four conditions: overinclusion (thrown the disk 50% of
the time), inclusion (33%), partial ostracism (20%), and
complete ostracism (they never received a throw after
the initial round of tosses). When the game was over,
those who had suffered ostracism reported the same
sorts of negative reactions evidenced by people in
face-to-face groups. Even though the game was
meaningless and their partners were total strangers,
their social self-esteem dropped, their moods turned
negative, and they admitted that they felt rejected
(Williams et al., 2000).
Williams reported similar reactions to exclusion in
his studies of online discussion forums. He invited par-
ticipants to join others in a group by texting one
another, but some of the participants were excluded
by the others in the group—their comments prompted
no response as the rest of the group members were
busily texting each other. Again, the participants
reported a variety of negative reactions to the exclu-
sion, but many of them also tried to break into the
online conversation by increasing the number of mes-
sages they sent. For example, one wrote,
U 2 can keep talking btw yourselves and ignore me,
I don’t mind!!! … maybe I should start a conversa-
tion with myself … hi how are yah … I’m fine how
are you … I’m fine too … come on talk to me…
Williams concluded that these provocative actions
provided participants with a way to gain control of the
situation and may have partially buffered them from
the stressful effects of exclusion (Williams et al., 2002,
p. 73; Wesselmann & Williams, 2011).
70 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Taylor when she proposed her tend-and-befriend
response to stress: men are more likely to display a
fight-or-flight response, whereas women are more
likely to tend-and-befriend (Taylor et al., 2000).
Exclusion and Aggression The need to belong is
a powerful force in human behavior, so much so
that individuals can respond violently when that
need is thwarted (Leary et al., 2003). Some indivi-
duals experience sadness when excluded; they
respond to exclusion passively. But others are
angered when excluded, and these individuals are
the ones who are more likely to engage in antisocial
behavior, including aggression. They may interpret
neutral or even accepting actions as negative, with
the result that they sometimes feel as if the entire
group has ostracized them when they have been
rejected by only one or two of the members
(DeWall, Enjaian, & Bell, 2017).
Social psychologist Lowell Gaertner and his col-
leagues (2008) demonstrated this tendency to blame
the entire group by recruiting college students to
take a “Noise Tolerance” test. Four participants
were scheduled for each test session, but only one
of them was an actual subject—the other three were
part of the research team. Before the test started, the
experimenter explained that only three people were
needed, so one of them should be excluded. In the
control condition, it was the experimenter who did
the excluding, so the group was not to blame. But in
the exclusion condition, one of the pseudo-group
members glared at the subject and said, “He (or
she) should be the one who leaves!” When the ostra-
cized subject later had the chance to increase the
volume of the noise to harm the other subjects,
few did in the control condition or if the noise
would harm both the individual who rejected
them and innocent bystanders. Participants did,
however, turn up the volume when they felt it
was the group, and not just a single member of the
group, who had excluded them.
Gaertner’s findings have implications for
understanding cases of extreme violence committed
by one or two students against larger groups of stu-
dents at their schools (Newman et al., 2004). In a
case in Kentucky, for example, one student took a
handgun to school and shot members of Agape, the
Christian group that began each day with a com-
munal prayer. Three students died, and five were
severely injured. In the spring of 1999, two students
at Columbine High School used semiautomatic
weapons, shotguns, and rifles to kill 13 students
and teachers in a carefully planned attack. In
2007, a student at Jokela High School in Finland
killed six students, the school principal, the school
nurse, and then himself after setting fire to the
school. In that same year, Seung Hui Cho, a 23-
year-old senior at Virginia Tech, killed 32 people
and wounded 17 others before committing suicide.
Such horrific actions spring from a complex of
interrelated psychological and interpersonal factors,
but when Mark Leary and his colleagues (2003)
examined 15 cases of post-1995 shootings in
schools in the United States, they found that these
terrible acts of violence were tied together by a
common thread: rejection. In most cases, the
aggressors were individuals who did not belong to
any groups or take part in social activities. They
were often described as loners, as was Seung Hui
Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman:
For all of his 23 years of life the most frequent
observation made by anyone about him was
that Seung Hui Cho had absolutely no social
life. During all of his school years he had no
real friends. He had no interest in being with
others. In fact, he shied away from other peo-
ple and seemed to prefer his own company to
the company of others. (Dupue, 2007, p. N-3)
Ostracism was not the sole cause of these inci-
dents. In nearly all cases, aggressors had a history of
psychological problems, although the severity of
their troubles was often unrecognized. They were
also often preoccupied with violence and death and
were interested in guns and weapons in general.
Exclusion, however, was a key social factor in
most cases. Some of the perpetrators, such as Cho,
were never mistreated by other people, yet they still
felt rejected and isolated. In most instances, how-
ever, they had been ostracized by others at their
schools and were the targets of malicious teasing,
ridicule, and bullying. These individuals usually
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 71
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

chose their targets deliberately, seeking revenge
against those who had excluded them. They did
not try to blame their behavior on psychological
problems, their parents, the media, or the influence
of their friends. Nearly all claimed that they had
been pushed into violence by a specific group of
people who excluded them. Exclusion, by itself, is
not associated with behavioral problems in adoles-
cents, but those who are isolated and report “prob-
lematic peer encounters” are at risk for a variety of
negative outcomes (Kreager, 2004).
3-1c Inclusion and Human Nature
Why do people usually choose membership over iso-
lation? Why do people respond so negatively when
others exclude them? Why are people so sensitive to
signs that others have overlooked them, even when
they are connected only by Internet-based technolo-
gies? Evolutionary theory offers an answer: the need
to belong to groups is part of human nature.
The Herd Instinct The idea that humans are
instinctively drawn to gather with other humans is
not a new one. Over a century ago, psychologist
William McDougall (1908) argued that humans are
inexorably drawn to “the vast human herd,” which
“exerts a baneful attraction on those outside it”
(p. 303). Advances in evolutionary psychology
have revitalized this old idea, however, by specifying
both the biological and interpersonal mechanisms
that sustain the need to belong.
Evolutionary psychology uses Charles Darwin’s
theory of natural selection to explain why contem-
porary humans act, feel, and think the way they do.
Darwin dealt primarily with biological and anatom-
ical adaptations, but evolutionary psychologists
assume that recurring psychological and social ten-
dencies also stem from evolutionary processes that
increase adaptive actions and neurological mechan-
isms. Humans’ capacity to introspect, to read the
emotion in others’ faces, to understand the meaning
of others’ vocal utterances, and even to consider
what future event may become more likely if a
specific action is undertaken now may all reflect
adaptations that were shaped by natural selection.
Similarly, humans’ preference for living in groups
rather than alone may also be sustained by psycho-
logical and biological mechanisms that evolved over
time to help individuals solve basic problems of sur-
vival (Kurzban & Leary, 2001).
Living in groups yielded both costs and benefits
for early humans. A group of humans foraging prob-
ably attracted the attention of more predators than
did a single individual. The single individual could
keep all the food he or she gathered or successfully
hunted, but in groups, the food must be shared.
Mingling with many others left one vulnerable to
communicable diseases, conflict, and violence. But
the benefits of sociality were far more substantial
than these costs. Those who joined with others in
an organized band to hunt large animals or forage for
patches of food were likely more successful than
individuals who remained alone. Individuals in
groups could maintain superior surveillance against
predators, they could join forces to ward off preda-
tors’ attacks, and they could rely on other members
of their group to protect them from the aggressive
actions of other humans. Human infants cannot sur-
vive alone. They must be in a group that cares for
them until they can reach an age when they can fend
for themselves. Groups, too, bring together men and
women who can then form the pair-bonds needed
for mating and procreation.
Evolutionary theory assumes that these advan-
tages of group life, over multiple generations, even-
tually sewed sociality into the DNA of the human
race. In the modern world, the advantages of group
life over solitude are not so clear. People who buy
their food from grocery stores and live in houses
with deadbolts on the doors do not need to
worry much about effective food-gathering strate-
gies or protection from predation. These modern
conditions, however, cannot undo 130,000 years
of natural selection. Because those individuals who
were genetically predisposed to join groups (“join-
ers”) were much more likely to survive and breed
than people who avoided social contacts (“loners”),
with each passing generation, the genes that pro-
moted solitude-seeking were weeded out of the
gene pool, and the genes that encouraged group
joining prospered (see Figure 3.3). In consequence,
72 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

gregariousness flourished as part of the biological
makeup of humans (Kameda & Tindale, 2006).
Sociometer Theory If, as evolutionary theory
suggests, humans who joined in groups were most
likely to survive and reproduce, then it stands to
reason that natural selection would favor those
humans who were sensitive to signals of others
that they were at risk for exclusion from the
group. Evolution would not just favor the joiner,
but a special type of joiner: one who is sensitive to
signs of social exclusion. It would do you little good
to be instinctively drawn to a group, but then to
have no way to tell if the group was about to cast
you out. What you would need would be a socio-
meter: a cognitive adaptation that monitors your
degree of acceptance by others.
Sociometer theory, proposed by Mark Leary
and his colleagues, suggests that feelings of self-
worth function as just such a monitor. Many the-
orists consider the need for self-esteem to be a mas-
ter motive, but sociometer theory suggests that
“self-esteem is a psychological gauge that monitors
the degree to which people perceive that they are
relationally valued by other people” (Leary, 2017a,
p. 50). Self-esteem, then, is not an index of one’s
sense of personal value, but instead an indicator of
acceptance into groups. Like a gauge that indicates
Action
A’s gene type: Affiliation
Mating PoolEnvironmental Challenges
Joiner
Persons and Genes
Joins
B’s gene type: Solitary Stays apart
C’s gene type: Affiliation Joins
D’s gene type: Affiliation Joins Joiner
E’s gene type: Solitary Stays apart
F’s gene type: Solitary Stays apart Loner
G’s gene type: Solitary Stays apart
H’s gene type: Affiliation Joins Joiner
I’s gene type: Affiliation Stays apart
J’s gene type: Solitary Stays apart
F I G U R E 3.3 A schematic representation of the process of natural selection of group-oriented individuals. If
human’s ancestors lived in an environment that favored those who lived in groups, then over time those who affili-
ated would gradually outnumber those who were self-reliant loners. Note, too, that one’s genetic endowment inter-
acts with the environment, and so not all individuals who are genetically predisposed to affiliate or remain alone will
do so (see, for example, person I).
sociometer theory A conceptual analysis of self-evalu-
ation processes that theorizes self-esteem functions to
psychologically monitor of one’s degree of inclusion
and exclusion in social groups (proposed by Mark Leary).
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 73
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

how much fuel is left in the tank, self-esteem indicates
the extent to which a person is included in groups. If
the gauge drops, then exclusion is likely. So, when
people experience a dip in their self-esteem, they
search for and correct characteristics and qualities
that have put them at risk of social exclusion. The
sociometer model concludes that most people have
high self-esteem not because they think well of them-
selves but because they are careful to maintain inclu-
sion in social groups (Leary, 2007, 2017a).
Leary and his colleagues (1995) tested the the-
ory experimentally by measuring self-esteem after
individuals were excluded from a group. They
explained to the students they recruited for the
study that they would be comparing decisions
made by groups and by people working alone. In
half the sessions, the researchers said that the group
versus individual decision was determined by a ran-
dom drawing. In such cases, individuals would have
to leave the group but it was not because the group
rejected them. But in the other half of the groups,
students rated each other after a brief get-acquainted
session, and those participants who received the few-
est votes would be excluded from the group. As
predicted, those who were rejected reported feeling
less competent, adequate, useful, smart, and valuable
than did the included group members—provided
the rejection was an interpersonal one. Isolation
caused by an impersonal force—the experimenter’s
random choices—had no effect on self-esteem.
Rejection by the group, in contrast, lowered self-
esteem, and inclusion raised self-esteem slightly.
The theory is also consistent with correlational
studies that find self-esteem rises and falls with
increases and decreases in inclusion. One study
tracked these two variables with students who met
four times in small groups during the course of a
month. During that period, the self-esteem of those
students who were rated more positively by other
group members the week before rose, whereas the
self-esteem of the least liked students declined (Sri-
vastava & Beer, 2005). This relationship was also
confirmed in a cross-cultural study of friendship and
self-esteem. Residents of countries where self-
esteem tended to be high, such as Iceland, Ireland,
and the United States, also rated their interactions
with friends as more enjoyable and inclusive
(Denissen et al., 2008).
The Biology of Ostracism and Inclusion The
intensely negative reaction most people experience
when they feel excluded has a biological basis.
When Patrick first noticed others in the group
were ignoring him, his cardiovascular, hormonal,
and immune systems likely responded to deal with
the stress of exclusion (Stroud et al., 2000). Inclu-
sion triggers a different set of physiological events:
lowered heart rate and blood pressure and an
increase in levels of the neuropeptide and hormone
oxytocin, which is associated with positive forms
of social behavior, including trust and social
support (Taylor, 2006). In fact, when individuals
who are about to be rejected by others are dosed
with oxytocin, some of the negative psychological
effects of ostracism are alleviated (Alvares, Hickie, &
Guastella, 2010).
Researchers have also explored the close con-
nection between the experience of physical pain
and interpersonal pain. People often claim that
exclusion is a painful experience—that their feelings
are hurt or they feel wounded when someone slights
them—because the pain of exclusion is neurologi-
cally similar to pain caused by physical injury
(MacDonald & Leary, 2005). As social neuroscien-
tist Naomi Eisenberger (2011, p. 587) explains:
“because of the importance of social connection
for human survival, the social attachment
system—which ensures social connection—may
have piggybacked directly onto the physical pain
system, borrowing the pain signal itself to indicate
when social relationships are threatened.”
Neuroimaging research confirms the close asso-
ciation between social and physical pain. Eisenber-
ger and her colleagues, for example, used a
functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner
(fMRI) to track neural responses to exclusion.
Such scanners indicate what portions of the brain
are more active than others by measuring cranial
temperature and blood flow. When people were
left out of a group activity, two specific areas of the
brain—the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC)
and the anterior insula—were particularly active
74 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

(see Figure 3.4). These areas of the brain are associ-
ated with the experience of physical pain sensations
and other negative social experiences (Eisenberger,
Lieberman, & Williams, 2003).
The close association between social and phys-
ical pain explains why individuals who are particu-
larly sensitive to pain, in general, are also more
likely to respond more negatively to social rejec-
tion. The rejection/pain connection also suggests
that comforting someone who is in physical pain
may do more than merely provide psychological
support—it may activate neuronal mechanisms
that alleviate the experience of pain (Eisenberger
& Lieberman, 2004). Also, because the pain of
exclusion has a neural basis, painkillers that people
take for physical pain relieve the pain caused by
social exclusion. To test this possibility, volunteers
took acetaminophen (Tylenol) or a placebo daily
for three weeks. They then played a game of
Cyberball while monitored by an fMRI. Those
volunteers who took acetaminophen did not
respond as negatively as those in the placebo con-
dition when they were excluded from play in the
Cyberball game. Another set of volunteers who also
took painkillers for three weeks reported feeling less
distressed over negative social experiences. They
were not necessarily rejected less often—the rejec-
tion just did not bother them quite so much
(DeWall et al., 2010).
3 – 2 F R O M IN D I V I D U A L I S M
T O C O L L E C T I V I S M
Across individuals, societies, and eras, humans con-
sistently prefer to be on the inside of groups rather
than the outside. But a social life makes demands that
a life of solitude does not. Before Patrick joined
Peak, he could do as he pleased without irritating
or offending others. He could spend the day work-
ing, hiking difficult trails, or skiing unsafe areas. But
once Patrick joined with the other members of Peak,
his self-centered world became a group-centered
one. Patrick, the individual, was independent, opin-
ionated, and self-confident, but Peak expected its
members to be interdependent team players, respect-
ful of others’ opinions, and unassuming. How did
Patrick, the individual, become Patrick, the dedi-
cated member of Peak Search and Rescue?
Anterior insula
dACC
(dorsal cingulate cortex)
F I G U R E 3.4 The brain regions involved in the experience of pain during social exclusion.
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 75
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

3-2a Creating Cooperation
Living in groups requires concession and compromise,
for the needs and interests of a group do not always
and completely match the needs and interests of each
one of its members. A mother asks her children to
stop playing a game and spend an hour doing house-
hold chores. An employer asks a worker to take a pay
cut so the company can avoid bankruptcy. One din-
ner guest takes more than her fair share of desert, so
others must have much smaller portions. A social cli-
que may pressure its members into expressing opi-
nions that some members do not personally endorse.
When group and members’ needs, interests, and
outlooks diverge, whose path should be followed?
Should the individuals’ needs come first, or does the
group take precedence over the individual? Most
answers to this question inevitably make their way
to the distinction between individualism and collec-
tivism. Individualism is based on the independence
and uniqueness of each individual. This perspective
assumes that people are autonomous; they must be
free to act and think in ways that they prefer
rather than submit to the demands of the group.
Collectivism, in contrast, recognizes that human
groups are not mere aggregations of independent
individuals, but complex sets of interdependent mem-
bers who must constantly adjust to the actions and
reactions of others around them. As cross-cultural psy-
chologist Harry C. Triandis explains, “the essence of
collectivism is concern for the effect of one’s actions
on other people” (2009, p. 73).
Individualism and collectivism are complex, mul-
tifaceted concepts, but Triandis (2009) emphasizes four
core elements in his theory of individualism–
collectivism: the significance of social relations, accep-
tance of social obligations, shared goals, and changes in
group members’ self-conceptions (see Table 3.1). The
following sections review these four elements as well as
cross-cultural variations in individualism–collectivism.
(For more detailed analyses and very differing opinions
on the issue of the core dimensions of individualism and
collectivism, see Chen, Chen, & Meindl, 1998; Oyser-
man, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Wagner, 1995.)
T A B L E 3.1 Core Features of Individualism and Collectivism (Triandis & Gelfand, 2012)
Facet Individualism Collectivism
Social relations Concern for maintaining relations that yield
personal benefits and few costs (exchange
orientation); memberships are limited to
family and close personal friendships
Concern for nurturing and maintaining har-
monious relations with others (communal
orientation); memberships including family,
tribes, villages, organizations, and social clubs
Social obligations Behavior is guided by personal attitudes
and preferences; context is not as important
as personal attitudes
Behavior is guided by group norms and roles;
decisions made by leaders and the group
Social motives Striving for personal success; satisfaction
comes from personal triumphs in competi-
tion with others
Concern for group success, cooperation
among group members, group is protected at
all costs; strong sense of duty and pride in
group’s successes
Social self The independent self is based on one’s
personal, idiosyncratic characteristics; each
self is autonomous and unique
The interdependent self is based on group-
level relationships, roles, and social identities
rather than individual personal qualities
individualism A tradition, ideology, or personal out-
look that emphasizes the primacy of the individual and
his or her rights, independence, and relationships with
other individuals.
collectivism A tradition, ideology, or personal orienta-
tion that emphasizes the primacy of the group or com-
munity rather than each individual person.
76 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Social Relations As Peak Search and Rescue
evolved into an organized group of dedicated res-
cue experts, its members came to strongly value
their relationships with one another. Who people
were, in terms of their personalities or their work
outside of the group, mattered less than their bonds
to one another and to the group. The group did
not tolerate those who considered themselves to be
better than anyone else, for in Peak pride derived
not from competitive striving over others but from
self-sacrifice for the good of the group (Sedikides,
Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003).
The relationships linking members to one
another and their group are not only stronger and
more valued by collectivists but they are also more
likely to be communal rather than exchange-based.
Individuals in exchange relationships monitor
their inputs into the group, strive to maximize the
rewards they personally receive through membership,
and are dissatisfied if their group becomes too costly
for them. They expect to receive rewards in exchange
for their investment of time, energy, and other per-
sonal resources. If individualists cannot identify any
personal benefit from helping others in the group
or community, then they will not offer any
help (Ratner & Miller, 2001). People in commu-
nal relationships, in contrast, are more concerned
with what their group receives than with their own
personal outcomes. When individuals work in com-
munal groups, they help fellow members more, pre-
fer to think of their work as a joint effort, and feel
disappointed if other members insist on reciprocating
any help given. They are also more likely to consider
the consequences of their actions for others and are
more diligent in making sure that others’ needs are
met (Clark & Mills, 2012).
This difference between an exchange and com-
munal orientation is particularly clear when the group
must allocate resources to members. Individualism
defines relations with others as a “strictly economic
exchange” (Fiske, 1992, p. 702). When faced with a
common resource pool or a project that requires com-
bined effort, individualists favor an evenly balanced,
one-for-one exchange. They “often mark their rela-
tionship with very concrete operations of balancing,
comparing, or counting-out items in one-for-one cor-
respondence” (Fiske, 1992, p. 691). Such exchanges
are also guided by the norm of reciprocity that
requires members to pay back in kind what others
give to them. The members cooperate with others,
but they do so to pay back past favors and to create
obligations for future favors (Gouldner, 1960).
If collectivistic, in contrast, members are not so
concerned with matching inputs and outputs. When
sharing a resource, members would be more likely to
“take what they need and contribute what they can,
without anyone attending to how much each person
contributes or receives. A person does not need to
give something in order to get something in
return—simple membership in the group is sufficient
to entitle one to the use of whatever resources the
group controls, and long-run imbalance is not a vio-
lation of the relationship” (Fiske, 1992, p. 693).
Social Obligations As Peak Search and Rescue
evolved into an organized group of dedicated rescue
experts, it developed its own unique group culture.
As the psychologist Edgar Schein explains, “any
definable group with a shared history can have a
culture” and “once a group has learned to hold com-
mon assumptions, the resulting automatic patterns of
perceiving, thinking, feeling, and behaving provide
meaning, stability, and comfort” (1990, p. 111).
Some group’s cultures endorse individualism:
Members are encouraged to realize their unique
potential, those who stand out from the group are
valued, and competition among members is
exchange relationship A reciprocal interdependency
that emphasizes the trading of gratifying experiences
and rewards among members.
communal relationship A reciprocal interdependency
that emphasizes meeting the needs and interests of others
rather than maximizing one’s own personal outcomes.
norm of reciprocity A social standard that enjoins indi-
viduals to pay back in kind what they receive from
others.
group culture The distinct ways that members of a
group represent their experiences, including consensually
accepted knowledge, beliefs, rituals, customs, rules, lan-
guage, norms, and practices.
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 77
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

encouraged, as is independence. But groups like Peak
are more like communities: Loyalty is prized above
all, decisions are often made collectively, members
take each other’s views into consideration, and once
a person becomes a member, the group takes care of
them (Robert & Wasti, 2002). But because collectiv-
ism elevates the group’s rights above those of the
individual, in collectivistic groups members are
expected to conform to the group’s norms and heed
the directives of those in positions of authority in the
group. A collectivistic group “binds and mutually
obligates” each member (Oyserman et al., 2002,
p. 5), and so members have no right to create disagree-
ment or to disrupt convened group proceedings. Such
groups therefore prefer acquiescence to disagreement
and compromise to conflict. Their operating principle
is “The tall nail gets pounded down.” Members are
expected to carry out their duties, and the successful
fulfillment of their roles and responsibilities is the pri-
mary source of self-satisfaction (Schwartz, 1994).
Members of individualistic groups, in contrast, do
not display as high a degree of uniformity in their
behavior or even respect for the group’s traditions
and leadership, for members are expected to act on
the basis of their attitudes, beliefs, and preferences.
Since members believe they have the right to speak
their minds and to disagree with others, they are more
reserved in their reactions to nonconformity per se;
after all, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Collec-
tivists hold rule-breakers in contempt, but individual-
ists tend to display anger toward those who disregard
the group’s emphasis on autonomy by seeking to
impose their will on others (Rozin et al., 1999).
Social Goals A collectivist orientation requires a
willingness to cooperate with others, and a degree
If You Had $20 to Split with a Group Member, How Much Would You Offer?
Imagine that you have been given $20 and told to
share it with Patrick, your fellow group member. You
may offer any portion of the $20—from 1¢ to $
19.99—but Patrick knows you have $20 to share and if
Patrick rejects your offer, no one gets any money at all.
You and Patrick cannot communicate with each other,
and you won’t get a second chance if he turns you
down. So, how much will you offer?
If you are motivated solely by profit, then you
should offer Patrick as little as possible. Economically
speaking, even if you only offer him $1, he should
take it because $1, although much less than the $19
you will receive, is better than $0. Yet, when people
strike this bargain—called the ultimatum game—
they rarely offer or accept so little. People, on aver-
age, offer between 35% and 50% of the total sum,
so you would likely offer Patrick between $7 and
$10. People are also quite willing to reject too low an
offer, even though it means that they will receive
nothing (Henrich et al., 2004). You and Patrick both
know that a 50/50 split is a fair distribution. You may
want to keep as much as you can, but realize that
Patrick may be willing to reject a low offer to send
you the message: “Play fair” (Kameda, Takezawa, &
Hastie, 2005).
Enterprising researchers have gathered data on
responses to the ultimatum game in dozens of small-
scale societies located around the world. Only one
group averaged offers of more than 50% of the
endowment: the Lamalara of East Indonesia. The lowest
offer (25%) was made by the Quichua of South Amer-
ica. This variability, although pronounced, was related
to each group’s level of collectivism. Some communities
stressed the importance of individuality and the family,
whereas in others “one’s economic well-being depends
on cooperation with non-relatives” (Henrich et al.,
2004, p. 29). These more cooperative communities
tended to be more generous in their allocations in the
game, as were those societies that created more elabo-
rate economic and social connections among various
households. As for the Lamalara: Their high level of
generosity reflects their unique living conditions. The
Lamalara are whalers, and traditionally the catch is
divided equally among all members of the
community—even those who did not participate in the
hunt. The Lamalara are quintessential collectivists.
ultimatum game An experimental bargaining situation in
which one individual, the allocator, must propose a division
of a shared resource to other members; if they reject the
allocator’s proposal, no one receives any of the resource.
78 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of optimism that these others are also committed
more to the common good than to their own per-
sonal outcomes. But what happens when when the
members of the groups do not share equally in the
work, but nonetheless seek an equal share of the
rewards? Whenever groups earn rewards or cover
costs, a fair means must be developed to determine
how these rewards and costs are distributed across
members. Imagine, for example, that your group
has earned a reward by winning a lottery or must
pay a fine because one of the group members acci-
dentally broke something. The equity norm
recommends that group members should receive
outcomes in proportion to their inputs. If an individ-
ual has invested a good deal of time, energy, money,
or other types of inputs in the group, then he or she
could expect to receive a good deal of the group
payoff. Similarly, individuals who contribute little
should not be surprised when they receive little.
The equality norm, on the other hand, recom-
mends that all group members, irrespective of their
inputs, should be given an equal share of the payoff.
In collectivistic settings, members would likely favor
allocating the winnings on an equal-share basis: All
should benefit, even if just one of the group members
was the one who picked the winning lottery num-
bers. However, collectivists may also require that the
costs be borne more heavily by the individual mem-
ber who caused a problem, because the group as a
whole must be protected against injury. Individualism,
in contrast, would favor an equity norm, because the
contributions of each member are recognized and
rewarded or punished (Utz & Sassenberg, 2002).
3-2b The Social Self
What would you answer if asked the question “Who
are you?” Would you include your physical qualities,
such as your height, weight, strength, and physical
appearance? Would your personality traits, the things
you believe in, your politics, or your fears and wor-
ries make the list? Might you mention your sex, your
age, or where you were born? Would you describe
your social roles and memberships, such as daughter,
father, citizen of a country, or student at a university
(Kuhn & McPartland, 1954)?
When answering the question “Who am I?”
people usually mention their individualistic qualities
and characteristics: their personality traits; prefer-
ences, interests, likes, and dislikes; aspirations,
hopes, and wishes; habits, activities, and pursuits;
abilities, skills, and beliefs; and even their emotional
tendencies and current mood state. But they also
mention qualities that spring from their relation-
ships with other people and groups (see
Table 3.2). Social roles and relationships, such as
spouse, lover, parent, stepparent, caregiver, and
worker, define one’s position in groups and social
networks. The self may also include memberships
in social groups, such as car pools, clubs, or church
T A B L E 3.2 Categories of Information in
the Social (Collective) Self
Component Examples
Roles athlete, caregiver, churchgoer, com-
munity volunteer, daughter, friend,
group member, neighbor, parent,
relative, secretary, son, spouse,
stepparent, student, and worker
Groups book club, class, clique, club, com-
mittee, department, executive
board, fraternity, gang, neighbor-
hood association, research group,
rock band, sorority, sports team,
squad, and work team
Categories alcoholic, athlete, Christian, deaf
person, Democrat, earthling, femi-
nist, gardener, gay, Hispanic,
Republican, retired person, sales-
person, scientist, smoker, South-
erner, and welfare recipient
Relations friend to others, in love, close to
other people, helpful to others in
need, and involved in social causes
equity norm A social standard that encourages distrib-
uting rewards and resources to members in proportion to
their inputs.
equality norm A social standard that encourages distrib-
uting rewards and resources equally among all members.
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 79
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

groups, and memberships in larger social categories,
based on ethnicity, age, religion, or some other
widely shared characteristic (Brewer & Chen, 2007;
Nario-Redmond et al., 2004).
The self, then, is based both on personal qualities
and interpersonal qualities. The personal identity
encompasses all those unique qualities, traits, beliefs,
skills, and so on that differentiate one person from
another. The social identity includes all those
qualities that derive from connections with and simi-
larity to other people and groups. The personal iden-
tity is the me of the self, and the social identity is the
we (Rhee et al., 1995).
Individualists and Collectivists Selves tend to be
dualistic with both a personal and social side, but some
people stress their personal, individualistic qualities,
and others their social, collectivistic qualities. Those
who lean toward individualism—variously called
individualists, independents, or idiocentrics—speak
of their independence, their personal goals, and their
Are You an Individualist or a Collectivist?
Individualism and collectivism are not only cultural and group-level orientations, but also qualities of individuals.
Those who are more individualistic stress their autonomy and uniqueness, whereas those who are collectivistic
are more other-oriented.
Instructions. To assess your own orientation, put a checkmark in front of each item you agree with in these
two lists.
q Independence: “I tend to do my own thing, and
others in my family do the same.”
q Relating: “To understand who I am, you must see
me with members of my group.”
q Goals: “I take great pride in accomplishing what
no one else can accomplish.”
q Belonging: “To me, pleasure is spending time
with others.”
q Competition: “It is important to me that I perform
better than others on a task.”
q Duty: “I would help, within my means, if a rela-
tive were in financial difficulty.”
q Uniqueness: “I am unique—different from others
in many respects.”
q Harmony: “I try to avoid disagreements with my
group members.”
q Privacy: “I like my privacy.” q Advice: “Before making a decision, I always con-
sult with others.”
q Self-knowledge: “I know my weaknesses and
strengths.”
q Hierarchy: “I have respect for the authority fig-
ures with whom I interact.”
q Communication style: “I always state my opinions
very clearly.”
q Context: “How I behave depends on who I am
with, where I am, or both.”
Scoring. Count up the checkmarks in the two sides: If you checked more of the items on the left side you
endorse more individualistic qualities, if more on the right side you are more collectivistic in your interpersonal
orientation (adapted from Oyserman et al., 2002; Triandis et al., 1985).
personal identity An individual’s perception of those
aspects of his or her self-concept that derive from indi-
vidualistic, personal qualities such as traits, beliefs, and
skills.
social identity (or collective self) An individual’s per-
ception of those aspects of his or her self-concept that
derive from his or her relationships with other people,
groups, and society.
individualists (or independents or idiocentrics)
Individuals predisposed to put their own personal inter-
ests and motivations above the group’s interests and
goals.
80 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

uniqueness. Collectivists—also called interdepen-
dents or allocentrics—stress their connections to
others (Triandis, 2009).
These differences in individualism and collectiv-
ism influence the way individuals think, feel, and act in
groups. When explaining why people act as they do,
individualists attribute behaviors to the internal, per-
sonal characteristics of the person, whereas collectivists
recognize that people’s actions are often determined by
the social circumstance in which they find themselves.
Collectivists think of personality differently than indi-
vidualists do—as a flexible set of tendencies that can
change when a person moves from one social situation
(e.g., the family) to another (e.g., the workplace).
Those who are more individualistic are emotionally
detached from their groups; they put their own per-
sonal goals above the goals of the group, and they find
more enjoyment in personal success and competition.
Collectivists are more respectful of other members of
their groups, and they are more likely to be good cor-
porate citizens who help coworkers rather than com-
pete with them (Moorman & Blakely, 1995).
Individualists and collectivists do not differ in their ten-
dency to join groups, but collectivists value their mem-
berships in their groups more, consider these
relationships to be stable and long-lasting, and are less
willing to sever their memberships. Collectivists seek
jobs that will enhance the quality of their relationships
with other people, and their satisfaction with their
work depends on the quality of their relationships
with their coworkers. Individualists choose jobs that
are personally fulfilling and that offer them opportu-
nities for advancement. Collectivists, compared to
individualists, have a more favorable attitude toward
group-level rewards for collective work (for reviews,
see Gelfand et al., 2004; Triandis & Gelfand, 2012).
Collectivists are more firmly rooted in their commu-
nities: they report having moved less frequently than
individualists (Oishi, Lun, & Sherman, 2007).
Cultural Differences The view of people as
independent, autonomous creatures may be pecu-
liar to Western society’s individualistic leanings.
When researchers measured the relative emphasis
on the individual and the group in countries all
around the world, they found that the United
States, other English-speaking countries (e.g., Eng-
land and Australia), and Western European coun-
tries (e.g., Finland and Germany) tended to be
more individualistic than Asian, Eastern European,
African, and Middle Eastern countries. Latin and
South American countries were more varied, with
such countries as Puerto Rico and Chile exhibiting
greater individualism than others (e.g., Hofstede,
1980; Oyserman et al., 2002).
The very idea of self may differ across cultures.
In Japan, a relatively collectivistic culture, the word
for self, Jibun, means “one’s portion of the shared
space” (Hamaguchi, 1985). To the Japanese, “the
concept of a self completely independent from the
environment is very foreign,” as people are not
collectivists (or interdependents or allocentrics)
Individuals predisposed to put the group’s interests and
goals above their personal interests and motivations.
Who Most Favors Their Group?
One of the ironies of collectivism is apparent when
individualists and collectivists encounter a member of
another group. Collectivists may be benevolent, trust-
ing, and caring, but this goodwill is reserved for the
ingroup. When individualists think about group mem-
bership, they consider it to consist of relatively loose
associations that are selected by members and not the
groups themselves. Collectivists, in contrast, define
belonging as “belonging securely,” and they tend to
view boundaries between one group and another to
be relatively impermeable. Individualists are less likely
to restrict their relationships to the ingroup, and they
are more trusting of strangers than are collectivists.
Collectivists spend more time in ingroup interactions,
and they are not as trusting of people who are not
members of their groups. Collectivists divide the world
up into “us” and “we”—the ingroup—versus “them”
and “they”—the outgroup (Triandis, 2009).
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 81
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

perceived apart from the existing social context,
much less controlling it (Kojima, 1984, p. 973).
Triandis and his colleagues illustrated this dif-
ference by asking people from various countries to
describe themselves. As expected, these self-
descriptions contained more references to roles
and relationships when people were from collectiv-
istic countries (e.g., Japan and China). Some indi-
viduals from the People’s Republic of China
described themselves exclusively in interpersonal
terms. And some U.S. residents used only personal
descriptors—they reported no elements of a collec-
tive self (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Other
research has suggested that people from collectivistic
countries resist describing their qualities if the social
context is not specified. Japanese, for example,
described themselves differently when they were
with different people and in different social situa-
tions. Americans, in contrast, described themselves
similarly across situations (Cousins, 1989).
These observations are only generalities, however,
for people within a culture may not adopt their home
country’s orientation. Triandis believes that about 60%
of the people in collectivistic cultures are interdepen-
dent (allocentrics), just as about 60% of the people in
individualistic cultures are independent (idiocentric)
types. He also reports that interdependent individuals
in individualistic countries tend to join more groups,
but that independent individuals in collectivistic cul-
tures “feel oppressed by their culture and seek to leave
it” (Triandis & Suh, 2002, p. 141). Each culture, too,
likely expresses its collectivism and individualism in
unique ways. Some collectivistic cultures, for example,
are much more hierarchically structured (vertical) than
others, like the culture of India with its caste system,
which stresses tradition, duty, and compliance with
authority. Other collectivistic cultures, however, stress
commonality, and so their society’s status and authority
structures are relatively flat (horizontal). Many Latin
American and Hispanic countries, for example, are col-
lectivistic, but they also place great value on helping
strangers—the culture of simpatia (Levine, Norenzayan,
& Philbrick, 2001). Other collectivistic societies toler-
ate considerable conflict within their groups. Members
of Israeli kibbutzes, for example, often engage in
heated debates, whereas Koreans strive for harmony
and avoid discord (Triandis, 1995, 1996). In contrast,
both Scandinavians and U.S. citizens are extremely
individualistic, but Scandinavians are noncompetitive,
whereas U.S. residents tend to adopt a culture of dig-
nity that stresses each person’s individual value (Kim,
Cohen, & Au, 2010). It may be that the dichotomy
between individualism and collectivism reflects, in
part, the cognitive biases of the Western theorists
who first proposed this distinction.
Maintaining Optimal Distinctiveness Collecti-
vists are often contrasted with individualists, but
these two orientations are continuous dimensions
of personality that vary in their influence across
time and situations. Most people’s selves are a com-
bination of both personal and collective elements,
and so their view of themselves can shift along the
continuum from individualistic to collectivistic,
depending on the situation. People’s answers to
the question “Who am I?” will change to include
more collectivistic elements if they are first asked to
imagine themselves in a group or if they have just
read texts that contain many plural pronouns such
as we or us. Asking them to think about how dif-
ferent they are from others or reading texts with
many I’s and me’s, in contrast, switches on the indi-
vidualistic self (Oyserman & Lee, 2008).
Optimal distinctiveness theory, proposed by
social psychologist Marilynn Brewer (2012), argues
that most people have at least three fundamental
needs: the need to be assimilated by the group, the
need to be connected to friends and loved ones, and
the need for autonomy and differentiation. She
hypothesized that individuals are most satisfied if
they achieve optimal distinctiveness: Their unique
personal qualities are noted and appreciated, they are
emotionally bonded with intimates, and they feel sim-
ilar to other group members in many respects.
optimal distinctiveness theory A conceptual analysis
that assumes individuals strive to maintain a balance
between three basic needs: the need to be assimilated
by the group, the need to be connected to friends and
loved ones, and the need for autonomy and differentia-
tion (proposed by Marilyn Brewer).
82 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Groups offer the members a convenient means
to meet all these needs. Peak may have restrained
Patrick’s individuality to some degree, but member-
ship in this group was itself a distinguishing creden-
tial. When individuals join a small, distinctive group
like Peak, their feeling of uniqueness increases—
many of the newcomers mentioned that one of the
reasons they initially sought membership was because
they wanted to do something that set them apart
from the mainstream (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004,
2016). Groups also provide many means for each
member to act in ways that are unique, for even
within a group as small as Peak members gravitated
to specific role assignments, which they enacted in
ways that were distinctively their own. Peak also
included a variety of overlapping subgroups, so
while all were members of the overall group, it
was easy for members to feel a common bond
with a few other members who remained set apart
to a degree from the rest of the group. Groups, then,
offer something to both the collectivist and the indi-
vidualist, for they provide the means to maximize
both a sense of uniqueness as well as satisfying the
need to belong (Maslach, Stapp, & Santee, 1985).
3 -3 FROM PERSONAL
IDENTITY TO SOCIAL IDENTITY
Before he joined Peak, Patrick probably answered
the question “Who are you?” by listing his accom-
plishments, his personal qualities, and his goals. But
his answer changed after spending two years as an
active member of the rescue squad. His need for
inclusion prompted him to seek membership in
Peak. The group taught him to put the collective’s
needs before his own. In time he came to identify
with Peak and its members. Now, if asked “Who
are you?” Patrick likely explained “I’m a member
of Peak Search and Rescue.”
How does a group become a part of one’s social
identity? What impact does this acceptance of the
group into one’s identity have on one’s self-
concept and self-esteem? In this final section, we
consider one compelling theoretical answer to
these questions: social identity theory. (For detailed
analyses of groups and identity, see Ashmore, Deaux,
& McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Ellemers & Haslam,
2012; Hogg & Abrams, 2003; Roccas et al., 2008.)
3-3a Social Identity Theory:
The Basics
Social psychologists Henri Tajfel, John Turner, and
their colleagues originally developed social identity
theory in an attempt to understand the causes of
conflict between people who belonged to different
groups. They began their work by first creating the
minimal intergroup situation: gatherings of two
groups of volunteers with no history, no future
together, and no real connection to one another.
They randomly assigned participants to one of two
groups, but they told the participants that the division
was based on some irrelevant characteristic, such as art
preference. Next, the participants were given surveys
asking them to divide a certain amount of money
among the participants in the study. The names of
the individuals were not listed on the survey, but
the participant could tell which group a person
belonged to by looking at his or her code number.
Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986) assumed that the
members of such rudimentary groups would not even
notice which group they were in or who belonged to
some other group, but they were wrong. Even though
participants did not know one another, they would
not be working together in the future, and their mem-
bership in the so-called group had absolutely no per-
sonal or interpersonal implications, they still favored
the ingroup over the outgroup. How could these
“purely cognitive” groups—groups that had no inter-
personal meaning whatsoever—nonetheless influence
social identity theory A theoretical analysis of group
processes and intergroup relations that assumes groups
influence their members’ self-concepts and self-esteem,
particularly when individuals categorize themselves as
group members and identify with the group.
minimal intergroup situation A research procedure
used in studies of intergroup conflict that involves creat-
ing temporary groups of anonymous, unrelated people
(developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner).
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 83
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

people’s perceptions and actions? Social identity the-
ory’s answer: Two cognitive processes—social categori-
zation and identification—combine to transform a group
membership into an identity.
Social Categorization The processes that generate
a person’s social identity begin with social
categorization (Turner, 1991, 1999). Perceivers, to
make sense of and understand other people, quickly
and automatically classify those they encounter into
groups based on age, race, nationality, and other cate-
gories. Once classified, individuals’ perceptions of
people are influenced by any beliefs they may have
about the qualities of people in such groups. If we
met Patrick on the street, we would rapidly slot
him into such social groupings as man, 20s, American,
and white, for example. And once categorized, our
perceptions of Patrick would be influenced by our
beliefs about the qualities and characteristics of the
prototypical American, 20-something white man.
These beliefs are stereotypes or prototypes: They
describe the typical characteristics of people in various
social groups and, more generally, how one group dif-
fers from another (the metacontrast principle).
People not only categorize other people, but
themselves as well. Patrick knows that he is a man,
an American, white, and in his 20s—that he belongs
in these social categories. And he might even apply
stereotypes about the people in those categories to
himself. He might, for example, believe that the pro-
totypical American man his age tends to act as a
leader, is involved in business outside the home, is
logical and objective in his thinking, and does not
get his feelings hurt easily (Abele, 2003). Then,
through self-stereotyping (or autostereotyping),
he would also apply those stereotypes to himself
and would come to believe that he, like most Amer-
ican men his age, leads rather than follows, is
engaged in his work, bases his decisions on logical
analysis, and is emotionally tough (Mackie, 1980).
Do people actually stereotype themselves? When
women in sororities rated themselves and other
women in their sorority on traits often ascribed to
sorority women (e.g., popular, well dressed, conceited,
shallow, and spoiled), they gave themselves and their
group nearly identical ratings—the correlation
between self-rating and group rating was 0.98 (Biernat,
Vescio, & Green, 1996). Students at Ohio State Uni-
versity, when their membership in this category was
made salient to them, were more likely to describe
themselves with adjectives that matched people’s
stereotypes about that group (e.g., rowdy, loud, fun lov-
ing, and partier). Honors students at the same school, in
contrast, described themselves as smart, disciplined, hard-
working, and determined when reminded that they were
not just college students, but honors students (Pickett,
Bonner, & Coleman, 2002). Boys and girls, as young as
five years of age, are more likely to describe themselves
in stereotypical ways when they categorize themselves
as male or female (Bennett & Sani, 2008).
Identification Most people belong to many groups
and categories, but many of these memberships have
no influence on their social identities. Patrick may
have been a right-hander, a Democrat, and brown-
eyed, but he may not give much thought to these
categories. But some of his memberships, such as his
involvement with Peak or his colleagues where he
works, could provide the foundation of his sense of
self. He identifies with these social categories and
accepts the group as an extension of himself. He
also knows that the other group members similarly
identify with Peak, and so they too possess the quali-
ties that this group stresses as essential ones for its most
qualified members. As social psychologist Michael
Hogg (2005, p. 136) explains:
They identify themselves in the same way and
have the same definition of who they are, what
attributes they have, and how they relate to
and differ from specific outgroups or from
people who are simply not ingroup members.
social categorization The perceptual classification of
people, including the self, into categories.
stereotypes (or prototypes) A socially shared set of
cognitive generalizations (e.g., beliefs and expectations)
about the qualities and characteristics of the typical mem-
ber of a particular group or social category.
self-stereotyping (or autostereotyping) Accepting
socially shared generalizations about the prototypical
characteristics attributed to members of one’s group as
accurate descriptions of oneself.
84 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Group membership is a matter of collective
self-construal—we, us, and them.
As social identification increases, individuals
come to think that their membership in the group is
personally significant. They feel connected and inter-
dependent with other members, are glad they belong
to the group, feel good about the group, and experi-
ence strong attachment to the group. Their connection
to the group also becomes more affectively toned—a
“hot” cognitive reaction rather than a “cold” recogni-
tion of membership—as individuals incorporate the
group into their social identity, “together with the
value and emotional significance attached to that mem-
bership” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255). Their self-descriptions
also become increasingly depersonalized as they include
fewer idiosyncratic elements and more characteristics
that are common to the group. As indicated by
Figure 3.5, the sense of self changes as the group is
included in the self (Wright, Aron, & Tropp, 2002).
Self and Identity A person’s identification with a
group can become so pronounced that across situations
they think of themselves as group members first and
individuals second. More typically, however, the self
will shift from me to we if something in the situation
increases the salience of one’s membership. Individuals
who find that they are the only representative of a
particular group—for example, the only man in a
group of five women or the only left-hander in a
class of otherwise all right-handers—may become
very aware that they are “men” or “lefties” (McGuire
& McGuire, 1988). People are also more likely to
think of themselves collectively if they are part of a
group that others have labeled a group, even if the
group members are minimally interdependent (Gaert-
ner et al., 2006). But one of the most important situa-
tional triggers of a collective self-categorization is the
presence of other groups. For example, Patrick’s male
identification may be muted when he is seated in a
room with 9 other men, but his membership in the
category man is activated when 10 women enter the
room (Hogg & Turner, 1987).
Another group-level determinant of self-
categorization is the relative size of one’s group com-
pared to other groups. People in groups with fewer
members, such as minority groups based on ethnic-
ity, race, or religion, tend to categorize themselves as
members more quickly than do those people who
are members of the larger, dominant, majority
group. The experience of being in the minority
apparently increases the salience of the social identity
based on that membership, and so people are more
likely to apply the stereotypical features of the
minority group to themselves. Researchers informed
some participants that a survey they had just com-
pleted suggested that they were extraverted and that
only 20% of the general population is extraverted.
These individuals then gave themselves higher rat-
ings on such traits as sociable and lively than did people
who were told that 80% of the population is extra-
verted (Simon & Hamilton, 1994).
social identification Accepting the group as an exten-
sion of the self and therefore basing one’s self-definition
on the group’s qualities and characteristics.
S GS GS G
Self Group S G S G S G
F I G U R E 3.5 The inclusion of the group in the self. If asked to select the set of circles that best indicates the extent
to which the group (G) overlaps with the self (S), people who do not identify with their group select circles that don’t
overlap. Increasing identification is indicated by selecting circles where the self and the group overlap to a large degree.
SOURCE: From “Ingroup Identification as the Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self,” by Linda R. Tropp & Stephen C. Wright, 2001, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, pp. 585–600. Copyright 2001 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. Adapted with permission.
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 85
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

3-3b Motivation and Social Identity
Social identity theory provides key insights into a
host of psychological and interpersonal processes,
including collectivism, perceptions of the outgroup,
presumptions of ingroup permeability, tolerance of
deviance within the group, increased satisfaction
with the group, and feelings of solidarity (Leach
et al., 2008). Later chapters will elaborate on the
further implications of this theory, but we conclude
this chapter by considering the role social identity
processes play in helping individuals protect and
maintain their sense of self-worth.
Evaluating the Self Hogg (2005) suggests that at
least two basic motives influence the way social
categorization and identification processes combine
to shape one’s sense of self. In general, individuals
are motivated to think well of themselves, and,
since their groups comprise a significant portion of
their selves, they maintain their self-worth by
thinking well of their groups. Second, Hogg sug-
gests that self-understanding is a core motive for
most people and that groups offer people a means
of understanding themselves.
When individuals join groups, their self-concept
becomes connected to that group, and the value of
that group influences their feelings of personal worth.
People who belong to prestigious groups tend to have
higher self-esteem than those who do not (Bran-
scombe, 1998). Sports fans’ moods swing up and
down as their favorite team wins and loses (Crisp
et al., 2007; Hirt et al., 1992). Adolescent boys and
girls are known to seek out membership in a particular
peer group, and these group memberships influence
their identity and their self-esteem. One study identi-
fied four frequently reported groups, listed here in
order of prestige: the elites, athletes, academics, and
deviants (Sussman et al., 2007). Those who are mem-
bers of the most prestigious groups generally report
feeling very satisfied with themselves and their group.
Those students who want to be a part of an “in crowd”
but are not accepted by this clique are the most dissat-
isfied (Brown & Lohr, 1987), and this interpersonal
failure can lead to long-term negative effects (Barnett,
2006; Wright & Forsyth, 1997).
Social psychologist Jennifer Crocker and her
colleagues examined the relationship between peo-
ple’s self-esteem and their feelings about the groups
to which they belonged by developing a measure of
collective self-esteem. Instead of asking people if
they felt good or bad about themselves, they asked
individuals to evaluate the groups to which they
belonged. Drawing on prior work on social identity
and self-esteem, the researchers developed items that
tapped four basic issues: membership esteem, private
collective self-esteem, public collective self-esteem,
and importance to identity (see Table 3.3). When
they compared scores on the collective self-esteem
T A B L E 3.3 Items from the Collective Self-Esteem Inventory
Subscale Issue Example Item
Membership esteem Am I a valuable or an ineffective member
of the groups to which I belong?
I am a worthy member of the social
groups I belong to.
Private collective
self-esteem
Do I evaluate the groups I belong to posi-
tively or negatively?
I feel good about the social groups I
belong to.
Public collective
self-esteem
Do other people evaluate the groups I
belong to positively or negatively?
In general, others respect the social
groups that I am a member of.
Identity Are the groups I belong to an important or
unimportant part of my identity?
In general, belonging to social groups is
an important part of my self-image.
SOURCE: “A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One’s Social Identity” by R. Luhtanen and J. Crocker, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 1992.
collective self-esteem Individuals’ overall assessment of
that portion of their self-concept that is based on their
relationships with others and membership in social
groups.
86 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

scale to scores on more traditional measures of
self-esteem, they found that people with high mem-
bership esteem and public and private collective
self-esteem scores had higher personal self-esteem,
suggesting that group membership contributes to
feelings of self-worth (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990;
Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Luhtanen & Crocker,
1992; see, too, Sacco & Bernstein, 2015).
Protecting the Collective Self People protect
their collective self-esteem just as they protect
Can Social Identity Theory Explain Sports Fans?
Fan derives from a slightly longer word: fanatic. A
fanatic is a person who engages in extreme, unrea-
sonable devotion to an idea, philosophy, or practice.
Similarly, the die-hard sports fan displays great
devotion to a team, with emotions rising and falling
with the team’s accomplishments. Fans are not actu-
ally members of the teams they support. They are
only watching the games from the sidelines, and they
are not directly involved in the outcome. Yet they
often seem to be very closely connected psychologi-
cally to their teams. They are happy when their team
wins, but after a loss, fans experience a range of
negative emotions: anger, depression, sadness,
hopelessness, and confusion (Wann & Craven, 2014).
Moreover, the “agony of defeat” appears to be more
psychologically profound than the “thrill of victory.”
Fans’ moods become somewhat positive after their
team wins, but their mood plummets following fail-
ure (Hirt et al., 1992).
Social identity theory offers insight into this odd
but exceedingly common group behavior (Mael &
Ashforth, 2001). Sports fans identify with their team
and so experience the team’s outcomes as their own.
When the team wins, they can share in that victory.
They experience a range of positive emotions,
including pride, happiness, and even joy, and they can
gloat over the failure of their rivals. They can, when
interacting with other people, bask in reflected glory
or (BIRG), by stressing their association with the
successful group, even though they have contributed
little to that success (Cialdini et al., 1976). They also
experience a host of positive interpersonal benefits
from supporting a specific team—particularly a local
one (Wann, 2006). Fans who support the same team
may spend considerable time in enjoyable shared
activities, and gain from that group experience social
support, a sense of belonging, and enhanced overall
well-being.
But what if their team should lose? Casual fans can
just downplay the loss by switching their allegiance to
some other team: cutting off reflected failure (CORFing)
(Snyder, Higgins, & Stucky, 1983). Dedicated fans,
whose homes are decorated with team insignia, who
wear the team’s colors, and who have based much of
their sense of self on their loyalty to the team, cannot
CORF. Their team’s loss will be their loss (St. John, 2004).
But these die-hard fans can and do rely on a variety of
psychological and social tactics to ease the pain of the
loss. They may blame their failure on external factors,
such as field conditions or the referee. They may spend
time talking about past successes, and convince one
another that better times lie ahead. The can take solace
in their failure collectively, and mourn over their
group’s loss together. They may also take pride in other
aspects of their team, such as its sportsmanship or esprit
de corps (Wann, 2006). They may even vent their frus-
tration by acting violently, destroying property, and
attacking the supporters of other teams.
Fanship, like many social identities, comes with a
risk—identifying with a group whose outcomes one
cannot control means that one will experience the plea-
sure of victory but also the agony of a shared defeat.
That despair can be profound: Suicide rates track the
rise and fall with the success of the local college sports
team in some college-towns with strong fan allegiance
(Joiner, Hollar, & Van Orden, 2006). However, victory can
bring great elation. When the U.S. Olympic Hockey Team
beat the Russian national team on February 22nd, 1980,
fewer people committed sucide on that day than on
other February 22s from 1972 to 1989. Whereas failure
may set the stage for collective misery, a team victory
may be the “sweetest song of all” (Kahn, 1973).
basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) Seeking direct
or indirect association with prestigious or successful
groups or individuals.
cutting off reflected failure (CORFing) Distancing
oneself from a group that performs poorly.
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 87
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

their personal self-esteem. They deny that their
group possesses negative qualities. They consider
their group to be superior to alternative groups.
They give their group credit for its successes, but
blame outside influences when their group fails.
Should other, more rewarding groups stand will-
ing and ready to take them in, individuals remain
loyal to their original group. Identity is the glue
that binds individuals to their groups (Van Vugt &
Hart, 2004).
When individuals identify with their group,
they also tend to exaggerate the differences
between their group and other groups. Once peo-
ple begin to think in terms of we and us, they also
begin to recognize them and they. The tendency to
look more favorably on the ingroup is called the
ingroup–outgroup bias. Gang members view
their group more positively than rival gangs. Team-
mates praise their own players and derogate the
other team. If Group A and Group B work side
by side, members of A will rate Group A as better
than B, but members of B will rate Group B more
favorably than A.
The ingroup–outgroup bias contributes to the
self-esteem and emotional well-being of group
members. Social identity theory posits that people
are motivated to maintain or enhance their feelings
of self-worth, and, because members’ self-esteem is
linked to their groups, their feelings of self-worth
can be enhanced by stressing the relative superiority
of their groups to other groups. Even membership
in a group that others may not admire is generally
associated with higher levels of self-esteem
(Crocker & Major, 1989). Adolescents with mental
retardation do not necessarily have lower self-
esteem, even though they know they belong to
the negatively stereotyped social category “special
education students” (Stager, Chassin, & Young,
1983). African Americans, despite living in a culture
where stereotypes about their group tend to be
negative, have higher self-esteem than European
Americans (Twenge & Crocker, 2002). Members
of groups that are criticized often respond by
defending their group and reaffirming their com-
mitment to it (Dietz-Uhler & Murrell, 1998). So
long as individuals believe that the groups they
belong to are valuable, they will experience a
heightened sense of personal self-esteem (Crocker
& Wolfe, 2001).
Even if the group falters, members can none-
theless find ways to protect the group and, in so
doing, protect their own selves. A setback, particu-
larly at the hands of another group, calls for social
creativity: Group members compare the ingroup
to the outgroup on some new dimension. Members
of a last-placed ice hockey team (1 win and 21
losses), when asked if their team and their oppo-
nents were aggressive, dirty, skilled, and motivated,
admitted that their opponents were more skilled,
but they also argued that their opponents were
more aggressive and that they played dirty
(Lalonde, 1992). When emergency medical techni-
cians (EMTs) were told that their group had per-
formed more poorly than another group of EMTs,
they later claimed their group members had nicer
personalities (Cadinu & Cerchioni, 2001). Hospital
employees, when asked to evaluate their hospital
and a second hospital that was larger and better
equipped, gave the other hospital higher ratings
on such variables as community reputation, chal-
lenge, and career opportunity, but claimed that
their hospital was a better place to work because
everyone got along better (Terry & Callan, 1998).
The ingroup–outgroup bias has a significant
negative side effect. As individuals champion their
group, they sometimes denigrate those who belong
to other groups. The tendency to feel good about
one’s own group is not as strong as the tendency to
derogate other groups, and social identification can
ingroup–outgroup bias The tendency to view the
ingroup, its members, and its products more positively
than other groups, their members, and their products.
Ingroup favoritism is more common than the outgroup
rejection.
social creativity Restricting comparisons between the
ingroup and other groups to tasks and outcomes when
the ingroup is more successful than other groups and
avoiding areas in which other groups surpass the ingroup.
88 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

still occur even in the absence of a contrasting out-
group (Gaertner et al., 2006). But as Chapter 14’s
analysis of intergroup conflict explains, the social
and psychological processes that generate social
identity can also create conflict between groups.
Stereotype Verification and Threat In social
identity theory, stereotypes serve to create identity,
but they can also constrain identity. When people are
proud members of their groups, they readily admit that
they are stereotypical and will also take steps to confirm
these stereotypes when they interact with people who
are not part of their group. They prefer to interact with
people who confirm their stereotype about their
group, rather than people who hold beliefs that con-
tradict these assumptions (Chen, Chen, & Shaw,
2004; Gómez et al., 2009). They may even accept,
and apply to themselves and to other members of
their group, stereotypical qualities that are negative
rather than positive. A professor who admits that he
left behind all the papers he was to return that day to
his class mumbles something about being an “absent-
minded professor.” A fair-haired young woman who
complains about the amount of statistical information
discussed in a class opines, “I’m just a blonde—I don’t
really like math.”
Such negative ingroup stereotyping has been
shown to protect individuals’ feelings of self-worth.
Women who had just discovered they had done
poorly on a math test, when reminded of the stereo-
type of women as weak at math, had higher self-
esteem than those in a control condition. A second
study indicated that it was women with higher self-
esteem who embraced the stereotype after failure
rather than women with lower self-esteem (Burkley
& Blanton, 2008). These studies suggest that a social
identity can protect the self, even if the identity is
one that includes qualities that are not socially prized
(Simon, Glässner-Bayerl, & Stratenwerth, 1991).
In many cases, however, stereotypes distort the
accuracy of people’s perceptions of the members of
other groups and contribute to intergroup conflict.
Stereotypes are resistant to revision, so perceivers
continue to apply them even when experience
tells them these generalizations about people are
distorted. Stereotypes often trigger an unfavorable
rejection of others that is both unfair and irratio-
nal, causing perceivers to prejudge people solely
on the basis of their membership in a group or
category. Stereotypes provide the cognitive foun-
dation of prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup
hostility.
Stereotypes can also trigger a process known as
stereotype threat when individuals know that
others they are interacting with may be relying on
group stereotypes to judge them. This worry that
they might confirm these stereotypes may, in
turn, undermine individuals’ actual performance.
A college professor may not wish to be labeled
absentminded and a blonde-haired woman may
prefer to be recognized for her scientific acumen
rather than her sense of fashion. But when such
individuals enter into situations where they are at
risk of being judged on the basis of stereotypes that
they wish to resist, they may fail to perform as well
as they could, and the stereotype becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy (Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele,
Spencer, & Aronson, 2002).
Protecting the Personal Self In general, people
are more disturbed by threats to their personal self-
esteem than to their collective self-esteem. They are
more likely to deny the accuracy of negative indi-
vidualized information relative to negative group
information, and they more readily claim positive
feedback when it focuses on them rather than on
their group. For example, an individual, if told
“you did very poorly—you must be slow” or “you
are excessively moody,” will react more negatively
than a person who is part of a group told “your
group did very poorly—you must be slow” or “peo-
ple in your group are excessively moody” (Gaertner
et al., 2002; Gaertner & Sedikides, 2005; Sedikides,
Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). Personal failure is more
troubling than collective failure, in most cases.
stereotype threat The anxiety-provoking belief that
others’ perceptions and evaluations will be influenced
by their negative stereotypes about one’s group that
can, in some cases, interfere with one’s ability to perform
up to one’s capabilities.
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 89
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

People will also turn away from a group that
continues to threaten their personal self-esteem.
When people can choose the groups they belong
to or identify with, they often shift their allegiances,
leaving groups that are lower in status or prone to
failure and seeking membership in prestigious or suc-
cessful groups (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002).
The technical term for such a change in allegiance
is individual mobility (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje,
1997). More common ways to describe this process
include resigning, dropping out, quitting, breaking
up, escaping, bailing, and ditching: The member
leaves the group for a more promising one. As the
analysis of group formation in Chapter 4 shows,
when people’s groups are too much trouble, they
leave them in search of better ones.
C HAPT ER R EV IEW
Do humans, by nature, seek solitude or inclusion in
groups?
1. Three interrelated processes determine the
relationship between individuals and groups: (a)
inclusion and exclusion, (b) individualism and
collectivism, and (c) personal identity and social
identity.
2. Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggest that much
of human behavior is motivated by the need to
belong.
■ Solitude is sometimes rewarding, but pro-
longed isolation is highly stressful.
■ Groups help members avoid basic
forms of loneliness: social and emotional.
Ironically, individuals with one to three
degrees of separation from a lonely indi-
vidual are more likely to themselves be
lonely.
3. Ostracism, or deliberate exclusion from groups,
is highly stressful, as indicated by self-reports
of negative affect in everyday situations and
people’s reactions in experimental studies of
exclusion.
■ Williams’ (2007) temporal need–threat
model of ostracism identifies a three-stage
response to exclusion: reflexive, reflective,
and resignation.
■ Exclusion can trigger a fight-or-flight response
(confront or withdraw, Taylor, 2006), a
tend-and-befriend response (social
reconnection), or, in rare cases, violence
targeting the source of the exclusion
(Gaertner et al., 2008; Leary et al., 2003).
■ Individuals also react negatively to exclu-
sion from computer-mediated interaction,
or cyberostracism.
4. Evolutionary psychology suggests that the need
to belong resulted from natural selection as
individuals who were affiliated with groups
were more likely to survive.
■ Sociometer theory (Leary, 2017a) hypothe-
sizes that self-esteem provides individuals
with feedback about their degree of
inclusion in groups.
■ The intensely negative reactions most
people experience when they feel
excluded are associated with specific hor-
monal and neurological processes.
■ Studies of the brain using fMRI technol-
ogy (Eisenberger, 2003) and the effects of
analgesics on emotional reactions follow-
ing rejection suggest that the pain of
exclusion is maintained by the same bio-
logical systems responsible for the experi-
ence of physiological pain.
individual mobility Reducing one’s connection
to a group in order to minimize the threat to individual
self-esteem.
90 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

When do people put the group’s needs before their
own?
1. Individualism and collectivism are distinguish-
able in their relative emphasis on individuals
and groups. Triandis (2009) identifies four
distinct differences between these two
orientations:
■ Social relations: Collectivism endorses
communal relationships, whereas individual-
ism supports exchange relationships and allo-
cations based on the norm of reciprocity.
Sharing with others is more likely in a
collectivistic culture, as suggested by
responses to the ultimatum game.
■ Social obligations: Groups with collectiv-
istic group cultures stress loyalty, hierarchy,
and conformity more so than individualis-
tic groups.
■ Social goals: When members gain rewards
through cooperative goal-seeking, the
allocation of those rewards can be based on
the equality norm (collectivistic) or the
equity norm (individualistic).
■ Self-concepts: personal identity includes
qualities that distinguish individuals from
one another, whereas social identity includes
all those qualities shared in common with
others. Individualists’ identities emphasize
their personal qualities, whereas collectivists’
identities emphasize connections to other
people.
2. Cultures vary in their relative emphasis on
individualism and collectivism. People who
live in collectivistic cultures (e.g., Asian,
Eastern European, African, and Middle
Eastern countries) think of themselves as
group members first and individuals
second, whereas people who live in indi-
vidualistic cultures (Western countries) are
self-centered rather than group-centered
(Triandis, 2009).
3. Brewer (2012) distinguishes between two
group-level selves: the relational self and the
collective self. Her optimal distinctiveness theory
suggests that individuals strive to maintain an
optimal balance between their personal and
collective identities.
What processes transform an individual’s sense of self
into a collective, social identity?
1. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)
traces the development of a collective identity
back to two key processes (categorization and
identification) that occur even in minimal inter-
group situations.
2. Social categorization involves automatically clas-
sifying people into categories.
■ Through self-categorization, individuals
classify themselves into categories.
■ Self-stereotyping (or autostereotyping)
occurs when individuals apply stereotypes
(prototypes) based on those categories
to themselves.
3. Social identification occurs when the individual
accepts the group and its characteristics as an
extension of the self (Hogg, 2005). Identifica-
tion and categorization become more likely
when outgroups are salient and when people
are members of smaller groups.
4. Social identity assumes individuals are moti-
vated to maintain self-esteem and to clarify
their understanding of themselves and other
people (Hogg, 2005).
■ Self-esteem is related to membership in
higher status groups and to collective self-
esteem (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990).
■ Members of stigmatized groups, failing
groups, or groups that are derogated by
nonmembers often protect their self-
esteem by rejecting negative information
about their group, basking in reflected glory
(BIRGing), cutting off reflected failure
(CORFing), stressing the relative superi-
ority of their group (the ingroup–outgroup
bias), and selectively focusing on their
group’s superior qualities (social creativity).
I N C LU S I O N A N D I D EN TI T Y 91
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ When stereotype threat is high, members
become concerned that they will be ste-
reotyped if considered a member of a
particular group.
■ In general, personal failure is more trou-
bling than collective failure. Individuals
will minimize their association with groups
that are performing poorly or will resign
from the group (individual mobility).
R E S O U R C E S
Chapter Case: Peak Search and Rescue
■ Heroic Efforts: The Emotional Culture of
Search and Rescue Volunteers by Jennifer Lois
(2003) details the complex nuances of
membership in a high demanding group
that regularly engages in heroic and dan-
gerous community service.
Inclusion, Exclusion, and Belonging
■ Ostracism, Exclusion, and Rejection, edited
by Kipling D. Williams and Steve A. Nida
(2017), summarizes the latest theoretical
and empirical work examining how being
excluded from a group influences people
physically, socially, and psychologically.
■ The Handbook of Solitude: Psychological Per-
spectives on Social Isolation, Social Withdrawal,
and Being Alone, edited by Robert J.
Coplan and Julie C. Bowker (2014), draws
together over 30 chapters examining all
aspects of isolation, loneliness, and ostra-
cism. No one perspective on isolation is
overlooked, for the wide-ranging chapters
consider the neurological, developmental,
social, personality, and clinical causes and
consequences of solitude.
■ “Sociometer Theory” by Mark R. Leary
(2012) summarizes the evidence that sup-
ports the idea that self-esteem is not
determined by personal appraisals of one’s
value, but by the extent to which one is
accepted by others.
Individualism and Collectivism
■ “Rethinking Individualism and Collectiv-
ism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions
and Meta-Analyses” by Daphna Oyserman,
Heather M. Coon, and Markus Kemmel-
meier (2002) thoroughly explores the psy-
chological implications of individual and
cultural differences in individualism and
collectivism and is followed by a number of
fascinating expert commentaries.
■ “A Theory of Individualism and Collectiv-
ism” by Harry C. Triandis and Michele J.
Gelfand (2012) traces the development of
cultural variations from the time of Ham-
murabi’s Code through to contemporary
anthropological, sociological, and psycho-
logical studies of individualism and
collectivism.
Social Identity
■ “The Social Identity Perspective” by
Michael A. Hogg (2005) provides a compact
but comprehensive review of the basic the-
oretical assumptions of social identity theory.
■ “Social Identity Theory” by Naomi Elle-
mers and S. Alexander Haslam (2012)
examines the history of the development
of the theory of social identity, beginning
with the earliest work on minimal group
situations through to current theoretical
issues pertaining to depersonalization, cat-
egorization, and self-esteem.
92 C H A P T ER 3
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 4
Formation
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Groups form through a combination of personal,
situational, and interpersonal processes. Formation
depends on the members themselves; some people
are more likely than others to join groups. Groups
also come into existence when the press of environ-
mental circumstances pushes people together rather
than keeping them apart. They also spring up,
sometimes unexpectedly, when people discover
that they like one another, and this attraction pro-
vides the foundation for the development of inter-
personal bonds.
■ Who joins groups and who stays apart?
■ When do people affiliate with other people?
■ What processes generate bonds of interpersonal
attraction between members of groups?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
4-1 Joining Groups
4-1a Personality Traits
4-1b Anxiety and Attachment
4-1c Social Motivation
4-1d Men, Women, and Groups
4-1e Attitudes, Experiences, and Expectations
4-2 Affiliation
4-2a Social Comparison
4-2b Stress and Affiliation
4-2c Social Comparison and the Self
4-3 Attraction
4-3a Principles of Attraction
4-3b The Economics of Membership
Chapter Review
Resources
93
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

We can ask many questions about the Impressio-
nists. How did they make decisions and strategize?
Why did Manet rank so high in status, and why did
one of the group’s finest painters—Degas—become
the malcontent? How did the group counter the
constraints imposed by the status quo? But one
question—perhaps the most basic one of all—asks
why did it come into existence in the first place? In
1858, Manet, Monet, Degas, and the others were
busy pursuing their careers independently. But by
the late 1860s, they had joined to form the most
influential artists circle of all time. What were the
circumstances that drove these individuals to com-
bine their resources in a group that endured for
more than 30 years?
This chapter answers this question in three parts.
It begins with the artists themselves, for people’s per-
sonalities, preferences, and prior experiences influence
the extent to which they seek out membership in
groups. Some are joiners; some are loners. Next, it con-
siders the situation, for even a collection of highly
sociable joiners must affiliate on at least one occasion
before a group will form. Some situations push people
together; others keep them apart. Affiliation, how-
ever, only sets the stage for group formation. If the
individuals who find themselves together are not
attracted to each other, then a long-lasting group like
the Impressionists likely will not form. Some people
like each other; some do not.
4-1 J OIN ING GRO UPS
Monet and Vincent van Gogh were both brilliant
artists, both dropped out of traditional schools of art,
and both experimented continually as they struggled
to perfect their craft. But Monet joined with other
artists, whereas van Gogh kept to himself. Not
The Impressionists: The Group That Redefined Beauty
The group was born in Paris in 1862. Four young men,
all students at a small school of the arts on the Rue de
l’Ouest, formed its core: Frederic Bazille, Claude
Monet, Auguste Renoir, and Alfred Sisley. They
banded together to refine their artistic styles and
techniques, but also to ridicule long-held assumptions
about what qualified as good art. They were soon
joined by other disgruntled artists, including the
unconventional Edouard Manet, the detail-oriented
Gustave Caillebotte, the contentious Edgar Degas, the
irritable Paul Cézanne, and the tactful Camille Pissarro.
Other than their work, they had little in common.
Some were the sons of wealthy families but others had
working-class backgrounds. Some were outgoing and
confident but others were quiet and uncertain. Some
had been working at their craft for many years and
others were struggling to learn the basics. But they
were united in their opposition to the state-supported
Academy of Fine Arts. The academy alone determined
which paintings and sculptures could be displayed at
the Exhibition of the Works of Living Artists (the
“Salon”), and most artists acquiesced to the academy’s
guidelines. But this small group of renegade painters
shared a different vision. They wanted to capture the
beauty of everyday life, outdoor scenes, and real peo-
ple instead of posed portraits and technically precise
studio paintings of religious, historical, and mythic
scenes.
The young artists developed a new approach to
painting. They left the studio to journey into the coun-
tryside to paint landscapes. They sometimes painted side
by side and critiqued one another’s work. They met in
cafés in Paris to discuss technique, artistic philosophies,
and politics.
They borrowed brushes, paints, and canvases from
one another, shared meals and models, and slept on
each other’s floors when no better bed could be had.
They competed with one another constantly, but when
one of them fell ill or faced financial crises, the others
were there to provide support. Some became fast
friends, others remained more at the group’s fringes,
but together they worked to change the public’s atti-
tudes about their work. Art critics rejected their
approach for years, and the artists scarcely earned
enough money to survive. But, in time, they were rec-
ognized by the art community as a new school of
painting. Separately, they were just artists learning their
craft, defining their style, and earning enough to pay
the bills. But when they joined together to form a
group, they transformed themselves and their art, and
in time they redefined the world’s conception of beauty.
They were the Impressionists (Farrell, 1982, 2001).
94 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

everyone who joins a group is a “joiner,” and people
who prefer independence over association are not
necessarily “loners.” But people differ from each
other in many ways—in personality, motivations,
and past experiences—and these differences predis-
pose some people to join groups and others to remain
apart.
4-1a Personality Traits
When Monet learned that Renoir, Bazille, and
Sisley were meeting each evening, he was quick to
join the group. Why? Part of the answer lies in his
basic personality. He was energetic, creative, opti-
mistic, and relentless in the pursuit of his goals. Some
described him as egotistical, but most thought he was
a warm, friendly person who enjoyed being with
other people. Once he joined a group, he quickly
became its leader. Monet’s style of painting changed
over time, but his basic personality remained steady
throughout his adult life.
The five-factor model (FFM) of personality
provides one explanation for the idiosyncratic con-
sistencies in individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and
actions over time. Why was Caillebotte so conscien-
tious in organizing the Impressionists’ exhibitions?
Why was Monet so adept at influencing others and
making friends, whereas Cézanne was bad-tempered
and melancholy? Why was van Gogh unable to
relax, even when physically exhausted? The FFM
explanation: People who vary on the five fundamen-
tal traits of personality—extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to
experience—exhibit consistent differences across
diverse times and situations.
■ Extraversion: engagement and interest in
social interactions, including friendliness, gre-
gariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement
seeking, and cheerfulness.
■ Agreeableness: cooperative orientation to
others, including acceptance, frankness, com-
passion, congeniality, modesty, and sympathy.
■ Conscientiousness: persistence in the pursuit
of tasks, including self-confidence, orderliness,
meeting of obligations, achievement striving,
self-regulation, and measured responding.
■ Neuroticism: strong emotional proclivities,
including anxiety, hostility, negative affect,
shyness, lack of impulse control, and reactivity
to stressors.
■ Openness to Experience: active pursuit of
intellectually and aesthetically stimulating
experiences, including imagination, fantasy,
appreciation of art, openness to emotions and
experiences, curiosity, and cognitive flexibility.
The theory assumes that people differ from one
another in many ways, but much of this variability
is the observable manifestation of these five basic
dimensions (which, when reordered, spell OCEAN;
McCrae & Costa, 2013).
Joiners and Loners All five of the factors in the
FFM of personality predict people’s interest in joining
groups and their actions once they are included in
those groups, but one trait is a particularly influential
determinant of one’s groupishness: extraversion
(Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). Extraversion is the
tendency to move toward people rather than away
from people. Extraverts are sociable, outgoing, and
active; they are likely to prefer the company of others,
particularly in pleasant and enjoyable situations (Lucas
& Diener, 2001). Those on the low side of this trait,personality The configuration of distinctive but enduring
dispositional characteristics, including traits, temperament,
and values, that characterize an individual’s responses across
situations.
five-factor model (FFM, or big five theory) A con-
ceptual model of the primary dimensions that structure
individual differences in personality. The five dimensions
are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neu-
roticism, and openness to experience. Different theorists
sometimes use different labels.
extraversion In personality trait theories, the degree to
which an individual tends to seek out social contacts,
including such related qualities as outgoing, enthusiastic,
energetic, and assertive. Introverts are oriented primarily
toward inner perceptions and judgments of concepts and
ideas, whereas extraverts are oriented primarily toward
social experiences.
FO RMATIO N 95
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

How Extraverted, Agreeable, Conscientious, Neurotic, and Open Are You?
Personality traits are complex and multifaceted, and so are more precisely measured by long surveys with many
questions. But, the TIPI (Ten-Item Personality Inventory) is a good way to measure the key personality traits of
the FFM in under a minute.
Instructions: Here are a number of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Please write a num-
ber next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement. You
should rate the extent to which the pair of traits applies to you, even if one characteristic applies more strongly
than the other.
1 ¼ Disagree strongly 4 ¼ Neither agree nor disagree 6 ¼ Agree moderately
2 ¼ Disagree moderately 7 ¼ Agree strongly
3 ¼ Disagree a little 5 ¼ Agree a little
1. _______ Extraverted, enthusiastic.
2. _______ Critical, quarrelsome.
3. _______ Dependable, self-disciplined.
4. _______ Anxious, easily upset.
5. _______ Conventional, uncreative.
6. _______ Reserved, quiet.
7. _______ Sympathetic, warm.
8. _______ Disorganized, careless.
9. _______ Calm, emotionally stable.
10. _______ Open to new experiences, complex.
Scoring: For some of the items, agreement indicates a lower level of the trait, but for others agreement
indicates a higher level of the trait. So, the negatively worded items are reversed before summing.
Trait Average Your score
Extraversion 8.9 Item 1 þ (8 � Item 6) ¼ ____
Agreeableness 10.5 (8 � Item 2) þ Item 7 ¼ ____
Conscientiousness 10.8 Item 3 þ (8 � Item 8) ¼ ____
Neuroticism 9.7 Item 4 þ (8 � Item 9) ¼ ____
Openness 10.8 (8 � Item 5) þ Item 10 ¼ ____
Scores can range from a low of 2 to a high of 14. If your score is higher or lower than the average
score by several points, you are high or low on that particular trait. For example, if Monet scored a 9.0 on
extraversion, he would be average on that trait. But if his score was 12, he would be above average:
extraverted.
The TIPI is a valid measure of personality, but care should nonetheless be exercised in interpreting your
scores. These five traits are complex and multifaceted, but the TIPI does not measure the specific components of
each trait. Also, the TIPI scores vary depending on a person’s age, cultural background, and sex. Men, for exam-
ple, tend to have lower scores on extraversion and neuroticism in comparison to women, and younger people
have higher openness scores than do older people. (For more information see http://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/scales-
weve-developed/ten-item-personality-measure-tipi/.)
Source: Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37(6), 504–528.
96 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the introverts, tend to be withdrawn, quiet, and reclu-
sive. Different cultures imbue introversion and extra-
version with unique, culture-specific meaning, but
people all over the world spontaneously appraise
their own and others’ social tendencies (Lucas et al.,
2000). Monet was, in all likelihood, an extravert; van
Gogh, an introvert.
Extraverts, compared to people who are more
introverted, belong to more groups, they like work-
ing with other people rather than alone, they talk
spontaneously to strangers, and during vacations
they want to do things with other people rather
than alone. They even say that “thinking about
meetings with others is very pleasant for me” (Foschi
& Lauriola, 2014, p. 341). Extraverts’ affinity for
being part of a group may also be based on their
assertiveness, for they tend to be influential group
members rather than quiet followers. They may
seek out groups because such interactions are stimu-
lating, and extraverts appreciate stimulating experi-
ences more than introverts do (Smillie, 2013).
Groups may also seek out extraverts rather than
introverts. Some qualities, such as intelligence,
morality, and friendliness, are difficult to judge dur-
ing initial encounters, but observers are particularly
good at detecting extraversion in others (Albright,
Kenny, & Malloy, 1988). If a group is looking for
people who will be sociable and will connect easily
with others, it might recruit extraverts more actively
than introverts (Duffy & Chartrand, 2015). Groups
may also seek extraverts because they are, in general,
happier people than introverts. This difference
appears to know no cultural or national boundaries,
for when researchers studied students in 39 countries
those who were more extraverted were also the ones
who were happiest (Lucas et al., 2000).
Why are extraverts so happy (Zelenski, Sobocko,
& Whelan, 2014)? Extraverts are more sensitive to
rewards than introverts, and so their positivity may
be due to their more positive reaction to pleasant
experiences. Alternatively, their happiness may also
be due to the fact that they join more frequently
with other people, and strong social relationships are
a fundamental determinant of well-being. When
introverts and extraverts recorded their behavior five
times a day for two weeks, researchers discovered that
even introverts talking to other people, interacting in
groups, and so on reported experiencing more posi-
tive emotions. Reasoning that acting in an extraverted
way may directly influence happiness, the researchers
asked volunteers taking part in a group discussion to
be talkative, energetic, and active (extraverted) or
reserved, quiet, and passive (introverted). Those who
acted in extraverted ways ended the study in better
moods than did people who were told to act as if they
were introverted (Fleeson, Malanos, & Achille, 2002;
McNiel & Fleeson, 2006).
Personality–Group Fit Extraversion predicts indi-
viduals’ overall proclivities with regard to joining
groups, but all the traits in the five-factor model influ-
ence the types of groups individuals join. Extraverts are
particularly attracted to organizations that are team-
oriented. Those who are agreeable would just as
soon avoid groups that are aggressive and competitive,
but, like extraverts, they prefer groups that emphasize
cooperation. Conscientious individuals, in contrast,
are more attracted to groups and organizations that are
detail- and task-oriented. Who joins groups like the
one formed by the Impressionists—a group that
emphasizes creativity, originality, and aesthetics? Peo-
ple whose personalities include the trait openness to
experience (Judge & Cable, 1997).
Different groups seek out and accept different
kinds of individuals as members. Someone who is
highly conscientious, for example, is unlikely to be
recruited by a gang; gang members tend to be higher
in neuroticism and lower in agreeableness (Egan &
Beadman, 2011). Who is more likely to seek member-
ship in and be accepted by a sports team? Someone
who is both more extraverted and also somewhat
lower in conscientiousness (Allen, Greenlees, &
Jones, 2013). In contrast, the Navy SEALs are quite
conscientious and also extraverted; a creative introvert
likely would not fit in with such a group (Braun, Pru-
saczyk, & Pratt, 1992). An individual who is open to
experience is more likely to join an alternative spiritual
movement rather than a traditional religious group
(Buxant, Saroglou, & Tesser, 2010). The closer the
fit between an individual’s personality characteristics
and the group’s purpose and organization, the more
likely the individual will seek to join the group.
FO RMATIO N 97
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

4-1b Anxiety and Attachment
Just as personality traits may push people toward groups,
other personal qualities may push them away from
groups. Cézanne was both shy and temperamental.
He was friends with Pissarro but could not bear the
company of most of the other Impressionists. van
Gogh had several very close friends, but when he
tried to join his fellow artists he could not sustain
these relationships. Many of the artists in Paris at the
time of the Impressionists preferred to work alone,
without distraction, rather than painting with others.
Some people are shy, socially anxious, or just less inter-
ested in being connected to other people and to groups.
Shyness The dispositional tendency to feel uneasy,
uncomfortable, and awkward in response to actual or
anticipated social interaction is called shyness. Shy
people do not join groups as readily as others, and
they do not find group activities to be as enjoyable.
As early as age 2, some children begin to display fear
or inhibition when they encounter a person they do
not recognize. Some grade school children consis-
tently seek out other people, whereas others
show signs of shyness and withdrawal when they
are in groups. Shy people even react differently
than nonshy people, neurologically, when they see
a stranger’s face. Nonshy people’s brains show an
activation response in the bilateral nucleus accum-
bens when they see unfamiliar faces, but shy people’s
brains display heightened bilateral activity in the
amygdala, an area of the brain that is responsible
for emotional responses, including fear (Nikitin &
Schoch, 2014; Schmidt & Miskovic, 2014).
Most people who are shy manage to cope with
the nervousness they feel when in groups. Shy indi-
viduals often form associations with other shy indivi-
duals, and these groups adopt interaction styles and
activities that better suit the social tendencies of their
members (Rubin, Coplan, & Bowker, 2009). Shy
individuals are also more comfortable in activity-
focused groups, such as sports teams and academic
groups, and, through positive interactions within
such groups, they gain more social confidence
(Rose-Krasnor, 2009). Shy people, when they must
enter in a new group, often take a friend with them.
This social surrogate helps them transition into the
group by doing much of the work needed to establish
connections with others. The surrogate takes the place
of the shy members during initial interactions until
they overcome their initial social anxieties (Bradshaw,
1998; Gabriel & Valenti, 2017).
Social Anxiety Shyness can, in some cases, esca-
late into social anxiety. Social anxiety sets in when
people want to make a good impression, but they
do not think that their attempts to establish rela-
tionships will succeed. Because of these pessimistic
expectations, when these individuals interact with
other people, they suffer disabling emotional, phys-
iological, and behavioral side effects. They become
physiologically aroused to the point that their pulse
races, they blush and perspire, their hands may
tremble, and their voices quiver when they speak.
Socially anxious people, even when they join
groups, do not actively participate; they can be
identified by their silence, downcast eyes, and low
speaking voices. They may also engage in “innocu-
ous sociability” (Leary, 1983): They merge into the
group’s background by indicating general interest in
the group and agreement with the other group
members while consistently minimizing their per-
sonal involvement in the group interaction.
This anxiety can cause people to reduce their
social contact with others—to disaffiliate (Leary &
Kowalski, 1995, p. 157). In a study that used experi-
ence sampling, college students carried with them
small handheld computers that signaled them eight
shyness The tendency to be reserved or timid during
social interactions, usually coupled with feelings of dis-
comfort and nervousness.
social anxiety A feeling of apprehension and embarrass-
ment experienced when anticipating or actually interact-
ing with other people.
experience sampling A research method that asks par-
ticipants to record their thoughts, emotions, or behavior at
the time they are experiencing them rather than at a later
time or date; in some cases, participants make their entries
when they are signaled by researchers using electronic
pagers, personal data assistants (PDAs), or similar devices.
98 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

times a day, asking them to complete a short set of
questions about their emotions, thoughts, and activi-
ties. Those who were socially anxious did not spend
more time alone, but they were more likely to wish
they were alone when they were with other people
they did not know very well. They felt more self-
conscious and their emotions were more negative
when they were with others (Brown et al., 2007).
If these feelings of anxiety are paired with a pro-
nounced fear of embarrassment or humiliation,
the individual may be experiencing social anxiety
disorder (SAD). This clinical disorder, which affects
approximately 5% of adults (4.2% of men, 5.7% of
women), is an excessive and unreasonable fear of
social situations, qualifying as a phobia rather than
distress and discomfort when facing a social challenge.
The anxiety is also relatively unrelieved, in that the
individual consistently reacts whenever exposed to the
situation, although in most cases individuals cope by
avoiding the source of the anxiety—all groups. Group
situations that are most disturbing to individuals suf-
fering from SAD are speaking in front of other
people, including during a group meeting or a class;
attending social events, including parties; and eating
with other people. Women are more likely to seek
pharmacological treatment for SAD, whereas men
tend to use alcohol and illicit drugs to reduce their
social anxiety (Altemus, Sarvaiya, & Epperson, 2014).
Attachment Style When individuals join a group,
they are agreeing, even if implicitly, to be part of a
set of intertwined relationships with one or more
other individuals. If you are the type of person,
like Monet, who by nature is comfortable forming
relationships with other people, then joining groups
poses no challenge. But if you are a person who
avoids forming relationships with others or experi-
ences problems maintaining relationships, like van
Gogh, then groups become one more arena where
one’s relational style will find expression.
The idea that individuals differ in their orienta-
tions to their relationships is the basis of attachment
theory (e.g., Bowlby, 1980). This theory suggests that,
from an early age, children differ in the way they
relate to others, with some children developing
very secure and comfortable relationships with their
caregivers but others exhibiting dependence and
uncertainty. The theory suggests that these child-
hood differences emerge in adulthood as variations
Is Shyness an Interpersonal Liability?
Going Solo (Klinenberg, 2012), Quiet (Cain, 2012), and
Party of One (Rufus, 2003) are just a few of the books
that have spoken, encouragingly, about the contribu-
tions shy, introverted people make to their groups and
organizations. But groups, if given the choice, prefer
those who are outgoing and vociferous to those who
are quiet and reserved.
This preference for the nonshy over the shy
depends, however, on one’s cultural background.
When people in different countries and cultures
evaluated the personality profiles of a shy person and
an outgoing person, people from western countries
(e.g., United States and Canada) judged outgoing
people more positively and the career prospects of
the shy more negatively than did individuals from
East Asian countries, such as China and Korea (Rapee
et al., 2011). But shyness has a different meaning in
some Asian countries, for it is associated with one’s
recognition of one’s place in the group and a will-
ingness to fit in rather than stand out from the
crowd. Parents of shy children in China are not con-
cerned that they are “too withdrawn” or “friendless,”
and some evidence suggests that shyness facilitates
adjustment and success rather than impedes it (Chen,
2011). Eastern cultures, by tradition, believe enlight-
enment requires solitude rather than socializing. And
some Westerners, agree. Steve Wosniak, the
cofounder of Apple Computing, wrote in his memoirs
that one must be wary of spending too much time
with other people: “I’m going to give you some
advice that might be hard to take. That advice is:
Work alone” (Wosniak & Smith, 2006, p. 291).
social anxiety disorder (or social phobia) A persistent
and pervasive pattern of overwhelming anxiety and self-
consciousness experienced when anticipating or actually
interacting with other people.
FO RMATIO N 99
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

in attachment style—one’s basic cognitive, emo-
tional, and behavioral orientation when in a relation-
ship with others (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2014). Some
people enjoy forming close relationships, and they
do not worry about being abandoned by their
loved ones. Others, however, are uncomfortable
relying on other people, they worry that their
loved ones will reject them, or they are simply unin-
terested in relationships altogether. The four basic
styles shown in Figure 4.1—secure, preoccupied, fear-
ful, and dismissing—reflect two underlying dimen-
sions: anxiety about relationships and avoidance of
closeness and dependency on others.
Social psychologist Eliot Smith and his collea-
gues theorized that people also have group-level
attachment styles. They suggested that some indi-
viduals are anxious about their group experiences,
for they question their acceptance by their group
and report feeling as if they were unworthy of
membership. They tend to agree with such state-
ments as “I often worry my group will not always
want me as a member” and “I sometimes worry
that my group doesn’t value me as much as I
value my group” (Smith, Murphy, & Coats,
1999, p. 110). Others, however, are avoidant;
they are not interested in getting close to their
group, for they agreed with such statements as “I
prefer not to depend on my group or to have my
group depend on me” and “I am comfortable not
being close to my group” (1999, p. 110). Smith’s
research team discovered that people with anxious
group attachment styles spend less time in their
groups, engage in fewer collective activities, and
are less satisfied with the level of support they
received from the group. Those with avoidant
group attachment styles felt that the group was
less important to them, and they were more likely
to claim that they were planning to leave the
group. When researchers followed up these ideas
by watching people with varying attachment styles
interacting in small groups, they discovered that peo-
ple with secure attachment styles contributed to both
the instrumental and the relationship activities of
the group. Those with more anxious attachment
styles, in contrast, contributed less to the group’s
instrumental work, and those with avoidant attach-
ment styles contributed less to both instrumental
and relationship activities (Rom & Mikulincer,
2003). Other work suggests that individuals’ feelings
of anxiety about their personal relationships covary
with their anxiety about groups but that avoidance
of groups and personal relations are unrelated.
Both types of attachment styles, however, pre-
dicted how well individuals adjusted when they
were transitioning to a new living situation (as
new students on a college campus; Marmarosh &
Markin, 2007).
4-1c Social Motivation
Why did Monet rely on other people rather than
pursue his goals alone? Why did Manet refuse to
attachment style One’s characteristic approach to rela-
tionships with other people; the basic styles include
secure, preoccupied, fearful, and dismissing, as defined
by the dimensions of anxiety and avoidance.
Preoccupied:
Seek out
membership but
worry excessively
about rejection
Secure:
Self-confident and
willing to rely on
others
Fearful:
So insecure about
themselves that
they fear rejection
High
anxiety
Dismissing:
Uninterested in
joining groups
Low
anxiety
Low
avoidance
High
avoidance
F I G U R E 4.1 Group attachment styles. The four
basic styles (secure, preoccupied, fearful, and dismissing)
are defined by two dimensions: level of anxiety and degree
of avoidance. For example, individuals who are low in
avoidance but high in anxiety would be preoccupied.
100 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

join the group during its first public exhibition? Why
did the group try to exclude Cézanne? Such “why”
questions can often be answered by considering
social motives: psychological processes that guide
people’s choices and the goals they seek. Social
motives, as noted in Chapter 2, prompt people to
take action, and those actions include seeking out
and joining groups (Pittman & Zeigler, 2007).
Need for Affiliation Individuals who are high in
the need for affiliation express a stronger desire to
be with other people, they seem happier when they are
with people, and they are more disturbed by unpleas-
ant interactions with others. In consequence, they tend
to join groups more frequently, spend more of their
time in groups, communicate more with other group
members, and accept other group members more
readily (see Hill, [2009], for a review). Overall, they
consider group activities to be more enjoyable than
do those who are low in the need for affiliation, even
in situations that are task-focused rather than interper-
sonally oriented (Brewer & Klein, 2006).
Individuals who are high in the need for affilia-
tion are drawn to groups, but some research suggests
that they are also more anxious when they confront
social situations, perhaps because they fear rejection.
Some years ago social psychologist Donn Byrne
(1961) demonstrated this tendency by arranging for
college students to complete a series of questionnaires
while seated in a room equipped with a two-way
mirror. Students in the control condition just filled
out their forms, but Byrne told those in the experi-
mental group that observers behind the mirror were
watching them carefully, rating each one of them on
their general popularity, their attractiveness, and how
likeable they seemed. Those who were low in their
need for affiliation were unfazed by the idea that their
social attractiveness was under review, whereas those
who were high in need affiliation reported feeling
more anxious and uneasy. This substrate of anxiety
about rejection can cause the usual positive relation-
ship between the need for affiliation and joining
groups to reverse; those who are high in need for
affiliation are less likely to join a group when they
fear the group will reject them (Hill, 1991).
Need for Intimacy Individuals who have a high
need for intimacy, like those who have a high
need for affiliation, prefer to join with others.
Such individuals, however, seek close, warm rela-
tions and are more likely to express caring and con-
cern for other people (McAdams, 1982, 1995).
They do not fear rejection but, instead, are more
focused on friendship, camaraderie, reciprocity, and
mutual help. This pro-group orientation was appar-
ent when investigators used an experience sampling
method to track the thoughts and actions of college
students for an entire week. They gave their parti-
cipants electronic pagers and asked them to com-
plete a short questionnaire every time they were
paged over the course of seven days. They then
paged them 49 times during the week, between
the hours of 9 AM and 11 PM. As expected,
when paged, those who were high in need for inti-
macy were more frequently either thinking about
other people or they were actually interacting with
other people rather than alone. If with others, their
moods were more positive than if they were by
themselves (McAdams & Constantian, 1983).
Need for Power Individuals who are high in
the need for power (or power motive) exhibit
an elevated desire to maintain and enhance their
capacity to influence other people (Fodor, 2009).
They report, for example, an interest in supervising,
leading, and managing people, for they would pre-
fer to be in positions of authority where they can
make decisions that impact other people. Such indi-
viduals therefore seek out membership in groups,
need for affiliation A motivating state of tension that
can be relieved by joining with other people, which fre-
quently includes concerns about winning the approval of
other people.
need for intimacy A motivating state of tension that
can be relieved by seeking out warm, positive relation-
ships with others.
need for power A motivating state of tension that can
be relieved by gaining control over other people and
one’s environment.
FO RMATIO N 101
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

not because they wish to bond with others, but
because groups provide them with the means to
reach their more primary goal of influencing other
people. In consequence, those who are high in
power seek to lead the groups they join. When
such individuals were asked to think about the
groups they participated in recently, those with a
high power motive reported taking part in relatively
fewer dyadic interactions but in more large-group
interactions (groups with more than four members).
They also reported exercising more control in these
groups by organizing and initiating activities, assum-
ing responsibility, and attempting to persuade others
(McAdams, Healy, & Krause, 1984).
FIRO Psychologist William Schutz (1958, 1992)
integrated the three basic needs for affiliation, intimacy,
and power in his Fundamental Interpersonal
Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory (rhymes
with “I row”). He labeled them the need for inclusion,
affection, and control, and argued they combine to
determine how people treat others and how people
want others to treat them. Inclusion (need for affilia-
tion) refers to peoples’ desire to join with others but
also their need to be accepted by those others.
Affection (need for intimacy) is a desire to like others
as well as a desire to be liked by them. Control (need
for power) includes the need to dominate others but
also the willingness to let others be dominant. Schutz
developed the FIRO-B scale (the B is for behavior),
which is sampled in Table 4.1, to measure both the
need to express and the need to receive inclusion,
affection, and control. Inclusion and agreeableness
(both wanted and expressed) are associated with gre-
gariousness and warmth, expressed control with extra-
version, and wanted control with neuroticism
(Furnham, 2008).
FIRO theory assumes that people join groups, and
remain in them, because they meet one or more of
these basic needs. If, for example, Monet did not
need to receive and express inclusion, he probably
would have been content to develop his skills alone
or in a more traditional teacher-led class setting. But
he had a vigorous need to express inclusion, affection,
and control, and so he created and maintained the cir-
cle of impressionist painters. Sisley, in contrast, wished
to receive inclusion and affection but was not as
strongly motivated to include others in his activities.
4-1d Men, Women, and Groups
Nearly all the Impressionists were men; Berthe
Morisot and Mary Cassatt were exceptions. Is the
need to seek out and join groups stronger in men
than women?
Studies find that men and women differ in
their tendency to join groups, but the differences
Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation
(FIRO) A theory of group formation and development
that emphasizes compatibility among three basic social
motives: inclusion, control, and affection (developed by
William Schutz).
T A B L E 4.1 Example Items from the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B) Scale
Inclusion (I) Control (C) Affection (A)
Expressed toward
other people
• I try to be with other
people.
• I join social groups.
• I try to take charge of things
when I am with people.
• I try to have other people do
things I want done.
• I try to be friendly to
people.
• I try to have close rela-
tionships with people.
Wanted from
other people
• I like people to invite me to
things.
• I like people to include me in
their activities.
• I let other people decide
what to do.
• I let other people take charge
of things.
• I like people to act friendly
toward me.
• I like people to act close
toward me.
SOURCE: FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior by W. C. Schutz. Copyright 1958 by Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.
102 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

are not great in magnitude. Women tend to be
somewhat more extraverted and agreeable than
men, and these differences are pronounced in eco-
nomically developed nations (Schmitt et al., 2008).
Women remember more details about their rela-
tionships than do men, and they more accurately
recount events that occurred in their social net-
works (Taylor, 2002). Women are, in general,
higher in relationality—that is, their values, atti-
tudes, and outlooks emphasize and facilitate estab-
lishing and maintaining connections to others (Gore
& Cross, 2006). Women expect more reciprocity
and loyalty in their one-to-one friendship relation-
ships as well as intimacy, solidarity, and companion-
ship (Hall, 2011). Men are more agentic than
women and so are more likely to join with other
men in order to perform a task or reach a goal
(Twenge, 1997).
These tendencies may reflect women’s and
men’s differing interpersonal orientations, with
women more likely to define themselves in terms
of their memberships in groups and their relation-
ships. The sexes may also differ in their emphasis on
achieving power and establishing connections with
others. Both of these goals can best be achieved in
groups, but they require membership in different
types of groups. Men, seeking power and influence,
join competitive, goal-oriented groups where they
can vie for status. Women, seeking intimate relation-
ships and, in some cases, safety, would be more
likely to join small, supportive groups (Baumeister,
2010; Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; David-Barrett
et al., 2015).
These sex differences are also entangled with
role differences and cultural stereotypes. In cultures
where men and women tend to enact different roles,
the roles may shape opportunities for involvement in
groups. If women are primarily responsible for
domestic duties and childbearing, they may have
more opportunities to join informal, localized groups
but not occupational groups (Taylor, 2002). Hence,
as attitudes toward the role of women have chan-
ged in contemporary society, differences in social
participation have diminished (Risman & Davis,
2013). Sexism also works to exclude women and
men from certain types of groups. Women, for
example, were until recently deliberately excluded
from juries in the United States. (The U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that women could not be
excused from jury duty because of their sex in
1975.) In Paris, in the 1860s, women modeled for
artists, but few could be artists themselves. Morisot
and Cassatt could not even join the other Impres-
sionists in the extended discussions at the Café
Guerbois. As sexist attitudes continue to decline,
differences in membership in various types of
groups will also abate.
4-1e Attitudes, Experiences,
and Expectations
Not everyone is thrilled at the prospect of joining
groups. In many situations, people have the oppor-
tunity to join a new group—a club, a group of
people who socialize together, an amateur sports
team—but decline for personal reasons. Their gen-
eral attitude about groups and the demands they
make on members may be negative. They may
have little experience in groups and so are too cau-
tious to take part. They may value individual effort
over team engagement. People’s attitudes, experi-
ences, and expectations are all factors that influence
their decision to join a group.
Beliefs about Groups Even though humans seem
to sort themselves into groups in most contexts,
some remain ambivalent about them. Whereas
some people look forward with breathless anticipa-
tion to their next subcommittee meeting, group-
learning experience, or business meeting, others
question—quite openly—the worth of these social
contrivances. When management researchers
Steven J. Karau and Abdel Moneim M. K. Elsaid
(2009) investigated these variations, they discovered
that people with more negative beliefs about groups
and their effectiveness were less likely to take part in
them. Karau and Elsaid began their analysis by
relationality The degree to which one’s values, atti-
tudes, and outlooks emphasize and facilitate establishing
and maintaining connections to others.
FO RMATIO N 103
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

developing the Beliefs about Groups (BAG) scale to
measure people’s preferences for taking part in
groups, expectations about how hard people work
in groups, and predictions of the positive and negative
effects groups will have on performance (see
Table 4.2). Individuals who had more positive beliefs
about a group’s capacity to enhance performance and
effort expressed a stronger preference to join in
groups, whereas those who had more negative expec-
tations about groups were disinclined to take part in
them. In addition, preference to work in groups was
also related to collectivism (see Chapter 3), trust in
others, agreeableness, and experience working in
groups in educational settings.
Experiences in Groups One’s previous experi-
ence in groups, whether good or bad, influences
one’s interest in joining groups in the future. College
students who receive low scores on assessments based
on team-learning activities evaluate group work
more negatively than students who get higher grades
(Reinig, Horowitz, & Whittenburg, 2011). Partici-
pation in organized sports teams in adolescence pre-
dicts participation in such groups in adulthood
(Walters et al., 2009). Individuals who have had a
negative experience in a therapeutic group are less
likely to choose that form of treatment in the future
(Smokowski, Rose, & Bacallao, 2001). In some
cases, too, the experience can be a vicarious one.
Children who see their parents joining and enjoy-
ing memberships in civic and volunteer associations
are more likely to join such groups when they
themselves reach adulthood (Bonikowski &
McPherson, 2007).
Social psychologists Richard Moreland, John
Levine, and their colleagues studied the impact of
expectations on students’ decisions to join a group
when they got to college. In one of their studies,
they surveyed more than 1,000 first-year students at
the University of Pittsburgh, asking them if they took
part in groups in high school and if they expected to
join groups in college. They identified those students
who had positive experiences in their high school
groups—they rated their high school groups as both
important and enjoyable. These students, when they
enrolled in college, actively investigated the groups
available to them. They tried harder to find a group
on campus to join, and they were also more optimistic
in their evaluations of potential groups; they expected
that the positive aspects of joining a group would be
particularly rewarding. Experience in groups in high
school dampened that enthusiasm somewhat, at least
for the specific groups that interested them. For exam-
ple, those who were in student government in high
school and were interested in taking part in student
politics in college felt that this group would be reward-
ing, but they also recognized that it would impose
costs as well. These students tended to be more delib-
erate in their review of potential groups and displayed
a commitment to a specific group throughout the
search process (Brinthaupt, Moreland, & Levine,
1991; Pavelchak, Moreland, & Levine, 1986).
T A B L E 4.2 A Sample of Items from the Beliefs about Groups Scale
Factor Example Items
Group preference • I’m more comfortable working by myself rather than as part of a group (reversed).
• I prefer group work to individual work.
Effort beliefs • People tend to work especially hard on a group task.
• Most people can be trusted to do their fair share of the work.
Negative performance
beliefs
• Group projects usually fail to match the quality of those done by individuals.
• Assigning work to a group is a recipe for disaster.
Positive performance
beliefs
• Generally speaking, groups are highly effective.
• Groups often produce much higher quality work than individuals.
SOURCE: Karau, S. J., & Elsaid, A.M.M.K. (2009). Individual differences in beliefs about groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 1–13.
104 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Taking Collective Action The Impressionists
were part collaborative circle but also part social
movement, for its members were attempting to
undo the academy’s tight hold on the Salon and
the art world, in general. Many factors influence
people’s decisions to join a social movement, but
two factors—a sense of injustice and strong
emotions—are particularly critical. Many artists in
Paris in the 1860s were rejected by the Salon
judges, but those who joined the Impressionists
were certain that the existing system was an unfair
one. Time and again the artists submitted to the
Salon, and only a few of them were ever permitted
to display their work. The Salon’s refusal to con-
sider alternative, emerging views of art was consid-
ered unjust, for it harmed not only the individual
artists, but the group itself. This sense of injustice
against the ingroup also fueled the artists’ emotions.
They were angered by the situation, and anger has
been identified as a key factor in distinguishing
between who will join a movement and who will
not. A person may feel that a situation is unjust, but
the person who is also angry about the unfairness is
more likely to join with others to redress the wrong.
Contempt, too, can be critical in motivating people
to take action, particularly more extreme, counter-
normative forms of civil disobedience (Tausch et al.,
2011). Chapter 17 examines the dynamics of collec-
tive movements in more detail.
4-2 A FFILIATION
Birds flock, insects swarm, fish shoal, and humans
affiliate. Affiliation, generally speaking, is the gath-
ering together of conspecifics in one location. This
process, as we have seen, depends in part on the
personalities, preferences, and other personal qualities
of the group members. Affiliation, however, also
becomes more likely in some situations and less
likely in others. When we face uncertain or bewil-
dering conditions, when we experience stressful
collaborative circle A relatively small group of peers
who work together for an extended period of time,
exchanging ideas for commentary and critique and
developing a shared conception of what their methods
and goals should be.
social movement A deliberate, sustained, and organized
group of individuals seeking change or resisting a change
in a social system. Movements are sustained by individuals
who may share a common outlook on issues or by mem-
bers of identifiable social groups or categories, but not by
businesses, political organizations, or governments.
What Is a Collaborative Circle?
There is something special about those small groups
that come into existence to support and sustain the
work of artists, scientists, writers, and reformers.
Sociologist Michael Farrell (2001, p. 11) calls them
collaborative circles: “peers who share similar occu-
pational goals and who, through long periods of dia-
logue and collaboration, negotiate a common vision
that guides their work.” The Impressionists were a
collaborative circle, but so were the Oxford writers
who joined with J. R. R. Tolkien to discuss fantasy
narratives (the Inklings), Freud’s colleagues who met
regularly to redefine common conceptions of the
human mind (the Vienna Circle), and poets who
worked at their craft when students at Vanderbilt
University (the Fugitives). These groups provided
members with the support, encouragement, and
stimulation they needed to pursue their literary, sci-
entific, and philosophical projects, and so served as a
buffer against the unrelenting pressure to conform to
the status quo. These groups are reminders that the
greatest advances in the arts, sciences, and technolo-
gies are often the result of collaboration in groups
rather than the labors of brilliant individuals working
in isolation.
affiliation The gathering together of individuals (typi-
cally members of the same species) in one location; also,
a formalized relationship, as when an individual is said to
be affiliated with a group or organization.
FO RMATIO N 105
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

circumstances, and when we are fearful (but not
embarrassed), we can gain the information and social
support we need by joining a group.
4-2a Social Comparison
The Impressionists faced uncertainty each time they
stood before a blank canvas. They were convinced
that the methods taught by the traditional Parisian
art schools were severely limited, but they were not
sure how to put their alternative approach into
practice. So, they often painted together, exchang-
ing ideas about colors and techniques, as they
refined their approach to art.
Social psychologist Leon Festinger (1950, 1954)
maintained that people often rely on others for
information about themselves and the environment.
Physical reality is a reliable guide in many cases, but,
to validate social reality, people must compare their
interpretations to those of other people. Monet, for
example, thought that his technique of using bright
colors and leaving portions of the work undeveloped
was promising, but after a day’s painting, he always
asked Renoir for his honest appraisal. Festinger called
this process social comparison and suggested that it
begins when people find themselves in ambiguous,
confusing situations. Such situations trigger a variety
of psychological reactions, most of which are unset-
tling, and so people affiliate with others to gain the
information they need to reduce their confusion.
As Figure 4.2 indicates, the final result of social
comparison is cognitive clarity, but as the research
reviewed in this section suggests, people engage in
social comparison for many reasons—to evaluate
their own qualities, to set personal goals, to help
other people, or to bolster their self-esteem (Suls &
Wheeler, 2012, 2014).
Misery Loves Company How do people react
when they find themselves in an ambiguous, and pos-
sibly dangerous, situation? Social psychologist Stanley
Schachter (1959) believed that most people, finding
themselves in such a predicament, would choose to
join with other people to gain the information they
need to allay their anxiety. To test his idea, he recruited
young women college students to meet at his labora-
tory. There they were greeted by a researcher who
introduced himself as Dr. Gregor Zilstein from the
Medical School’s Departments of Neurology and
Psychiatry. In serious tones, he explained that he was
studying the effects of electric shock on human beings.
In one condition (low anxiety), the room contained no
electrical devices; the experimenter explained that the
shocks would be so mild that they would “resemble
more a tickle or a tingle than anything unpleasant”
(p. 14). Participants assigned to the high-anxiety condi-
tion, however, faced a vast collection of electrical
equipment and were informed, “These shocks will
hurt, they will be painful … but, of course, they will
do no permanent damage” (p. 13). The researcher then
asked the participant if she wanted to wait for her turn
alone or with others. Approximately two-thirds of the
women in the high-anxiety condition (63%) chose to
affiliate, whereas only one-third of the women in the
social comparison The process of contrasting one’s per-
sonal qualities and outcomes, including beliefs, attitudes,
values, abilities, accomplishments, and experiences, to those
of other people.
Ambiguous,
confusing
circumstances
Affiliation
and social
comparison
with others
Cognitive
clarity
Psychological
reaction
• Negative
emotions
• Uncertainty
• Need for
information
F I G U R E 4.2 Festinger’s (1954) theory of social comparison assumes that people, when facing ambiguous situa-
tions, seek out others so they can compare other people’s reactions and interpretations to their own.
106 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

low-anxiety condition (33%) chose to wait with
others. Schachter’s conclusion: “misery loves com-
pany” (1959, p. 24).
Misery Loves Miserable Company The majority
of the women Schachter studied chose to affiliate, but
what was their primary motivation for joining with
others? Did they wish to acquire information through
social comparison, or were they just so frightened that
they did not want to be alone? Schachter examined
this question by replicating the high-anxiety condi-
tion of his original experiment, complete with the
shock equipment and Dr. Zilstein. He held anxiety
at a high level, but manipulated the amount of infor-
mation that could be gained by affiliating with others.
He told half of the women that they could wait with
other women who were about to receive shocks;
these women were therefore similar to the partici-
pants. He told the others that they could join
women who were waiting for advising by their pro-
fessors; these women could only wait with people
who were dissimilar. Schachter hypothesized that if
the women believed that the others could not pro-
vide them with any social comparison information,
there would be no reason to join them. The findings
confirmed his analysis: 60% of the women asked to
wait with others if they all faced a similar situation,
but no one in the dissimilar condition wanted to affil-
iate. Schachter’s second conclusion: “Misery doesn’t
love just any kind of company, it loves only miserable
company” (Schachter, 1959, p. 24).
Schachter, by suggesting that people love “mis-
erable company,” meant they seek out those who
face the same threat and so are knowledgeable. So,
how would people respond if offered the chance to
wait with someone who had participated in the
study the previous day? Such individuals would be
ideal sources of clarifying information, for they not
only faced the same situation—but they had also
survived it. When given such an alternative, parti-
cipants preferred to join someone who had already
gone through the procedure (Kirkpatrick & Shaver,
1988). A similar preference for someone who had
“been there, done that” has been documented in
patients who are awaiting surgery. When given a
choice, 60% of pre-surgery patients requested a
roommate who was recovering from the same
type of operation, whereas only 17% wanted “mis-
erable company”—a roommate who was also about
to undergo the operation (Kulik & Mahler, 1989).
The patients also reported talking with their room-
mate about the operation more if their roommate
had already had the operation and was recovering
(Kulik, Mahler, & Moore, 1996). These studies sug-
gest that people are more interested in gaining clari-
fying information than in sharing the experience
with someone, particularly when the situation is a
dangerous one and they can converse openly with
other group members (Kulik & Mahler, 2000).
Embarrassed Misery Avoids Company Even
when people need information about a situation,
they sometimes refrain from joining others because
they do not wish to embarrass themselves. When
alone, people might feel foolish if they do something
silly, but when they are in a group, foolishness turns
into embarrassment. In some cases, this fear of embar-
rassment can be stronger than the need to understand
what is happening, resulting in social inhibition
instead of affiliation (McCarty & Karau, 2016).
Researchers examined this process by changing
the Schachter-type situation to include the possibility
of embarrassment (Morris et al., 1976). The investi-
gators asked four to six strangers to meet in a room
labeled with the sign “Sexual Attitudes: Please Wait
Inside.” In the fear condition, the room contained
several electrical devices and information sheets that
suggested the study involved electric shock and sex-
ual stimulation. In the ambiguous condition, the par-
ticipants found only two cardboard boxes filled with
computer forms. In the embarrassment (anxiety-
provoking) condition, the researchers replaced the
equipment and boxes with contraceptive devices,
books on sexually transmitted diseases, and pictures
of naked men and women. Observers behind a two-
way mirror watched the group for 20 minutes.
How did the groups respond? Members were
twice as likely to talk to one another when they
faced a fearful situation, compared to an ambiguous
or embarrassing situation. Groups who thought
that the study involved sexual behavior did very
little talking, and they showed more withdrawal.
FO RMATIO N 107
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Embarrassment blocked affiliation in this situation,
even though this situation was not a dangerous one.
4-2b Stress and Affiliation
Schachter (1959) did not just confuse people, he
frightened people. The women he studied affiliated
with others to acquire clarifying information through
social comparison, but they were probably also seek-
ing reassurance. Two people, facing the prospect of
receiving electric shocks, could analyze the situation,
but also they could talk about their misgivings, calm
each other down, and help one another should pro-
blems arise. Given a choice between people who are
equal in their knowledge of the situation but vary in
their emotional reaction to the threat—some are
very fearful, but others are calm—people usually
choose to wait with those who are calm rather
than anxious (Rabbie, 1963) and caring rather than
unsupportive (Li et al., 2008).
Safety in Numbers Humans are group-seeking
animals, but their gregariousness becomes particu-
larly robust under conditions of stress (Rofé, 1984).
In times of trouble, such as illness, divorce, catastro-
phe, natural disaster, or personal loss, people seek out
friends and relatives (Bonanno et al., 2010). College
students who are experiencing problems, academi-
cally or socially, spend between 28% and 35% of
their time interacting with people they feel are sup-
portive (Harlow & Cantor, 1995). Individuals
experiencing work-related stress, such as the threat
of layoffs, time pressures, or inadequate supervision,
cope by joining with coworkers (McGuire, 2007).
When reminded of their own mortality, they are
more likely to sit closer to other people, even if
these other individuals do not share their opinions
on important social issues (Wisman & Koole, 2003).
People also react to large-scale traumatic events
by joining with others. When U.S. President John F.
Kennedy was assassinated, 60% of adult Americans
reported seeking solace by talking to others (Sheatsley
& Feldman, 1964). In the days following the terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001, 98% of all adult
Americans reported talking to others about the
attacks, 60% reported taking part in a group activity,
and 77% sought to strengthen their connection to
their loved ones (Schuster et al., 2001). Many indivi-
duals joined online groups via the Internet. Internet
usage declined overall as people watched televised
news broadcasts, but discussion areas, forums, and
chat room use surged, as did email rates. Individuals
who were already heavy users of the Internet tended
to be the ones who used this technology to affiliate
with others, whereas light users were more likely to
rely on more traditional methods (Kim et al., 2004).
As Figure 4.3 suggests, affiliation with others
plays a key role in both fight-or-flight and tend-
and-befriend responses to stress (Taylor et al., 2000,
see Chapter 3). When members face an imminent
threat, they can work together to fight against it; they
can rally against attackers, organize a concerted
response to a disaster, and so on. Groups also enhance
survival as members escape. If escape routes are not
restricted, the dispersion of a group can confuse attack-
ers and increase the chances that all members of the
group will escape unharmed. A group can also organize
its escape from danger, with stronger members of the
group helping less able members to reach safety. If, in
contrast, the group faces a long-term threat, then the
group may cope by increasing nurturing, protective,
and supportive behaviors (tending) and by seeking out
connections to other people (befriending).
Affiliation and Social Support Monet initially
sought to change the art world single-handedly,
but he soon found that he needed help from others.
When his work was condemned by the critics, he
shared his feelings of rejection with the other artists,
who offered him encouragement and advice. Fre-
quently penniless, he sold his work to other artists
so he could buy food and pay for his lodging. He
could not afford his own studio, so Bazille and
Renoir invited him to share one with them. When
Monet injured his leg, Bazille cared for him. The
group did not just provide him with cognitive clarity
but with social support: comfort, caring, and
social support A sense of belonging, emotional support,
advice, guidance, tangible assistance, and perspective pro-
vided by groups when members experience stress, daily
hassles, and more significant life crises.
108 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

companionship extended to those who are dealing
with turbulence and trouble (Gleason & Iida, 2015).
Social support can take many forms, ranging
from acceptance and inclusion to confirmation of
identity and purpose (see Uchino, 2004).
■ Belonging: Groups let members know that they
are valued members and reassure them that
they are not alone in facing their problems;
they meet members’ need to feel included and
accepted.
■ Emotional support: Group members express their
caring, concern, and affection for one another;
they minimize self-doubt, tension, and vulner-
ability while increasing self-esteem, resilience,
and self-satisfaction. Members compliment,
encourage, and listen to one another.
■ Informational support: Groups provide members
with useful information for solving problems,
making decisions, and setting their goals; they
offer advice, guidance, and suggestions.
■ Instrumental support: Groups offer tangible
assistance to their members, as when they help
each other with assigned tasks, loan money and
materials to one another, or work collaboratively
on shared tasks.
■ Meaning: Groups provide members with exis-
tential, or spiritual support, by allaying
existential anxiety, reconfirming members’
world views, and sharing faith and perspectives.
Admittedly, some groups fail to deliver on their
promise of support. They may even add stressors by
stirring up conflicts, increasing responsibilities,
exposing members to criticism, or displaying their
own anxieties about the situation (e.g., Newsom
et al., 2008). Nor are all members equally adept at
providing social support to others, or providing the
type of support that the individual experiencing
problems most needs. Some work suggests that
the men in a group are quicker to provide instru-
mental support, such as tangible assistance or prac-
tical advice, whereas the women in the group
provide more emotional support, such as expres-
sions of concern and caring (Verhofstadt, Buysse,
& Ickes, 2007). Some people, too, are just naturally
better at doing the sorts of things that make other
people feel supported. Only some of the individuals
in one study reported that they knew how to make
sure their friends felt cared for and supported (Hess,
Fannin, & Pollom, 2007).
Affiliation and Health Groups, although they
can sometimes irritate their members as much as
they support them, are usually a safe haven from
the storm of stress. People who enjoy strong social
bonds tend to experience less stress in their lives, are
Threat to well-being
Type of
Threat
Group
Processes
Stress
Response
Concerted response to
source of the danger
“Fight”
“Flight”
“Tend”
Long-term
threat
Organized escape
from the situation
Support and nurturing
of group members
Elaboration of supportive
relations among members
“Befriend”
Imminent
threat
F I G U R E 4.3 Group-level responses to stress. The two basic responses to stress—fight-or-flight and
tend-and-befriend—are both enhanced when people rely on resources made available by their groups.
FO RMATIO N 109
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

less likely to suffer from depression and other psy-
chological problems, and are physically healthier
(Stinson et al., 2008). Stressful life circumstances
leave people at risk for psychological and physical
illness, but groups can serve as protective buffers
against these negative consequences. Researchers
verified this buffering effect in studies of stressors,
including health crises, personal tragedies, terrorist
attacks, and intergroup conflict. For example, indi-
viduals trying to recover from a devastating crisis
(e.g., the death of a spouse or child) who were
more firmly embedded in a social network of
friends, relatives, and neighbors were less depressed
than people who were not integrated into groups
(Norris & Murrell, 1990). Firefighters who felt they
were supported by their peers and their supervisor
reported less stress than those who did not feel as
closely connected to their group members (Varvel
et al., 2007). A survey of New York City residents
following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
indicated that those who were members of groups
or affiliative organizations (e.g., church groups, dis-
cussion groups, or veterans groups) were more resil-
ient to the stressful effects of the attacks (Silver &
Garfin, 2016). Participants who played the role of
prisoners in a simulation of a prison (in England)
provided one another with substantial social sup-
port, and, in consequence, they were relatively
unaffected by situational stressors (Haslam &
Reicher, 2006).
These salutary effects of affiliation occur
because of the close connection between the bio-
logical systems that maintain and promote health
and the quality of one’s connection to other people.
Is Your Group a Source of Social Support?
Where can you turn when you are having a bad day,
when you need help solving a problem, or are facing a
significant personal crisis? The groups to which we
belong can be a source of support, encouragement,
and assistance in times of need.
Instructions. To explore the many sources of sup-
port groups can provide, think of a group you belong
to—one that is a significant one for you personally.
Then put a check in each box if the group provides
each form of support.
Belonging
q My group accepts me.
q I enjoy being part of my group.
q Members of my group share a common bond.
q I can be myself in my group.
Emotional Support
q I feel cared for in this group.
q We show our concern for each other.
q I feel safe in my group.
q We are like a family.
Informational Support
q We learn things in my group.
q My group is a source of much useful information.
q We get good advice from each other.
q We deal with problems together.
Instrumental Support
q We share what we have with each other.
q We help each other.
q Those who can, help those who can’t.
q We do favors for each other.
Meaning
q My group gives me a sense of meaning and
purpose.
q My group defines who I am.
q My group gives me standards by which to live my
life.
q Because of this group, I understand things
better.
Interpretation. Is your group a supportive one? If
you checked at least two of the four indicators for each
type of support, then the group can be considered a
source of that form of support. But if your group did not
earn many checks then it cannot be considered to be one
that would provide you with support when you need it.
110 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Just as isolation from others can cause disruptions in
immune system functioning, affiliation and social
support are associated with healthy changes in a
body’s immune, hormonal, and neurological sys-
tems. Depleted levels of the peptides oxytocin and
vasopressin not only trigger an increased desire to
affiliate, but these neurochemical control systems
also damp down the body’s tendency to overreact
physiologically to irritating events. In consequence,
genetic variants that influence the production of
oxytocin and enhance its physiological effects pre-
dict both reactions to stressful circumstances and
the likelihood of responding positively to others
who need help and support (Poulin, Holman, &
Buffone, 2012). Affiliation-related experiences
may also recruit areas of the brain that are part of
the opioid and dopaminergic systems; these systems
have been implicated in reward-based learning and
positive emotional reactions, including happiness
(Panksepp, Nelson, & Bekkedal, 1996). These
social neuroscience studies all suggest that there is
health, as well as safety, in numbers.
4-2c Social Comparison and the Self
Affiliation, and the social comparison processes it
instigates, provide individuals with information
about confusing circumstances as well as comfort
and companionship in difficult times. But the
impact of affiliation does not stop there. Individuals,
by joining with others, gain information about their
relative standing on skills, competencies, and out-
comes; this information has a substantial impact on
their self-satisfactions and motivations.
Upward and Downward Social Comparison
Monet gained information about art and technique
when he joined with the other Impressionists. This
information undoubtedly reduced his confusion, but
this cognitive clarity may have come at a psycholog-
ical cost. Renoir, like Monet, was experimenting
with many new methods, but Renoir was prospering
in terms of sales. Compared to Renoir, Monet was a
failure. And how did Monet feel when he spoke to
his friend Sisley? Sisley’s work was never considered
to be collectible; he lived on the brink of poverty for
much of his life. When Monet compared himself to
Sisley, he must have felt a sense of relief that his own
situation was not so bleak, but at the same time, he
must have worried that his own career could take a
turn for the worst at any moment.
People compare themselves to others when they
lack information about the situation they face, but
they are not indiscriminate when selecting targets for
comparison. When they want information, they
select people who are similar to them or are likely
to be particularly well-informed. But when self-
esteem is on the line, people engage in downward
social comparison by selecting targets who are
worse off than they are. Monet, for example, by
contrasting himself to the struggling Sisley, could
think to himself, “Things are not going so well for
me, but at least I’m better off than poor Sisley.”
Students reviewing their academic progress with
other students, spouses discussing their relationships
with other husbands and wives, patients talking with
other patients about their success in coping with
their illness, medical students taking part in a training
class, expectant mothers talking about their pregnan-
cies, and employees reviewing their coworkers’ per-
formance all show the tendency to seek out, for
comparison purposes, people who are doing more
poorly than they are (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007).
What if Monet had, instead, compared himself to
the more prosperous Renoir? Such a comparison
would be an example of upward social comparison,
which occurs when people compare themselves to
others who are better off than they are. Renoir may
have been an inspiration to Monet—when he started
to wonder if he would ever be a success, he could find
reassurance in Renoir’s accomplishments (Collins,
2000). Monet could also bask in the glory of Renoir’s
fame; he could assimilate his friend’s accomplishments
rather than reject them.
downward social comparison Selecting people who
are less well off as targets for social comparison (rather
than individuals who are similar or superior to oneself
or one’s outcomes).
upward social comparison Selecting people who are
superior to oneself or whose outcomes surpass one’s own
as targets for social comparison.
FO RMATIO N 111
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

But upward social comparison can also provoke
darker, more negative, emotions, such as resent-
ment, envy, and shame rather than pride and admi-
ration (Smith, 2000). When students were asked to
keep track of the people they compared themselves
to over a two-week period, they reported feeling
depressed and discouraged when they associated
with more competent people (Wheeler & Miyake,
1992). Academically gifted students who attend
selective schools are more unsure of their abilities
and their intellectual worth than equally bright stu-
dents who attend schools with a wide range of stu-
dent ability—the so-called big-fish-little-pond effect
(Marsh et al., 2007). When people see updates of
their friends on Facebook celebrating accomplish-
ments or receiving noteworthy awards, their emotions
are more negative than positive (Appel, Gerlach, &
Crusius, 2016). Even if people know they have per-
formed better than average, if they compare them-
selves to someone who has far outperformed them,
they feel discouraged (Seta, Seta, & McElroy, 2006).
In consequence, some of the happiest people are
those who join groups, but don’t spend too much
time comparing themselves to the other people in
their group (Buunk, Nauta, & Molleman, 2005).
Self-Evaluation Maintenance When our own
accomplishments pale in comparison to those of a
friend or fellow group member, social comparison
often leaves us feeling more dejected than elated. But
not always. As Abraham Tesser’s self-evaluation
maintenance (SEM) model suggests, we will gra-
ciously celebrate others’ accomplishments, provided
they perform very well on tasks that are not central
to our sense of self-worth (Tesser, 1988, 1991).
Tesser and his colleagues examined this tension
between sharing others’ successes and highlighting
their failures by asking elementary school students
to identify the types of activities (sports, art, music,
and math) that were personally important to them.
The students also identified their most and least
preferred classmate. One week later, the students
rated their ability, their close classmate’s ability,
and their distant classmate’s ability in one area
they felt was important and one area they felt was
unimportant. As Figure 4.4 indicates, if the students
thought that the task was important, they judged
their performance to be superior to that of their
close classmate. If the task was not important to
them personally, they felt that they had performed
relatively worse (Tesser, Campbell, & Smith, 1984).
Similarly, in a study of married couples, Tesser and
his colleagues discovered that happy couples felt
that it was more pleasant to be outdone by one’s
partner in an area that their partner valued but to
outperform the partner in an area that he or she did
self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) model A theo-
retical analysis of social comparison processes that assumes
that individuals maintain and enhance their self-esteem
by associating with high-achieving individuals who
excel in areas that are not relevant to the individual’s
own sense of self-esteem and avoiding association with
high-achieving individuals who excel in areas that are
important to the individual’s sense of self-esteem (devel-
oped by Abraham Tesser).
4.5
4.0
S
tu
d
e
n
t
R
a
ti
n
g
s
3.5
3.0
Self Close
classmate
Distant
classmate
Activity
High self-relevance
Low self-relevance
F I G U R E 4.4 Ratings of oneself, a close classmate,
and a distant classmate on tasks that are low and high in
self-relevance. When students rated their own perfor-
mance on a task they felt was important to them, they
rated themselves as somewhat better than their close
classmate and much better than the distant classmate.
But students rated their friend more positively than
themselves when the task had no implications for their
self-worth. Students rated their own performance as
superior to their friend’s when the task was relevant, but
this tendency reversed for the low-relevance task.
SOURCE: Tesser, A., Campbell, J., & Smith, M. (1984). Friendship choice and
performance: Self-evaluation maintenance in children. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 46, 561–574.
112 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

not value. Unhappy couples did not recognize this
secret ingredient for marital bliss (Beach et al.,
1998).
In sum, even though social comparison pro-
vides an indispensable social and cognitive service,
it can also set in motion processes that destabilize
rather than sustain the group and its members.
Studies of newly formed teams suggest that mem-
bers feel threatened by teammates who have super-
ior abilities, even if they have had an opportunity to
bond with their teammates before they start work-
ing together (Cleveland et al., 2011). Group mem-
bers, to avoid the pain of social comparison, can
turn against the highest performing members—the
“tall poppies” of their group—ostracizing them or
criticizing them unfairly (Feather, 1994). Given the
social comparison orientation The dispositional ten-
dency to compare oneself to others.
Who Is the Happiest Group Member?
One of the members of your study group gets the highest grade on the exam. A member of your work team is
singled out by management for a raise. A single player out of 42 is chosen for the all-star team. It isn’t you.
Joining together with highly competent people working on shared tasks can be, at the same time, both inspi-
rational and threatening. We can bask in the reflected glory of our friends and classmates but, then again, when
we compare ourselves to our betters our own efforts and accomplishments seem all the more meager. Because
upward comparison can be so discouraging, people may deliberately avoid joining groups that include people who
will outperform them in spheres they consider to be personally important (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997).
Social comparison researchers Abraham Buunk, Rick Gibbons, and their colleagues (2007) suggest that some
people have found a way to escape this downside to group life; they do not compare themselves to other group
members, and they are happier people for it. To test this hypothesis, they first measured people’s overall affilia-
tion orientation. But, they also measured people’s social comparison orientation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). They
reasoned that, just as people vary in their affiliative desires, they may also vary in their tendency to compare
themselves to other people. A few of their questions are listed below.
Instructions: We would like to find out how often you compare yourself with other people. To do that we
would like you to indicate how much you agree with each statement below, by using the following scale.
1 ¼ I disagree strongly 3 ¼ I neither agree nor disagree 4 ¼ I agree
2 ¼ I disagree 5 ¼ I agree strongly
_______ I always pay a lot of attention to how I do things compared with how others do things.
_______ I often compare how I am doing socially (e.g., social skills and popularity) with other people.
_______ I often try to find out what others think who face similar problems as I face.
_______ I always like to know what others in a similar situation would do.
Scoring: This is a shortened version of their scale, but if you add your four ratings your score can be as low
as 4 or as high as 20. The average score is 11.64, so a relatively low score would be 10 or less, and a relatively
high score would be 14 or more (Schneider & Schupp, 2014).
Gibbons and Buunk discovered affiliation orientation and social comparison orientation combine to deter-
mine group satisfaction. The participants were generally satisfied with their groups, but people who were highly
affiliative and low in their social comparison orientation were particularly happy with membership. Apparently,
those who could not resist comparing themselves to others could never completely avoid the negative emotional
consequences of upward social comparison. So who is the person who most enjoys being a member of a group?
“The typical ‘group animal’ is someone who has a strong preference for affiliation, combined with a low ten-
dency to compare him- or herself with others” (Buunk, Nauta, & Molleman, 2005, p. 69).
FO RMATIO N 113
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

negative consequences of outperforming others,
people who perform well often keep their success
to themselves—particularly when they do well on
tasks that are very important to the other group
members (Tal-Or, 2008). Group members may
also, unfortunately, maintain their superiority over
their friends and teammates by sabotaging, indirectly,
others’ performances on tasks that are central to their
sense of self-worth. The students in one experience
sampling study recorded their interactions over a six-
day period and indicated if the interaction involved
academic matters or social matters, what their rela-
tionship to the person was (e.g., acquaintance,
stranger, close friend), and if they shared information
with that person that they thought would help
the other to improve. These students gave helpful
information to their friends when the interactions
pertained to social matters, but when it came to
academics, they helped their friends less than they
helped strangers. This tendency was even more
pronounced when the students thought that their
friend was already performing better than they
were (Pemberton & Sedikides, 2001). A similar find-
ing was obtained when researchers studied recom-
mendations. Individuals were willing to recommend
a colleague for promotion who excelled in an area
that was unrelated to their expertise, but not one
who was proficient in an area where their own
accomplishments had earned them high status (Garcia,
Song, & Tesser, 2010).
4 – 3 A TT R A C T I O N
Renoir and Bazille met, quite by happenstance,
because both were students of Gleyre. Their desire
to learn more about their craft and their enrollment
in the same school combined to bring them
together. But this chance meeting by itself was not
sufficient to spark the formation of the group that
would, in time, become the Impressionists. Bazille
and Renoir would not have chosen to spend more
and more time together discussing art, politics, and
Parisian society if they had disliked each other. Affil-
iation may set the stage for a group to form, but
attraction transforms acquaintances into friends.
4-3a Principles of Attraction
Social psychologist Theodore Newcomb’s classic
study of the acquaintance process anticipated the meth-
ods used in many contemporary reality television pro-
grams. Those programs arrange for strangers to live
together in a mansion, house, or apartment and
then they just record the ebb and flow of likes and
dislikes among the members. Similarly, Newcomb
offered 17 young men starting their studies at the
University of Michigan free rent if they answered a
detailed survey of their attitudes, likes, and dislikes
each week. Then, he watched as the 17 students
sorted themselves out into friendship pairs and distinct
groups (Newcomb, 1960, 1961, 1979, 1981).
Even though attraction is often thought to be a
highly capricious and unpredictable social process,
Newcomb identified a small number of principles
that explain when relationships are likely to form.
As the sections that follow indicate, people are more
likely to associate with certain people—those who are
nearby, those who express similar attitudes and values,
and those who respond positively to them. Such asso-
ciations often culminate in the creation of a group (see
Clark & LeMay, 2010, Friedkin, 2004, for reviews).
The Proximity Principle People often assume
that their groups result from rational planning or com-
mon interests, but the proximity principle suggests
that people join groups that happen to be close by.
Monet, Manet, Renoir, and many other Impressio-
nists lived in the same neighborhood in Paris. Their
paths crossed and crossed again, until eventually a
group was formed. City dwellers who regularly
assemble in the same physical location—commuters
at subway stops, patrons at local bars, and frequent
picnickers in parks—eventually gel into identifiable
groups (see Gieryn, 2000). Newcomb (1960) assigned
the participants roommates at random, but by the
study’s end, most roommates had become close
friends. Teachers can create long-lasting cliques and
friendships simply by assigning students to adjacent
proximity principle The tendency for individuals to
form interpersonal relations with those who are close
by; also known as the “principle of propinquity.”
114 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

seats in their classrooms (Segal, 1974). In one study,
researchers, on the first day of a psychology class in
college, assigned the students to their seats at ran-
dom. Students could sit anywhere in the room
after that first day, but one year later the seat assign-
ments still predicted who liked whom (Back,
Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008). When people feel that
their groups are cohesive or the bonds between
members are particularly strong, they describe them
as “close”—recognizing, if only implicitly, that pro-
pinquity implies intimacy.
Festinger and his colleagues tracked the emer-
gence of networks of attraction in their study of West-
gate and Westgate West, two housing developments
filled, at random, with students and their families.
These housing projects offered him an excellent
opportunity to not only study group formation, but
also the “relatively subtle influences which are exerted
during the normal communication process among
members of a group” (Festinger, Schachter, & Back,
1950, p. 7). Festinger discovered that the majority of
best friends not only lived in the same building, but
they also lived next door to one another; 41% of the
next-door neighbors were identified as people “seen
socially.” The numbers then dropped with each
increase in distance so that only 22% of the neighbors
two doors down were identified as members of the
student’s social group, 16% of those three doors
down, and only 10% of those four doors away. The
distances were relatively small ones, but proximity
mattered.
People do not form groups with whomever is
near them because they are shallow or indiscriminat-
ing. First, when people continually encounter other
people because their offices, homes, desks, or rooms
are located adjacent to theirs, familiarity increases.
And, the familiarity principle (or “mere exposure effect”)
suggests that people show a preference for the familiar
rather than the unknown. Novel, unfamiliar stimuli
provoke a wariness that is likely evolutionarily adap-
tive; the hunter-gatherer who remained cautious when
encountering an unrecognized animal, plant, or
human was more likely to emerge unscathed than
one who risked a closer encounter (Bornstein, 1989).
Second, proximity increases interaction
between people, and interaction cultivates attraction.
As Festinger’s study of Westgate revealed, people
encountered some of their neighbors more fre-
quently than others—those who lived close by and
those whose apartments they passed by frequently.
These were the neighbors who tended to form small
groups within the apartment complex. Repeated
interactions may foster a sense of groupness as the
people come to think of themselves as a group and
those outside the group begin to treat them as a
group (Arkin & Burger, 1980). One investigator
watched, for weeks, the interactions of 12 women
who worked at separate desks organized in three
rows. The work did not require that the individuals
collaborate extensively with one another, but they
frequently spoke to each other. Every 15 minutes,
the observer would note who was interacting with
whom and eventually recorded over 1,500 distinct
conversations. The conversations took place primar-
ily between neighbors or at least between the work-
ers who were seated in the same row; these
interactions accurately predicted the formation of
smaller cliques within the larger group of women
(Gullahorn, 1952).
As with any scientific law of human behavior,
exceptions can be noted, particularly when the
interactions that proximity promotes yield nega-
tive rather than positive outcomes. When people
were asked to name their friends, most identified
people who lived close by and whom they inter-
acted with very frequently. But when they named
someone they disliked, they also tended to pick a
near neighbor (Ebbesen, Kjos, & Konecni, 1976).
If repeated exposure reveals that those nearby have
contemptible qualities, then familiarity will breed
contempt rather than contentment (Norton, Frost,
& Ariely, 2007).
The Elaboration Principle Groups, as self-
organizing, dynamic systems, tend to increase in
complexity over time. A group that begins with
only two members tends to grow in size as these
individuals become linked to other nearby indivi-
duals. In systems theory, this process is termed elab-
oration (Parks, 2007) or percolation (Nagler, Levina,
& Timme, 2011): “the basic dynamic of elaboration
is the proliferation of elements and ties,” which “are
FO RMATIO N 115
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

linked together to form a functional unit called a
group” (Arrow et al., 2000, pp. 91–92).
Newcomb’s groups, for example, conformed
to this elaboration principle, for cliques usually
evolved from smaller, dyadic pairings. The first
friendships were two-person pairs—usually room-
mates or people living in adjoining rooms who
became friends. Over time, these dyads expanded
to include other individuals who were attracted to
one or both of the original members. This same
kind of self-organizing process has been documen-
ted in other emerging groups, such as adolescents’
peer group associations, leisure groups, and social
movements. Gangs, for example, form when three
Does the Proximity Principle Apply to Online Groups?
Distance does not apply to people who communicate
using the Internet, but the proximity principle’s key
corollary—frequent interaction tends to promote
group formation—does. Online groups, like offline
groups, result when individuals find themselves
repeatedly interacting with each other. It’s just that
these interactions do not occur in face-to-face
encounters, but through instant messaging, in Face-
book, via Twitter and Skype, on email, and so on.
College students, for example, use Facebook to solidify
the emergent social groups and relationships that
form when they first arrive on campus. They also use
Facebook as a tool for interacting with people they
already know (e.g., family, classmates, and old friends).
Students who report using Facebook more intensively
say that they feel more closely connected to other
students on their campus and to their friends (Ellison,
Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007).
Not all Internet sites are equally effective in pro-
moting social interaction, however. Many areas of the
Web that are designed to encourage interaction
between people, such as discussion areas and the
comment areas of blogs, are nearly empty of com-
mentaries because people visit only once and never
return. So, when will individuals visit a second time?
The best predictor of continuing engagement in the
site is how they are treated during their very first visit.
In one study, researchers examined the posts of 2,777
newcomers to one of six public discussion areas that
dealt with various topics, including dieting, gun rights,
and the NY Rangers hockey team. They discovered that
61% of the newcomers received a reply and that the
reply increased the likelihood of the person returning
to the site in the future by 21%. Getting an answer—
interaction itself—was more important than the con-
tent of the response. It did not matter if the responder
disagreed with the newcomer or if their comment was
negative in its emotional tone (Joyce & Kraut, 2006).
These studies suggest that social media, by facili-
tating interaction between remotely located indivi-
duals, increases attraction and group formation, but
since they make use of correlational designs, it is diffi-
cult to determine which came first. Did people who
like each other make use of the Internet to interact
with one another, or did their interactions on the
Internet increase their attraction to one another? To
determine the direction of this cause–effect relation-
ship, social psychologist Harry T. Reis and his collea-
gues (2011) manipulated the frequency of interaction
and then measured attraction. In one of their studies,
they required same-sex pairs of college students who
were strangers to one another to use instant messag-
ing (IM) to exchange messages in sessions lasting 15
minutes or more. They manipulated the number of IM
chat sessions, requiring only one session for some, but
two, four, six, or eight sessions for others. As the
proximity-turned-presence principle predicts, pairs that
IM-chatted more frequently liked each other more,
and these effects were mediated by increases in
knowledge of one another and perceived responsive-
ness (e.g., “sees the ‘real’ me,” “understands me,” and
“seems interested in what I am thinking and feeling”).
These interactions were strictly anonymous ones, but
at the end of the study, 62.5% of the dyads who had
IM-chatted eight times wanted to know the name and
contact information of their partner, but only 17.6%
of those dyads who chatted but one time expressed
interest in continuing the relationship. These investi-
gators were thus justified in concluding that interac-
tion causes attraction rather than attraction causing
interaction—and it matters not if that interaction
occurs online or in face-to-face settings.
elaboration principle The tendency for groups to
expand in size as nonmembers become linked to a
group member and thus become part of the group itself;
this process is termed percolation in network theory.
116 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

friends refer to themselves with a shared name and
recruit other friends to join the group (Tobin,
2008). Friendships are very likely to form between
students who were linked to the same individuals
(Gibbons & Olk, 2003). Groups form when other-
wise unrelated individuals are drawn to a single
individual who becomes the hub for gradually
developing bonds among the various members
(Redl, 1942). The Impressionists developed into a
group through such a self-organizing process. Each
member of the core group drew in others, until in
time the group included artists, sculptors, and wri-
ters (Farrell, 2001, p. 44; see Figure 4.5).
The Similarity Principle Newcomb found that
the 17 men clustered naturally into two groups
containing nine and seven members; one person
remained at the fringe of both groups. The seven-
man group was particularly unified, for when asked
to indicate who they liked out of the total list of 17,
they gave relatively high rankings to one another
and not to those young men in the other cluster.
The members of the other group did not show the
same level of mutual attraction as the smaller clique.
When Newcomb (1963) examined these sub-
groups, he noticed that subgroup members’ values,
beliefs, and interests were similar. One clique, for
example, contained men who endorsed liberal
political and religious attitudes, were all registered
in the arts college, came from the same part of the
country, and shared similar aesthetic, social, theo-
retical, economic, political, and religious values.
The members of the second subgroup were all
veterans, were majors in engineering, and shared
similar religious, economic, and political values. New-
comb had found strong evidence for the similarity
principle: People are attracted to those who are
similar to them in some way.
Similarity is a social magnet that creates all kinds
of relationships. People tend to marry people who are
similar to them; they join groups composed of others
who are like them; and they live in communities
where people are more alike than different. Although
these similarities often reflect agreements in attitudes,
values, and beliefs, they are also based on demo-
graphic characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, sex,
and age (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954). As a result,
homophily—similarity of the members in attitudes,
values, demographic characteristics, and so on—is
common in groups. The cliques that form in large
volunteer organizations tie together people who are
7
8
9
11
3
10
12
4
6
5
21
Time 1
7
9
12
11
4
3
8 10
6
21
5
Time 2
7
9
5
12
2
11
4
3
8 10
6
1
Time 3
F I G U R E 4.5 The elaboration of groups over time.
Groups that begin as simple two-person groups become
more complex over time as individuals who are initially
linked together only in one-to-one, dyadic relationships
(e.g., persons 1 and 2, persons 3 and 8) expand their
networks to include additional elements (members).
similarity principle The tendency for individuals to
seek out, affiliate with, or be attracted to an individual
who is similar to them in some way; this tendency causes
groups and other interpersonal aggregates to be homog-
enous rather than diverse.
homophily “Love of the same”; the tendency for the
members of groups and other collectives to be similar to
one another in some way, such as demographic back-
ground, attitudes, and values; generally expressed infor-
mally as “birds of a feather flock together.”
FO RMATIO N 117
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

similar in some way rather than dissimilar (Feld,
1982). If a group decreases in size, the first individual
who is dropped from membership will likely be the
one who is the least similar to the other members;
ties between similar people are maintained, but ties
with dissimilar people dissolve. “Birds of a feather
flock together” describes most groups (McPherson,
Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001).
Homophily appears to be sustained by a number
of psychological, sociological, and relational factors that
combine to promote contacts between people who
share similarities rather than differences. People who
adopt the same values and attitudes reassure each
other that their beliefs are accurate, and people find
association with such people very rewarding (Byrne,
1971). People may also assume, with some justification,
that future group interactions will be more cooperative
and conflict-free when members are all similar to one
another (Insko & Schopler, 1972). Similarity’s oppo-
site, dissimilarity, also works to push people away from
each other—the dissimilarity–repulsion effect is as
influential as the similarity–attraction effect (Drigotas,
1993). Similarity may also increase a sense of connect-
edness to the other person (Arkin & Burger, 1980).
Two strangers chatting casually on an airplane, for
example, feel united if they find that they share even
the most trivial similarity, such as the same middle
name or favorite television program (Jones et al.,
2004). Disliking a person who seems similar may also
be psychologically distressing. After all, if a person is
similar to us, it follows logically that he or she must
be attractive (Festinger, 1957).
Homophily also tends to beget homophily.
Because communities, schools, and most workplaces
bring people together who are similar in terms of race,
attitudes, religion, and ethnicity, people’s options for
relationships are limited to those who are already sim-
ilar to them in these ways (McPherson et al., 2001).
Also, even when individuals have the opportunity to
form relationships with people who are different from
them in some way, they nonetheless gravitate toward
those who are similar. Researchers demonstrated this
tendency by interviewing pairs of students who were
attending classes at a large university (25,000 students)
or one of several smaller colleges located nearby. Even
though the smaller campuses constrained individuals’
friendship choices—they offered fewer people to join
with—the pairs on the smaller campus were signifi-
cantly more heterogeneous in their attitudes than the
pairs on the larger campus. Ironically, students often
choose to attend larger universities because such an
environment will offer them more opportunities to
make friends with a wider variety of people, but,
once on campus, people who are similar in terms of
attitudes and values find each other and form stable
networks of association. As a result of this natural
assortive process, the groups that form in an environ-
ment where diversity was greatest tended to be more
homogenous (Bahns, Pickett, & Crandall, 2012).
The Complementarity Principle The similarity
principle exerts a powerful influence on groups,
but in some cases opposites attract. If people’s quali-
ties complement each other—they are dissimilar but
they fit well together—then this unique form of dis-
similarity may encourage people to associate with
one another. Claude, for example, may enjoy lead-
ing groups, so he is not attracted to other individuals
who also strive to take control of the group. Instead,
he responds best to those who accept his guidance
(Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007). Similarly, indi-
viduals who are forming a group may realize that the
members’ skills and abilities must complement each
other if the group is to be successful (Kristof-Brown,
Barrick, & Stevens, 2005). These cases are consistent
with the complementarity principle, which sug-
gests that people are attracted to those who possess
characteristics that complement their own personal
characteristics (Miller, 2015).
In all likelihood, group members respond posi-
tively to both similarity and complementarity (Dryer
& Horowitz, 1997). People who consider themselves
to be warm and friendly seek out others who are
sociable and positive; those who are cold and critical
are more comfortable in the company of those who
are cantankerous and negative. However, people
generally respond to dominant behaviors by acting
submissively and vice versa; so leaders seek out
complementarity principle A tendency for opposites
to attract when the ways in which people are dissimilar
are congruent (complementary) in some way.
118 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

followers, and the strong seek out the weak (e.g.,
Tracey, Ryan, & Jaschik-Herman, 2001).
Schutz (1958), in his FIRO theory of groups
discussed earlier in this chapter, suggested that com-
patibility can be based on both similarity and comple-
mentarity. Interchange compatibility exists when
members have similar expectations about the group’s
intimacy, control, and inclusiveness. Interchange
compatibility will be high, for example, if all the
members expect that their group will be formally
organized with minimal expressions of intimacy, but
it will be low if some think that they can share their
innermost feelings, whereas others want a more
reserved exchange (John et al., 2010). Originator
compatibility exists when people have dissimilar,
but complementary, needs with regard to expressing
and receiving control, inclusion, and affection. For
example, originator compatibility would be high if a
person with a high need to control the group joined a
group whose members wanted a strong leader.
Schutz tested his theory by constructing groups
of varying compatibilities. He created originator com-
patibility by placing in each group one member with
a high need for control, one member with a high
need for inclusion, and three members with lower
needs for control and inclusion. Moreover, inter-
change compatibility was established by grouping
people with similar needs for affection. All the groups
in this set were compatible, but levels of affection
were high in half of the groups and low in the
other half. A set of incompatible groups was also cre-
ated by including group members who varied signifi-
cantly in their need for affection, ranging from high to
low. As Schutz predicted, (1) cohesiveness was higher
in the compatible groups than in the incompatible
groups, and (2) the compatible groups worked on
problems far more efficiently than the incompatible
groups. He found similar results in studies of groups
that formed spontaneously, such as street gangs and
friendship circles in fraternities (Schutz, 1958).
The Reciprocity Principle When Groucho Marx
joked, “I don’t want to belong to any club that will
accept me as a member,” he was denying the power of
the reciprocity principle—that liking tends to be
mutual. When we discover that someone else accepts
and approves of us—they give friendly advice, compli-
ment us, or declare their admiration for us—we usually
respond by liking them in return. Newcomb (1979)
found strong evidence of the reciprocity principle, as
did other investigators in a range of different situations
(e.g., Kandel, 1978). Some group members, like Grou-
cho Marx, may not like to be liked, but these excep-
tions to the reciprocity principle are relatively rare.
When Person A expresses liking for Person B, it implies
that Person A will treat Person B with respect, com-
passion, and benevolence on future occasions, so Per-
son B usually responds favorably by expressing liking
for Person A (Montoya & Insko, 2008).
Negative reciprocity also occurs in groups, for
disliking someone is a sure way to earn that person’s
contempt. In one study, college students discussed
controversial issues in groups. Unknown to the true
participants in the experiment, two of the three group
members were confederates of the experimenter, who
either accepted or rejected the comments of the par-
ticipant. During a break between the discussion and
the completion of a measure of attraction to the
group, the rejecting confederates excluded the partic-
ipant from their discussion by talking among them-
selves and giving the participant an occasional dirty
look. Naturally, participants were less attracted to
their comembers if they had been rejected by them.
The rejection also served to lower participants’ opi-
nions of themselves (Pepitone & Wilpinski, 1960).
The Minimax Principle Social exchange theory
offers one final, and particularly important,
interchange compatibility Compatibility between
group members based on their similar needs for inclu-
sion, control, and affection (defined by William Schutz).
originator compatibility Compatibility between
group members that occurs when individuals who wish
to express inclusion, control, or affection within the
group are matched with individuals who wish to receive
inclusion, control, or affection from others (defined by
William Schutz).
reciprocity principle The tendency for liking to be
met with liking in return; when A likes B, then B will
tend to like A.
FO RMATIO N 119
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

principle for predicting group formation. This the-
ory, as noted in Chapter 2, assumes that people are
rational creatures who strive to minimize their
troubles, worries, and losses and instead maximize
their positive outcomes, happiness, and rewards.
Like shoppers searching for a bargain, they are
drawn to groups that impose few costs yet offer
them the greatest rewards. If a group seems to be
a costly one—it will demand much time or will
require members to do things that they would
rather avoid if possible—then the value of the
group will drop and people will be less likely to
join. But, if the group offers considerable rewards to
its members, such as prestige, desired resources, or
pleasant experiences, then they will seek it out.
These two basic requirements, taken together, pro-
vide the basis for social exchange theory’s minimax
principle: People will join groups and remain in
groups that provide them with the maximum num-
ber of valued rewards while incurring the minimum
number of possible costs (Blau, 1964; Homans,
1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).
What kinds of rewards do people seek, and
what costs do they hope to avoid (Mitchell, Cro-
panzano, & Quisenberry, 2012)? When researchers
asked prospective group members to identify the
rewards and costs they felt a group might create for
them, 40% mentioned such social and personal
rewards as meeting people, making new friends,
developing new interests, or enhancing their self-
esteem. They also mentioned such rewards as
learning new skills, increased opportunities for
networking, and fun. These prospective members
also anticipated costs, however. More than 30%
expected to lose time and money by joining a
group. Other frequently mentioned costs were
social pressures, possible injury or illness, and
excessive demands made by the group for their
time. Nonetheless, the prospective members in
this study optimistically felt that the groups they
were considering would offer them far more rewards
than costs (Brinthaupt, Moreland, & Levine, 1991;
Moreland, Levine, & Cini, 1993).
The group members themselves are also an
important source of rewards and costs. People are
usually attracted to groups whose members possess
positively valued qualities and avoid groups of peo-
ple with objectionable characteristics. People prefer
to associate with people who are generous, enthu-
siastic, punctual, dependable, helpful, strong, truth-
ful, and intelligent (Clark & Lemay, 2010). People
tend to dislike and reject as potential group mem-
bers those individuals who possess socially unattrac-
tive personal qualities—people who seem pushy,
rude, self-centered, boring, or negative (Kowalski,
1996; Leary et al., 1986). Many of the Impressio-
nists, for example, considered having to interact
with Degas a major cost of membership. In a letter
to Camille Pissarro, Gustave Caillebotte wrote,
“Degas introduced disunity into our midst. It is
unfortunate for him that he has such an unsatisfac-
tory character. He spends his time haranguing at
the Nouvelle-Athènes or in society. He would
do much better to paint a little more” (quoted in
Denvir, 1993, p. 181).
4-3b The Economics of Membership
Why did such artists as Manet, Pissarro, and Bazille
join with Monet to create an artists circle? As we
have seen, the group offered its members a number
of advantages over remaining alone. By joining
Monet, the Impressionists gained a sounding
board for ideas, social support, help with tasks
they could not accomplish alone, and friends. But
the group also created costs for members, who had
to spend time and personal resources before they
could enjoy the benefits the group offered. The
minimax principle argues that those who joined
the group must have felt that the benefits out-
weighed the costs (Saavedra & Van Dyne, 1999).
In many cases, people have many options and sev-
eral may offer a favorable ratio of rewards to costs.
How do people choose among the many groups that
promise them a favorable reward/cost ratio? According
to social exchange theorists John Thibaut and Harold
minimax principle A general preference for relation-
ships and memberships that provide the maximum num-
ber of valued rewards and incur the fewest number of
possible costs.
120 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Kelley (1959), the decision to join is based on two
factors: the comparison level and the comparison level for
alternatives. Comparison level (CL) is the standard
by which individuals evaluate the desirability of
group membership. The CL derives from the average
of all outcomes known to the individual and is usually
strongly influenced by previous relationships. If, for
example, Degas’s prior group memberships yielded
very positive rewards with very few costs, his CL
should be higher than that of someone who has expe-
rienced fewer rewards and more costs through group
membership. According to Thibaut and Kelley (1959,
p. 21), groups that “fall above CL would be relatively
‘satisfying’ and attractive to the member; those
entailing outcomes that fall below CL would be rela-
tively ‘unsatisfying’ and unattractive.”
Comparison level, however, only predicts when
people will be satisfied with membership in a group. If
we want to predict whether people will join groups
or leave them, we must also take into account the
value of other, alternative groups. What if Degas
could have joined several artists circles, all of
which surpassed his CL? Which one would he then
select? According to Thibaut and Kelley (1959),
the group with the best reward/cost balance will
determine Degas’ comparison level for alternatives
(CLalt). Thibaut and Kelley argued that “CLalt can be
defined informally as the lowest level of outcomes a
member will accept in the light of available alternative
opportunities” (1959, p. 21).
Why Do People Join Gangs?
Gangs are often characterized as disruptive, violent
groups of delinquents who commit robberies, hijack
cars, distribute drugs, murder, and generally live out-
side the boundaries of “normal” society. Gangs do
contend against legal authorities and members may
use violence to establish status and control in the
group. Gangs can, however, be relatively stable asso-
ciations within many communities, and their members
also connect to their community through more tradi-
tional social groups (church congregations, families,
and schools). Larger gangs also tend to be hierar-
chically organized, much like a business or formal
organization, and the members vary in their commit-
ment to their groups (Vankatesh, 2008). The few core
members (called variously ancients, old gangsters, and
veteranos) may remain in the group for many years,
and for them the gang dominates their social lives.
Most members, however, only take part in some gang-
related activities (Coughlin & Venkatesh, 2003).
Gangs also form for many of the same reasons
any group does. One study of gangs in East Los
Angeles, for example, traced many of these groups
back to a much smaller cluster of friends who lived
near one another (Moore, 1991). The founders of the
group were very similar to one another in terms of
ethnicity and age, and they were committed to
increasing the level of safety in their neighborhoods.
Over time, more people joined the groups, which
gradually became more formally organized, more
territorial, and more likely to engage in criminal
behavior. Gangs also tend to be relatively task
focused (Venkatesh, 2008). When members were
asked why they joined the gang, most stressed prac-
tical outcomes, such as safety and financial gain. As
one member remarked, “There’s money in a gang. I
want to be in it, you see a lot of money in it, man.
That’s why I really got in the gang, money and all”
(quoted in Decker & Van Winkle, 1996, p. 74). Many
gang members also agreed that gang membership
increased their status in the community and helped
them socially. “One thing I like about gangs it’s more
people to be around, more partners to go places
with … social stuff” (quoted in Decker & Van Winkle,
1996, p. 75).
comparison level (CL) In social exchange theory, the
standard by which the individual evaluates the quality of
any social relationship. In most cases, individuals whose
prior relationships yielded positive rewards with few costs
will have higher CLs than those who experienced fewer
rewards and more costs in prior relationships (described
by John Thibaut and Harold Kelly).
comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) In social
exchange theory, the standard by which individuals eval-
uate the quality of other groups that they may join
(described by John Thibaut and Harold Kelly).
FO RMATIO N 121
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Entering and exiting groups is largely determined
by CLalt, whereas satisfaction with membership is
determined by CL (see Table 4.3). For example,
why did Degas initially join the Impressionists, but
eventually leave the group? According to Thibaut
and Kelley, Degas intuitively calculated the positive
and negative outcomes that resulted from member-
ship in the group. This index, at least at first, favored
the Impressionists. If Degas believed that joining the
group would surpass his comparison level (CL), then
he would likely be satisfied with membership. But
over time, the demands of the group became too
great and the rewards too small, the group’s value
dropped below his CL, and he became dissatisfied.
If the group’s value dropped below Degas’s intuitive
estimations of the value of other groups (his CLalt),
then he would likely leave the Impressionists and
join another, more promising group. He would also
be more likely to exit the group if he did not feel
committed to it, with commitment determined by
the resources he had invested in it previously. In
Degas’ case, the alternative of remaining alone estab-
lished the lower level of his CLalt, and he did not feel
sufficiently invested in the group to remain a member
(Rusbult, Agnew, & Arriaga, 2012).
The rest of the Impressionists, however, remained
friends. They often exhibited their works individually
and spent months in isolation, but they still pro-
vided each other with help as necessary. Indeed,
for many years, they met regularly at the Café
Riche, where they would discuss art, politics, and
literature. In time, they reached their goal of fame
and fortune. By the turn of the century, most were
invited, at last, to present in traditional shows, and
collectors paid handsome prices for their work. As
individuals, they came to Paris to learn to paint, but
as a group they changed the world’s definition of
fine art.
C HAPT ER R EV IEW
Who joins groups and who stays apart?
1. The Impressionists formed in Paris in the
1860s as a result of three basic sets of influ-
ences: personal qualities of the members, the
nature of the situation, and their liking for one
another.
2. People differ in personality, motivations, past
experiences, and expectations, and these
individual differences influence their degree of
interest in joining groups.
■ The FFM of personality identifies five traits
that influence group formation and mem-
bers’ behavior: extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, neuroticism, and open-
ness. Extraversion is associated with
increased happiness and sociality. Other
T A B L E 4.3 The Impact of Comparison Level (CL) and Comparison Level for Alternatives
(CLalt) on Satisfaction with Group Membership and the Decision to Join a
Group
Membership in the group is
Above CL Below CL
Membership in the
group is
Above CLalt Membership is satisfying, will join
group.
Membership is dissatisfying, but
will join group.
Below CLalt Membership is satisfying, but will
not join group.
Membership is dissatisfying and
will not join group.
SOURCE: Adapted from Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
122 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

traits, such as openness, influence the type
of group individuals seek to join.
■ Personal qualities that reduce the likelihood
that a person will join a group, as indicated
by both self-report and studies that have
made use of experience sampling, include shy-
ness, social anxiety, social anxiety disorders, and
certain attachment styles (Smith et al., 1999).
3. The strength of social motives, such as the need
for affiliation, the need for intimacy, and the need
for power also predict one’s group-joining pro-
clivities, as demonstrated by the following:
■ Byrne’s (1961) studies of the relationship
between need for affiliation and rejection
sensitivity.
■ Schutz’s (1958) work on his Fundamental
Interpersonal Relations Orientation theory
that explains how people use groups to
satisfy their need to receive and express
inclusion, control, and affection.
4. Women tend to be higher than men in
relationality.
■ Women seek membership in smaller,
informal, intimate groups, whereas men
seek membership in larger, more formal,
task-focused groups.
■ These differences are likely due, in part, to
sex roles and sexism.
5. People’s attitudes, experiences, and expecta-
tions are all factors that influence their decision
to join a group.
■ The Beliefs about Groups inventory assesses
individuals’ general orientation toward
working in a group (Karau & Elsaid, 2009).
■ Individuals who had prior positive experi-
ences in groups tended to seek out further
group memberships (Pavelchak et al., 1986).
■ Two key factors that influence participation
in a social movement are sense of injustice and
angry emotions. The collaborative circle that
became the Impressionists was, in part, a
social movement group (Farrell, 2001).
When do people affiliate with other people?
1. Festinger’s (1950) theory of social comparison
assumes that affiliation is more likely when
individuals find themselves in ambiguous,
frightening, and difficult circumstances.
2. Schachter (1959) found that people prefer to
affiliate (“misery loves company”) when fear-
ful, but they prefer to join individuals who
have useful information about a situation and
others who are in a similar situation (“misery
loves miserable company”). Fear of embarrass-
ment reduces affiliation.
3. Groups provide their members with social sup-
port during times of stress and tension.
■ Groups facilitate both “fight-or-flight” and
“tend-and-befriend” responses to stress.
■ Basic types of support from groups include
belonging, emotional, informational, and
instrumental support, and meaning.
■ Group support buffers the negative
health consequences of stress, possibly by
triggering improved autoimmune and
reward system functioning.
4. By choosing comparison targets who are per-
forming poorly compared to themselves
(downward social comparison), individuals bolster
their own sense of competence; by choosing
superior targets (upward social comparison), indi-
viduals refine their expectations of themselves.
■ As the big-fish-little-pond effect suggests,
upward social comparison generally lowers
self-esteem. Other negative effects include
sabotaging other’s performances.
■ Tesser’s self-evaluation maintenance (SEM)
model argues that people prefer to associ-
ate with individuals who do not outper-
form them in areas that are very relevant to
their self-esteem.
■ Individuals who are low in social compar-
ison orientation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999)
and higher in affiliation respond more
positively in groups
FO RMATIO N 123
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

What processes generate bonds of interpersonal
attraction between members of groups?
1. Newcomb (1960), in his studies of the
acquaintance process, found that people who
like one another often join together to form
groups. Attraction patterns are generally con-
sistent with the following principles:
■ Proximity principle: Festinger and his col-
leagues (1950), drawing on their studies of
Westgate and Westgate West, concluded
people tend to like those who are situated
nearby due to increased familiarity and
interaction. Although members of online
are not near each other physically, such
groups generate a sense of presence
through frequent interaction (Reis et al.,
2011).
■ Elaboration principle: From a systems per-
spective, groups often emerge when addi-
tional elements (people) become linked to
the original members.
■ Similarity principle: People like others who
are similar to them in some way. In con-
sequence, most groups tend toward
increasing levels of homophily.
■ Complementarity principle: People like others
whose qualities complement their own
qualities. Schutz (1958) identified two key
forms of compatibility: interchange compati-
bility (based on similarity) and originator
compatibility (based on complementarity).
■ Reciprocity principle: Liking tends to be
mutual.
■ Minimax principle: Individuals are attracted
to groups that offer them maximum
rewards and minimal costs.
2. Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959) social exchange
theory maintains that satisfaction with group
membership is primarily determined by com-
parison level (CL), whereas the comparison level for
alternatives (CLalt) determines whether members
will join, stay in, or leave a group.
R E S O U R C E S
Chapter Case: The Impressionists
■ Collaborative Circles by Michael P. Farrell
(2001) provides a richly detailed analysis of
the Impressionists and a number of other
influential groups and offers a stage theory
that describes how these highly creative
groups develop over time.
Formation
■ Small Groups as Complex Systems by Holly
Arrow, Joseph E. McGrath, and Jennifer L.
Berdahl (2000) uses the conceptual frame-
work of systems theory to examine the
formation, performance, and dissolution of
small, performance-focused groups.
Affiliation
■ “Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging” by
Mark R. Leary (2010) thoughtfully reviews
theory and research examining the factors
that draw people into social interaction
with other people, but also the processes
that lead to rejection and exclusion.
■ Handbook of Social Comparison: Theory and
Research, edited by Jerry Suls and Ladd
Wheeler (2000), includes chapters on all
aspects of social comparison processes.
■ “Social Comparison: The End of a Theory
and the Emergence of a Field” by Abra-
ham P. Buunk and Frederick X. Gibbons
(2007) is a masterful review of the volu-
minous literature dealing with comparison
processes.
■ The Tending Instinct by Shelley E. Taylor
(2002) discusses the scientific support for
and implications of her tend-and-befriend
theory of sex differences.
124 C H A P T ER 4
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Attraction
■ “Close Relationships” by Margaret S. Clark
and Edward P. Lemay, Jr. reviews the
nature of close, intimate relationships,
defining them as the reliable giving and
receiving of responsiveness from others.
■ Intimate Relationships by Rowland S. Miller
(2015) surveys the copious research and
theory examining the causes of attraction
and intimacy in relationships.
FO RMATIO N 125
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 5
Cohesion and
Development
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
A group is not just a set of individuals, but a cohe-
sive whole that joins the members together in inter-
locking interdependencies. This solidarity or unity
is called group cohesion and is a necessary, if not suf-
ficient, condition for a group to exist. A group may
begin as a collection of strangers, but, as uncertainty
gives way to increasing unity, the members become
bound to their group and its goals. As cohesion and
commitment ebb and flow with time, the group’s
influence over its members rises and falls.
■ What is group cohesion, and what are its
sources?
■ How does cohesion develop over time?
■ What are the positive and negative conse-
quences of cohesion?
■ Do initiations increase cohesion?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
5-1 Sources of Cohesion
5-1a Social Cohesion
5-1b Task Cohesion
5-1c Collective Cohesion
5-1d Emotional Cohesion
5-1e Structural Cohesion
5-1f Assumptions and Assessments
5-2 Developing Cohesion
5-2a Theories of Group Development
5-2b Five Stages of Development
5-2c Cycles of Development
5-3 Consequences of Cohesion
5-3a Member Satisfaction and Adjustment
5-3b Group Dynamics and Influence
5-3c Group Productivity
5-4 Application: Explaining Initiations
5-4a Cohesion and Initiations
5-4b Hazing
Chapter Review
Resources
126
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The U.S. Olympic team that faced the Russians on
that February day in Lake Placid had many noteworthy
qualities. The players were handpicked to represent
their country, and they had trained diligently for
months leading up to the game. They were each one
highly skilled, for the majority went on to professional
careers in hockey after the Olympics. The team’s
coach was known for his hard-driving style of leader-
ship, and each player could tell more than one story
about the indignities visited upon them by the coach in
his dogged pursuit of excellence. But most of all, they
were cohesive, and many believed that the team’s
cohesiveness was the deciding factor in their victory.
Group cohesion can lay claim to being group
dynamics’ most theoretically important concept.
Uniquely group-level, cohesion comes about if, and
only if, a group exists. Cohesiveness signals, if only
indirectly, the health of the group. A cohesive
group will be more likely to prosper over time,
since it retains its members and allows them to reach
goals that would elude a more incoherent aggregate.
The group that lacks cohesion is at risk, for it may
break into subgroups at the first sign of conflict, lose
members faster than it can replace them, and fail to
reach its agreed upon goals. The concept of group
cohesion provides insight into a host of core processes
that occur in groups, including productivity, mem-
bers’ satisfaction and turnover, morale, formation, sta-
bility, influence, and conflict.
5 – 1 S O U R C E S O F C O H E S I O N
The Latin word haesus means to cling to; it is the
basis of such words as adhesive, inherit, and, of
course, cohesive. In physics, things that are cohesive
The U.S. Olympic Hockey Team: Miracle Makers
They were underdogs, and they knew it. Their mission:
To represent the United States in the 1980 Winter
Olympics hockey competition held in Lake Placid, New
York. Their task: To defeat teams from such hockey-rich
countries as Sweden and Germany. Their goal: To win a
medal, preferably a gold one. Their major obstacle: The
powerful U.S.S.R. National Championship Team. At a
time when Olympic athletes were amateurs, the Russian
players were practically professionals. They were mem-
bers of the Russian army, and they were paid to practice
and play their sport. The Russian team had dominated
hockey for many years and was poised to take its fifth
consecutive gold medal in the sport. In an exhibition
game played on February 9, just a few days before the
start of the Olympic Games, Russia defeated the U.S.
Olympic hockey team 10 to 3.
But strange things can happen when groups
compete against groups. The U.S. team made its way
through the preliminary rounds and faced the Russian
team in the medal round. The U.S. team fell behind by
two goals, and it looked as though the Russians would
take the victory with ease. But the Americans struggled
on, finally tying, and then taking the lead. During the
game’s last minutes, the Russians launched shot after
shot, but all the while the U.S. coach, Herb Brooks,
calmed his players by telling them “Play your game!”
As the game’s end neared, the announcer counted
down the seconds into his microphone before asking his
listeners, “Do you believe in miracles?” What else could
explain the game’s outcome? The U.S. Olympic hockey
team had just beaten an unbeatable team.
The U.S. team was inferior to the Russian team in
nearly all respects. The Americans were mostly college
students or recent graduates. They were smaller, slower,
and far less experienced. The team had practiced dili-
gently for months before the tournament, but the
Soviets had been playing as a team for years. Yet for all
their relative weaknesses, they were stronger than the
Russian team in one key way: They were more cohesive.
They were unified by friendship, a sense of purpose, and
esprit de corps. No one player took credit for the victory,
but instead spoke only of “we,” repeating “we beat
those guys” over and over as the bewildered Russian
team looked on. As a writer for the magazine Sports
Illustrated explained (Swift, 1980, p. 32):
Individually, they were fine, dedicated sports-
men…. But collectively, they were a transcendent
lot. For seven months they pushed each other on
and pulled each other along, from rung to rung,
until for two weeks in February they—a bunch of
unheralded amateurs—became the best hockey
team in the world. The best team. The whole was
greater than the sum of its parts by a mile.
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 127
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

are made up of particles that are bonded together so
tightly that they remain in place rather than drifting
off or adhering to some other object. Similarly,
when human groups are cohesive, the members
stick together rather than leave to join other
groups. They are joined together by strong inter-
personal bonds and by a shared commitment to the
group and its goals. Cohesive groups remain united,
over time and across situations, whereas less cohe-
sive groups experience frequent changes in their
membership, their processes, and their procedures
(Cartwright, 1968).
Cohesive groups are unified groups, but their
unity is often the result of different causes and pro-
cesses. Consider, for example, an executive board of
a company that is productive and enduring, yet the
members never associate with one another after
work. In fact, most dislike one another. In contrast,
another group may be completely unproductive,
but the members are so closely interconnected
emotionally that they can move from one problem-
atic experience to another without a loss of syn-
chrony. (Most of the groups who star in popular
television series—Friends, Big Bang Theory, Modern
Family—fit this category.) These groups may be
equally cohesive, but their unity is the result of
very different group processes.
The idea that no one condition or process is a
necessary or sufficient condition for a group to
become cohesive is consistent with systems theory’s
principle of equifinality: “final states or objectives
may be reached in different ways and from disparate
starting points” (Skyttner, 2005, p. 71). But increases
in cohesiveness are not entirely unpredictable. Rec-
ognizing that our review cannot be comprehensive,
the following sections examine five overlapping, but
influential, sources of a group’s unity:
■ Social cohesion: The attraction of members to
one another and to the group as a whole.
■ Task cohesion: A shared commitment among
members to achieve a goal and the resulting
capacity to perform successfully as a coordi-
nated unit.
■ Collective cohesion: Unity based on shared iden-
tity and belonging.
■ Emotional cohesion: Group-based emotions,
including pride, esprit de corps, and overall
affective intensity.
■ Structural cohesion: The group’s structural integ-
rity, including normative coherence, clarity of
roles, and strength and density of relationships
linking members.
5-1a Social Cohesion
The members of the U.S. Olympic hockey team did
not gather, as a group, just to play hockey. They
lived, traveled, and partied together because their
training regimen demanded it, but also because
they liked each other. A group’s social cohesion is
determined by how much the members like each
other and the group itself (Lott & Lott, 1965).
Interpersonal Attraction Social psychologists
Kurt Lewin, Leon Festinger, and their colleagues
conducted some of the earliest studies of group
cohesion. Lewin (1948) used the term cohesion to
describe the forces that keep groups intact by push-
ing members together as well as the countering
forces that push them apart. Festinger and his col-
leagues also stressed binding social forces when they
defined group cohesion as “the total field of forces
which act on members to remain in the group”
(Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950, p. 164). But
in their studies of naturally forming groups, they
focused on social cohesion: attraction to the
group and its members. To measure cohesion,
they asked the members to identify all their good
friends and calculated the ratio of ingroup choices
to outgroup choices. The greater the ratio, the
greater was the cohesiveness of the group (see,
too, McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 2002).
equifinality In an open system, the potential to reach a
given end state through any one of a number of means
(identified by Ludwig von Bertalanffy).
social cohesion The attraction of members to one
another and to the group as a whole.
128 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Attraction between individuals is a basic ingre-
dient for most groups, but when these relations
intensify and proliferate throughout a group, they
can transform a run-of-the-mill group into a cohe-
sive one. Social psychologists Muzafer and Carolyn
Sherif documented this process in a series of unique
field studies conducted in 1949, 1953, and 1954.
During the summers of those years, the Sherifs ran
camps for 11- and 12-year-old boys that seemed
like typical summer camps—with canoeing, camp-
fires, crafts, hikes, and sports. But, unbeknown to
the campers, the Sherifs also recorded the behavior
of the boys as they reacted to one another and to
situations introduced by the investigators. In the
1949 study, conducted in northern Connecticut,
the 24 campers all bunked in one cabin for three
days. During this period, friendships developed
quickly based on proximity of bunks, similarities
in interests, and maturity. The Sherifs then inter-
vened and broke the large group into two smaller
ones by deliberately splitting up any friendship pairs
that had formed. They assigned one best friend to
one group (named the Bulldogs) and the other to
the other group (the Red Devils).
Even under these conditions—with the factors
that produced attraction between the boys
minimized—new attractions formed quickly and
resulted in two highly cohesive groups. The Sherifs
made certain that the boys’ first few days in their new
groups were spent in a variety of positive experiences
(hiking, cookouts, and games), and before long, the
boys, when asked to name their friends, chose
Is Your Group Cohesive?
For every group that never quite jells is a group of the
unlikeliest of allies who become so interlocked that
the members fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puz-
zle. What is this unseen “social chemistry” that trans-
forms humdrum groups into tight-knit teams, cliques,
squads, bands, and so on?
Instructions. To explore the concept of cohesion,
think of a group you belong to—one that is significant
for you personally. Then, put a check in each box if you
think the statement accurately describes your group.
Social Cohesion: Attraction
q Most of us really like this group.
q People get along well in this group.
q I like the people who are in this group.
q I am friends with many of the members of this group.
Task Cohesion: Goals
q We work well together to achieve group goals.
q We work together diligently pursuing our goals.
q I work enthusiastically in this group.
q I am willing to work hard for this group’s goals.
Collective Cohesion: Unity
q We stick together.
q The group is a unified one.
q I feel like a part of this group.
q I identify with this group.
Emotional Cohesion: Affect
q The group has a great amount of energy.
q The group has team spirit.
q I share in this group’s excitement (and
disappointments).
q I am proud of this group.
Structural Cohesion: Integrity
q The group is well organized.
q This group has a high level of structural
integrity.
q I understand my place in this group.
q My role in this group is well defined.
Interpretation. Is your group a cohesive one?
If you checked at least two of the four indicators
for each type of cohesion, then the group can be
considered cohesive—at least, cohesive in that
particular form of cohesiveness. But if your group
did not earn many checks then it cannot be consid-
ered cohesive. (Note: The first two indicators in each
set pertained to group-level cohesion, whereas the
second two were individual-level indicators of
cohesion.)
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 129
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

members of their new groups rather than the boys
they had liked when camp first began. When first
split up, 65% of the boys picked as friends those in
the other group. But when the groups became cohe-
sive, fewer than 10% named boys as friends who were
in the other group. The Sherifs’ well-known Robbers
Cave Experiment, which is discussed in more detail in
Chapter 14’s analysis of conflict between groups,
yielded similar findings.
Group-Level Attraction Social cohesion increases
when group members like each other. Cohesion,
however, is a multilevel process, for group members
may be bonded to each other, to their group, and
to the organization in which their group is embed-
ded. The players on the hockey team, for example,
liked each other, but they also liked the team as a
whole (Carless & De Paola, 2000). These two forms
of social cohesion usually go hand in hand: if you
like many individuals in the group, you likely also
like the group itself. But, when cohesion is based
only on individual-level attraction and those who
are liked leave the group, the remaining members
are more likely to quit. When cohesion is based on
group-level attraction, people remain members
even when specific members leave the group (Ehr-
hart & Naumann, 2004).
5-1b Task Cohesion
Studies of task-oriented groups, such as teams, military
squads, and expeditions, find that members, when
asked to describe their team’s cohesiveness, stress the
quality of their group as a performing unit. The U.S.
Olympic hockey team players, for example, were not
just individuals seeking personal goals, but teammates
who combined their strengths and talents to create a
single, performance-focused hockey team. They
achieved task cohesion: a shared commitment
among members to achieve a goal that requires the
collective effort of the group (Severt & Estrada, 2015).
Group Motivation Task cohesion is based on
group-level goal motivation. Many of the players
on the hockey team were the stars of their college
teams, and when they played they wanted to do
their personal best by scoring the most goals or
defending their own net. But success in hockey is
not based on personal performance. A good player
may do much to help the team win, but success in
hockey requires collaboration, so all members must
contribute to the group and its objectives. Group
members typically have the choice of working for
the group, for themselves, for both the group and
themselves, or for neither, and thus do not always
choose to strive for group success. If, however,
group cohesiveness is so strong that all members feel
united in a common effort, then group-oriented
motives should replace individualistic motives, and
the desire among members for group success should
be strong (Zander, 1971).
The coach of the hockey team, Herb Brooks,
was careful to emphasize the importance of team
goals rather than individual performance as he pre-
pared his team for the Olympics. Rather than
appealing to player-centered motivations by
emphasizing personal performance and rewarding
individual expertise, Brooks instilled a strong
desire for group rather than individual success.
He deliberately avoided developing personal rela-
tionships with the players and reminded each one
frequently that, as a hockey player, he was expend-
able. As one of the players remarked in describing his
coach: “He treated us all the same: rotten” (Swift,
1980, p. 32).
Collective Efficacy and Potency Groups that
are cohesive, in terms of task commitment, tend
to exhibit high levels of collective efficacy and
group potency. Collective efficacy is determined
by members’ shared beliefs that they can accom-
plish all the components of their group’s tasks
task cohesion A shared commitment among members
to achieve a goal and the resulting capacity to perform
successfully as a coordinated unit.
collective efficacy The belief, shared among a substan-
tial portion of the group members, that the group is capa-
ble of organizing and executing the actions required to
attain the group’s goals and successfully complete its tasks.
130 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

competently and efficiently. Unlike self-efficacy,
which is confidence in one’s own abilities, collec-
tive efficacy is a group-level process: Most or all of
the members must believe the members will com-
petently coordinate their individual actions in a
skilled, collective performance (Pescosolido,
2003). Hence, collective efficacy is “a group’s
shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize
and execute the courses of action required to pro-
duce given levels of attainment” (Bandura, 1997,
p. 476). A similar construct, group potency, is a
generalized positive expectation about the group’s
chances for success (Guzzo et al., 1993). High-
potency groups tend to select more difficult goals
to pursue and they tend to outperform their less
potent counterparts (Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg,
2009).
5-1c Collective Cohesion
Brooks, the coach, did not just stress a sense of cama-
raderie or shared goals, but team unity. His goal, he
explained, was to “build a ‘we’ and ‘us’ in ourselves
as opposed to an ‘I,’ ‘me,’ and ‘myself’” (Warner
HBO, 2001). The team’s collective cohesion
reached its peak in the medal ceremonies after the
U.S. team had won its gold medal. Team captain
Mike Eruzione waved to the team to join him on
the small stage, and somehow the entire team
crowded onto the platform. Instead of the team cap-
tain representing the group, the entire group, as a
whole, received the medal.
When a group is cohesive, collectively, mem-
bers are united; fused to form a single whole. When
members talk about themselves and their group,
they use more plural pronouns than personal pro-
nouns: “We won that game” or “We got the job
done” rather than “I got the job done” (Cialdini
et al., 1976). They use words like family, community,
or just we to describe their group. They may also
refuse to differentiate among the members of the
group, as when one member refuses to take
responsibility for the victory or win and insists
that the team as a whole deserves the credit. Indi-
viduals who are members of cohesive groups—
with cohesion defined as a strong sense of being
a part of a larger whole—are more committed to
their groups, where commitment is indicated by
the degree of attachment to the group, a long-
term orientation to the group, and intentions to
remain within the group (Arriaga & Agnew,
2001). Physically, member stand closer together
and they position themselves to prevent nonmem-
bers from intruding on the group’s space (Knowles
& Brickner, 1981).
Cohesion and Entitativity A group that is higher
in collective cohesion will, in most cases, be a group
that is higher in entitativity: It will be perceived to
be a single, unified entity that resists disintegration.
As noted in Chapter 1, small, highly unified groups
such as families, cliques of friends, gangs, and sports
teams are all thought to be high in entitativity, and
these are also the types of groups that are high in
cohesiveness. Confirming this close association
between cohesiveness and entitativity, one team
of investigators found that level of entitativity, as
measured by such items as “do you think about
this collection of people as a number of individuals
or as a whole” was correlated with both social
cohesion (r = .55) and task cohesion (r = .67).
They also found that qualities that were associated
with increases in entitativity, such as the impor-
tance of the group for the members, the amount
of interaction among members, and the duration
of the group, also predicted increases in cohesion
(Thurston, 2012).
Belonging and Identity The members of the
U.S. Olympic Hockey team did not just meld
together to form a single, unified group—each
individual player also came to strongly identify
himself as a member of that group. Members of
groups that are high in collective cohesiveness,
when asked to comment directly on their sense of
group potency The level of the group’s shared opti-
mism regarding its collective capabilities.
collective cohesion The degree to which the group
unites it’s members, as indicated by the perceived solidar-
ity of the group (entitativity) and members’ identification
with the group.
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 131
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

connection to the group, are more likely to say “I
feel a sense of belonging to my group” (Bollen &
Hoyle, 1990), “I think of this group as a part of
who I am” (Henry, Arrow, & Carini, 1999), and
“I see myself as a member of the group” (Smith,
Seger, & Mackie, 2007). They not only consider
their group to be a single, unified entity, but they
also consider themselves to be a component part of
that inseparable whole.
This increased identification of individuals
with cohesive groups is predicted by social identity
theory (Hogg, 1992, 2001). When a group is
highly cohesive, members’ identities will be
based more on their membership in that group
rather than their own personal, unique qualities.
In consequence, their sense of self will become
depersonalized: They will view themselves and
their fellow members as relatively interchangeable
parts of the whole, and their sense of membership
in the group will become more important to them
than their personal relationships with specific
group members. Any factor that increases mem-
bers’ tendency to categorize themselves as group
members (e.g., conflict with other groups, the
presence of outgroups, and activities that focus
members’ attention on their group identity) will
reduce personal attraction but increase depersona-
lized attraction to the group as a whole.
5-1d Emotional Cohesion
Napoleon is said to have proclaimed that the great
strength of an army lies not in the skill of its leaders,
but in the élan—the emotional intensity—of its
members. The sociologist Émile Durkheim, in dis-
cussing the nature of ritualized interactions in cohe-
sive groups, stressed how they develop intense
emotional experiences, for when all “come
together, a sort of electricity is formed by their col-
lecting which quickly transports them to an
extraordinary degree of exaltation” (1912/1965,
p. 262). Durkheim was describing the large gather-
ings of local communities in New Guinea, but he
identity fusion theory A conceptual analysis that
explains the extreme self-sacrifice (such as heroism in
the face of danger and terrorism) that sometimes occurs
when individual identity is fused with group identity.
Can Members Get Lost in Their Groups?
When individuals identify with their group, their sense
of self combines elements drawn from both their indi-
vidualized, personal self and their collective, group-
level self. But what happens if this distinction between
the individual self and collective self dissolves—if the
individual’s personal self becomes fused with the col-
lective? Identity fusion theory suggests that in such
cases—which are admittedly rare—both the personal
self and the collective selves become amplified, with
the result that individuals are willing to engage in
extreme forms of behavior on behalf of their group.
Individuals who sacrifice themselves for their group—
heroes in combat but also suicide bombers—perform
actions that seem objectively inexplicable; they sacri-
fice their own lives to either save group members or to
harm others who they believe are their enemies.
Identity fusion theory suggests that individuals engage
in these actions because their identification with their
group is so great that they no longer distinguish
between themselves and their group (Swann et al.,
2012; Talaifar & Swann, 2016).
Researchers studied this process by surveying a
large number of students, asking them if they agreed
with such items as “I am one with my group” and
“I feel immersed in my group” (paraphrased from
Gómez et al., 2011, p. 992). Individuals who agreed
with these items, when recontacted six months later,
were asked if they were willing to fight and die for
their group. Many said they would. Fusion also pre-
dicted how they responded to a modified version of
the trolley-car dilemma used in studies of ethics. Par-
ticipants were asked to imagine that they were on a
footbridge and could see that a runaway trolley was
about to run over five members of their group. The
only thing they could do to stop the trolley would be
to jump from the bridge into its path. More of the
individuals with fused identifies said they would do so
(Gómez et al., 2011).
132 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

believed that collective effervescence resulted from the
sharing of emotional reactions within a group. As
the positive and elevated mood of one person is
picked up by the next, the group members eventu-
ally display a shared emotional intensity.
A variety of terms is used to describe group-level
emotional states, including élan, morale, pride, esprit
de corps, and positive affective tone, but no matter
what its label, this shared emotional cohesion is
one of the most obvious features of many unified
groups. The Russian and U.S. teams were equal in
confidence and collective efficacy, for both groups
had the talent needed to win at hockey. But they
differed dramatically in their level of emotionality.
The Russian team was confident but unenthusiastic.
The U.S. team was not so confident, but the team
was brimming with energy, enthusiasm, and team
spirit. A group with high levels of collective efficacy
may expect to succeed, but a group with emotional
cohesion has vitality, passion, vim, and vigor. It was
this emotionality that Coach Brooks whipped up to
its peak intensity before the U.S. team’s game with
the Russians. He told them that the Russians were
taking their victory for granted, but “we can beat
them.” He told his team: “you were born to be a
player,” you were “destined to be here today,” and
this is “our time.” When he told them to “spit in the
eye of the tiger,” they did.
Group-Level Emotions Emotional cohesion,
like the other components of cohesion, is a multi-
level process. Emotions, although traditionally
thought to be personal and private are more often
interpersonal and socially shared (Menges & Kil-
duff, 2015). The management and organizational
behavior researcher Jennifer George (1996), for
example, suggests cohesive groups are more likely
to display collective mood states; members’ emo-
tions and moods become synchronized, as if they
had reached consensus on the feelings they should
be experiencing. This group affective tone is not tied
to any specific aspect of the group’s activities or to
any one individual, but rather pervades all the
group’s day-to-day activities. The group’s mood
may be so taken-for-granted that members do not
realize its influence, but George believes that a pos-
itive group affect will lead to increases in a number
of pro-group actions, including helping out other
members, protecting the group, making construc-
tive suggestions, and even enhancing survival (Bar-
sade & Gibson, 2012). In some cases, the members
of groups may experience emotions in response to
events and outcomes that they personally did not
experience, as when all members of a group are
happy when one of the members receives an
award or all become angry when they learn one
of their own has been mistreated (Smith, Seger, &
Mackie, 2007). Group-level emotions can even
emerge when people are isolated from their groups,
but nonetheless identify with them. For example:
Imagine all of the new college students who
wander across campuses and settle into dorm
rooms at the beginning of their freshman
semester. Despite geographic divides, these
students may nevertheless feel very similar
emotions when thinking about themselves as
college freshmen. Or consider the business
traveler, holed up alone in a foreign hotel
room. Despite the absence of even a single
compatriot, she may nevertheless feel the same
surge of pride as she reads about her country’s
exploits at the summer Olympics that her fel-
low countrymen thousands of miles away do
(Moons et al., 2009, p. 760).
Affect and Relational Cohesion A number of
theorists believe that the positive emotions that gener-
ate cohesion arise spontaneously during the course of
routine interactions in groups—so long as these inter-
actions are relatively pleasant. For example, sociologists
Edward Lawler, Shane Thye, and Jeongkoo Yoon
(2014), in their relational cohesion theory, argue
emotional cohesion The emotional intensity of the
group and individuals when in the group.
relational cohesion theory A conceptual analysis of
cohesion that assumes members of groups develop stron-
ger ties to groups that are perceived to be sources of
positive feelings or emotions and weaker ties to those
perceived to be sources of negative feelings or emotions.
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 133
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

that group members, because they are linked to one
another in recurring (and mostly positive) exchange
relationships, eventually experience positive emotions
when interacting with one another. Particularly when
“jointness” is high—members must align their beha-
viors with each other in order to reach their goals—
then members will attribute their positive feelings to
the group and become more strongly committed to it.
Lawler, Thye, and Yoon (2000) tested the the-
ory by arranging for groups of three students seated
in separate cubicles to work together on an eco-
nomic decision-making task. Participants were
told on each round they would have the opportu-
nity to draw out points from a common pool and
that at the end of 20 rounds the points they earned
would be converted into monetary payment. The
group members needed to negotiate the amounts
each withdrew among them; if too much was
taken, no one would receive any points at all.
After numerous rounds of these negotiations the
members were asked to describe their emotions
using such adjectives as pleased, happy, satisfied, and
contented. They also indicated if they felt their group
was cohesive (e.g., close, solid, and coming
together) or divisive (e.g., distant, fragile, or coming
apart). As relational cohesion theory predicts, the
more frequently the groups successfully completed
their negotiations, the more positive their emo-
tions, and the more positive their emotions, the
higher their group’s level of cohesion.
5-1e Structural Cohesion
Structural cohesion is unity of a group that
results from the integrity of its structural features,
including norms, roles, and intermember relations.
The U.S. Olympic team, for example, was a well-
structured group, in terms of roles, norms, and rela-
tionships. Each player had a position on the ice that
he played, and his responsibilities in that role were
Does Collective Movement Build Cohesion?
Some rituals and practices, such as collective singing,
chanting, praying, and marching, result in the devel-
opment of a shared emotional elevation among group
members. Historian William McNeill (1995), in his book
Keeping Together in Time, describes this feeling by
drawing on his personal experience as a new recruit
during basic training in the U.S. Army.
Marching aimlessly about on the drill field, swag-
gering in conformity with prescribed military
postures, conscious only of keeping in step so as to
make the next move correctly and in time some-
how felt good. Words are inadequate to describe
the emotion aroused by the prolonged movement
in unison that drilling involved. A sense of perva-
sive well-being is what I recalled; more specifically,
a strange sense of personal enlargement; a sort of
swelling out, becoming bigger than life, thanks to
participation in collective ritual (p. 2).
McNeill suggests that much of the history of modern
forms of warfare can be traced to the cohesion-building
effects of close-group training. His collective-movement
hypothesis offers, for example, a solution to one of mili-
tary history’s great mysteries: How did the Greek forces of
Athens and Sparta, in the period from 600 B.C. to 300 B.C.,
manage to overwhelm vastly superior forces? McNeill’s
proposal: The Greeks relied on highly cohesive groups of
ground forces that moved forward as a synchronized unit.
This formation is known as a phalanx, from the Greek
word for fingers. These units varied in size, but were typ-
ically at least eight rows deep and stretched wide enough
across a field of battle to prevent flanking. In some cases,
each man’s shield was designed so that it covered the
soldier beside him as well, thereby further increasing the
unity of the group. The men of these phalanxes trained
together over long periods of time, and they became
synchronized to the point that they acted as a single unit
that could inflict great damage against even the best-
trained individual soldiers. These phalanxes eventually
gave way to other means of organizing men in battle,
given their vulnerability to cavalry and more maneuver-
able adversaries.
structural cohesion The unity of a group that derives
from the group’s structural integrity, including normative
coherence, clarity of roles, and strength and density of
relationships linking members.
134 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

well defined. The players, through practice, knew
what they were supposed to do when on offense
and defense, and their success in enacting these
duties was reviewed regularly by the coaching
staff that had authority over all the players. The
group also had clear norms about how it operated,
what kinds of behaviors were acceptable, and the
goals that it sought. The group was also closed,
rather than open: only certain individuals could
join, and membership was regarded by most as a
noteworthy accomplishment (Ziller, 1965). These
social structures regulated members’ behavior, min-
imized conflict within the group, routinized com-
munication and interdependencies, and, in doing
so, increased the group’s cohesiveness (Eys & Car-
ron, 2001; Moody & White, 2003).
Just as a well-designed building can withstand
the vicissitudes of time and weather, so can a struc-
turally cohesive group withstand stresses and strains
that would cause a less coherent group to crumble.
For example, the two groups studied by the Sherifs
(1953, 1956) discussed earlier in the chapter—the
Bulldogs and Red Devils—developed very different
organizational structures. As Figure 5.1 indicates,
the Bulldogs had a dense network of relationships
linking members, whereas the Red Devils team was
more stratified. When the boys were asked to name
as many as five friends at the camp, 9 of the 12
Bulldogs named each other in a tightly knit pattern
of reciprocal and overlapping choices. The remain-
ing three individuals received no friendship nomi-
nations, but they picked others who were part of
the main cluster as friends and were not rejected. In
the Red Devils, liking was more concentrated: the
two most-liked individuals in the group garnered
50% of all friendship choices. The Red Devils’
group structure also included a large subgroup—
50% of the members were nested in a clique linked
to one of the mid-level leaders. Such subgroups
create fault lines in groups, and, when the group
experiences turmoil, it can break apart along
these lines (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). These
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
h
o
ic
e
s
8
7
Reciprocated
choices
One-way
choices
Popularity
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 WBH
B
H
E
C
LC
T
L T
10 L
S
M
B
F
B C M
H
D
H
T
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
h
o
ic
e
s
9
8
7
Reciprocated
choices
One-way
choices
Popularity
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
F I G U R E 5.1 The attraction relations among the members of the Bulldogs (on the left) and the Red Devils (on
the right), as documented by Sherif and Sherif (1956) in their field studies of group processes.
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 135
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

differences in structure corresponded to differences
between the two groups both in cohesiveness and
in performance. The Bulldogs were a more tight-
knit, cohesive group, and they were the victors
when the two teams played each other in a series
of competitions. “The results of the intergroup
competition for the Bulldogs were elation and
heightened ingroup pride and identification”
(Sherif & Sherif, 1956, p. 294).
5-1f Assumptions and Assessments
The concept of cohesion, given its theoretical
importance, has been defined and redefined by doz-
ens of different theorists. Some consider cohesion to
be strong feelings of attraction that link members
together. Others, in contrast, focus on morale and
trust, and still others stress the cohesive group’s
capacity to combine members in a highly productive
unit. Cohesiveness’s many definitions have caused
some to complain that the concept, ironically, lacks
cohesion (e.g., Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009).
The Multicomponent Assumption A multicom-
ponent approach embraces this definitional diversity
by suggesting that many different factors contribute
to the unity of a group. The members of the U.S.
Olympic hockey team, for example, became good
friends as well as teammates, they worked well
together, they identified with their team, they played
with great emotional intensity, and the group was
highly structured. But, as is consistent with the con-
cept of equifinality, other cohesive groups may not
exhibit all of these qualities.
Some kinds of cohesion are more common
than others. For example, studies of performance-
focused groups, such as military squads and sports
teams, identify two components—social cohesion
and task cohesion—as the two primary forms of
cohesion and distinguish between these two forms
and secondary forms of cohesion (Siebold, 2007,
2015). Sociological and network studies, in con-
trast, tend to emphasize the importance of structural
features as critical determinants of cohesion (e.g.,
Burke, Davies, & Carron, 2014; McPherson &
Smith-Lovin, 2002).
The Multilevel Assumption Cohesion is also a
multilevel process as well as a multicomponent one.
Social cohesion includes both liking for specific
members but also liking for the group itself. Task
cohesion is commitment to one’s personal goals,
but also the goals that the group is pursuing. But
each of the other sources of cohesion considered in
this section—identity, emotions, and structure—
also operate at multiple levels. Members of cohesive
groups not only identify with other members,
mimic their emotions, and meet their role obliga-
tions: They embrace the group’s identity, share its
emotions, and fit into its structure. A multilevel
analysis must also take into account vertical and
organizational bonding (Siebold, 2007). Cohesion
is substantially influenced by the strength of the
relations between members and their leaders (verti-
cal bonding) and the relationship between the
group and the organization or institution in which
it is embedded (organizational bonding).
The Multimethod Assumption Since cohesion
is multifaceted, researchers use a wide variety of
methods to measure it. Some make use of social
network methods, indexing the unity of a group
by considering who likes who and the group’s
structure. Others rely on observational strategies,
monitoring interpersonal relations among members,
noting instances of conflict or tension, and mem-
bers’ physical locations over time. In many cases,
too, investigators hope that group members are
accurate observers of their group’s cohesiveness
and, if asked, will share these perceptions. They
might ask members of a group to only describe
their own attraction to and commitment to the
group through such questions as, “Are you attracted
to the group?” or “Do you feel a strong sense of
belonging to the group?” Other researchers, in
contrast, may ask group members to estimate the
group’s cohesion directly through such questions
as, “Are members attracted to this group?” and “Is
this group a cohesive one?” (Salas et al., 2015).
This plethora of operational definitions can cre-
ate challenges for researchers. When they measure
cohesiveness in different ways, they often report
different conclusions. A study using a self-report
136 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

measure of cohesion might find that cohesive groups
produce more than cohesive ones, but other investi-
gators may not replicate this finding when they use
observational measures. Moreover, some operational
definitions of cohesion may correspond more closely
to the theoretical definition than others. A measure
that focuses only on group members’ perceptions of
their group’s cohesiveness, for example, may be asses-
sing something very different than measures of the
actual strength of the relationships linking individuals
to their group.
5-2 D EVELOPING COHESION
The U.S. Olympic hockey team that faced the
Russian team in February of 1980 was extraordi-
narily unified, but the group did not become cohe-
sive all at once. When Coach Brooks invited the
best amateur hockey players to a training camp in
Colorado Springs in July 1979, the players showed
few signs of camaraderie, fellowship, or cohesion.
Many had played against one another in college and
still held grudges, and some were so temperamental
that no one would befriend them. But the hockey
team changed over time, transforming from a col-
lection of talented individuals into a cohesive team.
5-2a Theories of Group Development
New groups are different from established groups.
The committee meeting for the first time will not
act the way it will during its tenth meeting. The
team playing its first game of the season will not
perform in the same way it will on its last game.
The partygoers at 2 AM don’t do the sorts of things
they did at the party’s start at 9 PM. Some of the
changes that a group and its members undergo are
specific to that particular group, for they are the
result of the unique characteristics of the members,
the distinctive way these individuals interact with
each other, and the group’s reaction to external
pressures that it may encounter. But along with
these idiographic changes are more predictable pat-
terns of change that are common to most groups
the longer their duration.
Theories of group development seek to describe
these recurring patterns of change in a group’s structure
and interactions that occur over the course of the
group’s existence. Some theories—successive-stage
models—suggest that groups move through a series of
separable stages as they develop. The U.S. Olympic
team, for example, became unified, but only after pro-
gressing through earlier stages marked by confusion,
conflict, and growing group structure. Cyclical models,
in contrast, argue that groups repeatedly cycle through
periods or phases during their lifetimes, rather than just
moving through each stage once. The U.S. Olympic
team, for example, experienced substantial shifts in its
levels of conflict between the coach and the players
throughout its existence, but these shifts triggered pro-
cesses that worked to control tension and increase har-
mony. Still other theories mix elements of both stage
and cycle models and extend these two basic perspec-
tives in various ways. We consider examples of these
approaches to the analysis of group development in this
section (Arrow et al., 2005; Wheelan, 2005).
5-2b Five Stages of Development
Just as humans mature from infancy to childhood,
adolescence, adulthood, and old age, stage models
of group development theorize that groups move
from one stage to the next in a predictable, sequen-
tial fashion. It is not the passage of time, per se,
which is critical, but rather the processes that take
place as the group transforms from an amalgam of
individuals into a cohesive unit. As the group deals
with the challenges that it must confront at each
stage, the group’s interactions stabilize, the relations
joining the members strengthen, and the group
becomes more proficient. A group that has com-
pleted its movement through each stage in the
sequence should, in theory, function more effec-
tively than one that has not.
The number and names of the stages vary
among theorists, but many models highlight certain
interpersonal outcomes that must be achieved in
any group that exists for a prolonged period (see
Table 5.1). At the outset, the group members
must become oriented toward one another. Sec-
ond, they often find themselves in conflict, and
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 137
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

some solution is sought to improve their working
relationship. Next, norms and roles develop that
regulate behavior, and the group achieves greater
unity. In the fourth phase, the group can perform
as a unit to achieve desired goals. The final stage
ends the sequence of development with the group’s
adjournment. The educational psychologist Bruce
Tuckman (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen,
1977) gave these stages in the five-stage model
of group development poetically pleasant
names: forming (orientation), storming (conflict),
norming (structure development), performing (work),
and adjourning (dissolution).
Forming: The Orientation Stage The first few
minutes, hours, days, or even weeks of a newly
formed group’s life are often marked by tension,
guarded interchanges, and relatively low levels of
interaction. During this initial forming stage, members
monitor their behavior to avoid any embarrassing
lapses of social poise and are tentative when expres-
sing their personal opinions. Because the group’s
structure has not had time to develop, the members
are often uncertain about their role in the group,
what they should be doing to help the group reach
its goals, or even who is leading the group.
With time, tension is dispelled as the ice is broken
and group members become better acquainted. After
the initial inhibitions subside, group members typically
begin exchanging information about themselves and
their goals. To better understand and relate to the
group, individual members gather information about
their leaders’ and members’ personality characteristics,
interests, and attitudes. In most cases, too, members
recognize that the others in the group are forming an
impression of each other, and so they facilitate this
process by revealing some private, personal informa-
tion during conversations and Internet-based
exchanges. This gradual, and in some cases tactical,
communication of personal information is termed
self-disclosure, and it serves the important function of
helping members get to know one another (Jourard,
T A B L E 5.1 Stages of Group Development
Stage Major Processes Characteristics
Orientation: Forming Members become familiar with each
other and the group; dependency and
inclusion issues; acceptance of leader
and group consensus
Communications are tentative, polite;
concern for ambiguity, group’s goals;
leader is active; members are compliant
Conflict: Storming Disagreement over procedures; expres-
sion of dissatisfaction; tension among
members; antagonism toward leader
Criticism of ideas; poor attendance; hos-
tility; polarization and coalition formation
Structure: Norming Growth of cohesiveness and unity;
establishment of roles, standards, and
relationships; increased trust,
communication
Agreement on procedures; reduction in
role ambiguity; increased “we-feeling”
Performance: Performing Goal achievement; high task orienta-
tion; emphasis on performance and
production
Decision making; problem solving; mutual
cooperation
Dissolution: Adjourning Termination of roles; completion of
tasks; reduction of dependency
Disintegration and withdrawal; increased
independence and emotionality; regret
five-stage model of group development A theoreti-
cal analysis of the regularities groups exhibit as they change
over time that identifies five stages: orientation (forming),
conflict (storming), structure (norming), performance
(performing), and dissolution (adjourning) (identified and
labeled by Bruce Tuckman).
138 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

1971). Eventually, the group members feel familiar
enough with one another that their interactions
become more open and spontaneous.
Storming: The Conflict Stage As the relatively
mild tension caused by the newness of a group
wanes, tension over goals, procedures, and authority
often waxes. On the U.S. Olympic team, for exam-
ple, the players from the schools in the eastern part of
the United States often excluded the players from
the Midwest. Several players were considered hot-
shots more interested in their personal performance
than in team success. And nearly all the players
rebelled against the hard-driving coaching style of
Herb Brooks. He would yell, insult, swear, and
curse the players whenever they failed to perform
up to his standards, and he often threatened to cut
players from the team.
The storming stage is marked by a “lack of unity”
(Tuckman, 1965, p. 386), including personal conflicts
between individual members who discover that they
just do not get along, procedural conflict over the
group’s goals and procedures, and competition
between individual members for authority, leadership,
and more prestigious roles. In groups that have an
official leader, like the U.S. Olympic team, the con-
flict often centers on relationships between the leader
and the rest of the group. In the orientation stage,
members accept the leader’s guidance with few ques-
tions, but as the group matures, leader–member con-
flicts disrupt the group’s functioning. Members may
oscillate between fight (counter dependency) and
flight (withdrawal) as some openly challenge the lea-
der’s authority and others exude submissiveness. In
groups that have no formally appointed leader, con-
flicts erupt as members vie for status and roles within
the group. Once stable patterns of authority, attrac-
tion, and communication have developed, conflicts
subside, but until then, group members jockey for
authority and power (Forsyth & Diederich, 2014).
Can Cohesion Make a Bad Job Good?
Cohesiveness increases with interaction, for the more
people do things together as a group—talking, work-
ing, eating, relaxing, socializing, traveling, and so on—
then the more cohesive the group will become. This
generalization, however, comes with qualifications, for
any number of situational factors can shift interaction
out of the plus column into the minus. If the interac-
tions take place in a hostile environment; if a substan-
tial number of group members are interpersonally
irritating in some way; if the group interactions are
uncoordinated and boring; if many of the members
feel that they are unfairly excluded from the group’s
activities, the group’s development of cohesiveness
will be delayed.
Cohesion, however, can manifest in even the most
challenging of group circumstances, as sociologist
Donald Roy’s (1959) “banana time” case study reveals.
Roy worked, for two months, in 12-hour shifts lasting
from 8 AM to 8:30 PM, with three other men in an
isolated room in a garment factory operating a press
machine. The work was not just tedious, but menial,
repetitive, and tiring. Roy felt he could not last more
than a week, but that was before he was drawn into
the interaction of the small group. The group filled its
days with jokes, teasing, kidding around, and horse-
play that gave structure and meaning to their work.
To break up the day into smaller segments, the men
stopped from time to time for various refreshments
and breaks. There was, of course, lunch time, but the
men added many others, such as coffee time, peach
time, fish time, and banana time. These rituals and
social activities, collectively called “banana time” by
Roy, turned a bad job into a good one.
All cohesive groups have their banana times—
interaction rituals that elevate the degree of social
connection among the members. Like traditional
rituals, such as grace said before meals or singing
the national anthem, such interaction rituals provide
structure and meaning for the group and its mem-
bers. Reading the minutes of the last meeting,
introducing new members, joking about the mem-
ber who is always late, or commenting on someone’s
appearance, are all simple rituals that ensure that
the group’s activities will unfold in a predictable and
orderly way. Rituals and ceremonies have been
linked to increases in a shared focus among mem-
bers, emotional energy, and overall cohesiveness
(Collins, 2004).
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 139
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Many group members are discouraged by this
outbreak of conflict in their young groups, but con-
flict is the yang to the yin of group harmony. As
Chapter 13’s analysis of the roots of conflict suggests,
the dynamic nature of the group ensures continual
change, but along with this change come stresses
and strains that surface in the form of conflict. In
rare instances, group members may avoid all conflict
because their actions are perfectly coordinated; but in
most groups, the push and pull of interpersonal forces
inevitably exerts its influence. Low levels of conflict in
a group can be an indication of remarkably positive
interpersonal relations, but it is more likely that the
group members are simply uninvolved, unmotivated,
and bored (Chin et al., 2017).
Conflict is not just unavoidable, however; it
may be a key ingredient for creating group cohe-
sion. If conflict escalates out of control, it can
destroy a group. But in some cases, conflict settles
matters of structure, direction, and performance
expectations. Group members must learn to live
and work together, and to do so they may need
to openly discuss—and even argue over—a specific
problem or task they are dealing with (task con-
flict), the way they work together (process conflict),
the stresses and strains of their interpersonal rela-
tionships (personal conflict), and who is in charge
(status conflict). To move along in their develop-
mental process, the members of cohesive groups
must learn to manage their conflict: when hostility
surfaces it must be confronted and resolved (Bradley
et al., 2015). Successful conflict resolution may
even “serve to ‘sew the social system together’”
by identifying and resolving disagreements that if
left untended could destabilize the group (Coser,
1956, p. 801). Groups that spend too much time
in the storming stage, however, may find that the
harmful effects of protracted conflict-laden interac-
tions cannot be undone (De Dreu, 2010).
Norming: The Structure Stage With each crisis
overcome, the U.S. Olympic hockey team became
more stable, more organized, and more unified. The
players revised their initial impressions of each other
and reached more benevolent conclusions about
their teammates. The players still complained about
the team rules, the practice schedules, and the
coach’s constant criticisms, but they became fiercely
loyal to the team, their teammates, and their coach.
Whereas groups in the orientation and conflict stages
are characterized by low levels of intimacy, friend-
ship, and continuity, in the norming stage members
become more trusting, supportive, and cooperative.
The group becomes cohesive.
As the group becomes more organized, it
resolves the problems that caused earlier conflicts—
uncertainty about goals, roles, and authority—and
prepares to get down to the work at hand. Norms
emerge more clearly and guide the group members
as they interact with one another. The group begins
to display interaction rituals that provide structure
and meaning for the group and its members, such
as regularities in small talk or repetitive mundane
practices (Collins, 2004). Differences of opinion still
arise, but now they are dealt with through construc-
tive discussion and negotiation. Members communi-
cate openly with one another about personal and
group concerns, in part because members know one
another better. On the U.S. Olympic team, the
players did not always agree with the coach, but
they changed the way they dealt with disagreement.
Instead of grumbling about their treatment, several
players started compiling a book of Brooksisms—the
odd expressions Coach Brooks used during prac-
tice to motivate his players. Nearly every player,
interviewed 20 years after they played for Brooks,
remembered such Brooksisms as “You are playing
worse every day and now you are playing like the
middle of next week” and “Gentlemen, you don’t
have enough talent to win on talent alone.”
Performing: The Work Stage The U.S. Olym-
pic hockey team played 41 games against other
teams in preparation for the Olympics and won
30 of those matches. They reached their peak of
performance when they beat the Russian team to
qualify for the final, gold-medal game against Fin-
land. Before that game, Coach Brooks did not give
them a pep talk, as he had before the Russian game.
Instead, he only said, “You lose this game and you
will take it to your [expletive deleted] graves”
(Warner HBO, 2001). They won.
140 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Few groups are productive immediately; instead,
productivity must usually wait until the group
matures. Various types of groups, such as conferences,
factory workers assembling relay units, workshop par-
ticipants, and the members of expeditions, become
more efficient and productive later in their group’s
life cycle (Hare, 1967, 1982; Hare & Naveh, 1984).
The more “mature” a group, the more likely the
group will spend the bulk of its time working toward
its chosen goals rather than socializing, seeking direc-
tion, or arguing (Dierdorff, Bell, & Belohlav, 2011).
When researchers coded the content of group mem-
bers’ verbal interactions, they discovered task-focused
remarks occur later rather than sooner in the group’s
life (e.g., Bales & Strodtbeck, 1951; Borgatta & Bales,
1953; Heinicke & Bales, 1953). Conflict and uncer-
tainty also decrease over time as work-focused com-
ments increase. Groups that have been together
longer talk more about work-related matters, whereas
younger groups are more likely to express conflict or
uncertainty and make requests for guidance
(Wheelan, Davidson, & Tilin, 2003). Once the
group reaches the performing stage “members shift
their attention from what the group is to what the
group needs to do” (Bushe & Coetzer, 2007, p. 193).
Not all groups, however, reach this productive
work stage. If you have never been a member of a
group that failed to produce, you are a rare individ-
ual indeed. In a study of neighborhood action com-
mittees, only 1 of 12 groups reached the productivity
stage; all the others were bogged down at the form-
ing or storming stages (Zurcher, 1969). An early
investigation of combat units found that out of 63
squads, only 13 could be clearly classified as effective
performance units (Goodacre, 1953). An analysis of
18 personal growth groups concluded that only 5
managed to reach the task performance stage (Kuy-
pers, Davies, & Glaser, 1986). These studies and
others suggest that time is needed to develop a
working relationship, but time alone is no guarantee
that the group will be productive (Gabarro, 1987).
Chapters 10, 11, and 12 examine issues pertaining to
team performance in detail.
Adjourning: The Dissolution Stage After its
astounding victory, the U.S. Olympic hockey team
was celebrated by a nation of sudden hockey fans,
including the president of the United States. But the
ceremony at the White House marked the end of
the group’s existence, for the team never reconvened
or played again. After meeting the president, the
teammates clapped one another on the back one
last time, and then the group disbanded.
A group’s entry into the dissolution stage can be
either planned or spontaneous. Planned dissolution takes
place when the group accomplishes its goals or
exhausts its time and resources. The U.S. Olympic
hockey team meeting the president, a wilderness
expedition at the end of its journey, a jury delivering
its verdict, and an ad hoc committee filing its final
report are all ending as scheduled. Spontaneous dissolu-
tion, in contrast, occurs when the group’s end is not
scheduled. In some cases, an unanticipated problem
may arise that makes continued group interaction
impossible. When groups fail repeatedly to achieve
their goals, their members or some outside power
may decide that maintaining the group is a waste of
time and resources. In other cases, the group members
may no longer find the group and its goals sufficiently
satisfying to warrant their continued membership. As
social exchange theory maintains, when the number
of rewards provided by group membership decreases
and the costly aspects of membership escalate, group
members become dissatisfied. If the members feel that
they have no alternatives or that they have put too
much into the group to abandon it, they may remain
in the group even though they are dissatisfied. If,
however, group members feel that other groups are
available or that nonparticipation is preferable to par-
ticipation in such a costly group, they will be more
likely to let their current group die (Vandenberghe &
Bentein, 2009).
The dissolution stage can be stressful for mem-
bers (Birnbaum & Cicchetti, 2005). When disso-
lution is unplanned, the final group sessions may
be filled with conflict-laden exchanges among
members, growing apathy and animosity, repeated
failures at the group’s task, and loss of trust within
the group. Even when dissolution is planned, the
members may feel distressed. Their work in the group
may be over, but they still mourn for the group
and suffer from a lack of personal support. In
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 141
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

many cases, too, group members deal with the
demise of the group for blaming each other for
the group’s errors and misadventures (Gillespie &
Dietz, 2009).
5-2c Cycles of Development
Tuckman’s model, which is operationalized in
Figure 5.2, is a successive-stage theory: It specifies the
usual order of the phases of group development.
Sometimes, however, group development takes a
different course. Although interpersonal exploration
is often a prerequisite for group solidarity, and cohe-
sion and conflict often precede effective perfor-
mance, this pattern is not universal. Some groups
manage to avoid particular stages; others move
through the stages in a unique order; still others
seem to develop in ways that cannot be described
The members don’t know very much about each other.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
The purposes of the group are not yet well-defined or clear.
The future activities and procedures of the group are, as yet, ambiguous.
Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing
Adjourning
Members go along with whatever the group or leader suggests.
There is uncertainty about or competition over who is leading this group.
The members are often not willing to follow each other’s suggestions.
There is a high level of conflict in this group.
The members of this group do not get along well with one another.
The group is not yet well organized.
The group’s norms and roles are not yet clear to most members.
This group is spending time discussing how it will get things done.
This group is not very cohesive.
The group is making progress toward completing its work successfully.
The group is growing more coordinated over time.
The group is seeking out feedback about its level of performance.
The group is making adjustments to improve its effectiveness.
No plans have been made for future group activities.
Many of the members no longer take part in the group’s activities.
Group members are no longer actively engaged in the group.
The group has reached its goals and is ready to disband.
F I G U R E 5.2 Charting the development of groups. The five-stage model of group development assumes that
groups naturally progress through five stages as their processes, procedures, and personal relationship change over
time. To apply the model, think of a group to which you currently belong. Then, beginning at the topmost box, ask if
your group displays the qualities of a “young” group, or if it has moved on to a later stage of development. If the
group you are analyzing is one that is responsible for completing a task, the sooner it reaches the performing stage,
then the more likely it will be successful in reaching its goals.
142 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

by Tuckman’s five stages (Bonebright, 2010). Also,
the demarcation between stages is not clear-cut.
When group conflict is waning, for example, feelings
of cohesion may be increasing, but these time-
dependent changes do not occur in a discontinuous,
stepwise sequence (Arrow, 1997).
Many theorists believe that groups repeatedly
cycle through stages during their lifetime, rather
than just moving through each stage once. These
cyclical models agree that certain issues tend to
dominate group interaction during the various
phases of a group’s development, but they add
that these issues can recur later in the life of the
group. Very long-term groups, such as teams of
software engineers who work on products for
many years, show signs of shifting from task-
focused stages back to conflict (re-storming) and
norming (re-norming) stages (McGrew, Bilotta, &
Deeney, 1999). Production crews in progress
meetings spend much of their time discussing
the work itself—the tasks they have completed
and those still undone—but their conversations
also include relational, group-focused topics that
increase cohesiveness. Notably, groups that bal-
ance the task side with the relational side are
more likely to complete their projects on time
than are groups whose meetings are all business
and no relationships (Gorse & Emmitt, 2009).
The sociologist Robert Freed Bales’ equilib-
rium model of group development assumes that
group members strive to maintain a balance
between accomplishing the task and enhancing
the quality of the interpersonal relationships
within the group. In consequence, groups cycle
back and forth between what Tuckman called
the norming and performing stages: A period
of prolonged group effort must be followed by
a period of cohesion-creating, interpersonal
activity. The discussion groups that Bales studied
followed this general pattern of oscillation
between the two types of group activity (Bales
& Cohen, 1979).
Punctuated equilibrium models agree with
Bales’ view, but they add that groups often go
through periods of relatively rapid change. These
changes in the group’s developmental trajectory
can be triggered by a barometric event: an incident
or outcome that causes a significant shift in the
interpersonal dynamics of the group (Bennis & She-
pard, 1956). The halfway point in the group’s life,
too, can trigger dramatic changes in the group, as
members realize that the time they have available to
them is dwindling (Gersick, 1989). Groups must
deal with deadlines and time pressures, and as
time runs out conflict and tension can rise, whereas
the group’s cohesiveness can drop (Mohammed,
Hamilton, & Lim, 2009).
The U.S. Olympic team’s development,
although stage-like in many respects, changed
more rapidly following critical events. Perhaps
the most dramatic turning point in the group’s life
occurred when the team lost an exhibition game to a
weak team. Coach Brooks believed the team played
without any heart or energy, and after the game he
kept them on the ice rather than letting them
shower and change. He made the players skate
back and forth between the goals (the players called
these drills “Herbies”) for what seemed like hours.
Even when the arena manager turned off the lights
and went home, Brooks kept the team skating back
and forth in the dark. The experience created a feel-
ing of unity in the group, and this cohesiveness car-
ried them through the remainder of their games and
on to victory. Such turning points may, however, be
relatively rare in groups. More typically, the shift
from an initial orientation focus to a task focus occurs
gradually as groups and their members pace their
progress toward the completion of their final goal
(Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000).
equilibrium model A conceptual analysis of group
development that assumes the focus of a group shifts
back and forth between the group’s tasks and the inter-
personal relationships among group members (proposed
by Robert Bales).
punctuated equilibrium model A group development
theory that assumes groups change gradually over time
but that the periods of slow growth are punctuated by
brief periods of relatively rapid change.
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 143
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

5 – 3 C O N S E Q U E N C E S
O F C O H E S I O N
Cohesion is something of a purr word. Most peo-
ple, if asked to choose between two groups—one
that is cohesive and another that is not—would
likely pick the cohesive group. But cohesiveness
has its drawbacks. A cohesive group is an intense
group, and this intensity affects the members, the
group’s dynamics, and the group’s performance in
both positive and negative ways. Cohesion leads to
a range of consequences—not all of them desirable.
5-3a Member Satisfaction and
Adjustment
The men who were part of the U.S. Olympic
hockey team had no regrets. The work load was
grueling, the pressure to improve was relentless,
the flow of criticism from their coach never ceased,
but nonetheless: each one considered their six
months together in 1980 to be a special time in
their lives. As one of the team’s coaches, Craig
Patrick, explained: “in the end it was the camara-
derie of the unit that developed; it was something
special” (Warner HBO, 2001).
Across a range of groups in industrial, athletic,
and educational settings, people who are members
of highly compatible, cohesive groups report more
satisfaction and enjoyment than members of nonco-
hesive groups. One investigator studied teams of
masons and carpenters working on a housing devel-
opment. For the first five months, the men worked at
various assignments in groups formed by the supervi-
sor. This period gave the men a chance to get to
know virtually everyone working on the project
How Do Online Groups Build Cohesion?
Many online groups are as collaborative, cohesive, and
continuous as their corresponding offline cousins. For
example, online project-focused groups and teams—such
as groups created in college courses that complete group-
level learning activities and groups in organizational
contexts that have explicit work-related purposes—are
initially less unified than offline groups, but most even-
tually catch up to groups that interact in face-to-face set-
tings (e.g., Bateman, Gray, & Butler, 2011).
Some types of online groups, however, are less
successful when it comes to reaching high levels of
cohesiveness. Groups that form in social networking
sites, for example, often exhibit one telling sign of low
cohesion: membership instability. In a social network
site, such as Facebook, people can leave or join a
group or sever a connection (“unfriend” someone) at
the push of a button. Similarly, studies of the guilds
that form in the multiplayer game World of Warcraft
indicate that members join and leave these groups at a
relatively high rate (Ducheneaut &Yee, 2014).
Robert Ziller’s (1965) theory of open and closed
groups offers an explanation. Ziller suggests that
groups with permeable boundaries—open groups—
are especially unlikely to become cohesive, since
members do not remain in the group long enough to
develop attraction bonds, commitment to group goals,
or a sense of solidarity. Members of closed groups, in
contrast, are more willing to invest in their groups,
because they consider their membership to be more
enduring than temporary.
Many online groups, recognizing the benefits of a
stabilized membership and the cohesiveness that sta-
bility brings, use various technological and interper-
sonal strategies to transform their open groups into
closed ones. Those who create e-groups often set up
the membership procedures so that the group has clear
boundaries between those who belong and those who
do not. In some cases, those seeking to join must be
approved by the group before they are admitted, and
only then will they be able to access the contents of the
group’s communications (Backstrom et al., 2008). Many
of the most successful, long-term guilds in World of
Warcraft, for example, are highly selective, accepting
only applicants with certain credentials or those who
have been referred to the guild by a current member.
Guilds also increase the commitment of members to the
group by requiring each member to contribute some of
their resources to a common pool—a “guild bank”—
and those resources are forfeited if one leaves the guild
(Malone, 2009). Although research is needed to evalu-
ate the impact of these methods of increasing the unity
of online groups, anecdotal evidence suggests they are
effective means of increasing the cohesiveness of e-
groups. A Google search of the phrase “I love my guild”
yielded about 47,000 results, whereas a search for “I
hate my guild” had only 4,500 hits.
144 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

and natural likes and dislikes soon surfaced. The
researcher then established cohesive groups by mak-
ing certain that the teams only contained people who
liked each other. As anticipated, the masons and car-
penters were much more satisfied when they worked
in cohesive groups. As one of them explained,
“Seems as though everything flows a lot
smoother…. The work is more interesting when
you’ve got a buddy working with you. You certainly
like it a lot better anyway” (Van Zelst, 1952, p. 183).
A cohesive group creates a healthier workplace,
at least at the psychological level. Because people in
cohesive groups respond to one another in a more
positive fashion than the members of noncohesive
groups, people experience less anxiety and tension
in such groups (Seashore, 1954). People who
belong to cohesive groups—with cohesion defined
as a strong sense of belonging to an integrated
community—are more actively involved in their
groups, are more enthusiastic about their groups,
and even suffer from fewer social and interpersonal
problems (Hoyle & Crawford, 1994). They are also
happier people. Who responds the most positively
when asked such questions as “How happy would
you say you are?” and “Would you say you are
satisfied with your life right now?” People who
live and work in cohesive groups, communities,
and societies (Delhey & Dragolov, 2016).
Cohesive groups can, however, be emotionally
demanding (Forsyth & Elliott, 1999). The old
sergeant syndrome, for example, is more common
in cohesive military squads. Although the cohesive-
ness of the unit initially provides psychological
support for the individual, the loss of comrades dur-
ing battle causes severe distress. When the unit is
reinforced with replacements, the original group
members are reluctant to establish emotional ties
with the newcomers, partly in fear of the pain pro-
duced by separation. Hence, they begin restricting
their interactions, and these “old sergeants” can
eventually become completely isolated within the
group (Sobel, 1947). Some highly cohesive groups
may also sequester members from other groups in an
attempt to seal members off from competing inter-
ests. Individuals who leave highly cohesive groups,
such as small religious communities, combat units,
and gangs, may experience loneliness, chronic guilt,
and isolation when their membership in such groups
ends. As groups become highly cohesive, they can
become so self-contained that members’ links to
nonmembers are severed, virtually isolating the
group and its members (Junger, 2015).
Cohesive groups can also make those few
members who are not closely bonded with the
group feel like outsiders. Individuals who dropped
out of cohesive groups often recognized that the
group was cohesive, but they did not feel that
they were part of that close-knit unit (Robinson
& Carron, 1982). Being part of a cohesive group
is not that enjoyable for those on the fringe.
5-3b Group Dynamics and Influence
As cohesion increases, the internal dynamics of the
group intensify, so pressures to conform are greater
in cohesive groups, and individuals’ resistance to
these pressures is weaker. Anecdotal accounts of
highly cohesive groups—military squads, adolescent
peer groups, sports teams, gangs, fraternities and
sororities, and cults—often describe the strong pres-
sures that these groups put on their members
(Goldhammer, 1996). Cohesive groups—as the
final section of this chapter concludes—are more
likely to initiate their members. Drug use and illegal
activities are often traced back to conformity pres-
sures of adolescents’ peer groups (Giordano, 2003).
Cohesive gangs exert strong pressure on members
(Peterson & Panfil, 2014). Alternative religious
groups (“cults”) may demand extreme sacrifices
from members, including suicide. Sports teams, if
highly cohesive, may extract both compliance and
sacrifice from members (Prapavessis & Carron,
1997). Highly cohesive decision-making groups
may err in their judgments when members feel
pressured to keep their concerns and disagreements
to themselves (Janis, 1972).
old sergeant syndrome Symptoms of psychological dis-
turbance, including depression, anxiety, and guilt, exhibited
by noncommissioned officers in cohesive units that suffer
heavy casualties. Strongly loyal to their unit and its mem-
bers, these leaders feel so responsible for their unit’s losses
that they withdraw psychologically from the group.
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 145
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Cohesion can also increase negative group pro-
cesses, including hostility, scapegoating, and hostility
toward other groups (Pepitone & Reichling, 1955).
In one study, cohesive and noncohesive groups
worked on a series of unsolvable problems. Although
all the groups seemed frustrated, coalitions tended to
form in noncohesive groups, whereas cohesive
groups vented their frustrations through interper-
sonal aggression: overt hostility, joking hostility, sca-
pegoating, and domination of subordinate members.
The level of hostility became so intense in one group
that observers lost track of how many offensive
remarks were made; they estimated that the number
surpassed 600 comments during the 45-minute work
period (French, 1941).
5-3c Group Productivity
The cohesive, unified group has, throughout history,
been lauded as the most productive, the most likely
to win in battle, and the most creative. The Spartans
who held the pass at Thermopylae were a model of
unity, courage, and strength. The crew of the ship
Endurance, which was crushed by ice floes during a
voyage to the Antarctic, survived by working
together under the able leadership of Ernest Shack-
leton. The interpersonally enmeshed engineers at the
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) invented the
personal computer and other assorted technologies,
including the mouse, a graphical interface (clickable
icons), e-mail, and laser printers. When the U.S.
Olympic hockey team won, most sports commenta-
tors explained the victory by pointing to the U.S.
team’s cohesiveness, even suggesting that a unified
team could work “miracles.” But is this folk wisdom
consistent with the scientific evidence? Are cohesive
groups really more productive?
The Cohesion ! Performance Relationship
Both correlational and experimental studies of all
kinds of groups—sports teams, work groups in busi-
ness settings, expeditions, military squads, and labo-
ratory groups—generally confirm the cohesion !
performance relationship: Cohesive groups tend to
outperform less unified groups. One analysis of
49 studies of 8,702 members of a variety of
groups reported that 92% of these studies supported
cohesive groups over noncohesive ones (Mullen &
Copper, 1994). Another review, this time aggregat-
ing the results of 19 studies of 778 groups, found
that increases in cohesion were reliability associated
with increases in performance (r = .30; Beal et al.,
2003). And when researchers directly manipulate
the cohesiveness of the groups they are studying
experimentally, they routinely find that groups
assigned to the high-cohesion conditions outper-
form those assigned to the low-cohesion conditions
(e.g., Back, 1951; Zaccaro & Lowe, 1986).
What is it about a cohesive group that makes it
more successful? Does the high level of attraction
among members reduce conflict, making it easier
for the group to concentrate on its work? Or per-
haps group members are more dedicated to their
group if it is cohesive, and this sense of dedication
and group pride prompts them to expend more
effort on behalf of their group.
The success of cohesive groups lies, in part, in
the enhanced coordination of their members. In
noncohesive groups, members’ activities are uncoor-
dinated and disjointed, but in cohesive groups, each
member’s contributions mesh with those of the
other group members. Cohesion thus acts as a
“lubricant” that “minimizes the friction due to the
human ‘grit’ in the system” (Mullen & Copper,
1994, p. 213). Members of cohesive groups all
share the same “mental model” of the group’s task
and its demands, and this shared prescription for how
the task is to be accomplished facilitates their perfor-
mance. Hence, cohesive groups are particularly likely
to outperform noncohesive groups when the group’s
task requires high levels of interaction and interde-
pendence. The degree of interdependency required
by the type of tasks the group is working on also
determines the size of the cohesion–performance
relationship; the more group members must coordi-
nate their activities with one another, the more likely
a cohesive group will outperform a less cohesive one
(Beal et al., 2003; Gully et al., 1995).
These meta-analytic studies also show support for
the value of a multicomponent conceptualization of
cohesion, for they suggest that even when cohesion is
operationalized in different ways, the cohesion–
performance relationship still holds true. In their anal-
ysis, social psychologists Brian Mullen and Carolyn
146 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Copper (1994) gave the edge to task cohesion, partic-
ularly in studies involving bona fide groups rather than
artificial ones. Subsequent analyses, however, found
evidence that all three components—social, task, and
perceptual (“group pride”) cohesion—were related to
performance when one looked only at group-level
studies (Beal et al., 2003).
The Performance ! Cohesion Relationship
When the U.S. Olympic hockey team received
their gold medals in the 1980 games, the team
likely reached the apex of its cohesion. They not
only liked one another, shared positive emotions,
and were structurally organized, but they were also
victorious: they were a successful group, whereas
the Russian team had failed—and this achievement
likely further enhanced the group’s overall level of
cohesiveness.
The cohesion ! performance relationship is
actually a reciprocal one: When a group performs
well at its identified task, the level of cohesion in
the group increases, but should it fail, disharmony,
disappointment, and a loss of esprit de corps are typi-
cally observed. These effects of performance on cohe-
sion occur even when groups are identical in all
respects except one—when some are arbitrarily told
they performed well, but others are told they did not
do well. Even under these highly controlled circum-
stances, groups given positive feedback became more
cohesive than groups that are told they performed
poorly. These studies suggest that cohesion is related
to performance, not because cohesion causes groups
to perform better, but because groups that perform
better become more cohesive (e.g., Forsyth, Zyz-
niewski, & Giammanco, 2002).
Mullen and Copper (1994) examined the flow
of causality in the cohesion–performance relation-
ship by comparing experimental studies that manip-
ulated cohesion with studies that used correlational
designs. Because the cohesion–performance rela-
tionship emerged in both types of studies, they con-
cluded that cohesion causes improved performance.
However, the relationship between cohesion and
performance is stronger in correlational studies.
This disparity suggests that cohesion aids perfor-
mance, but that performance also causes changes
in cohesiveness. Mullen and Copper closely exam-
ined seven correlational studies that measured cohe-
sion and performance twice rather than once. These
studies suggested that a group’s cohesiveness at
Time 1 predicted its performance at Time 1 and
at Time 2. But in these studies, group performance
at Time 1 was a particularly powerful predictor of
cohesiveness at Time 2. These findings prompted
Mullen and Copper to conclude that the
cohesion–performance relationship is a reciprocal
one: Cohesion makes groups more successful, but
groups that succeed also become more cohesive (see
Figure 5.3). Other researchers have confirmed the
bidirectional nature of the cohesion–performance
relation, but further suggest that the impact of
cohesion on performance becomes stronger over
time, whereas the impact of performance on cohe-
sion remains relatively stable (Mathieu et al., 2015).
Exceptions and Conditions Increasing a group’s
cohesion does not guarantee that it will perform
more effectively. The cohesion ! performance
relationship is stronger (1) in bona fide groups
than in ad hoc laboratory groups, (2) in correla-
tional studies than in experimental studies, (3) in
smaller groups than in larger groups, (4) in sports
teams rather than in other types of groups, and (5)
in project-focused teams rather than in production
or service teams (Carron et al., 2002; Chiocchio &
Essiembre, 2009; Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995;
Mathieu et al., 2015; Mullen & Copper, 1994; Oli-
ver et al., 1999). The relationship also takes time to
reach its full strength. The performance-enhancing
effects of cohesion may not yield gains when groups
are only beginning their work, but will instead
emerge over time (Mathieu et al., 2015).
In some cases, too, cohesion can actually
undermine performance. In a field study of this
process, researchers surveyed 5,871 factory workers
who worked in 228 groups. They discovered that
the more cohesive groups were not necessarily
more productive, but their productivity level from
one member to the next was less variable. The indi-
viduals working in cohesive groups produced nearly
equivalent amounts, but individuals in noncohesive
groups varied considerably from one member to the
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 147
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

next in their productivity. Furthermore, fairly low
standards of performance had developed in some of
the highly cohesive groups; thus, productivity was
uniformly low in these groups. In contrast, in cohe-
sive groups with relatively high-performance goals,
members were extremely productive (Langfred,
1998; Seashore, 1954). As Figure 5.4 indicates, so
long as group norms encourage high productivity,
cohesiveness and productivity are positively related:
a highly cohesive group produces more than a less
cohesive one. If group norms encourage low pro-
ductivity, however, the relationship is negative.
This tendency for the group’s norms about
productivity to moderate the strength of the
cohesion–performance relationship was also confirmed
experimentally by manipulating both cohesion
and production norms (Berkowitz, 1954; Gammage,
Carron, & Estabrooks, 2001). In one illustrative study,
cohesive and noncohesive groups worked on a simple
assembly-line-type task. Then, during the task,
messages were ostensibly sent from one worker to
another to establish performance norms. In some
instances, the messages called for increased production
(positive messages), but in other instances, the messages
requested a slowdown (negative messages). As expected,
the impact of the messages was significantly greater in
the cohesive groups than in the noncohesive groups.
Furthermore, the decreases in productivity brought
about by the negative messages were greater than the
increases brought about by the positive messages
(Schachter et al., 1951).
The take-home lesson from these studies—that
creating social cohesiveness may make members
happy but not productive—does not apply to the
U.S. team. Every one of the team members was com-
mitted to the goal of winning the Olympics, so there
was no worry that the performance norm would be
set too low. In addition, because of the intervention
of a thoughtful coach who skillfully built the group’s
unity, their cohesion developed over time until its
peak during the Olympics. The team’s triumph was
called a miracle by some, but in retrospect, it was due
to effective group dynamics.
5-4 A PPLICATION:
E X P L A I N I N G I N I T I A T I O N S
Cohesiveness is no cure-all for what ails the ineffec-
tive group, but many groups in a variety of
contexts—sports teams, military units, educational
fraternities, sororities, clubs, work squads, and so
on—nonetheless often take steps to deliberately
increase their cohesion in the hopes their perfor-
mance will improve. As Chapter 12’s analysis of
Performance
Task: Collective efficacy
and goal pursuit
Social: Attraction to group
and members
Collective: Entitativity and
identity
Emotional: Group affect
and esprit de corps
Structural: Norms, roles,
relations
Moderating factors
(Time, task interdependence, etc.)
Cohesion
F I G U R E 5.3 The hypothetical relationship between five sources of cohesion (social, task, collective, emotional, and
structural), cohesion, and performance. Meta-analyses suggest that the cohesion–performance relationship is a reciprocal rela-
tionship: cohesion causes improvements in performance, but performance also feeds back and causes changes in cohesion.
The magnitude of the cohesion ! performance and performance ! cohesion relationships varies over time and settings.
148 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

teambuilding explains, some of these interventions
are effective—when groups identify shared goals,
improve coordination, and identify sources of con-
flict, performance often improves. This section,
however, concludes the analysis of cohesion by
examining a common, but more controversial,
means of unifying a group: initiations.
5-4a Cohesion and Initiations
Many groups require individuals to demonstrate
their commitment to the group before they are
allowed to become full-fledged group members.
Elite military squads, for example, require a new
member to pass extremely demanding tests of phys-
ical ability. Religious organizations typically require
members to study the group’s beliefs and practices
and then pass tests on the material before they gain
entrance. Other groups require the members to
invest considerable time, energy, and personal
resources in the group before they can join.
These investments may strengthen the bond
between the individual and the group. Groups
with admission standards and policies may be
more attractive to members, since their exclusive-
ness may make them seem more prestigious. Since
membership must be earned, people who join do so
more intentionally and therefore will more likely
be active, contributing members. Groups with less
stringent requirements are hampered by the
unevenness of the contributions of their members:
Some may contribute a great deal to the group, but
others may actually draw out more resources than
they contribute. Groups with strict membership
policies, including initiations, avoid this problem
by screening and monitoring members closely and
dismissing those individuals who do not demon-
strate their worth (Iannaccone, 1994).
Initiations and Commitment Leon Festinger’s
(1957) theory of cognitive dissonance offers an
intriguing explanation for the relationship between
how much new members invest in the group and
Cohesiveness
P
ro
d
u
c
ti
v
it
y
Low High
Groups with norms that
stress high productivity
Groups with norms that
stress low productivity
F I G U R E 5.4 The relationship between cohesion and productivity when norms stress high and low productivity.
If the group’s norms encourage productivity, cohesiveness and productivity will be positively correlated. If the group
standards for performance are low, however, cohesiveness will actually undermine productivity.
cognitive dissonance An adverse psychological state
that occurs when an individual simultaneously holds
two conflicting cognitions.
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 149
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

their commitment to the group. This theory
assumes that people prefer to maintain consistency
in their thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs. Their belief,
for example, that they invested considerable time in
a group would be consonant with the belief that
this group was of high caliber. But what if, once
they joined a group, they discovered it was worth-
less? Such a situation would generate dissonance
and would cause the member psychological dis-
comfort. Although people can reduce cognitive dis-
sonance in many ways, one frequent method is to
emphasize the rewarding features of the group
while minimizing its costly characteristics. As the
group demands more and more in the way of per-
sonal commitment, members become more enam-
ored of the group to justify their investment in it.
Severe Initiations and Group Attraction Social
psychologists Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills
(1959) tested dissonance theory in their classic
experimental study of young women’s reactions to
initiations. Their experimenter, who was a young
man, greeted each subject individually and told her
that she had been chosen to take part in a group
discussion on the psychology of sex. However,
because only women who could discuss sex with-
out embarrassment would be welcome in the
group, all prospective members had to pass an
“embarrassment test.” At this point, the experi-
menter randomly assigned women to one of the
three conditions. Those in severe initiation condi-
tion were required to read descriptions of sexual
interludes and a series of obscene words aloud to
the male experimenter. (In 1959, women were pre-
sumably embarrassed by such vulgarities.) Women
in the mild initiation condition read some mildly
provocative passages and words, and women in
the control condition only agreed to be screened.
After the initiation, the researchers told the
women that the group they would be joining was
already meeting but that they could listen in using
an intercom system. But instead of listening to an
How Do Groups Respond When Their Prophecies Fail?
Festinger developed cognitive dissonance theory after
studying a small “doomsday” group (Festinger et al.,
1956). This group formed around a psychic named
Marion Keech, who believed she was receiving mes-
sages from aliens—the Guardians—who lived on a
planet named Clarion. Through these messages, the
Guardians warned Ms. Keech of the impending
destruction of the world by flood, but they assured her
that the small group of men and women who met
regularly to discuss their messages would be rescued
by a flying saucer before the December 21 deadline.
Festinger and his colleagues joined this group and
recorded members’ growing commitment to the group
and to Ms. Keech as the deadline loomed. On that
date, the faithful gathered in readiness in Ms. Keech’s
living room, with their bags packed, all metal zippers,
buttons, snaps removed from their clothing (metal
does strange things in flying saucers), and passwords
all memorized. Unfortunately, midnight came and
went with no sign of a flying saucer. The bad news was
that Mrs. Keech was wrong when she predicted they
would be rescued; the good news was that she was
also wrong about the flood.
So how did her followers respond? Did they
denounce Mrs. Keech as a fraud? Did they try to con-
tact the Guardians themselves? Did they sew all their
zippers back into their clothes? No, they became more
committed to Mrs. Keech’s teachings. They accepted
her rationalization that the tremendous faith and
devotion of the group was so impressive that God had
decided to call off the flood, and they spread this
important message to the news media. Although the
central beliefs of the group had been disconfirmed,
they refused to abandon them. If they admitted that
Ms. Keech was mistaken, they would have no justifi-
cation for their actions over the previous months;
many had quit their jobs, dropped out of school,
moved hundreds of miles to be closer to Ms. Keech,
and alienated their friends and relatives. If, however,
they became more firmly committed to Ms. Keech,
then their cognitions and behaviors would all be con-
sistent with one another, and they could avoid the
dissonance that arises from inconsistency (cf. Batson,
1975; Hardyck & Braden, 1962). Festinger concluded
that the need for cognitive consistency is a powerful
human motive.
150 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

actual group, the researchers played a recording of a
discussion that was contrived deliberately to be
exceedingly boring and dull. After listening for a
time, the participants rated the group they had lis-
tened to on a number of dimensions. Although a
rational person should judge a group that was dou-
ble costly—causing them both embarrassment and
boredom—very negatively, the results instead con-
firmed cognitive dissonance theory: Women who
experienced the severe initiation rated the group
more positively than those who had experienced a
mild initiation or no initiation at all.
Several replications of this unusual study have
confirmed the basic finding that initiations influence
attraction to and dependency on the group. In one
study, researchers used electric shocks rather than
obscene readings to manipulate the severity of the
initiation into the group and found very similar
results: People who received stronger shocks liked
the group the best (Gerard & Mathewson, 1966).
In another set of studies, participants completed a
series of embarrassing, socially awkward activities
(such as acting out demeaning situations or perform-
ing silly behaviors) or neutral activities before joining
a group. In these studies, individuals who suffered
through the more severe initiation were more likely
to conform to the group’s decisions, rated the group
more positively, and felt more comfortable when
part of the group (Keating et al., 2005).
Aronson and Mills concluded that the initiation
increased cohesion by creating cognitive dissonance,
but other factors may also account for the initiation–
cohesion relationship. Rather than attempt to reduce
cognitive dissonance, their public expressions of lik-
ing for such groups may also stem more from a desire
to save face after making a faulty decision than from
the psychic discomfort of cognitive dissonance
(Schlenker, 1975). Initiations also fail to heighten
attraction if they frustrate new members or make
them angry (Lodewijkx & Syroit, 1997).
5-4b Hazing
Some groups do not just require members to meet
certain criteria and pass tests of stamina or intellec-
tual fitness before allowing entrance. They instead
subject new members to cost-creating experiences
that have nothing to do with the actual qualities
needed to be a successful group member. Initiates
in biker gangs, for example, must earn the right to
wear the letters and emblems of their gang—their
“colors”—by performing a variety of distasteful
behaviors (Davis, 1982). Pledges to fraternities at
some universities are ritually beaten, subjected to
ridicule and embarrassment, and required to drink
unhealthy amounts of alcohol (Nuwer, 1999). New
members of sports teams are frequently subjected to
ritualized physical, psychological, and sexual abuse
(Finkel, 2002). These practices qualify as hazing
because they expose the new member to significant
risk of psychological and physical harm.
Hazing is an entrenched group practice and
has been documented in ancient and modern soci-
eties and in all parts of the world. Newcomers to
groups are routinely subjected to various abuses for
reasons both rational and completely irrational
(Cimino, 2011).
■ Bonding and dependence: As Festinger’s disso-
nance theory suggests, individuals who suffer to
join a group value the group more and become
more dependent on the group as a source of
support and acceptance. Initiation of groups of
newcomers, which is typical of certain groups
(e.g., sororities, fraternities, and sports teams),
increases feelings of unity, for they tend to affili-
ate more extensively as they deal with the threat
and stress. The initiation process thus creates
greater cohesion in the overall group, as the
individuality of each newcomer is diminished and
they learn to rely socially on others (Lodewijkx,
van Zomeren, & Syroit, 2005). Hazing of
novices, as a group, also increases the unity of the
novices, creating a more committed subgroup
within the larger group (Mann et al., 2016).
■ Dominance: Initiations serve to introduce new
members to the hierarchical order of the group
and the requirements to recognize and respect
hazing An initiation into a group that subjects the new
member to mental or physical discomfort, harassment,
embarrassment, ridicule, or humiliation.
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 151
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

veteran members. The initiation process hum-
bles the newcomers and signals to them their
low status, which they can raise only by con-
tributing in substantial ways to the group. The
hazing rituals also provide the current members
with the means to exercise their power over
the newcomers.
■ Commitment: Hazing requires a substantial com-
mitment from newcomers and serves to weed
out individuals who are not willing to meet the
group’s demands. Hazing provides newcomers
with the means to prove their worth.
■ Tradition: Many groups haze new members
because they feel that they must honor the
group’s traditions, established by founding
members of the society (Nuwer, 1999).
Newcomers continue to accept membership
in groups that use hazing for many reasons, as
well, including a desire to be accepted and to
make a good impression with others. In many
cases, newcomers are not made aware of the haz-
ing demands and dangers until they are seques-
tered by the group, and they may fear that
refusing to comply with the group’s demands
will cause more problems and pose greater risks
than compliance. Although victims of hazing
appear to have voluntarily taken part in the initia-
tion rites, group influence processes create
extremely strong pressures that limit hazing vic-
tims’ capacities to act of their own free will. One
emergency room physician, who has experience
dealing with hazing-related injuries, recommends
treating “hazing patients as victims of violent
crime, rather than willing participants in their
traumatic injuries” (Finkel, 2002, p. 231).
Is Hazing Effective? Many members of groups
defend their right to haze, citing the benefits of
initiation for increasing the cohesion of the group.
However, research does not offer very much sup-
port for this position. One team of investigators
asked the members of a number of groups and
teams to differentiate between appropriate and
inappropriate activities on a list of 24 practices com-
monly used in initiations and hazing. Appropriate
activities included requirements to take part in
group activities, swearing an oath, taking part in
skits and team functions, doing community service,
and maintaining a specific grade point average.
Inappropriate activities, in contrast, included kid-
napping and abandonment, verbal abuse, physical
punishment (spankings, whippings, and beatings),
degradation and humiliation (such as eating disgust-
ing things or drinking alcohol in excessive
amounts), sleep deprivation, running errands, and
exclusion. Somewhat unexpectedly, a number of
the behaviors that the researchers felt belonged on
the list of inappropriate hazing behaviors, such as
wearing inappropriate clothing, head shaving, and
sexual activities, were viewed as relatively innocu-
ous by participants (van Raalte et al., 2007).
Did these experiences work to build a cohesive
group? Some of these practices were rarely used by
groups, but groups that did use inappropriate hazing
methods were judged to be less cohesive rather than
more cohesive. Hazing, and illicit hazing in partic-
ular, backfired, for it did not contribute to increased
cohesion, whereas more positive forms of team-
building did (van Raalte et al., 2007).
Should Groups Haze? Hazing is illegal in a num-
ber of states, is aggressive in character, yields unhealthy
consequences, and does not even work to increase
cohesion, yet this practice continues unofficially.
Some mild rites and rituals—as when new members
must take a public oath of loyalty, memorize the
group’s mission, or carry a distinctive object—cause
little harm, but in other cases, new members must
endure physical and psychological abuse before they
are accepted into the group. Emergency room physi-
cians report that they have treated victims of hazing
for alcoholic coma, chest trauma, aspiration, 1st, 2nd,
and 3rd degree burns, syncope, vomiting, organ dam-
age, heart irregularities, gastrointestinal distress, brain
damage, multiorgan system failure, spinal cord injury,
exposure, depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and
anal, oral, and vaginal trauma (Finkel, 2002). Each
year many students are killed or seriously injured in
hazing incidents (Goldstein, 2002).
Herb Brooks, the coach of the U.S. Olympic
hockey team, did not use hazing, but instead
152 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

timeworn traditions in sports fitness and training to
build the group into a cohesive unit. He was tough
on his players, they played dozens of exhibition
games leading up to the Olympics, and Brooks
kept all of them on edge, threatening to send any
one of them home who did not perform up to his
standards. Through these experiences, the group
reached a very high level of cohesiveness, without
recourse to hazing. Given that groups can turn to a
variety of equally effective but safe methods to
build their group’s cohesiveness, the use of hazing
is completely unjustified (Diamond et al., 2016).
C H A P TE R R E V I E W
What is group cohesion, and what are its
sources?
1. Group cohesion is the integrity, solidarity, and
unity of the group. Cohesiveness is an indica-
tion of the health of the group and is related to
a variety of other group processes.
2. Cohesion, as the principle of equifinality sug-
gests, can result from one or more sources,
including attraction relations, task relations,
identity, emotions, and structure.
■ Social cohesion: unity based on bonds of
attraction among members and attraction
to the group itself (Festinger et al., 1950;
Lewin, 1948). Sherif and Sherif (1956)
manipulated those forces in their study of
cohesion and attraction in the field setting.
■ Task cohesion: shared task commitment that
motivates members to work together to
achieve group goals. Task cohesion is
associated with increases in collective efficacy
and group potency.
■ Collective cohesion: the extent to which the
group unites it members in a single, unified
collective, as indicated by the perceived
solidarity of the group (entitativity) and
members’ identification with the group
(Hogg, 1992). Identity fusion theory suggests
that, in extreme cases, self and group
identities can be fused into one.
■ Emotional cohesion: the affective intensity of
the group, often described as collective
effervescence (Durkheim, 1912/1965), élan,
morale, esprit de corps, or group affective
tone (George, 1996). Lawler, Thye, and
Yoon’s (2014) relational cohesion theory suggests
that cohesion results from the positive emo-
tions members’ attribute to social exchange in
groups. Behaviorally synchronized move-
ment (such as marching, as described by
McNeill, 1995) increases cohesion.
■ Structural cohesion is group unity based on
the structural integrity of the group,
including roles, norms, and interpersonal
networks of member-to-member relation-
ships. The Sherifs’ (1956) study of groups
suggested that some structural features (such
as the absence of subgroups and less hier-
archy) promote increases in cohesiveness.
3. Cohesion is a multicomponent and multilevel
process, so its measurement often requires the
use of multimethod procedures.
How does cohesion develop over time?
1. Cohesion is, in most cases, the consequence of
a period of group development—a pattern of
growth and change beginning with initial for-
mation and ending, in most cases, with disso-
lution. Tuckman’s (1965) five-stage model of
group development identifies the following stages:
■ Orientation (forming) stage: Members
experience tentative interactions, tension,
concern over ambiguity, growing interde-
pendence, and attempts to identify the
nature of the situation.
■ Conflict (storming) stage: Members express
dissatisfaction with the group, respond
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 153
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

emotionally, criticize one another, and
form coalitions.
■ Structure (norming) stage: Unity increases,
membership stabilizes, members report
increased satisfaction, and the group’s
internal dynamics intensify. Roy’s
(1960/1973) analysis of “banana time” in
work groups illustrates the impact of rituals
and social interaction on cohesion.
■ Performance (performing) stage: The
group’s focus shifts to the performance of
tasks and goal attainment. Not all groups
reach this stage, for even highly cohesive
groups are not necessarily productive.
■ Dissolution (adjourning) stage: The group
disbands. A group’s entry into the disso-
lution stage can be either planned or
spontaneous, but even planned dissolu-
tion can create problems for members as
they work to reduce their dependence on
the group.
2. Many groups follow a different developmental
course over time.
■ Tuckman’s model is a successive-stage
theory; it specifies the usual order of the
phases of group development. Cyclical
models, such as Bales’ equilibrium model,
maintain that groups cycle through vari-
ous stages repeatedly (Bales & Strodtbeck,
1951).
■ Punctuated equilibrium models suggest that
groups sometimes move through periods
of accelerated change.
■ Online groups, particularly if open rather
than closed groups, may not progress
through the stages of group development
due to membership instability.
What are the positive and negative consequences of
cohesion?
1. In most instances, cohesion is associated with
increases in member satisfaction and decreases
in turnover and stress.
■ Cohesive groups can be so psychologically
demanding that they cause emotional
problems for members (e.g., the old
sergeant’s syndrome).
2. Cohesion intensifies group processes. Depen-
dence, pressure to conform, and acceptance of
influence are greater in cohesive groups and
can result in mistaken decisions.
3. Cohesion and performance are linked, both
because success increases a group’s cohesion
and because cohesive groups tend to perform
better than less cohesive groups.
■ Meta-analytic studies by Mullen and
Copper (1994), and other researchers
suggest that each component of cohesion
contributes to task proficiency.
■ Cohesive groups tend to outperform less
cohesive groups, but this relationship is
strongest when members are committed
to the group’s tasks.
Do initiations increase cohesion?
1. Many groups put in place methods for
increasing the group’s level of cohesion.
Online groups, for example, increase commit-
ment by requiring members invest resources in
the group. Other groups require members to
pass an initiation before they can join.
2. Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance
suggests that initiations create dissonance that
new members resolve by increasing their
commitment to the group.
■ The increased dedication of the members of
the doomsday group formed by psychic
Marion Keech supported dissonance theory.
■ Aronson and Mills (1959) confirmed that
people who go through some kind of ini-
tiation to join a group tend to like that
group more.
3. Hazing is a severe initiation that exposes new
members to significant psychological and
physical risk.
154 C H A P T ER 5
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Hazing is sustained by a number of group-
level processes, including bonding, domi-
nance, commitment, and tradition.
■ The use of hazing is unjustified. It is inef-
fective as a means of increasing cohesion
and is illegal.
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: U.S. Olympic Hockey Team
■ “A Reminder of What We Can Be” by
E. M. Swift (1980) provides many of the
basic details about the 1980 U.S. Olympic
hockey team and its coach.
Defining and Measuring Cohesion
■ “Group Cohesion: From ‘Field of Forces’
to Multidimensional Construct” by Ken-
neth L. Dion (2000) reviews key issues in
the study of cohesion, with a focus on
definitional debates and problems in
measurement.
■ “Measuring Team Cohesion: Observations
from the Science” by Eduardo Salas,
Rebecca Grossman, Ashley M. Hughes,
and Chris W. Coultas (2015) reviews the
many and varied methods investigators
have used to measure group cohesion, and
offers researchers clear suggestions for
methods that best suit their specific needs.
Group Development
■ Group Processes: A Developmental Perspective
by Susan A. Wheelan (2005) reviews
theory and research pertaining to the
development of task-focused groups.
■ “Team Development” by Claire B. Hal-
verson (2008) provides a practical guide to
dealing with the changes groups experi-
ence over time.
Consequences of Cohesion
■ “Modeling Reciprocal Team Cohesion–
performance Relationships, as Impacted by
Shared Leadership and Members’ Com-
petence” by John E. Mathieu, Michael R.
Kukenberger, Lauren D’Innocenzo, and
Greg Reilly (2015) investigates the
cohesion–performance relationship by
examining the unique empirical findings
generated by studies that make use of
cross-lagged panel designs.
■ “The Essence of Military Group Cohe-
sion” by Guy L. Siebold (2007) provides a
clear introduction to the standard model of
cohesion that guides experts’ analyses of
cohesion in combat groups.
Hazing
■ Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities,
Hazing, and Binge Drinking by Hank Nuwer
(1999) remains one of the best researched
analyses of hazing on college campuses.
COH ES I ON A ND DE V EL OP ME NT 155
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 6
Structure
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Groups are dynamic—characterized by continual
change and adjustment—but these processes are
patterned ones—shaped by the group’s social
order. In all but the most ephemeral groups, mem-
bers are distributed into roles, and their behavior
when in these roles is regulated by norms that dic-
tate what is and what is not proper conduct. The
group structure also includes the relationships that
join members to one another in an integrated net-
work that regulates interdependencies and increases
the group’s unity and durability.
■ What is group structure?
■ What are norms, how do they develop, and
how do they work to regulate behavior?
■ What kinds of roles are common in groups,
and how do they influence members?
■ How do social networks shape status, attrac-
tion, and communication processes in groups?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
6-1 Norms
6-1a The Nature of Social Norms
6-1b The Development of Norms
6-1c The Transmission of Norms
6-1d Application: Norms and Health
6-2 Roles
6-2a The Nature of Social Roles
6-2b Role Theories
6-2c Bale’s SYMLOG Model
6-2d Group Socialization
6-2e Role Stress
6-3 Intermember Relations
6-3a Status Relations
6-3b Attraction Relations
6-3c Communication Relations
6-4 Application: Social Network Analysis
6-4a Mapping Social Networks
6-4b Applying Social Network Analysis
Chapter Review
Resources
156
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The group that came down from the Andes was not
the same group that began the flight. Many mem-
bers were lost to the group forever, and the trauma
changed each one of the survivors permanently.
But its group structure also changed. The structure
of a thing is the relatively fixed arrangement of
and relations among its constituent elements that
links those elements together to form a single inte-
grated whole. In groups, structure creates the social
order, including the regulatory standards that define
how members are supposed to behave (norms)
given their position in the group (roles) and the
connections among members (intermember rela-
tions). When the group was a rugby team, members
paid heed to a very different set of norms than they
did when they were transformed into a group fight-
ing for its very survival. The group began the flight
with one set of roles and positions—a captain, a
coach, parents, supporters, and friends—but ended
with an entirely different set of roles, including lea-
ders, helpers, and explorers. The network of relation-
ships linking members one to another, in terms of
status, liking, and communication, also changed.
Men who were at first afforded little respect or
courtesy eventually earned considerable status
within the group. Some who were well-liked
before the crash became outcasts. Some who had
hardly spoken to the others became active commu-
nicators within the group.
If you want to understand a group—whether
one stranded in the Andes, sitting at a conference
table, or working to manufacture some product—
you need to understand its structure. Explaining
group behavior in structural terms is analogous to
tracing individuals’ actions back to their personalities.
Personality traits and dispositions cannot be observed
directly, yet they influence people’s actions across
time and settings. Similarly, a structural analysis
assumes that group interactions follow a predictable,
organized pattern because they are regulated by influ-
ential interpersonal structures. This chapter examines
three of these core determinants of a group’s “person-
ality”: norms, roles, and relations (see Biddle, 2001;
Hechter & Op, 2001 for reviews).
Andes Survivors: One Group’s Triumph Over Extraordinary Adversity
The Old Christian’s rugby team had chartered the
Fairchild F-227 twin-engined turboprop to travel from
Montevideo, Uruguay to Santiago, Chile. Most of the
passengers on the flight were members of the team or
their family and friends. But they never reached their
destination. The pilots misjudged their course and
began their descent too soon. The plane clipped the
peak of Mt. Tinguiririca and crashed in the snow-
covered Andes.
Those who survived the crash struggled to stay
alive in the harsh, subzero temperatures of the barren
Andes. During the first days of the ordeal, they argued
intensely over the likelihood of a rescue. Some insisted
that searchers would soon find them. Others wanted
to climb down from the mountain. Some became so
apathetic that they didn’t care. But the search planes
never spotted them, and their hopes began to fade
when a second tragedy struck the group: Early one
morning an avalanche filled the wrecked fuselage
where they slept with snow and many died before
they could dig their way out.
A lone individual would have certainly perished
in the harsh climate. But the group, by pooling its
resources, survived. They organized their work, with
some cleaning their sleeping quarters, some tending
the injured, and others melting snow into drinking
water. When their food ran out, they made the dif-
ficult decision to eat the frozen bodies of those who
had died in the crash. And when starvation seemed
imminent, they sent two men, Fernando Parrado
and Roberto Canessa, down the mountain to seek
help. After hiking for 14 days, the two explorers,
running low on food and supplies, chanced on a
farmer tending his cattle. Parrado himself guided
the rescue helicopters back to the crash site. All of
them, when asked how they survived, credited the
unity of the group. When they read author Pier Paul
Read’s book about their ordeal, Alive, they com-
plained of only one inaccuracy: They felt that he
failed to capture the “faith and friendship which
inspired them” for 70 days in the frozen cordillera
(Read, 1974, p. 10).
STRUCTURE 157
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

6-1 N ORMS
The survivors of the crash needed to coordinate
their actions if they were to stay alive. With food,
water, and shelter severely limited, they were
forced to interact with and rely on each other con-
tinually, and any errant action on the part of one
person would disturb and even endanger several
other people. So, members began to abide by a
set of unstated rules that defined how the group
would sleep at night, what types of duties each
healthy individual was expected to perform, and
how food and water were to be apportioned.
These consensual, regulatory standards are norms.
6-1a The Nature of Social Norms
Norms are a fundamental element of social structure;
the group’s rules of order (Fine, 2012). As group
standards, they provide direction and motivation,
organize social interactions, and make other people’s
responses predictable and meaningful. Both simple
behaviors, such as choice of clothing, manners, and
conversational pleasantries, and more complex social
processes, such as fairness, morality, and justice—are
based on norms. Each group member is restrained to
a degree by norms, but each member also benefits
from the order that norms provide.
How people speak, dress, and interact are
determined by norms that define conventional
behavior within that society. But each group
within that society may adopt its own unique nor-
mative standards. For example, in one group it
may be appropriate to interrupt others when
they are talking, to arrive late and leave meetings
early, and to dress informally. In another group,
such behaviors would be considered inappropriate
violations of group norms of dress and decorum.
These group-specific norms combine to form the
group’s consensually accepted knowledge, beliefs,
rituals, customs, rules, language, norms, and prac-
tices: the group’s culture (Schein, 1990).
Types of Norms Norms prescribe the socially
appropriate way to respond in the situation—the nor-
mal course of action. Just as a physician’s prescription
recommends a medicine, so prescriptive norms
define the socially appropriate way to respond in a
situation. Proscriptive norms, in contrast, are pro-
hibitions; they define the types of actions that should
be avoided if at all possible (Sorrels & Kelley, 1984).
For example, some of the prescriptive norms of the
Andes group were “Food should be shared equally”
and “Those who are not injured should work to help
those who are injured,” whereas some proscriptive
norms were “Do not urinate inside the airplane”
and “Do not give up hope.”
Norms also differ in their evaluative implications.
Descriptive norms describe what most people usu-
ally do, feel, or think in a particular situation. None of
the survivors in the Andes groups had ever been in such
a desperate situation before, and so they intuitively did
what most of the others did: They listened to the radio
for information about the rescue and did what the
leader told them to do. Everyone did not perfectly
match their behavior up to these norms, but most
did. This high degree of similarity in everyone’s actions
provided members with information about how they
should think, feel, and act. Social psychologist Robert
Cialdini’s (2009) calls the tendency for people to use
other people’s responses as useful information about
how they should themselves respond the principle of
social proof: People assume that a behavior is the correct
one when they see others performing it.
Injunctive norms are more evaluative—they
describe the sorts of behaviors that people ought to
perform—or else (Gibbs, 1965). People who do not
conform to descriptive norms may be viewed as
unusual, but people who violate injunctive norms are
negatively evaluated and are open to sanction by the
prescriptive norm A consensual standard that identifies
preferable, positively sanctioned behaviors.
proscriptive norm A consensual standard that identifies
prohibited, negatively sanctioned behaviors.
descriptive norm A consensual standard that describes
how people typically act, feel, and think in a given
situation.
injunctive norm An evaluative consensual standard that
describes how people should act, feel, and think in a
given situation rather than how people do act, feel, and
think in that situation.
158 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

other group members (Rimal & Real, 2005). In the
Andes group, for example, those who failed to do
their fair share were criticized by the others, given
distasteful chores, and sometimes even denied food
and water. People who violate injunctive norms are
disliked, assigned lower status jobs, pressured to
conform, and, in some cases, excluded from the
membership. As sociologist Gary Alan Fine (2012)
explains, “norms are not merely behavioral regular-
ities but involve a collective embrace of the propri-
ety of this regularity” (p. 69).
Internalization of Norms Norms are not simply
external rules but internalized standards. Members
comply with their group’s norms not because they
have to but because they want to: The group’s
norms are their own, personal norms. Women
who are members of groups whose norms emphasize
healthy eating habits personally endorse healthier
dieting practices (Cruwys et al., 2015). People who
live in communities that stress the importance of
pro-environmental practices such as water conserva-
tion themselves express more positive attitudes about
protecting the environment (White et al., 2009).
Students who enroll in a school whose norms sup-
port liberal rather than conservative causes come
to accept their school’s position on political issues
as their own personal position on those issues
(Newcomb, 1943). Students report significantly
more positive emotions when they think they
have done something that is consistent with the
norms of their school, and more negative emo-
tions when they have acted in ways that violate
their school’s norms—especially if they identify
with their school and if the norm they violated
was an injunctive one (Christensen et al., 2004).
Acting in ways that run counter to norms is
personally upsetting—as social psychologist Stanley
Milgram discovered when he asked his students to
violate a norm deliberately. He asked his students to
board a New York City subway and to perform a
simple counter-normative behavior: asking someone
for their seat. In this situation, all interactants recog-
nize and accept the rule “All seats are filled on a first-
come, first-served basis,” so asking for people to give
up their seat is a norm violation. Still, many people
gave up their seats, apparently because the request
took them by surprise and they wanted to avoid inter-
action, or because they normalized the situation by
concluding that the requestor was ill. Milgram was
particularly intrigued, however, by the reactions dis-
played by the norm violators. Even though they were
volunteers who were deliberately breaking the situa-
tional norms in the name of research, all experienced
severe emotional turmoil as they approached the situ-
ation. “Students reported that when standing in front
of a subject, they felt anxious, tense, and embarrassed.
Frequently, they were unable to vocalize the request
for a seat and had to withdraw” (Milgram, 1992,
p. 42). Milgram, who also performed the norm
violation task, described the experience as wrench-
ing, and concluded that there is an “enormous
inhibitory anxiety that ordinarily prevents us
from breaching social norms” (p. xxiv).
6-1b The Development of Norms
Where do a group’s norms come from? Some are
deliberately put in place when a group is estab-
lished; the founders of a group may make explicit
the dos and don’ts for a group and make acceptance
of these standards a condition for members. In
many cases, too, a group that weathers a difficult
issue or experience may endorse new standards
that will provide guidance in the future. But even
if the group does not explicitly adopt standards
norms will develop as members gradually align
their behaviors with commonly accepted behavioral
practices in the group. People do not, for example,
spend a great deal of time wondering “Should I be
quiet in the library?” “Should I nap during the
group meeting?” or “Should I stop when the light
turns red?” Most take these norms for granted so
fully that their guiding influence is only noticed
when someone violates them (Aarts, Dijksterhuis,
& Custers, 2003). Like the members of a concert
orchestra tuning their instruments before a perfor-
mance, this social tuning results in the alignment
social tuning The tendency for individuals’ actions and
evaluations to become more similar to the actions and
assumed evaluations of those around them.
STRUCTURE 159
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of each individual’s action with the actions of others
around him or her (Lun et al., 2007).
The Andes survivors, for example, grew up in a
culture where cannibalism was taboo. But when the
group grew weak from starvation, one member
casually remarked that the only source of nourishment
was the frozen bodies of the crash victims. The others
ignored his remark until the tenth day when “the dis-
cussion spread as these boys cautiously mentioned it to
their friends or those they thought would be sympa-
thetic” (Read, 1974, p. 76). When the topic was dis-
cussed by the entire group, two cliques emerged: one
favored eating the corpses and the other opposed
breaking this norm. But when the group learned by
radio that the air force had given up the search, most of
the members ate a few pieces of meat; over time, can-
nibalism became the norm (Parrado, 2006).
Social psychologist Muzafer Sherif (1936) stud-
ied this social tuning process by taking advantage of
the autokinetic (self-motion) effect. This visual illusion
occurs when a person stares at a pinpoint of light in
an otherwise dark room. Ordinarily the visual sys-
tem compensates for naturally occurring motions of
the eye, but when only a single light is visible with
no frame of reference, the light appears to wander
in unpredictable directions and at variable speeds.
Sherif found that when individuals judged the
dot’s movement repeatedly, they usually established
their own idiosyncratic average estimates that varied
from 1 to 10 inches. But when people made their
judgments in groups, their personal estimates
blended with those of other group members. One
group, for example, included three people who had
already been tested individually. During these initial
tests, person A thought the light moved very
little—about 1 inch. Person B estimated the move-
ment at 2 inches, but C’s estimates were higher,
averaging about 7 inches. When these three people
Do Your Facebook Friends Know the Norms?
Groups that once convened in physical locations, such
as clubs, conference rooms, and bars, now meet virtu-
ally in social networking sites. Individuals who use the
very popular Facebook social networking site, for
example, connect with others by “friending” each
other. One person sends another person a “friend
request,” and the person who receives the request
must accept this offer to create the friend link.
Just as the interactions that occur in face-to-face
groups are guided by a set of rules of comportment, so
norms have emerged on social networks that define
what is appropriate and what is not (Bryant & Marmo,
2012).
■ Communication norms set expectations about
how frequently one should communicate with
friends and the types of messages that should be
exchanged.
■ Relationship maintenance norms encourage using
Facebook to strengthen one’s relationship with
others, primarily by keeping up-to-date on what is
happening in others’ lives and also by wishing
them happy birthday via Facebook.
■ Negative self-consequences norms include taking
steps to avoid causing oneself harm when using
Facebook (e.g., “I should not let Facebook use
with this person interfere with getting my work
done”).
■ Negative friend-consequences norms warn against
doing things that might harm one’s friends (e.g.,
“I should consider how a post might negatively
impact this person’s relationships”).
■ Deception and control norms define what steps to
take if one violates Facebook norms. For example,
“I should delete or block this person if he/she
compromises my Facebook image” and “I should
intentionally control the level of access this person
has to my profile.”
Not heeding these norms will not yield the same
consequences that violating a Facebook official users
rule will. As Facebook explains, “If you violate the
letter or spirit of this Statement, or otherwise create
risk or possible legal exposure for us, we can stop
providing all or part of Facebook to you.” But violat-
ing these social norms may be injurious socially. No
one is directly taught the norms of Facebook, but
those who do not follow them will likely pay the
ultimate Facebook price: They will get themselves
unfriended.
160 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

made their estimates of the movement aloud when
seated together, their judgments converged. It took
three meetings, but by the third session, a norm had
emerged: All the members felt the light was moving
about 3 inches. Figure 6.1 graphs this convergence
process: Over time, individuals with the highest and
lowest estimates revise their judgments to match the
group average.
6-1c The Transmission of Norms
Sherif confirmed that norms emerge, gradually, as
group members’ behaviors, judgments, and beliefs
align over time (Echterhoff, Higgins, & Levine,
2009). But Sherif also arranged for people to
make their judgments alone after taking part in
the group sessions when a norm emerged. Did
these individuals revert back to their original esti-
mates of movement, or did they continue to base
their estimates on the norm that emerged within
their group? Sherif discovered that, even though
the other group members were no longer present,
the individuals’ judgments were still consistent with
the group’s norms (Sherif, 1966). They had internal-
ized the norm.
Norms, because they are both consensual
(accepted by many group members) and internal-
ized (personally accepted by each individual mem-
ber), are social facts—taken-for-granted elements of
the group’s stable structure. Even if the individuals
who originally fostered the norms are no longer
present, their normative innovations remain a part
of the organization’s culture, and newcomers must
change to adopt that tradition. Researchers have
studied this norm transmission experimentally
using a generational paradigm: They create a group
and then add newcomers to it and retire old-timers
until the entire membership of the group has turned
over. Do these succeeding generations of members
remain true to the group’s original norms, even if
these norms are arbitrary or cause the group to
make errors and mistakes? In one autokinetic effect
study, researchers established an extreme norm by
planting a confederate in each three-member
Alone Group
session 1
Group
session 2
Group
session 3
In
c
re
a
s
in
g
d
is
ta
n
c
e
e
s
ti
m
a
te
s
Convergence
Person
C
Person
B
Person
A
F I G U R E 6.1 Sherif’s experimental creation of group norms. Individuals’ private, pregroup judgments differed
markedly, but when they joined with others their judgments converged.
SOURCE: Data from M. Sherif, The Psychology of Social Norms, 1936, Harper & Row.
STRUCTURE 161
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

group. The confederate steadfastly maintained that
the dot of light was moving about 15 inches—an
excessive estimate given that most estimates aver-
aged about 3–4 inches. Once the confederate
deflected the group’s distance norm upward, he
was removed from the group and replaced by a
naive participant. The remaining group members,
however, still retained the large distance norm, and
the newest addition to the group gradually adapted
to the higher standard. The researchers continued to
replace group members with new participants, but
new members continued to shift their estimates in
the direction of the group norm. This arbitrary
group norm gradually disappeared as judgments of
distance came back down to an average of 3.5
inches, but in most cases, the more reasonable
norm did not develop until group membership had
changed five or six times (Jacobs & Campbell, 1961;
MacNeil & Sherif, 1976). In another generational
study, researchers gave groups feedback that sug-
gested that their norm about how decisions should
be made was causing them to make errors, but this
negative feedback did not reduce the norm’s longev-
ity across generations (Nielsen & Miller, 1997).
Studies of the emergence and transmission of
norms in a variety of settings—in workgroups,
families, sports teams, and children’s groups—all
demonstrate just how rapidly norms can emerge
to structure group behavior (e.g., Bicchieri, 2006;
Rossano, 2012). Even children as young as three
years old learn norms quickly and respond negatively
when newcomers violate these rules. In one study,
for example, two- and three-year-olds played for a
time with a familiar object—a sponge—in two
areas of the day care center (Rakoczy et al.,
2009). When in the rest area, they were taught to
use the sponge to clean. But when in the games
area, they were taught to roll the sponge as part
of a game. Later, someone else (a puppet, actually)
tried to use the sponge for cleaning in the game
area or for playing in the rest area, and the research-
ers watched to see how the children reacted. As
they expected, three-year-olds complained when
the sponge was misused, saying things like “No!
It does not go like this” or “No, you are not
allowed to clean up here.”
6-1d Application: Norms and Health
Because norms tend to resist revision, some group’s
norms may seem pointless and arbitrary rather than
reasonable and functional (see Table 6.1). But
norms are essential to group functioning, for even
odd or unusual norms organize interactions,
increase predictability, and enhance solidarity
(Collins, 2004). Why do people feel obligated to
help others who help them (Chapter 3)? Why do
members of cohesive groups tend to work only as
hard as everyone else in the group (Chapter 5)?
Why do people sometimes abandon their own
beliefs and adopt the group’s position as their own
(Chapter 7)? Why do group members feel justified
T A B E L 6.1 Characteristics and Varieties
of Norms
Common
Features Description
Descriptive Describe how most members act,
feel, and think
Consensual Shared among group members,
rather than personal, individual-
level beliefs
Injunctive Define which behaviors are con-
sidered “bad” or wrong and
which are “good” or acceptable
Prescriptive Set the standards for expected
behavior; what should be done
Proscriptive Identify behaviors that should
not be performed
Informal Describe the unwritten rules of
conduct in the group
Implicit Often so taken for granted that
members follow them
automatically
Self-generating Emerge as members reach a
consensus through reciprocal
influence
Stable Once they develop, resistant to
change and passed from current
members to new members
162 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

in retaliating against other members who treat them
harshly (Chapter 13)? Why do people who are part
of social movements or large crowds sometimes
engage in aberrant behavior (Chapter 17)? Because
of the influence of norms on members’ thoughts,
feelings, and actions.
Norms about Drinking Alcohol Norms regulate
interactions in groups, facilitate productivity, and
limit conflict, but such negative, unhealthy beha-
viors as alcohol abuse, overeating, and drug use
can also be traced to normative processes. Consider,
for example, the impact of social norms on the
consumption of alcohol by young adults. Heavy
use of alcohol is common on college campuses,
even among students who are too young to possess
alcohol legally. This excessive use of alcohol is asso-
ciated with a number of negative outcomes, includ-
ing lower performance, physical injury, and
violence (Padon et al., 2016). Yet, drinking exces-
sively is considered “normal” on many campuses.
Polls of students suggest that most consider drinking
five drinks in succession to be appropriate if one is
partying, and more than 40% of students conform
to that norm (Neighbors et al., 2008). Many stu-
dents, when asked about the drinking norms
endorsed by the groups to which they belong,
such as their primary friendship groups, campus
clubs, and sororities and fraternities, reported that
these groups often approve of “drinking alcohol
every weekend” and “drinking enough to pass
out” (LaBrie et al., 2010, p. 345)—and the stronger
the group’s endorsement of drinking, the more
heavily students who belong to such groups
drank. Many students, when asked about clearly
abnormal consequences of drinking—such as sub-
stantial loss of memory (e.g., blackouts), loss of con-
sciousness (“passing out”), physical impairment
(e.g., dizziness and staggering gait), and illness
(vomiting)—considered them to be “normal”
rather than abnormal (e.g., Mallett et al., 2011).
Norms and Health Normative processes contrib-
ute to many other unhealthy behaviors besides
excessive use of alcohol. Obesity, for example,
tends to spread among individuals who are linked
together in a social network, in part because norms
encourage lifestyle choices that promote weight
gain rather than fitness (Christakis & Fowler,
2007). Interventions designed to help at-risk ado-
lescents by placing them in special programs may
actually contribute to increased violence, drug use,
and other antisocial behaviors when these groups
develop negative rather than positive norms (Dish-
ion & Dodge, 2005). Individuals who are frequent
pluralistic ignorance When members of a group pri-
vately vary in outlook and expectations, but publicly
they all act similarly because they believe that they are
the only ones whose personal views are different from
the rest of the group.
Why Do Unhealthy Norms Persist?
Why do group members continue to conform to norms
that are harmful rather than healthy? The answer lies,
in part, in the tenacity of norms. Even norms that run
counter to society’s general traditions can establish a
life of their own in small groups within that society. In
some cases, too, norms remain in place because of
pluralistic ignorance: Members privately disagree with
the group’s norm, but feel that their outlook is shared
by few others in the group. So, the norm continues to
regulate behavior due to misperception rather than
shared consensus. College students, for example, often
misperceive the extent to which other students drink
excessive amounts of alcohol. Even though most of the
students who participated in one study were person-
ally opposed to overindulgence, they believed that
their campus’s norms encouraged heavy alcohol con-
sumption. The men responded to this norm by gradu-
ally internalizing the misperceived norm. They began
to drink more the longer they stayed at the school. The
women, in contrast, responded by distancing them-
selves from their university and its norms about drink-
ing (Krieger et al., 2016; Miller & Prentice, 2016).
STRUCTURE 163
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

users of “club drugs” (methamphetamine, cocaine,
ketamine, ecstasy, GHB, and LSD) are more likely
to report that they do so because of social pressure
(e.g., “When I was out with friends and they kept
suggesting we go somewhere to do drugs,” “When
I felt pressured to use drugs and felt I couldn’t
refuse”; Starks et al., 2010, p. 1067).
Eating disorders, too, have been linked to nor-
mative processes. Social psychologist Chris Crandall
(1988), for example, documented the detrimental
effects of norms on group members in a study
of one particular unhealthy behavior: bulimia—a
pernicious cycle of binge eating followed by
self-induced vomiting or other forms of purging.
Certain social groups, such as cheerleading squads,
dance troupes, sports teams, and sororities, tend to
have strikingly high rates of eating disorders (Petrie
& Greenleaf, 2007). In explanation, Crandall noted
that such groups adopt norms that encourage bing-
ing and purging. Rather than viewing these actions
as abnormal and a threat to health, the sororities
that Crandall studied accepted purging as a normal
means of controlling one’s weight. The women
who were popular in such groups were the ones
who binged at the rate established by the group’s
norms. Even worse, women who did not binge
when they first joined the group were more likely
to take up the practice the longer they remained in
the group. Other studies suggest that unhealthy eat-
ing patterns increase with the perceived strength of
peer pressure within the sorority and the longer the
woman lives in the sorority house itself (e.g.,
Basow, Foran, & Bookwala, 2007).
Norms may, however, promote healthy actions
as well as unhealthy ones. Individuals who wish to
reduce their negative indulgences often find success
by joining a group and accepting that group’s norms
as their own. Many fitness, weight-loss, and anti-
addiction programs, as noted in more detail in
Chapter 16, take a group approach to change. Alco-
holics Anonymous, for example, has clear norms
about the types of behaviors members must enact
in order to stay sober, and those individuals who
become highly involved members are less likely to
continue to drink heavily (Witbrodt et al., 2012).
Groups have also been found to be effective in
preventing the onset of eating disorders, such as
bulimia, in young women (Stice et al., 2008).
Groups, then, can either promote or threaten mem-
bers’ health, depending on their norms. Some groups
may put members at risk by encouraging unhealthy
actions, whereas others keep members on the path to
good health and wellness (Miller & Prentice, 2016).
6-2 R OLES
On the day after the Andes crash, Marcelo, the captain
of the rugby team, organized the efforts of those who
could work. Two young men and one of the women
administered first aid to the injured. One subgroup of
boys melted snow for drinking water, and another
team cleaned the cabin of the airplane. These various
positions in the group—leader, doctor, snow melter,
cabin cleaner—are all examples of roles: coherent sets of
behaviors expected of people in specific positions (or
statuses) within a group or social setting.
6-2a The Nature of Social Roles
The concept of roles explains the changes that some
people exhibit when they become members of a
group. The quiet recluse, taciturn by nature, may
become convivial when given responsibility for
organizing the group’s annual fund-raising event.
The otherwise mild-mannered colleague may
become habitually critical of process when taking
part in group discussions. The staffer with the messi-
est office may become methodical and precise when
elected the group’s secretary. Groups may pressure
members to conform to the group’s norms, but
they do not require that members all act the same
as one another. Groups instead require members to
enact a specific set of behaviors consistently, depend-
ing on one’s role within the group. Roles define
responsibilities and expectations and facilitate coordi-
nation by specifying who can be counted on to do
what within the group. Over the course of repeated
interactions, members not only learn what others in
the group usually do, but also what everyone in the
group expects of them. By enacting roles, individuals
establish an exchange relationship with their fellow
164 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

members, building the interdependence that is essen-
tial for the coordination of behavior, group cohe-
sion, and productivity.
The concept of a social role is similar, in many
respects, to a theatrical role. In a play or film, a role
is the part the actors portray before the audience.
To become Juliet in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet,
for example, an actor must perform certain actions
and recite her dialogue accordingly. Similarly, roles
in groups structure behavior by dictating the part
that members take as they interact. Once cast in a
role, such as leader, outcast, or questioner, members
perform certain actions and interact with others in a
particular way—but this consistency reflects the
requirements of their role rather than their personal
predilections or inclinations (Stets & Thai, 2010).
But just as some variability is permitted in theatrical
roles, group roles do not structure group members’
actions completely. An actor playing the role of
Juliet must perform certain behaviors as part of her
role—she would not be Shakespeare’s Juliet if she
did not fall in love with Romeo. She can, however,
recite her lines in an original way, change her stage
behaviors, and even ad-lib. In social groups, too,
people can fulfill the same role in somewhat different
ways, and, so long as they do not stray too far from
the role’s basic requirements, the group tolerates this
variation. However, like the stage director who
replaces an actor who presents an unsatisfactory Juliet,
the group can replace members who repeatedly fail to
play their part within the group. The role often super-
sedes any particular group member. When the role
occupant departs, the role itself remains and is filled
by a new member (Stryker & Burke, 2000).
Role Differentiation As with norms, groups
sometimes deliberately create roles to organize the
group and thereby facilitate the attainment of the
group’s goals. A group may decide that its efficiency
would be augmented if someone takes charge of the
meetings and different tasks are assigned to subcom-
mittees. In some cases, too, someone outside the
group, such as the group’s supervisor, may mandate
roles within the group (Kozlowski et al., 2015). But
even without a deliberate attempt at creating a for-
mal group structure, the group will probably develop
an informal role structure. Members may initially
consider themselves to be just members, basically
similar to each other. But in time, some group mem-
bers will begin to perform specific types of actions
and interact with other group members in a particu-
lar way. As this role differentiation process
unfolds, the number of roles in the group increases,
whereas the roles themselves gradually become more
narrowly defined and specialized. In the Andes sur-
vivors, for example, the roles of leader, doctor, and
cleaner emerged first, soon followed by the inventor
who created makeshift snowshoes, hammocks, and
water-melting devices; explorer who was determined
to hike down from the mountain; and complainer,
pessimist, optimist, and encourager. This proliferation
of roles is typical of groups facing difficult problems
or emergencies (Bales, 1958).
Task and Relationship Roles What roles emerge
more frequently in groups? Certainly, the role of
leader is a fundamental one in many groups, but
other roles should not be overlooked. Many of
these roles, such as solution seeker, the problem analyst,
and procedural facilitator, are similar in that they
revolve around the task the group is tackling (Fuji-
moto, 2016). People who fulfill a task role focus
on the group’s goals and on the members’ attempts
to support one another as they work. Marcelo, in
the Andes group, was a task-oriented leader, for he
organized work squads and controlled the rationing
of the group’s food supplies; the rest of the mem-
bers obeyed his orders. He did not, however, satisfy
the group members’ interpersonal and emotional
needs. As if to offset Marcelo’s inability to cheer
up the survivors, several group members became
more positive and friendly, actively trying to reduce
conflicts and to keep morale high. Liliana Methol,
role differentiation An increase in the number of roles
in a group, accompanied by a gradual decrease in the
scope of these roles as each one becomes more narrowly
defined and specialized.
task role Any position in a group occupied by a member
who performs behaviors that center on tasks and activi-
ties, such as initiating structure, providing task-related
feedback, and setting goals.
STRUCTURE 165
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

in particular, provided a “unique source of solace”
(Read, 1974, p. 74) to the young men. She came to
fill a relationship role (also frequently termed socio-
emotional role) in the Andes group. Whereas the coor-
dinator and energizer structure the group’s work, such
roles as supporter, clown, and even the complainer help
satisfy the emotional needs of the group members
(Lehmann-Willenbrock, Beck, & Kauffeld, 2016).
Why Differentiation? Why do task roles and rela-
tionship roles emerge in so many different groups?
One answer, proposed by Robert Bales (1950,
1955, 1958), suggests that very few individuals can
simultaneously fulfill both the task and the relationship
needs of the group. When group members are task-
oriented, they must direct others to act in certain
ways, restrict others’ options, criticize other members,
and prompt them into action. These actions may be
necessary to reach the goal, but others may react neg-
atively to these task-oriented activities, so they then
look to others in the group for socioemotional, rela-
tional support. The peacekeeper who intercedes and
tries to maintain harmony is the relationship specialist.
Task and relationship roles, then, are a natural conse-
quence of these two partly conflicting demands.
Bales identified these tendencies by tracking
role differentiation in decision-making groups
across four sessions. Bales used his interaction process
analysis (IPA) system to identify certain specific
types of behavior within the groups. As noted in
Chapter 2 (see Figure 2.2), half of the categories
in IPA focus on the task-oriented behaviors and
the other half focus on the relationship behaviors.
Bales found that individuals rarely performed both
task and relationship behaviors: Most people gravi-
tated toward either a task role or a relationship role.
Those who took on a task role (labeled the “idea
man”) offered mostly suggestions and expressed
opinions. Those who gravitated to the relationship
roles (labeled the “best-liked man”) showed solidar-
ity, more tension release, and greater agreement
with other group members. Moreover, this differ-
entiation became more pronounced over time.
During the first session, the same leader occupied
both the task and the relationship roles in 56.5% of
the groups. By the fourth session, only 8.5% of the
leaders occupied both roles. In most cases, indivi-
duals dropped their role as task leader in favor of the
relationship role (Bales, 1958; Bales & Slater, 1955).
Subsequent work suggests that this division of
task and relationship roles is not an inevitable occur-
rence in groups (Turner & Colomy, 1988). Some
individuals are the small-group equivalent of master
leaders, for they are both well-liked and focused on
the work to be done (Borgatta, Couch, & Bales,
1954). When players on football teams were asked
to identify the best players on the team and those
who contributed most to the group’s harmony,
many named the same person—usually a senior- or
first-string player—to both roles (Rees & Segal,
1984). When students in groups rated each other’s
role activity, many slotted the same person into both
task and relationship roles. Cohesive groups tend to
have leaders who can fill both roles, whereas the
roles tend to be separated in groups with high levels
of conflict (Burke, 1967; Mudrack & Farrell, 1995).
Differentiation of these two types of roles is more
common than their combination, however, perhaps
because few people have the interpersonal and cog-
nitive skills needed to enact both roles successfully.
6-2b Role Theories
The concept of role is a redoubtable one and has given
rise to a number of alternative theories that describe
roles and role-related processes. These conceptualiza-
tions agree on many points. Roles, they note, organize
group interactions by creating a set of shared expecta-
tions that script the behavior of the individuals who
occupy them. These theories, however, disagree on
other points, including what roles are common to
most groups and what functions roles serve. This sec-
tion reviews a sample of theories that seek to explain
roles and role-related processes, focusing on three
models that are most relevant to understanding groups:
relationship role Any position in a group occupied by a
member who performs behaviors that improve the
nature and quality of interpersonal relations among
members, such as showing concern for the feelings of
others, reducing conflict, and enhancing feelings of satis-
faction and trust in the group.
166 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

functional role theory, interactionism, and dynamic
role theory (Biddle, 1986; Turner, 2001b).
Functional Role Theories A number of theorists,
in seeking to explain why roles develop in groups,
stress their functional utility. All groups must, for exam-
ple, respond in adaptive ways to their environment by
recognizing challenges and responding successfully.
Most groups, too, usually exist for some purpose,
so they must develop methods that facilitate goal
attainment—all the while making certain that members
are so satisfied with membership that they remain in the
group and continue to meet their obligations (Parsons,
Bales, & Shils, 1953). Roles exist in groups to fulfill, at
least in part, these personal and interpersonal needs
(Belbin, 2010; Blumberg et al., 2012).
Education theorists and practitioners Kenneth
Benne and Paul Sheats (1948) developed their
well-known functional theory of roles by observing
the interactions of groups at the National Training
Laboratories (NTL), an organization devoted to the
improvement of groups. They noted that while
much work had been done to train people to lead
groups, little had been done to train people to work
in groups—even though the “setting of goals and
the marshaling of resources to move toward these
goals is a group responsibility in which all members
of a mature group come variously to share” (pp.
41–42). Leaders, they suggested, are responsible
for making sure roles are filled, but members are
responsible for fulfilling the demands of the roles.
Benne and Sheats suggested that a group, to
survive, must meet two basic demands: The group
must accomplish its tasks, and the relationships
among members must be maintained. But they iden-
tified 19 specific roles within these two broad cate-
gories, such as initiator/contributor, opinion seeker,
and energizer on the task side and encourager, har-
monizer, and compromiser on the relationship side.
They also identified a third set of eight individual
roles enacted by group members who are more con-
cerned with their own personal needs rather than the
needs of the group. This category includes such roles
as aggressor, blocker, and dominator.
Benne and Sheats theorize that individuals,
given previous experiences in groups and differences
in personality, naturally gravitate to a particular type
of role across all the groups they join. However,
because a group’s need for a particular role will
vary depending on the type of task it is attempting
and the group’s stage of development, the most
skilled group member is one with role flexibility:
the capacity to recognize the current requirements
of the group and then enact the role-specific beha-
viors most appropriate in the given context. A group
striving to be creative, for example, has less need of
an evaluator/critic than a group examining a range
of solutions after extensive deliberation. Individual
roles will prove more problematic in the early stage
of a group’s life.
Interactionist Theories Some theoretical analyses
of roles put more emphasis on the generative process
of role-related actions, arguing that “the patterning of
behavior that constitutes roles arises initially and
recurrently out of the dynamics of interaction”
(Turner, 2001b, p. 234). Group members share a
basic sense of the requirements of the roles that are
common in most group settings, but they work out
the details of their roles and their demands as they
interact with one another. Interactionist approaches
recognize that group roles are analogous to theatrical
roles, but the group setting is more like improv than a
well-rehearsed stage play. Roles are negotiated by all
group members through a reciprocal process of role
enactment—displaying certain behaviors as part of
one’s role in the group—and role sending—the trans-
mission of one’s expectations about what kinds of
behaviors are expected of people who occupy partic-
ular roles (Stryker & Vryan, 2006).
This view is consistent with the sociologist
Erving Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical approach
to social interaction. He maintained that individuals
engage in self-presentation (also termed impres-
sion management) in order to steer others’ impres-
sions and expectations. Marcelo, for example, as the
self-presentation Influencing other people’s social per-
ceptions by selectively revealing personal information to
them; includes both deliberate and unintentional
attempts to establish, maintain, or refine the impression
that others have; also known as impression management.
STRUCTURE 167
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

What Roles Are Filled and by Whom in Your Group?
Although the parts people play in their groups—their
roles—may be as varied as the diverse situations where
groups exist, some roles occur with great regularity
across all kinds of groups. Most groups need someone
who consistently keeps the group on course; someone
who intervenes to soothe the group’s feelings; some-
one who cheers the group up with its mood turns
dark. Groups have needs, just as their members do.
Instructions. Take a moment to reflect on the
roles in a group to which you belong. The group can
be one that meets regularly in a work or social setting,
or it can be a smaller group that is part of a larger
group or organization. After you generate the list of
all the group’s members, can you identify a person in
the group who regularly takes on one or more of the
following roles (including yourself, of course)?
Group Task Roles
q Initiator/contributor: Offers novel ideas about the
problem at hand, new ways to approach the prob-
lem, or different ways of doing or organizing things
q Information seeker: Emphasizes getting the facts
clear or seeks out data
q Opinion seeker: Asks for more information about
the attitudes and values of the group members on
issues
q Information giver: Provides objective facts and
information, drawing on own expertise or claimed
authority
q Opinion giver: Expresses own opinions and values
on issues
q Elaborator: Gives additional information, uses
examples to clarify suggestions, or explores
implications
q Coordinator: Organizes the various contributions
of others and shows their relevance and relation-
ship to the overall problem
q Orienter: Offers summaries, guides the group back
to its purposes, or reminds group to stay focused
q Evaluator/critic: Appraises the quality of the
group’s activities, methods, processes, or results
q Energizer: Stimulates the group to continue
working when discussion drags
q Procedural technician: Cares for operational
details, such as arranging the room, providing
materials, and attending to technology
q Recorder: Takes notes and maintains records
Group Building and Relationship Roles
q Encourager: Reassures others by expressing
agreement, praise, and solidarity
q Harmonizer: Reconciles disagreements and conflicts
among group members (often through humor)
q Compromiser: Agrees to shift his or her own
position on an issue to reduce conflict or move the
group along
q Gatekeeper/expediter: Facilitates communication
by drawing out reticent members and proposing
ways to improve the discussion
q Standard setter: Calls for discussion of the group’s
procedures and processes
q Group observer and commentator: Tracks the
group’s processes and provides data during the
review of group’s procedures
q Follower: Agrees with others in the group
Individual Roles
q Aggressor: Expresses disapproval of acts, ideas,
and feelings of others; denigrates the group,
purposes, and procedures
q Blocker: Resists the group’s influence, often by
not dropping issues after the group has settled
them
q Recognition seeker: Protects and promotes own
status, accomplishments
q Self-confessor: Discloses excessively personal
interests, feelings, and opinions unrelated to
group goals
q Playboy: Shows a lack of engagement by expres-
sing cynicism, boredom, and so on
q Dominator: Asserts authority or superiority;
manipulative
q Help seeker: Expresses insecurity, confusion, and
self-deprecation
q Special-interest pleader: Remains apart from the
group by invoking an extra-group identity
Interpretation. The number of roles in your group,
the type of roles, and the distribution of members in
those roles is indicative of your group’s functioning. If,
for example, your group has very few individuals in task
roles, your group is either focused more on relational
concerns or it might still be developing role structures
that facilitate its performance (Benne & Sheats, 1948).
168 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

rugby team captain, considered himself well-suited
for the role of group leader following the crash, so
he exhibited the kinds of behaviors appropriate for
that role: He assigned tasks to the others, set goals for
the group, and sanctioned members who did not do
their part. He did so because these actions were
required by the role of leader, but also because he
wished to define himself as the leader in the other
group members’ eyes. Roles, then, are negotiated
among members through a process that requires
motivation, experience, and the ability to step out
of one’s own role and mentally imagining how
others in the groups are seeing you. This process is
termed role-taking. It includes not only taking on a
role but also a willingness to put oneself into others’
roles to see the group as they do (Mead, 1934).
Beth A. Bechky (2006), an ethnographer of
work and occupation, applied an interactionist
approach to roles in her participant observation
study of the interpersonal dynamics of temporary
film-production teams. These production groups
are common in the construction and film industries.
The groups are assembled by production managers
or contractors, and they set to work immediately on
their task. Bechky, for example, observed crews
ranging in size from 35 to 175 set up and film
commercials, music videos, and movies. These
group members may have worked together previ-
ously, but usually as individuals—they were not
members of any larger production teams that
moved as a unit from project to project. These
groups can assemble quickly, however, because
each group member’s role is relatively well-
defined. Filming a commercial, video, or movie
requires completion of a number of highly special-
ized tasks, and these tasks are assigned to specific
roles. The production team includes, for example,
camera assistants and operators, costume designers,
crane and dolly operators, directors, film loaders,
gaffers (electricians), grips (lighting and rigging tech-
nicians), hair stylists, lighting technicians, location
scouts, makeup artists, photographers, producers,
and prop managers. Those who occupy these
roles work in a highly coordinated manner during
the actual production process.
Bechky also discovered, however, that the coor-
dination of these groups is further enhanced on a
continual basis through the interactions among the
group members on each set. Many of those who
work in a particular role have also performed other
roles in other projects. An electrician on one shoot,
for example, may have worked as a camera loader on
another, and so the level of consensual agreement
regarding roles is substantial. The complexity of the
work, however, required even the most experienced
members to modify their actions to suit the needs of
others. Throughout every production day, group
members were regularly providing each other with
corrective feedback about one another’s role-based
performances, but they did so through “effusive
thanking, polite admonishing, and role-oriented jok-
ing” (p. 11). Group members openly and routinely
thanked each other for completing actions required
by their roles, but they were also quick to intervene
with suggestions for improvement, if needed, usually
phrased as “don’t worry about it for now, but next
time be sure to…”. Humor was often used to give a
lighter touch to these suggestions, but also to ridicule
someone who had displayed a more jarring role-
related misstep. Her observations convinced Bechky
(2006, p. 11) that
within each project, the generalized role struc-
ture is instantiated by a set of crew members
who negotiate and modify their particular roles.
The generalized role structure and the role
enactments mutually support one another, while
at the same time establishing a means for almost
immediate coordination on each new project.
Dynamic Role Theories Sigmund Freud (1922)
is best known for his insightful analyses of person-
ality and adjustment, but he also analyzed group
behavior. He suggested our actions when in a
group are based, in part, on our rational plans,
motives, and goals, but also on unconscious inter-
personal and psychological processes that are largely
role-taking Perceiving the role requirements of other
group members’ roles, by taking their perspective; also,
the enactment of a role within a group.
STRUCTURE 169
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

unrecognized. He believed, for example, that
groups psychologically replace our first, and most
basic, group: our family. This replacement hypothesis
suggests that in highly cohesive groups, the other
group members come to take the place of our sib-
lings, so the emotional ties that bind us to our
groups are like the ties that bind children to fami-
lies. We also unconsciously accept our leaders as
parental figures, so they become the “mother” or
“father” of our groups. Those leaders who identify
with the mother role adopt more relational beha-
viors, whereas those who identify with the father
role engage in more task-oriented, agentic actions.
Freud believed, however, that children were not
wholly accepting of their parents, and so this
ambivalence is transferred to our leaders. We there-
fore consider some leaders to be persecutory, critical
“bad mothers” or “bad fathers” rather than benev-
olent, supportive, ones (Klein, 1948).
6-2c Bale’s SYMLOG Model
Sociologist Robert Bales’s (1970, 1980, 1999) SYM-
LOG model provides a final example of a compre-
hensive explanation for the types of roles commonly
observed in groups. Bales (1950), in his earliest studies
of groups, distinguished between two basic categories
of roles—task and relationship roles—and based his
IPA system on this distinction. In time, however, he
came to recognize the critical importance of two
other aspects of roles and intermember relations:
dominance and friendliness. So, he developed a
new, more complex model—Systematic Multiple
Level Observation of Groups (SYMLOG)—based
on the following three dimensions:
■ Dominance or submissiveness: Is this member
active, outgoing, and talkative or passive, quiet,
and introverted? (dominance is Up, submissive
is Down.)
■ Friendliness or unfriendliness: Is this member
warm, open, and positive or negative and irri-
table? (friendliness is Positive, unfriendliness is
Negative.)
■ Acceptance or nonacceptance of task-oriented author-
ity: Is this member analytic and task-oriented or
emotional, nontraditional, and (in some cases)
resentful? (acceptance of the task-orientation
of established authority is Forward, nonaccep-
tance is Backward.)
Observers, or the group members themselves,
can rate each individual in the group using the 26
categories shown in Table 6.2. The group leader’s
behaviors, for example, might be concentrated in
Do Group Roles Have a Deeper Meaning?
Organizational psychologist and group therapist Paul
Moxnes (1999) extended Freud’s psychodynamic per-
spective in his theory of “deep roles.” Moxnes theo-
rized that group members’ early experiences in
families, with their apportionment of roles based on
biological sex and cultural practices, creates similar
structures in groups that are not kin-based. Like func-
tional theorists, Moxnes distinguishes between task
and relationship roles, but links this division to the
separation of mother and father roles in families. He
also suggests that these roles are viewed with some
ambivalence, due to the differences in power associ-
ated with each role. The occupants of some role posi-
tions are powerful, whereas the occupants of other
roles are less influential. On the basis of these
assumptions, Moxnes identified a number of deep
roles that he creatively named the king (the “good
father”), queen (the “good mother”), princess (the
daughter), and so on.
When Moxnes asked members of groups to use
these role labels to describe their fellow group mem-
bers, he found that the primary deep roles—King,
Queen, Princess, Prince, and Wiseman—were used very
frequently (Moxnes & Moxnes, 2016). Members’
agreement on who in their group fit which role
exceeded random chance: members tend to place the
same person in the “good father” (king) role, “bad
mother” role, and so on. Moxnes’ intriguing theory
awaits further empirical testing (see Hare, 1999; Robi-
son, 1999).
170 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

T A B L E 6.2 The SYMLOG Model of Group Structure
Trait (Direction) General Behaviors Individual and Organizational Values
Dominant (U) Dominant, active, talkative Individual financial success, personal prominence
and power
Sociable (UP) Outgoing, sociable, extraverted Popularity and social success, being liked and
admired
Persuasive (UPF) Persuasive, convincing, shows task
leadership
Active teamwork toward common goals, organi-
zational unity
Managerial (UF) Business-like, decisive, impersonal Efficiency, strong impartial management
Moralistic (UNF) Strict, demanding, controlling Active reinforcement of authority, rules, and
regulations
Tough (UN) Tough, competitive, aggressive Tough-minded, self-oriented assertiveness
Rebellious (UNB) Rebellious, unruly, self-centered Rugged, self-oriented individualism, resistance to
authority
Funny (UB) Joking, witty, clever Having a good time, releasing tension, relaxing
control
Warm (UPB) Protects others, sympathetic, nurturant Protecting less able members, providing help
when needed
Equalitarian (P) Friendly, democratic, group-oriented Equality, democratic participation in decision-
making
Cooperative (PF) Cooperative, reasonable, constructive Responsible idealism, collaborative work
Task-oriented (F) Serious, logical, objective Conservative, established, “correct” ways of doing
things ways of doing things
Persistent (NF) Rule-oriented, insistent, inflexible Restraining individual desires for organizational
goals
Selfish (N) Self-protective, unfriendly, negativistic Self-protection, self-interest first, self-sufficiency
Cynical (NB) Uncooperative, pessimistic, cynical Rejection of established procedures, rejection of
conformity
Unpredictable (B) Expresses emotions, shows feelings Change to new procedures, different values,
creativity
Likable (PB) Likeable, affectionate, enjoyable Friendship, mutual pleasure, recreation
Trustful (DP) Trustful, accepting, sensitive Trust in the goodness of others
Responsible (DPF) Modest, respectful, dedicated Dedication, faithfulness, loyalty to the
organization
Obedient (DF) Cautious, dutiful, obedient Obedience to the chain of command, complying
with authority
(Continued)
STRUCTURE 171
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the “active, dominant, talks a lot” category rather
than the “passive, introverted, says little” category.
A disillusioned group member, in contrast, might
get high scores for “irritable, cynical, won’t
cooperate.” These ratings can be used to chart
the flow of a group’s interaction over time.
When a group first begins to discuss a problem,
most of the behaviors may be concentrated in
the dominant, friendly, and accepting authority
categories. But if the group is wracked by dis-
agreement, then scores in the unfriendly, nonac-
cepting authority categories may begin to climb.
SYMLOG can also be used to create a graph of the
group profile based on dominance, friendliness,
and authority dimensions (Hare & Hare, 2005;
Isenberg & Ennis, 1981; Polley, 1989).
Although SYMLOG ratings were never com-
pleted for the Andes group, Figure 6.2 is a specu-
lative mapping of the group’s structure into the
three dimensions in Bales’ model. The vertical
axis corresponds to the role-related behavior in
the group. People like Fito Strauch and Fernandez
rank near the task-oriented, accepting of authority
end of this dimension, whereas Harley and Man-
gino are located near the opposing authority end
of this dimension because they tended to resist
group pressures and to express their feelings and
emotions within the group. The horizontal axis
pertains to attraction relations among the mem-
bers. Parrado and Turcatti, for example, occupy
positions at the friendly end of this dimension
because they were both very popular within the
group, whereas Delgado’s and Canessa’s low social
standing places them at the unfriendly end. Bales uses
circles of varying size to illustrate the third structural
dimension: dominance/submission. The larger the
circle, the greater the group member’s status in the
group; hence, Fito Strauch is represented by a very
large circle, whereas Harley (one of the malingerers)
is represented by a very small circle.
SYMLOG, by taking into account role, status,
and attraction, yields an integrative and in-depth
picture of the organization of groups (Hare et al.,
2005). The task-oriented acceptance of authority/
nonacceptance of authority dimension focuses on
role structure, but distinguishes between roles that
are higher and lower in status, and ones that exert a
positive or negative influence on the group and its
processes. Thus, SYMLOG is a powerful concep-
tual and methodological tool that provides a clearer
understanding of the unseen group structures that
underlie recurring patterns of interpersonal beha-
viors in groups.
6-2d Group Socialization
An actor answering a casting call may hope to
land the lead role of Juliet, but the director may
instead offer her only a smaller part, such as the
role of the nurse or Lady Capulet. She may
T A B L E 6.2 The SYMLOG Model of Group Structure (continued)
Trait (Direction) General Behaviors Individual and Organizational Values
Self-sacrificing (DNF) Constrained, conforming, self-
sacrificing
Self-sacrifice if necessary to reach organizational
goals
Resentful (DN) Depressed, unsociable, resentful Passive rejection of popularity, going it alone
Withdrawn (DNB) Alienated, rejects task, withdraws Admission of failure, withdrawal of effort
Indecisive (DB) Indecisive, anxious, holds back Passive noncooperation with authority
Contented (DPB) Quietly contented, satisfied,
unconcerned
Quiet contentment, taking it easy
Silent (D) Silent, passive, uninvolved Giving up personal needs and desires, passivity
SOURCE: Used with Permission. Copyright © 1983, 1985, 1998 SYMLOG Consulting Group.
172 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

decide that the role is too insubstantial for her
talents and not accept it, or she may decide that
any role in the production is better than no role
at all. Similarly, individuals often seek particular
roles in groups, but the group may not permit
them to occupy these roles. In the Andes group,
for example, many sought to be one of the
“expeditionaries”—explorers who were selected
to hike away from the crash site and seek help.
But only three were chosen.
Group Socialization Theory Richard Moreland
and John Levine (1982) developed their theory of
group socialization to explain how individuals
negotiate their role assignments in groups. Their
theory, which is summarized in Figure 6.3, recog-
nizes that individuals are often asked to take on
roles that they would prefer to avoid. Newcomers
must “learn their place” in the group and acquire
the behaviors required by the roles to which they
Canessa
Accepting task orientation of authority
Opposing task orientation of authority
F. Strauch
Parrado
Turcatti
E. Strauch
F
N P
B
Paez
Delgado
Vizintin
Mangino
Inciarte
Methol
Harley
Zerbino
Fernandez
F
ri
e
n
d
ly
b
e
h
a
v
io
r
U
n
fr
ie
n
d
ly
b
e
h
a
v
io
r
F I G U R E 6.2 Possible locations of a subset of the Andes group members in the three-dimensional space
described by the SYMLOG rating system.
SOURCE: Used with Permission. Copyright © 1983, 1985, 1998 SYMLOG Consulting Group.
group socialization A pattern of change in the rela-
tionship between an individual and a group that begins
when an individual first considers joining the group and
ends when he or she leaves it.
STRUCTURE 173
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

have been assigned. Veteran group members must,
in some cases, be ready to take on new roles within
the group that force them to learn new skills and
seek new challenges. But group members also feel
that their groups should be flexible enough to
change to meet their particular needs. So, indivi-
duals attempt to influence the group. Hence,
group socialization is a mutual process: Through
assimilation, the individual accepts the group’s
norms, values, and perspectives, and through
accommodation, the group adapts to fit the new-
comer’s needs.
Moreland and Levine’s theory distinguishes
between five classes of roles—prospective member, new
member, full member, marginal member, and ex-member.
Prior to actually joining a group, individuals may
study the group and the resources it offers, and part
of this reconnaissance involves identifying the type of
role they will be given should they join. The group,
in contrast, seeks to recruit new members, often by
promising them desirable roles and responsibilities
(Kramer, 1998). Should the individuals choose to
enter the group (entry), their commitment to the
group increases, and their socialization by the full
members begins in earnest (Tan, 2015). To the full
members, the newcomers are inexperienced and can-
not be completely trusted until they accept the
group’s norms and role allocations.
The Newcomer Role The role of newcomer can
be a stressful one (Moreland & Levine, 2002). New
to the group and its procedures, newcomers lack
basic information about their place in the group
and their responsibilities. Although the passage of
Investigation Socialization Maintenance Resocialization Remembrance
Entry
Divergence
Exit
Acceptance
Prospective
member
New
member
Full
member
Marginal
member
Ex-
member
Recruitment
Reconnaissance
Accommodation
Assimilation
Role
Negotiation
Accommodation
Assimilation
Tradition
Reminiscence
C
o
m
m
it
m
e
n
t
Time
F I G U R E 6.3 The Moreland and Levine theory of group socialization. The model identifies five types of roles (top
of the figure), five stages and processes of socialization (bottom of the figure), and four transition points (identified as
stars on the curve). The curved line represents the gradual increase (and eventual decrease) of a hypothetical member’s
commitment to the group. Commitment increases as the member moves from prospective member to new member to
full member, but then declines as the member moves to the role of marginal member and finally to ex-member.
SOURCE: Adapted from “Socialization in Small Groups: Temporal Changes in Individual-Group Relations,” by Richard L. Moreland and John M. Levine.
In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 15). Copyright © 1982 by Academic Press. Published by Elsevier Inc.
174 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

time will eventually transform them into rank-
and-file members, newcomers often prolong their
assimilation into the group by remaining cautiously
aloof or by misinterpreting other members’ reac-
tions. Moreland (1985), to study this process, led
some members of a newly formed group to think
that they were newcomers surrounded by more
senior members. He arranged for groups of five
unacquainted individuals to meet for several
weeks to discuss various topics. He told two of
the five that the group had been meeting for some
time and that they were the only newcomers.
Although the role of newcomer existed only in the
minds of these two participants, the people who
thought themselves newcomers behaved differently
from the others. They interacted more frequently
and more positively with each other, they were less
satisfied with the group discussion, and their descrip-
tions of the group made reference to members’
seniority. Thus, the belief that one is a newcomer
who will be treated differently by the old-timers can
act as a self-fulfilling prophecy: Just thinking of one-
self as a newcomer caused people to act in ways that
isolated them from the rest of the group (Major
et al., 1995). This “mistreatment,” which they them-
selves partially caused, may undermine their loyalty
to the group (Levine, Moreland, & Choi, 2001).
Role Transitions The socialization process does
not end when individuals become full-fledged group
members. Even seasoned group members must adjust
as the group adds new members, adopts new goals in
place of its old objectives, or modifies status and role
relationships. Much of this maintenance phase is
devoted to role negotiation. The group may, for
example, require the services of a leader who can
organize the group’s activities and motivate members.
The individual, in contrast, may wish instead to
remain a follower who is responsible for relatively
routine matters. During this phase, the group and
the individual negotiate the nature and quantity of
the member’s expected contribution to the group.
Many group members remain in the mainte-
nance period until their membership in the group
reaches a scheduled conclusion. An employee who
retires, a student who graduates from college, or an
elected official whose term in office expires all leave
the group after months or years of successful main-
tenance. In some cases, however, the maintenance
process builds to a transition point that Moreland
and Levine labeled divergence. The group may, for
example, force individuals to take on roles that they
do not find personally rewarding. Individuals, too,
may fail to meet the group’s expectations concern-
ing appropriate behavior, and role negotiation may
reach an impasse.
Resocialization When the divergence point is
reached, the socialization process enters a new
phase—resocialization. During resocialization, the
former full member takes on the role of a marginal
member, whose future in the group is uncertain.
The individual sometimes precipitates this crisis
point, often in response to increased costs and
dwindling rewards, waning commitment to the
group, and dissatisfaction with responsibilities and
duties. The group, too, can be the instigator, react-
ing to a group member who is not contributing or
is working against the group’s explicit and implicit
purposes. Moreland and Levine identified two pos-
sible outcomes of resocialization. The group and
the individual, through accommodation and assim-
ilation, can resolve their differences. In this instance,
convergence occurs, and the individual once more
becomes a full member of the group. Alternatively,
resocialization efforts can fail (see Figure 6.3). The
group may conclude that the individual is no longer
acceptable as a member and move to expel him or
her. Similarly, the individual may reevaluate his or
her commitment to the group and decide to leave.
As a result, the divergence between the group and
the individual becomes so great that a final role
transition is reached: exit.
6-2e Role Stress
Roles influence group members’ happiness and
well-being in significant ways. Some roles are
more satisfying than others; people prefer to occupy
roles that are prestigious and significant rather than
roles that are menial and unimportant. They also
like roles that require specialized skills and talents
STRUCTURE 175
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

more than unchallenging, uninvolving roles (Rentsch
& Steel, 1998). The demands of a role can also be
stressful for the occupants of that role. A player on a
sports team, for example, may be called the spark plug,
the comedian, or the mentor, but what are the duties
associated with such an amorphous role (Cope et al.,
2011)? And what if the leader of a group believes her
role involves keeping members on track, but others in
the group think that the leader’s role is to provide
emotional support, encouragement, or advice (Junker
& van Dick, 2014). When a role is ambiguously
defined, internally inconsistent, or fits the occupant
poorly, roles can be great challenges for group mem-
bers (Kahn et al., 1964).
Role Ambiguity The responsibilities and activi-
ties that are required of a person who occupies a
role are not always clear either to the occupant of
the role (the role enactor or the role taker) or to the
rest of the group (the role senders). Even when a role
has a long history in the group or the group delib-
erately creates the role for some specific purpose,
the responsibilities of the role may be ill-defined.
In such cases, role takers will likely experience
role ambiguity—they wonder if they are acting
appropriately, they perform behaviors that others
in the group should be carrying out, and they ques-
tion their ability to fulfill their responsibilities.
Role Conflict In some instances, group members
may find themselves occupying several roles at the
same time with the requirements of each role mak-
ing demands on their time and abilities. If the mul-
tiple activities required by one role mesh with those
required by the other, role takers experience few
problems. If, however, the expectations that define
the appropriate activities associated with these roles
are incompatible, role conflict may occur (Brief,
Schuler, & Van Sell, 1981).
Interrole conflict develops when role takers
discover that the behaviors associated with one of
their roles are incompatible with those associated
with another of their roles. When assembly line
workers are promoted to managerial positions, for
example, they often feel torn between the demands
of their new supervisory role and their former roles
as friend and workmate. Similarly, college students
often find that their student role conflicts with
other roles they occupy, such as spouse, parent, or
employee. If the student role requires spending
every free moment in the library studying for
exams, other roles will be neglected.
Intrarole conflict results from contradictory
demands within a single role. A supervisor in a fac-
tory, for example, may be held responsible for over-
seeing the quality of production, training new
personnel, and providing feedback or goal-
orienting information. At another level, however,
supervisors become the supervised because they
take directions from a higher level of management.
Thus, the members of the team expect the manager
to keep their secrets and support them in any dis-
putes with the management, but the upper echelon
expects obedience and loyalty (Katz & Kahn, 1978).
Role conflict also arises when role takers and
role senders have different expectations. The newly
appointed supervisor may assume that leadership
means giving orders, maintaining strict supervision,
and criticizing incompetence. The work group,
role ambiguity Unclear expectations about the beha-
viors to be performed by an individual occupying a par-
ticular position within the group caused by a lack of
clarity in the role itself, a lack of consensus within the
group regarding the behaviors associated with the role, or
the individual role taker’s uncertainty with regard to the
types of behaviors expected by others.
role conflict A state of tension, distress, or uncertainty
caused by inconsistent or discordant expectations associ-
ated with one’s role in the group.
interrole conflict A form of role conflict that occurs
when individuals occupy multiple roles within a group
and the expectations and behaviors associated with one
of their roles are not consistent with the expectations and
behaviors associated with another of their roles.
intrarole conflict A form of role conflict that occurs
when the behaviors that make up a single role are incon-
gruous, often resulting from inconsistent expectations on
the part of the person who occupies the role and other
members of the group.
176 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

however, may feel that leadership entails eliciting
cooperation in the group, providing support and
guidance, and delivering rewards. Because the
demands of roles vary from one country to another,
in multicultural groups, individuals often misunder-
stand what their roles require of them.
Person–Role Conflict Sometimes, the behaviors
associated with a particular role are completely congru-
ent with the basic values, attitudes, personality, needs,
or preferences of the person who must enact the role:
A stickler for organization is asked to be in charge of
organizing the group’s records; a relationship expert
must take on a role that requires sensitivity and
warmth. In other cases, though, role fit is poor. An
easygoing, warm person must give performance
appraisals to the unit’s employees. An individual with
high ethical standards is asked to look the other way
when the company uses illegal accounting practices.
When role fit is low, people do not feel that they
can “be themselves” in their roles; they also question
their capacity to enact the role’s demands competently
(Talley et al., 2012). In one study, college students
who held roles in campus groups were asked if they
felt that their role “reflected their authentic self and
how much they felt free and choiceful as they fulfilled
their role” (Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001, p. 1136).
Those who felt more authentic when enacting their
role reported more positive mood, less negative
mood, and a higher level of satisfaction with life over-
all. Feeling competent when enacting one’s role was
also a powerful predictor of well-being. In another
study, students first rated themselves on 20 different
traits (e.g., cooperative, outgoing, and imaginative).
Later in the semester, they were given a list of five
discussion roles (idea person, devil’s advocate, moder-
ator, secretary, and announcer) and then asked to
indicate how valuable these 20 traits were for enacting
each role. For example, how important is it for the
idea person to be cooperative? Outgoing? Imagina-
tive? Then they were assigned to one of these roles
in a class discussion. As the concept of role fit suggests,
individuals assigned to roles that required the kinds of
characteristics that they believed they possessed felt
more authentic, and their moods were more positive
(Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001).
Roles and Well-Being Uncertainty about one’s
role, including role ambiguity, role conflict, and
poor role fit, results in stress and tension, and the
results are rarely positive for the group member or
for the group itself. In study after study, increases in
role ambiguity, role conflict, and person–role con-
flict are associated with a host of negative psycho-
logical and interpersonal outcomes, including
heightened levels of tension, employee turnover,
absenteeism, interpersonal conflict within the
group, and declines in job satisfaction and perfor-
mance quality (Ritter et al., 2016). Individuals who
experience conflicts between the work roles and
their family roles experience declines in family sat-
isfaction and, to a lesser extent, their work satisfac-
tion (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007). Role
stress is also associated with physical well-being.
One meta-analytic review of 79 studies of the rela-
tionship between role stress and physical maladies
concluded that role conflict predicts backaches,
sleep disturbances, dizziness, and gastrointestinal
problems, whereas role ambiguity predicted fatigue.
Interpersonal conflict—not getting along with
people at work—predicted increases in all of these
negative physical symptoms (Nixon et al., 2011).
What can groups and organizations do to help
their employees cope with role stress? One solution
involves making role requirements explicit: Managers
should write job descriptions for each role within the
organization and provide employees with feedback
about the behaviors expected of them (Schmidt
et al., 2014). The workplace can also be designed so
that potentially incompatible roles are performed in
different locations and at different times. In such
cases, however, the individual must be careful to
engage in behaviors appropriate to the specific role,
because slipping into the wrong role at the wrong
time can lead to both embarrassment and a loss of
coordination within the group (Goffman, 1959).
Some companies, too, develop explicit guidelines
regarding when one role should be sacrificed so that
role fit The degree of congruence between the demands
of a specific role and the attitudes, values, skills, and other
characteristics of the individual who occupies the role.
STRUCTURE 177
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

another can be enacted, or they may prevent employ-
ees from occupying positions that can create role con-
flict. Managers and the leaders of groups should also
be mindful of the characteristics of the members of
their groups and be careful to maximize role fit when
selecting members for particular tasks. Work set-
tings should also do what they can to maximize
the salutary effects of positive, supportive member
relationships. Antagonistic coworkers increase role
stress, but people who work with others who are
supportive and helpful experience fewer of the
negative consequences of role stress, particularly
when they work in settings that are more socially
focused (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008).
6-3 I NTERMEMBER
R E L A T I O N S
On the 17th day of their ordeal, an avalanche swept
down on the Andes survivors as they slept, filling
their makeshift shelter with snow. Many were
killed, and soon a new order emerged in the
group. Three young men stepped forward to take
over control of the group. They were cousins, and
their kinship bonds securely connected them to one
another, but they also were friends with many of
the remaining group members.
Connections among the members of a group
provide the basis for the third component of group
structure—the network of intermember relations.
Which one of the three cousins had the most
authority? Who in a group is most liked by others,
and who is an isolate? How does information flow
through a group from one person to the next? The
answers depend on the group’s status, attraction,
and communication networks.
6-3a Status Relations
The roles that emerged in the Andes group follow-
ing the crash defined who would lead, explore, and
care for the injured. The individuals who took on
these roles, however, were not equal in terms of
Was It You or Role Conflict?
Have you ever held a position in a group that you
never managed to master? That despite your best
efforts, the final result never quite met the group’s
standards? Your experience in the group may have
been due, in part, to inadequacies in the group’s
structure rather than your own insufficiencies. Review
that disappointing group experience using the items
listed below.
Instructions: Circle the number of any items with
which you agree.
1. Too often it was unclear what I was supposed to
do for this group.
2. The various roles I took on in this group did not
mesh well with each other.
3. The role I had in the group pulled me in too many
different directions.
4. I was expected to do things that I was uncom-
fortable doing.
5. I often wondered “Who is supposed to do what?”
in this group.
6. If I did what one of my roles required I could not
take care of my other duties.
7. I had a mishmash of mismatched responsibilities in
this group.
8. I could not be myself when I was in this group.
9. I did not know what I was supposed to do when I
was in this group.
10. I had taken on too many commitments to too
many groups.
11. People in my group misunderstood what I was
supposed to do for this group.
12. I too frequently had to do things in this group
that I did not agree with.
Scoring: Add up the number of items you circled
for each type of role-related frustration—role ambigu-
ity: Items 1, 5, and 9; interrole conflict: Items 2, 6, and
10; intrarole conflict: Items 3, 7, and 11; person–role
conflict: Items 4, 8, and 12. A score of 2 or more in any
category indicates that you may have experienced that
form of role-related stress as a member of the group.
178 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

authority in the group. In the Andes group, Fito
Strauch, Eduardo Strauch, and Fernandez formed
a coalition that controlled most of the group’s activ-
ities (see Figure 6.4). Below this top level was a
second stratum of members who had less power
than the leaders but more prestige than the occu-
pants of lower echelons. The explorers (“expedi-
tionaries”) occupied a special niche. These
individuals had been chosen to hike down the
mountain in search of help. In preparing for their
journey, they were given special privileges, includ-
ing better sleeping arrangements and more clothing,
food, and water. The rank-and-file members
included the youngest men in the group, the
injured, and those thought to be malingering.
Status Differentiation These stable variations in
members’ relative status have many names—authority,
power, status network, pecking orders, chain of command, or
prestige ranking—but whatever their label they result in
elevated authority for some and less for others. Group
members may start off on an equal footing, but over
time status differentiation takes place: Certain
individuals are granted, or they acquire, more
authority than others. Although the effects of status
vary from one group to the next, in general those
with higher status are afforded more attention by
others in the group, they are held in higher regard,
and they are more influential; they exert more control
over the group’s processes (Anderson et al., 2001).
Status differentiation turns groups with flat,
undifferentiated structures into ones with centralized,
hierarchical structures, rather like the pyramid-
shaped organizational charts of businesses and mili-
tary organizations. This pattern is ubiquitous across
groups, organizations, and cultures, and it will
develop quickly in both informal, socioemotional
groups and in those that are more task-focused
(Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). Furthermore, even
though individuals often express a preference for
more egalitarian structures where each person is
equal to every other person in terms of influence
and control of resources, people are generally more
comfortable when they are members of hierarchical
groups (Zitek & Tiedens, 2012).
Status Rank Who gains status in a group is the
complex result of individual, group, and cultural fac-
tors (Piazza & Castellucci, 2014). Some individuals,
given their personalities, skills, behavioral tendencies,
and levels of experience, are more readily granted
authority than others. Extraverts, for example, tend
to more quickly gain status in groups, relative to
introverts, as do individuals who are particularly
status differentiation The gradual rise of some group
members to positions of greater authority, accompanied
by decreases in the authority exercised by other
members.
Fito Strauch
E. Strauch Fernandez
Zerbino Paez Algora
Parrado
Younger Members
Francois, Jabella,
Mangino
Disabled and Injured
Methol, Inciarte,
Nogueira, Echavarren
Malingerers
Harley,
Delgado
Canessa Vizintin Turcatti
F I G U R E 6.4 The status hierarchy in the Andes group.
STRUCTURE 179
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

skilled at the kinds of tasks the group must attempt
(Anderson et al., 2001). But a person’s rise to a posi-
tion of status in a group cannot be predicted solely
on the basis of their individual qualities, for different
groups value different attributes. The qualities that
earn a person status in a boardroom differ from
those that predict one’s prestige in a rugby team or
a biker gang. Thus, predictions of status must take
into account the degree to which individuals’ attri-
butes match the qualities valued by the groups to
which they belong: the person-group fit. In another
group, Delgado might have been highly influential,
for he was quite articulate and socially skilled. In the
Andes group, however, the fit between his personal
qualities and the group was poor (see, too, Chapter 8’s
analysis of the sources of social power in groups).
6-3b Attraction Relations
Some of the Andes survivors rose to positions of
authority, while others remained relatively power-
less. Yet, to describe the group in just these terms
would be to miss a vital part of the group’s struc-
ture. The individuals were not just leaders and fol-
lowers but also friends and enemies. This network
of likes and dislikes among the members is called by
many names, including attraction relations, social
status, or sociometric structure.
Sociometric Differentiation Just as status differ-
entiation results in variations in status, so, too,
sociometric differentiation results in a stable
ordering of members from least liked to most
liked. Consider, for example, the relationships
among the rank-and-file group members and the
four designated explorers in the Andes group, Tur-
catti, Parrado, Vizintin, and Canessa. Nearly every-
one admired Turcatti and Parrado; their warmth,
optimism, and physical strength buoyed the sagging
spirits of the others. Vizintin and Canessa, in con-
trast, “did not inspire the same affection” (Read,
1974, p. 141). They liked each other but had few
other friends within the group. Mangino, one of
the younger men, was an exception; he liked
them both. Most of the others, however, quarreled
with them constantly (see Figure 6.5).
Attraction patterns like those in the Andes
group are not a disorganized jumble of likes and
dislikes but a network of stable social relationships.
Popular individuals (stars) receive the most positive
sociometric nominations within the group; rejected
group members (outcasts) get picked on the most
when group members identify whom they dislike;
neglected isolates receive few nominations of any
kind; and the average members are liked by several
others in the group. In the Andes group, for exam-
ple, Parrado was admired by all; he was, sociome-
trically, the star of the group. Delgado, in contrast,
was the group’s outcast; he had few friends in the
group, and the young men ridiculed him constantly
for not doing his share of the work.
Like most groups, the Andes survivors’ attrac-
tion relations showed signs of reciprocity, transitivity,
and homophily. Vizintin liked Canessa and Canessa
liked Vizintin in return. Such reciprocity, as noted
in Chapter 4, is a powerful tendency in most settings;
it has been documented repeatedly in a variety of
groups, including football teams, police squads, psy-
chotherapy groups, sororities, and classroom groups
(Kandel, 1978; Newcomb, 1979; Wright, Ingraham,
& Blackmer, 1984). Exceptions to reciprocity some-
times occur, and some forms of attraction tend to be
less reciprocal than other forms of attraction, but
these exceptions to the reciprocity principle are rela-
tively rare (Segal, 1979). The Andes group also
showed signs of network transitivity: Canessa liked
Mangino, Mangino liked Vizintin, and in confirma-
tion of transitivity, Canessa liked Vizintin (A likes B,
B likes C, so A likes C).
Clusters, or cliques, also existed in the Andes
group, for Vizintin, Canessa, and Mangino formed
a unified coalition within the larger group. Others
rarely hesitated to show their disdain for the mem-
bers of this subgroup, but these three were joined
by strong bonds of attraction. Subgroups, in
sociometric differentiation The development of
stronger and more positive interpersonal ties between
some members of the group, accompanied by decreases
in the quality of relations between other members of the
group.
180 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Is It Better to Be Liked by Many or to Be Well Liked by Just a Few?
As groups increase in size, subgroups—cliques—often
form, creating groups within groups, and these cliques
can substantially influence the cohesiveness of the
overall group. Sociologists Pamela Paxton and James
Moody (2003), for example, searched for and discov-
ered cliques in their analysis of a particularly cohesive
group: a sorority in a university located in the southern
United States that they gave the fictitious name of
Alpha Beta Chi, or ABX. ABX appeared to be a highly
cohesive group with strong relations among all mem-
bers, but their analysis revealed the existence of four
cliques within the overall group, which Paxton and
Moody labeled the Separatists, the Middles, the
Random Chapter Members, and the Small Clique.
The Separatists, for example, were relatively isolated
from the other members of the sorority but they
were closely linked to one another. The Middles, in
contrast, had more ties to people outside of their
clique. Also, some women in the sorority were sociometric
stars—liked by many—but some were rejected members
with only a single tie keeping them connected to the
group (“hangers-on”).
Paxton and Moody discovered a member’s com-
mitment to her sorority could be predicted by studying
her place in the group’s attraction network. Women in
the Middles, for example, had a stronger sense of
belonging to the group, particularly in comparison to
the Separatists. But it was the women who had close ties
to other well-liked women who were the most satisfied
with their group—even more so than women with
higher overall popularity scores, as indexed by how
many times a woman was picked as a friend by others.
Also, within any particular clique, those women with
more central locations within the clique tended to be
less committed to their sorority as a whole. Devoting
one’s relational energies to a small subset of the group
may leave little time for the interpersonal work required
to maintain good relations with the entire group.
Zerbino
Fernandez
E.
Strauch
F.
Strauch
Parrado
Paez
Methol
Delgado
Algorta
Vizintin
Canessa
Mangino
Turcatti
F I G U R E 6.5 Patterns of attraction and friendship in the Andes survivors groups. Each member is represented
as a circle, and the lines (or edges) connecting each person to other individuals indicate who is linked to whom.
(The relationships are for illustration only; social network data were not collected for this group.)
STRUCTURE 181
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

general, display homophily: members of cliques tend
to be more similar to one another than they are to
the members of the total group. Members of the
same racial category, for example, may join to
form a coalition, or the group may separate naturally
into all-male and all-female cliques (Lau & Mur-
nighan, 1998). Group members also often deliber-
ately form and manipulate cliques within larger
groups by systematically including some individuals
and excluding others (Adler & Adler, 1995).
Balance Theory Why do most groups’ attraction
relations tend to be reciprocal, transitive, and
homophilous? According to Fritz Heider’s (1958)
balance theory, some patterns of relationships in
groups are more structurally sound, or balanced,
than others, so groups naturally tend to gravitate
toward these rather than toward unbalanced states.
In the Andes survivors, the triad of Vizintin, Canessa,
and Mangino was balanced: everyone in it liked one
another, so all bonds were positive. What would
happen, however, if Mangino came to dislike
Canessa? According to Heider, this group would
be unbalanced. Such a group pattern is considered so
unstable that it has been given the ominous name
“the forbidden triad” (Granovetter, 1973). In gen-
eral, a group is balanced if (1) all the relationships are
positive, or (2) an even number of negative relation-
ships occurs in the group. Conversely, groups are
unbalanced if they contain an odd number of nega-
tive relations (Newcomb, 1963, 1981).
Because unbalanced sociometric structures gen-
erate tension among group members, people are
motivated to correct the imbalance and restore the
group’s equilibrium. Heider noted that this restora-
tion of balance can be achieved either through psy-
chological changes in the individual members or
through interpersonal changes in the group. If
Mangino initially likes only Vizintin and not
Canessa, he may change his attitude toward Canessa
when he recognizes the strong bond between Vizin-
tin and Canessa. Alternatively, group members who
are disliked by the other group members may be
ostracized, as in the case of Delgado (Taylor, 1970).
Finally, because the occurrence of a single negative
relationship within a group can cause the entire
group to become unbalanced, large groups tend to
include a number of smaller, better balanced cliques
(Newcomb, 1981). The Andes group, for example,
was somewhat unbalanced overall, but its subgroups
tended to be very harmonious. As a result, the group
was high in cohesiveness (Rambaran et al., 2015).
6-3c Communication Relations
In the Andes group, the three leaders stayed in close
communication, discussing any problems among
themselves before relaying their interpretations to
the other group members. The other members usu-
ally routed all information to the threesome, who
then informed the rest of the group. In contrast, the
injured members were virtually cut off from com-
munication with the others during the day, and they
occasionally complained that they were the last to
know of any significant developments. These regular
patterns of information exchange among members of
a group are called communication networks.
Patterns of communication among group mem-
bers, like other structural features of groups, are some-
times deliberately set in place when the group is
organized. Many companies, for example, adopt a
centralized, hierarchical communication network
that prescribes how information is passed up to super-
iors, down to subordinates, and horizontally to one’s
equals. Even when no formal attempt is made to
organize communication, an informal communication
network will usually take shape over time. Moreover,
this network tends to parallel status and attraction
patterns. Take the Andes group as a case in point:
Individuals who occupied high-status roles—the
balance theory An analysis of social relations that
assumes relationships can be either balanced (integrated
units with elements that fit together without stress) or
unbalanced (inconsistent units with elements that conflict
with one another). Unbalanced relationships create an
unpleasant tension that must be relieved by changing
some element of the system (developed by Fritz Heider).
communication network Patterns of information
transmission and exchange that describe who communi-
cates most frequently and to what extent with whom.
182 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

explorers, the food preparers, and the lieutenants—
communicated at much higher rates and with more
individuals than individuals who occupied the malin-
gerer and injured roles (Shelly et al., 1999).
Communication networks become more com-
plex and varied as groups increase in size, but some
of their basic forms are graphed in Figure 6.6. In a
wheel network, for example, most group members
communicate with just one person. In a comcon, all
members can and do communicate with all other
members. In a chain, communication flows from
one person to the next in a line. A circle is a closed
Wheel Comcon Pinwheel
Y Circle ComconWheel
Kite Circle ComconWheel
Three-person networks
Four-person networks
Five-person networks
F I G U R E 6.6 Examples of common communication networks in small groups. These networks are a sample of
the various kinds of communication networks that can be created by opening and closing lines of communication
among members. In most of these examples, the lines are undirected ones, with information flowing back and forth
between members. Only the pinwheel has directed, one-way communication links. The Y, Kite, and Wheel are central-
ized networks; the others are decentralized.
SOURCE: Adapted from “Communication Networks,” by M. E. Shaw. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 1). Copyright ©
1964 by Academic Press.
STRUCTURE 183
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

chain, and a pinwheel is a circle where information
flows in only one direction (Shaw, 1964).
Centrality is a particularly important feature of
communication networks. With centralized networks,
one of the positions in the group has a very high
degree of centrality—it is located at the crossroads
(the hub) of communications—relative to the other
positions in the group (e.g., the wheel, the kite, or
the Y in Figure 6.6). Groups with this type of struc-
ture tend to use the hub position as the data-
processing center, and its occupant typically collects
information, synthesizes it, and then sends it back to
others. In decentralized structures, like the circle or
comcon, the number of channels at each position is
roughly equal, so no one position is more “central”
than another. These groups tend to use a variety of
organizational structures when solving their problems,
including the so-called each to all pattern, in which
everyone sends messages in all directions until some-
one gets the correct answer (Shaw, 1964, 1978).
Network Centralization and Performance Early
studies of communication networks suggested that
groups with centralized networks outperformed
decentralized networks (Bavelas, 1948, 1950; Bavelas
& Barrett, 1951; Leavitt, 1951). A group with a wheel
structure, for example, took less time to solve pro-
blems, sent fewer messages, detected and corrected
more errors, and improved more with practice than
a group with a decentralized structure, such as a circle
or comcon (Shaw, 1964, 1978). The only exceptions
occurred when the groups were working on compli-
cated tasks such as arithmetic, sentence construction,
problem solving, and discussions. When the task was
more complex, the decentralized networks outper-
formed the centralized ones.
These results led social psychologist Marvin E.
Shaw to propose that network efficiency is related
to information saturation. When a group is working
on a problem, exchanging information, and making
a decision, the central position in the network can
best manage the inputs and interactions of the
group. As work progresses and the number of com-
munications being routed through the central
member increases; however, a saturation point can
be reached at which the individual can no longer
efficiently monitor, collate, or route incoming and
outgoing messages. Shaw noted that saturation can
occur in a decentralized network, but it becomes
more likely when a group with a centralized struc-
ture is working on complex problems. Because the
“greater the saturation the less efficient the group’s
performance” (Shaw, 1964, p. 126), when the task
is simple, centralized networks are more efficient
than decentralized networks; when the task is com-
plex, decentralized networks are superior. In conse-
quence, groups tend to gravitate naturally to more
decentralized network structures when the tasks
they must accomplish become more complex and
multifaceted (Brown & Miller, 2000).
These different types of centrality also influence
role allocations, overall commitment, and satisfaction
with membership in the group (Krackhardt & Porter,
1986; Lovaglia & Houser, 1996). Individuals who
occupy centralized positions in centralized networks,
such as a wheel or a Y (see Figure 6.6), are nearly
always thought to be the leader of their group, even
when they are randomly assigned to this position
(Leavitt, 1951). In studies of employees in work
groups, those who are more central in their network
are less likely to quit than are employees at the periph-
ery of the company’s communication network (Fee-
ley, 2000). Peripheral members are also more likely to
quit in clumps. Because individuals in decentralized
positions are connected to very few of the other
members, when one peripheral member leaves the
group, the individuals located near that person in
the network also tend to leave the group (Krackhardt
& Porter, 1986). Finally, centralized networks, by def-
inition, have fewer centralized positions than decen-
tralized positions. In consequence, the overall level of
satisfaction in a centralized group is almost always
lower than the level of satisfaction in a decentralized
group (Shaw, 1964).
Directional (Up–Down) Effects Only small
groups with decentralized communication net-
works outperform groups with centralized net-
works. Once the group becomes too large,
members can no longer keep up with the high
rate and quantity of information they are receiving.
Therefore, most organizations manage information
184 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

flow by adopting hierarchical communication net-
works (Goetsch & McFarland, 1980). In such net-
works, information can pass either horizontally
between members on the same rung of the com-
munication ladder or vertically up and down from
followers to leaders and back (Jablin, 1979).
Upward communications tend to be very differ-
ent from downward communications (Sias, Krone,
& Jablin, 2002). Downward-flowing information
moves from the leaders to the followers of the
group, and generally includes explanations of actions
to be taken, the reasons for actions, suggestions to act
in a certain manner, and feedback concerning per-
formance. In some cases, too, up–down messages are
urgent, sent using more immediate channels of com-
munication, such as email, rather than face-to-face
meetings (Byrne & LeMay, 2006). Upward commu-
nications from subordinates to superiors, in contrast,
include information on performance, insinuations
about a peer’s performance, requests for information,
expressions of distrust, factual information, or grie-
vances concerning the group’s policies. These
upward communications, moreover, tend to be
fewer in number, briefer, and more guarded than
downward communications. In larger organizations,
the upward flow of information may be much
impeded by the mechanics of the transfer process
and by the low-status members’ reluctance to send
information that might reflect unfavorably on their
performance, abilities, and skills (Sias, 2009). This
reticence of low-status members means that good
news travels quickly up the hierarchy, whereas the
top of the ladder will be the last to learn bad news.
6 – 4 A P P L I C A T I O N : S O C I A L
N ETWORK A NA LYSIS
In the fall of 1932, the staff of the Hudson School for
Girls asked psychiatrist Jacob Moreno to help them
solve a problem. In the preceding two weeks no
fewer than 14 residents had run away from the school.
The girls were housed in various residences across the
facility, and the staff could not identify why these girls,
at this time, decided to leave Hudson. Moreno could,
however. He discovered something hidden beneath
the surface of the groups at the Hudson School that
the staff had overlooked. Using the sociometric meth-
ods that he pioneered, he discovered that the girls who
ran away were joined together in an unnoticed web of
social connections and that these connections facili-
tated the transmission of influence and ideas—some
of which included the notion of leaving Hudson
School behind (Moreno, 1934; see Chapter 2).
Social network analysis (SNA) is particularly
useful in making what is often unseen and unnoticed
evident. Dyadic relations—status differences, likes
and dislikes, and patterns of communication—may
be clearly known by some in the group, but often
only a SNA will reveal the actual patterns and pro-
cesses that sustain these relationships.
6-4a Mapping Social Networks
Social network analysts are the geographers of the
human terrain. They seek to map the connections
that link individuals to one another and use that
information to determine precisely where people
are located relative to each other in interpersonal
space. This approach dates back to some of the earliest
work in sociology and psychology, for these fields’
founders all sought to make social relations tangible
(Borgatti et al., 2009). These efforts, which included
Moreno’s (1934) sociometric studies of attraction in
groups, experimental studies carried out at the Group
Networks Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (e.g., Bavelas, 1948; Leavitt, 1951), and
studies of community-level patterns of informa-
tional influence (e.g., Granovetter, 1973), laid the
foundation for social network analysis: A set of pro-
cedures defined by (a) a focus on the structures of
social groups and on linkages among group mem-
bers in particular; (b) the systematic measurement of
these structures; (c) the use of graphics to represent
these structures; and (d) the application of statistical
and mathematic procedures to quantify these struc-
tures (Freeman, 2004).
The attraction patterns of the Andes survivors
in Figure 6.5 illustrate an application of SNA. Each
member, or node, is represented as a circle, and the
lines, or edges, connecting nodes indicate who is
STRUCTURE 185
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

linked to whom. The arrows indicate the direction of
the relationship. An edge with a single arrow indicates
the relationship is a directed one, linking the sender to
the receiver. For example, the links between Zerbino
and Fito Strauch, Paez, and Delgado go out from
Zerbino and are received by Strauch, Paez, and
Delgado. An edge with arrows at both ends indicates
a symmetric, reciprocal relationship (for example,
Zerbino and Fernandez). Distance, in social networks,
is defined by relationships rather than physical dis-
tance. As noted in Chapter 3, two people who are
directly linked to one another, such as Zerbino and
Fito Strauch, are separated by a distance of 1: one
degree of separation. But it would take four steps or
links for Zerbino to reach Vizintin—Zerbino ! Fito
Strauch ! Turcatti ! Canessa ! Vizintin—hence,
four degrees of separation.
Individuals in Networks SNA is a multilevel
method. It yields information about each member
of the network—the egocentric network—as well
as insights into the group as a whole—the socio-
centric network. Starting with the individual-level
indexes, SNA describes each member’s location in
the network relative to the others. Where, for exam-
ple, were the cousins, Fito and Eduardo Strauch,
located in the network? Were any members located
on the fringes or isolated from the group altogether?
Who was in a position to communicate most easily
with the most members of the group? SNA answers
these questions by calculating and organizing rela-
tional information about all the members, including
how central they are in the group, how many people
link to them, and their location relative to other
people in the network. Some key indexes are cen-
trality, betweenness, and closeness.
■ Degree centrality is the number of connec-
tions or ties to a node. Fito Strauch, for
example, was connected by 10 ties to others
and to him, whereas Delgado was linked to
only two others.
■ Outdegree and indegree centrality can be
calculated when ties are directed rather than
undirected. Outdegree is the number of links
directed out from the node, whereas indegree is
the number of links directed in. Zerbino’s
outdegree centrality, for example, is four, since
he connects out to Delgado, Paez, Fito, and
Fernandez, but his indegree centrality is only
one because only Fernandez directs a relation-
ship to Zerbino. Outdegree and indegree cen-
trality are equivalent when the relationships
linking members are undirected, such as the
flow of communication in a back-and-forth
conversation or friends on Facebook (Wasser-
man & Faust, 1994; see Borgatti, 2005, for
more information about centrality indexes).
■ Betweenness takes into account ties to more
distant actors in the network (Freeman, 1979).
A position with a high degree of betweenness is
one that is located between many of the other
individuals in the network. Turcatti, for
example, has a much lower degree centrality
than Fito Strauch, but higher betweenness
since he joins the subgroup of Canessa, Vizin-
tin, and Mangino to the rest of the group. An
individual in such a position often acts as the
go-between or gatekeeper, linking people in
the network who could otherwise not contact
one another.
■ Closeness is determined by the distance to all
other members of the group. Fito Strauch, for
example, can reach all other members through
short paths, whereas other group members
(such as Delgado or Mangino) are separated
from others by greater distances.
degree centrality The number of ties between group
members; the group’s degree centrality is the average of
the direct connections among group members.
outdegree The number of ties initiated by the individ-
ual in a directed network.
indegree The number of ties received by the individual
in a directed network.
betweenness The degree to which a group member’s
position in a network is located along a path between
other pairs of individuals in the network.
closeness The inverse of the distance, in terms of ties, of
an individual from all others in the network.
186 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Groups as Networks Unlike egocentric indexes
that yield a value for every individual in the net-
work, sociocentric, or group-level, network
indexes describe the entire network—or, at least a
portion of it. Some common group-level features
of networks include size, density, cliques, and holes.
■ Density is determined by how many people are
linked to one another out of the total possible
number of links. The density of the Andes group,
for example, would be 1.0—the maximium—if
every one of its 13 members was linked to every
other member: 156 ties in all. (The formula for
calculating the number of possible ties in any
group, mentioned in Chapter 1, is n(n–1) if
relationships are directed and n(n–1)/2 if the
relationships are not directed.) However, for this
group, density is much lower than 1.0 because
many members are only linked to one or two
others and not to all 12—in fact, only 29 ties are
present in this group. Therefore, the density of
the group is .19 (29/156).
■ Cliques, or clusters, of subgroups often form
in larger networks. In the Andes group,
Vizintin, Canessa, and Mangino formed a
unified coalition within the larger group based
on friendship. Others rarely hesitated to show
their disdain for the members of this subgroup,
but these three were joined by strong bonds of
attraction. Also, Fito Strauch, Eduardo Strauch,
and Fernandez formed a second clique, in this
case based on authority—these three formed a
leadership triumvirate within the group.
■ Holes are “disconnections between nonredun-
dant contacts in a network” (Burt, 1997, p. 339)
or the gaps in a network that separate clusters or
cliques. Holes may have a positive effect on group
members if they buffer them from unwanted or
too frequent contact with others, but they can also
isolate members from the rest of the network.
Turcatti spanned the hole in the Andes group.
6-4b Applying Social Network
Analysis
Who influences, likes, dislikes, trusts, admires, or
talks to whom in any group? A simple question,
but one that may not be easily answered with out
first examining the group’s social network objec-
tively. Even when members’ interdependencies are
defined by the group’s organizational chart and the
defined roles of each member, this explicit, formal
structure may not correspond to the group’s informal
actual structure. Consider, for example, the group of
twelve individuals diagrammed in Figure 6.7a.
Michael is the designated leader of this hypothetical
group. He is responsible for three smaller teams
within the group, and these teams are managed by
Brandon, Ryan, and Jessica, respectively. At least,
that is the way the group is intended to function.
The group’s actual structure, however, is very differ-
ent from its formal, mandated structure. Michael is
the ostensible group leader, but Jessica (who is the
group’s staff coordinator) holds the more centralized
position within the group (see Figure 6.7b). Most of
the group members trust Jessica—and seek her out
for advice and information—rather than Michael.
Groups with unrecognized oddities in their con-
nections among their members are at risk: communi-
cation flow within the group could be disrupted,
decisions might be made by the wrong people, and
individuals may act in ways that are not consistent
with their roles in the group. When, for example,
Michael—the leader of the group charted in
Figure 6.7b, wanted to introduce changes to the
group’s procedures to enhance its performance, he
first met with Brandon, Ryan, and Jessica to explain
what he had in mind. Unfortunately, Jessica did not
agree with the changes, and so the plan’s implementa-
tion did not go very smoothly. It was not until
Michael, recognizing Jessica’s status in the group, met
with her and adapted his plan so that it met with her
approval, did the group adopt the changes he proposed
(Krackhardt, 1996).
density The degree of connectedness of the group’s
members, as indexed by the number of actual ties linking
members divided by the number of possibilities.
cliques In social network analysis, subgroups of interre-
lated members within the larger group context.
holes In social network analysis, gaps or schisms within
the network.
STRUCTURE 187
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Social network analyst David Krackhardt, in his
studies of the informal social networks in groups and
organizations, documented group after group whose
processes were disrupted and performance hobbled
by members’ misunderstanding of the group’s social
network. He concluded, “managers often pride
themselves on understanding how these networks
operate. They will readily tell you who confers on
technical matters and who discusses office politics
over lunch. What’s startling is how often they are
wrong” (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993, p. 104).
What’s the cure? Use social network analysis to
gather, integrate, and evaluate the web of relationship
ties that determine how the group gets it work done.
A group’s dynamics cannot be understood if the rela-
tionships linking each member to one another and to
the group are not understood. In group meetings, the
opinions of those with higher status carry more
weight than those of the rank-and-file members.
When several members form a subgroup within the
larger group, they exert more influence on the rest of
the group. And when people manage to gain the top
of the group’s status hierarchy, their influence over
others also increases. When working in a group, its
best to remain mindful of—and possibly openly dis-
cuss and clarify—the norms that guide members’
actions, the roles needed within the group, and the
way the members are connected one to another.
C HAPT ER R EV IEW
What is group structure?
1. The arrangement and organization of a group’s
members, interrelations, and interactions define
a group’s structure.
2. Three important elements of group structure
are norms, roles, and networks of relationships
among the members.
What are norms, how do they develop, and how do
they work to regulate behavior?
1. Norms are implicit, self-generating, and stable
standards for group behavior.
■ Prescriptive norms set the standards for
expected group behavior.
Michael
Brandon
Daniel
Rachel
Matt
Ryan Jessica
David
Lauren
Tyler
Emily
Sarah
(a) The group’s “formal” (official) structure (b) The group’s “informal” (unofficial) structure
Jessica
Michael
Brandon Ryan
Emily
SarahDavid
Lauren
Tyler
Matt
RachelDaniel
F I G U R E 6.7 The informal (actual) structure of a group does not always match the group’s mandated (formal)
structure.
188 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Proscriptive norms identify behaviors that
should not be performed.
■ Descriptive norms define what most people
do, feel, or think in the group (the
principle of social proof; Cialdini, 2009).
■ Injunctive norms differentiate between
desirable and undesirable actions.
2. Norms are both shared standards and internalized
standards (Fine, 2012). Milgram (1992) con-
firmed the surprisingly high level of discomfort
experienced when one violates a social norm.
3. Sherif’s study, involving the autokinetic effect,
indicated that norms develop gradually over
time as members align their actions with those
displayed by others (social tuning).
4. Because norms are transmitted to other group
members, they tend to be consensual, implicit,
self-generating, and stable. Norms influence
the actions of children as young as three years,
as well as individuals using social networking
sites, such as Facebook.
5. Norms influence a wide range of group pro-
cesses, including some unhealthy behaviors,
such as alcohol consumption, overeating, and
eating disorders.
■ Individuals consume more alcohol when
their group’s norms support
overindulgence.
■ In some cases, individuals misperceive their
group’s norms, and this pluralistic ignorance
can further contribute to alcohol
consumption.
■ Crandall (1988) documented the influence
of norms in his study of eating disorders in
groups.
What kinds of roles are common in groups, and how
do they influence the members?
1. Roles specify the types of behaviors expected
of individuals who occupy particular positions
within the group.
2. As members interact with one another, their
role-related activities become patterned (role
differentiation): task roles pertain to the work
of the group and relationship roles pertain to
relations among members.
3. Studies conducted by Bales (1950) and his
colleagues suggest that the same person rarely
holds both the task role and the relationship
role in the group.
4. A number of theories examine roles and
role-related processes.
■ Benne and Sheats’s (1948) functional the-
ory identified 27 distinct roles in discussion
groups, including task roles, relationship
roles, and individualistic roles.
■ Interactionist role theories draw on Goff-
man’s (1959) analyses of impression management
in their descriptions of the dynamic processes
involved in role negotiation. Bechky (2006)
applied this model to her analysis of produc-
tion crews.
■ Moxnes (1999) draws on Freud’s psychody-
namic theory to identify the deep roles in
groups, such as “mother” and “father” roles.
■ Bales’ (1970) Systematic Multiple Level
Observation of Groups (SYMLOG)
assumes that role patterning is sustained
by three basic dimensions: dominance/
submissiveness (Up/Down), friendliness/
unfriendliness (Positive/Negative), and
acceptance of task-orientation of author-
ity/nonacceptance of task-orientation of
authority (Forward/Backward).
5. Moreland and Levine’s (1982) theory of group
socialization describes the ways roles are allo-
cated to individuals and the ways in which
members transition through the roles of
prospective member, new member, full
member, marginal member, and former
member.
6. The role differentiation and socialization
processes often create stress and tension for
groups and group members.
■ Role ambiguity occurs when the behaviors
associated with a role are poorly defined.
STRUCTURE 189
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Role conflict occurs when group members
occupy two or more roles that call for
incompatible behaviors (interrole conflict) or
when the demands of a single role are
contradictory (intrarole conflict).
■ When role fit is low, members do not feel
that they match the demands of their roles.
How do social networks shape status, attraction, and
communication processes in groups?
1. Groups develop a stable pattern of variations in
authority and power (e.g., status networks and
chains of command) through a status differenti-
ation process. Groups naturally gravitate toward
hierarchical, centralized status networks.
2. Groups develop a stable pattern of variations in
attraction through sociometric differentiations.
■ Sociometric structures display reciprocity,
transitivity, and homophily.
■ Paxton and Moody’s (2003) study indi-
cated members bonded more closely to a
subgroup within the larger group were less
committed to their group as a whole.
■ Heider’s balance theory assumes sociometric
structures tend to reach a state of equilib-
rium in which likes and dislikes are bal-
anced within the group.
3. A group’s communication network may parallel
formally established paths, but most groups also
have an informal network that defines who
speaks to whom most frequently.
■ Centralized networks are most efficient,
but as Shaw’s (1964) concept of informa-
tion saturation suggests, not if tasks are too
complex and require high levels of infor-
mation exchange.
■ Individuals who occupy more central
positions in communication networks are
often more influential than those located at
the periphery, but because members are
usually less satisfied if in decentralized
positions, overall satisfaction is lower in
centralized networks.
■ More information generally flows
downward in hierarchical networks than
flows upward, and the information that is
sent upward is often unrealistically
positive.
4. As Moreno’s (1934) sociometric studies dem-
onstrated, SNA is useful in identifying unno-
ticed, latent aspects of the group’s structure.
SNA describes a group’s structure both visually
and quantitatively.
■ Individual-level (egocentric) indexes used
in SNA include degree centrality, indegree,
outdegree, betweenness, and closeness.
■ Group-level (sociocentric) indexes include
size, density, cliques, and holes.
■ Network analyses often reveal discrepan-
cies between the group’s formal status
network and its informal (actual) status
network (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993).
R E S O U R C E S
Chapter Case: The Andes Survivors
■ Alive by Piers Paul Read (1974) is the best-
selling account of the young men who
crashed in the Andes and survived by cre-
ating a potent group.
■ Miracle in the Andes by Nando Parrado
(2006), with Vince Rause, is a first-person
account of the collective spirit of the rugby
team. Parrado, the author, was one of the
men who hiked down from the mountain
to bring back help.
Norms
■ “Managing Normative Influences in
Organizations” by Noah J. Goldstein and
190 C H A P T ER 6
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Robert B. Cialdini (2011) reviews the
basic tenets of the focus theory of norma-
tive conduct and the intriguing empirical
studies that support it.
■ Social Norms, edited by Michael Hechter
and Karl-Dieter Op (2001), is a collection
of solid theoretical and empirical reviews
of the nature of norms and their influence
in groups.
Roles
■ “Role Theory” by Bruce J. Biddle (2001)
provides a concise summary of the history
of role theory in the social sciences, as well
as a review of current applications and
trends.
■ Analysis of Social Interaction Systems, edited
by A. Paul Hare, Endre Sjøvold, Herbert
G. Baker, and Joseph Powers (2005),
includes 26 chapters dealing with a variety
of aspects of the SYMLOG method of
group analysis with sections pertaining to
leadership, organizational development,
cross-cultural implications, and
methodology.
Intermember Relations
■ “Network Analysis in the Social Sciences”
by Stephen P. Borgatti, Ajay Mehra, Daniel
J. Brass, and Giuseppe Labianca (2009)
provides a concise, but comprehensive,
overview of the uses of social network
analysis in the social sciences, in general, and
in the study of groups, in particular.
■ “Social Network Analysis in the Science of
Groups: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal
Applications for Studying Intra- and
Intergroup Behavior” by Ralf Wölfer,
Nadira S. Faber, and Miles Hewstone
(2015) provides an overview of the use of
SNA methods with cross-sectional and
longitudinal data.
STRUCTURE 191
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 7
Influence
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
An interpersonal undercurrent of social influence
flows beneath the surface of most groups, pushing
members together: toward greater consensus, uni-
formity, and conformity. But other forces pull
members apart: promoting disagreement, unique-
ness, and independence. Groups require both con-
formity and dissent if they are to adapt to changing
circumstances. These processes are of particular
importance in groups that must make decisions
about guilt and innocence: juries.
■ When do people conform in groups?
■ When do people resist the group’s influence
and, instead, change the group?
■ What are the sources of social influence?
■ Does social influence shape juries’ verdicts?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
7-1 Majority Influence: The Power of the Many
7-1a Conformity and Independence
7-1b Conformity or Independence
7-1c Conformity across Contexts
7-1d Who Will Conform?
7-2 Minority Influence: The Power of the Few
7-2a Conversion Theory of Minority Influence
7-2b Predicting Minority Influence
7-2c Dynamic Social Impact Theory
7-3 Sources of Group Influence
7-3a Implicit Influence
7-3b Informational Influence
7-3c Normative Influence
7-3d Interpersonal Influence
7-3e When Influence Inhibits: The Bystander
Effect
7-4 Application: Understanding Juries
7-4a Jury Dynamics
7-4b How Effective Are Juries?
7-4c Improving Juries
Chapter Review
Resources
192
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

When we are alone we can act as best suits our own
desires and motivations, but when in groups we are
interdependent: We must adjust our efforts, activi-
ties, and choices so that they fall into step with
those of the group. This integration of individuals
into a coordinated whole is made possible by social
influence—interpersonal processes that change
people’s thoughts, feelings, or actions. A jury mem-
ber changing his vote, clique members mimicking
the mannerisms of the group’s leader, children
endorsing the political views of their parents, and
a Twitter user retweeting a popular tweet are influ-
enced by other people rather than by their own
individual ideation. People would not be social
beings if they were not influenced by others.
Much of this influence flows from the group to
the individual (see Figure 7.1). When the majority of
the group’s members champion a particular view,
they may pressure the few dissenting group members
Twelve Angry Men: Social Influence in Juries
When the 12 members of the jury left the courtroom
that afternoon, most were thinking the same thing: He
is guilty. The prosecutor had presented the evidence
carefully—the unusual knife, the condition of the
body, and the history of tension between the young
man and his father—and besides: an eyewitness testi-
fied that she saw the son kill his own father. Once in
the jury room, the foreman took a straw vote, asking,
“All those voting guilty, please raise your hand.” Four
jurors raise their hands immediately and, after a hesi-
tation, another seven joined in. Then all eyes turned to
one member of the jury, Juror #8. He looked down at
the table. “Eleven to one,” announced the foreman
(Rose & Sergel, 1958).
The jurors, from that moment onward, began
the task of bending Juror #8 to the will of the group.
Juror #3 leaned across the table and muttered to #8,
“You are in left field.” Juror #4 urged Juror #8 to be
reasonable—it is far more likely that the 11 members
who agree on guilt are correct and that the lone indi-
vidual is wrong. Juror #3 tried to bully the holdout,
exclaiming, “You sat right in the court and heard the
same things I did. The man’s a dangerous killer. You
could see it!” (Rose & Sergel, 1958, p. 14). Juror #7,
who wants to end the discussion quickly since he has
plans for the evening, told #8 that it is hopeless to
resist: “I think the guy’s guilty. You couldn’t change
my mind if you talked for a hundred years.” Juror #8
answered back, “I want to talk for a while” (Rose &
Sergel, 1958, p. 15).
And talk they do. As Juror #8 explains the source
of his doubts, suggests alternative interpretations of
the evidence, and questions the accuracy of some of
the witnesses, the jurors became uncertain. They voted
again and again, and with each vote the numbers
favoring guilt and innocence shifted: from 11 against
1 to 10 against 2 to 9 against 3 until, in time, the tables
turned. Juror #3, who was so sure that the son was
guilty, finds that he is now the lone holdout. The
group then pressured him to change, and grudgingly,
angrily, he admits he was wrong, and the shift of
opinion is complete. The jury’s verdict: not guilty.
Majority influence
Minority influence
F I G U R E 7.1 Social influence results from the
majority’s impact on the minority (majority influence)
and the minority’s impact on the majority (minority
influence). Majority influence is indicated by straight
lines, as it tends to be direct. Minority influence is more
indirect, and so is indicated by the curved dotted lines of
influence from the lone minority back to the majority
group members.
social influence Interpersonal processes that change the
thoughts, feelings, or behaviors of another person.
INF LUENCE 193
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

to adopt the majority’s view. In the jury described by
Reginald Rose in his play Twelve Angry Men, for
example, the 11 jurors who favored guilt sought to
persuade the one juror to change his vote (Rose &
Sergel, 1955). However, social influence also flows
from the individual to the group. If the group is to
meet new challenges and improve over time, it must
recognize and accept ideas that conflict with the status
quo. In Twelve Angry Men, the lone minority held his
ground, offered reasons for his views, and he pre-
vailed. Whereas majority influence increases the
consensus within the group, minority influence
sustains individuality and innovation. In this chapter,
we consider the nature of this give-and-take between
majorities and minorities and the implications of this
influence process for understanding how juries make
their decisions (Levine & Prislin, 2013; Levine &
Tindale, 2015).
7-1 M AJORI T Y IN F LU ENCE:
THE P O W ER OF THE M ANY
Groups offer their members many advantages over
a solitary existence, but these advantages come at a
cost. The jurors sought to influence the other jur-
ors, but all the while the jury was influencing them:
It swayed their judgments, favored one interpreta-
tion of reality over another, and encouraged certain
behaviors while discouraging others. When the
group first polled the members, several were uncer-
tain but they voted guilty to go along with others.
They had to make a choice between alternatives,
and they chose the alternative favored by the
majority of the others even though that choice did
not coincide with their own personal preferences.
They gave more weight to social information—the
majority’s opinion—than they gave to personal
preferences. They displayed conformity (Claidière
& Whiten, 2012).
7-1a Conformity and Independence
When do people conform? Muzafer Sherif verified
that group members modify their judgments so that
they match those of others in their groups (1936; see
chapter 6). Theodore Newcomb’s study of Benning-
ton students showed that members of a group will
gradually take as their own the group’s position on
political and social issues (1943; see chapter 2). But it
was social psychologist Solomon Asch who most
clearly demonstrated the power of the many to
influence the few (Asch, 1952, 1955, 1956).
The Asch Situation The groups in the Asch situ-
ation were given a simple task. Asch told the young
men who volunteered for his study that he wanted
them to look at some lines and decide which ones
were of the same lengths. Asch then showed them
two cards like those in Figure 7.2. One card showed
the “standard” line. The other displayed three lines of
varying length. The students then picked the one line
from the second card that was of the same length as the
standard line on the first card. This comparison process
was repeated 18 times, or 18 trials, and on each occa-
sion, the students announced their answers aloud.
The groups seemed ordinary enough, but looks
can be deceiving. All but one of the students were
Asch’s confederates, who deliberately answered incor-
rectly on 12 of the 18 trials. The one real subject was
always seated in the seventh chair, so he could listen
to six of the other group members’ judgments before
he made his own. On rigged trials, the first confeder-
ate would glance at the cards and confidently
majority influence Social pressure exerted by the larger
portion of a group (the majority), directed toward indi-
vidual members and smaller factions within the group
(the minority).
minority influence Social pressure exerted by a lone
individual or smaller faction of a group (the minority),
directed toward members of the majority.
conformity A change in one’s actions, emotions, opi-
nions, judgments, and so on that reduces their discrep-
ancy with these same types of responses displayed by
others.
Asch situation An experimental procedure developed
by Solomon Asch in his studies of conformity to group
opinion. Participants believed they were making percep-
tual judgments as part of a group, but the other members
were trained to make deliberate errors on certain trials.
194 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

announce the wrong answer. The next confederate
would nod his head in agreement and say the same
incorrect answer. After six wrong answers, it was the
subject’s turn. He faced a choice: agree with everyone
else’s judgments or give the answer that he personally
thought was correct.
When the students worked alone, they rarely
made an error. But in the group with the erroneous
confederates, about one-third of the subjects con-
formed by also giving that answer. As Figure 7.3 indi-
cates, three out of every four subjects made at least one
error during the experiment. Some conformed even
more than that—about 5% conformed every time the
majority made a mistake—but the average conformity
rate across the sessions was 36.8%. Asch’s summary:
“The majority deflected considerably the estimates of
the minority in its direction. Whereas the judgments
were virtually free of error under control conditions,
one-third of the minority estimates were distorted
toward the majority” (Asch, 1956, p. 69).
Types of Conformity On the first straw vote in
the Twelve Angry Men jury, most of the jurors voted
guilty, but they did so for different reasons. Juror #9,
for example, had doubts but went along with the
group. Juror #3, in contrast, voted guilty on the first
straw vote but he was not conforming: He had decided
the defendant was guilty when he heard the eyewit-
ness’s testimony. These jurors agreed with the major-
ity, but each one illustrates a specific type of conformity
(Nail, Di Domenico, & MacDonald, 2013).
■ Compliance (or acquiescence): When compli-
ance occurs, members privately disagree with
the group but they publicly express an opin-
ion that matches the opinion expressed by the
majority of the group.
■ Conversion (or private acceptance): Members
change their position on the issue because they
think the group is correct; they personally
accept the group’s position as their own.
■ Congruence (or uniformity): Members agree with
the group from the outset, so they are not
responding to the group’s influence when they
express their position publicly. They do not need
to shift their opinion in the direction advocated by
the group because it was already their position.
Types of Nonconformity Nonconformity—
disagreeing with others in the group—also takes
several forms. Juror #8, for example, was no con-
formist; he refused to vote guilty because he wished
to challenge the group’s decision to skip the delib-
eration process. He was unsure of the defendant’s
innocence, but he disagreed in order to challenge
the group’s norms (Packer, 2008b). But, Juror #8
was also something of an individualist, the kind of
person who often did things to differentiate himself
from what others were doing. Nonconformity, like
conformity, comes in several flavors.
■ Independence (dissent): Members disagree by
publicly expressing ideas, beliefs, and judg-
ments that are consistent with their personal
standards.
1 2 3
F I G U R E 7.2 An example of the problems given to
participants in the Asch study. Subjects were told to look at
the standard line (on the left) and then match it to one of
the three lines on the right. The task was an easy one, but
all of the group members, save the one true subject, were
Asch’s confederates who deliberately made many mistakes.
SOURCE: Asch, Solomon E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity:
I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Mono-
graphs: General and Applied, 70, No. 9. Whole No. 416.
compliance (acquiescence) Change that occurs when
the targets of social influence publicly accept the influ-
encer’s position but privately maintain their original
beliefs.
INF LUENCE 195
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Anticonformity (counterconformity): Members
who display anticonformity express ideas or
take actions that are the opposite of whatever
the group favors.
■ Strategic anticonformity (devil’s advocate): Mem-
bers take a position that opposes that endorsed
by the majority of the members publically, even
though privately they agree with the majority.
7-1b Conformity or Independence
Most of Asch’s subjects displayed one of two forms of
social response to the group pressure: compliance or
independence. Some questioned their own discern-
ment and ended up believing that the others were
right. But most thought the majority was wrong:
They “suspected that the majority were ‘sheep’ fol-
lowing the first responder, or that the majority were
victims of an optical illusion; nevertheless, these suspi-
cions failed to free them at the moment of decision”
(Asch, 1955, p. 33). Had Asch’s groups been making
important decisions—deliberating over a verdict in a
murder trial, forging a plan to deal with an emer-
gency, or crafting a solution to a difficult problem—
then the participants would have let the group make a
mistake at least one out of every three times.
Nearly all of the subjects, however, disagreed
with the majority more frequently than they agreed.
People often conformed, but the average participant
disagreed 9 out of 12 times. Asch’s study is often used
to suggest that people are, by nature, conformists who
tend to go along unthinkingly with whatever the
majority favors. The data, however, suggest other-
wise. Participants did not comply on all the trials;
instead, their more frequent social response was to
remain independent. They spoke their minds even
when confronted with a unanimous majority and
agreed with the others only occasionally—when
their error was a slight one or by choosing an answer
that was intermediate between the correct answer and
the majority’s mistaken one (Hodges & Geyer, 2006).
People sometimes forget that the predominant
response in the Asch study was nonconformity rather
than conformity.
37%
28%
5%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
76%
How many times did the
member conform, on average?
How many group members
never conformed?
How many group members
conformed 8 times or more?
How many individuals made at
least one error when tested alone?
How many members made
at least one error?
24%
F I G U R E 7.3 Results of Asch’s study of conformity.
SOURCE: Data from Asch, Solomon E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied, 70, No. 9. Whole No. 416.
anticonformity (or counterconformity) Deliberately
expressing opinions, making judgments, or acting in
ways that are different from those of the other group
members or the group’s norms in order to challenge
the group and its standards rather than simply for the
purpose of expressing one’s personal preferences.
196 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

7-1c Conformity across Contexts
Asch studied conformity in newly formed groups
working on a very easy task that was not particu-
larly consequential. The members did not know
each other well; they sat together in a well-lit
room; they usually announced their decisions
aloud. Did these details matter? Once Asch con-
firmed the ubiquity of conformity, he and other
researchers systematically searched for factors that
influence conformity and independence.
Unanimity Juror #8 in Twelve Angry Men faced 11
other men who disagreed with him. Each participant
in Asch’s study faced a similar situation, for he was
the only one in the group who favored the correct
line. Did some of the force of the Asch situation
derive from the unanimity of the majority?
Asch examined this possibility by replicating his
study, but this time he provided each subject with
an ally; either another subject or a confederate who
publically announced his answer before the subject
responded. As predicted, when participants had an
ally, conformity rates were cut to one-fourth of
their previous levels. In yet another variation,
Asch arranged for some confederates to disagree
with the majority but still give an incorrect answer.
Participants did not agree with the erroneous non-
conformist, but his dissent made it easier for them
to express their own viewpoint (Asch, 1955, 1956).
Why is a unanimous majority so influential? First,
individuals who face the majority alone, without a sin-
gle ally, bear 100% of the group’s pressure. Psychologi-
cally, being completely alone is very different from
having another person join with you against the others
(Allen, 1975). Gaining a partner, however, helps one
withstand the pressure to conform only as long as the
partner remains supportive. Asch discovered that if the
partner reverts back to the majority position, then sub-
jects doas well.Second,thelarger the size of the minor-
ity, the smaller the majority; each time a member of the
Would You like Pepperoni on That?
People’s responses to others’ influence take many
forms. Compare them by imagining you and a group
of your friends are ordering a pizza, and the majority
of the members quickly state, in unison, “We must
have pepperoni on our pizza.” Will you agree with
them or will you resist? Your response can be called
many names, depending on your public statements on
the pepperoni issue and your private opinions before
and after the deliberation.
Instructions. For each example, write in the letter
of the matching type of social responses where:
a. compliance
b. conversion
c. independence
d. anticonformity
e. strategic anticonformity
f. congruence
1. You dislike pepperoni and try to talk to
the group about putting pepperoni on
only half. They refuse. You pick the pep-
peroni off your slices while frowning.
2. You don’t really care about pepperoni,
but you like being a rebel, so you argue
for a vegetarian white pizza.
3. You dislike pepperoni, but go along with
the group. After dinner, you say that the
pepperoni was good, but privately you
still dislike pepperoni.
4. You like pepperoni, but you think the
group should consider alternatives. So,
you deliberately argue for other top-
pings. But you are fine when the group
gets a pepperoni pizza.
5. You dislike pepperoni, but don’t say any-
thing when the group orders. The pizza is
great, and you change your mind about
pepperoni. Next time you order a pizza,
you add pepperoni.
6. You like pepperoni so you speak up in
favor of getting pepperoni when the
group discusses its order.
Solutions: 1(c), 2(d), 3(a), 4(e), 5(b), 6(f)
INF LUENCE 197
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

majority shifts to the minority, the minority grows
stronger and the majority weaker (Clark, 1990).
Third, a partner makes a very embarrassing situation
less so. The kinds of judgments that Asch studied
were simple ones; “the correct judgment appeared so
obvious that only perceptual incompetents, fools, or
madmen could err” (Ross, Bierbrauer, & Hoffman,
1976, p. 149). A partner—and particularly one who is
the first to dissent—takes much of the risk for going
against the group (Sabini, Garvey, & Hall, 2001).
Strong and Weak Situations Asch studied con-
formity in a social situation that was simple, but also
strong. Weak situations do not pressure people to
act as everyone else does, and so their actions in
such settings tend to be shaped more by their per-
sonal proclivities rather than by social constraints.
Strong situations, in contrast, leave very little
opportunity for people to act in unusual or idiosyn-
cratic ways (Mischel, 1977).
People conform more in strong situations that
undercut their capacity to resist the group (see
Table 7.1). We are, for example, more likely to
conform when the majority seems well-informed,
the group is highly cohesive, and members are try-
ing to make a good impression. Others situations, in
contrast, encourage individuality and dissent. We
can more easily resist pressures to conform when
our identity is not known to others or the problem
is one that is so complex that the correct answer is
difficult to determine (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004;
Cialdini & Trost, 1998).
Consider, for example, the difference between
the Asch situation and the so-called Crutchfield
situation. Participants in Asch’s studies stated
their choices aloud under the watchful eyes of all
the other members, and this procedure likely
increased their feelings of embarrassment and of
being evaluated. Asch’s procedure was also ineffi-
cient, for many confederates were required to study
just one participant. Psychologist Richard Crutch-
field (1955) solved this latter problem by eliminat-
ing the confederates. In Crutchfield’s laboratory,
the participants made their judgments while seated
in individual cubicles. They flipped a switch on a
response panel to report their judgments to the
researcher, and their answers would supposedly
light up on the other group members’ panels as
well. Crutchfield told each person in the group
that he or she was to answer last, and he himself
simulated the majority’s judgments from a master
control box. Thus, during the critical trials, Crutch-
field could lead participants to think that all the
other participants were giving erroneous answers.
The Crutchfield situation sacrificed face-to-face
interaction between the participant and the confeder-
ates, but was efficient: Crutchfield could study five or
more people in a single session, and he did not need
to recruit confederates. Because group members’
responses were private, however, fewer people con-
formed in the Crutchfield situation relative to the
Asch situation (Bond & Smith, 1996). The procedure
was also very unusual—at least at that time. Nowa-
days it is far more usual for group members to interact
at a distance: Online groups are, in a sense, the mod-
ern form of the Crutchfield situation.
Strength in Numbers (Up to a Point) How
many people does it take to create maximum confor-
mity? Is two against one enough? Are smaller groups
less influential? Is 11 to 1 too many, since individuals
feel so anonymous in large groups, they can resist
group forces? Asch explored these questions by study-
ing groups with 2–16 members. His findings, summa-
rized in Figure 7.4, confirm that larger majorities are
more influential—but only up to a point. People in
two-person groups conformed very little; most were
unsettled by the erroneous choices of their partner,
but they did not go along with him or her (3.6%
error rate). But the error rate climbed to 13.6%
when participants faced two opponents, and when a
single individual was pitted against three others, con-
formity jumped to 31.8%. Asch studied even larger
groups, but he found that with more than three
Crutchfield situation An experimental procedure
developed by Richard Crutchfield to study conformity.
Participants who signaled their responses using an elec-
tronic response console believed they were making judg-
ments as part of a group, but the responses of the other
members that appeared on their console’s display were
simulated.
198 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

T A B L E 7.1 A Sampling of Group and Situational Characteristics That Reliably Increase
and Decrease Conformity
Factor Conformity Is More Likely If Conformity Is Less Likely If
Accountability (Quinn &
Schlenker, 2002)
Individuals are striving for acceptance
by others whose preferences are
known
Individuals are accountable for their
actions and are striving for accuracy
Accuracy (Mausner, 1954) Majority’s position is reasonable or
accurate
Majority’s position is unreasonable or
mistaken
Ambiguity (Spencer &
Huston, 1993)
Issues are simple and unambiguous Issues are complex and difficult to
evaluate
Anonymity (Tsikerdekis,
2013)
Respondents’ identities are known to
others
Respondents are anonymous
Attraction (Kiesler &
Corbin, 1965)
Members are attracted to the group or
its members
Members dislike each other
Awareness (Krueger &
Clement, 1997)
Individuals are aware they disagree
with the majority
Individuals do not realize their position
is unusual
Cohesion (Lott & Lott, 1961) Group is close-knit and cohesive Group lacks cohesion
Commitment to membership
(Kiesler, Zanna, & Desalvo,
1966)
Individuals are committed to remaining
in the group
Groups or membership are temporary
Distance (Gardete, 2015) Airline passengers are seated side by
side
Airline passengers are seated in different
rows
Forewarning and depletion
(Janssen, Fennis, & Pruyn,
2010)
Individuals are ego-depleted Individuals are forewarned about a
future social influence attempt
Priming (Epley & Gilovich,
1999)
Unnoticed cues in the setting prime
conformity
Situational cues prime independence
Public commitment to
position (Gerard, 1964)
Individuals did not initially conform but
their responses are private
Individuals did not initially conform and
their responses are public
Situational motivators
(Griskevicius et al., 2006)
Nonconformists could be revealed as
incorrect
Individuals are motivated to stand out
from the crowd
Size (Asch, 1955) Majority is large Majority is small
Task (Baron, Vandello, &
Brunsman, 1996)
Task is important but very difficult Task is important and easy, or task is
trivial
Unanimity (Asch, 1955) Majority is unanimous Several members disagree with the
majority
INF LUENCE 199
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

opponents, conformity increased only slightly (reach-
ing its peak of 37.1% in the seven-person groups);
even 16 against 1 did not raise conformity appreciably
above the level achieved with three against one (Asch,
1952, 1955).
Social psychologist Rod Bond (2005), in a
meta-analytic review of conformity in the Asch sit-
uation, confirmed the pattern shown in Figure 7.4,
but also noted that the precise shape of the relation-
ship between size and influence depends on a num-
ber of factors. When, for example, individuals in
larger groups state their opinions publicly, the find-
ings tend to match the Asch pattern. But when they
keep their opinions to themselves, people are more
likely to dissent. A large group can also lose some of
its influence when its members do not reach their
decisions independently of one another. If indivi-
duals learn that a six-person group disagrees with
them but they believe that the group members
worked together as a group to make their decision,
then the size of the group matters less. But when
individuals believe that the other group members
reached their conclusions independently of one
another, then their influence increases as the num-
ber of sources increases. For example, 2 two-person
groups are more influential than 1 four-person
Why Do People Conform Even in Online Groups?
When people began to use the Internet to interact
with each other, many wondered how users would act
once they were free to express themselves without
fear of social embarrassment, reprisal, or recrimina-
tion. Would not online interactions trigger
disinhibition—the reduction in self-regulation—with
the result that emotions, thoughts, and opinions that
would normally be kept private would be expressed
publicly (Joinson, 2007)? Interactions on the Internet, it
was feared, might be rife with hostility, conflict, inap-
propriate self-disclosures, and wanton disregard of
social conventions.
The Internet includes its share of nonconformists:
angry users who TYPE IN ALL CAPS, “trolls” who post
hostile comments in discussion areas, vandals who
deface Wikipedia pages, and websites that vilify indi-
viduals and social groups. But research suggests that
people conform as much when online as when offline
(Bargh & McKenna, 2004). Through discussion, con-
sensus emerges within the group, and members move
in the direction of agreement rather than continually
debating issues. Online groups develop norms that
structure interactions and status, and new members
are socialized to follow these rules. Members some-
times act in ways that violate the group’s norms of
etiquette (“netiquette”) by expressing hostility and
exchanging insults, but such deviations are usually
sanctioned, and offenders who do not conform are
eventually ostracized (Moor, Heuvelman, & Verleur,
2010).
Conformity may actually be more prevalent in
online groups rather than offline groups, and the
Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects—or
SIDE for short—explains why. SIDE suggests that in the
relatively anonymous online world, individuals tend to
define themselves in terms of their collective, social
identities rather than their individualistic, personal
identities. Online interactions are depersonalized ones:
individual motivations, qualities, and beliefs are less
salient so the social component of the self comes to
the fore. Some people, faced with increased deper-
sonalization, may strive to reassert their individuality
by acting in unusual, distinctive ways, but if their
group identity is salient, they will more likely conform
to the group’s norms (Spears & Postmes, 2015).
Because of these “SIDE effects,” when individuals
receive electronic messages from other individuals—
even people they do not know and will not communi-
cate with in the future—they frequently change their
decisions to match the recommendations of these
anonymous strangers (Lee & Nass, 2002). When small
groups of students use email in classes, each group
develops idiosyncratic norms that regulate the group’s
interactions, and conformity to these norms increases
through the semester (Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 2000).
People comply with norms of reciprocity and coopera-
tion in online groups even when completely anony-
mous, provided they identify with the group (Cress,
2005). These findings suggest that social pressures may
be relaxed to some extent in online groups, but they
are not erased. The social forces that guide group
members in their face-to-face meetings influence them
even when they are connected by computers rather
than conference room tables.
200 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

group whose members worked together (Wilder,
1977; see also Jackson, 1987; Wolf, 1987).
Social Impact Social psychologist Bibb Latané’s
(1981) social impact theory provides a general
framework for organizing what researchers have
learned about conformity pressures in groups.
Drawing on studies of psychophysics, Latané sug-
gests that the magnitude of social influence pres-
sures depends on the number of sources, their
strength, and their psychological immediacy. Con-
sider, for example, what happens when a single
lightbulb is lit in an otherwise dark room. The
room is illuminated, but how brightly? It depends
on the strength of the lightbulb—a 25-watt bulb
gives just enough light to see by, whereas a flood-
light might reach every corner. And where is the
lamp located? A lamp in the corner may leave the
opposite corner of the room in shadows, but if you
want more light, you can always turn on more
lamps. Eventually, however, the room will become
so bright that turning on more lights will not make
much difference.
Analogously, social impact is contingent on the
relative strength of the other group members. Like a
25-watt bulb surrounded by 100-watt bulbs, a person
with relatively little status in the group will likely
choose to conform (Jetten, Hornsey, & Adarves-
Yorno, 2006). Immediacy also matters, for people
who are physically nearby will have more of an
impact than people who are seated far away or are
absent (Gardete, 2015). In the Twelve Angry Men
jury, for example, the first juror to change to agree
with juror #8 was juror #9. Sheer numbers are also
critical. As with lightbulbs, the more people, the more
impact they will have on you—up to a point. Just as
the first light turned on in a dark room has more of an
impact than the hundredth, the first person who
expresses a different opinion has more impact than
the hundredth person, or expressed more formally:
“there is a marginally decreasing effect of increased
supplies of people” (Latané, 1981, p. 344). In sum,
social impact is a function of the strength (S), the
immediacy (I), and the number (N) of sources present,
0 2 4 7 151 3 6 9
C
o
n
fo
rm
it
y
Number of sources of influence
Conformity
low
with 1
source
Adding more sources does not appreciably
increase conformity
Increased conformity with 2 or 3 sources
F I G U R E 7.4 The relationship between conformity and group size. Studies conducted in a number of settings
suggest that few people conform when they face just one other person who disagrees with them, but that conformity
rises rapidly when a lone individual faces a group of two or three. Adding more people to the majority beyond three
does not appreciably increase conformity.
social impact theory An analysis of social influence,
which proposes that the impact of any source of influence
depends upon the strength, the immediacy, and the num-
ber of people (sources) present (developed by Bibb Latané).
INF LUENCE 201
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

or Social Impact ¼ fSIN (Latané, 1981, 1996, 1997;
Latané & Bourgeois, 2001; Latané & Wolf, 1981;
MacCoun, 2012).
Latané’s principle of social impact explains peo-
ple’s reactions across a range of influence settings,
including Asch’s conformity studies, reactions to
emergencies, attitude change among dormitory
residents, the formation of spontaneous crowds on
street corners, donations to charities, and even a
society’s cultural practices (Harton & Bullock,
2007; Latané, 1997). One study, for example,
asked college students to imagine themselves sing-
ing the “Star Spangled Banner” alone or with
others in front of audiences of one, three, or nine
listeners who were either music experts or students
who were partially tone deaf. As the theory sug-
gests, performers were more nervous when the
audience was high rather than low in strength
(experts versus students) and nervousness increased
at a decreasing rate as the audience grew larger.
Performers also felt less anxiety when they imag-
ined themselves performing, or actually performed,
in front of audiences when they themselves were
part of a group. Size, however, still mattered. Peo-
ple’s anxiety declined when their groups increased
from two, to three, to four, but once they reached
four members, adding members did not appreciably
reduce anxiety (Jackson & Latané, 1981).
7-1d Who Will Conform?
Asch studied men (mostly). All lived in the United
States. They were college students. They lived at a
time when their culture was politically conserva-
tive. Would Asch’s findings hold with other kinds
of people, from other cultures, and in other groups
facing different issues?
Conformity across People Asch discovered that
people differed, to an extraordinary degree, in their
reaction to the conformity situation. Those who
conformed often became increasingly disoriented
as the study progressed, hesitating before they dis-
agreed and apologizing to the others for their
temerity. Others, in contrast, remained confident
and self-assured throughout the experiment, never
wavering from their convictions as they disagreed
time and time again with the others. As one partic-
ipant remarked, “The answers of the others didn’t
change my mind—an honest answer was expected.
I did not change my answer once.” When asked
about the others in the group, he simply said
“They were wrong” (Asch, 1952, p. 467).
Table 7.2 summarizes some of the differences
between those who yield and those who remain
resolute in the face of social pressure. Conformists
tend to be more rigid in their thinking; their con-
ventionality, conservative values, and unwillingness
to confront authority increase their willingness to
accept the majority’s opinion. They let the situation
and other people influence their perceptions, opi-
nions, and outlooks. People who rely on situational
cues when making perceptual judgments, self-
conscious individuals, and those who are continu-
ally checking to see how well they are fitting into
the group or situation (high self-monitors), are
more likely to make certain that their actions
match the group’s standards. People who conform
show a greater interest, overall, in other people.
They have a higher need for social approval, are
more interpersonally oriented, and are more fearful
of social rejection. Factors that undermine self-
confidence—low self-esteem, incompetence, low
intelligence—also increase conformity (for a
review, see Nezlak & Smith, 2016).
Conformity across the Sexes Did Asch underes-
timate the urge to conform by studying mostly
men? Is it not true that women are more likely to
be swayed by others’ opinions, whereas men are
independent and steadfast? When this possibility
was first tested by researchers, they often discovered
that the sexes did differ—that women were more
likely to conform than men. However, these studies
often used tasks that men were more familiar with,
and they were also conducted by men rather than
women researchers. Once gender-neutral topics
were introduced and more women began studying
the issue, differences between men and women
faded (for a review, see Carli, 2015).
If the sexes do differ, it tends to be in groups
that meet face-to-face and when responses are
202 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

T A B L E 7.2 A Sampling of Personality Characteristics That Are Reliably Associated with
Conformity and Nonconformity
Characteristic Reaction to Influence
Age Conformity increases until adolescence and then decreases into adulthood (Costanzo &
Shaw, 1966).
Authenticity Individuals who are higher in dispositional authenticity tend to resist external influences
(Wood et al., 2008).
Authoritarianism Authoritarians respect and obey authorities and social conventions (Altemeyer, 1988;
Feldman, 2003).
Birth order Firstborn children tend to conform more than children born later, who tend to be more
rebellious and creative (Sulloway, 1996).
Dependency People who are high in dependency (a strong motivation to please other people) display
heightened compliance, conformity, and suggestibility (Bornstein, 1992).
Gender identity Masculine individuals and androgynous individuals conform less on gender-neutral tasks
than feminine individuals (Bem, 1982).
Individualism–
collectivism
People from collectivistic cultures (e.g., Asians) value conformity as a means of achieving
harmony with others, whereas those from individualistic cultures (e.g., European Ameri-
cans) value uniqueness (Kim & Markus, 1999).
Individuation People with a high desire to publicly differentiate themselves from others (high indivi-
duators) are more willing to express dissenting opinions and contribute more to group
discussions (Whitney, Sagrestano, & Maslach, 1994).
Intelligence Less intelligent people and individuals who are uncertain of their abilities conform more
(Crutchfield, 1955).
Need for closure Conformity pressures are stronger in groups with a preponderance of members with a
high need for closure (De Grada et al., 1999).
Need for uniqueness Individuals with a high need for uniqueness are more likely to make unusual choices and
resist majority influence (Imhoff & Erb, 2009).
Personality traits Introverts experience more discomfort when disagreeing with a group and so conform
more (Matz, Hofstedt, & Wood, 2008). Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and stability are
associated with greater conformity (DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2002), but openness
with less conformity (McCrae, 1996).
Self-blame Adolescents who tend to blame themselves for negative outcomes conform more than
individuals low in self-blame (Costanzo, 1970).
Self-esteem Individuals with low self-esteem conform more than individuals with moderate and high
self-esteem (Berkowitz & Lundy, 1957); however, adolescents with high self-esteem con-
form more than those with low self-esteem (Francis, 1998).
Self-monitoring High self-monitors, because of their self-presentational tendencies, conform more when
striving to make a positive impression (Chen, Shechter, & Chaiken, 1996).
Yea-saying Yea-sayers, particularly when working under a cognitive load, say “yes” faster and more
frequently than individuals who thoughtfully consider their position (Knowles & Condon,
1999).
INF LUENCE 203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

made publicly rather than in private. In such a
situation, women may use agreement to create
consensus and cohesion in their groups. Men, in
contrast, may disagree with others to gain status or
distance themselves from the group. When men
and women were primed to respond relationally,
only the men later demonstrated their uniqueness
by not conforming to others’ choices about per-
sonal tastes and preferences (Griskevicius et al.,
2006).
These differences may also reflect continuing
biases in the allocation of status to women. Despite
changes in stereotypes about women and men, groups
traditionally reward men for acting in dominant, non-
conforming ways and women for acting in coopera-
tive, communal ways. If women feel that they should
behave in a traditional way, they may conform more
than men (Eagly, Wood, & Fishbaugh, 1981).
Women who do not conform to traditional sex
roles do not conform more than men (Bem, 1985).
Sexism in groups and in society at large may also
prevent women from expressing their dissent in
groups. The studies of status allocation reviewed in
Chapter 8, for example, indicate that groups only
grudgingly allocate status to qualified women. This
sexist bias against women undermines their resistance
to influence and weakens their power to influence
others (Eagly, 1987). As women have become more
successful in work and educational settings, their social
status has risen, along with their independence and
assertiveness (Twenge, 2001).
Conformity across Cultures and Eras In the
years since Asch first published his findings, other
researchers have replicated his basic procedure in
dozens of countries, including the United States,
Britain, Belgium, Fiji, Holland, Kuwait, Portugal,
and Zimbabwe. When Rod Bond and cross-
cultural psychologist Peter Smith (Bond & Smith,
1996) surveyed these studies, they concluded that
Asch may have underestimated conformity by
studying people living in a relatively individualistic
culture. As noted in Chapter 3, Western societies
tend to place the individual above the collective.
Collectivistic societies, which are more prevalent
in Asia, Africa, and South America, stress shared
goals and interdependence. As a result, people
tend to conform more in collectivistic cultures,
especially when the source of influence is family
members or friends (Frager, 1970).
Bond and Smith also checked for changes in con-
formity from 1952 to 1994 to determine if confor-
mity rates fluctuated as society’s tolerance of dissent
waxed and waned. When Asch carried out his work
in the 1950s, social norms stressed respect for author-
ity and traditional values, whereas the late 1960s were
marked by student activism and social disobedience.
This period of rebelliousness was followed by a pro-
longed period of social stability. Do entire generations
of people become more or less conforming, depend-
ing on the sociopolitical climate of the times in which
they live? Bond and Smith discovered that conformity
rates have dropped since the 1950s, but they found no
support for the idea that conformity is a “child of its
time.” Conformity is decreasing, but this decline was
not sharper in the 1960s or more gradual in the rela-
tively placid 1970s and 1980s (Larsen, 1982; Perrin &
Spencer, 1980, 1981).
Why Twelve Angry Men?
When Rose wrote Twelve Angry Men very few Ameri-
can juries included women (Rose & Sergel, 1958). At
one time, jurists argued that women could not hold
fast to their private views or influence others, and that
their presence in the jury room would distract the
men. When the U.S. Supreme Court considered this
issue in 1879, that group (of men) favored all-male
juries. In 1920, women were given the right to vote in
elections, but not the right to serve on juries. In 1957,
women were finally permitted to serve on federal
juries, but many state courts still excluded them. In
1975, the Supreme Court finally ruled that women
could not be barred (or excused) from jury duty
because of their sex.
204 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

7- 2 M INO R ITY IN FLUENCE:
T H E P O W E R O F T H E F E W
Sometimes the few influence the many. Juror #8
refused to change his verdict and eventually the
other 11 members of the Twelve Angry Men yielded
to him. Despite pressure from religious authorities,
Galileo insisted that the planets revolve around the
Sun rather than the Earth. Many in the U.S. civil
rights movement of the 1960s favored using violence,
if necessary, to overcome discrimination and racism,
but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. insisted on nonviolent
methods. Sigmund Freud actively rebuked critics of
his theory of the unconscious mind until it was grudg-
ingly accepted by many psychologists. The composer
Igor Stravinsky was denounced as a musical heretic
when The Rite of Spring was first performed, but he
refused to change a note. The majority can bring
powerful and potentially overwhelming pressure to
bear upon the minority, but minorities can fight
back with pressure of their own.
7-2a Conversion Theory of
Minority Influence
Just as Asch’s studies highlighted the power of
the majority, so the work of Serge Moscovici
and his colleagues underscored the power of
the minority. Moscovici, in an insightful analysis
of conformity in science itself, suggested that for
too long theorists and researchers assumed that
change comes from within existing social sys-
tems rather than revolutionary sources; that the
victory of the majority is more democratic than
the victory of the minority; and that innovation
occurs as a result of direct rather than indirect
interaction between the majority and minority.
In contrast to this majority-rules model of
social influence, Moscovici’s conversion theory
maintains that disagreement within the group
results in conflict and that the group members—
motivated to reduce that conflict—change others
and also change themselves (Moscovici, 1976, 1980,
1985, 1994).
Comparison or Validation? Conversion theory
proposes that minorities influence in a different
way than majorities do. Minorities, Moscovici the-
orized, influence through the validation process (see
Figure 7.5). When someone in the group breaks the
group’s unanimity—such as Juror #8 arguing “not
guilty”—members take notice of this surprising
turn of events. The minority captures their atten-
tion, and though most do not believe that the
minority is correct, they nonetheless consider the
arguments closely. The majority’s message, in con-
trast, is less intriguing to members. When people
discover where most of the group stands on a posi-
tion, through a comparison process, they check to see if
they can join the majority. Because being in the
majority is, in most cases, more rewarding than
membership in the minority—those in the majority
usually find that they control the group’s resources,
whereas those in the minority may have little say in
conversion theory A conceptual analysis of the cogni-
tive and interpersonal processes that mediate the direct
and indirect impact of a consistent minority on the
majority (developed by Serge Moscovici).
Group
discussion
Minority
influence
Validation
Conversion
• indirect
• delayed
• durable
Majority
influence
Comparison
Compliance
• direct
• immediate
• temporary
F I G U R E 7.5 Moscovici’s conversion theory of
minority and majority influence.
INF LUENCE 205
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the group’s decisions—people usually change to
comply with the group’s consensus. This compliance
reflects a desire to be included within the group,
however, rather than any kind of in-depth review
of the majority’s reasons for their position. In conse-
quence, the change is relatively superficial and may
evaporate once the individual leaves the group.
Moscovici maintained that the validation pro-
cesses instigated by a minority are longer-lasting
than those triggered by the comparison processes
of majority influence. Comparison results in direct
influence as members publicly comply. Validation,
in contrast, leads to private acceptance, making
minorities a source of innovation in groups. They
shake the confidence of the majority and force the
group to seek out new information about the situ-
ation. This conversion process takes longer, how-
ever, than the compliance process, and so the effects
of a minority on the majority sometimes do not
emerge until some time has passed. In some cases,
the influence of minorities becomes evident only
when the group has completed its initial delibera-
tions and moved on to another task (see also
Nemeth & Goncalo, 2011).
Delayed Social Influence Moscovici and his col-
leagues, in one of the first tests of the theory,
reversed the usual Asch situation by inserting two
confederates in six-person groups and then arrang-
ing for the confederates to systematically disagree
with the majority’s decision. Instead of judging
lines, Moscovici’s subjects judged, aloud, the
color and brightness of a series of blue slides, vary-
ing only in luminosity. But when it was their turn
to name the color of the slides, the confederates
consistently said “green” rather than “blue.” In
some cases, the confederates answered first and
second, but in other groups, one answered first
and the other answered fourth (Moscovici, Lage,
& Naffrechoux, 1969).
Moscovici and his colleagues confirmed the
power of the minority. When tested alone, only
one person of the 22 tested said two of the slides
were green. But when in the presence of the
green-saying confederates, this error rate jumped to
8.4%—not as much influence as that found by Asch
in his studies of majority influence, but a significant
amount considering the obviousness of the correct
answer. Moscovici also found evidence of the
delayed effects of the minority on the majority.
After the public judgment task, a second experi-
menter entered the room and explained that he
was also doing a study of vision. Participants were
then shown another set of colors that included three
blue slides, three green slides, and ten slides in the
blue-green range, and they privately labeled each
one either blue or green. Those who had been pre-
viously exposed to a minority-group opinion were
more likely to label the ambiguous slides as green
rather than blue, and this bias was more marked
among those members who did not change their
public choices when they first encountered the
minority. This delayed, indirect impact of minorities
on the majority has been documented in a wide
variety of laboratory and field studies, which indicate
that “minorities tend to produce profound and last-
ing changes in attitudes and perceptions that gener-
alize to new settings and over time … whereas
majorities are more likely to elicit compliance that
is confined to the original influence setting” (Maass,
West, & Cialdini, 1987, pp. 56–57).
7-2b Predicting Minority Influence
Moscovici’s conversion theory began as a minority
opinion that many researchers rejected, but it even-
tually won over even the most stubborn members of
the opposition—confirming the theory’s own pre-
dictions. The question changed, over time, from
“Are minorities influential?” to “When are minori-
ties influential?” Answers to that question, which are
reviewed briefly in the next sections, suggest that
given enough time, minorities who argue consis-
tently for their positions but all the while manage
to remain members in good-standing in the group
will shift the group’s consensus away from the
majority’s position toward the one they favor (see
Butera et al., 2016; Gardikiotis, 2011; Hornsey &
Jetten, 2014 for reviews).
Consistency and Influence In Twelve Angry Men,
Juror #8 always voted in favor of “not guilty.”
206 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

He did not waver as the majority pressured him to
change his vote. He did not always have compelling
arguments to back up his position, but he was
always consistent in the defense of his view. He
was one inspiring juror (Ellsworth, 2003).
A consistent minority is an influential one.
Moscovici verified the importance of maintaining con-
sistency in his original blue-green study by also includ-
ing a condition in which the confederates labeled the
blue slides green on two-thirds of the trials instead of all
of the trials. The error rate dropped down to 1.25%—
hardly any influence at all (Moscovici et al., 1969;
Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980).
Subsequent studies have confirmed the impor-
tance of behavioral consistency on the part of the
minority, but they also suggest that minorities must
walk the line between appearing self-assured and
unreasonable. In general, minorities are more influen-
tial when they are perceived to be team players who
are committed, competent, and group-centered
(Levine & Russo, 1987). An influential minority also
avoids threatening the integrity of the group itself.
Many groups will tolerate debate and disagreement,
but if the dissent creates deep divisions in the group,
the majority may take steps to quash the minority or
exclude its members from the group. If a group is just
a loose conglomeration of individuals with no clear
sense of identity, then the members of this “group”
do not feel threatened by disagreement. But if the
group members identify strongly with their group
and they feel that the dissenter is undermining its col-
lective identity, they are more likely to feel a sense of
loss when members begin to take a minority’s argu-
ments seriously (Prislin, Brewer, & Wilson, 2002). In
such cases, an individual who is not even a member of
the group may be more influential than an ingroup
member (Phillips, 2003).
Idiosyncrasy Credits In Twelve Angry Men,
Juror #8 was influential, but so was Juror #11.
That juror voted guilty on the first ballot, as did
the other ten jurors. But, when Juror #8 noted
several conflicting aspects of the evidence, Juror
#11 changed his mind and shifted his vote. Did
prefacing his dissent with conformity increase or
decrease his influence?
Social psychologist Edwin Hollander (1971)
developed the concept of idiosyncrasy credits
to explain the group’s positive reaction to a minority
who prefaces dissent with conformity. According to
Hollander, idiosyncrasy credits accumulate as the
member contributes to the progress of the group
toward desired goals. Because high-status members
have usually contributed more in the past and possess
more valued personal characteristics, they have more
idiosyncrasy credits. Therefore, if they do not con-
form, their actions are more tolerable to the other
members. The low-status members’ balance of cred-
its is, in comparison, low, so they are permitted a
smaller latitude for nonconformity. The idiosyncrasy
model suggests that influence levels in a group are
increased by careful conformity to group norms dur-
ing the early phases of group formation, followed by
dissent when a sufficient balance of idiosyncrasy
credit has been established (Hollander, 2014).
Hollander’s advice about early conformity con-
trasts to some extent with Moscovici’s recommenda-
tions concerning consistent nonconformity. Hollander
warned that dissenters who challenge the majority
without first earning high status in the group will prob-
ably be overruled by the majority, but Moscovici
argued that consistent nonconformity will lead to
innovation and change. Both tactics, however, may
prove effective. Researchers compared the two in
group discussions of three issues. One minority built
up idiosyncrasy credits by agreeing on the first two
issues that the group discussed but then disagreeing
on the third. The second minority built up consistency
by disagreeing with the group on all three issues. Both
minorities were influential, but the minority who built
up idiosyncrasy credits was more influential in all-male
groups (Bray, Johnson, & Chilstrom, 1982; see also
Youngreen & Byron, 2016).
idiosyncrasy credit An explanation for the leniency
groups sometimes display toward high-status members
who violate group norms; the hypothetical interpersonal
credit or bonus that is earned each time an individual
makes a contribution to the group but the credit
decreases each time the individual influences others,
makes errors, or deviates from the group’s norms (pro-
posed by Edwin Hollander).
INF LUENCE 207
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The Diligence of Dissenters Part of the secret of
the unique influence of minorities lies in the quality
of their argumentation. Those who know that they
are members of the majority position on an issue
feel less pressure to articulate their points clearly, for
they expect that, with numbers on their side, they
are likely to carry the day. But the individual who
holds the minority position feels more intently the
need to craft persuasive messages. Disagreeing with
others is not a situation most people find enjoyable,
and so few enter into this predicament without
considering the strength of their own arguments
and their reasonableness. Minorities are likely to
have put more thought into the issue, and, as a
result, they are able to ready a stronger defense of
their position (Guinote, Brown, & Fiske, 2006). In
a related study, researchers found that individuals
who knew they would be arguing against the
views of the majority prepared more diligently for
their meetings (Van Hiel & Franssen, 2003).
Researchers tested the augmented argumenta-
tive skill of minorities by asking individuals to read
about a controversial medical case and then decide if
they supported the physicians’ decision in the matter.
Before being given the opportunity to meet with
others to discuss the case, the participants were told
that 78% of the others agreed with them or that only
22% shared their view. Participants then were asked
to provide their arguments and reasons in support of
their position in writing. The researchers then gave
these written arguments to raters who evaluated the
messages for creativity and strength. As expected, the
“minorities” crafted better arguments than those in
the “majority” (Kenworthy et al., 2008).
Decision Rules and Dissent Juror #8 faced a dif-
ficult situation—he alone disagreed with all the others
in the group—but one aspect of the group situation
helped him cope: the group’s decision rule. The law
required the group to operate under the rule of una-
nimity, meaning that all group members had to agree
on the decision before the case was closed. If a group
operates under a unanimity rule, then the lone minor-
ity has far more power over the others. But if the
group adopts a majority-rules procedure, then the
majority can reach its decision without having to
even consider the validity of the minority’s position
(Thompson, Mannix, & Bazerman, 1988).
A unanimity rule helps the minority, and the
majority-rules procedure benefits the majority. In
one study three-person groups role played owners
of three small businesses negotiating to rent a shared
marketplace. Two of the members agreed with one
another on several of the key issues, but the third
member was the lone minority. Some of the groups
worked under a unanimity rule, which stipulated
that all three parties must agree to the terms of the
final decision, but others were bound by the
majority-rules stipulation. As expected, the group
working under the unanimity rule reached a decision
that was fairer to all three of the parties than did the
groups that operated under the majority-rules order,
but when the group based its decision on majority-
rules, the majority formed a coalition that blocked
the minority. Group members’ personal motivations,
however, moderated this tendency in a significant
way, for the pernicious effects of the groups’ decision
rule only occurred when members were motivated
to maximize their own personal rewards rather than
the rewards for the entire group (Ten Velden,
Beersma & De Dreu, 2007).
7-2c Dynamic Social Impact Theory
The majority assumes change takes place when mem-
bers recognize the wisdom of the collective and con-
form to its choices. The minority, in contrast, thinks
change occurs when the majority reexamines and
revises its position. But change in groups is actually a
mutual process, with the majority influencing the
minority and the minority influencing the majority
(Mason, Conrey, & Smith, 2007).
Dynamic social impact theory, as proposed
by Latané (1997) and his colleagues, describes the
dynamic social impact theory An extension of
Latané’s social impact theory, which assumes that influence
is a function of the strength, the immediacy, and the num-
ber of sources present and that this influence results in con-
solidation, clustering, correlation, and continuing diversity
in groups that are spatially distributed and interacting
repeatedly over time (developed by Bibb Latané).
208 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

processes underlying this give-and-take between the
majority and the minority. As noted earlier in the
chapter, social impact theory suggests that influence
is determined by the strength, immediacy, and num-
ber of sources present. Dynamic social impact theory
extends this basic principle by describing how groups,
as complex systems, are constantly organizing and
reorganizing in four basic patterns: consolidation, clus-
tering, correlation, and continuing diversity.
■ Consolidation. As individuals interact with one
another regularly, their actions, attitudes, and
opinions become more uniform. For example,
even when individuals are assigned at random to
rooms in college dormitories, over the course of
the academic year, their attitudes on a variety of
topics become more and more similar (Cullum
& Harton, 2007). The opinions held by a
majority of the group tend to spread throughout
the group, and the minority dwindles in size.
■ Clustering. As the law of social impact suggests,
people are more influenced by their closest
neighbors, so clusters of group members with
similar opinions emerge in groups. Clustering is
more likely when (a) group members
Do You Prefer to Agree or Dissent?
Arguing for an unpopular position and not backing down when challenged can be a stressful experience. When
factions form during group deliberations, members challenge each other, and the majority pressures the minority
to comply with their decisions, individuals who are more comfortable being different from other people are
more likely to dissent (Maslach, Stapp, & Santee, 1985).
Instructions: Read each statement, and using the following scale, place a number from 1 to 5 to the left of
the item that best describes your willingness to perform the act.
1 ¼ Not at all willing to do this 3 ¼ Slightly willing 5 ¼ Very much willing to do this
2 ¼ Not very willing 4 ¼ Fairly willing
1. Give a lecture to a large audience.
2. Raise your hand to ask a question in a meeting or lecture.
3. Volunteer to head a committee for a group of people you do not know very well.
4. Tell a person that you like him/her.
5. Publicly challenge a speaker whose position clashes with your own.
6. Accept a nomination to be a leader of a group.
7. Present a personal opinion, on a controversial issue, to a group of strangers.
8. When asked to introduce yourself, say something more personal about yourself than just your name
and occupation.
9. Give an informal talk in front of a small group of classmates or colleagues.
10. Speak up about your ideas even though you are uncertain of whether you are correct.
11. Perform on a stage before a large audience.
12. Give your opinion on a controversial issue even though no one has asked for it.
Scoring: Add your answer to all 12 items to yield a total. A score of 38 is close to the average score, but if
your total is less than 29 you are low in individuation and above 47 you are high in individuation. High scorers
tend to be more comfortable doing things differently than other people—they may have distinctive possessions,
use a nickname, and pursue hobbies that are unusual. They are also more likely to express unique opinions and
criticisms, while looking directly into people’s eyes.
INF LUENCE 209
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

communicate more frequently with members
who are close by and less frequently with more
distant group members and (b) if members can
change locations to join similar others.
■ Correlation. Over time, the group members’
opinions on a variety of issues—even ones that
are not discussed openly in the group—converge,
so that their opinions become correlated. Stu-
dents living on the same floor of a dorm, for
example, find that they agree on topics that they
have discussed during the year—such as the value
of certain majors or the best times to work out in
the fitness center—but that they also agree on
topics they have never discussed or even consid-
ered discussing: the value of labor unions, the
benefits of the Greek system, and human cloning
(Cullum & Harton, 2007).
■ Continuing diversity. Because of clustering,
members of minorities are often shielded from
the influence attempts of the majority, and
their beliefs continue within the group.
Diversity drops if the majority is very large and
if the members of the minority are physically
isolated from one another, but diversity con-
tinues when the members of the minority who
communicate with the majority resist the
majority’s influence attempts.
Social psychologist Helen Harton and her col-
leagues identified all four patterns in a study of class-
room groups (Harton et al., 1998). They asked
students to answer several multiple-choice questions
twice—once on their own and once after talking
about the questions with the two people sitting on
either side of them. Consolidation occurred on several
of the questions. On one question, 17 of the 30
students favored an incorrect alternative before dis-
cussion. After discussion, five more students changed
their answers and sided with the incorrect
majority—including three students who had initially
answered the question correctly. The majority
increased from 57% to 73%. Clustering was also
apparent; 11 students disagreed with both of their
neighbors initially, but after discussion, only 5 stu-
dents disagreed with both neighbors. Students within
clusters also tended to give the same answers on
other items (correlation), and some individuals refused
to change their answers, even though no one else
agreed with them (continuing diversity).
These four patterns vary depending on the
number of times the group holds its discussion,
the dispersion of the group members, the group’s
communication network, the status of particular
individuals, the group members’ desire to reach
agreement, and other aspects of the situation (Miller
& Brunner, 2008). The four tendencies are robust,
however, and answer some key questions about
influence in groups. Do most groups eventually
converge on a single opinion that represents the
average across all members? Dynamic social impact
theory says no—groups tend to become polarized on
issues as clusters form within the group. Does social
pressure eventually force all those who disagree with
the majority to conform? Again, dynamic social
impact theory suggests that minorities, particularly
in spatially distributed groups, are protected from
influence. So long as minorities can cluster together,
diversity in groups is ensured (for more information,
see Harton & Bullock, 2007; Latané & Bourgeois,
1996, 2001; Vallacher & Nowak, 2007).
7- 3 S OURC ES OF G R OUP
IN FLUEN CE
Many people think of conformity in a negative way.
They assume that people who change to agree with
others are so weak-willed that they lack the inner
fortitude to stand up for their personal beliefs. This
pejorative view, unfortunately, underestimates the
complexity of social influence, for individuals in any
group change their behavior for a variety of reasons
(see Figure 7.6). First, conformity is in many cases an
automatic, spontaneous reaction rather than a mind-
ful one. Second, conformity is often the most reason-
able response in a situation: When others are well-
informed but we ourselves are ignorant, it’s wise to
use them as an informational resource. Third, people
often conform because they accept the legitimacy of
the group and its norms. Last, conformity is often a
means of avoiding criticism, abuse, and exclusion.
210 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

These causes of conformity—the implicit, informa-
tional, normative, and the interpersonal—are exam-
ined in the next section (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955;
Kelley, 1952).
7-3a Implicit Influence
As you watch a tour group moving across a college
campus, a queue moving gradually forward toward a
ticket window, or a jury deliberating, the individual
group members likely believe that they are carefully
processing information before making one deliberate
choice after another. But, at a level outside of their
awareness, they are responding cognitively, emotion-
ally, and behaviorally to the people around them.
Because of implicit influence, the tour group
spontaneously forms a semicircle to listen to the
guide, the queue members maintain a set distance
between each member, and the jurors’ speak in the
same tones and cadence as each other—all without
any conscious awareness (Hodges, 2015).
Mimicry People often deliberately imitate each
other, but mimicry involves an unconscious copying
of the behavior others are exhibiting. When, for
example, one person adopts a particular nonverbal
display, such as crossing his or her arms, others nearby
often mimic it, but without realizing they are doing so
(Chartrand & Lakin, 2013). If one group member
smiles, yawns, or frowns, others in the group will
join in the levity, begin yawning, or frown as well
(Hess & Fischer, 2013). Even jurors, dealing with as
serious an issue as a murder case, laugh frequently and
collectively. When investigators were given access to a
jury that deliberated for several days, they identified
51 sequences of group laughter. Most of this laughter
involved many of the group members, and it served
to relieve tension, increase cohesion, identify errors in
judgment, and mark points where the group had
moved too far off track (Keyton & Beck, 2010).
Mindlessness Hardly anyone (9%) handed over
their phone when approached by a total stranger
on a rainy day in a train station and asked “Can I
borrow your phone? I need to make an important
call.” But when the request was prefaced with a
nonsensical initial comment—”Sorry about the
rain”—a whopping 47% handed over their phone
(Brooks, Dai, & Schweitzer, 2014).
Many group situations are so routine that mem-
bers don’t concentrate on what they are doing. When
standing in a line for fast food, finding a seat in a
classroom, or voting to approve the group’s minutes
from the last meeting, people act on the basis of habit.
When in a state of mindlessness, people aren’t ask-
ing themselves, “Should I agree?” They aren’t even
thinking about what they are doing and so conform
almost automatically (Langer, 1989).
Social psychologist Ellen Langer and her associ-
ates demonstrated mindless conformity by asking
adults using a photocopier at a university library:
“Excuse me. May I use the Xerox machine?” In
the control condition, no justification for the request
was offered. In the second condition, a reasonable
excuse was provided: “I’m in a rush.” In the third
condition, the experimenter offered a senseless
explanation: “I have to make some copies.” (Of
Informational
influence
Normative
influence
Implicit
influence
Interpersonal
influence
Social
influence
F I G U R E 7.6 Four psychological and interpersonal
sources of majority and minority social influence in
groups.
implicit influence Unlike explicit, consciously recog-
nized social influence, unnoticed and largely automatic
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to other
people.
mindlessness A state of reduced cognitive processing
characterized by actions based on habit, routine, or pre-
viously formed discriminations rather than conscious
deliberation.
INF LUENCE 211
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

course, the requester had to make copies; why else
use the machine?) The magnitude of the request was
also varied; the experimenter explained that either
5 or 20 copies were needed (Langer, Blank, &
Chanowitz, 1978).
Langer felt that subjects would be shocked out
of their mindlessness if the experimenters (1) failed
to provide any excuse whatsoever or (2) asked to
make a large rather than a small number of copies.
But if an explanation were offered—even a sense-
less one and the favor wasn’t too big—Langer felt
that subjects would mindlessly agree to the
request. These predictions were supported; over
90% of the subjects agreed to the request if some
explanation was offered—even a nonsensical one
(Langer, 1989).
7-3b Informational Influence
In the Twelve Angry Men jury, Juror #11 changed
his verdict from guilty to not guilty, but he did not
mindlessly go along. Rather, when Juror #11
learned that Juror #8 had a “reasonable doubt,”
he wondered, “Why did Juror #8 draw different
conclusions about the case than I did?” and “Am
I correct in my interpretation of the evidence?”
His reaction illustrates informational influence:
acceptance of “information obtained from another
as evidence about reality” (Deutsch & Gerard, p.
629). If you learn that 99 other reasonable people
favor Plan A over Plan B, you will likely adopt Plan
A because “everyone else does.” Behavioral econ-
omists may call going along with the crowd herding,
but they underscore its rational basis: There is infor-
mation revealed in the choices other people make
(Raafat, Chater, & Frith, 2009).
Social Comparison Social comparison theory, as
discussed in Chapter 4, assumes that we sometimes
evaluate the accuracy of our beliefs and gauge the
quality of our personal attributes by comparing
ourselves to other individuals. Our groups some-
times even deliberately gather information about
members’ opinions by taking a so-called straw poll.
We also gather information about others’ views
informally during routine interactions. Like poll-
sters who gauge public sentiment by sampling opi-
nions in surveys of communities, we take note of
our fellow group members’ actions and beliefs and
revise our own positions accordingly (Gerard &
Orive, 1987).
Our sampling of others’ opinions is not entirely
accurate, however. We often oversample the opi-
nions of those in our own group compared to those
of people outside of our group (Denrell & Le Mens,
2007). If we happen to talk more with some group
members more than with others, we tend to base
our inferences about the entire group’s opinions on
that small and biased sample. If we are fringe mem-
bers of the group, we may endorse positions that
are not fully consistent with the group’s because our
isolation prevents us from accessing the social infor-
mation we need to accurately estimate the group’s
opinions. The false consensus effect is common
in groups: We assume that there is more support for
our position than there actually is (Krueger &
Clement, 1997; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977).
Dual Process Theory You are visiting a new
town and need to pick a restaurant for dinner: Do
you go to the one that seems popular or one that is
nearly empty? When you are picking a movie to
watch on Netflix, do you favor one that many of
your friends have watched or do you pick one that
no one has ever heard of? According to the dual
process theories of informational influence, we
are influenced by other people’s choices for two rea-
sons. First, learning about other’s responses can trig-
ger a thoughtful analysis, or elaboration, of the issues
informational influence Change-promoting interper-
sonal processes that are based on the informational value
of the responses of others in the situation.
false consensus effect Perceivers’ tendency to assume
that their beliefs, attributes, and actions are relatively
common and appropriate in any given situation.
dual process theories of influence In general, any
conceptual analysis that identifies two sources or forms
of influence: direct (such as persuasion and discussion)
and indirect (such as imitation and herding).
212 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

at hand. When we are confronted with an opinion
that is different from our own, we review their argu-
ments, look for weaknesses, reexamine our own
ideas on the topic, and revise our position if revision
is warranted. These cognitive responses are termed
direct processes since they prompt a more thorough,
rational analysis of the issue (see Levine & Tindale,
2015; Martin & Hewstone, 2010 for reviews).
Second, these direct informational influence
processes are complemented by less rational,
more indirect processes (Moskowitz & Chaiken,
2001). Particularly when our cognitive resources
are limited or when we are not motivated to do
the cognitive work necessary to weigh the infor-
mation available to us, we use simplifying inferen-
tial principles, termed heuristics, to reach
decisions quickly (Kahneman, 2011). We might,
for example, base our decision on our mood rather
than the quality of others’ arguments—people in
good moods tend to conform more than those in
bad ones (Tong et al., 2008). If others in the group
speak eloquently using very general, abstract terms
rather than specifics, we might assume that they
know what they are talking about and will gravi-
tate toward their position (Sigall, Mucchi-Faina, &
Mosso, 2006).
Informational Influence of Minorities Minority
influence also results from both direct and indirect
processes. As Moscovici argued, minorities create
cognitive conflicts that challenge the status quo of
the group and call for a reevaluation of issues at
hand. Minority dissent can undermine our cer-
tainty and force us to seek out new information
about the situation. This increase in elaborative
processing causes us to take more time to reach a
decision, and thereby prompts us to consider mul-
tiple perspectives (Peterson & Nemeth, 1996). But
minority influence can also trigger indirect pro-
cesses, just like majority influence does. Because
we are sensitive to shifts in the group’s general
opinion, if we notice that the minority position
is gaining ground on the majority, then we may
all change sides as well, creating a cascade: a rapid
opinion shift that flows throughout the group
(Sunstein & Hastie, 2015). Social psychologist
Russell Clark (1999, 2001) examined this process
by measuring observers’ verdicts after each round
of balloting in a jury trial. He first provided obser-
vers with a detailed description of a hypothetical
trial and jury deliberation patterned after the one
described in Twelve Angry Men. He then asked the
observers to rate the guilt of the defendant after
learning that, on the first ballot, the vote was 11
against 1 with the majority favoring a guilty ver-
dict. Nearly all the observers agreed with the
majority, but as the deliberations progressed, the
observers learned that the minority position was
growing from 9 to 3, to 6 to 6, to 3 to 9, and
eventually 0 to 12. With each progressive vote, the
observers shifted their own ratings from guilty to not
guilty. Other research has suggested that individuals
are particularly likely to join an expanding minority
when the minority offers cogent arguments support-
ing its position and when other defectors are thought
to have been swayed by the logic of the minority’s
arguments rather than by self-interest (Gordijn, De
Vries, & De Dreu, 2002).
7-3c Normative Influence
Informational influence occurs because others’
responses convey information concerning the nature
of the social setting and how most people are respond-
ing to that setting. Normative influence, in con-
trast, occurs when members tailor their actions and
attitudes to match the norms of the group situation.
The members of the majority in the Twelve Angry
Men jury, for example, did more than just think:
“Most everyone in the group agrees with me.” They
also recognized that their position was the normative
heuristic An inferential principle or rule of thumb that
people use to reach conclusions when the amount of avail-
able information is limited, ambiguous, or contradictory.
normative influence Change-promoting interpersonal
processes based on social norms, standards, and convention.
Because individuals internalize their group’s norms, they
strive to act in ways that are consistent with those norms.
INF LUENCE 213
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

one: “This group has decided the defendant is guilty
and anyone who believes differently is going against
the norms of this group” (Nolan, 2016).
Dissonance and Dissent Normative influence
causes members to feel, think, and act in ways
that are consistent with the group’s norms (see
Chapter 6). When people identify with their
groups, they feel duty-bound to adhere to the
group’s norms; they accept the legitimacy of the
established norms; and they recognize the impor-
tance of supporting these norms. Thus, people obey
norms not only because they fear the negative
interpersonal consequences—ostracism, ridicule,
punishment—that their nonconformity may pro-
duce, but also because they feel personally com-
pelled to live up to their own expectations.
Discovering one has managed to wander out-
side of the group’s norms generates a negative reac-
tion that is akin to cognitive dissonance. As noted in
Chapter 5, cognitive dissonance is such an unpleas-
ant state that people are motivated to take steps to
reduce dissonance whenever it occurs. Dissonance
theory originally focused on how people respond
when they hold two inconsistent cognitions, but
researchers have confirmed that people also experi-
ence dissonance when they discover that they do
not agree with other group members. In one
study, individuals with extreme opinions on issues
were led to believe they were going to discuss these
issues with four or five other people who had
directly opposing opinions. Before the discussion,
the participants described their emotions, and, as
expected, they were not positive: Participants
reported feeling more uneasy, uncomfortable,
tense, bothered, and concerned—all indications of
cognitive dissonance (Matz & Wood, 2005).
Focus Theory Robert Cialdini (2011), in his
focus theory of normative conduct, explains
the relationship between informational and normative
influence and two different types of social norms:
descriptive and injunctive. As noted in Chapter 5, a
descriptive norm defines what people typically do in
any given situation—the “normal” course of action.
Injunctive norms describe what people should do in
any given situation. Both descriptive norms (informa-
tional influence) and injunctive norms (normative
influence) are powerful, but Cialdini’s focus theory
suggests that these two forms of influence work in
different ways. Informational influence requires indi-
viduals notice what most others do in a situation, and
so it makes few cognitive demands on individuals.
Normative influence, in contrast, requires more cog-
nitive resources; only when members can focus on
the injunctive norm and its implications will indivi-
duals change to comply with the norm’s standard
(e.g., Goldstein & Cialdini, 2011).
Cialdini and his colleagues have tested the
impact of these norms on people’s behavior by
making each type of norm salient in a given situa-
tion, and seeing if people comply. For example, in
his studies of littering, he deliberately litters park-
ing lots and sidewalks and then watches if people
conform to the descriptive norm (“Everyone lit-
ters”) by littering as well. They do, particularly if
they see another person (a member of the research
team) who actively litters. But Cialdini prevented
littering in the same littered environments by
making the injunctive norm “It is wrong to litter”
more salient. He did this by having a confederate
pick up a piece of litter (a discarded food bag) and
dispose of it properly in a waste bin. Once the
injunctive norm was activated, people resisted
the descriptive norm and instead complied with
the injunctive one (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren,
1993, Study 3).
In other contexts, however, descriptive norms
may overwhelm injunctive ones. For example,
some public service announcements and regulatory
signs backfire: They increase the very behaviors
they are designed to curtail. Signs such as “Do
not walk on the grass,” “Do not litter,” “Speed
limit 55” may confirm an injunctive norm, but
they also suggest that most people walk on the
grass, litter, and drive too fast. A “Do not litter”
focus theory of normative conduct An explanation of
influence that assumes descriptive and injunctive norms
influence behavior when they are made salient and there-
fore attended to (developed by Robert Cialdini).
214 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

reduces littering so long as it is posted in an area
that is clean, but the same sign posted in a littered
environment actually increases littering (Keizer,
Lindenberg, & Steg, 2011).
7-3d Interpersonal Influence
Western societies claim to value nonconformity and
independence, but in most situations dissent is not
rewarded. In fact, it is met with interpersonal
influence: social responses that explicitly, roughly,
and sometimes even coercively force others to con-
form. In the Twelve Angry Men jury, the men did not
dispassionately discuss their perceptions of the
evidence calmly and carefully. Instead, they com-
plained, demanded, threatened, pleaded, negotiated,
pressured, manipulated, insulted, and shouted—even
threatening one another with physical harm—in an
attempt to change one another’s opinions so the
group could reach a unanimous decision. When
groups discover a nonconformist—a deviant—in
their midst, they sometimes use interpersonal pressure
to force the member to conform.
Stanley Schachter (1951) documented inter-
personal influence in his classic “deviant in the
group” study. He recruited members to all-male
discussion clubs, but made sure each group included
three confederates trained to enact one of three
roles: The deviant always disagreed with the major-
ity. The slider disagreed initially but conformed over
the course of the discussion. The mode served as a
control; he consistently agreed with the majority.
Schachter also manipulated the groups’ cohesive-
ness by putting some of the participants in clubs
Does Conformity Come Naturally to Humans?
Natural selection did not just encourage humans to
gather in groups, but to gather in smooth functioning
groups. Group life requires coordinated action, and
social influence is the means to achieve that coordina-
tion. Homo sapiens’ responsiveness to social influence
may, in fact, be one of our species’ strengths. Confor-
mity has been documented in other species but
humans—compared to other primates—are more
likely to adjust their actions to match those of others
around them. Researchers confirmed our capacity for
conformity by comparing the choices of two-year-old
children to the responses of two other species of great
apes (orangutans and chimpanzees). Only the human
children adjusted their strategies based on the choices
of peers they observed: the other apes never con-
formed (Haun, Rekers, & Tomasello, 2014).
Brain-imaging studies also suggest that conformity
to social norms is an evolved mechanism that is sus-
tained by neuronal systems that monitor social infor-
mation, including rewards and threats. By combining
the Asch situation with functional magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI) procedures, researchers have succeeded
in measuring people’s neuronal activity when they are
conforming or dissenting. In one investigation,
volunteers were to decide if two rotated three-
dimensional objects were identical. To create social
influence during the mental rotation task, as partici-
pants made their judgments, they were presented with
the responses of four peers who, on half of the trials,
chose the wrong answer. The researchers discovered
that when participants agreed with the group (even
when the group was incorrect), portions of their brain
associated with processing visual information were
most active—they assumed the others’ responses were
valid and adopted their solution as their own. But when
they disagreed with the group, portions of the brain
responsible for strong emotional responses (the amyg-
dala) showed evidence of high neuronal activity. Other
investigations have confirmed this finding, and suggest
that when people believe their opinions are endorsed
by others, the regions of their brain associated with
rewards (the ventral striatum) react. But when they
discover no one agrees with them, the discomfort of
dissent is so great that it triggers activity in portions of
the brain associated with pain, fear, and stress (Bern
et al., 2005; Campbell-Meiklejohn et al., 2010, 2012).
We are, apparently, neurologically ready to enjoy
agreeing with others more than disagreeing.
interpersonal influence Change-promoting interper-
sonal processes based on group members selectively
encouraging conformity and discouraging or even pun-
ishing nonconformity.
INF LUENCE 215
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

that interested them and others in clubs that did not
interest them. He assumed that people with com-
mon interests would be more cohesive than those
with disparate interests. Also, the groups discussed a
topic that was either relevant or irrelevant to the
group’s stated purpose.
Schachter kept track of each comment directed
to the deviant, slider, and mode by the other group
members. He predicted that the group would ini-
tially communicate with the mode, deviant, and
slider at equal rates. But once the group became
aware of the deviant’s and slider’s disagreement,
group members would concentrate on these two
participants. Schachter believed that communica-
tion would continue at a high rate until the dis-
senter capitulated to the majority opinion (as in
the case of the slider) or until the majority con-
cluded that the deviant would not budge from his
position (as in the case of the persistent deviant), but
that this reaction would be exacerbated by the
group’s cohesiveness and the relevance of the task.
Influence and Ostracism Figure 7.7 summarizes
Schachter’s findings. In most cases, the group com-
municated with the slider and the mode at a rela-
tively low rate throughout the session, whereas
communications with the deviant increased during
the first 35 minutes of discussion. At the 35-minute
mark, however, some groups seemed to have
rejected the deviant. These groups were cohesive,
working on a task that was relevant to the group’s
goals and whose members developed a negative
attitude toward the deviant. Schachter discovered
that not all groups disliked the deviant and that
this level of liking played a key role in how the
deviant was treated. If the group developed more
positive feelings for the deviant, communication
increased all the way up to the final minute. If the
group disliked the deviant, communication
dropped precipitously.
Schachter’s findings highlight the difference
between inclusive and exclusive reactions to minor-
ities (see Levine & Kerr, 2007, for a review). Most
To excluded
deviants
To most
deviants
To the mode
To the slider
Time
C
o
m
m
u
n
ic
a
ti
o
n
r
a
te
F I G U R E 7.7 Communication rates with a mode, a slider, a deviant who is excluded, and a deviant who is
included. Schachter’s (1951) study of communication found that the person who disagreed with the others (the devi-
ant) usually received the most communication throughout the discussion period. The only exception occurred in cohe-
sive groups working on a relevant task whose members disliked the deviant. In this case, communications tapered off.
The average number of communications addressed to the mode increased slightly over the session, while communica-
tion with the slider decreased.
216 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of the groups displayed an inclusive reaction to the
deviant: Communication between the majority and
the minority was intensive and hostile, but the
minority was still perceived to be a member of
the ingroup. If an exclusive reaction occurred, how-
ever, communication with the deviant dwindled
along with overt hostility, and the deviant was per-
ceptually removed from the group by the members
of the majority. An exclusive reaction becomes
more likely when group members think that their
group is very heterogeneous, and if the dissenter is
inflexible and the issue is important (Gerard, 1953).
So-called double minorities—individuals who dis-
agree with the group and also possess one or
more other unique qualities that distinguish them
from the rest of the group—are also more likely to
face exclusion (Sampson & Brandon, 1964).
Interpersonal Rejection The group members did
not just argue with the deviant—they also rejected
the deviant. When Schachter’s participants rated
each other on likeability, the deviant was the socio-
metric outcast, whereas the mode was liked the
most. The deviant was also saddled with the unde-
sirable chores of the group; the mode and slider were
assigned more desirable positions. This rejection was
more pronounced in the more cohesive groups.
The group’s dislike of dissenters even extended
to sliders, even though they do little to provoke
rejection. They begin the discussion by taking a
position that few favor, but after a time they listen
to reason and shift. What’s not to like about such a
reasonable person? Yet, Schachter’s findings show
that the slider was not as well-liked as someone
who sided with the majority all along (the mode),
for any disagreement with a group is enough to
lower one’s interpersonal acceptance. Social psychol-
ogist John Levine and his associates, across a series of
studies, have examined reactions to all types of devi-
ants: those who start off neutral and then conform,
others who begin as extreme deviants and then shift
over to the majority, and even those who start off
with the majority and then slide toward dissent (see
Levine, 1980; Levine & Kerr, 2007). Levine, like
Schachter, found that nonconformists and those
who were initially neutral but eventually disagreed
were liked the least. Moreover, even the individ-
ual who abandons his or her initial position to
agree with the group is liked less than a conform-
ist. Members of the majority are gratified when a
member of the minority converts, but they are
particularly troubled when a member of the
majority “goes over to the other side” (Prislin,
Limbert, & Bauer, 2000).
Subsequent studies have replicated this relation-
ship between rejection and nonconformity, although
these studies also identify certain situational factors
that increase the magnitude of this relationship.
Task relevance, cohesiveness, group consensus, inter-
dependence, behavior extremity, newcomer status,
and the degree of threat posed by the dissenter all
work to increase rejection. The deviant’s contribu-
tion to the task, apologies for deviation, and history
of previous conformity reduce the likelihood of
rejection, as do norms that encourage deviation
and innovation (Levine & Kerr, 2007; Rink & Elle-
mers, 2011; Tata et al., 1996).
The Black-Sheep Effect Social identity processes
play a particularly critical role in determining mem-
bers’ reactions to deviants and conformists. Social
identity theory, as discussed in Chapter 3, suggests
that members share a common identity that defines
the prototypical qualities of a member and
encourages a distinction between members and
nonmembers. Group members find deviants within
their midst to be distressing because they call into
question the group’s positive identity and make
hazy the distinctiveness of the ingroup relative to
outgroups. These psychological processes, which
are referred to as subjective group dynamics,
will cause individuals to react negatively to dissen-
ters with whom they share only category member-
ships. A fan of the Arsenal soccer team, for example,
will react negatively to another Arsenal fan who
subjective group dynamics Psychological and inter-
personal processes that result from social categorization
and identification processes, including members’ desire
to sustain the positive distinctiveness of the ingroup and
the validity of its shared beliefs.
INF LUENCE 217
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

expresses admiration for the play of the Manchester
United forward—even though the two fans might
never actually meet. One intriguing consequence of
subjective group dynamics: Ingroup members are
sometimes judged more harshly than outgroup
members when they perform identical behaviors.
A statement that Manchester United played bril-
liantly will be tolerated when spoken by a Man U
fan, but if an Arsenal fan expresses such a belief, he
or she would be roundly criticized by other Arsenal
fans. This tendency is termed the black-sheep
effect (Marques, 2010).
Identity and Dissent Social identity processes not
only influence the group’s reaction to dissent, but
also members’ decisions about conforming or dis-
senting. Although individuals who strongly identify
with their group may tend to support its decisions
out of misguided loyalty, social psychologist
Dominic Packer’s normative conflict model of dis-
sent argues that members who are strongly commit-
ted to the group are more, rather than less, likely to
dissent. Those who do not identify with their group
tend to display uneasy conformity—they keep quiet
and go along with the group—or they withdraw
from the group altogether. In contrast, members
who identify strongly with the group are willing to
accept the interpersonal costs that come with dissent,
in the hope that the group will take steps to correct
its mistake. Their dissent is “motivated by a desire to
change group norms and initiate improvement
within a group” (Packer, 2008b, p. 54). In support
of the model, Packer and his colleague have found
that members who identify with their groups are
more likely to dissent than less committed members,
but only when they believe the group’s position is
collectively harmful. Significantly, people who iden-
tify with their group are not more likely to dissent
when doing so would improve their own personal
circumstances, but would not necessarily benefit the
group (Dupuis et al., 2016; Packer, 2008b, Packer,
2009; Packer & Chasteen, 2010).
7-3e When Influence Inhibits: The
Bystander Effect
Human groups could not form, remain intact, and
achieve their goals if their members did not contin-
ually, and successfully, influence one another. This
readiness to cooperate and conform, however, can
cause individuals to follow when they should lead
and comply when they would be better off resist-
ing. A number of negative, dysfunctional group
phenomena—peer pressure, groupthink, hazing,
bullying, conflict, and intergroup conflict—are sus-
tained, at least in part, by social influence processes.
This section considers one such process in detail:
the bystander effect.
Inhibition of Helping in Groups In the early
morning of March 13, 1964, a young woman
named Catherine Genovese (“Kitty” to her friends)
was attacked and killed in Queens, New York.
Many residents of the area were roused from their
sleep by the noise of the attack and wondered what
was happening, but none of them helped directly.
Only one person called the police (Manning,
Levine, & Collins, 2007).
Many blamed the bystanders, suggesting that
the urbanites were cruel, apathetic, or lacking the
moral compunction needed to compel them to
act. But social psychologists Bibb Latané and John
Darley (1970) offered a different explanation: Social
pressures in the situation, they suggested, may have
interfered with people’s capacity to respond in a
helpful way to the emergency.
Latané and Darley investigated this possibility by
simulating an emergency in their laboratory. While
male college students completed some bogus ques-
tionnaires, Latané and Darley pumped white smoke
through an air vent into the test room. Some parti-
cipants were alone in the room, but others worked
in three-person groups consisting of one participant
and two confederates. The confederates pretended
to be participants, but they ignored the emergency.
As the room filled with smoke, they nonchalantly
black-sheep effect The tendency for group members to
evaluate a group member who performs an offensive
behavior more harshly than an outgroup member who
performs the same offense.
218 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

glanced at the vent, shrugged, and went back to their
questionnaires. If the participant mentioned the
smoke to them, they said merely “I dunno.” In a
third condition, all three members of the group
were actual participants.
When tested alone, participants usually left the
room to report the smoke within two minutes; 75%
reported the emergency within the six-minute time
limit. Participants tested in groups behaved very
differently. Only 10% of the participants tested
with the passive confederates ever reported the
smoke, and the reporting percentage reached no
higher than 15% even when all three group mem-
bers were actual participants. By the time the six-
minute period was up, the room was so smoky that
participants could not see the far wall. They
coughed and rubbed their eyes, but they stayed at
their tables, fanning the fumes away from their
papers so they could finish their questionnaires.
Latané and Darley’s work demonstrated the
bystander effect—people are less likely to help
when in groups rather than alone—and soon other
investigators confirmed these results. A statistical
review of approximately 50 studies of nearly 6,000
people who faced various apparent emergencies
alone or in a group indicated that groups impede
helping. Across these various studies, about 75% of
the participants tested alone intervened, but only
53% of the participants in groups helped (Latané &
Nida, 1981).
Social Influence and the Bystander Effect But
why do people in groups not help as much as single
individuals? First, emergency situations are usually
unfamiliar ones, so people who witness them do not
fully understand what is happening and how they
should respond. This ambiguity causes them to rely
on the reactions of others in the situation to guide
their interpretation of the event. If, however, each
group member is responding similarly—looking to
the other group members for information about
how to interpret the situation—then each nonre-
sponding bystander sends the same inaccurate message
to every other nonresponding bystander: “It’s OK; no
help is needed.” In situations that are obviously emer-
gencies, the bystander effect disappears (Clark &
Word, 1972, 1974; Fischer et al., 2011).
Second, normative influence does not enjoin
bystanders to help strangers. Most everyday situa-
tions do not require one act as a Good Samaritan
(Feigenson, 2000), but they do caution against
involvement in others’ affairs. In most cultures
(but not all), it is not “normal” to interact with
others whom you do not know, let alone offer
them some sort of assistance. Most people prefer
to appear poised and normal in social settings and
actively avoid doing anything that may lead to
embarrassment. In an ambiguous emergency, peo-
ple fear that they will look foolish if they offer assis-
tance to someone who does not need it, so they
look the other way rather than get involved
(Schwartz & Gottlieb, 1976). These normative
pressures, however, are reduced when the people
in an emergency situation (the witnesses and the
person needing help) are members of the same
group or social category. If individuals in the situa-
tion know each other, then the bystander effect is
minimized—and often reversed—with larger
groups providing more help than individuals or
smaller groups (Levine et al., 2005). If “bystanders
share group-level psychological relationships, group
size can encourage as well as inhibit helping”
(Levine & Crowther, 2008, p. 1429).
Third, people feel less responsible when in
groups compared to being alone, and this diffusion
of responsibility leaves bystanders feeling that it is
not their responsibility to help. “The pressures to
bystander effect The tendency for people to help less
when they know others are present and capable of help-
ing. The effect was initially thought to be the result of
apathy and a selfish unwillingness to get involved, but
research suggests a number of cognitive and social pro-
cesses, including diffusion of responsibility and misinter-
pretation that help is not needed, contribute to the effect.
diffusion of responsibility A reduction of personal
responsibility experienced by individuals in groups and
social collectives (identified by John Darley and Bibb
Latané in their studies of bystanders’ failures to help
someone in need).
INF LUENCE 219
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

intervene do not focus on any one of the observers;
instead, the responsibility for intervention is shared
among all the onlookers and is not unique to any
one” (Darley & Latané, 1968, p. 378). Simply
imagining that one will be with others in a group
is sufficient to reduce feelings of accountability and
helpfulness (Garcia et al., 2002).
These factors, although relatively mundane
social processes in most contexts, combine to cause
bystanders to overlook the suffering of others. The
bystander effect is not caused by apathy or a loss of
humanity that overtakes people when they become
part of a collective. The effect is, instead, the predict-
able result of group-level social influence processes
that leave members confused, uncertain of the
proper course of action, and unable to take action.
7 – 4 AP P L I C A T I O N :
U N D E R S T A N D I N G JU R I ES
Groups have served as the final arbiter of guilt and
innocence for centuries. As far back as the eleventh
century, the neighbors of those accused of wrong-
doing were asked both to provide information
about the actions of the accused and to weigh the
evidence. Witnesses and experts now provide the
evidence, but the jury remains responsible for
weighing the testimony of each person before ren-
dering a verdict. More than 300,000 juries convene
each year in American courtrooms alone (Hyman &
Tarrant, 1975).
7-4a Jury Dynamics
The jury situation is designed to foster careful deci-
sion making and tolerance for all viewpoints, but at
its core, a jury is a group. The jury’s final decision
depends not only on the evidence presented at the
trial, the attorneys’ arguments, and the judge’s
instructions, but also on social influence.
Stories, Evidence, and Verdicts The Chicago
Jury Project, conducted in the 1950s, was one of
the first attempts to study the ways juries carry out
their responsibilities and render their verdicts. The
project’s researchers discovered that most juries usu-
ally begin by electing a leader and deciding if ballot-
ing will be secret or public. Some juries take a straw
poll of their initial preferences, and as many as 30%
of those groups reach complete consensus on that
first ballot (Diamond et al., 2003; Kalven & Zeisel,
1966). But when members disagree, they initiate a
consensus-seeking process. During this phase of the
deliberation, the group may ask the judge for
instructions and request additional information con-
cerning the evidence. The group spends about 75%
of its time examining evidence and the remainder
discussing points of law or unrelated matters (Ells-
worth, 1989; Hans & Vidmar, 1991). Once the
jury reaches a verdict, it then spends some time mak-
ing sure that all members are willing to endorse it
(the reconciliation stage; Levett et al., 2005).
The jury’s approach to the deliberations
depends, in part, on how it structures the task. Jury
researchers Reid Hastie, Steven Penrod, and Nancy
Pennington (1983), in their story model of jury
deliberation, noted that jurors generally approach
the decision in one of two ways. Some jurors appear
to be verdict driven. They reach a decision about the
verdict before deliberation and cognitively organize
the evidence into two categories: evidence that
favors a verdict of guilty and evidence that favors a
verdict of not guilty. Evidence-driven jurors, in con-
trast, resist making a final decision on the verdict
until they have reviewed all the available evidence;
then they generate a story that weaves together the
evidence of the trial and their own expectations and
assumptions about people and similar situations in a
coherent narrative (Pennington & Hastie, 1986,
1992). Should the jurors find, during deliberations,
that their stories are relatively similar, then the group
will be able to reach a verdict quickly. If, however,
their stories are different, they spend time discussing
alternative stories until a consensus can be reached
(Greene et al., 2004)
story model A theory of cognitive processing of trial
information that suggests jurors mentally organize evi-
dence in coherent, credible narratives.
220 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Minority Influence in Juries The jury in Twelve
Angry Men is one of the best known juries in the
world, but it is a very rare one: Eleven jurors ini-
tially favoring guilt usually means a final verdict of
guilt (see Devine et al., 2001). Most juries implicitly
adopt a majority-rules decision norm: If a signifi-
cant majority of the members (say, two-thirds)
favor a verdict, then everyone in the group should
agree with that verdict. In fact, a computer model
that simulates jury deliberations (DICE) assumes
that a three-person coalition in a standard 12-
person jury will be relatively weak, but a four-
or five-person coalition will be fairly influential
(Hastie et al., 1983).
Minorities are not powerless, however. Even
though the majority tends to prevail in juries, as
Figure 7.8 suggests, the minority convinces the
majority to change in about one trial out of every
ten. For example, in the trial of the second defendant
in the Oklahoma City Bombing, Terry Nichols, the
first vote was 10 to 2 for acquittal (Bartels, 2001).
But the two lone jurors who favored a guilty verdict
dug in to their position and carefully reviewed the
evidence for six long days. One of the jurors, a geo-
physicist, used his skill, logic, and persuasive talents
to craft a compromise verdict of guilty of conspiracy
but not guilty of first-degree murder. He was suc-
cessful, in part, because of his recognized expertise
and the rapid change in votes by four of the other
jurors. These findings confirm the importance of
encouraging juries to take the time they need to
deliberate before rendering a final decision, particu-
larly when dealing with scientifically complex evi-
dence (Devine & Macken, 2016).
Minorities can also deadlock the jury by refusing
to conform to the majority’s verdict, resulting in a
Is Helping Others a Human Universal?
Imagine your zipper on your backpack breaks as you
exit from the taxi at your destination, and now the
wind is scattering its contents about on the sidewalk.
People are passing by you as you struggle to pick up
your things, but will they stop and help? Does it mat-
ter if you are in New York City, Tokyo, or Rio de
Janeiro? Are people more helpful in some cultures
than in others (Feygina & Henry, 2015)?
Researchers have used a variety of field methods to
examine this question. Showing considerable creativity,
investigators typically stage a minor accident or make a
small request of passersby in different countries and
then compare the amount of helping. Social psychologist
Robert Levine and his colleagues (2001), for example,
tested the helpfulness of passersby in the largest cities of
23 different countries. In each city, a young man staged
three types of minor emergencies: (a) he dropped a pen
while walking down the street; (b) already limping from
a known injury, he struggled to collect a dropped pile of
magazines; and (c) while wearing sunglasses and carry-
ing a white cane used by the blind, he paused and
waited for help in crossing an intersection.
Helping rates varied substantially across the
countries Levine studied. In Rio de Janeiro and San
Jose, for example, the young man was helped over
90% of the time, whereas he received help less than
50% of the time in Singapore, New York City, and
Kuala Lampur (in Malaysia). A culture’s degree of
collectivism did not predict helping, but the economic
prosperity of the residents of the city did. In more
affluent countries, people were less likely to help a
blind person or someone who inadvertently dropped
his pen. These were also places where the pace of life
was quick—as evidenced by the more rapid pace of the
passersby as they walked by without helping.
Several of the countries that Levine studied were
also unique in their endorsement of a cultural norm
that encourages prosocial behavior. This norm, called
simpatia in Spain and simpatico in Portugal, is typical
of certain Spanish heritage countries; it encourages
people to treat other people in a positive, polite way,
including strangers. The five simpatico countries in the
study, Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, and
Spain, exhibited higher levels of helping (83%) com-
pared to the other, non-simpatico countries (66%).
These findings attest to the impact of cultural
norms, and the social influence processes they sustain, on
helping. Although humans, as a species, are uniquely
helpful relative to other species, this biological tendency
is modified to a degree by local cultural constraints.
People may be naturally helpful, but this tendency
depends on the norms of the places where they live.
INF LUENCE 221
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

hung jury if a unanimous verdict is required. The
origin of the term “hung jury” is not certain, but it
matches “most closely to the meaning of the word
hung as caught, stuck, or delayed” (Hans et al., 2003,
p. 33). Hung juries generally occur when the evi-
dence does not clearly favor one verdict, and, even
then, occur only in approximately 10% of such cases.
When a jury hangs, it is often just one or two jurors
holding out against the majority (Hans et al., 2003).
Status and Influence Some members of the
Twelve Angry Men jury had higher status within
the group than the other rank-and-file members:
Juror #4, for example, was a stockbroker, whereas
Juror #6 worked in construction. Is it a coincidence
that the jury paid far more attention to the ideas
and suggestions of Juror #4 rather than #6?
Fairly or unfairly, people who have high pres-
tige or status are more influential than low-status
members. Researchers in the Chicago Jury Project
carefully replicated all aspects of an actual trial.
They selected sets of 12 individuals from a pool of
eligible jurors, simulated the pretrial interview
process designed to eliminate biased jurors (voir
dire), and assembled the group in the courtroom.
A bailiff then played a recording of a trial and asked
the group to retire to a jury room to decide on a
verdict. Except for the use of a recording, the
groups were treated just like actual juries (Strodt-
beck & Hook, 1961; Strodtbeck James, & Hawkin,
1957; Strodtbeck & Mann, 1956).
These juries tended to favor people of higher
socioeconomic status (proprietors and office work-
ers) over those of lower socioeconomic status (blue-
collar workers) when choosing a foreman, even
though no mention of occupation was made
(Strodtbeck & Lipinski, 1985). High-status mem-
bers also participated more frequently in the jury’s
discussions, often by offering more suggestions and
providing more orientation to the task. High-status
members were also more successful in convincing
the others that their judgments on the case were the
most accurate. Proprietors’ opinion about the ver-
dict formed before deliberation predicted the jury’s
decision; the correlation between their private pre-
deliberation opinion and the jury’s decision was
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
12,0 11,1 10,2 9,3 8,4 7,5 6,6
Distribution of votes before deliberation (guilty, not guilty)
P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
5,7 4,8 3,9 2,10 1,11 0,12
30
20
10
0
Final verdict
Guilty Not guilty Hung
F I G U R E 7.8 The percentage of different types of outcomes in jury trials by initial distribution of votes. If 10, 11,
or 12 of the jurors favored guilt initially, the jury returned a verdict of guilt in the majority of the cases. If, in contrast,
seven or more of the jurors favored not guilty initially, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty in the majority of the
cases. Minority influence, although rare, occurred in about 10% of the cases when the majority favored acquittal and
15% of the cases when the majority favored conviction.
SOURCE: Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622–727.
222 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

.50. For laborers, there was no significant relation-
ship ðr ¼ :02Þ between their predeliberation opin-
ion and the jury’s decision (Strodtbeck et al., 1957).
In these studies, conducted in the 1950s, sex and
race differences were also apparent in juries. Women
and racial minorities joined in the discussion less fre-
quently than men (James, 1959; Strodtbeck et al.,
1957). Furthermore, women’s comments were
more often relational in nature, showing solidarity
and agreement, whereas men’s comments were
more task-focused (Strodtbeck & Mann, 1956; see
also Nemeth, Endicott, & Wachtler, 1976). These
inequities, however, have faded over time. Recent
analyses suggest that race and sex no longer deter-
mine influence in juries, but that social status remains
a potent factor; those jurors who are more affluent or
well-educated continue to be more influential than
others (York & Cornwell, 2006).
7-4b How Effective Are Juries?
Given what we know about conformity and non-
conformity in groups, should the jury system be
modified? Asch’s studies tell us that people often
conform and that even a correct minority often
loses to an incorrect majority. As we have seen, nor-
mative, informational, and interpersonal influence
are powerful forces in groups, and they can quash
individuals’ freedom to speak their minds. Juries are a
time-honored tradition, but are they effective?
Determining the effectiveness of juries as deciders
of guilt or innocence is a complicated task, for we can
never know when the jury has been correct or incor-
rect in condemning or freeing a defendant. If a clear
criterion for determining guilt existed, juries would
not be necessary in the first place. Several bits of evi-
dence, however, provide partial support for the effec-
tiveness of juries as decision makers. First, jurors seem
to take their role very seriously (Gastil, Burkhalter, &
Black, 2007). One jury expert, after studying the
responses of more than 2,000 jurors participating in
the Chicago Jury Project, concluded:
The most consistent theme that emerged from
listening to the deliberations was the serious-
ness with which the jurors approached their job
and the extent to which they were concerned
that the verdict they reached was consistent
with the spirit of the law and with the facts of
the case. (Simon, 1980, p. 521)
Second, jury members themselves, when asked
to rate the quality of their group’s deliberations, are
generally very favorable. Individuals tend to be quite
negative when they evaluate the quality of many
decision-making groups (e.g., teams at work, organi-
zational meetings, committees), but they give high
marks to the juries they have served on. Jurors who
were asked to rate their jury experience either agreed
or strongly agreed with such statements as: “Jurors
thoroughly discussed the relevant facts of the case,”
“All of the jurors listened respectfully to each other
during deliberation,” and “The other jurors gave me
enough of a chance to express my opinions about
the case” (Gastil et al., 2007, p. 350). These jurors
did not report an experience like that depicted in the
Twelve Angry Men jury.
Third, juries do well when compared with
judges’ decisions. In a survey of nearly 8,000 actual
criminal and civil trials, judges and juries disagreed on
only 20% of the cases; for criminal trials, the jury was
somewhat more lenient than the judge, but for civil
trials, the disagreements were evenly split for and
against the defendant. Furthermore, 80% of these dis-
agreements occurred when the weight of the evi-
dence was so close that the judge admitted that the
verdict could have gone either way. This match
between verdicts may explain why 77% of the judges
surveyed felt that the jury system was satisfactory, 20%
felt that it had disadvantages that should be corrected,
but only 3% felt the system to be so unsatisfactory that
its use should be curtailed (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966).
Last, jurors are hardly unbiased, rational weighers
of evidence; the defendant’s physical appearance, the
lawyers’ style of questioning, and the sequencing of
evidence are just a few of the factors that bias jurors’
decisions (Greene et al., 2004; Greene & Heilbrun,
2014). These biases are largely controlled, however,
by relying on group decisions rather than individual
decisions. Simulations of juries suggest that the lone
juror’s initial biases and preferences have very little
impact on the group’s final decision, no matter what
INF LUENCE 223
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the size of the jury (Kerr & Huang, 1986). Discourse
analyses of the actual content of jury deliberations
indicate that members openly address biases, manage
their conflict, and reduce decisional regret collectively
(Poole & Dobosh, 2010; Sunwolf, 2010).
Each of these pro-jury arguments, however, can
also be countered by other, more disquieting data
about juries and their capabilities. In recent years, a
number of very high-profile juries have made deci-
sions that in retrospect appear to have been based on
emotion and prejudice rather than on the thoughtful
analysis of the evidence. Studies of their deliberation
processes indicate that a handful of group members
dominated the group discussion, and these individuals
succeeded, in most cases, in determining the final ver-
dict. When investigators have asked jurors about their
understanding of the legalities of the case, they discov-
ered that many understood less than half of the judge’s
instructions to the jury (Ellsworth & Reifman, 2000).
Jury members also have a particularly difficult time
following the arguments and evidence introduced in
complex, time-consuming trials (Cecil, Hans, & Wig-
gins, 1991; Levett et al., 2005). These findings have
prompted some to suggest that the jury system should
be abolished, but others favor a more moderate
solution—improving juries by modifying their struc-
ture and dynamics.
7-4c Improving Juries
The judicial system is long on tradition, but in recent
years, several innovations have been suggested and
even implemented. Some of these reforms, such as
reducing the size and the decision rules of juries, are
designed to improve the general efficiency of juries
and the fairness of their procedures. Others, such as
note taking, help jurors to process the evidence and
testimony that they must consider when reaching
their decision (Bornstein & Greene, 2017; Vidmar
& Hans, 2007).
Jury Size In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court
returned a landmark ruling in the case of Williams v.
Florida, 1970. Williams sought to have his conviction
overturned on the grounds that the deciding jury had
included only six persons. The Supreme Court,
however, found in favor of Florida, ruling that a
six-person jury is large enough to promote group
deliberation, protect members from intimidation,
fairly represent the community, and weigh the facts
in the case. Jury experts, however, have suggested that
the Supreme Court should have taken group dynam-
ics research into consideration before making its deci-
sion. Modifying jury size could influence:
■ Group structure. Members of smaller juries par-
ticipate at more equal rates; smaller juries are
more cohesive; and members of larger juries
exchange more information.
■ Representativeness. Smaller groups are not as rep-
resentative of the community as larger ones. For
example, if a community was 10% Latino and
90% Anglo, in all probability, about 80% of the
12-person juries selected from that community
would include at least one Latino, but only 40%
of the 6-person juries would contain Latinos.
■ Majority influence. The majority’s influence may
be greater in smaller juries, because the likeli-
hood of finding a partner for one’s minority
coalition becomes smaller.
■ Voting. The Supreme Court assumed that a 5 to 1
vote in a 6-person jury was the same as a 10 to 2
split in a 12-person group. But with the 10 to 2
vote, one is joined by a dissenting partner,
whereas in the 5 to 1 vote, one faces the majority
alone. As a result, the likelihood of a hung jury is
greater in larger juries (Kerr & MacCoun, 1985).
■ Verdicts. Despite size-related changes in group
dynamics, small juries and large juries do not
appear to differ significantly in the types of ver-
dicts reached—except in certain civil cases, when
smaller juries tend to return larger damages (Saks,
1977; Saks & Hastie, 1978; Saks & Marti, 1997).
Unanimity In 1972, three men were convicted, in
separate trials, of assault, grand larceny, and burglary by
the court system of Oregon. They appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that their right
to a fair trial had been violated because the votes of the
juries had not been unanimous. To the defendants’
dismay, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Oregon
224 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

(Apodaca v. Oregon, 1972), concluding that the Sixth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees only
that a “substantial majority of the jury” must be con-
vinced of the defendant’s guilt. Later in the ruling, the
Supreme Court suggested that a 75% agreement con-
stitutes an acceptable minimum for most juries.
The Court’s conclusion is, for the most part, justi-
fied by empirical evidence. The verdict preferred by
the majority of the jurors on their first vote usually
becomes the final verdict in a large percentage of the
cases, with or without a unanimity rule. The minority’s
opinion sometimes prevails, but, in such cases, the
minority is usually so substantial that a 9 out of 12
majority would not have been reached anyway.
Most juries implicitly operate according to either a
basic two-thirds or a 10-out-of-12 rule (Davis, Bray,
& Holt, 1977; Stasser, Kerr, & Bray, 1982). Once most
of the members of the group favor a particular verdict,
the members of the minority who are uncertain tend
to go along with the others to support the “team” and
its verdict (Meyers, Seibold, & Kang, 2010).
Relaxing the requirement for unanimity, how-
ever, changes the decision-making process in juries.
Juries that do not have to reach a unanimous deci-
sion render their judgments twice as quickly and are
far less likely to come to a stalemate (Foss, 1981; Kerr
et al., 1976). Juries that do not need to reach una-
nimity may not deliberate sufficiently and make
more mistakes—”convictions when the correct deci-
sion is acquittal; acquittals when the correct decision
is conviction” (Saks & Hastie, 1978, pp. 84–85).
Procedural Innovations Whereas jurors were
once forbidden from taking notes or discussing
the case prior to deliberations, in a series of mod-
ifications, courts have experimented with various
types of procedural changes to determine if notes
help jurors to remember and process the volumes of
information they receive during the trial. For
example, the courts have worked to try to clarify
information about the legal terms used in the case
under consideration. The revised wording of such
concepts as “reasonable doubt” and “preponder-
ance of evidence,” for example, has triggered
changes in how long juries deliberate and in their
eventual verdicts (Horowitz & Kirkpatrick, 1996).
Courts have studied ways to make the instructions
given to the jurors prior to deliberation clearer and
more understandable (Ellsworth & Reifman, 2000).
Some courts also permit jurors to (1) take notes
during the presentation of evidence and use these
notes during deliberation; (2) submit questions to
the court that, after review by judge and legal
counsel, can be considered in summary statements
during the trial or in the presentation of additional
evidence; and (3) discuss the trial among themselves
while the trial is ongoing (Vidmar & Hans, 2007).
These innovations are generally associated with
increased involvement of jurors in the deliberation
process, but their impact on decision outcomes
appears to be modest (Devine et al., 2001).
Voir Dire The selection of jury members from a
pool of potential participants occurs through a pro-
cess known as voir dire. Voir dire—an alteration of
the French phrase vrai dire, which means “to speak
truly”—calls for verbal or written questioning of
prospective jurors to uncover any biases or preju-
dices that may stand in the way of fairness and
impartiality (Kovera & Austin, 2016).
Until the 1970s, voir dire was left primarily to the
judge’s discretion; defense lawyers could submit ques-
tions, but judges were free to disregard them if they
desired. However, when convictions were overturned
on appeal because trial judges had disallowed defense
participation in voir dire (e.g., Ham v. S. Carolina,
1973), trial courts began opening up the jury selection
procedure to attorneys. Systematic jury selection,
when lawyers carefully study the prospective jurors
in the pool and use voir dire to identify sympathetic
and antagonistic jurors, is now a common practice in
major trials. Voir dire is regularly used, for example, in
cases in which the defendant, if convicted, faces the
death penalty. By rejecting from the jury anyone who
objects to the death penalty, the prosecution can
assemble what is termed a death-qualified jury.
Systematic jury selection is controversial. Propo-
nents argue that in many political and criminal trials,
voir dire The oral or written questioning of prospective
jurors by counsel or the judge.
INF LUENCE 225
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

biases produced by unfair publicity, regional prejudices,
and unrepresentative jury rosters must be controlled if
the defendant is to receive just treatment. Critics feel
that systematic jury selection is tantamount to jury rig-
ging, as it produces biased rather than fair juries and
works to exclude certain types of people from juries.
Death-qualified juries, for example, are not just willing
to impose a death sentence, but they are also more
conviction prone than non-death-qualified juries
(Filkins, Smith, & Tindale, 1998).
Social psychologist Lawrence Wrightsman, an
expert on psychology and the law, has argued that
judges should limit the number of jurors that law-
yers can challenge during voir dire. He also recom-
mended stricter guidelines for lawyers, who
sometimes use the voir dire process to influence
the jurors in their favor. Wrightsman suggested
that voir dire questioning be carried out carefully,
so that jurors will respond honestly and that judges
supervise the process more closely. Voir dire is a
useful way of identifying highly biased individuals,
but it should not be a means of manipulating the
composition of the jury (Wrightsman, Nietzel, &
Fortune, 1998).
C HAPT ER R EV IEW
When do people conform in groups?
1. Social influence results from the majority
impacting the minority (majority influence) and
the minority impacting the majority (minority
influence).
2. Asch (1955) studied conformity by measuring peo-
ple’s decisions when the majority of their group’s
members made errors judging line lengths.
■ People in the Asch situation conformed, on
average, on one-third of the test trials, but
most disagreed with the majority more
frequently than they agreed.
■ Social responses to influence include com-
pliance, conversion, congruence, indepen-
dence, anticonformity, and strategic
anticonformity.
3. Majorities are more influential when unani-
mous, in strong situations, and when larger in
size (up to a point).
■ Fewer group members conformed in the
test situation developed by Crutchfield
(the Crutchfield situation), where their
responses were not identifiable.
■ Individuals in groups engaged in
computer-mediated interactions conform
at rates equal to and sometimes greater
than face-to-face groups (Social Identity
Model of Deindividuation Effects, or
SIDE effects).
■ The decreasing impact of increased num-
bers of sources of influence is consistent
with Bond’s (2005) meta-analytic review
and Latané’s (1981) social impact theory,
which predicts that social influence is a
function of the strength (S), the immediacy
(I), and the number (N) of sources
present, or Social Impact ¼ fSIN.
4. Conformity varies across group strong and
weak situations, the sexes, across time, and
across cultures.
■ People who conform consistently in
groups tend to be more authoritarian but
seek social approval. Nonconformists are
more self-confident.
■ Women conform slightly more than men,
primarily in face-to-face groups. Women
may conform to increase group harmony,
whereas men dissent to demonstrate their
independence.
■ Bond and Smith’s (1996) review suggests
that group members in collectivistic soci-
eties yield to majority influence more
often than those in individualistic societies.
226 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Conformity rates dropped slightly in the
last half of the twentieth century.
When do people resist the group’s influence and instead
change the group?
1. Moscovici’s (1976) conversion theory suggests that
consistent minorities will be influential, but that
influence in some cases is indirect and delayed.
Minorities promote conversion and innovation,
whereas majorities promote compliance.
■ Behavioral consistency increases the impact
of minority influence, as do idiosyncrasy
credits gained through prior conformity
(Hollander, 1971).
■ Minorities exert more effort in their
attempts to influence than do majorities,
and the decision rule the group adopts will
differentially influence the success of
majorities (majority-rules) and minorities
(unanimity).
2. Latané’s (1997) dynamic social impact theory uses the
processes of consolidation, clustering, correlation,
and continuing diversity to explain majority and
minority influence in spatially distributed groups
that interact repeatedly over time, such as class-
room groups (Harton et al., 1998).
What are the sources of social influence?
1. Implicit influence is produced by cognitive, emo-
tional, and behavioral processes that are not
consciously controlled and often unnoticed.
■ Group members tend to unconsciously
imitate each other.
■ Mindlessness can cause individuals to con-
form automatically (Langer, 1989).
2. Informational influence takes place whenever
group members use others’ responses as refer-
ence points and informational resources.
■ People gain information via social com-
parison, although they often misjudge the
extent to which others agree with their
viewpoint (the false consensus effect).
■ Dual process theories recognize that social
influence occurs when group members
systematically process available information
(direct process) or base their choices on
nonrational processes, such as heuristics and
emotional responses (indirect process).
3. Normative influence prompts group members to
feel, think, and act in ways that are consistent
with their group’s social standards.
■ Disagreeing with others can trigger cog-
nitive dissonance, an unpleasant and
neurologically detectable psychological
state that individuals are motivated to
reduce.
■ Cialdini’s (2011) focus theory of normative
conduct suggests that injunctive norms
(normative influences) are often, but not
always, more potent than descriptive
norms (informational influences).
4. Interpersonal influence includes verbal and non-
verbal tactics, such as complaining, demanding,
threatening, pressuring, and shouting, designed
to induce change.
■ Schachter’s (1951) analysis of group
rejection indicates that communication
with a disliked deviant eventually
diminishes, at least when cohesive groups
are working on relevant tasks. Any dissent
from the group mode usually reduces
likeability (Levine, 1980).
■ Reaction to deviants results, in part, from
subjective group dynamics triggered by social
identity processes. Group members who
violate norms can lead to the black-sheep
effect—they will be evaluated more nega-
tively than an individual who is not a
group member who performs the same
type of action.
■ Packer’s (2009) normative conflict model
suggests that strongly identified members
are more willing to bear social costs asso-
ciated with dissent in order to improve
group outcomes.
INF LUENCE 227
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

5. Social influence can cause individuals to fail to
respond in emergency situations.
■ The bystander effect occurs when individuals
help less in groups rather than when alone.
Interest in the effect was generated by the
Kitty Genovese incident.
■ Latané and Darley (1970) confirmed the
effect of groups on helping by studying
people’s reactions to staged emergencies.
■ Informational and normative influences
contribute to the bystander effect, as does
diffusion of responsibility.
■ Cross-cultural studies of helping suggest
that the norms of some cultures (such as
simpatico cultures) prompt residents to
respond more positively to those who are
in need (Levine et al., 2001).
Does social influence shape juries’ verdicts?
1. The magnitude of social influence suggests that
the decisions reached by groups, including
juries, are shaped by social processes rather than
by an unbiased weighing of evidence.
■ The Chicago Jury Project and work by
Hastie, Penrod, and Pennington (1983)
suggest that jurors, through deliberation,
develop narratives to account for evidence
(story model).
■ Most juries use either verdict-driven or
evidence-driven deliberation strategies.
■ The verdict favored by the majority of the
members prior to deliberation (or on the
first straw poll) is usually the jury’s final
verdict, although hung juries occur in
about 10% of all trials.
■ Jurors who have higher status occupations
tend to dominate the group’s discussion.
2. Studies of juries support their continued use for
making legal decisions.
■ Despite size-related changes in group
dynamics, small and large juries do not differ
significantly in the types of verdicts reached.
■ Juries that do not have to reach a unani-
mous decision render their judgments
twice as quickly and are far less likely to be
hung juries.
■ Several alterations of procedure have been
developed to help jurors remember and
process trial information, but their impact
is not yet known.
■ Voir dire procedures are often used to
select jury members, but Wrightman
maintains that this process can undermine
the representativeness of the jury
(Wrightsman et al., 1998).
R E S O U R C E S
Chapter Case: Twelve Angry Men
■ Twelve Angry Men: A Play in Three Acts by
Reginald Rose and Sherman L. Sergel
(1958) is based on Rose’s experiences
when he was summoned to jury duty.
Both movie versions of the play, one made
in 1957 starring Henry Fonda as Juror #8
and a 1997 version with Jack Lemon tak-
ing the role, are excellent depictions of
group processes.
■ “One Inspiring Jury” by Phoebe C. Ells-
worth (2003) is a thorough analysis of the
play and film Twelve Angry Men, and its key
message: “The minority view can be the
right view” (p. 1407).
Majority and Minority Influence
■ “Dynamic Social Impact: A Theory of the
Origins and Evolution of Culture” by
Helen C. Harton and Melinda Bullock
(2007) reviews recent studies of dynamic
social impact theory and applies the the-
ory to explain the origins of consistencies
in human culture.
228 C H A P T ER 7
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ “Stability and Change within Groups” by
Matthew J. Hornsey and Jolanda Jetten
(2014) explains clearly, with strong
empirical and theoretical documentation,
the process of change in groups through
minority and majority influence.
Sources of Social Influence
■ Rebels in Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Differ-
ence and Defiance, edited by Jolanda Jetten
and Matthew J. Hornsey (2011), draws
together the leading experts on minority/
majority influence in groups and offers
insight after insight into the dynamics of
opinion change in small groups.
■ “Social Influence in Groups” by John
M. Levine and Scott R. Tindale (2015)
is a thorough review of social processes
that influence decision making in
groups, with particular attention to the
many theoretical analyses that have been
proposed to account for minority and
majority influence.
Juries
■ Investigating Jury Deliberations, a special issue
of the journal Small Group Research (2010),
includes six articles based on the analysis of
the deliberations of a jury in a death-
sentence trial.
■ Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science
by Dennis J. Devine (2012) reviews 50 years
of research examining how juries make
decisions, and integrates that work in a
multilevel model of collective deliberation.
■ American Juries: The Verdict by Neil Vidmar
and Valerie P. Hans (2007) is a carefully
researched analysis of the strengths and
possible weaknesses of the jury system.
INF LUENCE 229
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 8
Power
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Power is a group-level process, predicated on dif-
ferentiation in each member’s capacity to influence
others. Those with power sometimes make
demands that others in the group try to resist, but
they also influence by persuading, cajoling, and
maneuvering. Power processes can trigger conflict,
tension, and animosity, but these same processes
also promote order, stability, and efficiency. We
would not be social beings if we were immune to
the impact of power, but power can corrupt.
■ What are the limits of an authority’s power?
■ What are the sources of power in groups?
■ What are the sources of status in groups?
■ Does gaining power have a transformative
effect on people?
■ How do people react when power is used to
influence them?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
8-1 Obedience to Authority
8-1a The Milgram Experiments
8-1b Milgram’s Findings
8-1c The Power of the Milgram Situation
8-2 Social Power in Groups
8-2a Bases of Power
8-2b Bases and Obedience
8-2c Power Tactics
8-3 Social Status in Groups
8-3a Claiming Status
8-3b Achieving Status
8-3c Status Hierarchies and Stability
8-4 The Metamorphic Effects of Power
8-4a Changes in the Powerholder
8-4b Reactions to the Use of Power
8-4c Who Is Responsible?
Chapter Review
Resources
230
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Few interactions advance very far before elements of
power and influence come into play. The police offi-
cer asking the driver for the car’s registration, the
teacher scowling at the errant student, and the boss
telling an employee to get back to work—all are rely-
ing on social power to influence others. In many
cases group members nudge rather than push; they
suggest rather than pressure. But in other cases their
influence can be extraordinarily strong. Rather than
subtly shaping opinions and choices, some can compel
others to do things they would rather not do. Here
we consider the sources of that power and the con-
sequences of power for those who wield it as well as
those who are subjected to it (Cartwright, 1959).
8 – 1 OB E D I E N C E T O
A U T H O R IT Y
Why did the Jonestown group obey Jones’s orders?
Some blamed Jim Jones—his persuasiveness, his
charisma, his depravity. Others emphasized the
kind of people who join such groups—their psy-
chological instability, their willingness to identify
with causes, and their religious fervor. But such
explanations underestimate the power of groups
and their leaders. As Chapter 7 noted, groups
influence members’ thoughts, actions, and
feelings—with results that range from the ordi-
nary and every day to the extraordinary and
extreme. But can group members be so bent to
the will of an authority that they would follow
any order, no matter how noxious? Social psy-
chologist Stanley Milgram’s (1963, 1974) experi-
mental studies of obedience to authority suggest
that they can.
8-1a The Milgram Experiments
Stanley Milgram carried out his now-famous stud-
ies in the early 1960s. Intrigued by people’s ten-
dency to do as they are told, he tested American
subjects’ reactions to an experimenter who
ordered them to do something they would nor-
mally not do—to harm a person innocent of any
wrongdoing.
The People’s Temple: The Metamorphic Effects of Power
The members of the People’s Temple Full Gospel Church
were united by a shared vision of a world much better
than this one. Jim Jones, the group’s founder, was an
inspiring leader who decried the racism, inequality, and
spiritual emptiness of American society. He won the
respect of his community, and, under his charismatic
leadership, the congregation grew to 8,000 members.
But the church, and Jones, had a dark side. Former
members reported that at some services, people were
beaten before the congregation, with microphones used
to amplify their screams. Jones, some said, insisted on
being called Father, and he demanded dedication and
absolute obedience from his followers. He asked mem-
bers to donate their property to the church, and he even
forced one family to give him their six-year-old son.
Jones, to transform his church into a collective soci-
ety free from the interference of outsiders, moved the
entire congregation to Guyana, in South America. He
called the isolated settlement Jonestown and claimed
that it would be the model for a new way of living where
all would find love, happiness, and well-being. But the
men, women, and children of Jonestown did not find
contentment. They found, instead, a group that exercised
incredible power over their destiny. Jones asked members
to make great personal sacrifices for the group, and time
and again they obeyed. They worked long hours in the
fields. They were given little to eat. They were forbidden
to communicate with their loved ones back home. When
a congressional delegation from the United States visited,
disaster struck: An armed group of church members
attacked and killed the outsiders.
Jones, fearing the dismantling of all he had
worked to create, ordered his followers to take their
own lives. When authorities reached the settlement,
they could not believe the scope of the tragedy. On
Jones’s orders, 908 men, women, and children had
either killed themselves or been killed by other fol-
lowers. One resident wrote this entry (his last) in his
journal that day: “We are begging only for some
understanding. It will take more than small minds … to
fathom these events. Something must come of this”
(quoted in Scheeres, 2011, p. 237).
social power The capacity to produce intended effects
in interpersonal contexts.
PO W E R 231
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The Obedience Situation Milgram studied obe-
dience by creating small groups in his laboratory at
Yale University. In most cases, he studied three-
man groups: One member was a volunteer who
had answered an advertisement; one was the exper-
imenter who was in charge of the session; and one
appeared to be another participant but was in actu-
ality part of the research team. This confederate
looked to be in his late 40s, and he seemed friendly
and a little nervous. The self-assured experimenter
set the group’s agenda, explained their task, issued
orders, and assigned the participants to one of two
roles—teacher or learner. Teachers read a series of
paired words (blue box, nice day, wild duck, etc.) to
the learner who was supposed to memorize the
pairings. The teacher would later check the lear-
ner’s ability to recall the pairs by reading the first
word in the pair and several possible answers (e.g.,
blue: sky, ink, box, lamp). Failures would be punished
by an electric shock. What the volunteer did not
know, however, was that the confederate was
always assigned to the learner role and that the
learner did not actually receive shocks.
After assigning the participants to their roles,
the experimenter took both group members into
the next room where he strapped the learner into
a chair that was designed “to prevent excessive
movement during the shock.” As the experimenter
attached an electrode to his wrist, the confederate
asked if the shocks were dangerous. “Oh, no,”
answered the experimenter, “although the shocks
can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent
tissue damage” (Milgram, 1974, p. 19).
The experimenter then led the participant back
to the other room and seated him at the shock gen-
erator. This bogus machine, which Milgram himself
fabricated, featured a row of 30 electrical switches.
Each switch, when depressed, would supposedly
send a shock to the learner. The shock level of
the first switch on the left was 15 volts V, the next
switch was 30, the next was 45, and so on, all the
way up to 450 V. Milgram also labeled the voltage
levels, from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock as
shown in Figure 8.1. The final two switches were
marked XXX. The rest of the face of the shock
generator was taken up by dials, lights, and meters
that flickered whenever a switch was pressed.
The experimenter administered a sample
shock of 45 V to “strengthen the subject’s belief
in the authenticity of the generator” (Milgram,
1974, p. 20). Then, speaking into a microphone,
the teacher read the list of word pairs and then
began “testing” the learner’s memory. Each time
the teacher read a word and the response alterna-
tives, the learner indicated his response by pushing
one of four numbered switches that were just
within reach of his bound hand. His response lit
up on the participant’s control panel. Participants
were to deliver one shock for each mistake and
increase the voltage one step after delivering a
punishment.
The Demands (Prods) Milgram set the stage for
the order-giving phase by having the learner make
mistakes deliberately. Although participants pun-
ished that first mistake with just a 15-V jolt, each
subsequent failure was followed by a stronger
shock. At the 300-V level, the learner also began
to protest the shocks by pounding on the wall, and,
after the next shock of 315 V, he stopped respond-
ing altogether. Most participants assumed that the
session was over at this point, but the experimenter
told them to treat a failure to respond as a wrong
answer and to continue delivering the shocks.
When the participants balked, the experimenter,
who was seated at a separate desk near the teacher’s,
would use a sequence of prods to goad them into
action (Milgram, 1974, p. 21):
■ Prod 1: “Please continue,” or “Please go on.”
■ Prod 2: “The experiment requires that you
continue.”
■ Prod 3: “It is absolutely essential that you
continue.”
■ Prod 4: “You have no other choice; you must
go on.”
obedience Compliance with authoritative directives
pertaining to a given situation, including changes in
behavior in response to instructions, orders, and demands
issued by those with authority.
232 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The situation was extremely realistic and served
as a laboratory analog to real-world groups when
authorities give orders to subordinates. The experi-
menter acted with self-assurance and poise. He gave
orders crisply, as if he never questioned the correctness
of his own actions, and he seemed surprised that the
teacher would try to terminate the shock sequence.
Yet from the participant’s point of view, this authority
was requiring them to act in a way that was harmful
to another person. When they accepted the $4.50
payment, they implicitly agreed to carry out the
experimenter’s instructions, but they were torn
between this duty and their desire to protect the
learner from possible harm. Milgram designed his
experiment to determine which side would win in
this conflict.
8-1b Milgram’s Findings
Milgram was certain that very few of his partici-
pants would carry out the experimenter’s orders.
He went so far as to purchase special equipment
that would let him record the duration of each
shock administered, expecting that few participants
would give more than four or five shocks (Elms,
1995). So he was surprised when 26 of the 40
(65%) individuals who served as teachers in the ini-
tial experiment administered the full 450 V to the
presumably helpless learner (see Figure 8.1). Most
of the participants resisted, challenging the experi-
menter again and again each time he told them to
continue. But no one broke off before the 300-V
level or checked on the learner when he failed to
answer. The comments made by the participants
during the shock procedure and their obvious psy-
chological distress revealed that they were reluctant
to go on but felt unable to resist the experimenter’s
demands for obedience.
Perplexed, Milgram studied over 800 people in a
series of replications and extensions of his original
study. Although he continued to search for the limits
of obedience, again and again his participants buckled
under the pressure of the experimenter’s power.
Harm versus Rights In the original version of
the study, the participants heard only a pounding
on the wall when they pressed down the switch for
300 V. So Milgram added additional cues that
100
P
e
rc
e
n
t
o
b
e
d
ie
n
t
Slight
Shock
15
VOLTS VOLTS VOLTS VOLTS VOLTS VOLTS VOLTS VOLTS VOLTS
75 135 195 255 315 375 435 450
30 90 105 120 150 210 270 300 330 345 360 390 405 420285165 180 225 24045 60
Moderate
Shock
Strong
Shock
Intense
Shock
X X X
Very
Strong
Shock
Shock level
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
“Ugh!”
“Let me
out of
here.”
Pounding
Sound
“I absolutely
refuse to
answer any
more. You
can’t hold me
here.”
Maximum
Obedience
(450 v)
80
90
Extreme
Intensity
Shock
Danger:
severe
Shock
Pounding
Voice
Heart
F I G U R E 8.1 Level of obedience in three conditions of the Milgram experiment: original (pounding on the wall),
voice-feedback (voice), and heart-condition (heart).
SOURCE: Adapted from Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, by Stanley Milgram. Copyright © 1974 by Stanley Milgram.
PO W E R 233
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

signaled the learner’s suffering and an emotional
entreaty for release. In the voice-feedback condition,
the learner’s shouts and pleas (carefully rehearsed
and tape-recorded) could be heard through the
wall. At 75 V, he grunted. At 120 V, he shouted
out. Painful cries continued to escalate in intensity
until the 180-V level when he shouted “I can’t
stand the pain” (Milgram, 1974, p. 23).
These changes did not substantially reduce the
level of obedience, for 62.5% of the participants still
obeyed to the 450-V level. So Milgram increased the
possibility of significant harm in the heart-problem condi-
tion. When the experimenter connected the wires to
his arm, the learner mentioned that he had a heart
condition and asked about complications. The experi-
menter said that the shocks would cause no permanent
damage. When shocked, the learner’s groans and
shouts of protest could be heard through the wall,
and he also repeatedly complained that his heart was
bothering him. Even when the learner stopped
responding after 330 V, 65% of the participants contin-
ued to administer shocks to the 450-V level.
Proximity and Surveillance Effects In earlier
versions of the study, the teacher and learner were
separated by a glass observation window. Milgram
noticed that, even though teachers could see the
learner react to the shocks, most averted their eyes
and expressed discomfort at having to watch. So, to
make the consequences of their actions even clearer
to subjects, Milgram moved the learner into the
same room as the teacher. In the proximity condition,
the learner sat in the same room as the teacher,
voicing the same complaints used in the voice-
feedback condition and writhing with pain at each
shock. Obedience dropped to 40%. In the most
extreme of all the variations, the touch-proximity con-
dition, the learner sat next to the teacher and
received his shock when he put his hand on a
shock plate. At the 150-V level, he refused to put
his hand down on the plate, so the experimenter
gave the participant an insulated glove and told him
to press the learner’s hand down onto the plate as
he depressed the shock switch. Still, 30% obeyed.
Milgram also examined the impact of increased
distance between the experimenter and the teacher
on rates of obedience by having the experimenter
leave the room after he reviewed the procedures
with the participant. He continued giving orders
to the participant by telephone, but he lost his abil-
ity to monitor the subject’s actions. In this low sur-
veillance condition, 25% of the participants stopped as
soon as the learner insisted on release (the 150-V
level). Only 20% of the participants were obedient
to the 450-V level, and many participants dis-
obeyed by deceiving the authority—they assured
the experimenter that they were administering
increasingly large shocks with each mistake when
they were actually only delivering 15 V.
Prestige and Legitimacy Milgram conducted his
initial studies on the campus of Yale University,
What Made Them Stop?
After pretesting his procedures, Milgram added the
sound of the learner’s grunts, groans, and screams,
thinking that this clear evidence of the harm would
prompt participants to resist the experimenter’s orders.
But when social psychologist Dominic Packer (2008a) re-
examined the results of eight of Milgram’s studies meta-
analytically, he found no association at all between
obedience and the learner’s cries of pain: screams did
not prompt teachers to disobey. But he did discover a
clear inflection point in the data—a place where far
more participants stopped following orders and pushed
back from the shock machine: the 150-V level. It was
the participant’s protest “Get me out of here! I won’t
be in the experiment anymore! I refuse to go on!”
delivered at that level that triggered a refusal to con-
tinue (Milgram, 1974, p. 23). Packer concludes that the
learner’s invocation of his rights created a qualitative
change in the balance of power in the situation.
When they heard the learner withdraw his consent to
participate, many realized “that the learner’s right to
end the experiment trumped the experimenter’s right
to give orders to the contrary” (2008a, p. 303).
234 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

which most people recognize as a prestigious center
of learning and science. Milgram was concerned
that people obeyed the experimenter because he
was perceived to be a “Yale scientist” and could
therefore be trusted to act appropriately. So, in the
office-building condition, Milgram moved the study to
a building located in a shopping area. “When sub-
jects inquired about professional affiliations, they
were informed only that we were a private firm
conducting research for industry” (Milgram, 1974,
pp. 68–69). Obedience dropped to 48%—still a
surprisingly large figure given the unknown cre-
dentials of the staff. However, two individuals
refused to give any shocks at all.
Milgram next diminished the authority’s legiti-
macy by arranging for the orders to come from
someone other than the expert experimenter. In
the ordinary-man variation, he added a fourth mem-
ber to the group who was given the task of record-
ing the shock levels used. The experimenter
explained the study, as in the other conditions,
but gave no instructions about shock levels before
he was called away. The new participant, who was
actually a confederate, filled the role of the author-
ity; he suggested that shocks be given in increas-
ingly strong doses and ordered the participant to
continue giving shocks when the learner started to
complain. Obedience dropped to 20%. But when
the participants refused to continue, the confederate
left the experimenter’s desk and began administer-
ing the shocks. In this case, most of the participants
(68.75%) stood by and watched without stopping
the confederate—although one “large man, lifted
the zealous shocker from his chair, threw him to a
corner of the laboratory, and did not allow him to
move until he had promised not to administer fur-
ther shocks” (1974, p. 97).
Milgram further explored the legitimacy of the
authority in the authority-as-victim condition. Here
the experimenter agreed to take the role of the
learner, supposedly to convince a reluctant learner
that the shocks were not harmful. The experi-
menter tolerated the shocks up to 150 V, but
then he shouted, “That’s enough, gentlemen!”
The confederate, who had been watching the pro-
cedure, then insisted, “Oh, no, let’s go on. Oh, no,
come on, I’m going to have to go through the
whole thing. Let’s go. Come on, let’s keep
going” (Milgram, 1974, p. 97). In all cases, the par-
ticipant released the experimenter; obedience to the
ordinary person’s command to harm the authority
was nil.
Group Effects Milgram (1974) studied obedience
rather than conformity, since the authority did not
himself engage in the action he demanded of the
teacher and the teacher faced the power of the
authority alone. But Milgram recognized that in
many cases authorities give orders to groups rather
than lone individuals, and the group may be a sec-
ond source of power in the situation—either in
standing against the authority or taking sides with
him. So Milgram arranged for groups to administer
the shocks. In the two peers rebel condition, Milgram
added two more confederates to the situation. They
posed as fellow participants and the three worked
together to deliver the shocks to the learner. One
read the list of words, one gave the verbal feedback
to the learner, and the participant pushed the shock
button. The subject sat before the shock machine,
and the other group members sat on either side.
The confederates played out their roles until
the learner cried out in pain at 150 V. Then, one
of the confederates refused to continue and left the
table. The experimenter could not convince him to
return and ordered the remaining two to continue.
However, at the 210-V mark, the second confed-
erate quit as well, explaining, “I’m not going to
shock that man against his will” (1974, p. 118).
Only the real subject was left to give the shocks,
and, in most cases, he sided with the group and
refused to obey. Only 10% of the participants
were fully obedient. Membership in a group helped
participants defy the authority.
But what if an individual is part of a group that
was obedient? In the peer administers shock condition,
the subject was given subsidiary tasks, such as read-
ing the questions and giving feedback, but he
did not push the shock button; a second subject
(actually, a confederate), who was fully compliant,
did so. In this variation, 37 of the 40 people tested
(92.5%) obediently fulfilled their tasks without
PO W E R 235
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

intervening. As Milgram explained, “They are
accessories to the act of shocking the victim, but
they are not psychologically implicated in it to the
point where strain arises” (1974, p. 118).
And what if the participant and the learner were
themselves members of a group? In a variation of the
study conducted at the office-building site, Milgram
arranged for participants to bring a second person—a
friend or colleague—with them to the study. The
study proceeded as usual, but with one change:
Milgram coached the participant assigned to the learner
role to pretend he was receiving the shocks. In this
unusual variation of the study, 85% of the participants
refused to continue before reaching the maximum
shock voltage, and they refused sooner in the shock
sequence than in other conditions. As one explained,
“I can’t continue doing this. I have to face this guy.
He’s my neighbor and I can’t go on with this” (Rochat
& Blass, 2014, p. 456; see Figure 8.2 for a summary).
8-1c The Power in the Milgram
Situation
Milgram’s studies of obedience continue to pro-
voke discussion, debate, and even disputes about
their methods, ethics, and implications (Brannigan,
Nicholson, & Cherry, 2015). Were the studies a
tour de force of scientific rigor? Some investigators,
after examining documents and records of the stud-
ies archived at the Yale University Library, have
identified inconsistencies in Milgram’s descriptions
of the procedures (e.g., Perry, 2013). Others have
challenged the work on moral grounds. Milgram’s
participants were not just put through a highly stress-
ful procedure without full consent, but they were
also deceived and, in some cases, never even told
that the shocks were a sham (Griggs, 2017). The
work, too, raises important questions about human
nature, our capacity to resist the orders of malevolent
authorities, and the degree to which the claim “I was
only following orders” exculpates us from responsi-
bility for harmful actions (Miller, 2016).
Challenges and Replications Most people,
including both experts and laypersons alike, were
surprised by the level of obedience Milgram discov-
ered in his research. When Milgram asked panels of
psychiatrists, college students, and middle-class
adults to make predictions about how people
would act in his experiment, only a few predicted
Remote 65
65
40
30
20
47.5
20
0
10
15
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent
60 70 80 90 100
92.5
62.5Voice feedback
Heart problem
Proximity
Touch proximity
Low surveillance
Office building
Ordinary man
Authority as victim
Two peers rebel
Peer administers shock
Bring a friend
F I G U R E 8.2 Obedience rates (to 450 V) across variations in the Milgram experiments.
SOURCE: Data from Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, by Stanley Milgram. Copyright © 1974 by Stanley Milgram.
236 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

anyone would give more than 180 V. The high
levels of obedience Milgram recorded prompted
some to suggest that the participants were not
taken in by Milgram’s subterfuge. They suggested
that the participants knew that no shocks were
being administered, but they played along so as not
to ruin the study (Orne & Holland, 1968). Milgram’s
research team, however, interviewed all the partici-
pants, and fewer than 20% challenged the reality of
the situation (Elms, 1995). Moreover, if participants
saw through the elaborate duplicity, then why did
they become so upset? According to Milgram,
Many subjects showed signs of nervousness in
the experimental situation, and especially upon
administering the more powerful shocks. In a
large number of cases the degree of tension
reached extremes that are rarely seen in socio-
psychological laboratory studies. Subjects were
observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their
lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into their
flesh. (1963, p. 375)
The distress of the participants was so great that
the publication of the study sparked a controversy
over the ethics of research (Herrer, 2013). Many
trace improvements in the level of protection for
participants, such as the review of social and behav-
ioral science studies by institutional review boards,
back to Milgram’s work (Schrag, 2010).
Others note that Milgram’s subjects were
mostly men, they were paid, and they lived at a
time when people trusted authorities more than
they do now (Twenge, 2009). Yet, replications of
the study using different procedures and participants
have generally confirmed Milgram’s initial findings
(Blass, 2012). Many believe that the level of obedi-
ence that Milgram documented in his laboratory
matches levels found in military, organizational,
and educational settings (Fiske, Harris, & Cuddy,
2004; Hinrichs, 2007; Pace & Hemmings, 2007).
Other experts, when trying to explain why so
many people obeyed, pointed to the participants
themselves, suggesting they were unusual individuals
and unrepresentative in some way. Just as many peo-
ple, when first hearing of the Guyana tragedy, won-
dered, “What strange people they must have been to
be willing to kill themselves,” when people are told
about Milgram’s findings, they react with the ques-
tion, “What kind of evil, sadistic men did he recruit
for his study?” Yet, by all accounts, Milgram’s parti-
cipants were normal and well-adjusted (see Blass,
1991, for an analysis). The people who took part in
Are People Still Obedient?
Many things have changed since Milgram conducted
his study, and one of those things might be obedience
to authority. Would people born in the second half of
the twentieth century be so willing to obey an
authority (Twenge, 2009)?
Milgram’s study can never be exactly replicated
given the level of distress his participants experienced
and procedures that are now required to protect
subjects from harm. However, social psychologist
Jerry Burger (2009), by modifying aspects of the Mil-
gram situation that caused the greatest stress for
participants, was able to test 70 men and women in
2006. Burger used a facsimile of the original shock
machine (complete with the “Shock Generator, Type
ZLB, Dyson Instrument Company, Waltham, Mass.
Output 15 volts–450 volts” label on the side), an
innocent male victim who cried out in pain and
demanded to be released, and an experimenter who
delivered well-rehearsed prods if participants balked.
But Burger ended the study when participants
administered 150 V and appeared to be continuing
on to the next set of word pairs. He also hired a
clinical psychologist who interviewed each potential
participant so as to eliminate anyone who might have
“a negative reaction to participating in the study”
(Burger, 2009, p. 6).
In the 1960s, 82.5% of the men continued past
the 150-V level. But in 2006, 70% of the men and
women Burger tested were similarly obedient—a
decline, but not a statistically significant one. Women
were just as obedient as men, and those subjects
tested in a group with a confederate who refused to
continue were only slightly less obedient (63.3%).
People are still obedient after all these years.
PO W E R 237
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Milgram’s study differed from one another in age,
personality, and life experiences, and they also dif-
fered in their response to the experimenter’s orders.
Some broke off at the first sign of trouble from the
learner, others obeyed until the learner stopped
answering, and others continued until the shocks
reached levels they felt were too dangerous. But
age and occupation did not predict these variations.
The Riddle of Obedience If Milgram’s studies
are methodologically sound and the obedience he
observed does not reflect his subjects’ peculiarities,
then why did so many obey the orders of the
authority? “It is not so much the kind of person a
man is as the kind of situation in which he finds
himself that determines how he will act,” explains
Milgram (1974, p. 205). The subjects had no power
in the setting. The experimenter gave the orders,
and the subjects followed those orders. Maybe they
wanted to resist the commands of the experimenter,
but like the hapless members of the People’s
Temple, they could not. As we will see in the
next section, those who control the bases of
power in a situation influence others, and those
who do not are the targets of that influence.
8 -2 S O C IAL P O W E R IN
GRO UPS
Milgram created a complex social situation in his
Yale laboratory. Those who entered into it were
pressured to act in ways that were inconsistent
with their values, and some yielded to this pres-
sure. He succeeded in controlling others’ actions
to promote his own goals “without their consent,
against their will, or without their knowledge or
understanding” (Buckley, 1967, p. 186). But just
as Jim Jones did not use physical force to coerce his
followers into leaving their homes in the United
States and joining him in Jonestown, Milgram’s
experimenter did not resort to threats of violence
or punishment to extract high levels of obedience
from participants. But both the Jonestown resi-
dents and many of the Milgram subjects followed
orders. Why?
8-2a Bases of Power
Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell concluded many
years ago that “the fundamental concept in social
science is Power, in the same sense in which Energy
is the fundamental concept in physics” (1938/2004,
p. 4). The conquest of one civilization by another,
the persistence of social inequalities, revolutions and
rebellions, and the obedience of the members of the
People’s Temple and Milgram’s subjects—all are
inexplicable if one does not understand power.
Russell added, however, that power takes many
forms, so to understand the “laws of social dynamics
… it is necessary first to classify the forms of power”
(1938/2004, p. 6).
Social psychologists John R. P. French and
Bertram Raven’s (1959) theory of power bases
answers Russell’s challenge. French and Raven rec-
ognized that power is relational and rooted in
inequalities in control over resources and punish-
ments. When a person’s experience of positive
and negative outcomes depends on another person
who is not similarly dependent in return, differ-
ences in power result. French and Raven identified
and differentiated the five forms of power shown in
Figure 8.3: reward, coercive, legitimate, referent,
and expert power. Raven (1965, 2008), drawing
on his subsequent studies of influence, added a
sixth base: informational power.
Reward Power Jones’s reward power was con-
siderable because he controlled the allocation of both
impersonal and personal rewards. Impersonal rewards
are material resources, such as food, shelter, protec-
tion, promotions, wages, and awards. Personal
rewards are positive interpersonal reinforcements,
power bases Sources of social power in a group, includ-
ing one’s degree of control over rewards and punish-
ment, authority in the group, attractiveness, expertise,
and access to and control over information needed by
group members (originally described by John French
and Bertram Raven).
reward power Power based on control over the distribu-
tion of rewards (both personal and impersonal) given or
offered to group members.
238 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

such as verbal approbation, compliments, smiles, and
promises of liking or acceptance. Both types of
rewards are potent sources of power, particularly
during times of scarcity (Emerson, 1962). Money
and food, for example, are valued resources, but
they become a source of power when the rest of
the group is penniless and starving. Rewards that
one controls exclusively are also more likely to
augment one’s power, so Jones power increased
when he isolated the church members in Jones-
town (Cook, Cheshire, & Gerbasi, 2006).
Ironically, when followers’ dependence on a
leader increases, this dependence often triggers
increases in respect, trust, and deference (van der
Toorn, Tyler, & Jost, 2011). Dependence also
increases the perceived value of rewards from those
who are powerful. A smile from Jim Jones, for
example, was far more rewarding than a smile from a
rank-and-file member. Researchers investigated this
phenomenon by giving group members the oppor-
tunity to trade goods of equal monetary value with
other group members. Most were willing to pay
more for goods they received from a high-status
group member, and they considered those resources
to be more valuable, important, and worth having.
Because powerful individuals’ rewards were overva-
lued by others, they did not need to expend as many
of their resources to achieve the same level of success
in the exchange as did those members with low
power, their resources tended to grow rather than
diminish (Thye, 2000).
Coercive Power Jones used threats and punish-
ment as a means of exacting obedience from his fol-
lowers. When members broke the rules or disobeyed
his orders, he was quick to punish them with beat-
ings, solitary confinement, denials of food and water,
and long hours of labor in the fields.
Coercive power derives from one’s capacity
to dispense punishments, both impersonal and per-
sonal, to others. Terrorists attacking other coun-
tries, employers threatening employees with the
loss of pay or dismissal, and teachers punishing mis-
chievous students with extra assignments are all
relying on impersonal coercive bases of power.
Disagreeing friends insulting and humiliating one
another, the boss shouting angrily at his secretary,
and religious leaders threatening members with loss
of grace or ostracism derive their power from per-
sonal sources (Pierro, Kruglanski, & Raven, 2012;
Raven, 2008).
Certain people consistently rely on coercion to
influence others, but most only turn to coercive
power when they feel it is the only means they have
to influence others (Kramer, 2006). When individuals
who are equal in coercive power interact, they often
learn over time to avoid the use of their power (Lawler
& Yoon, 1996). Group members also prefer to use
reward power rather than coercive power if both are
available and they fear reprisals from others in the
group should they act in a coercive way (Molm,
1997). In consequence, and paradoxically, individuals
in positions of authority who feel relatively powerless
are more likely to use coercion than more powerful
individuals (Bugental, 2010).
Reward
Promise of
positive,
desirable
incentives
Threat of
negative,
undesirable
consequences
Right to
require the
requested
behavior
Relationship
based
(respect,
attraction)
Perceived
knowledge,
skills,
abilities
Capacity to
reason,
explain,
inform
Coercive Legitimate Referent Expert Informational
F I G U R E 8.3 Six bases of power.
coercive power Power based on the ability to punish or
threaten others who do not comply with requests or
demands.
PO W E R 239
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Legitimate Power Individuals who have legiti-
mate power have the socially sanctioned right to
ask others to obey their orders. The security per-
sonnel at the airport telling a passenger to remove
her shoes, the professor waiting for the class to
become quiet before a lecture, and the minister
interpreting the Gospel for the congregation are
powerful because they have the right to command
others, and others are obligated to obey. Jones, for
example, was the legitimate head of the People’s
Temple. He was an ordained minister; his work
had been commended by many political and
religious leaders, and he had received such honors
as the Martin Luther King Jr. Humanitarian Award.
When individuals joined the People’s Temple, they
tacitly agreed to follow Jones’s orders.
Those who rely on reward or coercive power
often find that their influence dwindles when their
control over resources diminishes. In contrast, those
with legitimate power find that their decisions are
accepted, without resistance, by others in the group
(Tyler, 2005). Members obey these legitimate
authorities because they personally accept the
norms of the group. Their obedience is not coerced
but voluntary, for it springs from an internalized
sense of loyalty to the group rather than the desire
to gain resources or avoid harm. Even duly
appointed or selected authorities will lose their
legitimate power, however, if they consistently act
in ways that are viewed as unfair or they repeatedly
cause harm to the group and its members (Lammers
et al., 2008). Those who engage in unethical
behavior or fail to show proper respect for their
followers, for example, run the risk of losing the
Obedience to Authority: Cooperation or Capitulation?
Milgram theorized that those participants who obeyed
entered into what he called the agentic state; as
agents of a higher authority, they no longer thought
for themselves, but only carried out the experimenter’s
orders no matter what the cost (Milgram, 1974). Sub-
sequent studies, however, offer an alternative
explanation—one based on cooperation instead of
capitulation. The subjects, rather than viewing them-
selves as subordinates taking orders from a superior,
thought of themselves as collaborators working on a
scientific study of learning. They identified more with
the researcher, rather than the learner, and it was that
identification that caused them to continue to admin-
ister shocks even when the learner protested (Haslam,
Reicher, & Birney, 2014; Reicher & Haslam, 2011).
This reinterpretation of Milgram’s findings is
supported by the marked ineffectiveness of the fourth
and final prod used by Milgram’s experimenter:
“You have no other choice: you must go on” (1974,
p. 21). Unlike the first three prods, which implied the
shocks were necessary for scientific purposes, this prod
was an order. And this order failed, consistently, to
generate compliance, both in the original Milgram
studies (Gibson, 2011) and in subsequent replications.
Burger, for example, found that the majority of his
participants continued onward after being told
“Please continue,” but no one—not one—continued
after receiving the fourth, “you must go on,” prod
(Burger, 2009; Burger, Girgis, & Manning, 2011). Simi-
larly, in a clever replication conducted online (partici-
pants were required to say very mean things about
groups of people), obedience rates were lowest when
reluctant participants were nudged with the com-
manding fourth prod rather than the more legitimate
“the experiment requires you continue” prod (Haslam
et al., 2014). These findings lend support to an
engaged followership model: “participants’ willing-
ness to continue with an objectionable task is predi-
cated upon active identification with the scientific
project and those leading it” (Haslam et al., 2014,
p. 473). This explanation reframes Milgram’s study,
suggesting participants did not cave in to the demands
of an authority but instead were cooperative contribu-
tors to a scientific project.
agentic state A psychological state that occurs when
subordinates in an organized status hierarchy experience
such a marked reduction in autonomy that they are
unable to resist authorities’ orders (proposed by Stanley
Milgram).
legitimate power Power based on an individual’s
socially sanctioned claim to a position or role that
includes the right to require and demand compliance
with his or her directives.
240 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

members’ loyalty—and once loyalty is gone so is
the willingness to obey (Tyler & Blader, 2003).
Referent Power Who is the best-liked member
of the group? Who is the most respected? Is there
someone in the group whom everyone wants to
please? The individual with referent power occu-
pies the interpersonal center of the group. Just as
group members seek out membership in selective,
desirable groups, so they identify with and seek
close association with respected, attractive group
members. The members of the People’s Temple
were devoted to Jones—to the point where they
loved, admired, and identified with him. Many
made financial and emotional sacrifices in the hope
of pleasing him. As one of his followers explained,
Jones “was the God I could touch” (quoted in
Reston, 2000, p. 25).
The concept of referent power explains how
charismatic leaders manage to exert so much con-
trol over their groups (Flynn, 2010). Sociologist
Max Weber first used the term charisma to
account for the almost irrational devotion that
some followers exhibit for their leaders. People
often refer to a charming leader as charismatic,
but Weber reserved the term to describe the tre-
mendous referent and legitimate power of the
“savior–leader.” Charisma originally described a
special power given by God to certain individuals.
These individuals were capable of performing
extraordinary, miraculous feats, and they were
regarded as God’s representatives on earth (Weber,
1956/1978). Weber argued that charismatic leaders
do not have unique, wondrous powers, but they
succeed because their followers think they have
unique, wondrous powers. Weber himself was
struck by the charismatic leader’s power to demand
actions that contradict established social norms:
“Every charismatic authority … preaches, creates,
or demands new obligations—most typically, by vir-
tue of revelation, oracle, inspiration, or of his own
will” (1956/1978, p. 243). Charismatic leaders,
such as Jones, usually appear on the scene when a
large group of people is dissatisfied or faces a stress-
ful situation. The leader offers these people a way to
escape their problems, and the masses react with
intense loyalty.
Expert Power Group members often defer to
and take the advice of those who seem to possess
superior skills and abilities. A physician interpreting
a patient’s symptoms, a local resident giving direc-
tions to an out-of-towner, and a computer techni-
cian advising a user—all transform their special
knowledge into expert power.
As with most of the power bases identified by
French and Raven, a person does not actually need
to be an expert to acquire expert power; the person
must only be perceived by others to be an expert
(Kaplowitz, 1978; Littlepage & Mueller, 1997).
Researchers demonstrated the impact of perceived
expertise on influence by arranging for dyads to
work on a series of problems. Half of the participants
were led to believe that their partner’s ability on the
task was superior to their own, and the rest were told
that their partner possessed inferior ability. As the con-
cept of expert power suggests, people who thought
that their partners were experts accepted the partner’s
recommendations an average of 68% of the time,
whereas participants paired with partners thought to
be inferior accepted their recommendations only 42%
of the time (Foschi, Warriner, & Hart, 1985).
Informational Power In 1965, Raven separated
out informational power from expert power:
Group members can turn information into power
by providing it to others who need it, by keeping it
referent power Power derived from social relationships
between individuals, including identification with,
attraction to, or respect for another person or group.
charisma From the Greek xarisma (a divine gift of grace),
the ascription of extraordinary or supernatural acumen,
ability, and value to a leader by his or her followers
(coined by Max Weber).
expert power Power based on the belief that an indi-
vidual possesses superior knowledge, skills, and abilities.
informational power Power based on the potential use
of informational resources, including rational argument,
persuasion, or explanation.
PO W E R 241
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

from others, by organizing it, increasing it, or even
falsifying it. Some individuals achieve informational
power by deliberately manipulating or obscuring
information or at least making certain that the
information remains a secret shared by only a few
group members. Other individuals are recognized
as the keepers of the group’s truths or secrets, and
these individuals must be consulted before the
group makes a decision (Fine & Holyfield, 1996).
People who share information with others can
achieve informational power, even by passing
unverified and, in some cases, private information
What Are Your Bases of Power?
People differ in their degree of personal assertiveness—
across situations some people are more forceful than
others. But French and Raven’s (1959) theory of
power bases traces power to its interpersonal sources
and so is group specific: A person who is powerful in
one group may have relatively little power in
another.
Instructions: To examine the relationship between
power and the group processes that sustain that
power, from the many groups to which you belong,
identify the one where you are the most influential—
one where you can change the thoughts, actions, or
emotions of others in the group. Then put a check by
each item which accurately describes your experiences
in this group.
Reward Power
q The members appreciate it when I praise or
compliment them.
q The members know that I can reward them.
q I can give members the things they want.
q I control the distribution of rewards that the
members value.
Coercive Power
q I can take the steps needed to end a person’s
membership in this group.
q Members take my reprimands or criticisms very
seriously.
q I can reduce or end members’ privileges and/or
benefits.
q I can sanction, in a negative way, members
of this group.
Legitimate Power
q I hold a position of authority in this group.
q I have the right to require compliance with
my requests.
q Other members of this group are supposed to
do what I ask them to do.
q I am a recognized leader in this group.
Referent Power
q Members do things for me because of our
friendship.
q I have built strong positive relationships with
the members of this group.
q I am admired by many members of this group.
q The other members of the group respect or
identify with me.
Expert Power
q Members know I have strong skills and abilities.
q This group relies on my extensive background
and experience.
q I am considered to be an expert by others in
this group.
q Others regard me as skilled in ways that are
valued by this group.
Informational Power
q Members appreciate and accept my interpretations
and suggestions.
q Members listen to what I have to say.
q Members rely on me to provide them with
accurate, useful information.
q Members seek me out when they need
information.
Scoring: If you checked three of the four indicators
in any one set, then that base of power is secure in that
particular group. Remember, though, that power is rel-
ative. Even though you may have checked many of the
boxes, if others in your group can check even more, they
may be more influential in this group than you are.
242 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

through the group’s “grapevine” (Kurland &
Pelled, 2000). Individuals who pass along the latest
gossip (personal and, in many cases, scurrilous infor-
mation about others) or rumors (information that is
potentially useful and relevant, but is unsubstanti-
ated) are using informational power to influence
others (DiFonzo, 2008).
8-2b Bases and Obedience
Was the experimenter in the Milgram study power-
ful, as French and Raven define power? Even
though the experimenter was not an authority in a
traditional sense—he was not formally identified as
the group’s leader and given an impressive title, such
as captain, president, director, or doctor—he did
draw power from all six of the bases identified by
French and Raven (1959). His power to reward was
high, because he gave out the payment and also
because he was an important source of positive eva-
luations; participants wanted to win a favorable
appraisal from this figure of authority. His demeanor
was intimidating, and he controlled the machine that
could dispense punishment when a person failed.
Many participants also assumed that the experi-
menter had a legitimate right to control their actions
and that the learner had no right to quit the study.
The participants also respected Yale University and
recognized the importance of scientific research, so
the experimenter had referent power. Very few par-
ticipants knew much about electricity, either, so they
considered the experimenter an expert. He also per-
suaded them to continue by telling them that the
study was important and that its findings would
answer questions about how people learn.
Social psychologist Thomas Blass (2000) con-
firmed the power of the experimenter in the Milgram
study by asking a group of unbiased observers to
review a 12-minute videotape of Milgram’s proce-
dures. The observers then ranked six possible reasons,
derived from French and Raven’s power base theory,
as explanations for why the participants obeyed. For
example, did Milgram’s experimenter have coercive
power? Did he “warn of negative consequences”
should people not obey (Blass, 2000, p. 42)? Did
he have expert power? Did participants assume that
the experimenter was a professional and knew what
he was doing? Using these items, the observers
ranked the experimenter as higher on expert, legiti-
mate, coercive, and informational power, but lower
on reward power, and lower still on referent power.
The experimenter adopted a very brusque manner
during the study, so he did not seem particularly
likable, hence his low referent power. His stern,
no-nonsense manner, however, apparently made
him seem like an expert scientist whose orders
could not be disobeyed.
8-2c Power Tactics
The French and Raven (1959) theory of power
bases identifies and differentiates the six most com-
mon sources of influence in groups, but they did
not claim their list was exhaustive. When people
need to poke, prod, or prompt others into action,
their choice of power tactic (or compliance tactic)
is limited only by their ingenuity, self-regulation,
and willingness to ignore social controls (Cialdini
& Griskevicius, 2010).
Types of Tactics Table 8.1 gives examples of some
of the ways people influence other people. These
influence tactics, however, are not interchangeable,
for they differ in terms of their hardness, rationality,
laterality, and social acceptability (Falbo & Peplau,
1980; Raven, Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998).
■ Hard and soft tactics. Hard tactics are more
coercive than soft tactics; they limit the “free-
dom an influence recipient is allowed in
choosing whether or not to comply with a
request or a demand” (Pierro et al., 2012,
p. 41). Bullying, enforcing or invoking standards,
punishing, and delivering contingency-based
rewards are examples of hard tactics. Soft
tactics, in contrast, exploit the relationship
between the influencer and the target to extract
compliance. When individuals use such meth-
ods as collaboration, socializing, friendships,
power tactics Specific strategies used to influence
others, usually to gain a particular objective or advantage.
PO W E R 243
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

T A B L E 8.1 A Sampling of the Many Power Tactics People Use to Influence Other People in
Everyday Situations
Tactic Examples
Apprise • I point out what she will gain.
• I note the personal benefits he’ll receive.
Bully • I yell at him.
• I push him around.
Claim
expertise
• I let her know I’m an expert.
• I rely on my experience.
Collaborate • I offer to help.
• I provide assistance as needed.
Complain • I gripe about all the work I have to do.
• I grumble about having to study.
Consult • I ask him to help me with the project.
• I get her involved in the work.
Criticize • I point out her limitations.
• I find fault with their work.
Demand • I demand that the problem be solved.
• I order her to continue.
Discuss • I give him supporting reasons.
• We talk about it.
Disengage • I give him the cold shoulder.
• I stop talking to her.
Enforce • I remind him about the rules.
• I make it clear what the standards are.
Evade • I change the subject when it comes up.
• I skip the meeting.
Fait
accompli
• I just do it.
• I don’t get anyone’s permission.
Ingratiate • I flatter her.
• I compliment him on the way he looks.
Inspire • I appeal to her sense of fair play.
• I cheer him on.
SOURCES: Drawn from various studies of influence, including Caldwell & Burger, 1997; Emans, Munduate, Klaver, & Van de Vliert, 2003; Falbo, 1977; Falbo &
Peplau, 1980; Instone, Major, & Bunker, 1983; Keshet, Kark, Pomerantz-Zorin, Koslowsky, & Schwarzwald, 2006; Kipnis, 1984; Wiseman & Schenck-Hamlin,
1981; Yukl & Michel, 2006.
Tactic Examples
Instruct • I teach him how to do it.
• I set an example.
Join forces • I get the boss to agree with me.
• I turn the group against her.
Manipulate • I lie.
• I leave out important details.
Negotiate • I offer her a bargain.
• I wheel and deal.
Persist • I don’t take no for an answer.
• I reiterate my point.
Persuade • I coax her into it.
• I convert him to my side.
Promise • I promise to never do it again.
• I offer to do some of his work for him.
Punish • I fire her.
• I slap him.
Put down • I insult him.
• I say something like, “You are an idiot.”
Request • I ask him to do me a favor.
• I tell her what I expect.
Reward • I increase his pay.
• I give her a present.
Socialize • I make small talk for a while.
• I ask about the family.
Supplicate • I plead.
• I beg humbly for permission.
Threaten • I threaten legal action.
• I tell him that he might get fired.
Use humor • I try to make a joke out of it.
• I tell a funny story.
244 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

personal rewards, and ingratiation, they influ-
ence more indirectly and interpersonally. Hard
tactics are often described as harsh, forcing, or
direct, but they are not necessarily more pow-
erful than soft tactics; threatening people with
exclusion from a group or public embarrass-
ment may lead to substantially greater change
than the threat of some deprivation or corporal
punishment (Fiske & Berdahl, 2007).
■ Direct, rational and indirect, nonrational tactics.
Tactics that emphasize reasoning, logic, and
good judgment are rational tactics; bargaining
and persuasion are examples. Other tactics—
the indirect ones—are uniquely subtle and
difficult to detect. These tactics work by cre-
ating a favorable cognitive and emotional
response in the targets of the influence attempt
and disrupting their capacity to think critically
about what they are being asked to do. They
may also rely on emotionality and misinfor-
mation; ingratiation and evasion are both
examples of such nonrational tactics.
■ Unilateral and bilateral tactics. Some tactics are
interactive, involving give-and-take on the part
of both the influencer and the target of the
influence. Such bilateral tactics include per-
suasion, discussion, and negotiation. Unilateral
tactics, in contrast, can be enacted without the
cooperation of the target of influence. Such
tactics include demands, faits accomplis, eva-
sion, and disengagement.
How People “Get Their Way” People vary in
their habitual use of one type of power tactic over
another. When asked the question “How do you
get your way?” more interpersonally oriented
people—those more concerned with being liked
and accepted—showed a preference for soft, indi-
rect, and rational power tactics (Falbo, 1997).
Those who espoused a Machiavellian, manipulative
philosophy when dealing with others tended to use
indirect/nonrational tactics, as did those who scored
lower in terms of agreeableness and emotional sta-
bility (Butkovic & Bratko, 2007). Extraverts use a
greater variety of tactics than introverts (Caldwell &
Burger, 1997). Men and women also differ some-
what in their choice of power tactics (Keshet et al.,
2006). Men and women who supervised an ineffec-
tive employee used both rewards and criticism, but
women intervened less frequently with a more lim-
ited range of tactics. Women promised fewer pay
raises and threatened more pay deductions than
men, and they were more likely to criticize subor-
dinates (Instone, Major, & Bunker, 1983). The
sexes also differ in their use of power in more inti-
mate relationships, for men tend to use bilateral and
direct tactics, whereas women report using unilat-
eral and indirect methods (Falbo & Peplau, 1980).
People also choose different power tactics
depending on the nature of the group situation
(Yukl & Michel, 2006). A person who has high status
in a group that is already rife with conflict will use
different tactics than an individual who is low in status
and wants to minimize conflict. In a corporate setting,
authorities rely on referent and expert power, but in
an educational setting, teachers may turn to reward
and punishment power (Krause & Kearney, 2006).
Who one is attempting to influence can also dictate
the choice of power tactic; for example, people report
using a variety of soft and hard methods to influence
subordinates but, when dealing with superiors, they
rely heavily on rational methods such as persuasion
and discussion (Kipnis et al., 1984). People also shift
from soft to hard tactics when they encounter resis-
tance (Carson, Carson, & Roe, 1993; Teppner, 2006).
The interpersonal consequences of the use of these
various types of influence methods will be considered
later in this chapter.
The Power of Commitment Many compliance
tactics exploit people’s desire to remain true to their
prior commitments and so act consistently over
time and across situations. The foot-in-the-door
technique, for example, works by prefacing a
major request with a minor one that is so inconse-
quential that few people would refuse to comply.
foot-in-the-door technique Influencing a person by
extracting compliance to a small initial request before
then making the second, more substantial, request.
PO W E R 245
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Investigators exploited people’s behavioral commit-
ment by asking home owners to post a large, unattrac-
tive sign in their yards. Nearly all refused—unless this
major request had been preceded by a smaller one
(Freedman & Fraser, 1966). In general, two requests
are superior to a single request, although such factors
as the sex of the influencer and the amount of time that
elapses between the two requests moderate the power
of the foot-in-the-door method (Beaman et al., 1983;
Dillard, 1991).
Milgram, when he designed his procedures for
studying obedience, may have unwittingly capital-
ized on behavioral commitment to increase compli-
ance. He did not ask participants to push a lever
that would deliver 450 V to the learner at the outset
of the study. Instead, he asked them only to give
the learner a mild shock if he answered incorrectly.
No one refused. Over time, however, the demands
escalated, and participants were unable to extricate
themselves from the situation. Once they began,
they could not stop (Burger, 2014).
Jim Jones may have also capitalized on behav-
ioral commitment to counter his followers’ natural
rejection of his order to take their own lives. Jones
did not suddenly order his followers to commit sui-
cide. Instead, he prefaced his request with months of
demands that increased in their intensity. Jones had
talked about mass suicide even before the People’s
Temple moved to Guyana. On more than one
occasion, Jones had told the congregation that he
had poisoned the sacramental wine and that all
would be dead within the hour. He went so far as
to plant confederates in the audience who feigned
convulsions and death. He repeated this ceremony in
Jonestown, calling it the White Night. After enough
repetitions, the thought of suicide, so alien to most
people, became commonplace in the group.
8- 3 SO C IA L ST A T US IN
G R OUP S
Jonestown was founded on principles of equality
and social justice, but like most groups its members’
rights, responsibilities, and privileges were deter-
mined by their position in the group’s status hierar-
chy. As the analysis of group structure noted in
Chapter 6, the members of a newly formed group
may begin as equals, but before long, some mem-
bers gain greater power, influence, and control over
others. And just as individuals have a need to be
included in groups, they also have a strong need
to achieve status within these groups (Anderson,
Hildreth, & Howland, 2015). In this section, we
examine this status-organizing process, focusing on
the factors that determine status, personal qualities of
the ones who seeks status, and biases in the status-
allocation process.
What Is Brainwashing?
Interrogators often exploit behavioral commitment to
extract compliance from detainees. Chinese military
personnel, for example, used the foot-in-the-door tac-
tic in their so-called brainwashing methods during the
Korean War. They began by subjecting U.S. prisoners
of war to physical hardships and stressful psychological
pressures. The men were often fatigued from forced
marches, and their sleep was disrupted. Their captors
broke down the chain of command in these units by
promoting nonranking soldiers to positions of author-
ity, and friendships among the men were systemati-
cally discouraged.
Although the Chinese relied heavily on traditional
methods of influence, such as punishment, compliance
tactics proved more effective. The prisoners were ini-
tially asked to perform inconsequential actions, such as
copying an essay out of a notebook or answering some
questions about life in the United States. Once the
men agreed to a minor request, a more significant
request followed. They might be asked to write their
own essays about communism or discuss the problems
of capitalism. Each small concession led to a slightly
larger one, until the men found themselves collabo-
rating with the Chinese. The Chinese rarely succeeded
in permanently changing the men’s attitudes and
values, but they did extract obedience to their
authority: Morale was poor and the men rarely tried to
escape (Schein, 1961; Segal, 1954).
246 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

8-3a Claiming Status
The human brain is adept at detecting and proces-
sing information about status. Perceivers notice the
difference between people displaying signals of
dominance and deference (based on directness of
eye gaze and head tilt) in as little as 33 milliseconds
(Chiao, 2010). People are also remarkably accurate
in their estimations of their own and others’ status
within a group. Although individuals often overes-
timate their own standing on valued social charac-
teristics, their estimates of their status in the group
tend to match up well with other people’s appraisals
(Anderson & Brion, 2014).
Status Signals All social animals know how to
communicate the message “I am in charge.”
Dominant chimpanzees chatter loudly at potential
rivals, the leader of the wolf pack growls and bares
his teeth at low-ranking wolves, and the ranking
lioness in the pride swats another with her paw.
Members of these social groups compete for sta-
tus, for the individual at the top of the
hierarchy—the so-called alpha male or female—
enjoys greater access to the group’s resources.
These high-ranking members maintain their posi-
tion by threatening or attacking low-ranking
members, who in turn manage to avoid these
attacks by performing behaviors that signal defer-
ence and submissiveness. This system of domi-
nance and submission is often called a pecking
order because (at least in chickens) it determines
who will do the pecking and who will be pecked
(Piazza & Castellucci, 2014).
Humans, too, compete for status in their
groups. Humans rarely snarl at one another to signal
their status, but they do use such nonverbal cues as
a firm handshake, intense facial expressions, a
relaxed, open posture, or an unsmiling countenance
to let others know that they should be respected.
People also seek status by speaking clearly, loudly,
confidently, and directly, whereas those who speak
softly and pepper their comments with nervous gig-
gles are afforded less authority. Displays of emotion
also signal differences in status. Group members
who seem angry are thought to be more influential
and are accorded higher status, whereas those who
seem sad are thought to be lower in status (see Hall
et al., 2014).
People also signal their authority through their
verbal communications. Those seeking status often
initiate conversations and shift the discussion to their
own areas of competence. A person seeking high sta-
tus would be more likely to (1) tell other people what
they should do, (2) interpret other people’s statements,
(3) confirm or dispute other people’s viewpoints, and
(4) summarize or reflect on the discussion (Stiles et al.,
1997). In a study group, for example, a high-status
member may say, “I’ve studied this theory before” or
“I think it’s more important to study the lecture notes
than the text.” A low-status individual, in contrast,
may lament that “I always have trouble with this sub-
ject” or “I’m not sure I understand the material.” Status
seekers tend to dominate conversations and are quicker
to voice their opinions. Group members also assert
their authority over the group by interrupting other
speakers frequently (see Leary, Jongman-Sereno, &
Diebels, 2014).
Who Seeks Status? Not everyone seeks power
over others. Some members are content to be
rank-and-file members, equal in responsibilities
and influence to most of the others in the group,
and do not desire to rise upward in the group’s
hierarchy. Other individuals seek only personal
power. They wish to control their own individual
outcomes and experiences, but they are not con-
cerned about controlling other’s outcomes (van
Dijke & Poppe, 2006). Some, however, strive for
power, and they pursue it across time, groups, and
situations (Winter, 2010).
People with a dispositional need for power, for
example, tend to pursue status and prestige more
vigorously than others. They describe themselves
as hoping to have power in the future: “I want to
have power in every aspect of my life” (Bennett,
1988; Harms, Roberts, & Wood, 2007). The need
for power, measured when people are first hired for
pecking order A stable, ordered pattern of individual
variations in prestige, status, and authority among group
members.
PO W E R 247
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

a large company, predicts their rise to positions of
authority in the corporation’s management hierar-
chy some 8–16 years later (McClelland & Boyatzis,
1982). They are more likely to hold offices in
groups and organizations. As noted in Chapter 4,
individuals who are strong in their need for power
are more likely to experience power stress when
that need is thwarted (Fodor & Wick, 2009).
Also, the quest for power is linked to testosterone,
which is the primary androgen that determines mas-
culine sexual features, both physical and psychologi-
cal. (Women’s bodies produce testosterone, but at a
substantially reduced level.) Testosterone predicts
aggression, assertiveness, and toughness, all of
which improve one’s chances of besting others in
contests of dominance (Rivers & Josephs, 2010).
However, testosterone’s effects are muted when
men are members of stable rather than contested
dominance hierarchies (e.g., McIntyre et al., 2011).
Some individuals are more motivated to engage
fully in the politics of status-seeking in groups. One
measure, the Political Skill Inventory, includes such
items as “I spend a lot of time and effort at work
networking with others,” “I am able to make most
people feel comfortable and at ease around me,” and
“I am good at building relationships with influential
people at work” (Ferris et al., 2005, p. 149). Those
with political skills are more likely to be affable, like-
able, outgoing, proactive, and task-oriented; when
they seek to influence others, they are more likely
to succeed (Ferris et al., 2007).
bullying Repetitively teasing, ridiculing, provoking, or
tormenting others through various types of irritating,
harassing, or aggressive actions, such as name-calling,
threats, insults, and physical injury.
Bullying: Harmless Teasing or Coercive Abuse?
Each day, as Erick boards the bus, Jonathan berates
him, making fun of his hair and clothes. No one will
sit with Erick for fear of being drawn into the abuse.
The staff at the clinic where Carol works deliberately
circulate nasty rumors about her, and exclude her
when they gather socially after work. Charlotte’s boss
would berate her so brutishly that it made the
woman who worked at the desk next to Charlotte’s
cry (Beers, 2012).
Bullying is a form of coercive interpersonal
influence. Although originally considered to be a
characteristic of children’s and adolescents’ groups,
bullying, mobbing, and harassment also occur in mil-
itary, business, and professional organizations
(Branch, Ramsay, & Barker, 2013). Both males and
females bully, but they tend to do so in different
ways: Females are relationally aggressive, for they use
gossip, criticism, and exclusion against their victims.
Males tend to use noncontingent punishment: they
treat people negatively for no reason (Hoel et al.,
2010). Jim Jones was a bully.
Bullying signals a marked imbalance in the
power relationship between the bully and his or her
victim. The victim of abuse “has difficulty in defend-
ing himself or herself and is somewhat helpless
against” the bully (Olweus, 1997, p. 216). Bullying,
then, is not retaliation between parties in a dispute
or conflict, but the mistreatment of a less powerful
person by someone with power. Bullying is also a
group behavior. Victims are sometimes isolated and
friendless individuals abandoned to their fate by
the rest of the group, but in many cases, groups of
individuals are abused by groups of bullies. Similarly,
although bullies are often thought to be poorly
adjusted individuals who are expressing anger by
picking on those who cannot defend themselves,
bullies are often relatively popular group members.
In schools, for example, boys who are bullies are
often members of high-status sports teams, whereas
girls who are bullies belong to high-status social
cliques. They tend to be recognized as school leaders
and trend setters, but they are also disliked for
the way they treat other people of lower status in
the group (Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall,
2003). Bullying also involves more than just the
bully and the victim, as other group members are
drawn into the harmful bully–victim exchange
(Giacalone & Promislo, 2010). Because bullying is
rooted in both power dynamics and group dynamics,
experts recommend organization- and group-level
interventions for preventing peer abuse (Olweus &
Limber, 2010).
248 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

8-3b Achieving Status
People’s status-seeking efforts will be for naught if the
group rejects them. This status-allocation process,
unfortunately, is often unfair—individuals whose
influence should be accepted are not always recognized
by the group, just as the group sometimes takes direc-
tion from people who are not qualified to lead.
Expectation-States Theory Sociologist Joseph
Berger and his colleagues developed expectation-
states theory to explain how groups determine
who will be granted status and who will not be.
This theory assumes that status differences are
most likely to develop when members are working
collectively in the pursuit of shared goals that they
feel are important ones. Because the group seeks to
use its resources to its best advantage, members
intuitively take note of one another’s status character-
istics—personal qualities that they think are indica-
tive of ability or prestige. Those who possess
numerous status characteristics are implicitly identi-
fied and permitted to perform more numerous and
varied group actions, to provide greater input and
guidance for the group, to influence others by eval-
uating their ideas, and to reject the influence
attempts of others (Berger, Wagner, & Webster,
2014; Ridgeway & Nakagawa, 2014).
Expectation-states theorists believe that group
members base their expectations on two types of
status cues. Specific status characteristics are
indicators of ability at the task to be performed in
the given situation. On a basketball team, for exam-
ple, height may be a specific status characteristic,
whereas prior jury duty may determine status in a
jury. In Jonestown, given the physically challenging
tasks the group faced in building a community in a
South American rain forest, strong, energetic indi-
viduals who were experienced in building and
farming moved upward in the status hierarchy rela-
tive to those who are not so skilled.
Diffuse status characteristics are more gen-
eral qualities that the members assume are relevant to
ability and evaluation. Sex, age, wealth, ethnicity, sta-
tus in other groups, or cultural background can serve
as diffuse status characteristics if people associate these
qualities with certain skills, as did the members of the
People’s Temple. Age and spiritual wisdom were
both considered important diffuse status characteristics,
with older, more devout members gaining status. In
other groups—those that value youth, for example—
the opposite might hold true (Oldmeadow, 2007).
Researchers have largely confirmed
expectation-states theory’s prediction that indivi-
duals with positively evaluated specific status and
diffuse status characteristics usually command more
authority than those who lack status-linked quali-
ties (Wilke, 1996). In police teams, officers with
more work experience exercised more authority
than their less experienced partners (Gerber,
1996). Members of dyads working on a perceptual
task deferred to their partner if he or she seemed
more skilled at the task (Foddy & Smithson, 1996).
People who are paid more are permitted to exert
more influence over people who are paid less
(Stewart & Moore, 1992). When air force bomber
crews work on nonmilitary tasks, rank predicts
influence (Torrance, 1954). Juries allocate more
status to jurors who have previously served on
juries or who have more prestigious occupations
(Strodtbeck et al., 1957). The bulk of the research
also confirms the following causal sequence in sta-
tus allocation: First, group member X displays spe-
cific and diffuse status characteristics. Second,
expectation-states theory An explanation of status dif-
ferentiation in groups, which assumes that group mem-
bers allocate status to group members judged to be
competent at the task at hand and to group members
who have qualities that the members think are indicators
of competence and potential.
specific status characteristics In status characteristics
theory, task-specific behavioral and personal characteristics
that people consider when estimating the relative compe-
tency, ability, and social value of themselves and others.
diffuse status characteristic In status characteristics
theory, general personal qualities, such as age, race, and
ethnicity, that people consider when estimating the rela-
tive competency, ability, and social value of themselves
and others.
PO W E R 249
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

other members form positive expectations about
X. Last, members permit X to influence them
(Driskell & Mullen, 1990).
Status Generalization Because status in a group
is determined by both specific and diffuse status
characteristics, groups do not always allocate status
fairly. Imagine, for example, a jury that includes
these three individuals:
■ Dr. Prof, a 40-year-old European American
woman who teaches in the School of Business
and who has written several books on
management.
■ Mr. Black, a 35-year-old African American
high school principal.
■ Dr. White, a 58-year-old European American
male physician who has an active practice.
Considerable evidence suggests that, when
selecting a foreman, a jury of middle-class European
Americans would favor Dr. White. Dr. Prof and
Mr. Black, despite their specific status credentials,
may be disqualified from positions of status in the
group by their (completely irrelevant) diffuse status
characteristics. In contrast, Dr. White poses little
incongruence for the group if the group members
unfairly consider advanced age, pale skin, an MD
degree, and upper-class social status to be positive
features (York & Cornwell, 2006). This phenome-
non is known as status generalization: Group
members let general status (i.e., diffuse status) char-
acteristics influence their expectations, even though
these characteristics may be irrelevant in the given
situation (Ridgeway, 2014).
Status generalization explains why women and
African Americans are given less status and authority
in groups than men and European Americans, respec-
tively (Ridgeway et al., 2009). Women and racial
minorities report more dissatisfaction about how status
is allocated in groups (Hembroff, 1982). Women are
less likely to be selected as leaders of their groups, and
they are more likely to be assigned to lower status
roles (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Women and minorities
must put extra effort into their groups and reach
higher performance standards just to gain the same
level of respect and authority granted to less produc-
tive European American men (Biernat & Kobryno-
wicz, 1997; Foschi, 1996). Groups, failing to
recognize women’s expertise, tend to underperform
when women, rather than men, have the expertise a
task demands (Thomas-Hunt & Phillips, 2004).
Solo Status These unfair status-allocation processes
are magnified when you are the only one in your
group who is different from others. Solo status
causes you to feel the other members are categorizing
you in terms of your social group and so are not
accepting you as a full member. In consequence,
you are less likely to identify with the group, you
will not be as loyal to the group, and may feel your
performance will be unfairly evaluated. You may also
expect that your contributions are devalued. These
concerns are generally justified: Solo members are
rarely allocated high status in groups (e.g., Biernat
et al., 1998; Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2003).
These negative status effects often fade over time
as groups revise their hierarchies as they recognize
the skills and abilities of previously slighted members
and as solos learn how to cope with the challenges of
status generalization (Johnson & Richeson, 2009).
Women and minorities who communicate their
involvement in the group to the other members
tend to gain status more rapidly, as do those who
act in a group-oriented rather than a self-oriented
way (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). If a solo woman
in an otherwise all-male group remains actively
involved in the group by asking questions, the nega-
tive effects of her solo status are eliminated (Fuegen
status generalization The tendency for individuals
known to have achieved or been ascribed authority,
respect, and prestige in one context to enjoy relatively
higher status in other, unrelated, contexts (e.g., a celeb-
rity who exercises influence in a group even though this
diffuse status characteristic is not relevant in the current
group context).
solo status The state of being the only group member
who is a representative of a specific social category in an
otherwise homogenous group (e.g., a man in an all-
female group).
250 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

& Biernat, 2002). External authorities can also undo
unfair status generalizations by explicitly stressing the
qualifications of women and minorities or by train-
ing group members to recognize their biases (Ridge-
way, 1989). Moreover, groups may reduce biases in
the allocation of status to their members by making
use of computer-based technology to make decisions
and exchange information.
8-3c Status Hierarchies and Stability
Humans, like many social species, live in groups
with organized systems of power relations. As
Milgram (1974, p. 124) concluded, “Each member’s
acknowledgement of his place in the hierarchy
stabilizes the pack.”
Dominance and Cooperation Evolutionary the-
ory suggests that the system of dominance and def-
erence in human groups is an adaptive one,
designed to enhance survival by increasing group
coordination and decision making, improving
defense, and providing a means to resolve conflict.
A group that must move regularly in search of
food and water requires some means to determine
whose advice to take and whose advice to ignore.
When conflicts occur between members, someone
in the group must mediate the dispute, either by
negotiating a peace or by requiring it through a
show of force. When a group encounters a threat,
the group that is organized will likely fare better
than the one that is not. Because the environment
in which human groups lived favored those with a
Are Online Groups More Egalitarian?
When people meet offline in face-to-face groups to
make decisions or solve problems, their impact on the
final outcome is often a function of their status in the
group. Those who have risen to the top of the group’s
hierarchy speak as much as 40%–50% of the time
(Stephan & Mischler, 1952), even when the meeting is
supposed to be a discussion. The remainder of the
speaking will be done by two or three other group
members, but these people will have higher status
than the rank-and-file members (Gibson, 2003). Those
at the bottom of the “speaking order” may say noth-
ing at all during the course of a meeting. Contribu-
tions to the discussion also tend to be clustered. Once
individuals enter the discussion stream, they tend to
concentrate their comments during periods of high
vocality, or megaturns (Dabbs & Ruback, 1987; Parker,
1988). This pattern occurs, in part, because some indi-
viduals are too slow to speak when the previous
speaker concludes, so they never manage to capture
the floor. The group gives the more influential mem-
bers more latitude when they are speaking (Bonito &
Hollingshead, 1997).
What happens when groups meet online rather
than face to face? In many online groups, the effects
of status on participation are muted, resulting in a
participation equalization effect (Hollingshead,
2001b). Many of the cues that people implicitly use to
allocate status to others are minimized when people
interact via computers—a group member’s height,
age, sex, and race can be kept private in online groups,
and the computer-mediated format prevents the
exchange of nonverbal signs of dominance and
authority. There can be no raised voice, no long stare,
and no rolling of the eyes when members are con-
nected only by a computer. So, when group members
interact by email, forums, and discussion forums, indi-
viduals who tend to participate less in face-to-face
groups—or whose contributions in such groups are
often ignored—contribute at much higher rates (e.g.,
Bazarova & Yuan, 2013; Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna,
1991).
Long-term online groups, however, still exhibit
signs of status differentiation. Participants, through
the content of their messages, engagement, and style
of communication (e.g., length of posts, use of emoti-
cons) lay claim to characteristics that define their place
within the group (Walther, 2013). In some cases, group
members may even be more influenced by irrelevant
diffuse status characteristics in online groups because
they have no other information to use to guide their
perceptions of the other members. If all Ed knows
about his partner in a discussion is that his or her name
is Jolina, then he may inevitably draw conclusions
about her personality and interests from her name
alone (Spears, Lea, & Postmes, 2007). Online groups
may resist some of the biases that distort status allo-
cations in offline groups, but these groups, too, tend
shift in time from equivalence to hierarchy.
PO W E R 251
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

stable dominance hierarchy, modern humans are
instinctively prepared to accept, understand, and
even prefer status differences. So long as the
authority is motivated to advance the interests of
the group, those lower in the status hierarchy
prosper by cooperating with those of higher status
(see, e.g., Anderson & Willer, 2014; Cheng &
Tracy, 2014; von Rueden, 2014).
Interpersonal Complementarity The natural-
ness of dominance hierarchies is in evidence when
people join with several others in a “leaderless”
group. Even when no explicit instructions are pro-
vided, within minutes such groups form status hier-
archies that all members can accurately describe
without having ever explicitly discussed who will
lead and who will follow (Keltner et al., 2010).
Leaderless groups do not stay leaderless for long.
This tendency translates into a small-group version
of sociologist and political theorist Robert Michels’
(1915/1959) iron law of oligarchy—the rule of
the many by the few.
This shift from status homogeneity to hierarchy
results, in part, from the behavioral complementar-
ity of dominance and deference. According to the
interpersonal complementarity hypothesis,
each member’s action tends to evoke, or “pull,” a
predictable set of actions from the other group
members (Carson, 1969). If, for example, an indi-
vidual seems agreeable, pleasant, and cooperative,
the other group members would tend to react in
kind: They would behave in positive, friendly ways.
Friendly behaviors are reciprocated by friendly
behaviors. But what if group members act in dom-
inant, firm, directive ways—issuing orders, taking
charge, giving advice? Such behaviors would tend
to evoke submissive responses from the others. Peo-
ple also report feeling more comfortable when inter-
acting with someone who displays complementary
rather than similar reactions. Group members who
display signs of submissiveness when talking to some-
one who seems powerful are better liked, as are
those who take charge when interacting with docile,
submissive individuals (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003).
The interpersonal complementary hypothesis thus
predicts that (1) positive behaviors evoke positive
behaviors and negative behaviors evoke negative
behaviors and (2) dominant behaviors evoke submis-
sive behaviors and submissive behaviors evoke dom-
inant behaviors (Sadler & Woody, 2003).
Researchers put this hypothesis to the test by
arranging for young women to work, for a short period
of time, with a partner who was trained to enact a
particular behavioral style. When the partner enacted
a dominant, leading style, she exuded confidence and
authority. In some cases, she added a degree of friend-
liness to her dominance, frequently intervening to
keep the group working. In others, she was dominant,
but less friendly; she stressed her superiority and auton-
omy, and her self-confidence bordered on self-
absorption and conceit. In other conditions, she acted
in more submissive, self-effacing ways. Rather than
take charge, she would seem timid, uncertain, passive,
and inhibited (Strong et al., 1988).
The videorecordings of the sessions revealed
clear evidence of complementarity. Participants
who were paired with a dominant confederate
acted submissively; they acquiesced, behaved pas-
sively, and showed respect for their partner. Only
rarely did a participant respond in a dominant man-
ner when faced with a dominant interaction part-
ner. Conversely, if the confederate behaved in a
docile manner, the participants tended to take
charge by acting in a dominant fashion—strong evi-
dence of the power of complementarity.
Hierarchy and Harmony Hierarchy is not all
gain without cost. Individual’s whose status is low
in groups sometimes fail to perform to their full
iron law of oligarchy The principle of political and
social control that predicts that, in any group, power is
concentrated in the hands of a few individuals (an oligar-
chy) who will act in ways that protect and enhance their
power (described by Robert Michels).
interpersonal complementarity hypothesis The pre-
dicted tendency for certain behaviors to evoke behaviors
from others that are congruous with the initial behavior,
with positive behaviors evoking positive behaviors, neg-
ative behaviors evoking negative behaviors, dominant
behaviors evoking submissive behaviors, and submissive
behaviors evoking dominant behaviors.
252 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

capabilities, because their low-level status undercuts
their motivation and cognitive functioning (Kishida
et al., 2012). High-status group members often
exceed their authority, and cause far more harm
than good for their groups (Smith, Larimer, et al.,
2007). As the final section of this chapter warns,
excessive and unfair differences in the distribution
of power within a group can lead to a wide range of
negative consequences.
A group whose hierarchy of authority is stable,
however, will be more productive than one with
unsettled status ranks. To test this hypothesis experi-
mentally, researchers manipulated groups’ status struc-
tures by carefully distributing people who differed in
their levels of testosterone into groups. Testosterone, as
noted earlier in the chapter, is associated with one’s
tendency to seek influence over others. So the
researchers created three kinds of groups, expecting
groups with all high-testosterone members to be
more unstable ones in comparison to (a) groups with
just one high-testosterone, low-testosterone, and
average-testosterone participants and (b) groups with
all low-testosterone participants. As they anticipated,
levels of conflict were much higher in the high-
testosterone groups, with members reporting problems
communicating and connecting to each other. Pro-
ductivity was also lower in these groups, for groups
with a mix of high-, average-, and low-testosterone
members outperformed both the all-high- and all-
low-testosterone groups. These researchers verified
these results in a second study where they manipulated
power psychologically rather than biologically. They
created groups with different hierarchies by prompting
some members to feel more or less powerful. Given
the consistency of these results, the researchers con-
cluded hierarchy “enhances rather than undermines
group effectiveness” (Ronay et al., 2012, p. 669).
8-4 T HE METAMORPHI C
E F F E C T S OF PO W E R
The system for organizing status in human groups is
not a perfect one. Individuals sometimes engage in
dominance competitions that are so disruptive they
create disunity in the group and undermine its produc-
tivity. Groups too often fail to extend respect and def-
erence to those who deserve it. Sometimes exploitive,
self-serving individuals manage to secure substantial
influence within the group, and, when they do, the
entire group suffers or, as in the case of the People’s
Temple, perishes. Sometimes, the power process can
disrupt, rather than facilitate, group functioning.
8-4a Changes in the Powerholder
Probably for as long as humans have joined
together in groups, they have puzzled over the
nature of power and its influence on those who
have it, those who lack it, and those who seek it
(Kipnis, 1974). In their tragedies, the Greeks dra-
matized the fall of heroes, who, swollen by past
accomplishments, conceitedly compared themselves
to the gods. Myth and folklore are replete with tales
of the consequences of too much power, as in the
case of Icarus, whose elation at the power of flight
caused his own death. Although some celebrated
the liberating effects of power, others spoke of its
corruptive side effects. As Lord Acton warned,
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power cor-
rupts absolutely.”
Priming Power Power is, in part, a state of
mind—a feeling of authority rather than authority
per se. Some individuals who occupy positions of
authority and influence report that they feel pow-
erless and without any control over events that
transpire in their lives. Yet, other individuals, who
face situations that seem to be those they cannot in
any way influence and control, report feeling very
powerful and in charge (Anderson & Galinsky,
2006). A sense of power also depends on the situa-
tion; if you win an election, are appointed to a
position of influence in an organization, or are
granted membership in a high-status group, in all
likelihood, you will experience a feeling of height-
ened power that comes from the circumstances
(Keltner et al., 2008). A sense of power can also
be triggered in more subtle ways. Environmental
or cognitive cues can prime a sense of power by
activating preexisting beliefs, concepts, or memories
PO W E R 253
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of experiences relevant to power. College students
meeting in a professor’s office act in more powerful
ways if they are seated in the professor’s chair
behind the desk facing out into the room than
those seated in the chair reserved for visitors (Chen,
Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001).
The Paradoxical Effects of Power Social psy-
chologist Dacher Keltner and his colleagues (2003,
2008, 2016), synthesizing previous analyses of both
power and motivation, theorize that power—
having power, using power, even thinking about
power—leads to psychological and interpersonal
changes for both those who have power and
those who do not. Their approach/inhibition
theory recognizes that most organisms display one
of two basic types of reactions to environmental
events. One reaction, approach, is associated with
action, self-promotion, seeking rewards and oppor-
tunities, increased energy, and movement. The sec-
ond reaction, inhibition, is associated with reaction,
self-protection, avoiding threats and danger, vigilance,
loss of motivation, and an overall reduction in activity.
Significantly, the approach/inhibition model suggests
that power increases approach tendencies, whereas
reductions in power trigger inhibition. Power acti-
vates people—it causes them to experience increases
in drive, energy, motivation, and emotion—and often
leads to positive consequences. The powerful can
bring their heightened energy, clearer insights, and
positive emotions to bear on the issues facing the
group and help the group overcome difficulties and
reach its goals. But power, and the activation it brings,
also has a dark side, for it can create a Jim Jones or an
Adolf Hitler as often as a Mahatma Gandhi or an
Abraham Lincoln.
Power’s Positive Effects Power influences those
who wield it. Individuals who are powerful
(powerholders), or at least, feel powerful, act, feel,
and think differently than individuals who feel they
are powerless.
■ Power and action. Power increases activity levels,
prompting people to take action rather than
remain passive. Powerholders are usually the
busiest people in the group or organization.
They are proactive; they would rather speak
first during a debate, make the first move in a
competition, or make the first offer during a
negotiation (Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld,
2007). In one study, researchers first asked
some people to think back to a time when they
had power over other individuals. Others
thought of a time when they had little power.
They were then left to wait for the next phase
of the study at a table positioned too close to an
annoying fan blowing directly on them. Some
of the participants just put up with this irrita-
tion, but others took steps to solve the prob-
lem: They moved the fan or turned it off. As
predicted, 69% of the individuals who recalled
a time they were powerful removed the
bothersome fan, compared to only 42% of less
powerful participants (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, &
Magee, 2003).
■ Power and emotion. Powerful people tend to
experience, and express, more positive emotions
than those who are lower in power. Power-
holders usually feel good about things—their
moods are elevated, they report higher levels of
such positive emotions as happiness and satisfac-
tion, and they even smile more than low-power
group members (Berdahl & Martorana, 2006;
Watson & Clark, 1997). Power is also associated
with optimism about the future, apparently
because more powerful individuals tend to focus
their attention on more positive aspects of the
environment (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006).
Powerful people seek rewards more actively than
people without power who are motivated to
avoid negative outcomes (Keltner, Gruenfeld, &
Anderson, 2003). Some evidence even suggests
that powerful people cope more effectively with
stress because they are positively challenged,
approach/inhibition theory An integrative concep-
tual analysis of the transformative effects of power that
finds power to be psychologically and behaviorally acti-
vating but the lack of power inhibiting (posited by
Dacher Keltner and his colleagues).
254 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

rather than threatened, by difficult circumstances
(Scheepers et al., 2012).
■ Power and goal-striving. Powerful individuals
exhibit more intense and resilient goal-striving.
When working toward a goal that is illusive,
they are able to maintain high levels of moti-
vation, for power is associated with increased
levels of self-regulation—provided they are
working at tasks that they feel are appropriate
ones for the purposes and procedures of the
given situation (DeWall et al., 2011). In a work
setting, for example, they plan more task-
related activities, unless their role requires them
to be sensitive to other individuals’ needs and
experiences. In such circumstances, the goal-
striving orientation of the powerful prompts
them to be more empathic and prosocial (Côté
et al., 2011; Guinote, 2008; Schmidt Mast,
Jonas, & Hall, 2009).
■ Power and cognitive functioning. Power facilitates
executive cognitive functions by enhancing
attentional focus, decision-making, planning,
and goal-selection (Smith et al., 2008). Power
seems to sharpen mental acuity to a degree,
helping the powerful to selectively focus on
important information and reducing their dis-
tractibility (Guinote, 2007). When researchers
tracked the brain functioning of people work-
ing in a group solving intellectual problems the
high-status members displayed (a) increased
blood oxygenation in the prefrontal cortex
over time, indicating increased mental activity
and (b) decreased oxygenation in the amygdala,
suggesting decreases in fear and nervousness.
This pattern of neuronal change was reversed
for lower status members (Kishida et al., 2012).
■ Power and influence. Power insulates individuals,
to a degree, from the influence of others.
Powerful people are more likely to act on the
basis of their own personal preferences. When
people are primed by thoughts of power, their
public statements and actions are more
authentic in the sense that they correspond to
their private beliefs and dispositions. Powerful
people feel freer to express their ideas and resist
conformity pressures that influence less pow-
erful people (Kraus, Chen, & Keltner, 2011).
Power’s Negative Effects These consequences
of power, in terms of action orientation, emotions,
and judgmental tendencies, can also be liabilities.
■ Power and risk-taking. Powerful people are proac-
tive, but in some cases their actions are risky,
inappropriate, or unethical (Emler & Cook,
2001). Some individuals, driven by their need for
power, overstep the boundaries of their authority
or engage in inappropriate actions. If they feel
that they have a mandate from their group or
organization, they may do things they are not
empowered to do (Clark & Sechrest, 1976).
They are, in some cases, not just optimistic, but
overly optimistic, for they assume the group can
accomplish more in a given amount of time than
is rationally possible (Weick & Guinote, 2010).
■ Power and emotion. Powerful people may be
happier, but they often generate negative emo-
tional reactions in their subordinates, particularly
when there is disagreement and conflict in the
group (Fodor & Riordan, 1995). In a study of
dyads, those with more power than their partner
reported feeling positive emotions such as hap-
piness, pride, and amusement. Their partners,
unfortunately, reported more anger, fear, tension,
and sadness (Langner & Keltner, 2008). When
people in work settings are asked to identify the
sources of their stress and dissatisfaction, the
number one cause reported is powerful people:
bosses, managers, and supervisors.
■ Power and empathy. Powerful people often
misjudge, misunderstand, and even derogate
their subordinates. Powerholders can be dis-
cerning judges of those who work for them,
but often only when their personal success
depends on recognizing the strengths and
weaknesses of subordinates (Overbeck and
Park, 2001). Power tends to weaken one’s
social attentiveness with the result that power-
ful people have a more difficult time under-
standing other people’s point of view (Galinsky
PO W E R 255
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

et al., 2006). Researchers documented the
pernicious effects of power by arranging for
two people to discuss an experience that caused
them emotional pain and suffering. During and
after the conversation, the researchers tracked
participants’ feelings of compassion, using both
physiological measures and self-reports, as they
listened to their partner’s outpouring of emo-
tional angst. As expected, people who did not
describe themselves as powerful and influential
became more and more distressed themselves
when their partners became more upset as they
related their experience—their emotions were
relatively synchronized. Powerful people, in
contrast, did not respond emotionally to their
partner’s distress, and their levels of compassion
declined as their partner’s became more trou-
bled (see Figure 8.4). These findings suggest
that power may insulate the powerful from
feeling troubled by the harm they inflict on
others (van Kleef et al., 2008).
■ Power and self-satisfaction. The successful use of
power as a means of controlling others can lead
to self-satisfaction, unrealistically positive self-
evaluations, and overestimations of interper-
sonal power (Galinsky, Jordan, & Sivanathan,
2008). When social psychologist David Kipnis
(1974) asked participants if their subordinates
were performing well because of (1) the
workers’ high self-motivation levels, (2) their
manager’s comments and suggestions, or (3)
their desire for money, the high-power man-
agers believed that their workers were only in
it for the money (which the manager could
control). The low-power managers believed
that the workers were “highly motivated.”
Other studies have also revealed this tendency
for powerful individuals to assume that they
themselves are the prime cause of other peo-
ple’s behavior (Kipnis et al., 1976). Power-
holders tend to (1) increase the social distance
between themselves and nonpowerful indivi-
duals, (2) believe that nonpowerful individuals
are untrustworthy and in need of close
supervision, and (3) devalue the work and
ability of less powerful individuals (Kipnis,
1974; Strickland, Barefoot, & Hockenstein,
1976). This tendency is all the more pro-
nounced when powerholders use harsh rather
than soft tactics. This reevaluation of self and
others also occurs when powerholders use
methods that are not congruent with their
base of power. Individuals with expert power
who use soft power tactics, or people with
legitimate power who use harsh power tactics,
reevaluate themselves and their targets less
than those who use power tactics that do not
match their power base (Klocke, 2009).
■ Power and coercion. Powerful people also tend to
use their power to influence others even when
a display of power is unnecessary. Kipnis (1974)
examined this tendency by arranging for
advanced business students to participate as
managers in a simulated manufacturing com-
pany. Some had considerable power, in that
they could award bonuses, cut pay, threaten and
3.0
Low
Talker’s distress
High
L
is
te
n
e
r’
s
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
io
n
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
Low-power listener
High-power listener
F I G U R E 8.4 The relationship between the listen-
er’s compassion and the talker’s distress for people who
are low and high in power. Low-power people respond
with more compassion as the talker becomes more dis-
tressed. For high-power people, their initially somewhat
higher levels of compassion decline as the talker becomes
more distressed.
SOURCE: van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz,
J., & Keltner, D. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye
to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19, 1315–1322.
256 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

actually carry out transfers to other jobs, give
additional instructions, and even fire a worker,
but others could not. Kipnis controlled the level
of productivity of the fictitious workers (all
performed adequately), but powerful managers
nonetheless initiated roughly twice as many
attempts at influence as the less powerful man-
agers. Moreover, power determined the power
tactics managers used—the powerless ones relied
on persuasion, whereas the powerful ones
coerced or rewarded their workers. Other
studies have yielded similar support for the
idea that people with power tend to make
use of it, but the magnitude of this effect
depends on many other factors (Fiske &
Berdahl, 2007).
■ Power and ethics. When individuals feel pow-
erful, they sometimes treat others unfairly,
particularly if they are more self-centered
rather than focused on the overall good of the
group (Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001).
Some individuals (primarily men) associate
power with sexuality, so when they are
empowered, they engage in inappropriate
sexual behaviors, including sexual harassment
(MacKinnon, 2003). This tendency, termed
the Bathsheba syndrome, takes its name
from the biblical story of David and Bath-
sheba. King David is smitten by Bathsheba,
the wife of one of his generals, and he seduces
her. David compounds his moral failure with
one misdeed after another, until he eventually
orders Bathsheba’s husband killed. A power-
holder acting immorally is not, apparently, a
new phenomenon in human societies (Ludwig
& Longenecker, 1993).
Power and Power Seeking In small, stable
groups, individuals in positions of authority wish
to maintain their status relative to those lower in
the hierarchy, but once they maintain this relative
difference, they do not continue to seek more and
more status. Power is not addictive or so alluring
that people are never satisfied with the level of
power they currently enjoy (van Dijke & Poppe,
2007). In some cases, however, the experience of
power is so positive—energizing, emotionally satis-
fying, psychologically stimulating—that power-
holders may become preoccupied with seeking
power, driven by a strong motivation to acquire
greater and greater levels of interpersonal influence
(McClelland, 1975, 1985; Winter, 1973). They
seek power, not because they can use it to achieve
their goals, but because they value power per se.
Hence, once such people attain power, they take
steps to protect their sources of influence.
8-4b Reactions to the Use of Power
Humans, like many social species, are willing to accept
guidance from other members of their group. How-
ever, in some cases, power does not just include
power with people and over people, but also power
against people. Powerholders can influence, some-
times dramatically, the outcomes of those who have
little power, prompting them to do things they would
rather not. How do people respond—behaviorally,
cognitively, and emotionally—when the directives
of authorities conflict with the goals they have set
for themselves (Sagarin & Henningsen, 2016)?
Reactions to Hard Influence Tactics Approach/
inhibition theory suggests that individuals who find
themselves without power, relative to others, avoid
rather than approach. They not only lack resources,
but they are dependent on others for the resources
that they need. They therefore tend to display more
negative affect, they are sensitive to threats and punish-
ments, and they follow closely the dictates of the norms
of the group (Keltner et al., 2003). In general, how-
ever, these effects of power are more pronounced
when the powerholder uses hard (e.g., punishment,
sanctions, nonpersonal rewards) rather than soft (per-
sonal rewards, referent power) influence methods.
Harsh tactics generate a range of negative emotions,
including hostility, depression, fear, and anger, whereas
those influenced by softer methods tend to reciprocate
Bathsheba syndrome The tendency for high-status
members to claim unfair and inappropriate privileges
and honors, including predacious sexual activities.
PO W E R 257
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

with cooperation (Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Pierro,
Cicero, & Raven, 2008). Group members are also
more likely to resist an authority who uses coercive
influence methods and asks the group members to
carry out unpleasant assignments (Yukl, Kim, &
Falbe, 1996); this resistance may cause the power-
holder to turn to even more negative forms of influ-
ence (Youngs, 1986). Hence, although coercive
powerholders may be successful in initial encounters,
influence becomes more difficult in successive meet-
ings as the group’s anger and resistance to pressure
grow. Groups will, however, tolerate the use of coer-
cive methods when the group is successful (Michener
& Lawler, 1975), the leader is trusted (Friedland, 1976),
and the use of such tactics is justified by the group’s
norms (Michener & Burt, 1975).
Coercion and Conflict The conflict created by
coercive influence can disrupt the entire group’s
functioning. Studies of classrooms, for example, indi-
cate that many teachers rely heavily on coercion, but
that these methods cause rather than solve disciplin-
ary problems (Kounin, 1970). Coercive tactics, such
as physical punishment, displays of anger, and shout-
ing, not only fail to change the target student’s
behavior but also lead to negative changes in the
classroom’s atmosphere (Kounin & Gump, 1958).
When misbehaving students are severely repri-
manded, other students often become more disrup-
tive and uninterested in their schoolwork, and
negative, inappropriate social activity spreads from
the trouble spot throughout the classroom. This dis-
ruptive contagion, or ripple effect, is especially strong
when the reprimanded students are powerful mem-
bers of the classroom status structure or when com-
mands by teachers are vague and ambiguous.
Resistance and Rebellion In some cases, group
members may rebel against an authority who they
consider to be unfair, incompetent, or both (Ciulla
& Forsyth, 2011). They may escape the power-
holder’s region of control or apply influence in
return. Members contend against those in power as
individuals, particularly when they feel that others in
the group have more power than they do. But when
members feel a sense of shared identity with the
other low-power members of the group, they are
more likely to join with them in a revolutionary
coalition that opposes the powerholder (van Dijke
& Poppe, 2004; Haslam & Reicher, 2012). In one
study of group rebellion, two group members
worked under the direction of a leader who was
appointed to that post because he or she had out-
scored them on a bogus test of ability. The leader
then proceeded to keep more than half of the
money earned by the group, giving each participant
less than one-fourth. If the leader had personally
decided how to apportion payment, 58% of the par-
ticipants rebelled by forming a coalition with the
other low-status participant. If the leader was not
responsible for the payment scheme, only 25%
revolted (Lawler & Thompson, 1978, 1979).
Identification and Conversion Both Milgram’s
participants and the People’s Temple members did as
they were told, but the two groups differed in one
crucial respect: Most of Milgram’s participants strug-
gled to withstand the authority’s pressure, for they
believed that the learner should not be held against
his will. Many of Jones’s followers, in contrast, zeal-
ously followed his orders. They did not strain against
his authority; they had converted to his way of think-
ing (Darley, 1995; Lutsky, 1995; Staub, 1989, 2004).
Social psychologist Herbert Kelman (1958, 1961,
2006) identified three basic reactions that people dis-
play in response to coercive influence (see Figure 8.5).
In some cases, the powerholder only produces
Private
acceptance of
the other’s
beliefs,
values, and
goals
Conformity
motivated by
desire to
imitate and
please the
other
IdentificationCompliance Internalization
Public
conformity
without
internal,
private
acceptance
F I G U R E 8.5 Kelman’s compliance–
identification–internalization theory of conversion.
revolutionary coalition A subgroup formed within the
larger group that seeks to disrupt or change the group’s
authority structure.
258 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

compliance—the group members do what they are
told to do, but only because the powerholder demands
it. Privately, they do not agree with the powerholder,
but publicly they yield to the pressure. Like Milgram’s
participants, they obey only when the powerholder
maintains surveillance. The next phase, identification,
occurs when the target of the influence admires and
therefore imitates the powerholder. When group
members identify with the powerholder, their self-
image changes as they take on the behaviors and char-
acteristics of the person with power. Many members of
the People’s Temple admired Jones and wanted to
achieve his level of spirituality. They obeyed his orders
because they identified with him.
Identification, if prolonged and unrelenting, can
lead to the final stage—internalization. When internal-
ization occurs, the individual “adopts the induced
behavior because it is congruent with his value system”
(Kelman, 1958, p. 53). The group members are no
longer merely carrying out the powerholder’s orders;
instead, their actions reflect their own personal beliefs,
opinions, and goals. Even if the powerholder is not
present, the group members will still undertake the
required actions. Extreme obedience—such as
occurred with Jonestown, the murder of millions of
Jews by the Nazis during World War II, the My Lai
massacre, and suicidal cults—often requires internaliza-
tion. The group members’ actions reflect their private
acceptance of the authority’s value system (Hamilton &
Sanders, 1995, 1999; Kelman & Hamilton, 1989).
Kelman’s three-step model of conversion
explains how groups convert recruits into fervent
members over time. Cults, for example, insist that
the members adopt the group’s ideology, but in the
early stages of membership, they only require compli-
ance. New recruits are invited to pleasant group func-
tions where they are treated in a warm, positive way.
Once they agree to join the group for a longer visit,
the veteran members disorient them by depriving
them of sleep, altering their diet, and persuading
them to join in physically exhilarating activities. The
recruits are usually isolated from friends and family to
prevent any lapses in influence, subjected to lectures,
and asked to take part in group discussions. Compli-
ance with these small requests is followed by greater
demands, as with the U.S. prisoners of war in Korea.
Eventually, the recruits freely agree to make personal
sacrifices for the group, and these sacrifices prompt a
further consolidation of their attitudes (Baron, 2000;
Baron, Kerr, & Miller, 1992). Once recruits reach the
consolidation stage, they have fully internalized the
group’s ideology and goals.
Destructive Obedience In both the Milgram
experiment and at Jonestown, power led to
destructive obedience, as group members failed to
question the authority’s motivation, interpretations,
and orders. For example, Jack Washington, a par-
ticipant in Milgram’s experiment, administered all
the shocks up to 450 V with barely a hesitation.
When later asked why he followed orders, he
said, “I merely went on. Because I was following
orders. I was told to go on. And I did not get a cue
to stop” (Milgram, 1974, p. 50).
Milgram’s concept of agentic shift, noted ear-
lier in the chapter, maintained that individuals who
feel powerless also feel they are not responsible for
their own actions. They feel “responsibility to the
authority” but “no responsibility for the content of
the actions that the authority prescribes” (Milgram,
1974, pp. 145–146). Like Jack Washington, who
was just “following orders” when he shocked the
screaming learner, many individuals who have little
power in the group assume that they are supposed
to carry out the orders of the authority without
questioning those orders. They no longer feel that
they are in control of their own actions and become
willing cogs in the group machine, carrying out the
orders of an authority without considering their
implications or questioning their effects (Hinrichs
et al., 2012; Kelman & Hamilton, 1989).
Obedient individuals’ claims of reduced
responsibility may be more than self-serving
attempts to avoid blame for following, rather than
resisting, a malevolent leader. In two studies,
researchers arranged for pairs of participants to
take turns harming each other. In the first, when
in the “agent” role the participant could take
money from the “victim.” But in the second
study, the agent could earn additional money if
she delivered an electric shock to the “victim.” In
some cases, the agent was free to make her own
PO W E R 259
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

choice: to take money or deliver a shock. But, in
the coercion condition, the experimenter ordered
the agent to harm the victim. Participants in both
the free choice and coercion conditions harmed
their partner, but only those subjects in the coer-
cion condition exhibited a bias known to be asso-
ciated with a reduced sense of agency: they tended
to misjudge the time interval between their actions
and its consequences. And even more telling, the
participants in the second study, when their neural
responses were monitored, displayed reduced levels
of brain activity in areas associated with voluntary
actions. The researchers concluded “people who
obey orders may subjectively experience their
actions as closer to passive movements than fully
voluntary actions” (Caspar et al., 2016, p. 585).
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his
colleagues also documented the consequences of
coercive authority in their well-known Stanford
Prison Study. Zimbardo, seeking to simulate a
prison environment, randomly assigned male stu-
dent volunteers to the role of prison guard or pris-
oner. The study was scheduled to run for two
weeks, but was ended early due to the extreme
reaction of the subjects. The prisoners seemed liter-
ally to become prisoners; although some rebelled,
the majority became withdrawn and depressed. The
guards also became increasingly tyrannical and arbi-
trary in their control of the prisoners. Some of their
actions crossed the line between intimidation and
abuse. They threatened the prisoners with physical
injury, ran hooded prisoners into walls as they
walked them to the bathrooms at night, and forced
them to engage in feigned sexual activities. Zim-
bardo himself sank deeply into the role of superin-
tendent, worrying over possible “prison breaks”
and autocratically controlling visiting procedures
(Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973; Zimbardo,
Maslach, & Haney, 2000; Zimbardo, 2004, 2007).
Zimbardo concluded that the participants were
overwhelmed by the “power of the situation.” All
of the participants had a general idea of the power
differences between the role of a prisoner and the
role of a guard. As the study progressed, to be a
guard meant controlling all aspects of the prison
and protecting this control with force if necessary.
Prisoners, on the other hand, were supposed to
accept this control and try to get through the expe-
rience as easily as possible by obeying all the prison’s
rules. Participants who refused to obey these norms
were pressured by the other participants to bring
their behavior back in line; nonconformity was
not tolerated. Zimbardo concluded that his study
“made it evident that initially our guards were
‘good apples,’ some of whom became soured
over time by powerful situational forces” (2007,
p. 329). Zimbardo calls the tendency for people
to be corrupted by negative group environments
the Lucifer effect.
8-4c Who Is Responsible?
A church member obediently swallowing poison.
A soldier executing innocent civilians. A worker
installing substandard building materials. A partici-
pant in an experiment giving an innocent victim
painful shocks. On first hearing about such events,
people sometimes fall prey to the fundamental attri-
bution error (FAE): They blame the personalities of
the individuals rather than the powerful group
processes at work that forced them to obey—
even though a closer, more informed analysis of
the situation would reveal the power pressures
the members faced (Reeder, Monroe, & Pryor,
2008). In extreme instances, when a powerholder
inflicts tremendous suffering and misfortune on
people, the group members blame themselves for
their misery. The members of the People’s Temple
may have felt so deserving of their fate that they
chose to suffer rather than escape suffering. These
feelings of self-condemnation may account for
their willingness to take their own lives (Clark,
1971; Fanon, 1963).
Yet obedience is not a reflection of the nature
of the individuals in the group, but an indication of
Lucifer effect The transformation of benign individuals
into morally corrupt individuals by powerful, but malev-
olent, social situations; named for the biblical character
Lucifer, an angel who fell from grace and was trans-
formed into Satan (proposed by Phillip Zimbardo).
260 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the power of the group itself. By controlling key
bases of power, using power tactics, and exploiting
the nature of the subordinate–authority relation-
ship, authorities exert great influence on group
members. As John Darley explained, “Many evil
actions are not the volitional products of individual
evil-doers. Instead, they are in some sense societal
products, in which a complex series of social forces
interact to cause individuals to commit multiple
acts of stunning evil” (Darley, 1992, p. 204).
C H A P TE R R E V I E W
What are the limits of an authority’s power?
1. Social power is a group-level process, for it is
predicated on differences in members’ capacity
to influence one another.
2. Milgram (1974) tested people’s obedience to an
authority who ordered them to give painful
and potentially harmful electric shocks to a
confederate (no shocks were actually given).
■ A majority (65%) obeyed fully; those who
did not often stopped when the learner
retracted his consent to participate (at 150
V; Packer, 2008a).
■ Obedience varied as Milgram manipulated
aspects of the setting, including the harm,
proximity, research location, surveillance,
legitimacy, and groups.
3. Milgram’s studies suggest that obedience is
common in hierarchically organized groups,
such as those found in military, educational,
and organizational settings.
■ Critics noted methodological flaws and sug-
gested that the personal characteristics of
Milgram’s participants prompted them to
obey, but the findings have been replicated
by other researchers (e.g., Burger, 2009).
What are the sources of power in groups?
1. French and Raven’s (1959) theory of power
bases emphasizes six sources of power—reward
power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent
power, expert power, and informational power.
■ Milgram suggested obedient individual
believed themselves to be agents of the
authority—the agentic state—but recent
research suggests they identified with the
experimenter and the project’s scientific
goals.
■ Weber’s (1956/1978) concept of charisma
suggests that certain leaders exert their
influence by relying on legitimate power
and referent power.
■ Blass (1990) confirmed empirically that
Milgram’s experimenter derived power
from all six bases.
2. Power tactics are specific methods, such as per-
suasion, bargaining, and evasion, that people
use to attain the goal of influencing others.
■ These methods vary in a number of ways
(hard–soft, rational–irrational, lateral–
bilateral), with individuals selecting particular
tactics depending on their personal charac-
teristics and the nature of the group setting.
■ One tactic, which may explain the levels
of obedience in the Milgram experiment
and Jonestown, is the foot-in-the-door tech-
nique: prefacing major demands with
minor, inconsequential ones.
■ The so-called “brainwashing” methods
used by Chinese military personnel during
the Korean War relied on various methods
of influencing, including behavioral
commitment.
What are the sources of status in groups?
1. The status structure in a group defines differences
in power and influence.
PO W E R 261
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Members strive for status in groups; the
resulting pecking order defines who is
dominant and who is submissive.
■ Personal characteristics, such as the need
for power and political skill, predict those
individuals who are more likely to strive
for power over others.
■ Bullying is the use of coercive influence
against another, less powerful person. It can
involve physical contact, verbal abuse,
exclusion, or other negative actions.
2. Group members’ perceptions of one another
also determine status. Berger’s expectation-states
theory argues that group members allocate status
by considering specific status characteristics and dif-
fuse status characteristics (Berger et al., 2014).
3. When status generalization occurs, group mem-
bers unfairly allow irrelevant characteristics,
such as race, age, or ethnicity, to influence the
allocation of prestige.
■ Status allocations are particularly unfair
when individuals who are members of
stereotyped minority societal groups are
also underrepresented in the group itself,
with the most extreme case being solo
status (being the only individual of that
category in the group).
■ In some online groups, the effects of status
on participation are muted, resulting in a
participation equalization effect.
4. Status differences in groups may be an evolved
adaptation.
■ In leaderless groups, status organizing pro-
cesses rapidly create status differences.
■ Michel’s (1915/1959) iron law of oligar-
chy predicts the emergence of status
differences.
■ Individuals tend to respond submissively
when they confront authority, and
they tend to behave assertively when
they encounter someone who is sub-
missive (the interpersonal complementarity
hypothesis).
Does gaining power have a transformative effect on
people?
1. People differ in the disposition level of personal
power, but situational factors can also prime a
sense of power.
2. The idea that “power corrupts, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely” is consistent with
Keltner’s (2016) approach/inhibition theory,
which suggests that power activates the
approach response system whereas the loss of
power inhibits actions.
3. The positive effects of power include increased
activity levels, more positive emotions, consis-
tent goal-striving, enhanced executive func-
tioning, increased authenticity, and lower levels
of conformity.
4. The negative effects of power include an increased
tendency to act in a risky or inappropriate way, a
negative impact on others’ emotional states, loss of
perspective-taking, the tendency to misjudge
others, and increased self-satisfaction.
■ Kipnis’s (1974) studies of the metamorphic
effects of power found that people who are
given coercive power will use this power,
and that once it is used, the powerholders
tend to overestimate their control over
others and devalue their targets.
■ The Bathsheba syndrome occurs when
authorities use their power to exploit
others, particularly in a sexual way.
■ Powerholders may become so enamored
of power that they are preoccupied with
gaining it and using it.
How do those without power react when power is
used to influence them?
1. Approach/inhibition theory predicts that indivi-
duals who do not feel powerful will display more
negative emotion and reduced motivation. These
negative effects are more likely when power-
holders use coercive influence methods.
2. Coercive methods have been linked to a
number of dysfunctional group processes,
262 C H A P T ER 8
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

including increases in conflict as more group
members rebel against authority (the ripple
effect), disrupted interpersonal relations, and
revolutionary coalitions.
3. Kelman’s (1958) compliance–identification–
internalization model describes a sequence
of increasing private acceptance of
an authority’s beliefs, values, and
perspectives.
4. Milgram’s (1974) theory of the agentic state
traces obedience back to the nature of the
authority–subordinate relationship.
■ When individuals become part of an
organized hierarchy, they tacitly agree to
follow the leader’s orders. They also
experience a reduction of responsibility
and reduced agency.
■ Zimbardo’s simulated prison study was
terminated prematurely when participants
became too dominant and too submissive.
5. People who blame obedience on the individuals
in the situation may be displaying the funda-
mental attribution error (FAE), which underes-
timates the power of group-level processes.
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: The People’s Temple
■ Our Father Who Art in Hell: The Life and
Death of Jim Jones by James Reston, Jr. (2000)
relies on the analysis of over 800 hours of
recordings, as well as personal interviews
with Jonestown survivors, to develop a full
analysis of the People’s Temple.
■ A Thousand Lives: The Untold Story of Hope,
Deception, and Survival at Jonestown by Julia
Scheeres (2011) draws on FBI documents
and audiotapes to describe the experiences
of individuals who lived and died in
Jonestown.
Obedience to Authority
■ “Milgram at 50: Exploring the Enduring
Relevance of Psychology’s Most Famous
Studies,” edited by S. Alexander Haslam,
Arthur G. Miller, and Stephen D. Reicher
(2014), is a special issue of the Journal of Social
Issues with 14 in-depth articles examining
every facet of Milgram’s provocative analysis
of the power of an authority.
■ “Why Are the Milgram Experiments Still
So Extraordinarily Famous–and Contro-
versial?” by Arthur G. Miller (2016)
unpacks many issues surrounding Mil-
gram’s studies of obedience, reviewing
ethical controversies, theoretical exten-
sions, and practical implications.
Source of Power in Groups
■ “Interpersonal Stratification: Status,
Power, and Subordination” by Susan T.
Fiske (2010b) is an extensive analysis of the
social psychology of status structures and
influence in groups.
■ The Psychology of Social Status, edited by Joey
T. Cheng, Jessica L. Tracy, and Cameron
Anderson (2014), reviews the most recent
work examining status in small groups,
including current theoretical perspectives,
neurological substrates, and implications for
leadership and group performance.
Metamorphic Effects of Power
■ The Power Paradox by Dacher Keltner
(2016) is an evidence-based analysis of
how people get power, how they use it,
and how it can in some cases corrupt them.
■ Power: Past Findings, Present Considerations,
and Future Directions by Adam D. Galinsky,
Derek D. Rucker, and Joe C. Magee
(2015) surveys the most recent work
examining power and influence, with a
focus on theories and models that consider
power to be an interpersonal process.
PO W E R 263
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 9
Leadership
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Groups often require guidance as they strive to
reach their objectives, but who will consistently
coordinate, motivate, and sustain the group? The
leader. A leader can fundamentally shape the
group’s future, but the person who takes that
role—whether formally recognized or emerging
more gradually during the course of the group’s
interactions—is not always the individual who
should be the leader. If asked, “What one thing
would you change to turn an inept group into a
productive one?” most people would answer, “The
leader.”
■ What is leadership?
■ Who will emerge as a leader?
■ Why do some lead and others follow?
■ Why are some leaders more effective than
others?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
9-1 Leading Groups
9-1a Leadership Defined
9-1b What Do Leaders Do?
9-2 Leadership Emergence
9-2a The Leader’s Traits
9-2b Intellectual and Practical Skills
9-2c The Leader’s Look
9-3 Theories of Leadership Emergence
9-3a Implicit Leadership Theory
9-3b Social Identity Theory
9-3c Social Role Theory
9-3d Terror Management Theory
9-3e Evolutionary Theory
9-4 Leader Effectiveness
9-4a Styles and Situations
9-4b Leader–Member Exchange Theory
9-4c Participation Theories
9-4d Transformational Leadership
9-4e The Future of Leadership
Chapter Review
Resources
264
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Group dynamics are the influential interpersonal
processes that take place in groups, and one of the
most influential of these processes is leadership.
Egyptian hieroglyphics written 5,000 years ago
include the terms leader and leadership (Bass,
2008). The great epics, such as Beowulf, the Song of
Roland, and the Odyssey, are filled with the exploits
of leaders of small bands of adventurers. Leadership,
like sex, language, and groups, make the anthropol-
ogist’s list of universals that have been identified as
common to all cultures and all civilizations, without
exception (Brown, 1991). Presumably, ever since the
first protohuman told the rest of the group “We’re
doing this all wrong, let’s get organized” people have
pondered the mysteries examined in this chapter:
“What do leaders do?” “Who should we select to
be our leader?” and “Why are some leaders much
more effective than others?”
9 – 1 L E A D I N G G R O U P S
When Charlotte Beers took over as their leader,
Ogilvy was good, but not great. An international
company, with divisions operating all over the
world, it was positioned to become the number
one choice for companies looking to expand their
brand to new markets. Beers believed that Ogilvy’s
strengths weren’t being fully exploited, so she
focused on the basics—structure, strategy, systems,
and staff—but she did so with an energetic, opti-
mistic, “fearless” style. As she explains, “I came to
Ogilvy very clear that my role as CEO and chair-
man was to be a change agent, to help this grand
Charlotte Beers: Transforming Groups through Leadership
The ten were all high-ranking executives at Ogilvy &
Mather Worldwide: the sixth-largest advertising
agency in the world. They had gathered, at the con-
ference room table in a nice hotel in Vienna, Austria,
to solve a problem: Why was their once thriving
company now nearly always described as “belea-
guered?” Each one was the director, executive offi-
cer, or chair of one of the company’s many corporate
branches, and each one had been handpicked by
Charlotte Beers, the company’s new chief executive
officer (CEO). Beers had been hired just a few months
earlier. Most considered her to be a surprising choice:
She was the first woman to lead such a large agency
and the first CEO brought in from outside the exec-
utive ranks of Ogilvy. But she had the reputation of
being a turnaround expert: Someone who could
breathe new life into the 5.4 billion, 8,000-employee
company.
Beers had personally invited each one of them to
the meeting, basing her choice on just one criterion:
These were the people in the company who believed
that Ogilvy must change if it was to survive in a highly
competitive marketplace. These executives had never
met before, but as the day began they weren’t ready
to share their ideas. Previous planning sessions often
got little accomplished because the corporate culture
emphasized agreement over conflict. The Vienna
meeting was different, however. Beers needed the
group to come together and agree on two things: the
need to change and the direction the company would
take to make that change a successful one. As the day
went on some argued that the basic problem, and key
fix, was morale: The company didn’t need restructur-
ing, it needed confidence. Others emphasized the
company’s failure to understand its strengths, and to
build on those strengths. And some stressed the com-
pany’s sprawling corporate structure, and its offices
located all over the world.
But the group got its work done. As the meeting
ended, many wondered where the next year would
take the company, but they did not wonder about
their leader: Beers was energetic, influential, informal,
but also deadly serious. As the group adjourned and
each leader set to work restructuring the company,
reinventing its mission, and building on its strengths,
their cynicism and suspicion changed into optimism
and enthusiasm: “Charlotte felt right. She fits” they all
thought (Ibarra & Sackley, 2011, p. 8).
leadership Guidance of others in the pursuit of individ-
ual and collective goals, often by directing, coordinating,
motivating, supporting, and unifying their efforts; also,
the ability to lead others.
L EA DE RSHI P 265
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

agency right itself” (Beers, 2002, p. 217). As the
company’s leader, she guided the organization in
its work, from disorganization and inefficiency to
effectiveness. She was not just the manager, CEO,
or chairman of the board: She was Ogilvy’s leader.
9-1a Leadership Defined
The political scientist James McGregor Burns
(1978) has asserted that leadership is “one of the
most observed and least understood phenomena
on earth” (p. 2). But much of the mystery vanishes
when leadership is examined from a group perspec-
tive. Certainly, leaders sometimes influence others
across time and great distances, but more typically
leadership occurs in a context: and that context is
the group. For example Beers, when she first took
over as the CEO of Ogilvy, sent a message directly
to all 8,000 employees expressing confidence in the
company, and that change was “going to happen
fast” (Ibarra & Sackley, 2011, p. 6). But she did
much of her work leading teams of directors, staff,
and executives who were responsible for managing
the work of the company. Yes, leadership can be
considered to be a set of abilities, a position of
authority, or a shared vision, but fundamentally:
Leadership is an influence process in which group
members guide one another in the pursuit of indi-
vidual and collective goals. Leadership is a process
of influence rather than a position or office; a coop-
erative, reciprocal relationship rather than a coer-
cive one; and a goal-oriented, generative process
rather than an oppressive one.
Leadership Is an Influence Process Experts have
defined leadership in many ways, but most defini-
tions return to one core quality—influence:
■ Leadership is the “successful influence by the
leader that results in the attainment of goals by
the influenced followers” (Bass, 2008, p. 19).
■ ”Leadership is the process of influencing others
to understand and agree about what needs to
be done” (Yukl, 2013, p. 7).
■ Leadership is “a process whereby an individual
influences a group” (Northouse, 2013, p. 5).
■ Leaders are “individuals who significantly
influence the thoughts, behaviors, and/or
feelings of others” (Gardner, 1995, p. 6).
This influence process, however, can take a
variety of forms. Leaders sometimes use direct
methods of influence: they issue directives, orders,
instructions, and so on. Military leaders can and do
issue orders to subordinates who are duty-bound
to follow those orders. Politicians speak directly to
their constituents, explaining their policies and
asking for support. Team leaders identify the sub-
tasks that must be completed by the group as it
pursues its goals, and then they assign different
members of the team to each subtask. But leaders
also influence their followers in more subtle and
less perceptible ways. They put in place organiza-
tional procedures and structures that constrain
their followers’ actions in ways that often go
unnoticed. Their persuasive messages convince lis-
teners not by presenting rational arguments and
information, but by appealing to their emotions
and unconscious motivations. And some lead by
setting an example that they hope others might
follow. Leaders don’t just order, demand, and
require but also persuade, cajole, and guide.
A distinction is often drawn between leadership
and other forms of influence in groups and organiza-
tions, such as management and supervision. Leaders
may hold supervisory positions in groups, but holding
a position does not always translate into leadership;
there are many bosses, supervisors, and managers
who are not leaders. Conversely, many individuals
in groups and organizations who do not hold formal
positions of authority are leaders, for they influence
others as they pool their efforts in the pursuit of shared
goals. Leadership is more about process, rather than
position (see Mintzberg, 2009).
Leadership Is a Cooperative, Reciprocal
Relationship Even though the leader’s path to
influence is sometimes rife with conflict, leadership
processes are based more on cooperation rather
than coercion. People who use domination and
intimidation to influence others—whether they
are kings, presidents, bosses, or managers—maybe
powerful, but they are not necessarily leaders.
266 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Leaders do not force others to follow them, but
instead the leader–follower relationship is a coop-
erative, consensual one. When people join forces
to achieve an outcome, some must step forward
and guide the group toward its goals and others
must accept that guidance. In general, leaders
appear in groups when (1) members feel that
success on the group task is within their reach,
(2) the rewards of success are valued, (3) the
task requires group effort rather than individual
effort, and (4) an individual with previous expe-
rience in the leadership role is present in the
group (Guastello, 2007).
A group that is facing a stressful situation—such as
a potential failure or danger—is also likely to embrace
a leader’s guidance (Goethals & Hoyt, 2011). Indivi-
duals who take pride in their independence may find,
when difficult circumstances overtake them, that they
are relieved to find a leader who is ready to take
charge of the group and coordinate its reaction to
the threat. Such circumstances can even cause mem-
bers to see leadership potential in people where none
exists. Members of troubled groups, compared to
more tranquil groups, exaggerate the potential of pos-
sible leaders. They even misremember crucial details,
tending to recall their prospective leader as having
performed any number of leader-consistent behaviors
and forgetting any past behaviors that conflict with
their image of the person as a suitable leader. Thus,
members do not resist having a leader; instead, they
actively create leaders both interpersonally and psy-
chologically (Emrich, 1999).
Followers do, however, sometimes struggle
against their leader’s influence, particularly when
that influence takes the form of heavy-handed
influence or the leader acts to promote his or
her own outcomes at the expense of the group
(Avolio & Locke, 2002). Yet most people prefer
to be led rather than to be leaderless. When in
groups, people must often coordinate their actions
with those of others in the group, and leaders are
often the ones in the group who are responsible
for ensuring that harmonization (see Chapter 8).
Group members are usually more satisfied and
productive when their groups have leaders (Ber-
kowitz, 1953). Group members often complain
about the quality of their leaders—surveys that
ask employees to identify the worst thing about
their job find these complaints tend to converge
on the leader—but they seek out better leaders
rather than avoiding them altogether (Hogan &
Kaiser, 2005). Most people do not just accept
the need for a leader but appreciate the contribu-
tion that the leader makes to the group and its
outcomes (Friedman & Saul, 1991).
Leadership Is a Goal-Oriented Process Leader-
ship is an adaptive, goal-seeking process, for it orga-
nizes and motivates group members’ attempts to
attain personal and group goals (Parks, 2005). Stud-
ies of leaders in all kinds of group situations—flight
crews, politics, schools, military units, and religious
groups—all suggest that groups prosper when
guided by good leaders. Groups, when discussing
solutions to problems, tend to spend too much
time discussing information shared by many
members—unless a leader is present in the group
who controls the group’s tendency to focus on
shared information (Larson et al., 1996). When a
company gets a new CEO, its performance tends
to climb (Jung, Wu, & Chow, 2008). Newly
appointed leaders who inspire and excite members
with fresh ideas and strategies can spur the group on
to great achievements and successes (Kaiser, Hogan,
& Craig, 2008). Groups, as noted in Chapter 7,
often fail to help in emergency situations. But
what happens if a leader is present in the group?
In one study of the bystander effect, only 35% of
the groups helped a person in need, but when the
group had a leader, 80% of the groups delivered
assistance (Baumeister et al., 1988).
Unfortunately, although effective leaders facili-
tate the attainment of positive benefits both for the
members of the group and the group itself, not all
leaders are effective. Leaders sometimes take their
group in directions it should not go. They act to
promote their own personal outcomes and overlook
the good of the group. Leaders manipulate followers,
persuading them to make sacrifices, while the leaders
enjoy the rewards of their power and influence.
They push their agendas too hard, their groups
obey their demands, and only later do all realize
L EA DE RSHI P 267
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

their mistakes (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Such leaders
are influential—but in a negative way.
9-1b What Do Leaders Do?
Charlotte Beers was hired to lead Ogilvy, and her
official title was Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer. But what did Beers do as a leader?
What behaviors define the role of a leader?
A multinational corporation demands differ-
ent things of a leader than does a study group or
a flight crew, yet certain behaviors regularly define
the leadership role across a wide variety of groups.
To identify these consistencies, researchers at Ohio
State University (see Fleishman, 1953) first devel-
oped a list of hundreds of types of behaviors typical
of military and organizational leaders—initiating
new practices, providing praise, interacting infor-
mally with subordinates, delegating responsibili-
ties, representing the group, integrating group
action, and so on. They then refined the list by
asking members of various groups to indicate
how many of these behaviors their leaders dis-
played. Using factor analysis, they identified clus-
ters of related behaviors that were frequently used
to describe leaders. These analyses suggested that
80% of the variability in followers’ ratings could be
explained by a two-factor model of leadership:
■ Task leadership focuses on the group’s work and its
goals. To facilitate the achievement of group
goals, the leader initiates structure, sets standards
and objectives, identifies roles and assigns mem-
bers to those roles, develops standard operating
procedures, defines responsibilities, establishes
communication networks, gives evaluative feed-
back, plans activities, coordinates activities, pro-
poses solutions, monitors compliance with
procedures, and stresses the need for efficiency
and productivity (Lord, 1977; Yukl, 2013).
■ Relationship leadership focuses on the interper-
sonal relations within the group. To increase
socioemotional satisfaction and teamwork in
the group, the leader boosts morale, gives
support and encouragement, reduces interper-
sonal conflict, helps members to release nega-
tive tensions, establishes rapport, and shows
concern and consideration for the group and its
members (Lord, 1977; Yukl, 2013).
Subsequent studies of leaders in many different
contexts have repeatedly confirmed the two-factor
Do Leaders Make All the Difference?
Leaders significantly influence their group’s dynamics,
but sometimes people think that leaders do every-
thing. In Western cultures, in particular, people assume
that leaders are so influential that they, and they
alone, determine their group’s outcomes. This roman-
ticized view of leaders as rescuers and heroes has
been aptly termed the romance of leadership (Meindl,
Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985).
This romance of leadership ignores both the lim-
ited influence wielded by most leaders and the many
other factors that influence a group and its dynamics.
When a team fails, those in charge often replace the
group’s leaders, for they assume that a different
leader could have rescued the failing team. When
people give all the credit for a group’s success to the
leader or blame him or her for a failure, they over-
look the contributions of the other group members.
Leaders are influential, but few leaders deserve all
the blame for their group’s failures and fewer
still are heroes who can fairly claim the lion’s share
of credit for their group’s achievements (Bligh,
Kohles, & Pillai, 2011).
romance of leadership The tendency to overestimate
the amount of influence and control leaders exert on
their groups and their groups’ outcomes.
two-factor model of leadership A descriptive model
of leadership, which maintains that most leadership beha-
viors can be classified as either performance maintenance
or relationship maintenance.
268 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

model. Although the labels vary—task-oriented
versus relational-oriented (DeRue et al., 2011), work-
facilitative versus supportive (Bowers & Seashore, 1966),
production-centered versus employee-centered (Likert,
1967), administratively skilled versus relations-skilled
(Mann, 1965), and performance versus maintenance (Mis-
umi, 1995)—the two basic clusters emerge with great
regularity (Hamlin & Hatton, 2013).
Leadership Substitutes The two-factor model
assumes that leaders, despite their widely varying
methods and styles, tend to do two basic things
when they lead others—they coordinate the work
that the group must accomplish and they attend to
the group’s interpersonal needs. But these two forms
of leadership, though commonplace, are not needed
in every leadership situation. Beers, for example, spent
much of her time initiating structure: planning, strat-
egizing, organizing, and coordinating the activities of
the company’s many units. She was a source of inspi-
ration for others, but because of the high level of pro-
fessionalism, she did not need to boost members’
commitment to the group’s goals.
Her leadership at Ogilvy is consistent with
leadership substitutes theory, which maintains
that substitutes for leadership obviate the need to
provide task or relational support to the group
members (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). In some cases,
something about the group members may reduce
their need for task, relational, or both task and rela-
tional leadership. For example, experienced, profes-
sional, and well-trained members may need little in
the way of task leadership. In other cases, aspects of
the task and the group or organizational setting may
substitute for leadership. If the group is highly
cohesive and the members are providing all the
support to each other they need, relational leader-
ship becomes less important, just as a task that is
highly structured or routine will negate the need
for task structuring (Dionne et al., 2005).
What Are the Two Sides of Leadership?
Leaders must keep the group moving forward, but they must also make sure the group stays together. The Ohio
State researchers developed the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) to measure these two sides of
leadership: task and relationship leadership.
Instructions. How do you act when you are leading others? Pick from the list below those behaviors that you
think you would likely perform if leading a group.
Task leadership Relationship leadership
q I schedule work to be done.
q I see to it that the work of group members is
coordinated.
q I let group members know what is expected
of them.
q I assign members to particular tasks.
q I emphasize the meeting of deadlines.
q I do things to make it pleasant to be a member of
the group.
q I am easy to understand.
q I find time to listen to group members.
q I look out for the personal welfare of individual
group members.
q I am friendly and approachable.
Interpretation. People tend to favor one of these two facets when leading groups—some people are natu-
rally task-focused and others are more relational (Schriesheim & Eisenbach, 1995). Which set of items seems more
consistent with your personal approach to leadership: task or relationship? (The items are paraphrased from the
LBDQ, Halpin, 1957, pp. 4–6.)
leadership substitutes theory A conceptual analysis of
the factors that reduce or eliminate the need for a leader
(substitutes) or prevent the leader from dispatching his or
her responsibilities (neutralizers).
L EA DE RSHI P 269
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Other features of the members, the task, or the
group and organizational setting may work to neutral-
ize leadership. Whereas substitutes take the place of
leadership interventions, neutralizers interfere with or
completely prevent the leader from effectively dealing
with the task or relational needs of the group. When
members work at extremely simple, boring tasks,
even the most energetic and well-meaning leader
may be unable to transform the work into an intel-
lectually satisfying experience (Howell et al., 1990).
Sex Differences in Leadership Leadership has
two sides—the task side and the relational side—
and humans come in two varieties—man and
woman. Do these variations in leadership corre-
spond to sex differences in leadership?
Despite changes in the roles of men and women
in contemporary society, when men and women
gather in groups, the men tend to be agentic—
task-oriented, active, decision-focused, indepen-
dent, goal-oriented—whereas women are more
communal—helpful to others, warm in relation to
others, understanding, aware of others’ feelings
(Abele et al., 2008). Women, to speak in generalities,
when asked to describe themselves to others in
just-formed groups, stress their communal qualities
with such adjectives as open, fair, responsible, and
pleasant. Men describe themselves as influential,
powerful, and skilled at the task to be done (Forsyth
et al., 1985). Women, more so than men, engage in
relationship maintenance, including giving advice,
offering assurances, and managing conflict (Leaper
& Ayres, 2007). Women connect more positively
to other group members by smiling more, maintaining
eye contact, and responding more tactfully to others’
comments (Hall, 2006). These differences can be seen
in groups of children, with boys undertaking physical
activities, competing with one another, and playing in
rough ways, and girls carrying out coordinated activi-
ties with a minimum of conflict (Maccoby, 2002).
These differences may even reflect evolutionary pres-
sures that encouraged the development of communal
tendencies in women and task-focused activity in men
(Geary, 1988).
This sex difference is only a tendency; it does
not manifest itself across all groups and situations.
Beers, for example, was a task-focused leader. A
meta-analytic review of more than 150 studies
that compared the leadership styles adopted by
men and women concluded women performed
more relationship-oriented actions in laboratory
groups and also described themselves as more
relationship-oriented on questionnaires. The sexes
did not differ, however, in studies conducted in
organizational settings (Eagly & Johnson, 1990).
These findings suggest that stereotypes continue to
constrain men and women in a variety of interper-
sonal and work settings, but that “men and women
do not consistently and reliably differ in their enact-
ment of interpersonal versus task style in leadership
roles” (Gipson et al., 2017, p. 45).
9- 2 LEADERSHIP EMERGENCE
Scholars down through the centuries have searched
for the source of leadership inside of people rather
than the groups they lead. In the nineteenth century,
for example, the historian Thomas Carlyle (1841)
offered up his great leader theory of history (Car-
lyle called it the “great man” theory). He asserted
that leaders possess certain characteristics that mark
them for greatness, so history could be best studied
by considering the contributions of the few great
men and women. The Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy,
in contrast, argued such leaders as Alexander the
Great and Napoleon came to prominence because
the spirit of the times—the Zeitgeist—was propitious
for the dominance of a single individual, and the
qualities of the person were largely irrelevant to
this rise to power. His Zeitgeist theory traced lead-
ership emergence and effectiveness to the situational,
rather than, personal factors (Tolstoy, 1887/1952).
great leader theory A view of leadership, attributed to
historian Thomas Carlyle, which states that successful lea-
ders possess certain characteristics that mark them for great-
ness and that such great leaders shape the course of history.
Zeitgeist theory A view of leadership, attributed to Leo
Tolstoy, which states that history is determined primarily
by the “spirit of the times” rather than by the actions and
choices of great leaders.
270 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

These two perspectives—Carlyle’s great leader
theory and Tolstoy’s Zeitgeist approach—continue
to shape theoretical analyses of leadership emer-
gence. The great leader theory is consistent with a
trait approach to leadership, which assumes that lea-
ders possess certain personality traits and character-
istics and that these characteristics are responsible for
their rise in the leadership ranks. Tolstoy’s Zeitgeist
view, in contrast, is consistent with a situational
approach, which suggests that leadership is deter-
mined by a host of variables operating in the lead-
ership situation, including the size of the group, its
cohesion, the quality of leader–member relations,
and the type of task to be performed. Neither
approach, however, is sufficient to account for lead-
ership emergence, but must be instead combined in
an interactional approach that considers both personal
qualities as well as situational factors when predict-
ing leadership. After all, leadership is a behavior,
and as Lewin’s (1951) interactional approach main-
tained, behavior is a function of both the person
and the environment: Behavior = f (P, E ).
9-2a The Leader’s Traits
Early leadership researchers believed that leaders pos-
sessed certain personality traits that set them apart
from others. This trait approach, which in its strongest
form assumed that some people were natural-born
leaders, faded in popularity as researchers reported a
series of failures to find any consistent impact of per-
sonality on leadership behavior across a wide variety
of situations. After conducting hundreds of studies,
researchers began to wonder if personality made
much of a difference when trying to predict who
would emerge as a leader and who would not
(Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948).
In retrospect, this rejection of the trait approach
was premature. When researchers used more precise
measures of personality, stronger relationships were
identified. Table 9.1, for example, samples the results
of just a few of the hundreds of studies of the rela-
tionship between such personality qualities as asser-
tiveness, dominance, narcissism, self-monitoring, and
social motivation and leadership (see Zaccaro,
Kemp, & Bader, 2004). The interaction of per-
sonality traits with the situation also matters.
Conscientious, organized, achievement-oriented, and
self-controlled individuals are more likely to emerge
as leaders in situations that favor a task-oriented leader,
whereas extraverted, gregarious individuals lead when
the situation requires interpersonal skills (DeRue
et al., 2011).
More sophisticated research procedures also
yielded stronger evidence of the power of person-
ality to predict leadership emergence. Longitudinal
and rotational designs proved to be particularly use-
ful, for these types of studies could detect consisten-
cies in leadership tendencies over time and
situations. For example, longitudinal studies that
measured young adults’ personality at age 19 used
that information to successfully predict who would
occupy a leadership position in their workplace 12
years later (Reichard et al., 2011). Rotational
designs separate the causal influence of the person
versus the situation by studying individuals as they
Who Needs a Leader?
Some evidence suggests that a group of men will be
more likely to include a leader than will a group of
women (Schmid Mast, 2002). Investigators tested for
this sex difference by arranging for three- to five-
person groups to meet over three weeks. Some of
the groups were all male, some were all female, and
some included two men and two women. At the end
of each day’s session, the group members rated one
another on leadership, and the researchers used
these ratings to determine if control over the
group’s activities was concentrated, by consensus, on
one group member. Centralization decreased, over
time, in all the groups, but it remained higher across
the three weeks in the all-male groups. The investi-
gators concluded that men, in general, are more
tolerant of inequality than women, so they favor
social hierarchy and centralization (Berdahl &
Anderson, 2005).
L EA DE RSHI P 271
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

T A B L E 9.1 A Sampling of Personality Characteristics That Are Reliably Associated with
Leadership Emergence
Characteristic Relationship to Leadership Emergence
Assertiveness The relationship between assertiveness and leadership emergence is curvilinear;
individuals who are either low in assertiveness or very high in assertiveness are
less likely to be identified as leaders (Ames & Flynn, 2007).
Authenticity Individuals who are more aware of their personal qualities, including their
values and beliefs and exhibiting less bias when processing self-relevant infor-
mation, are more likely to be accepted as leaders (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang,
2005).
Birth order Those born first in their families and only children are hypothesized to be more
driven to seek leadership and control in social settings. Middle-born children
tend to accept follower roles in groups, and children born later are thought to
be rebellious and creative (Grose, 2003).
Character strengths Those seeking leadership positions in a military organization had elevated
scores on a number of indicators of strength of character, including hon-
esty, hope, bravery, industry, and teamwork (Matthews et al., 2006).
Dominance Individuals with dominant personalities—they describe themselves as high in
their desire to control their environment, to influence other people, and to
express their opinions in a forceful way—are more likely to act as leaders in
small-group situations (Smith & Foti, 1998).
Five factors of personality Those who emerge as leaders tend to be more extraverted, conscientious, emo-
tionally stable, and open to experience, although these tendencies are stronger
in laboratory studies of leaderless groups (Judge et al., 2002).
Gender identity Masculine individuals are more likely to emerge as leaders than are feminine
individuals (Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986).
Narcissism Individuals who take on leadership roles in turbulent situations, such as
groups facing a threat or those in which status is determined by intense
competition among rivals within the group, tend to be narcissistic, arro-
gant, self-absorbed, hostile, and very self-confident (Rosenthal & Pittinsky,
2006).
Self-efficacy for leadership Confidence in one’s ability to lead is associated with increases in willingness
to accept a leadership role and success in that role (Hoyt & Blascovich,
2007).
Self-monitoring High self-monitors are more likely to emerge as the leader of a group than are
low self-monitors, since they are more concerned with status-enhancement and
are more likely to adapt their actions to fit the demands of the situation
(Bedeian & Day, 2004).
Social motivation Individuals who are both success-oriented and affiliation-oriented, as assessed
by projective measures, are more active in group problem-solving settings and
are more likely to be elected to positions of leadership in such groups (Sorren-
tino & Field, 1986).
272 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

rotate from one group to another, working on dif-
ferent tasks. Such studies suggest the same individual
often emerges as the leader again and again across
groups, despite the changes in group composition
and the tasks the groups are attempting (Borgatta,
Couch, & Bales, 1954; Foti & Hauenstein, 2007).
Research even confirms—at least tentatively—
the idea that some people might be “born leaders”
after all. Some of the qualities that promote emer-
gence as a leader, such as temperament, intelligence,
and extraversion, are not just stable, but heritable: If,
for example, a close relative is a leader, then you are
more likely to be a leader as well (Arvey & Chatur-
vedi, 2011). A person’s leadership potential is deter-
mined more by environmental forces—exposure to
mentors and role models, opportunities to take on
leadership challenges, the diligent development of
leadership competencies, and so on—but genetics
creates a readiness. Researchers have even tracked
down a likely genetic marker of leadership—rs4950
located on a neuronal acetylcholine receptor gene
(De Neve et al., 2013)
Personality and Leadership As noted in
Chapter 4, the five-factor model (FFM) has
emerged as the dominant taxonomy for organizing
individual differences in personality (McCrae &
Costa, 2013). Why do some individuals seek out
leadership responsibilities, whereas others excel at
tasks that require solitude and deliberation? Why
are some individuals willing to help other members
of their team, but others regularly fail to step in
with assistance even when they are asked? The
FFM’s explanation: Variations among people can
be conceptualized in terms of five fundamental
dimensions—introversion/extraversion, friendli-
ness/hostility, achievement motivation, emotional
stability vs. anxiety, and openness (or, in some
models, culture or intellect)—and these dimensions
account for observed regularities in a wide range of
interpersonal behaviors, including leadership.
When researchers reviewed the results of 60 stud-
ies of personality and leadership meta-analytically,
they discovered that the more one is conscientious,
extraverted, agreeable, emotionally stable, and open,
then the more likely one will emerge as a leader of a
group (Judge et al., 2002). Their findings, which are
summarized in Figure 9.1, suggest that two personality
traits—conscientiousness and extraversion—are the
two traits that are correlated at higher levels with
leadership emergence. Openness and emotional stabil-
ity also predict leadership, although to a lesser degree,
leaving only agreeableness as a weaker predictor of
leadership emergence; leaders, apparently, need not
be warm and kind (Hogan, 2005). Note, though,
these two caveats. First, studies involving students
generally found stronger relationships between per-
sonality and leadership emergence than studies of lea-
ders in military, government, and business settings.
Second, what predicts leadership emergence may
not also predict effectiveness once one has become a
leader. As Figure 9.1 indicates, agreeableness did not
predict leadership emergence, but it did predict
effectiveness—even more so than conscientiousness
(Judge et al., 2002).
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Openness
Stability
Agreeable
Extraversion
Conscientious
Correlation
Effectiveness Emergence
F I G U R E 9.1 The relationship between the person-
ality factors identified in the five-factor model of per-
sonality and leadership emergence and effectiveness.
When researchers used meta-analysis to combine the
results of 222 correlational findings generated in 73
samples of the personality–leadership relationship, they
found that extraversion and conscientiousness were the
strongest predictors of emergence and agreeableness the
weakest (Judge et al., 2002).
SOURCE: From tabled data in Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt,
M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
L EA DE RSHI P 273
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The Dark Triad Whereas FFM may explain
routine interpersonal tendencies by describing
qualities that are socially valued—the “right
stuff”—another set of personality traits is also
related to leadership: the Dark Triad (DT) of
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy
(Paulhus & Williams, 2002).
■ Machiavellianism: Machiavellians endorse using
manipulative tactics in dealing with other
people and espouse a cynical view of human
nature.
■ Narcissism: Narcissists have inflated views of
their self-worth; they tend to exaggerate
their achievements, block criticism, refuse to
compromise, and seek out attention and
recognition from others.
■ Psychopathy: Psychopaths lack concern for both
other people as well as for social regulatory
mechanisms, so they tend to act impulsively
without full consideration of the consequences
of their choices.
Studies suggest that all three of the dark triad
traits are related to leadership emergence (O’Boyle
et al., 2012). Machiavellians’ ability to be social cha-
meleons, taking on the attitudes and behaviors of
those around them while subtly manipulating the
situation to their favor, explains why they are often
able to secure positions of leadership in groups.
Narcissists, too, are often selected for positions of
leadership, given their outgoing, confident inter-
personal styles (Grijalva et al., 2015). Individuals
with elevated scores in psychopathy are often passed
over for leadership given their lack of conscien-
tiousness and inability to empathize with cowor-
kers, but they are successful in certain types of
organizations. One analysis of psychopathology in
the workplace (provocatively titled Snakes in Suits)
suggested that 3.5% of top executives earn very
high scores on standard measures of psychopathy
(Babiak & Hare, 2006).
9-2b Intellectual and Practical Skills
After Charlotte Beers graduated from college she
went to work at Uncle Ben’s, working as a group
manager for one product: their long-grain rice.
Some 40 years later, having been the CEO of one
of the largest advertising companies in the world,
she was selected by U.S. General Colin Powell to
teach (and reassure) the residents of other countries
about America’s hopes for world peace and pros-
perity. Her personality was one of the key reasons
why she became the leader across a wide variety of
times and contexts, but personality alone does not
explain why she was so often the “one in charge.”
She is extraverted and highly conscientious, but also
intelligent, experienced, and motivated to lead.
General Mental Ability When people describe
Charlotte Beers, they often start with one word:
fierce. Their next word, however, is usually smart.
The hallmarks of general mental ability (GMA)
are abstract thinking, ability to manipulate the envi-
ronment, and foresight—all qualities that likely qual-
ify one to be a leader. It’s not surprising that leaders
tend to score higher than average on standard intel-
ligence tests, and they make superior judgments with
greater decisiveness. They tend to be knowledgeable
both in general and about their particular field, and
their verbal skills—both written and oral—are super-
ior relative to nonleaders (Stogdill, 1948).
Leaders, however, typically do not exceed their
followers’ intellectual prowess by a wide margin
(Simonton, 1985). Groups generally prefer leaders
who are more intelligent than the average group
member, but too great a discrepancy introduces
problems in communication, in trust, and in social
sensitivity. Although highly intelligent individuals
may be extremely capable and efficient leaders,
their groups may feel that large differences in intel-
lectual abilities translate into large differences in
interests, in attitudes, and in values. Hence,
although high intelligence may mean skilled lead-
ership, a group prefers to be “ill-governed by peo-
ple it can understand” (Gibb, 1969, p. 218).
Emotional Intelligence When people think of
intelligence, they often stress cognitive abilities
Dark Triad (DT) The set of three socially aversive per-
sonality qualities comprised of Machiavellianism, narcis-
sism, and psychopathy.
274 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

such as mathematics, verbal skills, and intellectual
problem-solving. But some people are also inter-
personally intelligent: They have the ability to
understand and relate to people, for they deal
with others wisely and effectively. They have ele-
vated emotional intelligence: “the ability to per-
ceive emotions in self and others; to understand
how emotions blend, unfold, and influence cogni-
tion and behavior; to use emotions to facilitate
thinking; and to manage emotions in self and
others” (Lopes & Salovey, 2008, p. 81).
Skill in communicating and decoding emotions
is essential for an effective leader. The emotionally
intelligent leader can see problems coming, for such
problems are often conveyed indirectly by others’
moods and emotions. Better able to read the poli-
tics of the situation, such leaders can detect shifting
alliances and recognize where to put their energies
and when to bide their time. They can also com-
municate their ideas to others in more robust ways,
for they can use their own emotional energy to
influence others. They are also less likely to lose
control of their emotions—they are not inappropri-
ately angry, critical, or histrionic. In consequence,
emotional intelligence is associated with various
aspects of leadership, including emergence as a
leader, willingness to cooperate with others, empa-
thy for others, the tendency to take others’ perspec-
tives, and the emotional intensity of one’s
interpersonal relations (Humphrey, 2014).
Practical and Creative Intelligence During
World War II, Germany, America, and England
experimented with various methods for identifying
leaders to serve in the military. In many cases, they
used the so-called leaderless-group tests, in which a
group of individuals, strangers to one another, was
given a task to complete. For example, a group
might be assembled on one side of a ravine and
told to use the available boards, ropes, and beams
to build a temporary bridge to the other side
(Eaton, 1947). Some individuals within these
groups could master these tasks by identifying the
solution and persuading others in their group to
follow their directions. Individuals who succeeded
in the leaderless-group tests had practical intelligence.
Psychologist Robert Sternberg (2012) includes
practical intelligence as one of the cornerstones of
his systems model of leadership. Sternberg recog-
nizes that good leaders are often intellectually
strong individuals and capable of acquiring and pro-
cessing information in a logical, sensible, and rapid
way. But leaders are also skilled problem-solvers.
They have the “know how” needed for success in
the given situation, and they are sufficiently skilled
to convince others to follow their recommenda-
tions. Sternberg also includes creative intelligence in
his theory, recognizing that in many cases leaders
must be able to recognize future goals and direc-
tions and take steps to help the group accept their
vision of the future. Charlotte Beers, for example,
was intelligent in the analytical sense: she majored
in physics and mathematics in college. But she was
also intelligent, in a practical and creative sense: she
was able to identify a specific strategy to reenergize
Ogilvy, and then use her persuasive talents to con-
vince others to share this vision.
Expertise Practical intelligence comes with expe-
rience. One review of 52 studies of characteristics
typically ascribed to a leader discovered that techni-
cal, task-relevant skills were mentioned in 35% of
the studies (Stogdill, 1974). Groups are more accept-
ing of leaders who have previously demonstrated
task ability and are more willing to follow the direc-
tions of a task-competent person than those of an
incompetent person (Hollander, 1965). Further-
more, although high task ability facilitates leadership,
low task ability seems to be an even more powerful
factor in disqualifying individuals from consideration
as leaders (Palmer, 1962). Initially, if group members
do not know one another well, then they may rely
on diffuse status characteristics, such as rank, age, and
tenure with the group, to infer expertise, but over
time they will shift to specific, behavioral cues to
emotional intelligence The component of social intel-
ligence that relates to one’s capacity to accurately per-
ceive emotions, to use information about emotions
when making decisions, and to monitor and control
one’s own and others’ emotional reactions.
L EA DE RSHI P 275
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

determine who is competent and who is not
(Bunderson, 2003). Given enough experience in
working together, most group members can distin-
guish between the skilled and the unskilled (Little-
page, Robison, & Reddington, 1997; Littlepage &
Silbiger, 1992). Task-specific skills are more important
in determining leadership emergence in performance-
oriented, service–delivery-oriented groups, whereas
interpersonal and conceptual skills are more important
in upper echelon leadership positions (Yukl, 2013).
9-2c The Leader’s Look
An individual’s intellectual and practical skills may
qualify them to lead a group, yet the group does
not select them to lead. As Beers (2012, p. 126)
explains, “It’s a subjective process, and people are
sometimes moved ahead for some really off the charts
reasons.” Those “off the charts” reasons include
unrecognized biases based on general demographic
characteristics, such as age, race, and sex.
Physical Appearances Leaders tend to differ
physically from their fellow group members. They
are often taller, healthier, and older than the aver-
age group member. Height and leadership emer-
gence are correlated, on average, at .30 (Stogdill,
1948, 1974). People who look physically fit are
considered more leader-like than individuals who
are out of shape (Campbell et al., 2002). Older
people, too tend to be viewed as leaders more so
than younger group members, particularly if group
members assume that age is an indicator of wisdom,
experience, and sagacity. For example, fewer than
1% of the corporate executives for the top Fortune
700 companies are under 40 years of age, and 81%
are 50 or older (Spencer Stuart, 2004). Even hair
color has been found to influence perceptions of
leadership. A study of the 500 top CEOs in Eng-
land discovered fewer blondes and more redheads
babble effect The tendency for group members who
talk at a high rate in the group to emerge as leaders,
even if the information they share with the group is of
low quality.
What Matters More: Quantity or Quality?
Leaders are active within their groups rather than aloof;
they show up for meetings, they ask questions, they
offer comments and suggestions, they talk to other
members on the phone, and they send out emails. The
correlation between leadership emergence and most
personal characteristics usually averages in the low .20s,
but the correlation between participation rate and
leadership ranges from .61 to .72 (Littlepage & Mueller,
1997; Malloy & Janowski, 1992; Stein & Heller, 1979).
Group members take note of participation rate in
part because it tells them who is interested in the
group and is willing to take responsibility for its per-
formance. One of the surest ways to escape serving as
the leader of a group is to not say much during meet-
ings. But what about the opposite tendency—the
babble effect? Do group members just assume people
who talk a lot in the group meetings are the group
leaders, even if what they say has little value (Sorren-
tino & Boutillier, 1975)?
Social psychologists Eric Jones and Janice Kelly
(2007) studied the impact of the quality of talk and the
quantity of talk on leadership by manipulating both
variables experimentally. Since they are two different
variables that can range in intensity from high to low,
comparing their relative impact on leadership requires
that they be matched in terms of strength. Therefore,
before pitting quantity against quality, they first cali-
brated the strength of these two variables so that each
one had a fair chance of overpowering the other one.
As in prior research, they created low- and high-quality
arguments and low- and high-quantity messages, but
they also made sure the high conditions were twice
the level of the low conditions for both variables.
What they discovered was that quantity did matter,
but only if the comments offered were of high quality.
People who made low-quality comments during the
group discussion received relatively low ratings on
leadership potential, even when they offered a sub-
stantial number of these comments. Quantity did
boost one’s leadership ratings, but only if the com-
ments were of high quality. Rationality (quality)
trumped babble (quantity), at least in this case.
276 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

than might be expected given the distribution of
these hair colors in the overall population of the
country. The authors suggest that stereotypes about
blondes—that they are less cognitively swift—and
redheads—that they are mean but competent—
may be sufficient to cause their under- and over-
representation in leadership positions (Takeda,
Helms, & Romanova, 2006).
Diversity When Beers (who is white) was the
CEO of Oglivy, the majority of the employees
were white as well. The president of the student
government association of a traditionally African
American college is likely a black woman. The exec-
utive director of the Organization of Chinese Amer-
icans is likely a Chinese American. In 2016, how
many African Americans were leaders (CEOs) of a
Fortune 500 company in the United States? Only
five. And only one was a woman (McGirt, 2016).
Leadership is not limited to any particular cul-
tural, ethnic, or racial group, for the role of leader is
firmly embedded in the traditions of African, Euro-
pean, Latino, Asian, and Native American groups
(Smith & Bond, 1993). But individuals who are
members of a minority group, whether based on
ethnicity, religion, or race, are less likely to be
recognized as group leaders. For example, when
Mexican American and European American women
interacted in groups, the Mexican American women
exerted less influence than the European American
women (Roll, McClelland, & Abel, 1996). In a
study conducted in Australia that paired Chinese
students with the Australian students, the Chinese stu-
dents were less influential than the Australian students
(Jones et al., 1995).
Minorities are also underrepresented in leader-
ship roles in business and organizational settings. As
of 2017, only four African Americans have been
elected as state governors, and Barack Obama was
the first African American U.S. president. African
Americans in U.S. organizations and military
groups are less likely to lead in racially diverse
groups, even if their experience qualifies them for
these roles (Molm, 1986). When senior managers
review the leadership potential of lower-level
managers, they give higher marks to European
Americans than to African Americans and Asian
Americans (Carton & Rosette, 2011). Asian Amer-
icans, despite their success in scientific and technical
fields, are less likely than European Americans and
African Americans to achieve positions of leadership
in their fields (Tang, 1997). Ethnic and racial
minorities are underrepresented in the leadership
world (Hooijberg & DiTomaso, 1996).
Sex Beers, as both a woman and a leader, is some-
thing of an exception. Although the gender gap in
leadership has narrowed in recent years, it has not
closed. Both men and women, when surveyed,
express a preference for a male rather than a female
boss (Powell, 2014). Women receive lower evalua-
tions and fewer promotions than men, even when
actual performance data or behaviors are held con-
stant (Heilman, Block, & Martell, 1995). A survey
of over 40 countries, including Austria, Israel, and
Singapore, indicated that women hold 20–30% of
the governmental, legislative, and managerial posi-
tions in those countries (Schein, 2007). The per-
centage has risen steadily over the years, but men
still hold a near monopoly on the high-level lead-
ership positions (Carli & Eagly, 2011). In 2017,
only 21 women (4%) were the CEOs of Fortune
500 companies. Female managers are more likely to
feel excluded from career-related and informal
interactions with senior managers than are male
managers (Cianni & Romberger, 1995), and some
have also expressed less confidence in their leader-
ship abilities (Watson & Hoffman, 1996). The terms
glass ceiling and leadership labyrinth describe the hid-
den situational and interpersonal factors that pre-
vent women from gaining leadership positions
(Eagly & Carli, 2007).
This gender difference also shapes men’s and
women’s actions in small-group settings. Men are
five times more likely to enact leadership behaviors
than women in small, mixed-sex, leaderless groups
and so are more likely to emerge as leaders (Walker
et al., 1996). Both leaders and subordinates perceive
female leaders to be less dominant than male leaders
(Carli, 2001). The lone man in an otherwise all-
female group often becomes the leader, whereas
the lone woman in an otherwise all-male group
L EA DE RSHI P 277
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

has little influence (Crocker & McGraw, 1984).
When a woman exerts influence in a group, mem-
bers tend to frown and tighten their facial muscles;
but when a man takes charge, members are more
likely to nod in agreement (Butler & Geis, 1990).
The tendency for men to dominate women in
informal discussion groups was observed even
when the men and women were all deemed to be
androgynous (Porter et al., 1985), when group
members were personally committed to equality
for men and women (Sapp, Harrod, & Zhao,
1996), when the women in the group were dispo-
sitionally more dominant than the men (Nyquist &
Spence, 1986), and when the men and women
were equally extraverted (Campbell et al., 2002).
When researchers paired together a person who
tended to be interpersonally powerful with one
who was more submissive, the dispositionally dom-
inant person emerged as the leader in 73% of the
same-sex dyads. But in mixed-sex dyads, the domi-
nant man became the leader 90% of the time, and
the dominant woman became the leader only 35%
of the time (Nyquist & Spence, 1986).
This tendency for men to emerge as leaders
more frequently than women is particularly ironic
because studies of sex differences in the qualities
that have been shown to predict leadership
effectiveness—extraversion, conscientiousness, skill
in working with others, acknowledging the good
work of subordinates, communicating clearly, and
facilitating others’ development—all suggest that
women are superior in these qualities to men.
Hence, although women’s personality traits and
competences qualify them to be leaders, they are
less likely to gain such positions (Powell, 2014).
9 – 3 T H E O R I E S O F
LEADERSHIP EMERGENC E
What explains who emerges from the crowd of can-
didates to become the group’s leader? Manet was the
leader of the Impressionist painters. Fito Strauch
took control of the day-to-day activities of the
Andes survivors. Jim Jones was the charismatic leader
of the People’s Temple. Charlotte Beers was selected
to run Ogilvy. But why Manet and not Degas? Why
Strauch and not Canessa? Why Beers and not some-
one from inside the company itself? Here we will
consider five theories that provide very different
solutions to the riddle of leadership emergence and,
in so doing, provide their own unique insights:
Implicit leadership theory, social identity theory,
social role theory, terror management theory, and
evolutionary theory (see Dinh et al., 2014, for a
comprehensive review and taxonomy of leadership
theories).
9-3a Implicit Leadership Theory
When people meet for the first time, they quickly
appraise one another’s potential as leaders, and,
within the first few minutes, those with more
potential are permitted to exert more influence
over the group than others. Implicit leadership the-
ory, developed by social psychologist Robert Lord
and his colleagues, traces these preferences to indi-
viduals’ expectations, beliefs, and assumptions about
leaders and leadership. These cognitive structures
are termed implicit leadership theories (ILTs)
or leader prototypes. These structures are described
as implicit because they are not overtly stated; fol-
lowers may not even be aware they have intuitive
beliefs about leadership or that these beliefs influ-
ence their reactions to leaders. They are called theo-
ries because, like formal theories, they include
generalities about leadership and hypotheses about
the qualities that characterize most leaders (Lord,
Foti, & De Vader, 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991).
Consider the hypothetical ILT shown in
Figure 9.2. A follower whose thoughts about lead-
ership were organized by this ILT would believe
that outstanding leaders should be intelligent, inspi-
rational, visionary, relational, dedicated, team-
oriented, diplomatic, and have integrity. This ILT
implicit leadership theories Group members’ taken-
for-granted assumptions about the traits, characteristics,
and qualities that distinguish leaders from the people
they lead; also known as leader prototypes.
278 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

also indicates how these general traits are linked to
more specific qualities. How do you know if a
leader is dedicated? See if he or she is hardworking
and knows how to get things done. And what
about inspiration? An inspiring leader should be
motivating, dynamic, positive, and encouraging.
Although each group member may have a unique
conception of leadership, most people’s ILTs
include task skills—the leader should be active,
determined, influential, and in command—and
relationship skills—the leader should be caring,
interested, truthful, and open to others’ ideas
(Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; House et al., 2004).
ILTs are also sensitive to the specifics of a given
situation. Some leadership traits, such as persistence,
likeability, and charisma, are considered to be
essential qualities only in particular contexts, such
as politics, business, or sports (Lord et al., 1984).
The Prototype-Matching Hypothesis Lord sug-
gests that ILTs provide followers with a psychologi-
cal standard or prototype they can use to distinguish
between effective and ineffective leaders and leaders
and followers (Lord, 2005; Lord & Maher, 1991). If,
for example, a follower thinks that a leader should be
bold, energetic, and daring, then she will likely rate a
gung-ho leader more positively than a low-key con-
sensus builder. In contrast, if the follower believes
that a leader should be considerate and reflective,
then he will respond more positively to one who
shows concern for others and deliberates extensively
before making a decision. To test this prototype-
matching hypothesis, Lord and his colleagues (1984)
asked people to evaluate one of three hypothetical
leaders. One, the prototypical leader, displayed qual-
ities that were congruent with most people’s ILTs:
He set goals, provided directive information, talked
with subordinates a great deal, and identified pro-
blems needing solutions. The second leader dis-
played qualities that were inconsistent with most
ILTs: He admitted mistakes, paid little attention to
details, was critical without reason, and withheld
rewards. A third leader displayed positive qualities
that were neither consistent nor inconsistent with
Decisive Clever
Positive Dynamic
Motivating
Encouraging
Plans
ahead
Foresight
Humane
Sincere
Helpful
Gets
Things
done
Hardworking
Informed
Organizer
Coordinates
Communicative
Problem
solver
Effective bargainer
Diplomatic Leadership
Dedicated
Relational
Team-oriented
Visionary
Inspirational
Intelligent
Integrity
Trustworthy
Just Honest
F I G U R E 9.2 A representation of the associations that make up an implicit leadership theory.
L EA DE RSHI P 279
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

most ILTs. This leader sought out information, clar-
ified his attitudes, and prevented conflicts. As the
prototype-matching hypothesis predicts, the proto-
typical leader was judged to be more effective than
the atypical leader, with a match to ITL explaining
the majority of the variance in leadership evaluations.
Biases and Errors ILTs help followers to sift
through and organize a welter of information
about current or future leaders, but they provide
this service at a cost. If individuals’ ILTs are based
on factors that are irrelevant to successful
leadership—such as skin color or sex—then people
will sometimes see leadership when none actually
exists and overlook leadership when they do not
expect it. When voters must select a leader, they
sometimes fall prey to the Warren Harding Effect;
they think a handsome candidate has great leader-
ship potential, even when he is thoroughly incom-
petent (Gladwell, 2005). If members are satisfied
with a leader, they may attribute characteristics to
him or her that are consistent with their ILT, but
inconsistent with the leader’s actual qualities. ILTs
can even bias memories, for people remember their
favored leaders acting in ways that confirm their
ILTs, even when the leader performed no such
action (Foti & Lord, 1987). If their group or orga-
nization performs poorly, members are quicker to
blame the leader for the failure if he or she has ITL-
inconsistent qualities (Ryan et al., 2011).
The biasing influence of ILTs on followers’
perceptions and evaluations of leaders may also
explain continuing sex differences in leadership. If
ILTs were like actual scientific theories, then group
members would discard them when they fail to
explain who is and who is not an effective leader.
But ILTs, because they are implicit theories, are
rarely recognized or revised. In consequence, if
followers’ ILTs are biased in favor of individuals
who are white, masculine, tall, or just highly
vocal, then people with these qualities will rise to
positions of authority in the group, even if they are
not qualified for these positions (Leary, 2017b).
ILTs across Cultures: GLOBE The theory of
ILTs assumes all followers have ILTs, but that the
content of these ILTS is influenced by members’
experiences with leaders—and these experiences
may vary from one culture to another. The manage-
ment scholar Robert J. House and his colleagues
(2004) studied these cultural variations in perceptions
of leadership in the Global Leadership and Organiza-
tional Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project. The
GLOBE researchers, drawing on previous studies of
leadership, developed a set of items to give respon-
dents who were to indicate if these qualities were
those that inhibit, or contribute to, a person being
an outstanding leader. The items were translated to
the language of each country, usually by a professional
translator and then translated back into English by a
second party to verify that the translated term
matched the meaning of the original English word.
To be certain that the findings they obtained
were not caused by differences in the background
and experiences of the individuals within each
country—its findings would be difficult to interpret
if, for example, the survey was completed by mostly
college students in one country but military officers
in another—the researchers asked over 17,000
managers in 951 businesses in financial services,
food processing, and telecommunication industries
to complete the survey. The participants were also
asked to describe the values of the organization
where they worked and the country where they
lived. These data were then examined to identify
those leadership qualities and cultural values that
were shared within an organization or country.
Items only made it to the list of a culture’s beliefs
about leadership if a significant majority of the indi-
viduals in the survey from that country agreed with
each other on the relative importance of the item.
In terms of level of analysis, this step shifted the data
from the individual level to the group level.
The GLOBE project yielded a wealth of informa-
tion about leadership and its cultural specificity.
Table 9.2, for example, summarizes just a small portion
of the study’s findings (see, too, Figure 9.2). It indicates
that leadership is not just a process common to all cul-
tures, but that people worldwide also share some basic
beliefs about leadership. People expect leaders to be
diplomatic, moral, charismatic (inspirational and
visionary), and team-oriented, as well as dependable,
280 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

intelligent, decisive, and administratively skilled. Those
qualities that were considered to be most undesirable
in a leader were those associated with a lack of
integrity, self-centeredness, and asocial tendencies
(Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004).
In addition to these universal qualities, the
GLOBE researchers also identified leadership qualities
that were unique to a specific country or world
region. Whereas most people surveyed expected
effective leaders to be visionary and team-focused,
some cultures stressed these qualities more than others.
Highly collectivistic societies, for example, favored
charismatic leaders more so than more individualistic
cultures. Cultures that displayed higher levels of
T A B L E 9.2 Shared Conceptions of Leaders Identified by the GLOBE Study of 62 Different
Countries
Leadership Dimension Leader Attribute Questionnaire Items
Diplomatic: skilled at
interpersonal relations,
tactful
■ effective bargainer: able to negotiate effectively
■ win/win problem solver: able to identify solutions that satisfy individuals with
diverse and conflicting interests
Integrity: moral
respectability
■ trustworthy: deserves trust, can be believed and relied upon to keep his or her
word
■ just: acts according to what is right or fair
■ honest: speaks and acts truthfully
Inspirational: inspires
others to be motivated to
work hard
■ encouraging: gives courage, confidence, or hope through reassuring and
advising
■ positive: generally optimistic and confident
■ dynamic: highly involved, energetic, enthused, motivated
■ motive arouser: mobilizes and activates followers
■ confidence builder: instills others with confidence by showing confidence in
them
■ motivational: stimulates others to put forth efforts above and beyond the call
of duty and make personal sacrifices
Team-oriented: interpersonal
and organizational skills
■ communicative: communicates with others frequently
■ informed: knowledgeable; aware of information
■ coordinator: integrates and manages work of subordinates
■ team builder: able to induce group members to work together
Visionary: vision and
imagination of the future
■ foresight: anticipates possible future events
■ plans ahead: anticipates and prepares in advance
Other qualities ■ dependable: reliable
■ intelligent: smart, learns and understands quickly
■ decisive: makes decisions firmly and quickly
■ administratively skilled: able to plan, organize coordinate, and control work of
large numbers of individuals
■ excellence-oriented: strives for excellence in performance of self and
subordinates
SOURCE: Adapted from TBL21.2 (p. 677) in Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges,
M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 669–719). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
L EA DE RSHI P 281
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

gender egalitarianism stressed participative, team-
focused leadership. Those individuals who lived in
cultures marked by hierarchical power structures
and greater levels of elitism were more tolerant of
self-centered leaders who were status conscious and
formalistic. The GLOBE researchers also discovered
that certain specific traits were highly valued in
some cultures but seen as harmful to leadership in
others. Even such questionable qualities as risk-
taking, cunning, elitism, micromanagement, and
willfulness were viewed as positive qualities in
some cultures. Given these findings, the GLOBE
researchers reminded those who lead multicultural
teams to remember that not everyone in the group
will value all forms of leadership similarly (Dorfman
et al., 2004).
9-3b Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory, perhaps more than any other
theory of leadership, recognizes that leadership is fun-
damentally a group-level process. As individuals come
to categorize themselves as members of the group,
and identify with that group, they develop an ideal-
ized image of the prototypical member of the group,
similar to an ILT, and over time consensus will
emerge on these characteristics. Applied to leadership,
social identity theory predicts that when group mem-
bers share a social identity, they will favor individuals
in the group who best represent that identity. For
example, groups that prize cooperation and sensitive
communication among members should favor
relationship-oriented leaders, whereas groups of
individuals who pride themselves on their action
and productivity will support task-oriented leaders
(Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2015; Hogg, 2013).
Prototypicality and Identity The leader’s proto-
typicality is particularly important for group members
who strongly identify with their group. If, for example,
the group is newly formed or members are not com-
mitted to continuing in the group, they are less likely
to base their leadership preferences on prototypicality.
But “as group membership becomes more important
to self-definition and members identify more strongly
with the group, leaders who are perceived to be more
group prototypical” are more likely to emerge and be
effective as leaders (Hogg, 2010, p. 1195). In a test of
this hypothesis, researchers formed ad hoc groups in
the laboratory and appointed one member as leader
of each group. They manipulated the psychological
salience of the groups by telling some members that
everyone in the group shared certain qualities, whereas
others were told the groups were just loose aggrega-
tions with no commonalities. They also circulated
within the group some background information
about the leader to indicate that he or she matched
the fictitious group prototype or did not match it.
As predicted, group members who identified with
the group were more positive about the prototypical
leader (Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997).
Leadership in Intergroup Situations Social iden-
tity theory also suggests that people will favor indivi-
duals who not only exemplify the group, but also
those with qualities that demonstrate what makes the
group different from, and superior to, other groups.
In general, members expect their leader to champion
the ingroup and its unique strengths. In consequence,
leaders who, during intergroup conflict, make concil-
iatory gestures toward the outgroup may lose the sup-
port of their own group. A skilled leader, recognizing
this appeal, may use self-presentational strategies to lay
claim to qualities that are prototypical ones for the
group and to bolster their popularity by creating con-
flicts with, and denigrating, other groups (Haslam et al.,
2015). Those who convince the other group members
that they are “one of us,” while at the same time offer-
ing a unique and socially desirable vision of the group’s
future, are particularly likely to be endorsed by group
members (Halevy, Berson, & Galinsky, 2011).
9-3c Social Role Theory
Alice Eagly’s social role theory, like ILT and
social identity theory, suggests that group members
have definite expectations about what kind of
social role theory A conceptual analysis of sex differ-
ences that recognizes men and women take on different
types of roles in many societies and that these role expec-
tations generate gender stereotypes and differences in the
behavior of women and men (proposed by Alice Eagly).
282 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

qualities are needed in a person who will fill the
role of a leader. These expectations tend to empha-
size the agentic, task-oriented side of leadership
rather than the communal and interpersonal.
When group members are asked to describe the
qualities needed in a leader, they stress the impor-
tance of competition with peers, high energy, dom-
inance, forcefulness, and skill at taking command
and controlling a situation (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
These expectations, however, favor men relative
to women as leaders. Although gender stereotypes
vary across time and place, people in virtually all
cultures, when asked to describe women, speak of
their expressive qualities, including nurturance, emo-
tionality, and warmth. They expect a “she” to be
sentimental, affectionate, sympathetic, soft-hearted,
talkative, gentle, and feminine. When describing
men, they stress their instrumental qualities, includ-
ing productivity, energy, and strength (Williams &
Best, 1990). In consequence, the expectations asso-
ciated with leadership mesh with the male gender
role stereotype, but the leadership role is inconsistent
with stereotypes about women. When people think
“leader,” they think “male” (Koenig et al., 2011).
This role incongruity not only disqualifies
women from taking the lead in groups, but it also
creates a double standard for women once they
achieve a position of leadership. Women, to be
evaluated as positively as men, must outperform
men. When Eagly and her colleagues reviewed 61
different studies that asked people to evaluate the
performance of male and female leaders, they found
that the behaviors and outcomes achieved by men
were viewed more positively than the exact same
outcomes achieved by women (Eagly, Makhijani,
& Klonsky, 1992). Ironically, this bias reaches its
peak when a female leader adopts a more task-
oriented approach to leadership. In a classic exam-
ple of a “Catch-22,” women are urged to act more
like male leaders, but when they do, they are deni-
grated for not being “ladylike” (Hoyt, 2010).
Caught in this double-bind, women respond by
avoiding the leader role, by underperforming as lea-
ders due to the pressure of the negative stereotypes,
or by actively resisting the stereotypes and doing
what they can to invalidate members’ negative
expectations (Hoyt & Chemers, 2008).
9-3d Terror Management Theory
The idea that people are drawn to powerful leaders
for less than rational reasons is consistent with ter-
ror management theory (TMT). This theory
assumes that humans, perhaps uniquely, are aware
that someday their earthly existence will come to an
end. This awareness of one’s inevitable demise, if
cognitively inescapable, would be the source of
continuous existential anguish, so the human
mind has developed defenses against thoughts of
death. TMT suggests, for example, that culture
diminishes this psychological terror by providing
meaning, organization, and a coherent worldview.
Self-esteem and pride, too, function to elevate
one’s sense of worth and serve as a defense against
the intrusive thoughts of death (Greenberg,
Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997).
TMT explains why the popularity of a leader
sometimes increases during a crisis. After the terror-
ist attacks on the United States in 2001, for exam-
ple, U.S. citizen’s approval ratings of then-president
George W. Bush jumped from about 40% to 90%.
TMT suggests that the attack made citizens aware
of their mortality and also threatened their world-
view. Bush, by promising to find the terrorists
responsible for this horrible action and bring them
to justice swiftly, provided an antidote to their exis-
tential concerns.
Researchers have put TMT to the test by
reminding some people of their mortality and
then assessing their preferences for different types
of leaders (Cohen et al., 2004, 2005; Landau
et al., 2004). One study, for example, compared
preferences for three candidates for political office.
■ The task-oriented leader stressed setting difficult
but achievable goals, strategic planning, and
initiating structure.
■ The relationship-oriented leader communicated
compassion, respect, trust, and confidence in
others.
terror management theory (TMT) A conceptual
analysis of the implicit psychological processes thought
to defend individuals from the emotionally terrifying
knowledge that they are mortal and will someday die.
L EA DE RSHI P 283
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ The charismatic leader spoke of long-term goals,
the unique value of the nation, and working
together.
Before evaluating these candidates, participants in
the mortality-salience condition were reminded of
their eventual demise in a not-so-subtle way: They
were asked to describe the emotions that the thought
of their own death aroused in them and to write
down what will happen to them, physically, when
they die. Those in the control condition were asked
parallel questions, but about their next exam rather
than their death. The results indicated that, in the
control condition, people were more positive toward
the task- and relationship-oriented leaders relative to
the charismatic one. Conversely, in the mortality-
salience condition, ratings of the charismatic leader
climbed and ratings of the relationship-oriented leader
dropped. The task-oriented leader was the most
favorably rated in both conditions (Cohen et al.,
2004). Other research finds that, as social role theory
might suggest, individuals reminded of their mortality
prefer as their leaders (a) members of their own group,
or (b) men rather than women (Hoyt, Simon, &
Innella, 2011).
9-3e Evolutionary Theory
Evolutionary psychology suggests that leadership is
an adaptation: a heritable characteristic that developed
in a population over a long period of time. Adapta-
tions enhance individuals’ fitness, for they increase
the chances of their genetic material being repre-
sented in future generations of the species. Leader-
ship and followership, as adaptations, evolved
because they contributed so substantially to survival.
Our ancestors likely lived in small groups of geneti-
cally related individuals, and these groups prospered
only if members cooperated with each other.
Early leaders led the group from one place to the
next, but in time the role expanded as the leader’s
facilitative impact on coordinated movement
extended to coordination in general. A leader
made plans and recruited other members to put
them into effect, made decisions about alternative
courses of action that were available to the group,
quelled conflict that could undermine the group’s
unity, and stepped forward when the group con-
fronted danger (Glowacki & von Rueden, 2015).
Leadership and Dominance Evolutionary the-
ory does not consider leadership to be the same as
a dominance contest, where the strongest member
of the group—most likely a male—bests all others
in the group through force. Leadership benefited
both those who led and those who followed, for
in scarce resource environments competition
among members, struggles for dominance, and
uncoordinated defensive and domestic activities
were deadly to all. The anthropologist Napoleon
Chagnon’s (1997) description of the leadership pro-
cesses in the Yanomamö illustrates the coopted,
rather than contested, nature of leadership in early
groups. The leadership among the Yanomamö was
not based on heredity or physical strength, but
rather on record of service to the village. Leaders
gained some special rewards for themselves and
their kin, but they frequently proved their worth
to the entire group by settling arguments, planning
the group’s hunting activities, seeking out connec-
tions with other villages, and providing for the
defense of the village. This final responsibility put
the leader at risk in many cases, for the Yanomamö
are known as the “fierce people”—neighboring vil-
lages are in a constant state of war with each other.
Mismatch Hypothesis Evolutionary theory
maintains that the adaptive advantages of leadership
are achieved only if the group selects the most qual-
ified individual to lead. Natural selection therefore
encouraged the development of the mental appara-
tus needed to evaluate those who sought the posi-
tion of leadership. Followers, for example, are
biologically prepared to gather the social data they
need to determine if their leaders are competent,
group-oriented, biased, or unfair (Smith, Larimer,
et al., 2007). Their preference for older, more
experienced, and those who are both task and rela-
tionally skilled may also be genetically prescribed.
These tendencies, however, evolved in human
groups that existed in a time that differed in dra-
matic ways from the groups and communities
where humans currently live. As a result, the
284 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

psychological and interpersonal reactions of both
followers and leaders are influenced by genetic ten-
dencies that are not as behaviorally adaptive as they
were in earlier evolutionary contexts. Social and
evolutionary psychologist Mark Van Vugt and his
colleagues term this possibility the evolutionary mis-
match hypothesis (von Rueden & Van Vugt, 2015).
This mismatch may, for example, cause people to
prefer men as leaders in political contexts. Van Vugt
and his colleagues reasoned that humans do not
consistently favor males over females, but moderate
their choices depending on the situation. They sug-
gest that groups, for millennia, relied on male lea-
ders to lead their groups when they confronted
other rival tribes. These same groups, however,
relied on women leaders to make certain that the
relations within the group were strong and that any
intragroup conflicts were minimized so that the
group’s cohesion was not damaged. In their
research, they supported this hypothesis by finding
that individuals playing an investment-type game
preferred a woman as leader during intragroup
competition, but a man as leader during intergroup
competition. In further work, people tended to
prefer more masculine-looking leaders in situations
involving intergroup conflict (Spisak et al., 2012;
Van Vugt & Spisak, 2008).
9 – 4 L E A D E R E F F E C T I V E N E S S
Alexander the Great controlled a huge empire with-
out any modern means of transportation or commu-
nication. General George S. Patton inspired those
under his command by displaying high levels of per-
sonal confidence, sureness, and an immense strength
of character. Charlotte Beers rescued Ogilvy from its
doldrums, returning it to its place as the premier
advertising company in the world. Alexander, Patton,
and Beers are not simply leaders. They are effective
leaders. But what was the key to their effectiveness?
9-4a Styles and Situations
The two-factor model of leadership, which was dis-
cussed earlier in the chapter, identified two core
components of leadership: task and relationship
leadership. But this model not only described
what leaders do, but it also suggests what leaders
should do in order to be effective. Groups, to suc-
ceed, need leaders who guide the group members
in their pursuit of their shared objectives, but they
also need leaders who can maintain the interper-
sonal bonds that sustain the group. As Beers
(2012, p. 153) puts it: “There comes a time when
work shifts from being about the content of the
meeting to your relationship with those in the
meeting….It’s a moment when the relationship (R)
is greater than (>) the work (W).”
The Leadership Grid Psychologist Robert Blake
and management expert Jane Mouton’s classic Lead-
ership Grid theory is an example of a style theory of
leadership. They hypothesized that a person’s leader-
ship style depends on how they answer two basic
questions: (1) How important is the production of
results by the group? (2) How important are the
feelings of group members? To some leaders, the
key goal is achieving results. For others, positive feel-
ings in the group are so important that they empha-
size teamwork and personal satisfaction. Others may
feel that both of these goals are important (Blake &
Mouton, 1964, 1982).
Blake and Mouton summarized these differences
in their Leadership Grid (formerly called the Man-
agerial Grid), which is presented in Figure 9.3. Both
dimensions—concern for people and concern for
results—are represented as 9-point scales ranging
from low concern to high concern. Although a person’s
orientation could fall at any of 81 possible positions
on the grid, Blake and Mouton emphasized the five
located at the four corner positions and the center.
An apathetic, impoverished 1,1 leader is hardly a
leader, for he or she is not interested in subordinates’
feelings or the production of results. The 9,1 indi-
vidual (high on concern for production, but low on
concern for people, located in the lower right corner
Leadership Grid A theory of management and leader-
ship assuming that people vary in their concern for results
and their concern for people and that individuals who are
high on both dimensions (9,9) are the best leaders (devel-
oped by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton).
L EA DE RSHI P 285
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of the grid) is a taskmaster who seeks productivity at
any cost. The 1,9 leader, in contrast, adopts a “coun-
try club” approach that makes subordinates feel
comfortable and relaxed in the group. The
“middle-of-the-roader,” located at 5,5, tries to bal-
ance both performance and morale but sometimes
sacrifices both when results and individuals’ feelings
come into conflict. Finally, the 9,9 leader highly
values both people and products and therefore
tackles organizational goals through teamwork—“a
high degree of shared responsibility, coupled with
high participation, involvement, and commitment”
(Blake & Mouton, 1982, p. 41).
Blake and Mouton (1982) felt that the 9,9 lead-
ership style was the most effective style overall. In
their initial studies, they found that managers who
adopted the 9,9 style were far more successful in
their careers than managers who adopted other
methods. They also noted that studies conducted
in educational, industrial, and medical organizations
supported the utility of the 9, 9 leadership style, as
did the favorable results of their management train-
ing system. Their theory is also consistent with the
meta-analytic results summarized in Figure 9.4.
When researchers used meta-analysis to combine
the results of over 320 correlational findings gener-
ated in 130 studies of leadership, they found that
both task and relationship leadership predicted criti-
cally important leadership outcomes. The correlation
between task leadership and outcomes was .29, and
the correlation between relationship leadership and
outcomes was stronger, still: .48. The correlation
between relationship leadership and one particular
outcome—follower satisfaction—was particularly
strong (r = .68; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; see,
too, DeRue et al., 2011).
Situational Leadership Theory Management
experts Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard
(1976) also described leadership in terms of the
relationship and task dimensions. Unlike Blake
and Mouton’s grid, however, their situational
leadership® theory suggests that effective leaders
combine supportive behaviors with directive
behaviors depending on the performance readiness®
of the group or subordinate. Some groups are fur-
ther along in their developmental progression than
others, and so members are both willing and able
to do the work required to accomplish the group’s
goals. Other groups, in contrast, are not yet ready
to reach their performance goals, perhaps because
they lack the skills and knowledge needed to per-
form their assigned tasks or they are not motivated
to do what the group asks them to do (Hersey,
Blanchard, & Johnson, 2013).
Hersey and Blanchard recommend that leaders
adapt their methods to match the group’s readiness.
If group members are low in readiness—they are
both unwilling and unable—then a task-focused,
directing style will be most effective. As the group
develops and gains more experience on the task and
commitment to the group’s goals, the leader can
increase relationship behavior and adopt a coaching
9
2 3 4 5 6 9871
Low Concern for production High
C
o
n
c
e
rn
f
o
r
p
e
o
p
le
1,9 Management
Thoughtful attention to
needs of people for
satisfying relationships
leads to a comfortable,
friendly organization
atmosphere and
work tempo.
9,9 Management
Work accomplishment is
from committed people;
interdependence through
a “common stake” in
organization purpose
leads to relationships of
trust and respect.
5,5 Management
Adequate organization
performance is possible
through balancing the
necessity to get out
work with maintaining
morale of people at a
satisfactory level.
1,1 Management
Exertion of minimum
effort to get
required work done
is appropriate to
sustain organization
membership.
9,1 Management
Efficiency in operations
results from arranging
conditions of work in
such a way that human
elements interfere to
a minimum degree.
Low
High
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
F I G U R E 9.3 The Leadership Grid (formerly, the
Managerial Grid). This model distinguishes between five
basic leadership styles and recommends the 9, 9 style
above all others.
SOURCE: Adapted from Leadership Dilemmas—Grid Solutions, p. 29, Robert
R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse. Copyright © 1991 by Robert R. Blake
and the Estate of Jane S. Mouton. Used with permission. All rights reserved.
situational leadership® theory A theory of leadership
suggesting that groups benefit from leadership that
meshes with a group’s stage of development (developed
by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard).
286 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

style (still high direction but with support added).
Still later in the group’s development, the leader
can ease off on both types of leadership, starting
first with task direction. In moderately mature
groups, the supporting style of leadership is most
effective, and in fully mature groups, a delegating
leadership style is best. Thus, an effective leader
must display four different leadership styles as the
group moves through its life cycle—directing,
coaching, supporting, and delegating (Hersey
et al., 2013).
Some critics have argued that situational lead-
ership theory puts too much emphasis on matching
the readiness of the members; these experts call for a
careful balancing of task and relationship orienta-
tion at all developmental levels (Vecchio, Bullis, &
Brazil, 2006). But the basic premise on which the
model rests—that different groups need varying
amounts of task and relationship leadership—is
consistent with research findings. One of the key
sources of leadership success is flexibility in provid-
ing to the group more or less relational support and
task-orientation, depending on the group’s needs
(Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991). Newly hired
employees, for example, need and appreciate
greater task structuring from their manager than
do veteran employees (Vecchio, 1987). Conversely,
members with higher levels of education and
greater levels of job tenure may prefer a leader
who provides less task structure (Vecchio &
Boatwright, 2002). The theory’s training methods
and measures are also very popular among business
professionals (Blanchard & Johnson, 1981).
Contingency Theory Industrial organizational
psychologist Fred Fiedler’s (1964, 1978, 1996)
Leader effectiveness
Group performance
Leader job
performance
Follower motivation
Follower satisfaction
with leader
Follower job
satisfaction
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Correlation
Task
Relationship
F I G U R E 9.4 The relationship between task-oriented leadership (structuring), relational leadership (support), and
leadership outcomes. When researchers used meta-analysis to combine the results of over 320 correlational findings
generated in 130 studies of leadership behavior, they found that both facets of leadership predicted critically impor-
tant leadership outcomes, but that relationship leadership was more closely associated with follower satisfaction
(Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004).
SOURCE: From tabled data in Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 36–51.
L EA DE RSHI P 287
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

contingency theory also assumes that individuals
differ in their leadership style. Fiedler termed this
tendency the leader’s motivational style, which he
measured using the Least Preferred Coworker
Scale (LPC). Respondents first think of the one
individual with whom they have had the most dif-
ficulty working at some time. They then rate this
person, dubbed the least preferred coworker, on bipolar
adjective scales such as “pleasant–unpleasant,”
“friendly–unfriendly,” and “tense–relaxed.” People
with high scores on the LPC are assumed to be
relationship-oriented; after all, they even rate the
person they do not like to work with positively.
Low LPC scorers are assumed to be task-oriented.
Just as motivational style is the key person variable
in contingency theory, control is the key situational
factor in the model. In some groups leaders can be
certain that decisions, actions, and suggestions will be
carried out by their followers. But in others, leaders
have trouble gaining control, and so cannot be certain
that the group members will carry out their assigned
duties. And what determines how much control a
leader has in any given situation? The quality of
leader–member relations, the degree of task structure,
and the leader’s position power. As Figure 9.5 indi-
cates, if leader–member relations are good, the task is
structured, and the leader’s power is strong, the setting
is a very favorable one for a leader (Octant I). But, as
each one of these indicators of control changes from
positive to negative—the leader’s power becomes
weak, the task becomes unstructured, and leader–
member relations shift from good to bad—then the
leadership situation becomes more and more
unfavorable. Octant VIII is the least favorable situa-
tion, for all three variables combine in a group that is
difficult for the leader to control.
Fiedler did not believe that either type of
leader—task-motivated or relationship-motivated—is
better overall. Instead, he predicted that task-oriented
leaders (low LPC score) would be most effective in
situations that are either highly favorable or highly
unfavorable, whereas relationship-oriented leaders
(high LPC score) would be most effective in
middle-range situations. If, for example, Beers is a
low-LPC leader (task-motivated), she will get the
most out of groups in Octants I, II, and III where
situational favorability is high, as well as in Octant
VIII, the least favorable situation. If she were a
high-LPC leader, her groups would perform best in
the middle-range situations—Octants IV to VII.
Why? Fiedler suggested that in difficult groups
(Octant VIII), task-motivated leaders drive the
group toward its goals, but relationship-motivated lea-
ders spend too much time repairing relations. In
highly favorable (Octants I–III) situations, in contrast,
task-oriented leaders become more considerate, yield-
ing a more satisfied workgroup.
Contingency theory, like all theories, has both
weaknesses and strengths. Despite years of research,
experts are divided on the model’s validity, with
some arguing that evidence supports the model
and others arguing against it (see Chemers, 1997,
for a review). Investigators have challenged not
only the strength of the relationships that provide
the basis of the predictions in the eight octants in
Figure 9.5, but they have also questioned the meth-
ods that Fiedler used to measure leaders’ motiva-
tional style. In defense of contingency theory,
however, studies of a variety of working groups
support the complex predictions charted in
Figure 9.5 (Ayman, Chemers, & Fiedler, 2007).
The effectiveness of a unique leadership training
program, called Leader Match, also supports the validity
of contingency theory. Although many different pro-
grams and techniques have been developed to train
leaders, the results of these procedures are typically
disappointing. Fiedler, however, suggested that these
programs fail because they place too much emphasis
on changing the leaders—making them more sup-
portive, more decisive, more democratic, and so on.
contingency theory Any theory that suggests a leader’s
effectiveness is contingent on situational factors; usually
used in reference to Fiedler’s conceptual analysis of lead-
ership, which posits that a leader’s success is determined
by his or her leadership style and the favorability of the
group situation; more generally, any analysis of leader-
ship that suggests that the effectiveness of leaders depends
on the interaction of their personal characteristics and the
group situation.
Least Preferred Coworker Scale (LPC) An indirect
measure of the tendency to lead by stressing the task (low
LPC) or relationships (high LPC) (developed by Fred
Fiedler).
288 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

He suggested instead that the situation should be
engineered to fit the leader’s particular motivational
style. He called his training program Leader Match
because he taught trainees to modify their group situ-
ation until it matched their personal motivational style
(Fiedler, Chemers, & Mahar, 1976). Studies of the
effectiveness of this innovative training program sug-
gest that trained leaders outperform untrained leaders,
although degree of improvement depends on who is
doing the evaluations (Burke & Day, 1986; Taylor,
Russ-Eft, & Taylor, 2009).
9-4b Leader–Member Exchange
Theory
Style, situational, and contingency theories of lead-
ership focus on the leader’s style or strategy and
how the group responds as a whole to various
interventions. But such a “one size fits all” approach
does not always match the needs of specific group
members. Whereas one group member may work
well with a task-oriented leader, others may prefer a
leader who provides them with support.
Leader–member exchange theory (LMX
theory) uniquely stresses the quality of the one-
to-one relationship between a leader and a subor-
dinate. LMX theory (and its predecessor, vertical
dyad linkage theory) notes that leaders have dyadic
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
20.20
20.40
20.60
20.80
21.00
C
o
rr
e
la
ti
o
n
s
b
e
tw
e
e
n
le
a
d
e
r
L
P
C
a
n
d
e
ff
e
c
ti
v
e
n
e
s
s
R
e
la
ti
o
n
s
h
ip
–
m
o
ti
v
a
te
d
le
a
d
e
rs
h
ip
m
o
s
t
e
ff
e
c
ti
v
e
T
a
s
k
-m
o
ti
v
a
te
d
le
a
d
e
rs
h
ip
m
o
s
t
e
ff
e
c
ti
v
e
Position power
Good
Favorable UnfavorableSituational Control
Bad
Strong Weak WeakStrong WeakStrong WeakStrong
Structured Unstructured Structured UnstructuredTask structure
Leader–member
relations
F I G U R E 9.5 Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership. The theory assumes that effectiveness depends on three
aspects of the group situation: leader–member relations, task structure, and the leader’s position of power. Octant I
corresponds to the most controllable and favorable situation, and Octant VIII corresponds to the least controllable and
least favorable setting. The vertical axis indicates the predicted relationship between LPC scores and task performance.
If the correlation is greater than 0 (positive), effectiveness is positively related to LPC; that is, relationship-motivated
leaders are more effective. If the correlation is smaller than 0 (negative), effectiveness is negatively related to LPC;
task-motivated leaders are more effective. The graph suggests that a task-oriented leader is more effective when the
situation is favorable (Octants I, II, and III) or unfavorable (Octant VIII) for the leader.
SOURCE: Adapted from “The Contingency Model and the Dynamics of the Leadership Process.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11 (1978),
pp. 59–112, by Fred E. Fiedler. Adapted by permission of Elsevier.
leader–member exchange theory A dyadic, relational
approach to leadership assuming that leaders develop
exchange relationships with each of their subordinates and
that the quality of these leader–member exchange (LMX)
relationships influences subordinates’ responsibility, decision
influence, access to resources, and performance.
L EA DE RSHI P 289
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

relationships with each group member and that
these dyadic relationships may be substantially differ-
ent within the total group. Some leaders may work
well with only a subset of the group members who
are more engaged in the group and its tasks. Other
group members, however, may not respond as pos-
itively to the leader, so their responses are defined
by their role and their fixed responsibilities
(Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1995).
LMX theory suggests that group members tend
to cleave into subgroups within the overall group.
One group, the ingroup, or inner group, includes
those individuals with positive linkages to the
leader. Leaders spend more time working with
these members, value their inputs more, and also
provide them with more resources. These group
members respond by working harder for the
group, taking on additional role responsibilities,
and declaring their loyalty to the leader and the
group. They are less likely to leave the group and
more likely to earn higher performance evaluations,
get promoted more rapidly, express more commit-
ment to the organization, voice more positive atti-
tudes about their work and the group, and garner
more attention and support from their leader. They
often view their relationship with their boss as a
partnership. The second group, the outgroup, or
outer group, includes individuals with less satisfying
linkages to the leader. These individuals do their
work, but do not contribute as much to the
group. They also express less loyalty and support
for the leader (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
Researchers who have tested predictions
derived from LMX theory have documented the
natural tendency for subgroups to develop within
groups and for disparities in performance to exist
between these two cliques (Dulebohn et al.,
2012). Those who enjoy a positive LMX are
more likely to do things that benefit their group
What Is Your Motivational Style?
Most leadership theories argue that people consis-
tently use a particular set of methods and techniques
whenever they find themselves in charge of a group.
Different theorists describe these leadership styles dif-
ferently, but most highlight two key aspects: focus on
the task and focus on the relationships among the
members.
Instructions. Fiedler’s (1978) Least Preferred
Coworker Scale assesses individual differences in
leadership style. To complete the measure, first think
of a person with whom you work least well. He or she
may be someone you work with now or someone you
knew in the past. This coworker does not have to be
the person you like least but should be the person with
whom you had the most difficulty in getting a job
done. Describe this person by circling one of the
numbers between each pair of adjectives:
Pleasant: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Unpleasant
Friendly: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Unfriendly
Rejecting: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Accepting
Tense: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Relaxed
Distant: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Close
Cold: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Warm
Supportive: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Hostile
Boring: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Interesting
Quarrelsome: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Harmonious
Gloomy: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Cheerful
Open: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Guarded
Backbiting: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Loyal
Untrustworthy: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Trustworthy
Considerate: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Inconsiderate
Nasty: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Nice
Agreeable: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Disagreeable
Insincere: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Sincere
Kind: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Unkind
Scoring. Add up the 18 numbers you circled to get
a total between 18 and 144. According to Fiedler, if
you scored 56 or less, you have a task-oriented style of
leadership. A score of 63 or higher indicates a
relationship-oriented style of leadership. If you scored
between 56 and 63, you cannot be classified in either
category. Remember, a high LPC score indicates you
tend to be a relationship-oriented leader, and a low
LPC indicates a task orientation. Given your score,
what type of group would be the “best” type of group
for you to lead? Which would be the “worst”?
290 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

and organization. These organizational citizenship
behaviors include helping other group members,
common courtesy, job dedication, civic virtue, sup-
porting organizational changes, and so on (Ilies,
Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Individuals who
are not satisfied with their LMX tend to perform
more poorly, but the strength of this relationship
depends, in part, on the degree of differentiation
within the group. In undifferentiated groups,
there is little variation in LMX—no ingroup and
outgroup at all. In highly differentiated groups, in
contrast, the LMX relation varies substantially from
one member to the next; there are those who work
well with the leader and those who do not. Such
variation can lead to dissatisfaction, overall, since it is
inconsistent with principles of fairness and equal
treatment (Hooper & Martin, 2008). Therefore, lea-
ders who recognize this tendency can improve their
overall relations with their group by minimizing
the number of people in the outer group (Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1991). However, some research suggests
that differentiation can be motivating. In such
groups, low LMX members recognize that they
may, through hard work, meet the leader’s standards,
for they view the leader as a discriminating judge of
group members (Liden et al., 2006).
LMX theory’s dyadic approach—stressing the
relationship between each member and the
leader— also provides an additional way of looking
at leadership in general. Researchers have returned
to other leadership theories, such as Fiedler’s con-
tingency model, and have begun to explore the
type of leadership style that leaders use with each
group member. These dyadic-level approaches add
a second layer of information about leadership to the
more common group-level analysis (Yammarino &
Dansereau, 2008; Yammarino et al., 2005).
9-4c Participation Theories
Some leaders do all the leading—they, and they
alone, make decisions, dole out assignments, supervise
work quality, communicate with other groups, set
goals, and so on. Such leaders adopt a command-
and-control leadership style; they give the orders and
subordinates carry them out. Other leaders, however,
share their leadership duties with the group members.
Beers, for example, set the general goals for the com-
pany, but she was careful to remain in the background
during some meetings—especially those involving the
development of creative pitches to prospective or cur-
rent customers. In those meetings she deliberately
adopted a participatory leadership style.
Autocratic versus Democratic Leadership Kurt
Lewin and his colleagues Ronald Lippitt and Ralph
White conducted one of the earliest laboratory studies
of interacting groups to determine the relative effec-
tiveness of a democratic, group-centered approach
to leadership versus an autocratic, leader-centered
approach. As mentioned briefly in Chapter 2, they
arranged for groups of 10- and 11-year-old boys to
meet after school to work on various hobbies. In addi-
tion to the boys, each group included a man who
adopted one of three leadership styles (Lewin, Lippitt,
& White, 1939; White & Lippitt, 1960, 1968):
■ The authoritarian, or autocratic, leader took no
input from the members in making decisions
about group activities, did not discuss the long-
range goals of the group, emphasized his
authority, dictated who would work on spe-
cific projects, and arbitrarily paired the boys
with their work partners.
■ The democratic leader made certain that all
activities were first discussed by the entire
group. He allowed the group members to
make their own decisions about work projects
or partners and encouraged the development of
an egalitarian atmosphere.
■ The laissez-faire leader rarely intervened in the
group activities. Groups with this type of
atmosphere made all decisions on their own
without any supervision, and their so-called
leader functioned primarily as a source of
technical information.
In some cases, the boys were rotated to a
different experimental condition, so they could
experience all three types of participation.
The three types of leadership resulted in differ-
ences in efficiency, satisfaction, and aggressiveness.
As Figure 9.6 indicates, the groups in the study
L EA DE RSHI P 291
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

reacted to the autocratic leader in one of two dis-
tinctive ways. Some groups accepted the leader’s
control and became very submissive. Although
these groups were aggressive if the autocratic leader
was replaced with a more permissive one, when he
was present, the group members worked hard,
demanded little attention, only rarely engaged in
horseplay, and closely followed his recommenda-
tions. Several other groups with an autocratic leader,
in contrast, rebelled aggressively against the leader’s
control. These groups were as productive as the
democratically led groups if the leader was present
(see “work” in Figure 9.6), but once the leader left
the room, productivity dropped significantly. Mem-
bers of groups with an autocratic leader displayed
greater reliance on the leader, expressed more critical
discontent, and made more aggressive demands for
attention. Democratic groups tended to be friendlier
and more group-oriented. Overall, the boys pre-
ferred democratic leaders to the other two varieties.
These findings suggest that, at least in terms of
productivity, a directive, autocratic style can be as
effective as a participatory, democratic style. In
terms of interpersonal relations and member satis-
faction, however, the democratically led groups
were superior to all others. These findings also indi-
cate that the laissez-faire leadership climate—group
anarchy—was the least effect in both task and rela-
tional terms. These groups were unproductive, dis-
organized in their activities, and prone to loafing.
As a methodological aside, the findings should also
be interpreted with caution because the laissez-faire
condition was not originally included when Lewin
and his team designed the study. But when one of
the experimenters was unable to enact the demo-
cratic style correctly and instead just distanced him-
self from the groups, the investigators relabeled the
leadership style he used as laissez-faire leadership
(White & Lippitt, 1960, p. 21).
Shared Leadership Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s
(1939) findings suggested shared leadership is as effec-
tive as centralized leadership. Such decentered leader-
ship models go by many names—co-leadership,
collective leadership, democratic leadership, dele-
gated leadership, empowerment, peer leadership,
Work Work (no
leader)
Organized
play
Disorganized
play
Loafing
P
e
rc
e
n
t
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Autocracy (aggressive)
Autocracy (submissive)
Democratic
Laissez-faire
F I G U R E 9.6 The results of Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s 1939 study of authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire
leaders. The investigators identified four different “leadership climates” in the groups they studied: autocracy with
aggression, autocracy with submissiveness, democratic, and laissez-faire. The autocratic and democratic leaders were
more productive than the laissez-faire groups, but the autocratic groups were less productive when the leader left the
room. Other findings suggest that the democratic groups were more cohesive.
SOURCE: From tabled percentages reported in “The ‘social climate’ of children’s groups,” by Ronald Lippitt and Ralph K. White. In Roger G. Barker, Jacob S.
Kounin, and Merbert F. Wright (Eds.), Child behavior and development: A course of representative studies. (pp. 485–508). New York: McGraw-Hill.
292 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

self-leadership, shared leadership, team leadership,
and participatory leadership—but underlying
these various models is a common emphasis on
breaking the leader’s monopoly on power, influ-
ence, and authority in the group and distributing
responsibility for core leadership functions to all
the group members (D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, &
Kukenberger, 2016).
When people think about leadership, they tend
to assume that it is concentrated in a single position
rather than distributed across a group. In conse-
quence, groups sometimes move away from shared
leadership to more vertical forms of leadership—
with an up–down form of organization rather than
side-to-side and up-and-down (Pearce, Conger, &
Locke, 2008). However, if the members’ reactions
to their work are a key factor in maintaining and
evaluating success, a participatory approach will be
superior to a more leader-centered method (Miller
& Monge, 1986). As Stogdill (1974) noted after
reviewing more than 40 studies of various leader-
ship methods that ranged along the participation
continuum, satisfaction with the group seems to
be highest in democratic groups, as opposed to
autocratic and laissez-faire groups. Shared methods
of leadership are also more effective in smaller
rather than in larger groups and are well-suited to
organizations that rely on small, self-directed teams
or networks of distributed, relatively independent
employees (Vroom & Mann, 1960). Groups often
share leadership when making decisions and when
organized to function as a team; we will reexamine
issues related to participatory leadership in Chapters 11
(Decision Making) and 12 (Teams).
Followership Theory If leadership is not con-
centrated in a single person but shared across the
group, then knowing who is in the group becomes
as important as knowing who leads it. Even
though group members are often described with
words that lack the potency of the word leader—
they are followers, subordinates, assistants, or merely
reports—the group depends as much on the actions
of those who accept others’ influence as it does
on those who provide guidance and direction
(Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).
But just as bad leaders are mixed with the good
ones, so followers vary in their effectiveness.
Robert Kelley (1988, 2004), an organizational
researcher and consultant who has closely examined
the nature of followership, asks two basic questions
about followers: Are they active or passive, and are
they independent or dependent? First, the best fol-
lowers are committed to the group and their role
within it; they are actively engaged in their work
rather than passive and withdrawn. Second, effec-
tive followers can be self-reliant, when necessary.
By definition, they follow the leader, but they
must also be able to exercise their independence
and monitor themselves and their progress. Ineffec-
tive followers are overly dependent on the leader,
and they are unable to think for themselves. Kelley,
by considering these two aspects of followers—the
degree of active engagement and independence—
identifies five types of followers:
■ Conformist followers (yes people) are active and
energized, but they are devoted to the leader;
they do not think to question the leader’s
directions and will defend him or her
vigorously.
■ Passive followers (sheep) follow the lead of
others, but without great enthusiasm or com-
mitment. They put time into the group and
will eventually finish their assignments, but
they must be continually monitored or they
will simply stop contributing.
■ Pragmatic followers are the rank-and-file mem-
bers of the group; they are not clearly active,
passive, conforming, or independent, but make
up the group’s basic, and essential, workforce.
■ Alienated followers are not committed to the
group or its goals, in part because they stead-
fastly maintain their independence from others’
influence. They are often sullenly silent, but
when they speak they are critical of their fellow
members for remaining true to the group, and
they question the leader’s choices. They often
think of themselves as the rightful leader of the
group and refuse to invest in the group or its
activities until they are accorded their rightful
position.
L EA DE RSHI P 293
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Exemplary followers (stars) are actively engaged
in the group, but they do not simply do what
they are told. If they have issues with the lea-
der’s position, they express their dissent openly,
but constructively. The leader can delegate
responsibilities to them, and they can be trusted
to complete the task with an enthusiasm that
springs from their concern for the group’s
interests.
The leader’s task, suggests Kelley (1988, 2004), is
to transform the followers into exemplary followers,
using any means possible. Groups with “many lea-
ders,” he concludes, “can be chaos. Groups with
none can be quite productive” (1988, p. 148)—so
long as these followers are exemplary ones who are
actively engaged in their work, treat one another as
colleagues, and engage in constructive debate with
their leaders.
9-4d Transformational Leadership
Charlotte Beers is no ordinary CEO. She does not
just set goals and plan future initiatives, but she
inspires and excites those who work for her.
When she stepped down as CEO at Ogilvy she
volunteered to assist the U.S. State Department
craft communications that would improve U.S.
relations with other nations. She then sought to
help women learn more about leadership by writ-
ing about her experiences and insights, and publish-
ing them in her book titled I’d Rather Be in Charge
(Beers, 2012). She does not seek to lead people, but
to transform them.
Charismatic Leadership and Change Effective
leaders contribute substantially to their groups by
structuring and facilitating the completion of tasks
and also by providing members with relational
support. But leaders also face a third set of respon-
sibilities: transforming the group so that it achieves
more, both in terms of performance but also
members’ growth and satisfaction. The leader
who maintains the group’s status quo is a good
leader, but an excellent leader will elevate the
group.
Early theory pertaining to transformational lea-
ders focused on their charismatic qualities. Such lea-
ders, through the force of their personality, their
spoken words, and their dynamic presentational
style, profoundly affect others. Max Weber
(1921/1946), as noted in Chapter 8, used the word
charisma to describe such leaders, for they seem to
possess a “divinely inspired gift” that sets them apart
from other, more commonplace leaders. Charismatic
leaders inspire others, often by expressing ideas that
are both appealing and easily understood. They tend
to act in ways that provide their group members
with a model that they can emulate (Conger, 2011).
But it was political scientist James McGregor
Burns (1978) who set forth the basic assumptions
of the transformational approach to leadership in
his book Leadership. Burns argued that most leaders
engage primarily in what he called transactional
leadership. The follower and the leader cooperate
with one another in the pursuit of a shared goal, but
their relationship is based on the exchange of
resources that can include time, money, help, and
instruction. Transactional leadership “occurs when
one person takes the initiative in making contact
with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued
things” (Burns, 1978, p. 19). It is “pursuit of change
in measured and often reluctant doses” (Burns, 2003,
p. 24). The only thing that unites the leader and
follower are the resources that are exchanged. In
contrast, transformational leadership “occurs
when one or more persons engage with others in
such a way that leaders and followers raise one
another to high levels of motivation and morality”
(1978, p. 20, italics in original). Burns believed that
transformational leaders not only change their
transactional leadership A traditional form of leader-
ship that involves contributing time, effort, and other
resources in the pursuit of collaborative goals in
exchange for desired outcomes.
transformational leadership An inspirational method
of leading others that involves elevating one’s followers’
motivation, confidence, and satisfaction, by uniting them
in the pursuit of shared, challenging goals and changing
their beliefs, values, and needs.
294 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

groups, organizations, and societies, but they also
transform themselves and their followers.
Measuring Transformational Leadership Indus-
trial organizational psychologist Bernard Bass
(1997), drawing on Burns’s work, identified the
components of both transactional and transforma-
tional leadership and contrasted these two methods
with laissez-faire leadership. Most leaders, Bass sug-
gests, are transactional: They define expectations,
offer rewards, “formulate mutually satisfactory
agreements, negotiate for resources, exchange assis-
tance for effort, and provide commendations
for successful follower performance” (Bass, 1997,
p. 134). Transformational leaders, however, go
beyond rewards and punishments. These leaders
tend to be self-confident and determined, and
their communications with their followers are usu-
ally eloquent and enthusiastic (Yammarino & Bass,
1990). In contrast to both transactional and trans-
formational leadership, some leaders adopt a pas-
sive/avoidant, or laissez-faire, style. They point
out members’ failings or ignore problems until
they become dire.
Bass and his colleagues developed the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to measure these key
components of transformational leadership (Avolio &
Bass, 1995; Bass, 1997). As summarized in Table 9.3,
transformational leadership includes four basic compo-
nents: the so-called 4Is of idealized, inspirational,
intellectual, and individualized consideration. Trans-
formational leaders stand for something and make
their position clear to others in the group. They chal-
lenge others to join them in their pursuit of exciting
endeavors, but at the same time, they provide each
member with individualized support and consider-
ation. They are, in a word, charismatic.
The MLQ also includes, however, measures of
two other approaches to leadership: transactional
leadership and passive (or avoidant) leadership (see
Table 9.3). Transactional leadership is more rou-
tine, traditional leadership, for it involves monitor-
ing members’ behaviors, providing them with
rewards and corrections as needed, and stepping in
only when errors have occurred (management by
exception). Passive leadership does not, in many
cases, even qualify as leadership, for the so-called
leader is so uninvolved with the group and its
members that he or she does not meet the role
requirements of a “leader.”
Both transactional and transformational leaders
are more effective than passive leaders, but groups
working with transformational leaders often achieve
the best results of all. A meta-analytic review of 87
studies concluded that transformational leadership
was more strongly associated with followers’ job sat-
isfaction, satisfaction with the leader, motivational
levels, performance quality, and ratings of the lea-
der’s effectiveness than transactional leadership—
although transactional leadership predicted these
positive outcomes as well. Passive forms of leadership
were unrelated to these outcomes or were negatively
related (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Meta-analysis also
suggests that women tend to be more likely to use
transformational styles of leadership, whereas men
are more likely to enact laissez-faire and transactional
styles (Eagly et al., 2003; Eagly & Johnson, 1990).
Cross-cultural research supports Bass’s (1997) belief
that the transactional–transformational distinction
applies across all world cultures. Last, confirming
the idea that “there is nothing so practical as a
good theory” (Lewin, 1951, p. 169), leadership
training programs based on the model have also
proven to be a relatively effective means of improv-
ing performance in businesses and other organiza-
tions (see Dvir et al., 2002).
9-4e The Future of Leadership
The future promises many changes in the nature
and application of leadership principles. As organi-
zations continue to become more decentralized—
flatter rather than hierarchical—leadership methods
will likely shift from leader-centered approaches to
group-centered ones. Also, the increase in the use
of information technologies likely will also change
the way leaders interact with their followers, as tra-
ditional forms of leadership give way to new forms
of e-leadership (Avolio et al., 2009; Coovert &
Burke, 2005). Increases in diversity across groups
L EA DE RSHI P 295
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

will also create challenges for leaders, particularly if
they must adapt their methods and style to match
the varied needs of heterogeneous work groups
(Klein et al., 2011). Leaders of the future will not
only be leading individuals, but also the many sub-
groups that exist within their groups and organiza-
tions (Pittinsky, 2010).
The future may see increased numbers of
women rising to positions of leadership in groups
and organizations. As noted earlier, male and female
leaders differ to a degree in their basic approaches to
leadership, but the sexes are equivalent when it
comes to providing members with task orientation
and relational support (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani,
1995). However, given that women tend to be par-
ticipative and transformational leaders rather than
autocratic, laissez-faire, and transactional leaders
and given that these styles are more effective meth-
ods of leadership, as prejudicial biases give way to
fairer promotional practices, the Charlotte Beers of
the world will become the standard rather than the
exception.
T A B L E 9.3 The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Transformational Leadership
Idealized influence Expressing one’s conviction clearly and emphasizing the importance of trust;
taking stands on difficult issues and urging members to adopt their values;
emphasizing the importance of purpose, commitment, and the ethical con-
sequences of decisions.
Inspirational motivation Articulating an appealing vision of the future; challenging followers with
high standards, talking optimistically with enthusiasm, and providing
encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done.
Intellectual stimulation Questioning old assumptions, traditions, and beliefs; stimulating in others
new perspectives and ways of doing things, and encouraging the expression
of ideas and reasons.
Individualized consideration Dealing with others as individuals; considering individual needs, abilities,
and aspirations; listening attentively and furthering individual members’
development; advising, teaching, coaching.
Transactional Leadership
Contingent rewards Providing rewards to followers contingent on performance, recognizing
achievements, and providing direction and positive feedback; defining
expectations, arranging mutually satisfactory agreements, and negotiating
for resources.
Management by exception (active) Supervising followers’ performances and intervening if they detect failures
to reach goals or maintain standards.
Avoidant/Passive Leadership
Passive management by exception Being uninvolved in the group activity until a serious problem occurs; not
taking action until mistakes are brought to their attention.
Laissez-faire Do not accept responsibility for the leadership role; often absent when
needed; ignoring their followers’ requests for help; not making their views
and values known to others. According to Bass, these individuals are not
leaders.
SOURCE: Paraphrased from Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national bound-
aries? American Psychologist, 52, pp. 133–134.
296 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P TE R R E V I E W
What is leadership?
1. Leadership is an influence process in which
group members guide one another in the
pursuit of individual and collective goals.
■ Leaders influence followers both directly
and indirectly.
■ Leaders and followers collaborate in the
pursuit of shared goals; people willingly
accept a leader’s influence and prefer to be
led rather than to be leaderless.
■ Groups prosper when guided by good
leaders, but exaggerating their influence is
the romance of leadership fallacy.
2. The two-factor model of leadership identifies
two basic sets, or clusters, of leadership
behavior:
■ Task leadership focuses on the group’s
work and its goals.
■ Relationship leadership focuses on the
interpersonal relations within the group.
■ The Ohio State University Leadership
Studies identified these clusters, and the
Leader Behavior Description Question-
naire (LBDQ) assesses both task and rela-
tionship leadership.
3. Leadership substitutes theory describes situational
and interpersonal factors that substitute for or
neutralize the need for task and relationship
leadership.
4. Men tend to be more agentic and women
more communal, but this sex difference is not a
robust one. Similarly, women show a slight
preference for leaderless groups.
Who will emerge as a leader?
1. Paralleling Carlyle’s great leader theory and Tol-
stoy’s Zeitgeist theory, early analyses of leadership
emergence adopted either a trait model or a sit-
uational model. An interactional approach, in
contrast, examines the reciprocal relationships
among the leader, the followers, and the group
situation.
■ Improved research procedures, such as
longitudinal and rotational designs, have
provided clearer evidence of personality’s
influence on leadership.
■ The trait clusters in the five-factor model
of personality and the dark triad (Machia-
vellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy)
are related to leadership emergence and
effectiveness.
2. Certain competencies are associated with lead-
ership emergence.
■ Leaders tend to be relatively intelligent;
their general mental ability is usually
superior to that of their followers, but only
to a degree.
■ Emotional intelligence is related to leadership
emergence and effectiveness.
■ Sternberg’s (2012) systems model of lead-
ership stresses the importance of practical
and creative intelligence.
■ Emergent leaders are generally more
experienced.
■ People who speak more in groups are
likely to emerge as leaders (the babble effect),
although work by Jones and Kelly (2007)
suggests that quality of comments is more
influential than sheer quantity.
3. Leaders tend to be older, taller, and healthier
than the average group member.
■ Ethnic minorities and women are less
likely to be selected as leaders in groups.
The terms glass ceiling and leadership lab-
yrinth suggests hidden situational and
interpersonal factors prevent women from
gaining leadership positions.
■ The bias against women is ironic because,
in general, women possess more of the
skills needed to be a successful leader.
L EA DE RSHI P 297
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Why do some lead and others follow?
1. Implicit leadership theory assumes beliefs
about leaders and leadership—implicit leadership
theories—influence followers perceptual and
cognitive reactions to leaders and potential
leaders (Lord et al., 1984).
■ Most ILTs include task and relationship
qualities. The prototype matching
hypothesis suggests that individuals prefer
leaders who match their ILTs, but ILTs
can distort members’ perceptions of and
reactions to their leaders.
■ The GLOBE studies, conducted by
House and his colleagues (2004),
identified a number of common
elements in ILTs worldwide, including
diplomatic, moral integrity, charismatic
(inspirational and visionary), and team-
oriented.
2. Social identity theory predicts that leader
endorsement depends on leader prototypicality
and the members’ social identity.
3. Eagly and her colleagues’ (1992) social role theory
maintains that stereotypes of sex roles and
leadership roles can create negative expecta-
tions for women leaders.
4. Terror management theory (TMT) suggests that
individuals may have a deep-seated need for
leaders, particularly in times of crisis, when
mortality is salient.
5. Evolutionary theory suggests that leadership
is an evolutionary adaptation that improves
the fitness of both leaders and followers.
■ Leadership is a cooperative rather than
dominance process, as illustrated by
Chagnon’s (1997) studies of the
Yanomamö.
■ The mismatch hypothesis suggests people
sometimes instinctively respond to leaders in
less than optimal ways—as when favoring
males when facing intergroup conflict and
females when dealing with intragroup
conflict.
Why are some leaders more effective than others?
1. Leadership style theorists assume that effec-
tiveness depends on the leader’s task and
relationship behaviors.
■ The Leadership Grid, proposed by Blake
and Mouton (1982), assumes that people
vary in their concern for results and in their
concern for people and that individuals
who are high on both dimensions (9,9) are
the best leaders.
■ The situational leadership® theory, pro-
posed by Hersey and Blanchard (1976),
suggests that groups benefit from leadership
that meshes with the developmental stage
of the group.
2. Fiedler’s (1964) contingency theory suggests that
leadership effectiveness is determined by the
leader’s motivational style and the favorability
of the situation.
■ The leader’s motivational style can be
either task-motivated or relationship-
motivated, as measured by the Least
Preferred Coworker Scale.
■ Situational favorability is determined by
the leader–member relations, the task
structure, and the leader’s power.
■ Fiedler’s theory predicts that task-motivated
(low-LPC) leaders will be most effective
in situations that are either extremely
unfavorable or extremely favorable,
whereas relationship-motivated leaders are
most effective in intermediate situations.
3. Leader–member exchange theory (LMX)
focuses on the dyadic relationship linking the
leader to each member of the group.
■ In many cases, two subgroups of linkages
exist (the inner group and the outer
group). Groups with more inner-group
members are more productive.
■ Members with a positive LMX are more
likely to engage in organizational citizenship
behavior.
298 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

4. Participation theories suggest that leadership
should be distributed throughout the group
rather than concentrated on a single
individual.
■ Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) com-
pared three types of “group climates”:
autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire.
Laissez-faire leadership was ineffective
compared to democratic and autocratic,
with members preferring democratic.
■ Shared leadership models, such as co-
leadership, collective leadership, and peer
leadership, encourage member-centered
leadership methods.
■ Kelley’s (2004) theory of followership
suggests that followers vary along two
dimensions: active/passive and indepen-
dent/dependent. He identifies five types of
followers: conformist, passive, pragmatic,
alienated, and exemplary.
5. Transformational theories of leadership exam-
ine how charismatic leaders promote change.
■ Burns (1978) distinguished between transac-
tional leaders and transformational leaders and
suggested that the latter are able to elevate
both themselves and their followers.
■ Bass (1997) identified four components of
transformational (rather than transactional)
leadership: idealized influence (or cha-
risma), inspirational motivation, intellec-
tual stimulation, and individualized
consideration; they can be measured by the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
6. Women tend to adopt participative and trans-
formational styles of leadership, whereas men are
more likely to enact autocratic, laissez-faire, and
transactional styles. Women’s skills are particu-
larly well suited for organizations of the future,
which will be less hierarchical and require a
collaborative, shared approach to leadership.
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: Charlotte Beers
■ Charlotte Beers at Ogilvy & Mather World-
wide by Herminia Ibarra and Nicole
Sackley (2011) is a Harvard Business
School case study that describes the lead-
ership methods and decisions made by
Charlotte Beers as the Chief Executive
Officer and chairperson of a global
corporation.
■ I’d Rather Be in Charge by Charlotte Beers
(2012) is one leader’s personal philosophy
on leadership, interspersed with examples
of leadership triumphs and practical
advice.
The Nature of Leadership
■ Leadership by Michael Hogg (2013) is a
comprehensive but compact review of the
major theories examining leadership
emergence and effectiveness.
■ Leadership in Organizations by Gary Yukl
(2013) is a masterful integration of theory,
research, and application of leadership
studies in businesses and organizations.
Theoretical Perspectives
■ Leadership: Theory and Practice by S. Alex-
ander Haslam, Stephen D. Reicher, and
Michael J. Platow (2015) examines the
major approaches to leadership taken by
scholars in their study of leading and
following, beginning with Plato and
ending with contemporary perspectives.
■ Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The
GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, edited by
Robert J. House, Paul J. Hanges, Mansour
Javidan, Peter W. Dormfan, and Vipin
Gupta (2004), describes in detail this
monumental study of cultural values
and people’s perceptions of leadership.
L EA DE RSHI P 299
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Women and Leadership
■ “Social Identities and Leadership” by
Crystal L. Hoyt (2014) is a concise review
of research examining sex differences in
leadership style and effectiveness, with a
focus on the impact of sex stereotypes on
biases against women as leaders.
■ Through the Labyrinth by Alice Eagly and
Linda L. Carli (2007) examines closely
the findings from hundreds of studies of
women and leadership, including trends
in biases against women as leaders and
differences between men and women in
their leadership styles.
300 C H A P T ER 9
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 10
Performance
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
People join with others in groups to get things
done. Groups are the world’s workers, protectors,
builders, decision makers, problem solvers, and idea
generators. From the simplest of situations where
each member works on a separate task with others
nearby to more complex ones requiring prolonged
collaboration, groups can accomplish goals that
would overwhelm lone individuals. Not every
group reaches its full potential, but when highly
motivated members work well together they can
master the most difficult of problems—even ones
that require creative, novel solutions. Creativity
comes naturally to groups.
■ When and why does working in the presence
of other people facilitate performance?
■ When do people give their all when working
in a group?
■ When do groups outperform individuals?
■ What steps can be taken to encourage creativity
in groups?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
10-1 Social Facilitation
10-1a Performance in the Presence of Others
10-1b Why Does Social Facilitation Occur?
10-1c Conclusions and Applications
10-2 Social Loafing
10-2a The Ringelmann Effect
10-2b Causes of and Cures for Social Loafing
10-2c The Collective Effort Model
10-3 Working in Groups
10-3a The Process Model of Group
Performance
10-3b Additive Tasks
10-3c Compensatory Tasks
10-3d Disjunctive Tasks
10-3e Conjunctive Tasks
10-3f Discretionary Tasks
10-3g Process Gains in Groups
10-4 Group Creativity
10-4a Brainstorming
10-4b Improving Brainstorming
10-4c Alternatives to Brainstorming
Chapter Review
Resources
301
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Flight 1549 is a study of groups that get things
done. The three flight attendants worked together
to seat all the passengers and review with them the
steps they should follow in case of an emergency.
The pilots executed a series of complex, interde-
pendent tasks that changed from the routine to
the exceptional after the bird strike. As the emer-
gency unfolded, air traffic controllers and airport
personnel working the incident communicated
with each other, identifying and readying alterna-
tive landing locations. When the plane ditched in
the river, other groups swung into action: Fire-
fighters, the Coast Guard, ferry boat crews, and
search and rescue teams converged on the scene.
The passengers, too, worked together as they
escaped the doomed aircraft and waited in the
freezing January weather for help to arrive.
This chapter examines these kinds of groups—
ones whose members are working together to pro-
duce something or reach a goal—by asking three
important questions. First, are we better together?
Much of the work we do does not require collab-
oration, yet we often prefer to do that work with
others rather than alone. Does the presence of other
people facilitate our performance, and if it does,
why? Second, do many hands make light the work?
Certainly groups can do more than single
individuals—what with more people to bear the
load—but do we give our all when working in
groups? Do groups bring out the best in us, or are
our groups places where we can, and do, loaf?
Third, when are two heads better than one? Do groups
always outperform individuals, or does their superi-
ority depend on the type of task the group is
The Miracle on the Hudson: Working with Others in Groups
US Airways Flight 1549 from New York’s LaGuardia
Airport to Charlotte, North Carolina, began unevent-
fully. The flight attendants helped the 150 passengers
settle into their seats. The baggage handlers packed
the cargo hold of the Airbus A320 with luggage and
sealed the doors. Nothing was amiss as the two-man
crew piloting the aircraft—Captain Chesley B. “Sully”
Sullenberger and first officer Jeffrey B. Skiles—
completed the preflight checklist. Flight 1549, with
Skiles at the controls, lifted off from Runway 4, and
the local controller passed the flight to Patrick Harten,
the air traffic controller for LaGuardia departures. The
time was 3:26 PM.
Less than five minutes later, the Airbus A320 was
sinking in the freezing waters of the Hudson River.
The cause: The aircraft, during its ascent from take-
off, collided with a flock of geese, severely damaging
both engines. The A320 was designed to be flyable
with a single engine functioning, but the loss of two
engines was catastrophic. Sully, who was more expe-
rienced flying the A320, immediately started the
auxiliary power unit before telling Skiles, “My
aircraft.” Skiles responded, “Your aircraft,” before
turning his attention to restarting the damaged
engines (Brazy, 2009, p. 38).
Sully radioed ground controller Harten: “Mayday.
Mayday. Mayday. This is, uh, Cactus fifteen thirty-nine.
Hit birds. We’ve lost thrust in both engines. We’re
turning back towards LaGuardia” (Sullenberger, 2009,
p. 217). Harten initiated emergency procedures,
including communicating the problem to airport and
municipal emergency response personnel. The engines
would not restart, however, and the plane—now glid-
ing without any engine power—did not have enough
altitude or speed to reach LaGuardia. Sully considered
taking the plane to an airport he could see in the dis-
tance (Teterboro Airport), but decided he could not
reach that airport, either. He radioed Harten, “We’re
gonna be in the Hudson.” Harten’s response: “I’m
sorry, say again, Cactus?” (Brazy, 2009, p. 39).
New Yorkers watched as the A320, traveling at
about 150 MPH, splashed down in the middle of the
Hudson River, just south of the George Washington
Bridge. The ditching damaged the underside of the
aircraft, which began sinking as water flooded the rear
of the passenger cabin. Sully gave the order to evacu-
ate, and the passengers exited as quickly as they could
onto the wings and an emergency slide at the front
exit. Within minutes, a flotilla of rescue vessels assem-
bled around the aircraft, and the passengers and crew
were pulled from the icy water to safety. Some
required hospitalization, but not a single life was lost.
The media dubbed the event the “Miracle on the
Hudson,” and the crew members were awarded the
Master’s Medal of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navi-
gators for their skillful handling of this emergency.
302 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

attempting? For example, are groups particularly
good at finding creative, unusual solutions to
problems, or do they tend to remain entrenched
in their traditional ways of thinking? Chapters 11
and 12 examine groups working as teams and
making decisions, respectively, but this chapter
explores productivity and performance in all
types of groups—from the simplest situation
(two people working side by side on separate
tasks) to more complex forms of productive
interdependency.
10- 1 SO C IA L FA C ILITA TI ON
When the last passenger on Flight 1549 was seated
and the flight attendants closed the door, first officer
Skiles completed the preflight checklist and taxied
to the departure runway. The procedures Skiles fol-
lowed were complex ones, but they were very
familiar to him, for during his long career as a
pilot he had flown thousands of take-offs at airports
all over the United States. Skiles, however, was not
alone in the cockpit. Captain Sullenberger was
seated beside him, completing a second set of pro-
cedures required at take-off, but also monitoring
Skiles’ actions. Did Sully’s presence influence Skiles’
performance?
10-1a Performance in the
Presence of Others
Norman Triplett’s 1898 study of people’s reactions
to other people was one of the first experiments
ever conducted in psychology. Triplett’s (1898)
inspiration: bicycle races. In some events, cyclists
raced alone and their performance was timed.
Other events were competitions with cyclists racing
each other. In a third type of race, a rider was paced
by a motor-driven cycle. Invariably, riders achieved
their best times when they competed or they were
paced, and they were slowest when racing alone.
Triplett wondered why.
Triplett knew about drafting: riders are faster
when biking with others because the lead cyclist
creates a partial vacuum that pulls followers along
while also breaking down wind resistance. But
Triplett was also interested in identifying what he
called “dynamogenic factors”:
The bodily presence of another rider is a
stimulus to the racer in arousing the competi-
tive instinct; that another can thus be the means
of releasing or freeing nervous energy for him
that he cannot of himself release; and, further,
that the sight of movement in that other by
perhaps suggesting a higher rate of speed, is also
an inspiration to greater effort. (p. 516)
Toeliminate thepossibility of drafting,he arranged
for 40 children to perform a simple reel-turning task
in pairs and when alone (see Figure 10.1). His study
was a success, for he was able to confirm the positive
impact of working in the presence of other people:
social facilitation. The children in pairs outper-
formed those who worked alone (see Strube, 2005,
for a reanalysis of Triplett’s data).
Coaction, Audiences, and Inconsistencies Tri-
plett studied a coaction situation: people working
in the presence of other people, but not necessarily
interacting with one another. People digging sep-
arate holes in a field, taking a test in a classroom, or
riding bicycles with friends are common coaction
situations. But researchers soon discovered that
social facilitation also occurs when individuals per-
form in the presence of an audience. One investi-
gator, for example, studied the effects of an
audience by recording how much weight men
could lift when exercising. Men who were
watched when they were working out could lift
heavier weights (Meumann, 1904).
Other studies, however, did not confirm
the “presence of people improves performance”
effect. Social psychologist Floyd Allport (1920),
social facilitation An improvement in task performance
that occurs when people work in the presence of other
people.
coaction Performing a task or another type of goal-
oriented activity in the presence of one or more other
individuals who are performing a similar type of activity.
PE RFO RMA NCE 303
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

for example, arranged for participants to complete
tasks twice—once while alone in a small testing
cubicle, and once with others at a table. To reduce
competition, Allport cautioned participants not to
compare their scores with one another, and he also
told them that he himself would not be making
comparisons. He found that people in groups pro-
duced more than isolated individuals, but their pro-
ducts were often lower in quality. Likewise, other
researchers sometimes reported gains in perfor-
mance through coaction or when an audience was
watching, but they also documented performance
decrements (Aiello & Douthitt, 2001).
Zajonc’s Resolution Confusion reigned until
Robert Zajonc (1965) explained why different
studies yielded such divergent results. Some beha-
viors, he noted, are easier to learn and perform
than others. These dominant responses are located
at the top of the organism’s response hierarchy,
so they dominate all other potential responses.
Behaviors that are less likely to be performed are
nondominant responses. Zajonc noticed that
researchers documenting social facilitation studied
well-learned or instinctual responses, such as lifting
weights, bicycling, or eating rapidly. Studies
involving novel, complicated, or unpracticed
actions, such as solving difficult math problems
or writing poetry, usually found little evidence of
social facilitation.
Zajonc’s insight was that the presence of others
increases the tendency to perform dominant
responses and decreases the tendency to perform
nondominant responses. If the dominant response is
the correct or most appropriate response in a partic-
ular situation, then social facilitation occurs; people
will perform better when others are present than
when they are alone. If the task calls for nondomi-
nant responses, then the presence of other people
interferes with performance (see Figure 10.2). Imag-
ine that you must memorize some pairs of words. If
the pairs are common associations, such as blue–sky
or clean–dirty, then the task is an easy one, for
which the dominant response is correct. Hence,
your performance will be better if other people
are present. If, however, you are trying to learn
some uncommon associations—such as blue–
dynamogenic or clean–nondominant—then you are
required to make a nondominant response and an
audience will hurt more than help.
Speed, Quantity, and Quality Many studies,
including those listed in Table 10.1, have confirmed
the relationship between task complexity and social
B
A
C
D
F I G U R E 10.1 The “competition machine” used by Triplett in his research examining the positive influence of
competition on performance. Triplett is still recognized for his noteworthy contribution to the scientific study of
groups, even though a reanalysis of his findings using modern statistics indicated the differences between the condi-
tions he studied were not very substantial. In all likelihood, had he performed his study today instead of in 1898, his
fellow researchers would have sent him back to his laboratory to find more convincing evidence of those mysterious
dynamogenic factors (Strube, 2005).
304 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Social
facilitation
Task requires
dominant
responses
Task requires
nondominant
responses
Dominant
responses
increase and
nondominant
responses
decrease Social
inhibition
Presence
of others
Performance
gain
Performance
loss
F I G U R E 10.2 Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation.
T A B L E 10.1 A Sampling of Empirical Demonstrations of Social Facilitation
Situation Findings
Dressing People performed a familiar task (taking off their own shoes and socks) faster if another
person was in the room, and even faster if watched by an observer. They took longer to
finish a less familiar task (putting on a robe that tied in the back) when another person
watched them (Markus, 1978).
Driving Individuals seeking their license to drive an automobile took their driving test with only
the tester or with another test-taker seated in the rear seat. Forty-nine percent of the
applicants passed the test when alone, but only 34% passed when an audience was pres-
ent (Rosenbloom et al., 2007).
Handwriting College students copied a word list using their dominant hand (easy task) or nondominant
hand (hard task). The computer screen where they worked displayed an image of a favorite
television personality or another character from the same program. If the task was easy,
they wrote more words in the presence of their favorite character; if the task was difficult,
the favorite character inhibited their performance (Gardner & Knowles, 2008).
Jogging The path taken by solitary women joggers passed by a woman who either watched them
as they ran or sat facing away from them. Joggers accelerated when they encountered
the watchful observer (Worringham & Messick, 1983).
Playing pool People playing pool were surreptitiously watched to identify skilled and unskilled players.
When the observer moved near the pool table and openly watched their play, skilled
players’ performance improved 14% but unskilled players’ performance deteriorated by
more than 30% (Michaels et al., 1982).
Resource acquisition Children used a candy and fruit dispenser when alone, when observed by another child, or in
the presence of another child also using a dispenser (coaction). Children worked harder
(acquired more candy) in the coaction and observer conditions. Similarly trained chimpanzees
worked harder only in the coaction condition (Engelmann, Herrmann, & Tomasello, 2016).
Security screening Individuals using a baggage security scanner screened luggage containing fewer items
more quickly than luggage with multiple items, and this tendency was more pronounced
when they were observed by another person. Presence of an observer did not influence
the accuracy of their screening (Yu & Wu, 2015).
Speaking On a writing task most people (93%) produced more words when another person was
present than when they were alone (Allport, 1920). When this study was replicated with
individuals who stuttered when they spoke, 80% of the subjects produced more words
when alone rather than with another person (Travis, 1928).
PE RFO RMA NCE 305
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

facilitation. Novice drivers perform more poorly
when an audience is present in the car. Individuals
dress more quickly when another person is present,
provided they are putting on familiar articles of
clothing. Right-handed people can write faster
with that hand when another person is present,
but even more slowly if they are trying to write
with their left hand. Social facilitation has even
been documented in other species. Cockroaches,
horses, puppies, chickens, mice, rats, monkeys,
armadillos, ants, beetles, and opossums are on the
list of animals that show signs of increased perfor-
mance in the presence of other members of their
species (Clayton, 1978). When researchers
reviewed hundreds of studies of over 24,000
humans meta-analytically, they concluded that
social facilitation is most likely to occur on tasks
where speed and quantity matter more than accu-
racy. So long as the task is a simple one, people tend
to work more quickly when others are present, and
the result is a small, but consistent, uptick in pro-
ductivity. The presence of other people interferes
with speed, however, when the task is complex, so
other people significantly inhibited both the quan-
tity and quality of their performance. Overall, the
gains that occurred when people worked together
on simple tasks were not as great as the losses that
occurred when people worked on complex tasks
(Bond & Titus, 1983).
10-1b Why Does Social
Facilitation Occur?
The situations studied by Triplett and Zajonc
barely qualify as groups, for they involved strangers
working on individualized tasks without any inter-
action, influence, shared identity, or common goals.
Yet, even these circumstances were sufficient to
trigger psychological and interpersonal processes
that sometimes facilitated, and sometimes interfered
with, performance (see Aiello & Douthitt, 2001;
Monfardini et al., 2016).
Drive Processes Zajonc coined the word compre-
sence to describe the state of responding in the pres-
ence of others. Compresence, he hypothesized,
touches off a basic arousal response in most social
species “simply because one never knows, so to
speak, what sorts of responses—perhaps even
novel and unique—may be required in the next
few seconds” when others are nearby (Zajonc,
1980, p. 50). Zajonc believed that compresence in
and of itself elevated drive levels that triggered
Is Social Facilitation a Uniquely Human Phenomenon?
Social facilitation is not limited to Homo sapiens: horses,
puppies, chickens, mice, rats, monkeys, armadillos, ants,
beetles, and opossums are on the list of species that
show signs of increased performance in the presence of
other members of their species. Even the lowly cock-
roach will work harder when surrounded by other
cockroaches. As anyone who has surprised a roach in
the kitchen late at night knows, cockroaches run from
bright lights. So Zajonc and his colleagues (1969)
designed two mazes with a start box near a light and a
goal box hidden from the light. One maze was easy,
even for a roach—just a straight runway from start to
the goal. The second maze was more complex: the
roaches had to turn to the right to reach their goal.
Zajonc then timed how quickly 72 roaches (Blatta
orientalis) completed the mazes when alone, when with
another roach, or when watched by other
cockroaches—although we cannot be sure the spectator
roaches actually watched. They were sealed in small
plastic boxes adjacent to the mazes, with air holes
allowing air to circulate between spectator and subject.
Zajonc’s findings were consistent with the findings
from studies of humans. In the simple maze, single
roaches reached home base in an average of 40.6 sec-
onds. Coacting roaches trimmed 7.6 seconds off this
time, returning in just 33 seconds flat. This tendency
reversed when the maze was complex: Single roaches
crawled to the finish line 19.6 seconds faster than did
coacting roaches. Roaches watched by an audience
were the slowest contestants of all, but they were par-
ticularly slow when the maze was complex—taking
nearly 2 minutes longer than single roaches.
306 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

social facilitation when tasks were so easy that only
dominant responses would be needed to perform
them.
Zajonc’s drive theory uniquely predicts that
social facilitation will occur even when all forms of
social interaction, communication, and evaluation
between the individual and the observer are
blocked. Investigators tested this hypothesis by
asking people to work on simple or complex
tasks in the presence of an “observer” who was
blindfolded and wore earplugs. Even though the
observer could not interact with participants in any
way, his mere presence still enhanced their perfor-
mance when they worked on simple tasks and slo-
wed their performance on complex ones (Schmitt
et al., 1986).
Physiological Processes Zajonc’s drive theory
suggests that people react, physiologically, to the
presence of people—but the magnitude of this
change depends on the type of situation and on
who is watching. For example, James Blascovich
and his colleagues (1999), in their studies of the
threat/challenge model, have verified that an audi-
ence triggers increases in cardiac and vascular reac-
tivity. Blascovich’s team also discovered, however,
that this arousal is physiologically very different
when people work on an easy task rather than
on a hard one. As noted briefly in Chapter 2,
when we are confident we can master a problem
or difficulty, we tend to display a challenge response.
At the physiological level, we appear to be ready
to respond to the challenge that we are facing
(elevated heart rate and sympathetic nervous sys-
tem activation). More daunting tasks, in contrast,
may trigger a threat response; we display a stress
reaction instead of a challenge response. The chal-
lenge response facilitates our performance,
whereas the threat response inhibits it (Blascovich
et al., 1999).
Neurological Processes Social neuroscientists
also trace social facilitation back to a physiological
process, but locate that process in the brain itself.
Since humans are a social species, we are neuro-
logically prepared to monitor and respond to
other individuals and groups. This so-called
“social brain” includes mechanisms that sustain
and promote our capacity to perceive and under-
stand other people, and respond to them appro-
priately (e.g., Tremblay, Sharika, & Platt, 2017).
When a task is a simple one, this activation of the
attentional and reward centers of the social brain
facilitate performance, but when the task is more
difficult, the social brain interferes with perfor-
mance (Monfardini et al., 2016). In one study
that tested this hypothesis, researchers confirmed
that the presence of another person activated a
specific area of the brain associated with social
cognition (the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex),
and that this increase was associated with inhibited
performance on complex, but not simple, tasks.
This study found relatively few effects of other
physiological processes, such as heart rate and
blood pressure, on performance, prompting the
investigators to conclude that it is the brain, and
not the heart, that overreacts to the presence of
others (Ito et al., 2011).
Motivational Processes The 49-year-old Skiles
earned his pilot license when he was 16. With
over 20,000 hours logged as a commercial pilot,
he was nearly as experienced as the plane’s captain,
Sully. But Skiles had only recently completed his
training for this particular aircraft, and this was his
first flight without an instructor. Skiles and Sully
did not know each other particularly well, for they
had only begun working together as a flight crew
four days earlier on the first leg of their seven-leg
flight rotation. As Skiles maneuvered the plane
along the tarmac, he knew that Sully was watching
his every move.
Psychologist Nickolas Cottrell (1972) suggested
that this evaluative pressure is one of the reasons why
drive theory In general, an analysis of human motiva-
tion that stresses the impact of psychological or physio-
logical needs or desires on individuals’ thoughts, feelings,
and actions; also an explanation of social facilitation that
maintains that the presence of others evokes a general-
ized drive state characterized by increased readiness and
arousal (proposed by Robert Zajonc).
PE RFO RMA NCE 307
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

people tend to be more productive in the presence
of others. His evaluation apprehension theory
assumes that most of us have learned through expe-
rience that other people are the source of the
rewards and punishments we receive. So we associ-
ate social situations with evaluation, and feel appre-
hensive whenever other people are nearby. This
evaluation apprehension enhances our performance
on simple tasks, but it becomes debilitating when we
attempt more difficult projects. Cottrell thus believed
that apprehension, and not the arousal response
identified by Zajonc, is the source of social facilita-
tion effects.
Sociologist Erving Goffman’s (1959) analysis of
self-presentational processes, noted in Chapter 6,
also underscores the motivational impact of impres-
sion management pressures. Self-presentation
theory assumes each of us actively controls others’
impressions of us by displaying social behaviors that
establish and maintain a particular social image, or
face. We do not want the others to think that we
possess negative, shameful qualities and characteris-
tics, so we strive to make a good impression. Per-
formance situations create self-presentational
challenges for us, however, particularly when we
feel we might fail. To avoid that embarrassment,
we redouble our efforts when self-presentational
pressures are strong—as they were in the cockpit
when Skiles was piloting and Sully was watching
(Bond, Atoum, & VanLeeuwen, 1996).
Researchers have tested, and in many cases
confirmed, the primary hypothesis that derives
uniquely from such motivational models—that
any stimulus increasing the organism’s apprehension
over future rewards or punishments should increase
drive levels. When people find themselves in eval-
uative situations, they tend to perform dominant
rather than nondominant responses (Seta et al.,
1989). When, for example, individuals who were
watched by an observer were told that the observer
was evaluating them, their performance improved,
but only when they were working on a simple task
(Bartis, Szymanski, & Harkins, 1988). When people
who had already failed once tried the task a second
time, they performed worse when others were
present (Seta & Seta, 1995). Also, situational factors
that decrease evaluation apprehension, such as
allowing for private responses, nonevaluative audi-
ences, and the absence of a definable task that can
be evaluated, often eliminate social facilitation
effects (Henchy & Glass, 1968).
The presence of other people—even friends
who we can count on for social support—can
increase physiological reactivity in some circum-
stances. When women performed a difficult math
test with a friend who was merely present—the
friend could touch the participant’s wrist but was
preoccupied with another task and was wearing a
headset that blocked all sound—the participant’s
cardiovascular responses were lowered. But when
their friends watched them as they worked on dif-
ficult math problems, most people showed signs of
physiological arousal rather than relaxation
(Kamarck, Manuck, & Jennings, 1990). In fact,
people are more relaxed when they are with their
pets rather than with other people. Pets are an ideal
source of social support, for they provide reassur-
ance through their presence but they do not (we
assume) evaluate their owner’s performance (Allen
et al., 1991; Allen, Blascovich, & Mendes, 2002).
Other findings, though, do not support this
emphasis on evaluation. Even when the companion
refrains from attending to the individual in any
way, social facilitation still occurs (Berger, 1981;
Platania & Moran, 2001). Also, social facilitation
occurs in animals that likely lack the capacity to
feel nervous or embarrassed—rats, armadillos, and
roaches, for example. Moreover, activities that
involve little threat of evaluation, such as eating,
drinking, or getting dressed, still show social facili-
tation effects.
evaluation apprehension theory An analysis of perfor-
mance gains in groups arguing that individuals working
in the presence of others experience a general concern
for how these others are evaluating them and that this
apprehension facilitates their performance on simple,
well-learned tasks.
Self-presentation theory An analysis of performance
gains in groups assuming that social facilitation is caused
by individuals striving to make a good impression when
they work in the presence of others.
308 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Attentional Processes Zajonc stressed drive
levels, Cottrell underscored the importance of eval-
uation, but several cognitive theories have sug-
gested that the presence of others changes people’s
capacity to process information adequately. When
people work in the presence of other people, they
must split their attention between the task they are
completing and the other person (Guerin & Innes,
1982). The presence of an audience may also
increase individuals’ self-awareness, and, as a result,
they may focus their attention on themselves and
fail to pay sufficient attention to the task (Mullen &
Baumeister, 1987).
Distractions, however, do not inevitably
undermine performance. Distraction–conflict
theory suggests that distraction interferes with the
attention given to the task, but that these distrac-
tions can be overcome with effort. Therefore, on
simple tasks that require dominant responses, the
interference effects are inconsequential compared
with the improvement that results from concentrat-
ing on the task so performance is facilitated. On
more complex tasks, the increase in drive is insuffi-
cient to offset the effects of distraction, and perfor-
mance is therefore impaired (Baron, 1986; Bond
et al., 1996; Sanders, Baron, & Moore, 1978).
Consider, for example, the effect of an audi-
ence on people performing the famous (in psychol-
ogy, at least) Stroop task. In the Stroop task,
participants are shown a color name (e.g., Red or
Blue) printed in a primary color (such as red or blue)
and are asked to name the color of the ink. For
example, if the word Red is printed in blue ink,
the participant should answer blue. When the ink
and the color word match, people have no pro-
blems. But when the ink and the color word are
incongruent, reaction time and errors increase. But
these errors decrease when individuals complete the
task with others. The presence of others may work
by helping people narrow their focus of attention
and by filtering out the distracting color name cue
(Huguet et al., 1999). The effect may also be due to
(a) the extra cognitive demands imposed on parti-
cipants by the presence of the observer and the
need to evaluate the task itself (Klauer, Herfordt,
& Voss, 2008) or (b) the increased attentional focus-
ing on the task that is triggered by a threat of self-
evaluation (Normand, Bouquet, & Croizet, 2014).
Cognitive Processes When Sully announced
“my aircraft” and took control of the mortally
wounded Airbus A320, his mind was busy calculat-
ing any number of possible courses of action, fac-
toring in the craft’s altitude and speed, distance to
available airports, the hazards of a waterlanding, the
number of civilians on the ground who could be
injured, and so on. But the stress of the situation
undoubtedly influenced how he processed that
information, helping him to narrow his focus to
concentrate on his best options while ignoring
untenable alternatives.
Social psychologist Stephen Harkins’ (2006)
mere-effort model (or, more precisely, the Threat-
Induced Potentiation of Prepotent Reponses model) sug-
gests that the gains and losses in performance we
exhibit when we work on simple and complex
tasks are due, in part, to changes in the way we
process information. Harkins agrees with other
researchers who note that evaluation usually triggers
increases in effort: when we think we are being
evaluated, we work harder. This increased effort
causes us to concentrate more on ideas and infor-
mation that are readily accessible to us, and if this
information is relevant to the task at hand, then
facilitation will occur. However, if this information
is not relevant, then thinking about this information
will inhibit our performance (Seitchik, Brown, &
Harkins, 2016).
To test this hypothesis, Harkins (2006) mea-
sured the performance of individuals who worked
on simple and complex versions of the Remote
Associates Test—the RAT. Each item on the
RAT consists of three words, and the test-taker’s
task is to provide a single word that the three stim-
ulus words have in common. A simple RAT item
Distraction–conflict theory An analysis of perfor-
mance gains in groups assuming that when others are pres-
ent, attention is divided between the other people and the
task; this attentional conflict increases motivation, and it
facilitates performance on simple, well-learned tasks.
PE RFO RMA NCE 309
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

would be birthday–playing–shark, since the correct
answer (card) is a close associate of all three words
in the list. A complex RAT item, such as elephant–
lapse–vivid, is more difficult because the correct
answer (memory) is a remote rather than close asso-
ciate, and so the test-taker must discard the close
associates and search for more distant ones to
solve the problem.
Harkins discovered that evaluative pressures
improve performance on simple RATs but slowed
performance on complex RATs, as evaluation
apprehension theory would suggest. But he also
discovered that this effect occurs because the evalu-
ative pressure increased the availability of close
associates (the “pre-potent responses”), which
were only correct when people were working on
the simple RAT. People could solve the more
complex RAT items, but they needed time to
move beyond the close associates that came to
mind so easily.
Personality Processes Sully, in the months fol-
lowing the crash, became a public figure: He
appeared on talk shows, testified before Congress,
accepted awards and accolades from various groups,
and even threw out the first pitch at a couple of
baseball games. He took it all in stride, rising to
each occasion as he did when he landed Flight
1549 on the Hudson.
Social orientation theory suggests that peo-
ple differ in their overall orientation toward social
situations, and these individual differences in social
orientation predict who will show facilitation in the
presence of others and who will show impairment.
According to this theory, individuals who display a
positive orientation are so self-confident that they
react positively to the challenge the group may
throw their way. Others, in contrast, display a nega-
tive orientation. They approach social situations
apprehensively, for they feel inhibited and threat-
ened by other people. People may be capable of
adopting either orientation in a given situation, but
people like Sully are naturally positive in their orien-
tation toward tasks. Others, in contrast, possess per-
sonality traits that prompt them to be more negative,
such as low self-esteem, self-consciousness, anxiety,
and neuroticism. A meta-analysis of previous studies
of social facilitation, focusing only on those studies
that included measures that might be indicators of
participants’ degree of positive or negative orienta-
tion, supported the theory. Individuals with qualities
that suggested their social orientation was positive
usually showed social facilitation effects, whereas
those with a negative orientation showed a social
interference effect (Uziel, 2007, 2010, 2015).
10-1c Conclusions and Applications
Social facilitation occurs because humans, as social
beings, respond in predictable ways when joined by
other members of their species (see Table 10.2).
Some of these reactions, as Zajonc suggested, are
very basic ones, for the mere presence of other
people elevates drive levels. But arousal becomes
more substantial when group members realize that
the people around them are evaluating them and
might form a negative impression of them if they
perform badly. Cognitive and personality mechan-
isms that govern how individuals process informa-
tion and monitor the environment also come into
play when people work in the presence of others.
As the following examples illustrate, these physio-
logical, motivational, cognitive, and personality
processes influence group members’ reactions across
a wide range of performance settings.
Prejudice and Social Facilitation Prejudices are
deeply ingrained negative attitudes about the mem-
bers of other groups. Such prejudices as racism and
sexism are increasingly recognized as unfair and
socially inappropriate, so individuals who are pre-
judiced often try to keep their prejudices to them-
selves to avoid being labeled a racist or sexist. But
prejudice is often a well-learned, dominant response;
ironically, the presence of other people may lead
Social orientation theory An analysis of performance
gains in groups suggesting individual differences in social
orientation (the tendency to approach social situations
apprehensively or with enthusiasm) predict when social
facilitation will occur.
310 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

individuals to express even more biased opinions
when they are in public rather than in private.
The presence of others may work to facilitate prej-
udice, rather than keep it in check (Lambert et al.,
1996, 2003).
Eating in Groups The presence of other people
facilitates one of the most dominant of basic
responses in humans: eating. Most people report
that they prefer to eat with others rather than
dine alone (Higgs & Thomas, 2016). When
researchers ask people to keep track of how much
and with whom they eat, they usually find that
people eat more—sometimes 40–50% more—
when they dine in groups (Herman, 2015). As
meals eaten by groups are longer in duration than
those eaten by solo individuals, people have more
opportunity to keep eating when in groups than alone.
T A B L E 10.2 Theoretical Explanations of Social Facilitation and Supporting Evidence
Processes Theoretical Assumptions Evidence
Drive processes The mere presence of others elevates
drive levels, resulting in social facilita-
tion when tasks are so easy that only
dominant responses are needed to per-
form them (Zajonc, 1965).
■ Social facilitation occurs when other
people are “merely” present.
■ Many species perform basic tasks
more efficiently in the presence of
other species’ members.
Physiological and
neurological processes (e.g.,
threat/challenge theory)
Humans exhibit increased physiological
arousal and heightened social atten-
tiveness in the presence of other
humans, and these reactions sometimes
facilitate performance (e.g., Blascovich
et al., 1999).
■ People show signs of physiological
arousal when others are present.
■ Brain monitoring studies confirm that
the cortical regions responsible for
processing social information are
activated in the presence of other
people.
Motivational processes
(e.g., evaluation apprehension
theory and self-presentation
theory)
Through experience, people learn to
associate the presence of others with
evaluation; this evaluation apprehen-
sion facilitates performance on well-
learned tasks (Cottrell, 1972).
■ The presence of others is facilitative
only when the observers can evaluate
the quality of the performance.
■ Facilitative effects are strongest when
individuals are striving to make a
good impression.
Cognitive processes (e.g.,
distraction–conflict theory
and mere-effort model)
When others are present, attention is
divided between the other people and
the task; attentional conflict increases
motivation, which facilitates perfor-
mance so long as the task is a simple
one (Baron, 1986; Harkins, 2006).
■ Recall is poorer when a stimulus is
presented in the presence of others,
suggesting others are distracting.
■ Facilitation is reduced if the others in
the situation are not noticed.
■ The presence of others improves per-
formance on interference tasks (e.g.,
the Stroop Task and the RAT).
Personality processes (e.g.,
social orientation theory)
Individuals who display a positive
interpersonal orientation and are more
motivated to present themselves posi-
tively to others are more likely to show
social facilitation effects (Uziel, 2007).
■ The presence of others improves per-
formance among individuals with
high self-esteem and low neuroticism.
■ Those with an attention-seeking ten-
dency (exhibitionism) perform better
than self-conscious individuals in
coaction settings.
PE RFO RMA NCE 311
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Watching someone else eat also increases social imita-
tion of the eating response. When the participants in
one study witnessed another person eating 20 soda
crackers, they ate far more crackers themselves than
did participants who saw someone eat only one
(Nisbett & Storms, 1974). People even seem to prepare
relatively larger portions for meals to be eaten in
groups than individually, as if they anticipate that the
group members will be able to consume more than
they would if alone. So long as the group does not
include a substantial portion of dieters, the group may
continue to eat until all the available food is con-
sumed. Solitary eaters are more likely to eat only
until they are sated (Herman, Roth, & Polivy,
2003). Larger groups trigger greater increases in eating,
although at a decreasing rate, similar to response pat-
terns suggested by social impact theory (Latané, 1981).
Groups do not always facilitate eating, how-
ever. The social facilitation of eating is weak when
co-eaters are strangers or disliked, and strongest
when people dine with families and friends. The
social facilitation of eating is also limited to coaction
rather than audience situations. People eat more
when others with them are eating, but they tend
to eat less when the other people who are present
are observing them (Herman, 2015).
Electronic Performance Monitoring Social
facilitation is not limited to face-to-face, or collo-
cated, group settings. The presence of others in a
virtual sense—made possible when people join
with others via computers, telephones, or other
communication systems—can also enhance perfor-
mance on simple tasks but undermine performance
on complicated ones. Social psychologist John
Aiello, for example, drew on studies of social facili-
tation in his analyses of electronic performance
monitoring, or EPM (Aiello & Douthitt, 2001;
Dohthitt & Aiello, 2001). When workers use their
computer to enter data, communicate with one
another, or search databases for stored information,
their activity can be monitored automatically; as
many as 75% of all companies in the United States
use that data to monitor the performance of their
employees (Zweig & Scott, 2007).
Does EPM enhance performance, or does it create
so much evaluation anxiety that performance suffers?
Aiello found that EPM may enhance employees’ pro-
ductivity, but in ways that are consistent with social
facilitation effects. He studied people working on a
data entry task. Some were alone, some were working
with others, and some were members of a cohesive
group. Aiello discovered that EPM enhanced the per-
formance of highly skilled workers, but interfered with
the performance of less skilled participants. Monitoring
also increased workers’ feeling of stress, except among
those who were part of a cohesive work group. Indi-
viduals responded more positively to monitoring when
they believed that they could turn off the monitoring
and that only their job-related activities were being
monitored, as well as when they had the opportunity
to participate in decisions about the use of the moni-
toring system (Zweig & Scott, 2007).
Social Facilitation in Educational Settings
Much can be learned when one is alone, but
many learning activities are group activities. Stu-
dents can read and study in isolation, but more fre-
quently a class of learners is assembled in one place
with the hope that learning will occur en masse.
But even though learning in a social context is
a common practice, the presence of other people
may actually inhibit the acquisition of new concepts
and skills. Others can be distracting, and, during the
early phases of learning, this distraction can interfere
with overt and covert practicing. When the parti-
cipants in one project needed to learn a list of
words, they were too embarrassed to rehearse the
material by saying it aloud, and their performance
suffered (Berger et al., 1981, 1982). Studies of ath-
letes acquiring new skills, students learning a second
language, and clinicians developing their therapeu-
tic skills have indicated that learning proceeds more
rapidly, at least initially, when learners work alone
(Ferris & Rowland, 1983; MacCracken & Stadulis,
1985; Schauer, Seymour, & Geen, 1985).
electronic performance monitoring, or EPM The
use of information technologies, such as computer net-
works, to track, analyze, and report information about
workers’ performance.
312 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Zajonc (1965, p. 274), however, suggests that
once students have learned their skills well, then
they should perform with others present if possible
(Utman, 1997). He recommends the student:
study all alone, preferably in an isolated cubicle,
and arrange to take his examinations in the
company of many other students, on stage, and
in the presence of a large audience. The results
of his examination would be beyond his wild-
est expectations, provided, of course, he had
learned his material quite thoroughly.
10- 2 S OCIA L L OAFIN G
Modern air travel requires not only the services of
the group of pilots who fly the planes, but dozens of
other groups also who handle service, ticketing,
security, maintenance, transportation, and so on.
The work of these groups is often outstanding, but
anyone who has traveled has likely encountered a
group that was neither efficient nor effective. Captain
Sullenberger, describing his own experience in the
industry, writes: “The gate agent hasn’t pulled the
jetway up to the plane in time. The skycap is sup-
posed to bring the wheelchair and hasn’t…. The
caterer hasn’t brought all the first-class meals…. You
get tired of constantly trying to correct what you
corrected yesterday” (Sullenberger, 2009, pp. 158–
159). Some groups, it seems, are not so intent on
maximizing their productivity.
10-2a The Ringelmann Effect
Max Ringelmann (1913), a nineteenth-century
French agricultural engineer, was one of the first
Do You Prefer to Learn Alone or in a Group?
Many educators take advantage of the motivational and pedagogical benefits of groups in their teaching. When
students work and learn together in groups, they can pool their knowledge and abilities, give each other feed-
back, and tackle learning tasks too overwhelming to face alone. Group assignments, even if they are not the
most efficient way to learn specific facts and information, help students develop a rare interpersonal skill—that
of working effectively with others in groups.
Group approaches to learning, however, are not enthusiastically embraced by everyone. One survey of col-
lege students found that many had taken classes that used group-based experiences, but only 32% of the stu-
dents rated their small-group experiences positively in terms of learning outcomes (Hillyard, Gillespie, & Lettig,
2010). For every person who enjoys studying in groups is another person who has spent too much time in a dis-
tracted, unproductive group. Are you, personally, pro or con learning in groups?
Instructions: For each of the statements, indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree by circling a
number where:
1 ¼ Strongly disagree 3 ¼ Neither agree nor disagree 5 ¼ Strongly agree
2 ¼ Moderately disagree 4 ¼ Moderately agree
1. I prefer to study for classes by myself. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Study groups waste too much time discussing things unrelated to class. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I mainly depend on myself, rarely on others when it comes to my learning. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Most study groups fail due to a lack of leadership in the group. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I have a negative opinion of study groups. 1 2 3 4 5
Scoring: Add your answer to all five items to yield a total. A score of 15 is close to the average score, but if
your total is less than 11 you are relatively positive about studying in groups; if your score is above 19: you are
no fan of learning collectively. But there is hope. Now that you have far more insight into groups and their
dynamics, you can take steps to maximize your next learning group’s efficiency.
PE RFO RMA NCE 313
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

researchers to study group productivity. Ringel-
mann’s questions were practical ones: How many
oxen should be yoked in one team? Should you
plow a field with two horses or three? Can five
men turn a mill crank faster than four? But Ring-
elmann, instead of speculating about the answers to
these questions, set up teams of varying sizes and
measured their collective power.
Productivity Losses in Groups Ringelmann’s
most startling discovery was that workers—and that
includes horses, oxen, and men—all become less
productive in groups. A team pulling a rope in a
tug-of-war contest is stronger than a single opponent
but the group does not usually work at maximum
efficiency. When Ringelmann had individuals and
groups pull on a rope attached to a pressure gauge,
groups performed below their predicted potential pro-
ductivity. Working alone, a single person could pull an
average of 85.3 kg. But, when working with six other
people, they could pull 390 kg, which is only 65 kg per
person: a reduction of nearly 24% of their pulling
power. Larger groups were even less productive,
with each member pulling only 61.4 kg per person
(see Figure 10.3). Groups certainly outperformed indi-
viduals, but as more and more people were added, the
group became increasingly inefficient. To honor its
discoverer, this tendency for groups to become less
productive as group size increases is now known as
the Ringelmann effect (Ingham et al., 1974; Kravitz
& Martin, 1986 present an excellent summary and
interpretation of Ringelmann’s work.)
Ringelmann believed that this reduction in pro-
ductivity had two sources. First, coordination losses, or
“the lack of simultaneity of their efforts,” introduced
inefficiencies into each group (Ringelmann, 1913,
p. 9). Even on a simple task, such as rope pulling,
people tend to pull and pause at different times,
resulting in some process loss and a failure to reach
their full productive potential. Ringelmann’s groups
often sang together in an attempt to synchronize their
efforts and minimize coordination losses. Second,
motivation losses were also sapping group productivity:
People did not work as hard when they were in
groups rather than alone. After watching a group of
prisoners turning the crank of a flour mill, for exam-
ple, he noted that their performance was “mediocre
because after only a little while, each man, trusting in
his neighbor to furnish the desired effort, contented
himself by merely following the movement of the
crank, and sometimes even let himself be carried
along by it” (p. 10; translation from Kravitz &
Martin, 1986, p. 938). This reduction of effort by
individuals working in groups is now known as
social loafing (Williams, Harkins, & Latané, 1981).
Many Hands Make Light the Work Bibb Latané,
Kipling Williams, and Stephen Harkins disen-
tangled the effects of both coordination loss and
Ringelmann effect The tendency, first documented by
Max Ringelmann, for people to become less productive
when they work with others; this loss of efficiency increases
as group size increases, but at a gradually decreasing rate.
80
70
60
P
e
rf
o
rm
a
n
c
e
Potential
productivity
Obtained
output
Actual
productivity
Productivity
loss
Individuals 7-man groups 14-man groups
50
40
30
20
10
0
F I G U R E 10.3 The Ringelmann effect. Ringelmann
(1913) found that the level of productivity of each
group member decreased when they worked in groups
of 7 and 14.
SOURCE: From Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animes:
Travail de homme [Research on animate sources of power: The work of
man]. Annales de I’lnstitut National Agronomique, 2e serie—tome XII, 1–40.
social loafing The reduction of individual effort exerted
when people work in groups compared to when they
work alone.
314 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

social loafing in a series of cleverly designed studies.
They told the men they recruited for their groups
that they were researching “the effects of sensory
feedback on the production of sound in social
groups” and that all they needed to do was to
cheer as loudly as they could. They asked the par-
ticipants to wear blindfolds and headsets, so their
performance would not be influenced by “the
effects of sensory feedback” (1979, p. 824). They
then asked participants to shout as loudly as they
could while the headsets played a stream of loud
noise. Consistent with the Ringelmann effect,
groups of participants made more noise than indi-
viduals, but groups failed to reach their potential.
When the participants were tested alone, they aver-
aged a rousing 9.22 dynes/cm2 (about as loud as a
pneumatic drill). In dyads, each participant shouted
at only 66% of capacity and in six-person groups at
36% of capacity. This drop in productivity is
charted in Figure 10.4 (Latané, Williams, & Harkins,
1979, Experiment 2, p. 826; see also Harkins,
Latané, & Williams, 1980; Williams et al., 1981).
But how much was this drop in productivity
due to social loafing and how much due to coordi-
nation problems? Latané and his colleagues separated
out these sources of process loss by testing noise pro-
duction in “pseudogroups.” In these conditions, par-
ticipants were led to believe that either one other
participant or five other participants were shouting
with them, but in actuality, they were working
alone. (The blindfolds and headsets made this decep-
tion possible.) Thus, any loss of production obtained
in these pseudogroup conditions could not be due to
coordination problems, because there were no other
group members shouting. Instead, any decline in
production could only be blamed on the reduced
effort brought about by social loafing. As
Figure 10.4 indicates, when participants thought
that one other person was working with them,
they shouted only 82% as intensely. If they thought
that five other persons were shouting, they reached
only 74% of their capacity. These findings suggest
that even if work groups are so well organized that
virtually all losses due to faulty coordination are
eliminated, actual productivity will not equal the
potential productivity due to social loafing.
10-2b Causes of and Cures
for Social Loafing
People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental
tasks—including brainstorming, evaluating employ-
ees, monitoring equipment, interpreting instruc-
tions, and formulating causal judgments—have
been shown to exert less effort when they combine
their efforts in a group situation. Even worse, loaf-
ing seems to go unrecognized by group members.
When people in groups are asked if they are work-
ing as hard as they can, they generally claim that
they are doing their best, even though the objective
evidence indicates that they are loafing. Evidently,
people are not aware that they are loafing, or they
8
Potential
productivity
Pseudogroups
productivity
Motivation
loss
Obtained
output
Actual groups
productivity
6
4
2
0
Group size
P
e
rf
o
rm
a
n
c
e
10 2 6
Coordination
loss
F I G U R E 10.4 Social loafing and coordination
losses in groups. Latané and his colleagues disentangled
the two major causes of productivity losses in groups by
leading people to think they were working in groups
when they actually were not. The people in these
“groups” (labeled “Pseudogroups productivity”) suffered
from motivation loss, but not from coordination loss since
they were actually working alone. The shaded portion
represents motivation loss (social loafing) and the
unshaded portion represents coordination loss.
They combine to create the Ringelmann effect.
DATA SOURCE: Adapted from “Many hands make light the Work: The
Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing,” by Latané, B., Williams, K., &
Harkins, S., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1979.
PE RFO RMA NCE 315
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

are simply unwilling to admit it (Karau & Williams,
1993). Fortunately, researchers have identified a
number of steps that can be taken to reduce the
level of social loafing in a group.
Increase Identifiability Studies of social loafing
suggest that people are less productive when they
work with others. But studies of social facilitation,
discussed earlier in this chapter, find that people are
more productive when others are present (at least
when the task is easy). Which is it?
Both. When people feel as though their level
of effort cannot be ascertained because the task is a
collective one, then social loafing becomes likely.
But when people feel that they are being evaluated,
they tend to exert more effort and their productiv-
ity increases. If the task is an individualistic one, and
is easy, social facilitation occurs. But when group
members are anonymous and their contributions
are unidentifiable, the presence of others reduces
evaluation apprehension, and social loafing
becomes more likely (Harkins & Szymanski, 1987,
1988; Jackson & Latané, 1981).
Researchers illustrated the importance of evalua-
tion by asking the members of four-person groups to
generate as many ideas as possible for a common
object. The participants did not discuss their ideas out
loud but simply wrote them on slips of paper. Some of
the participants thought that their ideas were individu-
ally identifiable, whereas others thought that their ideas
were being collected in a common pool. Moreover,
some participants believed that everyone was devising
uses for the same object, but others thought that each
group member was working with a different object. In
this study, loafing occurred not only when ideas were
pooled, but also when the participants believed that
their individual outputs were not comparable or
could not be evaluated (Harkins & Jackson, 1985).
Loafing was reduced when each individual member’s
output was identifiable (Hardy & Latané, 1986; Kerr &
Bruun, 1981; Williams et al., 1981).
Minimize Free Riding Thousands of people listen
to public radio without making a contribution when
the radio asks for donations. Some audience members
do not clap during the call for an encore because
they know their applause will not be missed. Many
students avoid group projects where the entire group
receives the same grade, because inevitably one or
more members of the group will not do their share
of the work (Hoffman & Rogelberg, 2001).
All these situations invite free riding—members
doing less than their share of the work because others
will make up for their slack. Although norms of fair-
ness warn members to do their part, if they feel that
the group does not need them or their contribution,
they will be tempted to free-ride. They are also more
likely to free ride if they suspect the other group
members aren’t working very hard. Rather than look-
ing like a “sucker” by working harder than the others,
group members reduce their efforts to match the level
they think other group members are expending. This
sucker effect is strongest when they feel that their
fellow group members are competent but lazy (Hart,
Bridgett, & Karau, 2001).
The effects of free riding can be minimized by
reducing the size of the group, strengthening the
group’s performance norms, sanctioning those
who contribute too little, and increasing members’
sense of indispensability: individuals who feel that
their contribution to the group is unique or essen-
tial for the group’s success work harder (Kerr &
Bruun, 1983). For example, when researchers stud-
ied the performances of swimmers competing on
relay teams in the 2008 Olympics, they discovered
that athletes who held the anchor spot on the team
showed performance gains when swimming in the
relay. Swimmers who started the relay, swimming
in either the first or second positions, did not swim
any better than they did when competing as indi-
viduals (Hüffmeier & Hertel, 2011).
Set Goals Groups that set clear, challenging goals
outperform groups whose members have lost sight
free riding Contributing less to a collective task when
one believes that other group members will compensate
for this lack of effort.
sucker effect The tendency for members to contribute
less to a group endeavor when they expect that others will
think negatively of anyone who works too hard or con-
tributes too much (considering them to be a “sucker”).
316 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of their objectives (Kleingeld, van Mierlo, &
Arends, 2011). When truck drivers who hauled
logs from the woods to the mill were initially told
to do their best when loading the logs, the men
only carried about 60% of what they could legally
haul (Latham & Baldes, 1975). When the drivers
were later encouraged to reach a goal of 94% of
the legal limit, they increased their efficiency and
met this specific goal. In a study of groups generat-
ing ideas, members were more productive when
they had a clear standard by which to evaluate the
quality of their own work and the group’s work
(Harkins & Szymanski, 1989). Members of sports
teams with norms that stress goal pursuit (e.g.,
“we don’t give up during adversity in a competi-
tion”) loaf less than teams with lower performance
standards (Høigaard, Säfvenbom, & Tønnessen,
2006, p. 222). The group’s goals should also be
challenging rather than too easily attained. The
advantages of working in a group are lost if the
task is so easy that it can be accomplished even if
the group loafs, so care should be taken to set the
standards high—but not so high that they are unat-
tainable (Hinsz, 1995; Weldon & Weingart, 1993).
Increase Involvement Sullenberger (2009) was
very involved in his work as a pilot. Hardworking,
attentive to detail, and serious about providing
quality service, his wife described him as a “pilot’s
pilot” (p. 276). People like Sully do not loaf in
groups. When researchers first screened people on
a set of questions that measured their approach to
work—the Protestant Ethic Scale—they discovered
people with high scores loafed very little. Such sen-
timents as “People who fail at a job have usually not
tried hard enough” and “There are few satisfactions
equal to the realization that one has done his best at
a job” are antithetical to not doing one’s share of
the work (Smrt & Karau, 2011). Individuals who
enjoy competition and working with others in
groups are also less likely to loaf (Stark, Shaw, &
Duffy, 2007).
In general, the more engaged people are in the
group or the group’s work, the less likely they will
loaf. So long as the competition remains “friendly,”
group members may persevere with much greater
intensity when they are vying with others in the
group for the best score (Hinsz, 2005). Challenging,
difficult tasks reduce loafing, but so do those that
will determine group members’ personal
outcomes—either by reward or by punishment
(Brickner, Harkins, & Ostrom, 1986; Shepperd,
1993, 1995). Social loafing is also reduced when
rewards for successful performance are group-
based rather than individually based—so long as
the group is not too large in size (DeMatteo, Eby,
How Many Pickles Could a Pickle Packer Pack If Identifiable?
Many groups work on tasks as a team, and so mem-
ber’s individual inputs are often inseparable: who did
what is not clearly known. This intermixing can result
in a loss of productivity, as Kipling Williams and his
colleagues (1981, p. 310) explain in their analysis of
performance procedures in the pickle processing plant:
[In a pickle packing plant] a key job is stuffing dill
pickle halves into jars. Only dill halves of a certain
length can be used. Those that are too long will
not fit and those that are too short will float and
dance inside and look cheap and crummy. The dill
halves and the jars are carried on separate high-
speed conveyor belts past the contingent of pickle
stuffers. If the stuffers don’t stuff quickly enough,
the jars pile up at the workers’ stations while they
look for pickles of the appropriate length, so
stuffers have a great temptation to stuff whatever
pickles come readily at hand. The individual out-
puts of the stuffers are unidentifiable, since all jars
go into a common hopper before they reach the
quality control section. Responsibility for the out-
put cannot be focused on any one worker. This
combination of factors leads to poor performance
and improper packing. The present research sug-
gests making individual production identifiable
and raises the question, “how many pickles could
a pickle packer pack if pickle packers were only
paid for properly packed pickles?”
PE RFO RMA NCE 317
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

& Sundstrom, 1998) and the reward is divided
nearly equally among all the group members
(Honeywell-Johnson & Dickinson, 1999; Liden
et al., 2004). When large groups are split into
smaller ones, members loaf less (Pentland, 2014).
Involvement may even prompt group mem-
bers to compensate for the expected failures or
incompetencies of their fellow group members by
expending extra effort. Williams and Karau (1991)
documented social compensation by convincing
individuals that their group’s task was a meaningful
one, but that the motivation of other group mem-
bers was in doubt (apparently because one of the
other experimenters considered the research topic
to be boring). Participants were also led to expect
that their partners were either skilled or unskilled at
the task. Williams and Karau discovered that people
worked hardest when the task was meaningful and
the members believed that their coworkers’ ability
was minimal. A field study of loafing in a classroom
setting even suggests that a high level of involve-
ment may trump the sucker effect. If students’
grades were on the line, when they discovered
that one of their group members was a loafer,
they tended to work harder themselves, rather
than reducing their own effort to look less like a
sucker (Liden et al., 2004).
Increase Identification with the Group Social
identity theory also suggests a way to reduce loaf-
ing: increase the extent to which group members
identify with their group or organization (Haslam,
2004). Social identity theory suggests that the dif-
ference between a hardworking group and a loafing
group is the match between the group’s tasks and its
members’ self-definitions. If people are working
together but the group and its tasks have no mean-
ing to them, they care very little if their group suc-
ceeds or fails. But when individuals derive their
sense of self and identity from their membership
in the group, then social loafing is replaced by social
laboring as members expend extra effort for their
group. Individuals sometimes work hard when
they think “This task is important to me,” but
they are likely to work even harder when they
think “This task is important to us” (Haslam,
2004).
Increasing identification with the group elimi-
nates social loafing even in relatively short-term
groups. When researchers assembled volunteers into
three-person groups and had them complete two
time trials—one short and one long—on stationary
bicycles, they cycled more slowly in groups than
they did when they were tested individually. But
when the groups were led through a series of
identity-building activities that included generating
a team name and slogan before the trials, results
were more impressive. The groups cycled just as
quickly in their group as they had when cycling
individually—so no social loafing—on the shorter
trial, and they even outperformed their individual
scores on the longer trials—exhibiting social labor-
ing (Høigaard et al., 2013).
10-2c The Collective Effort Model
Karau and Williams’s (1993, 2001) collective
effort model (CEM) provides a comprehensive
theoretical framework for understanding the causes
and cures of social loafing. Drawing on classic
expectancy-value theories of motivation, they sug-
gested that two factors determine group members’
level of motivation: their expectations about reach-
ing a goal and the value of that goal. Motivation is
greatest when people think that the goal is within
their reach (expectations are high) and they con-
sider the goal to be valuable. Motivation diminishes
if expectations are low or individuals do not value
the goal. Working in a group, unfortunately, can
diminish both expectations about reaching a goal
social compensation The tendency for group members
to expend greater effort on important collective tasks to
offset the anticipated insufficiencies in the efforts and
abilities of their comembers.
collective effort model (CEM) A theoretical explana-
tion of group productivity that traces losses of productiv-
ity in groups to diminished expectations about successful
goal attainment and the diminished value of group goals
(developed by Steven Karau and Kipling Williams).
318 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

and the value that is placed on that goal. In groups,
the link between our effort and the chance of suc-
cess is ambiguous. Even if we work hard, others
may not, and the group may fail. Moreover, even
if the group does succeed, we personally may not
benefit much from the group’s good performance.
Earning a good grade on a project completed by a
group may not be as satisfying as earning a good
grade on a project that we complete working on
our own.
Karau and Williams tested the CEM’s predictions
in a meta-analysis. Their review of 78 studies sup-
ported their basic theoretical contention that loafing
is reduced if individuals’ expectations for success are
high and they feel that the goal they are seeking is a
valuable one. They also identified a number of other
consistencies that emerged across studies. For example,
loafing was greater among men than women, in
Western countries compared to Eastern countries,
and for simple tasks rather than complex tasks.
Is Your Group at Risk for Social Loafing?
Even in the best groups members may not be per-
forming up to their potential; not because members
are having difficulty working as a team, but because
social loafing steals away their motivation. Asking
members if they are working as hard as they can will
not provide you with valid information about loafing,
since most people don’t notice that they are not
working as hard in the group as they would if they
were alone. Instead, look for the warning signs of lost
motivation listed here.
Instructions: From the many groups to which you
belong, identify the one where members are working
to achieve a collective goal of some type, such as a
team at work, a study group, or even a group of
friends planning a social event. Then put a check by
each item that accurately describes your experiences
in this group.
Identifiability
q People who work hard in this group don’t get
credit for that.
q This group doesn’t keep track of who does what.
q Most people in this group don’t have any specific
responsibilities.
Free-riding
q Some members are not contributing very much to
this group.
q We have a couple of members who do tons of
work for the group.
q Even if some of us don’t work hard, our group will
still reach its goals.
Goals
q This group’s goals are not clearly defined.
q It’s difficult to tell when we are making progress
toward our goals.
q This group’s goals are not challenging at all.
Involvement
q This group isn’t one that means very much to its
members.
q It’s hard to predict who will show up for this
group’s meetings and events.
q If a group member falls behind in this group,
that’s his or her problem.
Identification
q Hardly anyone in the group feels strongly about
the group’s purpose.
q The members don’t identify strongly with this
group and its goals.
q No one really cares if this group is a great
success.
Scoring: If you checked two of the three indica-
tors in any one set, your group is displaying signs that
its productivity may be limited by social loafing. What’s
the solution? Use the methods that researchers have
identified as effective (e.g., increased identifiability,
involvement, indepensibility, and identification) to
counteract these performance-limiting conditions,
focusing on the problem areas you identified on this
checklist.
PE RFO RMA NCE 319
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

1 0 – 3 WO R K IN G I N G R OUP S
Groups tend to lose some of their productivity due
to social loafing, but they usually outperform indi-
viduals. A lone individual in a tug-of-war with a
group will lose. Individuals racing each other will
run faster than they would if racing against the
clock. A group taking a multiple-choice test will
probably get a higher score than an individual tak-
ing the same test. Three flight attendants will be
able to seat and service 150 passengers far more
effectively than only one could.
But how well do groups perform on more
complex tasks that require coordination and collab-
oration? Companies and businesses must monitor,
regulate, and organize the activities of hundreds of
employees—should they organize their workers
into teams? When quality matters, will a single,
dedicated craftsperson build a more beautiful prod-
uct than a work crew that must plan each action as
raw construction materials are transformed into a
finished product? Mountaineers can climb alone,
but can they reach the highest peaks only by work-
ing with others? When do groups outperform
individuals?
10-3a The Process Model of Group
Performance
Ivan Steiner (1972), in his classic work Group Process
and Productivity, drew on the concept of process
loss to predict when groups will perform well or
poorly. Steiner recognized that groups have great
potential, for their resources outstrip those of any
single individual. But Steiner also realized that
groups rarely reach their full potential because no
group can perfectly coordinate its resources, mem-
bers, and processes. When individuals work by
themselves, their performance depends strictly on
their personal resources, including their talents,
skills, and effort. But when individuals join together
to work in groups, their performance depends on
each individual’s resources plus the interpersonal
processes that determine how these resources are
combined. Even Sully and Skiles—experienced,
well trained, and highly motivated—did not coor-
dinate their actions perfectly during the emergency.
In consequence, their potential productivity did not
match their actual productivity.
Potential Productivity 6¼ Actual Productivity
In Steiner’s (1972, p. 8) model, task-related processes
are the steps group members take as they complete a
task, including “all those intrapersonal and interper-
sonal actions by which people transform their
resources into a product, and all those nonproductive
actions that are prompted by frustration, competing
motivations, or inadequate understanding.” Although
a group’s potential productivity (PP) can be predicted by
determining if its resources match the requirements of
the task it is attempting, process loss (PL)—the grit in
the interpersonal machinery of a working group—
determines how effectively the group makes use of
its resources. Steiner’s “law” of group productivity
AP ¼ PP � PL
predicts that actual productivity (AP) is determined by
a group’s potential productivity (PP) less all the pro-
cess losses (PL) the group experiences. Some groups
may have great potential: Members are highly
motivated, well trained, and they have all the skills
the group will need to master the task. Yet, even
though the group has the potential to be successful,
it may still fail because it fails to combine these
resources effectively or efficiently.
Task Demands Steiner recognized that many
factors combine to determine a group’s potential
productivity, but he highlighted one factor over all
others: the type of task the group is attempting.
A group working on an assembly line, for exam-
ple, must combine members’ efforts in ways that
differ from the combination process used by a
team playing baseball or pilots flying a commercial
jetliner. Some tasks, Steiner explained, require
process loss A reduction in performance effectiveness or
efficiency caused by actions, operations, or dynamics that
prevent the group from reaching its full potential,
including reduced effort, faulty group processes, coordi-
nation problems, and ineffective leadership.
320 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

high levels of coordinated activity but others do
not; even if group members make little or no
attempt to adapt their actions to match those of
others, the group will still succeed. Steiner called
the combination processes dictated by the problem
or group activity the task demands and suggested
that they vary depending on the divisibility of the
task, the type of output desired, and the combina-
tion rules required to complete the task (see
Table 10.3).
■ Divisibility: Some tasks are divisible—they can
be broken down into subtasks that can be
assigned to different members—whereas other
tasks are unitary. Building a house, planting a
large garden, or working a series of math pro-
blems by assigning one to each group member
T A B L E 10.3 A Summary of Steiner’s Taxonomy of Tasks: Types, Qualities, and Examples
Divisibility: Can the task be broken down into subtasks?
Divisible The task has subcomponents that can be
identified and assigned to specific members.
■ Playing a football game
■ Preparing a six-course meal
Unitary The task does not have subcomponents. ■ Pulling on a rope
■ Reading a book
Quantity versus quality: Is quantity produced more important than the quality of the performance?
Maximizing Quantity: The more produced the better
the performance.
■ Generating many ideas
■ Lifting a great weight
■ Scoring the most goals
Optimizing Quality: A correct or optimal solution is
needed.
■ Developing the best answer
■ Solving a math problem
Interdependence: How are individual inputs combined to yield a group product?
Additive Individual inputs are added together. ■ Pulling a rope
■ Shoveling snow
Compensatory A decision is made by averaging together
individual decisions.
■ Estimating an ox’s weight by asking three
people to guess and averaging their guesses
■ Averaging ratings of job applicants
Disjunctive The group selects one solution or product
from a pool of members’ solutions or
products.
■ Picking one answer to a math problem to be the
group’s answer
■ Letting one art project represent the entire
school
Conjunctive All group members must contribute to the
product for it to be completed.
■ Climbing a mountain
■ Eating a meal as a group
Discretionary The group decides how individual inputs
relate to the group product.
■ Deciding to shovel snow together
■ Choosing to vote on the best answer to a problem
SOURCE: Adapted from Group Processes and Productivity by I. D. Steiner. © 1972 by Academic Press.
task demands A problem or task’s features, including its
divisibility and difficulty, that influence the procedures
the group can use to complete the task.
PE RFO RMA NCE 321
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

are all divisible tasks, because the entire task can
be split into parts. unitary tasks, however, can-
not be divided: Only one painter is needed for a
small closet in a house, only one gardener can
plant a single seed, and only one person is needed
to solve a simple math problem.
■ Quantity vs. quality: Some tasks call for a high
rate of production (maximization), whereas
others require a high-quality, correct outcome
(optimization). With maximizing tasks,
quantity is what counts. In a relay race, tug-
of-war, or block-stacking problem, perfor-
mance depends on sheer quantity; the emphasis
is on maximal production. For optimizing
tasks, a good performance is the one that most
closely matches a predetermined criterion.
Examples of optimizing tasks include estimat-
ing the number of beans in a jar or coming up
with the best solution to a problem.
■ Interdependence: Members’ contributions to the
group task can be combined in different ways. On
an assembly line, for example, the members
perform a specific task repeatedly, and the
product is finished when each member has
made his or her contribution. The members of a
rock band, in contrast, all play and sing together,
so each member’s contribution must mesh with
the other members’ contributions. Steiner
(1972) describes five basic combinatorial strate-
gies: additive, compensatory, disjunctive, conjunctive,
and discretionary.
By taking into account the type of task the
group is attempting, the performance of groups
relative to individuals can be predicted with more
accuracy.
10-3b Additive Tasks
On the surface, additive tasks are the easiest types
of tasks for a group to complete. Since they are
both divisible and maximizing, group members
need only add their contribution to the group’s
output, so coordination demands are minimal. So
long as each group member can perform his or her
assignment—such as pulling on a rope, editing an
online encyclopedia, cheering at a football game,
developing two slides for a PowerPoint presenta-
tion, clapping after a concert, responding to cus-
tomer complaints in a call center, or raking leaves
in a yard—the productivity of the group will prob-
ably exceed the productivity of a single individual.
Studies of both social facilitation and social
loafing, however, warn that working on additive
tasks is more complicated than it seems. If working
in the presence of others, people may perform their
piece of the additive task particularly well—but
only if their subtask is a relatively simple one. Peo-
ple shucking green beans together on the front
porch may work more effectively than individuals
working separately, but once the task gets more
challenging, the benefits of social facilitation will
likely be negligible. Social loafing is also likely
given the structure of an additive task. Adding
more and more members will increase a group’s
productivity when it works on an additive task,
but at an ever decreasing rate of gain.
10-3c Compensatory Tasks
When groups attempt compensatory tasks, the
members average their individual judgments or
divisible tasks A task that can be broken down into
subcomponents that can then be assigned to individuals
or to subgroups within the group.
unitary tasks A task that cannot be performed piecemeal
because it does not break down into any subcomponents.
maximizing tasks A task or project that calls for a high
rate of production.
optimizing tasks A task or project that has a best solu-
tion and outcome, thus the quality of the group’s perfor-
mance can be judged by comparing the product to a
quality-defining standard.
additive tasks A task or project that a group can com-
plete by cumulatively combining individual members’
inputs.
compensatory tasks A task or project that a group
can complete by literally averaging together (mathe-
matically combining) individual members’ solutions
or recommendations.
322 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

solutions together to generate an answer. For exam-
ple, each one of the passengers of Flight 1549 could
be contacted and asked to estimate how long it took
to rescue them from the cold waters of the Hudson
after the crash. The estimates could then be averaged
to generate a group judgment, which could be com-
pared to the actual time taken: only 24 minutes
(Miracle on the Hudson Survivors, 2009).
The Wisdom of Crowds Effect Legendary
nineteenth-century polymath Francis Galton was
surprised by the accuracy of groups when making
compensatory decisions. Known for his studies of
intelligence, Galton questioned whether a group
could possibly make more accurate judgments than
an expert. He had the opportunity to test his hypoth-
esis when he came across a “Guess the Weight of an
Ox” contest at a local fair. Each contestant estimated
the ox’s weight, and the person who came closest to
the ox’s actual weight won a prize. Galton took the
estimates home and examined them, expecting that
the crowd would be far off the mark. Yet, the weight
of the ox was 1,198 pounds, and the average of the
judgments of the 800 contestants was 1,197, confirm-
ing the wisdom of the crowd effect (Surowiecki, 2004).
Some people overestimated the ox’s weight, but
others underestimated, so the group judgment,
which was an average of all the estimates offered,
was more accurate than the judgments made by
experts and by most of the individuals.
Crowds are wiser than individuals for at least
two reasons. First, the compensatory method is rela-
tively immune to group process loss caused by poor
coordination, loafing, or undue influence of the per-
suasive but unwise. In face-to-face groups, those
who are well respected by the group—but not nec-
essarily any better informed—often sway the group’s
decision. They do not when groups work on com-
pensatory tasks—provided the group members make
their judgments independently of others. Second, a
statistically derived group score is more accurate
because it is based on multiple measures. When sin-
gle individuals make multiple estimates, and their
estimates are averaged, their judgments are also
more accurate (Brennan & Enns, 2015). Because of
the importance of basing the final estimate on a
sufficient number of responses, the compensatory
method requires a large enough number of judg-
ments to compensate for any extreme judgments.
Swarm Size and Problem Difficulty Crowds
may be wise, but what happens when they encoun-
ter a very difficult problem (Krause et al., 2011)?
Researchers in Germany tested the limits of
“swarm intelligence” by asking visitors to a science
exhibit to step up to a computer console and enter
in their best guesses for two questions. One prob-
lem was easy: All they had to do was estimate the
number of marbles in a jar next to the computer
console. The second problem was more difficult:
“Estimate how many times a coin needs to be
tossed for the probability that the coin will show
heads each time to be roughly as small as that of
winning the German lotto” (p. 942). Statisticians
who were also active lotto players may have
known that it would take about 24 consecutive
heads to equal the very remote chances of winning
the lottery (1 in 35 million), but most visitors found
the second question to be very challenging.
The crowd was quite wise when answering the
easy question. The mean for the group was 553.6,
coming within 1.5% of the actual number of mar-
bles (562). But the crowd’s average estimate for the
second question, 498 flips of the coin, was not
accurate at all, suggesting a crowd will not be
wise when its members lack the knowledge needed
to solve the problem. These findings also affirmed
the importance of recruiting enough people to
form the crowd (see Figure 10.5). Even for the
easy question (shown in the top chart), groups
with ten members or fewer were not as accurate
as the majority of the individual members. Groups
that ranged in size from 10 to 40 members outper-
formed most of the individuals in the group, but
not the top 25% of individuals. Once the group
included more than 40 members, the group’s accu-
racy surged past most of the group’s members, but
this effect occurred only for the relatively easy esti-
mation problem. Estimates for the difficult prob-
lem, shown in the lower chart in Figure 10.5,
were always inferior to individual member’s
scores—because so many of the group members’
PE RFO RMA NCE 323
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

estimates were massively incorrect. Errors did not
have a chance to cancel each other out. These
and other findings suggest that compensatory deci-
sional methods can often be improved by identify-
ing the wiser ones in the crowd, and then
weighting their estimates more heavily than the
rank-and-file crowd members when aggregating
the results (Budescu & Chen, 2014).
10-3d Disjunctive Tasks
Sully, Skiles, and Harten had a decision to make.
Without power, Flight 1549 needed a place to
land. Harten, the air traffic controller, favored a
return to LaGuardia. Skiles did not express any
preference. Sully initially considered the nearby
Teterboro airport, but then changed his choice to
the Hudson. There could be only one solution—
they could not switch to Plan B if Plan A failed.
When groups work at disjunctive tasks, they
must generate a single solution that will stand as the
group’s outcome. Juries making decisions about
guilt or innocence, computer technicians deciding
which program bug to fix first, or the coaching staff
setting the lineup for the day’s game, are all per-
forming disjunctive tasks. These types of tasks tend
to be both unitary and optimizing, for they cannot
be broken down into subtasks, and they require a
high-quality or correct solution rather than a large
quantity of product.
Disjunctive tasks often require discussion and
decisions; Chapter 12 provides a more detailed
analysis of how groups tackle such tasks. In general,
Group
Top 25%
Above
average
100
75
A
c
c
u
ra
c
y
50
25
0
0 10 20
Easy problem
30 40 50 60 70 80
Difficult problem
Group
Top 25%
Above
average
100
75
A
c
c
u
ra
c
y
50
25
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
F I G U R E 10.5 The “wisdom of the crowd” when attempting an easy problem (top chart) and a difficult problem
(bottom chart). Scores could range from 0, indicating low accuracy, to 100, indicating high accuracy. The three plotted
lines correspond to the “group” estimate (black diamond lines), the average score of randomly picked individuals from
the top half of the distribution (gray triangles), and the average score of randomly picked individuals from the top
25% of the estimators (gray circles).
SOURCE: From “Swarm Intelligence in Humans: Diversity Can Trump Ability,” by Krause, S., James, R., Faria, J. J., Ruxton, G. D., & Krause, J., Animal Behavior,
81, 941–948, 2011.
disjunctive tasks A task or project that is completed
when a single solution, decision, or recommendation is
adopted by the group.
324 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

however, groups perform disjunctive tasks better
than most of the individual members. For example,
if four students complete a quiz as a group, the
group will likely outscore most of the individual
students because more heads means more informa-
tion and better detection of errors. In an actual class
where students were permitted to take tests in pairs
or alone, pairs scored nearly 4% points higher than
individuals (Pandey & Kapitanoff, 2011).
When Does “Truth” Win? When aviation
experts reviewed all the facts related to Flight
1549, they concluded Sully’s solution was the best
one given the circumstances. The flight crew’s
choice of that alternative illustrates the truth-wins
rule. The best solution (truth), when suggested
during the group’s deliberations, was the one the
group adopted (wins).
Truth, however, does not always win, for in
some cases even though the correct answer is
known by at least one group member, the group
fails to select it as the group’s solution. Rosa may be
certain that the answer to the question “Who first
documented the reduction of individual productivity
Who Is Flying the Plane?
Commercial jetliners are not piloted by individuals, but
by groups. No one individual could carry out the many
and varied actions needed when taxiing, at takeoff,
when aloft, in final approach, and when landing, so
the captain and crew work together to pilot the plane
safely to its destination. In some cases, however, crews
experience process losses due to poor communication,
errors in judgment, fatigue, and power dynamics. The
flight deck of an aircraft is called the cockpit for a
reason; it takes its name from the pen where contests
between fighting roosters (cocks) are held (Foushee,
1984).
Although Skiles and Sully worked well together,
the formal lines of authority in the airline industry
sometimes cause groups to make mistakes—with fatal
results (Helmreich & Foushee, 2010). The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), by analyzing
flight recorder data, traced several airline crashes back
to two group-level sources: (1) a captain’s refusal to
comply with the suggestions of other crew members
and (2) the crew’s excessive obedience to the captain’s
authority (National Transportation Safety Board,
1994). When a DC-8 ran out of fuel and crashed near
Portland, the flight recorder indicated that the flight
engineer repeatedly reminded the pilot of their dwin-
dling fuel, but the pilot ignored him (Milanovich et al.,
1998). The pilot of Northwest Express Flight 5719 spent
much of the flight issuing orders to the first officer,
many of which were considered unnecessary. The
copilot eventually failed to correct the pilot’s error on
the approach, and the plane crashed (Tarnow, 2000). A
copilot on a flight involved in a near miss—two aircraft
almost colliding in midair—warned the captain to
reduce airspeed, but the captain ignored him
(Foushee, 1984).
The aviation industry, in an attempt to reduce
process loss, responded to these problems by develop-
ing and instituting crew resource management (CRM)
programs. Initially, only the cockpit crew received
training, but the program was soon expanded to
include the entire crew (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014). The
training generally involves structured exercises dealing
with communication, team formation, situation
awareness, and workload management. Through
workshops, structured group activities, and simula-
tions, copilots learn how to challenge errors made by
the pilot, and pilots are encouraged to accept warn-
ings from crew members rather than ignore them.
Many airlines carry out team-based training using
advanced flight simulators (line-oriented flight train-
ing, or LOFT), which deliberately simulate emergencies
that can only be solved if the crew members commu-
nicate clearly and decisively with the captain. CRM
programs have been credited with significantly
increasing the safety of air travel and have been
implemented in other industries to enhance perfor-
mance and safety (Ginnett, 2010; Kanki, Helmreich, &
Anca, 2010; Salas et al., 2006).
crew resource management (CRM) A human factors
training program, originally developed in the aviation
industry, designed to improve crew coordination and
efficiency through structured training in teamwork and
communication skills and resource, time, and workload
management.
PE RFO RMA NCE 325
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

when in groups?” is “Ringelmann,” but her group
may not accept her solution because they doubt her
skills or because someone of higher status may pro-
pose a different solution. Ringelmann is the correct
answer, but this truth will not win out over error
unless someone in the group supports Rosa and her
answer—a truth-supported-wins rule.
The truth-wins rule usually holds for groups
working on Eureka problems, which are ones with
obviously correct answers. When we are told the
answer to a Eureka problem, the answer fits so well
we react with an “Aha!” or “Eureka!” The answers
to non-Eureka problems, in contrast, are not so satis-
fying, and so the truth-supported-wins rule holds
for groups working on those types of problems.
Even after arguing about them, we often wonder
if the recommended answer is the correct one.
Consider, for example, the famous horse-
trading problem:
A man bought a horse for $60 and sold it for
$70. Then he bought it back for $80 and again
sold it for $90. How much money did he make
in the horse-trading business? (Maier & Solem,
1952, p. 281)
When 67 groups discussed this problem, many
included a member who knew the correct answer,
but even these groups often adopted the wrong solu-
tion. In this case, truth lost because knowledgeable
members had a difficult time persuading the other
members to adopt their solutions. In fact, some people
later changed their answers to match the incorrect
solution advocated by their groups (Maier & Solem,
1952; the answer, by the way, is $20). Thus, groups
perform at the level of the best member of the group
only if (1) the member who knows the answer shares
his or her answer with the others and (2) the group
decides to adopt this answer as the solution (Davis,
1973; Littlepage, 1991; Steiner, 1972).
Intellective and Judgmental Tasks Groups are
also more likely to recognize, and accept, the cor-
rect solution when the person who proposes it can
demonstrate that the solution is the correct one. If a
group member backs up a solution with a proof, a
citation, or a quote from an authority, the rest of
the group may accept it. But if he or she says, “It’s
hard to explain, I just have a feeling that is the
answer,” then even the correct answer may not
find acceptance within the group.
Social psychologist Patrick Laughlin (1980)
bases his distinction between intellective and judg-
mental tasks on confirmability. Intellective tasks,
like some Eureka tasks, yield solutions that can
be objectively reviewed and judged as right or
wrong. They have a demonstrably correct solution.
Judgmental tasks, in contrast, require evaluative
judgments for which no correct answer can be
authoritatively determined. Logic and math pro-
blems are intellective tasks, whereas a jury’s decision
in a trial or the question “Was Captain Sullenberger
a hero?” would be judgmental tasks. As tasks move
along the continuum from clearly intellective to
clearly judgmental, the superiority of groups rela-
tive to individuals also changes: Groups are more
clearly superior when performing intellective tasks
(Bonner & Baumann, 2008; Laughlin, Bonner, &
Miner, 2002; Laughlin et al., 2003).
10-3e Conjunctive Tasks
As Flight 1549 descended into the Hudson, the
passengers sat in silence, bracing for the impact.
But when Sully gave the order to evacuate the air-
craft, the passengers filled the aisle, pushing to reach
the exits. Some opened the overhead storage areas,
seeking their carry-ons, but blocking the escape
route. Some passengers, such as 85-year old Lucille
Palmer, did not move as quickly as the other pas-
sengers. Many passengers seated at the back of the
plane first tried the rear emergency exit, not know-
ing it was already underwater and could not be
used. Sully stood by the door of the cockpit, wait-
ing for the airplane to empty. The evacuation
Intellective tasks A project, problem, or other type of
task with results that can be evaluated objectively using
some normative criterion, such as a mathematics problem
with a known solution or the spelling of a word.
Judgmental tasks A project, problem, or other type of
task with results that cannot be evaluated objectively
because there are no clear criteria to judge them against.
326 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

would not be complete, in his mind, until the last
passenger and crew member had disembarked.
The Weakest Link On most tasks, the group’s
performance results from some combination of all
the group members’ efforts. For conjunctive
tasks, however, members are coupled together,
like links in a chain, so interdependence of actions
and outcomes is maximized. Mountain climbers
linked by safety lines, pallbearers carrying a casket,
and passengers exiting a flight are performing a con-
junctive task, for the task is not completed until the
last link in the chain finishes. Such groups some-
times perform exceptionally well, particularly when
one member of the team sets a high standard for
performance, and the other members are motivated
to match that level of proficiency. However, with
conjunctive tasks, the proficiency of the best mem-
ber does not define the group’s performance.
Instead, performance is determined by the prover-
bial “weakest link”: the slowest, least productive,
least skilled, most ineffective member. The speed
of a group of mountain climbers moving up the
slope is determined by its slowest member. The
trucks in a convoy can move no faster than the
slowest vehicle. Had anyone died on Flight 1549
it would not have been described as a “miracle.”
Because of this coordination problem, groups
often take steps to improve their proficiency on
conjunctive tasks. If the conjunctive tasks are divis-
ible, then the group can assign group members to
the subcomponents that best match their skill levels.
If the least competent member is matched with the
easiest task, a more satisfying level of performance
may be obtainable. If the least competent member
is matched with a difficult subtask, group perfor-
mance will, of course, decline still further. (See
Steiner, 1972, Chapter 3, for a detailed review of
group performance on divisible tasks.)
The Köhler Effect Few group members relish
being cast in the role of the group’s most inferior
group member (IGM), so they often respond to this
indignity by expending more effort than they
would if they were working alone—a rare group
motivation gain rather than loss. This tendency is
known as the Köhler effect, named after Otto
Köhler, the researcher who first documented the
performance gains of weaker individuals striving
to keep up with the accomplishments of others in
the group (Köhler, 1926; Witte, 1989).
Social psychologist Norbert Kerr and his collea-
gues (2007) studied the Köhler effect by arranging for
women to complete a simple weight-lifting task.
They were told to hold a three-pound dumbbell hor-
izontally for as long as they could. When they low-
ered the weight, it would break a trip wire monitored
by a laboratory computer, and the trial would end.
The longer they held the weight, the more money
they could possibly earn at the end of the study. They
completed this task four times, with both their dom-
inant and nondominant arm. Women assigned to the
control condition completed the task without any
partner; they thought they were alone. Others, how-
ever, were led to believe that an “Anne Roberts” was
in the next room and that she was also performing
the task. In both the coaction and conjunctive con-
ditions, participants could monitor Anne’s perfor-
mance on Trials 3 and 4 via computer as they
themselves struggled to hold up their weight. But in
the conjunctive condition, participants were also told
that whoever lowered her weight first would deter-
mine the group’s score. Since Anne did not actually
exist (and therefore never tired), subjects were always
the IGM. But reluctant IGMs, judging by how much
longer they managed to hold up the weight when
paired with Anne; they achieved a 20-second gain
in the coaction condition and a 33-second gain in
the conjunctive condition.
A meta-analytic review of 22 studies of group
performance confirms these findings. Individuals
who find that their work is inferior to someone
else’s work show improvement relative to others
conjunctive tasks A task that can be completed success-
fully only if all group members contribute.
Köhler effect An increase in performance by groups
working on conjunctive tasks that require persistence
but little coordination of effort and is likely due to the
increased effort expended by the less capable members.
PE RFO RMA NCE 327
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

deprived of this comparison information, but this
performance gain is particularly dramatic when
they are part of a group working on a conjunctive
task. IGMs are much more likely to improve when
in face-to-face groups and when information about
the quality of other people’s performance is readily
available. The Köhler effect is also stronger in
women than men (Weber & Hertel, 2007).
10-3f Discretionary Tasks
Steiner noted that a group can sometimes complete
the tasks it faces by using a variety of combination
procedures. How, for example, would a group esti-
mate the temperature of the room in which it is
working? One simple method would involve aver-
aging individual judgments. Alternatively, members
can determine whether anyone in the group is par-
ticularly good at such judgments, and then they use
this person’s answer as the group solution. Judging
the temperature of the room is a discretionary
task, because the members themselves can choose
the method for combining individual inputs.
10-3g Process Gains in Groups
Steiner’s (1972) analysis of task demands and their
impact on group performance is summarized in
Table 10.4. Groups perform additive tasks fairly
well, although their productivity is often limited
by social loafing. Groups also perform better than
the average group member on many other kinds of
tasks (compensatory, disjunctive, divisible conjunc-
tive tasks when weaker members are assigned easier
subtasks, and discretionary), but only when process
losses are minimized. As Steiner’s (1972) formula,
AP = PP − PL, predicts, process losses turn poten-
tial productivity into actual productivity.
But don’t groups sometimes achieve results that
surpass what Steiner’s theory predicts? Can’t group
members, by collaborating on a shared task, sometimes
gain new solutions, energy, and insights into old pro-
blems that they would never have achieved as indivi-
duals? Aren’t some groups greater than the sum of their
parts? Does 1 + 1 + 1 sometimes equal 4 instead of 3?
Searching for Synergy Group researchers have
long sought definitive evidence of synergy in
T A B L E 10.4 A Summary of the Potential
Productivity of Groups Work-
ing on Various Tasks
Type of Task Productivity Effect
Additive Better than the best: The group
exceeds the performance of even
the best individual member.
Compensatory Better than most: The group
exceeds the performance of a
substantial number of the indi-
vidual members.
Disjunctive Better than average and some-
times equal to the best: The
group performs best if it accepts
the most capable member’s input
as the group solution; groups
rarely perform better than the
best member. (Process gains
resulting in synergy are rare.)
Conjunctive:
Unitary
Equal to the worst: The group
equals the performance of its
least capable member.
Conjunctive:
Divisible
Better than the worst: Perfor-
mance will be superior if subtasks
are matched to members’
capabilities.
Discretionary Variable: Performance depends
on the combination rules
adopted by the group.
discretionary task A relatively unstructured task that can
be completed by using a variety of social–combination pro-
cedures, thus leaving the methods used in its completion to
the discretion of the group or group leader.
synergy Producing an outcome as a group that is super-
ior to the results that could have been achieved by a
simple aggregation or accumulation of group members’
individual efforts; a gain in performance caused by
performance-enhancing group processes.
328 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

groups. Synergy occurs whenever the combined
effect of two or more discrete systems is greater
than the effect of these systems when they operate
independently. Two drugs, for example, combine
synergistically if their effects are greater when they
are taken together rather than separately. In groups,
if synergy occurs, the group as a whole performs
better than what would be expected given the skills
and abilities of its members. Synergy, as defined by
group researchers, is not group-level energy or a
heightened sense of connectedness among members,
but a process gain generated by performance-
enhancing group processes. Synergy is sometimes
called an assembly bonus effect because “the group is
able to achieve collectively something which could
not have been achieved by any member working
alone or by a combination of individual efforts”
(Collins & Guetzkow, 1964, p. 58).
Strong and Weak Synergy Social psychologist
James Larson (2010) draws a distinction between
weak and strong synergy. Imagine four students
who, working separately, earn 70%, 80%, 80%,
and 90% on a test; their average score would be
80%. If when they earn a score of 85% when they
take the test in their learning team—a score above
the 80% average and a better score than three of the
four would have achieved working individually—
then the group would demonstrate weak synergy.
The group would be showing strong synergy, how-
ever, if it scored a 91% or higher—better than even
the best member of the group.
Synergy eludes most groups. Steiner did not
write his formula as AP = PP − PL + PG, where
PG indicates process gains due to synergy. When
individuals work on a collective task, the whole is
often much less than the sum of the parts, as members
exert less effort (social loafing) or let others do their
share of the work (free-riding). Groups often outper-
form the most incompetent group member (the “bet-
ter than the worst” effect), and, in most cases, they
perform as well as the most typical group member.
Rarely, however, do they perform above and beyond
the level of the typical group member (weak synergy)
or better than the best member (strong synergy; see
Carey & Laughlin, 2012).
But synergy, although rare, does happen, par-
ticularly when the group members are highly
motivated—when grades, jobs, or lives are on the
line. Synergy happens, for example, when students
work in learning teams in their classes, and each
student’s grade in the course is based, in part, on
their group’s collective performance. These groups
often outperformed their best members, suggesting
that the groups could identify new and better solu-
tions when they worked together (Michaelsen,
Watson, & Black, 1989). Other investigators, who
replicated these findings, concluded that the syner-
gistic effects occurred primarily because someone in
the group other than the best member knew the
right answer and could correct the best member
(Stasson & Bradshaw, 1995). Such groups appar-
ently make this critically important judgment by
considering the level of confidence each member
expresses in his or her answer. The group is more
likely to perform well when the member who is
correct is also the most confident (Bahrami et al.,
2010; see too Koriat, 2012).
A group’s chances of achieving strong synergy
also depend on the basal skill level of the group
members and the “cognitive distance” separating
them. Groups with highly competent members,
given their greater resources, are more likely to dis-
play strong synergy than are groups whose members
are less skilled or less prepared (Curşeu, Jansen, &
Chappin 2013). Synergy also requires some, but
not too much, variation among the members in cog-
nitive competency and expertise. If all the members
are nearly equivalent in their level of competence,
their resources may be so redundant that little is
gained by pooling those resources. Increasing cogni-
tive distance therefore increases the group’s chances
to achieve strong synergy, except when the most
competent group member is too advanced. In such
cases, the group has little to offer the highly compe-
tent member, who in turn may have trouble con-
vincing the other group members to accept his or
her recommendations (Curşeu et al., 2014).
Groups can, however, improve their pursuit of
synergy by deliberately adopting specialized perfor-
mance methods that are designed to minimize all
process loss, while maximizing the possibility of
PE RFO RMA NCE 329
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

achieving process gain. The final section of this
chapter examines several of these methods, particu-
larly those that can be used by groups searching for
creative solutions to difficult problems.
10-4 G ROUP CREATIVITY
Sully and Skiles did not have much time to trou-
bleshoot the problem and discuss alternatives. Their
air traffic controller had proposed a few alternatives.
They tried to restart the engines, but as the plane
lost altitude, Sully turned to Skiles and asked, “Got
any ideas?” Their final solution, however, if not
creative was certainly unusual. Commercial jets
rarely land in the Hudson River.
10-4a Brainstorming
Had the crew of Flight 1549 more time they
may have used a group method known as brain-
storming to identify solutions to their problem.
This method was developed by Alex Osborn
(1957), an advertising executive, to help his collea-
gues identify novel, unusual, and imaginative solu-
tions. The technique requires an open discussion of
ideas and is guided by four basic rules:
■ Be expressive. Express any idea that comes to
mind, no matter how strange, wild, or fanciful.
Do not be constrained or timid; freewheel
whenever possible.
■ Postpone evaluation. Do not evaluate any of the
ideas in any way during the idea-generation
phase. All ideas are valuable.
■ Seek quantity. The more ideas, the better.
Quantity is desired, for it increases the possi-
bility of finding an excellent solution.
■ Piggyback ideas. Because all ideas belong to the
group, members should try to modify and
extend others’ ideas whenever possible. Brain-
storming is conducted in a group, so that par-
ticipants can draw from one another.
Does Brainstorming Work? When groups need
to think of new ideas, the call to “brainstorm” is often
raised, but their faith in this method may be mis-
placed. Researchers began testing this method by
comparing brainstorming groups to individuals and to
so-called nominal groups: groups created by having
individuals work alone and then pooling their ideas (a
group “in name” only). Their studies offered support
for brainstorming. A four-person brainstorming
group, for example, would not only outperform any
single individual but also a nominal group of four
individuals. However, these investigations stacked
the deck against the nominal groups; brainstorming
groups were told to follow the four basic brainstorm-
ing rules, whereas the individuals composing the
nominal group were not given any special rules con-
cerning creativity. When individuals working alone
were better informed about the purposes of the
study and the need for highly creative responses,
they often offered more solutions than individuals
working in groups. In one study, for example, four-
person groups came up with an average of 28 ideas in
their session, whereas four individuals working alone
suggested an average of 74.5 ideas when their ideas
were pooled. The quality of ideas was also lower in
groups—when the researchers rated each idea on cre-
ativity, they found that individuals had 79.2% of the
good ideas. Groups also performed more poorly even
when given more time to complete the task (Diehl &
Stroebe, 1987; see Paulus & Brown, 2007; Paulus &
Coskun, 2013 for reviews).
Production Blocking Brainstorming groups,
like many performing groups, must struggle to
brainstorming A method for enhancing creativity in
groups that calls for heightened expressiveness, post-
poned evaluation, quantity rather than quality, and delib-
erate attempts to build on earlier ideas.
nominal groups A collection of individuals that meets
only the most minimal of requirements to be considered
a group and so is a group in name only; in studies of
performance, a control or baseline group created by hav-
ing individuals work alone and then pooling their
products.
330 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

overcome process losses as they strive to generate
ideas. Even though members think they are
expending maximum effort, social loafing detracts
from their performance unless such safeguards as
high identifiability, clear goals, and involvement
prevent the undercutting of individual effort
(Wegge & Haslam, 2005). But brainstorming groups
also suffer coordination and cognitive losses. The ori-
ginators of brainstorming thought that hearing others’
ideas would stimulate the flow of ideas, but the
clamor of creative voices instead can cause produc-
tion blocking. In brainstorming groups, members
must wait their turn to get the floor and express
their ideas, and, during that wait, they forget their
ideas or decide not to express them. Hearing others
is also distracting and can interfere with one’s ability to
do the cognitive work needed to generate ideas. Even
when researchers tried to undo this blocking effect by
giving brainstormers notepads and organizing their
speaking turns, the groups still did not perform as
well as individuals who were generating ideas alone
(Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991; Nijstad & Stroebe,
2006).
Evaluation Apprehension Evaluation apprehen-
sion can also limit the effectiveness of brainstorming
groups, even though the “no evaluation” rule was
designed to free members from such concerns
(Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Groups become even
less effective when an authority watches them
work. Apparently, members worry that the author-
ity may view their ideas negatively (Mullen et al.,
1991). Individuals with high social anxiety are
particularly unproductive brainstormers and report
feeling more nervous, anxious, and worried
than group members who are less anxiety prone
(Camacho & Paulus, 1995).
Social Matching Social comparison processes
also conspire to create a social matching effect.
Although undercontributors are challenged to reach
the pace established by others, overcontributors
tend to reduce their contributions to match the
group’s mediocre standards. Since overcontribution
is more effortful than undercontribution, over time
the high performers tend to adjust their rate down-
ward to match the group’s lower norm (Brown &
Paulus, 1996; Seta, Seta, & Donaldson, 1991).
Illusion of Group Productivity Brainstorming
groups are also unproductive because they often
overestimate their productivity. In many cases, a
group has no standard to determine how well it is
performing, so individual members can only guess
at the quantity and quality of their group’s product
and their personal contributions to the endeavor.
These estimates, however, are often unrealistically
positive, resulting in a robust illusion of group
productivity (Stroebe, Diehl, & Abakoumkin,
1992). Members of groups working on collective
tasks generally think that their group is more pro-
ductive than most (Polzer, Kramer, & Neale, 1997).
Nor do group members feel that they are doing less
than their fair share. When members of a group
trying to generate solutions to a problem were
asked to estimate how many ideas they provided,
each group member claimed an average of 36% of
the ideas, when in reality they generated about 25%
of the ideas (Paulus et al., 1993).
Several processes appear to combine to sustain
this error in performance appraisal. Group members
may intuitively mistake others’ ideas for their own,
and so, when they think about their own perfor-
mance, they cognitively claim a few ideas that others
actually suggested (Stroebe et al., 1992). When they
brainstorm in groups, they can also compare them-
selves to others who generate relatively few ideas,
production blocking A loss of productivity that occurs
when group and procedural factors obstruct the group’s
progress toward its goals, particularly when individuals in
a brainstorming session are delayed in stating their ideas
until they can gain the floor and when group members
are distracted by others’ ideas and so generate fewer of
their own.
social matching effect The tendency for individuals in
brainstorming groups to match the level of productivity
displayed by others in the group.
illusion of group productivity The tendency for
members to believe that their group is performing
effectively.
PE RFO RMA NCE 331
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

reassuring them that they are one of the high per-
formers (Paulus et al., 1993). Group brainstorming
may also “feel” more successful since the communal
process means that participants rarely experience fail-
ure. When alone and trying to think creatively, peo-
ple repeatedly find that they are unable to come up
with a new idea. In groups, because others’ ideas are
being discussed, people are less likely to experience
this failure in their search for new ideas (Nijstad,
Stroebe, & Lodewijkx, 2006). Group members also
mistakenly adjust their definition of what counts as a
group success downward when they brainstorm in
groups. If they estimate that a single person can gen-
erate 10 good ideas, do they think a group of 5
people will come up with 50 good ideas? No.
They expect fewer contributions per member, and
their expectations decline still further the larger the
group (Jones & Lambertus, 2014).
10-4b Improving Brainstorming
Studies of brainstorming offer a clear recommenda-
tion: Do not use face-to-face deliberative groups to
generate ideas unless special precautions are taken
to minimize production blocking, evaluation
apprehension, social matching, and social loafing.
Groups can be creative, but Osborn’s original sug-
gestions should be augmented with additional
requirements (see Paulus & Brown, 2007; Paulus
et al., 2006), such as
■ Stick to the rules: Members should be trained to
follow brainstorming rules and be given feed-
back if they violate any of the basic principles.
Groups that have not practiced brainstorming
methods usually generate only mediocre ideas.
■ Pay attention to everyone’s ideas: The key to
brainstorming is exposure to other’s ideas, but
people tend to focus on their own suggestions
and pay little attention to other people’s sug-
gestions. Many techniques can be used to force
members’ attention onto others’ ideas, includ-
ing listing the ideas on a board or asking
members to repeat others’ ideas.
■ Mix individual and group approaches: Members
should be given the opportunity to record their
ideas individually during and after the session.
One technique, called brainwriting, involves
asking members to write down ideas on paper
and then pass the paper along to others who add
their ideas to the list. A postgroup session during
which members generate ideas by themselves
enhances idea generation (Dugosh et al., 2000).
■ Take breaks: Members should deliberately stop
talking periodically to think in silence
(Ruback, Dabbs, & Hopper, 1984).
■ Do not rush: Members should have plenty of
time to complete the task. Groups that work
under time pressure often produce more solu-
tions initially, but the quality of those solutions
is lower than if they had spent more time on
the task (Kelly, Futoran, & McGrath, 1990;
Kelly & Karau, 1993).
■ Persist: Members should stay focused on the
task and avoid telling stories, talking in pairs, or
monopolizing the session; they must continue
to persist at the task even through periods of
low productivity.
■ Facilitate the session: Members’ efforts should be
coordinated by a skilled discussion leader. A
skilled leader can motivate members by urging
them on (“We can do this!”), correcting mistakes
in the process (“Remember, the rules of brain-
storming forbid criticism.”), setting a clear stan-
dard (“Let’s reach 100 solutions!”), and stressing
the importance of individuality, uniqueness, and
novelty (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). A facilitator can
also record all of the ideas in full view of the
participants, as exposure to others’ ideas is critical
for successful brainstorming.
■ Use technology: Various computer-mediated
communication tools, including sophisticated
idea-generating software packages, minimize
various types of process loss, including pro-
duction blocking and social matching.
brainwriting Brainstorming sessions that involve gener-
ating new ideas in writing rather than orally, usually by
asking members to add their own ideas to a circulating
list.
332 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

10-4c Alternatives to Brainstorming
Most groups, when faced with the challenge of
generating creative solutions, uncreatively suggest
brainstorming. But given the difficulties in imple-
menting brainstorming techniques correctly,
groups should consider turning to other methods
in their quest for fresh ideas and new insights into
old problems (Sunwolf, 2002).
The Nominal Group Technique Several
creativity-building methods take advantage of the
“wisdom” of groups by integrating individual
idea-generating sessions with group-level methods.
The nominal group technique (NGT), for
example, minimizes blocking and loafing by reduc-
ing interdependence among members; it achieves
this improvement by starting with a nominal
Can Online Groups Brainstorm?
Computer technology offers yet another alternative to
face-to-face brainstorming. Electronic brainstorming
(EBS) allows members to communicate via the Internet
rather than meeting face-to-face. Using software
designed specifically for groups (called group decision
support systems or groupware), group members who
communicate via the Internet can share information
rapidly and more completely. One program, ThinkTank
(from Group Systems), opens up several windows on
each group member’s computer—one window is for
entering ideas, another displays all the ideas, and still
another shows a counter that tracks how many ideas
the group has generated (see thinktank.net).
EBS offers practical advantages over more tradi-
tional face-to-face sessions, such as reduced travel,
time, and cost. But EBS may also be more effective
than face-to-face brainstorming, since the format may
reduce factors that lead to creative mediocrity. Mem-
bers do not need to wait their turn, so EBS reduces
production blocking. Working online, participants may
also feel less evaluation apprehension and nervousness
about contributing, and they may be able to persist
longer at the task. EBS also enhances one of the key
features of brainstorming—idea building—for online
exposure to others’ ideas tends to stimulate the pro-
duction of additional novel ideas (Michinov, 2012).
Groups using EBS, although they are freed from
some of the constraints created by face-to-face meet-
ings, still display problems of social coordination and
motivation (see Dzindolet, Paulus, & Glazer, 2013, for a
review). Computer-mediated discussions can over-
whelm group members with a flood of information to
process. Social matching can also occur in groups if
members know how many ideas each group member
has contributed. EBS sessions are also not particularly
productive if the group members become so focused on
generating ideas that they ignore the ideas generated
by other members. When researchers arranged for
groups and individuals working online to generate
solutions to a problem, they discovered that EBS groups
reached high levels of creativity only when members
were told that their memory of the ideas expressed by
others would be tested later (Dugosh et al., 2000).
Individuals can also show marked declines in motivation
when they could not take personal credit for their con-
tributions to the pool of creative ideas (McLeod, 2011).
More research is needed to explore fully the gains
and losses associated with EBS methods, but preliminary
results are positive. In a meta-analysis, investigators
compared EBS to (a) traditional face-to-face groups, (b)
nominal groups, and (c) e-nominal groups, individuals
who generated ideas in isolation using a computer.
They discovered that EBS was clearly superior to tradi-
tional brainstorming groups, both in terms of produc-
tivity and also members’ satisfaction: They liked the EBS
approach better. EBS was generally equal to nominal
and e-nominal groups, unless the size of the group was
large (greater than eight); in this case, EBS was superior
even to nominal groups (DeRosa, Smith, & Hantula,
2007). Osborn, the inventor of brainstorming, surely
never could have imagined the possibility that people in
locations widely dispersed around the world could work
together creatively using an adaptation of his brain-
storming methods.
electronic brainstorming (EBS) Generating ideas and
solving problems using computer-based communication
methods such as online discussions rather than face-
to-face sessions.
nominal group technique (NGT) A group perfor-
mance method wherein a face-to-face group session is
prefaced by a nominal-group phase during which indivi-
duals work alone to generate ideas.
PE RFO RMA NCE 333
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

group phase before turning to a group session
(Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971).
■ Step 1. The group discussion leader introduces
the problem or issue in a short statement that is
written on a blackboard or flip chart. Once
members understand the statement, they
silently write ideas concerning the issue, usually
working for 10–15 minutes.
■ Step 2. The members share their ideas with one
another in a round-robin; each person states an
idea, which is given an identification letter and
written beneath the issue statement, and the
next individual then adds his or her
contribution.
■ Step 3. The group discusses each item, focusing
primarily on clarification.
■ Step 4. The members rank the five solutions
they most prefer, writing their choices on an
index card.
The leader then collects the cards, averages the
rankings to yield a group decision, and informs the
group of the outcome. The group may wish to
add two steps to further improve the procedure:
a short discussion of the vote (optional step 5) and
a revoting (optional step 6). These methods are
particularly useful when groups discuss issues that
tend to elicit highly emotional arguments. NGT
groups produce more ideas and also report feeling
more satisfied with the process than unstructured
groups. The ranking and voting procedures also
provide for an explicit mathematical solution that
fairly weights all members’ inputs and provides a
balance between task concerns and interpersonal
forces (Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971; Gustafson
et al., 1973).
The Delphi Technique The Delphi technique
eliminates the group-level discussion altogether.
This method, named for the legendary Delphic ora-
cle, involves surveying members repeatedly with
the results of each round of surveys informing the
framing of the questions for subsequent rounds.
The Delphi coordinator begins the process by
developing a short list of questions on the topic
and gathering the answers of a carefully selected
group of respondents. Their answers are then
pooled and communicated back to the entire
group; members are asked to restate their responses
to the original items, comment on others’
responses, or respond to new questions that
emerged in the first round of surveying. This pro-
cess is repeated until a solution is reached. The
method is particularly well-suited for problems
that cannot be solved by a systematic review of
the available data (Forsyth, 2010).
Buzz Groups, Bug Lists, and Beyond When
stumped for new ideas, members can break up
into buzz groups, which are small subgroups
that generate ideas that can later be discussed by
the entire group. Members can jot down a bug
list of small irritations pertaining to the problem
under discussion, and the group can then discuss
solutions for each bug. Groups can use the step-
ladder technique, which requires asking each new
member of the group to state his or her ideas
before listening to the group’s position
(Rogelberg & O’Connor, 1998). Groups can
even use elaborate systems of idea generation
with such exotic-sounding names as synectics
and TRIZ. In synectics, a trained leader guides
the group through a discussion of members’
goals, wishes, and frustrations using analogies,
metaphors, and fantasy (Bouchard, 1972). TRIZ
is used primarily in science and engineering and
involves following a specific sequence of problem
analysis, resource review, goal setting, and review
of prior approaches to the problem (Moehrle,
2005).
Delphi technique A group performance method that
involves repeated assessment of members’ opinions via
surveys and questionnaires as opposed to face-to-face
meetings.
334 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P TE R R E V I E W
When and why does working in the presence of other
people facilitate performance?
1. Triplett’s 1898 study of social facilitation indi-
cated people’s performance improves when
they work with others. Social facilitation
occurs for both coaction tasks and audience tasks.
2. Zajonc (1965) concluded social facilitation
usually occurs when a simple task requires
dominant responses, whereas social interference
or impairment occurs for complex tasks that
require nondominant responses. Studies con-
ducted in a variety of settings have confirmed
the effect, which also holds for many species—
including cockroaches.
3. Researchers have linked social facilitation to
the personal and interpersonal processes listed
in Table 10.2, including the following:
■ Drive theory (Zajonc, 1965) argues that the
mere presence of a member of the same
species (compresence) raises the perfor-
mer’s arousal level by touching off a basic
alertness response.
■ Blascovich’s studies of the challenge–threat
response and brain imaging work have
confirmed that people respond physiolog-
ically and neurologically to the presence of
others (Blascovich et al., 1999).
■ Cottrell ’s (1972) evaluation apprehension
theory proposes that the presence of others
increases arousal only when individuals feel
that they are being evaluated. Self-
presentation theory (Goffman, 1959) sug-
gests that this apprehension is greatest
when performance may threaten the group
member’s public image. Distraction–conflict
theory emphasizes the mediational role
played by distraction, attentional conflict,
and increased motivation. Harkins’ (2006)
mere-effort (Threat-Induced Potentiation
of Prepotent Reponses) model traces
facilitation effects back to changes in how
information is processed.
■ Social orientation theory suggests that indivi-
duals who display a positive interpersonal
orientation (extraverted and low anxiety)
are more likely to display social facilitation
effects.
4. Social facilitation effects are related to a num-
ber of interpersonal processes, including prej-
udice, eating, electronic performance monitoring,
and collaborative learning.
When do people give their all when working in a
group?
■ Groups become less productive as they increase
in size. This Ringelmann effect is caused by
coordination losses and by social loafing—the
reduction of individual effort when people
work in a group.
■ Latané, Williams, and Harkins (1979) identified
the relative contributions of coordination losses
and social loafing to the Ringelmann effect by
studying groups and pseudogroups producing
noise.
■ Factors that influence social loafing include the
following:
■ Identifiability: When people feel as though
their level of effort cannot be ascertained
because the task is a collective one, then
social loafing becomes likely. But when
people feel that they are being evaluated,
they tend to exert more effort, and their
productivity increases.
■ Free riding: Individuals expend less effort
if they believe others will compensate for
their lack of productivity and to avoid
being the “sucker” who works too hard
(the sucker effect).
■ Goals: Groups that set clear, challenging
goals outperform groups whose members
have no clear performance standards.
■ Involvement: Loafing is less likely when
people work at exciting, challenging, and
PE RFO RMA NCE 335
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

involving tasks. Members sometimes work
harder to compensate for the poor perfor-
mance of others (social compensation;
Williams & Karau, 1991).
■ Identity: Social identity theory suggests that
when individuals derive their identity from
their membership in a group, social loafing
is replaced by social laboring as members
expend extra effort for their groups.
■ Karau and Williams’s (1993) collective effort model
(CEM) draws on expectancy-value theories of
motivation to provide a comprehensive theo-
retical framework for understanding social
loafing.
When do groups outperform individuals?
1. Steiner (1972), in his analysis of group pro-
ductivity, suggests that few groups reach their
potential, because negative group processes
(process loss) place limits on their performance.
He believed that actual productivity =
potential productivity minus process loss, or
AP = PP − PL.
2. Steiner’s typology of group tasks argued that
potential productivity and level of process loss
depend, to a significant extent, on the task the
group is attempting. Task demands are defined
by divisibility (divisible tasks versus unitary tasks),
the type of output desired (maximizing tasks
versus optimizing tasks), and the social
combination rule used to combine individual
members’ inputs.
■ Groups outperform individuals on additive
tasks and compensatory tasks. Galton con-
firmed the wisdom-of-the-crowd: inde-
pendent individuals’ judgments, when
averaged, tend to be accurate. Other work
indicates that a crowd must be sufficiently
large, and the problem not too difficult, for
a crowd to be wise.
■ Groups perform well on disjunctive tasks if
the group includes at least one individual
who knows the correct solution. The
truth-wins rule usually holds for groups
working on Eureka problems, whereas the
truth-supported-wins rule holds for groups
working on non-Eureka problems.
■ Groups are more effective decision makers
than individuals, particularly when dealing
with problems that have a known solution
(intellective tasks) rather than problems that
have no clear right or wrong answer
(judgmental tasks; Laughlin, 1980).
■ Reviews of plane crashes suggest that
crews sometimes fail to communicate
information clearly, resulting in pilot error.
■ Groups perform poorly on conjunctive tasks,
unless the task can be subdivided with
subtasks matched to members’ abilities.
Kerr and his colleagues’ (2007) studies of
the Köhler effect finds the poorest perform-
ing members increase their productivity
due to competitive strivings and the rec-
ognition that their poor performance is
holding the group back from success.
■ The effectiveness of groups working on
discretionary tasks covaries with the method
chosen to combine individuals’ inputs.
3. Groups perform better than the average
group member on many kinds of tasks (see
Table 10.4), but only when process losses
are minimized.
■ Synergy results in the group achieving
collectively results that could not be
achieved by any member working alone.
■ As Larson (2010) notes, weak synergy
occurs when the group’s performance is
superior to that of the typical member.
Strong synergy occurs when the group
outperforms its best member. Strong syn-
ergy, or the assembly bonus effect, rarely
occurs in groups.
What steps can be taken to encourage creativity in
groups?
1. Brainstorming groups strive to find creative
solutions to problems by following four basic
336 C H A P T ER 10
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

rules that encourage the flow of ideas among
members: “Be expressive,” “Postpone evalua-
tion,” “Seek quantity,” and “Piggyback ideas.”
2. Brainstorming groups rarely generate as many
ideas as individuals in nominal groups. Their less-
than-expected performance has been linked to
social loafing, production blocking, social match-
ing, and the illusion of productivity.
3. Other methods, including brainwriting, synectics,
the nominal group technique (NGT), the Delphi
technique, and electronic brainstorming (EBS), offer
advantages over traditional brainstorming.
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: Miracle on the Hudson
■ Highest Duty by Chesley “Sully” Sullen-
berger (with Jeffrey Zaslow, 2009), the
autobiographical account of the crash of
Flight 1549, provides critical details about
the processes that occurred on the flight
deck before and after the bird collision.
■ Miracle on the Hudson by the Survivors
(with William Prochnau and Laura Parker,
2010) provides details about what occurred
in the passenger area of Flight 1549, drawn
from the passengers’ personal statements
about the experience.
Group Productivity
■ “Performance” by Bernard A. Nijstad
(2013) is an excellent overview of group
performance and productivity, but those
seeking even more information about
working groups may wish to consider
Nijstad’s (2009) book, Group Performance.
■ In Search of Synergy in Small Group Perfor-
mance by James R. Larson, Jr. (2010)
examines synergy in groups generating
ideas, solving problems, rendering deci-
sions, and making judgments.
Social Facilitation and Loafing
■ “Social Facilitation: Using the Molecular
to Inform the Molar” by Allison E.
Seitchik, Adam J. Brown, and Stephen G.
Harkins (2016) examines empirical find-
ings pertaining to improved performance
in the presence of others, including studies
examining the threat-induced potentiation
of prepotent responses model of social
facilitation.
■ “Understanding Individual Motivation in
Groups: The Collective Effort Model” by
Steven J. Karau and Kipling D. Williams
(2001) is an updated review of work
examining the factors that contribute to
motivation loss in groups. This chapter is
one of many excellent papers in Groups at
Work, edited by Marlene E. Turner (2001).
Group Creativity
■ “Getting the Most Out of Brainstorming
Groups” by Paul B. Paulus, Jubilee
Dickson, Runa Korde, Ravit Cohen-
Meitar, and Abraham Carmeli (2016)
organizes much of the research on brain-
storming and offers recommendations for
eliminating impediments to creativity in
groups.
■ Group Genius: The Creative Power of Col-
laboration by Keith Sawyer (2007) provides
dozens of inspiring examples of groups that
reached the heights of creativity through
collaboration.
PE RFO RMA NCE 337
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 11
Teams
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
When the work to be done is difficult, complicated,
and important—such as building a bridge, flying a
spacecraft to Mars, or performing cardiac surgery—
people turn to teams. A teams’ potential depends
on the people who the team joins together, but
also the dynamic processes that transform those
individuals into a task-performing system. Teams
create reliable relations among their members,
who find that by working collectively they can
reach goals that would elude them if they worked
alone.
■ What are teams and what are their various
forms?
■ How does the team’s composition influence its
effectiveness?
■ What processes mediate the input–output
relationship?
■ How effective are teams, and how can they be
improved?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
11-1 Working Together in Teams
11-1a What Is a Team?
11-1b When to Work in Teams
11-1c Varieties of Teams
11-1d A Systems Model of Teams
11-2 Input: Building the Team
11-2a The Team Player
11-2b Knowledge, Skill, and Ability (KSA)
11-2c Diversity
11-2d Men, Women, and Teams
11-3 Process: Working in Teams
11-3a Interlocking Interdependence
11-3b Coordinated Interaction
11-3c Compelling Purpose
11-3d Adaptive Structure
11-3e Cohesive Alliance
11-4 Output: Team Performance
11-4a Evaluating Teams
11-4b Suggestions for Using Teams
Chapter Review
Resources
338
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The Mountain Medical surgical team is not the first
team we have encountered in our analysis of groups
and their dynamics. Peak Search and Rescue, the
U.S. Olympic hockey team, the Old Christian
rugby team stranded in the Andes, and the crew
of Flight 1549 were all teams. These groups created
reliable social alliances among the members, and
these interpersonal bonds patterned their commu-
nications, their influence, and their interdependen-
cies. These groups became more and more unified
over time, as they embedded themselves in mem-
bers’ daily lives and in their identities. These teams
included leaders and followers, interpersonal stars
and isolates, and hard workers and loafers, and
they excelled at the many and varied tasks they
attempted.
Those who understand groups are well on their
way to understanding teams, but not all groups are
teams. Teams require more from the members in
the way of collaboration and coordination. Teams
are often spawned when one or more individuals
confront an obstacle, a problem, or a task they wish
to overcome, solve, or complete, but they recog-
nize that the solution is beyond the reach of a single
person. Such situations require that members com-
bine their personal energies and resources in such a
way that the group, and not just the individuals in
the group, reaches its goals. This chapter examines
these unique aspects of teams—their nature, design,
processes, and effectiveness.
1 1 – 1 WO R K I N G T O G E T H E R
I N T E AM S
In the past, most teams were either pulling plows
or playing games. Groups assembled for work that
Groups that Work: The Mountain Medical Cardiac Surgery Team
The cardiac surgery team was ready to undertake the
most technically challenging of all surgeries: repair of
the heart. Only last week they had been using the
traditional, open-heart procedure that requires split-
ting the patient’s chest at the breastbone, stopping
the heart and transferring its duties to a heart–lung
bypass machine, clamping off arteries and valves, iso-
lating and repairing the damaged portions of the
heart, and then closing the eight-inch long wound in
the chest. But they would not be using those methods
today. Instead, the team would be carrying out a min-
imally invasive surgical procedure. The surgeon would
make a small incision between the patient’s ribs and
snake high-tech instruments to the heart, guided by
feedback from a network of technicians, computers,
cameras, and ultrasound scanners.
These new procedures would make entirely new
demands of the surgical team. Traditional surgical
teammates work closely with one another, but they
are not continually interdependent. The anesthesiolo-
gist sedates the patient and monitors his or her
breathing. The perfusionist is the technician who
operates the heart–lung machine. The surgeon makes
the incision, splits the chest, repairs the heart, and
then closes the incision. The scrub nurse or technician
prepares the sterile field, suctions blood from the site,
and passes instruments to the surgeon as needed.
The new procedure is not so modularized. The surgeon
can no longer see the heart, but must rely on the
computer-enhanced images provided by the perfu-
sionist and the anesthesiologist. Because the surgeon
cannot apply clamps directly to the heart to stop the
flow of blood, that work is done by the anesthesiolo-
gist who threads a catheter into the aorta through the
femoral vein. The scrub nurse monitors and maintains
pressures and vital signs and attaches, when needed,
forceps, scissors, scalpels, and other surgical tools to
the surgeon’s operating mechanicals.
The new procedures require an unprecedented
degree of teamwork, but the Mountain Medical team
was ready for the challenge. They had practiced for
months to learn the new method, and their diligence
showed in their level of coordination and communica-
tion in the operating room. The operation took some-
what longer than they had expected it would, but
there were no surprises: Their first patient recovered
fully but also more quickly because of their use of the
minimally invasive, and team-intensive, technique
(Healey, Undre, & Vincent, 2006; Pisano, Bohmer, &
Edmondson, 2001).
TE AM S 339
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

required many hands and much muscle, but less
physically demanding labor was given over to
skilled craftsmen and artisans. Over time, however,
the complexity of the tasks that humans undertook
grew, and so did their need to work in teams in
order to achieve their ends. A very talented person
could potentially perform coronary surgery, design
a new telecommunication device, create an online
database of all knowledge, or pilot a spacecraft to
the moon, but such tasks are now done by people
working in teams.
11-1a What Is a Team?
Nowadays the word team is used to describe a wide
assortment of groups. In business settings, work units
are sometimes referred to as production teams or
management teams. At a university, professors and
students form research teams to conduct research
cooperatively. In the military, small squads of soldiers
train as special operations teams. In schools, teaching
teams may be responsible for the education of hun-
dreds of students. In online multiplayer games, people
join carefully composed teams to attempt challenges
that require the skills of many types of characters. Can
all these groups be considered teams?
Despite this diversity in terms of focus, composi-
tion, and design, teams are fundamentally groups—
two or more individuals who are connected by and
within social relationships—with the qualities one can
expect in any group: boundaries, interaction among
members, interdependence, structure, goals, cohesion,
and so on (see Chapter 1). But the word team is
usually reserved for a particular type of group—one
whose members are working together in the pursuit
of a shared goal. While no one definition of team will
satisfy everyone who studies them, most would agree
with team expert Richard Hackman (2002) when he
explained the members of teams “work together to
produce something—a product, a service, or decision
for which members are collectively accountable and
whose acceptability is potentially assessable” (p. 42).
Teams usually have other important characteris-
tics, particularly if they are effective teams. For example,
the members often have “complementary skills”
(Katzenbach & Smith, 2003, p. 45), “different roles
and responsibilities” (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006, p.
79), and the “authority to manage their own work
and internal processes” (Thompson, 2014, p. 4).
Many teams, too, have clear boundaries, time pres-
sures, and standards for performance. They are usually
part of a larger social organization. Just as groups vary
in their degree of “groupness,” some teams—those
with higher levels of interdependence and integration
of members’ efforts—seem more team-like than
others. But the sine qua non of a team is task-
oriented interdependence. This specialized form of
interdependence even has a name: teamwork. Not
all teamwork is good teamwork, for it can range along
a continuum from skilled and effective to ungainly
and ineffectual, but at minimum teamwork requires
two or more individuals trying to get something done
by working together instead of separately.
11-1b When to Work in Teams
Not all tasks require the skills, attentions, and
resources of a group of people working in close col-
laboration. Teams, with their greater resources, goal-
focus, and vast potential are becoming the default
choice in a variety of performance settings, but
some caution is needed before rushing to form a
team to solve a problem. Studies of group perfor-
mance and decision making (see Chapters 10 and
12, respectively) suggest that groups are not all gain
without loss. As tasks become more challenging,
complex, and consequential, the more likely a
well-organized team will succeed where an individ-
ual may fail (Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008).
Level of Difficulty In some circumstances, peo-
ple are faced with tasks that are well beyond the
team A group that pursues performance goals through
interdependent interaction.
teamwork The process by which members of the team
combine their knowledge, skills, abilities, and other
resources, through a coordinated series of actions, to pro-
duce an outcome.
340 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

skills and resources of a single individual. No one
person, no matter how talented, can compile a dic-
tionary of all the words in the English language,
construct a nuclear power plant, or overthrow a
political dictator. Other tasks are difficult ones
because they require enormous amounts of time,
effort, or strength. One talented individual could
build a car or dig a 100-yard-long trench, but a
crew of workers will accomplish these tasks far
more quickly and with better results. Projects that
take months or years to complete are best attempted
by multiple individuals, so that the work continues
even when specific individuals leave the group.
Complexity and Interdependence A single per-
son cannot perform Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony or
compete against the New York Yankees. Individuals
may be able to carry out specific assignments with
great skill, but tasks that require the “integrated
action of group members” (Shaw, 1981, p. 364) cre-
ate dependencies among the members. Individuals
who agree with such statements as “I have a one-
person job; I rarely have to check or work with
others” have little need to work in groups on tasks,
whereas those who depend on their colleagues to
complete their work are more likely to tout the
benefits of working collectively rather than individ-
ually (Haines & Taggar, 2006). In general, as inter-
dependency increases, group members feel more
responsible for successfully completing their work
(Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001).
Importance Changing a flat tire or reformatting a
document pale in importance when compared to
rescuing the wildlife harmed by an oil spill or land-
ing a jet airliner whose engines have failed. Impor-
tant tasks are those that have significant effects on
many, rather than a few people, and these effects
When Were Teams Invented?
Teams may be de rigueur in most organizations today,
but for centuries humans did not work in teams—the
word was reserved for harnessed animals. The first
documented use of the word team to describe groups
of humans working collectively did not occur until the
1600s, when Ben Jonson wrote in Bartholomew Fayre,
“Twere like falling into a whole Shire of butter: they
had need be a teeme of Dutchmen, should draw him
out” (OED Online, 1989). The word team apparently
derives from the old English and Norse word “for a
bridle and thence to a set of draught animals har-
nessed together” (Annett & Stanton, 2001, p. 1045).
It was not until the second half of the twentieth
century that teams began their ascension to promi-
nence (Sundstrom et al., 2000). In the early 1960s,
concerns about the inflexible, autocratic nature of
most large organizations prompted a search for alter-
natives (Likert, 1967; McGregor, 1960). Heeding the
call for worker autonomy and participation in decision
making, a number of companies began experimenting
with employees working in small groups. General
Motors, for example, used teams rather than an
assembly line in one of its truck factories; General
Foods set up autonomous work teams at its Topeka,
Kansas plant; the Banner Company, a large
manufacturer, set up work groups with varying levels
of authority and organizational overlap; and Volvo
and Saab both began using teams in their production
plants.
From these initial beginnings, organizations
began relying on teams for production, management,
distribution, and general decision making. Half of the
workers in the United States now belong to at least
one team at work. Teams are used by a majority of all
larger organizations in the United States, and in
countries like Sweden and Japan, the use of teams
approaches 100% (Devine et al., 1999). Nonprofit
organizations, such as health care organizations and
public service corporations, are particularly heavy
adopters of team approaches to work (81%), followed
by blue-collar industries such as construction,
manufacturing, and retail sales (50%) and white-collar
industries such as banking, real estate, and insurance
(34%). In many organizations, employees serve not on
one team, but on many; recent estimates suggest
between 65% and 95% of knowledge workers are
members of more than one team (Maynard et al.,
2012). The modern organization is no longer a net-
work of individuals, but rather a network of intercon-
nected teams (DeChurch & Mathieu, 2009).
TE AM S 341
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

are long-lasting rather than temporary. Important
tasks are also those that concern health, safety, and
survival, as well as those that have significant finan-
cial consequences. When circumstances are dire and
the consequences of a mistake would be cata-
strophic, the wisdom of a team is preferred to inter-
vention of the lone expert (Cannon-Bowers &
Bowers, 2011). Groups may also help individuals
deal with the stress of decision making and the con-
sequences of their actions should they fail. Even
individuals who question the wisdom of a group’s
judgment may turn to groups in an effort to shield
themselves from liability should the outcome be a
negative one.
The Romance of Teams Teams, with their
greater resources, goal-focus, and promise of
increased productivity, are becoming the default
choice in a variety of performance settings, but
some caution is needed before rushing to form a
team. Teams are sometimes used because they are
popular, rather than effective or appropriate. Just
as the “romance of leadership” describes people’s
tendency to put too much faith in their leaders as
saviors who will rescue them when they face dif-
ficult circumstances, the romance of teams is a
“faith in the effectiveness of team-based work that
is not supported by, or is even inconsistent with,
relevant empirical evidence” (Allen & Hecht,
2004, p. 440). As the industrial/organizational psy-
chologist Edwin Locke and his colleagues (2001,
p. 501) put it: “the emphasis on groups and teams
has gone far beyond any rational assessment of
their practical usefulness. We are in the age of
groupomania.”
A team approach may be the best choice in a
given situation, but teams perform remarkably
badly when given a task to do that is so simple,
routine, or individualistic that collaboration is
both unnecessary and irritating. Teams should also
be avoided when constraints in the situation are
such that the basic requirements for a highly effec-
tive team (e.g., high rates of interaction, interde-
pendence, and consensual goals) cannot be met.
11-1c Varieties of Teams
Teams, like groups in general, vary considerably in
form and function. Some teams require members to
be experts and specialists, but others require less
differentiation in terms of members’ skills and expe-
rience levels. Some teams meet in face-to-face con-
texts, whereas others rely on communication
technologies to conduct their work. Some teams
work for brief periods of time, before disbanding
when the project is complete, but others continue
their work for many years. Some distinctions,
though, can be made between teams based on
the type of task their members are attempting
(see Figure 11.1). For some teams, their work
involves solving problems, planning, and making
decisions. Other teams, in contrast, are more
action-oriented, for they make products and per-
form services. (For alternative approaches to classi-
fying teams see Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Devine,
2002; Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012;
Wildman et al., 2012.)
Work Teams When people think about teams,
work teams are probably the groups that first come
to mind; these are the millions of groups that pro-
vide or produce specialized, and often highly
desired, goods and services through their members’
coordinated actions. Mining crews, workers glazing
the windows of a skyscraper, and the rock band at a
concert are all work teams who, through coordi-
nated actions, create a product. Other work teams,
such as the Mountain Medical surgical team and
Peak Search and Rescue team, provide services to
others.
Management Teams Many groups carry out
both operational and strategic functions within an
organization. These management teams identify and
solve problems, make decisions about day-to-day
operations and production, and set the goals for
romance of teams The intuitive appeal of teams as
effective means of improving performance in business
and organizational settings, despite the lack of definitive
evidence supporting their utility.
342 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the organization’s future. They coordinate the
actions of others and deal with unexpected issues
and difficulties. These groups usually have the
authority to make decisions that influence other
individuals and groups in the organization.
Project Teams When groups and organizations
encounter problems, issues, or challenges that are
out of the ordinary in some way, they often
respond by forming a project team. These teams,
because they are given a specific task to accom-
plish, are usually time limited. They do not, in
most cases, move on to the next assignment once
they reach their goal—instead, they disband. For
example, commissions make judgments on specific
issues, in situations that require both objectivity
and sensitivity to the needs of many parties. Design
teams grapple with ill-defined problems—ones
that require creativity and innovation rather than
those that are routine and have a demonstrably
correct solution. An expeditionary team will only
exist for the duration of the exploration that it is
undertaking.
Advisory Teams Such groups as review panels,
steering committees, investigatory teams, and some
judiciary boards are advisory teams, for they study issues
and make recommendations to other individuals
and groups in the organization. These teams often
produce a set of conclusions or an official report that
analyzes a specific, and sometimes contentious, issue,
and then offer recommendations regarding how
things should be done differently. These teams are
sometimes called parallel teams because they work in
parallel with existing groups and organizational struc-
tures (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
Self-Managing Teams Most groups require the
services of a leader, and teams are no different. But
whereas some work best by recognizing one per-
son within the group as the leader, others adopt a
distributed leadership structure whereby members
share the responsibilities among themselves on a
rotating basis. Some teams, too, work under the
guidance of an external leader, who may or may
not monitor the team’s procedures closely, regu-
late its activities, and determine its overall purposes
(Stewart, 2006).
Hackman (2002) developed his authority matrix
model to account for these variations in team auton-
omy. This model, summarized in Table 11.1,
describes (in the left column) four critically impor-
tant team and executive responsibilities: execution
of the task itself, managing the work process,
designing the team within the organizational con-
text, and determining the team’s overall mission
Teams
Work teams
Production teams,
construction
crews,
performing
ensembles, sports
teams, etc.
Boards of
directors, top
management
teams (TMTs),
executive teams,
etc.
Commissions,
research and
development
teams, task
forces, etc.
Panels, steering
committees,
review boards,
mentoring
groups, etc.
Management
teams
Project teams Advisory teams
F I G U R E 11.1 Four types of teams, classified on the basis of the types of tasks members perform. A team from
any one of these categories may be very different from a team in the same category, so generalizations about all
teams in any given category are often inaccurate. Many teams also perform many tasks, and so these types are not
necessarily mutually exclusive categories.
TE AM S 343
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

and objectives. The model also identifies, along the
top row of the chart, four types of teams that differ
in their degree of responsibility and autonomy. In a
manager-led team, members provide a service or
generate a product, but that is their sole respon-
sibility: An external leader or manager monitors
the work, designs the team, and sets the team’s
direction. Members of self-managing teams have
more autonomy, for they are charged with both
executing the task and managing the team’s
work. These teams can gauge the quality of
their work product, but only an authority exter-
nal to the team can adjust its procedures and
structures. Self-designing teams enjoy more discre-
tion in terms of control over their team’s struc-
ture, for they have the authority to change the
team itself. The team’s leader sets the direction,
but the members have full responsibility for doing
what needs to be done to get the work accom-
plished. Finally, members of self-governing teams have
responsibility for all four of the major functions listed
in Table 11.1. They decide what is to be done,
structure the team and its context, manage their
own performance, and actually carry out the work.
The Mountain Medical cardiac surgery team was a
self-governing team. The surgeon who founded the
team was the one who lobbied the hospital to try the
new procedure, and he worked closely with the staff
to design the team.
Cross-Functional Teams Many organizations
create connections among different units, groups,
and teams within their organizations by forming
cross-functional teams. These teams bring
together representatives with different backgrounds
and responsibilities to reduce the insularity of each
segment of the organization and increase the pool
of available information needed to make an
informed decision. The representatives to such
groups function as boundary spanners by build-
ing relationships that stretch beyond their own sub-
groups and divisions.
Cross-functional teams are not the most stable,
equable, or effective of groups, however. They
provide organizations with the means to break
down communication barriers between isolated
units and increase collaboration, but in many cases
the members of these teams do not have sufficient
authority to make decisions for their units. Also,
when these teams must identify ways to solve pro-
blems, identify ways to reduce costs, or suggest new
initiatives, the members’ commitment to the groups
they represent prevents them from cooperating
fully with their other team members. Since their
loyalties lie with the group they represent and not
with the team, cross-functional teams are too often
unable to reach their goals. As one participant in
T A B L E 11.1 The Authority Matrix: Four Levels of Team Self-Management
Responsibilities
Type of Team
Manager-led Self-managing Self-designing Self-governing
Executes tasks P P P P
Monitors and manages work processes P P P
Designs the team and its context P P
Sets overall direction P
SOURCE: Adapted from “The Psychology of Self-Management in Organizations” by Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations.
In M. S. Pallak & R. O. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment (pp. 89–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
cross-functional teams Project groups composed of
people with differing types of functional expertise,
often drawn from various levels, divisions, or segments
of an organization.
boundary spanners A group role that involves estab-
lishing relationships with individuals, groups, or organi-
zations beyond one’s group.
344 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

such a team explained, “Very few of these meetings
actually lead to creative problem solving…The
result is that the group doesn’t take collective
responsibility, and that can be very demotivating”
(Denison, Hart, & Kahn, 1996, p. 1012).
Multiteam Systems Given the prevalence of
teams in organizational settings, many teams interact
regularly with other teams. When these teams coop-
erate with one another in the pursuit of common
goals, then these teams become “teams of teams,”
or multiteam systems (MTSs). Some tasks are
not just too demanding for individuals, but too
demanding for a single team—and so require the
coordinated engagement of multiple teams to
complete them. The cardiac surgical team, for exam-
ple, did not work alone in providing care for patients
at Mountain Medical. Dozens of teams staffed the
hospital—nursing teams, the recovery room teams,
the emergency room crews, the patient management
teams, and so on. These teams pursued their own
team’s goals, but also goals that were common across
all the hospital’s teams (Marks et al., 2005).
As might be expected, the dynamics of MTSs
are even more complicated than the dynamics of any
one team. The teams in some MTSs, with sufficient
experience, learn to work well together—they coor-
dinate their efforts, communicate necessary informa-
tion across the team boundaries, and respond
appropriately to the organizational interventions of
team leaders. However, features and processes that
promote effectiveness for isolated teams, such as
high levels of cohesion, trust, and goal striving,
may be dysfunctional when teams must reach across
What Is Holacracy?
MTSs—multiteam systems—are not some new thing, for
rare is the organization that does not rely on the coor-
dinated actions of interdependent teams, particularly in
production and the delivery of services. Recently, how-
ever, a number of companies have begun to use teams
to reorganize their work more fully, shifting from tra-
ditional hierarchically organized layers of authority with
free-standing divisions, departments, and branches to
systems of interconnected groups and subgroups. Their
teams go by various names, such as “circles,” “cabals,”
“pods,” or just “teams,” but they share one basic qual-
ity: they are teams of collaborating teams working
together to achieve shared goals (Bernstein et al., 2016).
Zappos, for example, is a billion-dollar online shoe
and apparel retailer that is experimenting with a multi-
team organizational system called holacracy (Robertson,
2015). Zappos shifted from a traditional, hierarchical
structure with a relatively small number of departments
responsible for such tasks as customer service, product
development, merchandizing, and finance to approxi-
mately 500 self-managed and interdependent teams. In
holacracy, these teams are called circles, and each one is
defined not by the individuals who belong to that circle,
but by the roles within that circle. Each role has a spe-
cific set of “accountabilities”: activities and responsibili-
ties that the person who occupies that role continually
adjusts over time. Each circle includes one role that is
responsible for monitoring the connections among the
roles—the “lead link”—but the individual who takes on
that role has no more authority than any others in the
circle. Most people at Zappos occupy multiple roles in
the organization and belong to many circles, which
overlap and are nested: circles contain subcircles, and
supercircles contain any number of smaller circles. Hola-
cracy also sets guidelines for regulating the system,
including governance standards, prescriptions for tacti-
cal meetings, specifications for defining a role’s respon-
sibilities, and an organizational constitution.
This emphasis on interlocking, multiteam systems
balances two desirable organizational necessities that
too often compete with each other: the need for reli-
able execution of responsibilities and the need to
adapt to changing circumstances. Too much order and
standardization means that organizations can’t
respond quickly to new opportunities or deal with
unexpected problems, but too little structure can
result in very little work getting done. These new
organizational strategies, by fully utilizing teams at all
levels of the organization, promise to undo that ten-
sion between standardization and flexibility. Time will
tell if this innovative, team-centered approach to
organizational design can deliver on this promise.
multiteam systems Networks of interrelated teams
united by common purposes.
TE AM S 345
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

their team’s boundaries to work with the members
of other teams. Groups that have developed high
levels of coordinated interdependence when mem-
bers work together may find that they must change
their structures and procedures to align their actions
with the members of other groups. Social identity
processes, which work to increase members’ com-
mitment to their own teams, may also prompt
them to view the members of other teams negatively
(Shuffler, Jiménez-Rodríguez, & Kramer, 2015).
11-1d A Systems Model of Teams
When Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the originator of open
systems theory, defined a system to be a “complex of
mutually interacting components,” he could have just
as well have been describing a team. Teams emerge
from and then sustain patterns of coordinated interde-
pendencies among individual members. Teams,
because of their emphasis on the achievement of
desired goals, are more likely than most groups to
plan a strategy to enact over a given time period,
seek feedback about the effectiveness of the plan and
implementation, and make adjustments to procedures
and operations on the basis of that analysis. Teams strive
for regularity and order, but they also adapt spontane-
ously to deal with new circumstances or internal
changes. Their internal relations are always drifting
toward entropy—disorganization—but they counter
this tendency through monitoring outcomes and effi-
ciencies (Arrow et al., 2000; Kozlowski et al., 1999).
The Input–Process–Output Model Rather than
assuming that variables in the system are linked to
one another in simple, one-to-one relationships, sys-
tems theory recognizes factors that set the stage for
teamwork (inputs), that facilitate or inhibit the
nature of the teamwork (processes), and a variety
of consequences that result from the team’s activities
(outputs). This assumption is the basis of the well-
known input–process–output (IPO) model first intro-
duced in Chapter 2 and shown in Figure 11.2.
■ Inputs include any antecedent factors that may
influence, directly or indirectly, the team
members and the team itself. These antecedents
include individual-level factors (e.g., who is on
the team, and what are their strengths and
weaknesses), team-level factors (e.g., how large
is the team, and what resources does it control),
and contextual- and environmental-level fac-
tors (e.g., what is the culture of the larger
organization, and how does this team work
with other units within the organization).
Sustaining
interdependence
Performance outcomes
(performance quality,
speed to solution, number
of errors, etc.)
Team-level outcomes
(improved procedures
and processes, increased
cohesion, etc.)
Member-level outcomes
(satisfaction, personal
development, etc.)
Coordinating
interaction
Goal setting and
monitoring
Developing and
maintaining adaptive
structures
Maintaining cohesion
and resolving conflict
Processes OutputsInputs
Individual-level factors
(personality, knowledge)
skill, abilities, etc.)
Team-level factors
(diversity, structure,
cohesiveness, group size,
etc.)
Contextual and
environmental factors
(organizational culture,
type of task, time)
pressure, etc.)
F I G U R E 11.2 A multilevel input–process–output (IPO) model of team performance that assumes interpersonal
team processes mediate the relationship between input factors and outputs.
346 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Processes are operations and activities that
mediate the relationship between the input
factors and the team’s outcomes. These pro-
cesses sustain the members’ interdependence,
insuring that members’ actions are coordinated
and focused on the group’s goals. Teams tend
to be well-structured groups, and so members’
interactions are often guided by role require-
ments, normative standards, and networks of
relationships that standardize interactions and
productivity. Many team processes also pertain
to interpersonal aspects of the team’s system,
such as dealing with conflict and increasing the
team’s level of cohesion.
■ Outputs are the consequences of the team’s
activities. The team’s emphasis on outcome
means that the tangible results of the team effort
draw the most attention—did the team win or
lose, is the team’s product high in quality or
inadequate, did the team successfully complete
the operation, or did it kill the patient—but
other outcomes are also important, including
changes in the team’s cohesiveness or modifica-
tion of the team’s structure and processes that
improve its overall efficiency.
Beyond the IPO Model The IPO model, despite
years of steady service to researchers studying teams, is
not without its limitations. First, the model, with its
categorization of factors as inputs, processes, or out-
puts, understates the complex interdependencies
among the variables that influence team performance.
Second, some of the so-called “processes” within the
process category are not actually processes at all, but
rather characteristics of the team that emerge over
time as members interact with one another. These
emergent states certainly influence the team’s out-
comes, but it would be more accurate to call
them mediators of the relationship between inputs
and outputs rather than processes. Third, given that
the IPO model is a systems theory, it is essential to
always consider feedback processes that occur over
time. The model is often interpreted as a sequential
one, with inputs leading to processes/mediators and
these leading to outcomes; but the reverse causal
sequences are also a part of the complete model. In
consequence, some suggest that the IPO model should
be reconfigured into an input–mediator–output–input
(I-M-O-I) model to indicate the diversity of elements
in the process stage and the fact that the outputs feed-
back to become inputs (Ilgen et al., 2005; Marks,
Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001).
These limitations notwithstanding, the IPO
model provides a heuristic framework for this chap-
ter’s examination of teams. The next section con-
siders inputs, with a focus on who is recruited to the
team and how their personal qualities shape the
team’s interactions. The chapter then turns to issues
of process before considering ways to evaluate the
effectiveness of teams.
11- 2 INPU T: B U IL DIN G
TH E T EAM
In 1996, hospitals around the United States began
considering adopting noninvasive surgical methods
for cardiac surgeries. Technological developments
ensured that the procedure was a safe one, but
each hospital needed to determine how to change
from the traditional method to the newer proce-
dure (Pisano et al., 2001).
Nearly all hospitals settled on a team approach:
They would create teams of physicians, nurses, and
technicians who would study the method and imple-
ment it locally once they had mastered its demands.
One hospital, given here the fictitious name of
Chelsea Hospital, put the chief of cardiac surgery in
charge of building the team. He was an extremely
skilled surgeon, but he did not view the new surgery
as much of a challenge. He was also very busy and did
not get involved in selecting the members of his team.
The composition of the Chelsea team was determined
by seniority and who was available to attend the
three-day offsite training session.
Mountain Medical did things a little differently
from Chelsea. A young surgeon, who was new to
the hospital, volunteered to get the team started.
He talked with the staff in all the departments,
and he picked people for the team “based on
their experience working together” rather than
their seniority (Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano,
TE AM S 347
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

2001, p. 128). He was part of the team during the
training sessions and held meetings with physicians
in other departments to share information about the
procedure and to identify the best patients for refer-
rals. The members of the team met regularly, prior
to the procedure, to walk through the basic steps
and to share information about what each of them
would be doing and how their actions fit with what
the other members of the team were doing.
When organizational behavior researchers Gary
Pisano, Richard Bohmer, and Amy Edmondson
(2001) studied 16 hospitals that used the new
method, they discovered that things worked out
differently for Chelsea Hospital and Mountain
Medical. The Chelsea team did not lose patients,
but the operations took longer than they should
have, even after they gained experience with the
procedure. Mountain Medical, in contrast, per-
formed the first few operations slowly, but then
became one of the fastest and most effective surgical
teams in the group of 16 studied—despite being led
by one of the least experienced surgeons.
11-2a The Team Player
Mountain Medical, like most teams, owes much of
its success to its composition: the individuals who
were selected to make up the team. All teams are
composites formed by the joining together of multi-
ple, relatively independent individuals. Each member
of the group brings to the team a set of unique per-
sonal experiences, interests, skills, abilities, and moti-
vations, that merge together with the personal
qualities of all the other individual members to
form the team as a whole (Mathieu et al., 2014).
Personality Traits Mountain Medical deliberately
sought out “team players” for their surgical team.
Such people are often identified on the basis of their
personalities, for some people, by temperament, make
better teammates than others. For example, the per-
sonality traits identified in the five-factor model of
personality—extraversion, agreeableness, conscien-
tiousness, emotional stability (or low neuroticism),
and openness—all reliably predict how people
respond in group settings. Teams, as task-focused
groups, seek and reward the efforts of those who are
conscientious; people who are dependable, dispatch
their duties, are achievement oriented, and confident
are very much appreciated when work demands are
unpredictable and success depends on each person
completing his or her portion of the group’s task.
Extraversion, too, is consistent with a number of
desirable qualities in a teammate (dominance, affilia-
tion, social perceptiveness, and expressivity), as is
agreeableness. Even emotional stability and openness
are likely associated with success working with others,
since they are indicators of adjustment, confidence
(self-esteem), and flexibility. These general tendencies
are, however, partly moderated by the nature of the
team and the type of work it does. In a work or
project team, for example, conscientiousness may be
critically important, particularly if the group is self-
managing. In action teams that require higher levels
of cohesion, in contrast, agreeableness and emotional
stability may be more critical (Driskell et al., 2006;
Judge & LePine, 2007).
These team members’ personality traits not
only influence the effectiveness of individual mem-
bers but also the overall performance of teams
themselves. Meta-analytic reviews of the relation-
ship between personality and team performance
report that groups with members who were, on
average, more agreeable and conscientious outper-
formed teams whose members were less agreeable
and conscientious—but only for teams working in
professional contexts rather than educational or lab-
oratory settings (Bell, 2007; Peeters et al., 2006; see
Figure 11.3).
Team Composition Each member brings to the
team a set of unique personal experiences, interests,
skills, abilities, and motivations, and those personal
qualities will influence how they act as team mem-
bers. But a group-level analysis considers teams to be
composites formed when the personal qualities of all
the individual members merge to form the team as a
whole. Certain combinations of people, given their
personal motivations, are more effective than others
(Mathieu et al., 2014). Teams composed of all highly
dominant individuals are less stable and less produc-
tive than groups that include a mix of people who
348 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

are dominant and less dominant (Groysberg, Polzer,
& Elfenbein, 2011). An individual who is conscien-
tious may fit in well with a team when other mem-
bers are highly motivated to perform well, but that
individual may not fit the requirements of other, less
task-focused teams (Bell et al., 2015).
In one illustrative study, researchers examined the
complex interplay of personality, group composition,
and performance by taking into account the demands
of the tasks the teams were performing and the per-
sonality traits of each member. As noted in
Chapter 10, some tasks require more in the way of
coordination than others. Additive tasks, for example,
only require summing together each team member’s
work to yield a total, group product. Conjunctive
tasks, in contrast, require each member contribute to
the group’s product, so the group’s performance is
determined by the group’s least productive member.
When researchers tracked group performance, they
discovered increases in team-level extraversion went
hand in hand with increases in performance on the
additive task, but not the conjunctive task.
ρ = .21 ρ = .15 ρ = .20 ρ = .31 ρ = .30
Trait – Team Effectiveness Relationships
Emotional
stability
Extraversion Openness
Agreeable-
ness
Conscien-
tiousness
Dominance
Affiliation
Social
perceptiveness
Expressivity
FlexibilityAdjustment
Self-esteem
Trust
Cooperation
Dependability
Dutifulness
Achievement
Efficacy
F I G U R E 11.3 Hierarchical model of personality characteristics and facets related to teamwork.
SOURCE: Adapted from “What Makes A Good Team Player? Personality and Team Effectiveness” by Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E.., & O’Shea, P. G.
In Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2006, 10, 249–271.
What’s Your Type: A or B?
Studies of personality and health have identified two
basic orientations to work: time pressure and produc-
tivity. Some of us are very busy people; these Type A
personalities tend to be temperamental, competitive,
and time-oriented, but they are also high in their
achievement orientation. Type B individuals, in contrast,
are more relaxed and slow going. To determine what
would happen when these two types mixed in teams,
researchers experimentally manipulated team member-
ships to create all Type A teams, all Type B teams, and
some teams with a mixture of both types. After they
worked together for a time, the members of these
teams were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction
with their team and its members. In general, people
were more satisfied when their teammates were similar
in terms of personality. Teams composed of all Type As
or all Type Bs were rated as more satisfying by their
members than were teams when Type As and Bs were
mixed together. Teams of only Type As did, however,
get a lot more done (Keinan & Koren, 2002).
TE AM S 349
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Performance on the conjunctive task, in contrast was
better explained by emotional stability: groups with
members who were more emotionally stable did
well at conjunctive tasks, but not additive ones (Kra-
mer, Bhave, & Johnson, 2014).
Team Orientation Even though some people
value working in an organized, task-focused group,
others are quick to announce “I don’t like working
in teams” at any opportunity. Individuals who have
negative beliefs about groups, for example, generally
perform more poorly when they are forced to work
in them (Karau & Elsaid, 2009). Individualists, in
contrast to collectivists, tend to respond less posi-
tively when part of a team (see Chapter 3). Teams
with many such individuals in their ranks perform
more poorly, as a group, than teams composed of
fewer anti-team types (Bell, 2007).
This negativity toward teams is sustained, in
part, by two interrelated components: a preference
for working alone rather than with others and an
unwillingness to accept input from other people.
Those who expressed the most negative attitudes
toward working in groups agreed strongly with
such statements as “I would rather take action on
my own than to wait around for others’ input” and
“I prefer to complete a task from beginning to end
with no assistance from others.” But they also
tended to exhibit a low opinion of other people
as a source of useful information. They agreed
with such statements as “When I have a different
opinion than another group member, I usually try
to stick with my own opinion” and “When others
disagree, it is important to hold one’s own ground
and not give in.” Individuals with these beliefs
tended to perform poorly on a series of team-
based tasks, particularly those that called for high
levels of interdependence among the team mem-
bers (Driskell, Salas, & Hughes, 2010).
11-2b Knowledge, Skill, and
Ability (KSA)
Some teams fail because they simply do not include
people with the qualities and characteristics needed
for success at the task. A team struggling to generate
solutions to math puzzles may not have any math-
ematicians at the table. A soccer team made up of
slow-moving defensive fullbacks but no offensive
goal scorers will likely lose. A team’s performance
depends, in part, on its members’ knowledge, skills,
and abilities (KSAs). Those KSAs are generally of
two types: task-relevant proficiencies and interper-
sonal skills.
Task-Specific Proficiencies A team of mediocre
individuals can, with enough practice, good leader-
ship, and determination, reach lofty goals, but teams
cannot work miracles; mediocre members make for
mediocre teams (Ellis et al., 2003). Careful design
and leadership cannot take a group beyond the lim-
its set by the skills and capabilities of the individual
members.
Studies of sport teams indicate that “the best
individuals make the best team” (Gill, 1984,
p. 325). In many sports, the players’ offensive and
defensive performances can be tracked so that their
skill levels can be identified accurately. These qual-
ities can then be used to calculate the statistical
aggregation of the talent level of the team, which
can be compared to the team’s outcomes. Such
analyses indicate that the correlation between the
aggregation of individual members’ ability and
team performance is very strong: .91 in football,
.94 in baseball, and .60 in basketball (Jones, 1974;
Widmeyer, 1990). The relationship is somewhat
reduced in basketball because this sport requires
more coordination among members and the teams
are smaller in size. Hence, the team members’ abil-
ity to play together may have a larger impact on the
outcome of a basketball game, whereas the sheer
level of ability of players has a greater impact on a
football or baseball game’s outcome.
The close connection between members’ pro-
ficiency and performance is not limited only to
sports teams. Teams that succeed in creating new
KSAs Acronym for knowledge, skills, abilities, and other
characteristics that are needed to complete a job or task
successfully.
350 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

products and solutions to long-standing problems
are generally staffed by individuals of high intelli-
gence, motivation, and energy. For example, inves-
tigators who studied high-performance teams in
such organizations as Disney Studios, Lockheed,
and the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) traced
much of the success of these teams back to their
composition. Many of the members of these groups
were individually highly motivated: “fueled by an
invigorating, completely unrealistic view of what
they can accomplish” (Bennis & Biederman, 1997,
p. 15). But their most essential characteristics were
their talent and expertise.
A team of experts does not always make an
expert team, however (Almandoz & Tilcsik, 2016).
In one study, researchers had four people work on a
task that simulated the work of teams in the intelli-
gence services, detecting possible terrorists from
email messages, images taken from surveillance cam-
eras, archives and databases, and so on. Each member
of the group reviewed substantial quantities of infor-
mation individually before meeting collectively to
make a team decision. The researchers screened
members of the groups, identifying individuals with
the particular qualities that would enhance their per-
formance in this kind of situation (good verbal mem-
ories and facial recognition). A group with experts in
these two areas should have helped their teams per-
form more effectively—and they did, but only if the
teams had spent time organizing their team’s proce-
dures. Groups with two experts in them performed
particularly poorly—even worse than groups with
no experts—if the teams immediately began their
work without discussing how they would collabo-
rate to make a decision (Woolley et al., 2008).
Collective Intelligence Most high-performance
teams specialize: they are more effective when
working at one type of task rather than another.
The Mountain Medical team, for example, was
skilled in the operating room, but their proficiency
at this task does not guarantee success when they
attempt some other type of task. Similarly, groups
in military contexts may be skilled when dealing
with hostile forces and protecting the group mem-
bers from harm, but this same group may prove
inadequate when asked to act as a peacekeeping
police force. The group may be quite capable
when dealing with situations rife with conflict—
contests, battles, and competition—but not when
the situation requires cooperation and creative
problem-solving (Weiss, 2011).
But some groups may be jacks-of-all-trades—
skilled at many types of tasks. One team of researchers
examined groups’ generalized proficiency—which
they called collective intelligence, or c-factor—by
assembling groups of two to five members and having
them work for up to five hours on tasks from all the
quadrants of the McGrath (1984) task model examined
in Chapter 1. The groups spent time brainstorming
possible uses for a brick, solving problems taken from
intelligence tests, discussing an issue that required moral
sensitivity, planning a shopping trip, typing a shared
Google document, playing a game of checkers against
a computerized opponent, generating as many words
as possible that started with “s” and ended in “n”, and
so on. The researchers then added together the scores
on all these different tests to generate each group’s
“collective intelligence” (only the morality test was
unrelated to all the other tasks). Like individuals,
some groups had higher levels of “intelligence” than
others, for they were able to master most of the diverse
problems they faced. Groups with more women per-
formed better than those with few or none, as did
groups with higher average scores on social sensitivity.
The best performing groups were also those where
members contributed to the tasks more equally (Wool-
ley, Aggarwal, & Malone, 2015; Woolley et al., 2010).
More recent work, however, affirms only the strength
of the relationship between the intelligence of each
member and team’s collective intelligence: teams that
have lots of smart members tend to be smarter at the
collective level (Bates & Gupta, 2017).
Interpersonal Skills On the social side, teams
function best when the members have sufficient
social skills to get along well with other people.
Social skills are those basic cognitive and behavioral
competencies that allow people to interact with
other people in an effective, respectful, and support-
ive way. They include skill in understanding other
people, communicating with them effectively, and
TE AM S 351
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

responding appropriately during social exchanges.
Basic social skills include conversational skill, emo-
tional sensitivity, maintaining self-control, making
appropriate self-disclosures, giving praise and
encouragement as needed, and expressing agreement
(Riggio & Kwong, 2009).
In addition to these basic skills—ones that help
people work with others in a range of situations—
team members must also understand the unique inter-
personal dynamics of teams themselves—they require
team knowledge (Stevens & Campion, 1994). Although
different teams require different skills of their members,
many performance settings reward individuals who are
skilled in conflict resolution, can collaborate with
others to solve problems, and are good communica-
tors. Conflict resolution KSAs, for example, include
the ability to distinguish between harmful and con-
structive conflicts and an emphasis on integrative dis-
pute resolution skills rather than a confrontational
orientation. Collaborative problem-solving KSAs
involve skill in using group approaches to decision
making. Communication KSAs require a range of
finely tuned listening and messaging skills, including
the capacity to engage in small talk: “to engage in ritual
greetings and small talk, and a recognition of their
importance” (Stevens & Campion, 1994, p. 505).
How, for example, would you respond if you
found yourself in the following situation: You and
your coworkers do not agree about “who should
do a very disagreeable, but routine task” (Stevens &
Campion, 1999, p. 225)? Should you:
A. have your supervisor decide, because this
would avoid any personal bias?
B. arrange a rotating schedule so everyone shares
the chore?
C. let the workers who show up earliest choose
on a first-come, first-served basis?
D. randomly assign a person to do the task and not
change it?
Or what if you wanted to improve the quality
and flow of conversations among the members of
the teams. Should you:
A. use comments that build upon and connect to
what others have already said?
B. set up a specific order for everyone to speak
and then follow it?
C. let team members with more to say determine
the direction and topic of conversation?
D. do all of the above?
According to the Teamwork-KSA Test (Stevens
& Campion, 1999), the best choice, in the situation
in which you were arguing with others about who
must do the unpleasant chore, is option B. In con-
trast, the best choice in terms of KSAs for interper-
sonal skill for the second question is option A. An
individual who scores well on the Teamwork-KSA
Test is more likely to cooperate “with others in the
team,” “help other team members accomplish their
work,” and talk “to other team members before
taking actions that might affect them” (Morgeson,
Reider, & Campion, 2005, p. 611).
11-2c Diversity
The Mountain Medical team was, in some ways, a
relatively homogeneous team. Members were simi-
lar in terms of ethnicity, skill level, age, motivation,
background, and experience with the new proce-
dure. They were, however, heterogeneous with
regard to sex, status in the hospital, and training.
Would their similarities and dissimilarities influence
their team’s processes and performance?
The diversity of a team is determined by the
extent to which members are different from one
another. A sample of the many ways that people
do, in fact, differ from each other is shown in
Table 11.2 that identifies six general clusters of dif-
ferences: social categories, knowledge and skills,
values and beliefs, personality, status, and social con-
nections (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Some of these
differences pertain to demographic qualities of peo-
ple, such as race and sex. Others refer to acquired,
functional differences between the members, such as
variations in experience, knowledge, and skills.
Diversity and Team Performance From a
strictly informational perspective, diverse teams
should win out against less diverse ones. Diversity
brings variety to the team and with that variety
352 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

should come a broader range of expertise, knowl-
edge, insight, and ideas. If a team is composed of
highly similar individuals, they bring the same
information and insights to the team so that they
are less able to identify new strategies and solutions.
A diverse team, in contrast, should maximize per-
formance, particularly in situations where success is
not determined by the capacity to apply traditional
solutions. For example, the team of researchers who
conducted the studies of Mountain Medical was a
diverse group, at least in terms of sex and disciplin-
ary training. One had a background in organiza-
tional behavior and engineering. Another was an
economist and the third a physician. When the
researchers first started their investigation, each
one expected his or her discipline’s theories and
models would explain why some of the cardiac
units were more successful in learning the new pro-
cedures than others. But their final conclusions
were based on the combined insights drawn from
the intertwining of all three disciplinary outlooks
(Edmondson, 2011).
But diversity has a possible downside. Diversity
can also separate members of the team from one
another. As social categorization theory suggests
(Chapter 3), individuals are quick to categorize
other people based on their membership in social
groups. Although the members of a team should
think of each other as “we” or “us,” when mem-
bers belong to a variety of social categories, some
members of the team may be viewed as “they” and
“them.” Diversity may therefore create faultlines
within the team, and when the team experiences
tension, it may break apart along these divisions
(Lau & Murnighan, 1998). As Chapter 5 noted,
because people are attracted to those who are simi-
lar to them, homogeneous teams tend to be cohe-
sive teams and so members may be more willing to
perform the supportive, cooperative actions that are
so essential for team success (for reviews, see Jack-
son & Joshi, 2011; Meyer, 2017; Van Knippenberg
& Schippers, 2007).
Studies of Team Diversity Diversity is a mixed
blessing for teams, contributing to gains in perfor-
mance but at the same time adding the potential for
process loss. Diversity, when based on information
and expertise, tends to improve team outcomes,
particularly on difficult tasks. When members vary
in ability, then by definition the team will include
at least one individual with high ability. Some
homogeneous teams will be uniformly unskilled,
so these teams will perform particularly badly at
their task. As studies of social compensation dis-
cussed in Chapter 10 suggest, heterogeneous
teams may also become more productive because
the low-performing members are motivated by
the high standards set by the others in the team,
and the others in the team may also be a source
of help and assistance as the low performers work
to increase their performance.
T A B L E 11.2 Categories and Types of
Diversity
Categories Types of Diversity
Social-category
differences
Race, ethnicity, gender, age,
religion, sexual orientation, and
physical abilities
Differences in
knowledge or
skills
Education, functional knowl-
edge, information, expertise,
training, experience, and abilities
Differences in
values or beliefs
Cultural background, ideological
beliefs, and political orientation
Personality
differences
Cognitive style, affective
disposition, and motivational
factors
Organizational or
community-status
differences
Tenure or length of service,
and title
Differences in
social and
network ties
Work-related ties, friendship
ties, community ties, and
ingroup membership
SOURCE: Mannix, E. and Neale, M. A. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 6, 31–55, copyright © 2005 Association for Psychological Science.
Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications.
faultlines Hypothetical divisions that separate the mem-
bers of a heterogeneous group into smaller, more homo-
geneous subgroups.
TE AM S 353
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

But other types of diversity, such as variations
in ethnicity, race, age, and sex, influence perfor-
mance less reliably. Teams of researchers are more
productive when they join with researchers from
other scientific fields, but not always: in some
cases interdisciplinary research teams never agree
on the goals they are seeking or the means they
will take to reach those goals. Diverse top manage-
ment teams navigate challenges more successfully
than teams that are very homogenous, but these
teams also tend to experience heighten levels of
conflict and turnover. Studies of various types of
teams making decisions and solving problems,
such as project teams, policy advisors, and even stu-
dents working to solve problems in research labs,
are more innovative when they include members
with different backgrounds and orientations—but
not when working on very challenging problems.
When researchers weighed the relative costs and
gains of team diversity in a meta-analytic review
of 108 studies of over 10,000 teams, they discov-
ered that process gains associated with diverse
groups were offset, to a degree, by process
loss (Stahl et al., 2010). Conflict was greater in
diverse groups, and social integration was reduced.
However, diverse groups were more creative than
less diverse ones, and—somewhat unexpectedly—
people enjoyed membership more in diverse groups
compared to less diverse ones.
Designing for Diversity These conflicting find-
ings attest to the mixed benefits and limitations
offered by diversity in teams. Diverse teams may
be better at coping with changing work conditions
because their wider range of talents and traits
enhances their flexibility. Diverse teams, however,
may lack cohesion because members may perceive
one another as dissimilar. Heterogeneity may
increase conflict within the team (Mannix &
Neale, 2005; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007;
Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).
Steps can, however, be taken to minimize the
negative side effects of diversity and maximize diver-
sity’s gains. First, diverse teams will need time to work
through the initial period in which differences between
people based on their surface-level qualities—race, sex,
and age—lower the team’s overall level of cohesive-
ness. Intervention may also be required when, after
time, members have discovered that these surface-
level differences are unimportant, but that their deep-
level differences in values and principles are causing
unexpected turbulence in the team (Harrison et al.,
2002). Second, because teams exist in an organizational
context, the nature of that organization’s culture will
influence how teammates respond to diversity. If the
organization’s culture encourages collectivistic values
and minimizes distinctions based on tenure and status,
then diverse teammates tend to behave more cooper-
atively than they would in more traditional organiza-
tions (Chatman & Spataro, 2005). Third, to minimize
conflict between team members from different social
categories, steps should be taken to minimize any ten-
dency to draw distinctions between people based on
their category memberships (Cunningham, 2005;
Homan et al., 2010). Team leaders should remind
members of the importance of involving all members
of the team in the process and make certain that indi-
viduals in the minority do not become isolated from
the rest of the team (see Chapter 7‘s analysis of minor-
ity influence).
11-2d Men, Women, and Teams
Same-sex teams are becoming increasingly anachro-
nistic. Whereas women were once barred from
many types of teams in business and organizational
settings, changes in the social climate—and in
employment law—have increased sex-based diver-
sity in the workforce.
The Myth of Male Bonding These changes are
not welcomed as progress in all quarters of society
or recognized as adaptive by all theories of collec-
tive action. Some evolutionary anthropologists, for
example, argue that the presence of women in pre-
viously all-male teams may disrupt the functioning
of such teams in substantial ways. This perspective
suggests that it was males, and not females, who
affiliated in same-sex groups for adaptive reasons,
so that over time male bonding became a stronger
psychological force than female bonding. In conse-
quence, heterogeneously gendered teams may be
354 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

less productive than same-sex teams, since all-male
teams would be more cohesive than mixed-sex
teams. Bonding theorists also suggest “the difficulty
females experience in male work groups is not that
males dislike females but rather that the force of
their enthusiasm for females can disrupt the work
and endanger the integrity of groups of men”
(Tiger & Fox, 1998, p. 145).
The data do not support either the idea that
males bond more cohesively in all-male groups
than females bond in all-female groups or that, in
consequence, male teams outperform female teams.
Social psychologist Wendy Wood (1987), after
reviewing 52 studies of sex differences in group
performance, identified two factors that influence
the effectiveness of all-male and all-female
teams—task content and interaction style. First, in
the studies that favored men, the content of the task
was more consistent with the typical skills, interests,
and abilities of men than of women. Groups of men
were better at tasks that required math or physical
strength, whereas women excelled on verbal tasks.
Second, Wood suggested that sex differences in
performance are influenced by the different inter-
action styles that men and women often adopt in
groups. Men more frequently enact a task-oriented
interaction style, whereas women tend to enact an
interpersonal-oriented interaction style. Thus, men
outperform women (to a small extent) when suc-
cess is predicated on a high rate of task activity, and
women outperform men when success depends on
a high level of social activity (Mendelberg & Kar-
powitz, 2016).
Heterogeneously Gendered Teams But what of
mixed-gender teams—teams that include both men
and women? Studies of men and women working
together in teams suggest that such teams, because
How Productive Are Online “Crowds”?
At this moment, teams are working on thousands of
tasks, but these teammates will never meet each other:
They are scattered around the world, linked by an
online network of distributed production called
crowdsourcing. This term combines both the idea of a
crowd—a large and often dispersed group of people—
with the idea of outsourcing—assigning a task to
individuals outside of the group or organization.
Crowdsourcing, as used by businesses, harnesses the
great diversity of Internet users around the world to
review, evaluate, create, develop, and even market
new products, procedures, and applications. Wikipedia,
for example, is a crowdsourced resource, for this online
encyclopedia is edited by volunteers who continually
upgrade and monitor the entries. The open source
software program Linux also makes use of crowdsour-
cing, as programmers work on its code and applications
voluntarily and without direct compensation. Uniting
all these forms of crowdsourcing is the reliance on a
great variety of people—diverse in terms of expertise,
training, and skill—to perform group-level tasks.
Crowdsourced products, even though they are
generated by large numbers of relatively anonymous
and independent individuals, often rival the work of
dedicated (and often highly paid) experts and profes-
sionals. One team of researchers, seeking to classify a
large set of documents for a research project, turned
to the workers of the Mechanical Turk for assistance.
This service links requesters—those who are seeking
people to perform human intelligence tasks (HITs)—
with people who are interested in performing these
tasks (turkers) in an online network. Turkers are paid
for their time, if the work is adequate, although the
amount paid is usually quite small—in this study, for
example, two cents per HIT. The investigators provided
the turkers with a statement of the criteria for rating
the documents and a document to review and rate on
a scale from 0 (not relevant) to 3 (excellent). When the
ratings were returned from the hundreds of turkers
who did the work, the researchers just averaged the
ratings and compared these ratings to those provided
by experts. In all but four cases, the experts and turkers
agreed, but when the researchers reviewed those four,
they concluded that the turkers were right on three
of them (Alonso & Mizzaro, 2009). The crowd was
wiser than experts.
crowdsourcing Obtaining information, estimates, ideas,
and services from a large number of individuals, often
using Internet-based technologies.
TE AM S 355
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of their diversity, have greater information
resources than same-sex teams and so excel at
tasks that require a broad range of expertise, expe-
rience, and information. However, sexism, sexual
harassment, and stereotyping continue to dog such
teams (Bell et al., 2015). As with other forms of
diversity, sex-based diversity can create subgroups
within the team and increase levels of conflict.
Diverse teams must also deal with problems of pro-
portion, particularly when very few men are enter-
ing into groups that were traditionally staffed by
women and vice versa. Teams that achieve diversity
by adding only one or two members of a social
category, such as a team with one woman and
many men, tend to encounter more problems
than homogeneous teams. When work groups
include a single token or “solo” woman, for exam-
ple, coworkers are more likely to categorize each
other in terms of their sex. Solo members are also
scrutinized more than other group members, and
this unwanted attention may be emotionally
depleting and may contribute to stereotype threat
(Johnson & Richeson, 2009). Token members are
more often targets of sexism and prejudice and
must, in many cases, work harder and express
higher levels of commitment to the group to over-
come other members’ biases (see Chapter 8).
In some cases, teams with token members will
outperform homogeneous teams, even when the
teams attempt tasks that are traditionally reserved for
homogeneous teams. For example, one team of
researchers watched groups working on a wilderness
survival exercise—an activity that favors people who
have knowledge of the outdoors. Groups of men
generally outperformed women, but groups of men
that included one woman performed best of all. The
researchers speculated that the addition of a woman to
the otherwise all-male groups may have tempered the
men’s tendency to compete with one another and,
thus, helped them to function as a team (Rogelberg
& Rumery, 1996). Other research, however, confirms
one of the speculations offered by the proponents of
male-bonding theory: Men exhibit impaired cogni-
tive functioning when working in the presence of
the opposite sex—women do not (Karremans et al.,
2009). In fact, only men show declines in cognitive
ability (they make more errors when taking the
Stroop test) when they are led to believe that they
are being observed by a member of the opposite sex
(Nauts et al., 2012).
Hackman and his colleagues have explored the
complex relationships of gender diversity, the pro-
portion of men and women, and the organizational
context in their studies of a particular type of team:
the concert orchestra (Allmendinger, Hackman, &
Lehman, 1996; Hackman, 2003). As noted in
Chapter 2, these orchestras were in the midst of a
transition from all-male groups to groups that
included both men and women. Some orchestras
were only beginning this transition, for they
included very few women (2% was the lowest),
whereas others were more heterogeneous (up to
59% women). When they measured members’
work motivation and overall satisfaction with their
orchestras, they discovered that orchestras with a
larger proportion of female members were viewed
more negatively. This tendency was more pro-
nounced among the men in the group and also in
countries with traditional conceptions of the role of
men and women in society. Hackman wrote:
Life in a homogeneously male orchestra surely is
not much affected by the presence of one or
two women, especially if they play a gendered
instrument such as a harp. Larger numbers of
women, however, can become a worrisome
presence on high-status turf that previously had
been an exclusively male province, engendering
intergroup conflicts that stress all players and
disrupt the social dynamics of the orchestra.
(2003, p. 908)
11- 3 PR O C ESS: W O R KIN G
IN TEAMS
The members of the Mountain Medical surgical
group had the experience, skills, ability, and drive
needed to function as a highly effective team, but
they needed to combine these raw materials expe-
ditiously to maximize their team’s performance.
356 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

A group of people who join together to get some-
thing done may qualify as a team, but will they be
an effective team? Although researchers have identi-
fied dozens of processes that work to transform
team inputs into performance outputs, here we
consider five that are noted with regularity across
most models of highly effective teams: reliable
interdependence, coordinated thought and action,
a compelling purpose, adaptive structures, and
cohesion (Hackman & Katz, 2010; Kozlowski &
Ilgen, 2006; Marks et al., 2001; Salas et al., 2015).
11-3a Interlocking Interdependence
Chelsea Hospital and Mountain Medical both faced
the same problem, and they both decided to solve
the problem by forming a team. But they designed
their teams differently. Both teams included a scrub
nurse, a perfusionist, an anesthesiologist, and a car-
diac surgeon, and each trained carefully that they
were skilled at the tasks they needed to perform.
But the leaders of the two teams had different
views about how they should work together. Chel-
sea’s head surgeon believed that the team’s mem-
bers should focus on their own subtasks: as he
explained, “Once I get the team set up, I never
look up [from the operating field].” The young
surgeon who headed the team at Mountain Medi-
cal, in contrast, stressed the team members’ connec-
tions to one another: “you really do have to change
what you’re doing [during an operation] based on a
suggestion from someone else on the team. This is a
complete restructuring of the [operating room] and
how it works” (Edmondson et al., 2001, p. 128).
He asked that during the operation everyone com-
municate with everyone else and not focus on only
their own duties.
All group members are interdependent to a
degree, but members of teams are so tightly cou-
pled that no member can determine his or her own
outcome. As Figure 1.3 in Chapter 1 suggested,
groups create many types of interdependencies
among members. For example, a team on an assem-
bly line may pass work from one person to the next
in a fixed order, so the level of interdependence is
equal and sequential. In other teams, however, all
members interact jointly to complete their tasks, so
they are fully rather than partially interdependent,
with members reliably and substantially influencing
one another’s outcomes over a long period of time
and in predictable ways (Saavedra, Earley, & van
Dyne, 1993). In a traditional operating room, for
example, surgeons have been known to control the
entire operation, so the outcome was largely deter-
mined by the surgeon’s skills rather than the effec-
tiveness of the “support staff.” In the Mountain
Medical team, in contrast, the contributions of
each member of the team were vital to the success-
ful outcome. The interdependencies in a team tend
to be equal and reciprocal rather than asymmetric
and unequal (see Figure 1.3).
Shared Mental Models Physicians, before under-
taking an operation, have a clear understanding of
the complexities of what they are about to do. Each
one has a mental model that serves as a cognitive
representation of all they know about the case,
the procedure, and the challenges. But when phy-
sicians are no longer working alone, but as part of a
team with others, their mental model must be
shared with those others. Because of differences in
prior experiences, knowledge, expectations, and so
on, each team member may have a differing view of
the case, the procedures, and even their specific
duties as a part of the team. Some of these differ-
ences may lead to misunderstandings and inefficien-
cies as the team does its work, so the emergence of
social sharedness (Tindale, Talbot, & Martinez,
2013), a shared mental model (Cannon-Bowers
& Salas, 2001), or a collective problem orientation
(Bonner, Soderberg, & Romney, 2016)—will facil-
itate the group’s functioning.
Some semblance of this shared mental model is
present nearly from the team’s inception, but as the
team practices, differences among the members in
terms of their understanding of their situation and
shared mental model Knowledge, expectations, con-
ceptualizations, and other cognitive representations that
members of a group have in common pertaining to the
group and its members, tasks, procedures, and resources.
TE AM S 357
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

their team diminish (Tindale, Stawiski, & Jacobs,
2008). In one study of this process, members of
groups completed two geography quizzes about
U.S. cities, with such questions as “What city is
known as the Crescent City?” and “Through what
city does the Trinity River run?” Unbeknown to the
group, one of their members was a confederate who
had been prepped with the answers, and he
answered seven of the eight questions correctly on
the first test. The group used some of his answers
(60.3%) on the first test, but when they were given
feedback and a chance to do a second quiz, they used
his answers almost exclusively (84.7%). They had
learned to rely on his expertise (Littlepage, Robison,
& Reddington, 1997; see, too, Littlepage et al.,
2008; Littlepage & Silbiger, 1992).
Transactive Memory Teams also need time to
develop transactive memory systems (Wegner,
1987). In the complex world of the operating
room during heart surgery, there is too much infor-
mation about the equipment, the proper settings, the
instruments, the heart–lung machine, and so on, for
a single individual to retain it all with any degree of
accuracy. The surgical team therefore distributes the
information to specific members of the team,
depending on their role and responsibilities. Then,
when the information is required, the team consults
with the member known to be the “expert” on that
particular matter who then supplies the necessary
information to the best of his or her ability (see,
too, Chapter 12‘s discussion of collective memory).
Social psychologist Richard Moreland and his
colleagues (Moreland, Argote, & Krishnan, 1996)
examined the development of transactive memory
systems by training volunteers to build radios from
hobby kits. Each kit included a circuit board and
dozens of components that had to be put in the
correct locations and connected before the radio
would function. All the participants received the
same training in the first session, but some of
them worked alone practicing building the radio
whereas others practiced in three-person teams.
One week later, the participants returned and
assembled a radio, this time with an offer of a
cash prize if they performed well. All the subjects
worked in teams, but only some of them were
assigned to the same team they had worked with
originally. These individuals outperformed the sub-
jects who were trained individually, apparently
because they were able to form a collaborative, trans-
active memory for the procedures in the first session.
Moreland and his colleagues discovered that teams
that performed the best showed signs of (a) memory
differentiation—some of the team members were
better at remembering certain parts of the assembly
procedures than others; (b) task coordination—the
team-trained teams worked with less confusion;
and (c) task credibility—the teams with stronger
transactive memories trusted one another’s claims
about the assembly process.
11-3b Coordinated Interaction
Before Mountain Medical carried out its first sur-
gery the members of the team had already worked,
for weeks, as a team. They met regularly to discuss
the procedure, and all had trained together for three
days offsite in a simulated operation procedure.
They had discussed the sequence of steps that
would begin with an anesthetized patient and end
with a repaired heart, so that when it was time to
work together, they functioned as a team.
Teams do things as single, coordinated units.
The members of all groups engage in a mixture of
task and relational interactions, but in teams the
interaction rate is higher and the flow more contin-
uous. In addition, teams are work-focused groups,
so a greater proportion of their interactions pertains
to group tasks: monitoring of progress, improving
coordination, structuring the work process, assisting
one another, strategizing, and so on (Aubé & Rous-
seau, 2005). Members of teams are attentive to each
other’s interpersonal needs—they continuously
maintain, build, and even question the quality of
their social connections—but they spend the bulk
of their time on their work. When researchers used
transactive memory systems Information to be
remembered is distributed to various members of the
group who can then be relied upon to provide that
information when it is needed.
358 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the Bales (1999) Interaction Process Analysis to
record the communication among team members,
they discovered relational statements were used
only rarely. In the groups Bales studied, nearly
40% of the commentary was classified as relational,
whereas teams made relational comments (e.g.,
shows solidarity, shows tension) only 11% of the
time (Gorse & Emmitt, 2009).
Organizational experts Michelle Marks, John
Mathieu, and Stephen Zaccaro (2001), in their
analysis of coordination in teams, identify three
processes that high-functioning teams display as
they work: transitioning, acting, and managing
interpersonal relations among members. During
the initial phase of their work, teams plan what
they will do in later stages, set their goals, and
plan strategy. The group then transitions to the
actual action stage when it carries out its assigned
tasks through coordinated activity. Once this action
phase is completed, the team reenters the transition
phase and begins preparing for subsequent tasks.
Across all phases, the members are also managing
the interpersonal aspects of the team in order to
minimize conflict and maximize coordination.
Thus, as Figure 11.4 indicates, Marks and her
associates break teamwork down into three funda-
mental components: action processes, transition
processes, and interpersonal processes (see, too,
LePine et al., 2008).
Action Processes When teams are at work, their
task-related actions are so perceptually vivid that
the action processes that make up the teamwork
portion of their activities often go undetected.
When, for example, the Mountain Medical team
began to repair the patient’s heart, an observer
watching the team would see a physician incising
and suturing, a nurse monitoring the patient’s vital
signs, and an anesthesiologist sedating the patient.
But Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro’s teamwork pro-
cess model suggests that four other, teamwork-
related actions are also taking place during the
action period. First, the group is monitoring progress
toward its goals as members implicitly check their
own actions as well as those performed by others.
Second, systems monitoring involves keeping track of
the resources the team needs, whether they be
physical resources, time, or even energy. Third,
team monitoring and backup behavior, considered by
some to be a key difference between teams and
task groups, occurs when one member of the
team delivers assistance to another member, simply
because that team member needs help. Finally, coor-
dination of action involves a change in the behaviors
of the team members so that each one’s actions
mesh with other’s actions, resulting in synchrony.
Transition Processes Often, teams attempt tasks
that are so complex that they cannot be completed,
at least with any degree of success, without advance
Mission analysis
Goal specification
Strategy formulation and planning
Monitoring progress toward goals
Systems monitoring
Team monitoring and backup
Coordination
Conflict management
Motivating and confidence building
Affect management
Transition phase Action phase
F I G U R E 11.4 The teamwork process model.
SOURCE: “A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes,”
by Michelle A. Marks, John E. Mathieu, and Stephen J. Zaccaro (2001). Acad-
emy Of Management Review, 26, 356–376. Reprinted by permission of Acad-
emy of Management via Copyright Clearance Center.
TE AM S 359
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

planning. The first type of transition process, mission
analysis, focuses on the current situation: the tasks
and subtasks that must be completed, the resources
available to the team, and any environmental con-
ditions that may influence the team’s work. Teams
also engage in goal specification and strategy formulation
between action episodes, since experience working
together will provide the members with a clearer
idea of the team’s potential and limitations. Strategy
formulation is particularly essential if the team is
unable to reach the goals it has set for itself, for,
by reviewing the causes of failure, team members
may find ways to improve their efficiency and out-
comes (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005).
Interpersonal Processes Consistent with studies
of work groups in general, during both the transition
and action periods, teammates must spend some of
their time tending to the relational side of their team.
To reach a high level of effectiveness, teams require a
degree of unity; yet the pressures often encountered
by groups as they strive to reach their goals can pro-
duce tension within the group. Members of effective
teams tend to reduce the threat of such conflict to
the group’s cohesion through conflict management.
Other types of interpersonal work required of the
group members include motivation and confidence
building and affect management.
11-3c Compelling Purpose
The sine qua non of teams is their pursuit of goals—
and collective ones at that. Teams have been defined
in many different ways, but nearly all definitions sug-
gest teams “work toward shared and valued goals”
(Salas et al., 2009, p. 39); they seek a “common
purpose” (Hackman, 2011, p. 51); and team mem-
bers are “committed to a common purpose, perfor-
mance goals, and approach for which they hold
themselves accountable” (Katzenbach & Smith,
2001, p. 7). All these definitions stress the consensual
nature of a team’s goals: members share an under-
standing of the group’s recognized purpose and—in
effective teams, at any rate—willingly contribute
their time and energy in the group’s pursuit of its
goals. Shared goals increase coordination within the
group and reduce the tendency for members to
work at cross-purposes to one another.
Team expert Richard Hackman (2002, 2011)
stresses the importance of goals in his real teams
model. Real teams, he suggests, embrace shared
goals that guide the work of the group and
heighten members’ motivation. According to
Hackman, a team’s purposes should be clear, chal-
lenging, and consequential, but not overly speci-
fied, impossibly difficult, or so daunting that team
members are motivated by a fear of failure. Teams
stress outcomes to such an extent that their very
existence is threatened should they fail to achieve
their agreed-upon goals. Team members’ high level
of interdependence, combined with the team’s pur-
suit of consensual goals, means that the members of
a team cannot succeed unless their group succeeds.
The members of a team may strive to outperform
each other or achieve personally important goals,
but each member’s outcomes are tied to the
team’s outcomes, such that if the team is successful,
so are the individual members. But, should the
team fail, the members do as well.
11-3d Adaptive Structures
Teams—effective ones, at least—are usually well
organized, for their roles, norms, and intermember
relations are defined rather than nebulous. The
members of a baseball team, for example, play dif-
ferent positions, and the actions of each player are
determined, not only by the skills and abilities of
the person who occupies that position, but also by
the standards that define what a person in that role
should and should not do: the pitcher will pitch,
the outfielders will catch fly balls, the infielders
will cover the bases and field grounders, and so
on. Similarly, in the Mountain Medical surgical
team, each member played a specific role in the
real teams model A theoretical analysis of teams that
identifies the key factors that distinguish effective (“real”)
teams from other collective enterprises, including a com-
pelling direction, an enabling structure, a supportive con-
text, and effective leadership (developed by J. Richard
Hackman).
360 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

operation, and the outcome of the surgery
depended on each team member meeting the
demands of his or her role. These structures are
adaptive, for they serve to improve the degree of
coordination of the members’ actions.
Other structural elements, including perfor-
mance norms, status, communication networks, and
so on, also tend to be better defined in teams than in
more informal types of groups. The actions and inter-
actions of the team members are governed by implicit
and explicit social norms that prescribe the appropri-
ate way to respond in the situation as well as pro-
scribed actions members should avoid if at all
possible. These norms are what transform an aggre-
gate of individuals into hardworking, engaged team
members who are committed to the group’s goals.
Run-of-the-mill teams become high-performance
teams when team norms encourage mutual respect
and support, open communication, commitment to
effectiveness, and high levels of engagement in the
work (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003).
Teams, although they tend to develop formal-
ized procedures and a fixed division of labor, are
not miniature bureaucracies. Bureaucracies are
highly organized systems, but they tend to become
inefficient as structures that are no longer needed
are retained, and changes that would improve the
system are not implemented. Teams, in contrast,
continuously review and revise their structures to
improve their functioning. Researchers confirmed
the relationship between adaptive team structures
and performance by first calibrating the extent to
which members of one hundred teams working
for a Fortune 100 technology firm agreed when
describing their teams’ degree of role specialization,
responsibilities, and work scheduling. They then
asked outside observers to rate each team’s capacity
for self-improvement. Supporting the adaptive
function of structure, they found that teams with
clearer structures were more, rather than less, likely
to “continually look for more efficient ways to
accomplish our assigned tasks” and “learn from
one another as we do our individual jobs” (Bun-
derson & Boumgarden, 2010, p. 616). Ratings of
the team’s structure were also highly correlated
with level of information sharing among members,
absence of conflict in the team, and members’ sense
of psychological safety.
11-3e Cohesive Alliance
Teams are cohesive groups: The relations linking
members to the group are strong, rather than
weak and the group tends to remain intact over
time and in difficult circumstances. Teams are
united in their pursuit of a common goal, so a
team’s unity usually springs from its task cohesion,
but teams may exhibit one or more of the other
forms of cohesion considered in Chapter 5. Team-
mates are often socially and emotionally close to
each other (social cohesion), they strongly identify
with their team (collective cohesion), and they are
affectively bonded (emotional cohesion). The
team’s dense network of interdependencies, com-
bined with its stability in membership and clear
boundaries, may also heighten its structural cohe-
sion. External pressures may magnify this unity, for
teams usually work under some kind of pressure,
such as a heavy workload, limited time, or compe-
tition with other teams.
Cohesion’s Benefits An increase in a team’s level
of cohesion results in both affective (emotional) and
instrumental gains for the individual members and
the group as a whole. Working in a cohesive team
is, at core, more satisfying for members—the expe-
rience is more enjoyable, the relationships more
positive, and the satisfactions gained from success
are more pronounced. If, as many have argued,
people have a strong need to belong to groups,
membership in a cohesive, successful team will
likely satisfy that need. But cohesion also yields
practical advantages for teams. Cohesive groups
retain their members, and so one of the core
requirements for group efficiency—a predictable
roster of membership—is more likely in cohesive
teams than less cohesive teams. Conflict, although
inevitable, is usually managed more effectively by
the members of cohesive teams, and so results in
fewer long-term negative consequences. As noted
in Chapter 5, when a group lacks cohesion, the
members are less likely to act in a coordinated,
TE AM S 361
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

efficient way: members’ actions will not mesh with
those of other members. If the group’s tasks do not
require synchronization and coordination, a lack of
cohesion may not undermine performance, but as
coordination demands increase, so does the need
for cohesion (Severt & Estrada, 2015).
Because of these positive benefits, a cohesive
team will usually outperform a less cohesive team.
However, and as discussed in detail in Chapter 5, the
cohesion–performance relationship is a complex one.
Meta-analytic studies suggest that cohesion improves
teamwork among members, but that performance
quality influences cohesion more than cohesion
influences performance (Mathieu et al., 2015). The
work group may not be successful because it is cohe-
sive, but instead it may be cohesive because it has
succeeded in the past. Cohesive teams can also be
spectacularly unproductive if the group’s norms stress
low productivity rather than high productivity.
Cohesion and Trust Cohesion also benefits
teams because it contributes to the development of
interpersonal trust: the mutual assurance that
other members of the group will do what they are
supposed to do and do so without too much supervi-
sion, pestering, or application of pressure (Kramer,
1999). As sociologist Gary Alan Fine concludes,
“trust, which originates in confidence in information
Is Your Team Psychologically Safe?
Google, the fabulously successful technology company,
has always relied on teams to maintain its effective-
ness. So, when the company wanted to know more
about why some teams were more effective than
others, it initiated its own project—code-named
Aristotle—and began collecting all sorts of data from
hundreds of Google teams. Initially, they expected to
find the answer in the composition of the groups—the
talents of each individual members—but the data told
a different story. The keys to success in Google groups
were the norms that took hold in each team. But what
mattered most was not so much the content of the
norms, but their clarity: when all agreed on the norms
of the group, these norms sustained the group’s
workflow, creativity, and commitment, and the teams
tended to prosper (Duhigg, 2016).
Clear norms also contributed to what team
researcher Amy Edmondson (1999) calls a sense of
psychological safety: “people’s perceptions of the
consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a partic-
ular context such as a workplace” (Edmondson & Lei,
2014, p. 23). In some teams, members felt insecure and
uncertain; they were so constrained that they did not
speak up and express concerns and dissatisfactions. In
other groups, in contrast, the members felt safe, that
their voices were heard, and that others were con-
cerned for their well-being.
Instructions. Focus on a specific team or group to
which you belong (a club, class, organization, work
group, or even your family). Put a check by those
statements with which you agree.
q Members of this team are able to bring up pro-
blems and tough issues.
q It is safe to take risks on this team.
q No one on this team would deliberately act in a
way that would undermine my efforts.
q If you make a mistake on this team, it is often
held against you.
q It is difficult to ask other members of this team
for help.
Scoring. Do you feel psychologically safe in this
group or team? If you agreed with the first three
items, then the level of psychological safety in your
group is high. But if you agreed with the final two
items, then you described your group as low in safety.
(These items are only a subset of Edmondson’s Team
Psychological Safety measure; please see Edmondson,
1999, for more details.)
psychological safety A shared belief that the group or
team will support and affirm members who take risks,
make mistakes, express concerns, and raise issues.
interpersonal trust The confidence or certainty that
other individuals will do what they are supposed to do
even in the absence of social surveillance or pressure.
362 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

provided by groups and individuals and builds on per-
sonal commitment to the group, is translated into a
‘pure’ relationship that, when generalized to the col-
lectivity, produces organizational loyalty. Trust
anchors cohesion” (2003, p. 189).
Trust develops gradually as members interact
with one another, for members require time to
gather the information they need to estimate the
strength of the relationships before they risk testing
those relationships. Many factors influence trust in
groups, but one particularly influential theory of
trust—the organizational trust model—ties trust
in others to perceptions of ability, benevolence, and
integrity (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995;
Do the Members of Online Teams Trust Each Other?
Not all teams meet in face-to-face settings, but instead
they collaborate on shared tasks using information
technologies. Variously termed e-teams, virtual teams
(VTs), and distributed teams, e-teams interact via
computer-based communication technologies, and so
the nature of these teams has changed as technology
has changed. Whereas these teams once used e-mail and
telephone-based conference calls as their primary means
of communicating, most now augment these tools with
videoconferencing, decision support software, file store
systems, and even virtual-world conferencing.
When teams first turned to these technologies,
they often encountered difficulties in planning and
strategizing relative to offline groups, and, in some
cases, performance outcomes were disappointing.
Over time, however, improvements in technological
tools have increased the richness of e-team interac-
tions, and members have become more skilled in using
them. This improvement is due, in part, to a genera-
tional shift in team composition: The newest members
of teams grew up using technology in all aspects of
their lives (Maynard et al., 2012).
How do members of e-teams learn to trust each
other as they collaborate on projects from a distance?
Sirkka Jarvenpaa (2016), a researcher in business and
management, examined this question by arranging for
students in college classes at dozens of universities
located around the world to work together virtually
(Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Jarvenpaa, Shaw, &
Staples, 2004). The groups were given eight weeks to
complete a series of tasks, including a written paper and
a working website that would count toward their course
grade. These groups varied considerably in their overall
levels of productivity, but also in their levels of trust. The
high-trust groups expressed a high degree of confidence
in each other and in their group, in part because mem-
bers believed that their partners in the work had the
skills they needed to be successful. Then, as the group
worked on the project, members of high-trust groups
also attributed integrity (e.g., “I am never doubtful
about whether the other team members will do what
they promised”) and benevolence (e.g., “the other team
members will do everything within their capacity to help
the team perform”) to the group and its members.
Team B, for example, was a high-trusting group.
Members communicated with one another at much
higher rates to clarify the group’s task and procedures,
but to also exchange personal information. They “com-
municated their excitement and optimism in their first
messages (‘I am very excited about working on the project
with all of you … ‘; ‘I am really looking forward to work
with you … the assignments do look very interesting’)”
(Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, p. 46). They did not quickly divide
up the work into parts and assign each part to a member,
but instead worked continuously together on their tasks.
They communicated with one another continuously.
Team F, in contrast, was low in trust, for members
showed little initiative or concern for others’ work.
Communication rates were low throughout the pro-
cess, and much of the work was done (grudgingly) by
just two of the members:
Although the team members expressed their
interest and commitment in early messages, no
member was willing to take charge. Each time
something was needed, a member would ask who
was going to do the activity rather than volun-
teering. This began with the first exercise in which
a member said that someone needed to coordi-
nate the activity and asked for a volunteer. No
one volunteered. (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, p. 51)
Team F never completed the assignment, whereas
members of Team B stayed in touch with each other
even after the project ended.
organizational trust model A theory of trust in groups
and organizational settings that assumes people’s trust in
others is based on perceptions of ability, benevolence,
and integrity.
TE AM S 363
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). At first, trust is
largely determined by appraisals of the skills and abil-
ities of other group members; individuals who are
thought to be incompetent or untrained cannot be
trusted to complete their tasks. Integrity, too, is also
salient to group members early in the life of the
group, as members determine if others accept the
group’s norms and standards as their own. Members
will also, in time, add to ability and integrity a third
quality—benevolence—as they contribute unstint-
ingly to the group (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003; Yakov-
leva, Reilly, & Werko, 2010). In teams with high
levels of trust, members share information, expend
more effort, and provide others with more support,
and as a result: trust leads to improved team perfor-
mance (Fiore, Carter, & Asencio, 2015).
11-4 O UTPUT: TEAM
P E R F O R M A N C E
Organizational experts recommend using teams to
achieve excellence. No matter what system the
experts propose—job enrichment, balanced score-
card management, business process reengineering,
activity-based management, or an updated version
of management by objectives—most will tout the
benefits of using teams to get work done. But do
teams offer the best means to maximize human
potential? This section examines the final segment
of the input–process–output model of teams: What
do teams generate by way of direct and indirect
outcomes? The analysis raises the question of
evaluation—how effective are teams?—and also
considers ways to improve teams.
11-4a Evaluating Teams
Viewed from an evolutionary perspective, teams are
highly successful social organisms. From relatively
humble beginnings in athletics, farming, and agricul-
ture, teams have spread out to populate much of the
world. Teams are gaining popularity as preferred
approaches to management, and “how to” books
on team methods continue to make the bestseller
lists. Teams have also taken the place of some tradi-
tional groups as people’s source of social connection,
for more people report belonging to teams than they
do to hobby, community, and social groups. Teams
now have only one group to overtake in terms of
popularity: religious groups. But do teams live up to
their promise as systems for increasing productivity
and members’ well-being?
The Success of Teams Anecdotal evidence and
research findings converge on a verdict that favors
teams, but with reservations. Case study approaches
are generally, but not uniformly, positive (Apple-
baum & Blatt, 1994). Texas Instruments, for exam-
ple, increased productivity when it organized its
employees into small groups whenever possible,
took steps to build up team cohesiveness, and
went to great lengths to establish clear goals based
on realistic levels of aspiration (Bass & Ryterband,
1979). When a manufacturer in the United States
shifted to teams, supportive supervision, participant
leadership, organizational overlap among groups,
and intensified group interaction, employee satisfac-
tion increased and turnover decreased (Seashore &
Bowers, 1970). Case studies have, however, uncov-
ered examples of spectacularly ineffective teams.
For example, Hackman (1990), after examining
the effectiveness of 33 teams, had to revise the pro-
posed title of the book he had planned: Groups That
Work was given the subtitle (and Those That Don’t)
because he found considerable variation in perfor-
mance quality across the teams he studied.
Field studies of the use of groups and team
development generally support the wisdom of rely-
ing on teams (Sundstrom et al., 2000). The Harley-
Davidson Motor Company, for example, dramati-
cally transformed their production methods by
shifting from a traditional command-and-control
culture to one based on self-managing work
teams, and the positive results of this conversion
appear to depend in large part on the high level
of cohesiveness maintained by these groups (Chans-
ler, Swamidass, & Cammann, 2003). When
researchers, through meta-analysis, examined the
link between organizational change and perfor-
mance, they found that companies that made
364 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

multiple changes usually improved their performance
and that group-level interventions were more closely
linked to productivity than individual-level interven-
tions (Macy & Izumi, 1993). A recent survey of peo-
ple’s satisfaction with their team memberships,
however, suggests that members themselves are not
so happy with their teams. Only 13% of the 23,000
managers, workers, and executives in one survey
agreed that their “teams work smoothly across func-
tions” (Covey, 2004, p. 371).
Beyond Productivity Teams are task-focused
groups, and so the major criterion for determining
their success is their performance: Do they reach the
goals they, and others, set for them? By this standard,
Mountain Medical was a success. The team learned
to perform the new surgery quickly and safely, and
this efficiency meant a better recovery for the
patients and substantial savings for the hospital. The
team needed less time in the operating room, and its
efficiency was so high that it could do more opera-
tions than other teams. At a price of approximately
$36,000 per case, the team proved to be both medi-
cally sound and economically profitable.
A team’s productivity, however, is only one of
the outputs that should be considered when deter-
mining its effectiveness. Mountain Medical may
have become a crack surgical team, but what if
the demands of the task were so great that mem-
bers, feeling great pressure, decided to leave the
group? What if the team was productive, but over
time members grew to dislike working with each
other? What if Mountain Medical became
stagnant—repeating the motions required for the
operation with each case, but losing the capacity
to adapt and change that had made them a high-
performance team in the first place?
Hackman (2002) suggests three key factors that
should be considered when evaluating the success
of a team. Task performance is the first and fore-
most criterion. Teams are created for the purpose of
generating results, and a successful group is one that
meets or exceeds agreed-upon “standards of quan-
tity, quality, and timeliness” (Hackman, 2002,
p. 23). But Hackman adds to this criterion two
other, more indirect, outcomes: adaptive growth
of the team as a whole and individual development
of the members. Many teams can perform their
basic work effectively, but over time they fail to
profit from their experiences of working together.
A truly successful team is one that grows stronger
over time so that it can undertake even more chal-
lenging tasks in the future. Hackman (2002, p. 28)
also feels that a high-performing team should con-
tribute, in positive ways, “to the learning and per-
sonal well-being of individual team members”:
If the group prevents members from doing
what they want and need to do, if it compro-
mises their personal learning, or if members’
main reactions to having been in the group are
frustration and disillusionment, then the costs
of generating the group product were too high.
(Hackman, 2002, p. 29)
Team Learning Because these cognitive founda-
tions of teamwork develop as the teammates expe-
rience working together, teams require group
rather than individual practice. Although in years
past, organizations often sent their personnel offsite
to individually receive training in team skills at
institutes and workshops, team members need to
be trained together—as a unit—rather than sepa-
rately. Only by confronting the learning situation
as a group can the team engage in team learning, a
“process in which a group takes action, obtains and
reflects upon feedback, and makes changes to adapt
or improve” (Sessa & London, 2008, p. 5).
The success of the Mountain Medical Center’s
cardiac surgery team illustrates the importance of
learning as a team. The 16 hospitals that Pisano
and colleagues (2001) studied all used the same
equipment, and the operating room staffs were all
trained by the equipment’s manufacturer. These
highly trained surgical teams performed their
work well, and nearly all of the patients fully recov-
ered after their surgery. Some, however, recovered
more rapidly and with fewer complications than
others, and this gain was indicated by the speed of
the operation. None of the teams operated too
quickly, but some were relatively slow. With each
patient, the teams improved—minimizing the
TE AM S 365
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

amount of time that the patient was on the heart–
lung machine is an indicator of recovery time—but
some teams learned more quickly than others. Sur-
prisingly, the educational backgrounds and surgical
experience of the teams did not predict learning
rates nor did the overall support for the new proce-
dure by the hospital’s administrative staff. The status
of the head surgeon on the team was also unrelated
to learning rate, as was the amount of time the teams
spent in formal debriefing sessions after each case.
What did predict learning rates? The way the
teams were designed and trained. In the slow-
to-learn teams, the surgeons assigned to the team
happened to be the ones who were available to
attend the training session. They showed little
interest in who was on their surgical team—in
fact, the members of the team varied from case to
case, violating a basic rule of good team design
(Hackman, 2002). These teams did not fully realize
how intense the new surgical methods would be in
terms of coordination demands, and the surgeons
did not explicitly discuss the need for greater atten-
tion to teamwork.
At places like Mountain Medical, in contrast,
the team surgeon was usually an advocate for the
procedure, and he or she was actively involved in
selecting all the other members of the team. These
individuals worked together during the training ses-
sions as a team, and they remained together longer
during the first cases using the new methods. The
surgeons in these teams also stressed the importance
of working together as a team rather than stressing
the acquisition of new individual skills: “They made
it clear that this reinvention of working relationships
would require the contribution of every team mem-
ber” (Edmondson et al., 2001, p. 130). These fast
learners also continued to increase their efficiency,
as they developed an open pattern of communica-
tion where all felt free to make suggestions for
improving the work. As noted earlier in the chapter,
this team began slowly, taking longer to finish the
procedure than most teams. By the fifth case, how-
ever, this team was performing at the same speed as
most other teams, and they continued to improve
their rate with each new case until they were able
to conduct the operation faster than most.
11-4b Suggestions for Using Teams
Teams are perhaps the most popular of all groups.
No longer does a lone mechanic change your car’s
engine oil; most automotive shops claim a team of
technicians will take care of your car’s needs. Pow-
erful moguls once ran all the large companies, but
now executive leadership teams are in charge. Even
scientists, long portrayed as loners working in soli-
tude to unlock the secrets to the universe, are doing
their work in groups: Science is now “team sci-
ence” (Fiore, 2008).
But even the most optimistic appraisal of the avail-
able data on team effectiveness would suggest that
there is room for improvement in the use of teams in
performance settings. Teams are a group with extraor-
dinary promise, but to fulfill that promise they must be
implemented correctly, and members must be given
assistance to use them to their full advantage (Cordery,
2004; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
Fidelity of Team Innovations The popularity of
team approaches has brought with it a significant
drawback—in the rush to claim that they are
using team methods, individuals sometimes call
work groups “teams” even though they lack the
defining features of real teams. More than 80% of
the executives, managers, and team members sur-
veyed in one study reported that their teams lacked
clear goals; that their members did not engage in
creative discussion; that team members did not hold
each other accountable for their assigned tasks; and
that members of their team rarely initiated actions
to solve problems (Covey, 2004). These are basic,
essential qualities of teams, and, if they are lacking,
these work groups likely are not actually teams.
These responses may indicate that the very
concept of a team—individuals joining together in
unified groups to pursue shared goals—is unwork-
able, but it may also be that team-based methods
have not been properly implemented. Members of
true teams cannot complete their work without
interacting with each other. That interaction may
involve exchanging information, sharing resources,
or even lifting, carrying, or moving something
together rather than individually, but the work
366 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

requires each team member to contribute in some
way (Aubé & Rousseau, 2005; Kauffeld &
Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Members of suc-
cessful teams are also committed to group-level
goals, and the rewards they receive should be
based on attaining those goals rather than individual
ones. Teams are also relatively well structured and
cohesive. If a team fails because it lacked these key
ingredients, then the blame most likely rests with
those who built the team rather than the team itself.
Training in Teamwork Too many organizations
create teams but then do little to help team mem-
bers develop the skills they need to work in those
teams. Only 29% of the organizations in one survey
gave their teams any kind of training in teamwork
or interpersonal relations, and only 26% based com-
pensation (salary, bonuses) on team performance
(Devine et al., 1999). Given the complexity of
interpersonal and cognitive demands that teams
require, members will likely need assistance in
learning how to work effectively in them.
Fortunately, team training has robust effects
on team effectiveness (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
When team expert Eduardo Salas and his colleagues
examined the effectiveness of several types of
training interventions using meta-analysis, they
concluded that (a) most methods work, but (b) the
best ones focus on improving member coordination
rather than communication strategies (Salas, Nichols,
& Driskell, 2007). Cross-training, which involves
rotating members throughout the various positions
within the group, was particularly helpful, in that it
provided members with a clear understanding of the
demands associated with each role and the intercon-
nections among members’ responsibilities. Crew
resource management (CRM), developed for train-
ing flight crews in teamwork procedures, has also
been successfully applied to teams working in
many other settings with considerable success. Salas,
summarizing the available data, concludes that
training team members yields demonstrably positive
results, and he encourages organizations to make use
of scientific principles and findings to improve their
training of team members (Salas et al., 2012; Shuffler,
DiazGrandados, & Salas, 2011).
Team Building When well-meaning leaders and
managers wish to help their teams work more effec-
tively, they often turn to team building exercises,
social events, and off-site training experiences. In
the name of team building, organizations often
place their teams in challenging environments so
that the members will learn teamwork skills but
also develop a sense of unity as a result of surviving
the ordeal. Team building adventures, such as back-
packing together in the wilderness, spending the
day on a ropes course, or playing a paintball game
against a rival team, continue to be popular meth-
ods for increasing team unity.
These activities often function as group-level
rewards for participating in teams, but they are no
substitute for research-based team building interven-
tions. Unlike team training—which is skill-focused
and usually involves practice and feedback—team
building is less structured and targets general relational
skills. Team building, however, when properly imple-
mented, does tend to improve team functioning
(Klein et al., 2009). Salas and his colleagues identified
four basic approaches to team building that target
more specific problems that teams often face: goal
setting, interpersonal relations (e.g., trust, communica-
tion, and teamwork), role clarification, and problem-
solving procedures (Salas et al., 1999; Salas, Priest, &
DeRouin, 2005). A meta-analytic review of studies of
these types of team building methods suggests that all
are relatively effective, but that goal-setting and role-
clarification interventions led to more significant
improvements (Klein et al., 2009).
Situational Support A final condition for imple-
menting teams is the degree of organizational sup-
port available to the teams (Kennedy et al., 2009).
team training Empirically supported instructional
methods used to teach individuals and teams the cogni-
tive, behavioral, and affective skills required for effective
team performance.
team building Instructional methods used to promote
the development of interpersonal and teamwork skills in
individuals and teams.
TE AM S 367
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Organizations may, in the rush to implement
teams, create them but then fail to provide them
with the support they need to flourish. Features of
the organizational context, such as support for
technologically based group support systems,
development of group-level reward systems to
supplement or complement individual rewards,
degree of collectivism in the organizational cul-
ture, and the availability of external coaches who
can assist the team to navigate trouble spots, will
increase the probability that team-based
approaches will be successful (Mathieu et al.,
2008). Other organizational features, such as tradi-
tional leadership styles, hierarchical patterns of
organization, and individually based compensation
systems, will increase the likelihood that team
approaches will not prosper.
The case of quality circles (QCs) provides a
lesson in the importance of providing support for
group-level innovations. QCs were popular in
the 1980s. These small, self-regulated decision-
making groups usually included five to ten
employees who performed similar jobs within
the organization. The groups were often led by
a supervisor who had been trained for the role,
but participation in the circle was often volun-
tary, and no monetary incentives were offered
to those involved. These groups were thought
to be excellent ways to increase workers’ partici-
pation in the management of the organization
and to increase productivity, efficiency, quality,
and job satisfaction. Yet, by the 1990s, most of
these groups were gone—the failure rate was
between 60% and 70% (Tang & Butler, 1997).
What happened?
QCs were not teams, and they had their own
unique limitations—participants volunteered and
were not compensated, and, in many cases, conflicts
developed between participants and nonpartici-
pants. Worse, however, was the lack of support
provided the QCs. They were originally viewed
as an easy means of increasing involvement and sat-
isfaction, but the suggestions of QCs were rarely
heeded by management. They were essentially
powerless, and members soon realized that they
were an ineffective means of achieving valued out-
comes. A few transformed from QCs into true self-
managing teams, but most were just abandoned
(Lawler & Mohrman, 1985).
The lesson of QCs should not be ignored.
As many as 90% of Fortune 500 companies
implemented such methods in their plants, facto-
ries, and meeting rooms at the peak of their pop-
ularity, but the method did not take. Without
institutional support or proper design, QCs rapidly
disappeared. It would be unfortunate if teams
went the way of quality circles, due to failures to
implement them correctly, failures to train indivi-
duals to work effectively in them, and failures to
support them.
C HAPT ER R EV IEW
What are teams and what are their various forms?
1. Teams are groups whose members are working
together in the pursuit of a shared goal.
■ Teamwork is the process used to combine
(coordinate) members’ efforts effectively.
■ Teams have become increasingly popular
as a means of organizing work in a variety
of settings.
■ Teams are needed when tasks are difficult,
complex, and important, but the popular-
ity of teams is not consistent with their
overall effectiveness (according to the
concept of the romance of teams).
2. Types of teams include work, management,
project, advisory teams, and self-managing
teams.
quality circles (QCs) Small self-regulated groups of
employees charged with identifying ways to improve
product quality.
368 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Hackman’s (2002) authority matrix model
distinguishes between four types of teams
on the basis of their control over their
processes and goals: manager-led, self-
managing, self-designing, and self-
governing.
■ Members of cross-functional teams often
serve as boundary spanners for the
organization.
■ Holacracy is a multiteam system that use
teams (“circles”) for all organizational
functions.
3. The input–process–output (IPO) systems
model guides much of the theoretical and
empirical study of teams.
How does the team’s composition influence its
effectiveness?
1. Pisano, Bohmer, and Edmondson (2001)
examined the performance of medical teams
and related their effectiveness to composition
and design.
2. Conscientiousness and agreeableness are the
two personality traits most closely linked to
team effectiveness, followed by extraversion,
emotional stability, and openness.
3. A configural approach to team composition
assumes that each member’s fit within the team
depends on the personal qualities of the other
individuals who are on the team.
4. Members’ team orientation and their knowl-
edge, skills, and abilities, or KSAs, predict
team effectiveness.
■ KSAs include both task competence and
interpersonal skills.
■ Studies of highly successful teams suggest
they were all staffed with highly moti-
vated, skilled experts, but including experts
in groups does not assure that the team will
be effective.
■ Some groups may be, collectively, more
intelligent than others, but the cause of
those variations is not yet known.
■ Individuals who function effectively in
groups possess a working knowledge of
how teams work (team knowledge KSAs).
5. There are advantages and disadvantages associated
with team diversity.
■ Diversity increases the team’s resources,
but diverse groups may lack cohesion,
because their members may perceive each
other as dissimilar. If cohesion is essential
for the group to succeed, a diverse group
will be disadvantaged.
■ Crowdsourcing capitalizes on the creativity
of diverse groups.
6. Wood’s (1987) meta-analysis of sex differences
found that men and women do not differ in their
effectiveness as team members, disconfirming the
male bonding hypothesis.
■ Groups that include a lone representative
of a particular social category (tokens, or
solos) may encounter problems of fairness,
influence, and so on.
■ Hackman’s (1992) studies of performing
orchestras indicate that the group’s history
and the larger social context in which the
group is embedded influence the impact of
a group’s gender heterogeneity on
performance.
What processes mediate the input–output
relationship?
1. Interlocking interdependence promotes team
performance by enhancing the development of
shared mental models and improving transactive
memory systems.
■ Moreland and his associates (1996) examined
the development of transactive memory by
training individuals either in groups or indi-
vidually, and then examining how much of
that training transferred to a subsequent
group situation.
2. Coordinated interaction is sustained by three
key processes: transitioning, acting, and
TE AM S 369
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

managing interpersonal relations among mem-
bers (Marks et al., 2001).
3. Hackman’s (2002) real team model stresses the
unifying functions of a clear, challenging, and
consequential task.
4. Teams are well-structured groups, with clearly
defined roles, norms, and intermember
relations.
■ Clarity of group structures enhances
members’ sense of psychological safety
(Edmondson, 1999).
5. Effective teams are usually cohesive (social,
task, collective, emotional, and structural).
■ Cohesiveness promotes the exchange of
information and trust, but cohesive teams
do not necessarily outperform less cohesive
ones.
■ According to Fine, team members develop
interpersonal trust over time as they learn
which members of their team can be
trusted to perform their requisite tasks
adequately.
■ Research conducted by Jarvenpaa and her
colleagues (2004) indicates that teams that
meet online rather than offline (e-teams or
virtual teams) develop trust in a manner
consistent with the organizational trust model.
How effective are teams, and how can they be
improved?
1. Team approaches do not ensure success, but
they are reliably associated with increases in
effectiveness and member satisfaction.
2. Hackman (2002) identified three factors that
define the success of a team: task performance,
adaptive growth of the team, and individual
development of the members.
■ The Pisano, Bohmer, and Edmondson
(2001) study of surgical teams identified
the factors that promoted learning in some
groups and reduced the learning capacity
of others.
■ The checkered success of team approaches
is due, in part, to the failure to properly
design teams.
3. Salas and his colleagues (2007) have identified a
number of ways to improve team function and
have developed team training and team building
techniques that can be used to teach team
members the skills they need to perform more
effectively in groups.
4. Experience with past group-level methods,
such as quality circles, suggests that fidelity,
training, and support are required to maximize
effectiveness.
R E S O U R C E S
Chapter Case: Mountain Medical’s Cardiac Surgery
Team
■ “Organizational Differences in Rates of
Learning: Evidence from the Adoption of
Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery” by
Gary P. Pisano, Richard M. J. Bohmer, and
Amy C. Edmondson (2001) examined how
the surgery teams at 16 different medical
centers adjusted to a new surgical procedure
that required a higher degree of teamwork
(see, too, Edmondson et al., 2001).
The Nature of Teams
■ Making the Team: A Guide for Managers by
Leigh L. Thompson (2014) provides a
detailed analysis of all the core topics in the
analysis of teams, with chapters pertaining
to internal dynamics (e.g., communication
and conflict) and external dynamics (e.g.,
social networks and multiteam contexts).
■ “Team Development and Functioning” by
Janis A. Cannon-Bowers and Clint Bowers
(2011) is a comprehensive review of the
370 C H A P T ER 11
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

current state of research into team
processes and dynamics that examines
historical approaches, taxonomies, team
selection processes, team performance, and
emerging issues.
■ “Unraveling the Effects of Cultural
Diversity in Teams: A Meta-Analysis of
Research on Multicultural Work Groups”
by Gunter K Stahl, Martha L Maznevski,
Andreas Voigt, and Karsten Jonsen (2010)
synthesizes the findings from 108 studies of
over 10,000 teams to draw conclusions
about the relationship between team
diversity and performance.
Working in Teams
■ Team Cohesion: Advances in Psychological
Theory, Methods, and Practice, edited by
Eduardo Salas, William B. Vessey, and
Armando X. Estrada (2015), provides
extensive theoretical and empirical details
about one of the core qualities of most
successful teams: cohesion.
■ The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the
Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative
Processes, edited by Eduardo Salas, Ramon
Rico, and Jonathan Passmore (2017),
provides extensive coverage of team work
processes, with 25 chapters dealing with
antecedents to team effectiveness, team
work processes, and performance
outcomes.
■ Looking Back, Moving Forward: A Review
of Group and Team-based Research, edited
by Margaret A. Neale and Elizabeth A.
Mannix (2012), includes chapters examin-
ing fundamentally important topics in
the study of groups and teams, including
power, leadership, composition, and
conflict.
Improving Teams
■ Smarter Faster Better: The Secrets of Produc-
tivity in Life and Business by Charles Duhigg
(2016) is an engaging integration of core
concepts in the scientific study of team
processes with cases of high-functioning
teams in military, business, and entertain-
ment settings.
■ Holacracy: The New Management System for a
Rapidly Changing World, by Brian J.
Robertson (2015) describes one way teams
can be used to structure collective effort in
business and industry.
TE AM S 371
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 12
Decision
Making
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
People turn to groups when they must solve prob-
lems and make decisions: They are better informed,
they can review and appraise ideas, information,
and alternatives through discussion, and they use
consensus-based standards when making their final
choices. But groups are not perfect and neither are
their decisions. People sometimes make more
extreme decisions when in groups than they
would if they were alone, and in rare cases they
seek concurrence instead of the best decision possi-
ble, and so fall victim to groupthink.
■ How do groups make decisions?
■ What problems undermine the effectiveness of
decision making in groups?
■ Why do groups make riskier decisions than
individuals?
■ What is groupthink, and how can it be
prevented?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
12-1 The Decision-Making Process
12-1a Orientation
12-1b Discussion
12-1c The Difficulty of Discussion
12-1d Making the Decision
12-1e Implementation
12-2 Decisional Biases
12-2a Judgmental Biases
12-2b The Shared Information Bias
12-2c Group Polarization
12-3 Victims of Groupthink
12-3a Symptoms of Groupthink
12-3b Defective Decision Making
12-3c Causes of Groupthink
12-3d The Emergence of Groupthink
12-3e Alternative Models
12-3f Preventing Groupthink
Chapter Review
Resources
372
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The Bay of Pigs advisory committee, like many
other groups, faced a problem needing a solution.
Through discussion, the members pooled their
expertise and knowledge. They sought out infor-
mation from available sources, and they thoroughly
weighed alternatives and considered the ramifica-
tions of their actions. When their alternatives
were narrowed down to two—to invade or not to
invade—they made the decision as a group. But the
committee was typical in another way. Like so
many other groups, it made the wrong decision.
We owe much to groups. Groups put
humans on the moon, built the Empire State
Building, performed the first symphony, and
invented the personal computer. But groups also
killed innocent civilians at My Lai, marketed tha-
lidomide, doomed the space shuttles Challenger
and Columbia, and decided that the best way to
deal with the communist regime in Cuba was to
invade it. This chapter examines both the pros
and the cons of making decisions in groups before
examining one potentially catastrophic group
process—groupthink—in detail.
12-1 T HE DECI SION -MAK ING
PROCESS
In office buildings, executives hold conferences to
solve problems of management and production; at
the dinner table, families talk over moving to a new
neighborhood; in courthouses, juries weigh evi-
dence to determine guilt and innocence; on the
battlefield, a combat squad identifies a target and
plans an attack. In these and thousands of other
similar settings, interdependent individuals make
decisions in groups.
Why turn to a group when a decision must be
made? Even though groups are far from perfect,
their choices, judgments, estimates, and solutions
are usually superior to those tendered by lone
The Bay of Pigs Planners: Victims of Groupthink
The decision makers are meeting in the Cabinet Room
of the White House, just down the hall from the Oval
Office. The group has gathered at the request of
President John F. Kennedy to discuss a covert para-
military operation code-named Zapata. The Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) had developed operation
Zapata after Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba.
During this period in U.S. history the CIA used various
methods to curtail the spread of communism in Latin
and South American countries, and it hoped to apply
these covert operational strategies to overthrow
Castro and his communist government.
Operation Zapata proposed training, transport-
ing, and supporting a regiment-sized group of guer-
rilla fighters who would invade Cuba at the Bahía de
Cochinos (Bay of Pigs). The men would then launch
raids and encourage civilian revolt in the country’s
capital city, Havana. The CIA needed Kennedy’s
approval, but Kennedy did not want to make this
decision by himself. So, he assembled his advisors, and
together they discussed the strengths and weaknesses
of the proposal. The Bay of Pigs advisory group, as
diagrammed in Figure 12.1, included White House
senior advisors and staff members, cabinet members,
the CIA and their subject matter experts, and military
advisors from the Department of Defense—all highly
skilled individuals well trained in making critically
important policy and military decisions. This group,
after a thorough review, advised the president to give
the CIA the go-ahead.
The Bay of Pigs invasion took place on April 17,
1961. The assault that was so carefully planned was a
disaster. For the plan to succeed, the attacking force
needed to secure and hold the beachhead at Playa
Girón, but Castro’s forces’ counterattack overwhelmed
them. Several key elements of the plan, including air
support and supplying the ground forces with muni-
tions, were either aborted or poorly executed. The
entire attacking force was killed or captured within
days, and the U.S. government had to send food and
supplies to Cuba to ransom them back. Group expert
Irving Janis described the decision as one of the “worst
fiascoes ever perpetrated by a responsible govern-
ment” (1972, p. 14), and President Kennedy lamented,
“How could I have been so stupid?” (quoted in Wyden,
1979, p. 8).
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 373
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

individuals (Hinsz, 2015). The work of scientists
who collaborate is superior to the work of scientists
who work alone (Uzzi et al., 2013). Groups’ per-
ceptions of other people are more accurate than
individuals’ impressions (Ruscher & Hammer,
2006). Small groups working together on Google
searching for information will find more relevant
information more quickly than a single searcher
can (Lazonder, 2005). Teams of physicians making
a diagnosis are more accurate than single physicians
(Glick & Staley, 2007). Students who take a test in
groups get better grades and learn more than indi-
vidual students (Vogler & Robinson, 2016). Bur-
glars who work in groups are less likely to be
caught than are thieves who work alone (Warr,
2002). Groups solve difficult logic problems (e.g.,
the Wason selection task) faster than individuals,
and when the members encounter similar problems
later as individuals they outperform those who did
not have a group learning experience (Maciejovsky
et al., 2012). Even very powerful leaders—
presidents of the United States, for example—
rarely make decisions without consulting others.
Instead, they rely on groups, for the weighty pro-
blems that they must handle on a daily basis would
overwhelm a lone individual. In most situations,
the wisdom of the many is greater than even the
genius of the one.
What is the secret to groups’ superiority in mak-
ing decisions? A process model of group decision
making suggests that groups engage in a sequence of
activities, operations, and practices as they move from
uncertainty to decisional conviction and that each step
in the series serves some purpose. When group mem-
bers convene to make a decision or solve a problem,
they don’t just vote and then adjourn. Instead, they
define their purpose, share information through dis-
cussion and deliberation, consider alternatives and
solutions, and identify implications. No two groups
reach their decisions in precisely the same way, and
no two theorists agree on the definitive list of processes
that determine those decisions, but the four phases
identified in the ODDI process model shown in
Figure 12.2—Orientation → Discussion → Decision →
Implementation—are often in evidence when groups
ODDI process model A conceptual analysis of the
steps or processes that groups generally follow when
making a decision, based on the intended purpose of
each step or process in the overall decision-making
sequence.
President John F. Kennedy
Cabinet Consultants
Defense
Department
National Security
Council
Advisors
Bundy Schlesinger
Mann
Berle
McNamara
Dillon
Rusk
R. Kennedy
CIA
Dulles
Bissell
Subject matter
experts
Nitze
Williams
White House
staff
F I G U R E 12.1 The members of President Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs advisory committee.
374 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

make decisions and solve problems (Simon, 1997).
The group defines the problem, sets goals, and devel-
ops a strategy in the orientation phase. Next, during
the discussion phase, the group gathers information
about the situation and, if a decision must be made,
identifies and considers options. In the decision phase,
the group chooses its solution by reaching consensus,
voting, or using some other social decision process. In
the implementation phase, groups put the decision
into action and assess the consequences of their
choice. These processes need not occur in this order
or in every case, but they often do. Groups that fol-
low these four stages are more likely to make better
decisions than those who do not (Wittenbaum,
Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004).
12-1a Orientation
Decisions begin with a problem that needs a solution.
A group of students in a class are required to complete a
project that includes a written paper and a presentation.
The president of the United States is briefed by the
CIA on the invasion of Cuba. The police unit must
take into custody a criminal who is residing in a heavily
defended residence. Such situations trigger a decision-
making process that often begins with a period of
orientation, as the group reviews its objectives and
organizes the procedures it will use in its work. As
that great expert on human behavior, baseball player
and manager Yogi Berra (2002, p. 53), once warned,
“If you don’t know where you’re going, you might
not get there.”
Goal Clarity and Goal-Path Clarity Some
groups may know exactly what they want to
achieve and how they will go about doing it, but
most must first clarify both the goals they seek and
the path they will take to reach those goals (Shaw,
1981). Goal clarification requires not only setting spe-
cific, attainable goals, but also the review of the
group’s overall mission, the problems it is dealing
with and the decisions it must make, the results it
intends to deliver, and the criteria it will use to
evaluate the quality of its performance and results.
Goal-path clarification, in contrast, requires spelling
out just how the group will do its work, including
identifying tasks and subtasks, organizing members’
roles and responsibilities, specifying how the mem-
bers will work together, determining how the
group will make its decisions, and setting milestones
and deadlines.
Both groups and the individuals who are
members of those groups are more successful—
they make better decisions, solve problems more
Start
Orientation
Defining
problem, goals
Planning the
process
Developing
shared mental
model
Remembering
information
Decision
reached
No decision
Carrying out
the decision
Evaluating
the decision
Exchanging
information
Processing
information
Detecting
inaccurate
information
Discussion Decision Implementation
F I G U R E 12.2 The orientation–discussion–decision–implementation (ODDI) model of group decision making.
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 375
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

efficiently, and waste less time—when they have
clarified their goals and their paths to those goals
(Weingart, 1992; Weldon, Jehn, & Pradhan,
1991). The importance of this orientation process
is so great that in some cases it is the only thing that
differentiates successful groups from unsuccessful
ones (Hirokawa, 1980). In a study of six conferences
in which panels of experts evaluated new medical
technologies, participants were more satisfied when
the decisional procedures had been discussed in
advance (Vinokur et al., 1985). Similarly, in a project
that experimentally manipulated the use of process
planning, groups were more productive when they
were encouraged to discuss their performance strate-
gies before working on a task requiring intermember
coordination (Hackman, Brousseau, & Weiss, 1976).
Effective teams, as noted in Chapter 11, take time to
develop a shared mental model as the members
review their tasks, roles, goals, and procedures
(Bonner, Soderberg, & Romney, 2016).
Researchers examined the benefits of this ori-
entation phase by studying groups that were
responsible for making critically important decisions
for the companies where they worked—such as
launching an e-commerce website or developing a
technologically sophisticated training program.
They discovered that some of these groups per-
formed marvelously, meeting their goals, and
impressing high-ranking leaders in the company.
Others did not. But what set the high and low
performers apart was how they mobilized their
resources during their initial meetings. Groups that
spent considerable time clarifying their goals and
reviewing their procedures in a series of sessions
were more effective than those who did not.
These investigators also found, however, that in
the best teams the leader did not orchestrate the
planning process, but let the group members them-
selves explore their purposes and procedures
(Ericksen & Dyer, 2004).
Problems with Planning Given the clear benefits
of spending time setting goals and making plans, it
is unfortunate that few groups show much interest
in planning their procedures. When a group mem-
ber raises the issue of planning, very rarely do any of
the other group members respond positively
(Hackman et al., 1976). When groups are given a
problem to solve or a decision to make, their first
tendency is to get started on the task itself rather
than consider process-related issues. Even when
enjoined to plan, groups believe that planning is
less important than doing (Shure et al., 1962).
Even Kennedy’s group moved through the orien-
tation stage too hastily. Kennedy had just become
the president of the United States, and his advisors
had not worked together before, so the members
should have spent several meetings talking about
the problem and the strategy they would take in
solving it. Instead, they immediately began to dis-
cuss logistics and operations (Stern, 1997). This
anti-planning bias stems, in part, from the tendency
of groups to apply whatever method they used in
the past to current and future projects (Hackman &
Morris, 1975).
Yet, groups that recognize that their time is
limited plan out their work better than groups
that do not (Sanna et al., 2005). In one survey of 48
self-managing teams, those who spent time during
their initial stages with temporal planning devel-
oped strong norms about time, and these norms
helped these groups perform better than groups
that did not put enough time into time planning
(Janicik & Bartel, 2003). Groups that spend time
setting deadlines and reviewing problems they
might encounter as they pursue their goals are
also more likely to avoid the planning fallacy:
the tendency to underestimate just how long a
task will take to finish (Kahneman & Tversky,
1973). This fallacy occurs because most people
assume that the future will be pleasant rather than
bleak, that issues that come up along the way will
be handled quickly and without great expendi-
ture and effort, and that one’s choices will be
right rather than wrong. People are basically opti-
mists, so when they envision the future, they tend
to construct mental scenarios that err on the
planning fallacy The tendency for individuals and
groups to underestimate the time, energy, and means
needed to complete a planned project successfully.
376 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

positive side and underestimate the possibility of
negative, time-draining problems and missteps
(Dunning, 2007).
Both individuals and groups are prone to this
bias, but groups are even less accurate than indivi-
duals. When college students were asked to make
predictions about the time needed to complete a
written case analysis that would count as 25% of
their final grade, their estimates were less accurate
after they talked the project over as a group. Even
though the projects had been divided into subtasks,
each with its own distinct deadline, the group
members grossly underestimated the time they
would need to complete each one. During
their discussion of deadlines, the groups focused
primarily on factors promoting successful task com-
pletion and overlooked possible problems (Buehler,
Messervey, & Griffin, 2005).
12-1b Discussion
On February 17, 1961, President Kennedy asked
his advisors a simple question: Should the United
States support a paramilitary invasion of Cuba? To
provide the president with an answer, the group
examined all kinds of issues through discussion.
They reviewed the issue in a series of meetings by
sharing information, setting priorities, expressing
misgivings, and studying alternatives until they felt
confident enough to make a recommendation.
If information is the lifeblood of decision mak-
ing, then the discussion phase must be the heart of
that process (Kowert, 2002). An information pro-
cessing model of decision making assumes that peo-
ple strive, in most cases, to make good decisions by
acquiring the information that is relevant to the
issue and processing that information thoroughly,
so that its implications are clearly understood. A
collective information processing model also assumes
Are Group Discussions a Waste of Time?
The humorist C. Northcote Parkinson’s (1957) time
management laws are particularly apt when applied
to groups. Parkinson’s first law, which he modestly
named Parkinson’s Law, states that a task will
expand to fill the time available for its completion.
Hence, if a group gathers at 1 PM for a one-hour
meeting, the group will likely adjourn at 2 PM, no
matter how simple or routine the issues they
examine.
Parkinson’s second law, the law of triviality, states
that the time a group spends on discussing any issue
will be in inverse proportion to the consequentiality of
the issue (Parkinson, 1957, paraphrased from p. 24).
Parkinson described a hypothetical finance committee
dealing with Item 9 on a long agenda: a $10-million
allocation to build a nuclear reactor. Discussion is terse,
lasting about 2½ minutes, and the committee unani-
mously approves the item. However, when the group
turns to Item 10, the allocation of $2350 to build a
bicycle shed to be used by the office staff, everyone on
the committee has something to say. As Parkinson
(1957, p. 301) explained:
A sum of $2350 is well within everybody’s com-
prehension. Everybody can visualize a bicycle
shed. Discussion goes on, therefore, for forty-five
minutes, with the possible result of saving some
$300. Members at length sit back with a feeling of
achievement.
Research does not entirely support Parkinson’s
bleak assessment. Groups are sensitive to the chal-
lenges that various items on their agendas pose, and
they tend to allocate more time to more difficult
tasks—although their attention and interest does tend
to wane the longer the meeting lasts (Littlepage &
Poole, 1993).
Parkinson’s Law A task will expand to fill the time
available for its completion.
law of triviality The amount of time a group spends on
discussing any issue will be in inverse proportion to the
consequentiality of the issue.
discussion The communication of information between
two or more people undertaken for some shared purpose,
such as solving a problem, making a decision, or increasing
participants mutual understanding of the situation.
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 377
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

that people seek out and process relevant informa-
tion but that they do this cognitive work during the
group discussion (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath,
1997). When people discuss the problem as a
group, they improve their memory for information,
exchange information with each other, process the
information more thoroughly, and identify errors
and mistakes (see Figure 12.2).
Collective Memory Processes Two heads are
better than one because groups have superior mem-
ories for information relative to individuals. Arthur
Schlesinger, for example, knew a great deal about
international relations, but he could not compete
with the combined informational resources of all
the Bay of Pigs planners. Their memories, when
combined, contained a vast assortment of informa-
tion about Cuba, Castro, weaponry, and even the
terrain of the beach where the troops would land
(see Harris, Paterson, & Kemp, 2008, for a review).
A group’s collective memory is the shared
reservoir of information held in the memories of
two or more members of a group. Groups remem-
ber more than individuals, because groups draw on
more memories that contain different types of
information. The CIA operatives who met with
the Bay of Pigs planners knew all about the weap-
ons, tactics, and the morale of Castro’s troops, but
Rusk was an expert on the relationship between
Cuba and the Soviet Union. When they joined
together, they could pool their individual expertise
to form the group’s decisions. (Unfortunately, no
one in the group knew that the Bay of Pigs was
Castro’s favorite fishing spot, so he was thoroughly
familiar with every path, road, and hill in the area.)
Similarly, when students are permitted to take
examinations as a group, they usually outperform
individuals, for the student who is stumped by the
question “Name four common phases of group
decision making” is saved by a group member
who remembers the mnemonic acronym ODDI:
Orientation, Discussion, Decision, and Implemen-
tation (Bonner & Baumann, 2012). Groups can also
get more information than individuals can. In many
cases, decision-making groups are staffed by indivi-
duals who have widely differing experiences, back-
grounds, and associations, so each one can
contribute unique information to the discussion
(Henningsen & Henningsen, 2007).
Groups’ memories are also superior to indivi-
duals’ memories because only groups can store and
retrieve information in a transactive memory system
(Wegner, 1987). If the human mind is an informa-
tion processing network, then a group is a “net-
work of networks” (Van Overwalle & Heylighen,
2006, p. 606). A group has not just one system for
storing memories, but many such systems, so the
group can improve both the capacity and durability
of its memories by dividing data among the mem-
bers. Members working in the same group often
specialize, to a degree, in different areas. These
individuals not only have more information on a
given topic, but they are also the ones who should
be more responsible for storing any new informa-
tion that is relevant to their area of expertise. In the
committee, for example, the CIA was recognized as
the source of all information about the invasion
force, so other group members spent little effort
deliberately storing information on that topic.
When anyone needed to check a fact pertaining
to the commandos, they turned to the CIA and
their memory stores (Hollingshead, 2001a). But
the Bay of Pigs planners had not spent enough
time together to develop a strong transactive mem-
ory system. As discussed in Chapter 11, transactive
memory is enriched by the experience of working
as a team and by trust among members. The Bay of
Pigs planners had neither.
Groups can also improve their access to infor-
mation stored in members’ memories through
cross-cuing. This process occurs when one
collective memory A group’s combined memories,
including each member’s memories, the group’s shared
mental models, and transactive memory systems.
cross-cuing The enhancement of recall that occurs dur-
ing group discussion when the statements made by group
members serve as cues for the retrieval of information
from the memories of other group members.
378 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

member says something that jogs other members’
memories. For example, President Kennedy may
not remember where the force will land, but per-
haps he will say, “I think it’s a bay.” This cue may
trigger someone else’s memories, so that the name
“Bay of Pigs” is retrieved by the group, even
though none of the members could generate this
name initially (Meudell, Hitch, & Kirby, 1992).
Unfortunately, if a group member offers up a mis-
leading cue— instead of saying, “I think it’s a bay,”
a committee member said, “I think it’s near a
lagoon”—then such cueing can inhibit memory
retrieval rather than facilitate it (Andersson, Hitch, &
Meudell, 2006).
Information Exchange Groups do not merely
draw on a larger pool of information than indivi-
duals. They can also exchange information among
the members of the group, thereby further
strengthening their access to information as well as
their recall of that information. For example, the
discussion groups in one study were asked to
make simple estimates, such as “What is the popu-
lation of the state of Utah?” These groups
exchanged, on average, 27 pieces of information
before drawing a conclusion (Bonner & Baumann,
2012). The general discussion groups that sociolo-
gist Robert F. Bales (1955) studied exchanged, on
average, 960 pieces of information in each of their
sessions. More than 50% of all comments made by
members were suggestions, expressions of opinion,
and attempts at orientation (see Figure 12.3).
Group members also shared information about
the problem, expressed agreement or disagree-
ment, and asked for more information and clarifi-
cation. The proportion of comments in each
category will vary depending on the nature of
the group discussion and its level of intensity, but
in most groups communication peaks during the
discussion phase.
Processing Information Groups not only recall
and exchange information more effectively than indi-
viduals, but they also process that information more
thoroughly through discussion. Members ask ques-
tions, and others offer answers. Alternative options
are discussed, and the strengths and weaknesses of
each option are considered. Group members analyze
each other’s ideas and offer corrections when they
note errors. Members dialogue with one another,
sharing viewpoints and seeking a shared meaning.
Ideas are debated, with some group members seeking
to convince others that their position is better. The
group members also monitor their work and inter-
vene as necessary to bring the group back on task.
Most group discussions also include an interpersonal
element that complements the focus on the work to
be done. Members of decision-making groups not
only share and evaluate information, but they also
encourage each other, express commitment to the
group, and help each other (Jehn & Shah, 1997;
Weingart & Weldon, 1991).
Just as the orientation period is essential to effec-
tive decision making, so the time spent in active
discussion increases the quality of the group’s deci-
sion (Katz & Tushman, 1979). When researchers
0 10 155 20 25 30 35
Shows Antagonism
Shows Tension
Disagrees
Asks for Suggestion
Asks for Opinion
Asks for Orientation
Gives Orientation
Gives Opinion
Gives Suggestion
Agrees
Shows Tension
Release
Shows Solidarity
Percent rate
F I G U R E 12.3 Average interaction profile for dis-
cussion groups (Bales, 1999).
SOURCE: Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement, by Robert F.
Bales, Transaction Publishers, 1999, p. 240.
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 379
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

monitored group members’ communications while
working on a problem that could be solved only
by properly sequencing individuals’ responses,
they found that the group’s use of essential infor-
mation through discussion proved to be the best
predictor of success (Lanzetta & Roby, 1960).
Groups working on collective induction problems—
tasks that require a cycle of hypothesis generation
and testing—performed best when members dis-
cussed the problems actively and focused their anal-
ysis on evidence rather than on hypotheses
(Laughlin & Hollingshead, 1995). Flight crews
that confront sudden emergencies often overcome
the problem if they share information with one
another; but those crews that do not take advantage
of group discussion often make errors in judgment
that are not corrected by the group (Paris, Salas, &
Cannon-Bowers, 1999). Physicians trying to diag-
nose an illness were more successful when they
spent more time “talking to the room”—
expressing ideas about the problem openly, so
the entire group can hear them (Tschan et al.,
2009). Studies of online groups have found that
the online format substantially hampers the
group’s ability to make an informed decision if
the rate of information exchange is too low and
too slow (Baltes et al., 2002). When researchers
watched groups make decisions, they found that
information sharing (talking a great deal, free
expression of ideas, thoughts, and feelings) and
critical evaluation of ideas (critically evaluating
each other’s ideas or works, differences of opinion,
disagreement among group members, and dis-
agreements on who should do what or how some-
thing should be done) were correlated with
judgmental accuracy (Jehn & Shah, 1997).
Error Detection and Correction As groups dis-
cuss information, they appraise the validity of ideas
being shared, seeking increased accuracy, and identify-
ing any errors of fact or implications. This error-
checking process was identified as a crucial determinant
of successful decision making by psychologist Marjorie
Shaw (1932) in one of the earliest experimental studies
of group performance. She examined the sagacity of
groups by putting 21 individuals and 5 four-person
groups to work on several intellective tasks, including
the famous (at least to people who study groups)
missionary–cannibal dilemma:
Three missionaries and three cannibals are on
one side of the river and want to cross to the
other side by means of a boat that can only
hold two persons at a time. All the missionaries
can row, but two cannibals cannot. For obvi-
ous reasons, the missionaries must never be
outnumbered by the cannibals, under any cir-
cumstances or at any time, except where no
missionaries are present at all. How many
crossings will be necessary to transport the six
people across the river?
When the groups and individuals finished the
first set of problems, Shaw reorganized them, so
that those who worked alone initially solved several
new problems in groups and those who initially
worked in groups solved several new problems
individually.
Shaw’s groups performed well for two reasons.
First, compared to individuals, her groups generated
more correct solutions. Second, however, the groups
were better at checking for errors in calculations and
identifying faulty inferences about the problems. If a
group member recommended a solution that was
inaccurate, groups were more likely to reject that
solution. Groups, when they did make mistakes,
also erred later in the decision process than did indi-
viduals, in part because groups were more proficient
at noticing and correcting errors. Groups, however,
took longer to complete the task than did indivi-
duals. (The answer to the missionary–cannibal prob-
lem, by the way, is 13 crossings! Note, too, that this
study was conducted by Marjorie E. Shaw—no rela-
tion to Marvin E. Shaw who also studied groups and
whose classic 1981 text, Group Dynamics, is this
book’s intellectual progenitor.)
12-1c The Difficulty of Discussion
Group discussion is an excellent method for solving
problems, making decisions, resolving disputes, and
so on, but discussion requires skill, motivation, and
practice, and not all groups can muster all three of
380 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

these key ingredients. Even the Bay of Pigs plan-
ners, despite their great expertise, failed to use the
group’s resources to examine fully the military,
political, social, and ethical limitations of the CIA
plan. People assume their skills are sufficient for
dealing with problems through discussion, but
their confidence is often misplaced.
Groups Are Forgetful Groups can make use of
cognitive mechanisms such as cross-cueing and
transactive memory to improve their recall of infor-
mation, but groups are not mnemonic marvels
(Rajaram & Pereira-Pasarin, 2010). When research-
ers compared the memories of collaborative groups,
nominal groups (groups of noninteracting indivi-
duals), and individuals, collaborative groups outper-
formed both the average single individual and the
best single individual. Collaborative groups did not,
however, perform as well as nominal groups, and
the groups displayed many of the characteristics
typically seen in individual memory. Individuals,
for example, generally have better memory for
information that they process more deeply and bet-
ter memory for pictures than for words. Groups
displayed these same tendencies when their memo-
ries were tested (Weldon & Bellinger, 1997).
Groups also reported words that were not on the
original list, and their memories were also less well
structured (Hyman, Cardwell, & Roy, 2013).
The loss of motivation that occurs in groups—
social loafing (see Chapter 10)—partly explains this
decline in processing efficiency (Weldon, Blair, &
Huebsch, 2000). But the complexity of the group
setting also disrupts members’ ability to organize
information in memory so that it can be retrieved
later. In consequence, collaborating groups perform
particularly poorly when trying to remember unor-
ganized information, but they perform the same as
noninteracting (nominal) groups when trying to
remember organized information. When group
members spend time sharing memories of previous
events—reminiscing—each member’s memory of
that information is improved, but otherwise: groups
are more forgetful than individuals (Marion &
Thorley, 2016). These inadequacies in collective
memory may be so substantial that groups cannot
remember their decisions unless they keep a written
record of them (minutes). Although few group
members relish the role of recorder, without min-
utes, details of the group’s actions may be forgotten.
Group Members Misunderstand Group mem-
bers make decisions by exchanging information,
but they often make mistakes both when expressing
their message and when listening to what others
say. On the sender side, many group members
lack the skills needed to express themselves clearly.
They fail to make certain that their verbal and non-
verbal messages are easily decipherable and so unin-
tentionally mislead, confuse, or even insult other
members. One study of college students reported
that 33% could not give accurate directions, 49%
could not summarize the points made by a person
who disagreed with them, and 35% could neither
state their point of view clearly nor defend it
(Rubin, 1985). On the receiver side, inaccuracies
also arise from the information processing limita-
tions and faulty listening habits of human beings.
Listeners tend to level (simplify and shorten), sharpen
(embellish distinctions made by the speaker), and
assimilate (interpret messages so that they match per-
sonal expectations and beliefs) information offered
by others during a discussion (Campbell, 1958b;
Collins & Guetzkow, 1964).
These limitations are apparent to anyone who
attends meetings with any frequency. When
researchers asked 569 full-time employees who
worked at jobs ranging from clerical positions to
upper-level management to describe “in their
own words what happens during a meeting that
limits its effectiveness,” they received nearly 2500
answers. Poor meeting planning was a common
complaint (24%; see below), but the majority com-
plained that too many members either (a) did not
have the skills needed to work well with others in a
group setting or (b) they did not bother to make
use of their skills once in the group.
■ Poor meeting planning: the meeting was poorly
organized; for example, it included the wrong
people, the time needed for the work was
inadequate, and the agenda used to structure
the meeting was unhelpful or inaccurate.
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 381
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Lack of skill in communication: not only did
members frequently fail to listen to what others
had to say, but they rarely communicated
their ideas and opinions in engaging and
informative ways.
■ Egocentric behavior: Some members dominated
the meeting or used the meeting to flaunt
idiosyncrasies, intimidate others, grandstand,
and complain.
■ Low engagement: Too many members did not
take part in an active way in the sessions; they
did not speak, volunteer to join with others
working on projects, and sometimes just stared
silently at others.
■ Sidetracked: The meeting did not stay on the
topic, with many tangents and irrelevancies.
■ Interruptions: The meeting’s flow was disrupted
as members interrupted each other, took phone
calls, or engaged in side conversations.
■ Inadequate leadership: the leader was not orga-
nized, and so did not facilitate or control the
meeting’s process.
■ Negative attitudes and emotions: Members did not
communicate in a civil, respectful way, they
expressed anger, grumbled, and so on.
■ Follow-up: Nothing ever happened as a result of
the meeting; no implementation of decisions.
The participants in this research suggested that the
groups failed more frequently than they succeeded. As
one respondent explained, “No one, not even the
leader, ever listens to what anybody else has to say”
(Di Salvo, Nikkel, & Monroe, 1989, p. 557).
12-1d Making the Decision
By early April, the Bay of Pigs committee was ready
to make its decision. The members had spent days
examining the CIA’s plan, and even though many
Are Meetings a Waste of Time?
When Kennedy needed to make a decision about the
CIA’s plan, he called a meeting, and in doing so he
was not doing anything particularly extraordinary. In
many organizations, people spend much of their day
scheduling meetings, preparing for meetings, travel-
ing to meetings, sitting in meetings, recovering from
meetings, and planning the next meeting (Allen,
Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Rogelberg, 2015b). One
source estimates the number of meetings held in the
United States in a year’s time to be about three billion
(Nunamaker et al., 1997).
Meetings may be essential tools for making
decisions and organizing productivity, but those
who attend often consider them to be boring, unin-
teresting, and inefficient. They can, in some cases,
be filled with conflict so that they are not just
boring but also threatening. When meetings are
not used for their basic purpose—to make decisions
and solve problems—but instead are just information
sharing sessions, some participants may consider
them to be a waste of time. This reaction is particu-
larly likely if participants do not work closely with
others, and so the meetings interrupt their solitary
pursuits.
Industrial/organizational psychologist Steve
Rogelberg and his colleagues explored the downside
of meetings by asking workers in England, Australia,
and the United States about their involvement in
meetings and to rate them on a scale from 1
(extremely ineffective) to 5 (extremely effective).
The researchers also measured such variables as job
satisfaction, stress (e.g., tension, anxiety, worry,
gloom, depression, and misery), and the degree of
interdependence required by their job. People who
thought their meetings were effective felt more
enthusiastic about their work, more satisfied, and
more productive. But if they rated their meetings as
ineffective, they were more depressed, more anxious,
and more likely to be thinking about quitting—
particularly if they did not feel that they needed to
work closely with other people to accomplish their
work-related tasks. Many saw meetings as
interruptions—not as ways to get more work done,
but as obstacles to productivity (Luong & Rogelberg,
2005; Rogelberg et al., 2006). These findings suggest
that most people would appreciate two things: a
reduction in the number of meetings and an
improvement in the quality of those that take place.
382 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

questions remained unanswered, the group could
delay no longer. Word of the plan had leaked to
the press, and the group was worried that Castro
might begin to shore up his defenses. They needed
to make up their minds.
A social decision scheme is a group’s method
for combining individual member’s inputs in a single
group decision. Some groups have clearly defined
ways of making a decision—their bylaws may state,
for example, that they will follow a particular rule of
order (such as Robert’s Rules). In many cases, though,
the social decision scheme is an implicit one that is
taken for granted by groups. Not until someone says,
“Let’s take a vote” does the group realize that a
decision must be made about how to make deci-
sions. Some common social decision schemes are
averaging, voting, reaching consensus, or delegating (Hastie
& Kameda, 2005; Kameda et al., 2011). Each deci-
sion scheme has strengths as well as weaknesses.
Averaging: Statisticized Decisions In some
cases, groups make decisions by combining each
individual’s preferences using some type of compu-
tational procedure. If the group must select the best
option among five alternatives, for example, each
member could make his or her decision individually
(either before or after a group discussion), and these
private recommendations could then be averaged to
yield a group decision. As with compensatory tasks
discussed in Chapter 10, such decisions do not nec-
essarily require any interaction among members,
and they are often surprisingly accurate. They
weight equally all the group members’ opinions,
and errors tend to cancel each other out. Unfortu-
nately, there are equally important disadvantages
associated with the timing of the ranking process.
If the group just averages without discussion, then
the benefits of discussion will be lost. If, however,
the group averages after a discussion, biases and
inaccuracies introduced during the discussion may
skew the group’s conclusions. Members may also
feel that the process is too arbitrary and so feel little
responsibility for implementing the decision.
Voting: Plurality Decisions Most groups, at least
in Western cultures, use some type of voting proce-
dure to make decisions. Members express their indi-
vidual preferences publicly or, to reduce social
pressure, by secret ballot. In most cases, the group
selects the alternative favored by the majority of the
members (the very common majority-rules scheme),
but in some cases, a more substantial plurality (such
as a two-thirds majority scheme) is needed before a deci-
sion becomes final. Some groups also use ranking
methods with more points awarded to alternatives
that are ranked higher than others (the Borda count
method). In even rarer cases, the group’s decision rules
may give single individuals the authority to rule
against any impending decision (veto scheme).
When researchers compared these decision
rules, plurality was both easy and effective (Hastie
& Kameda, 2005). Even groups that do not vote
officially implicitly adopt a plurality decision
scheme. When people are asked to estimate what
the final decision a group will make given the dis-
tribution of various opinions within the group,
their predictions coincide with the majority-rules
decisional scheme. People assume that if more
group members think option A is better than
option B, the group will be picking option A—
even if it is the wrong one (Ladbury & Hinsz,
2009). But plurality, despite its overall effectiveness,
has limitations. When the vote is close, some mem-
bers of the group may feel alienated and defeated.
In consequence, they become dissatisfied with their
membership and are less likely to lend support to
the decision (Castore & Murnighan, 1978). Voting
can also lead to internal politics, as members get
together before meetings to apply pressure, form
coalitions, and trade favors to ensure the passage
of proposals that they favor. Also, if the vote is
taken publicly, individuals may (a) conform to
others’ opinions rather than expressing their per-
sonal views or (b) refuse to change their public
social decision scheme A strategy or rule used in a group
to select a single alternative among various alternatives pro-
posed and discussed during the group’s deliberations, includ-
ing explicitly acknowledged decision rules (e.g., the group
accepts the alternative favored by the majority) and implicit
decisional procedures (e.g., the group accepts the alternative
favored by the most powerful members).
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 383
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

opinion so as to maintain the image of indepen-
dence and consistency (Davis et al., 1988).
Reaching Consensus: Unanimous Decisions
The Bay of Pigs advisory committee took several
polls of the members, but, in the final review, the
group’s position was unanimous—all agreed that
the covert invasion of Cuba should proceed as
planned. Some groups, such as juries, officially
adopt a consensus rule, but, in many cases, groups
that adopt a plurality decision scheme reach con-
sensus at the final vote. This outcome can occur
when all in the group actually agree, but it also
happens when the minority who disagree vote for
the favored solution for various reasons, including
not wanting to be on the side that loses.
Consensus decision schemes are often galva-
nizing and can lead to high levels of commitment
to the decision and to the group; people usually
express more satisfaction with this procedure than
any other decision-making method (Schweiger,
Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). However, consensus
building takes a good deal of time, and if rushed,
the strategy can misfire. When most of the mem-
bers of a decision-making group favor an inva-
sion, for example, the three individuals who
think that it is a terrible idea may hold back infor-
mation that they believe would cause dissent
within the group (Kameda et al., 2002). Groups
often prefer to reach consensus on sensitive ques-
tions, such as issues of morality, but they favor a
majority-rules voting scheme on problem-solving
tasks (Kaplan & Miller, 1987).
Consensus, no matter if achieved by voting or
through prolonged discussion ending in unanimity,
has long-term positive effects on performance.
When researchers combined the results of dozens
of previous studies that examined the level of con-
sensus among decision makers and the performance
of their groups and organizations, they discovered
that higher levels of agreement went hand in hand
with superior performance. This relationship was
strongest, however, when the group was discussing
strategic priorities, rather than more specific issues,
such as the means to implement those strategies
(Kellermanns et al., 2011).
Delegating: Sharing Decisions The group as a
whole does not make the decision when the deci-
sion is made by the group’s leader, or is delegated to
one of the members, a subgroup within the group,
or someone outside of the group. Under an author-
ity scheme, the leader, president, or other individual
makes the final decision with or without input from
the group members. When an oligarchy operates in a
group, a coalition speaks for the entire group.
Other forms of delegation include asking an expert
to answer (the best-informed member) or forming a
subcommittee made up of a few members to study
the issue and reach a conclusion. Delegation saves
the group time and is appropriate for less important
issues. Delegation is also used, in some cases, as a
means to avoid responsibility and blame if the deci-
sion goes awry (Steffel, Williams, & Perrmann-
Graham, 2016).
12-1e Implementation
When the die is cast and the decision made, two
significant pieces of work remain to be done. First,
the decision must be implemented. If a union decides
to strike, it must put its strike plan into effect. If a city
planning commission decides that a new highway
bypass is needed, it must take the steps necessary to
begin construction. If an advisory committee approves
an invasion, its members must mobilize the necessary
military forces. Second, the quality of the decision
must be evaluated. Was the strike necessary? Did we
put the highway where it was needed the most? Was
invading Cuba really such a good idea?
Social Justice Implementation is, in some cases,
more or less successful depending on perceptions of
the fairness of the decision. Fairness judgments are
determined by two forms of social justice: distributive
and procedural. Distributive justice concerns how
rights, resources, and costs are granted to, shared
with, and imposed on (distributed across) a group’s
members. When the group decides that your project
will only be given a grade of C, that the Cubans who
Distributive justice Perceived fairness of the distribu-
tion of rights, resources, and costs.
384 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

live near the Bay of Pigs will be subjected to aerial
bombardments, or all of the group members will be
getting raises, one wonders about distributive justice.
Procedural justice, in contrast, is concerned with
the methods used to make decisions about the alloca-
tion of resources. Procedural justice asks, “Did we
make the decision in a fair way?” (Tyler, 2013).
When Should the Group, and Not the Leader, Make the Decision?
Industrial/ organizational psychologist Victor Vroom,
recognizing the pros and cons of using groups to make
decisions, developed the normative model of decision
making to determine when the group’s input on an
issue is needed (Vroom, 2003; Vroom & Jago, 2007).
Although decisional methods can fall anywhere along
the continuum from leader-centered to group-
centered, Vroom’s (2003) most recent model identifies
these five basic methods:
■ Leader decides: The leader solves the problem or
makes the decision and announces it to the group.
The leader may rely on information available to
him or her at that time, but may also obtain
information from group members. The members
only provide information to the leader, and the
leader may not tell the group members why the
information is needed.
■ Leader consults members: The leader shares the
problem with the group members individually,
getting their ideas and suggestions one-on-one
without meeting as a full group. The leader then
makes the decision, which may not reflect the
group members’ influence.
■ Leader consults the group: The leader discusses
the problem with the members as a group, col-
lectively obtaining their input. Then the leader
makes the decision, which may not reflect the
group members’ influence.
■ Facilitated group discussion: The leader coordinates
the group’s analysis of the problem, helping the
group reach consensus on the issue. The leader is
active in the process, but does not try to influence
the group to adopt a particular solution. The leader
accepts the will of the group and implements any
decision that is supported by the entire group.
■ Group decides: If the group already functions
independently of the leader, then the group can
make its decision without the leader’s direct
involvement. The leader can provide support,
direction, clarification, and resources as the group
deliberates, but does not influence the group’s
decision directly.
Vroom does not advocate for any one decision-
making method. Rather, he recommends examining
the situation before selecting an approach that is
most suited to the given context. One of the most
important of all factors to consider is the significance
of the decision itself; if the problem is not very
important, then it can be solved using a method that
involves the least amount of time and the fewest
individuals. But when the problem becomes increas-
ingly important, other situational factors must also be
considered: Does the leader have substantial knowl-
edge about the issue? Does the group know even
more about the problem? Will the group be commit-
ted to the solution and its implementation if it does
not get involved in the decision-making process, and
does that even matter? Is conflict so high in the group
that members may not be able to work together on
the problem? In general, when problems are simple
ones, the leader is well informed and the conse-
quences for a poor decision are relatively minor, then
in the interest of time the leader should decide. A
group-focused approach, in contrast, is best whenever
a high-quality solution is needed, along with support
from the group to implement it. However, choosing
between an individual and a group approach is so
complex that Vroom and his colleagues have devel-
oped a computer program that guides the choice
between deciding, consulting, facilitating, and dele-
gating (Vroom, 2003).
normative model of decision making A theory of
decision making and leadership that predicts the effec-
tiveness of group-centered, consultative, and autocratic
decisional procedures across a number of group settings
(developed by Victor Vroom and his associates).
Procedural justice Perceived fairness and legitimacy of
the methods used to make decisions, resolve disputes,
and allocate resources; also, in judicial contexts, the use
of fair and impartial procedures.
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 385
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Successful implementation depends on both
forms of justice. People generally consider decisions
that benefit them personally to be superior to those
that run counter to their interests; they define them
as fair and worthy of their support. How the deci-
sion was made also matters. When fair procedures
are followed, group members feel more satisfied
with the decision and will be more likely to per-
form the tasks that are required to implement the
decision. For example, many of the members of the
president’s advisory group were against the Bay of
Pigs plan, but they believed that the group had
examined the issue in a fair, impartial way, and so,
when the decision was made, they supported the
group’s choice. People are more likely to regard a
decision as a fair one if the decisional procedures are
implemented “(a) consistently, (b) without self-
interest, (c) on the basis of accurate information,
(d) with opportunities to correct the decision, (e)
with the interests of all concerned parties repre-
sented, and (f) following moral and ethical stan-
dards” (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996, p. 189).
The group that uses procedurally just methods for
making decisions will be more successful during the
implementation stage (Colquitt et al., 2013).
Participation and Voice Many factors influence
perceptions of procedural fairness, but when peo-
ple believe that they had a voice in the matter—
that they could have expressed any concerns they
had and others would have listened and
responded—then they tend to be far more
engaged in the implementation of the final deci-
sion. This voice effect was examined in an early
study by psychologists Lester Coch and John R.
P. French (1948). The management of a clothing
mill asked Coch and French to identify a way to
improve employees’ commitment to new produc-
tion methods. Coch and French suspected that
employees would respond more positively if they
were involved in planning changes, so they
devised three different training programs. Employ-
ees in the no-participation program were just given
an explanation for the innovations. Those in the
participation-through-representation program attended
group meetings where the need for change was
discussed openly and an informal decision was
reached. A subgroup was then chosen to become
the “special” operators who would serve as the
first training group. Employees in the third
program—total participation—followed much the
same procedures as those in the second program,
but here all the employees, not a select group,
took part in the training system.
Confirming the voice effect, hostility, turn-
over, and inefficiency was highest in the no-
participation group; 17% quit rather than learn the
new procedures, and those who remained never
reached the goals set by management. Those in
the two participation conditions, in contrast,
learned their new tasks quickly, and their produc-
tivity soon surpassed prechange levels and manage-
ment goals. Morale was high, only one hostile
action was recorded, and none of the employees
quit in the 40 days following the change. Further-
more, when the members of the no-participation
control condition were run through a program of
increased voice and involvement several months
later, they, too, reached appropriate production
levels (cf. Bartlem & Locke, 1981). Autonomous
work groups and self-directed teams, which were dis-
cussed in Chapter 11, are the modern-day counter-
parts to Coch and French’s total-participation
groups (Cascio, 1995).
Evaluating the Plan The Bay of Pigs invasion
plan was implemented on April 17, 1961. It was a
high-risk plan to begin with, but its implementa-
tion was fraught with its own ambiguities and inad-
equacies. The invasion failed not only because it
was based on incorrect information about the
region and the forces that were involved in the
conflict, but also because the planners did not
agree on the basic purpose of the mission. As the
attack unfolded, changes were made to deal with
circumstances, and these choices did not have the
desired effects. The mission failed.
Kennedy and his staff did not execute the plan-
ning, discussion, and decision stages skillfully, but
they did do well during the implementation stage.
When it became clear that the decision was a faulty
one, the group took steps to evaluate the cause of
386 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the fiasco. Kennedy created a task force headed by
an outside expert rather than a member of the advi-
sory group and provided considerable support to the
fact-finding group. Kennedy then used that report to
change the way his advisors made decisions.
Dysfunctional Postdecision Tendencies Groups
should expend considerable time and energy
reviewing their efforts and outcomes. They should
gather and weigh information about their perfor-
mance and review the strategies they used to
make their decision and implement their solution.
But groups are often so confident that their solution
is the correct one that the postdecision review pro-
cess is unsystematic, attenuated, biased, or skipped
altogether (Wilson, 2011).
Groups also prefer to deny responsibility should
their decisions result in failure (Leary & Forsyth,
1987). The officers at the Enron Corporation, for
example, when explaining their company’s abuses,
blamed their accountants for using the wrong audit-
ing methods. When the Challenger space shuttle
exploded, NASA scientists blamed the engineers
who designed the O-rings, but the engineers blamed
NASA for launching the shuttle in cold weather. In
the aftermath of the failed invasion of Cuba, Presi-
dent Kennedy publicly took the blame for the fail-
ure, but he also ended the careers of several group
members who he believed were actually at fault.
1 2 – 2 DE C I S I O N A L B I A S E S
Making a decision in a group offers a number of
advantages over making a decision alone. Groups,
with their greater informational resources and
capacity to process that information, are better
able to identify solutions and to detect errors in
reasoning. Members may also find a group’s deci-
sion more satisfying than that of a single individual,
particularly if the group uses a consensus-building
decision process. But even though groups have the
potential to outperform individuals, they do not
always reach that potential. Groups do not always
correct for the biases that plague individual decision
makers—in fact, in some cases, they amplify them.
12-2a Judgmental Biases
Psychologists have identified a number of cognitive
and motivational biases that systematically distort our
judgments and decisions. For example, we often use
the information we have available to us inappropri-
ately, putting too much emphasis on interesting infor-
mation and ignoring statistical information. We
sometimes form conclusions very quickly and then
do not sufficiently revise those conclusions once we
acquire additional information. When we cannot eas-
ily imagine an outcome, we assume that such an out-
come is less likely to occur than one that springs easily
to mind. We overestimate our judgmental accuracy
because we remember all the times our decisions were
confirmed and forget the times when our predictions
were disconfirmed (Kahneman, 2011).
Decisional Sin Groups, unfortunately, are not
immune from these judgmental biases. When social
psychologist Norbert Kerr and his colleagues
reviewed the research literature looking for studies
of these mental glitches in decision making, they
identified the three general categories of potential
bias summarized in Table 12.1:
■ Sins of commission: misusing information in
some way, including continuing to based
judgments on false or irrelevant information.
■ Sins of omission: failing to seek out information,
overlooking useful information, or not check-
ing for errors and mistakes.
■ Sins of imprecision: relying inappropriately on
mental rules of thumb, or heuristics, that
oversimplify the decision or introduce errors
into the decision process.
After reviewing studies that compared indivi-
duals’ and groups’ resistance to these types of biases,
Kerr and his colleagues cautiously ruled against
groups: Groups amplify rather than suppress these
biases. For example, they use information that has
already been discredited or they have been told to
ignore; they overlook statistical information about
general tendencies; they overemphasize personality
as a cause of behaviors that are due, in part, to the
pressures of the situation; and they base decisions on
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 387
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

information that is readily available rather than
actually diagnostic. More so even than individuals,
groups know decisional sin (Kerr, MacCoun, &
Kramer, 1996a, 1996b).
Restoring Rationality Groups can err in the ways
noted in Table 12.1, but they can take steps to mini-
mize their susceptibility to these biases. Discussion
gives group members the opportunity to test their
initial inclinations, but this review tends to be a biased
one: People usually seek out information that con-
firms their preferences, and they avoid disconfirming
evidence. Groups, however, can minimize this con-
firmation bias if they deliberately ban any public
statements of initial preferences (Dawes, 1988).
Groups can also escape the confirmation bias by
fully exploiting the diversity of members’ experi-
ences and expertise. Researchers studied this
possibility by creating three kinds of groups: (1)
unanimous groups, composed of individuals who
shared the same initial preference; (2) groups with
one member who took a minority position on the
issue; and (3) groups with two minority members.
Participants in these three conditions were given
the opportunity to select and review background
readings which either supported or opposed their
initial preferences. A fourth set of participants made
these choices as individuals. Everyone—both groups
and individuals—sought out data that confirmed
their initial preferences—a very robust confirmation
bias. But the diverse groups were less biased than the
groups composed of individuals who all agreed with
each other. Groups with two dissenting members, in
fact, even bested individual decision makers, revers-
ing the tendency for groups to be less rational than
individuals (Schulz-Hardt et al., 2000; see also
Kerschreiter et al., 2008; Mojzisch et al., 2008).
Groups can also maximize the rationality of their
members in one simple way: pay them when they
make good decisions. Whereas social psychologists
T A B L E 12.1 Types of Information Processing Errors Made by Individuals and by Groups
When Making Decisions
Type of Error Examples
Sins of commission ■ Belief perseverance: reliance on information that has already been reviewed and found
to be inaccurate.
■ Sunk cost bias: reluctance to abandon a course of action once an investment has been
made in that action.
■ Extra-evidentiary bias: the use of information that one has been told explicitly to ignore.
■ Hindsight bias: the tendency to overestimate the accuracy of one’s prior knowledge of
an outcome.
Sins of omission ■ Base rate bias: failure to pay attention to information about general tendencies.
■ Fundamental attribution error: stressing dispositional causes when making attributions
about the cause of people’s behaviors.
■ Confirmation bias: failure to seek out information that may disconfirm a conclusion.
Sins of imprecision ■ Availability heuristic: basing decisions on information that is readily available.
■ Conjunction bias: failing to recognize that the probability of two events occurring
together will always be less than the probability of just one of the events occurring.
■ Representativeness heuristic: excessive reliance on salient but misleading aspects of a
problem.
SOURCE: Adapted from Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996a). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103,
687–719.
confirmation bias The tendency to seek out informa-
tion that confirms one’s inferences rather than disconfirms
them.
388 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

frequently find that the groups they study are error-
prone, experimental economists find that their groups
are more rational than individuals, particularly when
“incentivized”: given a reward (usually monetary) for
making good decisions (Charness & Sutter, 2012; Kug-
ler, Kausel, & Kocher, 2012; Rockenbach, Sadrieh, &
Mathauschek, 2007). Consider, for example, the
famous Linda problem and the well-documented con-
junction error (Tversky & Kahneman, 1983, p. 297).
Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and
very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a stu-
dent, she was deeply concerned with issues of dis-
crimination and social justice, and also participated
in anti-nuclear demonstrations.
(a) Linda is a bank teller.
(b) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist
movement.
Many people get this question wrong. Dis-
tracted by the lack of representativeness between
Linda’s attributes and their stereotypes about bank
tellers, they pick (b). But the laws of probability tell
us that the likelihood of a conjunction—two things
occurring together—is always less probable than the
likelihood of just one of the things occurring. Peo-
ple who are bank tellers and feminists are just a
small subset of people who are bank tellers, so cer-
tainly the probability of (a) is greater than (b).
When investigators tested both individuals and
groups with the Linda problem, they found that
two-person and three-person groups outperformed
individuals—groups of two made fewer errors than
individuals, and 3-person groups even bested the 2-
person groups. Both individuals and groups became
even more rational, though, when accuracy earned
them a reward—a $4 bonus if they answered cor-
rectly. This incentive essentially eliminated the con-
junction error when individuals collaborated in
small groups in selecting their answers (Charness,
Karni, & Levin, 2010; see Figure 12.4).
0 10 20 30 40 50
Accuracy — Percent Answering Correctly
60
42
52
74
90
70 80 90 100
3-person
groups
2-person
groups
Singles
87
66
Incentive No incentive
F I G U R E 12.4 Two- and three-person groups’ and individuals’ accuracy rates when solving the “Linda Problem”
in two different conditions: when unpaid and when rewarded for a correct answer.
SOURCE: “On the Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment: New Experimental Evidence Regarding Linda,” by Charness, G., Karni, E., & Levin, D. (2010),
Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2), 551–556.
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 389
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

12-2b The Shared Information Bias
The Bay of Pigs planners spent much time talking
about the incompetence of Castro’s forces and how
U.S. citizens would react to the invasion. They did
not spend as much time talking about the weapons
that the troops would carry, the political climate in
Cuba, or the type of communication system used
by Cuban military forces. Only the CIA represen-
tatives knew that the morale of the invasion force
was low, but they never mentioned that informa-
tion during the discussion. Kennedy, as a result of
other briefings, was privy to many facts relevant to
the initiative, but he kept this information to him-
self (Kramer, 2008, 2016).
The Common Knowledge Effect The good
news is that groups can pool their individual
resources to make a decision that takes into account
far more information than any one individual can
consider. The bad news is that groups often exhibit
the shared information bias: they spend too much
of their discussion time examining details that two or
more group members know in common rather than
information known by only one of them (Stasser,
1992; Wittenbaum et al., 2004). If all the groups’
members know that the majority of U.S. citizens
oppose communism, they talk that over at length.
But if only the CIA representative knows that the
invading troops are poorly trained or only Kennedy
knows that Cuban citizens support Castro, these
important—but unshared—pieces of information
might never be discussed. This tendency is also
known as the common knowledge effect (Gigone,
2010; Gigone & Hastie, 1997).
The Hidden Profile Problem The harmful con-
sequences of this shared information bias are sub-
stantial when the group must consider carefully the
unshared information to make a good decision. If a
group is working on a problem when the shared
information suggests that alternative A is correct,
but the unshared information favors alternative B,
then the group will only discover this so-called hid-
den profile if it discusses the unshared information.
Social psychologists Garold Stasser and William
Titus (1985) studied this problem by giving the
members of four-person groups 16 pieces of infor-
mation about three candidates for student body
president. Candidate A was the best choice for the
post, for he possessed eight positive qualities, four
neutral qualities, and four negative qualities. The
other two candidates had four positive qualities,
eight neutral qualities, and four negative qualities.
When the group members were given all the avail-
able information about the candidates, 83% of the
groups favored candidate A—an improvement over
the 67% rate reported by the participants before
they joined their group. But groups did not fare
so well when Stasser and Titus manipulated the
distribution of the positive and negative informa-
tion among the members to create a hidden profile.
Candidate A still had eight positive qualities, but
Stasser and Titus made certain that each group
member received information about only two of
these qualities. Person 1, for example, knew that
candidate A had positive qualities P1 and P2; Per-
son 2 knew that he had positive qualities P3 and P4;
Person 3 knew that he had positive qualities P5 and
P6; and Person 4 knew that he had positive quali-
ties P7 and P8. But they all knew that candidate A
had negative qualities N1, N2, N3, and N4.
Had the group members pooled their informa-
tion carefully, they would have discovered that candi-
date A had positive qualities P1 to P8 and only four
negative qualities. But they oversampled the shared
negative qualities and chose the less qualified candi-
date 76% of the time (Stasser & Titus, 1985, 1987).
Subsequent studies have repeatedly confirmed groups’
inability to dig deeper than the information known to
all: Groups working with hidden profiles are eight
times less likely to find the solution than are groups
having full information (Lu, Yuan, & McLeod, 2012).
What Causes the Shared Information Bias?
The shared information bias reflects the dual
shared information bias (or common knowledge
effect) The tendency for groups to spend more time dis-
cussing information that all members know (shared infor-
mation) and less time examining information that only a
few members know (unshared).
390 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

purposes of discussion. As a form of informational
influence, discussions help individuals marshal the
evidence and information they need to make
good decisions. But as a form of normative influence,
discussions give members the chance to influence
each other’s opinions on the issue. Discussing
unshared information may be enlightening, but dis-
cussing shared information helps the group reach
consensus. Hence, the bias is strongest when group
members are seeking closure, they want to convince
the group to back their initial preferences, or the
problems are complex and have no clear right or
wrong answer. The bias is attenuated if groups are
working under time pressure and have relatively few
alternatives to consider (for reviews, see Nijstad,
2009; Reimer, Reimer, & Czienskowski, 2010).
The shared information bias also reflects the psy-
chological and interpersonal needs of the group mem-
bers. If group members enter into the group
discussion with a clear preference, they will argue in
favor of their preference and resist changing their
minds. If the shared information all points in one
direction—as it did in Stasser and Titus’s (1985)
study of hidden profiles—then all the group members
begin the discussion with a negative opinion of can-
didate A. The group’s final choice reflects these initial
preferences. Discussion should have caused them to
change their opinions, as additional (unshared) infor-
mation came to light, but it did not (Nijstad, 2009).
At the interpersonal level, discussions aren’t
only about making good decisions. Members are
striving to reach the best decision possible, but
they have other motivations as well: They are try-
ing to establish reputations for themselves, secure
tighter bonds of attraction with others, and possibly
compete with and succeed against other group
members (Mojzisch et al., 2014; Wittenbaum
et al., 2004). Therefore, they are selective regarding
when they disclose information and to whom
they disclose it, often emphasizing shared informa-
tion to express their agreement with others in the
group. Ironically, people consider shared informa-
tion to be highly diagnostic, so they mistakenly
believe that people who discuss shared information
are more knowledgeable, competent, and credible
than are group members who contribute unshared
information to the discussion (Wittenbaum,
Hubbell, & Zuckerman, 1999). Members, to
make a good impression with the group, dwell on
what everyone knows rather than on the points that
only they understand. Group members who antici-
pate a group discussion implicitly focus on informa-
tion that they know others also possess, instead
of concentrating on their unique informational
resources (Wittenbaum, Stasser, & Merry, 1996).
Can the Shared Information Bias Be Avoided?
Even though groups prefer to spend their time dis-
cussing shared information, experienced members
avoid this tendency, and they often intervene to
focus the group’s attention on unshared data
(Wittenbaum, 1998). When researchers studied
medical teams making decisions, they noted that
the more senior group members repeated more
shared information, but they also repeated more
unshared information than the other group mem-
bers. Moreover, as the discussion progressed, they
were more likely to repeat unshared information
that was mentioned during the session—evidence
of their attempt to bring unshared information
out through the discussion (Larson et al., 1996).
Groups can also avoid the shared information bias
if they spend more time actively discussing their
decisions. Because group members tend to discuss
shared information first, groups are more likely to
review unshared information in longer meetings
(Bowman & Wittenbaum, 2012; Winquist & Lar-
son, 1998). Other methods of avoiding the bias
include increasing the diversity of opinions within
the group (Smith, 2008), using an advocacy
approach rather than a general discussion (Greite-
meyer et al., 2006), emphasizing the importance of
dissent (Klocke, 2007), and introducing the discus-
sion as a new topic (new business) rather than a
return to a previously discussed item (Reimer,
Reimer, & Hinsz, 2010).
Technology also offers a solution to the bias.
Group decision support systems (GDSS) offer
members a way to catalog, more comprehensively,
the group’s total stock of information and then
share that information collectively. Depending on
the GDSS, the group would have access to an array
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 391
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of decision-making tools, such as databases, search
engines for locating information, communication
tools for sending messages to specific individuals
and to the entire group, shared writing and drawing
areas where members can collaborate on projects,
and computational tools that will poll members
automatically and help them to estimate costs, risks,
probabilities, and so on (Hollingshead, 2001b). The
value of a GDSS has not, however, been confirmed
consistently by researchers. Some investigators have
found that even a simple GDSS, that only promotes
communication, reduces the biasing effects by a half
(Lam & Schaubroeck, 2000). Other studies, how-
ever, suggest that the common knowledge effect is
as common in online groups as it is in face-to-face
groups (Lu, Yuan, & McLeod, 2012).
12-2c Group Polarization
When President Kennedy took the invasion plan to
his advisory group, was he acting on the intuitively
appealing notion that groups have a moderating
impact on individuals? Did he assume that a group,
if faced with a choice between a risky alternative, such
as “Invade Cuba,” and a more moderate alternative,
such as “Use diplomatic means to influence Cuba,”
would prefer the moderate route? Unfortunately for
Kennedy, for his advisers, and for the members of the
attack force, groups’ decisions are often more extreme
than individuals’ decisions. Groups do not always urge
restraint; instead, they often polarize.
Risky Shifts in Groups At about the time that
Kennedy’s committee was grappling with the pro-
blems inherent in the invasion plan, researchers were
initiating the first experimental studies of groups
making risky decisions. Many of these early studies
used the Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire to
measure the level of risk people were willing to
accept (Stoner, 1961, 1968). This self-report measure
asks respondents to read a series of scenarios that may
or may not yield financial, interpersonal, or educa-
tional benefits (see Figure 12.5). They then indicate
what the odds of success would have to be before
they would recommend the course of action. The
researchers expected that groups would be more
cautious than individuals, but they instead discovered
the risky-shift effect: Groups’ choices tended to be
slightly riskier. This shift also occurred when individ-
ual judgments were collected after the group discus-
sion and when the individual postdiscussion
measures were delayed two to six weeks. (The
delayed posttests were collected from male partici-
pants only.) Participants in a control condition
shifted very little (Wallach, Kogan, & Bem, 1962).
Cautious Shifts in Groups Researchers soon
replicated the risky-shift effect in countries around
the world, but during this research period some
studies hinted at the possibility of the opposite
process—a cautious shift. For example, when the
early risky-shift researchers examined the amount
of postdiscussion change revealed on each item of
the Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire, they fre-
quently found that group members consistently
advocated a less risky course of action than did indi-
viduals on one particular item (Wallach et al.,
1962). Intrigued by this anomalous finding, subse-
quent researchers wrote additional choice dilem-
mas, and they, too, occasionally found evidence of
a cautious shift. Then, in 1969, researchers reported
some groups moving toward risk after a discussion,
but others becoming more cautious, suggesting
both types of shifts were possible (Doise, 1969).
Researchers also discovered that group discus-
sions can cause shifts in members’ attitudes, beliefs,
values, judgments, and perceptions (Myers, 1982).
In France, for example, where people generally like
their government but dislike Americans, group dis-
cussions improved their attitude toward their gov-
ernment but exacerbated their negative opinions of
Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire A self-report mea-
sure of willingness to make risky decisions that asks
respondents to read a series of scenarios involving a
course of action that may or may not yield financial,
interpersonal, or educational benefits and indicate what
the odds of success would have to be before they would
recommend the course of action.
risky-shift effect The tendency for groups to make
riskier decisions than individuals.
392 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Americans (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969). Simi-
larly, strongly prejudiced people who discussed
racial issues with other prejudiced individuals
became even more prejudiced. However, when
mildly prejudiced persons discussed racial issues
with other mildly prejudiced individuals, they
became less prejudiced (Myers & Bishop, 1970).
Polarization in Groups Researchers eventually
realized that risky shifts after group discussions
were a part of a more general process. When people
discuss issues in groups, they sometimes draw a
more extreme conclusion than would be suggested
by the average of their individual judgments. The
direction of this shift depends on their average ini-
tial preferences. When supporters gather to discuss a
candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, by the meet-
ing’s end their opinions will likely become even
more favorable toward the candidate. A gathering
of students who are moderately negative about a
professor’s teaching methods will become openly
hostile after a discussion. Social psychologists
David Myers and Helmut Lamm called this process
group polarization because the “average post-
group response will tend to be more extreme in
the same direction as the average of the pregroup
responses” (Myers & Lamm, 1976, p. 603; see also
Lamm & Myers, 1978). Group discussion polarizes,
in the sense that it tends to push people away from
the center toward the extremes.
Imagine two groups of four individuals whose
opinions vary in terms of preference for risk. As
Figure 12.6 indicates, when the average choice of
F I G U R E 12.5 A sample question from the Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire (from Pruitt, 1971, p. 359).
SOURCE: From “Choice Shifts in Group Discussion: An Introductory Review,” by Pruitt, D. G. (1971), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 359.
What Would You Recommend?
Mr. A, an electrical engineer, who is married and has one child, has been
working for a large electronics corporation since graduating from college five
years ago. He is assured of a lifetime job with a modest, though adequate,
salary and liberal pension benefits upon retirement. On the other hand, it is
very unlikely that his salary will increase much before he retires. While
attending a convention, Mr. A is offered a job with a small, newly founded
company which has a highly uncertain future. The new job would pay more to
start and would offer the possibility of a share in the ownership if the com-
pany survived the competition of the larger firms.
***
Imagine that you are advising Mr. A. Listed below are several probabilities or odds of
the new company proving financially sound. Please check the lowest probability that
you would consider acceptable to make it worthwhile for Mr. A to take the new job.
q The chances are 1 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.
q The chances are 3 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.
q The chances are 5 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.
q The chances are 7 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.
q The chances are 9 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.
q Place a check here if you think Mr. A should not take the new job no matter
what the probabilities.
group polarization The tendency for members of a
deliberating group to move to a more extreme position
with the direction of the shift determined by the majority
or average of the members’ predeliberation preferences.
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 393
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the group members before discussion is closer to the
risky pole of the continuum than to the cautious
pole (as would be the case in a group composed of
persons A, B, C, and D), a risky shift will occur. If, in
contrast, the group is composed of persons C, D, E,
and F, a cautious shift will take place, because the
pregroup mean of 6.5 falls closer to the cautious
pole. This example is, of course, something of an
oversimplification, because the shift depends on the
distance from the psychological rather than the
mathematical midpoint of the scale. As Myers and
Lamm (1976) noted, on choice dilemmas, an initial
pregroup mean of 6 or smaller is usually sufficient to
produce a risky shift, whereas a mean of 7 or greater
is necessary to produce a cautious shift. If the preg-
roup mean falls between 6 and 7, a shift is unlikely.
Causes of Polarization How do groups intensify
individuals’ reactions? Early explanations suggested
that groups feel less responsible for their decisions
and are overly influenced by risk-prone leaders, but
in time, investigators recognized that polarization
results from social influence processes that operate
routinely in groups, including social comparison, per-
suasion, and social identity processes (Friedkin, 1999).
■ Social comparison: When we make choices
together, we use others as reference points to
evaluate our own preferences and positions
(Myers, 1978). If, for example, we discover the
majority of the group likes risk, then to make a
good impression we might claim that we really
like risk (Weigold & Schlenker, 1991): “To be
virtuous … is to be different from the mean—
in the right direction and to the right degree”
(Brown, 1974, p. 469).
■ Persuasive arguments: We change our opinions
because we are persuaded by others’ arguments
and ideas, and groups usually generate more
arguments that support the position endorsed by
the majority of the group or the position that is
most consistent with dominant social values. As
a result, the group persuades itself, as more
arguments favoring the dominant viewpoint are
brought up during the discussion (Burnstein &
Vinokur, 1973, 1977; Vinokur & Burnstein,
1974, 1978). As we all restate our own and
other members’ arguments during the discus-
sion, we will gravitate toward which ever posi-
tion is best supported by the pool of available
arguments (Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 1995).
■ Social identity: Curiously, at least for persuasive
arguments theory, we sometimes shift our
opinions when we discover others’ positions
but not their arguments (Blascovich, Ginsburg,
& Howe, 1975, 1976). Why? Social identity
theory suggests that we are not persuaded by
the content of other’s arguments, but by con-
sensus of opinion. If, through discussion, we
come to believe that the prototypical group
member holds a relatively extreme attitude on
Risk Caution
A B C D E F
1 20 4 53 7 8 9 106
Group 1
mean
Group 2
mean
Cautious
shift
Risky
shift
F I G U R E 12.6 A schematic representation of polarization in groups. Imagine that group 1 includes person A
(who chose 1), person B (who chose 3), and persons C and D (who both chose 5); the average of pregroup choices
would be (1 + 3 + 5 + 5)/4, or 3.5. Because this mean is less than 5, a risky shift would probably occur in group 1. If, in
contrast, group 2 contained Persons C, D, E, and F, their pregroup average would be (5 + 5 + 7 + 9)/4, or 6.5. Because
this mean is closer to the caution pole, a cautious shift would probably occur in the group.
394 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the issue, if we identify with the group we will
shift in that direction (Haslam, 2004). This shift
causes the diversity of opinions in the group to
decrease, as we all converge on what we hold
to be the opinion of the prototypical group
member. This conception of the prototype
may also shift toward more extreme positions
to differentiate the ingroup from other groups
(Hogg, Turner, & David, 1990). We also
respond more positively to the arguments
offered by ingroup members than outgroup
members, and so we end up persuading each
other to take more extreme positions
(Mackie & Queller, 2000).
The Consequences of Polarization Would peo-
ple who believe that environmental pollution is a
serious problem be more likely, after their discus-
sion, to insist on severe measures to prevent pollu-
tion? Would bringing together two sides in a
community conflict and allowing them to meet
separately for an hour before a joint meeting create
even more tensions between the two groups?
Would a group of government experts who slightly
favored an invasion plan enthusiastically endorse the
plan after they discussed it? Do groups amplify
group members’ shared tendencies? Studies of
polarization say yes (Sunstein, 2002).
Polarization may, in some cases, yield positive
effects. Groups, when viewed from an evolution-
ary perspective, were designed to monitor risk,
hence, they are sensitive to threats and urge cau-
tion when alarmed (Kameda & Tamura, 2007). A
group’s collective efficacy may rise as individually
optimistic members join together and discuss their
chances for success. The members of a support
group may become far more hopeful of their
chances for recovery when they gather together
with others who are moderately optimistic. Inno-
vations and new ideas may be adopted by large
numbers of people as polarization amplifies
enthusiasm for the new products, methods, or
outlooks. Polarization may also encourage the
strengthening of positions within the group that
might go unexpressed or even be suppressed.
Thus, polarization, though sometimes a source
of error and bias, can in some cases have a beneficial
impact on the group and its members.
12-3 VICTIMS OF
G R OUPTHI NK
Social psychologist Irving Janis was intrigued by
President Kennedy’s advisory group. The group,
like so many others, failed to make the best decision
it could. Its failure, though, was so spectacular that
Janis wondered if something more than such com-
mon group difficulties as faulty communication and
judgmental biases were to blame.
Janis pursued this insight by searching for other
groups that made similar errors in judgment. And he
found many that qualified: Senior naval officers who
ignored repeated warnings of Japan’s aggressive inten-
tions regarding Pearl Harbor and took few steps to
defend it; President Truman’s policy-making staff
who recommended that U.S. troops cross the 38th
parallel during the Korean War, prompting China
to ally with North Korea against the United States;
President Nixon’s staff who decided to cover up
involvement in the break-in at Watergate. After
studying these groups and their gross errors of judg-
ment, he concluded that they suffered from groupthink
—”a mode of thinking that people engage in when
they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when
the members’ strivings for unanimity override their
motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses
of actions” ( Janis, 1982, p. 9). During groupthink,
members try so hard to agree with one another that
they make mistakes and commit errors that could eas-
ily be avoided.
Janis identified both the causes of groupthink, as
well as the symptoms that signal that a group may be
experiencing this malady. As Figure 12.7 indicates,
Janis identified three key sets of antecedent conditions
that set the stage for groupthink, including cohesion,
structural faults of the group or organization, and
provocative situational contexts. These conditions
cause members to seek out agreement with others
(concurrence-seeking tendency), which in turn leads
to two classes of observable consequences: symptoms
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 395
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of groupthink and symptoms of defective decision
making. In this section, we will work backward
through the model shown in Figure 12.7: We will
start with the symptoms of groupthink and then con-
sider the antecedent conditions.
12-3a Symptoms of Groupthink
Like a physician who searches for symptoms that sig-
nal the onset of the illness, Janis identified a number of
recurring patterns that occur in groupthink situations.
He organized these symptoms into three categories:
overestimation of the group, closed-mindedness, and pressures
toward uniformity (Janis, 1972, 1982, 1989; Longley &
Pruitt, 1980; Wheeler & Janis, 1980).
Overestimation of the Group Groups that have
fallen into the trap of groupthink are actually plan-
ning fiascoes and making all the wrong choices. Yet
the members usually assume that everything is
working perfectly. They even express enthusiasm in
their public statements about their wrong-headed
decisions (Tetlock, 1979). Janis traced this unwar-
ranted optimism to illusions of invulnerability and
illusions of morality.
■ Illusion of invulnerability: The Bay of Pigs planners
overestimated their group’s decisional savvy.
Members felt that they were performing well,
even though they were not. Feelings of assurance
and confidence engulfed the group. Such feelings
of confidence and power may help athletic teams
or combat units reach their objectives, but the
feeling that all obstacles can be easily overcome
through power and good luck can cut short clear,
analytic thinking in decision-making groups
(Silver & Bufanio, 1996).
■ Illusions of morality: The planners believed in the
inherent morality of their group and its decisions.
The plan to invade Cuba could unsympathetically
• Insulation of the
group
• Leadership style
• Other structural
factors
• Omissions in survey of
objectives and alternatives
• Poor information search
• Other errors in processing
information and decision
making
Low probability of
successful outcome

• Overestimation of the group
(illusion of invulnerability,
morality)
• Closed-mindedness
(collective rationalizations,
stereotyping)
• Pressures toward uniformity
(self-censorship, illusion of
unanimity, direct pressure,
mindguards)
Observable consequencesAntecedent conditions
Decision makers
constitute a
cohesive group
Symptoms of groupthink
• High stress from
external threats
• Low self-esteem
• Other factors
Concurrence-seeking
(groupthink) tendency
1
1
Structural faults
of the group or
organization
Provocative
situational
context
Symptoms of defective
decision making
F I G U R E 12.7 Irving Janis’s (1982) theory of groupthink.
SOURCE: Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
396 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

be described as an unprovoked sneak attack by a
major world power on a defenseless neighbor.
Although groups are capable of reaching admira-
ble levels of moral thought, this capability is
unrealized during groupthink (Muehlheusser,
Roider, & Wallmeier, 2015).
Closed-Mindedness Groups that are overtaken
by groupthink are not open-minded groups search-
ing for new ideas and perspectives. Rather, they are
closed-minded—rigidly shut off from alternatives,
merely seeking to bolster their initial decision
through rationalization and stereotypes.
■ Collective rationalization: Once the group began
to lean in the direction of endorsing the plan,
members began to discount information and
opinions that called into question their pre-
liminary decision: they failed to “reconsider
their assumptions” since there was no need.
They just dismissed objectives out of hand
through shared (but unwarranted) justifications
(Janis, 1982, p. 174).
■ Stereotyping: The members of the planning
group shared an inaccurate and negative opin-
ion of Castro and his political ideology. Castro
was depicted as a weak leader, an evil com-
munist, and a man too stupid to realize that his
country was about to be attacked. His ability to
maintain an air force was discredited, as was his
control over his troops and the citizenry. The
group participants’ underestimation of their
enemy was so pronounced that they sent a
force of 1,400 men to fight a force of 200,000
and expected an easy success.
Pressures toward Uniformity The struggle for
consensus is an essential and unavoidable aspect of
life in groups, but in groupthink situations, interper-
sonal pressures make agreeing too easy and disagree-
ing too difficult. Tolerance for any sort of dissent is
nil, and groups may use harsh measures to bring
those who disagree into line. In the president’s
committee, criticism was taboo, and members
who broke this norm were pressured to conform.
Janis highlighted four indicators of this pressure:
self-censorship, the illusion of unanimity, direct pres-
sure on dissenters, and self-appointed mindguards.
■ Self-censorship: In the planning group, many of
the members of the group privately felt
uncertain about the plan, but they kept their
doubts to themselves. Some even sent private
memorandums to the president before or after
a meeting; but when the group convened, the
doubting Thomases sat in silence. As Schle-
singer (1965, p. 225) later wrote, “In the
months after the Bay of Pigs I bitterly
reproached myself for having kept so silent
during those crucial discussions.”
■ Illusion of unanimity: The members seemed to
agree that the basic plan presented by the CIA
was the only solution to the problem. In later
discussions, they appeared to just be “going
through the motions” of debate. A “curious
atmosphere of assumed consensus” (Schlesinger,
1965, p. 250) characterized the discussion, as
each person wrongly concluded that everyone
else liked the plan. As Janis (1972) explained, the
planners apparently felt that it would be “better
to share a pleasant, balmy group atmosphere
than be battered in a storm” (p. 39).
■ Direct social pressure: The group’s easygoing,
supportive atmosphere did not extend to those
who disagreed with the group. As the group’s
support for the plan grew stronger, individuals
who disagreed were pressured to keep their
doubts to themselves. Kennedy, the group’s
leader, displayed strong support for the CIA
representatives, and would permit them to
counterargue any objections that other group
members raised.
■ Mindguards: Some members of the group
shielded the group from information that
would shake the members’ confidence in
themselves or their leader. These so-called
mindguard diverted controversial information
mindguard A group member who shields the group
from negative or controversial information by gatekeep-
ing and suppressing dissent.
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 397
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

away from the group by losing it, forgetting to
mention it, or deeming it irrelevant and thus
unworthy of the group’s attention. Alterna-
tively, the mindguard would take dissenting
members aside and pressure them to keep
silent. Kennedy, for example, withheld
memorandums condemning the plan from
both Schlesinger and Fulbright. Rusk sup-
pressed information that his own staff had given
him. One extreme example of this mind-
guarding occurred when Rusk, unable to
When Is Agreement Difficult to Manage?
The day was hot and dusty, as was often the case in
July in the small town of Coleman, Texas. Jerry Harvey,
his wife, and his wife’s parents were fanning them-
selves on the back porch, playing dominoes and
drinking lemonade. Suddenly, Jerry’s father-in-law
suggested, “Let’s get in the car and go to Abilene and
have dinner at the cafeteria” (Harvey, 1988, p. 13).
Abilene was 53 miles away, it was 104 degrees in the
shade, and the only available means of transportation
was an unairconditioned 1958 Buick. So they drove all
the way to Abilene, had a miserable time, and only
when they were back on the porch did they realize
that none of them had wanted to go in the first place.
After blaming each other for the bad decision, we
all sat back in silence. Here we were, four reason-
ably sensible people who—of our own volition—
had just taken a 106-mile trip across a godforsaken
desert in furnace-like heat and dust storm to eat
unpalatable food in a hole-in-the-wall cafeteria in
Abilene, when none of us had really wanted to go.
To be concise, we’d just done the opposite of what
we wanted to do. (Harvey, 1988, p. 14)
Groups sometimes make decisions that veer far
from the plans, desires, and preferences of their indi-
vidual members. Organizational expert Jerry Harvey’s
Abilene paradox aptly illustrates this tendency,
highlighting two factors that can cause members to
mismanage their group’s agreement. First, the Abilene
group suffered from a severe case of pluralistic igno-
rance (see Chapter 6). The group members mistakenly
believed that their private opinion about the Abilene
outing was discrepant from the other group members’
opinions. Therefore, each group member, wishing to be
seen as a cooperative member of the family, publicly
conformed to what they thought was the group’s
norm, each one erroneously assuming that he or she
was the only one with misgivings. Jerry went to Abilene
because that is what everyone else wanted to do—or so
he thought. Unfortunately, everyone else was thinking
the same thing, so the group mismanaged its consensus.
Second, the group committed to its decision
quickly and did not reconsider its choice when negative
consequences—the heat, the cost, and the discomfort—
mounted. This process is sometimes termed
entrapment—a special form of escalation that occurs
when the group expends “more of its time, energy,
money, or other resources than seems justifiable by
external standards” (Pruitt & Kim, 2004, p. 165).
Entrapment occurs when groups become so invested in
a course of action that they refuse to reverse their
decisions (Brockner, 1995; Brockner & Rubin, 1985).
Such situations often lure in groups by raising concerns
over investments the group has already made in the
choice (Arkes & Blumer, 1985). If a group discovers that
the costs for a project are escalating, the members will
rarely consider canceling the project altogether.
Instead, they will continue to fund the project, because
the initial investment, or sunk cost, must be honored.
Unfortunately, the money and time invested in a plan
of action is already spent and should no longer be
considered in weighing the ultimate value of the proj-
ect. Sunk cost, however, can cause groups to continue
to expend resources on projects that will ultimately fail.
Analyses of truly massive, much-criticized projects that
cost millions of dollars—such as the Millennium Dome
in London, EuroDisney, and the Denver International
Airport—can be traced to entrapment (Nutt, 2002).
Abilene paradox The counterintuitive tendency for a
group to decide on a course of action that none of the
members of the group individually endorses, resulting
from the group’s failure to recognize and manage its
agreement on key issues (identified by Jerry Harvey).
entrapment A form of escalating investment in which
individuals expend more of their resources in pursuing a
chosen course of action than seems appropriate or justi-
fiable by external standards.
sunk cost An investment or loss of resources that cannot
be recouped by current or future actions.
398 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

attend a meeting, sent Undersecretary of State
Chester Bowles. Although Bowles was said to
be horrified by the plan under discussion, Pres-
ident Kennedy never gave him the opportunity
to speak during the meeting. Bowles followed
bureaucratic channels to voice his critical mis-
givings, but his superior, Rusk, did not transmit
those concerns to the committee, and he told
Bowles that the plan had been revised. Bowles
was fired several weeks after the Bay of Pigs
defeat—partly because a scapegoat was needed,
but also because President Kennedy disliked him
intensely (Kramer, 2008).
12-3b Defective Decision Making
Janis did not consider the group to be one overtaken
by groupthink only because it made a bad decision,
but because it displayed symptoms of groupthink and
symptoms of defective decision making. The com-
mittee, for example, discussed two extreme
alternatives—either endorse the Bay of Pigs invasion
or abandon Cuba to communism—while ignoring all
other potential alternatives. The group actively
avoided any information that pointed to limitations
in its plans, while seeking out facts and opinions that
buttressed its initial preferences. The group members
did not just make a few small errors. They committed
dozens of blunders. The invasion was a fiasco, but it
was the faulty decisional strategies of the group that
indicated that the group suffered from groupthink.
12-3c Causes of Groupthink
To Janis, groupthink is like a disease that infects
healthy groups, rendering them inefficient and
unproductive. The symptoms of this disease signal
the group’s decline, but they are not the root causes
of groupthink. These processes contribute to poor
judgments, but Janis (1989) distinguished between
symptoms of groupthink and its causes: cohesiveness,
structural faults of the group or organization, and
provocative situational factors (see Figure 12.7).
Cohesiveness The members of the president’s
committee felt fortunate to belong to a group that
boasted such high morale and esprit de corps. Pro-
blems could be handled without too much internal
bickering, personality clashes were rare, the atmo-
sphere of each meeting was congenial, and replace-
ments were never needed, because no one ever left
the group. However, these benefits of cohesiveness
did not offset one fatal consequence of a close-knit
group—group pressures so strong that critical
thinking degenerates into groupthink.
Of the many factors that contribute to the rise
of groupthink, Janis emphasized cohesiveness above
all others. He agreed that groups that lack cohesion
can also make terrible decisions—”especially if the
members are engaging in internal warfare”—but
they cannot experience groupthink (Janis, 1982, p.
176). In a cohesive group, members refrain from
speaking out against decisions, avoid arguing with
others, and strive to maintain friendly, cordial rela-
tions at all costs. If cohesiveness reaches such a level
that internal disagreements disappear, then the
group is ripe for groupthink.
Measures of cohesiveness were, of course,
never collected for the president’s committee. But
many signs point to the group’s unity. The com-
mittee members were all men, and they were in
many cases close personal friends. These men,
when describing the group in their memoirs,
lauded the group, suggesting that their attitudes
toward the group were exceptionally positive.
The members also identified with the group and
its goals; all proudly proclaimed their membership
in such an elite body. Robert Kennedy’s remarks,
peppered with frequent use of the words we and us,
betrayed the magnitude of this identification:
It seemed that with John Kennedy leading us
and with all the talent he had assembled,
nothing could stop us. We believed that if we
faced up to the nation’s problems and applied
bold, new ideas with common sense and hard
work, we would overcome whatever chal-
lenged us. (quoted in Guthman, 1971, p. 88;
italics added)
Other evidence, however, suggests that the
advisory group was not as unified as Janis believed.
The membership of the group was not stable, so
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 399
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

different people were present at different meetings,
and therefore it is likely that no strong sense of
identity actually developed. Also, like many groups
composed of influential, successful individuals, per-
sonalities and differences in style and strategy caused
tension within the group. To a large extent, group
members were not motivated by group-centered
motives, but by their own political ambitions (Kra-
mer, 2008, 2016).
Structural Faults of the Group or Organization
Cohesion is a necessary condition for groupthink,
but the syndrome is more likely to emerge when
the group is organized in ways that inhibit the flow
of information and promote carelessness in the
application of decision-making procedures. Insula-
tion of the group from other groups, for example,
can promote the development of unique, poten-
tially inaccurate perspectives on issues and their
solution. The Bay of Pigs planners worked in secret,
so very few outsiders ever came into the group to
participate in the discussion. The committee was
insulated from criticism. Many experts on military
questions and Cuban affairs were available and, if
contacted, could have warned the group about
the limitations of the plan, but the committee
closed itself off from these valuable resources.
President Kennedy’s leadership style also shaped
the way the Bay of Pigs planners worked and may
have contributed to groupthink. By tradition, the
committee meetings, like cabinet meetings, were
very formal affairs that followed a rigid protocol.
The president could completely control the group
discussion by setting the agenda, permitting only cer-
tain questions to be asked, and asking for input only
from particular conferees (Stasson, Kameda, & Davis,
1997). He often stated his opinion at the outset of
each meeting; his procedures for requiring a voice
vote by individuals without prior group discussion
paralleled quite closely the methods used by Asch
(1952) to heighten conformity pressures in discussion
groups. Ironically, Kennedy did not give his advisors
opportunities to advise him (Kowert, 2002).
Provocative Situational Context A number of
provocative situational factors may push the group
in the direction of error rather than accuracy. As
humans tend to be reluctant decision makers in
the best of circumstances, they can unravel when
they must make important, high-stakes decisions.
Such decisions trigger greater tension and anxiety,
so group members cope with this provocative deci-
sional stress in less than logical ways. Through col-
lective discussion, the group members may
rationalize their choice by exaggerating the positive
consequences, minimizing the possibility of nega-
tive outcomes, concentrating on minor details,
and overlooking larger issues. Because the insecu-
rity of each individual can be minimized if the
group quickly chooses a plan of action with little
argument or dissension, the group may rush to
reach closure by making a decision as quickly as
possible (Callaway, Marriott, & Esser, 1985). Janis
also suggested that any factors that work to lower
members’ self-esteem, such as a history of mistakes
or prior lapses of morality, may further increase the
possibility of groupthink.
12-3d The Emergence of Groupthink
Because of the complexity of the groupthink model,
few tests of the entire model have been conducted.
Researchers have, however, attempted to replicate
Janis’s findings through archival case studies of
other historical and political groups. They have also
examined specific aspects of the theory—such as the
impact of cohesion and stress on decision-making
groups—to determine if its key assumptions hold
up under empirical scrutiny. These studies, which
are reviewed briefly here, sometimes support, some-
times challenge, and sometimes clarify Janis’s theory.
Archival Case Studies Janis, using an archival
method, compared groups that made very poor
decisions to groups that made excellent choices to
determine if error-prone groups exhibited more of
the symptoms of groupthink. In later work, he
enlarged his pool of cases to a total of 19
decision-making groups and had external raters
who worked from the same historical texts rate
the groups’ symptoms. As predicted, the higher
the number of groupthink symptoms, the more
400 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

unfavorable the outcome of the group’s delibera-
tions (r ¼ :64; Herek, Janis, & Huth, 1987, 1989;
Welch, 1989).
Other archival studies, too, have supported the
key elements of Janis’s groupthink model (Esser,
1998; Turner & Pratkanis, 1998b). One study of
the content of leaders’ public speeches when in
groupthink and vigilant decision-making situations,
for example, revealed signs of reduced complexity
and ingroup favoritism in leaders of groupthink
groups (Tetlock, 1979). Another indicated that
the structural faults identified by Janis were related
to groupthink, but cohesiveness and provocative
situational context factors were not (Peterson
et al., 1998; Tetlock et al., 1992). When political
scientists coded governmental groups that made
both good decisions (e.g., Clinton’s handling of
the proliferation of nuclear capabilities in South
Asia) and bad decisions (e.g., Reagan’s funding of
the Contras) on the variables specified by Janis in his
theory, they found considerable correspondence
between variables Janis identified and symptoms
displayed by poor-performing groups—although,
their analysis suggested leadership was even more
influential than what Janis suggested (Schafer &
Crichlow, 2010).
Cohesion and Groupthink Janis maintained that
groupthink was a characteristic of cohesive groups
only. If a group lacked cohesion, it might make
poor decisions, but those decisions would be due
to processes other than groupthink. His basic pre-
diction was that cohesion, combined with one or
more of the other potential causes of groupthink
(e.g., structural faults and provocative situational
context), would trigger groupthink. He admitted
that cohesive groups are not necessarily doomed
to be victims of groupthink, but “a high degree of
group cohesiveness is conducive to a high fre-
quency of symptoms of groupthink, which, in
turn, are conducive to a high frequency of defects
in decision-making” (Janis, 1972, p. 199).
A meta-analytic review of the results of seven
studies involving more than 1,300 participants pro-
vided some support for this prediction (Mullen
et al., 1994). High cohesiveness impaired decision
making, provided that one or more of the other
triggering conditions for groupthink were present
in the situation. If the other causes of groupthink
were absent, then cohesiveness increased the quality
of a group’s decision-making processes. The
cohesion–groupthink relationship may also depend
on the source of the group’s cohesion. In a labora-
tory study of women college students, groups that
derived their cohesiveness from their members’
commitment to the task displayed significantly
fewer symptoms of groupthink, whereas groups
that were interpersonally cohesive displayed more
symptoms of groupthink (Bernthal & Insko, 1993).
However, a case study of two groups that made
catastrophic errors and displayed many of the symp-
toms of groupthink described by Janis displayed lit-
tle social cohesion, but instead were united by task
cohesion (Burnette, Pollack, & Forsyth, 2011).
Structural Faults and Groupthink Janis identi-
fied several structural features of groups that can
contribute to groupthink, but researchers have con-
centrated most of their attention on the group
leader (Chen et al., 1996; Flowers, 1977). In one
project, group members discussed evidence pertain-
ing to a civil trial. Researchers told some of the
groups’ assigned leaders to adopt a closed style of
leadership: They were to announce their opinions
on the case prior to the discussion. Open-style lea-
ders were told to withhold their own opinions until
later in the discussion. Groups with a leader who
adopted a closed style were more biased in their
judgments, particularly when many of the group
members had a high need for certainty (Hodson
& Sorrentino, 1997). Groups with leaders with a
strong need for power also performed less effec-
tively, irrespective of the group’s level of cohesion
(Fodor & Smith, 1982). Other evidence, however,
suggests that leaders who are highly directive
improve their group’s decisions, provided that
they limit their control to the group’s decisional
processes rather than the group’s decisional out-
comes (Peterson, 1997).
Provocative Situational Context Studies of
groups under stress suggest that they are more likely
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 401
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

to make errors, lose their focus on their primary
goals, and make use of procedures that members
know have not been effective in the past. Social
psychologist Janis Kelly and her colleagues, for
example, have documented the negative impact of
time pressures on both group performance and pro-
cess (Kelly & Karau, 1999; Kelly & Loving, 2004).
They find that when groups work under time pres-
sure, members focus much of their attention on the
task, but doing so leaves them at risk of overlooking
important contextual information. They also tend
to concentrate on getting the task completed
quickly and so become more concerned with effi-
ciency and quick results rather than accuracy and
quality. In consequence, time pressures cause
groups to “produce a less creative, less adequate,
and less carefully reasoned decision. However,
when a decision is routine or straightforward,
these strategies can lead to adequate or even good
decision making” (Kelly & Loving, 2004, p. 186).
12-3e Alternative Models
Groupthink is not an obscure idea known only to
those who study groups. A mere three years after
the publication of Janis’s 1972 analysis, the term group-
think appeared in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary
(Turner & Pratkanis, 1998b). The theory offers insight
into very puzzling groups—those that make wrong-
headed decisions—and has been applied to political
decision makers, cults, businesses, and communities.
In 2004, for example, the U.S. Senate Select Com-
mittee on Intelligence concluded that the intelligence
community of the U.S. government had displayed a
number of the symptoms of groupthink when it erro-
neously concluded that the country of Iraq was assem-
bling weapons of mass destruction (U.S. Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, 2004). The theory serves
as a reminder that if we are to understand political
events that change the lives of people the world
over, we must understand groups.
Researchers, however, continue to debate the
validity of the model itself (Baron, 2005). Some
suggest that it should be drastically revised. Others
feel that the jury is still out and encourage more
research. Others have proposed alternative models.
Group-Centrism Theory Social psychologist Arie
Kruglanski and his colleagues (2006), like Janis,
have identified a syndrome that characterizes
groups and often causes them to make faulty deci-
sions. They term this syndrome group-centrism,
because it springs primarily from the group mem-
bers’ striving to maintain and support their group’s
unity. Group-centric groups tend to rush to make
judgments on the basis of insufficient information,
particularly if they face situations that interfere with
their capacity to process information—time pres-
sures, severe ambiguity, noise, or fatigue. They
are more likely to reject a member who disagrees
with the group, and they express a strong desire for
agreement with other members. Stereotyped
thought and tendencies to favor the ingroup over
the outgroup increase and willingness to compro-
mise in order to reach integrative solutions during
bargaining decreases. The group also strives for
cognitive closure—”a desire for a definite answer
to a question, any firm answer, rather than uncer-
tainty, confusion, or ambiguity” (Kruglanski
et al., 2002, p. 649)—and so adopts a more cen-
tralized structure with autocratic leaders. These
groups’ discussions are dominated by high-status
group members who have a much greater impact
on the group’s communications and decisions
than the rank-and-file members. These conse-
quences of group-centrism are consistent with
the symptoms of groupthink identified by Janis
(De Dreu, 2003).
Social Identity and the Ubiquity Model Social
psychologist Robert Baron (2005), after reviewing
much of the existing research on Janis’s theory,
agrees with Janis that members of groups often
strive for consensus and that, in doing so, they
group-centrism A group-level syndrome caused by
members’ excessive strivings to maintain and support
their group’s unity that results in perturbations in a group’s
decision-making capability and intergroup relations.
cognitive closure The psychological desire to reach a
final decision swiftly and completely; also, the relative
strength of this tendency, as indicated by a preference for
order, predictability, decisiveness, and closed-mindedness.
402 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

tend to limit dissent, denigrate the outgroup, and
misjudge their own group’s competence. Baron’s
ubiquity model of groupthink, however, suggests
that these qualities are ubiquitous features of
groups, rather than rare ones. They only lead to
problems, Baron suggests, when three conditions
are met. First, it is not group unity per se that
increases groupthink symptoms, but rather a threat
to a shared social identity that may result should the
group fail (Haslam et al., 2006; Turner & Pratkanis,
1998a). Second, the group must be one that has
developed a set of norms that constrains members’
opinions with regard to the topic under discussion.
Third, groupthink is more likely if group members
lack self-confidence. In such cases, they are likely to
rely on others’ judgments, with the result that the
group does not adequately consider its alternatives
(Sniezek, 1992).
12-3f Preventing Groupthink
Kennedy did not take his Bay of Pigs failure lightly.
In the months following the defeat, he explored the
causes of his group’s poor decision making. He fired
those he felt had misled him, put in place improved
procedures for handling information, and learned
how to decipher messages from his military staff.
These changes prepared him for the next great
issue to face his administration—the Cuban missile
crisis of 1962. When Kennedy learned that the
Are You Quick to Reach a Decision?
Some group members have more tolerance for long-
winded, drawn out discussions of relatively mundane
topics: others don’t. Social psychologist Arie Kruglanski
and his colleagues (1993) developed the Need for Clo-
sure Scale to measure people’s desire to wrap things
up quickly and move on.
Instructions. Put a check by each item that you
feel accurately describes you in most group situations.
Preference for Order
q I find that a well-ordered life with regular hours
suits my temperament.
q I hate to change my plans at the last minute.
q I think that having clear rules and order at work is
essential for success.
Preference for Predictability
q I don’t like to be with people who are capable of
unexpected actions.
q I don’t like to go into a situation without knowing
what I can expect from it.
q I prefer to socialize with familiar friends because I
know what to expect from them.
Decisiveness
q I usually make important decisions quickly and
confidently.
q When faced with a problem I usually see the one
best solution very quickly.
q I do not struggle with most decisions.
Discomfort with Ambiguity
q I don’t like situations that are uncertain.
q In most social conflicts, I can easily see which side
is right and which is wrong.
q It’s annoying to listen to someone who cannot
seem to make up his or her mind.
Closed-Mindedness
q I feel irritated when one person disagrees with
what everyone else in a group believes.
q I dislike questions which could be answered in
many different ways.
q I do not usually consult many different opinions
before forming my own view.
Interpretation. Only a sample of the 42 items
from the Need for Closure Scale are included here, and
the original scale uses a different response scale. If,
however, you checked any two of the three items in
any set, you may be predisposed to prefer order,
predictability, and decisiveness, but you are uncom-
fortable with ambiguity. The final set of items mea-
sures the tendency to close your mind to possible
alternatives (Kruglanski, Webster, & Klem, 1993).
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 403
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Soviet Union was constructing a missile base in
Cuba, he called in his advisors again. But this
time, the group made the right decision. Many of
the same people meeting in the same room and
guided by the same leader worked equally hard
under similar pressures. Both crises occurred in the
same area of the world, involved the same foreign
powers, and could have led to equally serious con-
sequences. Why did the missile crisis advisors suc-
ceed when the Bay of Pigs committee had failed?
Limiting Premature Seeking of Concurrence If
conformity was the norm in the Bay of Pigs group,
dissent was championed by the group during the
missile crisis. Kennedy deliberately suspended the
rules of discussion that guided such meetings; agen-
das were avoided, and new ideas were welcomed.
Although pressures to conform surfaced from time
to time during the discussion, the members felt so
comfortable in their role as skeptical, critical thin-
kers that they were able to resist the temptation to
go along with the consensus. In fact, the group
never did reach 100% agreement on the decision
to turn back the Soviet ships.
The atmosphere of open inquiry can be cred-
ited to changes designed and implemented by
Kennedy. He dropped his closed style of leader-
ship to become an open leader as he (1) carefully
refused to state his personal beliefs at the beginning
of the session, waiting instead until others had let
their views be known; (2) required a full, unbiased
discussion of the pros and cons of each possible
course of action; (3) convinced his subordinates
that he would welcome healthy criticism and con-
demn “yea-saying”; (4) arranged for the group to
meet without him on several occasions; and (5)
encouraged specific members of the group to
take the role of dissenter, or devil’s advocate, during
the group discussions.
Kennedy also reduced pressures to conform by
sometimes breaking the advisors into separate groups
to reduce their size and spur increased debate
(Wheeler & Janis, 1980). Kennedy also gave the
group an official name and identity. In a memoran-
dum dated October 22, 1962, Kennedy established,
named, and populated the “Executive Committee of
the National Security Council” and mandated that
this group would meet regularly for the purpose of
conducting governmental operations.
Correcting Misperceptions and Biases The new
and improved advisory committee did not take suc-
cess for granted. The group recognized the chal-
lenge they faced and did not try to ease their
discomfort by overestimating American superiority,
belittling the Russians, and denying the magnitude
of the dangers. According to the official version of
this incident, no trace of the illusion of superiority
that had permeated the planning sessions of the Bay
of Pigs invasion was in evidence during the execu-
tive committee meetings. Each solution was
assumed to be flawed and, even when the blockade
had been painstakingly arranged, the members
developed contingency plans in case it failed.
As members admitted their personal inadequacies
and ignorance, they willingly consulted experts who
were not members of the group. No group member’s
statements were taken as fact until independently ver-
ified, and the ideas of younger, low-level staff mem-
bers were solicited at each discussion. Participants also
discussed the group’s activities with their own staffs
and entered each meeting armed with the misgivings
and criticisms of these unbiased outsiders.
The committee discussed the ethics of the situa-
tion and the proposed solutions. For example,
although some members felt that the Russians had
left themselves open to any violent response the
Americans deemed appropriate, the majority argued
that a final course of action had to be consistent with
“America’s humanitarian heritage and ideals” (Janis,
1972, p. 157). Illusions of morality and invulnerabil-
ity were supposedly minimized along with biased
perceptions of the outgroup (see, for an alternative
interpretation of this incident, Alterman, 2004).
Using Effective Decision-Making Techniques
The executive committee is not an example of an
effective decision-making body simply because its
solution to the missile crisis worked. Rather, just as
the decision-making methods used by the Bay of Pigs
committee ensured its failure, the executive commit-
tee’s use of effective decision-making techniques
404 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

increased its chances of success (‘t Hart, 1998). Mem-
bers analyzed a wide range of alternative courses of
action, deliberately considered and then reconsidered
the potential effects of their actions, consulted experts,
and made detailed contingency plans in case the
blockade failed to stop the Russians. Many initially
favored military intervention, but the majority of
the group’s members insisted that other alternatives
be explored. This demand led to an expanded search
for alternatives, and soon the following list emerged:
1. Do nothing.
2. Exert pressure on the Soviet Union through
the United Nations.
3. Arrange a summit meeting between the two
nations’ leaders.
4. Secretly negotiate with Castro.
5. Initiate a low-level naval action involving a
blockade of Cuban ports.
6. Bombard the sites with small pellets, rendering
the missiles inoperable.
7. Launch an air strike against the sites with
advance warning to reduce loss of life.
8. Launch an air strike without advance warning.
9. Carry out a series of air attacks against all
Cuban military installations.
10. Invade Cuba.
Once this list was complete, the men focused
on each course of action before moving on to the
next option. They considered the pros and cons,
fleshed out unanticipated drawbacks, and estimated
the likelihood of success. During this process, out-
side experts were consulted to give the members a
better handle on the problem, and contingency
plans were briefly explored. Even those alternatives
that had initially been rejected were resurrected and
discussed, and the group invested considerable
effort in trying to find any overlooked detail.
When a consensus on the blockade plan finally
developed, the group went back over this alterna-
tive, reconsidered its problematic aspects, and
meticulously reviewed the steps required to imple-
ment it. Messages were sent to the Russians, mili-
tary strategies were worked out to prevent any
slipups that would escalate the conflict, and a
graded series of actions was developed to be under-
taken should the blockade fail. Allies were con-
tacted and told of the U.S. intentions, the legal
basis of the intervention was established by arrang-
ing for a hemisphere blockade sanctioned by the
Organization of American States; African countries
with airports that could have been used by Russia
to circumvent the naval blockade were warned not
to cooperate. To quote Robert Kennedy, “Noth-
ing, whether a weighty matter or a small detail, was
overlooked” (1969, p. 60).
C H A P TE R R E V I E W
How do groups make decisions?
1. Groups’ choices, judgments, estimates, fore-
casts, and decisions are usually superior to those
offered by single individuals. The ODDI process
model describes four operations that groups tend
to perform as they deal with decisions: orien-
tation, discussion, decision, and implementa-
tion (see Figure 12.2).
2. During the orientation stage, groups clarify
their goals, procedures (goal-path clarity), and
develop a shared mental model. Orientation
improves performance and time management,
minimizes the planning fallacy, and reduces the
likelihood the group will confirm Parkinson’s
law (1957) and his law of triviality.
3. During the discussion stage, members process
information collectively by retrieving infor-
mation from memory, exchanging informa-
tion, processing that information, and detecting
errors.
■ A group’s collective memory includes the
combined memories of all individual
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 405
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

members; cross-cueing and transactive memory
systems work to enhance group memory.
■ The more information the group members
exchange, the more accurate the group’s
decision (Bales, 1955) and the more likely
errors will be detected and corrected
(Shaw, 1932).
■ Discussion is challenging, both in terms of
its demands on members’ cognitive systems
and their communication skills. Meetings
are often viewed as low in value and a
drain on members’ time (Rogelberg et al.,
2006).
4. During the decision stage, the group relies on
an implicit or explicit social decision scheme to
combine individual preferences into a collec-
tive decision.
■ Common schemes include averaging (sta-
tisticized decisions), voting (plurality deci-
sions), reaching consensus (unanimous
decisions), and delegating. Each decision
scheme has both strengths and weaknesses.
■ Groups generally use consensus when
dealing with sensitive issues, but they tend
to use a plurality voting scheme when
making simple choices.
■ Vroom’s (2003) normative model of decision
making suggests that different types of
situations call for either autocratic,
consultative (individual and group),
facilitating, or delegating group decision-
making methods.
5. During the implementation stage, the group
carries out the decisions and assesses its impact.
■ Groups are more likely to accept a decision
that is perceived to be a just one, as
determined by distributive justice and proce-
dural justice beliefs.
■ Coch and French’s (1948) classic study of
motivation in the workplace suggests that
members are more satisfied and more likely
to implement decisions when they were
actively involved in the decision-making
process (the voice effect).
■ Groups frequently fail to accurately
appraise the quality of their decisions and
they avoid blame for failure through self-
serving and group-serving claims of
responsibility.
What problems undermine the effectiveness of
decision-making groups?
1. Judgment errors that cause people to overlook
important information and overuse unimpor-
tant information are often exacerbated in
groups.
■ Kerr and his colleagues (1996a) describe
three types of errors—sins of commission,
sins of omission, and sins of imprecision—
and research suggests that groups exacer-
bate these errors.
■ Groups, more so than individuals, fall prey
to the confirmation (they seek confirming
information and avoid disconfirming
information) and conjunction biases (the
“Linda problem”). More diverse groups
are less likely to display these biases, as are
ones which are rewarded for accuracy.
2. Groups are prone to the common knowledge
effect, or shared information bias; they spend
more of their discussion time examining details
that two or more of the group members know
in common than discussing unshared informa-
tion (Stasser & Titus, 1985).
■ Oversampling of shared information leads
to poorer decisions when a hidden profile
would be revealed by considering the
unshared information more closely.
■ The shared information bias increases
when tasks have no demonstrably correct
solution and when group leaders do
not actively draw out unshared
information.
406 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Enhanced discussion methods, leadership
interventions, and the use of group deci-
sion support systems (GDSS) reduce this
bias, possibly by reducing normative and
information influence pressures.
Why do groups make riskier decisions than
individuals?
1. Early studies carried out using the Choice
Dilemmas Questionnaire found that group
discussions generate a shift in the direction
of a more risky alternative (the risky-shift
effect).
2. Researchers such as Myers and Lamm (1976)
confirmed risky shift is a specific case of group
polarization: a shift in the direction of greater
extremity in individuals’ responses (e.g.,
choices, judgments, and expressions of opi-
nions) when in groups.
3. Group polarization is sustained by the desire to
evaluate one’s own opinions by comparing
them to those of others (social comparison
theory), by exposure to other members’ pro-
risk or pro-caution arguments (persuasive-
arguments theory), and by social identity
processes.
What is groupthink, and how can it be prevented?
1. Janis (1972) argued that fiascoes and blunders,
such as the decision to invade Cuba at the Bay
of Pigs, occur when group members strive for
solidarity and cohesiveness to such an extent
that any questions or topics that could lead to
disputes are avoided. Janis called this process
groupthink.
2. Groupthink has multiple symptoms that Janis
organized into three categories:
■ Overestimation of the group: illusion of
invulnerability and illusion of morality.
■ Closed-mindedness: rationalizations,
stereotypes about the outgroup.
■ Pressures toward uniformity: self-
censorship, the illusion of unanimity,
direct pressure on dissenters, and self-
appointed mindguards.
3. The Abilene paradox, as described by Harvey
(1988), occurs when groups mismanage agree-
ment and erroneously assume that their private
opinion is discrepant from the other group
members’ opinions. Groups also experience
entrapment when they become committed too
quickly to a decision and continue to invest in
it despite high sunk costs.
4. Groupthink groups also display defective
decision-making processes.
5. Janis identified three sets of causes of
groupthink: cohesiveness, structural faults of
the group or organization (such as isolation
and a closed leadership style), and provoca-
tive situational factors (including decisional
stress).
6. Research has yielded mixed support for Janis’s
groupthink theory, with both the symptoms
and the causes he identified linked to group
decisions of lower quality.
7. Researchers have proposed alternative models,
including the following:
■ Kruglanski’s group-centrism theory suggests
that groups whose members have a high
need for cognitive closure are more likely to
make poorer decisions (Kruglanski et al.,
2006).
■ Baron’s (2005) ubiquity model suggests
that many groups display the negative
decisional features identified by Janis, but
that these factors combined with a shared
social identity, restrictive norms, and lack
of confidence will trigger groupthink-like
decisions.
8. Janis noted that groups need not sacrifice cohe-
siveness to avoid the pitfall of groupthink. He
recommended limiting premature seeking of
concurrence, correcting misperceptions and
errors, and improving the group’s decisional
methods.
D E C I S I O N M A K I N G 407
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

R E S O U R C E S
Chapter Case: The Bay of Pigs Planners
■ Bay of Pigs: The Untold Story by Peter
Wyden (1979) offers a wealth of detail
about the group that planned the invasion
and draws on personal interviews with
many of the original group members.
■ “Ships in the Night: The CIA, the White
House and the Bay of Pigs” by Piero
Gleijeses (1995) relies on interviews with
group members to develop an explanation
for the advisory committee’s error in
judgment that emphasizes mistakes in
communication and misunderstanding.
Making Decisions in Groups
■ “A Look at Groups from a Functional
Perspective” by Andrea A. Hollingshead,
Gwen M. Wittenbaum, Paul B. Paulus,
Randy Y. Hirokawa, Deborah G. Ancona,
Randall S. Peterson, Karen A. Jehn, and
Kay Yoon (2005) uses a functional per-
spective to examine group composition,
structure, and task performance.
■ “Decision Making in Groups and Organi-
zations” by R. Scott Tindale and Katharina
Kluwe (2015) systematically reviews the
basic processes that groups use to make
decisions, including aggregation, decision
markets, advocacy, and full discussion to
consensus.
■ The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science,
edited by Joseph A. Allen, Nale Lehmann-
Willenbrock, and Steven G. Rogelberg
(2015a), provides a solid foundation for
expanding the study of meetings, with
sections devoted to premeeting activities,
meeting dynamics, and tools and models
for making meetings more successful.
■ “Team Decision Making” by Tom W.
Reader (2017) is a concise analysis of
decision making in groups, but with a
focus on highly organized, purposeful
groups (teams) in applied settings.
Groupthink
■ “Presidential Leadership and Group Folly:
Reappraising the Role of Groupthink in
the Bay of Pigs Decisions” by Roderick
M. Kramer (2008) uses declassified docu-
ments and historical records not available
to Janis before concluding that many
aspects of the Bay of Pigs decision are
inconsistent with the groupthink theory.
■ The Polythink Syndrome: U.S. Foreign Policy
Decisions on 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria,
and ISIS by Alex Mintz and Carly Wayne
(2016) offers a different explanation for the
many mistakes made by policy makers: a
plurality of opinions that leads to disunity
and fragmented policies.
408 C H A P T ER 12
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 13
Conflict
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Rare is the group—whether team, committee, club,
or even best friends—that avoids, at all times, con-
flict. Conflicts arise from many sources, as disagree-
ments over minor and major issues, personality
conflicts, and power struggles cause once close col-
laborators to become hostile adversaries. Because
conflict is a ubiquitous aspect of group life, it must
be managed to minimize its negative effects.
■ What is conflict and its causes?
■ Why does conflict escalate?
■ How can group members manage their
conflict?
■ Is conflict an unavoidable evil or a necessary
good?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
13-1 The Roots of Conflict
13-1a Winning: Conflict and Competition
13-1b Sharing: Conflict over Resources
13-1c Controlling: Conflict over Power
13-1d Working: Task and Process Conflict
13-1e Liking and Disliking: Relationship
Conflicts
13-2 Confrontation and Escalation
13-2a Uncertainty ! Commitment
13-2b Perception ! Misperception
13-2c Soft Tactics ! Hard Tactics
13-2d Reciprocity ! Retaliation
13-2e Irritation ! Anger
13-2f Few ! Many
13-3 Conflict Resolution
13-3a Commitment ! Negotiation
13-3b Misperception ! Understanding
13-3c Hard Tactics ! Cooperative Tactics
13-3d Retaliation ! Forgiveness
13-3e Anger ! Composure
13-3f Many ! Few
13-3g The Value of Conflict: Redux
Chapter Review
Resources
409
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Jobs versus Sculley was one of corporate America’s
most spectacular conflicts, but it was no anomaly.
Groups of all kinds experience periods of disagree-
ment, discord, and friction. Good friends disagree
about their weekend plans and end up exchanging
harsh words. Families argue over finances, rules, and
responsibilities. Struggling work teams search for a
person who can be blamed for their inefficiency.
College classes, angered by their professors’ meth-
ods of teaching, lodge formal complaints with the
dean. Rock bands split up due to artistic differences.
When conflict occurs in a group, the actions or
beliefs of one or more members of the group are
unacceptable to and resisted by one or more of the
other group members. Members stand against each
other rather than in support of each other (see
Dreu, Aaldering, & Saygi, 2015; Greer & Dannals,
2017, for reviews).
Why do allies sometimes turn into adversaries?
The process begins when the group’s routine inter-
actions are disrupted by some sort of initial disagree-
ment, aggravation, or irritation (see Figure 13.1).
Many disagreements are so minor that the group
resolves them easily, but others create a lack of align-
ment in the group that triggers the conflict cycle.
The conflict intensifies as discussion gives way to
arguing, emotions take the place of logic, and the
once unified group splits into factions (conflict escala-
tion). Eventually, the conflict peaks and begins to
dissipate (conflict de-escalation) and the members seek
and implement a way to resolve their differences
(conflict resolution). The board of directors at Apple,
for example, decided to support Sculley and so
they demoted Jobs—a rather severe means of dealing
Jobs versus Sculley: When Group Members Turn against Each Other
It was a time before the iPad, iPhone, and iMac. Apple
Inc. had started strong under the leadership of Steve
Jobs, but now it was struggling to hold its own during
a downturn in sales of technology and software. Jobs
and the executive board decided they needed a more
traditional chief executive officer (CEO) with a back-
ground in business. They picked John Sculley, president
of PepsiCo, hoping that he would stabilize Apple,
improve efficiency, and increase sales.
All worked well, for a time. Jobs and Sculley
admired each other’s strengths as leaders and visionar-
ies, and they conferred constantly on all matters of
production and policy. But they did not see eye-to-eye
on key issues of corporate goals. Their working rela-
tionship dissolved into a series of disagreements, each
one more problematic than the last. Both men played
central roles as leaders in the company, but their differ-
ences in direction, vision, and style were disruptive. As
the conflict over Jobs’ pet project, the Macintosh (prede-
cessor of the iMac), reached a peak, Sculley asked the
executive board to strip Jobs of much of his authority. The
group did so, reluctantly (Linzmayer, 2004).
Jobs did not go quietly into the night. He met
with each board member individually, to win approval
for his plan to fire Sculley in a corporate coup. He
waited to spring his plan when Sculley was traveling in
China, but Sculley was tipped off by one of the board
members. Sculley cancelled his trip, called a board
meeting, and confronted Jobs:
“It’s come to my attention that you’d like to
throw me out of the company, and I’d like to ask if
that’s true.”
Jobs’ answer: “I think you’re bad for Apple, and
I think you’re the wrong person to run this com-
pany…. You really should leave this company…. You
don’t know how manufacturing works. You’re not
close to the company. The middle managers don’t
respect you.”
Sculley, his voice rising in anger, replied, “I made
a mistake in treating you with high esteem.… I don’t
trust you, and I won’t tolerate a lack of trust.”
Sculley then polled the board members. Did they
support Sculley or Jobs? All of them declared great
admiration for Jobs, but they felt that the company
needed Sculley’s experience and leadership. Jobs then
rose from the table and said, “I guess I know where
things stand,” before bolting from the room (Sculley,
1987, pp. 251–252). Jobs later resigned from the com-
pany he had founded. He would return, eventually,
but not until Sculley had resigned.
conflict Disagreement, discord, and friction that occur
when the actions or beliefs of one or more members of
the group are unacceptable to and resisted by one or
more of the other group members.
410 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

with the dispute. This chapter focuses on conflict
inside a group—between two or more members—or
intragroup conflict. A second form of conflict—
conflict between groups or intergroup conflict—is
examined in the next chapter.
13-1 T HE R OOTS O F
C O N F L I C T
Conflict is everywhere. When the members of 71
groups were asked, “Did your group experience
any conflict?” they identified 424 instances of
interpersonal irritation (Wall & Nolan, 1987). When
Robert Freed Bales and his colleagues used the inter-
action process analysis (IPA) to record group interactions,
some of the groups they observed spent as much
as 20% of their time making hostile or negative
comments (Bales & Hare, 1965). A researcher
who arranged for groups to work on a frustrating,
impossible-to-solve task was startled by the intensity
of the conflict that overtook the groups. In one
particularly hostile group, members averaged 13.5
antagonistic comments per minute (French, 1941).
Most people, if given the choice, avoid situa-
tions that are rife with conflict (Roloff & Wright,
2009). Yet conflict seems to be an unavoidable con-
sequence of life in groups. When individuals are
sequestered away from other people, their ambitions,
goals, and perspectives are their own concern. But a
group, by its very nature, brings individuals into con-
tact with other people—people who have their own
idiosyncratic interests, motivations, outlooks, and
preferences. As these individuals interact with one
another, their diverse interests and preferences can
pull them in different directions. Instead of working
together, they compete against one another. Instead
of sharing resources and power, members selfishly
claim more than their fair share. Instead of accepting
each other for who they are, members treat those
they like better than those they dislike.
13-1a Winning: Conflict and
Competition
Before Sculley joined Apple, his success or failure in
manufacturing and marketing did nothing to influ-
ence Jobs and vice versa. But when they both
worked at Apple, they became interdependent, for
they could influence each other’s outcomes through
individual and coordinated action (Schelling, 1960).
At first, their relationship was based on cooperation:
if Jobs succeeded Sculley succeeded, and vice versa.
But eventually this cooperative relationship gave way
to competition: The success of one meant the other
would fail. Social psychologist Morton Deutsch
(1949b) calls these two types of relationships promotive
and contrient interdependence.
Competition versus Cooperation Competition
can be a positive experience. When, for example,
we choose to compete in athletic events and con-
tests we often experience elevated motivation and
Conflict
de-escalation
Conflict
Conflict
resolutionDisagreement
Routine
interaction
Conflict
escalation
F I G U R E 13.1 The course of conflict in groups.
intragroup conflict Disagreement or confrontation
between members of the same group.
intergroup conflict Disagreement or confrontation
between two or more groups and their members that
can include physical violence, interpersonal discord, and
psychological tension.
cooperation A performance situation that is structured in
such a way that the success of any one member of the
group improves the chances of other members’ succeeding.
competition A performance situation that is structured
in such a way that success depends on performing better
than others.
C ON FLICT 411
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

positive emotions such as excitement and the thrill of
victory (Franken & Brown, 1995). However, when a
situation calls for cooperation and teamwork but
devolves into competition, then the positive benefits
of competition are few. Instead of collaborating, we
become rivals, striving to outperform each other. We
no longer take pride in others’ accomplishments; in
fact, we sometimes try to block their progress and
disrupt their work. When we compete we seek
rewards and protect our resources—we become
greedy—but we also become wary, even fearful, of
others (Kelley et al., 2003). Competition even
changes how we talk to others in our group. When
competing we make fewer positive but more negative
remarks, and we are less likely to discuss shared prior-
ities (Scheia, Rognes, & Shapiro, 2011).
Cooperation and competition trigger different
motivational systems: one promotes sharing, trust,
and collaboration, and the other promotes selfish-
ness, suspicion, and sequestration. The two orienta-
tions are evident when social neuroscientists study
individuals who are cooperating and competing
(Decety et al., 2004). Both forms of interaction
recruited areas of the brain that have been implicated
in the production of behavioral choices, particularly
in uncertain circumstances. The cooperating brain,
however, shows more activity in regions associated
with the processing of social rewards and overall
psychological satisfaction (the orbitofrontal cortex).
In contrast, the competing brain is busy intuiting
the motivations of other people (medial prefrontal
cortex) and distinguishing between the self and
others (right inferior parietal cortex). Other research
even suggests that individuals who are competing
with others show, in some cases, elevated activity
in the amygdala, an area of the brain thought to be
responsible for feelings of fear (Bhatt et al., 2012;
Fermin et al., 2016; Tsoi et al., 2016).
Mixed-Motive Situations Few situations involve
pure cooperation or pure competition; the motive to
compete is often mixed with the motive to cooper-
ate. Sculley wanted to gain control over the Mac
division but he needed Jobs’ help with product
development. Jobs valued Sculley’s organizational
expertise but he felt that Sculley misunderstood the
company’s goals. The men found themselves in a
mixed-motive situation—they were tempted to
compete and cooperate at the same time.
Researchers use a specialized technique known as
the prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG) to study
mixed-motive situations. Imagine you and your friend
Steve have been arrested and the police are question-
ing you both—but in separate rooms. The police give
you a choice: You can remain silent or you can con-
fess and implicate Steve. But they also explain that if
you and Steve remain silent, then you will both go
free. If both of you confess, you and Steve will receive
moderate sentences. But if you confess and Steve does
not, then you receive a minimal sentence and Steve
will receive the maximum sentence. And vice versa. If
Steve confesses and you do not, you get the long
sentence. Should you confess or remain silent (Luce
& Raiffa, 1957; Poundstone, 1992)?
The dilemma turns into an experimental test of
conflict and cooperation when jail time is converted
into points or money (see Figure 13.2). If you were
playing this experimental game with a partner named
Steve, you would both be asked to pick one of two
options, labeled C and D. Option C is the cooperative
choice. If you both pick C, then you both will earn
money. Option D is the competitive choice (defection).
If only one of you defects by picking D, that player
will make money and the other will lose money. But
if you both pick D, both will lose money.
Figure 13.2 shows the payoff matrix that summarizes
how much money the two of you will win or lose in
each of the four possible situations:
1. You choose C and Steve chooses C, both earn
50¢.
2. You choose C and Steve chooses D, you lose
50¢ and Steve earns $1.
mixed-motive situation A performance setting in
which the interdependence among interactants involves
both competitive and cooperative goal structures.
prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG) A simulation of
social interaction in which players must make either
cooperative or competitive choices in order to win;
used in the study of cooperation, competition, and the
development of mutual trust.
412 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

3. You choose D and Steve chooses C, you earn
$1 and Steve loses 50¢.
4. You choose D and Steve chooses D, both lose
25¢.
So you are drawn to cooperate (option C), but
fear that Steve may defect (option D). You and
Steve usually cannot communicate with each
other, and so you face an uncertain situation. In the
single-trial version, you only make your choice
once. In the iterated version, you play multiple
rounds. Each pair of choices is termed a trial or
round.
Which option do most people pick in the
PDG? Some cooperate and some compete, with
the proportion of cooperators to competitors vary-
ing depending on the relationships between mem-
bers, their expectations, personalities, and a variety
of other factors (Weber & Messick, 2004). If, for
example, the gains for competing relative to
cooperating are increased (e.g., people would earn
$2 instead of only $1 by competing in the game
shown in Figure 13.2), people compete more.
When people are told they are playing the “Wall
Street Game,” they compete more than if the sim-
ulation is called the “Community Game” (Gilovich &
Ross, 2015). If the instructions refer to the other per-
son as the “opponent,” then competition increases,
but the label “partner” shrinks competitiveness
(Burnham, McCabe, & Smith, 2000). And, if people
know they will be playing multiple trials against the
same person, then cooperation increases (Van Lange,
Klapwijk, & Van Munster, 2011). In one study, for
example, people played the PDG in large groups of
30 to 50 people. The game randomly paired people
together on each trial, but the odds of being paired
with the same person repeatedly were varied experi-
mentally from low to high. The greater the chances of
playing with a person in the future, the more coop-
erative players became (Bó, 2005).
Behavioral Assimilation When people play the
iterated PDG, their choices are usually influenced by
their partner’s prior choices. When playing with
someone who consistently makes cooperative choices,
people tend to cooperate themselves. Those who
encounter competitors, however, soon adopt this
strategy, and they, too, begin to compete. Gradually,
then behavioral assimilation occurs as group mem-
bers’ choices become synchronized over time.
The norm of reciprocity is to blame (or credit) for
this assimilative process. As noted in Chapter 3, the
norm of reciprocity sustains mutuality in exchange:
When people who help you later need help, the
norm of reciprocity urges you to help them in
return. However, the norm of reciprocity also
implies that people who harm you are deserving
of harm themselves. The converse of “You scratch
my back and I’ll scratch yours” is “An eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth.” If one group member
criticizes the ideas, opinions, or characteristics of
Your choice
C D
S
te
v
e
’s
c
h
o
ic
e
Steve
wins
50¢
Steve
loses
50¢
Steve
wins
$1
Steve
loses
25¢
You
win
50¢
You
win
$1
You
lose
50¢
You
lose
25¢
D
C
F I G U R E 13.2 The prisoner’s dilemma game. You
and Steve must select either option C (cooperation) or
option D (defection). These choices are shown along the
sides of the matrix. The payoffs for these joint choices are
shown within each cell of the matrix. In each cell, your
outcomes are shown above the diagonal line and Steve’s
outcomes are shown below. For example, if Steve picks C
and you pick C, you each earn 50¢. But if Steve picks C
and you pick D, then Steve loses 50¢ and you win $1.
behavioral assimilation The eventual matching of the
behaviors displayed by cooperating or competing group
members.
C ON FLICT 413
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

another, the victim of the attack will feel justified in
counterattacking unless some situational factor
legitimizes the aggression of the former (Falk &
Fischbacher, 2006).
Unfortunately, negative reciprocity tends to be
stronger than positive reciprocity. Although people
consistently return kindness with kindness and
thereby maintain equity in their relationship and
reward positive behavior, they are even more likely
to punish an unkindness with hostility. A cooperative
person who runs into a competitive partner is more
likely to begin to compete before the competitive
person begins to cooperate, so as a result a partner
turns into an opponent faster than an opponent turns
into an ally (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970a, 1970b,
1970c). This asymmetry in reciprocity is even greater
when members believe others’ acted deliberately. A
person who intentionally treats another person in a
positive way may receive a positive response back,
but when a person deliberately mistreats another per-
son, a negative payback is assured (Offerman, 2002).
Social Value Orientation When situational fac-
tors align to create competition between people,
conflict becomes more likely. But competition does
not result only from situational causes, for some peo-
ple are quicker to compete than others. Jobs and
Sculley, for example, differed in many ways. Jobs
was born in 1955 in San Francisco, California. He
never finished college, and he was a practicing Zen
Buddhist. John Sculley was born in 1939, but as a
child lived in Bermuda, Brazil, and Europe.
He attended Brown University and received an
MBA from the Wharton School of Business at the
University of Pennsylvania. But the two were alike in
one respect: They were both highly competitive.
What makes one person more competitive than
another? According to social values orientation
(SVO) theory, our willingness to cooperate or
compete is determined by two sets of values: our con-
cern for our own outcomes and our concern for other
people’s outcomes. Proself individuals seek to maxi-
mize personal gains; when they play the PDG, they
want to earn as many points as they can. Prosocials,
in contrast, are also concerned with others’ gains and
losses; they want to maximize others’ outcomes (Van
Lange et al., 2007). When both orientations are taken
into account, SVO theory identifies four distinct
orientations:
■ Individualists are proself and concerned only
with their own outcomes. They neither inter-
fere with nor assist other group members, for
they focus only on their own outcomes. Their
actions may indirectly impact other group
members, but such influence is not their goal.
■ Competitors are proself and strive to maximize
their own outcomes, but they also seek to
minimize others’ outcomes (their prosocial
value is low). They view disagreements as win–
lose situations and find satisfaction in forcing
their ideas on others.
■ Cooperators are both prosocial and proself, so
they strive to maximize their own outcomes
and others’ outcomes as well. They value
accommodative interpersonal strategies that
generate win–win situations.
■ Altruists are prosocial but not proself, so they
are motivated to help others who are in need.
They willingly sacrifice their own outcomes in
the hopes of helping others achieve some gain.
Proselfs are more likely to find themselves in
conflicts. Their style is abrasive, spurring coopera-
tive members to react with criticism and requests
for fairer treatment. Competitors, however, rarely
modify their behavior in response to these com-
plaints, because they are relatively unconcerned
with maintaining smooth interpersonal relations
(Bogaert, Boone, & Declerck, 2008). Hence,
competitors try to overwhelm cooperators who
sometimes respond by becoming competitive
themselves. For cooperators, the perception of
others’ cooperativeness is positively correlated with
their own cooperativeness. If they think that others
social values orientation (SVO) The dispositional
tendency to respond to conflict settings in a proself or
prosocial way; cooperators, for example, tend to make
choices that benefit both parties in a conflict, whereas
competitors act to maximize their own outcomes.
414 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Are You Proself or Prosocial?
Each of us differs in our orientation to cooperation and competition. Paul Van Lange and his colleagues (1997)
developed the social value orientation scale to measure these differences between people. It uses a “decom-
posed” version of the PDG that asks respondents to choose between three options that yield different conse-
quences for themselves and for another person—labeled the other.
Instructions. Imagine that you have been randomly paired with another person, the other. Both you and
other will be picking between three options labeled A, B, and C. These different options produce different
amounts of points for you and for other. For example:
Choice A Choice B Choice C
You get 500 500 550
Other gets 100 500 300
In this example, when you pick A, you receive 500 points and the other gets 100. Picking B yields 500 points
for both of you. If you select C, you receive 550 points, and the other receives 300. Before you begin making
choices, remember there are no right or wrong answers. Just circle the choice (A, B, or C) you most prefer.
Problem 1 Choice A Choice B Choice C
You get 480 480 540
Other gets 480 80 280
Problem 2 Choice A Choice B Choice C
You get 500 500 560
Other gets 500 100 300
Problem 3 Choice A Choice B Choice C
You get 520 520 580
Other gets 520 120 320
Problem 4 Choice A Choice B Choice C
You get 490 500 560
Other gets 490 100 300
Scoring. The complete SVO scale includes 12 of these choices; only a subset of the items were presented
here. However, if you consistently picked option A, then you can be considered prosocial. If you consistently
picked B, then you are proself. And if you picked C: you are individualistic. Do your choices match your own
intuitions about how you respond in mixed-motive situations?
C ON FLICT 415
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

will cooperate, they cooperate. For competitors, per-
ceptions of others’ cooperativeness are negatively cor-
related with their own cooperativeness. If they think
that others will cooperate, they compete (Smeesters
et al., 2003). When two competitors meet, the result
is an intense conflict like that seen at Apple. When
competitors lose, they often withdraw from the
group altogether (Shure & Meeker, 1967).
Competitors (and altruists, for that matter) are
relatively rare; most people are either cooperators
or individualists. However, individualists seek their
own outcomes without regard for others, so more
individualists usually means more conflict (Balliet,
Parks, & Joireman, 2009). In one study, researchers
first measured peoples’ SVOs and then created
four-person groups with varying mixtures of indi-
vidualists and cooperators. The groups were then
set to work on a task that required considerable
negotiation and compromise. As expected, the
groups composed entirely of cooperators were
more likely to use more diplomatic negotiation tac-
tics than were groups of individualists. This effect,
however, was the result of cooperators adapting
their styles to match the composition of the
group. Finding themselves in a group with all coop-
erators, they cooperated. But if they were members
of groups with individualists, they became less
cooperative. Individualists, however, did not make
adjustments—they maintained their confrontational
style of interaction when interacting with other
cooperators and with other individualists (Weingart
et al., 2007).
Men, Women, and Competition What if John
Sculley were Joanna Sculley—a woman rather than
a man? Would she and Jobs have battled as fiercely?
Or would Joanna have used less competitive meth-
ods for settling the dispute?
Common sex role stereotypes generally assume
that men are more competitive than women. Stor-
ies of executives conjure up images of individuals
who are driven, ruthless, self-seeking, and male.
But some versions of evolutionary theory suggest
that men are more cooperative than women—at
least when interacting with other men (Thayer &
Hudson, 2010). But the data are mixed. Some
studies find men to be more competitive, but others
suggest women are. For example, men are some-
what more competitive than women when compe-
tition is a riskier alternative or will yield a greater
payoff (Simpson, 2003). Women are more likely to
endorse prosocial SVOs relative to men (Knight &
Dubro, 1984). Women’s reactions during conflicts
are also more nuanced than men’s. If, for example,
their partner is attractive, women make more coop-
erative choices. If they do not like their partner,
they are more likely to compete (Kahn, Hottes, &
Davis, 1971). Men do tend to cooperate more in
all-male groups than do women in all-female
groups, but women are more likely to cooperate
in situations that involve sharing rather than com-
peting (Balliet, Li et al., 2011). Men displayed
heightened physiological reactions—primarily posi-
tive ones—when playing a competitive game,
whereas women did not (Kivikangas et al., 2014).
Given these various findings, when researchers used
meta-analytic methods to combine the results of
272 studies of the responses of over 30,000 partici-
pants, they concluded men are no more competi-
tive than women (Balliet, Li et al., 2011).
Competition in High-Stakes Situations Many
popular game shows let viewers watch groups over-
taken by conflict. On Survivor, for example, only
one contestant can win the grand prize, and mem-
bers must vote a person out of the group each time
their team loses. On Weakest Link, members coop-
erate by answering strings of questions, but after
each round they vote to identify and eliminate
the weakest player from their teams. The competi-
tion among players invariably introduces tension,
conflict, and hostility.
Researchers, to determine if people become
more competitive when the stakes are high, system-
atically analyzed the results of one particular game
show, Friend or Foe. On this show the teams play a
variant of the prisoner’s dilemma game after each
round. If both pick Friend, they split their earnings.
If one picks Friend but one picks Foe, Foe keeps
everything. And if both players pick Foe, they lose
all their earnings. Unlike choices made in experi-
mental studies, their choice to cooperate or compete
416 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

is a very public one, and they are also negotiating for
serious amounts of money; on average, $3,705.
When researchers examined teams’ choices,
they discovered that players defected, trying to take
all the money, 50% of the time. Men tended to
compete more than women (55% vs. 46%), and
younger players were much more competitive than
older ones (59% vs. 37%). Hence, competitive men
who were paired with older women tended to take
home much more money than all other players.
Competitiveness, however, was unrelated to the
size of the stake. People playing for substantial
amounts were as likely to compete as they were to
cooperate. This competitive urge ended up saving
the game show a considerable amount of money.
Contestants left nearly $100,000 behind as a result
of two players making the fatal Foe–Foe choice
(List, 2006; Oberholzer-Gee, Waldfogel, & White,
2010; see, too, a replication of this sex difference in
Van den Assem, Van Dolder, & Thaler, 2012).
13-1b Sharing: Conflict over
Resources
Steve Jobs faced a dilemma. The board of directors of
Apple had hired John Sculley to be the CEO, and
they expected all the company’s employees to support
Sculley’s initiatives. But Sculley called for sacrifices, for
he wanted to shift personnel and financial resources
away from Jobs’ division. Jobs could have accepted
this decision and gone along with the group’s choice,
but instead he followed his own path.
Group life, by its very nature, is sometimes a
social dilemma. As individuals, members try to
extract resources from the group and minimize
the amount of time and energy the group takes
from them. Yet, as group members, they also
Do Students Learn Best in Cooperative or Competitive Classrooms?
Most educational settings are competitive places—
students compete for grades, honors, and class rank.
Competition prompts many students to expend
greater effort, but sometimes it shifts the focus to
grades and away from learning. Students in competi-
tive settings have two options open to them. First, they
can improve their own work in the hopes that they rise
above the others. Second, they can undermine, sabo-
tage, disrupt, or interfere with others’ work so that
their own becomes better by comparison (Amegashie
& Runkel, 2007). Students in cooperative classes, in
contrast, can help one another reach their learning
goals.
Deutsch studied the dark side of competition by
creating two different grading systems in his college
classes. In competitive classes, students’ grades were
relative: The individual who did the best in the group
would get the highest grade, whereas the individual
who did the worst would get the lowest grade.
Deutsch created cooperative groups as well. These
students worked together in groups to learn the
material, and everyone in the group received the same
grade. As Deutsch predicted, conflict was much more
pronounced in the competitive groups. Members
reported less dependency on others, less desire to win
the respect of others, and greater interpersonal ani-
mosity. Members of cooperative groups, in contrast,
acted friendlier during the meetings, were more
encouraging and supportive, and communicated more
frequently (Deutsch, 1949a, 1949b, 1973, 1980).
Deutsch is not the only educator and researcher
who questions the benefits of competitive classroom
goals (Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). Educa-
tional psychologists David Johnson and Roger Johnson
(2009), in a meta-analytic review, identified 1,200
studies that examined cooperation, competition, and
learning. Their analysis indicated that students in
classrooms that stress cooperation rather than individ-
ualism or competition work harder, display better
psychological adjustment, and have higher self-
esteem. Students in cooperative classes also outper-
formed those in competitive ones: They displayed bet-
ter reasoning skills, perspective-taking ability, and
higher levels of achievement overall. Given these
robust results, Johnson and Johnson strongly encour-
age educators to reevaluate their reliance on compet-
itive goal structures and shift to more group-centered,
cooperative methods of instruction.
social dilemma An interpersonal situation where indi-
viduals must choose between maximizing their personal
outcomes or maximizing their group’s outcomes.
C ON FLICT 417
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

wish to contribute to the group, for they realize
that their selfishness can destroy the group. Con-
flicts arise when individualistic motives trump
group-oriented motives, and the collective inter-
venes to redress the imbalance (Parks, 2015).
Commons Dilemmas The “tragedy of the com-
mons” epitomizes the commons dilemma (also
known as a social trap). Shepherds with adjoining
farms all share a common grazing field. The com-
mon can support many sheep, so the shepherds
grow prosperous. Then, one or two shepherds
decide to add a few sheep to their flock so that
they can make more profit. Others notice the
extra sheep, so they, too, add to their flocks.
Soon, the commons is overgrazed, and all the
sheep die of starvation (Hardin, 1968). The mem-
bers, tempted by short-term gains, acted selfishly
and in so doing brought about long-term losses to
the collective (Kramer, 2011).
Any group whose members must share a finite
resource faces this social trap. Members may
be tempted to take as much as possible of the
resource, but if they take too much, the resource
will be destroyed. Can groups escape this dilemma?
Experience in dealing with the situation, commu-
nication, and social pressures that encourage conser-
vation are all critical factors. People who are given
two chances to harvest a pool are much more coop-
erative the second time, for they have learned what
can happen if they act selfishly (Allison & Messick,
1985a). Communication, so long as it focuses on
strategy, also increases prosocial resource conserva-
tion (Brechner, 1977). The commons dilemma can
also be partially remedied by developing, within the
group, normative standards that stress efficient con-
sumption of the resource rather than greedy exploi-
tation. When members are aware of others’ choices,
they tend to conform to those choices so long as the
group is harvesting very little from a small pool but
is taking more from a larger one (Brucks, Reips, &
Ryf, 2007).
Public Goods Dilemmas The commons is a
“take some” dilemma: Members can draw on
the resource, but they must not take too much. A
public goods dilemma, in contrast, is a “give
some” dilemma: Members are asked to contribute
to the group, but members often don’t fulfill this
obligation. For example, some residents who use
their community’s resources, such as public parks,
highways, and libraries, may not contribute to the
community by paying taxes. Similarly, when stu-
dents work on class projects as teams, one member
may miss meetings and leave assignments undone,
but still get a good grade because the group scores
well on the final project. When everyone is asked
to bring a covered dish to a reception, a few atten-
dees will show up empty-handed. We met these
people in Chapter 10’s analysis of social loafing:
These individuals are free riders.
Free riding can spark group conflict. When
group members in a college class described the
sources of conflicts in their project groups, more
than 35% of their comments targeted disputes
over workload. People had much to say about the
dedication of their comembers to the group’s goals,
for some members of the group did not put in as
much time, effort, and resources as the others
expected (Wall & Nolan, 1987). Free riding can
also be contagious, for some group members, seeing
that others are free riding, may reduce their own
contributions or withdraw from the group alto-
gether (Komorita & Parks, 1994). Fortunately, the
opposite of free riding—consistent contributing—is
also contagious: Free riding decreases in groups
where one or more of the members consistently
contributes at a high level even though others
in the group do not (Weber & Murnighan, 2008).
commons dilemma (or social trap) A social dilemma
when individuals can maximize their outcome by seeking
personal goals rather than the collective goals, but if too
many individuals act selfishly, then all members of the
collective will experience substantial long-term losses.
public goods dilemma A social dilemma when one
may or may not contribute any resources in support of
a public good (such as a park or a highway system) but
also cannot be excluded for failing to contribute.
418 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

A note of warning, however, for those who pride
themselves on doing more than their fair share: Para-
doxically, members who are too self-sacrificing—they
give much to the common good but take nothing for
themselves—are sometimes excluded from the group.
They set a standard that others in the group cannot
reach (Parks & Stone, 2010).
Free riding poses a significant threat to effective
group functioning. As an evolutionary perspective
suggests, humans’ ancestral groups could not survive
if too many of their members failed to do their
share of their group’s work. In consequence,
humans are equipped with the mental apparatus
needed to detect free riders. Groups can tell the
difference, for example, between a person whose
lack of contribution is unintentional—someone,
for example, who is incompetent, ill, or just con-
fused about the group’s requirements—and a per-
son who is intentionally avoiding work (Delton
et al., 2012). But once the group identifies a shirker
in their midst, they intervene in various ways. Some
groups remind those who contribute too little of
their obligations and extract promises of improved
performance. Others publically reward those who
do their share. Groups also impose costs on the free
riders—criticism, public humiliation, physical pun-
ishment, and fines are all ways to punish free riders.
People are even willing to impose costs on them-
selves if it means that free riders can be punished in
some way (Balliet, Mulder, & Van Lange, 2011).
Fairness Dilemmas Jobs and Sculley, even many
years after their conflagration, disagreed not only
about the causes but also about the essential facts.
Sculley (2011) denied ever firing Jobs. He admits
that he reassigned Jobs, but it was Jobs’ decision to
resign. Jobs, in contrast, remembers being fired. In a
commencement address given at Stanford Univer-
sity in 2005, he asked, “How can you get fired from
a company you started?” (quoted in Ong, 2012).
Jobs did not consider the board’s decision to be a
fair one, but Sculley did.
Fairness judgments are determined by two
forms of social justice: procedural and distributive.
As discussed in Chapter 11, procedural justice is based
on the methods used to make decisions about the
allocation of resources, whereas distributive justice
concerns how rewards and costs are shared by (dis-
tributed across) the group members. In the case of
Jobs versus Sculley, the fairness of firing Jobs
depends in part on how the board of directors
made their decision. If they weighed the decision
carefully, sought all the data they needed, and dis-
cussed the problem with all concerned parties, then
the decision would be a fair one—at least in terms
of procedural justice. Distributive justice, however,
asks, “Did Jobs get what he deserved?” When one’s
piece of cake seems smaller than it should be, when
others get the best seats right up near the front of
the bus, when workers who do the same job are
paid different salaries, when the person who started
the company is fired by the person he hired to help
him run the company, some may feel that distribu-
tive justice has not been done (Tyler, 2013).
Distributive justice depends, in part, on the
norms the group uses to allocate rewards. In some
groups, such as Apple, rewards are given for produc-
tivity and performance—and individuals who con-
tribute little can expect little in return. Other groups,
in contrast, base the distribution of rewards on other
factors, such as status, duration of membership, or
need. Some common distributive norms follow:
■ Equity: The group gives more to members who
have done more for the group. Someone who
has invested a good deal of time, energy,
money, or other type of input in the group
receives more than individuals who have con-
tributed little.
■ Equality: The group treats all members equally,
no matter what their contribution to the
group. For example, a person who contributes
20% of the group’s resources receives as much
as the person who contributes 40%.
■ Power: The group allocates more of its resources
to those with more authority, status, or control
over the group and less to those in lower-level
positions (“to the victor go the spoils”).
■ Need: The group takes into consideration the
level of need of each of its members and allo-
cates more of its resources to those with the
greatest needs and less to those who need less,
C ON FLICT 419
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

irrespective of how much these individuals
contributed to the group. This norm is some-
times termed the social responsibility norm since
those who have more are expected to share
with those who have less.
Equity versus Equality Money (and other
resources) may not be the root of all evil, but its
distribution often causes conflicts within groups
(Allison & Messick, 1990; Samuelson & Allison,
1994). Members who contribute less to the group
often argue in favor of the equality norm, whereas
those who contribute more tend to favor the equity
norm. Women prefer equality over equity even when
they outperform their coworkers (Wagner, 1995).
Members of larger groups prefer to base allocations
on equity, whereas members of smaller groups stress
equality (Allison, McQueen, & Schaerfl, 1992). Some
countries stress equality and need more than equity, as
do different organizations and groups within each
country (Fischer et al., 2007). Members of groups
working on tasks when one individual’s contributions
are critically important for success prefer equitable dis-
tributions over egalitarian ones.
Group members who feel that they are receiv-
ing too little for what they are giving—negative
inequity—sometimes withdraw from the group,
reduce their effort, or turn in work of lower quality.
Receiving too much for what one has given—posi-
tive inequity—sometimes causes people to increase
their efforts so they deserve what they get, but it
is negative inequity that causes conflict (Fortin &
Fellenz, 2008; Rivera & Tedeschi, 1976). These reac-
tions are driven, in part, by self-interest. Most people
strive to maximize their personal rewards, so they
react negatively when they are denied what they
feel they deserve. But people also react to negative
inequity because they recognize that the rewards the
group gives them are an indication of their status and
prestige within the group—if the group gives
more to Sculley than to Jobs, then the group must
think Sculley is better than Jobs. In general, how-
ever, members’ reactions are shaped more by proce-
dural justice than distributive justice. Members who
Are Humans the Only Species That Understands Fairness?
Humans are not the only species with a highly evolved
sense of distributive justice, at least according to
research conducted by primatologists Sarah Brosnan,
Frans de Waal, and their colleagues. They trained
capuchin monkeys to work for food rewards. The
monkeys, when given a token, would be rewarded
with a small portion of food when they handed the
token back. These monkeys would work for a bit of
cucumber (low-value reward), but they preferred a
grape above all else (high-value reward).
Once trained, Brosnan and de Waal set up dif-
ferent payment conditions to see how the monkeys
would respond. In the equity condition, two monkeys
worked side by side for the same low-value reward;
and work they did, diligently exchanging a coin for
food. In the inequity condition, one of the monkeys
received the high-value reward and the other was
given the low-value reward. The latter monkeys were
none too pleased. In addition to vocalized complaints
and gestures of defiance, they refused to continue
exchanging the tokens for food, and, when given
their food reward, they would indicate their displea-
sure by returning it—aiming for the researchers.
These reactions were worse still in a third, “free food”
condition. Conflict reached its peak when the one
monkey was given grapes without even having to
trade coins back and forth (Brosnan, 2011; Brosnan &
de Waal, 2003).
Brosnan and De Waal conclude that these mon-
keys’ reactions were guided by their instinctive sense
of fairness, for they appeared to recognize the ineq-
uity of the situation. But not all primate species react
so negatively. Rhesus monkeys, for example, do not
seem to be sensitive to distributive justice, perhaps
because they live in small groups with very differenti-
ated chains of authority that create great inequalities
in the distribution of rewards. They also note that
the monkeys that prospered under the inequitable
arrangement showed no sign of concern over getting
more than their fair share. They were not so altruistic
that they shared their ill-gotten gains with their unre-
warded partner.
420 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

believe that their group has acted with integrity
while allocating rewards feel a sense of pride in
their group (Blader & Tyler, 2003, 2009).
Responsibility Dilemmas When a group com-
pletes its work, members often dispute who
deserves credit and who deserves blame. The
board of directors at Apple blamed Jobs for the
company’s economic misfortunes. Sculley credited
his skilled marketing interventions for Apple’s pros-
perity in the years following Jobs’ dismissal. Jobs
blamed Sculley for ruining the company.
Just as individuals carry out extensive appraisals
of their own successes and failures, so do group
members devote significant cognitive resources to
the analysis and comprehension of their collective
endeavors. This appraisal, however, is complicated
by the collaborative nature of group activities.
Group members must identify the factors that con-
tributed to each member’s performance, assign credit
and blame, and make decisions regarding rewards,
power, and status. Each group member, however,
generally sees himself or herself as somewhat more
worthy of credit than others in the group. This ten-
dency, termed egocentrism, can be easily docu-
mented just by asking people to indicate how
responsible they feel they are for any group activity,
where 0% means they are not responsible at all and
100% that they alone are responsible for what the
group has achieved. These scores, when summed
across group members, invariably exceed 100%
(Burnette & Forsyth, 2008; Ross & Sicoly, 1979).
This bias occurs, in part, because people are far
more aware of their own contributions than those
of others—they literally see themselves busily con-
tributing to the group effort and overlook the work
of others. Thus, egocentrism can be reduced by
asking group members to think about their colla-
borators’ contributions, a process termed unpacking.
When, for example, the authors of multiauthored
research articles were asked to estimate their
responsibility for the joint project, they were less
egocentric if they were also asked to estimate how
much the other coauthors had contributed (Caruso,
Epley, & Bazerman, 2006; Savitsky et al., 2005).
Group members’ claims of responsibility can be
either group-serving (sociocentric) or self-serving
(egocentric). After success, members may praise the
entire group for its good work with such comments
as “We all did well” or “Our hard work really paid
off.” Likewise, after failure, members may join
together in blaming outside forces and absolving
one another of blame. Because these types of
responsibility claims protect and enhance the
group, they lower the levels of relationship conflict
within the group (Peterson & Behfar, 2003). Fre-
quently, however, self-serving members blame one
another for the group’s misfortunes or take the
lion’s share of the credit after a success (Forsyth,
Zyzniewski, & Giammanco, 2002).
These self-serving attributions result in conflict
and a loss of cohesion (Gibson & Schroeder, 2003).
In one study, members of successful and unsuccess-
ful groups were asked to complete a confidential
report of their responsibility and others’ responsibil-
ities for the outcome. Then, to their surprise, this
report was shared with other group members.
Unbeknown to the group members, the actual
reports were switched with standard ones indicating
that another group member either took high, mod-
erate, or low responsibility for the outcome. Group
members who blamed others for failure or tried to
claim the lion’s share of responsibility after success
were not well liked (Forsyth, Berger, & Mitchell,
1981). Other studies confirmed that those who
engage in self-serving attributions in groups are
often viewed as braggarts, narcissists, or even
untrustworthy liars, but that those who share
responsibility appropriately are considered trust-
worthy teammates (Dattner, 2011).
13-1c Controlling: Conflict over
Power
Jobs thought that he would be content to allow
another person to make key decisions about Apple’s
egocentrism Giving oneself more responsibility for an
outcome or event than is warranted; often indexed by
comparing one’s own judgments of personal responsibil-
ity to judgments of responsibility allocated by others.
C ON FLICT 421
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

future, but when those decisions did not mesh with
his own vision, he sought to regain control. Sculley
believed that Jobs was undermining his authority.
Both Jobs and Sculley sought the power they
needed to control the company, and their power
struggle caused turmoil within the group.
As noted in earlier chapters, the differentiation
of members in terms of status, prestige, and power
is a ubiquitous feature of groups. As the group
strives to coordinate its members’ task-directed
activities, some individuals will begin to assert
more authority over the others. Those who occupy
positions of authority have the right to issue orders
to others who are expected to follow those direc-
tives. Once individuals gain power over others,
they tend to defend their sources of power through
manipulation, the formation of coalitions, informa-
tion control, and favoritism. These power processes
occur with great regularity in groups, but they
nonetheless cause waves of tension, conflict, and
anger to ripple through the group (Greer, 2014).
Infighting, power struggles, and disputes are
particularly common in business and corporate set-
tings. Sociologist Calvin Morrill (1995) spent sev-
eral years collecting ethnographic data on the
sources and consequences of conflict between
executives in corporations. His analysis confirmed
the image of companies as arenas for power strug-
gles, when group members compete with each
other for power, promotions, and prominence,
often by using manipulative, illicit tactics. Contests
of authority and power were so commonplace in
one company that the executives developed an
elaborate set of terms and expressions pertaining
to company politics, which Morrill recorded
much like an anthropologist would record the
rituals of the members of an isolated tribe. An
ambush was a “covert action to inconvenience an
adversary” (synonyms: bushwhack and cheap shot);
blindsiding was “an intentional and surprising public
embarrassment by one executive at another’s
expense”; an outlaw was “an executive who handles
conflict in unpredictable ways but who is regarded
as especially task competent.” In some cases, this
maneuvering would result in a meltdown—a “physi-
cal fight between executives” (1995, pp. 263–265).
13-1d Working: Task and Process
Conflict
When Sculley first went to work at Apple, he and
Jobs disagreed about such things as marketing,
research and development, and long-term strategy,
but they worked through these disagreements.
They also disagreed about the way the company
should operate and how decisions should be
made. These disagreements, in the end, were their
undoing.
Task Conflict As the group goes about its work
on shared tasks and activities, members sometimes
disagree with one another. This type of conflict
is termed task conflict, or content conflict or substan-
tive conflict, because it stems from disagreements
about issues that are relevant to the group’s goals
and objectives. No group of people is so well coor-
dinated that its members’ actions mesh perfectly, so
conflicts over group tasks are inevitable. Groups and
organizations use such conflicts to make plans,
increase efficiency and creativity, solve problems,
decide issues, and resolve misunderstandings. Peri-
ods of tension and disunity are so typical in groups
that a “storming stage” or “fight-and-flight” stage is
included in most theories of group development
(see Chapter 5). Sculley and Jobs, as the leaders of
Apple, were supposed to argue and debate over
substantive issues having to do with making and
selling computers (Jehn, 2014).
Process Conflict Task conflict occurs when
ideas, opinions, and interpretations clash. process
conflict, or procedural conflict, occurs when strategies,
policies, and methods clash. Group members may
find themselves uncertain about how to resolve a
problem, with some championing continued discus-
sion and others favoring a vote. The leader of the
task conflict (content conflict or substantive conflict)
Disagreements over issues that are relevant to the group’s
recognized goals and procedures.
process conflict (or procedural conflict) Disagreement
over the methods the group should use to complete its
basic tasks.
422 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

group may make decisions and initiate actions with-
out consulting the group; but the group may
become irritated if denied an opportunity to partici-
pate in decision making. Members dislike the way
roles have been allocated within the group, and they
try to change their positions and responsibilities.
Members who are assigned particular tasks do not
do them or they do them very poorly. Members
disagree about how they are supposed to be working
together (Behfar et al., 2011).
The Benefits of Task and Process Conflict Both
task and process conflict have been implicated as
causes of dissatisfaction and inefficiency in groups,
but they do not necessarily lead to full-blown,
table–pounding, harsh words shouted, and relation-
ship rending conflict. When groups disagree about
issues of substance and about process, as they often
do, resolving these disagreements eliminates problems
that may undermine their performance in the future.
Group members must understand one another’s per-
spectives, and such understanding sometimes deepens
when conflict has surfaced, been confronted, and
been resolved. If groups never confront their differ-
ences and disagreements and resolve them, they may
find that cohesiveness, and efficiency, always elude
them (Bradley et al., 2015; Maltarich et al., 2016).
But both content and process conflict, if not
skillfully managed by the group’s members, will
destabilize the group and undermine its perfor-
mance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). People who
disagree with the group, even when their position is
a reasonable one, often provoke considerable ani-
mosity. The dissenter who refuses to accept others’
views is liked less, assigned low-status tasks, and
sometimes ostracized. As the group struggles to
reach consensus on the substantive issues at hand,
it responds negatively to those group members who
slow down this process (Kruglanski & Webster,
1991). Researchers studied this process by planting
a confederate in discussion groups. The confederate
deliberately slowed down the group with such
interruptions as “What do you mean?” “Do you
think that’s important?” or “I don’t understand.”
In some groups, the confederate had an excuse:
He told the group that his hearing aid was not
working that day. Other groups, in contrast, received
no exculpating explanation. At the end of the ses-
sion, members were asked to identify one person to
exclude from the group. Everyone (100%) picked
the disruptive confederate if there was no excuse
for his actions (Burnstein & Worchel, 1962).
13-1e Liking and Disliking:
Relationship Conflict
When school psychologists studied children playing
together during recess, they discovered this period
of relatively unsupervised interaction was rife with
conflict: arguments about a game’s rules, disputes
about what is fair and what is not, and who gets
to make decisions. But the most intense conflicts
were personal. Children who disliked each other
got into fights. Children who had irritating personal
habits were routinely excluded by others. Children
in one clique were mean to children in other cli-
ques and to those who were excluded from all cli-
ques. When children who said they had a rotten
time at recess were asked why, in most cases they
explained, “I had to play alone” and “Other kids
would not let me join in” (Doll, Murphy, & Song,
2003).
Adults do not always play well together either.
Relationship conflict, or personal conflict, is rooted
in individuals’ antipathies for other group members.
Personal likes and dislikes do not always translate
into group conflict, but people often mention
their disaffection for another group member when
they air their complaints about their groups (Alicke
et al., 1992). Morrill’s (1995) study of high-level
corporate executives, for example, revealed both
task and power conflicts, but more than 40% of
their disputes were rooted in “individual enmity
between the principals without specific reference
to other issues.” Disputants questioned each other’s
moral values, the way they treated their spouses,
and their politics. They complained about the
way their adversaries acted at meetings, the way
relationship conflict Interpersonal discord that occurs
when group members dislike one another.
C ON FLICT 423
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

they dressed at work and at social gatherings, their
hobbies and recreational pursuits, and their person-
ality traits. They just did not like each other very
much (Morrill, 1995, p. 69).
Sources of Relationship Conflict Just as any
factor that creates a positive bond between people
can increase a group’s cohesion, so any factor that
creates disaffection can increase conflict. In many
cases, people explain their conflicts by blaming the
other person’s negative personal qualities, such as
moodiness, compulsivity, incompetence, communica-
tion difficulties, and sloppiness. People usually dislike
others who evaluate them negatively, so criticism—
even when deserved—can generate conflict. Group
members who treat others unfairly or are quarrelsome
engender more conflict than those who behave
politely (Albert & Moskowitz, 2014).
People who have agreeable personalities are usu-
ally better liked by others, and they also exert a calm-
ing influence on their groups. In a study of dyads that
included people who were either high or low in
agreeableness, dyads with two highly agreeable indi-
viduals displayed the least conflict, whereas dyads that
contained two individuals with low agreeableness dis-
played the most (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair,
1996). Agreeable people also responded more nega-
tively to conflict overall. When people described their
day-to-day activities and their daily moods, they
reported feeling unhappy, tense, irritated, and anxious
on days when they experienced conflicts—especially
if they were by nature agreeable people (Suls, Martin,
& David, 1998).
Conflict and Balance in Groups Mature adults
who do not like each other can usually manage to
overlook their personal differences and work well
with one another. Until, that is, they find them-
selves on different sides of a substantive issue.
Once Sculley and Jobs’ personal liking for each
other deteriorated, each time they discussed matters
of substance their personal hostility spilled over into
task and process conflict.
Sociologist Howard Taylor examined task and
relationship conflict by arranging for male college
students to discuss an issue with another student
whom they liked or disliked. This student was Tay-
lor’s confederate who he trained to deliberately agree
or disagree on key issues. Taylor then watched the
groups for evidence of conflict, including tension
(nervousness, stammering, blushing, expressions of
frustration, and withdrawal), tension release (gig-
gling, joking, cheerfulness, and silliness), and antago-
nism (anger, hostility, taunting, and defensiveness).
Taylor, drawing on balance theory, predicted
that conflicts between friends would elevate levels of
tension, but that conflicts with enemies would gener-
ate more open hostility. As noted in Chapter 6, dis-
agreeing with someone who is liked is an imbalanced
state that will create psychological discomfort. Dis-
agreeing with someone you dislike, in contrast, is cog-
nitively “harmonious”—the elements of the situation
all “fit together without stress” (Heider, 1958, p. 180).
Such a situation may not cause psychological tension,
but it will likely cause conflict, for it combines both
task conflict with personal conflict.
Figure 13.3 partly summarizes the findings. As
balance theory suggests, tension was highest in the
unbalanced pairs—when disagreeing people liked
each other or when people who disliked each
other agreed. People did not like disagreeing
with friends or agreeing with their foes. The great-
est amount of antagonism, however, occurred
when discussants both disagreed and disliked each
other. So, the predictions of balance theory were
only partially confirmed. The most harmonious
groups were those whose members liked each
other and found themselves in agreement. How-
ever, the least harmonious groups were balanced,
but by negative rather than positive forces: Mem-
bers disliked each other and they disagreed. Taylor
(1970) concluded that such groups would likely
not long endure outside the confines of the
laboratory.
13-2 C ON FRON TA TION AN D
E S C A LA T ION
Early in 1985, Sculley and Jobs began moving
toward a showdown, pushed into conflict by their
424 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

incompatibilities, their marked differences of opinion
about the company, the competitive nature of their
interdependence, and their refusal to take less than
they felt was their due. They tried to quell the ten-
sion, but by spring, the men were trapped in an
upward spiral of hostility.
Conflicts escalate. Although the parties to the
conflict may hope to reach a solution to their dis-
pute quickly, a host of psychological and interper-
sonal factors can frustrate their attempts to control
the conflict. As Sculley continued to argue with
Jobs, he became more committed to his own posi-
tion, and his view of Jobs and his position became
biased. Sculley used stronger influence tactics,
and soon other members of Apple were drawn
into the fray. All these factors fed the conflict,
changing it from a disagreement to a full-fledged
corporate war.
13-2a Uncertainty ! Commitment
As conflicts escalate, group members’ doubts and
uncertainties are replaced by a firm commitment to
their position. Sculley, for example, became more
certain that his insights were correct, and his dis-
agreement with Jobs only increased his commitment
to them. When people try to persuade others, they
search out supporting arguments. If this elaboration
process yields further consistent information, they
become even more committed to their initial posi-
tion. People rationalize their choices once they have
made them: They seek out information that supports
their views, they reject information that conflicts
with their stance, and they become entrenched in
their original position. Moreover, people feel that
once they commit to a position publicly, they must
stick with it. They may realize that they are wrong,
but to save face, they continue to argue against their
opponents (Tavris & Aronson, 2007).
The dollar auction illustrates the impact of conflict
on commitment. Members bid for $1, but one special
rule is added. The highest bidder gets to keep the dollar
bill, but the second highest bidder gets no money and
must pay the amount he or she bid. Bids flow slowly at
first, but soon the offers climb over 50 cents toward the
$1 mark. As the stakes increase, however, quitting
becomes costly. If a bidder who offers 50 cents for
the $1 is bested by someone offering 60 cents, the
50-cent bidder will lose 50 cents. So he or she is
tempted to beat the 60-cent bid. This cycle continues
upward—well beyond the value of the dollar bill in
some cases. On occasion, players have spent as much as
$20 for the $1 (Teger, 1980).
Reactance can also cause a person to become
overly committed to their position and resistant to
compromise. When reactance occurs, individuals
strive to reassert their sense of freedom by affirming
their autonomy. In one study in which teammates
had to make a choice between two alternatives
marked 1-A and 1-B, 73% chose 1-A if their part-
ner said, “I prefer 1-A,” but only 40% chose 1-A if
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
like/
agree
like/
disagree
dislike/
agree
dislike/
disagree
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
like/
agree
like/
disagree
dislike/
agree
dislike/
disagree
T
e
n
s
io
n
H
o
s
ti
li
ty
F I G U R E 13.3 Levels of tension and hostility when
people who disagreed or agreed on an issue and either
liked or disliked each other talked for 30 minutes.
SOURCE: From Balance in small groups by H. F. Taylor, 1970. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
reactance A complex emotional and cognitive reaction
that occurs when individuals feel that their freedom to
make choices has been threatened or eliminated.
C ON FLICT 425
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the partner demanded, “I think we should both do
1-A” (Brehm & Sensenig, 1966). In another study,
83% of the group members refused to go along
with a group participant who said, “I think it’s
pretty obvious all of us are going to work on
Task A” (Worchel & Brehm, 1971, p. 299).
13-2b Perception ! Misperception
Individuals’ reactions during conflict are shaped in
fundamental ways by their perception of the situa-
tion and the people in that situation. Group mem-
bers’ inferences about each other’s strengths,
attitudes, values, and other personal qualities pro-
vide the basis for mutual understanding, but during
conflict these perceptions tend to be so distorted
that they inflame rather than smooth conflict
(Thompson, Nadler, & Lount, 2006).
Misattribution Sometimes group members settle
on explanations that sustain and enhance members’
interpersonal relations. Jobs, in trying to explain
Sculley’s actions, may have assumed Sculley was
under pressure from the board, was unaccustomed
to the demands of running a high-tech firm, or was
dealing with the stress of his relocation. But fre-
quently, people explain their conflicts in ways that
make the problem worse. For example, Jobs would
think that Sculley’s actions were caused by his per-
sonal qualities, such as incompetence, belligerence,
argumentativeness, greed, or selfishness. Jobs might
also believe that Sculley was deliberately trying
to harm him and that Sculley therefore deserved
to be blamed and punished (Fincham & Bradbury,
1992, 1993). In short, Jobs would fall prey to the
fundamental attribution error (FAE) and assume that
Sculley’s behavior was caused by personal (disposi-
tional) rather than situational (environmental) fac-
tors (Ross, 1977). If the conflict continued, he
may have eventually decided it was an intractable
one. People expect intractable conflicts to be pro-
longed, intense, and very hard to resolve (Bar-Tal,
2007).
Misperceiving Motivations When conflict
occurs in a group, members begin to wonder
about one another’s motivations. “Why,” Steve
Jobs may have wondered, “is Sculley not support-
ing my work with the Mac? He must know how
important this project is to the company, so why is
he not giving it the attention it deserves?”
During conflict, members often become dis-
trustful of one another. This loss of trust is one of
the primary reasons why people, when they begin
to compete with one another, have difficulty
returning to a cooperative relationship. Researchers
examined this process by pairing people playing
a PDG-like game with partners who used one of
four possible strategies described earlier: competi-
tion, cooperation, individualism, and altruism.
When later asked to describe their partners’
motives, the players recognized when they were
playing with an individualist or a competitor, but
they had more trouble accurately perceiving coop-
eration and altruism (Maki, Thorngate, & McClin-
tock, 1979).
People with competitive SVOs are the most
inaccurate in their perceptions of cooperation.
When cooperators play the PDG with other coop-
erators, their perceptions of their partner’s strategy
are inaccurate only 6% of the time. When compe-
titors play the PDG with cooperators, however,
they misinterpret their partner’s strategy 47% of
the time, mistakenly believing that the cooperators
are competing (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970a, 1970b,
1970c; Sattler & Kerr, 1991). Competitors are also
biased in their search for information, for they are
more likely to seek out information that confirms
their suspicions—”I am dealing with a competitive
person”—rather than information that might indi-
cate the others are attempting to cooperate (Van
Kleef & De Dreu, 2002). Competitors also tend
to deliberately misrepresent their intentions, some-
times claiming to be more cooperative than they
actually are (Steinel & De Dreu, 2004).
13-2c Soft Tactics ! Hard Tactics
People can influence other people in dozens of dif-
ferent ways; they can promise, reward, threaten,
punish, bully, discuss, instruct, negotiate, manipulate,
supplicate, ingratiate, and so on. Some of these
426 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

tactics are harsher than others. Threats, punishment,
and bullying are all hard, contentious tactics because
they are direct, nonrational, and unilateral. People
use softer tactics at the outset of a conflict, but as
the conflict escalates, they shift to stronger and stron-
ger tactics. Sculley gradually shifted from relatively
mild methods of influence (discussion, negotiation)
to stronger tactics (threats). Eventually, he demoted
Jobs (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995).
But as Chapter 8’s analysis of power explained,
harsh, coercive, and unilateral influence tactics
often trigger reactance, negative emotions, and the
use of hard tactics of influence in return. When
members express their ideas as questions, soften
their claims with tag phrases such as “Do you see
what I mean?” or “What do you think?” and
explicitly underscore their uncertainty, disagree-
ments are less likely to turn into conflicts (Weingart
et al., 2015). Stronger tactics may gain initial com-
pliance, but people generally “fight fire with fire:”
When John threatened Steve, Steve answered with
threats of his own.
The Trucking Game Experiment People who
use hard tactics often overwhelm their antagonists,
and such methods intensify conflicts. Social psychol-
ogists Morton Deutsch and Robert Krauss (1960)
examined this intensification process in their classic
trucking game experiment. In their simulation
pairs of women role-played the owners of two truck-
ing companies, Acme and Bolt, carrying merchandise
over the roads mapped in Figure 13.4. Acme and
Bolt each earned 60 cents after each completed run,
minus 1 cent for each second taken up by the trip.
The truck route set the stage for competition
and conflict between Acme and Bolt. The shortest
path from start to finish for Acme was Route 216
and for Bolt was Route 106, but these routes
merged into a one-lane highway. When trucks
encountered each other along this route, one player
had to back up to her starting position to let the
other through. Acme and Bolt could avoid this
confrontation by taking the winding alternate
route, but this path took longer.
What Should You Say to Someone Who Refuses to Cooperate?
Social psychologist Dean Pruitt and his colleagues (1997)
studied conflict by creating a simulated birthday card
factory. They paid participants, who worked individu-
ally or in groups, for each card they made. The sessions
went well until one person (or group, in the group
condition) began acting selfishly by hoarding materials
that the other members needed. The hoarder, as you
might suspect, was part of the research team. As the
hour wore on, it became clear that this person or group
was going to make far more money than everyone else,
and the real participants became more and more frus-
trated. If they couldn’t get the supplies they needed,
they would never reach their goal.
The subjects, to coax the hoarder into sharing,
began gently—with polite requests and statements,
such as “May I use the glue?” or “We need the glue.”
But when those methods failed, most shifted to
demands and complaints. When those methods
failed, they tried problem solving and appeals to a
third party: nearly half complained to the experi-
menters, asking them to intervene. In the most
extreme cases, they used threats, abuse, and anger to
influence the irritating confederate: “Please may I use
the glue” eventually became “Give me the glue, you
pig, or else.”
Pruitt and his research team discovered that
groups used harsher influence tactics than indivi-
duals, and that harsh tactics were coupled with more
negative evaluations of the noncooperator(s). In fact,
only groups used the more negative types of influ-
ence methods, such as verbal abuse and threats.
Pruitt and his colleagues also found that the women
in the study tended to use more threats than did the
men, but the men were more likely to be the targets
of stronger rather than weaker influence tactics
(Mikolic, Parker, & Pruitt, 1997). These findings con-
firmed the advice of our grade school teachers: Play
nice and share your toys.
trucking game experiment A research procedure used
in studies of conflict in situations where individuals differ
in their capacity to threaten and punish others (devel-
oped by Morton Deutsch and Robert Krauss).
C ON FLICT 427
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

All the pairs played the same basic game, but
some were provided with the power to threaten
their opponents and others were not. In the unilat-
eral threat condition, Acme was told that a gate,
which only she could open and close, was located
at the fork in Route 216. When the gate was
closed, neither truck could pass this point in the
road, making control of the gate a considerable
benefit to Acme. If Bolt attempted to use the
main route, all Acme had to do was close the
gate, forcing Bolt to back up and enabling Acme
to reopen the gate and proceed quickly to her des-
tination. Thus, when only Acme possessed the gate,
Bolt’s profits were greatly threatened. In the bilateral
threat condition, both sides had the use of gates
located at the ends of the one-lane section of
Route 216, and, in the control condition, no gates
were given to the players.
Deutsch and Krauss’s control participants soon
learned to resolve the conflict over the one-lane
road. Most of these pairs took turns using the
main route, and, on average, each participant
made a $1 profit. Winnings dwindled, however,
when one of the players was given a gate. Partici-
pants in the unilateral threat condition lost an aver-
age of $2.03. Bolt’s losses were twice as great as
Acme’s, but even Acme lost more than $1 at the
game. Conflict was even worse when both Acme
and Bolt had gates. In the bilateral threat condition,
both players usually took the longer route because
the gates on the main route were kept closed, and
their losses in this condition averaged $4.38.
Power and Conflict These findings convinced
Deutsch and Krauss that the capacity to threaten
others intensifies conflict. They also noted that
establishing a communication link between adver-
saries does not necessarily help them to solve their
dispute (Krauss & Morsella, 2006). If one party can
or does threaten the other party, the threatened
party sometimes fares best if he or she cannot
respond with a counterthreat. Equally powerful
One lane ro
ad
R
o
u
te
2
1
6

R
ou
te
1
0
6

Acme
start
Bolt
destination
Bolt
start
Acme
destination
Acme’s
alternate
route
Gate
controlled
by Acme
Gate
controlled
by Bolt
Bolt’s
alternate
route
F I G U R E 13.4 The Deutsch and Krauss trucking game simulation. Players took the role of either Acme or Bolt
and maneuvered their trucks along Route 216, Route 106, or the longer, alternate routes. In some cases, one or both
of the players were given gates that they could close to bar access by the other player.
SOURCE: The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes, by M. Deutsch. Copyright 1973 by Yale University Press. Reprinted by permission.
428 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

opponents often, but not always, learn to avoid the
use of their power if the fear of retaliation is high
(Coleman et al., 2013).
13-2d Reciprocity ! Retaliation
Conflict-ridden groups may seem normless with hos-
tility and dissatisfaction spinning out of control. Yet
upward conflict spirals are in many cases sustained by
the norm of reciprocity. If one group member criti-
cizes the ideas, opinions, or characteristics of another,
the victim of the attack will feel justified in counter-
attacking unless some situational factor legitimizes the
hostility of the former (Osgood, 2017).
If members comply exactly with the norm of
reciprocity, a mild threat would elicit a mild threat
in return, and an attack would lead to a counterat-
tack. But most people apply the rule of rough
reciprocity—they give too much (overmatching) or
too little (undermatching) in return. Those who retal-
iate tend to overmatch: They feel that their
response is a fair one, whereas the punished trans-
gressor thinks the level of retaliation is excessive
(Stillwell, Baumeister, & Del Priore, 2008).
Rough reciprocity causes conflicts to escalate.
One researcher studied this process by arranging for
women to play a PDG-like game, but modified it so
they could send messages back and forth and penal-
ize each other. When a woman received a note from
her partner threatening her with a penalty, she sent
back a threat in return. When one woman sent mul-
tiple threats, her partner did as well. This reciprocity,
however, was rough rather than exact. At low levels
of conflict, the participants’ threats were somewhat
stronger, and the penalties they warned of were
somewhat greater. At higher levels of conflict, most
of the participants undermatched their partner’s
threats. The overmatching that occurs initially may
serve as a strong warning, whereas the undermatch-
ing at high levels of conflict may be used to send a
conciliatory message (Youngs, 1986).
13-2e Irritation ! Anger
When disputes arise, tempers flare, and this increase
in negative emotions exacerbates the initial conflict.
Most people, when asked to talk about a time when
they became angry, said that they usually lost their
temper when arguing with people they knew rather
than with strangers. They admitted that their anger
increased the negativity of the conflict; 49% became
verbally abusive when they were angry and 10%
said they became physically aggressive (Averill,
1983). Participants in another study reported physi-
cally attacking someone or something, losing emo-
tional control, or imagining violence against
someone else when they were angry (Shaver
et al., 1987). Even when group members began
by discussing their points calmly and dispassionately,
as they became locked into their positions, emo-
tional expression begins to replace logical discussion
(De Dreu et al., 2007). Individuals who endorse the
principle of negative reciprocity—they agree with
such statements as “If someone treats me badly, I
feel I should treat them even worse”—tend to
become angry when they feel they have been trea-
ted badly (Eisenberger et al., 2004, p. 791).
Emotions serve important functions in groups,
and anger is no exception. Anger is a way to com-
municate one’s displeasure to others in the group
and, in some contexts, is considered appropriate and
justified. Anger can be an effective means of influ-
encing others, for individuals who express anger
during one meeting tend to be treated more cir-
cumspectly in the next, and their demands are
more likely to be met. Anger, however, can trigger
all manner of negative interpersonal behaviors,
including the rejection of concessions, the tendering
of unworkable initial offers, and the use of conten-
tious influence strategies. When people express their
anger, it redefines the situation, changing it from a
cooperative one into one of conflict (Van Kleef,
2016). Others often interpret a display of anger as
an expression of contempt, and expressing contempt
for fellow group members is rarely a good thing
(Fischer & Roseman, 2007). Anger is also a conta-
gious emotion in groups. Group members, when
interacting with someone who has become angry,
tend to become angry themselves (van Kleef &
Fischer, 2016). Even when people are physically
separated from each other and interacting via the
Internet, they still manage to communicate their
C ON FLICT 429
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

displeasure to one another, and the result is often
increased rather than decreased conflict.
13-2f Few ! Many
During the Jobs versus Sculley conflict, Jobs tried to
persuade each member of the board to side with
him in the dispute. His goal was to form a powerful
coalition that would block Sculley’s plans and swing
the vote of the board in his favor.
Coalitions exist in most groups, but when con-
flict erupts, group members use coalitions to shift
the balance of power in their favor. The initial dis-
agreement may involve only two group members,
but as conflicts intensify, previously neutral mem-
bers often join with one faction. Similarly, even
when members initially express many different
views, with time, these multiparty conflicts are
reduced to two-party blocs through coalition for-
mation. Coalitions can even link rivals who decide
to join forces temporarily to achieve a specific out-
come (a mixed-motive situation). Although allies
may wish to compete with one another, no single
individual has enough power to succeed alone.
How Do Group Members Yell at Each Other Online?
People use the Internet for all kinds of constructive
purposes, such as accessing and exchanging information,
discussing important issues, and strengthening interper-
sonal connections, but just because people are commu-
nicating at a distance does not mean that they will be
immune from conflict. People in online groups can’t
raise their voices, shake their fists, or stare each other
down, but they can include profanities in their emails,
type their posts in capital letters, and write insulting,
degrading things in their messages (Turnage, 2007).
Online conflict is triggered by the same factors
that cause conflict in offline groups: competitiveness,
personality differences, concerns about fairness and
distribution of workload and resources, struggles for
power, disagreement over the group’s tasks and pro-
cesses, and personal likes and dislikes. But the online
context adds a few unique and influential elements to
the conflict mix. Working online can lead to disinhibi-
tion, so people express sentiments and opinions that
they would never say aloud in face-to-face conversa-
tions where they are inhibited by norms of civility or by
self-control mechanisms. Online groups, too, allow
members to express themselves immediately, so there is
no opportunity for members to regain their composure
after something or someone irritates them. In conse-
quence, “members are prone to immediate articulation
of negative emotions in response to a conflict” (Ayoko,
Konrad, & Boyle, 2012, p. 169). The technology itself can
also be a source of process conflict—a group sitting in a
room conversing does not encounter the irksome tech-
nical problems that online groups often do.
The discourse of online groups, however, is regu-
lated by social norms; individuals are not free to
express themselves in ways that are openly contemp-
tuous of others’ preferences or the group’s standards.
In some Internet groups, a post that is hostile, rude, or
contains profanity will generate a strong reproach
from the community, warning the individual to refrain
from such behaviors. Some groups, too, have estab-
lished rules about how disputants should communi-
cate. The contents of Wikipedia, for example, are
created, reviewed, and revised by a community of
volunteers, and the community’s norms, termed the
five pillars, include “interact with each other in a
respectful and civil manner” (http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars). However, Wikipedians (as
the editors of pages are called) do not always agree
about either the content of a given entry (task conflict)
or the way in which another editor went about mak-
ing a change (process conflict). Wikipedia therefore
offers an area for every entry where editors can discuss
their issues and resolve their disputes in a “respectful
and civil manner.” In many cases, however, the Wiki-
pedians cannot meet this high standard, and an edit
war breaks out. “An edit war occurs when editors who
disagree about the content of a page repeatedly
override each other’s contributions, rather than trying
to resolve the disagreement by discussion” (http://en.
wikipedia.org/). Even though the community spends
considerable time editing its policies, when researchers
examined the communication of editors working
behind the scenes at Wikipedia, they found little evi-
dence of the application of basic principles of civil dis-
course (Black et al., 2011). Even in the member-friendly
world of Wikipedia, disagreements, disputes, and
debates often escalated into conflict.
430 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Hence, while the coalition exists, the competitive
motive must be stifled (Komorita & Parks, 1994).
Coalitions draw more members of the group
into the fray. Coalitions are often viewed as con-
tentious, heavy-handed influence tactics because
individuals in the coalition work not only to ensure
their own outcomes but also to worsen the out-
comes of noncoalition members. Coalitions form
with people and against other people. In business
settings, for example, the dominant coalition can
control the organization, yet it works outside the
bounds of the formal group structure. Those who
are excluded from a coalition react with hostility to
the coalition members and seek to regain power by
forming their own coalitions. Thus, coalitions must
be constantly maintained through strategic bargain-
ing and negotiation (Jehn et al., 2013).
1 3 – 3 C O N F L I C T R E S O L U T I O N
In one way or another, conflicts subside. Even when
members are committed to their own viewpoints,
high levels of tension cannot be maintained indefi-
nitely. Disputants may regain control of their tem-
pers and break the upward conflict spiral. The group
may fissure, splitting into two or more subgroups
whose members are more compatible. One member
may leave the group, as was the result in the Jobs
versus Sculley dispute. In time, group hostility abates.
13-3a Commitment ! Negotiation
Just as conflicts escalate when group members
become firmly committed to a position and will
not budge, conflicts de-escalate when group mem-
bers are willing to negotiate with others to reach a
solution that benefits all parties. Negotiation is a
reciprocal communication process whereby two or
more parties to a dispute examine specific issues,
explain their positions, and exchange offers and
counteroffers.
Distributive and Integrative Negotiations Nego-
tiation sometimes amounts to little more than sim-
ple bargaining or mutual compromise. In such
distributive negotiation, both parties retain their
competitive orientation and take turns making small
concessions until some equally dissatisfying middle
ground is reached. Haggling and bartering (“I’ll give
you $20 for it, and not a penny more!”) illustrate this
form of negotiation. Integrative negotiation, in
contrast, is a collaborative conflict resolution method.
Rather than trying to only maximize one’s own out-
comes, integrative negotiators search for solutions that
will benefit both sides. Bargainers need not be moti-
vated by a concern for the other’s well-being, but
they recognize that a solution that benefits everyone
will be one that will likely be more readily adopted
and implemented (Pruitt, 2012; Thompson, Wang, &
Gunia, 2013).
Negotiation Styles Individuals differ in their
approach to negotiations. The Harvard Negotiation
Project, for example, identified three basic types
of negotiators—soft, hard, and principled (see
Table 13.1). Soft bargainers see negotiation as too
close to competition, so they choose a gentle style
of negotiation. They make offers that are not in
their best interests, they yield to others’ demands,
they avoid any confrontation, and they maintain
good relations with fellow negotiators. Hard bargai-
ners, in contrast, use tough, competitive tactics dur-
ing negotiations. They begin by taking an extreme
position on the issue, and then they make small
concessions only grudgingly. The hard bargainer
negotiation A reciprocal communication process
whereby two or more parties to a dispute examine spe-
cific issues, explain their positions, and exchange offers
and counteroffers to reach agreement or achieve mutu-
ally beneficial outcomes.
distributive negotiation Resolving differences of
opinion and transactions by claiming or dividing
resources, making offers and responding with counterof-
fers, and the guarded disclosure of interests.
integrative negotiation Resolving differences of opin-
ion and transactions by identifying common and com-
plementary interests and proposing solutions that satisfy
all concerned parties.
C ON FLICT 431
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

uses contentious strategies of influence and says
such things as “Take it or leave it,” “This is my
final offer,” “This point is not open to negotia-
tion,” “My hands are tied,” and “I’ll see you in
court.”
Principled negotiators, meanwhile, seek integra-
tive solutions by sidestepping a commitment to spe-
cific positions. Instead of risking entrapment,
principled negotiators focus on the problem rather
than the intentions, motives, and needs of the
people involved. Positional bargaining, they con-
clude, is too dangerous:
When negotiators bargain over positions, they
tend to lock themselves into those positions.
The more you clarify your position and defend
it against attack, the more committed you
become to it. The more you try to convince
the other side of the impossibility of changing
your opening position, the more difficult it
T A B L E 13.1 Comparisons between the Three Approaches to Negotiation
Element Soft Negotiation Hard Negotiation Principled Negotiation
Perception of others Friends Adversaries Problem solvers
Goals Agreement Victory A wise outcome reached
efficiently and amicably
Concessions Make concessions to
cultivate the relationship
Demand concessions as a
condition of the relationship
Separate the people from
the problem
People versus
problems
Be soft on the people and
the problem
Be hard on the problem
and the people
Be soft on the people, hard
on the problem
Trust Trust others Distrust others Proceed independently
of trust
Positions Change your position easily Dig into your position Focus on interests, not
positions
Negotiation Make offers Make threats Explore interests
Bottom line Disclose your bottom line Mislead as to your bottom
line
Avoid having a bottom line
Losses and gains Accept one-sided losses to
reach agreement
Demand one-sided gains as
a price of agreement
Invent options for mutual
gains
Search Search for a single answer—
the one they will accept
Search for a single answer—
the one you will accept
Develop multiple options to
choose from; decide later
Criteria Insist on agreement Insist on your position Insist on using objective
criteria
Contest of wills Avoid a contest of wills Win the contest of wills Reach a result based on
standards, independent of
wills
Pressure Yield to pressure Apply pressure Reason and be open to
reason; yield to principle,
not pressure
SOURCE: Adapted from Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In by R. Fisher, W. Ury With B. Patton (ed.), 1981. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
432 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

becomes to do so. Your ego becomes identified
with your position. (Fisher & Ury, 1981, p. 5)
The Harvard Negotiation Project recommends
that negotiators explore a number of alternatives to
the problems they face. During this phase, the
negotiation is transformed into a group problem-
solving session with the different parties working
together in search of creative solutions and new
information that the group can use to evaluate
these alternatives. Principled negotiators base their
choice on objective criteria rather than on power,
pressure, self-interest, or an arbitrary decisional
procedure. Such criteria can be drawn from moral
standards, principles of fairness, objective indexes of
market value, professional standards, tradition, and
so on, but they should be recognized as fair by all
parties (Kolb & Williams, 2003).
13-3b Misperception !
Understanding
Many conflicts are based on misperceptions. Group
members often assume that others are competing
with them, when in fact those other people only
What Is Your Preferred Conflict Style?
People respond to conflict in many different ways,
but the dual-process model of conflict resolution
styles suggests each one of us has a preferred way
of dealing with the conflicts that overtake our
groups.
Instructions: Select your preferred way of dealing
with each one of these problems.
1. During a group meeting one of the other group
members disagrees with many of the points you
make. He speaks very critically of you and your
ideas. You will
A. try to skip meetings he attends.
B. just go along with him, no sense in fighting
over it.
C. plan out a strategy so that you can take
advantage of his anger.
D. meet with him so that you can find a way to
work together more effectively.
E. offer him something he wants in return for
his cooperation.
2. After discussing the matter for several hours, the
group decides on a course of action that you think
is a mistake. You will
A. let the others do what they want and keep a
low profile.
B. lend your support to the group’s decision,
even though you don’t agree with it.
C. dig in and continue to argue until you can
win them over.
D. try to identify new solutions that satisfy you
and the others.
E. find a compromise between what you favor
and what they favor.
3. During a meeting the group disagrees on an
important issue, with one side arguing in favor of
a proposal and one against it. You will
A. stop going to the meetings until the problem
blows over.
B. urge the faction with fewer members to just
go along with the others.
C. join the side that you agree with and try to
help them overcome the other side.
D. work out a solution that benefits everyone.
E. act as the peacemaker who tries to make
both sides happy.
4. If the group starts to argue over an issue, you will
A. keep quiet and don’t get involved.
B. go along with whatever the group decides.
C. argue your position; you don’t give up.
D. carefully discuss ideas and solutions.
E. keep everyone calm by finding a middle
ground that everyone can accept.
Scoring. For each item, response A indicates
avoiding, B is the yielding style, C is the fighting style,
D is cooperation, and E is conciliatory. If you picked
one letter more frequently than the others, then that
is the style of conflict resolution you think you prefer.
C ON FLICT 433
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

wish to cooperate. Members think that people who
criticize their ideas are criticizing them personally.
Members do not trust other people because they
are convinced that others’ motives are selfish ones.
Group members assume that they have incompati-
ble goals when they do not (Simpson, 2007).
Group members must undo these perceptual
misunderstandings by actively communicating infor-
mation about their motives and goals through discus-
sion. In one study, group members were given the
opportunity to exchange information about their
interests and goals, yet only about 20% did. Those
who did, however, were more likely to discover
shared goals and were able to reach solutions that
benefited both parties to the conflict (Thompson,
1991). Other studies have suggested that conflict
declines when group members communicate their
intentions in specific terms, make explicit references
to trust, cooperation, and fairness, and build a shared
ingroup identity (Costa & Anderson, 2017).
Communication is no cure-all for conflict,
however. Group members can exchange informa-
tion by communicating, but they can also create
gross misunderstandings and deceptions. Commu-
nication offers group members the means to estab-
lish trust and commitment, but it can also
exacerbate conflict if members verbalize feelings of
hatred, disgust, or annoyance. For example, when
Deutsch and Krauss (1960) let participants in their
trucking game experiment communicate with each
other, messages typically emphasized threats and did
little to reduce conflict (Deutsch, 1973). Commu-
nication is detrimental if these initial messages are
inconsistent, hostile, and contentious (McClintock,
Stech, & Keil, 1983). Communication can be ben-
eficial, however, if interactants use it to create
cooperative norms, if it increases trust among parti-
cipants, and if it generates increased cohesion and
unity in the group (Messick & Brewer, 1983).
13-3c Hard Tactics ! Cooperative
Tactics
Group members cope with conflict in different ways.
Some ignore the problem. Others discuss the
problem, sometimes dispassionately and rationally,
sometimes angrily and loudly. Still others push
their solution onto others, no matter what the others
may want. Some actually resort to physical violence
(Sternberg & Dobson, 1987). Some of these tactics
escalate conflicts, but others are reliably associated
with reduced hostility.
Dual Concerns As with social values orientations,
variations in methods of dealing with conflict can be
organized in terms of two essential themes: concern
for self and concern for the other person. According
to the dual concern model of conflict resolution,
some strategies aim to maximize one’s own out-
comes; others—such as overlooking a problem
until it subsides—de-emphasize proself goals. Some
conflict resolution strategies are also more other-
focused. Yielding, for example, is prosocial, whereas
contending and forcing are less prosocial (Thomas,
1992; Tjosvold, Wong, & Chen, 2014).
When both concern for self and concern for
the other person are taken into account, the dual
concern model identifies the five core conflict res-
olution modes shown in Figure 13.5.
■ Avoidance: Inaction is a passive means of dealing
with disputes. Those who avoid conflicts adopt
a “wait and see” attitude, hoping that problems
will solve themselves. Avoiders often tolerate
conflicts, allowing them to simmer without
doing anything to minimize them. Rather than
openly discussing disagreements, people who
rely on avoidance change the subject, skip
meetings, or even leave the group altogether.
Sometimes, they simply agree to disagree
(a modus vivendi).
■ Yielding: Accommodation is a passive but pro-
social approach to conflict. People solve both
large and small conflicts by giving in to the
demands of others. Sometimes, they yield
because they realize that their position is in
error, so they agree with the viewpoint
dual concern model A conceptual perspective on
methods of dealing with conflict that assumes avoiding,
yielding, fighting, and cooperating differ along two basic
dimensions: concern for self and concern for other.
434 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

adopted by others. In other cases, however,
they may withdraw their demands without
really being convinced that the other side is
correct, but—for the sake of group unity or in
the interest of time—they withdraw all com-
plaints. Thus, yielding can reflect either genu-
ine conversion or superficial compliance.
■ Fighting: Contending is an active, proself means
of dealing with conflict that involves forcing
others to accept one’s view. Those who use this
strategy tend to see conflict as a win–lose situa-
tion and so use competitive, powerful tactics to
intimidate others. Fighting (forcing, dominating,
or contending) can take many forms, including
authoritative mandate, challenges, arguing,
insults, accusations, complaining, vengeance,
and even physical violence (Morrill, 1995).
These conflict resolution methods are all con-
tentious ones because they involve imposing
one’s solution on the other party.
■ Cooperation: Cooperation is an active, prosocial,
and proself approach to conflict resolution.
Cooperating people identify the issues underlying
the dispute and then work together to identify a
solution that is satisfying to both sides. This
orientation, which is also described as collabora-
tion, problem-solving, or a win–win orientation,
entreats both sides in the dispute to consider their
opponent’s outcomes as well as their own.
■ Conciliation: Some theorists consider concilia-
tion to be a fifth distinct way to resolve
conflicts—a middle ground between yielding
and fighting (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007).
Conciliation, however, is often difficult to
distinguish from the other modes of conflict
resolution (van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994).
Cooperation and Conflict When conflict erupts,
group members can use any or all of the basic modes
of conflict resolution shown in Figure 13.5, but most
conflict management experts recommend coopera-
tion above all others: “work things out,” “put your
cards on the table,” and “air out differences,” they
suggest. This advice assumes that avoidance, fighting,
and yielding are only temporary solutions, for they
quell conflicts at the surface without considering the
source. Avoiding and fighting are generally consid-
ered to be negative methods, for they tend to inten-
sify conflicts, and they are viewed as disagreeable.
The more positive, prosocial methods, yielding and
cooperation, mitigate conflict and are viewed as
more agreeable. They are more likely to involve
more of the members in the solution, and hence
they tend to increase unity (Tjosvold et al., 2014).
Groups may respond well to cooperation when
it is used to deal with task conflicts, but what if the
problems stem from personal conflicts—differences
in personalities, values, lifestyles, likes, and dislikes?
Research conducted by organizational psychologists
Carsten De Dreu, Laurie Weingart, and their col-
leagues suggests that, in such cases, collaborative
approaches may aggravate the group conflict more
than they mollify it (see De Dreu, 2010; De Dreu &
Van Vianen, 2001; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). In
one field study, members of semiautonomous teams
working on complex, nonroutine tasks were asked
about the ways they handled conflicts in their
teams. All these teams included both men and
women, and they ranged in size from 4 to 13 mem-
bers. Members of these teams typically interacted
Yielding
Avoidance
Cooperation
Fighting
High concern
for others
Low concern
for others
Low concern
for self
High concern
for self
Conciliation
F I G U R E 13.5 The dual concern model of conflict
resolution. Avoiding, yielding, cooperating, appeasing
(conciliation) and fighting, as means of dealing with
conflict, differ in the degree to which they are based
on concern for oneself and concern for the other
person.
C ON FLICT 435
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

with each other in face-to-face settings at least once
a week in planning sessions, and they reported
interacting with each other informally nearly
every day. As expected, negative methods of deal-
ing with conflicts, such as arguing and forcing one’s
views onto others, were associated with negative
team functioning. In these groups, however, collab-
orative methods of conflict resolution (e.g., “discuss-
ing the issues,” “cooperating to better understand
others’ views,” and “settling problems through give
and take”) were also negatively correlated with team
functioning. Only passive responses, such as “avoid-
ing the issues,” “acting as if nothing has happened,”
and “hushing up the quarrel,” were associated with
increases in group adjustment to the conflict. Appar-
ently, the consistent use of collaboration to deal with
intractable differences or petty disagreements dis-
tracted the groups from the achievement of their
task-related goals (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001).
These findings suggest that groups may wish to
heed the advice of one member of a successful musical
quartet who, when asked how his group managed
conflicts, explained, “We have a little saying in
quartets—either we play or we fight” (Murnighan
& Conlon, 1991, pp. 177–178). Cooperative, proso-
cial solutions work in many cases, but sometimes
groups must ignore the conflict and focus, instead,
on the work to be done.
13-3d Retaliation ! Forgiveness
Consistent cooperation among people over a long
period generally increases mutual trust. But when
group members continually compete with each
other, mutual trust becomes much more elusive.
When people cannot trust one another, they com-
pete simply to defend their own best interests
(Peterson & Ferguson, 2014).
Reversing the Conflict Spiral How can the
upward spiral of competition and distrust, once ini-
tiated, be reversed? Political scientist Robert Axel-
rod (1984) explored this question by comparing a
number of strategies in simulated competitions.
After studying dozens of different strategies, ranging
from always competing with a competitor to always
cooperating with one, the most effective competi-
tion reverser to emerge was a strategy called tit for
tat (TFT, or “this for that”). TFT begins with
cooperation. If the other party cooperates, too,
then cooperation continues. But if the other party
competes, then TFT competes as well. Each action
by the other person is countered with the matching
response—cooperation for cooperation, competi-
tion for competition.
The TFT stratagem is said to be nice, provoc-
able, clear, and forgiving. It is nice because it begins
with cooperation and only defects following compe-
tition. It is provocable in the sense that it immediately
retaliates against individuals who compete. It is clear
because people playing against someone using this
strategy quickly recognize its contingencies. It is for-
giving because it immediately reciprocates coopera-
tion should the competitor respond cooperatively.
TFT is also a reciprocal strategy, for it fights fire
with fire and rewards kindness in kind. Individuals
who follow a tit-for-tat strategy are viewed as
“tough but fair”; those who cooperate with a com-
petitor are viewed as weak, and those who consis-
tently compete are considered unfair (McGillicuddy,
Pruitt, & Syna, 1984). Because the effectiveness of
TFT as a conflict reduction method is based on its
provocability, any delay in responding to competition
reduces the effectiveness of TFT. If a group member
competes and this defection is not countered quickly
with competition, TFT is less effective. TFT also loses
some of its strength in “noisy” interactions, when
behaviors cannot be clearly classified as either compet-
itive or cooperative. It is less effective in larger groups,
although this decline is minimized if individual mem-
bers believe that a substantial subgroup within the
total group is basing its choices on the TFT strategy
(Kerr, 2013; Komorita & Parks, 1994; Parks, 2015).
Forgiveness Greek scholars used the word
aphiemi, or forgiveness, to describe letting go or
voluntarily setting aside an obligation to punish.
tit for tat (TFT) A bargaining strategy that begins with
cooperation, but then imitates the other person’s choice
so that cooperation is met with cooperation and compe-
tition with competition.
436 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Viewed from an evolutionary perspective, forgive-
ness undoes the damaging effects of conflict by
reversing the upward spiraling cycle of repeated
retaliation following real or perceived injury. Retali-
ation requires one party to impose sanctions on
another, but revenge is risky: It can destroy the social
relationship between the wrongdoer and the retalia-
tor and can also provoke counter-retaliatory actions.
Forgiveness, in contrast, reduces the likelihood of
vengeful behavior and also strengthens the positive
relational bonds in the group (McCullough, Kurz-
ban, & Tabak, 2011). Forgiveness may increase both
the forgiver’s and the forgiven’s sense of connected-
ness to the group (Burnette et al., 2012).
13-3e Anger ! Composure
Just as negative emotions encourage conflicts, positive
affective responses increase concession making, crea-
tive problem solving, cooperation, and the use of
noncontentious bargaining strategies (Forgas, 1998).
Hence, when tempers flare, the group should
encourage members to regain control over their
emotions. “Count to ten,” calling a “timeout,” or
expressing concerns in a written, carefully edited, let-
ter or email are simple but effective recommendations
for controlling conflict, as is the introduction of
humor into the group discussion (Mischel, DeSmet,
& Kross, 2006). Apologies, too, are effective means of
reducing anger. When people are informed about
mitigating causes—background factors that indicate
that the insult is unintentional or unimportant—
conflict is reduced (Betancourt & Blair, 1992).
Groups can also control anger by developing norms
that explicitly or implicitly prohibit shows of strong,
negative emotion or by holding meetings on contro-
versial topics online (Yang & Mossholder, 2004).
13-3f Many ! Few
Conflicts intensify when others take sides, but they
shrink when third-party mediators help group
members reach a mutually agreeable solution to
their dispute (Moore, 2014). Although uninvolved
group members may wish to stand back and let the
disputants “battle it out,” impasses, unflagging con-
flict escalation, or the combatants’ entreaties may
cause other group members or outside parties to
help by the following:
■ Creating opportunities for both sides to express
themselves while controlling contentiousness.
■ Improving communication between the dis-
putants by summarizing points, asking for
clarification, and so on.
■ Helping disputants save face by framing the
acceptance of concessions in positive ways
and by taking the blame for these
concessions.
■ Formulating and offering proposals for alter-
native solutions that both parties find
acceptable.
■ Manipulating aspects of the meeting, including
its location, seating, formality of communica-
tion, time constraints, attendees, and agenda.
■ Guiding the disputants through a process of
integrative problem-solving.
However, if the disputants want to resolve the con-
flict on their own terms, third-party interventions
are considered an unwanted intrusion (Carnevale,
2008).
Go-betweens, facilitators, diplomats, advisers,
judges, and other kinds of mediators vary consider-
ably in terms of their power to control others’ out-
comes (LaTour, 1978; LaTour et al., 1976). In an
inquisitorial procedure, the mediator questions the two
parties and then hands down a verdict that the two
parties must accept. In arbitration, the disputants
present their arguments to the mediator, who
then bases his or her decision on the information
they provide. In a moot, the disputants and the
mediator openly and informally discuss problems
and solutions, but the mediator can make no bind-
ing decisions. Satisfaction with a mediator depends
on how well the intermediary fulfills these func-
tions and also on the intensity of the conflict. Medi-
ational techniques, such as arbitration, are effective
mediator One who intervenes between two persons
during conflict, with a view to reconciling the dispute.
C ON FLICT 437
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

when the conflict is subdued, but they may not
work when conflict intensity is high. Overall,
most people prefer arbitration, followed by moot,
mediation, and inquisitorial procedures (LaTour
et al., 1976; Shestowsky, 2004).
13-3g The Value of Conflict: Redux
Did Apple gain from the Jobs versus Sculley conflict,
or did it suffer a setback as its top executives fought
for power and control? The group resolved the dis-
pute, but not without a considerable investment of
time, resources, and energy. Two men who were
once friends parted as enemies. A company that
once profited from the leadership of two visionary
thinkers lost one of them to a competitor.
Is conflict always harmful—a pernicious process
that should be avoided? When Carsten De Dreu
and Laurie Weingart (2003) conducted a meta-
analysis of dozens of studies of conflict in groups,
they discovered that, in study after study, conflict
undermined satisfaction and lowered performance.
Subsequent work confirmed their findings, but also
identified factors that moderate the strength of the
Is Cooperation Universally Valued?
No two cultures deal with conflict in exactly the same
way. In some societies, rather than letting disagree-
ments threaten the quality and stability of relation-
ships, people maneuver around their disagreements
to stop them from escalating into full-fledged dis-
putes. In other cultures, in contrast, conflict is consid-
ered more of a test between competitors and is
framed as a win–lose situation. Many Western socie-
ties, for example, openly value competition (Gibson &
McDaniel, 2010).
The differences across societies are linked to var-
iations in cultural values pertaining to individualism/
collectivism and power hierarchy. For example, in
China, a collectivistic culture, members are more likely
to adopt harmony-enhancing strategies that minimize
conflict, including following the rules that will yield a
fair resolution to the disagreement. In a more individ-
ualistic country, such as America, a more direct, con-
frontational approach may be preferred (Gelfand,
Leslie, & Keller, 2008).
Most of the world’s peoples, however, recognize
the value of one particular conflict resolution
method: cooperation. This approach satisfies both
individuals who are seeking their own best outcomes,
but also those who are concerned with the overall
well-being of the group (Cai & Fink, 2002). But in
individualistic cultures, conflict is generally viewed as
something that should be confronted directly: A per-
son should “directly express what you believe,” “ver-
bally defend your views,” and “get straight to the
point” (Hammer, 2005, p. 685). In more collectivistic
cultures, in contrast, people prefer to handle conflict
indirectly, with more subtlety: A person should “offer
indirect suggestions,” “express complaints indirectly,”
and “talk around disagreements” when possible
(Hammer, 2005, p. 685). Individuals in these cultures
prefer avoidance, but avoidance does not indicate a
low concern for others’ outcomes as the dual-process
model suggests. In collectivistic countries, avoidance is
a more active strategy; a positively valued means of
dealing with conflict that sustains, rather than threa-
tens, the group.
These findings offer a warning to people who
work in multicultural groups. Even though well-
meaning group members may hope to quell a conflict
with a deft intervention, they may only make matters
worse by using a method that is considered conten-
tious in other cultures (Brew et al., 2011). The collec-
tivist who seeks to deflect the group’s attention away
from the conflict may irritate the individualist who
wants to solve the problem, not dodge it. Conversely,
the individualist, believing that the conflict can be
cleared up if people just speak their minds, pushes
everyone to deal with the issues in open discussion.
The collectivists in the group will wonder why anyone
who seems so intelligent in other ways would use such
a clumsy method of dealing with conflict. The cultur-
ally competent group will, instead, use a variety of
methods to deal with conflict, shifting from one
approach to the other depending on the strength of
the relations among members, the level of harm the
conflict can cause, and the extent to which others in
the group have expressed a public commitment to
their position.
438 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

conflict–performance relationship. Organizational
behavior researcher Karen Jehn and her collea-
gues, for example, suggest that some groups—
such as top-level management teams and strategy
groups—may even perform more effectively in
the long run if they have experienced a modicum
of task conflict. So long as task conflict is not too
high in intensity, prolonged, and the catalyst for
other forms of conflict, then its negative effects
are restrained (de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012;
Jehn, 2014).
So maybe the problem is not conflict, but mis-
managed conflict. As noted in Chapter 5, many
groups pass through a period of conflict as they
mature. This conflict phase, so long as it is managed
well, expands the range of options, generates new
alternatives, and enhances the group’s unity by
making explicit any latent hostilities and tensions.
Conflict can make a group’s goals more explicit and
help members understand their role in the group. It
may force the members to examine, more carefully,
their assumptions and expectations and may help
the group focus on its strengths and diagnose its
weaknesses. A group without conflict may be
working so perfectly that no one can identify any
improvements, but more likely it is a group that is
boring and uninvolving for its members. Conflict,
then, is not the culprit. It is poor management of
the conflicts that inevitably arise in groups that leads
to problems (DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, &
Doty, 2013; Jehn, 1997, 2014).
Organizational and business administration
researcher Kristin Behfar and her colleagues
(2008) examined the consequences of poorly man-
aged conflict in their detailed quantitative analysis
of 57 autonomous work teams. These groups all
worked with the same resources, on the same
types of projects, and with the same time con-
straints. Over time, some of the groups became
more capable in the task realm, but others did
not. Some, too, enjoyed increasingly positive rela-
tions among members, whereas others exhibited
declines in the quality of their cohesion.
Behfar’s group discovered that these changes in
task success and interpersonal bonds were related to
the group’s methods of dealing with conflict. All of
the groups experienced conflicts as their work pro-
gressed, but they dealt with these problems in dif-
ferent ways. The 21 best teams proactively
forecasted possible problems before they happened.
They developed schedules and assigned responsibil-
ities carefully, in unemotional, fact-driven discus-
sions, to reach consensus. They did not report
dealing with relationship conflict, because they did
not have any. A second set of 11 high-performance
groups had little cohesiveness, but these groups all
expressly discussed their lukewarm interpersonal
relations and dismissed the importance of social
connections. These groups resolved task and process
conflicts by voting. The 14 worst teams, who
exhibited both declining performance and interper-
sonal dysfunction, also used discussion, but the dis-
cussion never resolved their problems. These
groups reported trying to deal with their problems
openly, but members would just give in to more
dominant members because they grew tired of
arguing. They dealt with their performance pro-
blems by rotating duties from one member to
another, but they never analyzed the effectiveness
of this technique.
These findings suggest that the impact of con-
flict on a group cannot be predicted until the
group’s capacity for managing its conflict is
known. Groups that take proactive steps to pre-
vent conflict from arising in the first place tend
to be more satisfying to members than those that
only respond—and respond poorly at that—to
conflicts when they arise. Successful groups also
tended to adopt pluralistic strategies for dealing
with conflict, rather than particularistic ones.
They resolved conflicts using methods that applied
to the group as a whole, such as developing rules,
standardizing procedures, and assigning tasks to
members based on skill and expertise rather than
status. Less successful groups, in contrast, used
strategies that focused on specific individual com-
plaints or the group’s concerns about one or two
members. In these groups, the “squeaky wheel
would get the grease,” but the repair was not suf-
ficient to restore the group to health.
C ON FLICT 439
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C HAPT ER R EV IEW
What is conflict and its causes?
1. When conflict occurs in a group, the actions or
beliefs of one or more members of the group
are unacceptable to and resisted by one or
more of the other members.
■ Intergroup conflict involves two or more
groups, and intragroup conflict occurs within
a group.
■ Conflict follows a cycle from disagreement
to conflict to escalation to de-escalation to
resolution.
2. Many group and individual factors conspire to
create conflict in a group, but the most com-
mon sources are competition, conflicts over the
distribution of resources, power struggles, task
and process conflicts, and relationship conflicts.
3. Competing: Cooperation is associated with pos-
itive motivational and physiological processes,
whereas competition increases conflict by pitting
members against one another (Deutsch, 1949a).
■ Mixed-motive situations, like the prisoner’s
dilemma game, tempt individuals to
compete rather than cooperate.
■ Behavioral assimilation is caused by the
norm of reciprocity; competition sparks
competition (negative reciprocity) and
cooperation (to a lesser extent) provokes
cooperation (positive reciprocity).
■ Choices in the PDG are influenced by
situational factors (e.g., the name of the
game), personality factors (e.g., social value
orientation; Van Lange et al., 1997), sex,
age, and the size of the incentives offered.
■ Although many educational settings
stress competition, reviews conducted by
Johnson and Johnson (2009) suggest
cooperation-based classrooms promote
both well-being and learning.
4. Sharing: Social dilemmas stimulate conflict
by tempting members to act in their own
self-interest to the detriment of the group and
its goals. Disputes arise when members
■ exploit a shared resource (a commons
dilemma or social trap),
■ do not contribute their share (a public goods
dilemma, free riding),
■ disagree on the procedures to follow in
dividing the resources (procedural justice)
and respond negatively to resource distri-
butions (distributive justice),
■ do not agree on the norms to follow when
apportioning resources (e.g., equality,
equity, power, responsibility, and need),
■ feel they are receiving less than they
should, given their contribution to the
group (negative inequity; work by Brosnan
and de Waal, 2003, suggests that other
species are sensitive to unfair distributions
of resources), and
■ take more than their fair share of respon-
sibility for a successful outcome (egocen-
trism) or avoid blame for group failure
(self-serving attributions of responsibility).
5. Controlling: Power struggles are common in
groups as members vie for control over lead-
ership, status, and position (Morrill, 1995).
6. Working: As group members collaborate
on tasks, differences and disagreements can
generate task and process conflict.
■ Task conflict stems from disagreements
about issues that are relevant to the group’s
goals and outcomes. Even though such
substantive conflicts help groups reach
their goals, these disagreements can turn
into personal, unpleasant conflicts.
■ Process conflicts occur when members do not
agree on group strategies, policies, and
methods.
■ Groups, by dealing with work conflict,
can improve their functioning, but in
440 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

most cases such conflict undermines
productivity.
7. Liking and disliking: Relationship conflict occurs
when individual members do not like one
another.
■ Any factor that causes disaffection between
group members (e.g., differences in atti-
tudes and objectionable personal qualities)
can increase personal conflict.
■ Balance theory predicts that group mem-
bers will respond negatively when they
disagree with those they like or agree with
those they dislike, but as Taylor’s (1970)
work confirmed, conflict is greatest when
group members both disagree with and
dislike each other.
Why does conflict escalate?
1. When individuals defend their viewpoints in
groups, they become more committed to their
positions, as illustrated by the dollar auction
and reactance.
2. Conflict is exacerbated by members’ tendency
to misperceive others and to assume that the
other party’s behavior is caused by personal
(dispositional) rather than situational (environ-
mental) factors (fundamental attribution error).
3. As conflicts worsen, members shift from soft to
hard tactics.
■ Pruitt and his colleagues (1997) found that
individuals shift from soft tactics to hard
influence tactics when their initial requests
are denied.
■ Deutsch and Krauss’s (1960) trucking game
experiment indicated conflict escalates when
each side could threaten the other.
4. Other factors that contribute to the escalation
of conflict in groups include
■ negative reciprocity, as when negative
actions provoke negative reactions in others;
■ angry emotions that trigger expressions of
anger among members; and
■ the formation of coalitions that embroil
formerly neutral members in the conflict.
5. The level of incivility on the Internet is influ-
enced by norms and community sanctions
against norm violators.
How can group members manage their conflicts?
1. In many cases, members use negotiation to
resolve disagreements and disputes. Distributive
negotiation involves dividing up resources
whereas integrative negotiation involves identify-
ing the issues underlying the dispute and then
working together to find a solution that is sat-
isfying to all parties.
2. The Harvard Negotiation Project maintains
that principled, integrative negotiation is more
effective than either soft or hard bargaining.
3. Because many conflicts are rooted in misun-
derstandings and misperceptions, group mem-
bers can reduce conflict by actively
communicating information about their
motives and goals through discussion.
4. The dual concern model identifies four (or
five) means of dealing with conflicts—
avoiding, yielding, fighting, and cooperating
(and conciliation)—that differ along two
dimensions: concern for self and concern for
others.
■ In some cases, cooperation is more likely
to promote group unity.
■ Personal conflicts—those that are rooted in
basic differences in attitude, outlook, and
so on—may not yield to cooperative
negotiations. De Dreu (2010) suggests that
the avoiding method may be the best way
to cope with such conflicts.
5. Other factors that contribute to the de-
escalation of conflict in groups include
■ responding to competition with a
tit-for-tat (TFT) strategy, as described by
Axelrod (1984);
■ allowing time for individuals to regain
composure;
C ON FLICT 441
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ expressing positive rather than negative
emotions, including forgiveness;
■ using third-party interventions—
mediators—who impose solutions
(inquisitorial procedures and arbitration)
or guide disputants to a compromise
(moot and mediation procedures); and
■ most cultures recognize the value of
cooperation, but Eastern cultures favor
avoidance more than Western ones,
whereas Western cultures favor competi-
tion more than Eastern ones.
Is conflict an unavoidable evil or a necessary good?
1. Conflict is a natural consequence of joining a
group and cannot be avoided completely.
2. Research (see Behfar et al., 2008; Jehn, 2014)
suggests that conflicts, when managed suc-
cessfully, promote positive group function-
ing. However, because of the difficulties
groups face when trying to deal with conflict,
De Dreu and Weingart (2003) conclude
that in most cases conflict causes more harm
than good.
R E S O U R C E S
Chapter Case: Jobs versus Sculley
■ Apple Confidential 2.0: The Definitive
History of the World’s Most Colorful Company
by Owen W. Linzmayer (2004) provides
a well-researched history of the many
conflict-laden episodes in the life of
Apple, Inc.
Causes of Conflict
■ “A History of Social Conflict and
Negotiation Research” by Dean G.
Pruitt (2012) reviews the history of
conflict studies from the perspective
of a leading theorist and researcher in
the field.
■ The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory
and Practice, edited by Morton Deutsch,
Peter T. Coleman, and Eric C. Marcus
(2006), is the definitive sourcebook for
general analyses of conflict’s causes as well
as empirically based recommendations for
resolving conflicts.
■ The Handbook of Conflict Management
Research, edited by Oluremi B. Ayoko,
Neal M. Ashkanasy, and Karen A. Jehn
(2014), provides a broad overview of
all major topics related to conflict in
groups, including negotiation, conflict in
teams, and culture’s effects on conflict
processes.
■ “Collaboration and Conflict in Work
Teams” by Eduardo Salas, Maritza R.
Salazar, Jennifer Feitosa, and William S.
Kramer (2014) examines definitions and
forms of collaboration and conflict in
groups before examining the organiza-
tional climate, practices, and procedures
that help group members manage conflicts
and promote collaboration.
Conflict Resolution
■ Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement with-
out Giving In (2nd ed.) by Roger Fisher,
William Ury, and Bruce Patton (1991)
describes a step-by-step strategy for
resolving conflicts to the mutual benefit of
both parties.
■ Conflict Management in Organizations, edited
by William K. Roche, Paul Teague, and
Alexander J. S. Colvin (2014) offers
practical advice for dealing with conflict in
groups and organizations through media-
tion, negotiation, and other forms of
dispute resolution; the final section
includes recommendations for dealing
with conflicts in international contexts.
442 C H A P T ER 13
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Friend and Foe: When to Cooperate, When to
Compete, and How to Succeed at Both by
Adam Galinsky and Maurice Schweitzer
(2015) searches for the social psychological
foundations of conflict and suggests ways
to balance cooperation with competition
to achieve positive outcomes for all parties.
■ Making Conflict Work: Harnessing the Power
of Disagreement by Peter T. Coleman and
Robert Ferguson (2014) draws on case
studies, empirical studies, and the authors’
unique practical expertise to offer clear
advice on ways to work through conflicts
successfully.
C ON FLICT 443
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 14
Intergroup
Relations
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
As a social species, humans strive to establish close
ties with one another. Yet the same species that
seeks out connections with others also metes out
enmity when it confronts another group. Inter-
group relations are more often contentious rather
than harmonious, as groups vie with one another
for resources, power, and influence. The very pro-
cesses that strengthen and sustain groups, including
a sense of shared identity and group pride, also cre-
ate biases against other groups and the members of
those groups. But intergroup conflict is not inevita-
ble. Even the most adversarial groups can achieve
a more harmonious coexistence by promoting pos-
itive contact between their members and refusing
to think of the other group members in negative,
stereotyped ways.
■ What interpersonal factors disrupt relations
between groups?
■ What are the psychological foundations of
conflict between groups?
■ How can intergroup relations be improved?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
14-1 Intergroup Conflict: Us versus Them
14-1a Competition and Conflict
14-1b Power and Domination
14-1c Intergroup Aggression
14-1d Norms and Conflict
14-1e Evolutionary Perspectives
14-2 Intergroup Bias: Perceiving Us and Them
14-2a Conflict and Categorization
14-2b The Ingroup–Outgroup Bias
14-2c Cognitive Biases
14-2d Stereotype Content Model
14-2e Exclusion and Dehumanization
14-2f Categorization and Identity
14-3 Intergroup Conflict Resolution: Uniting
Us and Them
14-3a Intergroup Contact
14-3b Cognitive Cures for Conflict
14-3c Learning to Cooperate
14-3d Resolving Conflict: Conclusions
Chapter Review
Resources
444
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The study of group dynamics confirms an ancient
truth: Humans are a social, group-living species.
But we do not all belong to the same groups.
Some of us are young, some are old. Some speak
this language, others that language. Some of us
were born and raised here, some of us come from
someplace else. Some of us are Rattlers, but some
are Eagles. We are a species divided, split into enu-
merable groups and subgroups.
An analysis of the relations between these
groups could discuss ways they work together to
achieve goals that no one group can reach; how
groups have learned to maintain mutually beneficial
relations over time; how groups encourage their
members to assist anyone who needs help, even
if the needy belong to another group. These
types of intergroup relations are not nonexistent,
but they are exceptions rather than the rule: Inter-
group relations are usually conflict-laden ones, rife
with competition, hostility, and rejection rather
than cooperation, acceptance, and inclusion.
Chapter 13 examined the causes of and possible
cures for conflict between two or more people—
intragroup (or interindividual) conflict—but this
chapter examines conflict between groups—
intergroup conflict. It begins by considering the
group-level processes that push groups into conflict.
As with conflict between group members,
The Robbers Cave Experiment: Group against Group
On two midsummer days in 1954, twenty-two 11-
year-old boys from Oklahoma City boarded buses for
their trip to summer camp. They were “normal, well-
adjusted boys of the same age, educational level, from
similar sociocultural backgrounds and with no unusual
features in their personal backgrounds” (Sherif et al.,
1961, p. 59). Their parents had paid a $25 fee, signed
some consent forms, and packed them off to Robbers
Cave State Park, located in the San Bois Mountains of
southeast Oklahoma.
Robbers Cave was not your typical summer camp.
All the boys had been screened by a team of social
psychologists that included Muzafer Sherif, O. J. Harvey,
Jack White, William Hood, and Carolyn Sherif. The
Sherifs and their colleagues had spent more than 300
hours interviewing the boys’ teachers, studying their
academic records, reviewing their family backgrounds,
and unobtrusively recording their behavior in school
and on the playground. The parents knew that the
camp was actually part of a research project, but the
boys had no idea that the camp was an experiment.
The staff randomly assigned each boy to one of
two groups. Each group spent a week hiking, swim-
ming, and playing sports in their area of the camp, and
both groups developed norms, roles, and structure.
Some boys emerged as leaders, others became fol-
lowers, and both groups established territories within
the park (see Figure 14.1). The boys named their
groups the Rattlers and the Eagles and stenciled these
names on their shirts and painted them onto flags. The
staff members, who were also collecting data, noted
clear increases in group-oriented behaviors, cohesive-
ness, and positive group attitudes.
When each group discovered another group was
nearby, they expressed wariness about these outsiders.
After some guarded encounters between members,
they asked the staff to set up a competition to deter-
mine which group was better than the other. Since a
series of competitions between the two groups was
exactly what the staff had in mind, they held a series
of baseball games, tugs-of-war, tent pitching competi-
tions, cabin inspections, and a (rigged) treasure hunt.
As the competition wore on, tempers flared.
When the Eagles lost a game, they retaliated by steal-
ing and burning the Rattlers’ flag. The Rattlers raided
the Eagles’ cabin during the night, tearing out mos-
quito netting, overturning beds, and carrying off per-
sonal belongings. The conflict reached its crescendo on
the final day of competition when the Eagles won the
last event and were declared the overall winners. As
they celebrated with a swim in the stream, the Rattlers
broke into the Eagles’ cabin and absconded with the
prizes. The Eagles then confronted the Rattlers, who
told the Eagles if they would “get down on their bel-
lies and crawl,” then they would give back their prizes
(Sherif et al., 1961, p. 115). The Eagles refused, and
fights broke out between the groups. The staff had to
intervene to prevent the boys from seriously injuring
one another. They moved the two groups to different
parts of the camp, amid shouts of “poor losers,”
“bums,” “sissies,” “cowards,” and “little babies.” It
was official: the Rattlers hated the Eagles, and the
Eagles hated the Rattlers.
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 445
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

intergroup conflict becomes more likely when groups
compete against each other, but other factors—
power, emotions, and norms—are also influential.
Relations between groups are further complicated by
individual-level, psychological processes that sustain
divisions between groups, including biased inter-
group perceptions and stereotypes. This analysis
will underscore the complexity of intergroup
Reservoir
Water tank
Hill
RATTLER
AREAAREA
EAGLE
Mess
hall
Hill
Dock
Moccasin Creek
Park Road
Eagle
cabin
Dam
Rattler
cabin
P
a
rk
R
o
a
d
R
a
tt
le
r
s
w
im
m
in
g
h
o
le
N
O.U. camp
Upper
camp
Robbers
Cave
Stone
corral
Recreation
hall
Rattlesnake Bay
Copperhead
Hill
Eagle swimming hole
3 /
8
m
i.
3
/4
m
i.
R
o
b
b
e
rs
C
a
v
e
S
ta
te
P
a
rk
A
re
a
Robbers C
ave State Park Area
Athletic
field
Rocks
Pump house
Indicates wooded area
F I G U R E 14.1 The layout of the campgrounds in the Robbers Cave experiment.
SOURCE: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. The Robbers Cave Experiment, by M. Sherif, O. J. Harvey, B. J. White, W. R. Hood, and C. W. Sherif, 1961. Norman,
OK: Institute of Group Relations.
446 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

conflict, but not its inevitability: The chapter closes
with an analysis of the ways intergroup conflicts
can be resolved (De Dreu, Aaldering, & Saygi,
2015; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Thomas, 2013; Tropp &
Molina, 2012).
1 4 – 1 IN T E R G R O U P
C O N F LI C T : U S VE R S U S T H E M
The researchers’ plans for the Robbers Cave
experiment worked all too well. In just two
weeks, they created a full-fledged war-in-miniature
between the Rattlers and the Eagles, complete with
violent schemes, hostility, and mistreatment of each
side by the other. The Sherifs, by starting with two
newly formed groups with no history of rivalry, suc-
ceeded in documenting the social and psychological
factors that pushed these two groups into an escalat-
ing conflict.
14-1a Competition and Conflict
On the ninth day of the Robbers Cave experiment,
the Rattlers and the Eagles saw the tournament prizes
for the first time: the shining trophy, medals for each
boy, and—best of all—four-blade camping knives.
The boys wanted these prizes, and nothing was
going to stand in their way. From then on, all group
activities revolved around the ultimate goal of winning
the tournament. Unfortunately, although both groups
aspired to win the prizes, success for one group meant
failure for the other. When groups are pitted against
each other in a contest for resources, intergroup rela-
tions that were once amicable often become antago-
nistic (Chang, Krosch, & Cikara, 2016).
Realistic Group Conflict Theory Many of the
things that groups want and need are available in
limited supply. Should one group acquire and
control a scarce commodity—whether it be food, ter-
ritory, wealth, power, natural resources, energy, or the
prizes so desperately desired by the Rattlers and the
Eagles—other groups must do without that resource.
According to realistic group conflict theory, this
struggle between groups over scarce resources inevita-
bly leads to conflict (Brewer, 2007). All groups would
prefer to be “haves” rather than “have-nots,” so they
take steps to achieve two interrelated outcomes—
obtaining the desired resources and preventing the
other group from reaching its goals. Groups often
compete economically as they seek to secure resources
through manufacturing and trade, but intergroup
competition can also trigger intergroup conflict, as
groups attempt to dominate one another through the
use of force and counterforce. Theorists have traced
many negative intergroup dynamics—including strug-
gles between the classes of a society (Marx & Engels,
1947), rebellions (Gurr, 1970), international warfare
(Streufert & Streufert, 1986), racism (Gaines & Reed,
1995), religious persecutions (Clark, 1998), tribal rival-
ries (Brewer & Campbell, 1976), police use of lethal
force against citizens (Jacobs & O’Brien, 1998), organi-
zational conflicts (Brief et al., 2005), and even the
development of culture and social structure (Carneiro,
1970)—to competition over scarce resources.
The Discontinuity Effect During the first week
of the Robbers Cave experiment, Mills and Simpson,
both Rattlers, competed with each other for status,
resources, and respect. But their competition did
not result in conflict, for it stabilized when Simpson
accepted Mills as the Rattler leader. The competi-
tion between the Rattler and the Eagles, in
contrast, was more intensive than that between
Mills and Simpson, as is consistent with the
discontinuity effect: the tendency for groups to
Robbers Cave experiment A field study that exam-
ined the causes and consequences of conflict between
two groups of boys at Robbers Cave State Park in Okla-
homa (designed and conducted by Muzafer and Carolyn
Sherif and their colleagues).
realistic group conflict theory A conceptual frame-
work arguing that conflict between groups stems from
competition for scarce resources, including food, terri-
tory, wealth, power, natural resources, and energy.
discontinuity effect The markedly greater competi-
tiveness of groups when interacting with other groups,
relative to the competitiveness of individuals interacting
with other individuals.
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 447
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

display a level of competitiveness that is greater than
the competitiveness displayed by individuals. Even
though individuals in the group may prefer to
cooperate, when they join groups, this cooperative
orientation tends to be replaced by a competitive
one (see Wildschut & Insko, 2007, for a review).
Social psychologists Chet Insko, John Schopler,
and their colleagues documented this discontinuity
by asking individuals and groups to play the prison-
er’s dilemma game (PDG). As noted in Chapter 13,
this mixed-motive game offers the two parties a
choice between cooperation and competition.
This interdependence is illustrated in the sample
PDG matrix in Figure 14.2. Option C is the coop-
erative choice and D is the competitive, defecting-
from-cooperation, choice. Cooperation will yield
the best outcomes for both groups if they both
select C, but if one picks C and the other picks
D, then the cooperative group’s payoff will be
small (20 points) compared to the competitive
group’s payoff (60 points). If both groups select
option D, then their rewards will be cut in half
(Insko et al., 1990, 1993, 1994; Schopler & Insko,
1992; Schopler et al., 1995)
When one person played another person, very
few of these pairs competed: only 6.6% over the
course of the game. Competition was also rare
when three individuals—who would share profits
at the end of the game but, until then, could not
talk to one another—played another set of three
independent individuals (7.5%). But when an inter-
acting triad played another interacting triad, 36.2%
of their choices were competitive, and when triads
played triads but communicated their choices
through representatives selected from within the
group, competition rose to 53.5% (Insko et al.,
1987). These findings are remarkably consistent—
a meta-analysis of 48 separate studies conducted in
11 different group dynamics laboratories confirmed
that groups are disproportionately more competi-
tive than individuals (Wildschut et al., 2003).
Discontinuity across Social Interactions This
discontinuity between individuals and groups is
not confined to groups playing a structured conflict
game. When researchers examined everyday social
interactions, they found that group activities were
marked by more competition than one-on-one
activities. Participants diligently recorded their
interpersonal activities for an entire week, classify-
ing them into one of five categories:
■ One-on-one interactions: dyadic interactions, such
as playing chess, walking to class with another
person.
■ Within-group interactions: interacting with other
members of one’s group, such as a club meet-
ing or a classroom discussion.
■ One-on-group interactions: interacting as a single
individual with a group, such as a student
meeting with the honor council.
■ Group-on-one interactions: interacting as a part of
a group with a single individual, such as a class
confronting a teacher over a grading policy.
■ Group-on-group interactions: interacting as part of
a group with another group, such as a soccer
game or a joint session of two classes.
As Figure 14.3 indicates, the proportion of com-
petitive interactions within each type of interaction
Rattlers’ choice
C D
E
a
g
le
s
’
c
h
o
ic
e
Eagles
win
50
Eagles
win
20
Eagles
win
60
Eagles
win
30
Rattlers
win
50
Rattlers
win
60
Rattlers
win
20
Rattlers
win
30
D
C
F I G U R E 14.2 The prisoner’s dilemma game payoff
matrix used to study competition and intergroup conflict.
Groups tend to select option D much more frequently
than option C.
448 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

climbed steadily as people moved from one-on-one
interactions to group interactions. These effects also
emerged when sports activities, which could have
exacerbated the competitiveness of groups, were
eliminated from the analysis (Pemberton, Insko, &
Schopler, 1996). Other research suggests that the
discontinuity effect may be intensified when the
other group is more group-like—that is, it is higher
in entitativity (Insko, Wildschut, & Cohen, 2013).
Causes of Discontinuity The consistency of the
discontinuity effect suggests that it springs from a
number of causes that combine to exacerbate conflicts
between groups, including greed, fear, and social
identity (Pinter et al., 2007). First, individuals are
greedy, but groups are even greedier. When people
discover that others in the group are leaning in the
direction of maximizing gains by exploiting others,
this social support spurs the group members on to
greater levels of greed. Changing the PDG matrix
payoff so that greed is no longer so lucrative mini-
mizes the discontinuity effect (Wolf et al., 2008).
Second, people fear groups more than they fear
individuals. They describe groups as more abrasive
(competitive, aggressive, and proud) and less agreeable
(cooperative, trustworthy, and helpful) than indivi-
duals. This pessimism also colors their expectations
about specific group interactions, for people who
were about to play the PDG against a group felt
that the experience would be more abrasive than
did individuals about to play the game as individuals
(Hoyle, Pinkley, & Insko, 1989). People competing
with a group rather than a single person feel more
threatened: They say such things as “We don’t trust
you” and “You better not cheat us” to their oppo-
nents, so communication between groups does
little to quell tensions. If individuals feel personally
Are Collectivists Peacemakers?
Individuals and societies vary in their degree of indi-
vidualism and collectivism. Individualism stresses the
rights of the individual; collectivism exults the rights of
the group. Individualists tend to make choices that
maximize their own outcomes, so in general they
respond more competitively in conflict situations. Col-
lectivists are more likely to adopt harmony-enhancing
strategies that minimize conflict, including following
rules that will yield a fair resolution to the disagree-
ment (see Chapter 3).
Collectivists’ pacifism may not, however, extend
to individuals who are not part of their ingroup. The
discontinuity effect, for example, holds in collectivistic
countries as well as individualistic ones (Takemura &
Yuki, 2007). Moreover, even though collectivists
express less anger, hostility, and aggression when
dealing with members of their own group, when
interacting with a member of the outgroup, they dis-
play more hostility than individualists (Leung, 1988). In
one investigation, students from countries with collec-
tivistic and individualistic cultures were asked to iden-
tify how they would respond to a conflict with another
individual (interpersonal or intragroup conflict), to a
conflict between their group and another group
(intergroup conflict), and to a conflict between their
country and another country (international conflict).
Students from collectivistic countries responded more
negatively to intergroup and international conflicts
than to interpersonal conflicts. Those from more indi-
vidualistic countries differed less in their endorsement
of conflict resolution strategies in an international
versus an interpersonal conflict (Derlega et al., 2002).
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent competitive
Group-to-group
Group-to-one
One-to-one
One-to-one
Within group
F I G U R E 14.3 The level of competitiveness of five
everyday situations ranging from one-to-one interactions
to group-to-group interactions.
SOURCE: From tabled data in “Memory for and Experience of Differential
Competitive Behavior of Individuals and Groups” by M. B. Pemberton, C. A.
Insko, and J. Schopler, 1996, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
953–966.
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 449
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

threatened, they take steps to protect themselves. But if
they feel the group is being threatened, then they take
steps to protect their group (Weisel & Zultan, 2016).
Third, individuals who identify with their group
tend to act to maximize the group’s collective out-
comes, even if that comes at a cost to those outside
of the group (Pinter et al., 2007). This sense of group
duty may trigger a desire to outdo the other group
and maximize the ingroup’s gains (Wolf et al., 2008).
When members’ social identity is more salient than
their personal identity, they are more likely to
respond competitively when dealing with another
group (Böhm, Rothermund, & Kirchkamp, 2013).
Group-focused collectivistic individuals also respond
more negatively to group-level conflicts, whereas indi-
vidualists respond more negatively to one-on-one
conflicts (Derlega et al., 2002).
Deterring Discontinuity What can be done to
reduce the exaggerated competitiveness of groups rel-
ative to individuals? Insko and his associates find that
communication does little to reduce the effect, since in
many cases the two factions communicate negative
information or misinformation (Wildschut et al.,
2003). A tolerant appeasement approach to conflict
also proved ineffective in reducing discontinuity. As
with studies of individuals, when groups respond
cooperatively even when the other party competes—
hoping to signal their good intentions and inviting a
reduction in conflict—the other group responds by
exploiting the pacifistic group. A reciprocal strategy,
such as tit for tat (TFT), was a more effective strategy
to counter discontinuity. As noted in Chapter 13, TFT
matches competition with competition and coopera-
tion with cooperation. This strategy, Insko suggests,
allays groups’ fears that they will be exploited, for it
reassures them that they can trust the other group.
Other methods for reducing the discontinuity effect
include decreasing the rewards of competition (by
changing the values in the PDG matrix) and member’s
anonymity (Wildschut et al., 2003).
14-1b Power and Domination
Intergroup conflicts, though initially rooted in
competition for scarce resources, can escalate into
intergroup exploitation as one group tries to dominate
the other. Not only do groups wish to monopolize
contested resources but they also wish to gain con-
trol over the other group’s resources, which can
include its wealth, land, peoples, and identity
(Rouhana & Bar-Tal, 1998).
Social Dominance Theory The Robbers Cave
campground included three groups organized in a
hierarchy of authority. The staff was more powerful
than the campers, for they controlled all the camp’s
resources and mandated each day’s activities. Nei-
ther the Rattlers nor the Eagles challenged the staff,
but they did challenge each other as they struggled
to rise above the other in the hierarchy (Sherif,
White, & Harvey, 1955).
This hierarchical structure, and the tension that
it produced, is explained by social psychologists Jim
Sidanius, Felicia Pratto, and their colleagues’ social
dominance theory. This theory assumes that, just
as some individuals within a group are more influen-
tial than others, groups within a community, organi-
zation, or society also vary in their capacity to
influence other groups. Whereas some groups
come to control more of the collective’s resources
(e.g., wealth, property, status, and protection),
other groups occupy positions subordinate to these
higher status groups and may even be oppressed by
them. Sidanius and Pratto further suggest that mem-
bers of the dominant groups tend to believe that this
inequitable apportioning of resources is justified by
precedent, by custom, or even by law. They may
deny that the distribution of resources is actually
unfair and claim that the dominance of one group
over another is consistent with the natural order.
The lower-status groups, however, often vie with
other lower-ranked groups and with the dominant
groups for power and resources (Sidanius et al., 2007;
Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).
social dominance theory An approach to oppression
and domination assuming that conflict between groups
results from dynamic tensions between hierarchically
ranked groups within society (developed by Jim Sidanius,
Felicia Pratto, and their colleagues).
450 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The Corruptive Effects of Dominance This
cycle of domination and resistance occurs between
nations, classes, ethnic groups, the sexes, and even
small groups in controlled experimental situations.
Chet Insko and his colleagues examined exploitation
and conflict by creating a simulated social system in
the laboratory. Insko’s microsocieties included three
interdependent groups, multiple generations of
members, a communication network, products, and
a trading system (Insko et al., 1980, 1983). Insko
assigned the microsocieties to one of two experi-
mental conditions. In the economic power condi-
tion, one group could produce more varied
products, so it quickly became the center of all bar-
gaining and trading. In the coercive power condi-
tion, the group whose members were supposedly
better problem solvers was given the right to confis-
cate any products it desired from the other groups.
(Insko referred to these conditions as the Service
condition and the Carneiro condition, respectively.)
These differences in power had a dramatic
effect on productivity and intergroup relations. In
the economic power condition, all three groups
reached very high levels of productivity, with the
advantaged group slightly outperforming the
others. In contrast, none of the groups in the coer-
cive power condition were very productive. As the
“idle rich” hypothesis suggests, the members of the
powerful group spent less time working when they
could confiscate others’ work. But the other groups
reacted very negatively to this exploitation, and as
the powerful group continued to steal their work,
the members of the other groups held strikes and
work slowdowns and sabotaged their products.
(Men, in particular, were more likely to strike
back against the oppressive group.) Eventually, the
groups worked so little that the dominant group
could not confiscate enough products to make
much profit. These results suggest that as with
intragroup conflict, one sure way to create conflict
is to give one party more coercive power than the
other (Deutsch & Krauss, 1960). Apparently, when
it comes to power, more is not always better.
Individual Differences in Social Dominance
People differ in their appraisal of these disparities
in power and status. Whereas some challenge this
inequality, others support the idea that some groups
should be dominant and others oppressed. Indivi-
duals with high levels of social dominance orientation
(SDO) strive to maximize their group’s gains, par-
ticularly in relationship to other groups’ outcomes.
Sidanius, Pratto, and their colleagues examined
this tendency by arranging for white college students
who varied in SDO to play an experimental simula-
tion they called Vladimir’s Choice. The game is based
on a Russian parable about a peasant named Vladimir.
As the story goes, God visited Vladimir one day and
told him he would grant him one wish. “However,”
God added: “There is one condition. Anything I give
to you will be granted to your neighbor, Ivan, twice
over.” Vladimir’s response, “Okay, take out one of
my eyes” (Sidanius et al., 2007, p. 257). In the situa-
tion based on this fable, students made choices that
would maximize their group’s gains or those that
would undermine other groups’ outcomes. They
were led to believe that they were being consulted
by the school’s administration regarding how student
activity funds should be spent, with some options
favoring White student interests over minority student
interests. These options were contrived so that in
order to receive the maximum allocation for their
group—19 million dollars—it would mean that
minority groups would receive 25 million dollars. In
order to lower the amount given to the outgroup, the
students had to choose an option that yielded less
money for the ingroup.
The majority of the students, 56%, chose the
option that split the funds equally between the two
groups ($13 million to each). Many also favored
allocations that would raise the amount given to
both Whites and minorities, for they apparently
were not concerned with getting more than the
outgroup. Some, however, preferred receiving less
money to ensure that their group received more
than the minority group. And who was most likely
to base their choice on the ingroup’s gain over the
outgroup’s? Those who were high in social domi-
nance orientation (Sidanius et al., 2007).
Eliminating Rivals How would the Rattlers
have responded if the camp counselors had given
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 451
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

them the option of removing their rivals from the
Robbers Cave campground? Would a group, in its
quest for social dominance, eliminate a rival alto-
gether? And would the social dominance orienta-
tion of the members make a difference in how they
reacted (Chirot & McCauley, 2006)?
Researchers studied these questions by arrang-
ing for individuals and groups to play a competitive
game where winners would qualify for a raffle of
$100. Players received feedback as they played each
round, and this feedback was controlled so that
some were told they were losing the competition,
but others were led to believe they were winning.
The players were also given the opportunity to
punish their opponent by taking some or all of
their points and by eliminating them from the com-
petition altogether. Consistent with the discontinu-
ity effect, groups exacted more severe punishments,
and they also eliminated their rivals earlier in the
contest than did individuals. Unexpectedly, this
tendency was more pronounced for the teams that
were winning rather than losing—apparently the
successful groups felt as if their higher status earned
them the privilege of eliminating the competition.
Not so unexpectedly, individuals who had higher
SDO scores inflicted more punishment on their
opponents, and they chose to eliminate their rivals
sooner (McPherson & Parks, 2011).
14-1c Intergroup Aggression
Competition, alone, can trigger intergroup conflict,
but it also sets in motion a number of other pro-
cesses that can further aggravate the groups. The
Rattlers, as the losers, experienced a high level of
frustration, and that frustration triggered an increase
in aggressive, hostile actions. They also felt
deprived, relative to the Eagles, who had managed
to secure the prizes that they sought. Rather than
accept the blame for their failure, they denied
What Is Your Social Dominance Orientation?
Social dominance orientation comprises two, often complementary, components. The first component, a prefer-
ence for group-based dominance hierarchy, is an explicit preference for organizations, communities, and societies
where the high-status groups dominate other groups. The second component, antiegalitarianism, does not
directly endorse dominance of one group over another, but neither does it stress the need to take steps to
reduce inequality and hierarchy. Several items from the Social Dominance Scale7, Short-form, are listed here
(Ho et al., 2015, p. 1028).
Instructions: Show how much you favor or oppose each idea below by selecting a number from 1 to 7 on
the scale below. You can work quickly; your first feeling is generally best.
1 ¼ Strongly Oppose 4 ¼ Neutral 5 ¼ Slight Favor
2 ¼ Somewhat Oppose 6 ¼ Somewhat Favor
3 ¼ Slightly Oppose 7 ¼ Strongly Favor
1. An ideal society requires some groups to be on the top and others to be on the bottom. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Group equality should not be our primary goal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. It is unjust to try to make groups equal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Scoring: Only a subset of the items from the Social Dominance Scale7 are included here, so the results should
be interpreted cautiously. However, a score of 12 would be average, for Americans, on this scale. A score of over
16 would be a relatively high score, whereas a score of less than 8 would be a low score. (For more information
see Ho et al., 2015.)
452 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

having lost and tried to declare themselves the win-
ners. Their loss triggered a complicated emotional
reaction that included frustration, anger, and a
desire to find a scapegoat to blame for their loss
(Meier, Hinsz, & Heimerdinger, 2008).
Anger and Retaliation The Rattlers were frus-
trated. They had set their sights on beating the
Eagles, but on the final day of the competition
their hopes were dashed; they had to watch as
their enemies celebrated and accepted the trophy.
When intergroup competitions end, one side is
often branded the winner and one the loser. Like
the victorious Eagles, winners experience a range of
positive emotions, including pride, pleasure, happi-
ness, and satisfaction. Losers, in contrast, experience
the “agony of defeat”—humiliation, anger, embar-
rassment, and frustration (Matsumoto & Willing-
ham, 2006).
These emotions can contribute to the escalation
of conflict between groups, for negative emotions
have long been considered potent instigators of con-
flict and hostility. The frustration–aggression
hypothesis, one of the first theories that explained
aggression, argued that thwarting environmental
conditions lead to feelings of frustration and that
these feelings of frustration cause aggression. This
theory has been refined and extended through
research, so that now the general aggression
model recognizes that many aversive environmental
factors—pain, threats, environmental stressors, and so
on—can increase arousal, which, when paired with a
negative appraisal of the situation, can generate
aggression. In an intergroup context, once one
group engages in aggression, the other group will
likely retaliate, setting in motion a cycle of conflict
escalation:
Group A experiences Group B’s retaliation,
which causes Group A’s members to have high
levels of aggressive affect, to perceive Group B
as hostile and aggressive, and to experience
heightened arousal. These internal states cause
members of Group A to act impulsively on their
immediate appraisal of Group B as hostile and
threatening. Group B then experiences the
impulsively aggressive act from Group A, which
sets in motion the same set of internal states and
appraisal and decision processes that result in an
even more aggressive retaliation. (DeWall,
Anderson, & Bushman, 2011, pp. 248–249)
Scapegoat Processes At Robbers Cave, the Rat-
tlers attacked their enemy, the Eagles. In some cases,
however, a group that experiences a privation will
turn against a third party, rather than the group that
originally caused the harm. The third group would
be a scapegoat—a label derived from the biblical ritual
of guilt transference—since anger originally aroused
by one group becomes displaced on another, usually
more vulnerable group. Scapegoat theory assumes
that attacking a scapegoat provides an outlet for
pent-up anger and frustration, and the aggressive
group may then feel satisfied that justice has been
done.
Individuals often blame others for their troubles
and take out their frustrations on them, but group-
level scapegoating occurs when the ingroup, as a
whole, has settled on a specific target group to
blame for its problems (Glick, 2009). Scapegoating
is more likely when a group has experienced diffi-
cult, prolonged negative conditions that frustrate its
success in meeting its most essential needs (Staub,
2004). In such cases, the group may develop a com-
pelling, widely shared ideology, which, combined
frustration–aggression hypothesis An early motiva-
tional model that argued that individuals become more
aggressive whenever external conditions prevent them
from reaching their goals.
general aggression model A framework for organizing
biological, environmental, social, and psychological fac-
tors that influence the expression of hostile, negative
behavior, including (1) person and situational inputs; (2)
cognitive, affective, and arousal states, and (3) cognitive
appraisals.
Scapegoat theory An explanation of intergroup con-
flict arguing that hostility caused by frustrating environ-
mental circumstances (such as abuse by others or failure)
is released by taking hostile actions against members of
other social groups.
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 453
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

with political and social pressures, leads to the most
extreme form of scapegoating: genocide. Scapegoating
can also prompt oppressed groups to lash out at other
oppressed groups. Even though the minority groups
are victimized by the majority group, minorities some-
times turn against other minority groups rather
than confront the more powerful majority (Craig &
Richeson, 2016; Rothgerber & Worchel, 1997).
14-1d Norms and Conflict
Intergroup conflicts, such as war between nations,
gang fights, or even the conflict between the Rattlers
and the Eagles, are not out of control, atypical inter-
personal actions that occur when the social order
breaks down. Normatively, competition and hostil-
ity between groups are often completely consistent
with the standards of conduct in that situation.
The Norm of Reciprocity Groups, like indivi-
duals, tend to obey the norm of reciprocity. They
answer threats with threats, insults with insults,
and aggression with aggression. Consider, for
example, the infamous Hatfield–McCoy feud
between two large families in a rural area of the
United States in the late nineteenth century
(King, 2013). The conflict started when Floyd
Hatfield stole some hogs from a McCoy. The
McCoys countered by stealing hogs from another
Hatfield, and soon members of the two families
began taking potshots at one another. Between
1878 and 1890, a dozen men and women died as
a direct result of interfamily violence. Likewise,
studies of gangs indicate that many street fights
stem from some initial negative action that in reality
may pose little threat to the offended group. The
target of the negative action, however, responds to
the threat with a counterthreat, and the conflict
spirals. Battles resulting in the death of gang mem-
bers have begun over an ethnic insult, the intrusion
of one group into an area controlled by another
group, or the theft of one gang’s property by another
gang (Densley & Peterson, 2017). Large-scale inter-
group conflicts, such as race riots and warfare between
countries, have also been caused by escalating hostile
exchanges (Fisher, 2016).
An upward spiral model of conflict intensification
accurately describes the unfolding of violence at
Robbers Cave. The conflict began with minor irri-
tations and annoyances but built in intensity. Exclu-
sion, a mild form of rejection, occurred as soon as the
boys realized that another group was sharing the
camp. This antipathy escalated into verbal abuse
when the groups met for the tournament. Insults
were exchanged, members of the opposing team
were given demeaning names, and verbal abuse ran
high. Next, intergroup discrimination developed. The
groups isolated themselves from each other at
meals, and the boys expressed the belief that it was
wrong for the other team to use the camp facilities or
to be given an equal amount of food. Last came the
acts of physical violence—the raids, thefts, and fistfights.
Thus, the conflict at Robbers Cave built in a series of
progressively more dangerous stages from exclusion
to verbal abuse to discrimination and, finally, to
physical assault (Streufert & Streufert, 1986).
Cultural Norms The extent to which groups
respond in hostile ways to other groups varies
from culture to culture. The Mbuti of the Congo,
the !Kung of Botswana, and many Native American
tribes (e.g., the Blackfoot and Zuñi) traditionally
avoided conflict by making concessions. In these
societies, violent, aggressive actions were not
socially valued, and so lethal encounters between
groups were rare (Bonta, 1997). In contrast, for
the Yanomanö of South America and the Mundug-
umor of New Guinea, aggression is a cultural value
(Chagnon, 1997). The anthropologist Napoleon
Chagnon called the Yanomanö the “fierce people,”
for during the time he studied them they seemed to
enjoy an armed conflict as much as a peaceful feast.
Adjacent villages coexisted through times of uneasy
cooperation, but any conflicts between tribes were
often settled with a raid or ambush (Chirot &
McCauley, 2006).
A culture’s emphasis on honor, dignity, and
saving face may also influence how people in that
culture deal with conflict.
■ Honor cultures: cultures where people strive to
avoid offending others, but will respond
aggressively if they feel they or their group has
454 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

been insulted in some way. A culture of honor
does not encourage aggression in general, but it
does support individuals who “project a stance
of willingness to commit mayhem and to risk
wounds or death” if insulted (Nisbett &
Cohen, 1996, p. xv). These norms of the cul-
ture of honor are now anachronistic, but they
are sustained by misperceptions about the
commonness of aggressive behavior (Vandello,
Cohen, & Ransom, 2008). Honor cultures
emerge in rural economies where civil
authority is too weak to protect individuals
from harm.
■ Dignity cultures: societies that stress the impor-
tance of personal integrity and individual
worth. In such cultures, members learn that
each individual has inherent value, and the
quality of their character is not defined by
other people. This cultural syndrome is more
likely to be manifested in more economically
prosperous, individualistic countries.
■ Face cultures: societies that emphasize hierarchy,
humility, and harmony. Face cultures, like
honor cultures, value respect and deference,
but individuals in face cultures cooperate with
one another to maintain one another’s
respectability. A person who is insulted by
another person in a face culture need not react
aggressively, for the social group will deal with
the offender. Taking matters into one’s own
hands is a selfish act, for it disrupts harmony
and circumvents the system of social hierarchy.
Anglo Americans raised in the northern and
western parts of the United States tend to be guided
by a culture of dignity, southern Anglo Americans
and Latino Americans a culture of honor, and the
responses of Asian Americans are more likely
guided by a culture of face (Kim, Cohen, & Au,
2010; Leung & Cohen, 2011).
Group Norms Some groups within the larger
society adopt unique norms and values pertaining
to intergroup conflict. In the United States, for
example, the Mennonites and the Amish avoid
interpersonal conflict and strive instead for
cooperative, peaceful living. In contrast, gangs,
sports hooligans, and bullies accept norms that
emphasize dominance over other groups. Soccer
fans show high levels of ingroup loyalty but equally
intense forms of aggression against fans of rival
clubs. Groups of young girls develop intricate pat-
terns of ingroup favoritism and outgroup rejection.
Even though they rarely engage in physical aggres-
sion, their relational aggression can be so pointed
and unrelenting that it leads to long-term negative
consequences for those they target. Studies of gangs
living in urban areas suggest that these groups,
although violent, use aggression in instrumental
ways to maintain group structures and patterns of
authority. Much of the most intense violence is
intergroup conflict, when one gang must defend
its area from another, or when the gang decides
that it must inflict harm on someone who has
acted in ways that undermine the local gang’s
authority (Decker & Pyrooz, 2012).
14-1e Evolutionary Perspectives
Evolutionary psychology offers a final set of causes,
more distal than proximate, for conflict between
groups. The tendency for conflict to emerge
between groups is so pervasive that some experts
believe that it may have a genetic basis. As noted
in Chapter 3, many theorists believe that contem-
porary humans’ ancestors lived for much of their
evolutionary past in small bands of between 50
and 150. These groups provided such an advantage
to their members in terms of survival that, over
time, humans became a social species—ready to
cooperate with other humans in the pursuit of
shared goals (Dunbar, 1998).
These same evolutionary pressures, however,
also left humans ready to respond negatively to
any human who was not a member of his or her
group or tribe. Groups likely competed, forcefully,
against other groups, claiming territories, plunder-
ing the resources of neighboring groups, and harm-
ing the members of those groups. If a member
strayed too far from the safety of his or her group,
then the greatest danger was not from wild animals
but from other humans. Because outgroups were a
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 455
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

substantial threat, the human mind developed the
capacity to determine each person’s tribal alle-
giance. Those who failed to distinguish between
insiders and outsiders were less likely to survive.
These pressures may have gendered intergroup
relations. Men were, and continue to be, the warriors
of human groups: They are physically larger, stronger,
and more biologically ready to aggress than are
women (Sell et al., 2017). In consequence, men,
when they encounter an outgroup male, instinctively
respond defensively, fearing he may physically attack
them. Women respond negatively to outgroup males
because they fear both physical and sexual assault
(McDonald, Navarrete, & Van Vugt, 2012; Navarrete
et al., 2010). Because of these evolved reactions, men
are more likely to encounter rejection by members of
another group than are women (see Salvatore et al.,
2017, for an exception).
Intergroup conflict was also instrumental in
fostering the conditions needed to promote
ingroup cooperation. Few experts believe that
humans, as a species, could have survived had
they not developed the means to cooperate with
one another in the pursuit of joint outcomes. The
development of this remarkable human capacity
required a stable community of members, with
care focused first on genetically related individuals
and secondarily on group members who would be
Where Are the Peaceful People?
Are humans, by nature, warlike or peaceful? The phi-
losopher Thomas Hobbes argued for warlike when he
wrote that humans’ lives, without the restraints of
civilization, would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short” (1651/2008, p. 86). Jean-Jacques Rousseau
disagreed and championed the basic goodness of
humans: “nothing can be more gentle than him in his
primitive state, when placed by nature at an equal
distance from the stupidity of brutes and the perni-
cious good sense of civilized man” (Rousseau,
1755/2008, p. 35).
The question Hobbes and Rousseau debated
remains unsettled even today. Anthropological studies,
for example, explore the question by examining
instances of conflict and cooperation in ancient cul-
tures as well as contemporary ones. Most anthropolo-
gists believe that humans survived for much of the
species’ history in relatively small groups, but little is
known about the relationships between these groups.
When one clan would encounter another, did these
groups attack, retreat, or collaborate?
Studies of intergroup conflict yield conflicting
evidence on the question of humanity’s intergroup
tendencies. Bioarchaeological analysis of skeletal data
suggests intergroup conflict, including raids, feuding,
and ambushes, was common in some parts of the
ancient world (Martin & Harrod, 2015). Ethnographic
records of the world’s cultures, such as the Human
Relations Area Files (http://www.yale.edu/hraf/) and
the Standard Cross-cultural Sample (http://escholarship.
org/uc/wc_worldcultures), include example after
example of cultures that display combative reactions
to other groups. Only 15.6% of the societies in the
Standard Cross-cultural Sample value violence against
subgroups within the community, but 61% value vio-
lence taken against members of other societies;
another 25% consider it to be acceptable. Nearly half
of the cultures surveyed considered warfare against
other groups to be a socially valued activity and
another 35% viewed it to be a necessary evil. Only
15% of the cultures in the survey avoided or openly
denounced warfare.
Intergroup conflict, however, is not a human
universal, for some societies avoid entering into con-
flicts with other groups in any and all circumstances.
Anthropologist Douglas Fry (2007), after scouring the
ethnographic research literature, identified more
than 70 societies that avoid conflicts with other
groups. The Semai of the Malay Peninsula, for exam-
ple, value harmony in their interpersonal relations
and rely on a group of tribal arbitrators to settle dis-
putes that arise between group members. When
other groups encroach upon their settlements, they
usually respond by moving away from the intruding
groups rather than defending their territories. Fry
concludes that “not all societies make war. Humans
have a solid capacity for getting along with each
other peacefully, preventing physical aggression, lim-
iting the scope and spread of violence, and restoring
peace following aggression” (Fry, 2007, pp. 20–21).
Nature may push groups into conflict, but the push is
not an irresistible one.
456 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

present on future occasions when helping could be
reciprocated. These conditions, so essential to the
survival of these fragile groups, could be maintained
only if group members were well known to one
another and normatively bound to reciprocate
exchanges without undue levels of selfishness.
This capacity for intragroup cooperation may have
been further enhanced by the presence of out-
groups. Facing a threat from an outgroup, the
ingroup became more unified, producing a level
of solidarity that increased each member’s likeli-
hood of surviving by linking him or her to the
survival of the group as a whole (Van Vugt, De
Cremer, & Janssen, 2007).
These pressures resulted in adaptations that
increased the fitness of the individual, but at the
price of creating a generalized hostility for members
of other groups. The human species developed an
extraordinary capacity for altruism, cooperation,
and selflessness, but these prosocial behaviors are
usually reserved for members of the ingroup and
sustained by hostility toward the outgroup.
1 4 – 2 IN T E R G R O U P B I A S :
PERCEIVING US A ND THEM
The boys in the Robbers Cave experiment dis-
played antipathy toward the other group even
before the idea of a competitive tournament was
mentioned. The Rattlers and Eagles had not even
seen each other when they began to refer to “those
guys” in a derogatory way:
When the ingroup began to be clearly delin-
eated, there was a tendency to consider all
others as outgroup…. The Rattlers didn’t
know another group existed in the camp until
they heard the Eagles on the ball diamond; but
from that time on the outgroup figured
prominently in their lives. Hill (Rattler) said
“They better not be in our swimming hole.”
The next day Simpson heard tourists on the
trail just outside of camp and was convinced
that “those guys” were down at “our dia-
mond” again. (Sherif et al., 1961, p. 94)
The conflict at Robbers Cave was fueled by the
competitive setting, situational norms, the struggle
for power, and the frustrations that followed each
loss, but these factors cannot fully account for the
almost automatic rejection of members of the other
group. Group members reject members of other
groups not because they fear them or because they
must compete with them, but simply because they
belong to a different group.
14-2a Conflict and Categorization
Mills was a member of the Ratters, and Craig was an
Eagle. When they met each other, on the path to the
dining hall at Robbers Cave campground, the same
thought went through both of their minds: this per-
son is not in my group (Ratner & Amodio, 2013).
Social categorization provides a cognitive founda-
tion for intergroup conflict. Once Mills realized
the boy approaching him was an Eagle and not a
Rattler, he considered him to be one of them—an
outsider who was different from the Rattlers. As
Sherif (1966, p. 12) explained, “Whenever indivi-
duals belonging to one group interact, collectively
or individually, with another group or its members
in terms of their group identification, we have an
instance of intergroup behavior.”
Does the mere existence of identifiable groups
within society, and the cognitive biases generated
by this differentiation, inevitably push groups into
conflict? Research by Henri Tajfel, John Turner,
and their colleagues, as discussed in Chapter 3,
demonstrated the pervasiveness of the intergroup
bias in their studies of a minimal intergroup situa-
tion. Like the Sherifs, they examined groups that
had no prior group history. But, unlike the Sherifs,
they took this minimalism to its limit by creating
groups that were hardly groups at all. Formed on
the basis of some trivial similarity or situational fac-
tor, the group members did not talk to each other,
were anonymous throughout the study, and could
not personally gain in any way from advantaging
one person in the study over another. Even in
these minimal groups, people favored their own;
they gave more money to members of their own
group and withheld money from the outgroup. Tajfel
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 457
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

and Turner concluded that the “mere perception of
belonging to two distinct groups—that is, social cate-
gorization per se—is sufficient to trigger intergroup
discrimination favoring the ingroup” (Tajfel &
Turner, 1986, p. 13; see Otten, 2016, for a review).
Categorization sets in motion a number of affec-
tive, cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal pro-
cesses that combine to sustain and encourage
conflict between groups. We do not simply segment
people into the categories “member of my group”
and “member of another group” and then stop.
Once we have categorized others according to
group, we feel differently about those who are in
the ingroup and those who are in the outgroup,
and these evaluative biases are further sustained by
cognitive and emotional biases that justify the evalu-
ative ones—stereotypic thinking, misjudgment, and
intensification of emotions, and social identity. This
section reviews these processes, beginning with the
most basic: the tendency to favor one’s own group.
14-2b The Ingroup–Outgroup Bias
The sociologist William Graham Sumner (1906) main-
tained that humans are, by nature, a species that joins
together in groups. But he also noted a second, equally
powerful, human tendency: favoring one’s own group
over all others. “Each group nourishes its own pride
and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divini-
ties, and looks with contempt on outsiders” (p. 13). At
the group level, this tendency is called the ingroup–
outgroup bias; at the tribal, ethnic, or national level, eth-
nocentrism (Sumner, 1906).
The magnitude of the bias depends on a host of
situational factors, including the group’s outcomes,
the way perceptions are measured, ambiguity about
each group’s characteristics, and members’ identifica-
tion with the group. Overall, however, the ingroup–
outgroup bias is robust. A rock band knows its music
is very good and that a rival band’s music is inferior. A
70-year-old knows old people are wiser than the
young, and an 18-year-old knows young people are
smarter than the elderly. One ethnic group prides
itself on its traditions and also views other groups’ tra-
ditions with disdain. One team of researchers thinks
that its theory explains intergroup conflict and criticizes
other researchers’ theories as inadequate. Across a range
of group and organizational settings, members rate
their own group as superior to other groups (Dasgupta,
2004; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002).
Ingroup Positivity and Outgroup Negativity
The ingroup–outgroup bias is really two biases com-
bined: (1) the selective favoring of the ingroup, its
members, and its products, and (2) the derogation of
the outgroup, its members, and its products. At Rob-
bers Cave, the pro-ingroup tendency went hand in
hand with the anti-outgroup tendency. When they
were asked to name their friends, 92.5% of the Eagles’
choices were Eagles, and 93.6% of the Rattlers’
choices were fellow Rattlers. When asked to pick
the one person they disliked the most, 95% of the
Eagles selected a Rattler, and 75% of the Rattlers
identified an Eagle. In many intergroup conflicts,
however, ingroup favoritism is stronger than outgroup
rejection (Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014). For exam-
ple, a rock band may prefer its own music, but not
necessarily criticize another band’s music, and one
ethic group may take pride in its own traditions with-
out condemning others’ traditions. Social psychologist
Marilynn Brewer (2010), after surveying a number of
studies of intergroup conflict, concluded that the
expression of hostility against the outgroup depends
on the similarity of ingroup and outgroup members,
anticipated future interactions, the type of evaluation
being made, and the competitive or cooperative
nature of the intergroup situation. Overall, however,
ingroup love is stronger than outgroup hate (Halevy,
Weisel, & Bornstein, 2012).
Double-Standard Thinking Craig, who was an
Eagle, likely evaluated the actions taken by the Eagles
more positively than the actions taken by the Rat-
tlers, even when those actions were identical. When
people succumb to double-standard thinking,
they redefine their own group’s actions as generous
and just, and condemn the very same actions taken
double-standard thinking Judging the actions and
attributes of one’s own group positively, but viewing
these very same behaviors or displays negatively when
the outgroup performs them.
458 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

by the outgroup as hostile and unjust. Our warnings
are requests, but the other side calls them threats. We
are courageous, though they consider us stubborn. Pride
in our own group is nationalism, but the other group
takes it as evidence of extremism. We offer them con-
cessions, but they interpret them as ploys (De Dreu,
Nauta, & Van de Vliert, 1995).
The linguistic intergroup bias also results in a
subtle recasting of ingroup members’ actions in a
more positive light. When individuals display this
bias, they describe actions differently depending on
who performs it. If an ingroup member engages in a
negative behavior, such as crying during a game,
then members would describe that behavior very
concretely—Elliott “shed some tears.” If an out-
group member performed the same behavior, they
would describe the action more abstractly—Elliott
“acted like a baby.” Positive behaviors, in contrast,
are described in abstract terms when attributed to an
ingroup member but in very concrete terms when
performed by an outgroup member (Maass, 1999).
Implicit Intergroup Biases Group members
often express their preferences openly. Sports fans
cheer on their own team and boo their opponents.
The Rattlers expressed pride in their own group’s
accomplishments and ridiculed the Eagles. Racists
express support for members of their own group
and speak harshly of people with racial backgrounds
different from their own.
But in many cases, the ingroup–outgroup bias is
an implicit one—subtle, unintentional, and even
unconscious, operating below the level of awareness.
Even though people may, when asked, claim that
they are not biased against outgroup members and
do not favor their own group, their biases emerge
when their implicit attitudes are measured. One
such measure, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) devel-
oped by social psychologist Anthony Greenwald and
his colleagues, assesses the extent to which people
associate one concept—such as the ingroup—with
another concept—such as goodness. When indivi-
duals are shown pairs of words or images that match
their intuitive associations of these two concepts, such
as ingroup/kind and outgroup/evil, they respond
quickly and without error. When, however, they
respond to pairings of concepts that they do not asso-
ciate with one another, such as ingroup/bad and out-
group/friendly, then they respond more slowly
(Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 2008).
The IAT has revealed subtle ingroup–outgroup
biases in dozens of studies using all types of social
categories. Even when people deny any and all pre-
ferences based on race, color, or creed, the IAT tells
a different story: whites favor whites over blacks;
U.S. citizens favor Americans over Canadians; mem-
bers of fraternities favor other fraternity members
over independent students; Catholics favor Catholics
over Protestants; the young favor the young over the
old; and so on. These biases occur even when people
are striving to suppress their biases (Greewald, Banaji,
& Nosek, 2015; see Jost et al., 2009, for a review,
and Oswald et al., 2015, for a critique of the IAT’s
accuracy in assessing implicit bias).
14-2c Cognitive Biases
When Mills saw Craig, he did not merely judge him
more negatively than he would one of his fellow Rat-
tlers (the ingroup–outgroup bias). He probably made
inferences about Craig—his physical strength, his ath-
letic skill, even his morality—solely on the basis of one
piece of information: Craig was an Eagle. When peo-
ple categorize others, their perceptions of these indivi-
duals are influenced more by their category-based
expectations than by the evidence of their senses.
Outgroup Homogeneity Bias Most group mem-
bers are quick to point out the many characteristics
that distinguish them from the other members of
their own group (“Why, I’m not like them at
all!”), but when they evaluate members of out-
groups, they underestimate their variability (“They
all look the same to me”). For example, Craig, an
Eagle, would describe the Rattlers as poor sports
who cheated whenever possible. When describing
the Eagles, in contrast, he would admit that a few of
the members were sissies and that maybe one Eagle
linguistic intergroup bias The tendency to describe
positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors more
abstractly, and negative ingroup and positive outgroup
behaviors more concretely.
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 459
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

liked to bend the rules, but Craig would probably
argue that the Eagles were so heterogeneous that
sweeping statements about their typical qualities
could not be formulated. Studies of a variety of
ingroups and outgroups—women versus men,
physics majors versus dance majors, Sorority A ver-
sus Sorority B, Princeton students versus Rutgers
students, Canadians versus Native Americans, and
Blacks versus Whites—have documented this out-
group homogeneity bias. Group members’ con-
ceptualizations of other groups are simplistic and
undifferentiated, but when they turn their eye to
their own group, they note its diversity and com-
plexity (Boldry, Gaertner, & Quinn, 2007).
The outgroup homogeneity bias does not emerge
across all intergroup settings. The group that is disad-
vantaged in some way is usually viewed as more homo-
geneous, whereas the more powerful group is viewed
as more variable (Guinote, Judd, & Brauer, 2002). The
bias can also reverse entirely, resulting in the ingroup
homogeneity bias (Haslam & Oakes, 1995; Simon,
Pantaleo, & Mummendey, 1995). Under conditions
of extreme conflict, both tendencies may emerge,
prompting group members to assume that “none of
us deserves this treatment,” and “they have harmed
us; they must all be punished” (Rothgerber, 1997).
Group Attribution Error Group members tend
to make sweeping statements about the entire out-
group after observing one or two of the outgroup’s
members. If an African American employee is vic-
timized by a European American boss, the victim
may assume that all European Americans are racists.
Similarly, a visitor to another country who is trea-
ted rudely by a passerby may leap to the conclusion
that everyone who lives in that country is discour-
teous. Individuals in intergroup situations fall prey
to the law of small numbers when they assume
that the characteristics and qualities of all of the
members of the outgroup can be accurately inferred
from information pertaining to just a few of its
members (Quattrone & Jones, 1980).
The opposite process—assuming that the char-
acteristics of a single individual in a group can be
inferred from the general characteristics of the whole
group—can also bias perceptions. Craig might know
that the Eagles are opposed to swearing, but he
would be reluctant to say each Eagle agrees on this
rule. When he finds out the Rattlers, as a team, have
chosen a snake as their emblem, he would be much
more willing to assume that each and every member
of the Rattlers likes the snake emblem. Social psy-
chologist Scott Allison and his colleagues studied this
group attribution error by telling students that an
election had recently been held either at their college
or at another college to determine how much fund-
ing should be given to the college’s athletics pro-
grams. They then told the students the results of
the vote and asked them to estimate the opinion of
the “typical student” at the college where the vote
was taken. When the students thought that the vote
had been taken at their own college, they did not
want to assume that the individual’s opinion would
match the group’s opinion. But when they thought
that the vote was taken at another college, they were
much more confident that the individual’s opinions
would match the group’s opinions (Allison &
Messick, 1985b; Allison, Worth, & King, 1990).
Ultimate Attribution Error When individuals
form impressions of other individuals, the fundamen-
tal attribution error (FAE) prompts them to attribute
the actions of others to their personal qualities
rather than to the constraints of the situation. But
when group members form impressions of out-
group members, the ultimate attribution error
(UAE) prompts them to attribute only negative
outgroup homogeneity bias The perceptual tendency
to assume that the members of other groups are very
similar to each other, whereas the membership of one’s
own group is more heterogeneous.
law of small numbers Basing generalizations about the
outgroup on observations of a small number of indivi-
duals from that group.
group attribution error Mistakenly assuming that spe-
cific group members’ personal characteristics and prefer-
ences, including their beliefs, attitudes, and decisions, are
similar to the preferences of the group to which they belong.
ultimate attribution error (UAE) Attributing negative
actions performed by members of the outgroup to dis-
positional qualities and positive actions to situational,
fluctuating circumstances.
460 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

actions to outgroup members’ dispositional qualities
(Hewstone, 1990; Pettigrew, 2001). If outgroup
members rob a bank or cheat on a test, then their
actions are explained by reference to their person-
ality, genetics, or fundamental lack of morality. But
should an outgroup member perform a positive
behavior, that action is attributed to a situational
factor—perhaps good luck or a special advantage
afforded the outgroup member. In any case, the
perceiver will conclude that the good act, and the
outgroup member who performed it, is just a spe-
cial case. Because of the UAE, the perceiver con-
cludes that there is no need to reappraise the group
because the outgroup member is not responsible for
the positive act (Doosje & Branscombe, 2003).
Stereotypes When an Eagle met another Eagle on
the trail, he probably expected the boy to be friendly,
helpful, and brave. But if he encountered a Rattler,
he expected the boy to be unfriendly, aggressive, and
deceitful. These expectations are based on stereo-
types, which are cognitive generalizations about
the qualities and characteristics of the members of a
particular group or social category. Stereotypes help
perceivers make rapid judgments about people based
on their category memberships (Schneider, 2004).
Because they are widely adopted by most of the
ingroup, stereotypes are group-level biases, shared
social beliefs rather than individualistic expectations
(Jetten & Haslam, 2016). But stereotypes tend to be
exaggerated rather than accurate, negative rather than
positive, and resistant to revision even when directly
disconfirmed. As psychologist Gordon Allport (1954)
wrote, “Prejudgments become prejudices only if
they are not reversible when exposed to new
knowledge” (p. 8).
If stereotypes have all these perceptual and cog-
nitive limitations, why do they persist? Walter
Lippmann (1922), who first used the word stereotype
to describe mental images of people, argued that a
stereotype resists disconfirmation because “it stamps
itself upon the evidence in the very act of securing
the evidence.” When group members see through
eyes clouded by stereotypes, they misperceive and
misremember people and events. Because indivi-
duals tend to interpret ambiguous information so
that it confirms their expectations, stereotypes can
act as self-fulfilling prophecies (Allport & Postman,
1947). Stereotypes also influence memory, so recall
of information that is consistent with stereotypes is
superior to recall of stereotype-inconsistent infor-
mation (Howard & Rothbart, 1980). Individuals
who expect the worst from the outgroup can
more easily remember the times that outgroup
members acted negatively rather than positively
(Sahdra & Ross, 2007). Because stereotypes affect
both the encoding of new information and the
retrieval of old information, group membership is
one of the most important cues that can influence
judgment and memory (Allen et al., 2009).
14-2d Stereotype Content Model
Each one of the Rattlers stereotyped the Eagles, but
they also applied stereotypes to all the other groups
that populated their world: men, women, camp
counselors, priests, parents, teachers, students,
neighbors, baseball players, and so on. Each one
of these stereotypes likely included unique informa-
tion pertaining to that group, but the stereotype
content model suggests that these stereotypes also
overlapped to a degree as well. People do not
assume that each group they encounter is utterly
unique, but instead they intuitively estimate
where the group falls along two basic dimensions:
warmth and competence. Some groups (including
the ingroup, in most cases) are viewed as warm,
nice, friendly, and sincere, whereas other groups
are considered to be filled with unpleasant,
unfriendly, and even immoral people. The second
dimension is competence: Some groups are thought
to include competent, confident, skillful, able
stereotypes A socially shared set of cognitive general-
izations (e.g., beliefs and expectations) about the qualities
and characteristics of the members of a particular group
or social category.
stereotype content model A theory of group percep-
tion positing that people’s stereotyped views about social
groups reflect their beliefs about the warmth and com-
petence of the stereotyped group.
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 461
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

individuals, whereas other groups are viewed as
incompetent or unintelligent. The Rattlers, for
example, may have adopted a stereotypic view of
the Eagles that rated them as neutral on the warm
dimension but more negatively on the competence
dimension. The stereotype content model suggests
that group members, by appraising the outgroup’s
standing on warmth and competency, answer
two important questions: “Will this group attempt
to harm me and my group?” and “Is this group
capable of harming me and my group?” (Cuddy,
Fiske, & Glick, 2007, 2008; Fiske, 2010a; see
Figure 14.4).
The stereotype conflict model, in addition to
identifying warmth and competence as the two
basic dimensions that structure most people’s
stereotypes about other groups, suggests that these
two dimensions also influence people’s emotional
reactions to other groups (Cuddy et al., 2009).
Instead of assuming people’s reactions to outgroups
are generally negative and their appraisal of the
ingroup is generally positive, the stereotype conflict
model breaks this general emotional reaction down
into four specific emotional states: admiration,
envy, contempt, and pity (see Figure 14.4). These
emotional reactions depend on the relative status of
the ingroup and the outcome (Mackie & Smith,
2015). Fear and jealousy, for example, are more
common emotions in members of the lower-
status groups, whereas contempt or anger is charac-
teristic of those who are members of higher-status
groups.
14-2e Exclusion and Dehumanization
People respond emotionally to the outgroup, usu-
ally leaning in a negative direction. This negativity
may be relatively mild, amounting to little more
than unease when interacting with outgroup mem-
bers or a general preference to be with someone
from the ingroup rather than the outgroup. Indivi-
duals may not even admit their negativity toward
members of the other group, yet they display it
through their nonverbal actions, social awkward-
ness, and nervousness when in the presence of the
outgroup (Dovidio et al., 2004). In other cases,
however, individuals may display far more intense
emotions in response to the outgroup, including
hatred and disgust (Sternberg, 2003).
Group Hate Hatred, as Allport (1954) explained
in The Nature of Prejudice, is usually a group-level
emotion. Drawing on ideas discussed by Aristotle,
Allport observed that “anger is customarily felt
toward individuals only, whereas hatred may be
felt toward whole classes of people” (1954,
p. 363). And while individuals often regret giving
way to anger directed at another person, they feel
no such remorse about their group-level hatred.
“Hatred is more deep-rooted, and constantly
desires the extinction of the object of hate”
(1954, p. 363).
Hate causes a more violently negative reaction
to the outgroup than such emotions as fear or
anger. Often, group members fear the other
group, for example, when outgroup members are
viewed as competitors who may take harmful
action toward the ingroup. Anger is also a domi-
nant emotion in intergroup conflict settings, when
previous negative exchanges between groups are a
cause for irritation, annoyance, and hostility. Hate,
however, is the feeling associated with many of the
Pity
Contempt
Admiration
High
warmth
Envy
Low
warmth
Low
competence
High
competence
F I G U R E 14.4 The stereotype content model.
SOURCE: “The BIAS Map: Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereo-
types,” by Amy J. C. Cuddy, Susan T. Fiske, and Peter Glick, 2007, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648.
462 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

most negative consequences of intergroup conflict.
Hate is expressed primarily when group members
believe that previously harmful acts done by mem-
bers of the outgroup were intentional ones that
purposely harmed the ingroup and that the actions
were caused by the intrinsically evil nature of the
outgroup. In one study of people’s reactions to ter-
rorist attacks, fear was associated with avoiding the
outgroup and anger with support for education to
improve intergroup relations. Those who felt
How Do You Feel about That Group?
People don’t just like or dislike other groups. Instead, they feel a range of emotions when thinking about the
groups they belong to, and the many other groups that they encounter in their daily lives. The stereotype conflict
model, for example, identifies four basic emotion-based reactions to groups: envy, contempt, pity, and admiration.
Instructions. For the following hypothetical situations, select the one emotional reaction you would most
likely experience.
1. A group of students in your school has it all figured out. They seem cold and aloof—you don’t like them very
much on a personal level—but they are undeniably successful. They are always the ones who get the
achievement awards and whenever they compete—in athletics, academics, or community service—they
outdo everyone else. In thinking about this group, you would likely experience:
(a) admiration (b) envy (c) contempt (d) pity
2. You like everyone at the company where you work except the people in one of the support divisions. It’s not
just that all the people in that group are unfriendly, rude, and bitter—they are—but even worse: they are
incompetent. Time and again projects are held up because they just can’t do their jobs. In thinking about this
division, you would likely experience:
(a) admiration (b) envy (c) contempt (d) pity
3. There is a family in your neighborhood that has the worst luck. They are the nicest people, but have experi-
enced one crisis after another. One of the parents was laid off unexpectedly, and they are having financial
troubles. Their health is not the best, and someone over there seems to always have some sort of illness—
sometimes something serious. They lost their family dog just last week. In thinking about this family, you
would likely experience:
(a) admiration (b) envy (c) contempt (d) pity
4. During a family vacation you visit a small town that was founded primarily by families who moved here from
Italy. The residents are very friendly, and can be seen stopping to talk to each other as they go about their
day’s activities. You learn that the crime rate is low, and so is the level of stress and tension. The residents
seem very happy with their lives. In thinking about this town, you would likely experience:
(a) admiration (b) envy (c) contempt (d) pity
Scoring. There are no right or wrong answers, but the stereotype conflict model offers the following predic-
tions about each of the four scenarios: 1(b), 2(c), 3(d), and 4(a). Envy is most likely when the outgroup, although
judged negatively, is nonetheless higher in status than the ingroup and this status difference is thought to be
due to the competence of the outgroup. Contempt occurs when the outgroup is viewed negatively in terms of
both competence and warmth. The members of such an outgroup are viewed as responsible for their failings,
and there is little consideration given to the idea that the division between the two groups can ever be lessened.
Pity, as an intergroup emotion, is directed at outgroups that are viewed negatively in terms of competence, but
are thought to also have positive, endearing qualities. Outgroups that evoke pity are not blamed for their plight,
unlike outgroups that are held in contempt. Admiration is rare in intergroup contexts, for it is experienced when
the outgroup is perceived as being both high in warmth and high in competence, an unusual occurrence. Inter-
group admiration occurs when the outgroup is thought to be completely deserving of its accomplishments, when
the outgroup’s gains do not come at a cost to the ingroup, and when the outgroup members are generally
judged positively (Cuddy et al., 2009).
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 463
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

hatred for the other group, in contrast, advocated
for the group’s utter destruction through physical
violence against it (Halperin, 2008).
Moral Exclusion When intergroup conflict
reaches extreme levels, with members of one
group attacking, harming, and killing members of
other groups, the ingroup–outgroup bias becomes
equally extreme. During extreme intergroup con-
flicts, group members view their own group as
morally superior and members of the outgroup as
less than human (Bandura, 2016).
Such moral exclusion is more likely when one
group perpetrates extreme violence against another
group—European Americans enslaving Africans, the
Nazi’s genocide of Jews, ethnic violence between
Croats and Serbs, and the continuing warfare
between Israelis and Palestinians (Staub, 2004).
Groups that subjugate others tend to rationalize
their violence by attributing it to the actions, inten-
tions, or character of their victims. As their aggres-
sion intensifies, however, their rationalizations
prompt them to increasingly devalue their victims.
Eventually, the aggressors denigrate the outgroup
so completely that the outsiders are excluded from
moral concern (Staub, 1990). Groups that have a
history of devaluing segments of their society are
more likely to engage in moral exclusion, as are
groups whose norms stress respect for authority and
obedience. These groups, when they anticipate con-
flict with other groups, rapidly revise their opinions
of their opponents so that they can take hostile
actions against them (Opotow, 2000).
Dehumanization Moral exclusion places the out-
group outside the moral realm. Dehumanization
moves the outgroup outside the human realm.
Dehumanization occurs when the ingroup denies
the outgroup those qualities thought to define
humans. Some of these qualities may be those
thought to be uniquely human: culture, refinement,
high moral standards, and the capacity to think ratio-
nally. Others are qualities that the ingroup associates
with humanity’s strengths, such as emotional respon-
siveness, warmth, openness, self-control, and depth
(Haslam, 2015). The ingroup may also come to
believe that the outgroup experiences raw, primary
emotions such as anger or happiness, but not the
more refined emotions that make humans truly
human: affection, admiration, pride, conceit, remorse,
guilt, and envy (Leyens et al., 2003). People describe
dehumanized outgroup members as disgusting or
revolting because they are thought to be sources of
contamination and impurity (Maoz & McCauley,
2008).
This concept of dehumanization is no hyper-
bole. When researchers used an fMRI scanner to
track perceivers’ reactions to images of people
from various groups, their results suggested that
dehumanized outgroup members are no longer
perceived to be humans. When individuals viewed
general images of people, the areas of the brain that
typically respond when people process social infor-
mation (the medial prefrontal cortices) showed
increased activity. However, when they were
shown images of people from an outgroup—
homeless individuals and drug addicts—those same
areas did not rise above their resting state of neuro-
nal activity. The insula and amygdala were acti-
vated, however; these portions of the brain are
most active when people are experiencing strong
emotions, such as disgust and contempt (Harris &
Fiske, 2006; Krendl, 2016).
Dehumanization also increases the likelihood
that the ingroup will aggress against the outgroup.
Albert Bandura and his associates tested this possi-
bility experimentally by giving groups the opportu-
nity to deliver painful electric shocks to a second
group each time it performed poorly. In reality,
there was no other group, but participants nonethe-
less believed that they could control both the inten-
sity and duration of the shocks they gave the group.
In one condition, the experimenter mentioned that
moral exclusion A psychological process whereby
opponents in a conflict come to view each other as
undeserving of morally mandated rights and protections.
dehumanization Believing that other individuals or
entire groups of individuals lack the qualities thought to
distinguish human beings from other animals; such dehu-
manization serves to rationalize the extremely negative
treatment often afforded to members of other groups.
464 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the outgroup members—who were similar to one
another in background but different from the
subjects—seemed like nice people. But in the
other condition the experimenter mentioned, in
an offhand remark, that they were an “animalistic,
rotten bunch.” As expected, when dehumanized by
the experimenter, the groups increased their hostil-
ity and aggression, delivering more intense shocks
(Bandura, Underwood, & Fromson, 1975).
14-2f Categorization and Identity
Social identity theory offers a compelling explana-
tion for the robust relationship between categoriza-
tion and conflict. This theory, as noted in
Chapter 3, assumes that membership in groups
can substantially influence members’ sense of self.
When the boys joined the Robbers Cave experi-
ment and became firmly embedded in their groups,
their identities changed. They came to think of
themselves as Rattlers or Eagles, and they accepted
the group’s characteristics as their own. The theory
also suggests that “when group memberships are
framed by comparison with other groups, behavior
within the group and toward members of out-
groups can be conceived of as deriving from the
value and meaning that the group provides for its
members” (Abrams, 2015, p. 203). If the Rattlers
oppose the Eagles, then each boy who thinks of
himself as a Rattler will also oppose the Eagles. If
the Rattlers triumph over the Eagles, then each one
of the Rattlers triumphs. But if the Eagles vanquish
the Rattlers, then each member of the Rattlers is
diminished. Group members, therefore, stress the
value of their own group relative to other groups
as a means of indirectly enhancing their own worth.
Identity and Intergroup Conflict The basic
premise of social identity theory is supported by
the evidence that people favor their group, even in
minimal group conditions, and by the fact that the
biasing effects of group membership are even more
substantial when (1) individuals identify with their
group rather than simply belonging to it and (2)
the relative status of existing groups is salient. Black
Africans’ attitudes toward an outgroup (Afrikaans
Whites) were negatively associated with the strength
of their ingroup identification (Duckitt & Mphuth-
ing, 1998). British people’s attitudes toward the
French were negatively correlated with the strength
of their British identities (Brown et al., 2001). When
individuals feel that the value of their group is being
questioned, they respond by underscoring the dis-
tinctiveness of their own group and by derogating
others (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Dietz-Uhler &
Murrell, 1998).
Identity and Self-Esteem Social identity theory’s
suggestion that ingroup favoritism is in the service
of ingroup members’ self-esteem is also consistent
with findings that individuals who most need reas-
surance of their worth tend to be the most negative
toward other groups. Individuals who experience a
threat to their self-esteem tend to discriminate more
against outgroups, and low-status, peripheral mem-
bers of the group are often the most zealous in their
defense of their group and in the rejection of the
outgroup (Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995).
Individuals are also more likely to draw compari-
sons between their group and other groups in areas
where the comparison favors the ingroup. The
Rattlers, for example, lost the tournament, so they
admitted that the Eagles were better than the Rat-
tlers at sports. But the Rattlers could stress their
superiority in other spheres unrelated to the
games, such as toughness or endurance (Reichl,
1997). Group members also display group-level
schadenfreude. They take pleasure when other groups
fail, particularly when the failure is in a domain that
is self-relevant and when the ingroup’s superiority
in this domain is uncertain (Leach et al., 2003).
But does favoring the ingroup and condemn-
ing the outgroup raise one’s self-esteem? The
effectiveness of this technique for sustaining self-
esteem has not been confirmed consistently by
researchers. In some cases, derogating outgroup
members raises certain forms of self-esteem and
praising the ingroup tends to bolster self-
esteem—but only so long as the ingroup’s norms
support that bias (Iacoviello et al., 2017). Also,
though people are quick to praise their ingroup,
they still think that they are superior to most
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 465
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

people—including all the members of their own
group (Lindeman, 1997).
1 4 -3 IN T E R GR O U P C O NF L IC T
R E S O L U T I O N : UN I T I N G U S
AND THEM
What happens when one group encounters
another? In many cases, conflict. Competition, dif-
ferences in power, norms, and negative emotions
combine to instigate intergroup hostilities. The
tendency to distinguish between us from them cre-
ates divisions where none are warranted. Rejection
and animosity flourish, and acceptance and support
dwindle. But encounters between groups need not
inevitably lead to conflict. First, contact between
groups can, in the right circumstances, reduce ten-
sions between groups rather than increase them.
Second, the cognitive processes that often under-
score the differences between people can also sus-
tain collective, more inclusive, identities. Third,
just as group members learn to respond to others
who are outside of their groups in negative ways,
so they can learn to respond positively when they
encounter people from other groups. This section
reviews these three approaches to promoting posi-
tive intergroup relations.
14-3a Intergroup Contact
The Robbers Cave researchers were left with a
problem. The manipulations of the first two phases
of the experiment had worked very well, for the
Rattlers–Eagles war yielded a gold mine of data
about intergroup conflict. Unfortunately, the situa-
tion had degenerated into a summer camp version
of William Golding’s (1954) Lord of the Flies. The
two groups now despised each other. As conscien-
tious social scientists, the Sherifs and their collea-
gues felt compelled to try to undo some of the
negative effects of the study—to seek a method
through which harmony and friendship could be
restored at the Robbers Cave campsite.
The Contact Hypothesis The Robbers Cave
researchers first tried to reduce the conflict by unit-
ing the groups in shared activities. They based their
intervention on the contact hypothesis, which
assumes that ingroup–outgroup biases will fade if
people interact regularly with members of the out-
group. So the Sherifs arranged for the Rattlers and
the Eagles to join in seven pleasant activities, such as
eating, playing games, viewing films, and shooting
off firecrackers. Unfortunately, this contact had lit-
tle impact on the hostilities. During all these events,
the lines between the two groups never broke, and
antilocution, discrimination, and physical assault
continued unabated. When contact occurred dur-
ing meals, “food fights” were particularly prevalent:
After eating for a while, someone threw some-
thing, and the fight was on. The fight consisted
of throwing rolls, napkins rolled in a ball, mashed
potatoes, etc. accompanied by yelling the stan-
dardized, unflattering words at each other. The
throwing continued for about 8–10 minutes,
then the cook announced that cake and ice
cream were ready for them. Some members of
each group went after their dessert, but most of
them continued throwing things a while longer.
As soon as each gobbled his dessert, he resumed
throwing. (Sherif et al., 1961, p. 158)
The Sherif’s discovered that bringing groups
together, even in a relatively pleasant circumstance,
was not sufficient to reduce conflict: The Eagles
and the Rattlers used the situation to continue their
warfare.
Creating Positive Contact Contact lies at the
heart of such social policies as school integration,
foreign student exchange programs, and the Olym-
pics, but simply throwing two groups together in an
unregulated situation is a risky way to reduce inter-
group tensions. Contact between racial groups at
desegregated schools does not consistently lower
contact hypothesis The prediction that contact
between the members of different groups will reduce
intergroup conflict.
466 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

levels of prejudice (Schofield, 1986). When units of
an organization that clash on a regular basis are relo-
cated in neighboring offices, the conflicts remain
(Brown et al., 1986). In some cases students experi-
ence so much tumult during their semesters spent
studying abroad that they become more negative
toward their host countries rather than more positive
(Stangor et al., 1996). Competing groups in labora-
tory studies remain adversaries if the only step taken
to unite them is mere contact (Stephan, 1987). Even
before they initiated the contact, the Sherifs pre-
dicted that a “contact phase in itself will not produce
marked decreases in the existing state of tension
between groups” (Sherif et al., 1961, p. 51).
Why does contact sometimes fail to cure conflict
(Tropp & Page-Gould, 2015)? Contact situations can
create strong emotional reactions for group mem-
bers: anger, fear, anxiety, and even shame and pity.
If the contact situation is superficial or negative in
tone, then these emotions will likely continue to
disrupt the relationships between the groups (Tam
et al., 2007). Moreover, if members of the two
groups use the contact situation as one more oppor-
tunity to insult, argue with, physically attack, or dis-
criminate against one another, then certainly such
contact should not be expected to yield beneficial
effects (Riordan & Riggiero, 1980).
The setting must, instead, create positive contact
between groups. As psychologist Gordon Allport
(1954) explained in his original statement of the
contact hypothesis, the two groups should not be
merely assembled in one place. They should,
instead, be unified in a situation with the qualities
listed in Table 14.1: equal status, common goals,
intergroup cooperation, and support of authorities,
law, or custom (Pettigrew, 1998). Several of these
ingredients were also identified by a team of
researchers led by Kenneth Clark and including Isi-
dor Chein, Gerhart Saenger, and Stuart Cook. This
group developed the social science statement filed
in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown vs. Board
of Education, which ruled that segregation of schools
was unconstitutional (Benjamin & Crouse, 2002).
Contact and Superordinate Goals When the
Sherifs ratcheted up the quality of the contact
between the Eagles and the Rattlers, they achieved
the results they had hoped for: peace at Robbers
Cave. Following the failure of simple contact,
they arranged for the groups to work together in
the pursuit of superordinate goals—goals that can
be achieved only if two groups work together. The
staff created these superordinate goals by staging a
series of crises. They secretly sabotaged the water
supply and then asked the boys to find the source
of the problem by tracing the water pipe from the
camp back to the main water tank, located about
three-quarters of a mile away. The boys became
quite thirsty during their search and worked
together to try to correct the problem. Eventually,
they discovered that the main water valve had been
turned off by “vandals,” and they cheered when the
problem was repaired. Later in this stage, the boys
T A B L E 14.1 The Necessary Conditions for
Creating Positive Contact
Situations Identified by
Allport (1954)
Condition Description
Equal status The members of the groups
should be equal in terms of
background, qualities, and char-
acteristics that influence prestige
and rank in the situation.
Common goals The situation should involve a
joint task with a common goal
that is of equal interest to both
groups.
Cooperation The task should require cross-
group interaction and high levels
of interdependence.
Support of
authorities,
law, or custom
The norms of the situation should
encourage positive interactions,
and these norms must be
endorsed explicitly by authorities
and by the groups themselves.
superordinate goals A goal that can only be attained if
two or more individuals or groups work together by
pooling their efforts and resources.
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 467
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

pooled their monetary resources to rent a movie
that they all wanted to see, worked together to
pull a broken-down truck, prepared meals together,
exchanged tent materials, and took a rather hot and
dusty truck ride together. Like feuding neighbors
who unite when a severe thunderstorm threatens
to flood their homes or warring nations that pool
their technological skills (in a recurring science fic-
tion theme) to prevent the imagined collision of
earth with an asteroid, the Rattlers and the Eagles
were reunited when they sought goals that could
not be achieved by a single group working alone.
Cooperation and Cohesion Superordinate goals
create conditions favorable for the gradual reduc-
tion of tensions between groups, but in most cases
several cooperative encounters will be needed
before conflict is noticeably reduced. At Robbers
Cave, the researchers used a series of superordinate
goals to improve cross-group relationships. When
students from two different colleges worked
together on problems, the cooperative encounter
led to increased liking for members of the outgroup
only when it occurred twice (Wilder & Thompson,
1980). Similarly, in public schools, a long period of
cooperative intergroup contact is needed to reduce
intergroup prejudice, and if cooperation is not con-
stantly encouraged, then groups inevitably drift
apart once again (Moody, 2001).
Working together in the pursuit of superordi-
nate goals is also more effective if the groups actually
attain the goal; if the cooperative venture fails, then
conflict will likely ensue. Cooperating groups who
manage to succeed like one another, but when
groups fail, the negative affect associated with a
poor performance will spread to the outgroup with
each group blaming the other for the outcome.
Thus, cooperation is not enough: The cooperation
must also lead to success rather than failure (Blan-
chard, Adelman, & Cook, 1975; Worchel, 1986).
A Common Enemy The Robbers Cave experi-
ment was not the first time the Sherifs and their
colleagues had used a summer camp to study inter-
group conflict processes. Their first field study, con-
ducted in northern Connecticut, featured the two
groups discussed in Chapter 5: the Red Devils and
the Bull Dogs. These two groups experienced con-
siderable levels of conflict, as did the Rattlers and
the Eagles, but in this study, the Sherifs’ reduced
tension by introducing a common enemy (Sherif
& Sherif, 1953). They arranged for the two warring
groups to pick their best players for a camp-based
all-star team who then played a game against the
boys from another camp. This intervention was
successful, for during the game the boys forgot
about their previous group loyalties and cheered
whenever their camp’s team scored.
The Sherifs point out, however, that although
combining groups in opposition to a common
enemy worked for a short time (during the actual
competition or crisis), once the enemy was
removed, the groups returned to the status quo
antebellum. In fact, the 1949 groups were never
successfully reunited despite the experimenters’
extended efforts. Also, the use of a common
enemy to create cooperation can enlarge a conflict;
in the Sherifs’ research, the tension that had divided
a single camp came to divide two different camps.
At the international level this method would
amount to solving the disagreements between two
nations by attacking a third (Kessler & Mummen-
dey, 2001).
The Importance of Friendships Researchers
have confirmed the importance of the four factors
identified by Allport in his original statement of the
contact hypothesis (see Table 14.1), but they have
also identified other factors that, if not necessary
conditions, are those that often turn an adequate
contact situation into a highly successful one.
Many researchers, for example, stress the extent to
which the situation promotes informal, personal
interactions with outgroup members rather than
superficial, role-based contacts. If the members of
the groups do not mingle with one another, they
learn very little about the other group, and cross-
group friendships do not develop (Davies & Aron,
2016). Social psychologist Thomas Pettigrew
(1997), for example, in a study of 3,806 people
living in four countries in Europe, discovered that
people who reported having friends who were
468 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

members of an outgroup (another race, nationality,
culture, religion, or social class) were less prejudiced
than those who had no outgroup friends. Other
investigations have confirmed this tendency, lead-
ing Pettigrew to conclude:
The power of cross-group friendship to reduce
prejudice and generalize to other outgroups
demands a fifth condition for the contact
hypothesis: The contact situation must provide
the participants with the opportunity to
become friends. Such opportunity implies close
interaction that would make self-disclosure and
other friendship-developing mechanisms pos-
sible. (Pettigrew, 1998, p. 76)
Cross-group friendships not only weaken the
negative intergroup biases of the two friends, but
they can also lower the level of antipathy displayed
by other group members—even those without
friends in the outgroup. Social psychologist Stephen
Wright and his colleagues (1997) tested this
extended contact hypothesis by conceptually
replicating the Robbers Cave experiment with col-
lege students—but they made certain to create a
friendship pairing that cut across the two group’s
boundaries. The two group members who were
friends were more positive toward the outgroup,
but more important: This positivity generalized
throughout the rest of the groups. Even though
the other group members had not themselves
developed friendships with members of the out-
group, the knowledge that someone in their
group considered an outgroup member to be lik-
able moderated the ingroup–outgroup bias. Wright
concluded that intergroup conflict sometimes pre-
vents friendships from forming, but that friendships
that cut across groups can undo some of the perni-
cious effects of the ingroup–outgroup bias. This
effect is even more pronounced when a friend
within one’s group is a close friend, and their rela-
tionship with the outgroup member is a close one
as well (Eller, Abrams, & Gomez, 2012).
The Effects of Contact Does contact across vari-
ous types of situations and between various kinds of
groups stimulate conflict reduction? Thomas Petti-
grew and Linda Tropp (2000, 2006, 2011) exam-
ined this question in a meta-analysis of 515 separate
studies of contact and conflict. This massive pool of
studies examined the responses of nearly a quarter
of a million people from around the world. It
included studies with tightly controlled methods
as well as those with less stringent controls. Some
studies measured contact directly, whereas others
used participants’ own self-reports. Some studies
were experimental, with treatment and control
conditions, but others were correlational or quasi-
experimental. The studies examined a variety of
intergroup conflicts, including those based on
race, sexual orientation, age, and ethnicity.
Their careful meta-analysis (which took the
researchers eight years to complete) confirmed the
utility of the contact method in reducing conflict.
They found that face-to-face contact between
group members reduced prejudice in 94% of these
studies and that the basic correlation between contact
and conflict was − .21; the more contact, the less
prejudice between groups. They also noted, how-
ever, that contact had a stronger impact on conflict
when researchers studied high-quality contact situa-
tions that included equal status, cooperation between
groups, and so on. In such studies, the correlation
between contact and conflict climbed to −.29.
The effects of contact also varied across situa-
tions. Contact in recreational and work settings had
the strongest impact on conflict, whereas contact
that occurred when group members visited another
group’s country (i.e., as tourists) had the least
impact (see Figure 14.5). The impact of contact
on conflict also varied across countries. For exam-
ple, it was greatest in Australia and New Zealand,
followed by the United States and Europe. Contact
worked to reduce conflict in all other countries, but
its strength was less in some parts of the world (e.g.,
Africa, Asia, and Israel). Some types of intergroup
extended contact hypothesis The prediction that
cross-group friendships not only increase the two friends’
acceptance of the respective outgroups but also cause
other members of their groups to become more positive
toward the outgroups as well.
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 469
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

conflict were also more resistant to the curative
power of contact than others. Heterosexuals’ atti-
tudes toward gay men and lesbians improved the
most after contact, followed by attitudes related to
race and ethnicity. Contact lost some of its strength
in studies of contact between people of different
ages. Also, contact had less effect on the attitudes
of members of minority groups relative to members
of majority groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000).
Pettigrew and Tropp conclude that contact
works best in situations that conform to Allport’s
original recommendations regarding positive con-
tact situations, but they were also heartened by
the positive effects obtained in less than ideal situa-
tions. Drawing on both their findings and social
identity theory, they suggest that contact works
most effectively when it helps reduce the anxiety
associated with conflict between the groups and
when membership in the two groups is salient to
their members. They suspect that contact fails when
members feel threatened by the outgroup and that
the level of contact is not enough to assuage that
anxiety (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2016).
14-3b Cognitive Cures for Conflict
Intergroup contact does more than just promote
positive interactions between people who were
once antagonists. When individuals cooperate
with the outgroup, their “us versus them” thinking
fades, along with ingroup favoritism, outgroup
rejection, and stereotyping (see Dovidio & Gaertner,
2010; Hodson & Hewstone, 2013).
Decategorization During the waning days at
Robbers Cave, the boys began to abandon their col-
lective identities. Some boys became less likely to
think of themselves as Rattlers, but instead viewed
themselves as individuals with specific interests, skills,
and abilities. This decategorization, or personaliza-
tion, of group members reduces intergroup conflict
by reminding group members to think of outgroup
members as individuals rather than as typical group
members (Brewer, 2007). In one study, researchers
personalized the outgroup by merging two distinct
groups and giving them problems to solve. Some of
the groups were urged to focus on the task, but
others were encouraged to get to know one another.
This latter manipulation decreased the magnitude of
the ingroup–outgroup bias, although it did not elim-
inate it completely (Bettencourt et al., 1992). Indi-
viduation can also be increased by reducing the
perceived homogeneity of the outgroup. When
group members were told that one member of the
outgroup strongly disagreed with his or her own
group during an episode of intergroup conflict,
ingroup–outgroup biases were muted (Wilder,
1986). The participants looked at the outgroup and
saw a collection of individuals rather than a unified
group (Wilder, Simon, & Faith, 1996).
Recategorization The common ingroup iden-
tity model, developed by social psychologists John
0 0.1 0.2 0.40.3
Recreational
Laboratory
Work
Educational
Mixed
Residential
Travel/tourism
F I G U R E 14.5 Degree of conflict reduction
between groups across seven contact situations.
SOURCE: From tabled data in “A Meta-analytic Test of Intergroup Contact
Theory” by T. F. Pettigrew and L. R. Tropp, 2006, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
decategorization Reducing social categorization ten-
dencies by minimizing the salience of group member-
ships and stressing the individuality of each person in
the group.
common ingroup identity model An analysis of
recategorization processes and conflict, predicting that
intergroup conflict can be reduced by emphasizing
membership in inclusive social categories and the inter-
dependence of the individuals in the groups (developed
by Samuel Gaertner, John Dovidio, and their colleagues).
470 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Dovidio, Samuel Gaertner, and their colleagues,
recommends reducing bias by shifting group mem-
bers’ representations of themselves away from two
separate groups into one common ingroup category.
This recategorization will undo the conflict-
exacerbating cognitive factors that are rooted in the
ingroup–outgroup bias, but will also permit mem-
bers to retain their original identities (so long as they
Does Online “Contact” Improve Intergroup Relations?
The contact hypothesis recommends reducing inter-
group conflict by arranging for the members of dif-
ferent groups to interact with each other in
cooperative, task-focused situations. In some cases,
however, offline contact between group members is
impossible. The members of some groups are sepa-
rated by great distances and so cannot convene easily
in a single location. Nor is it ever easy for groups with
a legacy of hostility to move easily from insularity to
positive contact (Wagner & Hewstone, 2012).
In such cases, online collaboration provides an
alternative way to bring groups together in cooperative
contact. Social networking sites such as Facebook,
gaming communities, discussion forums, and blogs all
promote interaction among visitors to these sites and so
provide the venue, if not the motivation, for contact.
These sites also take much of the challenge out of con-
tact, for the experience can be ended should it become
uncomfortable. Online situations may, in fact, more
easily meet the conditions required for successful con-
tact. The playing field of the Internet is a relatively level
one, for indicators of status, wealth, or position are
hidden when people interact virtually. Moreover, the
disinhibition that is so often problematic in Internet
interactions may be of service during intergroup ses-
sions, for individuals may be more willing to engage in
intimate self-disclosures needed to create a more per-
sonal, rather than formal, connection. Interacting with
others online may also take advantage of the positive
effects of imagined intergroup contact. Even if partici-
pants do not consider an online connection to another
person to be a “real” relationship, if the interaction is a
positively toned encounter, it should promote feelings
of confidence about future offline interactions with the
outgroup (see Crisp & Turner, 2013).
Initial tests of the virtual contact hypothesis are
encouraging. Studies of multicultural virtual teams
used in business and educational settings, for example,
suggest that these groups become more cohesive if the
factors identified by the contact hypothesis—task
focus, collaborative orientation, and the support of the
authority—are incorporated in the online contact sit-
uation. When groups are cautioned to interact with
each other frequently, respectfully, and in supportive
ways, virtual multicultural teams tend to be more
productive, and members liking for one another
increases (Hasler & Amichai-Hamburger, 2013).
The Internet has also been used as an online
meeting place for groups with a history of intergroup
hostility. Educators in Ireland, for example, developed
an online program that linked students in the Republic
of Ireland and Northern Ireland (Austin, 2006). Another
program, Net Intergroup Contact (located at http://
www.intergroupcontact.com), facilitates intergroup
contact by placing participants into groups that work on
collaborative tasks. Members share information about
themselves through online profiles, and all sessions are
supervised by a mediator (Amichai-Hamburger, 2012).
A third example comes from the virtual community,
Second Life®. In this avatar-based game environment,
members of distributed, multicultural teams worked
together to complete a virtual team-building exercise:
building a bridge across a ravine on one of the Second
Life® islands. Reactions to the experience were very
positive: 95% of the participants agreed that the expe-
rience helped them learn how to work with people from
different cultures (Lewis, Ellis, & Kellogg, 2010).
These online contact settings offer a possible
alternative to traditional face-to-face intergroup con-
tact procedures. They may, of course, prove to be
untenable. Rather than an opportunity to act in posi-
tive ways to resolve conflicts, the Internet may provide
just another place where one group can enter into
disputes with another. These projects may, however,
be the first in a long line of effective online methods
for helping people move beyond bias to understand-
ing and away from conflict toward reconciliation
(Amichai-Hamburger, Hasler, & Shani-Sherman, 2015).
virtual contact hypothesis The prediction that online
contact between the members of different groups will
improve relations between these groups.
recategorization A reduction of social categorization
tendencies achieved by collapsing groups in conflict into
a single group or category.
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 471
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

do not conflict with the recategorized group). Because
people belong to multiple groups, they may be able
to identify one that includes them all. Recategoriza-
tion can also be achieved by systematically manipulat-
ing the perceptual cues that people use to define
“groupness.” When the members of competing
groups were urged to adopt a single name, space
was minimized between the members, and their out-
comes were linked the perceived unity (entitativity) of
the combined group increased and ingroup–outgroup
biases diminished (Gaertner et al., 1999, 2000, 2016).
Social psychologist Jason Nier and his colleagues
(2001) confirmed this shifting of identities at a football
game between the University of Delaware and the
Westchester State University. They arranged for
European and African American interviewers to
approach European American fans and ask them if
they would answer a few questions about their food
preferences. The interviewers manipulated shared
social identity by wearing different hats. For example,
when interviewers approached a Delaware fan, they
wore a Delaware hat to signal their shared identity, or
a Westchester hat to indicate they were members of
the outgroup. Ingroup–outgroup identity did not
influence European Americans’ compliance with
a European American interviewer’s request. How-
ever, the participants were more likely to agree to
be interviewed by an African American if the inter-
viewer and interviewee apparently shared a com-
mon university affiliation. The Sherifs introducing
a common enemy in their study of the Red Devils
and the Bull Dogs would be an example of
recategorization.
Cross-Categorization Ingroup–outgroup biases
are also minimized when group members’ other
classifications—in addition to their group identity that
is the focus of the conflict—are made salient to them
(Crisp & Hewstone, 2007). Cross-categorization, or
multiple social categorization, instead of uniting all
individuals in a single group or breaking down groups
altogether, decreases the power of the problematic
group identity by shifting attention to alternative
memberships that are less likely to provoke
ingroup–outgroup tensions. The Sherifs, if they had
implemented this strategy at Robbers Cave, would
have introduced at least one other category and split
the Rattlers and the Eagles into two new groups. The
boys, for example, were drawn from both the north
and the south side of Oklahoma City, so the Sherifs
could have separated them into these two groups and
introduced activities that would have made these
identities salient.
When others are viewed as belonging to multi-
ple categories rather than just one, intergroup differ-
entiation decreases and with it goes intergroup bias.
Cross-categorization also prompts individuals to
develop a more complex conceptualization of the
outgroup, which leads in some cases to decategoriza-
tion. The effectiveness of cross-categorization
depends, however, on individuals’ willingness to do
the cognitive work needed to rethink their concep-
tualization of the outgroup and their mood. If pres-
sured by time constraints that placed demands on
their ability to process information or a mood-
souring situation, the boys at Robbers Cave may
have fallen back on the older, better-known
Eagles–Rattlers distinction (Urban & Miller, 1998).
Controlling Stereotyped Thinking Rather than
attacking the categorization process, social psycholo-
gist Patricia Devine (1989, 2005) recommended
controlling the impact of stereotypes on perceptions.
Although people may not be able to avoid the acti-
vation of stereotypes, they can control their subse-
quent thoughts to inhibit ingroup–outgroup biases.
Devine found that the European Americans she
studied could easily list the contents of their culture’s
stereotypes about African Americans. She also found
that European Americans who were low in preju-
dice could describe the stereotype as accurately as
those who were high in prejudice. The unprejudiced
European Americans, however, could control their
thoughts after the stereotypes were activated. When
asked to list their thoughts about African Americans,
the unprejudiced participants wrote such things as
cross-categorization A reduction of the impact of
social categorization on individuals’ perceptions by mak-
ing salient their memberships in two or more social
groups or categories that are not related to the categories
that are generating ingroup–outgroup tensions.
472 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

“Blacks and Whites are equal” and “It’s unfair to judge
people by their color—they are individuals.” Preju-
diced people, in contrast, listed negative, stereotypical
thoughts. Devine and her colleagues have also found
that unprejudiced European Americans feel guilty
when they respond to African Americans in stereotyp-
ical ways, whereas prejudiced European Americans do
not (see Devine & Sharp, 2009, for a review).
14-3c Learning to Cooperate
Conflict between groups is one of the most com-
plicated phenomena studied by social scientists, but
the goal of greater understanding and the promise
of reduced tension remain enticing. Schools, com-
munities, businesses, and even nations, to deal with
the problems that intergroup conflicts can create,
have sought ways to help members recognize the
sources of their disputes and learn to manage their
differences successfully. Many of these approaches
build on both the contact and cognitive approaches
while adding elements designed to fit the given sit-
uation (for a comprehensive review, see Paluck
2012). These programs, when applied with dili-
gence, often yield substantial reductions in conflict,
although their success depends on their duration,
their design, and their fidelity to the intervention
strategy (Aberson, 2010; Stephan & Stephan, 2005).
Jigsaw Learning Groups Studies of public
schools in the United States suggest that desegrega-
tion often fails to eliminate racial and ethnic preju-
dices. Although integrated schools bring students
from various groups into contact, they do not
always promote cooperation between these groups.
Instead of including the necessary ingredients for
positive intergroup interactions, many school sys-
tems fail to encourage interaction among the mem-
bers of various subgroups, and staff openly express
hostile attitudes toward the outgroup members.
Some schools, too, group students on the basis of
prior academic experiences; as a result, education-
ally deprived students are segregated from students
with stronger academic backgrounds (Cook, 1985;
Schofield, 1986).
Social psychologist Elliot Aronson and his col-
leagues developed the jigsaw method to increase
collaborative learning and also reduce intergroup
conflict (Aronson, 2000; Aronson & Patnoe,
1997; Aronson et al., 1978). Students from different
What Are the Barriers to Intergroup Forgiveness?
Interpersonal forgiveness is the process by which an
individual, internally, forgives a single perpetrator.
Intergroup forgiveness, in contrast, requires forgiving
an entire group of people, as well as individual mem-
bers of that group.
Intergroup forgiveness is an effective method for
repairing the relationships between adversarial groups
by promoting trust and cooperation. However, forgiv-
ing a group that has harmed one’s group is not easily
done, particularly when conflicts result in significant
physical, psychological, and social harm. A meta-
analytic analysis of the situational factors that facili-
tate and inhibit intergroup forgiveness identified
three particularly influential barriers to forgiveness:
strength of identification with the ingroup (and
exclusion of the outgroup), negative emotions, includ-
ing anger, and claiming victimization and exploitation
by the outgroup. This study, however, also identified
several situational factors that promote forgiveness,
including peaceful contact, empathy, the exchange of
apologies, and acceptance of a common group iden-
tity. The two strongest predictors of improved rela-
tions achieved by forgiveness, however, were collective
guilt and the reestablishment of trust between the
two groups (Van Tongeren et al., 2014; see, too, a
special edition of the journal Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations edited by Noor, Branscombe, &
Hewstone, 2015).
jigsaw method A team-learning technique that involves
assigning topics to each student, allowing students with
the same topics to study together, and then requiring
these students to teach their topics to the other members
of their groups (developed by Elliot Aronson and his
colleagues).
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 473
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

racial or ethnic groups are assigned to a single learn-
ing group. These groups are then given an assign-
ment that can be completed only if each individual
member contributes his or her share. Study units are
broken down into various subareas, and each mem-
ber of a group must become an expert on one sub-
ject and teach that subject to other members of the
group. In a class studying government, for example,
the teacher might separate the pupils into three-
person groups, with each member of the group
being assigned one of the following topics: the judi-
ciary system (the Supreme Court of the United
States), the duties and powers of the executive
branch (the office of the president), and the func-
tions of the legislative branch (Congress). Students
can, however, leave their three-person groups and
meet with their counterparts from other groups.
Thus, everyone assigned to study one particular
topic, such as the Supreme Court, would meet to
discuss it, answer questions, and decide how to teach
the material to others. Once they have learned their
material, these students rejoin their original groups
and teach the other members of their group what
they had learned. Thus, the jigsaw class uses both
group learning and student teaching techniques.
The technique can also be used in a variety of
courses and grade levels and has even been adapted
for use in online learning settings (Pozzi, 2010).
Training in Conflict Resolution Intergroup
conflicts resist resolution, despite the best intentions
of those involved to settle the problem amicably. In
one of the Sherifs’ studies, for example, an informal
attempt by one of the Bull Dogs’ leaders to negotiate
with the Red Devils ended in increased antagonism:
Hall … was chosen to make a peace mission.
He joined into the spirit, shouting to the Bull
Dogs, “Keep your big mouths shut. I’m going
to see if we can make peace. We want peace.”
Hall went to the Red Devil cabin. The door
was shut in his face. He called up that the Bull
Dogs had only taken their own [belongings] …
and they wanted peace. His explanation was
rejected, and his peaceful intentions were
derided. He ran from the bunkhouse in a hail
of green apples. (Sherif & Sherif, 1953, p. 283)
Conflict experts, such as Herbert Kelman
(2012), recommend training people to be more
effective managers of intergroup conflict. Kelman
and his colleagues have met repeatedly with high-
ranking representatives from countries in the Middle
East to solve problems in that region of the world.
Kelman has carefully structured the workshops so
that participants can speak freely, and he intervenes
only as necessary to facilitate the communication
process. The workshops are completely confidential,
discussion is open but focused on the conflict, and
expectations are realistic. The workshops are not
designed to resolve the conflict, but to give partici-
pants the behavioral skills needed to solve conflicts
themselves (Rouhana & Kelman, 1994).
David Johnson and Roger Johnson (2009) have
applied these principles in their school-based coop-
erative learning program. They designed their pro-
gram to achieve three major goals: to decrease the
amount of tension between groups in schools and
colleges; to increase students’ ability to solve pro-
blems without turning to authorities; and to give
students skills they can use when they become
adults. The program teaches students a five-step
approach to resolving conflicts: (1) define the con-
flict; (2) exchange information about the nature of
the conflict; (3) view the situation from multiple
perspectives; (4) generate solutions to the conflict;
and (5) select a solution that benefits all parties.
Johnson and Johnson, in evaluations of the
program, reported substantial reductions in disci-
pline problems after training as well as increases
in academic achievement (Roseth, Johnson, &
Johnson, 2008). These programs can be made
even more effective by structuring the task so that
each group member makes a contribution, ran-
domly assigning students to roles within the
group, and making certain that all groups contain
an equal number of representatives from the
groups being merged. Too much of an emphasis
on individual performance—created by assigning
grades based on relative performance or degree of
preparation—can undermine the effectiveness of
the program, but research suggests that the inter-
vention yields positive gains even in less than ideal
settings (Miller & Davidson-Podgorny, 1987).
474 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

14-3d Resolving Conflict: Conclusions
In his classic treatise The Nature of Prejudice, Allport
(1954) wrote that “conflict is like a note on an
organ. It sets all prejudices that are attuned to it
into simultaneous vibration. The listener can
scarcely distinguish the pure note from the sur-
rounding jangle” (p. 996).
The Sherifs and their colleagues created just
such a “jangle” at Robbers Cave. The Rattlers
and the Eagles were only young boys camping,
but their conflict followed patterns seen in disputes
between races, regions, and countries. But just as
the Robbers Cave experiment is a sobering com-
mentary on the pervasiveness of conflict, the reso-
lution of that conflict is cause for optimism. The
Sherifs created conflict, but they also resolved it.
When it came time to return to Oklahoma City,
several of the group members asked if everyone
could go in the same bus:
When they asked if this might be done and
received an affirmative answer from the
staff, some of them actually cheered. When
the bus pulled out, the seating arrangement
did not follow group lines. Many boys
looked back at the camp, and Wilson (E)
cried because camp was over. (Sherif et al.,
1961, p. 182)
If the Robbers Cave conflict can end peacefully,
perhaps others can as well.
C H A P TE R R E V I E W
What interpersonal factors disrupt relations between
groups?
1. Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif and their collea-
gues (1961) studied the causes of and remedies
for intergroup conflict in their Robbers Cave
experiment.
2. Realistic group conflict theory assumes that conflict
occurs because groups must compete with one
another for scarce resources.
3. Insko, Schopler, and their colleagues (1994)
have documented the heightened competi-
tiveness of groups, or the discontinuity effect.
When groups play the Prisoners Dilemma
Game, they are more competitive than the
individual members, for a number of reasons.
4. Conflict increases when one group attempts to
dominate and exploit another group, and the
target group resists exploitation.
■ Social dominance theory, developed by Sidanius
and Pratto (1999), examines tensions
between hierarchically ranked groups in
society.
■ Groups exploit other groups both eco-
nomically and coercively, but Insko’s
generational studies suggest that coercive
influence is associated with greater
increases in conflict (Insko et al., 1980).
■ Individuals who are high in social domi-
nance orientation are more likely to prefer
allocations that benefit their group relative
to other groups, and they are more likely
to eliminate rival groups.
5. The emotional reactions described by the
frustration aggression hypothesis and the general
aggression model can trigger impulsive inter-
group aggression. Scapegoat theory explains why
groups that experience setbacks sometimes
fight other, more defenseless groups.
6. The norm of reciprocity, cultural norms,
and group norms can instigate and sustain
conflict.
■ Cultures of honor, dignity, and face adopt
unique norms pertaining to violence.
■ Anthropological evidence suggests that
human societies tend to be violent, but
Fry’s (2007) findings suggest that peaceful
coexistence among cultures is a
possibility.
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 475
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

7. Evolutionary psychology suggests natural
selection favored individuals who preferred
ingroup members over outgroup members.
This theory suggests that evolutionary pressures
have resulted in the tendency for individuals to
respond more negatively to outgroup members
who are male rather than female.
What are the psychological foundations of conflict
between groups?
1. Social categorization causes perceivers to dis-
tinguish between ingroup and outgroup
members, even in Tajfel and Turner’s (1986)
minimal intergroup situation.
■ The ingroup–outgroup bias, when applied
to larger groups such as tribes or nations, was
labeled ethnocentrism by Sumner (1906).
■ Ingroup favoritism tends to be stronger
than outgroup rejection.
■ Double-standard thinking and the linguistic
intergroup bias frame the behaviors and
characteristics of the ingroup more posi-
tively than these same behaviors and
characteristics displayed by the outgroup.
■ Measures of implicit bias, such as the
Implicit Association Test (IAT) developed
by Greenwald and his colleagues (2008),
can detect subtle, unconscious forms of bias.
2. During intergroup conflict, group members’
judgments are often distorted by a number of
cognitive biases, including the outgroup homo-
geneity bias, the law of small numbers, the group
attribution error (Allison & Messick, 1985), and
the fundamental attribution error.
3. Lippmann (1922) coined the word stereotype to
describe cognitive generalizations about the
qualities and characteristics of the members of a
particular group or social category.
■ Stereotypes bias the encoding and retrieval
of information about the ingroup and the
outgroup.
■ Stereotype content model: The contents of
most stereotypes reflect judgments of the
outgroup’s competence and warmth, and
they elicit four basic emotional reactions in
intergroup situations: pity, admiration,
envy, and contempt.
4. When conflicts become more intense, mem-
bers may display more extreme reactions to
outgroups, including hate, moral exclusion, and
dehumanization.
■ As Allport (1954) observed, hatred tends to
be directed at groups rather than
individuals.
■ Dehumanized individuals evoke a different
reaction, at the neurological level, than
those who are not dehumanized, and
Bandura’s (2016) research indicates that a
group is likely to be treated more nega-
tively when described as “animalistic.”
5. Social identity theory suggests that individuals,
by championing the ingroup, protect and sus-
tain their identity and self-esteem.
How can intergroup relations be improved?
1. The contact hypothesis maintains that relations
between groups are improved when the groups
interact together in a positive contact situation.
■ The original hypothesis, proposed by All-
port (1954) and referenced in the social
science statement filed in Brown vs. Board of
Education, indicated that contact is most
effective in situations that maintain equal
status, common goals, intergroup cooper-
ation, and support of authorities, law, or
custom.
■ The Sherifs successfully reduced conflict in
the Robbers Cave camp by prompting the
boys to work toward superordinate goals.
■ The effectiveness of contact increases if
contact is lengthy in duration, results in
success, and creates opportunities for the
development of cross-group friendships.
Contact that promotes friendship (e.g., the
extended contact hypothesis, Wright et al.,
1997), imagined contact and online
476 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

contact (the virtual contact hypothesis)
improve intergroup relations.
■ Pettigrew and Tropp (2011), using meta-
analysis, concluded that contact is an
effective means of reducing conflict, but its
effects vary across contexts.
2. Cognitive approaches to conflict reduction
seek to reverse the negative biases that follow
from parsing individuals into ingroups and
outgroups.
■ Decategorization encourages members to
recognize the individuality of the outgroup
members.
■ The common ingroup identity model
developed by Dovidio and Gaertner
(2010) suggests that recategorization—
collapsing the boundaries between
groups—reduces conflict yet can
promote the retention of identities.
The common enemy approach is an
example of recategorization.
■ Cross-categorization involves making salient,
multiple group memberships and
intergroup forgiveness urges members to
accept and move beyond prior conflicts.
■ Devine’s (2005) studies of stereotypic think-
ing indicate that even though individuals
may be aware of the contents of stereotypes
pertaining to outgroups, they can learn to
control the impact of this biased cognitive
response on their judgments.
3. Conflict experts such as Kelman (2012) rec-
ommend managing conflict by teaching group
members the skills they need to resolve inter-
personal disputes.
■ Aronson’s (2000) jigsaw method is an edu-
cational intervention that reduces preju-
dice by assigning students from different
racial or ethnic groups to a single learning
group.
■ School-based conflict management pro-
grams, like those developed by Johnson
and Johnson (2009), are designed to reduce
conflict between groups by teaching stu-
dents to recognize conflict, communicate
about the source of the conflict, and
identify mutually acceptable solutions.
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: The Robbers Cave Experiment
■ Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The
Robbers Cave Experiment by Muzafer Sherif,
O. J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William R.
Hood, and Carolyn W. Sherif (1961)
describes in detail the well-known study of
conflict between two groups of boys at a
summer camp.
Causes of Intergroup Conflict
■ “Conflict and Negotiation Within and
Between Groups” by Carsten K. W. de
Dreu, Hillie Aaldering, and Özu�m Saygi
(2015) provides an overview of the social
psychological and neurological factors that
contribute to escalating conflict between
groups, concluding with series of sugges-
tions for future research. This chapter is
one of many excellent chapters examining
group processes in general, and conflict in
particular, in the APA Handbook of Person-
ality and Social Psychology: Group Processes
(Mikulincer, Shaver, Dovidio, & Simpson,
2015).
■ “Explanations of Interindividual–
Intergroup Discontinuity: A Review of
the Evidence” by Tim Wildschut and
Chester A. Insko (2007) reviews various
explanations for the tendency for groups to
be more competitive and less cooperative
INTERGROUP REL ATION S 477
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

than individuals, contrasting those that
stress core motives (greed and fear) and
those that examine the decisional processes
of groups making choices in competitive
situations.
Intergroup Relations
■ The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict,
edited by Linda R. Tropp (2012), with 21
chapters by leading experts on intergroup
conflict and its resolution, includes multi-
chapter sections pertaining to the factors
that cause conflict and its perpetuation,
strategies for reducing conflict, and systems-
level approaches for preventing conflict.
■ “Intergroup Relations” by Vincent Yzer-
byt and Stephanie Demoulin (2010) is a
theoretically sophisticated review of the
latest theories and research pertaining to
intergroup processes.
Resolving Intergroup Conflict
■ Advances in Intergroup Contact, edited by
Gordon Hodson and Miles Hewstone
(2013), as its title suggests, brings together
chapters that summarize the empirical
studies of the processes and situational
conditions that determine when contact
does and does not reduce conflict.
■ “Proactive Behavior across Group
Boundaries: Seeking and Maintaining
Positive Interactions with Outgroup
Members,” an issue of the Journal of Social
Issues edited by Birte Siem, Stefan Sturmer,
& Todd L. Pittinsky (2016), includes
empirical studies of the impact of positive
intergroup processes, such as cross-group
friendships, positive emotions, and group
norms, on reductions in intergroup con-
flict. This journal is a publication of the
Society for the Psychological Study of
Social Issues (SPSSI), one of the oldest
scientific societies devoted to the study of
social problems and their solutions.
■ When Groups Meet: The Dynamics of Inter-
group Contact by Thomas F. Pettigrew and
Linda R. Tropp (2011) examines the his-
tory and current empirical status of one of
the most tried and tested methods for
reducing conflict between groups:
encouraging intergroup contact.
478 C H A P T ER 14
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 15
Groups in
Context
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Just as individuals are embedded in groups, so
groups are embedded in physical and social envir-
onments. Groups can be found in all kinds for
places—from the comfortable and quiet to the
noisy and unsafe—and these contexts matter. Inter-
personal distances, territories, and work spaces influ-
ence efficiency, performance, and satisfaction, for
few groups can function effectively in a space that
doesn’t suit its purpose. As Lewin’s law of interac-
tionism, B ¼ f ðP, EÞ, states, group members’ reac-
tions (B) are a function of member’s personal
qualities (P) and the social and physical environment
(E) where the group is located. Groups alter their
environments substantially, but in many cases, it’s
the place that shapes the group.
■ What is the ecology of a group?
■ What are the determinants of spatial relations in
a group?
■ What are the causes and consequences of a
group’s tendency to establish territories?
■ How can group places, spaces, and locations be
improved?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
15-1 Places
15-1a A Sense of Place
15-1b Stressful Places
15-1c Dangerous Places
15-2 Spaces
15-2a Personal Space
15-2b Reactions to Spatial Invasion
15-2c Seating Arrangements
15-3 Locations
15-3a Types of Territoriality
15-3b Group Territories
15-3c Territoriality in Groups
15-4 Workspaces
15-4a The Person–Place Fit
15-4b Fitting Form to Function
Chapter Review
Resources
479
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Groups exist in any number of distinct locations,
ranging from classrooms, museums, factories, and
boardrooms to copper mines, battlefields, and even
space capsules. The mountain climbers of the
Adventure Consultants Guided Expedition camped
and hiked on the cliffs of Mount Everest. The 1980
U.S. Olympic Hockey Team trained and played for
hours and hours on hockey rinks across the world.
The Bay of Pigs planners met in an elegantly
appointed conference room, speaking to each other
in subdued voices across an imposing mahogany
table. The Rattlers and the Eagles met, fought, and
befriended each other on the fields of the Robbers
Cave State Park. The crew of Apollo 13 lived in a
“high-tech tin can” filled with multiple controls and
few comforts (see Figure 15.1). The members of each
one of these groups slept, worked, played, argued,
and fought in specific places, and these places substan-
tially influenced their dynamics.
Many disciplines, including anthropology, archi-
tecture, demography, environmental psychology,
ethology, human geography, interior design, and soci-
ology, affirm the important impact of the environment
on human behavior. Just as a group-level orienta-
tion assumes that individuals’ actions are shaped by
the groups to which they belong, an environmental
orientation assumes that groups are shaped by their
environments. As Figure 15.2 suggests, a multilevel
analysis of human behavior recognizes that indivi-
duals are nested in a hierarchy of increasingly inclu-
sive social aggregates, such as groups, organizations,
and communities. But individuals and their groups
also exist in a physical setting located in a particular
geographic locality in a specific region of the
world, and that place will eventually influence the
group’s dynamics and outcomes. After all, did not
Kurt Lewin (1951) remind us that B ¼ f ðP, EÞ:
each group member’s reactions, including their
thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (B), are a func-
tion of members’ personal qualities (P), but also the
social and physical environment (E) where the
group is located?
This chapter, in reviewing theory and research
dealing with the group–environment interface,
focuses on group places, spaces, locations, and
workspaces. It begins by examining the features
Apollo 13: The Group That Lost the Moon
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy set the goal: to
send Americans to the surface of the moon by the
end of the decade. His plan initiated the largest
engineering project in modern history with as many
as 400,000 individuals eventually working together to
solve the endless technical, psychological, and medical
problems posed by such an unprecedented undertak-
ing. On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 commander Neil
Armstrong made history when he stepped on the
moon’s surface.
One year later, the crew of Apollo 13—James
Lovell, John Swigert, and Fred Haise—also made his-
tory, but in their case by not stepping on the moon. On
April 11, 1970, they piloted the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration’s (NASA) Apollo 13 into
space without any sign of a problem. Lovell, Swigert,
and Haise were to spend four days crowded together
in their command module, named the Odyssey, before
reaching the moon. The team members had trained
for years for the mission, and throughout the trip they
would remain in constant communication with ground
control teams in Houston, Texas. Once in orbit around
the moon, Lovell and Haise would descend to the sur-
face of the moon in the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM),
the Aquarius.
But 56 hours into the mission, Swigert initiated a
procedure designed to stir the cryogenic oxygen tanks.
One of the tanks exploded. With oxygen escaping
from their ship and battery power dwindling, Lovell
coolly radioed NASA his famous understatement,
“Houston, we have a problem.” (Actually, it was Jack
Swigert who first told mission control, “we’ve had a
problem here.”) To conserve power in the command
module for the reentry phase of the mission, the crew
moved to the lunar excursion module—a tight space
for two people, but crowded with three. For three
days, the crew and the experts at NASA worked to
solve one problem after another, including near-
freezing temperatures and a buildup of carbon dioxide
in the cabin. But all ended well: The group circled
the Moon, returned to Earth, and splashed down
safely in the Pacific Ocean on April 17, 1970.
480 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of the physical place that influence the group (e.g.,
temperature and noise) before turning to the way
group members act within the space (personal dis-
tance and seating choices). The analysis then con-
siders how individuals and groups come to develop
a proprietary orientation to a given location—
territoriality—before closing with a more practical
question: Given what we know about group places,
spaces, and locations, what features should be built
into the group’s habitat to ensure the members are
contented and the group is productive? (For
reviews, see Augustin, 2009; Gieryn, 2000; Gifford,
Steg, & Reser, 2011).
1 5 – 1 PL A C E S
Ecology is the study of organisms and their habitats:
How they interact with and adapt to other organ-
isms in their environment and to the environment
itself. Similarly, group ecology is the study of
individuals and groups interacting with and adapt-
ing to the group’s habitat. In some cases, groups and
the setting fit comfortably together. The place suits
the group, leaving members free to focus on inter-
personal and task dynamics. The materials they
require are available, distractions are minimal, the
temperature is comfortable, and the only sounds
are those that the group members themselves cre-
ate. But other environments are less hospitable.
Humans have been remarkably successful in chang-
ing their environment to suit their preferences, but
sometimes the place shapes the group rather than
the group shaping the place.
F I G U R E 15.1 The interior of the lunar module, the Aquarius, which became the “life boat” for the crew of
Apollo 13 when an oxygen tank stored in the service module exploded.
SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/ad016.gif
group ecology The study of the interactions among the
living (the group and its members) and the nonliving (the
physical setting) components of a group’s environment,
with particular emphasis on the spatial arrangements of
individuals in small groups.
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 481
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

15-1a A Sense of Place
Physical settings are often said to have ambience,
or atmosphere, for they can create a distinctive cog-
nitive and emotional reaction in people who
occupy these spaces (Schroeder, 2007).
We have strong feelings in and about places.
Some places make us feel good: glad to be there,
relaxed, excited, warm all over. We are drawn to
these places and return to them as often as we
can. Other places make us feel bad: uncomfort-
able, insignificant, unhappy, out of place. We
avoid these places and suffer if we have to be in
them. (Farbstein & Kantrowitz, 1978, p. 14)
The crew of the Apollo 13, for example, lived
for six days in a space the size of a closet filled with
control panels, gauges, sensors, warning lights, and
all sorts of buttons and switches. The space had
been designed with meticulous care, but only an
engineer or an astronaut would likely call it com-
fortable or beautiful.
Perceptions of Places A group’s response to its
environment is a subjective one, for the manifest
physical features of the place are filtered through
each member’s personal preferences, expectations,
values, and attitudes. Their response is based more
on their psychological representation of the physical
location as much as it is based on the place’s physi-
cal features (Graham, Gosling, & Travis, 2015). Pre-
ferences and aesthetics all vary from one person to
the next, so a setting that is considered pleasant or
comfortable by one person may evoke the opposite
reaction for another. The very same aspects of a
setting, such as the color of the walls or the way
the table and chairs are arranged, are embraced if
the person chose these features, but not if they were
imposed by someone else (Balcetis & Dunning,
2010). One’s goals matter, as well. A person who
wishes, for example, to study for an examination
will respond very differently to a room with
music, dancing, and party streamers than will a per-
son whose goal is to have a good time (Herzog
et al., 2011a). The beauty of a place is often in
the eye of the beholder.
Psychologist James A. Russell and his collea-
gues, however, have found that people’s percep-
tions of places are substantially influenced by their
answers to two basic questions: How pleasant is the
place (positive versus negative), and how arousing is
the place (activating versus relaxing)? First, a group
environment that is orderly, tastefully decorated,
clean, and spacious usually prompts a more favor-
able reaction than one that is poorly designed,
shabby, unkempt, and odorous (see Figure 15.3).
Second, whereas some places are restful, others
stimulate their occupants rather than relax them.
The astronauts and engineers working in the con-
trol room at Houston all responded positively to
their highly arousing habitat, and so they consid-
ered it an exhilarating place. Visitors to the control
room, in contrast, often reacted negatively to its
Person
Organization
Group
Community
Society
All Humanity
Global
Region
Locality
Setting
F I G U R E 15.2 A multilevel model of both social
aggregates (e.g., groups, organizations, and communities)
and geographic domains (e.g., settings, localities, and
regions).
ambience The psychological reaction (mood, feelings,
or emotions) evoked by a setting.
482 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

harsh lights, countless monitors, and a cacophony of
voices issuing orders, relaying information, and ask-
ing questions. Few considered it boring or tranquil
(Russell, 1980, 2003; Russell & Snodgrass, 1987;
Yik, Russell, & Steiger, 2011).
Groups generally respond best, in terms of per-
formance and satisfaction, in affectively pleasant
situations. Manufacturing teams in factories, stu-
dents in classrooms, and workers in offices, for
example, perform better when working in attrac-
tive spaces that are visually interesting rather than
drab (Cabanac, 2006). Physical features that stimu-
late or provoke positive emotions—including
music, furnishings, art, decor, decorations, color,
and lighting—are associated with a range of positive
group dynamics, including increased cohesion,
improved communication, productivity, and
reduced absenteeism (Augustin, 2009). An attrac-
tive environment is not, however, a requirement
for group effectiveness. Many successful groups
work without problems in relatively shabby set-
tings. A too pleasant environment may distract
the group from the task at hand, providing
counterproductive levels of comfort. Highly effec-
tive groups may also be so focused on the task that
they can work anywhere, since what matters is the
quality of their tools and their personnel rather than
the setting (Bennis & Biederman, 1997).
Groups also thrive in stimulating spaces. Studies
of groups living in harsh circumstances, such as
teams stationed in Antarctica and explorers living
for months on end in a confined space, complain
more about the monotony of the environment than
about the danger, discomfort, or isolation (Stuster,
1996). During the International Geophysical Year
(1957–1958), for example, several countries sent
small groups of military and civilian personnel to
outposts in Antarctica. These groups were responsi-
ble for collecting various data concerning that
largely unknown continent, but the violent
weather forced the staff to remain indoors most of
the time. As months went by with little change in
their situation, morale declined and group members
found themselves arguing over trivial issues. The
members summarized their group malaise with the
term antarcticitis—lethargy, low morale, grouchi-
ness, and boredom brought on by their unstimulat-
ing living conditions (Gunderson, 1973; see also
Loukidou, Loan-Clarke, & Daniels, 2009).
Cognitive Overload Excessively stimulating set-
tings can also be problematic. Groups experience
cognitive overload if they are overwhelmed by
the sheer volume of information in the environ-
ment (Kirsh, 2000). People generally prefer to be
located at the center of their group’s communica-
tion network rather than on the periphery, but not
if the flow of information is so great they cannot
keep up with it. College students who rated their
environment as overly stimulating—they agreed
with such items as “I was bothered by stimuli that
were interesting but irrelevant” and “I couldn’t
think about something because there was too
much going on around me”—also evidenced signs
Deactivation
Activation
P
o
s
it
iv
e
N
e
g
a
ti
v
e
• Afraid • Aroused
• Glad
• Serene
• Tired
• Calm
• Angry
• Delighted
• Distressed
• Miserable
• Gloomy
• Bored
• Lethargic
Tense • Astonished
Excited •
Happy •
Pleased •
Contented •
Satisfied •
Relaxed •
Sleepy •
Annoyed •
Sad •
•
F I G U R E 15.3 Core affect experienced by people in
various types of group environments.
SOURCE: Adapted from “A Circumplex Model of Affect,” by J. A. Russell
(1980), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178; “Core
Affect and the Psychological Construction of Emotion,” J. A. Russell (2003),
Psychological Review, 110, 145–172.
overload A psychological reaction to situations and
experiences that are so cognitively, perceptually, or emo-
tionally stimulating that they tax or even exceed the
individual’s capacity to process incoming information.
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 483
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of mental fatigue, including an inability to
concentrate and difficulty following directions
(Herzog et al., 2011b). Novice automobile drivers
(ages 16–18) traveling with other young passen-
gers create a group situation that is overly com-
plex, resulting in increases in fatal accidents. In
consequence, many states in the United States
have banned these groups from the highway
(Chen et al., 2000; Ehsani et al., 2015).
Even a highly effective team with a well-
developed mental model (see Chapter 11) will display
a significant loss in functioning if the members experi-
ence cognitive overload. Researchers examined this
process by bombarding expert teams of naval
personnel with substantial amounts of information.
The teams worked on a task that simulated a critically
important naval decision—deciding on the basis of
radar and database information whether an unidenti-
fied contact was a threat to the ship or nonhostile.
The participants worked in teams of three, but in the
coaction condition, members made their decisions
independently of one another. In the interdependent
condition, the members had to work together to
gather information about the possible target. The
researchers manipulated cognitive load by exposing
some of the groups to distracting sound and noise
while they worked and by increasing the number of
contacts presented on the radar screens. They also pres-
sured these groups by telling members to “work
harder” and to “hurry up.”
The study’s results confirmed the researchers’
initial suspicions: Interdependent groups working
in a stressful situation lost their group perspective.
They were more likely to report feeling like three
individuals rather than like a team, and they were
not focused on the task. They were also less likely
to use plural pronouns such as we, us, our, ours, and
ourselves when describing their response to the sim-
ulation. Moreover, groups that lost their team per-
spective tended to perform more poorly—they
were more likely to identify a harmless contact on
their radar screens as hostile and less likely to cor-
rectly identify contacts that were dangerous. These
findings suggest that a well-trained team may han-
dle routine problems effectively, but that the
advantages of extensive training may be lost when
groups work in challenging environments (Driskell,
Salas, & Johnston, 1999).
Coping with Complexity In everyday situations,
people cope with overload by reducing their contact
with others, limiting the amount of information they
notice and process, ignoring aspects of the situation,
and engaging in restorative practices: spending time
in an environment that does not demand high levels
of directed attention. According to psychologist
Stephen Kaplan’s attention restoration theory
(ART), directed attention is mentally draining, for
it requires group members to monitor their atten-
tion, direct it to focus on a particular stimulus, and
ignore other aspects of the environment. The crew
monitoring their radar screens, students in their class-
rooms, and groups making complicated decisions
may all be impressively productive, but they are
also becoming cognitively depleted as these activities
rely on finite and exhaustible psychological resources
(Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Berman, 2010).
Other situations, in contrast, make far fewer cog-
nitive demands on group members. People often
report feeling rejuvenated and energized by such places
(Collado et al., 2017). The ART model suggests these
places have four key qualities: they are interesting (fas-
cination), set apart from their surroundings (being
away), free of distractions (extent), and compatible
with the members’ purposes and intents (compatibil-
ity). Kaplan and his colleagues find that natural envir-
onments, in particular, are deeply restorative ones.
Individuals who spend time walking in a park, sitting
on a bench in a garden, or viewing photographs of
nature scenes are better able to concentrate, control
their thinking, tolerate frustration, and perform more
successfully on a wide array of tests of mental acuity.
Sleep and meditation may also serve to rejuvenate
attention. Watching television, by the way, does not
(Kaplan & Berman, 2010).
attention restoration theory (ART) A conceptual
analysis of the cognitive processes that sustain high-level
executive functioning, including attentional focus and
self-regulation, which assumes that these cognitive
resources can be replenished through an interaction with
natural environments (developed by Stephen Kaplan).
484 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

15-1b Stressful Places
Some settings sustain and restore, but others strain and
stress. Groups do not exist in neutral, passive voids,
but in fluctuating environments that are sometimes
too hot, too cold, too impersonal, too intimate, too
big, too little, too noisy, too quiet, too restrictive, or
too open—but rarely just right. These settings are
sources of stress—strain caused by environmental cir-
cumstances that threaten one’s sense of well-being
and safety (Gatersleben & Griffin, 2017).
Temperature Temperature is a property of the
environment, but this physical characteristic of a
place influences its interpersonal properties. People
often describe other people, groups, and relation-
ships as warm and cold. Warm people are thought to
be intelligent, skillful, industrious, determined,
practical, and cautious. Cold ones: ungenerous,
unhappy, irritable, unsociable, unpopular, and
humorless (Asch, 1946).
People so closely associate ambient warmth
with interpersonal warmth that they rate other peo-
ple more positively when they themselves are feel-
ing warm (Williams & Bargh, 2008). And, just as
warm temperatures create increases in social
warmth, social warmth causes people to misjudge
ambient temperature. When individuals felt inter-
personally closer to others in their group, they
judged the room to be slightly warmer than did
individuals who did not feel as close to others
(IJzerman & Semin, 2010). Social neuroscience
Do You Have a Restorative Place?
Your group has just finished a day-long goal setting
retreat. You have just turned in a 20-page paper for
your group dynamics class. Or you have just finished
crunching the numbers for your annual tax return. You
are tired, your performance has started to decline, and
you need to take a break. Attention restoration theory
recommends spending time in a supportive, refreshing
environment (Kaplan & Berman, 2010).
Instructions. Think of the place where you or your
group goes when seeking to think things through,
replenish your energy, and regain a sense of perspec-
tive and cognitive control. Once you have a place in
mind, put a check in each box if the place provides
each type of restorative benefit.
Fascination
q This place engages my interest in an easy,
relaxed way.
q This place doesn’t demand my attention, but it
has many interesting features.
Being Away
q I can get away from everyday concerns and
demands here.
q I am free of distractions here.
Extent
q I can get completely involved here in what
I’m doing and not think about anything
else.
q I feel like I’m in a world of my own when I’m
here.
Compatibility
q I can get done what I need to here.
q I’m comfortable and at ease when I’m here.
Scoring. Is your place restorative? If you checked
at least half of the items listed above, then your place
may qualify as one where you can gain a renewed
sense of purpose and self-regulation. Researchers
find most restorative places exhibit all four types of
qualities, but if your place did not earn checks in any
one category, consider ways to improve the place so
that it more fully meets your restorative needs. (See
Felsten, 2009; Meagher, 2016 for more psychometri-
cally precise measures of the restorative properties of
places.)
stress Negative physiological, emotional, cognitive, and
behavioral responses to circumstances that threaten—or are
thought to threaten—one’s sense of well-being and safety.
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 485
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

findings even suggest that areas of the brain that are
responsible for processing information about ambi-
ent temperature also handle the processing of infor-
mation about social warmth and trust, suggesting
that social connections actually are “heartwarming”
(Inagaki, 2014; Kang et al., 2011).
One of the minor miseries of life, however,
occurs when people must work in a room that
is either too hot or too cold. Although people gen-
erally rate temperatures from the mid-60s to the
mid-80s Fahrenheit as “comfortable,” temperatures
that fall outside this range cause discomfort, irrita-
bility, and reduced productivity (Bell, 1992). When
groups were assigned to work either in a room at
normal temperature (72:4�F) or in a hot room
(93:5�F), the overheated group members reported
feelings of fatigue, sadness, and discomfort, whereas
participants in the normal temperature room
reported feeling more elated, vigorous, and com-
fortable (Griffitt & Veitch, 1971). People also tend
to sweat more when working in high temperatures,
and exposure to others’ body odors is a sensation that
most people find objectionable (Stevenson & Repa-
choli, 2005). Fortunately, people find the smell of
group members to be less repugnant than the smell
of a stranger (Peng, Chang, & Zhou, 2013).
Groups tend to be more aggressive when they
are hot; tempers can “flare” and discussions get
“heated.” Heat and aggression are so closely linked,
psychologically, that just thinking about hot tem-
peratures can also trigger thoughts about aggression
(DeWall & Bushman, 2009). Collective violence
tends to be seasonal, for people are more likely to
riot in the warm days of the summer than they are
in the colder winter months (Rotton & Cohn,
2002). Groups, too, tend to be more hostile when
temperatures are high, but not extremely high. In
one study, researchers created groups that worked
on individual tasks in a comfortable room versus a
hot room. The heat-stressed participants were
angry, but they were so uncomfortable that their
primary concern was to escape. They finished the
experiment as quickly as possible and then left
(Baron & Bell, 1975; Bell, 1992).
Extreme temperatures are also physically harm-
ful (Folk, 1974). When temperatures are high,
people are more likely to suffer from exhaustion,
stroke, and heart attacks. Extreme cold can lead to
hypothermia and death. The Apollo 13 astronauts,
for example, struggled to maintain their body heat
at healthy levels when the loss of power forced
them to turn off the cabin heaters. It was, as Lovell
characteristically understated, “very uncomfortable.
Basically, the cold made it uncomfortable” (quoted
in Godwin, 2000, p. 109). Accounts of groups strug-
gling in extremely cold natural environments, such
as teams wintering over in Antarctica or mountain
climbers, document the lethal effects of exposure to
extremely cold temperatures.
Noise The crew of Apollo 13 lived with constant
noise during their five days in space. The Saturn V
rockets were deafening, burning 3,400 gallons of
fuel per second. Once in orbit, the cabin was filled
with the humming of computers, the whirring of
fans and pumps circulating air and liquids, and the
crackling of transmissions between the crew and
COMCON, the flight controller back in Houston.
There was also the one sound that signaled to the
crew that something was wrong; Lovell described
the explosion as a “bang-whump-shudder” that was
felt more than heard (Lovell & Kluger, 1994, p. 94).
Noise is any sound that is unwanted. Sounds in
the range of 0–50 decibels (dB) are very soft and
generally produce little irritation for the listener.
Sounds of more than 80 dB, in contrast, may be
bothersome enough to be called noise. In general,
the louder the noise, the more likely it will produce
distraction, irritation, and psychological stress
(Cohen & Weinstein, 1981). Group communica-
tion becomes impossible in such environments, so
members have problems coordinating their efforts.
Coping with chronic noise also exacts a psycholog-
ical toll. Groups in noisy places—people who work
in noisy offices, families living in homes near air-
ports, and children on playgrounds located near
major highways—behave differently than groups
in quieter contexts. People are less likely to interact
with other people in noisy places, and they also
tend to be less helpful (Jones, Chapman, & Auburn,
1981). Over time, exposure to loud noise is associ-
ated with substantial threats to health, including
486 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

physical illnesses (headaches, heart disease, allergies,
and digestive disorders), infant and adult mortality
rates, mental illness, interpersonal conflict, and even
impotence (Basner, 2014).
Not all noisy places are bad places, however. A
moderate level of ambient noise, for example, may
actually help people concentrate on their work.
When attempting to perform a task that calls for
creativity and divergent thinking, high levels and
low levels of noise are deleterious, but a moderate
level of background noise improves performance
(Mehta, Zhu, & Cheema, 2012). If, however, the
group is attempting a task that requires the accurate
communication of information across members,
then the less noise the better. Groups are particu-
larly sensitive to noise because much of the
unwanted sound in a group setting originates
within the group itself. Depending on the qualities
Is It Cold or Hot Where You Live?
They say that there is no place like home, but where is
home for the human species? People live in every part of
the world, from the frozen Antarctic to its most arid
deserts. But do these different climates change the
groups within them? Do groups in cold places, such as
Iceland or upstate New York, act differently than groups
in warm places, such as Saudi Arabia and Mexico?
Social psychologist Evert Van de Vliert (2013), in
his climato-economic theory, argues that climate
makes different demands on the people who live in a
place. Physically, humans are most comfortable in cli-
mates with temperatures of about 72�F, so groups
who live in habitats where the temperature hovers
near this mark experience less climate-related stress.
Colder and hotter climates, in contrast, are more chal-
lenging, and so groups develop cultural practices to
survive in such places.
These cultural practices, however, will be differ-
ent depending on the society’s economic prosperity. If
the groups who live in a particular geographic area are
economically prosperous, then the culture will likely
develop production and trade systems to make or
acquire the resources needed to deal with environ-
mental challenges. Cultures that lack economic
resources, including wealth or natural resources, can-
not generate the food, clothing, shelter, and medical
facilities they need by developing strong economies, so
they instead shift toward self-sufficiency, localized
trade, and a more communal orientation. In essence,
less affluent cultures cope with living in a difficult
environment by building social capital, whereas
wealthier cultures rely on their economic capital.
Van de Vliert (2006, 2011) offers a number of
compelling pieces of evidence in support of this the-
ory. He discovered, for example, that he could predict
a cultures’ acceptance of an autocratic leader by taking
into account the country’s baseline level of wealth and
the harshness of the climate where it is located. He
also found that the residents of relatively poorer
countries tended to evidence higher levels of inter-
group bias—but only if they were also located in a cli-
mate that was too hot or too cold; only then were
these countries’ residents more negative about other
groups, more supportive of nepotistic hiring practices,
and more family-focused. Countries where the climate
was more temperate exhibited varying levels of sup-
port for authoritarian leaders and they also ranged
from individualism to collectivism, but these variables
were not related to the country’s level of economic
prosperity.
Some of Van de Vliert’s other findings provide
only partial support for his climato-economic theory.
When, for example, he studied the sources of role
stress in work groups in organizations, he discovered
that conflict was associated with higher temperatures
and so was not moderated either by wealth or harsh-
ness of the climate (Van de Vliert, 1996). And other
investigators have suggested that factors that vary
with temperature—such as susceptibility to infectious
diseases—may be more causally influential factors (see,
Fincher & Thornhill, 2012; Van de Vliert & Postmes,
2012). Researchers continue to test hypotheses derived
from the theory, but it may be that global climate
changes will provide the ultimate test. If the world-
wide increase in temperatures continues for much
longer, people living in colder climates may find that
their climate is less of a challenge, whereas others may
discover that their once temperate climate has become
too hot to sustain their way of life. These countries,
according to Van de Vliert, will undergo changes in
their cultural traditions to deal with these climate
changes, depending as well on their overall level of
wealth. Time, then, and temperature, will tell (Van de
Vliert, 2016).
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 487
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of the room, 15 people talking informally with one
another will create so much noise that conversation
between adjoining pairs is inhibited. When a con-
versing group passes by an individual who is attempt-
ing to perform a difficult task, the noise of the group
can be distracting. People can often ignore ambient
sounds, but overheard speech is another matter.
Neurological evidence indicates that even when
people strive to deliberately ignore speech by refo-
cusing attention on the task at hand, some of their
cognitive resources are being used to monitor the
nearby conversations (Campbell, 2005).
People can cope with noise for short periods of
time. When researchers bombarded people work-
ing on both simple and complex tasks with tape-
recorded noise, the participants became so inured to
the stimulus that it had no effect on their perfor-
mance (Glass, Singer, & Pennebaker, 1977). Groups
cannot, however, cope with noise for long periods
of time. As “individuals expend ‘psychic energy’ in
the course of the adaptive process,” they become
“less able to cope with subsequent environmental
demands and frustrations” (Glass et al., 1977,
p. 134). One investigation found that exposure to
low levels of ambient noise in an office setting was
not stressful, but people had trouble coping with
other stressful events—an irritating boss or
coworker, role ambiguities, or time pressures—
when they worked in a noisy place (Leather,
Beale, & Sullivan, 2003).
15-1c Dangerous Places
The astronauts sat atop millions of pounds of rocket
fuel at launch, traveled through space in a thin-
shelled spacecraft at speeds of nearly 25,000 miles
an hour, and during reentry relied on a heat shield
to deflect the heat away from the command module
and parachutes that would slow the craft’s descent.
All the dangers were minimized through planning,
design, and training, but one danger that all crews
faced but could not protect themselves against was
always present—a collision with a meteor.
EUEs: Extreme and Unusual Environments
The Apollo 13 astronauts were not the first group
to face difficult environmental circumstances. For
centuries, explorers have hiked, sailed, flown, and
ridden from their homes to distant lands and
places, and many of these groups have endured
long periods of isolation in extreme and unusual
environments (EUEs) (Bell et al., 2017). In some
cases, a natural calamity, such as a flood, earthquake,
or blizzard, may overtake a group, which must then
struggle to survive. For example, Sir Ernest Shackle-
ton and the crew of Endurance survived the destruc-
tion of their ship on an ice floe in the Antarctic.
More recently, 33 miners in Chile survived the col-
lapse of the mine where they worked, but all sur-
vived the cave-in and were reunited with their
families after 69 days. Some groups, too, work at
jobs that are riskier than most: Ship crews, police
officers, and military units often live and work in
circumstances that can be life threatening. Teams
of divers have lived for weeks on end in SEALAB,
200 feet beneath the ocean’s surface. NASA’s crews
have endured months in space, and plans are being
made for a three-year voyage to Mars (Suedfeld &
Steel, 2000).
Surviving Environmental Challenges Although
technological innovations make survival in even the
most hostile environments possible, groups living in
these space-age settings must learn to cope with
age-old problems of interpersonal adjustment.
Whereas harsh environments and circumstances
overwhelm lone individuals, groups generally cope
with danger by taking precautions that make the
situation safer. Astronauts, military combat squads,
and explorers all minimize the danger by training,
stressing cooperation among members, and moni-
toring each individual’s connection to the group
(Driskell, Salas, & Driskell, 2017). But many groups
not only persevere in these adverse circumstances;
they find the experience to be exhilarating. Groups
like Apollo 13 and the Shackleton explorers have
faced disaster, death, and ruin at each turn, yet their
extreme and unusual environments (EUEs) Envi-
ronmental contexts that are unlike those where humans
usually live, including confined and isolated environments.
488 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

autobiographical accounts of their experiences speak
eloquently about their adventures—which they do
not regret—describing them as “a cherished and
important part of their life, perceived as an impetus
to growing, strengthening, and deepening, to be
remembered with pride and enjoyment” (Suedfeld
& Steel, 2000, p. 229).
1 5 – 2 S P A C E S
Groups exist in any number of distinct locations, and
the physical qualities of these places—temperature,
noise, and stress—substantially influence a group’s
dynamics. But the group’s environment also includes
the other people present in the physical space. Lovell
was not alone in the Apollo 13 capsule but with
Swigert and Haise; his fellow crewmen influenced
his actions and outcomes as much as the physical
features of the spacecraft did. This section examines
two key aspects of group ecology: the distances
members maintain between each other—personal
space—and the way they position themselves relative
to one another—seating arrangements (Fuller &
Löw, 2017; Hayduk, 1983).
15-2a Personal Space
Anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1966) argued that
much of our behavior is shaped by a “hidden
dimension.” In Apollo 13, this dimension deter-
mined where each astronaut sat as he carried out
his scheduled tasks; how crew members moved
through the tunnel between the command module
and the service module; where they positioned
Why Is Mount Everest So Dangerous?
On May 10, 1996, two groups set off to scale Mt.
Everest, the highest peak in the world. Both teams met
with disaster, caused in part by the environmental
challenges they encountered. Everest is subject to high
winds, bitter temperatures, and icy conditions. As
Chapter 1 explained, climbers must reach the peak and
return to camp in a single day, because the chances of
surviving a night on the summit of Everest are slim. But
the teams in 1996 were overtaken by an unexpectedly
powerful storm as they descended and they could not
reach the shelter of their camp. Several members of
the team also suffered from a lack of oxygen, for the
air is thin at that altitude. Everest climbers usually carry
tanks of oxygen, but even these supplements cannot
counteract the negative effects of climbing treacher-
ous terrain 29,000 feet above sea level.
Neither team responded effectively to these nega-
tive environmental events. Jon Krakauer (1997), a mem-
ber of one of the groups, suggested that an inattention
to teamwork may have contributed to the failure. Even
though the climb is extremely dangerous and many who
attempt it are killed, the groups did not practice together,
did not establish routines for dealing with supplies
(including oxygen), and did not set up contingency plans.
A hierarchy of authority was not established, despite the
possibility that one of the leaders could be injured. The
leaders did not share their plans for the summit with the
group, and they did not remain in contact with the other
guides during the climb. They also made errors in judg-
ment, possibly due to inexperience, the ill effects of too
little oxygen (hypoxia), and the desire to outdo the other
team. As a result, several climbers managed to reach the
summit, but they were overtaken by the snowstorm dur-
ing the descent and perished.
As Krakauer later described, a sense of isolation
pervaded the camp on the night before the summit
attempt:
The roar of the wind made it impossible to
communicate from one tent to the next. In this
godforsaken place, I felt disconnected from the
climbers around me—emotionally, spiritually,
physically—to a degree I hadn’t experienced on
any previous expedition. We were a team in name
only, I’d sadly come to realize. Although in a
few hours we would leave camp as a group, we
would ascend as individuals, linked to one
another by neither rope nor any deep sense of
loyalty. (Krakauer, 1997, p. 163)
Krakauer’s foreboding proved prophetic. Everest
claimed the lives of eight members of the two teams,
including both team leaders (Burnette, Pollack, &
Forsyth, 2011).
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 489
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

themselves when they looked out the windows of
their ship as it passed over the surface of the moon.
What is this hidden dimension? Space.
People prefer to keep some space between
themselves and others. This personal space pro-
vides a boundary that limits the amount of physical
contact between people. This boundary extends
farther in front of a person than behind, but the
individual is always near the center of this invisible
buffer zone. Personal space is portable, but it is
actively maintained and defended. When someone
violates our personal space, we tend to take steps to
correct this problem. The term personal space is
something of a misnomer, as the process actually
refers to distances that people maintain between
one another. Hence, it is an interpersonal space (Pat-
terson, 1975).
Interpersonal Zones Different group activities
require different amounts of personal space. Hall, in
describing these variations, proposed four types of
interpersonal zones (see Table 15.1). The intimate
zone is appropriate only for the most involving and
personal behaviors, such as arm wrestling and whisper-
ing. The personal zone, in contrast, is reserved for a wide
range of small group experiences, such as discussions
with friends, interaction with acquaintances, and con-
versation. More routine transactions are conducted in
the social zone. Meetings held over large desks, formal
dining, and professional presentations to small groups
generally take place in this zone. The public zone is
reserved for even more formal meetings, such as stage
presentations, lectures, or addresses. The interactions
between the crews of Apollo 13 occurred almost
exclusively in the personal zone, except when Lovell
hugged the shivering Haise, who had become increas-
ingly ill during the mission.
Table 15.1 adds a fifth zone to those described
by Hall. In the years since Hall proposed his taxon-
omy of interpersonal zones, groups have begun to
T A B L E 15.1 Types of Social Activities That Occur in Each Interpersonal Zone
Zone Distance Characteristics Typical Activities
Intimate Touching to 18 inches Sensory information concerning
the other is detailed and diverse;
stimulus person dominates the
perceptual field.
Sex, hugging, massage, com-
forting, jostling, handshakes,
and slow dancing
Personal 18 inches to 4 feet Other person can be touched if
desired; gaze can be directed away
from the other person with ease.
Conversations, discussion, car
travel, viewing performances,
and watching television.
Social 4 to 12 feet Visual inputs begin to dominate
other senses; voice levels are nor-
mal; appropriate distance for many
informal social gatherings.
Dining, meeting with business
colleagues, interacting with a
receptionist
Public 12 feet or more All sensory inputs are beginning to
become less effective; voices may
require amplification; facial
expressions unclear.
Lectures, addresses, plays, and
dance recitals
Remote Different locations Primarily verbal inputs; facial and
other behavioral and nonverbal
cues limited if audio and video
feed is unavailable.
Electronic discussions, confer-
ence calls, telephone voice
mail, email, and online
gaming communities
SOURCE: Adapted from E. T. Hall, 1966.
personal space The area that individuals maintain
around themselves into which others cannot intrude
without arousing discomfort.
490 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

meet more frequently in the remote zone. Instead of
interacting face-to-face or even via voice commu-
nication, online groups use computer-based tools
such as email, chat rooms, social networking sites,
and other multiuser support interfaces. The mem-
bers of these groups are not physically present with
each other, making online groups considerably
different—at least spatially—than face-to-face
groups. The astronauts, for example, communi-
cated with COMCON from a distance—a great
distance, in fact. They used voice messages, in
some cases, but they were also in touch using com-
munication technologies that allowed them to send
and receive information via computers.
Closer, smaller spaces are generally reserved for
friendlier, more intimate interpersonal activities. As a
result, cohesive groups tend to occupy smaller spaces
than noncohesive gatherings (Evans & Howard,
1973); extraverted people maintain smaller distances
from others than do introverted ones (Patterson &
Sechrest, 1970); people who wish to create a friendly,
positive impression usually choose smaller distances
than do less friendly people (Evans & Howard,
1973); groups of friends tend to stand closer to one
another than do groups of strangers (Edney &
Grundmann, 1979); and people who have experi-
enced significant trauma have larger personal spaces
than those who have not (Bogovic et al., 2014).
Physical distance has less impact on remote groups,
but even individuals who interact online tend to be
located closer to one another geographically (Spiro,
Almquist, & Butts, 2016). In general, individuals
communicating via computer respond differently
when their interface becomes informationally richer
by including voice and video information (Thurlow,
Lengel, & Tomic, 2004).
Men, Women, and Distance Would the amount
of personal space maintained by the astronauts in
Apollo 13 have differed if they had been women?
Probably, for studies suggest that women’s personal
spaces tend to be smaller than men’s (Hayduk,
1978, 1983). Relative to men, women allow others
to get closer to them, they approach people they
know more closely, and they take up less space by
sitting with their arms close to their sides and by
crossing their legs (Henley, 1995). They also prefer
greater distance between themselves and strangers
(Sorokowska et al., 2017).
Status People tend to “keep their distance” when
interacting with higher status group members.
Researchers documented this tendency by watch-
ing conversations between U.S. naval personnel
that took place in nonwork settings, such as the
cafeteria or a recreation center. The floors in these
spaces were tiled, so observers measured distance by
counting how many tiles separated the two indivi-
duals. As anticipated, rank determined distance:
officers approached subordinates more closely than
did individuals of a lower rank who were initiating
a conversation with an officer (Dean, Willis, &
Hewitt, 1975; see Hall, Coats, & LeBeau, 2005).
Culture Hall (1966) argued that cultures differ in
their use of space. People socialized in the contact
cultures of the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and
Latin America prefer strong sensory involvement
with others, and so they seek direct social contact
whenever possible. In contrast, residents in such non-
contact cultures as the United States, England, and
Germany try to limit their spatial openness with
others. Given that the crew of Apollo 13 included
only Americans, they shared similar norms about
how much distance should be maintained. Crews
on space stations, such as Mir or Salyut, are more
culturally diverse, so misunderstandings caused by
spatial confusions are more common. Culture also
influences how people interact in the remote zone,
for people with different cultural backgrounds vary
in how much emotion, personal information, and
responsiveness to others they express when commu-
nicating via the Internet (Reeder et al., 2004).
These cultural differences, however, vary across
Hall’s interpersonal zones. When investigators mea-
sured the personal space needs of nearly 9,000 indi-
viduals living in 42 countries they discovered
people living in some countries (e.g., Romania,
Turkey, Uganda, and Pakistan) had relatively large
personal spaces needs, but only when interacting in
the social zone. Their spatial needs were relatively
small when in the personal or intimate zone. This
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 491
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

study also identified differences between countries
with warmer and colder climates: in warmer places
people needed less space in the social zones, but
more space in the intimate zone. Colder climates
reversed that tendency, with people seeking close-
ness with intimates but more distance between
strangers (Sorokowska et al., 2017).
Maintaining Equilibrium Why does distance
influence so many group processes? Most theories
of nonverbal communication recognize that dis-
tance, like body orientation, eye contact, and physi-
cal touch, function to define the nature of the
relationship between people. The equilibrium
model of communication, for example, suggests
that these nonverbal cues interact to influence per-
ceptions of intimacy. If group members feel that a
low level of intimacy is appropriate, they may sit far
apart, make little eye contact, and assume a relatively
formal posture. If, in contrast, the members are
relaxing and discussing personal topics, they may
move close together, make more eye contact, and
adopt more relaxed postures. By continually adjust-
ing their nonverbal and verbal behavior, group
members can keep the intimacy of their interactions
at the level they desire (Argyle & Dean, 1965).
Communication researcher Judee Burgoon’s
(1978, 1983) expectancy violations theory extends this
analysis by identifying the types of messages that
distance—taken in combination with other nonver-
bal cues—can signal. Sitting close to another person
may indicate warmth and acceptance, but it may also
be an indication of similarity, trust, composure
(absence of nervousness), formality, dominance,
equality, or task orientation. In one study, for exam-
ple, she found that closer proximity signaled domi-
nance, similarity, and composure, but that this
meaning changed when one person in the group
leaned forward, smiled, and briefly touched the
other person. The interaction was transformed
from one involving status and dominance to one
suggesting informality and intimacy (Burgoon &
Dillman, 1995; Burgoon & Hale, 1987).
15-2b Reactions to Spatial Invasion
Individuals cannot always protect their personal
space from intrusion by others. A group may find
itself in a place where the available space is so lim-
ited that people cannot maintain appropriate dis-
tances between one another. In other instances,
the group may have sufficient space, but for some
reason, a member approaches so closely that he or
she seems “too close for comfort.”
A high density situation is not always a prob-
lematic situation. Density is a characteristic of the
group context—the number of people per unit of
space. Crowding, in contrast, is the psychological
reaction people experience when they feel that they
do not have enough space (Stokols, 1972, 1978).
Although the density of a given situation, such as
a party, a rock concert, or Apollo 13, may be very
high, the group’s members may not feel crowded at
all. Yet two people sitting in a large room may feel
crowded if the other person is sitting too close to
them, they expected to be alone, or dislike each
other intensely. Passengers on a train where density
was low—there were plenty of empty seats in the
car—displayed the negative effects of crowding
(e.g., more negative mood, evidence of stress, and
loss of motivation) if others were seated near them
in their row (Evans & Wener, 2007).
Arousal and Stress Unexpected and unwarranted
violations of one’s personal space needs are, in most
cases, aversive experiences. When confederates
approached too closely people studying in libraries,
sitting outdoors, standing on escalators, or walking
down the street, the targets displayed a number of
negative reactions, including reduced eye contact,
shifts in body posture, verbal rebukes, and withdrawal
equilibrium model of communication An explana-
tion of distancing behavior in interpersonal settings argu-
ing that the amount of eye contact and the intimacy of
the topic influence the amount of personal space
required by group members.
density The number of individuals per unit of space.
crowding A psychological reaction that occurs when
individuals feel that the amount of space available to
them is insufficient for their needs.
492 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

from the situation (Sundstrom et al., 1996). People
report the experience to be stressful, and measures of
their physiological reactions confirm this description:
Personal space violations cause increases in heart rate
and blood pressure, more rapid breathing, and perspi-
ration (Evans, 1979).
One of the more creative—if ethically controver-
sial (see Koocher, 1977)—investigations of the arousal
properties of personal space invasion was conducted in
a men’s restroom (Middlemist, Knowles, & Matter,
1976). Reasoning that arousal would lead to a general
muscular contraction that would delay urination onset
and reduce its duration, the researchers set up a situa-
tion in which men using wall-mounted urinals were
joined by a confederate who used either the next
receptacle (near condition) or one located farther
down the wall (far condition). When onset times and
duration for men in the near and far condition were
compared with those same times for men in a no-
confederate control condition, the researchers found
that personal space invasion significantly increased
general arousal.
One team of researchers identified the brain areas
that govern how people respond to violations of their
personal space by studying the neural functioning of a
42-year-old woman who showed no discomfort
when others approached too closely. When asked to
walk toward another person and stop when she
reached a comfortable distance, she approached so
closely she touched the other person and rated the
experience as “completely comfortable.” Upon anal-
ysis, the researchers found she had complete bilateral
damage to her amygdala, which is the area of the
brain that regulates strong emotions, including fear.
The investigators also studied, using fMRI, healthy
individuals’ brain patterns when the experimenter
stood close to the scanner and when he maintained
a greater distance. These subjects evidenced increased
activation of the amygdala, providing further corrob-
oration of the source of the strong negative emotion
most people experience when others approach too
closely (Kennedy et al., 2009).
Causal Attributions Every close encounter with
another person is not necessarily a negative experience.
If the intruder is our close friend, a relative, or an
extremely attractive stranger, closeness can be a plus
(Willis, 1966). Similarly, if we believe that the other
person needs help or is attempting to initiate a friendly
relationship, we tend to react positively rather than
negatively (Murphy-Berman & Berman, 1978).
These findings suggest that the label that individuals
use to interpret their arousal determines the conse-
quences of crowding. If people attribute the arousal
to others’ standing too close, they will conclude, “I feel
crowded.” If, in contrast, they explain the arousal in
How Crowded Was Your Last Outdoor Adventure?
When people head out into the natural environment
seeking recreation, entertainment, and leisure, but
they encounter far more people than they expected
during their getaway, they often express considerable
disappointment. They feel crowded.
Instructions. Given that crowding is a psychologi-
cal experience, rather than an objective evaluation of
density, rank the following group activities from 1 to
5, giving a 1 to the activity you feel most often felt
crowded, a 2 to the next most crowded, and so on.
____ Camping
____ Biking
____ Fishing
____ Boating
____ Hiking
When researchers compiled the results of 181
reports of people’s reactions to over 600 different
recreational locations they discovered people felt the
most crowded when they were fishing. The rankings
were fishing (1), boating (2), camping (3), biking (4),
and hiking (5), although bikers and hikers felt much
less crowded compared to the others. The least
crowding was reported by people who were floating
down a river on a raft or inflated inner tube (Vaske &
Shelby, 2008).
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 493
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

some other way—“I drank too much coffee,” “I’m in
love,” “I’m afraid our ship will burn up in the atmo-
sphere,” and so on—they will not feel crowded.
Researchers tested this attributional model of
crowding by seating five-person groups in chairs
placed either 20 inches apart or touching at the legs.
These researchers told the groups that an inaudible
noise would be played in the room as they worked
on several tasks. They told some groups that the noise
was detectable at the unconscious level and would
lead to stressful, discomforting effects. They told
other groups that the noise would have relaxing and
calming effects, or they gave no explanation for the
noise at all. The groups were not actually exposed to
any noise, but crowded groups who thought that the
noise would arouse them felt less crowded. Why?
Because they attributed the arousal caused by crowd-
ing to the supposed noise rather than to the proximity
of other people (Worchel & Yohai, 1979; see also
Worchel & Teddlie, 1976).
Intensity Crowding does not always vitiate an
experience, but instead only intensifies it. According
to the density–intensity hypothesis, if the group
interaction is an unpleasant one, high density will
make the situation seem even more unpleasant
(Freedman, 1975, 1979). But if the situation is a
pleasant one, high density will make the good situa-
tion even better. In one study of the intensifying
effects of crowding groups of 6–10 high school stu-
dents sat on the floor of either a large room or a
small room. Each delivered a speech and then
received feedback from the other group members.
By design, in some cases the feedback was quite pos-
itive, whereas in other groups, the feedback was
always negative. Participants later rated the room
and their group more positively when they received
positive feedback under high-density conditions, and
they liked their group the least when they got nega-
tive feedback when crowded. These effects were
clearest for all-female groups as opposed to all-male
or mixed-sex groups (Freedman, 1979).
Controllability Crowded situations are unsettling
because they undermine group members’ control
over their experiences. Crowded situations bring peo-
ple into contact with others they would prefer to
avoid, and if working groups cannot cope with the
constraints of their environment, they may fail at their
tasks. Group members can therefore cope with
crowding by increasing their sense of control over
the situation. Just as a sense of high personal control
helps people cope with a range of negative life events,
including failure, divorce, illness, and accidents, peo-
ple are less stressed by environmental threats when
they feel they can control their circumstances (Evans
& Lepore, 1992; Schmidt & Keating, 1979).
Researchers tested the benefits of controllability
by asking groups of six men to work on tasks in either
a small room or a large one. One task required partici-
pating in a 15-minute discussion of censorship, and the
second involved blindfolding a member and letting
him wander about within a circle formed by the rest
of the group. To manipulate control, one of the parti-
cipants was designated the coordinator; he was responsi-
ble for organizing the group, dealing with questions
concerning procedures, and blindfolding members
for the second task. A second participant, the terminator,
was given control over ending the discussion and reg-
ulating each member’s turn in the center of the circle.
Significantly, the two group members who could con-
trol the group tasks through coordination or termina-
tion were not as bothered by the high-density situation
as the four group members who were given no control
(Rodin, Solomon, & Metcalf, 1978).
Interference Crowding is particularly troublesome
when it interferes with the group’s work. The Apollo
13 crew, for example, did not react negatively to their
high-density living conditions so long as the crowding
did not undermine their group’s effectiveness. Diffi-
culties only occurred when they needed to fix a
problem—such as a hatch that would not secure
properly when there was only enough room for
one person to reach it. Similarly, studies that find no
ill effects of crowding generally study groups working
density–intensity hypothesis An explanation of
crowding that predicts that high density makes unpleas-
ant situations more unpleasant but pleasant situations
more pleasant.
494 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

on coaction problems that require little interaction.
Studies that require the participants to complete inter-
active tasks in rooms with restrictive furnishings, in
contrast, tend to find negative effects of crowding
(see, Meagher & Marsh, 2015).
Researchers demonstrated the importance of
interference by deliberately manipulating both density
and interaction. All-male groups worked either in a
small laboratory room or in a large one collating
eight-page booklets. The order of the pages was not
constant, however, but was determined by first select-
ing a card that had the order of the pages listed in a
random sequence. In the low-interaction condition, each
person had all eight stacks of pages and a set of
sequence cards. In the high-interaction condition, the
stacks were located at points around the room, so
participants had to walk around the room in unpre-
dictable patterns. In fact, the participants often
bumped into one another while trying to move
from one stack to another. The interference created
in the high-interaction condition led to decrements in
task performance—provided that density was high
(Heller, Groff, & Solomon, 1977).
15-2c Seating Arrangements
At launch and during most key maneuvers, the
three Apollo 13 astronauts were seated side by
side in front of the control panel, and the seat on
the left was reserved for the mission commander or
the officer who was piloting the ship. Each seat
defined the role requirements of the person who
occupied it, but the seat also defined his status in
the group. Although often unrecognized, or simply
taken for granted, seating patterns influence inter-
action, communication, and leadership in groups.
Seating Patterns and Social Interaction Social
psychologist Robert Sommer (1969), after studying
the ecology of small groups located in a variety of
settings, drew a distinction between sociopetal and
sociofugal spaces. Sociopetal spaces promote
interaction among group members by heightening
eye contact, encouraging verbal communication,
and facilitating the development of intimacy. Socio-
fugal spaces, in contrast, discourage interaction
among group members and can even drive partici-
pants out of the situation altogether. A secluded
booth in a quiet restaurant, a park bench, or five
chairs placed in a tight circle are sociopetal environ-
ments, whereas classrooms organized in rows, movie
theaters, waiting rooms, and airport waiting areas are
sociofugal. Sommer concluded that airport seating
was deliberately designed to disrupt interaction. He
noted that even people seated side by side on airport
chairs cannot converse comfortably:
The chairs are either bolted together and
arranged in rows theater-style facing the ticket
counters, or arranged back-to-back, and even if
they face one another they are at such distances
that comfortable conversation is impossible. The
motive for the sociofugal arrangement appears
the same as that in hotels and other commercial
places—to drive people out of the waiting areas
into cafés, bars, and shops where they will spend
money. (Sommer, 1969, pp. 121–122)
Group members generally prefer sociopetal
arrangements. This preference, however, depends
in part on the type of task undertaken in the situa-
tion (Augustin, 2009). As Figure 15.4 shows, Som-
mer found that corner-to-corner and face-to-face
arrangements were preferred for conversation, and
side-by-side seating was selected for cooperation.
Competing dyads either took a direct, face-to-face
orientation (apparently to stimulate competition) or
tried to increase interpersonal distance, whereas
coacting dyads preferred arrangements that reduced
eye contact. As one student stated, such an arrange-
ment “allows staring into space and not into my
neighbor’s face” (Sommer, 1969, p. 63). Similar
choices were found with round tables.
Groups in sociopetal environments act differ-
ently than groups in sociofugal spaces. In one
sociopetal spaces Environmental settings that promote
interaction among group members, including seating
arrangements that facilitate conversation.
sociofugal spaces Environmental settings that discour-
age or prevent interaction among group members.
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 495
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

study, dyads whose members sat facing each other
seemed more relaxed, but dyads whose members sat
at a 90-degree angle to each other were more
affiliative (Mehrabian & Diamond, 1971). When
researchers compared circle seating with L-shaped
seating, the circle was associated with feelings of
confinement but fostered greater interpersonal
attraction (Patterson et al., 1979). People seated in
the L-shaped groups, on the other hand, engaged in
more self-manipulative behaviors and fidgeting, and
they paused more during group discussions. Over-
all, the positive effects of the circle arrangement
relative to the L-shaped arrangement were stronger
in female groups than in male groups.
Men, Women, and Seating Preferences Women
and men diverge, to a degree, in their preferences
for seating arrangements. Men prefer to position
themselves across from those they like, and
women prefer adjacent seating positions (Sommer,
1959). Conversely, men prefer that strangers sit by
their side, whereas women feel that strangers should
sit across from them. Researchers studied the con-
fusion that this difference can cause by sending con-
federates to sit at the same table as solitary women
and men working in a library. After a brief and
uneventful period, the confederate left. When a
second researcher then asked the participant some
questions about the confederate and the library, the
researchers discovered that men were the least
favorably disposed toward the stranger who sat
across from them but that women reacted more
negatively to the stranger who sat next to them
(Fisher & Byrne, 1975). Clearly, group members
should be sensitive to the possibility that their spa-
tial behaviors will be misinterpreted by others, and
they should be willing to make certain that any
possible misunderstandings will be short-lived.
Communication Patterns Psychotherapist Bernard
Steinzor’s early studies of face-to-face discussion
groups indicated that spatial patterns also influence
communication rates in groups. Although at first he
could find few significant relationships between seat
location and participation in the discussion, one day,
while watching a group, he noticed a participant
change his seat to sit opposite someone he had argued
with during the previous meeting. Inspired by this
chance observation, Steinzor (1950) reanalyzed his
findings and discovered that individuals tended to
50
60
40
30
20
10
0
Type of seating pattern
P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
c
h
o
o
s
in
g
e
a
c
h
a
rr
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
Conversing
Cooperating
Competing
Coacting
F I G U R E 15.4 Preference for various types of seating arrangements when individuals expected to converse,
cooperate, compete, or coact.
SOURCE: Personal Space by Robert Sommer, © 1969 by Prentice-Hall, Inc. Reprinted by permission of the author.
496 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

speak after the person seated opposite them spoke. He
reasoned that people have an easier time observing
and listening to statements made by those who are
seated in the center of the visual field, so that their
remarks serve as stronger stimuli for listeners’ ideas and
statements. The tendency for members of a group to
comment immediately after the person sitting oppo-
site them is now termed the Steinzor effect. The
phenomenon appears to occur primarily in leaderless
discussion groups, for later research has suggested that
when a leader is present group members direct more
comments to their closest neighbor (Hearne, 1957).
Seating Locations Where should the leader sit?
At the head of the table or in one of the side
chairs? With great consistency, leaders seek out
the head of the table. Sommer (1969), found that
people appointed to lead small discussion groups
tended to select seats at the head of the table.
Those who move to this position of authority
also tend to possess more dominant personalities
(Hare & Bales, 1963), talk more frequently, and
exercise greater interpersonal influence (Strodt-
beck & Hook, 1961). When people are shown
pictures of groups with members seated around a
rectangular table and are asked to identify the
likely leader, they tend to settle on the person
sitting at the head of the table (Jackson, Engstrom,
& Emmers-Sommer, 2007).
Sommer suggested two basic explanations for
this intriguing head-of-the-table effect—percep-
tual prominence and the social meaning associated
with sitting at the head of the table. Looking first
at prominence, Sommer suggested that in many
groups, the chair at the end of the table is the
most salient position in the group and that the
occupant of this space can therefore easily maintain
greater amounts of eye contact with more of the
group members, can move to the center of the
communication network, and (as the Steinzor effect
suggests) can comment more frequently. Moreover,
in Western cultures where most studies of leader-
ship have been conducted, the chair at the head of
the table is implicitly defined to be the most appro-
priate place for the leader to sit. Sommer noted that
this norm may not hold in other societies, but in
most Western cultures, leadership and the head of
the table go together.
Both factors influence the head-of-the-table
effect. Investigators manipulated salience by having
two persons sit on one side of the table and three on
the other side. Although no one sat in the end seat,
those seated on the two-person side of the table could
maintain eye contact with three of the group members,
but those on the three-person side could focus their
attention on only two members. Therefore, group
members on the two-person side should be able to
influence others more and hence be the more likely
leaders. As predicted, 70% of the leaders came from the
two-person side (Howells & Becker, 1962).
In another study, the tendency for people to
automatically associate the head of the table with lead-
ership was examined by arranging for confederates to
voluntarily choose or be assigned to the end position
or to some other position around a table (Nemeth &
Wachtler, 1974). These confederates then went about
systematically disagreeing with the majority of the
group members on the topic under discussion, and
the extent to which the participants altered their opi-
nions to agree with the deviant was assessed. Interest-
ingly, the deviants succeeded in influencing the others
only when they had freely chosen to sit in the head
chair. Apparently, disagreeing group members sitting
at the “side” locations around the table were viewed
as “deviants,” whereas those who had the confidence
to select the end chair were viewed more as “leaders”
(Riess, 1982; Riess & Rosenfeld, 1980).
1 5 -3 L OCA T ION S
Like so many animals—birds, wolves, lions, seals,
geese, and even seahorses—human beings develop
Steinzor effect The tendency for members of a group
to comment immediately after the person sitting opposite
them (named for Bernard Steinzor).
head-of-the-table effect The tendency for group
members to associate the leadership role and its responsi-
bilities with the seat located at the head of the table; as a
result, individuals who occupy such positions tend to
emerge as leaders in groups without designated leaders.
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 497
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

proprietary orientations toward certain geographical
locations and defend these areas against intrusion
by others. A person’s home, a preferred seat in a class-
room, a clubhouse, a football field, and a space capsule
are all territories—specific areas that an individual or
group claims, marks, and defends against intrusion by
others. Since groups and group members develop
attachment to places, this tendency influences both
intragroup and intergroup functioning.
15-3a Types of Territoriality
When Lovell, Swigert, and Haise entered the
Apollo 13 spaceship for their mission, they
entered a cylinder filled with computers, con-
trols, equipment, and supplies. But within days,
this physical space was transformed into the
group’s territory. The men stowed personal gear
in their lockers. The controls over which they
had primary responsibility became “their con-
trols,” and they were wary when any of the
other crew members would carry out procedures
in their area. Haise, more so than either Lovell or
Swigert, became attached to Aquarius, the lunar
excursion module. When the time came to
jettison the module prior to their descent, Haise
collected small objects as mementos, and mission
control remarked, “Farewell, Aquarius, and we
thank you” (Lovell & Kluger, 1994, p. 329).
When people establish a territory, they gener-
ally try to control who is permitted access. As envi-
ronmental psychologist Irwin Altman noted,
however, the degree of control depends on the
type of territory (see Table 15.2). Control is highest
for primary territories—areas that are maintained and
“used exclusively by individuals or groups … on a
relatively permanent basis” (Altman, 1975, p. 112).
People develop strong place attachments to these areas,
for they feel safe, secure, and comfortable when in
them (Hernández et al., 2007). Individuals maintain
only a moderate amount of control over their sec-
ondary territories. These areas are not owned by the
group members, but because the members use such
an area regularly, they come to consider it “theirs.”
College students, for example, often become very
territorial about their seats in a class (Haber, 1980,
1982). Control over public territories is even more lim-
ited. Occupants can prevent intrusion while they are
physically present, but they relinquish all claims
when they leave. A bathroom stall or a spot on the
beach can be claimed when occupied, but when the
occupant leaves, another person can step in and
claim the space. (Brown, 1987, thoroughly reviewed
much of the work on human territoriality.)
T A B L E 15.2 Three Types of Territories Established and Protected by Individuals and Groups
Type Degree of Control Duration of Claim Examples
Primary High: occupants control access
and are very likely to actively
defend this space.
Long term: individuals maintain
control over the space on a rel-
atively permanent basis; own-
ership is often involved.
A family’s house, a bed-
room, a clubhouse, a dorm
room, a study
Secondary Moderate: individuals who
habitually use a space come to
consider it “theirs”; reaction to
intrusions is milder.
Temporary but recurrent:
others may use the space, but
must vacate the area if the
usual occupant requests.
A table in a bar, a seat in a
classroom, a regularly used
parking space, the sidewalk
in front of your home
Public Low: although the occupant
may prevent intrusion while
present, no expectation of
future use exists.
None: the individual or group
uses the space only on the most
temporary basis and leaves
behind no markers.
Elevator, beach, public tele-
phone, playground, park,
bathroom stall, restaurant
counter
SOURCE: The Environment and Social Behavior by Irving Altman, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1976.
territories A specific geographic area that individuals or
groups of individuals claim, mark, and defend against
intrusion by others.
498 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

15-3b Group Territories
Territoriality is, in many cases, a group-level pro-
cess. Instead of an individual claiming an area and
defending it against other individuals, a group will
lay claim to its turf and prevent other groups from
using it. South American howler monkeys, for
example, live together in bands of up to 20 indivi-
duals, and these groups forage within a fairly well-
defined region. The bands themselves are cohesive
and free of internal strife, but when another group
of howlers is encountered during the day’s wander-
ing, a fight begins. Among howlers, this territorial
defense takes the form of a “shouting match,” in
which the members of the two bands howl at the
opposing group until one band—usually the invad-
ing band—retreats. Boundaries are rarely violated,
because each morning and night, the monkeys raise
their voices in a communal and far-carrying howl-
ing session (Carpenter, 1958).
Human groups also establish territories. Socio-
logical analyses of gangs, for example, highlight
the tendency for young men to join forces in
defense of a few city blocks that they considered
to be theirs (Thrasher, 1927; Whyte, 1943;
Yablonsky, 1962). Many gangs take their names
from a street or park located at the very core of
their claimed sphere of influence and control areas
around this base. Contemporary gangs, despite
changes in size, violence, and involvement in
crime, continue to be rooted to specific locations.
Gangs in San Diego, California, for example, can
be traced to specific geographical origins: the Red
Steps and the Crips to Logan Heights and the
Sidros to San Ysidro (Sanders, 1994).
Gangs identify their territories through the
placement of graffiti, or “tags.” Philadelphia
researchers found that the number of graffiti men-
tioning the local gang’s name increased as one
moved closer and closer to the gang’s home base,
suggesting that the graffiti served as territorial mar-
kers, warning intruders of the dangers of encroach-
ment. This marking, however, was not entirely
successful, for neighboring gangs would occasion-
ally invade a rival’s territory to spray paint their
own names over the territorial markers of the
home gang or, at least, to append a choice obscen-
ity. The frequency of graffiti attributable to out-
side groups provided an index of a gang’s prestige,
for the more graffiti written by opposing gangs in
one’s territory, the weaker was the home gang
(Ley & Cybriwsky, 1974).
Group Spaces Human groups also maintain sec-
ondary and public territories. Groups at the beach,
for example, generally stake out their claim by
using beach towels, coolers, chairs, and other
personal objects (Edney & Jordan-Edney, 1974).
These temporary territories tend to be circular,
and larger groups command bigger territories than
smaller groups. Groups also create territories when
they interact in public places, for, in most cases,
nonmembers are reluctant to break through group
boundaries. Just as individuals are protected
from unwanted social contact by their invisible
bubble of personal space, so groups seem to be sur-
rounded by a sort of “shell” or “membrane” that
forms an invisible boundary for group interaction.
Various labels have been used to describe this
public territory, including group space (Edney &
Grundmann, 1979; Minami & Tanaka, 1995),
interactional territory (Lyman & Scott, 1967), tempo-
rary group territory (Edney & Jordan-Edney, 1974),
jurisdiction (Roos, 1968), and group personal space
(Altman, 1975). No matter what this boundary is
called, the evidence indicates that it often effectively
serves to repel intruders. Most people will avoid
walking through the group and, when approaching
a group, will shift their path to increase the distance
between themselves and the group (Knowles, 1973;
Knowles et al., 1976). Mixed-sex groups whose
members are conversing with one another seem to
have stronger boundaries (Cheyne & Efran, 1972), as
do groups whose members are exhibiting strong
emotions (Lindskold et al., 1976). People begin invad-
ing a group’s public territory only if the distance
between interactants becomes large (Cheyne &
group space A temporary spatial boundary that forms
around interacting groups and serves as a barrier to
unwanted intrusion by nonmembers.
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 499
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Efran, 1972) or if the group is perceived as a crowd
rather than as a single entity (Knowles & Bassett, 1976).
Benefits of Territories Studies of territoriality in
prisons (Glaser, 1964), naval ships (Heffron, 1972;
Roos, 1968), neighborhoods (Newman, 1972), and
dormitories (Baum & Valins, 1977) have suggested
that people feel far more comfortable when their
groups can territorialize their living areas. For
example, environmental psychologists Andrew
Baum, Stuart Valins, and their associates confirmed
the benefits of territories in their studies of college
Have You Ever Frequented a Third Place?
Third places, identified by urban sociologist Ray Old-
enburg (1999), are semipublic areas where people go
to meet their friends, socialize, or just “hang out.”
They are usually located near people’s homes (first
places) and where they work (second places). As
described by urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg (1999),
they are typically businesses, but they welcome indivi-
duals who may not be customers. A third place might
be a coffee shop, where people can spend time read-
ing a book (about group dynamics) and talking to
friends who stop by for a cup and a conversation. It
might be the barbershop on the corner where people
often stop to read the newspaper and talk sports and
politics. But the prototypical third place is the neigh-
borhood tavern, where people drink, socialize, and
entertain each other. The most famous third place is
the bar depicted in the television program Cheers. At a
third place, “everybody knows your name.”
Not just any restaurant or bookstore qualifies as a
third place (Mehta & Bosson, 2010). As Oldenburg
(1999) explains, third places are uniquely hospitable,
socially entertaining, and informal. They are places
where people can come and go, unfettered by obliga-
tions or the entanglements of roles and responsibili-
ties. They are also diverse, in that people from all
walks of life are welcome—there are no dues, no
membership requirements, nor much respect for
wealth, professionalism, or breeding. But most of all,
third places are a home away from home. Those who
are regulars make newcomers feel welcome, and the
norms of the setting stress connecting with others in a
positive, playful way. Writes Oldenburg (1999, p. 29):
“The atmosphere, both physical and social, is the
trickiest and most essential part of creating a warm
and welcoming third place. Both need constant atten-
tion and periodic tweaking. Both show signs of neglect
and fatigue immediately” (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 29).
Not all third places, however, are located in
physical locations (Yuen & Johnson, 2017). In the not
too distant past, people could only congregate in the
confines of a friendly business place. Now, however,
people can achieve this connection to other people
through online interactions in social networking sites,
multiuser domains, and multiplayer games. As these
sites have increased in popularity, they have evolved
from places where people post messages or acquire
information into places that have many of the same
characteristics Oldenburg attributes to high-quality
third places. As with real-world third places, people can
come and go as they please in online third places. In
avatar-based games, in particular, people create identi-
ties that they use to interact with others, and others
come to recognize them through their repeated use of
these personas. Some online games have even devel-
oped places within the game for socializing. World of
Warcraft, BlueSky, Second Life®, Lineage, and Asheron’s
Call, for example, all have locations within them where
players go to converse, tease, relax, dance, and joke
with other players. In sites with graphics, these locations
are often designed to resemble real-world third places;
they are virtual pubs, bars, inns, coffee houses, and the
like. At online third places “everyone knows your
(screen) name” (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).
The relations that individuals establish in third
places, whether online or offline, are not close ones.
These are public places, and even though the people
who join them support and entertain each other, they
remain acquaintances rather than close friends. But in
an evolving world where traditional forms of commu-
nity, such as bridge clubs, civic associations, and sports
leagues have dwindled, virtual third places “stand ready
to serve people’s needs for sociability and relaxation in
the intervals before, between, and after their manda-
tory appearances elsewhere” (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 32).
third places Semipublic places, such as bookstores, cof-
fee shops, and taverns, where members of a community
gather informally for conversation and camaraderie; often
located close to individuals’ homes (first places) and their
work (second places).
500 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

students who were randomly assigned to one of
two types of dormitories. Some students lived in a
traditionally designed, corridor-style dorm, which
featured 17 double-occupancy rooms per floor.
These residents could only claim the bedrooms
they shared with their roommates as their territo-
ries. In contrast, students who lived in suite-style
dorms controlled a fairly well-defined territory
that included a private space shared with a room-
mate as well as a bathroom and lounge shared with
several suitemates.
Even though nearly equal numbers of indivi-
duals lived on any floor in the two types of designs,
students in the corridor-style dormitories reported
feeling more crowded, complained of their inability
to control their social interactions with others, and
emphasized their unfulfilled needs for privacy.
Suite-style dorm residents, on the other hand,
developed deeper friendships with their suitemates,
worked with one another more effectively, and
even seemed more sociable when interacting with
people outside the dormitory. Baum and Valins
concluded that these differences stemmed from the
corridor-style dorm residents’ inability to territori-
alize areas that they had to use repeatedly (Baum &
Davis, 1980; Baum, Davis, & Valins, 1979; Baum,
Harpin, & Valins, 1975).
Territories and Intergroup Conflict Territories
tend to reduce conflict between groups since they
organize and regulate intergroup contact by isolating
one group from another. Even in the absence of
open conflict between groups, members tend to
remain within their group’s territories, and they
avoid trespassing into other areas. Consider, for
example, the distribution of people in a cafeteria of
a public university in the United Kingdom. Over the
course of two weeks when researchers studied where
students sat for their meals, they discovered that
White students tended to sit in one area of the cafe-
teria, but that Asian students tended to sit in a differ-
ent area. Some members of one racial group moved
across territorial lines, but for the most part students
in this desegregated school tended to resegregate
themselves by forming territories based on their
race (Clack, Dixon, & Tredoux, 2005).
Group members often feel more comfortable
when they can establish a territory for their group,
but territoriality can cause conflict if the groups do
not agree on their borders. All kinds of intergroup
conflicts—from disputes between neighbors to
drive-by gang shootings, to civil wars, to wars
between nations—are rooted in disputes over terri-
tories (Ardry, 1970). Such conflicts may be based on
ancient group traditions. Because most human cul-
tures harvest the animals and plants from the land
around them, they establish control over certain
geographical areas (Altman & Chemers, 1980).
Nations patrol their borders to make certain that
people from neighboring countries cannot enter
the country easily. Neighborhood associations
erect fences and gates to keep others out. When
families move into a new home or apartment,
they often install locks and elaborate burglar alarms
to prevent intrusions by nonmembers. Students
who find someone sitting in their usual chair will
ask the intruder to leave (Haber, 1980).
The Home Advantage A group’s power is often
defined by the quality and size of the space it
controls, so groups protect their turf as a means of
protecting their reputations. Disputes over territories
are often one-sided, however, for groups that are
defending their territory usually triumph over
groups that are invading territories—the home
advantage. Case studies of street gangs, for exam-
ple, find that defending groups usually succeed in
repelling invading groups, apparently because they
are more familiar with the physical layout of the area
and have access to necessary resources (Whyte,
1943). One member of the Nortons, a street gang
discussed in Chapter 2, explained that his group
never lost a fight (“rally”) so long as it took place
on the group’s turf: “We never went looking for
trouble. We only rallied on our own street, but we
always won there” (Whyte, 1943, p. 51).
home advantage The tendency for individuals and
groups to gain an advantage over others when interacting
in their home territory; also known as the home field
advantage.
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 501
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Individuals, too, are often more assertive when
they are within their own territorial confines rather
than encroaching on others’ turf. College students
working with another student on a cooperative
task spent more time talking, felt more “resistant to
control,” and were more likely to express their own
opinions when they were in their own room rather
than in their partner’s room (Conroy & Sundstrom,
1977; Edney, 1975; Taylor & Lanni, 1981). Indivi-
duals and groups seem to gain strength and resolve
when the dispute takes place on their home territory,
even if they are encountering an opponent who is
physically stronger or more socially dominant.
This home advantage, becomes the home field
advantage at sporting events, for the home team is
more frequently the victor than the loser (Schlenker
et al., 1995a). When a basketball team must travel to
the rival team’s home court to play, they often make
more errors, score fewer points, and end up the losers
rather than the winners of the contest (Schwartz &
Barsky, 1977). This advantage becomes even greater
when the visiting team must travel longer distances
and when the fans watching the game support the
home team and jeer the opponent (Courneya &
Carron, 1991; Greer, 1983). Playing at home, how-
ever, can become something of a disadvantage in rare
circumstances. When athletes play must-win games
on their home field and they fear they will fail, the
pressure to win may become too great. And when a
team is playing a series of games and it loses an early
game at home, it may lose its home advantage to the
emboldened adversary. Overall, however, groups
tend to win at home (for more details, see Baumeister,
1984, 1985, 1995; Baumeister & Showers, 1986;
Schlenker et al., 1995a, 1995b).
15-3c Territoriality in Groups
Territoriality also operates at the level of each indi-
vidual in the group. Although members develop
attachment to the group’s space, they also develop
spatial attachments to specific areas within the
group space (Moser & Uzzell, 2003). Such individ-
ual territories—a bedroom, a cubicle at work, a park
bench no one else frequents, or one’s car—can help
group members maintain their privacy by providing
them with a means of reducing contact with others
(Fraine et al., 2007).
Territoriality and Privacy As Altman (1975)
noted, depending on the situation, people prefer a
certain amount of contact with others, and interac-
tion in excess of this level produces feelings of
crowding and privacy invasion. The student in the
classroom who is distracted by a jabbering neigh-
bor, employees who are unable to concentrate on
their jobs because of their noisy officemates’ antics,
and the wife who cannot enjoy reading a novel
because her husband is playing his music too loudly
are all receiving excessive inputs from another
group member. If they moderated their accessibility
by successfully establishing and regulating a territo-
rial boundary, they could achieve a more satisfying
balance between contact with others and solitude.
Territories also work as organizers of group
members’ relationships (Edney, 1976). Once we
know the location of others’ territories, we can
find or avoid them with greater success. Further-
more, because we often grow to like people we
interact with on a regular basis, people with
contiguous territories are more likely to form inter-
personal, performance-enhancing relations with
each other (Pentland, 2014). Studies of workplace
design repeatedly return to one key point: frequent
interaction between people—and informal, spon-
taneous interactions in particular, such as encoun-
ters in the hall, stopping by a person’s desk, or
popping into their office with a quick question—
are more influential than routinized group interac-
tions such as meetings. Members’ whose offices and
workspaces—their territories—are located near one
another are more likely to work together with better
results, as are those whose territories are not tightly
defined by walls and doors (see Davis, Leach, &
Clegg, 2011).
Territories also regulate certain group pro-
cesses, structures, and activities. In a classroom, for
example, the instructor’s space is usually differenti-
ated from the students’ space. And the students tend
to return to the same seat over and over again, and
over time these short-term territories regularize
interaction patterns and influence achievement
502 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

(Marshall & Losonczy-Marshall, 2010). Similarly, in
organizational settings, functions are closely aligned
with specific locations, for employees are located—
sometimes for reasons that are not altogether
rational—in various places throughout the space
the organization maintains for its enterprise
(Ayoko & Härtel, 2003).
Territories also help individual group members
define and express a sense of personal identity.
Office walls often display posters, diplomas, crude
drawings produced by small children, pictures of
loved ones, or little signs with trite slogans, even
when company regulations specifically forbid such
personalizing markings. Although such decorations
may seem insignificant to the chance visitor, to the
occupant of the space, they have personal meaning
and help turn a drab, barren environment into
home (Wells, 2000). Territories also define what
belongs to whom; without a sense of territory,
the concept of stealing would be difficult to define,
because one could not be certain that the objects
carried off actually belonged to someone else.
Territory and Status The size and quality of
individuals’ territories within a group often indi-
cates their social status within the group. In undif-
ferentiated societies, people rarely divide up space
into “yours,” “mine,” and “ours.” The Basarwa of
Africa, for example, do not make distinctions
between people on the basis of age, sex, or prestige.
Nor do they establish primary territories or build
permanent structures (Kent, 1991). But stratified
societies with leaders, status hierarchies, and classes
are territorial. Moreover, the size and quality of the
What Do Your Places and Spaces Say about You?
Members of groups often develop a proprietary ori-
entation toward specific areas; for example, family
members have their own rooms, faculty their offices,
and students their apartments and dorm rooms.
Instructions. After securing permission, study the
territory of a professor at a university, a colleague
where you work, or your own territory (your dorm
room, the living room of your home). Spend some time
in the territory you are studying, taking notes and
sketching its layout, and then note the following
markings (adapted from Vinsel et al., 1980):
q Entertainment and equipment: Bicycles, skis,
radios, tennis rackets, climbing gear, soccer balls.
q Technology: Computers, tablets, phones, monitors,
screens.
q Personal relations: Framed photographs of
friends, pets, and family, letters, vacation photos,
drawings by siblings.
q Values: Religious symbols, political posters,
bumper stickers, flags, sorority signs, placards.
q Art: Paintings, prints, cartoons, statues.
q Reference items: Calendars, bulletin board with
notes, schedules, to-do lists.
q Music and theater: Posters and memorabilia of
musical groups, shows, performances.
q Sports: Posters, items related to athletes, sports-
related magazines.
q Idiosyncratic: Awards, knickknacks, coffee mugs,
crafts, wall hangings, plants.
Interpretation: A discerning cataloger of spatial
adornments can learn much from the analysis of the
things people leave on display in their homes, dorm
rooms, and offices. Conscientious people, for example,
tend to have more reference items posted in their
spaces, and they keep their spaces relatively tidy.
Outgoing, extraverted people’s spaces, in contrast,
are often more extensively decorated, usually to good
effect (Gosling, 2008). The overall diversity of the
markers may also be an indicator of commitment to
the group and its values. When researchers studied
college students’ dorm rooms, they found that stu-
dents who eventually left the school marked their
walls extensively but with less diversity. A dropout’s
wall would feature, for example, dozens of skiing
posters or high school memorabilia, whereas the
stay-in’s decorations might include syllabi, posters, wall
hangings, plants, and family photos. The researchers
concluded that the wall decorations of dropouts
“reflected less imagination or diversity of interests
and an absence of commitment to the new university
environment” (Hansen & Altman, 1976; Vinsel et al.,
1980, p. 1114).
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 503
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

territories held by individuals tend to correspond to
their status within society. The political and social
elite in the community live in large, fine homes
rather than small, run-down shacks (Fuller &
Löw, 2017). Executives with large offices hold a
higher, more prestigious position in the company
than executives with small offices (Durand, 1977).
Prison inmates who control the most desirable por-
tions of the exercise yard enjoy higher status than
individuals who cannot establish a territory (Esser,
1973). As one informal observer has noted, in many
large corporations, the entire top floor of a com-
pany’s headquarters is reserved for the offices of the
upper-echelon executives and can only be reached
by a private elevator (Korda, 1975). Furthermore,
within this executive area, offices swell in size and
become more lavishly decorated as the occupant’s
position in the company increases. Substantiating
these informal observations, a study of a large
chemical company headquarters, a university, and
a government agency found a clear link between
office size and status (Durand, 1977). The correla-
tion between the size of the territory and the posi-
tion in each group’s organization chart was .81 for
the company, .79 for the government agency, and
.29 for the university.
The link between territory and dominance in
small groups tends to be more variable. Several
studies have suggested that territory size increases
as status increases (Sundstrom & Altman, 1974).
Other studies, however, indicated that territory
size seems to decrease as status in the group
increases (Esser, 1968; Esser et al., 1965). Psychol-
ogists Eric Sundstrom and Irwin Altman (1974)
suggested that these contradictory results occur
because territorial boundaries are more fluid in
small groups. In one study conducted at a boys’
rehabilitation center, they asked each participant
to rank the other boys in terms of ability to influ-
ence others. Also, an observer regularly passed
through the residence bedrooms, lounge, TV area,
and bathrooms and recorded territorial behaviors.
The boys evaluated each area to determine which
territories were more desirable than others.
Sundstrom and Altman found evidence of the
territory–dominance relation, but the strength of
this relation varied over time. During the first
phase of the project, the high-status boys main-
tained clear control over more desirable areas, but
when two of the most dominant boys were
removed from the group, the remaining boys com-
peted with one another for both status and space. In
time the group had quieted back down, although
certain highly dominant members continued to be
disruptive. When formal observations ended, the
group’s territorial structures were once more begin-
ning to stabilize with higher-status members con-
trolling the more desirable areas.
Reactions to Territorial Intrusions Just as
groups defend their territories, so do individuals
within groups protect their individual spaces
(Ayoko & Härtel, 2003). Management researcher
Graham Brown and his colleagues, for example,
in their studies of territories in work settings,
found that territorial intrusions are relatively com-
mon but that they are also quite irritating (Brown,
2009; Brown & Robinson, 2011). When they
asked a sample of 180 adults who worked in busi-
ness settings in the United States if they had ever
experienced a territorial intrusion at work, 73.8%
reported they had, and most of them were still
angry about it. By far, the most frequent type of
territorial intrusion was the use of one’s tools, sup-
plies, or equipment by others without the indivi-
dual’s explicit permission. A second category of
territorial intrusions was spatial: people taking over
another person’s primary or secondary territory or
intruding into that territory without permission.
Other intrusions included people trying to take
over duties or projects and plagiarism of their
ideas and innovations. These infringements trig-
gered all kinds of negative reactions, including
complaints to supervisors, verbal rebukes, plots to
seek revenge, and even physical confrontations.
Most of these responses were mediated by one
key psychological factor: anger. Some reported
they felt “annoyed” or “irritated,” but others
were “upset” and “bitter.” Still a third group
reported feeling “irate” and “furious.” Individuals
in this third group rarely suffered the territorial
intrusion in silence (Brown & Robinson, 2011).
504 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Territory and Stress in Extreme and Unusual
Environments The crew of the Apollo 13, like
many other groups that must function in EUEs,
were careful to monitor their territorial reactions,
for attention to spatial concerns is critical for
long-term success in such groups (Harrison, Clear-
water, & McKay, 1991; Harrison & Connors, 1984;
Leon, 1991; Palinkas, 1991).
Altman and his colleagues at the Naval Medical
Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, studied
territoriality in EUEs by confining pairs of volun-
teers to a 12-by-12-foot room equipped with beds,
a toilet cabinet, and a table and chairs (see Altman,
1973, 1977). The groups worked for several hours
each day at various tasks, but were left to amuse
themselves with card games and reading the rest
of the time. The men in the isolation condition
never left their room during the 10 days of the
experiment; matched pairs in a control condition
were permitted to eat their meals at the base mess
and sleep in their regular barracks.
The members of isolated groups quickly claimed
particular bunks as theirs. Furthermore, this territorial
behavior increased as the experiment progressed,
with the isolated pairs extending their territories to
include specific chairs and certain positions around
the table. Not all of the groups, however, benefited
by establishing territories. In some of the groups,
territories structured the group dynamics and eased
the stress of the situation, but in other dyads, these
territories worked as barricades to social interaction
and exacerbated the strain of isolation. Overall, with-
drawal and time spent sleeping increased across the
10 days of the study, whereas time spent in social
interaction decreased. Other measures revealed
worsened task performance and heightened interper-
sonal conflicts, anxiety, and emotionality for isolates
who drew a “psychological and spatial ‘cocoon’
around themselves, gradually doing more things
alone and in their own part of the room” (Altman
& Haythorn, 1967, p. 174).
Altman and his colleagues followed up these
provocative findings in a second experiment by
manipulating three aspects of the group environ-
ment: (1) availability of privacy (half of the groups
lived and worked in a single room; the remaining
groups had small adjoining rooms for sleeping, nap-
ping, reading, etc.); (2) expected duration of the
isolation (pairs expected the study to last either 4
days or 20 days); and (3) amount of communication
with the outside world. Although the study was to
last for eight days for all the pairs, more than half
terminated their participation early. Altman
explained this high attrition rate by suggesting that
the aborting groups tended to “misread the
demands of the situation and did not undertake
effective group formation processes necessary to
cope with the situation” (1973, p. 249). On the
first day of the study, these men tended to keep
to themselves, never bothering to work out any
plans for coping with what would become a stress-
ful situation. Then, as the study wore on, they
reacted to increased stress by significantly strength-
ening their territorial behavior, claiming particular
areas of the room. They also began spending more
time in their beds, but they seemed simultaneously
to be increasingly restless. Access to a private room
and an expectation of prolonged isolation only
added to the stress of the situation and created addi-
tional withdrawal, dysfunction, and eventual termi-
nation (Altman, Taylor, & Wheeler, 1971).
Groups that lasted the entire eight days used
territoriality to structure their isolation. On the
first day, they defined their territories, set up sche-
dules of activities, and agreed on their plan of action
for getting through the study. Furthermore, the
successful groups relaxed territorial restraints in the
later stages of the project, thereby displaying a
greater degree of positive interaction. As Altman
(1977) described,
The epitome of a successful group was one in
which the members, on the first or second
day, laid out an eating, exercise, and recrea-
tion schedule; constructed a deck of playing
cards, a chess set, and a Monopoly game out
of paper. (p. 310)
The men who adapted “decided how they
would structure their lives over the expected
lengthy period of isolation” (Altman, 1977,
p. 310). Although territorial behavior worked to
the benefit of some of the groups, the last-minute
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 505
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

attempts of some of the faltering groups to organize
their spatial relations failed to improve their inade-
quate adaptation to the isolation.
1 5 – 4 W O R K S P A C ES
Every square inch of the Odyssey, the Apollo 13
command module, and its landing craft, the Aquar-
ius, was designed by considering how the group of
astronauts would function within the confines of
the spacecraft. Unfortunately, not all physical set-
tings are designed so carefully as the Apollo 13:
Many groups inhabit places that inhibit, rather
than facilitate, their functioning.
15-4a The Person–Place Fit
Roger Barker, an ecological psychologist, studied the
relationship between people and the places where
they live and work: offices, homes, schools, neigh-
borhoods, communities, and entire towns. He dis-
covered that in most of these settings, people adapted
to fit the requirements of the place. For example,
when people enter a fast-food restaurant, they join
a line, place their order, pay for their food, and then
find a table where they eat their meal. A group in a
conference room sits in chairs, exchanges informa-
tion, and eventually decides to adjourn. The astro-
nauts, once they entered the Apollo 13, acted in
ways that the situation required.
Behavior Settings Barker called physical loca-
tions where people’s actions are prescribed by the
features and functions of the situation behavior
settings. They tend to be specific spatial areas—
actual places where group members interact with
one another—with boundaries that identify the
edge of one behavior setting and the beginning of
the next. Some boundaries can also be temporal, as
when a group is present only during a certain time
(e.g., a group may occupy a classroom only on
Mondays and Wednesdays from 9 to 10:30). Most
settings also include both people (group members)
and things (equipment, chairs, etc.); Barker called
them both components of the setting. Barker noted
that individuals and settings are often inseparable,
for the meaning of actions often depends on the
physical features of the situation, just as a situation
takes its meaning from the individuals in the setting.
Barker believed that people routinely follow a pro-
gram that sequences their actions and reactions in
behavior settings. They may, for example, make
use of the settings’ objects in very predictable, rou-
tine ways, as when people who enter a room with
chairs in it tend to sit on them (Barker, 1968, 1987,
1990; Barker et al., 1978).
Not every physical setting is a behavior setting.
Some situations are novel ones that group members
have never before encountered, so they have no
expectations about how they should act. Some indi-
viduals, too, may enter a behavior setting but they
are not aware of the norms of the situation, or they
simply do not accept them as guides for their own
actions. But in most cases, group members act in
predictable, routine ways in such situations. Libraries,
for example, are behavior settings because they cre-
ate a readiness for certain types of action: One should
be subdued, quiet, and calm when in a library. These
normative expectations guide behavior directly, and,
in many cases, group members are not even aware of
how the situation automatically channels their
actions. To demonstrate this automatic, unconscious
impact of place on people, researchers first showed
people a picture of either a library or a railroad sta-
tion. Later, their reaction times to various words,
including words relevant to libraries (e.g., quiet, still,
and whisper), were measured. As expected, people
recognized library-related words more quickly after
seeing the picture of a library, suggesting that the
picture activated norms pertaining to the situation
(Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2003).
Synomorphy Barker and his colleagues noted
that in some behavior settings, people are embed-
ded in the place itself. The cockpit of the Apollo
behavior settings In ecological psychology, a physically
and temporally bounded social situation that determines
the actions of the individuals in the setting (defined by
Roger Barker).
506 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

13, for example, was designed so that the astronauts
could monitor all their instruments and reach all
their controls. A fast-food restaurant may use a sys-
tem of guide chains and multiple cash registers to
handle large numbers of customers efficiently. A
classroom may contain areas where students can
work on individual projects, a reading circle
where the teacher can lead small groups, and an
art area where students can easily access the supplies
they need. In other behavior settings, however, the
people do not fit the place. A classroom may have
chairs bolted to the floor in rows, so the teacher can
never have students work in small groups. An office
may have windows that provide workers with a
view of the city, but the light from the windows
prevents them from reading their computer screens.
A concert hall may have so few doors that concert-
goers clog the exits. Barker used the word syno-
morphy to describe the degree of fit between the
setting and its human occupants. When settings are
high in synomorphy, the people fit into the physical
setting and use its objects appropriately. The people
and the place are unified. Settings that are low in
synomorphy lack this unity, for the people do not
mesh well with the physical features and objects in
the place.
Staffing Theory Ecological psychologist Allan
Wicker’s staffing theory draws on the concept
of synomorphy to explain group performance
(Wicker, 1979, 1987, 2002). Consider office work-
ers in a small business, university, or government
agency who are responsible for typing papers and
reports, answering the telephone, duplicating mate-
rials, and preparing paperwork on budgets, sche-
dules, appointments, and so on. If the number of
people working in the office is sufficient to handle
all these activities, then the setting is optimally staffed.
But if, for example, telephones are ringing unan-
swered, reports are days late, and the photocopier is
broken and no one knows how to fix it, then the
office lacks “enough people to carry out smoothly
the essential program and maintenance tasks” and is
understaffed (Wicker, 1979, p. 71). On the other
hand, if the number of group members exceeds
that needed in the situation, the group is overstaffed
(Sundstrom, 1987).
Table 15.3 summarizes staffing theory’s predic-
tions about the relationship between staffing and
performance. Overstaffed groups may perform
adequately—after all, so many extra people are
available to carry out the basic functions—but over-
staffing can lead to dissatisfaction with task-related
activities and heightened rejection among group
members. Understaffed groups, in contrast, often
respond positively to the challenging workload.
Instead of complaining about the situation, under-
staffed groups sometimes display increased involve-
ment in their work and contribute more to the
group’s goals (Arnold & Greenberg, 1980; Wicker
& August, 1995). Four-man groups, for example,
when placed in an overstaffed situation (too few
tasks to keep all members active), reported feeling
less important, less involved in their work, less con-
cerned with performance, and less needed. These
effects were reversed in understaffed groups
(Wicker et al., 1976). In another study, the
increased workload brought on by understaffing
increased professionals’ and long-term employees’
involvement in their work, but understaffing also
led to decreased commitment among new employ-
ees and blue-collar workers. Understaffing was also
associated with more negative attitudes toward the
group (Wicker & August, 1995). Staffing theory
also explains why individuals who are part of smal-
ler groups and organizations get more involved in
their groups; for example, even though a large
school offers more opportunities for involvement in
small-group activities, the proportion of students
who join school-based groups is higher in smaller
schools (Gump, 1990).
How do groups cope with staffing problems?
When researchers asked leaders of student groups
this question, nearly 75% recommended recruiting
synomorphy In ecological psychology, the quality of
the fit between the human occupants and the physical
situation.
staffing theory An ecological analysis of behavior set-
tings arguing that both understaffing (not enough peo-
ple) and overstaffing (too many people) can be
detrimental (developed by Allan Wicker).
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 507
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

more members or reorganizing the group as the best
ways to deal with understaffing. Other solutions
included working with other groups and adopting
more modest group goals (see Figure 15.5). These
leaders offered a wider range of solutions for over-
staffing, including encouraging members to remain
active in the group (often by assigning them specific
duties), enforcing rules about participation, dividing
the group, taking in fewer members, changing the
group’s structure to include more positions, and
adopting more ambitious goals (Cini, Moreland, &
Levine, 1993).
15-4b Fitting Form to Function
When we work in a group in a natural setting, we
can exert little control over our workplace. We can
dress more warmly when it is cold, carry lights to
illuminate the darkness, and adjust our schedules to
deal with inclement weather, but in many cases we
must work in whatever conditions we find. When
we work in indoor spaces, in contrast, we can mod-
ify our workplace so that it both comfortable and
functional. Yet, studies of all types of behavior
settings—classrooms, factories, offices, playgrounds,
highways, theaters, and so on—frequently find that
these areas need to be redesigned to maximize the
fit between the people and the place (Clements-
Croome, 2015; Vischer & Wifi, 2017).
Hives, Cells, Dens, and Clubs What kind of
spaces do we need to be maximally productive?
Architect Francis Duffy (1992), after examining a
number of groups working in large corporations,
concluded that the answer depends on the degree
of interaction and level of individual autonomy
the group’s tasks require. Interaction is determined
by the task’s interdependency demands. If the
group is working on a project that requires very
little interaction among members, the setting must
provide for areas where the group members can
work independently. But groups that work on
more collaborative tasks require an office that
facilitates productive interdependence. Autonomy
refers to the group and its members’ control over
the work itself: what tasks must be completed as
well as when and how. Autonomy is important
because “the more autonomy office workers
enjoy, the more they are likely to want to control
their own working environments, singly and
collectively, and the more discretion they are
likely to want to exercise over the kind and quality
T A B L E 15.3 Group Members’ Reactions to Understaffed and Overstaffed Work Settings
Reaction Understaffed Groups Overstaffed Groups
Task performance Members engage in diligent, consistent,
goal-related actions
Members are perfunctory, inconsistent,
and sloppy
Performance monitoring Members provide one another with
corrective, critical feedback as needed
Members exhibit little concern for the
quality of the group’s performance
Perceptions Members are viewed in terms of the jobs
they do rather than their individual
qualities
Members focus on the personalities
and uniqueness of members rather
than on the group
Self-perceptions Members feel important, responsible,
and capable
Members feel lowered self-esteem
with little sense of competence
Attitude toward the group Members express concern over the con-
tinuation of the group
Members are cynical about the group
and its functions
Supportiveness Members are reluctant to reject those
who are performing poorly
Members are less willing to help other
members of the group
SOURCE: Adapted from Barker, 1968; Wicker, 1979.
508 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

of their surroundings in their places of work”
(Duffy, 1992, p. 60).
Duffy uses these two dimensions to identify
four basic types of configurations of work and
their ideal spatial arrangements: hives, cells, dens,
and clubs.
■ Hives: Members who function as “worker
bees”—they perform individualized, routine
tasks—require little interaction with other
group members. Such groups function well in
open, cubicle-type offices where each individ-
ual has a defined, relatively small work space
(low interaction/low autonomy).
■ Cells: Members working on complex, long-
term, relatively individualized projects need
private spaces to carry out their work. They may
also be able to work by telecommuting from a
home office (low interaction/high autonomy).
■ Dens: When members who are similar in terms
of skills and responsibilities work together on
collective tasks and projects, they need an open
space that all members share. Members may
have individual areas within the collective
space that they claim as their own, but
boundaries do not separate these spaces from
one another. These groups work on specific,
relatively short-term projects where success
depends on maintaining very high levels of
information exchange (high interaction/low
autonomy).
■ Clubs: Members who are talented, well-
trained, or possess very specialized skills often
work on diverse tasks and projects that vary
greatly in their collaborative demands. Their
work space must be flexible, permitting them
to collaborate as needed but also to secure
privacy (high interaction/high autonomy).
Duffy found that club offices tend to be the
most productive, but he added that nearly all
group spaces must be flexible. As the group and
its tasks change, even the most carefully designed
and implemented setting may fail to meet members’
needs and would require modification.
Group Spaces in the Future More of the world’s
work is now being completed by teams, and as
Duffy’s work suggests, these groups require a differ-
ent type of office than individuals require. Archi-
tects and designers, recognizing the need for
innovative solutions, have begun to experiment
with new types of spaces that promote group pro-
ductivity rather than just individual productivity.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), for
example, redesigned its facility at Broadcast Center,
being careful to make certain each work area cor-
responded to the interactional demands of the par-
ticular project group. The result was a highly
effective and flexible space that includes spaces for
meetings, seclusion, and for creative work (Harrison
& Morgan, 2006). Another project, at NASA’s Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), relied on technologi-
cal innovations to create close connections among
collaborators: data visualization programs, shared
spreadsheets, interactive graphic displays for model-
ing, and tools for building simulations. The team
Encourage members
Overstaffed groups
Restrict membership
Punish deviance
Divide
Other
Other
0 10 20 30 60 70
Reorganize
Recruit new members
Understaffed groups
Percentage
F I G U R E 15.5 Leaders’ recommendations for deal-
ing with understaffed groups and overstaffed groups.
SOURCE: From Data in “Group Staffing Levels and Responses to Prospective
and New Group Members” by M. A. Cini, R. L. Moreland, & J. M. Levine
(1993), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65. American Psycho-
logical Association. Reprinted by permission.
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 509
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

members, who were primarily engineers and com-
puter scientists, had personal work stations within a
larger room, as well as private offices elsewhere.
They gathered at the main team room, however,
for collaborative sessions that lasted for several
hours. The room, and the group within in it, per-
formed far more efficiently than similar types of
teams, completing tasks in days that before took
weeks or even months (Heerwagen et al., 2006).
These innovations are good news for one group
that will need an improved habitat in the future: the
crew that NASA will be sending to Mars. The team
that takes on that mission will remain intact and
functioning in a collocated setting longer than any
other team or group ever has before. It will face
extraordinary and unanticipated performance chal-
lenges that will likely require solutions and interven-
tions unrelated to both training and experience. The
group will be so small in size that it cannot fractionate
into subgroups to deal with interpersonal conflict, and
its habitat will be so restrictive that contact with other
members is continual and unavoidable. The Mars
mission team will live and work in conditions that
no other group has ever experienced. That group is
going to need a very nice habitat to survive the chal-
lenges of its extreme and unusual environment.
C HAPT ER R EV IEW
What is the ecology of a group?
1. Researchers who study group ecology explore
how individuals and groups interact with and
adapt to the group’s habitat.
2. A physical setting’s ambience, or atmosphere,
creates a distinctive cognitive and emotional
impression.
■ Russell’s (2003) studies indicate that peo-
ple’s affective reactions range from
positive–negative (pleasant) and activating–
relaxed (arousing). People prefer positive,
stimulating environments, but excessive
stimulation can lead to overload.
■ Kaplan’s (1995) attention restoration theory
assumes situations that require directed
attention deplete cognitive resources that
can be replenished by certain types of
places, such as the natural environment.
3. Features of the environment, such as extremes
in temperature and noise and dangerousness,
can engender stress in groups and undermine
performance.
■ People associate warm temperatures with
social warmth.
■ High temperatures are linked to loss of
attention as well as a number of other
unpleasant consequences, including dis-
comfort, reduced productivity, conflict,
and aggression.
■ Van de Vliert’s (2013) climato-economic the-
ory assumes that cultures that exist in places
with harsh climates cope by developing
economically if wealthy and by becoming
more collectivistic if not wealthy.
■ Group members can cope with exposure
to noise for a short duration, but pro-
longed exposure is associated with psy-
chological and physical difficulties.
■ Groups that must live or work in extreme
and unusual environments (EUEs) adapt by
improving communication and teamwork.
Groups that do not emphasize a team
approach in such environments, such as the
1996 expeditions to Mount Everest, are less
likely to escape such situations unharmed.
What are the determinants of spatial relations in a
group?
1. Studies of personal space suggest that group
members prefer to keep a certain distance
between themselves and others.
■ Closer distances are associated with greater
intimacy, so space requirements tend to
510 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

increase as the situation becomes less inti-
mate. The four zones described by Hall
(1966) are the intimate, personal, social,
and public. Online groups meet in the
remote zone.
■ Spacing in groups is influenced by the sex,
status, and cultural background of the
group members.
■ Both the equilibrium model of communication
and Burgoon’s (1978) expectancy viola-
tions model predict that individuals will
moderate their distances to achieve the
desired level of intimacy.
2. Density describes the number of people
per unit of space, whereas crowding is a
psychological reaction to high physical
density.
3. Crowding is exacerbated by the following
factors:
■ cognitive processes that prompt individuals
to make attributions about the causes of
their arousal;
■ group members’ overall evaluation of the
high-density setting (the density–intensity
hypothesis);
■ perceptions of control;
■ the degree to which others interfere with
task performance.
4. Sommer (1969) suggests sociopetal spaces
encourage interaction, whereas sociofugal pat-
terns discourage interaction. People generally
prefer interaction-promoting, sociopetal pat-
terns, but these preferences vary with the type
of task being attempted and the sex of the
group members.
5. Seating arrangements significantly influence
patterns of attraction, communication, and
leadership. For example, in many groups,
individuals tend to speak immediately after the
person seated opposite them (the Steinzor
effect), and leadership is closely associated with
sitting at the end of the table (the head-
of-the-table effect).
What are the causes and consequences of a group’s
tendency to establish territories?
1. Like many other animals, humans establish
territories—geographical locations that an
individual or group defends against intrusion
by others.
2. Altman (1975) distinguished between primary
territories, secondary territories, and public
territories.
■ Oldenburg (1999) suggests that some sec-
ondary territories can serve as third places
where individuals can gather to socialize
and build community. Some third places
are located in online communities.
■ Various groups, including gangs, territori-
alize areas; they prevent nongroup mem-
bers from entering them, and they mark
them in various ways.
■ Studies of group space suggest that groups
are surrounded by an interaction boundary
that prevents nongroup members from
approaching too closely.
■ Individuals feel more comfortable when
their groups can territorialize their living
areas. Territories promote adjustment
and reduce stress, but they also promote
intergroup conflict, as in the case of
gang-related territoriality.
■ Groups with a home advantage tend to
outperform groups that are outside their
territories.
3. Individual members establish personal territories
within the group’s territory.
■ Personal territories fulfill privacy, orga-
nizing, and identity functions for indi-
vidual members. Territorial markings, for
example, are associated with membership
stability.
■ Higher-status individuals generally control
larger and more desirable territories;
Sundstrom and Altman’s (1974) work
suggests changes in status hierarchies can
disrupt the allocation of territory.
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 511
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Brown’s (2009) studies suggest that terri-
torial intrusions are common in the
workplace, and they generally generate
strong, negative emotional reactions
(anger).
■ A group’s capacity to adapt and even
thrive in extreme and unusual environ-
ments (EUEs) depends on its members’
judicious management of the environ-
ment, including territories (Altman,
1973).
How can group places, spaces, and locations be
improved?
1. Barker (1968), after studying many groups in
their natural locations, concluded that most
behavior is determined by the behavior setting in
which it occurs.
■ The boundaries, components, and pro-
grams of such settings define the functions
of the situation and the type of behaviors
performed in it.
■ Behavior settings that lack synomorphy are
inefficient and distressing.
■ Staffing theory, developed by Wicker
(2002), describes the causes and conse-
quences of understaffing and overstaffing.
2. Some groups work and interact in spaces that
need to be redesigned to maximize the fit
between the people and the place.
■ Duffy (1992), differentiating between
group tasks that call for more or less
interaction and autonomy, identified four
types of group workplaces; hives, cells,
dens, and clubs.
■ Workplaces are currently being reconfi-
gured to create spaces that will facilitate
group productivity rather than individual
productivity.
R E S O U R C E S
Chapter Case: Apollo 13
■ Apollo 13: The NASA Mission Reports,
edited by Robert Godwin (2000), provides
complete documentation of the mission,
including press releases, transcripts of the
crew debriefing, the text of the committee
investigations of the cause of the accident,
and recordings of the crew transmissions
during the flight.
■ Lost Moon: The Perilous Journey of Apollo 13
by Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger (1994) is a
forthright summary of the Apollo 13
mission with details about the group’s
dynamics and relations with ground
control teams and family members.
Groups in Context
■ “Environmental Psychology Matters” by
Robert Gifford (2014) provides a broad
review of topics in the field of environmental
psychology, and includes reviews of recent
studies examining place attachment, habitat
design, reactions to noise and spatial inter-
ference, and environmental perception and
evaluation.
■ Handbook of Environmental Psychology and
Quality of Life Research, edited by Ghozlane
Fleury-Bahi, Enric Pol, and Oscar Navarro
(2017), examines the relationship between
well-being and the natural, social, and
built environment, with chapters devoted
to place attachment, environmental stress,
workplace design, and comfort at work.
Group Ecology and Territoriality
■ Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You by
Sam Gosling (2008) reviews a series of
investigations into the way people adorn
their spaces—especially their homes and
their offices—and what environmental
512 C H A P T ER 15
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

cues say about the inhabitants’ personality
traits, their interests and motivations, and
even their identities.
■ The Environment and Social Behavior by
Irwin Altman (1975) remains the definitive
analysis of privacy, personal space, territo-
riality, and crowding in groups.
■ The Great Good Place by Ray Oldenburg
(1999) is an inspiring analysis of third places
where groups often congregate in com-
fortable, public establishments that provide
the setting for socialization and support.
Designing Group Spaces
■ Creating the Productive Workplace, edited by
Derek Clements-Croome (2006), is a
compendium of chapters written by
engineers, architects, and design experts
who explore, in detail, the physical,
psychological, and social demands of the
twenty-first-century workplace.
■ Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Inte-
rior Architecture by Sally Augustin (2009)
mines the research literature for insights
and ideas about how to best configure
places where groups live, work, and
relax, with special attention to homes,
workplaces, learning environments, and
health care facilities.
Groups in Extreme and Unusual Environments
■ Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space
Exploration by Jack Stuster (1996) draws on
interviews, historical documentation, and
empirical research to develop a compre-
hensive, detailed analysis of the dynamics
of groups that live and work in atypical
environments, such as bases in Antarctica
and space stations.
■ On Orbit and Beyond: Psychological Perspectives
on Human Spaceflight, edited by Douglas A.
Vakoch (2013), summarizes much of the
scientific work examining how people react
when working and living under conditions
of prolonged confinement, with a focus on
group-level factors that will influence the
success of long-term space flight.
G R O U P S I N C O N T E X T 513
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 16
Growth and
Change
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The value of groups is nowhere more apparent than
when they are used to help their members change
for the better. In therapeutic groups, interpersonal
learning groups, and self-help groups, people find
the support, information, motivation, and guidance
they need to grow and change. As Lewin’s law of
group change suggests, changing people one by one
is difficult; changing them when they are part of a
group is easier.
■ What are some of the ways that groups are used
to help members change?
■ How do groups promote change?
■ How effective are groups in bringing about
change?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
16-1 Growth and Change in Groups
16-1a Therapeutic Groups
16-1b Interpersonal Learning Groups
16-1c Support Groups
16-2 Sources of Support and Change
16-2a Universality and Hope
16-2b Social Learning
16-2c Group Cohesion
16-2d Disclosure and Catharsis
16-2e Altruism
16-2f Insight
16-3 The Effectiveness of Groups
16-3a Empirical Support for Group
Treatments
16-3b Using Groups to Cure: Cautions
16-3c The Value of Groups
Chapter Review
Resources
514
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The idea that a group can be used for therapeutic pur-
poses is not a new one. For centuries, people suffering
from both physical and psychological problems have
sought help from groups in religious services, commu-
nity ceremonies, and tribal rites. These palliative and
therapeutic effects of groups were rediscovered early in
the twentieth century when health care providers
began to use groups to help their patients better man-
age their illnesses (Pratt, 1922). At first, practitioners
used groups to avoid meeting with each patient sepa-
rately, but they soon realized that their patients were
benefiting from the groups themselves. Members sup-
ported each other, shared nontechnical information
about their illnesses and treatment, and seemed to
appreciate the opportunity to express themselves to
attentive and sympathetic listeners. The wisdom of
Kurt Lewin’s law of group change could not be
disputed: “It is usually easier to change individuals
formed into a group than to change any one of them
separately” (Lewin, 1951, p. 228).
This chapter asks three questions about groups as
agents of treatment and change. First, what are some
of the ways that groups are used to achieve change in
their members? Second, how do groups and group
processes promote change? Third, are groups an
effective means of bringing about change? For exam-
ple, did the bus group actually help the members, or
did it do more harm than good?
1 6 – 1 GR O W T H AN D C H A N G E
IN GRO UPS
People join groups to solve many different kinds of
problems. Some want to get rid of something—
weight, sadness, irrational thoughts, or overwhelming
feelings of worthlessness and despair. Others are seek-
ing something—new skills and outlooks, insight into
their own characteristics, or a new repertoire of beha-
viors they can use to improve their relationships with
others. Still others seek the strength they need to cope
The Bus Group: Groups as Interpersonal Resources
The group was returning from a visit to the Taj Mahal
when the accident happened. They were teachers and
students taking part in Semester at Sea: An educa-
tional program that combined classes on a floating
university with tours to historic sites in countries
throughout the world. Their bus fishtailed, flipped
twice, and came to rest in a ravine by the roadside. Of
the 25 students on the bus, 4 were killed. Three staff
members also died in the crash.
The physicians in local clinics and on the Semester
at Sea ship dealt with the survivors’ physical injuries,
and counselors and therapists sought to help them
with their psychological problems. In the days imme-
diately after the accident, the members of the “bus
group,” as they came to call themselves, met to deal
with their emotions, pain, and uncertainties. The ship
continued on its way, and the group met regularly in
therapy sessions designed to help members cope with
their grief and attempt to stave off the long-term
negative consequences of such a horrific experience.
With great sensitivity, the therapists helped each
survivor deal with the painful memories of that night,
the recurrent nightmares most reported, and the
inability to concentrate on normal activities. The
group also examined ways to remain connected
to the other students on the ship who were not
involved in the accident, and explored existential
issues related to their survival and the loss of the
lives of their friends and classmates. Some had more
difficulty than others in dealing with the tragedy;
they worked with therapists individually as well as
in the bus group. The group met for a dozen times
on the ship, in sessions lasting approximately
90 minutes.
When the ship docked at Seattle, Washington,
the members went their separate ways. They left
behind the bus group, but it had served its purpose.
A year after the tragedy, most “appeared to be
coping well and getting on with their lives” (Turner,
2000, p. 147).
Lewin’s law of group change A basic principle of atti-
tude and behavioral change stating that individuals are
more easily changed when they are part of a group (pro-
posed by Kurt Lewin).
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 515
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

with some challenge they face in their life—a serious
illness, the loss of a loved one, or an addiction they
have been unable to conquer on their own.
The variety of change-promoting groups reflects
the variety of individuals’ goals. The group formats
devised by early psychologists and physicians have
evolved into today’s jogging and fitness clubs;
consciousness-raising groups; support groups for
parents, children, grandparents, and ex-spouses;
workshops and leadership seminars; marriage and fam-
ily counseling groups; religious retreats; mutual-
support, self-help groups; psychotherapy groups; and
so on. These groups, despite their many varieties, all
help individuals to achieve goals that they cannot
reach on their own. Therapeutic groups help their
members overcome such psychological problems as
depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and trauma-
induced stress. Interpersonal learning groups help
members gain self-understanding and improve
their relationships with others. Support groups help
members cope with or overcome a problem all the
members have in common. But not all change-
promoting groups fall neatly into one and only
one of the three categories shown in Table 16.1.
Therapeutic groups, for example, provide members
with the support they need when they encounter dif-
ficult, stressful circumstances, and, in many cases, inter-
personal learning groups are quite therapeutic (Corey
& Corey, 2016).
16-1a Therapeutic Groups
The therapists who worked with the bus group
from Semester at Sea were trained to help people
overcome psychological and personal problems.
They worked with the students and the staff in
one-to-one psychotherapy sessions, but they also
treated the students “in groups, with the group
itself constituting an important element in the
therapeutic process” (Slavson, 1950, p. 42).
When such groups were initially proposed, skep-
tics questioned the wisdom of putting people
who were suffering from psychological problems
together in one group. How, they asked, could
troubled individuals be expected to cope in a
group when they had failed individually? How
could the therapist guide the therapeutic process
in a group?
History, however, has proved the skeptics wrong.
Many mental health practitioners, including psychol-
ogists, psychiatrists, and clinical social workers, use
T A B L E 16.1 Varieties of Change-Promoting Groups
Type Basic Goal Leader Examples
Therapeutic Help members improve
their psychological func-
tioning and adjustment
Mental health professionals
(e.g., psychologist, social
worker, and psychiatrist)
■ Group psychotherapy
■ Humanistic approaches
■ Cognitive-behavioral group therapy
Interpersonal
learning
Help members gain self-
understanding and improve
their interpersonal skills
Varies from trained and
licensed professionals to
untrained laypersons
■ T-groups
■ Psychoeducational groups
■ Trauma/disaster response groups
Support Help members cope with
and identify solutions to
specific problems or life
crises
Usually a volunteer; some
groups do not include a
leadership position
■ Support groups
■ Anti-addiction groups (e.g., AA)
■ Advocacy groups
therapeutic group A group of individuals seeking treat-
ment for a psychological problem who meet regularly
with a trained mental health professional.
interpersonal learning group A group formed to help
individuals extend their self-understanding and improve
their relationships with others (e.g., experiential group
and growth group).
support group A group of people who meet or com-
municate with one another regularly to help each other
cope with or overcome a problem they hold in common.
516 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

group methods to treat a wide variety of psychological
problems, including addictions, thought disorders,
depression, eating disorders, posttraumatic stress
disorder, and personality disorders (Burlingame &
Jensen, 2017).
Group therapists vary widely in theoretical
orientation. Some, for example, are primarily psy-
choanalytic, for their basic approach is based on
Sigmund Freud’s (1926/1955) therapeutic princi-
ples. Others, in contrast, adopt a more interper-
sonal perspective that stresses the exploration of
the social processes that unfold in the group.
Other approaches are more behavioral; they
teach group members specific behaviors they can
use to cope with the problems they are facing.
Most therapists, however, are eclectic: They base
their work on a melding of many theoretical per-
spectives (Ettin, 1992). This section reviews these
approaches, but the review must be selective
given the many techniques that are currently in
use (Barlow, 2014).
But just to clear up one possible misunder-
standing: Group therapy is a treatment for indivi-
duals rather than a way of treating dysfunctional
groups. Group therapists are mindful of and make
use of the group’s interpersonal processes. As treat-
ment progresses, the group as a whole generally
becomes more adept in dealing with issues, provid-
ing support for its members, and acting in ways that
help members’ reach their personal goals for
growth, adjustment, and well-being. The goal of
treatment, however, is not the creation of a well-
functioning group, but the promotion of the
adjustment of the individuals in the group.
Group Psychoanalysis For many, the psychoan-
alytic interview, derived from Sigmund Freud’s
(1926/1955) early therapeutic procedures, is the
prototypical psychotherapy experience. The client
talks in detail about early life experiences, current
problems and difficulties, dreams, worries, and
hopes, and the therapist provides interpretations
and directions that help the client extract meaning
from these materials. As the relationship between
the therapist and client becomes stronger, the client
unconsciously transfers feelings for and thoughts
about others to the therapist, who uses this
transference to help the client understand his or
her relations with others. With time, the client
develops healthy insights into unresolved conflicts
that have been repressed in the unconscious mind
(Barber & Solomonov, 2016).
Psychoanalysis, by tradition, was used with the
smallest of groups—one patient and one therapist.
But Freud (1922) discussed the psychodynamic
processes that occur in larger groups, and later psy-
choanalysts adapted his basic methods to groups
with multiple clients. In group psychoanalysis,
the therapist is very much the leader, for he or
she directs the group’s discussion during the session,
offers interpretations, and summarizes the group’s
efforts. Just as the goal of individual therapy is the
gradual unfolding of repressed conflicts, in group
therapy, as members talk about their memories,
fantasies, dreams, and fears, they gain insight into
their unconscious motivations. Some have sug-
gested that Freud himself practiced group psycho-
analysis when he and his students met to discuss his
theories and cases (Roth, 1993).
As in one-to-one therapy, group psychoanaly-
sis capitalizes on transference, for the group format
provides the means for transferring external rela-
tionships onto the group itself. As Freud’s (1922)
replacement hypothesis suggests, the group
becomes a surrogate family with members serving
as symbolic siblings and the group therapist acting as
the primal authority figure. As transference devel-
ops, the group provides the therapist with the
means of exploring the childhood roots of current
adult anxieties. Members may find themselves
reacting to one another inappropriately, but their
actions, when examined more closely, may parallel
transference The displacement of emotions from one
person to another during treatment, as when feelings
for a parent are transferred to the therapist or feelings
about siblings are transferred to fellow group members.
group psychoanalysis An approach to group therapy
that is grounded in Sigmund Freud’s method of treat-
ment and so includes a directive therapist who makes
use of free association, interpretation, and transference
processes.
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 517
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the way they respond to people they know in their
everyday lives. Hostilities, needs, and wants that are
repressed in relationships with others outside of the
group often surface within the group, and the ther-
apist can use these experiences to help clients gain
insight into their unconscious conflicts. Some
therapists are more fully Freudian in their orienta-
tion than others, but rare is the therapist who does
not deal with transference processes, the interpreta-
tion of fantasies or dreams, familial tensions, and
other latent conflicts (Kauff, 2017).
Humanistic Groups Humanistic group psy-
chotherapists use a range of methods to promote
therapeutic change, but most are united by a posi-
tive, aspirational view of human potential. They do
not consider people to be irrational, selfish, or
deeply troubled, but instead sane seekers of mean-
ing and self-development. Adopting an existential
orientation, humanistic therapists help members
explore the meaning of their life choices, and also
gain deeper understanding of themselves and their
relationships with other people: to “more clearly
sort out what they believe and who they experi-
ence themselves to be” (Wagner & Ingersoll, 2013,
p. 4). Humanistic approaches include the histori-
cally significant encounter and sensitivity groups
of the 1960s and 1970s, experiential groups, Gestalt
groups, and psychodrama groups (Watson &
Schneider, 2016).
Carl Rogers’s (1970) client-centered approach to
treatment exemplifies the assumptions and proce-
dures of a humanistic approach. Rogers believed
that most people come to experience a loss of
self-regard because their needs for approval and
love are rarely satisfied. Humanistic groups address
this lack by helping people trust in their own feel-
ings, accept themselves, and act more openly with
others. Rogerian therapists focus on emotions and
encourage members to “open up” to one another
by displaying their inner feelings, thoughts, and
worries. Recognizing that the group members
Is It Easier to Change People When They Are in Groups?
Making a change—in one’s habits, attitudes, beha-
viors, or lifestyle—is easier said than done. Progress
often comes slowly, and the early excitement that
provides the motivation to make a start flags with
each setback. Without support, too many times people
slip back to their old ways rather than continuing to
pursue their goals.
Kurt Lewin (1943), many years ago, offered a
solution to the problem of achieving change: rather
than changing individuals, change their groups,
instead. He even tested his recommendation in a series
of classic studies of food habits (Lewin, 1943). During a
period of beef shortages caused by the Second World
War, the Food Habits Committee of the National
Research Council asked Lewin to find ways to convince
homemakers to serve readily available but less desir-
able meat products (beef hearts, brains, and kidneys)
to their families. Lewin developed two approaches and
tested them experimentally. Women in the lecture
condition listened to a well-informed nutrition expert
who stressed the patriotic importance of serving these
meats, ways to prepare the foods, and the nutritional
value of these foods. The homemakers in the group
decision condition discussed the same information
used in the lecture, but they were also urged to reach
a group consensus on the issue. Thus, the first
approach sought to change the individual’s opinion,
whereas the second approach focused on changing the
group’s opinion.
This study lent support to Lewin’s law of group
change (Lewin, 1951). Follow-up interviews revealed
striking differences between the two approaches. Only
4 of the women who heard the lecture served the
unique meats (10%), but 23 of the women who dis-
cussed the meats in their group served at least one dish
containing the less desirable foods (52%). Of the 14
women in the group condition who had never before
served these foods, 29% tried them within the next
week. In contrast, none of the 11 women in the lecture
conditions who had never served the food tried the
foods the following week. As Lewin explained, “the
group setting gives the incentive for the decision, and
facilitates and reinforces it” (1943, p. 63). These pro-
cesses caused many of them to not just comply with the
group’s decision during the meeting, but to actually
change their behavior even after the group adjourned.
518 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

probably feel insecure about their social competen-
cies, therapists are sources of unconditional positive
regard—meaning that they avoid criticizing group
members if possible. Rogers believed that group
members, in the security of the group, would
drop their defenses and encounter each other
“authentically” (Page, Weiss, & Lietaer, 2002).
Gestalt Groups Influential psychiatrist Fritz Perls
(1969) combined elements of both psychodynamic
and humanistic techniques in his unique approach
to group therapy. Perls drew his theoretical princi-
ples from Gestalt psychologists who argued that
perception requires the active integration of per-
ceptual information. The word Gestalt, which
means both “whole” and “shape,” suggests that
people perceive the world as unified, continuous,
and organized. Like Freud, Perls assumed that indi-
viduals often repress their emotions to the point
that unresolved interpersonal conflicts turn into
“unfinished business.” Perls, however, believed
that people are capable of self-regulation and great
emotional awareness, and he used therapy to help
patients reach their potential.
In some cases, Gestalt group therapy is
individual-level therapy conducted in a group set-
ting: Group members observe one another’s
“work,” but they do not interact with each other.
More frequently, however, interaction takes place
among group members with the therapist actively
orchestrating the events. Many group therapists
make use of unstructured interpersonal activities,
such as the “hot seat” or the “empty chair,” to
stimulate members’ emotional understanding.
When using the hot seat, one person in the group
sits in the center of the room and publicly works
through his or her emotional experiences. The
empty chair method involves imagining that another
person or a part of oneself is sitting in an empty
chair and then carrying on a dialogue with that
person. These techniques, when properly applied,
often elicit strong emotional reactions among
members, but Gestalt therapists resist offering inter-
pretations to their patients (Gaffney, 2012).
Psychodrama Jacob Moreno (1934), one of the
first therapists to treat his patients in groups, used
special exercises to stimulate emotional experiences
in group members. Moreno conducted therapeutic
groups perhaps as early as 1910, and he used the
term group therapy in print in 1932. Moreno
believed that the interpersonal relations that devel-
oped in groups provided the therapist with unique
insights into members’ personalities and proclivities,
and that by taking on roles, the members become
more flexible in their behavioral orientations. He
made his sessions more experientially powerful by
developing psychodrama techniques. When role
playing, for example, members take on the identity
of someone else and then act as that person would in
a simulated social situation. Role reversal involves
playing a role for a period of time before changing
roles with another group member. Doubling is the
assignment of two group members to a single role,
often with one member of the pair playing him or
herself. Moreno believed that the physical action of
psychodrama helped members overcome their reluc-
tance to discuss critical issues (Nicholas, 2017).
Interpersonal Group Psychotherapy Many ther-
apeutic methods, including psychoanalysis and
Gestalt therapy, trace difficulties in achieving well-
being and adjustment back to psychological causes:
inner conflicts, unmet needs, and functional but
potentially unhealthy defense mechanisms. An
interpersonal approach, in contrast, assumes that
psychological problems are the result of social
problems—difficulties relating to others, rejection
by loved ones, abrasive interpersonal styles, and so
on (Lipsitz & Markowtiz, 2016). Because people’s
Gestalt group therapy An approach to group therapy
in which clients are taught to understand the unity of
their emotions and cognitions through a leader-guided
exploration of their behavior in the group situation
(developed by Fritz Perls and his associates).
psychodrama A therapeutic tool that stimulates active
involvement in a group session through role playing
(developed by Jacob Moreno).
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 519
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

problems stem from their “failure to attend to and
correct the self-defeating, interpersonally unsuccess-
ful aspects” of their interpersonal acts (Kiesler,
1991, pp. 443), therapies that focus specifically on
groups and social relationships are particularly
potent since they highlight the origin of the dys-
function (Mahon & Leszcz, 2017). Conversely, just
as interpersonal processes are the source of indivi-
duals’ problems, so submersion in a rich, interper-
sonally dynamic group provides the cure: by the
group they have been broken, and by the group
they will be healed (Marsh, 1931).
Psychiatrist Irvin Yalom’s interpersonal
group psychotherapy is perhaps the most influ-
ential of the interpersonal approaches (also called
interactive group psychotherapy or process groups).
Yalom uses the group as a “social microcosm”
where members respond to one another in ways
that are characteristic of their interpersonal tenden-
cies outside of the group. Therapy groups, as
groups, display a full array of group features and
dynamics, including social influence, structure, con-
flict, and development. Yalom takes advantage of
the group’s dynamics to help members learn
about how they influence others and how others
influence them. Uniquely, members do not spend
very much time discussing problems they are facing
at home or at work—a then and there focus. Instead,
the group members focus on each other and the
processes that sustain or detract from their relation-
ships with one another: the here and now focus.
Yalom’s process approach assumes that, during the
course of the group sessions, each member’s inter-
personal inclinations will express themselves, pro-
viding an opportunity to identify and possibly
ameliorate those that are disadvantageous. As the
group grapples with personal conflicts, problems
of organization, goals, and communication failures,
the members reveal their preferred interaction styles
to others and to themselves. When, for example,
two members begin criticizing each other, someone
uses powerful or bizarre influence tactics, or
another refuses to get involved in the group’s pro-
cess, the group members can discuss this shared
experience and gain an understanding of both
themselves and others (Yalom with Leszcz, 2005).
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Groups Some
therapists, rather than searching for the cause of the
problematic behavior in unseen, unconscious con-
flicts or interpersonal transactions, take a behavioral
approach to mental health. This approach assumes
that problematic thoughts and behaviors are acquired
through experience, so behavior therapists encourage
the development of healthy cognitions and behaviors
and the avoidance of undesirable cognitions and
behaviors. Cognitive-behavioral therapy groups
use these principles with two or more individuals.
A cognitive-behavioral approach to the Semester at
Sea bus group, for example, may ask members to
identify the thoughts that are triggered by their
memory of their experiences and then provide
them with the cognitive and behavioral skills they
need to control those reactions. The therapist may
ask the group members to focus their attention on
the accident and then to share their reaction with
the others in the group. When members report
experiencing dysfunctional ideation—such as “I won-
der why I survived and others didn’t?” or “I wonder if
I deserve to live”—then the leader guides the group
through the disputation of such thoughts. The leader
might also model, with the group members assisting,
methods of emotional and cognitive self-regulation
such as mood monitoring, relaxation, and thought-
stopping (DiGiuseppe, David, & Venezia, 2016).
A group format interfaces seamlessly with the
process-structuring methods used in behavioral
treatments. In many cases, therapists follow a series
of standard procedures before, during, and after the
group intervention. Prior to treatment, they can
observe the reactions of each member to the
group to index the degree of functioning prior to
interpersonal group psychotherapy An approach to
the treatment of psychological, behavioral, and emo-
tional problems that emphasizes the therapeutic influence
of interpersonal learning (developed by Irvin Yalom).
cognitive-behavioral therapy groups The treatment
of interpersonal and psychological problems through the
application of behavioral principles in a group setting.
520 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

any intervention. Pretherapy reviews, in which the
therapist reviews the theories and procedures that sus-
tain the intervention, can be carried out in a psychoe-
ducational group setting, and, through discussion, the
members can clarify their expectations and goals.
Therapists can also use public commitment to these
goals to enhance the binding strengths of a behavioral
contract that describes in objective terms the goals the
group members are trying to achieve. During the
therapeutic sessions themselves, the cognitive-
behavioral group therapist can capitalize on the pres-
ence of multiple actors to magnify the effects of
modeling, rehearsal, and feedback. Members of the
group can practice interpersonal exchanges with
other members, and other members can act as obser-
vers. These practice sessions can be recorded and
played back to the group so that the participants can
see precisely what they are doing correctly and what
aspects of their behavior need improvement. During
this feedback phase, the leader offers reassurance and
praise, and members add their support and encourage-
ment (Bieling, McGabe, & Antony, 2006).
16-1b Interpersonal Learning Groups
Many psychologists are united in their belief that the
human race too frequently fails to reach its full
potential. Although human relationships should be
rich and satisfying, they are more often than not
superficial and limiting. People are capable of pro-
found self-understanding and acceptance, yet most
people are strangers to themselves. These limitations
are not so severe that the help of a psychotherapist is
needed, but people’s lives would be richer if they
could overcome these restraints.
Kurt Lewin was one of the first to suggest using
small groups to teach people interpersonal skills and
self-insight. Lewin believed that groups and organiza-
tions struggle because their members are not trained
in human relations. He therefore recommended close
examination of group experiences to give people a
deeper understanding of themselves and their groups’
dynamics. Other theorists expanded on this basic idea,
which forms the basis of a number of approaches to
maximize human potential. Although some of these
methods, such as T-groups, are primarily of historical
interest, they nonetheless provide the basis for con-
temporary interpersonal learning groups (Gazda &
Brooks, 1985; Lakin, 1972).
Training Groups (T-Groups) How can people
learn about group dynamics? Members could learn
the facts about effective interpersonal relations by
attending lectures or by reading books about
group dynamics (as you are doing now), but
Lewin argued that good group skills are most easily
acquired by directly experiencing human relations.
Hence, he developed specialized training groups,
or T-groups. Lewin discovered the utility of such
groups when running educational classes dealing
with leadership and group dynamics. At the end
of each day, he arranged for observers to discuss
the dynamics of the groups with the group leaders
who conducted the training sessions. The group
members themselves did not usually take part in
the sessions, but that changed when several asked
if they could listen to the observers’ and leaders’
interpretations. Lewin agreed to their request, but
they took issue with the observers’ and the leaders’
interpretations of the events that transpired in the
group. However, the animated discussion that
followed proved to be highly educational, and
Lewin realized that everyone in the group was
benefiting enormously from the analysis of the
group’s processes and dynamics (Highhouse, 2002).
One of the most noteworthy aspects of T-groups
was their lack of structure. Although, from time to
time, the trainees would meet in large groups for
lectures or presentations, most of the learning took
place in small groups. Even though the group
included a designated leader, often called a facilitator
or trainer, this individual acted primarily as a catalyst
for discussion rather than as a director of the group.
Indeed, during the first few days of a T-group’s
existence, group members usually complain
about the lack of structure and the ambiguity,
blaming the trainer for their discomfort. This
training groups (T-groups) A skill development train-
ing intervention in which individuals interact in unstruc-
tured group settings and then analyze the dynamics of that
interaction.
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 521
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

ambiguity was intentional, however, and was
designed to shift responsibility for structuring,
understanding, and controlling the group’s activ-
ities to the members themselves. As the group
grappled with problems of organization, agenda,
goals, and structure, each member’s preferred
interaction style became apparent to others in
the group. The members also learned to disclose
their feelings honestly, gained conflict reduction
skills, and found enjoyment from working in col-
laborative relationships (Lieberman, 1994).
Although T-groups and training groups are anti-
quated terms, the principles on which they were
based continue to influence methods for training
individuals to work more effectively in groups
(Burke & Day, 1986). For example, T-groups pro-
vided the basic educational model for the National
Training Laboratory (NTL). This facility, which was
founded by Lewin’s colleagues after his death, was
jointly sponsored by the National Education Associ-
ation, the Research Center for Group Dynamics, and
the Office of Naval Research. Researchers and
teachers at the center refined their training methods
in special workshops, which they termed laboratories.
Their approach stressed the importance of learning
about groups by experiencing them and yielded
Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats (1948) well-known
functional theory of roles discussed in Chapter 6.
T-groups were the precursor to such humanistic
group therapies as encounter groups but also psy-
choeducational groups. (Moreno, 1953, provides a
very different historical perspective on the devel-
opment of interpersonal skill training.)
Psychoeducational Groups Many learning
groups are open-ended, unstructured approaches
to interpersonal learning. Members of such groups
follow no agenda; they examine events that unfold
spontaneously within the confines of the group
itself, and give one another feedback about
their interpersonal effectiveness when appropriate.
Psychoeducational groups, in contrast, are
planned interventions that focus on a specific inter-
personal problem or skill. Integrating a traditional
classroom format with a therapeutic group, the lead-
ers identify specific learning outcomes before the
sessions. They then develop short lectures, exercises,
media, simulations, and discussion questions that will
help members practice these targeted skills. In a ses-
sion on nonverbal communication, for instance,
group members may be assigned a partner and then
be asked to communicate a series of feelings without
using spoken language. During assertiveness training,
members might practice saying no to one another’s
requests. In a leadership training seminar, group
members may be asked to role-play various leader-
ship styles in a small group. These exercises are simi-
lar in that they actively involve the group members
in the learning process (Brown, 2011).
Thousands of local and national institutes use
structured learning groups in their seminars and
workshops. Although the formats of these structured
experiences differ substantially, most include directly
experiencing the targeted skill or process and then
examining the experience through discussion, guided
analysis, personal reflection, and so on. Figure 16.1
summarizes this process. The session generally begins
with a brief orientation that reviews the critical issues
and focuses members on the exercise’s goals. Next,
the group members experience the event or situation
by carrying out a structured group exercise. When
they have completed the exercise, the members
engage in a general discussion of their experiences
within the group. This phase can be open-ended,
focusing on feelings and subjective interpretations,
or it, too, can be structured through the use of ques-
tioning, information exchange procedures, or video
recording. This discussion phase should blend into a
period of analysis, during which the consultant helps
group members to identify consistencies in their
behavior and the behaviors of others. In many
cases, the consultant guides the group’s analysis of
underlying group dynamics and offers a conceptual
analysis that gives meaning to the event. The inter-
personal learning cycle ends with application, as
the group members use their new-found knowledge
to enhance their relationships external to the group
context. The model may also include a reflection
psychoeducational groups A planned intervention,
such as a workshop, seminar, or retreat, focusing on a
specific interpersonal problem or skill.
522 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

component, in which participants examine the impli-
cations of their experience.
Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model Educator
and social psychologist David Kolb (1984) has applied
principles of experiential learning in organizational,
educational, and governmental settings. His experien-
tial learning theory identifies two sets of polarities in
the way people learn. The first polarity contrasts con-
crete, direct experiences with conceptual analysis.
Through direct experiences people gain a firsthand
understanding of the phenomenon they are examin-
ing, but by reflecting on the meaning of the experi-
ence, they transform these concrete data into abstract
knowledge. The second polarity contrasts doing and
observing. Like most analyses of experiential learning,
Kolb stresses the importance of learning through
action, engagement, and active experimentation, but
he also suggests that considerable learning occurs
through detached, objective observation—particularly
because few individuals can act and accurately observe
the effects of their action simultaneously. Kolb suggests
that learning is deepest when individuals experience all
four modes of learning: direct experience, observation,
analysis, and action (Kayes, Kayes, & Kolb, 2005).
Process Debriefing Groups Because psychoedu-
cational groups are both structured and problem-
focused, they are often used to lessen the likelihood
of negative aftereffects following trauma. Although
homo sapiens is a resilient species that can withstand
great hardship, traumatic events—disasters, accidents,
the loss of loved ones, physical assaults, victimization,
and so on—can take a psychological toll. The stu-
dents who survived the horrific night of the bus
crash likely suffered from anxiety, sleeplessness, and
fearfulness as they struggled to regain their psycho-
logical equilibrium. Given the severity of the trauma,
had they not received treatment they would have
likely exhibited symptoms of posttraumatic stress dis-
order (PTSD): a serious psychological reaction to
stressful events characterized by high levels of anxi-
ety, depression, fearfulness, and physical symptoms,
such as migraines, sleep problems, and gastrointesti-
nal distress (Silver & Garfin, 2016).
These negative mental health consequences can
be reduced through stress management crisis inter-
ventions. Variously termed process debriefing
groups, critical incident stress debriefing groups, or
Overview of the goals of the exercise
Orientation
Group interaction
(including observation and
direct activity)
Experience
Summarizing the experience, sharing
personal reactions and interpretations
Discussion
Making sense of the experience,
formulating meaning, drawing
conclusions
Analysis
Identifying implications, planning
changes to make outside of the
group setting
Application
F I G U R E 16.1 The experiential learning cycle.
experiential learning theory A conceptual analysis of
the experiential learning cycle that identifies four basic
modes of acquiring information and transforming that
information into knowledge: concrete experience,
observation, active experimentation, and conceptual
analysis (developed by David Kolb).
process debriefing groups Brief, highly structured inter-
ventions delivered by trained mental health professionals to
members of a group or community who have experienced
some type of trauma, such as a natural disaster or fatal acci-
dent; these interventions are designed to help individuals
deal with the emotional and cognitive consequences of the
experience.
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 523
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

trauma/disaster groups, these interventions were first
used to help combat veterans deal with the psycho-
logical turmoil produced by the experience of com-
bat. As the positive effects of these groups became
evident, they came to be used to help individuals
deal with traumatic community-level events, such
as natural disasters, accidents, and school shootings
(Foy, Drescher, & Watson, 2010).
These interventions—usually designed and
implemented by community health professionals—
often make use of group-level therapeutic coping
processes, including social comparison, social support,
and social learning (Pender & Anderton, 2016). The
members of the bus group, for example, met with
therapists when they returned to the ship and collec-
tively processed the experience, clarified the events
leading up to the accident and after it, and began to
prepare for the weeks of recover that lay before
them. The ship’s counselors also worked with the
entire Semester at Sea community, providing infor-
mation about the incident, initiating grief counseling,
organizing the community response, and providing
training for staff. This process debriefing phase was
relatively brief, ending when the students transitioned
to group therapy sessions (Turner, 2000).
The effectiveness of such interventions
depends, in part, on timing, procedures, and the
characteristics of the individuals involved. Ideally,
the intervention occurs immediately following the
event, and provides continuing treatment as group
members progress through the cumulative stages of
the coping process. Interventions should also be
planned carefully in advance, and in some cases,
methods used in traditional therapeutic circum-
stances must be replaced by methods that will
work in the chaos and confusion of a disaster or
community trauma. Interventions must also take
into account the characteristics of the individuals
involved. Children and elderly people, for example,
require a different set of group experiences than do
adults, family members, and emergency personnel.
Interventions must also be sensitive to each indivi-
dual’s reaction to the event. Some may appreciate
the opportunity to interact with others who are
What Style of Learning Do You Prefer?
As educator and social psychologist David A. Kolb
(1984) explains in his theory of learning styles, not
everyone likes to learn new things in the same way.
Some prefer learning in situations that provide them
with immediate, direct experiences, but others feel
they learn best by studying abstract, theoretical con-
cepts. People also differ in their preference for active
versus reflective learning.
Instructions. Four different “styles” of learning
are listed below. Take a moment and think about how
you most prefer to learn new things. Then rank the
four alternatives, giving 1 to your most preferred
route to learning, a 2 to the next most preferred, and
so on.
___ Abstract: I like to think about ideas and concepts,
rely on reason, and examine ideas carefully. I tend
to be evaluative.
___ Experiential: I like to make my learning personal, as
I experience things deeply and respond at an
emotional level. I am intuitive.
___ Reflective: I like to watch and listen; I look at all
sides of an issue, and often take my time before I
respond. I am reserved.
___ Active: I like to learn by doing things; I try things
out, and enjoy seeking results; I am hands on.
Interpretation. Differences in learning styles
influence people’s reactions to group-learning experi-
ences. Those who prefer to learn through active, con-
crete experiences are more positive when evaluating
group learning, particularly in comparison to those
who like to learn through abstract, reflective experi-
ences. They are more likely to agree with such items as
“Group work helps me learn better” and “Group work
engages my interest,” whereas students’ whose learn-
ing style emphasized reflection and observation were
more likely to say “I learn best when I am working
alone.” Reflective and abstract students rated listening
to lectures as more educationally beneficial than most
other students (Gardner & Korth, 1998, p. 31; for a
more extensive analysis of individual differences in
learning style see Kolb & Kolb, 2005).
524 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

coping with a disaster, but others may not respond
well to the evocative demands of the group. Not
everyone can share their grief with others, and the
continued discussion of the event may only exacer-
bate their anxieties and emotional reprocessing. A
group approach to treatment works for many peo-
ple, but some will require individual assistance
rather than group help (Pack, 2013).
16-1c Support Groups
In times of trouble, such as illness, divorce, loss, or
crisis, people tend to join with others rather than
cope alone. Families, friends, and professional care-
givers such as physicians and therapists are excellent
sources of help and information in stressful, difficult
circumstances, but some individuals’ social net-
works may be too worn, too fragile, or too inexpe-
rienced to provide them with the solace they
require. Sometimes, too, individuals may not wish
to reveal their problems and their needs to their
intimates and would prefer to unburden themselves
with others who are knowledgeable but more
objective and hence will be less likely to judge
them harshly. In such circumstances, people join
with others in support groups: voluntary groups
whose members share a common problem and
meet for the purpose of exchanging social support
(Scogin & DiNapoli, 2016).
Types of Support Groups Support groups go by
a variety of names, including mutual aid groups and
mutual help groups. They are frequently called self-help
groups, even though members of such groups are
deliberately encouraged to rely on other group mem-
bers for help and to provide those others with assis-
tance in return. These groups meet at a wide variety
of locations in the community, including churches,
schools, universities, and private homes. They also
meet, in some cases, using the Internet. Internet sup-
port groups provide individuals with advice, support,
and information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
These groups generally began when individuals
facing similar problems decided to share informa-
tion with and support for one another. Because
they are problem-focused, there are as many differ-
ent support groups as there are specific problems
that people encounter. However, most support
groups fall into one of the four categories summa-
rized in Table 16.2: mental and physical health,
family and life transitions, advocacy, and addiction
(Silverman, 2010).
T A B L E 16.2 Varieties of Support (Mutual Help) Groups
Type of Group Examples
Mental and physical health: members dealing
with psychological disorders, physical illness,
and recovery from injury
■ CARE (Cancer Aftercare and Rehabilitation Society)
■ Bell’s Palsy Network
■ Recovery, Inc. (a mental health group)
Family and life transitions: individuals facing
stressful life experiences, such as divorce,
bereavement, and ill family members
■ Mommies of Miracles (mothers of children with disabilities)
■ Parents without Partners
■ Alzheimer’s Disease Support and Information Group
Advocacy: individuals advocating support for a
personal and/or social issue
■ Campaign for Homosexual Equality
■ Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
■ Gay Activists’ Alliance
Addictions: members seeking to control
intemperate behaviors and maladaptive
dependencies
■ AA (Alcoholics Anonymous)
■ NA (Narcotics Anonymous)
■ Weight Watchers
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 525
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Defining Features of Support Groups How do
support groups help their members, given that they
usually have no formally designated leaders, no pro-
fessionally trained staff, and no facility or budget? No
two support groups adopt identical procedures and
structures, but most focus on a specific problem,
encourage members to form personal relations with
one another, and stress mutuality in helping. These
often-seen features of support groups are as follows:
■ Problem-focused: Support groups are communi-
ties of similar sufferers. Members may differ
from one another in terms of age, sex, race, and
wealth, but they share one important similarity:
They are all coping with the same kind of
problem. The members face a common pre-
dicament, so they are “psychologically bonded
by the compelling similarity of member con-
cerns” (Jacobs & Goodman, 1989, p. 537).
■ Relationship-oriented: Support groups tend to be
personally and interpersonally involving. Even
though individuals’ identities are often masked
within such groups (e.g., Alcoholics Anony-
mous), members nonetheless establish personal
relationships with one another that might con-
tinue outside of the confines of the group (unlike
in psychotherapy groups). Members are expected
to be honest and open, so that they learn to trust
and rely on one another. Members are also
expected to be respectful of one another and one
another’s needs and to treat people fairly.
■ Communal: Most support groups develop a
strong sense of community and sharing within
the group. Members of the group draw support
and encouragement from the group, but they
are also expected to provide support and
encouragement to others within the group.
Each person, then, is both a provider and a
recipient of help and support. The primary
determinant of status in such groups is experi-
ence with the problem. Most support groups
include veteran individuals who have more
knowledge and experience with both the
problem and with the means of dealing with
the problem; these individuals serve as role
models for others.
■ Autonomous: Some support groups are created
by health care practitioners, who use them to
provide additional services to their patients.
However, the traditional support group is a
grassroots organization, initiated by members
rather than an external coordinating profes-
sional. In fact, they often stand in contrast to
more traditional forms of treatment, for they
arise spontaneously because their members’
needs are not being satisfied by existing edu-
cational, social, or health agencies. Local groups
may be aligned to national organizations that
mandate specific procedures for all their chap-
ters, but even this standardization does not
eliminate the emphasis on the local group’s
control of its methods.
■ Perspective-based: Support groups’ independence
from more traditional approaches is also mani-
fested in their adoption of a novel perspective
with regard to their problem domain. A grief
group may adopt fervently a particular model
of the stages of grieving and base its interven-
tions and recommendations on that perspec-
tive. A support group for alcoholics may
maintain that recovery is never permanent, and
so one must abstain from all forms of alcohol to
overcome the addiction. These perspectives
may not be complex nor are they always
explicitly recognized by members, but, in
many cases, the group’s perspective on its
affliction may become the centerpiece of the
group’s discussions with new members urged
to adopt the group’s worldview as a means
of coping effectively with the problem.
Alcoholics Anonymous Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA) is an example of a support group. AA was
founded by Bill Wilson in 1935. Wilson had tried
to quit drinking for years, but no matter what he
tried, he always returned to his addiction. After a
fourth hospital stay for acute alcoholism, Wilson
became convinced that he could overcome his drink-
ing problem and sought help from a small spiritual
group, the Oxford Group Movement. With his phy-
sician and friend William D. Silkworth, he developed
526 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

a support system that included self-examination,
admitting past wrongs, rebuilding relationships and
making amends, and reliance on and helping others.
Wilson’s program formed the basis of AA,
which grew to be an international organization
with millions of members. Despite AA’s size, change
is still achieved through local chapters of alcoholics
who meet regularly to review their success in main-
taining their sobriety. AA meetings emphasize testi-
monials, mutual help, and adherence to the 12-stage
program (the “12 steps”) described by the AA doc-
trine. These steps recommend admitting one’s pow-
erlessness over alcohol; surrendering one’s fate to a
greater power; taking an inventory of personal
strengths, weaknesses, and moral failings; and helping
others fight their addiction (Flores, 1997).
AA is a multipronged approach to addiction. It
stresses the goal of total abstinence and the need to
remain ever vigilant against the pressure to resume
drinking. It asks members to take specific actions to
prevent relapse and assigns veteran members to
newcomers to help strengthen their resilience. Its
effectiveness in helping people control their drink-
ing depends substantially on regular attendance.
Individuals who regularly attend AA meetings—
they are core members of the group who rarely miss
meetings—are much more likely to maintain absti-
nence, relative to individuals who miss meetings or
attend meetings for one year or less. A second key
predictor of AA success is level of engagement in
the group—indicated by willingness to speak at ses-
sions and to accept help from a member who acts as
a “sponsor” (Parkman, Lloyd, & Splisbury, 2015).
AA is also more effective when it changes mem-
bers’ social networks, limiting their ties to heavy drin-
kers, and increasing their relationships with individuals
who support them in their efforts to control their
drinking. By participating actively in AA, members
associate with people who are pro-abstinence, and
the longer this positive association continues the
more they can resist the negative effects of pro-
drinkers in their social network. Pro-drinking
network ties in one’s social network increased the
likelihood of drinking by 35.9%, whereas pro-
abstinent social network ties lowered the likelihood
of drinking by 9.9% (Kelly et al., 2011).
16-2 SOU RCES OF SU PPORT
A ND C H AN GE
Group approaches to change, despite their variations
in goals and methods, have certain key elements in
common. Some of these common therapeutic fac-
tors are equivalent to the change-promoting forces
that operate in individual-level therapies, but others
are unique to group-level approaches. All therapies,
for example, help clients gain self-insight, but only
group approaches stimulate interpersonal comparisons
and provide members with a forum for practicing
their interpersonal skills. All therapies provide clients
with support and help, but in groups, members don’t
just get help—they also give help to other group
members (Kivlighan & Kivlighan, 2014).
Although no one list of therapeutic factors has
been verified by researchers and accepted by practi-
tioners, Table 16.3 lists the most frequently cited and
empirically confirmed change-promoting factors.
Some of these factors, such as giving hope to
group members, are more influential during the
early stages of the group’s history, whereas others
become more potent with time. Some focus on cog-
nitive processes, whereas others promote changes in
behavior directly. Some pertain more to task aspects
of the group setting, such as guidance and gaining
skills. Others originate from the positive social rela-
tions that unify the group. But all these processes
combine to transform ordinary groups into thera-
peutic ones (Solomonov et al., 2016).
16-2a Universality and Hope
In the aftermath of the bus accident, the survivors
coped with their physical injuries, their fears, and
their grief. In unguarded moments, they may
have flashed back to the accident and psycholog-
ically relived it. As they found that they could not
concentrate on their work even months after the
therapeutic factors An aspect of group settings that aids
and promotes personal growth and adjustment including
such factors as the installation of hope, universality, pro-
viding information, altruism, and interpersonal learning.
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 527
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

accident, they may have started to feel that they
would never get over the anguish. They may also
have found that their moods would take unex-
pected turns—they may have become angry for
little reason or were disinterested in things that
once fascinated them. If they never discussed
these reactions with others, how would they
know that these changes in mood, thinking, and
memory are common occurrences for those who
survive a traumatic experience?
Can People Find Support Online?
Just as the Internet offers new ways for groups to
solve problems, collaborate on projects, and make
decisions, so too has it opened up new possibilities for
those seeking help and support for the problems they
face. Members, instead of leaving their homes and
traveling to a meeting, can now take part in a range
of group activities using a computer and a connection
to the Internet. No matter what problem an individ-
ual faces—a serious physical illness, stress caused by
providing care for an ill family member, a negative
life event such as divorce or the death of a loved one,
addiction and drug dependency, social rejection,
prejudice, or problems of adjustment and mental
health—an online group likely exists somewhere on
the Internet that can provide self-care information,
support, and referral services. Some of these sites
are primarily repositories of information about the
problem or issue and may be sponsored by profes-
sionals who treat these problems. Others, however,
are unmoderated, self-sustaining mutual help groups,
for they were created by individuals who all face the
same difficulty and wish to connect to and support
each other (Wright, 2015).
Most support groups create asynchronous com-
munication among members who post their comments
and questions on forums and discussion areas. Other
sites set up meeting times when people can commu-
nicate synchronously, using video, audio, or text-only
communication tools. Both synchronous and asynchro-
nous groups can be moderated by a group leader who
facilitates the discussion (and intervenes to remove
content as necessary).
How helpful can these online support groups be,
given that they meet in a relatively sterile online
world? Studies of online groups for problems ranging
from cancer to sexual abuse to psychological disorders
suggest that these groups are surprisingly effective
and may even rival face-to-face groups in terms of
functionality. When researchers examined the posted
messages in a wide range of online support groups
they affirmed their effectiveness—for these sites
provided individuals with emotional and informational
support, as well as encouragement, approval, and
acceptance. The type of support provided was also
related to the severity of the problem and the needs of
the individual. Nurturing forms of support—emotional
sharing, approval, and acceptance—were more com-
mon when people were dealing with turmoil in their
interpersonal relationships or facing a health crisis that
could result in a loss of life. Action-focused support
was offered by experienced members to those who
were dealing with chronic conditions that could be
remediated to a degree (Rains, Peterson, & Wright,
2015). Participants report that they felt supported and
valued by their group and, after taking part in an
online session, felt more hopeful about their situation.
Two issues that could cause problems—people posting
inaccurate information or leaving comments that
could be emotionally harmful—occur very rarely in
such groups, and probably no more frequently than
in offline groups (van Uden-Kraan et al., 2008).
Some aspects of the online format may even
enhance aspects of a mutual help approach to
coping with negative events (Tanis, 2008). Because
members need not disclose their identity, they report
being able to reveal more intimate information
about their experiences and to respond more emo-
tionally to others than they would if interacting face
to face. Members of online sessions also tend to
exchange more practical advice and factual infor-
mation than they do in face-to-face sessions, and
members value this aspect of online groups as well.
They report that the information is useful to them in
understanding their condition and in dealing more
effectively with their health care providers (Wright,
2015). Internet support groups are also particularly
valuable for individuals whose illness restricts their
mobility and for those who are suffering from a
stigmatized illness, such as prostate cancer or
AIDS. Individuals may feel self-conscious about
their condition, but the comfort they experience
by joining with others who are “in the same boat”
overwhelms this concern about embarrassment
(see Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2016).
528 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

In It Together: Universality When suffering
alone, individuals may not realize that their feelings
and experiences are relatively common ones. But
when surrounded by other people who are suffer-
ing similarly, members recognize the universality of
the problems they face. Most people are careful to
keep their negative emotions hidden from others,
but they do not realize that others are doing this as
well. In consequence, people tend to assume that
their situation is a relatively bleak one, and this
misperception can lead to self-blame, depressive
rumination, and declines in overall well-being
(Jordan et al., 2011). Research confirms that when
people are with others who face similar problems
or troubling events, they feel better, in terms of
self-esteem and mood, than when they are with
dissimilar people. People often enjoy feeling
distinctive, unusual, and different from others, but
few people wish to feel uniquely singled out for
misfortune (Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998).
The AA “hello” ritual illustrates this collective
sharing. Members, when addressing the group, state
their first name, followed by the announcement “I
am an alcoholic.” This public declaration reassures all
the other participants that their problem is shared by
others, but also accentuates the members’ identification
with the group. Just as individuals who strongly iden-
tify with their racial and ethnic group show elevated
levels of self-esteem, so do individuals who identify
with their therapeutic group show greater well-being
(Marmarosh, Holtz, & Schottenbauer, 2005).
Social Comparison and Hope Groups do more
than just reassure members that they are not facing
challenging life circumstances alone. Through the
installation of hope, they transform members’ percep-
tions of the intractability of their problems. By joining
with others, members gain a renewed sense of confi-
dence about their problems and their resolution: they
become hopeful, optimistic, and goal focused rather
than helpless, pessimistic, and directionless.
Research confirms that group-derived hope
contributes to well-being, life satisfaction, and inspi-
ration. Members of a short-term therapeutic group
that focused directly on members’ sense of hope
reported more optimism about reaching their goals,
as well as reduced anxiety and depression, than did
members of a control group (Cheavens et al., 2006).
Groups that are designed so that they elevate mem-
bers’ sense of hope tend to be more powerful agents
of change than groups that use other procedures (see
Ripley, Worthington, & Maclin, 2011).
These therapeutic gains may be due, in part, to
group members’ tendencies to compare themselves
to other members—the process of social comparison,
as described in Chapter 4. Therapeutic and growth-
oriented groups bring together a mix of people who
have reached different stages in the change process.
Some may be making great progress toward their
goals, but others may be struggling. Those members
who are experiencing particularly negative outcomes
may trigger downward social comparison, for they remind
members that their own situation is not as bad as they
T A B L E 16.3 Factors That Promote Change
in Groups
Factor Definition
Universality Recognizing one is not the only
one suffering; identification with
others
Hope Increasing optimism from seeing
others improve
Observational
learning
Developing social skills through
observation and imitation
Interpersonal
learning
Developing social skills by inter-
acting with others
Guidance Offering and accepting direction
to and from the group
Cohesion and
support
Building strong, supportive rela-
tionships with others; acceptance
Self-disclosure Revealing personal information
to others
Catharsis Releasing pent-up emotions
Altruism Increasing sense of efficacy from
helping others
Insight Gaining a deeper understanding
of oneself
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 529
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

initially thought. The group may also include indivi-
duals who are coping well with many difficulties, and
these upward social comparison targets symbolize the pos-
sibility of progress. Although successful group
members—the fellow cancer survivor who is in com-
plete remission, the AA member who has stayed sober
for three years, or the caregiver who is managing to
care for her elderly mother and still attend college—
may make some group members feel like failures, these
successful outliers provide a standard for defining one’s
own goals (Arigo, Suls, & Smyth, 2014).
16-2b Social Learning
When people who are striving to change meet with
one other person—whether a trained therapist, coun-
selor, friend, or relative—they can discuss problems,
identify solutions, and receive support and encourage-
ment. But even in the most therapeutic of dyads, the
individual shares perspectives, feedback, guidance,
acceptance, and comfort with only one other person.
A larger group, with its multiple members, is richer in
terms of its interpersonal and therapeutic resources.
Within the social microcosm of the group, individuals
experience a fuller range of interpersonal processes,
including feedback about their strengths and weak-
nesses, pressure to change originating from multiple
sources, role models whose actions they can emulate,
and opportunities to practice the very behaviors they
are seeking to refine. Of the 10 therapeutic factors in
Table 16.3, observational learning, interpersonal
learning, and guidance all involve learning from
other people: social learning (Day, 2014).
Observational Learning Albert Bandura (1986),
like all learning theorists, assumes that people
acquire new attitudes and behaviors through expe-
rience. His social learning theory, however, sug-
gests that people also learn by observing and
imitating other people. This theory explains how
infants learn their native language, why adolescents
adopt the unhealthy habits of their peers, and how
Why Not Carry Your Group with You in Case You Need It?
At the end of the day’s session, the group’s leader
thanked the members for their active engagement in
the group’s work and reminded them to “Put the
group into your pockets and carry us with you: Rely on
us when you need support, guidance, and feel alone”
(Marmarosh & Corazzini, 1997, p. 65).
Therapeutic groups, as groups, provide their
members with support and encouragement, but also a
group-level identity that supplements their individual-
istic, personal identity. As social identity theory would
predict, when group membership is salient and valued,
then the qualities of that group—including resilience,
mastery, and social assurance—become their charac-
teristics. The group, when incorporated in their social
identity, provides members with social and psycholog-
ical resources that they can draw on when facing stress
and adversity.
Psychologists Cheri Marmarosh and John Corazzini
(1997) tested this benefit of membership in a therapeutic
group by giving the members of some therapeutic
groups a card to carry with them, as a symbol of their
group membership. They were reminded that they
were valued members of their therapy group and
that they should know that their group was with
them all the time. Those in a no treatment control
condition received the same therapeutic
experiences—but they did not get a card or the
reminder to keep the group in their pocket.
People who received the card considered the
group to be of greater value to them, personally. And,
one week later, they also reported higher self-esteem,
supporting the predicted relationship between social
identity and self-worth. This gain, however, was not
experienced by those who had just joined the group, or
by those who already had relatively high self-esteem
before the intervention. The results, however, affirm
the value of groups, for they yield benefits for their
members even when they are separated from them.
social learning theory A conceptualization of learning
that describes the processes by which new behaviors are
acquired by observing and imitating the actions displayed
by models, such as parents or peers (developed by Albert
Bandura).
530 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

individuals acquire new, health-promoting skills in
therapeutic groups. Social learning is more than imi-
tation, however. If members are not motivated to
learn from their peers or if they are distracted and so
do not watch others closely, social learning is unlikely.
Such learning also requires members be able to
remember and reenact the behavior they observed.
In general, people are more likely to learn through
observation if they recognize that the actions they
watch lead to positive consequences for the person
who performs them (Shebilske et al., 1998).
Groups provide members with multiple models
to emulate, including fellow group members and
the group leaders. When, for example, members
who are skilled in expressing their feelings deftly
describe their emotional reactions, the less verbally
skilled members may learn how they, too, can put
their feelings into words. When two members who
regularly disagree with each other reach an accord,
others, who watch this reconciliation unfold,
learn how they can resolve interpersonal conflicts.
Leaders can also model desirable behaviors by treat-
ing the group members in positive ways and avoid-
ing behaviors that are undesirable (Dies, 1994).
Researchers facilitated social learning in one study
by arranging for the coleaders of therapy groups to
model social interactions that the members consid-
ered difficult or anxiety-provoking. The leaders
then helped the group members perform these
same behaviors through role playing. Groups that
used explicit modeling methods showed greater
improvement than groups that only discussed the
problematic behaviors (Falloon et al., 1977).
Interpersonal Learning Most people believe that
they can come to know themselves—their
strengths, their weaknesses, their tendencies, and
their satisfactions—through self-reflection. But
much self-knowledge is gained socially; people
implicitly monitor their impact on other people
and draw conclusions about their own qualities
from others’ reactions to them. In therapeutic
groups, the other members become, metaphori-
cally, mirrors that members use to understand
themselves (Cooley, 1902). A group member may
begin to think that she has good social skills if the
group always responds positively each time she
contributes to the group discussion. Another mem-
ber may realize that he is irritating if his comments
are always met with anger and hostility. This inter-
personal feedback helps members perceive them-
selves more accurately. Individuals who are
socially withdrawn, for example, tend to evaluate
their social skills negatively even though the other
group members view them positively (Christensen
& Kashy, 1998). Individuals also tend to rate them-
selves as more anxious than others perceive them to
be. Extended contact with others in a group setting
helps repair these negative, inaccurate perceptions
(Christensen & Feeney, 2016)
Groups are also very willing to give direct,
unambiguous feedback to members when they
engage in objectionable or praiseworthy actions
(Kivlighan, 1985). Kurt Lewin was one of the first
theorists to borrow the term feedback from engi-
neering and use it to describe how others’ responses
to group members served as corrective guides for
subsequent actions (Claiborn, Goodyear, & Horner,
2001). The individual who is lonely because he
alienates everyone by acting rudely may be told,
“You should try to be more sensitive” or “You
are always so judgmental, it makes me sick.”
Some groups exchange so much evaluative infor-
mation that members withdraw from the group
rather than face the barrage of negative feedback
(Scheuble et al., 1987). Skilled group leaders, how-
ever, are careful to monitor the exchange of infor-
mation between members so that individuals
receive the information they need in positive, sup-
portive ways (Morran et al., 1998).
Guidance When group members discuss issues,
concerns, problems, and crises, other group mem-
bers frequently help by providing advice, guidance,
and direction. Members of support groups, for
example, exchange considerable factual and personal
information about their disorder or concern as well as
suggestions for problem management. Group leaders,
in addition to guiding the flow of the session through
questioning, summarizing, and rephrasing members’
statements, also provide information, suggest solu-
tions, confront the members’ interpretations of
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 531
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

problems, and offer their own interpretations. This
guidance ranges from explicit suggestions and
directions to more existentially challenging insights
(Solomonov et al., 2016).
Some therapists are more directive than others.
Those who adopt a leader-centered approach—
typical of psychoanalytic, Gestalt, and behavioral
groups—guide the course of the interaction, assign
various tasks to the group members, and occupy the
hub of the centralized communication network. In
some instances, the group members may not even
communicate with one another, but only with
the group leader. Other leaders, however, adopt a
directive, democratic style of leadership. This more
group-centered approach, which is more typical in
interpersonal therapy groups, requires members to
engage with one another rather than only with the
leader. Such therapists function as facilitators and
agenda setters; they help the members examine pro-
blems and generate alternatives, but their influence
does not necessarily exceed that of any other member
(Luke, 2014)
Both directive and nondirective approaches are
effective, so long as the leaders are perceived to be
caring, helpful in identifying the cause of members’
problems, and skilled in keeping the group on task
(Lieberman & Golant, 2002; Lieberman, Yalom, &
Miles, 1973). Moreover, just as leaders in organiza-
tional settings sometimes vary their interventions to
fit the situation, so effective leaders in therapeutic
settings shift their methods over time. During the
early stages of treatment, members may respond
better to a more directive leader, whereas in the
later stages, a less directive approach may yield
more positive results (Kivlighan, 1997).
As in other groups, therapeutic ones often
benefit from coleadership: having two rather
than one leader (Miles & Kivlighan, 2010). The
two leaders can lend support to each other, and they
can also offer the group members their combined
knowledge, insight, and experience. Male–female
leadership teams are particularly beneficial, as they
offer a fuller perspective on gender issues and serve as
models of positive, nonromantic heterosexual relation-
ships. In general, two cooks tend to improve, rather
than spoil, the therapeutic broth, but the advantages of
coleadership are lost if the leaders are unequal in status
or engage in power struggles during group sessions
(Arnardottir, 2002).
16-2c Group Cohesion
Just as cohesion is a key ingredient for effective mili-
tary squads, production groups, and management
teams, so cohesion contributes to the effectiveness of
change-promoting groups. Groups are more effec-
tive as change agents if they are unified and members
feel tightly bonded to the group and its members
(Cartwright, 1951). Without cohesion, feedback is
not accepted, norms do not develop, and members
do not attend with enough regularity to create a
stable atmosphere for influence. Members are also
more accepting of each other in cohesive groups.
Cohesion creates the climate for acceptance that is
so critical for therapeutic success.
Sources of Cohesion The concept of cohesion has
generated considerable definitional and measurement
debate among those who study therapeutic groups. To
some, cohesion is the group-level equivalent of the
working alliance that links therapist and client in
one-to-one therapy. Others suggest that cohesiveness
is what creates the psychological safety needed for
members to feel comfortable revealing their weak-
nesses to other members. Still others suggest that the
essence of cohesion is a sense of belonging to the group
(see Marmarosh & Van Horn, 2010). However, as
Chapter 5 noted, a group’s cohesion is influenced by
a number of factors, and no single factor can be named
which is the critical ingredient that must be added to
the group so that it can become a cohesive one. A
therapeutic group, like any group, may exhibit both
social and task cohesion: Social cohesion, in a thera-
peutic group, is defined by the strength of positive
relational bonds among members but also the absence
of negative relationships (Thayer & Burlingame, 2014).
Task cohesion is determined by a commitment to the
coleadership Two or more individuals sharing the orga-
nizational, directive, and motivational duties of the lead-
ership role.
532 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

group and its therapeutic processes (or positive work-
ing relationships). However, cohesion may also be
based on identity and belonging (collective cohesion),
shared feelings (emotional cohesion), and the integrity
of the group’s structural features—including the bond
between the members and the leaders (structural
cohesion).
Cohesion and Group Development Just as stud-
ies of all types of groups suggest that a group’s cohe-
siveness depends on its longevity and stage of
development, so studies of therapeutic groups sug-
gest cohesion ebbs and flows across the life course of
the group. Even when the group’s task is a therapeu-
tic one, time is needed to achieve cohesiveness.
Through continuous, guided, and increasingly skill-
ful communication, group members come to iden-
tify and better understand previously unrecognized
motives and emotions, they become more rational
in dealing with life’s problems, and they acquire
valuable interpersonal skills, but these gains will
occur at a pace set by the group’s gradual develop-
ment. In one study, investigators observed and coded
the behaviors displayed by adolescents in a program
of behavioral change. These groups did not immedi-
ately start to work on self-development issues nor
did the members try to help one another. Rather,
groups first moved through orientation, conflict, and
cohesion-building stages before they began to make
therapeutic progress (Forsyth & Diederich, 2014).
These changes in cohesiveness that occur over
time in therapeutic groups are largely consistent with
Bruce Tuckman’s (1965) five-stage theory of group
development (see Chapters 1 and 5). During the
forming stage, individual members are seeking to
understand their relationship to the newly formed
group and strive to establish clear intermember rela-
tions. During the storming stage, group members
often find themselves in conflict over status and
group goals; consequently, hostility, disruption, and
uncertainty dominate group discussions. During the
norming phase, the group strives to develop a group
structure that increases cohesiveness and harmony.
The performing stage is typified by a focus on
group productivity and decision making. Finally,
when the group fulfills its goals, it reaches its last
stage of development—adjourning. If a group does
not move through these stages, its members will not
be able to benefit from the experience (MacKenzie,
1994, 1997; Yalom with Leszcz, 2005).
Counseling psychologist Dennis Kivlighan and
his colleagues (1984) illustrated the important impact
of group development on therapeutic outcomes by
matching interventions to the developmental stage
of the group. Groups were given structured help in
expressing either anger or intimacy before either the
fourth or the ninth group session of their therapy.
The information dealing with anger clarified the
value of anger as a natural part of group participation
and provided suggestions for communicating it. The
information dealing with intimacy clarified the value
of intimacy in groups and provided suggestions for its
appropriate expression toward others. As anticipated,
when the interventions matched the groups’ devel-
opmental stage—for example, when group members
received the information on anger during the storm-
ing phase (session 4) and the information on inti-
macy during the norming phase (session 9)—the
participants displayed more comfort in dealing with
intimacy, more appropriate expressions of intimacy
and anger, fewer inappropriate expressions of inti-
macy, and more congruence between self-ratings
and other ratings of interpersonal style (Kivlighan,
McGovern, & Corazzini, 1984).
Consequences of Cohesion Cohesion, as noted
in Chapter 5, can lead to negative consequences,
particularly if social pressures become too powerful,
if the group’s norms are not productive ones, and if
less-involved members feel as though they are out-
siders in their own group. However, in groups with
a therapeutic purpose, the positive consequences of
cohesion far outnumber the negative. Cohesive
groups tend to retain their members—attendance
rates are higher and dropout rates are lower. Mem-
bers of cohesive therapy groups are more satisfied
with their membership, and they describe the expe-
rience as more comfortable and less stressful. Com-
munication rates depend upon cohesiveness. The
quantity of communication is greater in cohesive
groups, participation is more equally distributed
among all members, and members disclose more
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 533
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

personal information. Cohesive groups are also
superior sources of emotional and social support for
their members. When a group is cohesive, the mem-
bers are more engaged in the group and its change-
promoting processes, they take part in the planning
of the group’s topics and activities, and they express a
sense of closeness (rather than conflict) with the
other members. Cohesive groups also exert a stron-
ger influence on their members than noncohesive
groups; members are more likely to internalize the
group’s norms and avoid dysfunctional behavior for
fear of letting the group down. Of all the curative
factors that work to promote change in groups,
cohesion may be the only necessary condition for
an effective change-promoting group: A therapeutic
group that lacks cohesion may not be therapeutic
(Higgenbotham, West, & Forsyth, 1988).
16-2d Disclosure and Catharsis
Change-promoting groups provide members with
the opportunity to disclose privately held
information—about themselves and other people—
with others in the group. As Yalom explains: “It is
the affective sharing of one’s inner world and then
the acceptance by others that seem of paramount
importance” in group therapy (Yalom with Leszcz,
2005, p. 56). This process of self-disclosure is one of
the primary benefits of both support and therapeutic
groups, for each new self-disclosure deepens the
group’s intimacy, and this increased closeness then
makes further self-disclosures possible (Agazarian,
2001). In sharing information about themselves,
members are expressing their trust in the group and
signaling their commitment to the therapeutic process
(Shechtman & Dvir, 2006). Disclosing troubling,
worrisome thoughts also reduces the discloser’s level
of tension and stress. Individuals who keep their
problems secret but continually ruminate about them
display signs of physiological and psychological
distress, whereas individuals who have the opportunity
to disclose these troubling thoughts are healthier and
happier (Pennebaker, 1997).
Self-Disclosure Over Time Group members
generally need time to move from relatively superfi-
cial disclosures to more personal ones. When groups
first convene, members usually focus on mundane
topics and avoid saying anything too personal or pro-
vocative. In this orientation stage, members try to form
a general impression of each other and also strive to
make a good impression themselves. In the exploratory
affective stage, members discuss their personal attitudes
and opinions, but they avoid intimate topics. This
stage is often followed by the affective stage when a
few topics still remain taboo. When the group
reaches the final stage, stable exchange, all personal
feelings are shared (Altman & Taylor, 1973).
Self-disclosure can be something of a challenge
for some individuals. People experiencing personal-
ity or psychological disturbances, for example, often
disclose the wrong sorts of information at the wrong
time (McGuire & Leak, 1980). Men and boys, too,
are generally more reserved in their self-disclosures
(Kilmartin, 1994). Thus, therapists must sometimes
take special steps to induce males to share personal
information about themselves and must model dis-
closure and incorporate disclosure rituals in the
group (Horne, Jolliff, & Roth, 1996). Men’s reluc-
tance to disclose can even undermine the quality of
the group experience for all participants: The more
men in the therapeutic group, the fewer benefits are
reported by participants (Hurley, 1997).
Expressing Strong Emotions Members do not
only express insights, uncertainties, or worries that
they usually keep to themselves. Sometimes, instead,
they also disclose emotions that they usually keep
hidden: anger, hostility, sadness, grief, and even sexual
tensions. Some experts, accepting the psychoanalytic
view that the buildup of such emotions is unhealthy,
value this emotional release, which is called catharsis.
Others, however, have suggested that “blowing off
steam” is rarely helpful, for in the extreme, venting
heightens members’ psychological distress and upset
(Ormont, 1984). Groups that accept members’ out-
bursts, however, provide a supportive setting that will
self-disclosure The process of revealing personal, inti-
mate information about oneself to others. catharsis The release of emotional tensions.
534 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

help members better understand their emotions and
how they can regulate them.
16-2e Altruism
The group’s leader is not the only source of help
available to group members, for members can help
each other. This mutual assistance benefits both
parties. Even though the group’s leader is the offi-
cial expert in the group, people are often more
willing to accept help from people who are similar
to themselves (Wills & DePaulo, 1991). The helper,
too, “feels a sense of being needed and helpful; can
forget self in favor of another group member; and
recognizes the desire to do something for another
group member” (Crouch, Bloch, & Wanlass, 1994,
p. 285). Mutual assistance teaches group members
the social skills that are essential to psychological
well-being and elevates their sense of self-worth
by affirming their value to others (Pagano, Post, &
Johnson, 2011). Helping others also reduces the
psychological threat of having to ask for, and rely
on, help from others (Alvarez & Leeuwen, 2015).
Mutual assistance is particularly important in sup-
port groups. Mended Hearts—a support group that
deals with the psychological consequences of open-
heart surgery—tells its members that “you are not
completely mended until you help mend others”
(Lieberman, 1993, p. 297). AA groups formalize and
structure helping in their 12-step procedures. Collec-
tive helping is also an essential component of group-
level approaches to dealing with traumatic events.
16-2f Insight
All groups, provide members with information that
will allow them to construct an answer to the ques-
tion, Who am I? Groups not only provide explicit
information about members’ personal qualities, but
they also provide indirect feedback by responding in
certain ways. If, for example, other people routinely
treat Malcolm as if he was hostile and Jolene as if she
was sagacious, then in time Malcom and Jolene may
realize they have these qualities. When members see
themselves acting in a particular way consistently—
say, by dominating the group interaction, criticizing
others, displaying strong emotions, or expressing
concern for others’ well-being—then they will, in
time, come to realize that they are dominant, critical,
emotional, or caring, respectively. Also, because
groups start from scratch, with no background expec-
tations, members realize that others’ perceptions are
relatively pristine. Malcolm may typically blame his
gruffness on the demands made by his role as boss
and Rachel may think her moodiness is caused by
her family; but if Malcolm is gruff and Rachel is
moody in group, then they must consider the possi-
bility that these qualities are part of who they are.
Individuals are somewhat leery of joining thera-
peutic groups because they recognize that the group
may see them for what they are—and that this
appraisal may not match their own self-definition
(Ringer, 2002). They also tend to resist information
that is discrepant from their self-views, dismissing the
source of the feedback as biased. Groups, however,
offset these tendencies, for when multiple individuals
agree in their appraisals, the member is more likely
to accept the accuracy of these evaluations (Jacobs,
1974). Also, when the feedback is given in the con-
text of a long-term, reciprocal relationship, it cannot
be so easily dismissed as biased or subjective. Group
leaders, too, often reward members for accepting
rather than rejecting feedback, and the setting itself
works to intensify self-awareness.
Even qualities that are unknown to others and to
the individual can emerge and be recognized during
group interactions (Luft, 1984). As self-perception
theory suggests, people often “come to ‘know’ their
own attitudes, emotions, and other internal states par-
tially by inferring them from observations of their
own overt behavior and/or the circumstances in
which this behavior occurs” (Bem, 1972, p. 2). If
individuals observe themselves acting in ways that
suggest that they are socially skilled—for example,
disclosing information about themselves appropriately
and maintaining a conversation—then they may infer
that they are socially skilled (Robak, 2001). Members
may find that, as they act in ways that are inconsistent
with their original self-conception, their self becomes
increasingly complex and, in consequence, more sta-
ble (Vickery et al., 2006).
Studies of group members’ evaluations of
the therapeutic experience attest to the importance
of gaining these self-insights. When participants in
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 535
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

therapeutic groups were asked to identify the events
that took place in their groups that helped them the
most, they stressed incidents related to universality,
interpersonal learning, cohesion (belonging), and
insight (see Figure 16.2; Kivlighan & Mullison,
1988). But time and type of group also matter. For
example, during later sessions, members value inter-
personal learning more but universality less. Also, self-
understanding is less important in support groups, but
more important in affect-focused and interpersonal
therapy groups (Kivlighan & Holmes, 2004). Also,
some individuals are more concerned with gaining
self-understanding than are others: Those who stress
the value of self-understanding tend to benefit the
most from participation in a therapeutic group (Butler
& Fuhriman, 1983; MacNair-Semands & Lese, 2000).
1 6 – 3 TH E E F F E C T I V E N E S S
OF GRO UPS
What would you do if you were bothered by some
personal problem? Perhaps you have trouble mak-
ing friends. Maybe you are having difficulties
adjusting to a new job or wish that you could be
more productive when you are at work. Perhaps
you have finally resolved to stop smoking or drink-
ing, or you just cannot seem to get over the depres-
sion that has enveloped you since your mother
passed away last year. Whatever the problem, you
have not succeeded in changing on your own. So
you decide to join a change-promoting group.
Would this group really help you?
16-3a Empirical Support for
Group Treatments
Researchers and therapists have been debating the
effectiveness of both individual and group treat-
ment methods for years. As clinical studies of ther-
apeutic outcomes have become increasingly
sophisticated scientifically, treatment professionals
have sought to identify evidence-based treat-
ments (EBTs): those that have been shown to be
effective for specific problems and disorders using
objective measures and evaluations (Kazdin, 2011).
Do group methods deserve to be on the list of rec-
ognized EBTs?
Meta-Analytic Reviews Initial efforts to deter-
mine if group approaches qualify as EBTs were ham-
pered by the methodological shortcomings of early
studies of group effectiveness. Reviewers, after sifting
through hundreds of studies evaluating the effective-
ness of group interventions, rejected most as so
methodologically flawed that they yielded no infor-
mation whatsoever (Bednar & Kaul, 1978, 1979,
1994). But as researchers gathered more data using
more precise scientific controls, including clinical
trials, the results generally weighed in favor of
group-level interventions. Although they rarely sup-
ported Lewin’s law of change by finding group
approaches were superior to individual-level methods,
they indicated group-level and individual-level treat-
ments were equal in effectiveness (Barlow, 2010).
0 5 10 15 20
Insight
Altruism
Catharsis
Self-disclosure
Cohesion
Guidance
Interpersonal learning
Vicarious learning
Universality
Hope
Percentage
F I G U R E 16.2 Group members’ ratings of the value
of therapeutic factors in groups.
SOURCE: From “Participants Perception of Therapeutic Factors in Group
Counseling: The Role of Interpersonal Style and Stage of Group Develop-
ment” by D. A. Kivlighan, Jr. & D. Mullison, 1988, Small Group Behavior,
19, 1988. Copyright 1988 by Sage Publications, Inc. Reprinted by permission
of Sage Publications, Inc.
evidence-based treatments (EBTs) Clinical proce-
dures whose effectiveness has been documented through
objective, scientifically rigorous research procedures.
536 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

What Makes a Group a Therapeutic One?
Researchers, in their studies of change-promoting
groups, have identified a relatively short list of processes
that combine to help the group members overcome
personal challenges, hone their interpersonal skills, and
achieve a healthier sense of self and well-being.
Instructions. To review the many factors that sus-
tain change in groups, identify a group that provides
support and guidance for its members. The group may
be a fictional one (e.g., a close-knit group or family
portrayed in film and television), or one to which you
belong: families, friendship circles, associates at work,
student study groups, scientific labs, sports teams, and
so on can be “therapeutic.” Put a check in each box if
the item describes the group you have in mind.
Universality
q We are all in the same boat, dealing with problems
that are more common that we first thought.
q Our discussions are a reminder that our issues are
ones many of us are facing.
Hope
q When someone in the group makes progress, it
inspires the rest of us.
q The group is a source of hope and reassurance
that the future will be brighter.
Observational Learning
q We all learn a lot by listening to others talk about
their problems.
q We all watch and learn from each other in this
group.
Interpersonal Learning
q The group is teaching me how to get along better
with other people.
q We let each other know when the things we do
cause problems and misunderstandings.
Guidance
q People in the group give each other good
suggestions.
q The advice we share in this group is very
helpful.
Cohesion and Support
q We accept, understand, and support each other.
q We have developed strong bonds of trust in this
group.
Self-disclosure
q We all open up in this group, sharing thoughts
and feelings.
q We disclose our true selves, as best we can, in this
group.
Catharsis
q Sometimes people let off a little steam in the
group, but the group is OK with that.
q The group is the place where people can let out
their emotions, if they need to.
Altruism
q The members of this group are there for each
other.
q We help each other, often putting others’ needs
before our own.
Insight
q We learn a lot about who we are, as individuals, in
this group.
q This group helps us gain self-insight.
Interpretation. Researchers have developed a
number of scientifically tested measures of the thera-
peutic factors, but the items listed here are intended
only to provide a review of the most frequently iden-
tified sources of change in groups. If you checked more
than half of the boxes, then the group you rated is
potentially one that can help members move toward
the personal and interpersonal goals they have set for
themselves. (For more information about measuring
therapeutic factors see MacNair-Semands, Ogrodnic-
zuk, & Joyce, 2010.)
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 537
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Many of these reviews rely on meta-analysis to
summarize the findings from multiple studies.
Counseling psychologist Gary Burlingame and his
colleagues, for example, in a series of rigorous
meta-analyses of hundreds of experimental, quasi-
experimental, and correlational studies, repeatedly
conclude that group methods are effective for
helping people deal with depression, bipolar disor-
ders, social phobia, panic disorder, obsessive com-
pulsive tendencies, bulimia nervosa, binge-eating,
substance-related problems, trauma, and the psy-
chological complexities of physical illnesses. These
analyses indicated that group methods are better for
some problems than others—particularly social pho-
bia and substance abuse (Burlingame, MacKenzie, &
Strauss, 2004). The effectiveness of group treatment
also depends on the nature of the group’s structure
and dynamics. Groups that generate higher levels of
member-to-member interpersonal feedback and
stronger working relationships among members are
more effective than other groups. The use of preg-
roup preparation and providing a higher level of
structure during early group sessions also improves
outcomes. Overall, the data are clear: Group meth-
ods work. As Burlingame and his colleagues explain:
“when identical treatments, patients, and doses are
compared, individual and group formats produce sta-
tistically indistinguishable outcomes” (Burlingame
et al., 2016, p. 457; see, too, Burlingame, Fuhriman,
& Mosier, 2003; Burlingame & Krogel, 2005; Fuhri-
man & Burlingame, 1994; Kösters et al., 2006;
McRoberts, Burlingame, & Hoag, 1998).
Types of Groups and Effectiveness Change-
promoting groups conform to no single set of pro-
cedures: Some groups are leader-centered, others
group focused; a group’s activities can range from
the highly structured (interpersonal learning groups)
to the wholly unstructured (encounter groups); in
some groups, members themselves are responsible
for running the meeting, whereas in other situa-
tions, the facilitator runs the session (structured
groups). Group practitioners also vary greatly in
their orientations and techniques: Some focus on
emotions with Gestalt exercises, others concentrate
on the here and now of the group’s interpersonal
processes, and still others train members to perform
certain behaviors through videotaped feedback,
behavioral rehearsal, and systematic reinforcement.
Given this diversity of purposes and procedures,
one might expect some types of groups to emerge as
more effective than others. Yet differences in treat-
ment effectiveness are relatively rare. Group psy-
chotherapists Morton Lieberman, Irvin Yalom, and
Matthew Miles (1973), for example, investigated the
overall impact of a 12-week experiential group on
members’ adjustment. They began by assigning 206
Stanford University students to 1 of 18 therapy groups
representing 10 different theoretical orientations.
Trained observers coded the groups’ interactions,
with particular attention given to leadership style.
Before, during, immediately after, and six months fol-
lowing the participation, Lieberman and his colleagues
gathered information about each group members’
self-esteem, attitudes, self-satisfaction, and adjustment
from the group leaders, the group members’ acquain-
tances, and the group members themselves.
Somewhat unexpectedly, researchers discov-
ered that no one theoretical approach had a
monopoly on effectiveness. For example, two sep-
arate Gestalt groups with different leaders were
included in the design, but the members of these
two groups evidenced widely discrepant gains. One
of the Gestalt groups ranked among the most suc-
cessful in stimulating participant growth, but the
other Gestalt group yielded fewer benefits than all
of the other groups.
A number of factors could account for this
apparent equivalence of therapies (Stiles, Shapiro, &
Elliott, 1986). First, the various group therapies may
be differentially effective, but researchers’ measures
may not be sensitive enough to detect these varia-
tions. Second, a group’s effectiveness may depend as
much on who is in the group and who leads the
group as on the methods used. The question is not
“Is Therapy X more effective than Therapy Y?” but,
“What type of group run by which therapist is effec-
tive for this individual with this type of problem?”
(Paul, 1967). Third, although group interventions
are based on widely divergent theoretical assump-
tions, these assumptions may not lead to differences
in practice. The leader of a Gestalt group and the
538 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

leader of a psychodynamic group, for example, may
explain their goals and methods in very different
theoretical terms, but they may nonetheless rely on
identical methods in their groups. Fourth, as the
concept of therapeutic factors suggests, despite their
heterogeneity in purposes and procedures, therapeu-
tic groups have certain characteristics in common,
and these common aspects of groups and their
dynamics may account for their therapeutic effects.
Participants’ Appraisals Most people, when
asked if they would prefer to receive treatment in a
private session with a therapist or in group sessions,
express a clear preference for the one-to-one
approach (Shechtman & Kiezel, 2016). Even thera-
pists themselves tend to favor individual methods
over collective ones (Piper, 2008). This tendency
depends, in part, on cultural factors. The idea of join-
ing with other people who are initially strangers to
discuss highly personal matters is viewed with more
suspicion in some social groups and cultures than in
others. However, those who have actually partici-
pated in group therapy—the consumers of group-
based treatments—generally give group approaches
high marks. One study, conducted by Consumer
Reports, asked respondents to rate a variety of treat-
ments. All psychological methods, including group
interventions, were rated positively. AA received par-
ticularly positive evaluations in this study (Seligman,
1995, 1996; see also Christensen & Jacobson, 1994).
The effects of group approaches are also more
evident when members themselves appraise the
gains they have achieved through participation.
One review, for instance, identified 26 controlled
studies of personal growth groups that (1) used both
pretest and posttest measures, (2) met for at least 10
hours, and (3) had a long-term follow-up (at least
one month after termination). Summarizing these
methodologically superior studies, the reviewers
concluded that group treatments did result in
enduring positive changes, but primarily on self-
report questionnaire data and not on behavioral
measures (Berman & Zimpfer, 1980). These and
other findings suggest that groups are most useful
in promoting changes in “sensitivity, feeling man-
agement, directionality of motivation, attitudes
towards the self, attitudes towards others, and inter-
dependence,” but that behavior is more resistant to
change (Gibb, 1971, p. 855).
16-3b Using Groups to Cure: Cautions
Empirical evidence suggests that group approaches
are generally effective—at least as effective as indi-
vidual treatments and definitely better than no
treatment at all. However, this positive appraisal is
a qualified one. Although group approaches are
often effective, they do not work for everyone or
for all types of psychological difficulties.
Premature Terminations Not everyone who
joined the group following the bus accident remained
in the group. Four individuals, after the first session,
did not return to the group. Several members
attended the sessions during the return trip only spo-
radically. One person, when later asked about the
experience, said it did not help at all (Turner, 2000).
Any treatment will be ineffective if the treatment
regimen is not followed—if people stop taking their
medications, fail to comply with their physician’s self-
care instructions, or do not attend their group treat-
ment sessions—and the results will likely be disap-
pointing. However, because therapeutic groups are
often voluntary associations—individuals can choose
to attend or not attend meetings—those who lack
commitment to treatment goals tend to attend meet-
ings only sporadically or drop out altogether. Such
premature terminations are problematic for any
therapeutic intervention, but changes in membership
are particularly disruptive for therapeutic groups
because they create instability in the group’s compo-
sition and dynamics (MacNair-Semands, 2002). Most
premature terminations result from failed expectations
about the purposes of the group or from an inade-
quate match between the group member’s goals and
the leader’s methods. Dropout rates can be minimized
by prescreening potential members, providing an ini-
tial briefing that describes the group’s requirements,
premature terminations The withdrawal of a partici-
pant from a change-promoting group that occurs before
the individual has reached his or her therapeutic goals.
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 539
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

limiting conflict during sessions, and making certain
that the group atmosphere is supportive, nonevalua-
tive, and nonthreatening (Burlingame et al., 2011;
Mitchell & Mitchell, 1984).
Casualties A participant who decides to leave the
group before he or she has benefited in any way is a
premature termination, or dropout, but a casualty is a
member who is significantly harmed by the group
experience. A casualty might, for example, attempt
suicide as a result of the group experience, require
individual therapy to correct harm caused by the
group, or report continued deteriorations in adjust-
ment over the course of the group experience. Casu-
alties can most often be traced to a particularly negative
event in the group. In one study, for example, an indi-
vidual sought psychiatric treatment immediately after
the group attacked her for being overweight:
She stated that the group was an extremely
destructive one for her. The group operated by
everybody “ganging up on one another, thir-
teen to one, and bulldozing them until they
were left on the ground panting.” She was
bitterly attacked by the group and finally
dropped out after an attack on her in which she
was labeled “a fat Italian mama with a big shiny
nose.” She was also told that she probably had
“a hell of a time getting any man to look at
her.” (Lieberman et al., 1973, p. 189)
The number of casualties reported in studies has
ranged from a low of none among 94 participants in
a human relations training lab followed up after five
months (Smith, 1975, 1980) to a high of 8% of
the participants in a study of 17 encounter groups
(Lieberman et al., 1973). A relatively high casualty
rate (18%) was obtained in one study of 50 married
couples who participated in marathon encounter
groups, but this rate was inflated by the problems
the couples were experiencing before entering the
group (Doherty, Lester, & Leigh, 1986). No evi-
dence is available concerning the rate of casualties
in support groups, but statistics maintained by the
NTL indicate that 25 individuals who participated
in the program prior to 1974 experienced a severe
psychological reaction (Back, 1974). This number
represented less than 0.2% of the participants.
Overhelping Joining in a therapeutic group gener-
ally yields positive outcomes for participants, but in
some cases less is more. If individuals attribute their
success in dealing with a problem to the group, and
not to themselves, then they become dependent on
the group—even if they themselves were the source
of the successful coping outcomes. In such cases the
group is engaged in overhelping—it appears to be ren-
dering aid to the individual, but it is taking credit for
success it did not earn (Gilbert & Silvera, 1996). This
criticism has been raised in evaluations of the effec-
tiveness of process debriefings, which were discussed
earlier in this chapter (Devilly, Gist, & Cotton, 2006).
Multicultural and Cross-Cultural Complexities
Group approaches have proven to be effective means
of helping individuals achieve personal growth, devel-
opment, and change, but the tried-and-true techniques
that work in one cultural context may not be culturally
appropriate when applied in another society or sub-
group. Psychodynamic methods originated in Western
Europe, interpersonal learning groups have their roots
in England’s Tavistock traditions, and support groups
are primarily an American invention. These therapeu-
tic procedures—talking with a professional about one’s
psychological concerns, meeting with others in a
group context to develop interpersonal and self-
regulatory skills, and dealing with symptoms
through medication—are all consistent with Western
approaches to health and medicine, but these methods
may seem foreign if applied in a different culture.
Researchers and group practitioners must con-
sider the cultural context when studying groups and
using group methods for therapeutic purposes
(Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011). The cultur-
ally competent researcher and group practitioner
“must have a good understanding of the diversity of
cultural worldviews and their potential impact on the
relationships, behaviors, and willingness to participate
in therapeutic group work” (DeLucia-Waack, 2010,
casualty An individual whose psychological well-being
declines rather than improves as a result of his or her
experiences in a change-promoting group.
540 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

p. 97). People the world over share a common desire
to maximize their well-being, but how they achieve
that goal will depend on where they are in the world.
For example, when a tsunami caused widespread dev-
astation and loss of life in coastal areas of Asia, school
psychologists developed a group-level intervention
program designed to help grade-school children better
understand and express their feelings, identify sources
of stress, and develop effective coping strategies. The
program was based on methods used successfully in
the United States, but it was modified after extensive
analysis of the cultural practices and values of the peo-
ple of Sri Lanka (Nastasi et al., 2011). Similarly, thera-
pists in Israel working with both Jewish and Arab
students in experiential learning groups had to sub-
stantially modify some of their methods. Fortunately,
the groups were conducted by experts with experi-
ence working in multicultural groups, and techniques
were adapted to minimize the negative impact of a set
of cultural practices that warned against revealing
vulnerabilities to nonfamily members (Shechtman,
Goldberg, & Cariani, 2008).
16-3c The Value of Groups
Groups are not all benefit with no cost. Groups can
demand great investments of time and energy from
their members. Although groups provide social sup-
port, they are also a source of considerable stress for
their members. Groups, too, can socialize members in
ways that are not healthy and set processes in motion
that increase dysfunction (Forsyth & Elliott, 2000).
The checkered impact of groups, however, in no
way detracts from their significance in shaping mental
health. Groups help their members define and con-
firm their values, beliefs, and identities. When indivi-
duals are beset by problems and uncertainties, groups
offer reassurance, security, support, and assistance.
Groups are places where people can learn new social
skills and discover things about themselves and others.
Groups, too, can produce changes in members when
other approaches have failed. Both researchers and
mental health professionals who understand groups
recognize their healing power, for groups help their
members change for the better.
C H A P TE R R E V I E W
What are some of the ways that groups are used to
help their members change?
1. Individuals often turn to groups for help in
achieving personal and therapeutic change.
As Lewin’s law of change states, “It is usually
easier to change individuals formed into a
group than to change any one of them
separately” (Lewin, 1951, p. 228).
2. Most change-oriented groups focus on thera-
peutic adjustment (therapy groups), interpersonal
and emotional growth (interpersonal learning
groups), or overcoming addictions or other life
stresses (support groups).
3. Therapeutic groups are usually conducted by a
mental health professional and focus on psy-
chological problems.
■ In group psychoanalysis, the therapist helps
members to gain insight into their problems
by offering interpretations and working
through transference effects. Such therapies use
a variety of analytic methods drawn from
Freud’s (1926/1955) approach to treatment,
including identifying unresolved conflicts.
■ Members of humanistic groups, such as
Rogers’s (1970) client-centered approach,
seek existential meaning, positive self-
regard, and a better understanding of
themselves and their emotions.
■ Gestalt group therapy, developed by Perls
(1969), makes use of experiments, techni-
ques, and extensive role-playing methods
to stimulate emotional growth.
■ Psychodrama, developed by Moreno (1934),
also uses role play and physical activities.
■ In interpersonal group psychotherapy, the
leader takes advantage of the group’s
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 541
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

dynamics to help members learn about
how they influence others and how others
influence them. This “here-and-now”
method was developed by Yalom (Yalom
& Leszcz, 2005).
■ In cognitive-behavioral therapy groups, the
therapist uses principles derived from
learning theory to encourage specific
behaviors while extinguishing others. This
approach makes use of behavioral methods,
including behavioral contracts, modeling,
behavior rehearsal, and feedback.
4. Interpersonal learning groups help relatively
well-adjusted individuals improve their
self-understanding and relationships with
others.
■ In training groups, or T-groups, developed by
Lewin and his associates, members were
encouraged to actively confront and
resolve interpersonal issues through
unstructured discussions.
■ In psychoeducational groups, members take
part in planned exercises that focus on a
specific interpersonal problem or skill.
Most of these interventions involve a
learning cycle that begins with an orient-
ing overview and then moves from
experience to discussion to analysis to
application. Kolb’s (1984) experiential
learning theory assumes individuals learn
best through a combination of direct
experience, observation, analysis, and
action.
■ Process debriefing groups are used to help
individuals who have experienced signifi-
cant trauma cope with the event and are
designed to reduce PTSD.
5. Support groups often form spontaneously
when people combine their energies and
efforts in an attempt to cope with or over-
come a common problem. These groups
tend to be problem-specific, highly interper-
sonal, communal, autonomous, and
perspective-based.
■ Many support groups, such as AA, empha-
size inspirational testimonials, mutual help,
shared similarities, collective encourage-
ment, and changing the member’s social
networks.
■ Studies of online support groups for pro-
blems ranging from cancer to sexual abuse
to psychological disorders have suggested
that these groups provide many of the same
resources to members as do face-to-face
support groups.
How do groups promote change?
1. A number of therapeutic factors operate in groups
to promote change. They include hope, uni-
versality, observational learning, interpersonal
learning, guidance, cohesion, self-disclosure,
catharsis, altruism, and insight.
2. Hope and universality: Groups, by providing
opportunities to engage in social comparison
and mutual support, convince members of
the universality of their problems, elevate
their levels of hope, and instigate a shared,
group-level identity (Marmarosh & Corazzini,
1997).
3. Social learning: Because groups include
multiple individuals, rather than just a single
therapist/helper and a single client, they can
make use of the sources of interpersonal
learning described in Bandura’s (1986) social
learning theory.
■ Groups facilitate observational learning
(modeling of behaviors), interpersonal
feedback, and guidance (direct instruction).
■ Coleadership (two or more leaders are
present at all sessions) provides more
opportunities for social learning, feedback,
and mutual guidance. Group facilitators,
like all group leaders, vary considerably
along the directive–nondirective
dimension.
4. Group cohesion: Cohesion may be a necessary
condition for an effective change-promoting
group.
542 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ As in all groups, cohesion can be based on
attraction, task commitment, shared iden-
tity and emotion, and strong relational
bonds.
■ Therapeutic groups, like all groups, gen-
erally become more cohesive over time as
they move through the basic forming–
storming–norming–performing–adjourn-
ing stages of development identified by
Tuckman (1965).
■ Kivlighan’s work indicates that interven-
tions are more effective when they match
the developmental stage of the group
(Kivlighan et al., 1985).
■ Cohesion yields a number of positive
consequences for therapeutic groups,
including membership retention,
improved communication, and increased
influence of the group on the
individual.
5. Self-disclosure and catharsis: Groups become
more intimate as members reveal private
information about themselves (self-disclosure).
When group members vent strong emo-
tions, the resulting catharsis may reduce their
stress.
6. Altruism and insight: Group members also ben-
efit from the increased self-confidence pro-
duced by helping others and by gaining insight
about their personal qualities from other group
members.
■ People generally prefer individual-level
treatment methods, in part because of
uncertainty about what the group will
reveal to them about themselves.
■ Individuals who have taken part in
therapeutic groups rate insight as one of
the most important of the curative factors.
How effective are groups in bringing about
change?
1. Most group approaches are effective methods
for helping individuals change their thoughts,
emotions, and actions, and so qualify as
evidence-based treatments.
■ Meta-analytic reviews, such as those con-
ducted by Burlingame and his colleagues
(2016), indicate group approaches are
more effective for certain problems (e.g.,
social anxiety and addictions) than for
others (depression).
■ Although group approaches adopt a variety
of methods, studies such as the one con-
ducted by Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles
(1973), do not consistently identify one
type of group method as superior to
another.
■ Individuals who have participated in
group-level interventions rate their
effectiveness very positively, with one
survey indicating that AA was rated as
the most effective of all such groups.
2. Group approaches are generally effective, but
they do not work for everyone or for all types
of psychological problems.
■ The number of individuals who drop out
of treatment, premature terminations, is
higher in group treatments compared to
individual treatment.
■ A small fraction of participants in groups
experiences significant negative reactions
to the experience and so are considered
psychological casualties.
■ Interventions are more effective when
they are consistent with both the norms,
values, and practices of a particular cultural
context.
3. More research is needed to understand fully
the nature of the therapeutic group and its
impact on members, but given the powerful
self-processes and interpersonal processes that
such groups instigate and the positive findings
already reported by researchers, groups should
be considered a proven method for promoting
growth and change.
GROWTH A ND CHA NGE 543
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

R E S O U R C E S
Chapter Case: The Bus Group
■ “Group Treatment of Trauma Survivors
Following a Fatal Bus Accident: Integrat-
ing Theory and Practice” by Andrew L.
Turner (2000) details the methods used to
help college students recover from a tragic
bus accident that occurred during a
semester-abroad program.
Group Approaches to Change
■ “Group Psychotherapy” by Gerald Corey
and Marianne Schneider Corey (2016) is a
concise analysis of the principles that are
common to nearly all group-level
approaches to change, including pregroup
screening, establishing trust, encouraging
disclosure, and consolidation of learning.
■ Handbook of Group Counseling and Psycho-
therapy, edited by Janice L. DeLucia-
Waack, Cynthia R. Kalodner, and Maria
T. Riva (2014), is an advanced sourcebook
useful for anyone doing a serious analysis
of group psychotherapy, with entire sec-
tions devoted to best practice, diversity,
and treatment groups in specific contexts
with special populations.
■ Psychological Effects of Catastrophic Disasters:
Group Approaches to Treatment, edited by
Leon A. Schein, Henry I. Spitz, Gary M.
Burlingame, and Philip R. Muskin, with
Shannon Vargo (2006), is a comprehensive
compendium of group-based methods of
dealing with traumatic events.
Therapeutic Factors in Groups
■ The Theory and Practice of Group Psychother-
apy (5th ed.) by Irvin D. Yalom with
Molyn Leszcz (2005) describes cases,
theories, and available research on Yalom’s
basic principles of interpersonal group
therapy that stress the therapeutic factors
common to all group approaches to
change.
■ Group Development in Practice: Guidance for
Clinicians and Researchers on Stages and
Dynamics of Change by Virginia Brabender
and April Fallon (2009) reviews in detail
previous theories pertaining to group
development and identifies ways that
therapists can both orchestrate, and adjust
to, the inevitable changes that occur in
groups over time.
Group Effectiveness
■ Specialty Competencies in Group Psychology
by Sally H. Barlow (2013) is packed with
details about the field of group
psychotherapy—the historical background,
theoretical issues, and continuing
controversies—but also an expert’s careful
analysis of the interpersonal processes that
determine the course and outcome of
group psychotherapy.
■ “Small Group Process and Outcome
Research Highlights: A 25-year Perspec-
tive” by Gary M. Burlingame and Jennifer
L. Jensen (2017) reviews key empirical
studies of group psychotherapy, with special
attention to member characteristics, leader-
ship, and cohesion, before marshaling the
evidence that confirms the effectiveness of
group methods for a wide variety of psy-
chiatric disorders. This article is one of
many excellent articles in the Special Issue
for the 75th Anniversary of the American
Group Psychotherapy Association.
544 C H A P T ER 16
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C H A P T E R 17
Crowds and
Collectives
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
A detailed study of groups would be incomplete if
it did not consider the dynamics of larger social
collectives. For centuries, people have wondered
at the seemingly inexplicable actions that people
undertake when part of a crowd or collective.
Juries, teams, squads, clubs, and cults are all intrigu-
ing, but so are riots and rumors; crowds and crazes;
and mobs and movements. These groups are often
portrayed as unpredictable, irrational, and over-
powering, but careful analysis will correct these
misconceptions about these extraordinary forms of
human association.
■ What is collective behavior?
■ What theories explain collective behavior?
■ How different are collectives from other types
of groups?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
17-1 Collectives: Forms and Features
17-1a What Are Collectives?
17-1b Gatherings
17-1c Crowds
17-1d Mobs
17-1e Panics
17-1f Collective Movements
17-1g Social Movements
17-2 Collective Dynamics
17-2a Contagion
17-2b Convergence
17-2c Deindividuation
17-2d Emergent Norms
17-2e Social Identity
17-3 Collectives Are Groups
17-3a The Myth of the Madding Crowd
17-3b Studying Groups and Collectives
Chapter Review
Resources
545
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

The science of group dynamics is based on one core
assumption: People act collectively. Much of this col-
lective action occurs in relatively small groups, and the
field of group dynamics (and this book as well) has
concentrated on such groups—cliques, work squads,
juries, sports teams, corporate boards, crews, bands of
explorers, and so on. But individuals also—sometimes
unwittingly and sometimes purposely—can become
members of much larger groups. Some of these col-
lectives, like the gathering of protesters at Tahrir
Square, are concentrated in a specific location. Others,
however, are widely dispersed, as when Egyptian citi-
zens throughout the country shifted from complacency
to rebellion. Most collectives do not behave in odd,
atypical ways. Each day, thousands upon thousands of
collectives form and disband around the world and
most help rather than hurt their members. But collec-
tives are, at their core, groups, and, like any other
group, they can do surprising things, including starting
revolutions.
This chapter describes collectives, explains their
dynamics, and tries to repair their reputation. It
begins by first describing the wide variety of collec-
tives, for they can range from the accidental con-
vergences of unrelated individuals to groups with
faithful followers who remain members for many
Arab Spring: Social Movement or Mob Rule?
The people of Egypt had suffered for too long. Infla-
tion was driving up the cost of living, people were out
of work, and those who did have jobs were paid too
little. They could have sought a remedy through polit-
ical action, but their basic civil rights were severely
curtailed. Years before, the government had enacted a
set of emergency procedures to stabilize the country—
censorship, curfew, and enhanced police power—but
had never relaxed them. The police and other govern-
mental agencies repressed dissent in any form. Anyone
who sought to speak out against the ruling party, the
National Democrats, and their leader, Hosni Mubarak,
risked harassment, imprisonment, or death.
In January 2011, this smoldering state of discon-
tent transformed into an active revolution in what has
been called the Arab Spring or the Arab Revolution.
Only a month before, the citizens of Tunisia had forced
their country’s president to resign through a series of
demonstrations and protests. Possibly heartened by
that success, millions of Egypt’s citizens began to pro-
test against Mubarak and his government through
demonstrations, marches, labor strikes, and other
forms of civil disobedience. These actions occurred
across the country, but were centered in the nation’s
capital, Cairo, at Tahrir Square (Liberation Square). The
citizens were, by law, not permitted to assemble, but
on January 25, thousands converged on the square
and refused to leave. Others soon joined them, with
numbers reaching well above 100,000. The crowd
called for the resignation of Mubarak and free elec-
tions with multiple candidates.
By January 28th, Tahrir Square had become “a
sort of utopian mini-state” (Khalil, 2011, p. 245). Many
different kinds of people mixed together in the
square—men and women, young and old, well-to-do
and poor—but all were united by their opposition to
Mubarak. The mass of protestors spontaneously orga-
nized their political actions, including chants, demon-
strations, and protests, as well as security, entertainment,
and a supply system. They set up wireless networks and
used Facebook to coordinate their activities.
Protest in a totalitarian regime, however, is dan-
gerous. The activists encountered violent opposition;
at least 800 people were killed during the 18 days of
the uprising. The police brutality was indisputable:
Video uploaded to Facebook and YouTube shared
with a horrified world footage of police in riot gear
severely beating and kicking unarmed protestors.
Groups of violent men, labeled “thugs” by the local
Egyptians, roamed the streets and sometimes the
square, brutally beating protestors and broadcasters.
On February 2nd, violence intensified when men
armed with clubs, riding horses and camels, attacked
the square, touching off a night of violence. The
attack, however, may have worked to further solidify
the protesters, hardening their resolve (Khalil, 2011).
On February 10th, the protest reached its climax.
The relentless pressure of the protestors and the
international community prompted Mubarak to
announce his decision to not seek reelection. This
concession, however, did not placate the Arab Spring
protesters: They wanted him removed from office
immediately. Faced with continuing bloodshed and
instability, the Egyptian military forcibly removed
Mubarak from office on February 11th and set up a
provisional government.
546 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

years. The chapter then considers both classic and
contemporary theoretical analyses of collective
behavior, beginning with the provocative argu-
ments presented by Gustave Le Bon (1895/1960)
in his book The Crowd and ending with new theo-
ries that strive to correct common misconceptions
about these extraordinary forms of human associa-
tion (Bond, 2014; Milgram & Toch, 1969).
1 7 – 1 C O L L E C T I V E S : F O R M S
A ND F E AT U R E S
Just as humans have lived in small groups for all
time, so have they also joined much larger gather-
ings. For as long as anyone can remember, religious
devotees have gathered at the foot of Mount Kai-
lash in Tibet, for the mountain is considered sacred
by five religions. As many as 50,000 spectators
watched exhibitions and gladiatorial competitions
in Rome’s Colosseum. In 1096, thousands upon
thousands of Europeans, urged on by Pope Urban
II, marched to Jerusalem to “free the Holy Land
from the pagans.”
Even in ancient times, some of these collectives
acted in unexpected ways. For example, the first
entry in historian Hilary Evans and sociologist
Robert Bartholomew’s (2009) encyclopedia of
extraordinary social behavior is the Abdera Outbreak,
which occurred in the third century BC in Abdera,
Greece. The populace developed an unusual fond-
ness for the play Andromeda by Euripides and took to
reciting lines from the play throughout the day and
night, with people dressing to fit particular roles.
Evans and Bartholomew end their listing with the
Zoot suit riots of 1942 and 1943. U.S. naval personnel
stationed in Los Angeles, California, roamed through
the city streets in search of men wearing zoot suits—
a style of clothes featuring long suit coats and pleated
trousers with tight cuffs, popular among men of the
Mexican-American community. Once located, the
“zooters” were surrounded, bullied, and in some
cases beaten. The city ended the violence by ban-
ning zoot suits. Table 17.1 lists several other exam-
ples of recent collectives.
As these historical examples reveal, people not
only join with others in small groups but also in very
large ones, and the impact of these groups on their
members can be large as well. This section considers
the forms these collectives can take—the different
types of collectives that researchers have
identified—and their features—the qualities that are
typical of these unique types of social aggregates.
17-1a What Are Collectives?
A collective is a relatively large group of people
who display similarities in actions and outlook. Pri-
mary and social groups, such as families, best
friends, clubs, juries, and work crews, are not col-
lectives, for they are too small, too structured, and
their membership too well-defined and stable. Nei-
ther are they categories, which include individuals
who share some distinguishing quality in common
such as nationality or eye color. The members of
collectives, instead, are joined by some type of
common interest or activity. The men and
women who gathered at Tahrir Square, for exam-
ple, were unified by their desire to create social
change, and that shared focus created commonali-
ties in their thoughts, actions, and emotions
(Muukkonen, 2008).
The Characteristics of Collectives Collectives,
like groups in general, vary in size, duration,
form, and function. They tend to be large, but
some collectives are huge—as when millions of
individuals respond similarly to some fashion
craze. In some cases, all the members of a collective
are together in one place, and so they “can monitor
each other by being visible to or within earshot
of one another” (Snow & Oliver, 1995, p. 572).
Other collectives, in contrast, involve individuals
who are dispersed across great distances. All
collective A relatively large aggregation of people who
are responding in a similar way to an event or situation,
including people who all occupy the same location (a
crowd) as well as mass phenomena in which individuals
are dispersed across a wide area (collective movements).
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 547
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

collectives, however, are distinguished by their
members’ “common or concerted” form of behav-
ior or reaction (McPhail, 1991, p. 159). Members
of a crowd, for example, may move in the same
direction or perform the same general types of
behaviors. Members of collective movements,
although not interacting in face-to-face settings,
act in similar ways to achieve a common purpose.
They are moving in the same direction, psycholog-
ically and socially, even though they are dispersed.
T A B L E 17.1 Examples of Collectives from the Last Hundred Years
Year Event
1919 Reform movements, including the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League,
succeed in their efforts to ban alcoholic beverages in the United States. The ban’s side effects include
the rise of organized crime and willful violation of the law by citizens, and it is repealed in 1933.
1938 On Halloween night, Orson Welles broadcasts the radio program The War of the Worlds. Some listen-
ers believe the dramatization is a real news broadcast, and react by warning relatives and taking
defensive precautions. The effect of the broadcast is exaggerated by the media, however.
1943 The citizens of Denmark, fearing that Germany would seize and kill its Jewish citizens, spontaneously
organize the transportation of nearly all Jews to safety in Sweden (Abrahamsen, 1987).
1943 Mrs. Mullane, a contestant on a radio program, was told to collect pennies as a service to the nation’s
war effort. The announcer asked listeners to send Mrs. Mullane a penny and gave her address on the
air. Within weeks, she received more than 200,000 letters and over 300,000 pennies.
1954 Rumors that windshields were being damaged by nuclear fallout circulate in Seattle, Washington. Fear
escalates as the media devote much attention to the issue and residents demand government interven-
tion. Subsequent investigation reveals that no damage at all has occurred (Medalia & Larsen, 1958).
1958 Wham-O Manufacturing Company begins selling a plastic toy named the Hula-Hoop. Millions are sold
within a four-month period, but the hoops’ popularity ends abruptly. The hula-hoop is dubbed the
“greatest fad of the 20th century” (Evans & Bartholomew, 2009, p. 249).
1962 Sixty–two workers in a manufacturing plant experience nausea, pain, disorientation, and muscular
weakness; some collapse. Physicians conclude the illness is psychological in source (Kerckhoff, Back, &
Miller, 1965).
1970 The Brazilian soccer team defeats the Italian team in the World Cup Tournament, setting off a series
of celebrations. More than 100 people die, and many more are injured by fireworks, brawls, automo-
bile accidents, and shootings.
1979 A crowd in Cincinnati, waiting for a concert by the rock group The Who, jams when the ticket takers
at the doors are unable to keep pace with the flow of the crowd into the arena. Eleven persons are
killed and many others are injured.
2011 An audience of 114,804, one of the largest number of spectators in the modern college football era,
assembles on September 10 at Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor to watch the University of Michigan
team play rival Notre Dame.
2012 On the ninth day of the month of hajj, at noon, more than two million people gather on the Plain of
Arafat in Saudi Arabia, the site of the prophet Mohammad’s final sermon—arguably the largest gath-
ering of people to assemble in one place at any time in history.
2017 The largest single-day protest in U.S. history takes place on the day after Donald Trump’s presidential
inauguration as 470,000 people, many in knitted pink hats, gather at the Mall in Washington, DC.
548 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Collectives also vary in their duration and
cohesion. Some are planned groups created for a
specific purpose, but most collectives result from
the press of circumstances or through self-
organizing dynamics. They tend to be open groups,
with no defined standards for membership or for-
mal operational strategies. Because membership is
fluid, relationships between individual members
are less intimate than those that link members of
smaller groups. If a typical group is two or more
individuals who are connected to one another by
and within interpersonal relationships, a typical col-
lective is a large number of individuals who are
connected by similarity in action and outlook rather
than by close, intimate relationships. Collectives,
too, are by reputation more unconventional than
other groups. They tend to exist outside of tradi-
tional forms of social structures and institutions,
and, as a result, their members sometimes engage
in atypical, unruly, unconventional, or even aber-
rant behaviors. Collectives often do surprising
things (Turner, 2001a).
Types of Collectives The diversity of collectives
is so great that no single classification scheme is
sufficient to categorize their many forms. But
recognizing that any classification scheme will fail
to do justice to their variety and complexity,
Figure 17.1 distinguishes among gatherings,
crowds, and collective movements. Gatherings
include audiences and queues; they are relatively
well-organized collectives, although they can trans-
form from gatherings into crowds quickly. Crowds
include various types of temporary assemblages,
such as street crowds, mobs, riots, and panics. Soci-
ologist Neil J. Smelser (1962), in his analyses of
collective behavior, calls crowds “collective out-
bursts,” for they can come into existence rapidly
but often fade away just as quickly. Collective move-
ments (or mass movements), he suggested, emerge
over longer periods of time and can influence
widely dispersed individuals. Collective movements
include the diffusion of ideas and opinions through-
out a populace—people passing rumors from one to
another, for example, are engaged in collective
behavior, as are those who change their preferences
and practices to match some passing trend, fad, or
craze. Social movements, in contrast, are more
deliberate—and often more organized—attempts
to achieve political, social, and economic reform.
The following sections examine each of these
types of collectives in more detail.
Collectives
Gatherings Crowds
Collective
movements
Street
crowds
Audiences Queues
Riots
Criminal
mobs
Mobs TrendsDiffusions
Social
movements
Aggressive
mobs
Panics
Escape
Acquisitive
Rumors
Mass
delusions
Fads
Crazes
F I G U R E 17.1 A classification of collectives.
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 549
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

17-1b Gatherings
Gatherings combine aspects of smaller groups with
qualities found in larger, more amorphous, crowds.
Congregations listening to a sermon, wedding guests
at the reception, audiences in a theater, and tick-
etholders waiting patiently in line for admission to
a baseball park have all deliberately assembled
together for an express purpose; like small groups,
they have boundaries, goals, and relatively clear
structures that define how members should act.
But, like crowds, the gathering’s longevity is very
limited, and individuals are linked by a common
focus and not by their relations to one another.
Audiences A gathering of individuals in a particu-
lar area to observe some event or activity is called an
audience (or conventional crowd). Unlike a crowd that
forms spontaneously when some event creates a
shared focus, individuals join audiences deliberately,
and they are bound more tightly by social conven-
tions that dictate their location and movements (Blu-
mer, 1946). They enter the focal area via aisles or
pathways and occupy locations that are determined
by seating arrangements or by custom. While
observing, they may perform a variety of behaviors,
including clapping, cheering, shouting, or question-
ing, but these actions are usually in accord with the
norms of the particular setting. Moreover, when the
event or performance has ended, the audience dis-
perses in an orderly fashion (Köster et al., 2015).
Audiences, although relatively staid collectives,
nonetheless exert considerable social pressure on
their members. Audience members expect each
other to abide by the norms of the setting, and
those who fail to do so—say, by speaking too loudly,
using a cell phone, or otherwise flaunting the unspo-
ken rules of the situation—put themselves at risk for
a social rebuke. Audience members also tend to act
in relatively synchronized fashion—clapping, laugh-
ing, and exiting the situation in unison. Laughter, for
example, is highly contagious within an audience:
People are thirty times more likely to laugh when
with others than when alone (Provine, 2017).
Queues An assemblage of people awaiting their
turn—a queue—is a unique type of gathering.
How Do Audiences Know When to Stop Clapping?
Audiences may seem like the least dynamic of groups,
but even these loose collections of quasi-independent
individuals respond as one when the event ends: they
clap. Researchers, wondering just how audiences
managed to coordinate their clapping, filmed groups
of students listening to formal presentations. At the
end of each presentation, the group applauded, but
this period of applause was highly structured rather
than random. The audiences did not “burst” into
applause: The delay between the end of the presen-
tation and the first clap of applause was, on average,
2.1 seconds. Then, more and more members of the
audience began clapping until, three seconds later, all
the audience members were applauding. Each person
applauded for about six seconds, and the group
stopped clapping more abruptly than it began. The
gap between the first person stopping clapping and
the last was only 2.6 seconds. Clapping rates varied,
with some audience members were clapping only
about 10 times before stopping and others clapping
away over 30 times. These differences were consistent
across presentations, suggesting some of us are dispo-
sitionally longer clappers than others. The researcher
did not find, however, that audience members were
influenced by the clapping of people located near
them. Instead, it was the general volume of the clap-
ping that prompted them to begin and end their dis-
play of approval. Even the more sedate audience
members joined into the group applause as the sound
got louder (Mann et al., 2013).
audience A gathering of onlookers who observe some
performance, event, or activity; audiences tend to be
conventional in behavior, and they disperse when the
event they are watching concludes.
queue A line, file, or set of people who are waiting for
some service, commodity, or opportunity.
550 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Queue comes from the French word for braided
hair and so pays etymological homage to the
queue’s most common shape—a relatively straight
line. But some settings, such as theme parks, lob-
bies, and registration offices, shape the queue into a
zigzag pattern through the use of stanchions and
ropes. Other establishments create dispersed queues
by assigning queuers a number and then summon-
ing them through a beeper or announcement when
it is their turn. Queues can also be segmented into
subgroups that are permitted to enter together, as
when passengers board a plane in groups based on
seat assignment. Some queues, too, are not at all
linear, as when those waiting to board a bus or to
enter a crowded concert venue move in a relatively
unregulated way toward the entryway.
Members of a queue, like those in an audience,
will probably never meet again. But also like an
audience, those in a queue have joined deliberately
to achieve a particular goal, and thus, as members of
the collective, they are bound by certain norms of
behavior (Mann, 1970). Queues are an interference,
for they prevent people from immediately achiev-
ing their goal of acquiring tickets, services, or other
commodities, but they also protect people from
late-arriving competitors for these commodities.
As social psychologist Stanley Milgram and his col-
leagues explain:
As in the case of most social arrangements,
people defer to the restraints of the form, but
they are also its beneficiary. The queue thus
constitutes a classic illustration of how indivi-
duals create social order, on the basis of a
rudimentary principle of equity, in a situation
that could otherwise degenerate into chaos.
(Milgram et al., 1986, p. 683)
Social Order in Queues What prevents the
queue from breaking down into a disorderly
crowd? First, self-interest motivates the queue
members to protect their advantaged place in the
line against intruders. Every queue-jumper inflicts a
cost—the loss of time—on all those who are
pushed further back in line by their incursion. Sec-
ond, queues are procedural preferences in many
situations, and so are sustained by social norms of
fairness and orderliness (Dold & Khadjavi, 2017).
Queues are based on the principle “first come,
first served” (or “first in, first out”), so those who
violate that norm risk sanction by the group (Zhou
& Soman, 2008). When members join the queue,
they accept its rules, even though the group will
disband once it serves its purpose.
Milgram studied queues by having both male
and female accomplices queue jump 129 lines wait-
ing outside ticket offices and the like in New York
City. Working either alone or in pairs, the accom-
plices would simply say, “Excuse me, I’d like to get
in here,” and then insert themselves in the line. In
an attempt to determine who would be most likely
to enforce the norm, Milgram also included either
one or two passive confederates in some of the
queues he studied. These individuals, who were
planted in the line in advance, stood directly behind
the point of intrusion (Milgram et al., 1986).
People objected to the incursion in nearly half
of the lines studied. In a few cases (10.1%), queuers
used physical action, such as a tap on the shoulder
or a push. In 21.7% of the lines, the reaction was
verbal, such as “No way! The line’s back there.
We’ve all been waiting and have trains to catch”
or “Excuse me, it’s a line.” In another 14.7% of
the lines, queuers used dirty looks, staring, and hos-
tile gestures to object to the intrusion nonverbally.
Objections were also more prevalent when two
persons broke into the line rather than one, and
they were least prevalent when two confederates
separated the intruders from the other queuers.
Confirming the motivating influence of self-
interest, 73.3% of the complaints came from people
standing behind the point of intrusion rather than
from people standing in front of the intrusion.
Those who break into queues are not always
socially condemned. If they appear to be joining
someone who is holding a place for them in line
or if they join a line near the rear where the tail’s
end is less well defined, then they are less likely to
encounter resistance (Schmitt, Dubé, & Leclerc,
1992). Condemnation is swifter, however, if those
in line believe that the queue jumper, by inserting
himself or herself into the line, may be increasing
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 551
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

the chance that they will be disadvantaged in some
way—say, by failing to gain admission or having to
accept a lower-quality seating position (Helweg-
Larsen & LoMonaco, 2008).
17-1c Crowds
Crowds tend to spring up when individuals who
happen to be located in the same general vicinity
share a common experience. Variously labeled street
crowds or public crowds, these groups form in public
or semipublic places and are made up of people
who are strangers to one another—except for the
clusters of intact groups that they enfold.
Crowd Formation Individuals who are sitting on
benches in a park, walking along a city sidewalk, or
waiting for a bus may all occupy a common loca-
tion, but they do not become a crowd unless some-
thing happens—a fire, a car collision, or street
performance, for example—to create a common
focus of attention (Milgram & Toch, 1969). Mil-
gram and his colleagues examined this process by
creating, experimentally, crowds on a street in New
York City. On two winter afternoons in 1968, his
confederates stopped in the middle of the sidewalk
and stared, in rapt attention, at the sixth floor of a
nearby building. They remained in place as pass-
ersby flowed around them, and the researchers
recorded—from that very same window of the
nearby building—how many stopped. They
selected a busy street for their study, for an average
of 50 people passed by during any given observa-
tion period. And they varied the number of people
who seeded the group. In some conditions just one
person stood staring up, but other conditions
included as many as 15 confederates.
How many would be drawn by the crowd, and
how many would resist? When they counted the
number of people who actually stopped walking
and stood with the group, taking up the collective
stare, they discovered that more and more people
joined in as the stimulus crowd of confederates
grew larger. Only 4% of the passersby joined a sin-
gle starer, but 40% stopped in their tracks and
joined the large crowd—swelling the group in
size from 15 to about 35 people (see Figure 17.2).
However, if a less stringent criterion for a crowd
was used—people needed only to share the same
focus of attention—then even a single individual
was capable of influencing 42% of the passersby to
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1 2 3 5 10 15
Size of stimulus crowd
P
e
rc
e
n
t
o
f
p
a
s
s
e
rs
b
y
who stop
who look up
F I G U R E 17.2 The mean percentage of people who looked up or stopped when they passed a single person or a
group of 2, 3, 5, 10, or 15 people looking up at a building.
SOURCE: From “Note on the Drawing Power of Crowds of Different Size,” by S. Milgram, L. Bickman, & L. Berkowitz (1969), Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 13, 79–82. Copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association.
crowds A gathering of individuals, usually in a public
place, who are present in the same general vicinity and
share a common focus.
552 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

look up. The crowd of 15 influenced even more—
86% of the passersby also looked up (Milgram,
Bickman, & Berkowitz, 1969). The crowds may
have grown larger still, but for two factors. First,
the confederates dispersed in different directions
after one minute, and when they left the crowd
usually dispersed quickly. Second, since there was
nothing interesting to observe, these groups could
not hold members’ interest. When people realized
there was nothing to see, they went on their way.
Some interpreted Milgram’s study as one more
indication that people too easily fall under the
influence of a crowd. Milgram and his colleagues,
however, questioned this conclusion. Although
there was nothing to be gained by joining the
crowds they created, the passersby did not know
that; they naturally assumed that, “all other things
being equal, the larger the crowd the more likely its
members are attending to a matter of interest”
(1969, pp. 81–82). Crowds, then, serve as signals
to seek out information—in most cases what is of
interest to those in the crowd will also be of interest
to those who are outside of it.
Crowd Structure and Action Crowds are often
short-lived, but even these fleeting collectives possess
a rudimentary social structure. Their boundaries are
relatively permeable at the edges of the crowd where
individuals are allowed to enter and exit freely, but
permeability diminishes as one moves nearer the center
of the crowd. Also, roles, status hierarchies, and other
group structures may not be very evident in such
crowds, but close probing usually reveals some under-
lying structure. For example, they usually take on one
of two distinctive shapes—arcs (half-circles with all
members facing some focal point) and rings (full circles).
The focal point is known as a crowd crystal—one or
more individuals who, by drawing attention to them-
selves or some event, prompt others to join them
(Canetti, 1962). Evidence also indicates that those
who occupy central positions in crowds are likely to
be more actively involved in the experience than those
who are content to remain on the fringes (Milgram &
Toch, 1969).
Consistencies in action parallel these consisten-
cies in structure. Sociologist Clark McPhail and his
colleagues, after observing all kinds of public gath-
erings, identified a number of elementary behaviors
common to such groups (McPhail, 1991, 2006,
2008; Tucker, Schweingruber, & McPhail, 1999).
Their listing includes the following:
■ Movement: Actions taken in common by group
members, such as clustering, queuing, surging,
marching, jogging, and running.
■ Positioning: The stance assumed by members in
the space, including sitting, standing, jumping,
bowing, and kneeling.
What Happens When Crowds Must “Flow” in Two Directions?
Pedestrian bands are hybrid collectives, for they are
part crowd but part queue. Bands occur when large
groups of people must move through a space, such as
a crosswalk, a hallway, or staircase, but in opposite
directions. Modeling these crowds at the individual
level—as masses of independent individuals moving in
two directions—cannot explain how these groups
manage such complex situations so effectively with so
little attention to process. Only a shift in perspective,
from the individual to the group, reveals their secret:
The formation of coordinated subgroups nested in the
larger group. These bands develop when pedestrians,
walking behind the preceding pedestrian, follow one
another through the space. The pedestrians at the
front of the group lead the band, and those further
back in the crowd, seeing the more rapid movement of
those in the band, fall into line behind it. Some indi-
viduals may attempt to make their way through the
crowd separately from the band, but in heavy crowds
they find they must step out of the path of individuals
approaching from the opposite direction and when
they do, they find themselves caught up in the band.
They remain (in most cases) to gain the advantage of
the band’s efficient movement. The result: a synchro-
nized but spontaneously generated crowd flow
(Yamori, 1998).
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 553
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

■ Manipulation: Alteration of objects in the
setting, such as throwing or moving objects.
■ Gesticulation: Gesturing, such as saluting and
signaling (e.g., the raised middle finger and
power fist).
■ Verbalization: Communicating through
language forms, such as chanting, singing,
praying, reciting, or pledging.
■ Vocalization: Communicating with paralin-
guistic sounds, such as ooh-ing and ahh-ing,
cheering, booing, whistling, laughing, or
wailing.
■ Orientation: Moving into a particular formation
within the space, such as clustering, arcing,
ringing, facing, or vigiling.
McPhail did not include mayhem as one of his
categories. He spent years studying and observing
crowds, but he rarely saw people in them acting in
inappropriate or unusual ways.
17-1d Mobs
When a gathering of people—a crowd, an audi-
ence, or even a queue—becomes emotionally
charged, the collective can become a mob. Mobs
tend to form when some event, such as a crime, a
catastrophe, or a controversial action, evokes the
same kind of affect and action in a substantial num-
ber of people. The hallmark of the mob is its emo-
tion (Lofland, 1981). Early accounts of mobs argued
that individuals in mobs were so overwhelmed by
their emotions that they could no longer control
their actions. Unless the situation is diffused, the
mob becomes volatile, unpredictable, and capable
of violent action. Mobs, as their name implies, are
crowds that are in motion—they are mobile, with
members moving together from one location to
another, massing in a single location, or just milling
about in unpatterned ways (Hughes, 2003).
Celebratory Mobs Mobs, even though they
stimulate their members’ emotions, are not neces-
sarily irrational, nor are they necessarily violent.
When teammates celebrate a victory, partiers parade
in the streets of New Orleans during Mardi Gras, or
patriots celebrate the end of a conflict, the members
display collective effervescence: outward expres-
sions of such positive emotions as joy, jubilation,
and exhilaration (Hopkins et al., 2016). Supporters
of the winning team in a sports competition, for
example, frequently gather in small mobs to express
their happiness over the team’s victory: cheering
and shouting, hugging and gesturing to one
another, waving the school banner or flag, and
dancing. The displays of emotion are particularly
robust in specific areas where fans congregate, sug-
gesting they serve to bolster the celebrants’ identifi-
cation with the team. These after-victory rituals
seem to be more theatrical than unguarded expres-
sions of positive affect (Snow, Zurcher, & Peters,
1981).
Flash mobs, too, tend to be emotionally pos-
itive crowds—although they are too contrived to
be considered true mobs. Flash mobs are large
groups of people who gather together, at a particu-
lar place and time, to perform some sort of point-
less, obscure, or puzzling behavior before quickly
dissembling. Most flash mobs are recreational, in
that they are not intended to make any type of
political statement or to significantly disrupt other
social activities. Rather, they are usually harmless or
playful group displays, such as dancing, chanting, or
singing. In most cases, these mobs are orchestrated
through the use of communication technologies,
including email, instant messaging, and postings at
Internet sites, and so participants are likely linked
via social networks; they are not complete strangers
to one another. Flash mobs are thought to have
begun in New York City, but have been observed
mob A disorderly, emotionally charged crowd; mobs
tend to form when some event, such as a crime, a catas-
trophe, or a controversial action, evokes the same kind of
affect and action in a substantial number of people.
flash mobs A group, often recruited through social net-
works of peer-to-peer contacts or using computer-based
technologies (e.g., cell phones and text messaging), that
gathers at a particular place and time to perform some
sort of innocuous behavior before quickly dissembling.
554 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

in public places throughout the world (Gore, 2010;
Lemos, 2010).
Aggressive Mobs The night that Mubarak was
forced from office, the crowds of people massed
at Tahrir Square celebrated their victory with unre-
served jubilation. But, mixed in with these celebra-
tory mobs, were more malevolent ones. One of
these mobs attacked and sexually assaulted a female
reporter for a Western news agency. The mob of
men beat her with sticks and poles, tore out her
hair, ripped off her clothing, and assaulted her sex-
ually until a group of Egyptian women formed a
protective barrier around her (Replogle, 2011).
Aggressive mobs engage in violent, criminal
behaviors. Whereas the emotion of celebratory
mobs is positive, the aggressive mob’s dominant
emotion is anger. These groups engage in a variety
of unlawful actions, including destruction of prop-
erty, looting, arson, assault, and rape. Their attacks
on their victims are generally termed mobbing.
The lynch mob is an example of such a collective.
White people in the southern areas of the United
States joined together to form these mobs that
attacked and killed African Americans, often by hang-
ing. The first documented lynch mob occurred in
1882, but, by 1950, lynch mobs had killed thousands,
due in part due to the systematic failure of civil
authority to intervene to prevent such violence
(Beck, Tolnay, & Bailey, 2016). Hooligans are also
examples of violent mobs. Hooligans, to oversimplify
a complex social process, are groups of violent sports
fans and are usually associated with European football
(soccer) teams. These mobs of fans, often intoxicated,
mill about in the streets and pubs around the stadiums,
attacking fans who support the opposing team (see
Hopkins & Treadwell, 2014, for more information).
Riots Riots can be construed as mobs on a much
larger scale. They often begin when a relatively
peaceful crowd is transformed by a negative expe-
rience into a violent mob. For example, on the final
night of the 1999 Woodstock music festival, an
antiviolence group named PAX asked the audience
to light candles as an expression of unity. The con-
certgoers instead used the candles to burn down the
outdoor venue. At sporting events, the violence of
localized mobs sometimes diffuses through a much
larger portion of the spectators, resulting in large-
scale hostility, destruction, and harm. In Europe
and South America, for example, riots during soc-
cer matches frequently result in injuries and death.
In other cases, riots are an expression of unrest
and protest in the general population. In 1921, for
example, Whites in Tulsa, Oklahoma, attacked the
highly successful Black business community of
Greenwood. Hundreds were killed, and 35 city
blocks of Black-owned businesses were destroyed.
In 1980 and 1992, residents of Liberty City, Florida,
and Los Angeles, California, rioted when police offi-
cers charged with brutality were found not guilty. In
2011, riots occurred in a number of cities in England,
including London. Analysis of these outbursts sug-
gests that confrontations between police and local
residents, who were already angered by police actions
and substantial reductions in social services, resulted in
open intergroup conflict (Reicher & Stott, 2011).
Riots are also sometimes motivated by a collective
desire to loot and steal. For example, in 1969,
when the police force of Montreal went on strike
for 17 hours, mayhem broke out all over the city.
Professional crimes skyrocketed, but the noncriminal
population also ran amok. A heterogeneous crowd,
including impoverished, wealthy, and middle-class
people, rampaged along the central business corridor,
looting, and vandalizing (Clark, 1969).
17-1e Panics
Some mobs are charged with a different set of emo-
tions than anger; they are fearful, anxious, and
frightened. These mobs have panicked, for they are
either desperately seeking out a limited resource
that they fear will run out (acquisitive panics) or,
and more typically, fleeing from an aversive situa-
tion (escape panics).
riots A large and often widely dispersed crowd whose
wanton and unrestrained behavior violates rules of civil
and legal authority (e.g., harassment, looting, destruction
of property, assault, and violence).
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 555
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Acquisitive Panics When large numbers of peo-
ple face a situation of scarcity, their desire to acquire
the resource sometimes triggers anxiety and a loss of
self-regulation. Queues, for example, can break
down, and individuals may be so intent on acquir-
ing the scarce commodity that they act with callous
disregard for others’ well-being. Acquisitive panics
are generally associated with consumer settings,
when individuals are attempting to purchase scarce
products or those that are priced below their value.
For example, before the advent of online shopping,
a number of retailers in the United States launched
their winter holiday consumer season on the Friday
following the national holiday Thanksgiving Day.
This event, called “Black Friday,” was sometimes
marked by incidents of panic as shoppers arrived
at the retailers well before the scheduled opening
and then crowded into the facility to make their
purchase. When researchers stationed observers
outside the doors of 21 large retailers in the early
morning of one Black Friday, in 80% of the loca-
tions, large crowds of 50 or more shoppers formed
before the stores opened for business. At all the
locations, the initial opening triggered a period of
panic and crowd turbulence, and at 14% of the
locations, the crowd was so large that it continued
to push to gain entry for more than 30 minutes.
Some of the shoppers in the group appeared to be
excited by the situation, but many showed evidence
of anxiety, irritability, frustration, and aggravation
(Simpson et al., 2011).
Escape Panics When large numbers of people
face danger, their desire to escape can result in a
further decline of social coordination of the group’s
movement. Groups often respond calmly to a catas-
trophe, such as a fire, flood, or earthquake, but if
the situation is seen as very dangerous and the
escape routes are limited, a crowd can become a
panicked mob (Strauss, 1944). Members, fearing
personal harm or injury, struggle to escape both
from the situation and from the crowd itself:
The individual breaks away and wants to
escape from it because the crowd, as a whole, is
endangered. But because he is still stuck in it,
he must attack it…. The more fiercely each
man “fights for his life,” the clearer it becomes
he is fighting against all the others who hem
him in. They stand there like chairs, balus-
trades, closed doors, but different from these in
that they are alive and hostile. (Canetti, 1962,
pp. 26–27)
Panics often result in a staggering loss of life. In
1903, for example, a panic at Chicago’s Iroquois
Theater killed nearly 600 people. When a small
fire broke out backstage, the management tried to
calm the audience. But when the house lights when
out and the fire was visible behind the stage, the
crowd stampeded for the exits. Some were burned,
and others died by jumping from the fire escapes to
the pavement, but many more were killed as fleeing
patrons trampled them. One observer described the
panic this way:
In places on the stairways, particularly where a
turn caused a jam, bodies were piled seven or
eight feet deep. Firemen and police confronted
a sickening task in disentangling them. An
occasional living person was found in the heaps,
but most of these were terribly injured. The
heel prints on the dead faces mutely testified to
the cruel fact that human animals stricken in
terror are as mad and ruthless as stampeding
cattle. Many bodies had the clothes torn from
them, and some had the flesh trodden from their
bones. (Foy & Harlow, 1928/1956)
Experimental simulations of panicked crowds
suggest that individuals who must take turns exiting
from a dangerous situation are most likely to panic
when they believe that the time available to escape
is limited and when they are fearful of the conse-
quences of a failure to escape (Kelley et al., 1965;
Mintz, 1951). Larger groups, even if given more
time to escape, are also more likely to panic than
smaller ones (Chertkoff, Kushigian, & McCool,
1996). If a large group can be split up into smaller
groups that are led separately to exits, the time
taken to exit is reduced, but few groups can achieve
this level of control over their movements during a
panic (Sugiman & Misumi, 1988).
556 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Panics as Queue Failures As noted earlier in the
chapter, queues serve to maintain social order and
public safety, and their function becomes particu-
larly clear when queues collapse into disorganized
crowds. Such a queue failure occurred in 1979 in
a gathering of concertgoers waiting to gain admis-
sion to a concert by the rock band The Who in
Cincinnati. Many fans had general admission tickets
rather than assigned seating. So, in order to get a
spot near the stage, fans had come to the venue
early so they could enter as soon as the doors
opened. However, the queue was disorganized—
no lines had formed, and when the doors opened,
the group of 8,000 individuals pushed forward as a
mass. The results were deadly. The back of the
group moved faster than the front, and the flow
jammed near the clogged doors. People were liter-
ally swept off their feet by the surge, and some
slipped to the concrete floor. Those around them
tried to pull them back to their feet, but the over-
crowded mass of people pushed on toward the
open doors. As the rear of the crowd continued
to push forward, the crowd swept past those who
had fallen, and they were trampled underfoot.
Eleven people were killed (Johnson, 1987).
The group waiting for the Who concert was
initially a queue—a disorganized queue, but a
queue nonetheless. When the venue failed to
open the doors on time, it is likely that a queueing
effect occurred. Members of delayed queues tend
to inch forward, creating the illusion of progress,
but also compression of the crowd. When the
doors opened, the queue surged forward to
release the pressure and jammed. The crowd lost
its capacity to move in a coordinated way, and this
instability caused density to rise even further
(Helbing & Mukerji, 2012). Although the news
media described the crowd as a drug-crazed stam-
pede bent on storming into the concert, police
interviews with survivors indicated that the
crowd members in the center of the crush were
trying to escape the overcrowding rather than to
get into the concert. Some individuals in the
crowd were struggling to get out of danger, but
others were Good Samaritans who helped the
injured (Johnson, 1987).
Many municipalities and promoters, to prevent
a repeat of this type of tragedy, have banned general
admission seating: All tickets are for specific seats
within the venue. However, in places where general
admission seating is permitted, norms often develop
to create queues to prevent crowding. Before shows
by the band U2 in the United States, for example,
fans holding general admission tickets arrive at the
venue hours (or even days) before the doors open.
They organize their wait, however, in a fairly elabo-
rate, normative system, in which each person’s order
in the line is recorded by self-appointed “line Nazis.”
Line breaking is not tolerated, although friends are
permitted to hold places for late-arriving friends,
provided that others nearby in the line are fully
informed about the later arrival of additional queue
members. In general, more committed fans are more
adamant about maintaining the queue’s norms
(Helweg-Larsen & LoManaco, 2008).
Crowd Safety Crowd disasters are a worldwide
phenomenon because the primary ingredients for
such tragedies—large numbers of people who
gather in spaces that are too confining—are present
in all cultures. Even when individuals planning such
events are careful to engineer the site to fit the
number of attendees, the dynamics of crowd move-
ment, combined with unforeseen events, often
result in uncontrolled, chaotic crowd occurrences.
A relatively well-organized queue, for example, can
become too compacted and so bottlenecks form
along the group’s path at points where its pathway
is obstructed—even if the obstruction is a minor
one. Organizers usually make certain that the
entry points are smaller than the exit points, but
arriving crowds may bypass the entry barricades,
resulting in far greater pressure on the interior of the
group. In some cases, too, negative assumptions about
crowds—that they are unpredictable, emotional, and
primal—shift the blame to the people in the group
and away from significant influences: complacency,
inadequate planning, deteriorated facilities, communi-
cation breakdowns, insufficient training, and so on.
Too often the emphasis is on crowd control
rather than crowd safety (Challenger & Clegg, 2015;
Wijermans et al., 2016).
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 557
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

17-1f Collective Movements
Not all collective phenomena transpire at close dis-
tances. In some cases, individuals who are dispersed
may act and react in similar and often atypical ways.
Such curious phenomena are variously termed
collective movements, mass movements, or dispersed
collective behavior, although this terminology is by no
means formalized or universally recognized (Smelser,
1962). But like crowds, collective phenomena come
in many varieties, including (1) such social diffusions
as rumors, mass delusions and trends, and (2) social
movements.
Rumors The rumors had been circulating around
the crowd of 100,000 gathered at Tahrir Square
throughout the day. Mubarak was to address the nation
that night, and the rumors all said the same thing: He
was going to announce his resignation. These rumors
built the throng’s emotions up to a state of happy
Is There Safety or Danger in Numbers?
It is said that there is safety in numbers, but there is
danger as well. A dozen people were killed when a
police raid triggered a panic in a crowded club in
Mexico City, Mexico. When the thousands of pilgrims
massed on a narrow road to the Chamunda Devi tem-
ple in India panicked 147 people were killed and scores
injured. In Germany, at a street festival called the Love
Parade, people crowding into the venue sought to
escape up a narrow staircase, but when the flow
jammed, 21 people were killed and 500 injured. In
China, at least three shoppers died during a rush on
sale items at a superstore located in Beijing. When a
rumor raced through a huge gathering of Shiite Mus-
lims in Baghdad that a suicide bomber was in their
midst, the crowd panicked and pushed forward across
a narrow bridge with concrete barriers for security.
Nearly 1,000 people were killed.
Sociologist Dirk Helbing, who studies ways to
prevent these kinds of tragedies, is also a physicist, so
he draws on studies of the flow of fluids and gases
through constrained spaces to explain the movement
of large groups. Most flow systems are stable and
predictable, but when they are overloaded—too much
fluid is pumped through too small a pipe—the system
fails. Similarly, when too many people attempt to
move through a constrained space, the system can be
overwhelmed and the flow will jam. Once clogged,
those trapped in it are likely to be injured (Helbing
et al., 2005; Hughes, 2003).
Helbing and his colleagues (2007) took this
approach in their studies of fatal crowd disasters that
occurred at the Jamarat Bridge in Saudi Arabia. This
pedestrian bridge is used by Muslims during the cere-
monial stoning of the Jamrah Pillars. Helbing and his
colleagues, to determine the source of the danger,
conducted extensive analyses of video recordings of a
deadly crowd event in 2006. They discovered that, in
most cases, some portions of the group moved more
quickly than others, and density varied significantly
across the entire crowd. As in vehicular traffic jams, the
group began to move in stop-and-go waves: Portions
of the crowd would move forward more quickly than
seemed prudent, given the congestion, and would
then have to stop quickly when those in front of them
were moving slower. Groups could tolerate these
waves until density became extreme. But once density
reached a very high level—as great as 10 people per
square meter—the group transitioned into what
Helbing calls the “turbulence phase.” The crowd
members collided with one another, people lost their
footing, and, if they fell, the densely packed crowd
unintentionally moved over them, killing or injuring
them (Helbing, Johansson, & Al-Abideen, 2007;
Johansson et al., 2008; Moussaïd et al., 2010).
These findings suggest one certain solution: Control
the number of people entering the area by constricting
the size of the entry points so that they are smaller than
the size of the exits. Cross-flows within the crowd should
also be minimized, if possible, by creating lanes within
the space—similar to lanes on a highway. The research-
ers also recommend installing “pressure relief valves”:
structures that can be opened should the densities
become too great. Helbing also recommends reviewing
the space where events are to be held immediately
before the event to identify any obstacles. These recom-
mendations were applied when Jamarat Bridge was
renovated: multiple levels and emergency exit ramps
leading down from the sides of the bridge were added.
collective movements A large aggregation of indivi-
duals, widely dispersed across space and time, who display
similarities in activities, reactions, interests, and so on.
558 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

readiness that turned to anger when Mubarak prom-
ised, instead, to not seek another term in office.
Rumors provide people with a means of exchang-
ing information about threatening situations and so
have a calming effect on groups and communities.
Sometimes, however, rumors can instigate more neg-
ative reactions to uncertainty and play a part in trig-
gering riots and panics. Future rioters, for example,
often mill about for hours swapping stories about
injustices before taking any aggressive action. Panics
and crazes, too, are often sustained by rumors, partic-
ularly when perpetuated by news reports and public
announcements (Allport & Postman, 1947). An epi-
demic of koro (a rare delusion characterized by the fear
that one’s sex organs will disappear) that swept
through the Han region of China, for example, was
traced to exposure to rumors about the fictitious mal-
ady (Cheng, 1997). Similarly, the 1999 Woodstock
music festival riots were preceded by a day of rumors
circulating through the crowd about what the final
night of the concert would bring (Vider, 2004).
Social psychologist Ralph Rosnow (1980) identi-
fied two conditions that influence the spread of
rumors—the degree of anxiety that individuals are
experiencing and their uncertainty about the true nature
of the situation. He argued that just as individuals often
affiliate with others in threatening situations, “ambigu-
ous or chaotic” situations tend to generate rumors. By
passing rumors, individuals convey information (albeit
false) about the situation. Rumors also reduce anxiety
by providing, in most cases, reassuring reinterpretations
of the ambiguous event (Walker & Berkerle, 1987).
After the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant acci-
dent, for example, authorities opened a rumor control
center to supply more accurate information to the
community (Rosnow & Kimmel, 1979; Rosnow,
Yost, & Esposito, 1986).
Mass Delusions Rumors provide the basis for
mass delusion—the spontaneous outbreak of
atypical thoughts, feelings, or actions in a group
or aggregation, including psychogenic illness, com-
mon hallucinations, and bizarre actions (Penneba-
ker, 1982; Phoon, 1982). Such episodes are
uncommon, but they have occurred regularly
throughout the modern era. For example, the
Werther syndrome is named for Johann Wolfgang
von Goethe’s (1749–1832) novel The Sorrows of
Young Werther. Many young men of the time imi-
tated the eccentric style of dress of the book’s hero,
Werther, but some went too far. They killed them-
selves in the same way as Werther did. Choreomania
is the term used to describe the compulsive dancing
crazes of the late Middle Ages. Tulipomania caused
financial ruin for many who speculated in the tulip
bulb market in Holland in the 1600s. Many traders
lost their savings when the price of bulbs plum-
meted in 1637. Biting mania was a fifteenth-century
epidemic of mass delusion that began when a Ger-
man nun developed a compulsive urge to bite her
associates, who in turn bit others, until the mania
spread to convents throughout Germany, Holland,
and Italy. Note, too, nearly all cases of mass delu-
sions have been exaggerated in their retelling (see
Evans & Bartholomew, 2009).
In some cases, unexplained epidemics of ill-
nesses are thought to have been cases of psycho-
genic illness rather than organic illness. For
example, in June 1962, workers at a garment fac-
tory began complaining of nausea, pain, disorienta-
tion, and muscular weakness; some actually
collapsed at their jobs or lost consciousness. Rumors
spread rapidly that the illness was caused by “some
kind of insect” that had infested one of the ship-
ments of cloth from overseas, and the owners began
making efforts to eradicate the bug. No bug was
ever discovered, however, and experts eventually
concluded that the “June Bug incident” had been
caused by mass delusion (Kerckhoff & Back, 1968;
Kerckhoff, Back, & Miller, 1965).
mass delusion The spontaneous outbreak of atypical
thoughts, feelings, or actions in a group or aggregation,
including psychogenic illness, common hallucinations,
and bizarre actions.
psychogenic illness A set of symptoms of illness in a
group of persons when there is no evidence of an organic
basis for the illness and no identifiable environmental
cause.
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 559
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Researchers can never definitively determine
which cases of widespread illness are socially pro-
duced rather than biologically produced, but one
study of work groups identified 23 separate cases
that involved large numbers of individuals afflicted
with “physical symptoms … in the absence of an
identifiable pathogen” (Colligan & Murphy, 1982,
p. 35). More than 1,200 people were affected by
these outbreaks, with most reporting symptoms that
included headaches, nausea, dizziness, and weak-
ness. Many were women working in relatively
repetitive, routinized jobs, and the illness often
spread through friendship networks. Similarly, stud-
ies of pupils in school often conclude that many
epidemics, such as outbreaks of fainting or nausea,
are caused by hysterical contagion (Bartholomew,
1997). Some experts believe that many of the ill-
nesses and medical complaints that are blamed on
the presence of irritants in office buildings and
schools—the so-called sick building syndrome—are
actually psychogenic illnesses (Murphy, 2006).
How can group-level delusions be controlled?
Organizational experts suggest that as soon as the
possibility of a physical cause is eliminated, work-
ers should be told that their problems are more
psychological than physical. A second means of
limiting the spread of such delusions involves
altering the setting. The outbreaks often occur
when employees have been told to increase their
productivity or when they have been working
overtime. Poor labor–management relations have
also been implicated, as have negative environ-
mental factors, such as noise, poor lighting, and
exposure to dust, foul odors, or chemicals (Colli-
gan, Pennebaker, & Murphy, 1982). Larger out-
breaks of rumors and hysteria that sweep across
whole regions and countries can be countered by
providing citizens with clear, accurate information
from trusted sources.
Trends In 1929, as the United States plunged
into the Great Depression, people had little time
or money to spend playing golf. But several entre-
preneurs set up “miniature golf courses” in cities,
and the idea took hold of the nation with a ven-
geance. Miniature golf spread over the entire
country, and some people were predicting that
the game would replace all other sports as the coun-
try’s favorite form of recreation. The craze died out
within six months (LaPiere, 1938).
Trends are changes in attitudes, actions, and
behaviors that influence large segments of a popu-
lation, such as whole communities or regions.
Many of these changes are relatively ordinary
ones; shifts in the use of the Internet and micro-
wave ovens, for example, illustrate the diffusion of
a technological innovation across the world.
Others, in contrast, are more capricious and unpre-
dictable. A fad, for example, is an unexpected,
short-lived change in the opinions, behaviors, or
lifestyles of a large number of widely dispersed indi-
viduals. Fads, such as the hula hoop, Pokémon Go,
and mood rings, are remarkable both because they
influence so many people so rapidly and because
they disappear without leaving any lasting impact
on society. Crazes are similar to fads in most
respects, except that they are just a bit more irratio-
nal, expensive, or widespread. Swallowing live
goldfish, streaking (running about naked in a public
place), and the widespread use of cocaine in the
1980s all qualify as crazes. Finally, fads that pertain
to styles of dress or manners are generally termed
fashion trends. Ties and lapels expand and contract,
women’s hemlines move up and down, and last
season’s color takes a backseat to this season’s
shade (Bourdieu, 1984; see Table 17.2).
17-1g Social Movements
During the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement in
the United States, large numbers of citizens took up
residence in the parks and plazas near the commer-
cial centers of major cities to protest the exploitive
practices of large corporations. In the spring of
2012, a strike by millions of workers in Spain closed
most of the businesses in major cities and brought
transportation to a standstill. On January of 2017,
trends The general direction in which the attitudes,
interests, and actions of a large segment of a population
change over time, including fashion trends, fads, and
crazes.
560 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

hundreds of thousands of women in over 80 coun-
tries around the world demonstrated in support of
women’s rights and social justice, many wearing
pink knit hats as a symbol of their solidarity. The
Arab Spring began when millions of citizens of
Tunisia rose up and eventually overthrew their
political leaders; uprisings, rebellions, and civil war
in other Middle East countries, including Egypt,
Bahrain, and Libya, soon followed.
A social movement is a deliberate, relatively
organized attempt to achieve a change or resist a
change in a social system. Social movements, like
other forms of collective behavior, often arise sponta-
neously in response to some problem, such as unfair
government policies, societal ills, or threats to personal
values. Social movements are not short-lived, how-
ever. Over time, they tend to gain new members,
set goals, and develop leadership structures, until
eventually they change from spontaneous gatherings
of people into social movement organizations (SMOs).
SMOs have all the structural characteristics of any
organization, including goals and objectives, rational
planning, and bureaucratic leadership structures
(McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1988).
Types of Social Movements Social movements,
like crowds, vary in their longevity and their goals
(Appelbaum & Chambliss, 1995). Reformist move-
ments seek to improve existing institutions, often
through civil disobedience and demonstrations.
The U.S. civil rights movement, for example,
sought to change existing laws that gave unfair
power to Whites, but the movement did not chal-
lenge the basic democratic principles of the coun-
try. Revolutionary movements, in contrast, seek more
sweeping changes in existing social institutions. The
revolts in France in the late 1700s and the Arab
Spring of 2011 were revolutionary movements,
for the protesters sought to change their existing
system of government. Reactionary movements,
instead of trying to achieve change, seek to resist
it or even to reinstate extinct social systems. The
Ku Klux Klan is one such movement, as are
many militia groups and groups that argue against
alternative lifestyles. Communitarian movements strive
T A B L E 17.2 Types of Collectives
Type Defining Characteristics
Audience Spectators at an exhibition, performance, or event
Queue A waiting line or file of individuals
Crowd A temporary gathering of individuals who share a common focus or interest
Mob An acting, moving crowd, often antagonistic or destructive
Riot A large, less localized, and less organized mob
Panic A threatened crowd, seeking to escape from danger or competing for a scarce commodity
Rumor Unverified information passed from one person to another
Mass delusion The spontaneous outbreak of atypical thoughts, feelings, or actions in a group or aggregate,
including psychogenic illness and bizarre ideas and actions
Trend An abrupt but short-lived change in the opinions, behaviors, lifestyle, or dress of a large
number of dispersed individuals (includes fads, crazes, and fashions)
Social movement A deliberate, organized attempt to achieve a change or resist a change in a social system
social movement A collective movement making a
deliberate, organized attempt to achieve a change or
resist a change in a social system.
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 561
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

to create more ideal living conditions than currently
exist in modern society, often by withdrawing from
contact with nonmembers. The communes of the
1960s were communitarian movements, as are
many alternative religious movements (cults).
The Politics of Social Movements The Arab
Spring was as much a political process as a social
one. The protesters did not gather at Tahrir Square
by happenstance; instead, the marches, demonstra-
tions, and rallies were all part of a planned, organized,
and orchestrated attempt to secure social change.
The success of the anti-Mubarak movement in
Egypt was due, in part, to its navigating the political
demands identified by three overlapping theoretical
perspectives. According to political opportunity theory,
to succeed the movement needed to take advantage
of any and all political opportunities (Meyer, 2004).
The uprising in Egypt followed a similar citizen
revolt in Tunisia that resulted in the overthrow of
that country’s government. These events upset the
region’s status quo, providing a temporary window
of opportunity for the movement to engage in more
forceful forms of protest. The movement also gained
Was the Arab Spring a High-Tech Revolution?
The Arab Spring—a cascade of demonstrations, pro-
tests, and riots in several countries in the Middle East—
took many political analysts by surprise. Countries such
as Egypt were considered to be strong states and weak
societies—two conditions that generally discourage
social change. Strong states have powerful, central-
ized, autocratic forms of government. Such govern-
ments usually suppress rebellion through coercive
means. These nations were also thought to be weak
societies, in the sense that the citizens were divided
among themselves (Dupont & Passy, 2011). Yet, the
events of the Arab Spring proved the experts wrong,
for change not only happened—it happened quickly. It
was as if some new social force, one that accelerated
the process of change in those countries, was at work.
That new ingredient to social change might be
technology. The protesters became what technology
expert Howard Rheingold (2002) calls a smart mob: a
social movement organized through the use of infor-
mation technology, including cell phones and the
Internet. Although street demonstrations at the World
Trade Organization summits, protestors camping out
during Occupy Wall Street, and the roving mobs that
formed during the recent English riots may have
looked like traditional collectives, all were created—or,
at least, organized—using communication technolo-
gies. Most people rely on the Internet to access news
and entertainment resources, communicate with
friends and family, and for shopping, but political
activists use the Internet to mobilize, organize, and
frame their social movement. During the Arab Spring,
information about the growing levels of dissent in the
nation was communicated using Facebook, blog post-
ings, and online satellite news services. When Egypt’s
state-run news service published misleading informa-
tion, people turned to technology to circumvent these
controls and share information that would otherwise
be suppressed. The leaders of the movement used
technology to express the basic premises of the move-
ment and respond to challenges mounted by pro-
Mubarak groups. The movement used social media to
develop its identity—as a source of unification of
Egypt that stood apart from political and religious
practices or ideologies. Technology was also used for
more practical, organizational purposes; participants
for demonstrations, protests, and marches were in
some cases recruited using tweets and Facebook event
postings rather than through more traditional, word-
of-mouth methods.
The Arab Spring social movement was not entirely
a high-tech protest; activists took to the streets, occu-
pied Tahrir Square, confronted pro-Mubarak forces,
and engaged in heroic acts of civil disobedience.
Technology, however, significantly influenced the
context and forms of the social movement, just as it is
influencing nearly all types of groups. When the citi-
zens of Paris stormed the Bastille in July of 1789, they
managed it without cell phones, Twitter, and Face-
book. Today’s and tomorrow’s rebellions, in contrast,
will likely be wired (and wireless) ones.
smart mob Any group, including social movements,
mobs, or crowds, that uses computer-based technologies
(e.g., cell phones, text messaging, and the Internet) to
organize and initiate its activities.
562 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

considerable strength when student protesters were
joined by a number of different groups within that
society, including labor groups, shopkeepers, profes-
sionals, Coptic Christians, and Islamists (Goldstone,
2011). As resource mobilization theory explains, success-
ful movements must identify and marshal sources of
support for the movement. Money must be raised;
equipment, provisions, and, in some cases, weapons
acquired; new recruits must be convinced to join;
and allies identified (McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald,
1988). Last, framing theory argues movements require
a meaningful account of their nature, objectives, and
goals. People must know what the movement stands
for and what it hopes to achieve (Walder, 2009).
The Arab Spring leaders created a coherent image
for the group that stressed nonviolence, shared iden-
tity, and an end to the Mubarak regime. Technology
also contributed to the movement’s success by pro-
viding a means of disseminating its message widely
(McGarty et al., 2014).
17-2 C OLLECTIV E
D Y NA M IC S
Scholars have pondered and debated the vagaries of
collectives for centuries, seeking to specify the fac-
tors that can transform individuals so thoroughly
and so unexpectedly. Although many answers
have been offered, this section narrows the analysis
by focusing on five theoretical explanations that
have stood the test of time and study. Each theory
focuses on a different aspect of collective behavior,
including motivational mechanisms, normative
interpretations, and identity and its loss. Each one
is selective in its focus, but taken together they pro-
vide considerable insight into a wide array of col-
lective phenomena (Lang & Lang, 1961).
17-2a Contagion
People, when interacting with one another, do not
only pass along germs, infections, and viruses, but
they also pass along ideas, actions, and outlooks. In
Egypt during the Arab Spring uprising, for exam-
ple, the people of Egypt interacted with one
another constantly, and during the course of those
daily interactions, they discussed the nation’s pro-
blems, exchanged ideas, passed along rumors, and
planned remedial actions. Through this process of
contagion, interest in and support for the move-
ment diffused throughout the nation, as one person
influenced another. When contagion occurs rap-
idly, it can generate a cascade: A chain reaction of
change that flows through the group (Sunstein &
Hastie, 2015).
Le Bon’s Crowd Psychology The concept of
contagion was popularized as an explanation of col-
lective and crowd behavior by Gustave Le Bon in
his book, The Crowd, in 1895. Le Bon was fasci-
nated by large groups, but he also feared their ten-
dency to erupt into violence. Perhaps because of
these biases, he concluded that a crowd of people
could, in certain instances, become a unified entity
that acted as if guided by a single collective mind.
Le Bon wrote:
Whoever be the individuals that compose it,
however like or unlike be their mode of life,
their occupations, their character, or their
intelligence, the fact that they have been
transformed into a crowd puts them in posses-
sion of a sort of collective mind which makes
them feel, think, and act in a manner quite
different from that in which each individual of
them would feel, think, and act were he in a
state of isolation. (1895/1960, p. 27)
Le Bon believed that no matter what the indi-
vidual qualities of the people in the group, the
crowd would transform them, changing them
from rational, thoughtful individuals into impulsive,
unreasonable, and extreme followers. Once people
fall under the “law of the mental unity of crowds”
(1895/1960, p. 24), they act as the collective mind
dictates. He believed that emotions and behaviors
could be transmitted from one person to another
contagion The spread of behaviors, attitudes, and affect
through crowds and other types of social aggregations
from one member to another.
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 563
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

just as germs can be passed along, and he believed
that this process of contagion accounted for the
tendency of group members to behave in very sim-
ilar ways (Wheeler, 1966).
Contagion in Collectives Many of Le Bon’s
speculations have been discredited, but he was right
about one thing: As Chapter 7 noted, contagion is
common in groups (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013). One
person laughing in an audience will stimulate laugh-
ter in others. Question and answer sessions after a
lecture usually begin very slowly, but they soon
snowball as more and more questioners begin raising
their hands. Individuals’ emotions tend to converge
over time when they interact frequently in groups.
Mimicry of others is so basic a process that some
researchers believe that mirror neurons are active
when others’ actions are observed and that these
neurons evoke matched behavior in the observer
(Semin, 2007; cf Hickok, 2014). Mimicry explains
why members of collectives act as if they are guided
by a single mind: As one person imitates the next,
the collective seems to act in a uniform manner.
Le Bon believed that such contagion processes
reflected the heightened suggestibility of crowd
members, but other processes may be at work as
well. Because many crowd settings are ambiguous,
social comparison processes may prompt members
to rely heavily on other members’ reactions when
they interpret the situation. Contagion may also
arise in crowds through imitation, social facilitation,
persuasion, or conformity (Tarde, 1903).
Sociologist Herbert Blumer combined these
various processes when he argued that contagion
involves circular reactions rather than interpretive
reactions (Blumer, 1957). During interpretive inter-
actions, group members carefully reflect on the
meaning of others’ behavior and try to formulate
valid interpretations before making any kind of
comment or embarking on a line of action. During
circular reactions, however, the group’s members
fail to examine the meaning of others’ actions cau-
tiously and carefully and, therefore, tend to misun-
derstand the situation. When they act on the basis
of such misunderstandings, the others in the group
also begin to interpret the situation incorrectly, and
a circular process is thus initiated that eventually
culminates in full-blown behavioral contagion.
Contagion versus Diffusion Le Bon considered
contagion to be a negative process; he likened the
spread of ideas and information throughout a crowd
to an infectious disease. Social network analysis, in
contrast, discards the pejorative connotations of the
concept of contagion by arguing that information
diffuses throughout the network because its mem-
bers are joined together in social relations. Diffu-
sion, then, is not the result of the contamination
of one person by another, but is instead due to
the rational exchange of information within a net-
work (Drury, 2002).
Diffusion starts when some bit of information,
such as a rumor, information about an event, an
interpretation, an emotion, or a description of an
experience, is passed from one individual (a node)
to another. If that node does not pass along the
information, diffusion ends—unless the initiator
passes the information to other nodes in his or her
network. If, however, the second individual passes
the information onward to one or more contacts,
then the information begins to propagate through-
out the network. How quickly its spreads and how
widely depends, in part, on the structure of the
network. For example, information will diffuse
more rapidly in networks that are dense and cen-
tralized and when the nodes are organized into
clusters (Ugander et al., 2012).
All nodes within a network are not created
equal in their capacity to influence the diffusion
process. Journalist Malcolm Gladwell (2000), for
example, distinguishes between people with large
social networks (connectors), the individuals who
are opinion authorities (mavens), and those who
are able to persuade others to change their minds
(salespeople). Relative to most people, these influ-
ential individuals can push an idea much more
rapidly to many more people. Connectors, for
example, have been identified as one source of
the rapid shift in popularity of new musical groups.
When investigators asked fans of a new musical
group how many other people they told about
the band, they discovered that most fans told only a
564 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

few other people. But a small number of the fans—
the connectors—told many more of their friends
about the group, including one individual who
claimed to have spread the message to more than
150 people (Reifman, Lee, & Apparala, 2004). Adver-
tisers now target such influential persons, in the belief
that if they win them over as customers, the rest of
their network will follow (Watts & Dodds, 2007).
17-2b Convergence
Many explanations of collective behavior suggest
that people are not changed by collectives, because
they were similar to one another from the very
start. Convergence theory assumes that indivi-
duals who join rallies, riots, movements, crusades,
and the like all possess particular personal character-
istics that influence their collective tendencies. Such
aggregations are not haphazard gatherings of dissim-
ilar strangers; rather, they represent the conver-
gence of people with compatible needs, desires,
motivations, and emotions. By joining in the
group, the individual makes possible the satisfaction
of these needs, and the crowd situation serves as a
trigger for the spontaneous release of previously
unexpressed desires. As social critic Eric Hoffer
(1951) wrote, “All movements, however different
in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adher-
ents from the same types of humanity; they all
appeal to the same types of mind” (p. 9).
Who Joins Crowds and Collectives? Are people
who take part in crowd activities different, in terms
of their personalities and values, than people who
do not join such groups? Early conceptions of
crowds, which portrayed their members as less
intelligent, more easily influenced, more impulsive,
and more violent, have not received consistent
empirical support (Martin, 1920; Meerloo, 1950).
Nor have attempts to link participation in more
unusual forms of collective behavior—such as
cults or radical religious groups—to psychological
problems. Those who join radical religious groups
are usually teenagers or young adults, and although
they tend to be more idealistic and open to new
experiences and are higher in psychological depen-
dency, they show no signs of psychological distur-
bance (Bromley, 2001, 2007; Walsh, Russell, &
Wells, 1995). Those who take part in sports-
related mobs and riots are usually younger men
who have engaged in aggressive crowd activities
in the past, but they are generally unremarkable in
other respects (Russell & Arms, 1998).
What Makes a Video Go Viral?
Millions of videos have been uploaded by users to the
video-sharing site YouTube since it was founded in
2005. Most videos that are posted are viewed by only a
small number of people, but others attract a much
wider audience in a very short period of time: they go
viral. Such videos as Gangnam Style, Taylor Swift’s
Blank Space, Evolution of Dance, and Kony 2012 were
viewed millions of times over the course of only a few
days. Why do some videos go viral, and others go
nowhere (Susarla, Oh, & Tan, 2012)?
One basic ingredient: substantial sharing across
social networks. YouTube makes the sharing of video
recommendation easy. As these recommendations
spread and the video’s popularity index increases,
more and more viewers who equate popularity with
quality watch it. Second, when individuals who have
many connections to others in the social network of
the Internet, such as celebrities, sports figures, Internet
information and news sites, and media blogs, endorse
a video, a popular video can become a viral video. The
Kony 2012 video, for example, was viewed 40 million
times in only four days when it was endorsed by a long
list of celebrities and well-respected news sites. Viral
videos, then, result from contagion. The next time you
watch a viral video, remember you are part of an
Internet-based collective.
convergence theory An explanation of collective
behavior assuming that individuals with similar needs,
values, or goals tend to converge to form a single group.
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 565
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Those who take part in social movements, in
contrast, tend to be more politically engaged. In
terms of basic personality, they are no more likely
to be extraverted or introverted or stable or unsta-
ble, but they do tend to be open to new experi-
ences. They also tend to have liberal rather than
conservative political beliefs, and they are relatively
engaged in political issues, in general. Even when
political and social events do not directly influence
them, they nonetheless consider them to be person-
ally meaningful (Curtin, Stewart, & Duncan, 2010).
People who join social movements also tend to
be higher in self-efficacy—they believe that through
their personal involvement, they can make a differ-
ence (Duncan, 2012). Self-confidence, achievement
orientation, a need for autonomy, dominance, self-
acceptance, and maturity are all positively correlated
with social activism (Werner, 1978). Individuals who
have a history of taking part in collectives tend to
jump at the chance to join new ones (Corning &
Myers, 2002), but those who have a history of
avoiding conflict are less likely to join (Ulbig &
Funk, 1999).
Relative Deprivation People who feel that prin-
ciples of fairness and justice are violated by the sta-
tus quo are also more likely to take part in social
movements. Collectives are often composed of
those who are impoverished, persecuted, or endan-
gered, but it is more the perceived unfairness of the
deprivation that determines involvement in a col-
lective rather than the deprivation itself. Relative
deprivation is therefore more motivating than
actual deprivation: Those who join social move-
ments tend to be people who have higher expecta-
tions but who have not succeeded in realizing these
expectations (Smith & Pettigrew, 2015).
Individuals who take part in social movements
are also more likely to be experiencing fraternal
deprivation rather than egoistic deprivation. As
sociologist Walter Runciman (1966) explains,
egoistic deprivation (or personal deprivation)
occurs when individuals are dissatisfied with their
level of prosperity relative to other individuals.
Fraternal deprivation (or group deprivation)
occurs when the groups one belongs to do not
enjoy the same level of prosperity as other groups.
Both forms of deprivation can influence well-
being, satisfaction, and happiness, but fraternal
deprivation is associated with a collective response.
Individuals experiencing egoistic deprivation may
be angry and disappointed, but those experiencing
fraternal deprivation (1) join with other group
members to take action against other groups or
organizations and (2) express more negative atti-
tudes and opinions about those groups (Smith
et al., 2012). Individuals who are active in revolu-
tionary social movements, such as the national sep-
aratist movements in Quebec and in Ireland, are
more likely to be dissatisfied with their group’s
outcomes than with their own personal outcomes
(Abrams, 1990; Guimond & Dubé–Simard, 1983).
17-2c Deindividuation
Many early theorists alluded to the transformative
effects of collectives, but the term deindividuation
was not introduced until 1952 by social psychologists
Leon Festinger, Albert Pepitone, and Theodore
Newcomb. They hypothesized that there
occurs sometimes in groups a state of affairs in
which the individuals act as if they were “sub-
merged in the group.” … The members do not
feel that they stand out as individuals. Others are
relative deprivation The psychological state that occurs
when individuals feel that, in comparison to others, their
attainments, outcomes, status, recognition, and so on are
inadequate.
egoistic deprivation The psychological state that
occurs when one feels one’s outcomes are inferior rela-
tive to other individuals’ outcomes.
fraternal deprivation The psychological state that
occurs when a group member feels his or her group’s
outcomes are inferior relative to other groups’ outcomes.
deindividuation An experiential state caused by a num-
ber of input factors, such as group membership and ano-
nymity, that is characterized by the loss of self-awareness,
altered experiencing, and atypical behavior.
566 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

not singling a person out for attention nor is the
person singling out others. (p. 382)
Several years later social psychologist Philip
Zimbardo (1969) offered a more fully developed
input–process–output model of deindividuation.
The inputs he identified include situational factors,
such as the degree of anonymity and the size of the
group, as well as more psychological factors: sense
of responsibility, degree of arousal, and altered states
of consciousness due to the use of drugs or alcohol.
These factors, in turn, lead to the psychological
state of deindividuation, which in turn generates
highly emotional, impulsive, and atypical actions
(see Figure 17.3). While deindividuation may lead
to increasingly positive behaviors, it usually leads to
“aggression, vandalism, stealing, cheating, rudeness,
as well as a general loss of concern for others”
(Zimbardo, 1969, 1975, p. 53).
Anonymity Zimbardo’s theory identified ano-
nymity as a primary precondition for deindividua-
tion. When individuals join a large collective, they
feel less identifiable, and this sense of anonymity
may cause them to engage in behavior that they
would never consider undertaking if alone. For
example, crowds and mobs that form at night
tend to be more unruly and aggressive than daylight
crowds (see Mann, 1981). Disguises, too, can
increase anonymity. According to anthropological
evidence, warriors in 92.3% (12 out of 13) of the
most highly aggressive cultures—those known to
practice headhunting and to torture captives—
disguise themselves prior to battle, whereas only
30% (3 out of 10) of the low-aggression cultures
feature similar rituals (Watson, 1973).
Zimbardo confirmed anonymity’s impact
experimentally by comparing the aggressiveness of
anonymous groups to those whose members were
identifiable. Under an elaborate pretense, he asked
all-female groups to give 20 electric shocks to two
women. Anonymous groups wore large lab coats
(size 44) and hoods over their heads, and they
were not permitted to use their names. Those in
groups that were identifiable were greeted by name
and wore large name tags; the experimenter
emphasized their uniqueness and individuality.
Although identifiability was unrelated to the num-
ber of shocks given (the average was 17 of 20), the
unidentifiable participants held their switches down
nearly twice as long as the identifiable participants
(0.90 seconds versus 0.47 seconds).
Responsibility As Le Bon argued many years
ago, the crowd is “anonymous, and in consequence
irresponsible” (1895/1960, p. 30). This diffusion of
Inputs
Anonymity
Reduced responsibility
Group size
Arousal
Others
(sensory overload, drug
use, arousal, etc.)
Deindividuation
Loss of self-awareness
Reduced self-
regulation
(low self-monitoring,
disregard for norms, etc.)
Unusual behavior
(emotional, impulsive,
irrational, regressive, with
high intensity)
Cognitive and
emotional disturbances
(memory impairment,
self-reinforcement,
contagion)
Outputs
F I G U R E 17.3 An input–process–output theory of deindividuation that proposes input factors create conditions
that lead to the state of deindividuation, which in turn results in deindividuated behaviors.
SOURCE: Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). “The Human Choice: Individuation, Reason, and Order versus Deindividuation, Impulse, and Chaos,” by P. G. Zimbardo
(1969), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 11, 237–307.
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 567
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

responsibility has been verified in dozens of studies of
people who faced various emergencies alone or in a
group (see Chapter 7). Members of groups may also
experience a reduction in responsibility if an authority
demands compliance (Milgram, 1974) or if they do
not recognize the connections between their personal
actions and their final consequences. Some groups
actually take steps to ensure the diffusion of responsi-
bility, as when murderers pass around their weapons
from hand to hand so that responsibility for the crime
is distributed through the entire group rather than
concentrated in the one person who pulls the trigger
or wields the knife (Zimbardo, 1969, 2007).
Group Membership Deindividuation is a group-
level process. Single individuals may feel unrecogniz-
able or uncertain as to their identity, but Zimbardo
considers membership in a collective to be a neces-
sary condition for deindividuation. Social psycholo-
gist Edward Diener and his associates (1976) tested
this assumption in an ingenious study of Halloween
trick-or-treating. Their participants were 1,352 chil-
dren from the Seattle area who visited one of the 27
experimental homes scattered throughout the city.
Observers hidden behind decorative panels recorded
the number of extra candy bars and money (pennies
and nickels) taken by the trick-or-treaters who were
told to take one candy bar each. The children came
to the house alone or in small groups (exceedingly
large groups were not included in the study nor
were groups that included an adult). An experi-
menter manipulated anonymity by asking some chil-
dren to give their names and addresses. As expected,
the children who were members of groups took
more money and candy than children who were
alone. So did the anonymous children compared to
those children who gave their names. But when
these two factors were combined—children were
part of a group and they were anonymous—
transgressions more than doubled (see Figure 17.4).
These findings, which have been supported by other
investigations, suggest that the term deindividuation is
used most appropriately in reference to people who
perform atypical behavior while they are members
of a group (Cannavale, Scarr, & Pepitone, 1970;
Mathes & Kahn, 1975).
Group Size Social psychologist Leon Mann
explored the relationship between group size and
members’ emotional reactions to religious messages
in a field study of large evangelical services (New-
ton & Mann, 1980). At the end of these services
audience members were invited to become
“inquirers” by coming forward and declaring their
dedication to Christ. Mann discovered that in 57
religious meetings, the correlation between crowd
size and the proportion of people who moved
down to the stage to become inquirers was .43.
On Sundays, the correlation rose to .78. Other
studies suggest that larger groups may also be
more violent groups. A review of historical records
of 60 violent mobs who attacked and lynched Black
men in the south of the United States in the first
part of the last century revealed that they ranged in
size from 4 to 15,000, but that larger mobs were
more likely to attack more victims (Mullen, 1986).
Arousal Zimbardo listed a number of other vari-
ables that can contribute to deindividuation,
including altered temporal perspectives, sensory
overload, a lack of situational structure, and the
use of drugs. Many of these factors, he suggested,
function by both arousing and distracting group
members. Zimbardo even suggested that certain
0
10
20
30
40
50
Nonanonymous
60
P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
o
f
c
h
il
d
re
n
tr
a
n
s
g
re
s
s
in
g
Alone Group
Anonymous
F I G U R E 17.4 The combined effects of anonymity
and group membership on counternormative behavior.
SOURCE: Data from “Effects of Deindividuating Variables on Stealing by
Halloween Trick-or-Treaters,” by E. Diener, S. C. Fraser, A. L. Beaman, &
R. T. Kelem (1976), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33,178–
183. Copyright 1976 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted
by permission.
568 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

rituals, such as war dances and group singing, are
actually designed to arouse participants and enable
them to be deindividuated when the fighting starts:
“Among cannibals, like the Cenis or certain Maori
and Nigerian tribes, the activity of ritual bonfire
dance which precedes eating the flesh of another
human being is always more prolonged and intense
when the victim is to be eaten alive or uncooked”
(1969, p. 257). Aroused individuals, as deindividua-
tion theory suggests, tend to respond more aggres-
sively, particularly when in a group (Goldstein,
2002).
Self-Awareness Zimbardo’s deindividuation the-
ory posits that situational variables, such as anonym-
ity and membership in a group, can in some cases
combine to induce psychological changes in group
members. Deindividuated people, Zimbardo pre-
dicted, should feel very little self-awareness, and
this minimization of self-scrutiny is the most imme-
diate cause of the atypical behaviors seen in
collectives.
Diener (1979, 1980) tested this hypothesis by
making use of an Asch-type experimental situation.
He created eight-person groups, but he included in
each group six accomplices trained to facilitate or
inhibit the development of deindividuation. In the
self-aware condition, the confederates seemed restless
and fidgety. Everyone wore name tags as they
worked on tasks designed to heighten self-
awareness, such as providing personal responses to
questions, sharing their opinions on topics, and dis-
closing personal information about themselves. In
the non-self-aware condition, Diener shifted the parti-
cipants’ focus of attention outward by having them
perform a series of mildly distracting tasks. The pro-
blems were not difficult, but they required a good
deal of concentration and creativity. In the deindivi-
duation condition, Diener tried to foster feelings of
group cohesiveness, unanimity, and anonymity by
treating the members as interchangeable and by
putting the groups through a variety of arousing
activities.
When Diener asked the participants to describe
how they felt during the study, he identified the
two clusters, or factors, shown in Table 17.3. The
first factor, loss of self-awareness, encompasses a lack
of self-consciousness, little planning of action, high
group unity, and uninhibited action. The second
factor, altered experiencing, is also consistent with
T A B L E 17.3 A Two-Factor Model of Deindividuation: Loss of Self-Awareness
and Altered Experiencing
Factor Typical Characteristics
Loss of self-awareness ■ Minimal self-consciousness
■ Lack of conscious planning as behavior becomes spontaneous
■ Lack of concern for what others think of one
■ Subjective feeling that time is passing quickly
■ Liking for the group and feelings of group unity
■ Uninhibited speech
■ Performing uninhibited tasks
Altered experiencing ■ Unusual experiences, such as hallucinations
■ Altered states of consciousness
■ Subjective loss of individual identity
■ Feelings of anonymity
■ Liking for the group and feelings of group unity
SOURCE: “Deindividuation, Self-Awareness, and Disinhibition,” by E. Diener, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160–1171. Copyright 1979 by
the American Psychological Association. Adapted by permission.
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 569
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

deindividuation theory in that it ties together a
number of related processes, such as “unusual”
experiences, altered perceptions, and a loss of indi-
vidual identity. When Diener compared the
responses of participants in the three conditions of
his experiment, he discovered that (1) deindividu-
ated participants displayed a greater loss of self-
awareness than both the non-self-aware and the
self-aware participants and (2) deindividuated parti-
cipants reported more extreme altered experiencing
than the self-aware participants.
Other investigators have replicated these find-
ings. For example, in one study, members of four-
man groups were led to believe that they were going
to deliver electric shocks to another person. Half of
the participants were prompted to focus their atten-
tion on the situation, whereas the others were fre-
quently reminded to pay attention to their personal
feelings. Moreover, some participants were told that
their actions would be carefully monitored, whereas
others were led to believe that their actions were not
going to be linked to them personally. The results of
the study supported Diener’s two-factor model of
deindividuation and suggested that both low self-
awareness and altered experiencing caused increased
aggressiveness (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1980, 1982,
1983; Prentice-Dunn & Spivey, 1986).
Positive Deindividuation Deindividuation usu-
ally leads to negative, antisocial behavior, but not
if cues that serve to prime aggressive responses are
removed from the situation. In such circumstances,
people who feel anonymous may act in positive,
even prosocial, ways (Johnson & Downing, 1979).
Researchers, to examine this possibility, simply
placed some groups in totally darkened rooms and
other groups in well-lit rooms and recorded how
the groups responded. All who participated in the
study were anonymous: they were escorted individ-
ually to and from the room and were assured that
the other participants would not be told their iden-
tities. The individuals in the dark room reported
feeling aroused, but in no case did they exhibit
hostility, aggressiveness, or violence. Rather, nearly
everyone felt relaxed and at ease in the darkness,
surrounded by strangers. In the words of one
participant, a “group of us sat closely together,
touching, feeling a sense of friendship and loss as a
group member left. I left with a feeling that it had
been fun and nice” (Gergen, Gergen, & Barton,
1973, p. 129). Apparently, the situation helped
people express feelings that they would have other-
wise kept hidden, but these feelings were positive
rather than negative.
17-2d Emergent Norms
Ralph Turner and Lewis Killian’s emergent norm
theory questions the idea that unusual psychologi-
cal and social processes operate in crowds and col-
lectives (Turner, 1964; Turner & Killian, 1972).
They reject one of the fundamental assumptions
of both Le Bon’s contagion theory and Zimbardo’s
deindividuation theory—that people in crowds
have lost self-control. Instead, they conclude that
members of collectives act in ways that are consis-
tent with the norms that are salient in the situation.
They are not acting in random, unpredictable ways,
but rather are following the example set by others
in the group. Granted, these emergent norms may be
unique and sharply contrary to more general socie-
tal standards, but they nonetheless exert a powerful
influence on behavior.
Consider, for example, the unusual behavior of
some crowds that form near buildings where a per-
son is threatening to commit suicide by leaping
from a window or ledge. In some cases these
crowds transform from relatively passive audiences
into baiting crowds whose members urge the
jumpers to take their life. When Mann studied
members of such crowds, he was unable to identify
any similarities in personality or demographic char-
acteristics (as convergence theory would suggest).
He did note, however, that baiting became more
emergent norm theory An explanation of collective
behavior suggesting that the uniformity in behavior
often observed in collectives is caused by members’ con-
formity to unique normative standards that develop
spontaneously in those groups.
baiting crowd A gathering of people in a public loca-
tion whose members torment, tease, or goad others.
570 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

likely as crowd size increased. Mann suggested that
larger crowds are more likely to include at least one
person who introduces the baiting norm into the
group. “In a large crowd at least one stupid or sadis-
tic person will be found who is prepared to cry
‘Jump!’ and thereby provide a model for suggestible
others to follow” (Mann, 1981, p. 707). Mann
reported evidence of conformity to the baiting
norm in crowds that not only encouraged the vic-
tim to “end it all” but also jeered and booed as
rescuers attempted to intervene.
Emergent norm theory, in contrast to other
analyses of crowds and collectives, argues that col-
lectives are not out of control or normless. Rather,
they are socially structured groups, but by an
unusual, temporary, or group-specific norm rather
than by more traditional social standards. For exam-
ple, some cults condone mass suicide. Hooligans at
British soccer matches consider violence a normal
part of the event. When riots occur, it becomes
commonplace to loot stores. After a week, the pro-
testers in Egypt did not think it was unusual to be
living in the open air at Tahrir Square. Although
these events—when viewed from a more objective
perspective—may seem out of control and very
strange, for the group members they are literally
“normal” (Reicher et al., 2016).
17-2e Social Identity
Social identity theory, like emergent norm theory,
takes issue with one of deindividuation theory’s
core assumptions. Deindividuation theory suggests
that people in collectives experience a loss of iden-
tity, but the social identity model of deindividuation
effects (SIDE) argues that people’s social identities
are actually amplified when they are members of a
collective (Postmes & Spears, 1998; Spears, 2016).
For example, each individual who took part in the
protests at Tahrir Square likely had many unique
qualities—some were lawyers, others were students,
some were religious, others were suspicious by
nature, others were kindly—but when they gath-
ered together they all became anti-Mubarak protes-
ters, and they acted in ways that were consistent
with that identity (Polletta & Jasper, 2001). Thus,
social identity theory argues that joining a collective
does not lead to deindividuation but to a deperso-
nalized sense of self that reflects group-level quali-
ties rather than individual ones.
Social Identity and Intergroup Conflict Studies
of both social movements as well as such fast-
forming collectives as riots and mobs suggest that
social identity processes significantly influence
who joins collectives and how people act once
they become members. Like the protesters in
Egypt, members usually recognize the characteris-
tics expected of the prototypical member, and they
define themselves in terms of those qualities. They
identify with the group, and experience positive
effects—including an increased sense of efficacy—
by joining together with other like-minded
individuals. When, for example, social psychologist
Stephen Reicher asks individuals who have taken
part in riots to describe the experience, few report
feeling emotionally overwrought, impulsive, or out
of control. Instead, they describe themselves and
their comembers as taking collective action in an
attempt to reach a goal that all members recognized
as appropriate in the given context (see Reicher,
2015; Reicher & Stott, 2011).
Social identity theory stresses one aspect of col-
lective settings frequently overlooked by other the-
oretical perspectives: Collective behavior is usually
intergroup behavior (Reicher et al., 1995; Wad-
dington, 2008). Riots in inner cities, for example,
usually occur when inner-city residents contend
against another group: the police (Goldberg,
1968). Violence during athletic competitions often
occurs when the fans of one team attack, en masse,
the fans or players of another team (Leonard, 1980).
Protests on college campuses pit students against the
university administration (Lipset & Wolin, 1965).
Gangs vie for turf against other gangs (Sanders,
1994). Militia groups rise up to confront civil and
judicial authorities (Flynn & Gerhardt, 1989).
Lynch mobs were crowds of Whites with high sol-
idarity who attacked Blacks (de la Roche, 2002).
The presence of an outgroup increases the salience
of the collective identity and members begin to
perceive themselves and the situation in ways that
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 571
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

reflect the ingroup–outgroup bias: Other members
of the ingroup are viewed positively, as are their
actions, whereas outgroup members and their
actions are denigrated (see Chapter 14).
Reicher’s analyses of riots underscore collectives’
intergroup character. For example, one riot occurred
when members of the National Union of Students
organized a demonstration in London. The leaders of
the group planned to march to the Houses of Parlia-
ment, but the police blocked their path. As the tension
between the groups escalated, the students became
more unified. When one member of the group was
arrested by the police, students attacked the police unit
as a group. They also felt that the police were behaving
violently and that they themselves only responded in
self-defense. As one student put it, “To some extent
there was a feeling of there was the students and there
was the police and you knew which side you were on
so you had to be up in the front with students, you
know. And there was a lot of crowd empathy” (quoted
in Reicher, 1996, p. 126).
Individuation A paradox permeates the analysis
of individuality and collectives. On the one hand,
many theorists assume that submersion in a group
results in the attainment of power and an escape
from societal inhibitions; hence, group members
seek and try to maintain the experience of deindi-
viduation. On the other hand, many psychologists
believe that people can enjoy psychological well-
being only when they are able to establish and
maintain their own unique identities: “A firm
sense of one’s own autonomous identity is required
in order that one may be related as one human
being to another. Otherwise, any and every rela-
tionship threatens the individual with loss of iden-
tity” (Laing, 1960, p. 44; see, too, Dipboye, 1977).
An identity affirmation approach to collective
behavior suggests that group members who feel
“lost” in a group will try to reestablish their individual
identities. People in large crowds, for example, may
act oddly to regain a sense of individuality, not
because they feel anonymous. Individuals who take
part in riots may do so not to protest their group’s
unfair treatment, but to reaffirm their individual iden-
tities. As one resident of the riot-torn community of
Watts (in Los Angeles) explained, “I don’t believe in
burning, stealing, or killing, but I can see why the
boys did what they did. They just wanted to be
noticed, to let the world know the seriousness of
their state of life” (Milgram & Toch, 1969, p. 576).
Similarly, members of large groups, such as industrial
workers, students in large classrooms, people working
in bureaucratic organizations, and employees in com-
panies with high turnover rates, may perform atypical
actions just to stand apart from the crowd.
Psychologist Christina Maslach (1972) examined
this individuation process by making two people in a
four-person group feel individuated; she referred to
them by name, made more personal comments to
them, and maintained a significant amount of eye
contact. She made the other two feel deindividuated
by avoiding close contact with them and addressing
them impersonally. When these individuals were
later given the opportunity to engage in a free-
response group discussion and to complete some
questionnaires, the deindividuated participants evi-
denced various identity-seeking reactions. Some
attempted to make themselves seem as different as
possible from the other group members by giving
more unusual answers to the questions, making lon-
ger comments, joining in the discussion more fre-
quently, and attempting to capture the attention of
the experimenter. Other participants seemed to
redefine their identities by revealing more intimate
details of their personalities and beliefs through lon-
ger and more unusual self-descriptions.
17-3 C OLLECTIVES ARE
G R OUP S
All groups are intriguing, but groups that undertake
extreme or unexpected actions—cults, mobs,
crowds, and the like—fascinate both layperson and
researcher. Although groups are so commonplace
that they often go unnoticed and unscrutinized,
atypical groups invite speculation and inquiry. But
are such groups mad? Do human beings lose their
rationality when they are immersed in gatherings,
crowds, mobs, and movements?
572 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

17-3a The Myth of the Madding
Crowd
For well over a century, most theorists and researchers
have assumed that crowds are unique social aggrega-
tions; a “perversion of human potential” (Zimbardo,
1969, p. 237) where impulse and chaos replace reason
and order. Le Bon argued that crowds develop a col-
lective mind that leaves individual members unable to
think for themselves. Convergence theories assume
atypical groups are staffed by atypical people. Groups
often develop odd, unusual norms, and members may
forget who they are when they sink too deeply into
their groups. This belief in the “madness of crowds” is
so deeply ingrained in common conceptions of col-
lectives that some individuals who commit violent
crimes in groups are given more lenient punishments.
Deindividuated and driven to conform to their
group’s norms, they are not held personally responsi-
ble for their actions (Colman, 1991).
Yet collectives are, at their core, groups, and so
the processes that shape group behaviors also shape
collective behaviors. Many contemporary theorists,
rather than assuming collectives are atypical groups
that require special theories that include novel or
even mysterious processes, argue the “madding
crowd” is more myth than reality. Collective
behavior is not bizarre, but instead a rational
attempt by a number of individuals to seek change
through united action. These groups form, change,
and disband following the same patterns that gov-
ern other groups, and the internal structures and
What Is Your Crowd Safety Awareness Level?
On any given day thousands of crowds will form and
disband without incident. But a small minority of these
crowds, and the members of them, will be unsafe:
Members may act violently, destructively, or panic.
Joining a crowd can be an elevating experience, but
the astute crowd member should monitor the situa-
tion, remaining ever mindful of the warning signs that
the situation could become fraught.
Instructions. On the following list, identify the
safeguards you typically take as you prepare for, and
act in, situations that will involve large groups of peo-
ple, such as concerts, demonstrations and protests,
marches, or street festivals.
q I avoid situations that will be crowded, poorly
organized, and bring multiple identifiable groups
into contact (intergroup crowds).
q In intergroup crowd situations (e.g., sporting
events and protests), I do not dress to openly
identify my allegiance to one side.
q When approaching the setting, I reconnoiter the
space, identifying exits and places of safety.
q When in a moving crowd I repeatedly identify the
closest exit and places of safety as my location
changes.
q I heed the regulatory mechanisms in the setting
(fencing, pathways and walkways, barriers, sign-
age, and personnel) as well as obstructions.
q I join crowds with two or more other individuals
and we stick together.
q I create informal connections with the people in
my near vicinity.
q I move away from individuals in the crowd who
are acting in disruptive or unusual ways.
q In intergroup crowd situations I move to the cen-
ter of my group and avoid the fringe areas.
q I usually act as others do, but remain mindful of
alternatives; I think before I act.
q I stay sober, vigilant, but relaxed when in crowds.
q I exit crowds when they become too crowded, too
threatening, or otherwise unsafe.
Interpretation. Each of these recommendations
will make it more likely your crowd experiences
will be good ones, and they are based on three
overlapping principles. First, when people are in
groups they tend to act as others do—but this
natural tendency can cause problems when the
majority of the group acts in ways that are mal-
adaptive. Resist the herd mentality. Second, there
is safety in groups, so create associations with
smaller subgroups within the group when possible.
Stick together. Third, intergroup crowds are the
most likely crowds to experience mayhem. When
possible, to avoid crowds that will encourage an
“us versus them” mindset.
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 573
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

processes of collectives and more mundane groups
are more similar than they are different.
Sociologist Clark McPhail (1991) elaborated this
viewpoint in his book The Myth of the Madding Crowd.
McPhail maintained that early theorists were too
biased by their preconceived belief that crowds are
crazed. McPhail himself carried out extensive field
studies of actual collectives over a ten-year period so
he could determine firsthand what such groups do.
His conclusions were threefold:
First, individuals are not driven mad by crowds;
they do not lose cognitive control! Second,
individuals are not compelled to participate by
some madness-in-common, or any other sov-
ereign psychological attribute, cognitive style, or
predisposition that distinguishes them from
nonparticipants. Third, the majority of behaviors
in which members of these crowds engaged are
neither mutually inclusive nor extraordinary, let
alone mad. (McPhail, 1991, p. xxii)
Social psychologist John Drury (2002) reiterates
this message in his critique of the continuing use of
the word “contagion” to describe the flow of infor-
mation through a crowd. As he explains, the term is
hopelessly derogatory and will forever be associated
with disease, corruption, illness, and pathology. He
recommends using more positive terms such as
identification and empowerment:
Lone individuals endorsing a reactionary and
mystifying ideology have little power to act
upon it. The most that they can do, perhaps, is
to act under cover of night…. However, col-
lective support enables people to put their
beliefs into practice in broad daylight, even in
the face of opposition from the police (Drury
and Reicher, 1999). In short, the crowd
empowers. (Drury, 2002, p. 69)
A hundred years of theory and research that have
pushed the “crowd-as-mad” position is a stalwart leg-
acy that cannot be easily dismantled. Yet the available
evidence favors a more balanced view of collectives.
When scholars have reviewed some of the famous
examples of crowd delusions, such as dancing mania
and the supposed panic during the War of the Worlds
broadcast, they have discovered that these events
were sensationalized (Bartholomew & Goode,
2000). The pathologized mob of dancers comprised,
in all likelihood, the members of a religious sect pass-
ing through the area on a pilgrimage (Evans &
Bartholomew, 2009). Many of the Dutch merchants
who invested in the tulip bulb market prospered.
Some lost money, but they probably fared better
than many investors in the U.S. stock market during
the 2000–2002 bubble market (Menschel, 2002).
And the story of the mass panic following the broad-
cast of the War of the Worlds is nearly entirely fic-
tional: Farmers did not stand in their fields with
shotguns, people did not flee from their homes in
terror, and no one was injured in panicky mobs flee-
ing the invaders (Socolow, 2008).
A closer look at the work of Le Bon’s
(1895/1960) crowd psychology also reveals weak-
nesses, both in terms of scholarship and scientific
objectivity. Although his writings did much to pop-
ularize such concepts as group mind and contagion,
he borrowed heavily—some say, too heavily—from
the work of earlier scholars (van Ginneken, 2007).
Moreover, his dire predictions about crowds and
mobs were driven more by his racial and class-
based prejudices than the facts (Bendersky, 2007).
Meta-analytic reviews of Zimbardo’s theory of
deindividuation also fail to confirm one of its key
principles: that individuals in groups act in ways that
are both unusual and counternormative (Spears,
2016). Evidence indicates that membership in large
crowds and collectives is more often healthy and pro-
motive, rather than harmful and injurious (Drury &
Stott, 2015). Crowds and collectives are also the
means to achieve positive social change: “Over the
last quarter-century they have forced the abandon-
ment of unfair tax regimes, thwarted the destruction
of cherished natural environments, ousted dictators
and brought about political and economic change
across entire regions” (Bond, 2014, pp. 57-58).
Yet, people are quick to call crowds irrational
and mad, even though the data do not support this
pronouncement. Violence occurs in crowds and
mobs, but it is relatively rare (McPhail, 1991). In
most cases, individuals in collectives seek specific
goals and, by joining with others, they improve
574 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

their chances of reaching those goals. Even when
people are trapped in dangerous situations, such as
the crowd at The Who concert in the United States
or the Love Parade in Germany, the crowd does not
behave badly. Many condemn such crowds, saying
that they stampeded, but when researchers consider
the evidence, they usually conclude that the crowd
panicked, but did not engage in selfish, destructive
behavior. Indeed, the amount of helping shown by
the people in such crowds exceeds levels of helping
documented in studies of bystander interventions in
emergencies (see Chapter 7).
Moreover, when crowds do engage in violence,
it usually takes the form of intergroup conflict rather
than mindless aggression. Studies of riots, social
movements, and even criminal mobs, suggest that
violence occurs when these groups confront another
group—and the conflict between the two escalates.
In many cases, the opposing group is a recognized
authority within the society—such as a police force
or a militia. These socially sanctioned groups are
generally judged more positively than the activists,
protestors, and rebels, even though they are often
more violent than the “mindless mob.”
The crowd-as-mad and the crowd-as-group
views must be reconciled in a more complete under-
standing of collective behavior. Individuals, when
immersed in a collective, do sometimes perpetrate
great wrongs, yet most gatherings, crowds, and social
movements act in ways that are unremarkable.
Crowds are groups, and collective dynamics are for
the most part the same as small group dynamics.
Hence, the next time you hear of a crowd behaving
oddly, do not dismiss its actions as one more illustra-
tion of a group gone wrong.
17-3b Studying Groups and
Collectives
In this book, we have examined many different
groups—a team of mountain climbers; scientists
working to solve a problem; a search and rescue
squad; a band of outcasts from the art community
that generated a cohesive movement that redefined
the world of art; a sports team that survived a plane
crash in the Andes; a hockey team that outperformed
a superior opponent; a jury reaching a verdict by
carefully reviewing its mission and the evidence it
was given; a group led by a powerful authority figure
who manipulated the members through deceit and
subterfuge; teams that worked to make products and
decisions, including military and political experts
who planned an ill-fated invasion; groups that had
to deal with conflict within their ranks and conflict
with other groups; a heroic group trying to return to
Earth after circling the Moon; and a group of people
who made use of the restorative, curative impact of a
group to gain self-understanding and improve their
well-being. In this final chapter, we have turned to
examine crowds, mobs, and social movements.
These analyses have illuminated many of a
group’s most basic processes—how groups take in
and reject members; evolve over time; organize
their members in hierarchies of authority; perform
tasks, both effectively and ineffectively; make plans
and decisions; and succor their members and regulate
their behavior in context. But these analyses have also
revealed that groups are often misunderstood and mis-
managed. Whereas scientists have studied aspects of
the physical world for centuries, only in the last hun-
dred years have they turned their attention to human
experiences and human groups in particular. Yet the
theories and studies of group dynamics we have
examined here confirm the importance of groups in
all aspects of social life. Human beings are in many
ways individuals who are seeking their personal, pri-
vate objectives, yet they are also members of larger
social units that may be seeking collective outcomes.
As social creatures, embedded in a rich network of
mutual, collective, and reciprocal relationships, indivi-
duals cannot be understood fully without considering
the social groups to which they belong.
Fortunately, the field of group dynamics offers
the means of reducing our ignorance of this funda-
mental aspect of the human condition. Stanley Mil-
gram and Hans Toch, writing nearly 50 years ago,
asked this question: If we “do not take up the job of
understanding riots, panics, and social movements,
who will?” (1969, p. 590). Their question applies,
with equal force, to the study of groups in general.
If we do not take up the job of understanding
groups, who will?
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 575
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

C HAPT ER R EV IEW
What is collective behavior?
1. A collective is a relatively large group of people
who respond in a similar way to an event or
situation.
■ Collectives differ from other types of
groups in terms of size, proximity of the
members, duration, conventionality, and
intimacy of the relations among members.
■ Collectives sometimes engage in unusual
behaviors (Evans and Bartholomew, 2009).
2. Gatherings combine aspects of smaller groups
with qualities found in larger, more amor-
phous, crowds.
■ Audiences and queues are more norma-
tively regulated than crowds. Even rela-
tively simple behaviors, such as clapping,
are coordinated group-level actions. Vio-
lations of norms in either type of collective
generally lead to negative sanctioning.
■ Milgram’s studies of line breaking suggest
that queue members are both group- and
self-motivated (Milgram et al., 1986).
3. Crowds include common crowds, such as street
crowds or public gatherings, audiences, queues,
and mobs (aggressive mobs and panics).
■ Milgram and his associates (1969) created
crowds on a New York City street by
having people stare up at a building. The
larger the initial seed group, the more
people who joined the crowd.
■ Crowds, although unstable and short-
lived, display consistent structures and
behavioral tendencies. McPhail (1991) has
documented the types of behaviors com-
mon in such groups (e.g., movement,
position, manipulation, and gesticulation).
4. Mobs include both positive and negative types
of crowds.
■ The emotional state of celebratory mobs,
including flash mobs, is generally very
positive—one of elation and joy rather
than anger and hostility.
■ Aggressive mobs, such as lynch mobs and
hooligans, engage in aggressive, violent
actions, including mobbing.
■ Riots are large, disbursed, and typically
hostile mobs.
5. Panics occur when crowds seek to escape a
situation (escape panics) or when fearful a val-
ued resource will run out (acquisitive panics).
■ Group panics are dangerous situations.
Eleven people were killed when a group
waiting to gain admission to The Who
concert panicked due to overcrowding.
■ Crowd disasters are common across the
world. The queueing effect, turbulence,
and overcrowding all combine to create
dangerous crowd situations.
■ Studies of very large crowds, such as those
conducted by Helbing at the Jamarat
Bridge, have identified the factors that
contribute to injury in such crowds and
ways to reduce the danger (Helbing et al.,
2005).
6. Individuals need not be concentrated in a single
location to display convergence in action, for
such collective movements as rumors, trends (fads,
crazes, fashion trends), mass delusions, psychogenic
illness, and social movements can influence widely
dispersed individuals.
■ Rosnow (1980) suggests that anxiety and
uncertainty are key triggers for rumor
transmission.
■ The Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street
are examples of social movements.
Researchers have identified four types of
social movements: reformist, revolution-
ary, reactionary, and communitarian.
■ Political opportunity theory, resource
mobilization theory, and framing theory
576 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

examine the political factors that influence
the success of social movements.
■ Recent movements have made use of
information technologies, as described in
Rheingold’s (2002) concept of a smart mob.
What theories explain collective behavior?
1. Le Bon (1895) maintained that crowds are
governed by a collective mind and that conta-
gion causes crowd members to experience
similar thoughts and emotions.
■ People tend to imitate each other, thereby
increasing the likelihood that their actions
will become unified and coordinated
(Blumer, 1957).
■ Social network theory considers contagion
to result from relatively common network
processes. As Gladwell (2000) points out,
some individuals in social networks (e.g.,
connectors) are more influential than are
others.
2. Convergence theories propose that the individuals
who join groups often possess similar needs and
personal characteristics.
■ Involvement in social movements is related
to individuals’ personalities, sense of injus-
tice, self-efficacy, and identity.
■ Studies of relative deprivation, for example,
suggest that people whose attainments fall
below their expectations are more likely to
join social movements. As Runciman
(1966) notes, individuals are more likely to
take collective action when they are
experiencing fraternal deprivation rather than
egoistic deprivation.
3. Zimbardo’s (1969) deindividuation theory
traces collective phenomena back to deindivi-
duation, which can be broken down into three
components—inputs, internal changes, and
behavioral outcomes. Inputs, or causes, of
deindividuation include feelings of anonymity,
reduced responsibility (diffusion of responsibil-
ity), membership in large groups, and a
heightened state of physiological arousal.
■ Studies of aggression in hooded college
students (Zimbardo, 1969), Halloween
trick-or-treaters (Diener et al., 1976), and
religious meetings support the basic model
(Newton & Mann, 1980).
■ Diener (1980) suggests that the deindivid-
uated state has two basic components—
reduced self-awareness (minimal self-
consciousness, etc.) and altered experienc-
ing (disturbances in concentration and
judgment, etc.).
■ Deindividuation is most likely to generate
negative outcomes when individuals are
part of a group and anonymous. However,
in some cases deindividuation can lead to
positive, rather than negative, reactions.
4. Turner and Killian’s (1972) emergent norm theory
argues that crowds often develop unique social
standards and that these atypical norms exert
a powerful influence on behavior. The baiting
crowd, for example, forms when a group of
onlookers collectively urges someone to injure
him- or herself.
5. Social identity theory suggests that much of the
behavior of individuals in collectives can be
explained by basic identity mechanisms.
■ As Reicher (1996) notes, collective behav-
ior is often intergroup behavior, and so
individuals maximize their individual sense
of worth by identifying with the ingroup.
■ Work by Maslach (1972) and others indi-
cates that collective behavior in some cases
represents an attempt to reestablish a sense
of individuality.
How different are collectives from other types of groups?
1. Recent analyses of crowds and collectives have
questioned the “crowd-as-mad” assumption.
Collectives differ from more routine groups in
degree rather than in kind.
2. Collectives, like groups in general, are often
misunderstood and mismanaged, but the field
of group dynamics offers a means of dispelling
this ignorance.
CROWD S AND COLL ECTIVES 577
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

R E S O U R C E S
Chapter Case: The Arab Spring
■ Liberation Square: Inside the Egyptian Revo-
lution and the Rebirth of a Nation by Ashraf
Khalil (2011) provides a detailed, street-
level view into the dynamics of Egypt’s
2011 revolutionary social movement.
Collective Behavior
■ Outbreak! The Encyclopedia of Extraordinary
Social Behavior by Hilary Evans and Robert
Bartholomew (2009) is a comprehensive and
well-researched analysis of all manner of
collective behavior that corrects many mis-
conceptions and myths about famous cases.
■ The Power of Others: Peer Pressure, Group-
think, and How the People Around Us Shape
Everything We Do by Michael Bond (2014)
is a wide-ranging analysis of crowds, col-
lectives, contagion, and the continuing—
and primarily positive—impact of groups
on their members.
Theoretical Perspectives
■ “Collective Behavior: Crowds and Social
Movements” by Stanley Milgram and
Hans Toch (1969), although written nearly
50 years ago, still offers fundamental
insights into collective behavior.
■ “Psychological Processes in Social Action”
by Martijn van Zomeren (2015)
systematically reviews theory and research
examining motivations for joining collec-
tive movements, and integrates that work
in a four-factor model based on unfairness,
moral motivation, social identity, and
instrumentality.
■ “Deindividuation” by Russell Spears
(2016) is a thorough analysis of the concept
of deindividuation, tracing it to its roots in
the early crowd psychologies through the
classic studies in social psychology before
offering a theoretical synthesis based on the
social identity model of deindividuation
effects (the SIDE model).
Collectives as Groups
■ The Myth of the Madding Crowd by Clark
McPhail (1991) expertly synthesizes prior
theoretical work on crowds with
McPhail’s field studies of actual crowds to
dispel many myths about crowds and
replace them with data-based
propositions.
■ Mad Mobs and Englishmen? Myths and
Realities of the 2011 Riots by Steve Reicher
and Cliff Stott (2011) provides a theoreti-
cally insightful description of the events
leading up to the 2011 protests and riots in
England, casting those events into a mod-
ern, crowd-as-group perspective.
578 C H A P T ER 17
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

References
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library:
Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 18–28.
Aarts, H., Dijksterhuis, A., & Custers, R. (2003). Automatic
normative behavior in environments: The moderating role
of conformity in activating situational norms. Social Cognition,
21, 447–464.
Abele, A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and
feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 768–776.
Abele, A. E., Uchronski, M., Suitner, C., & Wojciszke, B. (2008).
Towards an operationalization of the fundamental dimensions
of agency and communion: Trait content ratings in five
countries considering valence and frequency of word
occurrence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38,
1202–1217.
Aberson, C. L. (2010). Diversity experiences and intergroup
attitudes. In R. J. Crisp (Ed.), The psychology of social
and cultural diversity (pp. 171–189). Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Abrahamsen, S. (1987). The rescue of Denmark’s Jews. In L.
Goldberger (Ed.), The rescue of the Danish Jews: Moral courage
under stress (pp. 3–12). New York: New York University.
Abrams, D. (1990). Political identity: Relative deprivation, social
identity, and the case of Scottish nationalism. London: Economic
and Social Research Council.
Abrams, D. (2013). Social identity and groups. In J. M. Levine (Ed.),
Group processes (pp. 267–295). New York: Psychology Press.
Abrams, D. (2015). Social identity and intergroup relations. In
M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson
(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 203–228). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Adams, R. B. (1998). Inciting sociological thought by studying the
Deadhead community: Engaging publics in dialogue. Social
Forces, 77, 1–25.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and
exclusion in preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly,
58, 145–162.
Agazarian, Y. M. (2001). A systems-centered approach to inpatient group
psychotherapy. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.
Aiello, J. R., & Douthitt, E. A. (2001). Social facilitation: From
Triplett to electronic performance monitoring. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 163–180.
Albert, L. S., & Moskowitz, D. S. (2014). Quarrelsomeness in the
workplace: An exploration of the interpersonal construct
within the organizational context. Organizational Psychology
Review, 4(1), 27–48.
Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus
in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 387–395.
Alicke, M. D., Braun, J. C., Glor, J. E., Klotz, M. L., Magee, J.,
Sederholm, H., & Siegel, R. (1992). Complaining behavior
in social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
18, 286–295.
Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G. (Eds.).
(2015a). The Cambridge handbook of meeting science. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G.
(2015b). An introduction to the Cambridge Handbook of
Meeting Science: Why now? In J. A. Allen, N. Lehmann-
Willenbrock, & S. G. Rogelberg (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of meeting science (pp. 3–11). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Allen, K., Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. (2002). Cardiovascular
reactivity in the presence of pets, friends, and spouses: The
truth about cats and dogs. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 727–739.
Allen, K., Blascovich, J., Tomaka, J., & Kelsey, R. M. (1991).
Presence of human friends and pet dogs as moderators of
autonomic responses to stress in women. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 582–589.
Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., & Jones, M. (2013). Personality in sport:
A comprehensive review. International Review of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 184–208.
Allen, N. J., & Hecht, T. D. (2004). The ‘romance of teams’:
Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings
and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 77, 439–461.
Allen, T. J., Sherman, J. W., Conrey, F. R., & Stroessner, S. J.
(2009). Stereotype strength and attentional bias: Preference
for confirming versus disconfirming information depends
on processing capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45(5), 1081–1087.
579
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Allen, V. L. (1975). Social support for nonconformity. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 2–43.
Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the
Cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Allison, S. T., McQueen, L. R., & Schaerfl, L. M. (1992). Social
decision making processes and the equal partitionment of
shared resources. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28,
23–42.
Allison, S. T., & Messick, D. M. (1985a). Effects of experience
on performance in a replenishable resource trap. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 943–948.
Allison, S. T., & Messick, D. M. (1985b). The group attribution
error. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 563–579.
Allison, S. T., & Messick, D. M. (1990). Social decision heuristics
in the use of shared resources. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 3, 195–204.
Allison, S. T., Worth, L. T., & King, M. C. (1990). Group
decisions as social inference heuristics. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58, 801–811.
Allmendinger, J., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. V. (1996). Life and
work in symphony orchestras. Musical Quarterly, 80, 194–219.
Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association
and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 159–182.
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Allport, F. H. (1934). The J-curve hypothesis of conforming
behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 141–183.
Allport, F. H. (1961). The contemporary appraisal of an old
problem. Contemporary Psychology, 6, 195–197.
Allport, F. H. (1962). A structuronomic conception of behavior:
Individual and collective. I. Structural theory and the master
problem of social psychology. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 64, 3–30.
Allport, F. H., & Lepkin, M. (1943). Building war morale with
news-headlines. Public Opinion Quarterly, 7, 211–221.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison-
Wesley.
Allport, G. W., & Postman, L. J. (1947). The psychology of rumor.
New York: Holt.
Almandoz, J., & Tilcsik, A. (2016). When experts become
liabilities: Domain experts on boards and organizational
failure. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1124–1149.
Alonso, O., & Mizzaro, S. (2009). Can we get rid of TREC
assessors? Using Mechanical Turk for relevance assessment.
Proceedings of the SIGIR 2009 Workshop on the Future of IR
Evaluation, 15–16.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing
authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Altemus, M., Sarvaiya, N., & Epperson, C. N. (2014). Sex
differences in anxiety and depression clinical perspectives.
Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 35(3), 320–330.
Alterman, E. (2004). When presidents lie: A history of official deception
and its consequences. New York: Viking.
Altman, I. (1973). An ecological approach to the functioning of
socially isolated groups. In J. E. Rasmussen (Ed.), Man in
isolation and confinement (pp. 241–269). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Altman, I. (1977). Research on environment and behavior: A
personal statement of strategy. In D. Stokols (Ed.), Perspectives
on environment and behavior (pp. 303–324). New York: Plenum
Press.
Altman, I., & Chemers, M. M. (1980). Culture and environment.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Altman, I., & Haythorn, W. W. (1967). The ecology of isolated
groups. Behavioral Science, 12, 169–182.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The
development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Altman, I., Taylor, D. A., & Wheeler, L. (1971). Ecological aspects
of group behavior in social isolation. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 1, 76–100.
Alvares, G. A., Hickie, I. B., & Guastella, A. J. (2010). Acute effects
of intranasal oxytocin on subjective and behavioral responses
to social rejection. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology,
18(4), 316–321.
Alvarez, K., & Leeuwen, E. (2015). Paying it forward: How
helping others can reduce the psychological threat of
receiving help. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(1), 1–9.
Amegashie, J. A., & Runkel, M. (2007). Sabotaging potential rivals.
Social Choice and Welfare, 28, 143–162.
Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The
curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 307–324.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2012). Reducing intergroup conflict in
the digital age. In H. Giles (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup
communication (pp. 181–193). New York: Routledge.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (Ed.). (2013). The social net (2nd ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Gazit, T., Bar-Ilan, J., Perez, O., Aharony,
N., Bronstein, J., & Sarah Dyne, T. (2016). Psychological
factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions.
Computers in Human Behavior, 55(Part A), 268–277.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Hasler, B. S., & Shani-Sherman, T.
(2015). Structured and unstructured intergroup contact in the
digital age. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 515–522.
Anderson, C., & Brion, S. (2014). Perspectives on power in
organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 1, 67–97.
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and
risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.
580 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the
desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of
the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001).
Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical
attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 116–132.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). The pursuit of status in social
groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5),
295–298.
Anderson, C., & Willer, R. (2014). Do status hierarchies beneft
groups? A bounded functionalist account of status. In J. T.
Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of
social status (pp. 47–70). New York: Springer Science+
Business Media.
Andersson, J., Hitch, G., & Meudell, P. (2006). Effects of the
timing and identity of retrieval cues in individual recall: An
attempt to mimic cross-cueing in collaborative recall. Memory,
14, 94–103.
Anicich, E. M., Swaab, R. I., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015).
Hierarchical cultural values predict success and mortality in
high-stakes teams. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 112(5), 1338–1343.
Annett, J., & Stanton, N. (2001). Team work—A problem for
ergonomics? Ergonomic, 43, 1045–1051.
Apodoca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).
Appel, H., Gerlach, A. L., & Crusius, J. (2016). The interplay
between Facebook use, social comparison, envy, and
depression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 44–49.
Appelbaum, R. P., & Chambliss, W. J. (1995). Sociology.
New York: HarperCollins.
Applebaum, E., & Blatt, R. (1994). The new American workplace.
Ithaca, NY: ILR.
Ardry, R. (1970). The territorial imperative: A personal inquiry into the
animal origins of property and nations. New York: Atheneum.
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance, and
affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304.
Arigo, D., Suls, J. M., & Smyth, J. M. (2014). Social comparisons
and chronic illness: Research synthesis and clinical
implications. Health Psychology Review, 8(2), 154–214.
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35,
124–140.
Arkin, R. M., & Burger, J. M. (1980). Effects of unit relation
tendencies on interpersonal attraction. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 43, 380–391.
Arnardottir, A. A. (2002). Leadership style in colead psychotherapy
groups, assessed from leaders’, co-leaders’, and group members’
perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Richmond:
Virginia Commonwealth University.
Arnold, D. W., & Greenberg, C. I. (1980). Deviate rejection
within differentially manned groups. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 43, 419–424.
Aronson, E. (2000). Nobody left to hate: Teaching compassion after
Columbine. New York: Henry Holt.
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effects of severity of initiation
on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
59, 177–181.
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). Cooperation in the classroom: The
jigsaw method. New York: Longman.
Aronson, E., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M.
(1978). The jigsaw classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed:
Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship
commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9),
1190–1203.
Arrow, H. (1997). Stability, bistability, and instability in small
group influence patterns. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 75–85.
Arrow, H., Henry, K. B., Poole, M. S., Wheelan, S., & Moreland,
R. (2005). Traces, trajectories, and timing: The temporal
perspective on groups. In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead
(Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives
(pp. 313–367). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as
complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and
adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Arvey, R., & Chaturvedi, S. (2011). Examining the genetic basis of
leadership. In S. E. Murphy & R. J. Reichard (Eds.), Early
development and leadership: Building the next generation of leaders
(pp. 59–69). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290.
Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressures. Scientific American,
193, 31–35.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A
minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied, 70, No. 9. Whole No. 416.
Asher, S. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2003). Loneliness and peer relations in
childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 75–78.
Asher, S. R., & Weeks, M. S. (2014). Loneliness and belongingness
in the college years. In R. J. Coplan & J. C. Bowker (Ed.),
The handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social
isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 283–301).
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An
organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and
significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130,
80–114.
R E F E R E N C E S 581
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Aubé, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitment and
team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and
supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 9(3), 189–204.
Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of
trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research,
34(5), 575–618.
Augustin, S. (2009). Place advantage: Applied psychology for interior
architecture. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Austin, R. (2006). The role of ICT in bridge-building and social
inclusion: Theory, policy and practice issues. European Journal
of Teacher Education, 29(2), 145–161.
Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications
for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145–1160.
Averill, J. R., & Sundararajan, L. (2014). Experiences of solitude:
Issues of assessment, theory, and culture. In R. J. Coplan &
J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The handbook of solitude: Psychological
perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone
(pp. 90–108). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration
viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework
for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership.
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199–218.
Avolio, B. J., & Locke, E. E. (2002). Contrasting different
philosophies of leader motivation: Altruism versus egoism.
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 169–191.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009).
Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions.
Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic
Books.
Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (2007). The
contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Its levels of
analysis. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding
the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (2nd ed.,
pp. 335–360). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press.
Ayoko, O. B., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Jehn, K. A. (Eds.). (2014). The
handbook of conflict management research. Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar.
Ayoko, O. B., Härtel, J., & Charmine, E. (2003). The role of space
as both a conflict trigger and a conflict control mechanism
in culturally heterogeneous workgroups. Applied Psychology,
52(3), 383–412.
Ayoko, O. B., Konrad, A. M., & Boyle, M. V. (2012). Online
work: Managing conflict and emotions for performance in
virtual teams. European Management Journal, 30(2), 156–174.
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths
go to work. New York: Harper-Collins.
Back, K. W. (1951). Influence through social communication.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 9–23.
Back, K. W. (1974). Intervention techniques: Small groups. Annual
Review of Psychology, 25, 367–387.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2008). How
extraverted is honey.bunny77@hotmail.de? Inferring
personality from e-mail addresses. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42(4), 1116–1122.
Backstrom, L., Kumar, R., Marlow, C., Novak, J., & Tomkins, A.
(2008). Preferential behavior in online groups. Proceedings of
the 1st ACM WSDM International Conference on Web Search and
Data Mining. Retrieved from www.cs.cornell.edu/~
lars/wsdm08
Bahns, A. J., Pickett, K. M., & Crandall, C. S. (2012). Social
ecology of similarity: Big schools, small schools and social
relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(1),
119–131.
Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., &
Frith, C. D. (2010). Optimally interacting minds. Science, 329,
1081–1085.
Bainbridge, W. S. (2007). The scientific research potential of virtual
worlds. Science, 317(5837), 472–476.
Bainbridge, W. S. (2010). The warcraft civilization: Social science in a
virtual world. Boston: MIT Press.
Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In H. T.
Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social
and personality psychology (pp. 138–159). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired
objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21(1), 147–152.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study
of small groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bales, R. F. (1955). How people interact in conferences. Scientific
American, 192, 31–35.
Bales, R. F. (1958). Task roles and social roles in problem-solving
groups. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley
(Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 437–447). New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bales, R. F. (1980). SYMLOG case study kit. New York: Free Press.
Bales, R. F. (1999). Social interaction systems: Theory and measurement.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Bales, R. F., & Cohen, S. P. (with Williamson, S. A.) (1979).
SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups.
New York: Free Press.
Bales, R. F., & Hare, A. P. (1965). Diagnostic use of the interaction
profile. Journal of Social Psychology, 67, 239–258.
Bales, R. F., & Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small
decision-making groups. In T. Parsons & R. F. Bales (Eds.),
Family, socialization, and interaction process (pp. 259–306).
New York: Free Press.
582 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem
solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485–495.
Balliet, D., Li, N. P., Macfarlan, S. J., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Sex
differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social
dilemmas. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 881–909.
Balliet, D., Mulder, L. B., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2011). Reward,
punishment, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 137(4), 594–615.
Balliet, D., Parks, C., & Joireman, J. (2009). Social value
orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-
analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 533–547.
Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., &
LaGanke, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and
group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156–179.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live
with themselves. New York: Worth.
Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. E. (1975).
Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility
and dehumanization of victims. Journal of Research in
Personality, 9, 253–269.
Barabási, A. (2003). Linked: How everything is connected to everything
else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life.
New York: Plume.
Barber, J. P., & Solomonov, N. (2016). Psychodynamic theories.
In J. C. Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, D. K. Freedheim, &
B. O. Olatunji (Eds.), APA handbook of clinical psychology:
Theory and research (pp. 53–77). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The Internet and social
life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590.
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Barker, R. G. (1987). Prospecting in ecological psychology:
Oskaloosa revisited. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.),
Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1413–1432).
New York: Wiley.
Barker, R. G. (1990). Recollections of the Midwest Psychological
Field Station. Environment and Behavior, 22, 503–513.
Barker, R. G., & Associates. (1978). Habitats, environments, and
human behavior: Studies in ecological psychology and eco-behavioral
sciences from the Midwest Psychological Field Station, 1947–1972.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barlow, S. H. (2010). Evidence bases for group practice. In
R. K. Conyne (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of group counseling
(pp. 207–230). New York: Oxford University Press.
Barlow, S. H. (2013). Specialty competencies in group psychology.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Barlow, S. H. (2014). The history of group counseling and
psychotherapy. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack, C. R. Kalodner, &
M. T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of group counseling and
psychotherapy (pp. 3–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Barnett, L. A. (2006). Flying high or crashing down: Girls’ accounts
of trying out for cheerleading and dance. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 21, 514–541.
Baron, R. A., & Bell, P. A. (1975). Aggression and heat: Mediating
effects of prior provocation and exposure to an aggressive
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 825–832.
Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and
problems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 1–40.
Baron, R. S. (2000). Arousal, capacity, and intense indoctrination.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 238–254.
Baron, R. S. (2005). So right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the
ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 219–253.
Baron, R. S., Kerr, N. L., & Miller, N. (1992). Group process, group
decision, group action. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The
forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task
importance on social influence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 915–927.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2012). Group affect: Its influence
on individual and group outcomes. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(2), 119–123.
Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable
conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1430–1453.
Bartels, L. (May, 2001). No looking back. Rocky Mountain News.
Retrieved from www.rockymountainnews.com/
Bartholomew, R. E. (1997). Mass hysteria. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 170, 387–388.
Bartholomew, R. E., & Goode, E. (2000). Mass delusions and
hysterias: Highlights from the past millennium. Skeptical
Inquirer, 24, 20–28.
Bartis, S., Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1988). Evaluation and
performance: A two-edged knife. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 14, 242–251.
Bartlem, C. S., & Locke, E. A. (1981). The Coch and French
study: A critique and reinterpretation. Human Relations, 34,
555–566.
Basner, M., Babisch, W., Davis, A., Brink, M., Clark, C., Janssen,
S., & Stansfeld, S. (2014). Auditory and non-auditory effects
of noise on health. The Lancet, 383(9925), 1325–1332.
Basow, S. A., Foran, K. A., & Bookwala, J. (2007). Body
objectification, social pressure, and disordered eating behavior
in college women: The role of sorority membership.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 394–400.
R E F E R E N C E S 583
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational
leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national
boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.
Bass, B. M. (with Bass, R.) (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership:
Theory, research, and managerial applications
(4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Ryterband, E. C. (1979). Organizational psychology
(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bateman, P. J., Gray, P. H., & Butler, B. S. (2011). The impact of
community commitment on participation in online
communities. Information Systems Research, 22, 841–854.
Bates, T. C., & Gupta, S. (2017). Smart groups of smart people:
Evidence for IQ as the origin of collective intelligence in the
performance of human groups. Intelligence, 60, 46–56.
Batson, C. D. (1975). Rational processing or rationalization? The
effect of disconfirming information on a stated religious belief.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 176–184.
Baum, A., & Davis, G. E. (1980). Reducing the stress of high-
density living: An architectural intervention. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 471–481.
Baum, A., Davis, G. E., & Valins, S. (1979). Generating behavioral
data for the design process. In J. R. Aiello & A. Baum (Eds.),
Residential crowding and design (pp. 175–196). New York:
Plenum.
Baum, A., Harpin, R. E., & Valins, S. (1975). The role of group
phenomena in the experience of crowding. Environment and
Behavior, 7(2), 185–198.
Baum, A., & Valins, S. (1977). Architecture and social behavior:
Psychological studies of social density. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-
consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
610–620.
Baumeister, R. F. (1985). The championship choke. Psychology
Today, 19, 48–52.
Baumeister, R. F. (1995). Disputing the effects of championship
pressures and home audiences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 644–648.
Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Is there anything good about men? How
cultures flourish by exploiting men. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Ainsworth, S. E., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Are
groups more or less than the sum of their members? The
moderating role of identification. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
39. doi:10.1017/S0140525X15000618.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Baumeister, R. F., & Showers, C. J. (1986). A review of
paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in
sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psychology,
16, 361–383.
Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men want?
Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness.
Psychological Bulletin, 122, 38–44.
Baumeister, R. F., Chesner, S. P., Senders, P. S., & Tice, D. M.
(1988). Who’s in charge here? Group leaders do lend help in
emergencies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 17–22.
Bavelas, A. (1948). A mathematical model for group structures.
Applied Anthropology, 7, 16–30.
Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task-oriented
groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 725–730.
Bavelas, A., & Barrett, D. (1951). An experimental approach to
organization communication. Personnel, 27, 367–371.
Bazarova, N. N., & Yuan, Y. C. (2013). Expertise recognition and
influence in intercultural groups: Differences between face-
to-face and computer-mediated communication. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 437–453.
Beach, S. R. H., Tesser, A., Fincham, F. D., Jones, D. J., Johnson,
D., & Whitaker, D. J. (1998). Pleasure and pain in doing well,
together: An investigation of performance-related affect in
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 923–938.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L.
(2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic
clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 989–1004.
Beaman, A. L., Cole, C. M., Preston, M., Klentz, B., & Steblay,
N. M. (1983). Fifteen years of foot-in-the door research: A
meta- analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9,
181–196.
Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based
coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science,
17(1), 3–21.
Beck, E. M., Tolnay, S. E., & Bailey, A. K. (2016). Contested
terrain: The state versus threatened lynch mob violence.
American Journal of Sociology, 121(6), 1856–1884.
Bedeian, A. G., & Day, D. V. (2004). Can chameleons lead?
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 687–718.
Bednar, R. L., & Kaul, T. (1978). Experiential group research:
Current perspectives. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.),
Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (2nd ed.,
pp. 769–815). New York: Wiley.
Bednar, R. L., & Kaul, T. (1979). Experiential group research:
What never happened. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
15, 311–319.
Bednar, R. L., & Kaul, T. (1994). Experiential group research:
Can the canon fire? In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.),
Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed.,
pp. 631–663). New York: Wiley.
Beers, C. (2012). I’d rather be in charge. New York: Vanguard Press.
584 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M.
(2011). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences
of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42(2), 127–176.
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K.
(2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close
look at the links between conflict type, conflict management
strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
170–188.
Belbin, R. M. (2010). Team roles at work (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bell, P. A. (1992). In defense of the negative affect escape model of
heat and aggression. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 342–346.
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of
team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 595–615.
Bell, S. T., Brown, S. G., Abben, D. R., & Outland, N. B. (2015).
Team composition issues for future space exploration: A
review and directions for future research. Aerospace Medicine
and Human Performance, 86(6), 548–556.
Bell, S. T., Fisher, D. M., Brown, S. G., & Mann, K. E. (2017). An
approach for conducting actionable research with extreme
teams. Journal of Management.
doi:10.1177/0149206316653805
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 6, 2–62.
Bem, S. L. (1982). Gender schema theory and self-schema theory
compared: A comment on Markus, Crane, Bernstein, and
Siladi’s “Self-schemas and gender.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 43, 1192–1194.
Bem, S. L. (1985). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A
conceptual and empirical integration. Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, 32, 179–226.
Bendersky, J. W. (2007). “Panic”: The impact of Le Bon’s crowd
psychology on U.S. military thought. Journal of the History of
the Behavioral Sciences, 43, 257–283.
Benjamin, L. T., Jr., & Crouse, E. M. (2002). The American
Psychological Association’s response to Brown v. Board of
Education: The case of Kenneth B. Clark. American Psychologist,
57, 38–50.
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group
members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49.
Bennett, H. S. (1980). On becoming a rock musician. Amherst, MA:
University of Massachusetts Press.
Bennett, J. B. (1988). Power and influence as distinct personality
traits: Development and validation of a psychometric
measure. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 361–394.
Bennett, M., & Sani, F. (2008). Children’s subjective identification
with social groups: A self-stereotyping approach.
Developmental Science, 11, 69–75.
Bennis, W., & Biederman, P. W. (1997). Organizing genius: The
secrets of creative collaboration. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bennis, W. G., & Shepard, H. A. (1956). A theory of group
development. Human Relations, 9, 415–437.
Berdahl, J. L., & Anderson, C. (2005). Men, women, and
leadership centralization in groups over time. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 45–57.
Berdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on
emotion and expression during a controversial group
discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 497–509.
Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., & Webster, M. (2014). Expectation
states theory: Growth, opportunities and challenges. Advances
in Group Processes, 31, 19–55.
Berger, R. E. (1981). Heart rate, arousal, and the “mere presence”
hypothesis of social facilitation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Berger, S. M., Carli, L. L., Garcia, R., & Brady, J. J., Jr. (1982).
Audience effects in anticipatory learning: A comparison of
drive and practice-inhibition analyses. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 478–486.
Berger, S. M., Hampton, K. L., Carli, L. L., Grandmaison, P. S.,
Sadow, J. S., Donath, C. H., & Herschlag, L. R. (1981).
Audience-induced inhibition of overt practice during learning.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 479–491.
Berkowitz, L. (1953). Sharing leadership in small, decision-
making groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48,
231–238.
Berkowitz, L. (1954). Group standards, cohesiveness, and
productivity. Human Relations, 7, 509–519.
Berkowitz, L., & Lundy, R. M. (1957). Personality characteristics
related to susceptibility to influence by peers or authority
figures. Journal of Personality, 25(3), 306–316.
Berman, J. J., & Zimpfer, D. G. (1980). Growth groups: Do the
outcomes really last? Review of Educational Research, 50,
505–524.
Berns, G. S., Chappelow, J., Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-
Skurski, M. E., & Richards, J. (2005). Neurobiological
correlates of social conformity and independence during
mental rotation. Biological Psychiatry, 58, 245–253.
Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N., & Lee, M. (2016). Beyond
the holacracy hype. Harvard Business Review, 94(7–8),
38–49.
Bernstein, M. J., & Claypool, H. M. (2012). Social exclusion and
pain sensitivity: Why exclusion sometimes hurts and
sometimes numbs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
38(2), 185–196.
Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Sacco, D. F., &
Claypool, H. M. (2008). Adaptive responses to social
exclusion: Social rejection improves detection of real and fake
smiles. Psychological Science, 19(10), 981–983.
Bernthal, P. R., & Insko, C. A. (1993). Cohesiveness without
groupthink: The interactive effects of social and task
cohesion. Group and Organizational Management, 18, 66–87.
R E F E R E N C E S 585
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Berra, Y. (2002). When you come to a fork in the road, take it!:
Inspiration and wisdom from one of baseball’s greatest heroes.
New York: Hyperion.
Betancourt, H., & Blair, I. (1992). A cognition (attribution)-
emotion model of violence in conflict situations. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 343–350.
Bettencourt, B. A., Brewer, M. B., Croak, M. R., & Miller, N.
(1992). Cooperation and the reduction of intergroup bias:
The role of reward structure and social orientation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 301–309.
Bettencourt, B. A., & Sheldon, K. (2001). Social roles as mechanism
for psychological need satisfaction within social groups. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1131–1143.
Bhatt, M. A., Lohrenz, T., Camerer, C. F., & Montague, P. R.
(2010). Neural signatures of strategic types in a two-person
bargaining game. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 107(46), 19720–19725.
Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics
of social norms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual
Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92.
Biddle, B. J. (2001). Role theory. In E. F. Borgatta & R. J. V.
Montgomery (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology (2nd ed., Vol. 4,
pp. 2415–2420). New York: Macmillan Reference.
Bieling, P., McGabe, R., & Antony, M. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral
therapy in groups. New York: Guilford.
Bienefeld, N., & Grote, G. (2014). Shared leadership in multiteam
systems: How cockpit and cabin crews lead each other to
safety. Human Factors, 56(2), 270–286.
Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based
standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but
higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544–557.
Biernat, M., Crandall, C. S., Young, L. V., Kobrynowicz, D., &
Halpin, S. M. (1998). All that you can be: Stereotyping of self
and others in a military context. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 301–317.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Green, M. L. (1996). Selective self-
stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
1194–1209.
Birnbaum, M. L., & Cicchetti, A. (2005). A model for working
with the group life cycle in each group session across the life
span of the group. Groupwork, 15, 23–43.
Black, L. W., Welser, H. T., Cosley, D., & DeGroot, J. M. (2011).
Self-governance through group discussion in Wikipedia:
Measuring deliberation in online groups. Small Group
Research, 42(5), 595–634.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). What constitutes fairness in
work settings? A four-component model of procedural
justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 107–126.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending
the group engagement model: Linkages between social
identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and
extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2),
445–464.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston,
TX: Gulf.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1982). How to choose a leadership
style. Training and Development Journal, 36, 39–46.
Blanchard, F. A., Adelman, L., & Cook, S. W. (1975). Effect of
group success and failure upon interpersonal attraction in
cooperating interracial groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, 1020–1030.
Blanchard, K., & Johnson, S. (1981). The one minute manager.
New York: Berkley.
Blascovich, J. (2014). Using physiological indexes in social
psychological research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.),
Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology
(2nd ed., pp. 101–122). New York: Cambridge.
Blascovich, J., Ginsburg, G. P., & Howe, R. C. (1975). Blackjack
and the risky shift, II: Monetary stakes. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 11, 224–232.
Blascovich, J., Ginsburg, G. P., & Howe, R. C. (1976). Blackjack,
choice shifts in the field. Sociometry, 39, 274–276.
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K.
(1999). Social “facilitation” as challenge and threat. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 68–77.
Blascovich, J., Seery, M. D., Mugridge, C. A., Norris, R. K., &
Weisbuch, M. (2004). Predicting athletic performance from
cardiovascular indexes of challenge and threat. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 683–688.
Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience
experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their
interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
398–413.
Blass, T. (2000). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things
we now know about obedience to authority. In T. Blass
(Ed.), Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram
paradigm (pp. 35–59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blass, T. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of studies of
obedience using the Milgram paradigm: A review. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 6(2), 196–205.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Pillai, R. (2011). Romancing
leadership: Past, present, and future. The Leadership Quarterly,
22(6), 1058–1077.
Blumberg, H., Kent, M. V., Hare, A. P., & Davies, M. F. (2012).
Small group research: Implication for peace psychology and conflict
resolution. New York: Springer.
Blumer, H. (1946). Collective behavior. In A. M. Lee (Ed.), New
outline of the principles of sociology. New York: Barnes & Noble.
586 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Blumer, H. (1951). Collective behavior. In A. M. Lee (Ed.), Principles
of sociology (pp. 167–224). New York: Barnes & Noble.
Blumer, H. (1957). Collective behavior. In J. B. Gittler (Ed.),
Review of sociology: Analysis of a decade (pp. 127–158).
New York: Wiley.
Bó, P. D. (2005). Cooperation under the shadow of the future:
Experimental evidence from infinitely repeated games.
American Economic Review, 95, 1591–1604.
Bogaert, S., Boone, C., & Declerck, C. (2008). Social value
orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and
conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47,
453–480.
Bogovic, A., Mihanovic, M., Jokic-Begic, N., & Svagelj, A. (2014).
Personal space of male war veterans with posttraumatic stress
disorder. Environment and Behavior, 46(8), 929–945.
Böhm, R., Rothermund, K., & Kirchkamp, O. (2013). Social
categorization and group-motivated interindividual–
intergroup discontinuity. European Journal of Social Psychology,
43(1), 40–49.
Boldry, J. G., Gaertner, L., & Quinn, J. (2007). Measuring the
measures: A meta-analytic investigation of the measures of
outgroup homogeneity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
10, 157–178.
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A
conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69, 479–504.
Bonanno, G. A., Brewin, C. R., Kaniasty, K., & La Greca, A. M.
(2010). Weighing the costs of disaster: Consequences, risks,
and resilience in individuals, families, and communities.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11(1), 1–49.
Bond, C. F., Atoum, A. O., & VanLeeuwen, M. D. (1996). Social
impairment of complex learning in the wake of public
embarrassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 31–44.
Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-
analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 265–292.
Bond, M. (2014). The power of others: Peer pressure, groupthink, and
how the people around us shape everything we do. London:
Oneworld Publications.
Bond, R. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 8, 331–354.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-
analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment
task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137.
Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: A historical review
of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human
Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120.
Bonikowski, B., & McPherson, M. (2007). The sociology of
voluntary associations. In C. D. Bryant & D. L. Peck (Eds.),
21st Century Sociology: A reference handbook (Vol. 1, pp.
197–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bonito, J. A., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1997). Participation in small
groups. Communication Yearbook, 20, 227–261.
Bonner, B. L., & Baumann, M. R. (2008). Informational intra-
group influence: The effects of time pressure and group size.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 46–66.
Bonner, B. L., & Baumann, M. R. (2012). Leveraging member
expertise to improve knowledge transfer and demonstrability
in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2),
337–350.
Bonner, B. L., Soderberg, A. T., & Romney, A. C. (2016). In the
same group but moving in different directions: Coordination
effects in tasks with simultaneous intellective and judgmental
performance criteria. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 22(4), 471.
Bonta, B. D. (1997). Cooperation and competition in peaceful
societies. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 299–320.
Borgatta, E. F., & Bales, R. F. (1953). Task and accumulation of
experience as factors in the interaction of small groups.
Sociometry, 16, 239–252.
Borgatta, E. F., Couch, A. S., & Bales, R. F. (1954). Some findings
relevant to the great man theory of leadership. American
Sociological Review, 19, 755–759.
Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks,
27, 55–71.
Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009).
Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323,
892–895.
Bornstein, B., & Greene, E. (2017). The jury under fire: Myth,
controversy, and reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-
analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106,
265–289.
Bornstein, R. F. (1992). The dependent personality:
Developmental, social, and clinical perspectives. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 3–23.
Bosse, D. A., & Coughlan, R. (2016). Stakeholder relationship
bonds. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1197–1222.
Bouchard, T. J. (1972). A comparison of two group brainstorming
procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 418–421.
Boukreev, A., & DeWalt, G. W. (1997). The climb: Tragic ambitions
on Everest. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of
taste (Trans. R. Nice). Boston: Harvard University Press.
Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966). Predicting organizational
effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238–263.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). London: Hogarth.
Bowman, J. M., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (2012). Time pressure
affects process and performance in hidden-profile groups.
Small Group Research, 43(3), 295–314.
Brabender, V. M., & Fallon, A. (2009). Group development in practice:
Guidance for clinicians and researchers on stages and dynamics of
R E F E R E N C E S 587
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

change. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Bradley, B. H., Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., & Klotz, A. C. (2015).
When conflict helps: Integrating evidence for beneficial
conflict in groups and teams under three perspectives. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(4), 243–272.
Bradshaw, S. D. (1998). I’ll go if you will: Do shy persons utilize
social surrogates? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15,
651–669.
Branch, S., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying,
mobbing and general harassment: A review. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 280–299.
Brannigan, A., Nicholson, I., & Cherry, F. (2015). Introduction to
the special issue: Unplugging the Milgram machine. Theory &
Psychology, 25(5), 551–563.
Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one’s gender group’s
privileges or disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in
women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37,
167–184.
Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Gliner, M. D. (1995). The effects of
repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group
discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
1014–1029.
Braun, D. E., Prusaczyk, W. K., & Pratt, N. C. (1992). Personality
profiles of U.S. Navy Sea-Air-Land (SEAL) personnel. San
Diego, CA: Naval Health Research Center.
Bray, R. M., Johnson, D., & Chilstrom, J. T., Jr. (1982). Social
influence by group members with minority opinions: A
comparison of Hollander & Moscovici. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 43, 78–88.
Brazy, D. P. (2009). Group chairman’s factual report of investigation:
Cockpit voice recorder (DCA09MA026). Washington, DC:
National Transportation Safety Board.
Brechner, K. C. (1977). An experimental analysis of social traps.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 552–564.
Brehm, J. W., & Sensenig, J. (1966). Social influence as a function
of attempted and implied usurpation of choice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 703–707.
Brennan, A. A., & Enns, J. T. (2015). When two heads are better
than one: Interactive versus independent benefits of
collaborative cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4),
1076–1082.
Brew, F. P., Tan, J., Booth, H., & Malik, I. (2011). The effects of
cognitive appraisals of communication competence in conflict
interactions: A study involving western and Chinese cultures.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(5), 856–874.
Brewer, M. B. (2007). The social psychology of intergroup
relations: Social categorization, ingroup bias, and outgroup
prejudice. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 695–715).
New York: Guilford.
Brewer, M. B. (2010). Intergroup relations. In R. F. Baumeister &
E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the
science (pp. 535–571). New York: Oxford University Press.
Brewer, M. B. (2012). Optimal distinctiveness theory: Its history
and development. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski,
& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology
(Vol. 2, pp. 81–98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brewer, M. B., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and
intergroup attitudes: East African evidence. New York: Halsted
Press.
Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y.-R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in
collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism
and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114, 133–151.
Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y.-Y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dynamic
entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M.
Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception:
Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 25–38).
New York: Psychology Press.
Brewer, S., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Type of positive interdependence
and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative
learning environment. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 54(4), 331–354.
Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G., & Ostrom, T. M. (1986). Effects
of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for
social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
763–770.
Brief, A. P., Schuler, R. S., & Van Sell, M. (1981). Managing job
stress. Boston: Little, Brown.
Brief, A. P., Umphress, E. E., Dietz, J., Burrows, J. W., Butz, R. M.,
& Scholten, L. (2005). Community matters: Realistic group
conflict theory and the impact of diversity. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(5), 830–844.
Brinthaupt, T. M., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1991).
Sources of optimism among prospective group members.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 36–43.
Brockner, J. (1995). How to stop throwing good money after bad:
Using theory to guide practice. In D. A. Schroeder (Ed.),
Social dilemmas: Perspectives on individuals and groups
(pp. 163–182). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Brockner, J., & Rubin, J. Z. (1985). The social psychology of conflict
escalation and entrapment. New York: Springer Verlag.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative
framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive
effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120,
189–208.
Bromley, D. G. (2001). A tale of two theories: Brainwashing and
conversion as competing political narratives. In B. Zablocki &
T. Robbins (Eds.), Misunderstanding cults (pp. 318–348).
Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Bromley, D. G. (2007). Methodological issues in the study of new
religious movements. In D. G. Bromley (Ed.), Teaching new
588 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

religious movements (pp. 65–89). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Brooks, A. W., Dai, H., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2014). I’m sorry
about the rain! Superfluous apologies demonstrate empathic
concern and increase trust. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 5(4), 467–474.
Brosnan, S. F. (2011). What do capuchin monkeys tell us about
cooperation. In D. R. Forsyth & C. Hoyt (Eds.), For the
greater good of all: Perspectives on individualism, society, and
leadership (pp. 11–27). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject
unequal pay. Nature, 425, 297–299.
Brown, B. B. (1987). Territoriality. In D. Stokols & I. Altman
(Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
505–531). New York: Wiley.
Brown, B. B., & Lohr, N. (1987). Peer group affiliation and
adolescent self-esteem: An integration of ego-identity and
symbolic-interaction theories. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 47–55.
Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brown, G. (2009). Claiming a corner at work: Measuring
employee territoriality in their workspaces. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 44–52.
Brown, G., & Robinson, S. L. (2011). Reactions to territorial
infringement. Organization Science, 22(1), 210–224.
Brown, L. H., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I., & Kwapil, T. R.
(2007). When the need to belong goes wrong: The
expression of social anhedonia and social anxiety in daily life.
Psychological Science, 18, 778–782.
Brown, N. W. (2011). Psychoeducational groups: Process and practice.
New York: Routledge.
Brown, R. (1974). Further comment on the risky shift. American
Psychologist, 29, 468–470.
Brown, R. (2000). Group processes (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Brown, R., Condor, S., Matthews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. A.
(1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial
organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273–286.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of
intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
37, 255–343.
Brown, R., Maras, P., Masser, B., Vivian, J., & Hewstone, M.
(2001). Life on the ocean wave: Testing some intergroup
hypotheses in a naturalistic setting. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 4, 81–97.
Brown, T. M., & Miller, C. E. (2000). Communication networks
in task-performing groups: Effects of task complexity, time
pressure, and interpersonal dominance. Small Group Research,
31(2), 131–157.
Brown, V., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). A simple dynamic model of
social factors in group brainstorming. Small Group Research,
27, 91–114.
Brucks, W. M., Reips, U., & Ryf, B. (2007). Group norms,
physical distance, and ecological efficiency in common pool
resource management. Social Influence, 2(2), 112–135.
Bryant, E. M., & Marmo, J. (2012). The rules of Facebook
friendship: A two-stage examination of interaction rules in
close, casual, and acquaintance friendships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 29(8), 1013–1035.
Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Budescu, D. V., & Chen, E. (2014). Identifying expertise to extract
the wisdom of crowds. Management Science, 61(2), 267–280.
Buehler, R., Messervey, D., & Griffin, D. (2005). Collaborative
planning and prediction: Does group discussion affect
optimistic biases in time estimation? Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 97(1), 47–63.
Bugental, D. B. (2010). Paradoxical power manifestations: Power
assertion by the subjectively powerless. In A. Guinote & T. K.
Vescio (Eds.), The social psychology of power (pp. 209–230).
New York: Guilford Press.
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in
work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 48, 557–591.
Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning
in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be
better learners. Organization Science, 21(3), 609–624.
Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still
obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11.
Burger, J. M. (2014). Situational features in Milgram’s experiment
that kept his participants shocking. Journal of Social Issues,
70(3), 489–500.
Burger, J. M., Girgis, Z. M., & Manning, C. C. (2011). In their
own words: Explaining obedience to authority through an
examination of participants’ comments. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 2(5), 460–466.
Burger, J. M., LaSalvia, C. T., Hendricks, L. A., Mehdipour, T., &
Neudeck, E. M. (2011). Partying before the party gets started:
The effects of descriptive norms on pregaming behavior. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 33(3), 220–227.
Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space
violation: Explication and an initial test. Human
Communication Research, 4, 129–142.
Burgoon, J. K. (1983). Nonverbal violations of expectations. In
J. M. Wiemann & R. R. Harrison (Eds.), Nonverbal interaction
(pp. 11–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burgoon, J. K., & Dillman, L. (1995). Gender, immediacy, and
nonverbal communication. In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody
(Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships
(pp. 63–81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement
of the fundamental themes of relational communication.
Communication Monographs, 54(1), 19–41.
R E F E R E N C E S 589
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Burke, M. J., & Day, R. R. (1986). A cumulative study of the
effectiveness of managerial training. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 232–245.
Burke, P. J. (1967). The development of task and social-emotional
role differentiation. Sociometry, 30, 379–392.
Burke, S. M., Davies, K. M., & Carron, A. V. (2014). Group
cohesion in sport and exercise settings. In M. R. Beauchamp
& M. A. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics in exercise and sport
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 147–163). New York: Routledge/
Psychology Press.
Burkley, M., & Blanton, H. (2008). Endorsing a negative in-group
stereotype as a self-protective strategy: Sacrificing the group
to save the self. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
37–49.
Burlingame, G. M., Cox, J. C., Davies, D. R., Layne, C. M., &
Gleave, R. (2011). The Group Selection Questionnaire:
Further refinements in group member selection. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(1), 60–74.
Burlingame, G. M., Fuhriman, A., & Mosier, J. (2003). The
differential effectiveness of group psychotherapy: A meta-
analytic perspective. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 7, 3–12.
Burlingame, G. M., & Jensen, J. L. (2017). Small group process and
outcome research highlights: A 25-year perspective. International
Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 67(Supp. 1), 194–218.
Burlingame, G. M., & Krogel, J. (2005). Relative efficacy of
individual versus group psychotherapy. International Journal of
Group Psychotherapy, 55, 607–611.
Burlingame, G. M., MacKenzie, K. R., & Strauss, B. (2004). Small
group treatment: Evidence for effectiveness and mechanisms
of change. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin & Garfield’s handbook
of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 647–696).
New York: Wiley & Sons.
Burlingame, G. M., Seebeck, J. D., Janis, R. A., Whitcomb, K. E.,
Barkowski, S., Rosendahl, J., & Strauss, B. (2016). Outcome
differences between individual and group formats when
identical and nonidentical treatments, patients, and doses are
compared: A 25-year meta-analytic perspective. Psychotherapy,
53(4), 446–461.
Burnette, J. L., & Forsyth, D. R. (2008). “I didn’t do it”:
Responsibility biases in open and closed groups. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(3), 210.
Burnette, J. L., McCullough, M. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., &
Davis, D. E. (2012). Forgiveness results from integrating
information about relationship value and exploitation risk.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 345–356.
Burnette, J. L., Pollack, J. M., & Forsyth, D. R. (2011). Leadership in
extreme contexts: A groupthink analysis of the May 1996
Mount Everest disaster. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(4), 29–40.
Burnham, T., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (2000). Friend-or-foe
intentionality priming in an extensive form trust game. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43, 57–73.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper.
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: The pursuit of happiness.
New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1973). Testing two classes of theories
about group-induced shifts in individual choice. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 123–137.
Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive arguments and
social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315–332.
Burnstein, E., & Worchel, P. (1962). Arbitrariness of frustration and
its consequences for aggression in a social situation. Journal of
Personality, 30, 528–540.
Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.
Bushe, G. R., & Coetzer, G. H. (2007). Group development and
team effectiveness: Using cognitive representations to measure
group development and predict task performance and group
viability. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 184–212.
Butera, F., Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Mugny, G., & Quiamzade, A.
(2016). Minority influence. In S. Harkins, K. D. Williams, &
J. Burger (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social influence. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www
.oxfordhandbooks.com/
Butkovic, A., & Bratko, D. (2007). Family study of manipulation
tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 791–801.
Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male
and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 48–59.
Butler, T., & Fuhriman, A. (1983). Level of functioning and length
of time in treatment variables influencing patients’ therapeutic
experience in group psychotherapy. International Journal of
Group Psychotherapy, 33, 489–505.
Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The
end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 3–21.
Buunk, B. P., Nauta, A., & Molleman, E. (2005). In search of the
true group animal: The effects of affiliation orientation and
social comparison orientation upon group satisfaction.
European Journal of Personality, 19, 69–81.
Buxant, C., Saroglou, V., & Tesser, M. (2010). Free-lance spiritual
seekers: Self-growth or compensatory motives? Mental Health,
Religion & Culture 13(2), 209–222.
Buys, C. J. (1978a). Humans would do better without groups.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 123–125.
Buys, C. J. (1978b). On humans would do better without groups:
A final note. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 568.
Byrne, D. (1961). Anxiety and the experimental arousal of
affiliation need. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63,
660–662.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic
Press.
590 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Byrne, Z. S., & LeMay, E. (2006). Different media for
organizational communication: Perceptions of quality and
satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 149–173.
Cabanac, M. (2006). Pleasure and joy, and their role in human life.
In D. Clements-Croome (Ed.), Creating the productive workplace
(2nd ed., pp. 3–13). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Cacioppo, J. T., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). Alone in
the crowd: The structure and spread of loneliness in a large
social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
97(6), 977–991.
Cadinu, M. R., & Cerchioni, M. (2001). Compensatory biases after
ingroup threat: ‘Yeah, but we have a good personality’.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 353–367.
Cai, D. A., & Fink, E. L. (2002). Conflict style differences between
individualists and collectivists. Communication Monographs,
69(1), 67–87.
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop
talking. New York: Crown Publishers.
Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1997). Personality and social
influence strategies in the workplace. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1003–1012.
Callaway, M. R., Marriott, R. G., & Esser, J. K. (1985). Effects of
dominance on group decision making: Toward a stress-
reduction explanation of groupthink. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49, 949–952.
Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social
anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 1071–1080.
Campbell, D. T. (1958a). Common fate, similarity, and other
indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities.
Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25.
Campbell, D. T. (1958b). Systematic error on the part of human
links in communication systems. Information and Control, 1,
334–369.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Stewart, M., & Manning, J. G. (2002).
The formation of status hierarchies in leaderless groups: The
role of male waist-to-hip ratio. Human Nature, 13, 345–362.
Campbell, T. (2005). The cognitive neuroscience of auditory
distraction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 3–5.
Campbell-Meiklejohn, D. K., Bach, D. R., Roepstorff, A., Dolan,
R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2010). How the opinion of others
affects our valuation of objects. Current Biology, 20(13),
1165–1170.
Campbell-Meiklejohn, D. K., Kanai, R., Bahrami, B., Bach, D. R.,
Dolan, R. J., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. D. (2012). Structure
of orbitofrontal cortex predicts social influence. Current
Biology, 22(4), R123–R124.
Canetti, E. (1962). Crowds and power. London: Gollancz.
Cannavale, F. J., Scarr, H. A., & Pepitone, A. (1970).
Deindividuation in the small group: Further evidence. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 141–147.
Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing to learn and
learning to fail (intelligently): How great organizations put
failure to work to innovate and improve. Long Range
Planning: International Journal of Strategic Management, 38,
299–319.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Bowers, C. (2011). Team development
and functioning. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 597–650).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on team
cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202.
Carboni, I., & Casciaro, T. (2016). Love me or hate me: Exploring
controversial sociometric status. In D. T. Kong & D. R.
Forsyth (Eds.), Leading through conflict (pp. 109–129).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carey, H. R., & Laughlin, P. R. (2012). Groups perform better
than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems:
Effects of induced strategies. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 15(2), 231–242.
Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of
cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71–88.
Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social
Issues, 57, 725–741.
Carli, L. L. (2015). Social influence and gender. In S. Harkins,
K. D. Williams, & J. Burger (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
social influence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/
Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2011). Gender and leadership. In
A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, &
M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage handbook of leadership
(pp. 269–285). London: Sage.
Carlyle, T. (1841). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic. London:
Fraser.
Carneiro, R. L. (1970). A theory of the origin of the state. Science,
169, 239–249.
Carnevale, P. J. (2008). Theory of conflict in the workplace:
Whence and whither. In C. K. W. De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand
(Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in
organizations (pp. 435–444). New York: Taylor & Francis
Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carpenter, C. R. (1958). Territoriality: A review of concepts and
problems. In A. Roe & G. G. Simpson (Eds.), Behavior and
evolution (pp. 224–250). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002).
Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 168–188.
Carson, P. P., Carson, K. D., & Roe, C. W. (1993). Social power
bases: A meta-analytic examination of interrelationships
and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,
1150–1169.
R E F E R E N C E S 591
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.
Carton, A. M., & Rosette, A. S. (2011). Explaining bias against
Black leaders: Integrating theory on information processing
and goal-based stereotyping. Academy of Management Journal,
54, 1141–1158.
Cartwright, D. (1951). Achieving change in people: Some
applications of group dynamics theory. Human Relations, 4,
381–392.
Cartwright, D. (1959). A field theoretical conception of power. In
D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI:
Institute for Social Research.
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In
D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Theory
and research (pp. 91–109). New York: Harper & Row.
Cartwright, D., & Harary, F. (1970). Ambivalence and indifference
in generalizations of structural balance. Behavioral Science, 14,
497–513.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds.). (1968). Group dynamics:
Research and theory (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Caruso, E., Epley, N., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). The costs and
benefits of undoing egocentric responsibility assessments in
groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 857–871.
Carvalho, E. R., & Brito, V. C. A. (1995). Sociometric
intervention in family therapy: A case study. Journal of Group
Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 47, 147–164.
Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational
psychology in a changing world of work? American
Psychologist, 50, 928–939.
Casey-Campbell, M., & Martens, M. L. (2009). Sticking it all
together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion-
performance literature. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 11, 223–246.
Caspar, E., Christensen, J., Cleeremans, A., & Haggard, P. (2016).
Coercion changes the sense of agency in the human brain.
Current Biology, 26(5), 585–592.
Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., & Bourguignon, D. (2003). We are one
and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup
identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33,
735–754.
Castore, C. H., & Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Determinants of
support for group decisions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 22, 75–92.
Cecil, J. S., Hans, V. P., & Wiggins, E. C. (1991). Citizen
comprehension of difficult issues: Lessons from civil jury trials.
American University Law Review, 40, 727–774.
Chagnon, N. A. (1997). Yanomamö (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace.
Challenger, R., & Clegg, C. W. (2015). Crowd disasters: A socio-
technical systems perspective. In J. Drury & C. Stott (Eds.),
Crowds in the 21st century: Perspectives from contemporary social
science (pp. 80–97). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis
Group.
Chang, L. W., Krosch, A. R., & Cikara, M. (2016). Effects of
intergroup threat on mind, brain, and behavior. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 11, 69–73.
Chansler, P. A., Swamidass, P. M., & Cammann, C. (2003).
Self-managing work teams: An empirical study of group
cohesiveness in “natural work groups” at a Harley-Davidson
motor company plant. Small Group Research, 34, 101–120.
Charness, G., Karni, E., & Levin, D. (2010). On the conjunction
fallacy in probability judgment: New experimental evidence
regarding linda. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2), 551–556.
Charness, G., & Sutter, M. (2012). Groups make better self-
interested decisions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3),
157–176.
Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. (2013). The antecedents and
consequences of human behavioral mimicry. Annual Review of
Psychology, 64, 285–308.
Charuvastra, A., & Cloitre, M. (2008). Social bonds and posttraumatic
stress disorder. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 301–328.
Chatman, J. A., & Spataro, S. E. (2005). Using self-categorization
theory to understand relational demography-based variations
in people’s responsiveness to organizational culture. Academy
of Management Journal, 48, 321–331.
Cheavens, J. S., Feldman, D. B., Gum, A., Michael, S. T., &
Snyder, C. R. (2006). Hope therapy in a community sample:
A pilot investigation. Social Indicators Research, 77, 61–78.
Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can
cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-
collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 285–304.
Chen, L.-H., Baker, S. P., Braver, E. R., & Li, G. (2000). Carrying
passengers as a risk factor for crashes fatal to 16- and
17-year-old drivers. Journal of the American Medical Association,
283, 1578–1582.
Chen, S., Chen, K. Y., & Shaw, L. (2004). Self-verification motives
at the collective level of self-definition. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 86(1), 77–94.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship
orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 173–187.
Chen, S., Shechter, D., & Chaiken, S. (1996). Getting at the truth
or getting along: Accuracy-versus impression-motivated
heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 262–275.
Chen, X. (2011). Culture, peer relationships, and human
development. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.) Bridging cultural and
developmental approaches to psychology: New syntheses in theory,
research, and policy (pp. 92–112). New York: Oxford
University Press.
592 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Chen, Z., Lawson, R. B., Gordon, L. R., & McIntosh, B. (1996).
Groupthink: Deciding with the leader and the devil.
Psychological Record, 46, 581–590.
Cheng, J. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2014). Toward a unified science of
hierarchy: Dominance and prestige are two fundamental
pathways to human social rank. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, &
C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 3–28).
New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Anderson, C. (Eds.). (2014). The
psychology of social status. New York: Springer Science+
Business Media.
Cheng, S. (1997). Epidemic genital retraction syndrome:
Environmental and personal risk factors in southern China.
Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 9, 57–70.
Chertkoff, J. M., Kushigian, R. H., & McCool, M. A., Jr. (1996).
Interdependent exiting: The effects of group size, time limit,
and gender on the coordination of exiting. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16, 109–121.
Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. (2011).
Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture.
American Psychologist, 66(7), 593–603.
Cheyne, J. A., & Efran, M. G. (1972). The effect of spatial and
interpersonal variables on the invasion of group controlled
territories. Sociometry, 35, 477–487.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do coworkers make
the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of lateral
social influences in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(5), 1082–1103.
Chiao, J. Y. (2010). Neural basis of social status hierarchy across
species. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20(6), 803–809.
Chiesa, M., & Hobbs, S. (2008). Making sense of social research:
How useful is the Hawthorne Effect? European Journal of Social
Psychology, 38(1), 67–74.
Chin, A., Markey, A., Bhargava, S., Kassam, K. S., &
Loewenstein, G. (2016). Bored in the USA: Experience
sampling and boredom in everyday life. Emotion, 17(2),
359–368.
Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance:
A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams,
production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research,
40(4), 382–420.
Chirot, D., & McCauley, C. (2006). Why not kill them all.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a
large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of
Medicine, 357, 370–379.
Christensen, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1994). Who (or what) can do
psychotherapy: The status and challenge of nonprofessional
therapies. Psychological Science, 5, 8–12.
Christensen, P. N., & Feeney, M. E. (2016). Using the social
relations model to understand dyadic perceptions within
group therapy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
20(3), 196–208.
Christensen, P. N., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Perceptions of and by
lonely people in initial social interaction. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 322–329.
Christensen, P. N., Rothgerber, H., Wood, W., & Matz, D. C.
(2004). Social norms and identity relevance: A motivational
approach to normative behavior. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30(10), 1295–1309.
Chu, J. (2011). Searching for balloons in a social network. MIT
News. Retrieved from http://news.mit.edu/2011/red-
balloons-study-102811
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (6th ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Cialdini, R. B. (2011). The focus theory of normative conduct.
In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 295–312).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R., Thorne, A., Walker, M., Freeman, S.,
& Sloane, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three
(football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 366–375.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance
and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Social influence. In
R. F. Baumeister & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology:
The state of the science (pp. 385–417). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social
norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cianni, M., & Romberger, B. (1995). Interactions with senior
managers: Perceived differences by race/ethnicity and by
gender. Sex Roles, 32, 353–373.
Cimino, A. (2011). The evolution of hazing: Motivational
mechanisms and the abuse of newcomers. Journal of Cognition
and Culture, 11(3–4), 241–267.
Cini, M. A., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1993). Group staffing
levels and responses to prospective and new group members.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 723–734.
Ciulla, J. B., & Forsyth, D. R. (2011). Leadership ethics. In
A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of leadership (pp. 229–241). London:
Sage.
Clack, B., Dixon, J., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Eating together apart:
Patterns of segregation in a multi-ethnic cafeteria. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 1–16.
Claiborn, C. D., Goodyear, R. K., & Horner, P. A. (2001).
Feedback. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,
38, 401–405.
R E F E R E N C E S 593
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Claidière, N., & Whiten, A. (2012). Integrating the study of
conformity and culture in humans and nonhuman animals.
Psychological Bulletin, 138(1), 126–145.
Clapp, J. D., Holmes, M. R., Reed, M. B., Shillington, A. M.,
Freisthler, B., & Lange, J. E. (2007). Measuring college
students’ alcohol consumption in natural drinking
environments: Field methodologies for bars and parties.
Evaluation Review, 31, 469–489.
Clapp, J. D., Min, J. W., Shillington, A. M., Reed, M. B., & Croff,
J. K. (2008). Person and environment predictors of blood
alcohol concentrations: A multi-level study of college parties.
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32, 100–107.
Clark, G. (1969, November). What happens when the police
strike? New York Times Magazine, p. 45.
Clark, K. B. (1971). The pathos of power. American Psychologist, 26,
1047–1057.
Clark, M. S., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2010). Close relationships. In
S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of
social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 898–940). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. R. (2012). A theory of communal (and
exchange) relationships. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W.
Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 232–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clark, R. D. (1990). Minority influence: The role of argument
refutation of the majority position and social support for the
minority position. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20,
489–497.
Clark, R. D. (1999). Effect of number of majority defectors on
minority influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 3, 303–312.
Clark, R. D. (2001). Effects of majority defection and multiple
minority sources on minority influence. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 57–62.
Clark, R. D., & Sechrest, L. B. (1976). The mandate phenomenon.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1057–1061.
Clark, R. D., & Word, L. E. (1972). Why don’t bystanders help?
Because of ambiguity? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 24, 392–400.
Clark, R. D., & Word, L. E. (1974). Where is the apathetic
bystander? Situational characteristics of the emergency. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 279–287.
Clark, S. (1998). International competition and the treatment of
minorities: Seventeenth-century cases and general
propositions. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 1267–1308.
Clayton, D. A. (1978). Socially facilitated behavior. The Quarterly
Review of Biology, 53, 373–392.
Clements-Croome, D. (Ed.). (2006). Creating the productive workplace
(2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Clements-Croome, D. (2015). Creative and productive workplaces:
A review. Intelligent Buildings International, 7(4), 164–183.
Cleveland, C., Blascovich, J., Gangi, C., & Finez, L. (2011). When
good teammates are bad: Physiological threat on recently
formed teams. Small Group Research, 42(1), 3–31.
Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to
change. Human Relations, 1, 512–532.
Cohen, F., Ogilvie, D. M., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., &
Pyszczynski, T. (2005). American roulette: The effect of
reminders of death on support for George W. Bush in the
2004 presidential election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy, 5, 177–187.
Cohen, F., Solomon, S., Maxfield, M., Pyszczynski, T., &
Greenberg, J. (2004). Fatal attraction: The effects of mortality
salience on evaluations of charismatic, task-oriented, and
relationship-oriented leaders. Psychological Science, 15,
846–851.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work:
Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the
executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.
Cohen, S., & Weinstein, N. (1981). Nonauditory effects of noise
on behavior and health. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 36–70.
Coleman, P. T., & Ferguson, R. (2014). Making conflict work:
Harnessing the power of disagreement. New York: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt.
Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K. G., Mitchinson, A., & Foster, C.
(2013). Navigating conflict and power at work: The effects of
power and interdependence asymmetries on conflict in
organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(10),
1963–1983.
Collado, S., Staats, H., Corraliza, J. A., & Hartig, T. (2017).
Restorative environments and health. In G. Fleury-Bahi,
E. Pol, & O. Navarro (Eds.), Handbook of environmental
psychology and quality of life research (pp. 127–148). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer International.
Colligan, M. J., & Murphy, L. R. (1982). A review of mass
psychogenic illness in work settings. In M. J. Colligan, J. W.
Pennebaker, & L. R. Murphy (Eds.), Mass psychogenic illness:
A social psychological analysis (pp. 33–52). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Colligan, M. J., Pennebaker, J. W., & Murphy, L. R. (Eds.).
(1982). Mass psychogenic illness: A social psychological analysis.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, B. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group
processes for decision-making. New York: Wiley.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Collins, R. L. (2000). Among the better ones: Upward assimilation
in social comparison. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook
of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 159–171).
New York: Kluwer Academic.
Colman, A. M. (1991). Crowd psychology in South African
murder trials. American Psychologist, 46, 1071–1079.
594 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata,
C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the
millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social
exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98(2), 199–236.
Conger, J. A. (2011). Charismatic leadership. In A. Bryman,
D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of leadership. London: Sage.
Conroy, J., & Sundstrom, E. (1977). Territorial dominance in a
dyadic conversation as a function of similarity of opinion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 570–576.
Cook, K. S., & Rice, E. (2006). Social exchange theory. In
J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 53–76).
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., & Gerbasi, A. (2006). Power,
dependence, and social exchange. In P. J. Burke (Ed.),
Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 194–216).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of
school desegregation. American Psychologist, 40, 452–460.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York:
Scribner.
Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization. New York: Scribner.
Coovert, M., & Burke, J. (2005). Leadership and decision making.
In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social net: Understanding
human behavior in cyberspace (pp. 219–246). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cope, C. J., Eys, M. A., Beauchamp, M. R., Schinke, R. J., &
Bosselut, G. (2011). Informal roles on sport teams.
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9(1), 19–30.
Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2014). All alone: Multiple
perspectives on the study of solitude. In R. J. Coplan & J. C.
Bowker (Eds.), The handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives
on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 3–13).
Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Cordery, J. (2004). Another case of the emperor’s new clothes? Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 481–484.
Corey, G., & Corey, M. S. (2016). Group psychotherapy. In
J. C. Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, D. K. Freedheim, &
R. Krishnamurthy (Eds.), APA handbook of clinical psychology:
Applications and methods (pp. 289–306). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Corning, A. F., & Myers, D. J. (2002). Individual orientation
toward engagement in social action. Political Psychology, 23,
703–729.
Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free
Press.
Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. (2017). Team trust. In E. Salas,
R. Rico, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook
of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes
(pp. 393–416). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Costanzo, P. R. (1970). Conformity development as a function of
self-blame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14,
366–374.
Costanzo, P. R., & Shaw, M. E. (1966). Conformity as a function
of age level. Child Development, 37, 967–975.
Côté, S., Kraus, M. W., Cheng, B. H., Oveis, C., van der Lowe, I.,
Lian, H., & Keltner, D. (2011). Social power facilitates the
effect of prosocial orientation on empathic accuracy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 217–232.
Cottrell, N. B. (1972). Social facilitation. In C. G. McClintock
(Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 185–236). New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Coughlin, B. C., & Venkatesh, S. A. (2003). The urban street gang
after 1970. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 41–64.
Courneya, K. S., & Carron, A. V. (1991). Effects of travel and
length of home stand/road trip on the home advantage.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 42–49.
Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the
United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
124–131.
Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness.
New York: Free Press.
Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2016). Stigma-based solidarity:
Understanding the psychological foundations of conflict and
coalition among members of different stigmatized groups.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 21–27.
Crandall, C. S. (1988). Social contagion of binge eating. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 588–598.
Cress, D. M., McPherson, J. M., & Rotolo, T. (1997).
Competition and commitment in voluntary memberships:
The paradox of persistence and participation. Sociological
Perspectives, 40, 61–79.
Cress, U. (2005). Ambivalent effect of member portraits in virtual
groups. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 281–291.
Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social
categorization. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39,
163–254.
Crisp, R. J., Heuston, S., Farr, M. J., & Turner, R. N. (2007).
Seeing red or feeling blue: Differentiated intergroup emotions
and ingroup identification in soccer fans. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 10(1), 9–26.
Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2013). Imagined intergroup contact:
Refinements, debates, and clarifications. In G. Hodson &
M. Hewstone (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact
(pp. 135–151). New York: Psychology Press.
Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and
ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
60–67.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The
self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96,
608–630.
R E F E R E N C E S 595
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Crocker, J., & McGraw, K. M. (1984). What’s good for the goose
is not good for the gander: Solo status as an obstacle to
occupational achievement for males and females. American
Behavioral Scientist, 27, 357–369.
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth.
Psychological Review, 108(3), 593.
Crouch, E. C., Bloch, S., & Wanlass, J. (1994). Therapeutic factors:
Interpersonal and intrapersonal mechanisms. In A. Fuhriman
& G. M. Burlingame (Eds.), Handbook of group psychotherapy
(pp. 269–315). New York: Wiley.
Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American
Psychologist, 10, 191–198.
Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., Fox, N. E., & McMahon, H. (2015).
“That’s not what we do”: Evidence that normative change is
a mechanism of action in group interventions. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 65, 11–17.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map:
Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and
competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The
stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin,
S., Leyens, J.-P., … Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content
model across cultures: Universal similarities and some
differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 1–33.
Cullum, J., & Harton, H. C. (2007). Cultural evolution:
Interpersonal influence, issue importance, and the
development of shared attitudes in college residence halls.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1327–1339.
Cunningham, G. B. (2005). The importance of a common in-
group identity in ethnically diverse groups. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(4), 251–260.
Curşeu, P. L., Jansen, R. J., & Chappin, M. M. (2013). Decision
rules and group rationality: Cognitive gain or standstill? PLoS
One, 8(2), e56454.
Curşeu, P. L., Krehel, O., Evers, J. H., & Muntean, A. (2014).
Cognitive distance, absorptive capacity and group rationality:
A simulation study. PloS one, 9(10), e109359.
Curtin, N., Stewart, A. J., & Duncan, L. E. (2010). What makes the
political personal? Openness, personal political salience, and
activism. Journal of Personality, 78(3), 943–968.
Curtis, J. E., Baer, D. E., & Grabb, E. G. (2001). Nations of joiners:
Explaining voluntary association membership in democratic
societies. American Sociological Review, 66, 783–805.
D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A
meta-analysis of different forms of shared Leadership–Team
performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964–1991.
Dabbs, J. M., & Dabbs, M. G. (2000). Heroes, rogues, and lovers:
Testosterone and behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dabbs, J. M., & Ruback, R. B. (1987). Dimensions of group
process: Amount and structure of vocal interaction. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 123–169.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. C., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad
linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.
Darley, J. M. (1992). Social organization for the production of evil.
Psychological Inquiries, 3, 199–218.
Darley, J. M. (1995). Constructive and destructive obedience: A
taxonomy of principal-agent relationships. Journal of Social
Issues, 51, 125–154.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in
emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383.
DARPA. (2012). DARPA network challenge: Project report.
Arlington, VA: Defense Advanced Research Project Agency.
Dasgupta, N. (2004). Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup
favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice
Research, 17(2), 143–169.
Dattner, B. (2011). The blame game. New York: The Free Press.
David-Barrett, T., Rotkirch, A., Carney, J., Izquierdo, I. B.,
Krems, J. A., Townley, D., … Dunbar, R. I. M. (2015).
Women favor dyadic relationships, but men prefer clubs:
Cross-cultural evidence from social networking. PloS One,
10(3), e0118329.
Davies, K., & Aron, A. (2016). Friendship development and
intergroup attitudes: The role of interpersonal and intergroup
friendship processes. Journal of Social Issues, 72(3), 489–510.
Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory
of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125.
Davis, J. H., Bray, R. M., & Holt, R. W. (1977). The empirical
study of decision processes in juries: A critical review. In J. L.
Tapp & F. J. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice, and the individual in
society (pp. 326–361). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Davis, J. H., Stasson, M., Ono, K., & Zimmerman, S. (1988).
Effects of straw polls on group decision making: Sequential
voting pattern, timing, and local majorities. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 918–926.
Davis, J. R. (1982). Street gangs: Youth, biker, and prison groups.
Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt.
Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J., & Clegg, C. W. (2011). The physical
environment of the office: Contemporary and emerging
issues. International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 26, 193–237.
Dawes, R. M. (1988). Rational choice in an uncertain world. San
Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Dawkins, R. (1989). Darwinism and human purpose. In J. R.
Durant (Ed.), Human origins (pp. 137–143). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Day, S. X. (2014). A unifying theory for group counseling and
psychotherapy. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack, C. R. Kalodner, &
596 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

M. T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of group counseling and
psychotherapy (pp. 24–33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind
in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 91, 280–295.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010). Social conflict: The emergence and
consequences of struggle and negotiation. In S. T. Fiske,
D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology
(5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 983–1023). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Aaldering, H., & Saygi, Ö. (2015). Conflict
and negotiation within and between groups. In M.
Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson
(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2.,
pp. 151–176). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Beersma, B., Steinel, W., & van Kleef, G. A.
(2007). The psychology of negotiation: Principles and basic
processes. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 608–629).
New York: Guilford.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Handgra, M. J. J., Shalvi, S., van
Kleef, G. A., Baas, M., … Feith, S. W. W. (2010). The
neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism intergroup
conflict among humans. Science, 328(5984), 1408–1411.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nauta, A., & Van de Vliert, E. (1995).
Self-serving evaluations of conflict behavior and escalation
of the dispute. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25,
2049–2066.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Responses to
relationship conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22, 309–328.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus
relationship conflict, team performance, and team member
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
741–749.
De Grada, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A.
(1999). Motivated cognition and group interaction: Need for
closure affects the contents and processes of collective
negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35,
346–365.
de la Roche, R. S. (2002). Why is collective violence collective?
Sociological Theory, 19, 126–144.
De Neve, J. E., Mikhaylov, S., Dawes, C. T., Christakis, N. A., &
Fowler, J. H. (2013). Born to lead? A twin design and genetic
association study of leadership role occupancy. The Leadership
Quarterly, 24(1), 45–60.
de Sousa, P., Spray, A., Sellwood, W., & Bentall, R. P. (2015). ‘No
man is an island’. Testing the specific role of social isolation in
formal thought disorder. Psychiatry Research, 230(2), 304–313.
de Wit, Frank, R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The
paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.
Dean, L. M., Willis, F. N., & Hewitt, J. (1975). Initial interaction
distance among individuals equal and unequal in military
rank. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 294–299.
Decety, J., Jackson, P. L., Sommeerville, J. A., Chaminade, T., &
Meltzoff, A. N. (2004). The neural bases of cooperation and
competition: An fMRI investigation. NeuroImage, 23,
744–751.
DeChurch, L. A., & Mathieu, J. E. (2009). Thinking in terms of
multiteam systems. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke
(Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-
disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 267–292).
New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013).
Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a
process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4),
559–578.
Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2012). Contemporary gang
ethnographies. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of criminological theory (pp. 274–293).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang: Family,
friends, and violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process
model for problem identification and program planning.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 466–492.
Delhey, J., & Dragolov, G. (2016). Happier together: Social
cohesion and subjective well-being in Europe. International
Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 163–176.
Delton, A. W., Cosmides, L., Guemo, M., Robertson, T. E., &
Tooby, J. (2012). The psychosemantics of free riding:
Dissecting the architecture of a moral concept. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1252–1270.
DeLucia-Waack, J. L. (2010). Diversity in groups. In R. K. Conyne
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of group counseling (pp. 83–101).
New York: Oxford University Press.
DeLucia-Waack, J. L., Kalodner, C. R., & Riva, M. T. (Eds.).
(2014). Handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
DeMatteo, J. S., Eby, L. T., & Sundstrom, E. (1998). Team-based
rewards: Current empirical evidence and directions for future
research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 141–183.
Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., & Kahn, J. A. (1996). From chimneys
to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a
diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4),
1005–1023.
Denissen, J. J. A., Penke, L., Schmitt, D. P., & van Aken, M. A. G.
(2008). Self-esteem reactions to social interactions: Evidence
for sociometer mechanisms across days, people, and nations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 181–196.
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2007). Interdependent sampling and
social influence. Psychological Review, 114, 398–422.
R E F E R E N C E S 597
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Densley, J., & Peterson, J. (2017). Aggression between social
groups. In B. J. Bushman (Ed.), Aggression and violence: A social
psychological perspective (pp. 275–289). New York: Routledge.
Denvir, B. (1993). The chronicle of impressionism. New York: Little,
Brown.
Derlega, V. J., Cukur, C., Kuang, J. C. Y., & Forsyth, D. R.
(2002). Interdependent construal of self and the endorsement
of conflict resolution strategies in interpersonal, intergroup,
and international disputes. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,
33, 610–625.
DeRosa, D. M., Smith, C. L., & Hantula, D. A. (2007). The
medium matters: Mining the long-promised merit of group
interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis
of the electronic group brainstorming literature. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23, 1549–1581.
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E.
(2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An
integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity.
Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52.
Deutsch, M. (1949a). An experimental study of the effects of
cooperation and competition upon group process. Human
Relations, 2, 199–231.
Deutsch, M. (1949b). A theory of cooperation and competition.
Human Relations, 2, 129–152.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and
destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1980). Fifty years of conflict. In L. Festinger (Ed.),
Retrospections on social psychology (pp. 46–77). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., Marcus, E. C. (Eds.). (2006). The
handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and
informational social influences upon individual judgment.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.
Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. M. (1960). The effect of threat upon
interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 61, 181–189.
Devilly, G., Gist, R., & Cotton, P. (2006). Ready! Aim! Fire! The
status of psychological debriefing and therapeutic
interventions: In the work place and after disasters. Review of
General Psychology, 10, 318–345.
Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration of classification
systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 291–310.
Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science.
New York: NYU Press.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J.
(2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research
on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7,
622–727.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., &
Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence,
characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30,
678–711.
Devine, D. J., & Macken, S. (2016). Scientific evidence and juror
decision making: Theory, empirical research, and future
directions. In B. H. Bornstein & M. K. Miller (Eds.), Advances
in psychology and law (Vol. 2, pp. 95–139). New York:
Springer.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic
and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 5–18.
Devine, P. G. (2005). Breaking the prejudice habit: Allport’s “inner
conflict” revisited. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick & L. A. Rudman
(Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport
(pp. 327–342). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Devine, P. G., & Sharp, L. B. (2009). Automaticity and control in
stereotyping and prejudice. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook
of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 61–88).
New York: Psychology Press.
DeWall, C. N., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). The
general aggression model: Theoretical extensions to violence.
Psychology of Violence, 1(3), 245–258.
DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no
pain: Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance
and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal
empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1–15.
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D.
(2011). How leaders self-regulate their task performance:
Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and
disdain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1),
47–65.
DeWall, C. N., & Bushman, B. J. (2009). Hot under the collar in
a lukewarm environment: Words associated with hot
temperature increase aggressive thoughts and hostile
perceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4),
1045–1047.
DeWall, C. N., Enjaian, B., & Bell, S. B. (2017). Only the lonely:
The curious case of exclusion and aggression. In K. D.
Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection
(pp. 95–112). New York: Routledge.
DeWall, C. N., MacDonald, G., Webster, G. D., Masten, C. L.,
Baumeister, R. F., Powell, C., … Eisenberger, N. I. (2010).
Acetaminophen reduces social pain: Behavioral and neural
evidence. Psychological Science, 21(7), 931–937.
DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., & Rouby, D. A. (2009). Social
exclusion and early-stage interpersonal perception: Selective
attention to signs of acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 96(4), 729–741.
DeWall, C. N., & Twenge, J. M. (2013). Rejection and aggression:
Explaining the paradox. In C. N. DeWall (Ed.), The Oxford
598 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

handbook of social exclusion (pp. 113–120). New York: Oxford
University Press.
DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002).
Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are
there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences,
33, 533–552.
Di Salvo, V. S., Nikkel, E., & Monroe, C. (1989). Theory and
practice: A field investigation and identification of group
members’ perceptions of problems facing natural work
groups. Small Group Behavior, 20, 551–567.
Diamond, A. B., Callahan, S. T., Chain, K. F., & Solomon, G. S.
(2016). Qualitative review of hazing in collegiate and school
sports: Consequences from a lack of culture, knowledge and
responsiveness. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(3),
149–153.
Diamond, S. S., Vidmar, N., Rose, M., Ellis, L., & Murphy, B.
(2003). Inside the jury room: Evaluating juror discussions
during trial. Judicature, 87, 54–58.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in
brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-
generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392–403.
Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and
disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
1160–1171.
Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness
and self-regulation in group members. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.),
Psychology of group influence (pp. 209–242). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., & Kelem, R. T. (1976).
Effects of deindividuating variables on stealing by Halloween
trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33,
178–183.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader/member
exchange model of leadership: A critique and further
development. Academy of Management Review, 11,
618–634.
Dierdorff, E. C., Bell, S. T., & Belohlav, J. A. (2011). The power
of “we”: Effects of psychological collectivism on team
performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2),
247–262.
Dies, R. R. (1994). Therapist variables in group psychotherapy
research. In A. Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame (Eds.), Handbook
of group psychotherapy (pp. 114–154). New York: Wiley.
Dietz-Uhler, B., & Murrell, A. (1998). Effects of social identity and
threat on self-esteem and group attributions. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 24–35.
DiFonzo, N. (2008). The watercooler effect: A psychologist explores the
extraordinary power of rumors. New York: Penguin.
DiGiuseppe, R., David, D., & Venezia, R. (2016). Cognitive
theories. In J. C. Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, D. K.
Freedheim, & B. O. Olatunji (Eds.), APA handbook of clinical
psychology: Theory and research (pp. 145–182). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Dijke, M. V., & Poppe, M. (2004). Social comparison of power:
Interpersonal versus intergroup effects. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 13–26.
Dillard, J. P. (1991). The current status of research on sequential-
request compliance techniques. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 17, 283–288.
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden,
R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the
new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing
perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62.
Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to
multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 4, 7–26.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Howell, J. P., & Villa, J. (2005).
Theoretical letters: Substitutes for leadership, or not.
Leadership Quarterly, 16, 169–193.
Dipboye, R. L. (1977). Alternative approaches to deindividuation.
Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1057–1075.
Dishion, T. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). Peer contagion in
interventions for children and adolescents: Moving towards
an understanding of the ecology and dynamics of change.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 395–400.
Doherty, W. J., Lester, M. E., & Leigh, G. K. (1986). Marriage
encounter weekends: Couples who win and couples who
lose. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12, 49–61.
Doise, W. (1969). Intergroup relations and polarization of
individual and collective judgments. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 12, 136–143.
Dold, M., & Khadjavi, M. (2017). Jumping the queue: An
experiment on procedural preferences. Games and Economic
Behavior, 102, 127–137.
Doll, B., Murphy, P., & Song, S. Y. (2003). The relationship
between children’s self-reported recess problems, and peer
acceptance and friendships. Journal of School Psychology, 41,
113–130.
Dollar, N. J., & Merrigan, G. M. (2002). Ethnographic practices in
group communication research. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New
directions in group communication (pp. 59–78). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Doosje, B. J., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Attributions for the
negative historical actions of a group. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 33, 235–248.
Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004).
Leadership and cultural variation: The identification of
culturally endorsed leadership profiles. In R. J. House, P. J.
Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.),
R E F E R E N C E S 599
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62
societies (pp. 669–719). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Douthitt, E. A., & Aiello, J. R. (2001). The role of participation
and control in the effects of computer monitoring on fairness
perceptions, task satisfaction, and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 867–874.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In
S. T. Fiske, D. Gilbert, G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp 1084–1121). New York: Wiley.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Mayville, E. W., & Perry, S. (2013).
Social conflict, harmony, and integration. In H. A. Tennen &
J. M. Suls (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychology: Personality
and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 429–448). New York: Wiley.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Nier, J. A., Kawakami, K., &
Hodson, G. (2004). Contemporary racial bias: When good
people do bad things. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social
psychology of good and evil (pp. 141–167). New York: Guilford.
Drigotas, S. M. (1993). Similarity revisited: A comparison of
similarity-attraction versus dissimilarity-repulsion. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 32(4), 365–377.
Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006).
What makes a good team player? Personality and team
effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
10, 249–271.
Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. (1990). Status, expectations, and
behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of theory.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 541–553.
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1992). Can you study real teams in
contrived settings? The value of small group research to
understanding teams. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.),
Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 101–124). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Hughes, S. (2010). Collective orientation
and team performance: Development of an individual
differences measure. Human Factors, 52(2), 316–328.
Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. (1999). Does stress lead to a
loss of team perspective? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 3(4), 291–302.
Driskell, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (2017). Teams in extreme
environments: Alterations in team development and
teamwork. Human Resource Management Review.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.002
Drury, J. (2002). “When the mobs are looking for witches to burn,
nobody’s safe:” Talking about the reactionary crowd.
Discourse & Society, 13, 41–73.
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (1999). The intergroup dynamics of
collective empowerment: Substantiating the social identity
model of crowd behavior. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 2, 1–22.
Drury, J., & Stott, C. (2015). Contextualising the crowd in
contemporary social science. In J. Drury & C. Stott (Eds.),
Crowds in the 21st century: Perspectives from contemporary social science
(pp. 3–16). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites
attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592–603.
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The
equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-
mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-
Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.
Ducheneaut, N., & Yee, N. (2014). A view from computer science:
From solitude to ambient sociability–Redfining the social and
psychological aspects of isolation in online games. In R. J.
Coplan & J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The handbook of solitude:
Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and
being alone (pp. 517–538). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E., & Moore, R. J. (2006).
Alone together? Exploring the social dynamics of massively
multiplayer games. In Proceedings of CHI2006 (pp. 407–416).
New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Duckitt, J., & Mphuthing, T. (1998). Group identification and
intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal analysis in South Africa.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 80–85.
Duffy, F. (1992). The new office. London: Conran Octopus.
Duffy, K. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2015). The extravert advantage:
How and when extraverts build rapport with other people.
Psychological Science, 26(11), 1795–1802.
Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H. (2000).
Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 79, 722–735.
Duhigg, C. (2016). Smarter faster better: The secrets of productivity in life
and business. New York: Random House.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., &
Ferris, G. R. (2011). A meta-analysis of antecedents and
consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past
with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6),
1715–1759.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary
Anthropology, 6, 178–190.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Cognitive constraints on the structure
and dynamics of social networks. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 12(1), 7–16.
Duncan, L. E. (2012). The psychology of collective action. In
K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
personality and social psychology (pp. 781–803). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Dunning, D. (2007). Prediction: The inside view. In A. W.
Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook
of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 69–90) New York: Guilford.
Dupont, C., & Passy, F. (2011). The Arab Spring or how to explain
those revolutionary episodes. Swiss Political Science Review, 17,
447–451.
600 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Dupue, R. L. (2007). A theoretical profile of Seung Hui Cho:
From the perspective of a forensic behavioral scientist. In Mass
shootings at Virginia Tech: Report of the review panel. Retrieved
from www.governor.virginia.gov
Dupuis, D. R., Wohl, M. J., Packer, D. J., & Tabri, N. (2016). To
dissent and protect: Stronger collective identification increases
willingness to dissent when group norms evoke collective
angst. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(5), 694–710.
Durand, D. E. (1977). Power as a function of office space and
physiognomy: Two studies of influence. Psychological Reports,
40, 755–760.
Durkheim, É. (1965). The elementary forms of religious life. New York:
Free Press. (original work published in 1912)
Durkheim, É. (1966). Suicide. New York: Free Press. (original work
published in 1897)
Durkheim, É. (1973). Émile Durkheim on morality and society.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (original work
published in 1900).
Durkheim, É. (2005). The rules of sociological method. In
K. Thompson (Ed.), Readings from Émile Durkheim (rev. ed.,
pp. 53–80). New York: Routledge. (original work published
1892)
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, 735–744.
Dzindolet, M. T., Paulus, P. B., & Glazer, C. (2012).
Brainstorming in virtual teams. In C. N. Silva (Ed.), Online
research methods in urban and planning studies: Design and outcomes
(pp. 138–155). Hershey, PA: IGA Global.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role
interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth
about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L.
(2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and
men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice
toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. (1995). Gender and the
effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 117, 125–145.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender
and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 111, 3–22.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Fishbaugh, L. (1981). Sex differences
in conformity: Surveillance by the group as a determinant of
male nonconformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
40, 384–394.
Eaton, J. W. (1947). Experiments in testing for leadership. American
Journal of Sociology, 52, 523–535.
Ebbesen, E. B., Kjos, G. L., & Konečni, V. J. (1976). Spatial
ecology: Its effects on the choice of friends and enemies.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 505–518.
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Shared reality:
Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the
world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 496–521.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2),
350–383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Crossing boundaries to investigate problems
in the field: An approach to useful research. In S. A. Mohrman &
E. E. Lawler III (Eds.), Useful research: Advancing theory and practice
(pp. 37–55). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R., & Pisano, G. (2001). Speeding up
team learning. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 125–132.
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The
history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 1(1), 23–43.
Edney, J. J. (1975). Territoriality and control: A field experiment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1108–1115.
Edney, J. J. (1976). Human territories: Comment on functional
properties. Environment and Behavior, 8, 31–48.
Edney, J. J., & Grundmann, M. J. (1979). Friendship, group size,
and boundary size: Small group spaces. Small Group Behavior,
10, 124–135.
Edney, J. J., & Jordan-Edney, N. L. (1974). Territorial spacing on a
beach. Sociometry, 37, 92–104.
Egan, V., & Beadman, M. (2011). Personality and gang
embeddedness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(6),
748–753.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational
citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 960–974.
Ehsani, J. P., Haynie, D. L., Luthers, C., Perlus, J., Gerber, E.,
Ouimet, M. C., … Simons-Morton, B. (2015). Teen drivers’
perceptions of their peer passengers: Qualitative study.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2516, 22–26.
Eisenberger, N. I. (2011). Why rejection hurts: What social
neuroscience has revealed about the brain’s response to social
rejection. In J. Decety & J. Cacioppo (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of social neuroscience (pp. 586–598). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2004). Why rejection
hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social
pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 294–300.
R E F E R E N C E S 601
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003).
Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion.
Science, 302, 290–292.
Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004).
Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in
negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30, 789–799.
Ellemers, N. (2012). The group self. Science, 336(6083), 848–852.
Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Social identity theory. In
P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 379–398). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together
or falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological
determinant of group commitment versus individual
mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
617–626.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social
identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186.
Eller, A., Abrams, D., & Gomez, A. (2012). When the direct route
is blocked: The extended contact pathway to improving
intergroup relations. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 36(5), 637–646.
Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O. L. H.,
West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively
connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
821–835.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of
Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of
online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and
Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224.
Ellsworth, P. C. (2003). One inspiring jury. Michigan Law Review,
101(6), 1387–1407.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Reifman, A. (2000). Juror comprehension and
public policy: Perceived problems and proposed solutions.
Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 6, 788–821.
Elms, A. C. (1995). Obedience in retrospect. Journal of Social Issues,
51, 21–31.
Emans, B. J., Munduate, L., Klaver, E., & Van de Vliert, E. (2003).
Constructive consequences of leaders’ forcing influence styles.
Applied Psychology, 52(1), 36–54.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American
Sociological Review, 27, 31–40.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing
ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Emler, N., & Cook, T. (2001). Moral integrity in leadership: Why
it matters and why it may be difficult to achieve. In B. W.
Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the
workplace (pp. 277–298). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Emrich, C. G. (1999). Context effects in leadership perception.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 991–1006.
Engelmann, J. M., Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Animal
Cognition, 19, 147–151.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in
applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability
over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293–310.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (1999). Just going along: Nonconscious
priming and conformity to social pressure. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 578–589.
Ericksen, J., & Dyer, L. (2004). Right from the start: Exploring the
effects of early team events on subsequent project team
development and performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 49(3), 438–471.
Esser, A. H. (1968). Dominance hierarchy and clinical course of
psychiatrically hospitalized boys. Child Development, 39,
147–157.
Esser, A. H. (1973). Cottage Fourteen: Dominance and
territoriality in a group of institutionalized boys. Small Group
Behavior, 4, 131–146.
Esser, A. H., Chamberlain, A. S., Chapple, E. D., & Kline, N. S.
(1965). Territoriality of patients on a research ward. In
J. Wortis (Ed.), Recent advances in biological psychiatry (Vol. 7,
pp. 36–44). New York: Plenum.
Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of
groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 73, 116–141.
Ettin, M. F. (1992). Foundations and applications of group
psychotherapy: A sphere of influence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Euwema, M. C., & Van Emmerik, I. H. (2007). Intercultural
competencies and conglomerated conflict behaviors in
intercultural conflicts. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 31(4), 427–441.
Evans, G. W. (1979). Behavioral and physiological consequences of
crowding in humans. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9,
27–46.
Evans, G. W., & Howard, R. B. (1973). Personal space.
Psychological Bulletin, 80, 334–344.
Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1992). Conceptual and analytic
issues in crowding research. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
12, 163–173.
Evans, G. W., & Wener, R. E. (2007). Crowding and personal
space invasion on the train: Please don’t make me sit in the
middle. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 90–94.
Evans, H., & Bartholomew, R. E. (2009). Outbreak! The encyclopedia
of extraordinary social behavior. New York: Anomalist Books.
Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2001). Role ambiguity, task cohesion,
and task self-efficacy. Small Group Research, 32(3), 356–373.
602 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Falbo, T. (1977). The multidimensional scaling of power strategies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 537–548.
Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,
618–628.
Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games
and Economic Behavior, 54, 293–315.
Falloon, I. R. H., Lindley, P., McDonald, R., & Marks, I. M.
(1977). Social skills training of outpatient groups: A
controlled study of rehearsal and homework. British Journal
of Psychiatry, 131, 599–609.
Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove.
Farbstein, J., & Kantrowitz, M. (1978). People in places: Experiencing,
using, and changing the built environment. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Farrell, M. P. (1982). Artists’ circles and the development of artists.
Small Group Behavior, 13, 451–474.
Farrell, M. P. (2001). Collaborative circles: Friendship dynamics &
creative work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Feather, N. T. (1994). Human values and their relation to justice.
Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 129–151.
Feeley, T. H. (2000). Testing a communication network model of
employee turnover based on centrality. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 28, 262–277.
Feigenson, N. (2000). Legal blame: How jurors think and talk about
accidents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Feld, S. L. (1982). Social structural determinants of similarity
among associates. American Sociological Review, 47, 797–801.
Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of
authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24, 41–74.
Felsten, G. (2009). Where to take a study break on the college
campus: An attention restoration theory perspective. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 160–167.
Fermin, A. S. R., Sakagami, M., Kiyonari, T., Li, Y., Matsumoto,
Y., & Yamagishi, T. (2016). Representation of economic
preferences in the structure and function of the amygdala and
prefrontal cortex. Scientific Reports, 6, 20982.
Ferris, G. R., & Rowland, K. M. (1983). Social facilitation effects
on behavioral and perceptual task performance measures:
Implications for work behavior. Group and Organization
Studies, 8, 421–438.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter,
W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005).
Development and validation of the Political Skill Inventory.
Journal of Management, 31(1), 126–152.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L.,
Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations.
Journal of Management, 33(3), 290–320.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological
Review, 57, 271–282.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes.
Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some
consequences of deindividuation in a group. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(2), 382–389.
Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy
fails. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in
informal groups. New York: Harper.
Feygina, I., & Henry, P. J. (2015). Culture and prosocial behavior.
In D. A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 188–208). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 150–190.
Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of
the leadership process. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 12, 59–112.
Fiedler, F. E. (1986). The contribution of cognitive resources to
leadership performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16,
532–548.
Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training:
One view of the future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41,
241–250.
Fiedler, F. E., Chemers, M. M., & Mahar, L. (1976). Improving
leadership effectiveness: The Leader Match concept. New York:
Wiley.
Filkins, J. W., Smith, C. M., & Tindale, R. S. (1998). An
evaluation of the biasing effects of death qualification: A
meta-analytic/computer simulation approach. In R. S.
Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant,
Y. Suarez-Balcazar, … J. Myers (Eds.), Social psychological
applications to social issues: Theory and research on small groups
(Vol. 4, pp. 153–175). New York: Plenum Press.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in
marriage: The Relationship Attribution Measure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 457–468.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1993). Marital satisfaction,
depression, and attributions: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 442–452.
Fincher, C. L., & Thornhill, R. (2012). Parasite-stress promotes in-
group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and
heightened religiosity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(2),
61–79.
Fine, G. A. (1987). With the boys: Little League baseball and
preadolescent culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Fine, G. A. (2003). Morel tales: The culture of mushrooming.
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. (original work
published 1998)
R E F E R E N C E S 603
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Fine, G. A. (2012). Tiny publics: A theory of group action and culture.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fine, G. A., & Holyfield, L. (1996). Secrecy, trust, and dangerous
leisure: Generating group cohesion in voluntary
organizations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 22–38.
Finkel, M. A. (2002). Traumatic injuries caused by hazing practices.
American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 20, 228–233.
Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the
science of teams can inform team science. Small Group
Research, 39(3), 251–277.
Fiore, S. M., Carter, D. R., & Asencio, R. (2015). Conflict, trust,
and cohesion: Examining affective and attitudinal factors in
science teams. In E. Salas, W. B. Vessey, & A. X. Estrada
(Eds.), Team cohesion: Advances in psychology theory methods, and
practice (pp. 271–301). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing.
Fischer, A. H., & Roseman, I. J. (2007). Beat them or ban them:
The characteristics and social functions of anger and
contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1),
103–115.
Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C.,
Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., … Kainbacher, M. (2011). The
bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander
intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies.
Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537.
Fischer, R., Smith, P. B., Richey, B., Ferreira, M. C., Assmar,
E. M. L., Maes, J., & Stumpf, S. (2007). How do
organizations allocate rewards? The predictive validity of
national values, economic and organizational factors across six
nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 3–18.
Fisher, J. D., & Byrne, D. (1975). Too close for comfort: Sex
differences in response to invasions of personal space. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 15–21.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (with B. Patton [Ed.].) (1981). Getting to
YES: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Fisher, R. J. (2016). Towards a social-psychological model of
intergroup conflict. Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science,
Engineering, Practice, 14, 73–86.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality:
Framework for a unified theory of social relations.
Psychological Review, 99, 689–723.
Fiske, S. T. (2010a). Envy up, scorn down: How comparison
divides us. American Psychologist, 65(8), 698–706.
Fiske, S. T. (2010b). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and
subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp.
941–982). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. In A. W.
Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook
of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 678–692). New York: Guilford.
Fiske, S. T., Harris, L. T., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2004). Why ordinary
people torture enemy prisoners. Science, 306, 1482–1483.
Fitzsimons, G. M., Finkel, E. J., & vanDellen, M. R. (2015).
Transactive goal dynamics. Psychological Review, 122(4),
648–673.
Fleeson, W., Malanos, A. B., & Achille, N. M. (2002). An
intraindividual process approach to the relationship between
extraversion and positive affect: Is acting extraverted as
“good” as being extraverted? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 1409–1422.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 1–6.
Fleury-Bahi, G., Pol, E., & Navarro, O. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of
environmental psychology and quality of life research. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer International.
Flores, P. J. (1997). Group psychotherapy with addicted populations:
An integration of twelve step and psychodynamic theory.
Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Flowers, M. L. (1977). A laboratory test of some implications of
Janis’ groupthink hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35, 888–896.
Flynn, F. J. (2010). Power as charismatic leadership: A significant
opportunity (and a modest proposal) for social psychology
research. In A. Guinote & T. K. Vescio (Eds.), The social
psychology of power (pp. 284–309). New York: Guilford Press.
Flynn, K., & Gerhardt, G. (1989). The silent brotherhood: Inside
America’s racist underground. New York: Penguin.
Foddy, M., & Smithson, M. (1996). Relative ability, paths of
relevance, and influence in task-oriented groups. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 59, 140–153.
Fodor, E. M. (2009). Power motivation. In M. R. Leary & R. H.
Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior
(pp. 426–440). New York: Guilford Press.
Fodor, E. M., & Riordan, J. M. (1995). Leader power motive and
group conflict as influences on leader behavior and group
member self-affect. Journal of Research in Personality, 29,
418–431.
Fodor, E. M., & Smith, T. (1982). The power motive as an
influence on group decision making. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 178–185.
Fodor, E. M., & Wick, D. P. (2009). Need for power and affective
response to negative audience reaction to an extemporaneous
speech. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 721–726.
Folk, G. E., Jr. (1974). Textbook of environmental physiology.
Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and
family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-
domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 57–80.
Forgas, J. P. (1998). On feeling good and getting your way: Mood
effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 565–577.
604 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Delphi technique. In J. M. Levine & M. A.
Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of group process and intergroup relations
(pp. 195–197). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Forsyth, D. R., Berger, R. E., & Mitchell, T. (1981). The effects of
self-serving vs. other-serving claims of responsibility on
attraction and attribution in groups. Social Psychology Quarterly,
44, 59–64.
Forsyth, D. R., & Burnette, J. L. (2005). The history of group
research. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research
and practice (pp. 3–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Forsyth, D. R., & Diederich, L. T. (2014). Group dynamics and
development. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack, C. R. Kalodner, &
M. T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of group counseling and
psychotherapy (2nd ed., pp. 34–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Forsyth, D. R., & Elliott, T. R. (1999). Group dynamics and
psychological well-being: The impact of groups on
adjustment and dysfunction. In R. Kowalski & M. R. Leary
(Eds.), The social psychology of emotional and behavioral problems:
Interfaces of social and clinical psychology (pp. 339–361).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Forsyth, D. R., Schlenker, B. R., Leary, M. R., & McCown, N. E.
(1985). Self-presentational determinants of sex differences in
leadership behavior. Small Group Behavior, 16, 197–210.
Forsyth, D. R., Zyzniewski, L. E., & Giammanco, C. A. (2002).
Responsibility diffusion in cooperative collectives. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 54–65.
Fortin, M., & Fellenz, M. R. (2008). Hypocrisies of fairness:
Towards a more reflexive ethical base in organizational
justice research and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 78,
415–433.
Foschi, M. (1996). Double standards in the evaluation of men and
women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 237–254.
Foschi, M., Warriner, G. K., & Hart, S. D. (1985). Standards,
expectations, and interpersonal influence. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 48, 108–117.
Foschi, R., & Lauriola, M. (2014). Does sociability predict civic
involvement and political participation? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 106(2), 339–357.
Foss, R. D. (1981). Structural effects in simulated jury decision
making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,
1055–1062.
Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2007). Pattern and variable
approaches in leadership emergence and effectiveness. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 347–355.
Foti, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Prototypes and scripts: The
effects of alternative methods of processing information on
rating accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 39, 318–340.
Foushee, H. C. (1984). Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: Factors
affecting group process and aircrew performance. American
Psychologist, 39, 886–893.
Foy, D. W., Drescher, K. D., & Watson, P. J. (2010). Groups for
trauma/disaster. In R. K. Conyne (Ed.), The Oxford handbook
of group counseling (pp. 534–550). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Foy, E., & Harlow, A. F. (1956). Clowning through life. New York:
Dutton. (original work published in 1928)
Frable, D. E. S., Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable
stigmas and positive self-perceptions: Feeling better around
similar others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
909–922.
Frager, R. (1970). Conformity and anticonformity in Japan. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 203–210.
Fraine, G., Smith, S. G., Zinkiewicz, L., Chapman, R., & Sheehan,
M. (2007). At home on the road? Can drivers’ relationships
with their cars be associated with territoriality? Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 27, 204–214.
Francis, L. J. (1998). Self-esteem as a function of personality and
gender among 8–11 year olds: Is Coopersmith’s index fair?
Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 159–165.
Franken, R. E., & Brown, D. J. (1995). Why do people like
competition? The motivation for winning, putting forth
effort, improving one’s performance, performing well, being
instrumental, and expressing forceful/aggressive behavior.
Personality and Individual Differences, 19(2), 175–184.
Freedman, J. L. (1975). Crowding and behavior. San Francisco, CA:
Freeman.
Freedman, J. L. (1979). Reconciling apparent differences between
responses of humans and other animals to crowding.
Psychological Review, 86, 80–85.
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without
pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual
clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.
Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis:
A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver, BC:
Empirical Press.
French, J. R. P., Jr. (1941). The disruption and cohesion of groups.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36, 361–377.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power.
In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI:
Institute for Social Research.
Freud, S. (1922). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego
(J. Strachey, trans.). London: Hogarth Press and the
Institute of Psycho-analysis.
Freud, S. (1955). The standard edition of the complete psychological works
of Sigmund Freud (J. Strachey, Ed. & Trans.). London,
England: Hogarth Press. (original work published 1926)
Frey, L. R., & Konieczka, S. P. (2010). Group identity. In R. L.
Jackson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of identity (Vol. 1, pp. 316–319).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
R E F E R E N C E S 605
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Friedkin, N. E. (1999). Choice shift and group polarization.
American Sociological Review, 64, 856–875.
Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology,
30, 409–425.
Friedland, N. (1976). Social influence via threats. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 552–563.
Friedman, S. D., & Saul, K. (1991). A leader’s wake: Organization
member reactions to CEO succession. Journal of Management,
17, 619–642.
Fry, D. P. (2007). Beyond war. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fuegen, K., & Biernat, M. (2002). Reexamining the effects of solo
status for women and men. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 913–925.
Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. M. (1994). Group psychotherapy:
Research and practice. In A. Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame
(Eds.), Handbook of group psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical
synthesis (pp. 3–40). New York: Wiley.
Fujimoto, M. (2016). Team roles and hierarchic system in group
discussion. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(3), 585–608.
Fuller, M. G., & Löw, M. (2017). Introduction: An invitation to
spatial sociology. Current Sociology.
doi:10.1177/0011392117697461
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (2009). The network of
relationships inventory: Behavioral systems version.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(5), 470–478.
Furnham, A. (2008). Psychometric correlates of FIRO-B scores:
Locating the FIRO-B scores in personality factor space.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(1), 30–45.
Fusaroli, R., Bjørndahl, J. S., Roepstorff, A., & Tylén, K. (2016).
A heart for interaction: Shared physiological dynamics and
behavioral coordination in a collective, creative construction
task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 42(9), 1297–1310.
Gabarro, J. J. (1987). The development of working relationships.
In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior
(pp. 172–189). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gabriel, S., & Valenti, J. (2017). Social surrogates and rejection.
In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, reclusion,
and rejection (pp. 146–161). New York: Routledge.
Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., & O’Mara, E. M. (2008). When rejection by
one fosters aggression against many: Multiple-victim aggression
as a consequence of social rejection and perceived groupness.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 958–970.
Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., Witt, M. G., & Oriña, M. M. (2006). Us
without them: Evidence for an intragroup origin of positive
in-group regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
90(3), 426–439.
Gaertner, L., & Sedikides, C. (2005). A hierarchy within: On the
motivational and emotional primacy of the individual self. In
M. D. Alicke, D. A. Dunning, & J. I. Krueger (Eds.), The self
in social judgment (pp. 213–239). New York: Psychology Press.
Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., Vevea, J. L., & Iuzzini, J. (2002). The
“I,” the “we,” and the “when”: A meta-analysis of
motivational primacy in self-definition. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83, 574–591.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M.,
Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing
intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to
decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 98–114.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Guerra, R., Hehman, E., & Saguy,
T. (2016). A common ingroup identity: A categorization-
based approach for reducing intergroup bias. In T. Nelson
(Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping (2nd
ed., pp. 433–454). New York: Psychology Press.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Nier, J. A., Ward, C. M.,& Banker,
B. S. (1999). Across cultural divides: The value of a
superordinate identity. In D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller
(Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group
conflict (pp. 173–212). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Gaffney, S. (2012). A neo-Lewinian perspective on gestalt group
facilitation. In T. B. Y. Levine (Ed.), Gestalt therapy: Advances
in theory and practice (pp. 149–159). New York: Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Group.
Gaines, S. O., Jr., & Reed, E. S. (1995). Prejudice: From Allport to
DuBois. American Psychologist, 50, 96–103.
Galinsky, A. D., & Schweitzer, M. (2015). Friend and foe: When to
cooperate, when to compete, and how to succeed at both. New York:
Crown Business.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From
power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
453–466.
Galinsky, A. D., Jordan, J., & Sivanathan, N. (2008). Harnessing
power to capture leadership. In C. L. Hoyt, G. R. Goethals,
& D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at the crossroads: Leadership
and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 283–299). Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H.
(2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science,
17, 1068–1074.
Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power:
Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In
M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson & J. F. Dovidio
(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 421–460). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Gammage, K. L., Carron, A. V., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2001). Team
cohesion and individual productivity: The influence of the
norm for productivity and the identifiability of individual
effort. Small Group Research, 32, 3–18.
Garcia, S. M., Song, H., & Tesser, A. (2010). Tainted
recommendations: The social comparison bias. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 97–101.
606 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., & Darley, J. M.
(2002). Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 843–853.
Gardete, P. M. (2015). Social effects in the in-flight marketplace:
Characterization and managerial implications. Journal of
Marketing Research, 52(3), 360–374.
Gardikiotis, A. (2011). Minority influence. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 5(9), 679–693.
Gardner, B., & Korth, S. (1998). A framework for learning to work
in teams. Journal of Education for Business, 74(1), 28–33.
Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership.
New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. L. (2008). Love makes you real:
Favorite television characters are perceived as “real” in a social
facilitation paradigm. Social Cognition, 26, 156–168.
Gastil, J., Burkhalter, S., & Black, L. W. (2007). Do juries
deliberate? A study of deliberation, individual difference, and
group member satisfaction at a municipal courthouse. Small
Group Research, 38(3), 337–359.
Gatersleben, B., & Griffin, I. (2017). Environmental stress. In
G. Fleury-Bahi, E. Pol, & O. Navarro (Eds.), Handbook of
environmental psychology and quality of life research (pp. 469–485).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
Gazda, G. M., & Brooks, D. K. (1985). The development of
the social/life skills training movement. Journal of Group
Psychotherapy, Psychodrama, and Sociometry, 38, 1–10.
Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex
differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Gelfand, M. J., Bhawak, D. P. S., Nishii, L. H., & Bechtold, D.
(2004). Individualism and collectivism. In R. M. House,
P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.),
Cultures, leadership, and organizations: A 62 nation study
(pp. 437–512). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., & Keller, K. (2008). On the etiology
of organizational conflict cultures. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 28, 137–166.
George, J. M.(1996). Trait and state affect. In K. Murphy (Ed.),
Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 145–171).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gerard, H. B. (1953). The effect of different dimensions of
disagreement on the communication process in small groups.
Human Relations, 6, 249–271.
Gerard, H. B. (1964). Conformity and commitment to the group.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 209–211.
Gerard, H. B., & Mathewson, G. C. (1966). The effects of severity
of initiation on liking for a group: A replication. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 278–287.
Gerard, H. B., & Orive, R. (1987). The dynamics of opinion
formation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20,
171–202.
Gerber, G. L. (1996). Status in same-gender and mixed-gender
police dyads: Effects on personality attributions. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 350–363.
Gerber, J., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-
analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 4(5), 468–488.
Gergen, K. J., Gergen, M. M., & Barton, W. H. (1973). Deviance
in the dark. Psychology Today, 7, 129–130.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in
task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 274–309.
Giacalone, R. A., & Promislo, M. D. (2010). Unethical and
unwell: Decrements in well-being and unethical activity at
work. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 275–297.
Gibb, C. A. (1969). Leadership. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 205–282).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gibb, J. R. (1971). Effects of human relations training. In
A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy
and behavior change (pp. 839–862). New York: Wiley.
Gibbons, D., & Olk, P. M. (2003). Individual and structural
origins of friendship and social position among
professionals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 340–351.
Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in
social comparison: Development of a scale of social
comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 129–142.
Gibbs, J. P. (1965). Norms: The problem of definition and
classification. American Journal of Sociology, 70(5), 586–594.
Gibson, C. B., & McDaniel, D. M. (2010). Moving beyond
conventional wisdom: Advancements in cross-cultural
theories of leadership, conflict, and teams. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 5(4), 450–462.
Gibson, D. E., & Schroeder, S. J. (2003). Who ought to be blamed?
The effect of organizational roles on blame and credit
attributions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14(2),
95–117.
Gibson, D. R. (2003). Participation shifts: Order and differentiation
in group conversation. Social Forces, 81, 1335–1380.
Gibson, S. (2014). Discourse, defiance, and rationality: “Knowledge
work” in the “obedience” experiments. Journal of Social Issues,
70(3), 424–438.
Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review
of Sociology, 26, 463–496.
Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual
Review of Psychology, 65, 541–579.
Gifford, R., Steg, L., & Reser, J. (2011). Environmental
psychology. In P. R. Martin, F. M. Cheung, M. C. Knowles,
M. Kyrios, L. Littlefield, J. B. Overmier, & J. M. Prieto
(Eds.), The IAAP handbook of applied psychology (pp. 440–470).
New York: Blackwell.
R E F E R E N C E S 607
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Gigone, D. (2010). Common knowledge effect. In J. M. Levine &
M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of group process and intergroup
relations (Vol. 1, pp. 123–125). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). Proper analysis of the accuracy of
group judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 149–167.
Gilbert, D. T., & Silvera, D. H. (1996). Overhelping. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 678–690.
Gilbert, S. J. (1981). Another look at the Milgram obedience
studies: The role of the graduated series of shocks. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 690–695.
Gill, D. L. (1984). Individual and group performance in sport. In
J. M. Silva & R. S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations
of sport (pp. 315–328). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an
organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review,
34(1), 127–145.
Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2015). The wisest one in the room.
New York: The Free Press.
Ginnett, R. C. (2010). Crews as groups: Their formation and their
leadership. In B. G. Kanki, R. L. Helmrigh, & J. Anca (Eds.),
Crew resource management (2nd ed., pp. 79–110). New York:
Academic Press.
Giordano, P. C. (2003). Relationships in adolescence. Annual
Review of Sociology, 29, 257–281.
Gipson, A. N., Pfaff, D. L., Mendelsohn, D. B., Catenacci, L. T., &
Burke, W. W. (2017). Women and leadership: Selection,
development, leadership style, and performance. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 53(1), 32–65.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big
difference. Boston: Little, Brown.
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Glaser, D. (1964). The effectiveness of a prison and parole system.
Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Glass, D. C., Singer, J. E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1977). Behavioral
and physiological effects of uncontrollable environmental
events. In D. Stokols (Ed.), Perspectives on environment and
behavior (pp. 131–151). New York: Plenum Press.
Gleason, M. E. J., & Iida, M. (2015). Social support. In
M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F. Dovidio
(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology:
Interpersonal relations (Vol. 3, pp. 351–370). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Gleijeses, P. (1995). Ships in the night: The CIA, the White House
and the Bay of Pigs. Journal of Latin American Studies, 27(1),
1–42.
Glick, J. C., & Staley, K. (2007). Inflicted traumatic brain injury:
Advances in evaluation and collaborative diagnosis. Pediatric
Neurosurgery, 43, 436–441.
Glick, P. (2009). When neighbors blame neighbors: Scapegoating
and the breakdown of ethnic relations. In V. M. Esses &
R. A. Vernon (Eds.), Explaining the breakdown of ethnic relations:
Why neighbors kill (pp. 121–146). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Glowacki, L., & von Rueden, C. (2015). Leadership solves
collective action problems in small-scale societies. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B, 370(1683), 20150010.
Godwin, R. (Ed.). (2000). Apollo 13: The NASA mission reports.
Burlington, ON: Apogee.
Goethals, G. R., & Hoyt, C. L. (2011). What makes leadership
necessary, possible and effective: The psychological
dimensions. In M. Harvey & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), Leadership
studies: The dialogue of disciplines (pp. 101–118). Northampon,
MA: Edward Elgar.
Goetsch, G. G., & McFarland, D. D. (1980). Models of the
distribution of acts in small discussion groups. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 43, 173–183.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday.
Goldberg, L. C. (1968). Ghetto riots and others: The faces of civil
disorder in 1967. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 116–132.
Goldhammer, J. (1996). Under the influence: The destructive effects of
group dynamics. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Golding, W. (1954). Lord of the flies. New York: Putnam.
Goldstein, A. P. (2002). The psychology of group aggression.
New York: Wiley.
Goldstein, N. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2011). Managing normative
influences in organizations. In D. De Cremer, R. van Dick, &
J. K. Murnighan (Eds.), Social psychology and organizations
(pp. 67–86). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Goldstone, J. A. (2011). Cross-class coalitions and the making of
the Arab revolts of 2011. Swiss Political Science Review, 17,
457–462.
Gómez, Á., Brooks, M. L., Buhrmester, M. D., Vázquez, A.,
Jetten, J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2011). On the nature of
identity fusion: Insights into the construct and a new measure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 918–933.
Gómez, Á., Seyle, D. C., Huici, C., & Swann Jr., W. B. (2009).
Can self-verification strivings fully transcend the self–other
barrier? Seeking verification of ingroup identities. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1021–1044.
Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism
and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109.
Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won’t let
me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1176–1186.
Goodacre, D. M. (1953). Group characteristics of good and poor
performing combat units. Sociometry, 16, 168–178.
Goodall, J. (1986). Social rejection, exclusion, and shunning among
the Gombe chimpanzees. Ethology & Sociobiology, 7(3–4),
227–236.
608 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Goodwin, D. K. (2005). Team of rivals: The political genius of
Abraham Lincoln. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gordijn, E. H., De Vries, N. K., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002).
Minority influence on focal and related attitudes: Change in
size, attributions and information processing. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1315–1326.
Gore, G. (2010). Flash mob dance and the territorialization of
urban movement. Anthropological Notebooks, 16, 125–131.
Gore, J. S., & Cross, S. E. (2006). Pursuing goals for us:
Relationally autonomous reasons in long-term goal pursuit.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 848–861.
Gorse, C. A., & Emmitt, S. (2009). Informal interaction in
construction progress meetings. Construction Management and
Economics, 27, 983–993.
Gosling, S. (2008). Snoop: What your stuff says about you. New York:
Basic Books.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very
brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of
Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528.
Gould, C. C. (2004). Globalizing democracy and human rights.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary
statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of
professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing
contributors: Toward a theory of leadership making. Journal of
Management Systems, 3, 33–48.
Graen, G. B., & 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, 219–247.
Graham, L. T., Gosling, S. D., & Travis, C. K. (2015). The psychology
of home environments: A call for research on residential space.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3), 346–356.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American
Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996).
Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case
for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
820–835.
Green, L. R., Richardson, D. S., Lago, T., & Schatten-Jones, E. C.
(2001). Network correlates of social and emotional loneliness
in young and older adults. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 281–288.
Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror
management theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews:
Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 61–139.
Greene, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2014). Wrightsman’s psychology and the
legal system (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Greene, E., Chopra, S. R., Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S. D., Rose,
V. G., Schuller, R., & Studebaker, C. A. (2004). Jurors and
juries. In J. R. P. Ogloff (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into
the twenty-first century (pp. 225–284). New York: Springer.
Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2015).
Statistically small effects of the implicit association test can
have societally large effects. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 108(4), 553–561.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (2008).
Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The
implicit association test. In R. H. Fazio, & R. E. Petty (Eds.),
Attitudes: Their structure, function, and consequences
(pp. 109–131). New York: Psychology Press.
Greenwald, A. G., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2014). With malice toward
none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables
discrimination. American Psychologist, 69(7), 669.
Greer, D. L. (1983). Spectator booing and the home advantage:
A study of social influence in the basketball arena. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 46, 252–261.
Greer, L. L. (2014). Power in teams: Effects of team power
structures on team conflict and team outcomes. In O. B.
Ayoko, N. M. Ashkanasy, & K. A. Jehn (Eds.), The handbook
of conflict management research (pp. 93–108). Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar.
Greer, L. L., & Dannals, J. (2017). Conflict in teams. In R. Rico,
E. Salas, & N. Ashkanasy (Eds.), Wiley Blackwell handbook of
team dynamics, teamwork, and collaborative working
(pp. 317–344). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Greitemeyer, T., Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., & Frey, D.
(2006). Information sampling and group decision making:
The effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task
experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12,
31–42.
Griffin, C., & Bengry-Howell, A. (2008). Ethnography. In
C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
qualitative research in psychology (pp. 15–31). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Griffitt, W., & Veitch, R. (1971). Hot and crowded: Influence of
population density and temperature on interpersonal affective
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 92–98.
Griggs, R. A. (2017). Milgram’s obedience study: A contentious
classic reinterpreted. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 32–37.
Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., &
Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-
analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel
Psychology, 68(1), 1–47.
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., &
Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When
fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.
Grose, M. (2003). Why first-borns rule the world and last-borns want to
change it. New York: Random House.
R E F E R E N C E S 609
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Groysberg, B., Polzer, J. T., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2011). Too many
cooks spoil the broth: How high-status individuals decrease
group effectiveness. Organization Science, 22(3), 722–737.
Guastello, S. J. (2007). Non-linear dynamics and leadership
emergence. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 357–369.
Guerin, B., & Innes, J. M. (1982). Social facilitation and social
monitoring: A new look at Zajonc’s mere presence
hypothesis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 7–18.
Guimond, A., & Dubé-Simard, L. (1983). Relative deprivation
theory and the Quebec nationalist movement: The cognitive-
emotion distinction and the personal-group deprivation issue.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 526–535.
Guinote, A. (2007). Power affects basic cognition: Increased
attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 43, 685–697.
Guinote, A. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has
more power over powerful than powerless individuals. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 237–252.
Guinote, A., Brown, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Minority status
decreases sense of control and increases interpretive
processing. Social Cognition, 24, 169–186.
Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (2002). Effects of power
on perceived and objective group variability: Evidence that
more powerful groups are more variable. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 82, 708–721.
Gullahorn, J. T. (1952). Distance and friendship as factors in the
gross interaction matrix. Sociometry, 15, 123–134.
Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-
analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of
analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26,
497–520.
Gump, P. V. (1990). A short history of the Midwest Psychological
Field Station. Environment and Behavior, 22, 436–457.
Gunderson, E. K. E. (1973). Individual behavior in confined or
isolated groups. In J. E. Rasmussen (Ed.), Man in isolation and
confinement (pp. 145–164). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why men rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R. M., Delbecq, A. L., & Walster, G. W.
(1973). A comparative study of differences in subjective
likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups,
Delphi groups, and nominal groups. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 9, 280–291.
Guthman, E. (1971). We band of brothers. New York: Harper & Row.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993).
Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.
Haber, G. M. (1980). Territorial invasion in the classroom: Invadee
response. Environment and Behavior, 12, 17–31.
Haber, G. M. (1982). Spatial relations between dominants and
marginals. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 219–228.
Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in
organizations. In M. S. Pallak & R. O. Perloff (Eds.),
Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment
(pp. 89–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Hackman, J. R. (Ed.). (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for greater
performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence
from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 905–922.
Hackman, J. R. (2011). Collaborative intelligence: Using teams to solve
hard problems. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. (1976). The
interaction of task design and group performance strategies in
determining group effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 16, 350–365.
Hackman, J. R., & Katz, N. (2010). Group behavior and
performance. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2,
pp. 1208–1251). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group
interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A
review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 8, 47–99.
Haines, V. Y., & Taggar, S. (2006). Antecedents of team reward
attitude. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10,
194–205.
Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-
categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality
and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 1087–1099.
Halevy, N., Berson, Y., & Galinsky, A. (2011). The mainstream is
not electable: When vision triumphs over representativeness
in leader emergence and effectiveness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37, 893–904.
Halevy, N., Weisel, O., & Bornstein, G. (2012). “In-group love”
and “out-group hate” in repeated interaction between
groups. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(2), 188–195.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, J. A. (2006). Nonverbal behavior, status, and gender: How do
we understand their relations? Psychology of Women Quarterly,
30, 384–391.
Hall, J. A. (2011). Sex differences in friendship expectations:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
28(6), 723–747.
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal
behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924.
610 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Hall, J. A., Latu, I. M., Carney, D. R., & Schmid Mast, M. S.
(2014). Nonverbal communication and the vertical dimension
of social relations. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C. Anderson
(Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 325–346). New York:
Springer Science+Business Media.
Halperin, E. (2008). Group-based hatred in intractable conflict in
Israel. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 713–736.
Halpin, A. W. (1957). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire. Columbus, OH: Fisher College of Business,
The Ohio State University.
Halverson, C. B. (2008). Team development. In C. B. Halverson &
S. A. Tirmizi (Eds.), Effective multicultural teams: Theory and
practice (pp. 81–110). New York: Springer.
Ham v. S. Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973).
Hamaguchi, E. (1985). A contextual model of the Japanese:
Toward a methodological innovation in Japanese studies.
Journal of Japanese Studies, 11, 289–321.
Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1995). Crimes of obedience and
conformity in the workplace: Surveys of Americans, Russians,
and Japanese. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 67–88.
Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1999). The second face of evil:
Wrongdoing in and by the corporation. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 3, 222–233.
Hamlin, R. G., & Hatton, A. (2013). Toward a British taxonomy
of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 24(3), 365–406.
Hammer, M. R. (2005). The intercultural conflict style inventory:
A conceptual framework and measure of intercultural conflict
resolution approaches. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 29(6), 675–695.
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal
dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of
Criminology and Psychology, 1, 69–97.
Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1991). The American Jury at twenty-five
years. Law & Social Inquiry, 16, 323–353.
Hans, V. P., Hannaford-Agor, P. L., Mott, N. L., & Munsterman,
G. T. (2003). The hung jury: The American Jury’s insights
and contemporary understanding. Criminal Law Bulletin, 39,
33–50.
Hansen, W. B., & Altman, I. (1976). Decorating personal places: A
descriptive analysis. Environment and Behavior, 8, 491–504.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162,
1243–1248.
Hardy, C., & Latané, B. (1986). Social loafing on a cheering task.
Social Science, 71(2–3), 165–172.
Hardyck, J. A., & Braden, M. (1962). Prophecy fails again: A report
of a failure to replicate. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 65(2), 136–141.
Hare, A. P. (1967). Small group development in the relay assembly
testroom. Sociological Inquiry, 37, 169–182.
Hare, A. P. (1976). Handbook of small group research (2nd ed.).
New York: Free Press.
Hare, A. P. (1982). Creativity in small groups. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hare, A. P. (1999). Understanding Paul Moxnes (1999). Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(2), 116–117.
Hare, A. P. (2005). Analysis of social interaction systems. In A. P.
Hare, E. Sjøvold, H. G. Baker, & J. Powers (Eds.), Analysis of
social interaction systems: SYMLOG research and applications
(pp. 1–14). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Hare, A. P., & Bales, R. F. (1963). Seating position and small group
interaction. Sociometry, 26, 480–486.
Hare, A. P., Borgatta, E. F., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Preface to the
revised edition. In A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, & R. F. Bales
(Eds.), Small groups: Studies in social interaction (Revised ed.,
pp. v–ix). New York: Knopf.
Hare, A. P., & Hare, J. R. (1996). J. L. Moreno. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hare, A. P., & Naveh, D. (1986). Conformity and creativity: Camp
David, 1978. Small Group Behavior, 17, 243–268.
Hare, A. P., Sjovold, E., Baker, H. G., & Powers, J. (Eds.). (2005).
Analysis of social interaction systems: SYMLOG research and
applications. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Hare, S. E., & Hare, A. P. (2005). Role repertoires of members in
an effective small group: A simulation. In A. P. Hare,
E. Sjovold, H. G. Baker, & J. Powers (Eds.), Analysis of social
interaction systems: SYMLOG research and applications
(pp. 273–298). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Hareli, S., & Parkinson, B. (2008). What’s social about social
emotions? Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 38,
131–156.
Harkins, S. G. (2006). Mere effort as the mediator of the
evaluation-performance relationship. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 91(3), 436–455.
Harkins, S. G., & Jackson, J. M. (1985). The role of evaluation in
eliminating social loafing. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 11, 457–465.
Harkins, S. G., Latané, B., & Williams, K. (1980). Social loafing:
Allocating effort or taking it easy. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 16, 457–465.
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1987). Social loafing and social
facilitation: New wine in old bottles. In C. Hendrick (Ed.),
Review of personality and social psychology: Group process and
intergroup relations (Vol. 9, pp. 167–188). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1988). Social loafing and self-
evaluation with an objective standard. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 24, 354–365.
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group
evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
934–941.
R E F E R E N C E S 611
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Harlow, R. E., & Cantor, N. (1995). To whom do people turn
when things go poorly? Task orientation and functional social
contacts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
329–340.
Harlow, R. E., & Cantor, N. (1996). Still participating after all
these years: A study of life task participation in later life.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1235–1249.
Harms, P. D., Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2007). Who shall
lead? An integrative personality approach to the study of the
antecedents of status in informal social organizations. Journal of
Research in Personality, 41, 689–699.
Harris, C. B., Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2008).
Collaborative recall and collective memory: What happens
when we remember together? Memory, 16, 213–230.
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group
socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102,
458–489.
Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of
the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups.
Psychological Science, 17, 847–853.
Harrison, A. A., Clearwater, Y. A., & McKay, C. P. (Eds.). (1991).
From Antarctica to outer space: Life in isolation and confinement.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Harrison, A. A., & Connors, M. M. (1984). Groups in exotic
environments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 18,
50–87.
Harrison, A., & Morgan, N. (2006). The narrative office: BBC case
study. In D. Clements-Croome (Ed.), Creating the productive
workplace (2nd. ed., pp. 257–276). New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002).
Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of
surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029–1045.
Hart, J. W., Bridgett, D. J., & Karau, S. J. (2001). Coworker ability
and effort as determinants of individual effort on a collective
task. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 181–190.
Harton, H. C., & Bullock, M. (2007). Dynamic social impact: A
theory of the origins and evolution of culture. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 521–540.
Harton, H. C., Green, L. R., Jackson, C., & Latané, B. (1998).
Demonstrating dynamic social impact: Consolidation,
clustering, correlation, and (sometimes) the correct answer.
Teaching of Psychology, 25, 31–35.
Harvey, J. B. (1988). The Abilene paradox and other meditations on
management. New York: Wiley.
Haslam, N. (2015). Dehumanization and intergroup relations. In
M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson
(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 295–314). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity
approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., Miller, A. G., & Reicher, S. D. (Eds.). (2014).
Milgram at 50: Exploring the enduring relevance of
psychology’s most famous studies. Journal of Social Issues, 70(3).
Haslam, S. A., & Oakes, P. J. (1995). How context-independent is
the outgroup homogeneity effect? A response to Bartsch and
Judd. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 469–475.
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2006). Stressing the group: Social
identity and the unfolding dynamics of responses to stress.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1037–1052.
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). When prisoners take over
the prison: A social psychology of resistance. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 154–179.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Birney, M. E. (2014). Nothing by
mere authority: Evidence that in an experimental analogue of
the Milgram paradigm participants are motivated not by
orders but by appeals to science. Journal of Social Issues, 70(3),
473–488.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2015). Leadership:
Theory and practice. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F.
Dovidio & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality
and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 67–94). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Postmes, T., Spears, R., Jetten, J., &
Webley, P. (2006). Sticking to our guns: Social identity as a basis
for the maintenance of commitment to faltering organizational
projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 607–628.
Hasler, B. S., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2013). Online intergroup
contact. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social net:
Understanding our online behavior (pp. 220–252). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Hastie, R., & Kameda, T. (2005). The robust beauty of majority
rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112, 494–508.
Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury.
Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 129–134.
Haun, D. B., Rekers, Y., & Tomasello, M. (2014). Children
conform to the behavior of peers; other great apes stick with
what they know. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2160–2167.
Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A
theoretical and empirical review of consequences and
mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218–227.
Hayduk, L. A. (1978). Personal space: An evaluative and orienting
overview. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 117–134.
Hayduk, L. A. (1983). Personal space: Where we now stand.
Psychological Bulletin, 94(2), 293–335.
Healey, A. N., Undre, S., & Vincent, C. A. (2006). Defining the
technical skills of teamwork in surgery. Quality & Safety in
Health Care, 15, 231–234.
612 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Hearne, G. (1957). Leadership and the spatial factor in small groups.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 269–272.
Hechter, M., & Op, K. (Eds.). (2001). Social norms. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Heerwagen, J. H., Kelly, K. V., Kampschroer, K., & Powell, K. M.
(2006). The cognitive workplace. In D. Clements-Croome
(Ed.), Creating the productive workplace (2nd ed., pp. 136–149).
New York: Taylor & Francis.
Heffron, M. H. (1972). The naval ship as an urban design problem.
Naval Engineers Journal, 12, 49–64.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York:
Wiley.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. F. (1995). Sex
stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers?
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237–252.
Heinicke, C. M., & Bales, R. F. (1953). Developmental trends in
the structure of small groups. Sociometry, 16, 7–38.
Helbing, D., Buzna, L., Johansson, A., Werner, T. (2005). Self-
organized pedestrian crowd dynamics: Experiments,
simulations, and design solutions. Transportation Science, 39(1),
1–24.
Helbing, D., Johansson, A., & Al-Abideen, H. Z. (2007). Crowd
turbulence: The physics of crowd disasters. Paper presented at the
Fifth International Conference on Nonlinear Mechanics
(ICNM-V), Shanghai.
Helbing, D., & Mukerji, P. (2012). Crowd disasters as systemic
failures: Analysis of the Love Parade disaster. EPJ Data Science,
retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds7.
Heller, J. F., Groff, B. D., & Solomon, S. H. (1977). Toward an
understanding of crowding: The role of physical interaction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 183–190.
Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of
well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 359, 1435–1446.
Helmreich, R. L., & Foushee, H. C. (2010). Why CRM?
Empirical and theoretical bases of human factors training.
In B. G. Kanki, R. L. Helmrigh, & J. Anca (Eds.), Crew
resource management (2nd ed., pp. 3–58). New York: Academic
Press.
Helweg-Larsen, M., LoMonaco, B. L. (2008). Queuing among U2
fans: Reactions to social norm violations. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 38, 2378–2393.
Hembroff, L. A. (1982). Resolving status inconsistency: An
expectation states theory and test. Social Forces, 61, 183–205.
Henchy, T., & Glass, D. C. (1968). Evaluation apprehension and
the social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 446–454.
Henley, N. M. (1995). Body politics revisited: What do we know
today? In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power,
and communication in human relationships (pp. 27–61). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Henningsen, D. D., & Henningsen, M. L. M. (2007). Do groups
know what they don’t know? Dealing with missing
information in decision-making groups. Communication
Research, 34, 507–525.
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis,
H., & McElreath, R. (2004). Overview and synthesis. In
J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, &
H. Gintis (Eds.), Foundations of human sociality: Economic
experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale
societies (pp. 8–54). New York: Oxford University Press.
Henry, K. B., Arrow, H., & Carini, B. (1999). A tripartite model of
group identification: Theory and measurement. Small Group
Research, 30, 558–581.
Herek, G. M., Janis, I. L., & Huth, P. (1987). Decision-making
during international crises: Is quality of process related to
outcome? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31, 203–226.
Herek, G. M., Janis, I. L., & Huth, P. (1989). Quality of U.S.
decision making during the Cuban missile crisis: Major errors
in Welch’s reassessment. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33,
446–459.
Herman, C. P. (2015). The social facilitation of eating. A review.
Appetite, 86, 61–73.
Herman, C. P., Roth, D. A., & Polivy, J. (2003). Effects of the
presence of others on food intake: A normative
interpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 873–886.
Hernández, B., Carmen Hidalgo, M., Salazar-Laplace, M. E., & Hess,
S. (2007). Place attachment and place identity in natives and
non-natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 310–319.
Herrera, C. (Ed.). (2013). Stanley Milgram and the ethics of social
science research. Theoretical and Applied Ethics, 2(2), 1–145.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1976). Leader effectiveness and
adaptability description (LEAD). In J. W. Pfeiffer & J. E.
Jones (Eds.), The 1976 annual handbook for group facilitators
(Vol. 5, pp. 133–142). La Jolla, CA: University Associates.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2013). Management
of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (8th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Herzog, T. R., Hayes, L. J., Applin, R. C., & Weatherly, A. M.
(2011a). Compatibility: An experimental demonstration.
Environment and Behavior, 43(1), 90–105.
Herzog, T. R., Hayes, L. J., Applin, R. C., & Weatherly, A. M.
(2011b). Incompatibility and mental fatigue. Environment and
Behavior, 43(6), 827–847.
Hess, J. A., Fannin, A. D., & Pollom, L. H. (2007). Creating
closeness: Discerning and measuring strategies for fostering
closer relationships. Personal Relationships, 14(1), 25–44.
Hess, U., & Fischer, A. (2013). Emotional mimicry as social regulation.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 142–157.
Hewstone, M. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”? A review
of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311–335.
R E F E R E N C E S 613
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604.
Hickok, G. (2014). The myth of mirror neurons: The real neuroscience of
communication and cognition. New York: Norton.
Higginbotham, H. N., West, S. G., & Forsyth, D. R. (1988).
Psychotherapy and behavior change: Social, cultural, and
methodological perspectives. New York: Pergamon.
Higgs, S., & Thomas, J. (2016). Social influences on eating. Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1–6.
Highhouse, S. (2002). A history of the T-group and its early
applications in management development. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 277–290.
Hill, C. A. (1991). Seeking emotional support: The influence of
affiliative need and partner warmth. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 112–121.
Hill, C. A. (2009). Affiliation motivation. In M. R. Leary R. H., &
Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior
(pp. 410–425). New York: Guilford Press.
Hillyard, C., Gillespie, D., & Littig, P. (2010). University students’
attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent
participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 9–20.
Hinrichs, K. T. (2007). Follower propensity to commit crimes of
obedience: The role of leadership beliefs. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies, 14, 69–76.
Hinrichs, K. T., Wang, L., Hinrichs, A., & Romero, E. J. (2012).
Moral disengagement through displacement of responsibility:
The role of leadership beliefs. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 42(1), 62–80.
Hinsz, V. B. (1995). Goal setting by groups performing an additive
task: A comparison with individual goal setting. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 25, 965–990.
Hinsz, V. B. (2005). The influences of social aspects of competition
in goal-setting situations. Current Psychology: Developmental,
Learning, Personality, Social, 24, 258–273.
Hinsz, V. B. (2015). Teams as technology: Strengths, weaknesses,
and trade-offs in cognitive task performance. Team Performance
Management, 21(5/6), 218–230.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The
emerging conceptualization of groups as information
processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43–64.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1980). A comparative analysis of communication
patterns within effective and ineffective decision-making
groups. Communication Monographs, 47, 312–321.
Hirt, E. R., Zillmann, D., Erickson, G. A., & Kennedy, C. (1992).
Costs and benefits of allegiance: Changes in fans’ self-ascribed
competencies after team victory versus defeat. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 724–738.
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J.,
Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E.… Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature
of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring
preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇
scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6),
1003–1028.
Hobbes, T. (2008). Leviathan. Hong Kong: Forgotten Books.
(original work published 1651)
Hodges, B. H. (2015). Conformity and divergence in interactions,
groups, and culture. In S. G. Harkins, K. D. Williams, &
J. Burger (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social influence. Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhand
books.com/
Hodges, B. H., & Geyer, A. L. (2006). A nonconformist account of
the Asch experiments: Values, pragmatics, and moral
dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 2–19.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Healey, M. P. (2008). Cognition in
organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 387–417.
Hodson, G., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (2013). Advances in intergroup
contact. New York: Psychology Press.
Hodson, G., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1997). Groupthink and
uncertainty orientation: Personality differences in reactivity to
the group situation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 1, 144–155.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and
the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and
empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449.
Hoel, H., Glasø, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S.
(2010). Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported and
observed workplace bullying. British Journal of Management,
21(2), 453–468.
Hoffer, E. (1951). The true believer. New York: Harper & Row.
Hoffman, J. R., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2001). All together now?
College students’ preferred project group grading procedures.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 33–40.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and
organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hogan, R. (2005). In defense of personality measurement: New
wine for old whiners. Human Performance, 18, 331–341.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about
leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9, 169–180.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From
attraction to social identity. New York: New York University
Press.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and
group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes
(pp. 56–85). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hogg, M. A. (2005). The social identity perspective. In S. Wheelan
(Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 133–157).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
614 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Hogg, M. A. (2010). Influence and leadership. In S. T. Fiske, D. T.
Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th
ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1166–1207). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Hogg, M. A. (2013). Leadership. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group
processes (pp. 241–266). New York: Psychology Press.
Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D. (2003). Intergroup behavior and social
identity. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of social psychology (pp. 407–431). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behavior, self-
stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 325–340.
Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C., & David, B. (1990). Polarized
norms and social frames of references: A test of the self-
categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 11, 77–100.
Høigaard, R., Boen, F., De Cuyper, B., & Peters, D. M. (2013).
Team identification reduces social loafing and promotes social
laboring in cycling. International Journal of Applied Sports
Science, 25(1), 33–40.
Høigaard, R., Säfvenbom, R., & Tønnessen, F. E. (2006). The
relationship between group cohesion, group norms, and
perceived social loafing in soccer teams. Small Group Research,
37(3), 217–232.
Hollander, E. P. (1965). Validity of peer nominations in predicting
a distance performance criterion. Journal of Applied Psychology,
49, 434–438.
Hollander, E. P. (1971). Principles and methods of social psychology
(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hollander, E. P. (2014). Leader-follower relations and the
dynamics of inclusion and idiosyncrasy credit. In G. R.
Goethals, S. T. Allison, R. M. Kramer, & D. M. Messick
(Eds.), Conceptions of leadership (pp. 201–221). New York:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond
team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling
conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 37(1),
82–106.
Hollingshead, A. B. (2001a). Cognitive interdependence and
convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1080–1089.
Hollingshead, A. B. (2001b). Communication technologies, the
Internet, and group research. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale
(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes
(pp. 557–573). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hollingshead, A. B., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.). (2012). Research methods
for studying groups and teams. New York: Routledge.
Hollingshead, A. B., Wittenbaum, G. M., Paulus, P. B., Hirokawa,
R. Y., Ancona, D. G., Peterson, R. S. … Yoon, K. (2005). A
look at groups from the functional perspective. In M. S.
Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups:
Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 21–62). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Homan, A. C., Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Koning, L. (2010).
Believing shapes seeing: The impact of diversity beliefs on the
construal of group composition. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 13(4), 477–493.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Honeywell-Johnson, J. A., & Dickinson, A. M. (1999). Small
group incentives: A review of the literature. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 19, 89–120.
Hooijberg, R., & DiTomaso, N. (1996). Leadership in and of
demographically diverse organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 7,
1–19.
Hooper, D. T., & Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal Leader–
Member Exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived
LMX variability on employee reactions. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19, 20–30.
Hopkins, M., & Treadwell, J. (Eds.). (2014). Football hooliganism, fan
behaviour and crime: Contemporary issues. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Hopkins, N., Reicher, S. D., Khan, S. S., Tewari, S., Srinivasan, N., &
Stevenson, C. (2016). Explaining effervescence: Investigating the
relationship between shared social identity and positive
experience in crowds. Cognition and Emotion, 30(1), 20–32.
Horne, A. M., Jolliff, D. L., & Roth, E. W. (1996). Men mentoring
men in groups. In M. P. Andronico (Ed.), Men in groups:
Insights, interventions, and psychoeducational work (pp. 97–112).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group:
Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 248–264.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2014). Stability and change within
groups. In S. Harkins, K. D. Williams, & J. Burger (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of social influence. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhand
books.com/
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2016). Beyond old dichotomies:
Individual differentiation can occur through group
commitment, not despite it. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39.
doi:10.1017/S0140525X15000618
Horowitz, I. A., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (1996). A concept in search of
a definition: The effects of reasonable doubt instructions on
certainty of guilt standards and jury verdicts. Law and Human
Behavior, 20(6), 655–670.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta,
V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Howard, J. W., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and
memory for in-group and out-group behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 301–310.
R E F E R E N C E S 615
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Howell, J. P., Bowen, D. E., Dorfman, P. W., Kerr, S., &
Podsakoff, P. M. (1990). Substitutes for leadership: Effective
alternatives to ineffective leadership. Organizational Dynamics,
19(1), 21–38.
Howells, L. T., & Becker, S. W. (1962). Seating arrangement and
leadership emergence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
64(2), 148–150.
Hoyle, R. H., & Crawford, A. M. (1994). Use of individual-level
data to investigate group phenomena: Issues and strategies.
Small Group Research, 25, 464–485.
Hoyle, R. H., Pinkley, R. L., & Insko, C. A. (1989). Perceptions of
behavior: Evidence of differing expectations for interpersonal
and intergroup interactions. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 15, 365–376.
Hoyt, C. L. (2010). Women, men, and leadership: Exploring the
gender gap at the top. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 4, 484–498.
Hoyt, C. L. (2014). Social identities and leadership. In G. R.
Goethals, S. T. Allison, R. M. Kramer, & D. M. Messick
(Eds.), Conceptions of leadership (pp. 72–91). New York:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2007). Leadership efficacy and
women leaders’ responses to stereotype activation. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 595–616.
Hoyt, C. L., & Chemers, M. M. (2008). Social stigma and
leadership: A long climb up a slippery ladder. In C. L. Hoyt,
G. R. Goethals, & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at the
crossroads: Leadership and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 165–180).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hoyt, C. L., Simon, S., & Innella, A. N. (2011). Taking a turn
toward the masculine: The impact of mortality salience on
implicit leadership theories. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
33(4), 374–381.
Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). When the whole is more than
the sum of its parts: Group motivation gains in the wild.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 455–459.
Hughes, R. L. (2003). The flow of human crowds. Annual Review
of Fluid Mechanics, 35, 169–182.
Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., & Dumas, F. (1999).
Social presence effects in the Stroop task: Further evidence for
an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 1011–1025.
Human Area Relations Files. (2012). Database available at www.
yale.edu/hraf/
Humphrey, R. H. (2014). Effective leadership: Theory, cases, and
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Humphreys, L. (1975). Tearoom trade (enlarged ed.). Hawthorne,
NY: Aldine.
Hurley, J. R. (1997). Interpersonal theory and measures of outcome
and emotional climate in 111 personal development groups.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 86–97.
Hutchins, E. (1991). Organizing work by adaptation. Organization
Science, 2(1), 14–39.
Hyman, H. (1942). The psychology of status. Archives of Psychology,
38, 269.
Hyman, H. M., & Tarrant, C. M. (1975). Aspects of American trial
jury history. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The jury system in America:
A critical overview (pp. 21–44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hyman, I. E., Cardwell, B. A., & Roy, R. A. (2013). Multiple
causes of collaborative inhibition in memory for categorised
word lists. Memory, 21(7), 875–890.
Iacoviello, V., Berent, J., Frederic, N. S., & Pereira, A. (2017). The
impact of ingroup favoritism on self-esteem: A normative
perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71,
31–41.
Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). Why strict churches are strong. American
Journal of Sociology, 99, 1180–1211.
Ibarra, H., & Sackley, N. (2011). Charlotte Beers at Ogilvy & Mather
Worldwide (HBS Case 9-495-031). Boston: Harvard Business
School.
IJzerman, H., & Semin, G. R. (2010). Temperature perceptions as a
ground for social proximity. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 46(6), 867–873.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005).
Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to
IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic
leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding
leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–394.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-
member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277.
Imhoff, R., & Erb, H-P. (2009). What motivates nonconformity?
Uniqueness seeking blocks majority influence. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3), 309–320.
Inagaki, T. K. (2014). Neurobiological bases of social connection.
Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org
Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974).
The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(4),
371–384.
Insko, C. A., Gilmore, R., Drenan, S., Lipsitz, A., Moehle, D., &
Thibaut, J. (1983). Trade versus expropriation in open
groups: A comparison of two types of social power. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 977–999.
Insko, C. A., Pinkley, R. L., Hoyle, R. H., Dalton, B., Hong, G.,
Slim, R., … Thibaut, J. (1987). Individual-group discontinuity:
The role of intergroup contact. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 23, 250–267.
Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (1972). Experimental social psychology.
New York: Academic Press.
616 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Drigotas, S. M., Graetz, K., Kennedy, J.,
Cox, C., & Bornstein, G. (1993). The role of communication
in interindividual-intergroup discontinuity. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 37, 108–138.
Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Graetz, K. A., Drigotas, S. M., Currey,
K. P., Smith, S. L., … Bornstein, G. (1994). Interindividual-
intergroup discontinuity in the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 87–116.
Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Hoyle, R. H., Dardis, G. J., & Graetz,
K. A. (1990). Individual-group discontinuity as a function of
fear and greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
68–79.
Insko, C. A., Thibaut, J. W., Moehle, D., Wilson, M., Diamond,
W. D., Gilmore, R. … Lipsitz, A. (1980). Social evolution
and the emergence of leadership. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39, 431–448.
Insko, C. A., Wildschut, T., & Cohen, T. R. (2013).
Interindividual–intergroup discontinuity in the prisoner’s
dilemma game: How common fate, proximity, and similarity
affect intergroup competition. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 168–180.
Instone, D., Major, B., & Bunker, B. B. (1983). Gender, self
confidence, and social influence strategies: An organizational
simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,
322–333.
Ip, G. W., Chiu, C., & Wan, C. (2006). Birds of a feather and birds
flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to
trait- versus goal-based group perception. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 90, 368–381.
Isenberg, D. J., & Ennis, J. G. (1981). Perceiving group members:
A comparison of derived and imposed dimensions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 293–305.
Ito, H., Yamauchi, H., Kaneko, H., Yoshikawa, T., Nomura, K.,
& Honjo, S. (2011). Prefrontal overactivation, autonomic
arousal, and task performance under evaluative pressure: A
near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) study. Psychophysiology,
48(11), 1563–1571.
Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinate communication: The
state of the art. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1201–1222.
Jackson, D., Engstrom, E., & Emmers-Sommer, T. (2007). Think
leader, think male and female: Sex vs. seating arrangement as
leadership cues. Sex Roles, 57, 713–723.
Jackson, J. M. (1987). Social impact theory: A social forces
model of influence. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.),
Theories of group behavior (pp. 112–124). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Jackson, J. M., & Latané, B. (1981). All alone in front of all those
people: Stage fright as a function of number and type of co-
performances and audience. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, 73–85.
Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2011). Work team diversity. In
S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 651–686). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Jacobs, A. (1974). The use of feedback in groups. In A. Jacobs &
W. W. Spradlin (Eds.), Group as an agent of change
(pp. 408–448). New York: Behavioral Publications.
Jacobs, D., O’Brien, R. M. (1998). The determinants of deadly
force: A structural analysis of police violence. American Journal
of Sociology, 103, 837–862.
Jacobs, M. K., & Goodman, G. (1989). Psychology and self-help
groups: Predictions on a partnership. American Psychologist, 44,
536–545.
Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an
arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory
microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62,
649–658.
Jahoda, G. (2007). A history of social psychology: From the eighteenth-
century enlightenment to the Second World War. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
James, J. (1951). A preliminary study of the size determinant in
small group interaction. American Sociological Review, 16,
474–477.
James, R. (1959). Status and competency of jurors. American Journal
of Sociology, 64, 563–570.
Janicik, G. A., & Bartel, C. A. (2003). Talking about time: Effects
of temporal planning and time awareness norms on group
coordination and performance. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 7, 122–134.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions
and fiascos (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Janis, I. L. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policy making and
crisis management. New York: Free Press.
Jans, L., Postmes, T., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2011). The induction
of shared identity: The positive role of individual
distinctiveness for groups. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 37(8), 1130–1141.
Janssen, L., Fennis, B. M., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (2010). Forewarned is
forearmed: Conserving self-control strength to resist social
influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6),
911–921.
Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2016). Building organizational capability of
distributed global teams: Strong subgroups without active
faultlines. In D. T. Kong & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leading
through conflict: Into the fray (pp. 131–153). New York:
Palgrave.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out
there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Toward
contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global
virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250–267.
R E F E R E N C E S 617
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Jehn, K. A. (1997). Affective and cognitive conflict in work groups:
Increasing performance through value-based intragroup
conflict. In C. K. W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.),
Using conflict in organizations (pp. 87–100). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Jehn, K. A. (2014). Types of conflict: The history and future of
conflict definitions and typologies. In O. B. Ayoko, N. M.
Ashkanasy, & K. A. Jehn (Eds.), The handbook of conflict
management research (pp. 3–18). Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar.
Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., Jonsen, K., & Greer, L. (2013). Conflict
contagion: A temporal perspective on the development of
conflict within teams. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 24(4), 352–373.
Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and
task performance: An examination of mediating processes in
friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 775–790.
Jetten, J., & Haslam, S. A. (2016). Potent intergroup perceptions
are strategic and shared. Psychological Inquiry, 27(4),
319–323.
Jetten, J., & Hornsey, M. J. (Eds.). (2011). Rebels in groups: Dissent,
deviance, difference and defiance. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jetten, J., Hornsey, M. J., & Adarves-Yorno, I. (2006). When
group members admit to being conformist: The role of
relative intragroup status in conformity self-reports. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 162–173.
Johansson, A., Helbing, D., Al-Abideen, H. Z., & Al-Bosta, S.
(2008). From crowd dynamics to crowd safety: A video-based
analysis. Advances in Complex Systems, 11, 497–527.
John, P. F. U., Mandal, M. K., Ramachandran, K., & Panwar,
M. R. (2010). Interpersonal behavior in an isolated and
confined environment. Environment and Behavior, 42, 707–717.
Johnson, C., Gadon, O., Carlson, D., Southwick, S., Faith, M., &
Chalfin, J. (2002). Self-reference and group membership:
Evidence for a group-reference effect. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 32(2), 261–274.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational
psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and
cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
Johnson, N. R. (1987). Panic at “The Who concert stampede”: An
empirical assessment. Social Problems, 34, 362–373.
Johnson, R. D., & Downing, L. L. (1979). Deindividuation and
valence of cues: Effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1532–1538.
Johnson, S. E., & Richeson, J. A. (2009). Solo status revisited:
Examining racial group differences in the self-regulatory
consequences of self-presenting as a racial solo. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 1032–1035.
Joiner, T. E., Hollar, D., & Van Orden, K. (2006). On Buckeyes,
Gators, Super Bowl Sunday, and the Miracle on Ice: “Pulling
together” is associated with lower suicide rates. Journal of Social
& Clinical Psychology, 25, 179–195.
Joinson, A. N. (2007). Disinhibition and the Internet. In J.
Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (2nd ed., pp. 75–92).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Jones, D. M., Chapman, A. J., & Auburn, T. C. (1981). Noise in
the environment: A social perspective. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 1(1), 43–59.
Jones, E. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2007). Contributions to a group
discussion and perceptions of leadership: Does quantity always
count more than quality? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 11, 15–30.
Jones, E. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2013). The psychological costs of
knowledge specialization in groups: Unique expertise leaves
you out of the loop. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 121(2), 174–182.
Jones, E. E., & Lambertus, J. D. (2014). Expecting less from groups:
A new perspective on shortcomings in idea generation
groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(3),
237.
Jones, E. S., Gallois, C., Callan, V. J., & Barker, M. (1995).
Language and power in an academic context: The effects of
status, ethnicity, and sex. Journal of Language & Social
Psychology, 14, 434–461.
Jones, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., & Mirenberg, M. C.
(2004). How do I love thee? Let me count the js: Implicit
egotism and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87(5), 665–683.
Jones, M. B. (1974). Regressing group on individual effectiveness.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 11,
426–451.
Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., Dweck, C. S., Lovett, B. J., John, O. P.,
& Gross, J. J. (2011). Misery has more company than people
think: Underestimating the prevalence of others’ negative
emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(1),
120–135.
Jorgenson, D. O., & Dukes, F. O. (1976). Deindividuation as a
function of density and group membership. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 24–29.
Jost, J. T., Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R.,
Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J., & Hardin, C. D. (2009). The
existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A
refutation of ideological and methodological objections and
executive summary of ten studies that no manager should
ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 39–69.
Jourard, S. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the
transparent self. New York: Wiley.
Joyce, E., & Kraut, R. E. (2006). Predicting continued participation
in newsgroups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
11(3), 723–747.
618 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002).
Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality,
organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 359–394.
Judge, T. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). The bright and dark sides of
personality: Implications for personnel selection in individual
and team contexts. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper, &
R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional
workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 332–355).
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative
validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten
ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure
in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1),
36–51.
Jung, D., Wu, A., & Chow, C. W. (2008). Towards understanding
the direct and indirect effects of CEOs’ transformational
leadership on firm innovation. The Leadership Quarterly, 19,
582–594.
Junger, S. (2015). The bonds of battle. Vanity Fair, pp. 106–111,
144–145.
Junker, N. M., & van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit theories in
organizational settings: A systematic review and research
agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1154–1173.
Jussim, L., Crawford, J. T., Anglin, S. M., Stevens, S. T., & Duarte,
J. L. (2016). Interpretations and methods: Towards a more
effectively self-correcting social psychology. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 116–133.
Kahn, A., Hottes, J., & Davis, W. L. (1971). Cooperation and
optimal responding in the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game: Effects
of sex and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 17, 267–279.
Kahn, R. (1973). The boys of summer. New York: HarperCollins.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., &
Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role
conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farra,
Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of
prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237–251.
Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the
fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63, 96–110.
Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Kamarck, T. W., Manuck, S. B., & Jennings, J. R. (1990). Social
support reduces cardiovascular reactivity to psychological
challenge: A laboratory model. Psychosomatic Medicine, 52,
42–58.
Kameda, T., Takezawa, M., & Hastie, R. (2005). Where do social
norms come from?: The example of communal sharing.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 331–334.
Kameda, T., Takezawa, M., Tindale, R. S., & Smith, C. M. (2002).
Social sharing and risk reduction: Exploring a computational
algorithm for the psychology of windfall gains. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 23, 11–33.
Kameda, T., & Tamura, R. (2007). “To eat or not to be eaten?”
collective risk-monitoring in groups. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 43, 168–179.
Kameda, T., & Tindale, R. S. (2006). Groups as adaptive devices:
Human docility and group aggregation mechanisms in
evolutionary context. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson & D. T.
Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 317–341).
Madison, WI: Psychosocial Press.
Kameda, T., Tsukasaki, T., Hastie, R., & Berg, N. (2011).
Democracy under uncertainty: The wisdom of crowds and
the free-rider problem in group decision making. Psychological
Review, 118(1), 76–96.
Kandel, D. B. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship
pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 306–312.
Kang, Y., Williams, L. E., Clark, M. S., Gray, J. R., & Bargh, J. A.
(2011). Physical temperature effects on trust behavior: The
role of insula. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(4),
507–515.
Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1987). Group decision making and
normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of
issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 306–313.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an
integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
15(3), 169–182.
Kaplan, S., & Berman, M. G. (2010). Directed attention as a
common resource for executive functioning and self-
regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 43–57.
Kaplowitz, S. A. (1978). Towards a systematic theory of power
attribution. Social Psychology, 41, 131–148.
Karau, S. J., & Elsaid, A. M. M. K. (2009). Individual differences in
beliefs about groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 13(1), 1–13.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-
analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Understanding individual
motivation in groups: The collective effort model. In M. E.
Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research
(pp. 113–141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Karremans, J. C., Verwijmeren, T., Pronk, T. M., & Reitsma, M.
(2009). Interacting with women can impair men’s cognitive
R E F E R E N C E S 619
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

functioning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4),
1041–1044.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations
(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Katz, N., Lazer, D., Arrow, H., & Contractor, N. (2005). The
network perspective on small groups: Theory and research.
In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small
groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 277–312). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Katz, R., & Tushman, M. (1979). Communication patterns, project
performance, and task characteristics: An empirical evaluation
and integration in an R & D setting. Organization Behavior and
Group Performance, 23, 139–162.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2001). The discipline of teams.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams.
New York: HarperCollins.
Kauff, P. F. (2017). Psychoanalytic group psychotherapy.
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 67(sup1), 91–98.
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings
matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational
success. Small Group Research, 43(2), 130–158.
Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential
learning in teams. Simulation and Gaming, 36, 330–354.
Kayes, D. C. (2006). Destructive goal pursuit: The Mount Everest
disaster. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Evidence-based treatment research:
Advances, limitations, and next steps. American Psychologist,
66(8), 685–698.
Keating, C. F., Pomerantz, J., Pommer, S. D., Ritt, S. J. H., Miller,
L. M., & McCormick, J. (2005). Going to college and
unpacking hazing: A functional approach to decrypting
initiation practices among undergraduates. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(2), 104–126.
Keinan, G., & Koren, M. (2002). Teaming up type As and Bs: The
effects of group composition on performance and satisfaction.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 425–445.
Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2011). The reversal effect of
prohibition signs. Group processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5),
681–688.
Kellermanns, F. W., Walter, J., Floyd, S. W., Lechner, C., & Shaw,
J. C. (2011). To agree or not to agree? A meta-analytical
review of strategic consensus and organizational performance.
Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 126–133.
Kelley, H. H. (1952). Two functions of reference groups. In
G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.),
Readings in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 410–414).
New York: Holt.
Kelley, H. H., Contry, J. C., Dahlke, A. E., & Hill, A. H. (1965).
Collective behavior in a simulated panic situation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 20–54.
Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E.,
& Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kelley, H. H., & Stahelski, A. J. (1970a). Errors in perceptions of
intentions in a mixed-motive game. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 6, 379–400.
Kelley, H. H., & Stahelski, A. J. (1970b). Social interaction basis of
cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 66–91.
Kelley, H. H., & Stahelski, A. J. (1970c). The inference of
intentions from moves in the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 401–419.
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review,
66(6), 142–148.
Kelley, R. E. (2004). Followership. In G. R. Goethals, G. J.
Sorenson, & J. M. Burns (Eds.), The encyclopedia of leadership
(pp. 504–513). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Kelly, J. F., Stout, R. L., Magill, M., & Tonigan, J. S. (2011). The
role of Alcoholics Anonymous in mobilizing adaptive social
network changes: A prospective lagged mediational analysis.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 114(2–3), 119–126.
Kelly, J. R., Futoran, G. C., & McGrath, J. E. (1990). Capacity and
capability: Seven studies of entrainment of task performance
rates. Small Group Research, 21, 283–314.
Kelly, J. R., & Karau, S. J. (1993). Entrainment of creativity in
small groups. Small Group Research, 24, 179–198.
Kelly, J. R., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Group decision making: The
effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1342–1354.
Kelly, J. R., & Loving, T. J. (2004). Time pressure and group
performance: Exploring underlying processes in the
attentional focus model. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 40, 185–198.
Kelly, J. R., & Spoor, J. R. (2013). Affective processes. In
J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group processes (pp. 33–53). New York:
Psychology Press.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and
internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 25, 57–78.
Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, relationships, identities: Three
central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their
social environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 1–26.
Kelman, H. C. (2012). Social psychology and the study of peace:
Personal reflections. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 361–371). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience:
Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
620 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Keltner, D. (2016). The power paradox: How we gain and lose influence.
New York: Penguin.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003).
Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110,
265–284.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D., Galinsky, A., & Kraus, M. W. (2010).
Paradoxes of power: Dynamics of the acquisition, experience,
and social regulation of social power. In A. Guinote & T. K.
Vescio (Eds.), The social psychology of power (pp. 177–208).
New York: Guilford Press.
Keltner, D., van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008). A
reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging
principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 40, 151–192.
Kennedy, D. P., Gläscher, J., Tyszka, J. M., & Adolphs, R. (2009).
Personal space regulation by the human amygdala. Nature
Neuroscience, 12(10), 1226–1227.
Kennedy, F. A., Loughry, M. L., Klammer, T. P., & Beyerlein, M. M.
(2009). Effects of organizational support on potency in work
teams: The mediating role of team processes. Small Group
Research, 40(1), 72–93.
Kennedy, R. F. (1969). Thirteen days. New York: Norton.
Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (2014). The design and analysis of
data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 589–607). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kenny, D. A., Kieffer, S. C., Smith, J. A., Ceplenski, P., &
Kulo, J. (1996). Circumscribed accuracy among well-
acquainted individuals. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 32, 1–12.
Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M.
(2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary
extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 5(3), 292–314.
Kent, S. (1991). Partitioning space: Cross-cultural factors
influencing domestic spatial segmentation. Environment and
Behavior, 23, 438–473.
Kenworthy, J. B., Hewstone, M., Levine, J. M., Martin, R., &
Willis, H. (2008). The phenomenology of minority–majority
status: Effects on innovation in argument generation. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 38(4), 624–636.
Kerckhoff, A. C., & Back, K. W. (1968). The June Bug: A study of
hysterical contagion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kerckhoff, A. C., Back, K. W., & Miller, N. (1965). Sociometric
patterns in hysterical contagion. Sociometry, 28, 2–15.
Kerr, N. L. (2013). Social dilemmas. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group
processes (pp. 85–110). New York: Psychology Press.
Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., &
Davis, J. H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effect
of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the
judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 282–294.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1981). Ringelmann revisited:
Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 224–231.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort
and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.
Kerr, N. L., & Huang, J. Y. (1986). Jury verdicts: How much
difference does one juror make? Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 12, 325–343.
Kerr, N. L., & MacCoun, R. J. (1985). The effects of jury size
and polling method on the process and product of jury
deliberation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
349–363.
Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996a). Bias in
judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological
Review, 103, 687–719.
Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996b). “When are
N heads better (or worse) than one?” Biased judgment in
individuals and groups. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.),
Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups
(Vol. 1, pp. 105–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. A., Seok, D., Sambolec, E. J., Lount Jr.,
Robert, B., & Park, E. S. (2007). Psychological mechanisms
underlying the Köhler motivation gain. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 33, 828–841.
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2014). Methods of small group
research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of
research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 188–219). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their
meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 22, 375–403.
Kerschreiter, R., Schulz-Hardt, S., Mojzisch, A., & Frey, D.
(2008). Biased information search in homogeneous groups:
Confidence as a moderator for the effect of anticipated task
requirements. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5),
679–691.
Keshet, S., Kark, R., Pomerantz-Zorin, L., Koslowsky, M., &
Schwarzwald, J. (2006). Gender, status and the use of
power strategies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36,
105–117.
Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2001). Is there any scapegoat
around? Determinants of intergroup conflicts at different
categorization levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81, 1090–1102.
Keyton, J. (2002). Communicating in groups: Building relationships for
effective decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2010). Examining laughter functionality
in jury deliberations. Small Group Research, 41(4), 386–407.
R E F E R E N C E S 621
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Khalil, A. (2011). Liberation square: Inside the Egyptian revolution and
the rebirth of a nation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Kiesler, C. A., Corbin, L. H. (1965). Commitment, attraction, and
conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2,
890–895.
Kiesler, C. A., & Zanna, M., Desalvo, J. (1966). Deviation and
conformity: Opinion change as a function of commitment,
attraction, and presence of a deviate. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 3, 458–467.
Kiesler, D. J. (1991). Interpersonal methods of assessment and
diagnosis. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook
of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective
(pp. 438–468). New York: Pergamon Press.
Kilmartin, C. T. (1994). The masculine self. New York: Macmillan.
Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness,
harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 785–800.
Kim, Y., Cohen, D., & Au, W. (2010). The jury and abjury of my
peers: The self in face and dignity cultures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 904–916.
Kim, Y., Jung, J., Cohen, E. L., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2004).
Internet connectedness before and after September 11, 2001.
New Media & Society, 6, 611–631.
King, D. (2013). The feud: The Hatfields and McCoys: The true story.
New York: Little, Brown.
King, L. A. (2004). Measures and meaning: The use of qualitative
data in social and personality psychology. In C. Sansone,
C. C. Morf, & A. T. Panter (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
methods in social psychology (pp. 173–194). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kipnis, D. (1974). The powerholders. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kipnis, D. (1984). The use of power in organizations and in
interpersonal settings. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5,
179–210.
Kipnis, D., Castell, P. J., Gergen, M., & Mauch, D. (1976).
Metamorphic effects of power. Journal of Applied Psychology,
61, 127–135.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., Swaffin-Smith, C., & Wilkinson, I.
(1984). Patterns of managerial influence: Shotgun managers,
tacticians, and bystanders. Organizational Dynamics, 12, 58–67.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Shaver, P. (1988). Fear and affiliation
reconsidered from a stress and coping perspective: The
importance of cognitive clarity and fear reduction. Journal of
Social & Clinical Psychology, 7, 214–233.
Kirsh, D. (2000). A few thoughts on cognitive overload. Intellectica,
1(30), 19–51.
Kishida, K. T., Yang, D., Quartz, K. H., Quartz, S. R., &
Montague, P. R. (2012). Implicit signals in small group
settings and their impact on the expression of cognitive
capacity and associated brain responses. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1589),
704–716.
Kivikangas, J. M., Kätsyri, J., Järvelä, S., & Ravaja, N. (2014).
Gender differences in emotional responses to cooperative and
competitive game play. PloS One, 9(7), e100318.
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr. (1985). Feedback in group psychotherapy:
Review and implications. Small Group Behavior, 16, 373–386.
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr. (1997). Leader behavior and therapeutic gain:
An application of situational leadership theory. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 32–38.
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Holmes, S. E. (2004). The importance of
therapeutic factors: A typology of therapeutic factors studies.
In J. L. Delucia-Waak, D. A. Gerrity, C. R. Kalodner, &
M. T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy
(pp. 23–48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Kivlighan, D. M., III. (2014). Therapeutic
factors: Current theory and research. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack,
C. R. Kalodner, & M. T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of group
counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 46–54). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., McGovern, T. V., & Corazzini, J. G. (1984).
Effects of content and timing of structuring interventions on
group therapy process and outcome. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 31, 363–370.
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Mullison, D. (1988). Participants’
perception of therapeutic factors in group counseling: The
role of interpersonal style and stage of group development.
Small Group Behavior, 19, 452–468.
Klauer, K. C., Herfordt, J., & Voss, A. (2008). Social presence
effects on the Stroop task: Boundary conditions and an
alternative account. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
44, 469–476.
Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons,
R., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). Does team building work?
Small Group Research, 40(2), 181–222.
Klein, K. J., Knight, A. P., Ziegert, J. C., Lim, B. C., & Saltz, J. L.
(2011). When team members’ values differ: The moderating
role of team leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 114, 25–36.
Klein, M. (1948). Contributions to psychoanalysis, 1921–1945.
London: Hogarth Press.
Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011). The effect of
goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, 1289–1304.
Klinenberg, E. (2012). Going solo: The extraordinary rise and surprising
appeal of living alone. New York: Penguin.
Klocke, U. (2007). How to improve decision making in small
groups: Effects of dissent and training interventions. Small
Group Research, 38, 437–468.
Klocke, U. (2009). ‘I am the best’: Effects of influence tactics and
power bases on powerholders’ self-evaluation and target
622 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

evaluation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5),
619–637.
Klucharev, V., Hytönen, K., Rijpkema, M., Smidts, A., &
Fernández, G. (2009). Reinforcement learning signal predicts
social conformity. Neuron, 61, 140–151.
Knight, G. P., & Dubro, A. F. (1984). Cooperative, competitive,
and individualistic social values: An individualized regression
and clustering approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46, 98–105.
Knowles, E. S. (1973). Boundaries around group interaction: The
effect of group size and member status on boundary
permeability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26,
327–331.
Knowles, E. S., & Bassett, R. L. (1976). Groups and crowds as
social entities: Effects of activity, size, and member similarity
on nonmembers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
34(5), 837–845.
Knowles, E. S., & Brickner, M. A. (1981). Social cohesion effects
on spatial cohesion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
7(2), 309–313.
Knowles, E. S., Condon, C. A. (1999). Why people say “yes”:
A dual-process theory of acquiescence. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 379–386.
Knowles, E. S., Kreuser, B., Haas, S., Hyde, M., & Schuchart,
G. E. (1976). Group size and the extension of social space
boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33,
647–654.
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T.
(2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of
three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4),
616–642.
Köhler, O. (1926). Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenarbeit.
Industrielle Psychotechnik, 3, 274–282.
Köhler, W. (1959). Gestalt psychology today. American Psychologist,
14, 727–734.
Kojima, H. (1984). A significant stride toward the comparative
study of control. American Psychologist, 39, 972–973.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). The Kolb learning Style Inventory:
Version 3.1. Philadelphia, PA: Hay Group.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source
of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Kolb, D. M., & Williams, J. (2003). Everyday negotiation: Navigating
the hidden agendas in bargaining. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1994). Social dilemmas. Dubuque,
IA: Brown & Benchmark.
Koocher, G. P. (1977). Bathroom behavior and human dignity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 120–121.
Korda, M. (1975). Power! How to get it, how to use it. New York:
Ballantine.
Koriat, A. (2012). The self-consistency model of subjective
confidence. Psychological Review, 119(1), 80–113.
Köster, G., Seitz, M., Treml, F., Hartmann, D., & Klein, W. (2015).
On modelling the influence of group formations in a crowd. In
J. Drury & C. Stott (Eds.), Crowds in the 21st century: Perspectives
from contemporary social science (pp. 133–150). New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kösters, M., Burlingame, G. M., Nachtigall, C., & Strauss, B.
(2006). A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of
inpatient group psychotherapy. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 10, 146–163.
Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kounin, J. S., & Gump, P. V. (1958). The ripple effect in
discipline. Elementary School Journal, 59, 158–162.
Kovera, M. B., & Austin, J. L. (2016). Identifying juror bias:
Moving from assessment and prediction to a new generation
of jury selection research. In C. Willis-Esqueda & B. H.
Bornestein (Eds.), The witness stand and Lawrence S.
Wrightsman, Jr. (pp. 75–94). New York: Springer.
Kowalski, R. M. (1996). Complaints and complaining: Functions,
antecedents, and consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 119,
179–196.
Kowert, P. A. (2002). Groupthink or deadlock: When do leaders learn
from their advisors? Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the
effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in
the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M.
(1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation
and performance across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen &
E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance:
Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development
(pp. 240–292). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., &
Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design
capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research
Methods, 16(4), 581–615.
Kozlowski, S. W., Grand, J. A., Baard, S. K., & Pearce, M. (2015).
Teams, teamwork, and team effectiveness: Implications for
human systems integration. In D. A. Boehm-Davis, F. T.
Durso, & J. D. Lee (Eds.), APA handbook of human systems
integration (pp. 535–552). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Krackhardt, D. (1996). Social networks and the liability of newness
for managers. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.),
Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 159–173).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks:
The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review,
71(4), 104–111.
R E F E R E N C E S 623
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. W. (1986). The snowball effect:
Turnover embedded in communication networks. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 50–55.
Krakauer, J. (1997). Into thin air. New York: Random House.
Kramer, A., Bhave, D. P., & Johnson, T. D. (2014). Personality and
group performance: The importance of personality
composition and work tasks. Personality and Individual
Differences, 58, 132–137.
Kramer, R. M. (1998). Paranoid cognition in social systems:
Thinking and acting in the shadow of doubt. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 2, 251–275.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations:
Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50, 569–598.
Kramer, R. M. (2006). The great intimidators. Harvard Business
Review, 84, 88–96.
Kramer, R. M. (2008). Presidential leadership and group folly:
Reappraising the role of groupthink in the Bay of Pigs
decisions. In C. L. Hoyt, G. R. Goethals, & D. R. Forsyth
(Eds.), Leadership at the crossroads: Leadership and psychology
(Vol. 1, pp. 230–249). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kramer, R. M. (2011). Cooperation and the commons: Laboratory
and field investigations of a persistent dilemma. In R. M.
Kramer, G. J. Leonardelli, & R. W. Livingston (Eds.), Social
cognition, social identity, and intergroup relations: A Festschrift in
honor of Marilynn B. Brewer (pp. 297–317). New York:
Psychology Press.
Kramer, R. M. (2016). Worth a second look: Exploring the power
of post-mortems on post-mortems. In K. D. Elsbach & R. M.
Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative organizational research
(pp. 411–420). New York: Routledge.
Kraus, M. W., Chen, S., & Keltner, D. (2011). The power to be
me: Power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 974–980.
Krause, D. E., & Kearney, E. (2006). The use of power bases in
different contexts: Arguments for a context-specific perspective.
In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), Power and influence in
organizations: New empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 59–86).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Krause, S., James, R., Faria, J. J., Ruxton, G. D., & Krause, J.
(2011). Swarm intelligence in humans: Diversity can trump
ability. Animal Behavior, 81, 941–948.
Krauss, R. M., & Morsella, E. (2006). Communication and
conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus
(Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd
ed., pp. 144–157). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered:
The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50, 936–941.
Kreager, D. (2004). Strangers in the halls: Isolation and delinquency
in school networks. Social Forces, 83, 351–390.
Krendl, A. C. (2016). An fMRI investigation of the effects of
culture on evaluations of stigmatized individuals. NeuroImage,
124, 336–349.
Krieger, H., Neighbors, C., Lewis, M. A., LaBrie, J. W., Foster,
D. W., & Larimer, M. E. (2016). Injunctive norms and alcohol
consumption: A revised conceptualization. Alcoholism: Clinical
and Experimental Research, 40(5), 1083–1092.
Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Stevens, C. K. (2005). When
opposites attract: A multi-sample demonstration of
complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal of
Personality, 73, 935–958.
Krueger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1997). Estimates of social consensus
by majorities and minorities: The case for social projection.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 299–312.
Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & De Grada, E.
(2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and
the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review, 113,
84–100.
Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2002).
When similarity breeds content: Need for closure and the
allure of homogeneous and self-resembling groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 648–662.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1991). Group members’
reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees
of proximity to decision deadline and of environmental noise.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 212–225.
Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated
resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or
absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65(5), 861–876.
Kugler, T., Kausel, E. E., & Kocher, M. G. (2012). Are groups
more rational than individuals? A review of interactive
decision making in groups. Cognitive Science, 3(4), 471–482.
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation
of self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 68–76.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.,
enlarged). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kulik, J. A., & Mahler, H. I. M. (1989). Stress and affiliation in a
hospital setting: Preoperative roommate preference. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 183–193.
Kulik, J. A., & Mahler, H. I. M. (2000). Social comparison,
affiliation, and emotional contagion under threat. In J. Suls &
L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and
research (pp. 295–320). New York: Kluwer Academic.
Kulik, J. A., Mahler, H. I. M., & Moore, P. J. (1996). Social
comparison and affiliation under threat: Effects on recovery
from major surgery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
71, 967–979.
Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward
a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 428–438.
624 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of
stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological
Bulletin, 127(2), 187–208.
Kuypers, B. C., Davies, D., & Glaser, K. H. (1986). Developmental
arrestations in self-analytic groups. Small Group Behavior, 17,
269–302.
Kwan, V. S., Bond, M. H., Boucher, H. C., Maslach, C., & Gan,
Y. (2002). The construct of individuation: More complex in
collectivist than in individualist cultures. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 300–310.
LaBrie, J. W., Hummer, J. F., Neighbors, C., & Larimer, M. E.
(2010). Whose opinion matters? The relationship between
injunctive norms and alcohol consequences in college
students. Addictive Behaviors, 35(4), 343–349.
Ladbury, J. L., & Hinsz, V. B. (2009). Individual expectations for
group decision processes: Evidence for overestimation of
majority influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 13(4), 235–254.
Laing, R. D. (1960). The divided self. London: Tavistock.
Lakens, D. (2010). Movement synchrony and perceived entitativity.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 701–708.
Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2013). Behavioral mimicry as an
affiliative response to social exclusion. In C. N. DeWall (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of social exclusion (pp. 266–274).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakin, M. (1972). Experiential groups: The uses of interpersonal
encounter, psychotherapy groups, and sensitivity training.
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Lalonde, R. N. (1992). The dynamics of group differentiation in
the face of defeat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,
336–342.
Lam, S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). Improving group decisions
by better pooling information: A comparative advantage of
group decision support systems. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 565–573.
Lambert, A. J., Cronen, S., Chasteen, A. L., & Lickel, B. (1996).
Private vs. public expressions of racial prejudice. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 437–459.
Lambert, A. J., Payne, B. K., Jacoby, L. L., Shaffer, L. M.,
Chasteen, A. L., & Khan, S. R. (2003). Stereotypes as
dominant responses: On the “social facilitation” of prejudice
in anticipated public contexts. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 277–295.
Lamm, H., & Myers, D. G. (1978). Group-induced polarization of
attitudes and behavior. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 11, 145–195.
Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2008).
Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach.
Psychological Science, 19, 558–564.
Landau, M. J., Johns, M., Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Martens,
A., Goldenberg, J. L., & Solomon, S. (2004). A function of
form: Terror management and structuring the social world.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 190–210.
Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. (1961). Collective dynamics. New York:
Crowell.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of
mindlessness-mindfulness. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 22, 137–173.
Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness
of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of “placebic”
information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 36(6), 635–642.
Langfred, C. W. (1998). Is group cohesiveness a double-edged
sword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness on
performance. Small Group Research, 29, 124–143.
Langner, C. A., & Keltner, D. (2008). Social power and emotional
experience: Actor and partner effects within dyadic
interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
848–856.
Lanzetta, J. T., & Roby, T. B. (1960). The relationship between
certain group process variables and group problem-solving
efficiency. Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 135–148.
LaPiere, R. (1938). Collective behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Larsen, K. S. (1982). Cultural conditions and conformity: The Asch
effect. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 35, 347.
Larson, J. R., Jr. (2010). In search of synergy in small group performance.
New York: Psychology Press.
Larson, J. R., Jr., Christensen, C., & Abbott, A. S., & Franz, T. M.
(1996). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information
in medical decision-making teams. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 315–330.
Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American
Psychologist, 36, 343–356.
Latané, B. (1996). Strength from weakness: The fate of opinion
minorities in spatially distributed groups. In E. Witte &
J. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual
action by small groups (Vol. 1, pp. 193–219). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Latané, B. (1997). Dynamic social impact: The societal
consequences of human interaction. In C. McGarty & S. A.
Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on
mind and society (pp. 200–220). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Latané, B., & Bourgeois, M. J. (1996). Experimental evidence for
dynamic social impact: The emergence of subcultures in
electronic groups. Journal of Communication, 46, 35–47.
Latané, B., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2001). Dynamic social impact and
the consolidation, clustering, correlation, and continuing
diversity of culture. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes
(pp. 235–258). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why
doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
R E F E R E N C E S 625
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Latané, B., & Nida, S. A. (1981). Ten years of research on group
size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308–324.
Latané, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majorities and
minorities. Psychological Review, 88, 438–453.
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make
light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.
Latham, G. P., & Baldes, J. J. (1975). The “practical significance” of
Locke’s theory of goal settings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
60, 122–124.
LaTour, S. (1978). Determinants of participant and observer
satisfaction with adversary and inquisitorial modes of
adjudication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
36, 1531–1545.
LaTour, S., Houlden, P., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J. (1976). Some
determinants of preference for modes of conflict resolution.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20, 319–356.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and
faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational
groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340.
Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative
problem solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In
M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (pp. 127–155).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Miner, A. G. (2002). Groups
perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers
problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
88, 605–620.
Laughlin, P. R., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1995). A theory of
collective induction. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 61, 94–107.
Laughlin, P. R., Zander, M. L., Knievel, E. M., & Tan, T. K.
(2003). Groups perform better than the best individuals on
letters-to-numbers problems: Informative equations and
effective strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 684–694.
Lawler, E. E. and Mohrman, S. A. (1985). Quality circles after the
fad. Harvard Business Review, 85, 64–71.
Lawler, E. J., & Thompson, M. E. (1978). Impact of a leader’s
responsibility for inequity on subordinate revolts. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 41, 264–268.
Lawler, E. J., & Thompson, M. E. (1979). Subordinate response
to a leader’s cooptation strategy as a function of type of
coalition power. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 9,
69–80.
Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1996). Commitment in exchange
relations: Test of a theory of relational cohesion. American
Sociological Review, 61, 89–108.
Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2000). Emotion and group
cohesion in productive exchange. American Journal of Sociology,
106(3), 616–657.
Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2014). Emotions and group
ties in social exchange. In J. E. Stets & J. H. Turner (Eds.),
Handbook of the sociology of emotions (Vol. 2, pp. 77–101).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social
process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In
M. Berger, T. Abel & C. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in
modern society (pp. 18–66). New York: Van Nostrand.
Lazonder, A. W. (2005). Do two heads search better than one?
Effects of student collaboration on web search behavior and
search outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36,
465–475.
Le Bon, G. (1960). The crowd: A study of the popular mind [La
psychologie des foules]. New York: Viking Press. (original work
published in 1895)
Leach, C. W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B.
(2003). Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of
another group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
932–943.
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W.,
Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Spears,
R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment:
A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group
identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
95, 144–165.
Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of
gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness,
affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 11, 328–363.
Leary, M. R. (1983). Understanding social anxiety. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety,
jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of
Social & Clinical Psychology, 9, 221–229.
Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 317–344.
Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging. In In
S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of
social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 864–897). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley.
Leary, M. R. (2012). Sociometer theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange,
A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories
of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 151–159). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Leary, M. R. (2017a). Motivational and emotional aspects of
interpersonal rejections. In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida
(Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 46–60).
New York: Routledge.
Leary, M. R. (2017b). Unexamined assumptions about leadership:
Why people follow Trump. In M. Fitzduff (Ed.), Why
irrational politics appeals: Understanding the allure of Trump
(pp. 41–56). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
626 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Leary, M. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (1987). Attributions of
responsibility for collective endeavors. Review of Personality and
Social Psychology, 8, 167–188.
Leary, M. R., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Diebels, K. J. (2014). The
pursuit of status: A self-presentational perspective on the quest
for social value. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C. Anderson
(Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 159–178). New York:
Springer Science+Business Media.
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S.
(2013). Construct validity of the need to belong scale:
Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 95(6), 610–624.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social anxiety. New York:
Guilford.
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003).
Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school
shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202–214.
Leary, M. R., Rogers, P. A., Canfield, R. W., & Coe, C. (1986).
Boredom in interpersonal encounters: Antecedents and social
implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
968–975.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L.
(1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The
sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 518–530.
Leather, P., Beale, D., & Sullivan, L. (2003). Noise, psychosocial
stress and their interaction in the workplace. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23, 213–222.
Leavitt, H. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication
patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 46, 38–50.
Lee, E. J., & Nass, C. (2002). Experimental tests of normative
group influence and representation effects in computer-
mediated communication. Human Communication Research,
28(3), 349–381.
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Beck, S. J., & Kauffeld, S. (2016).
Emergent team roles in organizational meetings: Identifying
communication patterns via cluster analysis. Communication
Studies, 67(1), 37–57.
Lemos, A. (2010). Post–mass media functions, locative media, and
informational territories: New ways of thinking about
territory, place, and mobility in contemporary society. Space
and Culture, 12, 403–420.
Leon, G. R. (1991). Individual and group process characteristics of
polar expedition teams. Environment and Behavior, 23, 723–748.
Leonard, W. M., II. (1980). A sociological perspective on sport.
Minneapolis, MN: Burgess.
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul,
J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of
a multidimensional model and relationships with team
effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307.
Leung, A. K., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture
variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of
honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100(3), 507–526.
Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19(1), 125–136.
Levett, L. M., Danielsen, E. M., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L.
(2005). The psychology of jury and juror decision making. In
N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An
empirical perspective (pp. 365–406). New York: Guilford Press.
Levine, J. M. (1980). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups.
In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence
(pp. 375–429). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Levine, J. M. (Ed.). (2013). Group processes. New York: Routledge.
Levine, J. M., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of group
processes and intergroup relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Levine, J. M., & Kerr, N. L. (2007). Inclusion and exclusion:
Implications for group processes. In A. W. Kruglanski &
E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles (2nd ed., pp. 759–784). New York: Guilford.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2012). A history of small group
research. In A. W. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook
of the history of social psychology (pp. 383–405). New York:
Psychology Press.
Levine, J. M., Moreland, R. L., & Choi, H. (2001). Group
socialization and newcomer innovation. In M. A. Hogg &
R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology:
Group processes (pp. 86–106). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Levine, J. M., & Prislin, R. (2013). Majority and minority
influence. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group processes. New York:
Routledge.
Levine, J. M., & Russo, E. M. (1987). Majority and minority
influence. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 13–54.
Levine, J. M., & Tindale, R. S. (2015). Social influence. In
M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Editors-in-Chief), APA
Handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 3–34).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Levine, M., & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander:
How social group membership and group size can encourage
as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1429–1439.
Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity
and emergency intervention: How social group membership
and inclusiveness of group boundaries shapes helping
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31,
443–453.
Levine, R. V., Norenzayan, A., & Philbrick, K. (2001). Cross-
cultural differences in helping strangers. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 543–560.
Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of
change. Bulletin of the National Research Council: The problem of
R E F E R E N C E S 627
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

changing food habits, 108(October), 35–65. Washington, DC:
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group
dynamics. New York: Harper.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive
behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of
Social Psychology, 10, 271–299.
Lewis, S., Ellis, J. B., & Kellogg, W. A. (2010). Using virtual
interactions to explore leadership and collaboration in
globally distributed teams. Proceedings of the 3rd international
conference on Intercultural collaboration, ICIC 2010 (pp. 9–18).
New York: ACM.
Ley, D., & Cybriwsky, R. (1974). Urban graffiti as territorial
markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64,
491–505.
Leyens, J.-P., Cortes, B., Demoulin, S., Dovidio, J. F., Fiske, S. T.,
Gaunt, R., … Vaes, J. (2003). Emotional prejudice,
essentialism, and nationalism: The 2002 Tajfel Lecture.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 703–717.
Li, N. P., Halterman, R. A., Cason, M. J., Knight, G. P., & Maner,
J. K. (2008). The stress-affiliation paradigm revisited: Do
people prefer the kindness of strangers or their attractiveness?
Personality and Individual Differences, 44(2), 382–391.
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2001). Elements of a
lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relationship styles, and
the perception of group entitativity. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5, 129–140.
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A.,
Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and
the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 223–246.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006).
Leader–member exchange, differentiation, and task
interdependence: Implications for individual and group
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 723–746.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. (2004).
Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30,
285–304.
Lieberman, M. A. (1993). Self-help groups. In H. I. Kaplan &
M. J. Sadock (Eds.), Comprehensive group psychotherapy (3rd ed.,
pp. 292–304). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Lieberman, M. A. (1994). Growth groups in the 1980s: Mental
health implications. In A. Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame
(Eds.), Handbook of group psychotherapy (pp. 527–558).
New York: Wiley.
Lieberman, M. A., & Golant, M. (2002). Leader behaviors as
perceived by cancer patients in professionally directed support
groups and outcomes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 6, 267–276.
Lieberman, M. A., Yalom, I., & Miles, M. (1973). Encounter groups:
First facts. New York: Basic Books.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Lindeman, M. (1997). Ingroup bias, self-enhancement and group
identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27,
337–355.
Lindskold, S., Albert, K. P., Baer, R., & Moore, W. C. (1976).
Territorial boundaries of interacting groups and passive
audiences. Sociometry, 39, 71–76.
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-
performing spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 645–678.
Linzmayer, O. W. (2004). Apple confidential 2.0: The definitive
history of the world’s most colorful company. New York: No
Starch Press.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1943). The “social climate” of
children’s groups. In R. G. Barker, J. S. Kounin, and M. F.
Wright (Eds.), Child behavior and development: A course of
representative studies(pp. 485–508). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt &
Brace.
Lipset, S. M., & Wolin, S. S. (1965). The Berkeley student revolt.
Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Lipsitz, J. D., & Markowitz, J. C. (2016). Interpersonal theory. In
J. C. Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, D. K. Freedheim, &
B. O. Olatunji (Eds.), APA handbook of clinical psychology:
Theory and research (pp. 183–212). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Lipton, J. (1991). An exaltation of larks. New York: Penguin.
List, J. A. (2006). Friend or foe? A natural experiment of the
prisoner’s dilemma. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88,
463–471.
Littlepage, G. E. (1991). Effects of group size and task characteristics
on group performance: A test of Steiner’s model. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 449–456.
Littlepage, G. E., Hollingshead, A. B., Drake, L. R., & Littlepage,
A. M. (2008). Transactive memory and performance in work
groups: Specificity, communication, ability differences, and
work allocation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 12, 223–241.
Littlepage, G. E., & Mueller, A. L. (1997). Recognition and
utilization of expertise in problem-solving groups: Expert
characteristics and behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 1, 324–328.
Littlepage, G. E., & Poole, J. R. (1993). Time allocation in decision
making groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(4),
663.
Littlepage, G. E., Robison, W., & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of
task experience and group experience on group performance,
628 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 133–147.
Littlepage, G. E., Schmidt, G. W., Whisler, E. W., & Frost, A. G.
(1995). An input-process-output analysis of influence and
performance in problem-solving groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 69, 877–889.
Littlepage, G. E., & Silbiger, H. (1992). Recognition of expertise in
decision-making groups: Effects of group size and
participation patterns. Small Group Research, 23, 344–355.
Locke, E. A., Tirnauer, D., Roberson, Q., Goldman, B., Latham,
M. E., & Weldon, E. (2001). The importance of the
individual in an age of groupism. In M. E. Turner (Ed.),
Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 501–528). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting
the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 91–103.
Lodewijkx, H. F. M., & Syroit, J. E. M. M. (1997). Severity of
initiation revisited: Does severity of initiation increase
attractiveness in real groups? European Journal of Social
Psychology, 27, 275–300.
Lodewijkx, H. F. M., van Zomeren, M., & Syroit, J. E. M. M.
(2005). The anticipation of a severe initiation: Gender
differences in effects on affiliation tendency and group
attraction. Small Group Research, 36(2), 237–262.
Lofland, J. (1981). Collective behavior: The elementary forms. In
M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology
(pp. 411–446). New York: Basic Books.
Lois, J. (1999). Socialization to heroism: Individualism and
collectivism in a voluntary search and rescue group. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 62, 117–135.
Lois, J. (2003). Heroic efforts: The emotional culture of search and rescue
volunteers. New York: New York University Press.
Longley, J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1980). Groupthink: A critique of
Janis’s theory. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and
social psychology (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lopes, P. N., & Salovey, P. (2008). Emotional intelligence and
leadership: Implications for leader development. In C. L.
Hoyt, G. R. Goethals, & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at
the crossroads: Leadership and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 78–98).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Lord, R. G. (1977). Functional leadership behavior: Measurement
and relation to social power and leadership perceptions.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 114–133.
Lord, R. G. (2005). Preface: Implicit leadership theory. In B.
Schyns & J. R. Meindl (Eds.), Implicit leadership theories: Essays
and explorations (pp. ix–xiv). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of
leadership categorization theory: Internal structure,
information processing, and leadership perceptions.
Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information
processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin
Hyman.
Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-
analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership
perceptions: An application of validity generalization
procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness,
communication level, and conformity. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 62(2), 408–412.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as
interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with
antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64,
259–309.
Loukidou, L., Loan-Clarke, J., & Daniels, K. (2009). Boredom in
the workplace: More than monotonous tasks. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 381–405.
Lovaglia, M. J., & Houser, J. A. (1996). Emotional reactions and
status in groups. American Sociological Review, 61, 867–883.
Lovell, J., & Kluger, J. (1994). Lost moon: The perilous journey of
Apollo 13. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of
hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta-analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 54–75.
Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understanding extraverts’
enjoyment of social situations: The importance of pleasantness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 343–356.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000).
Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of
extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3),
452.
Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York:
Wiley.
Ludwig, D. C., & Longenecker, C. O. (1993). The Bathsheba
Syndrome: The ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of
Business Ethics, 12, 265–273.
Luft, J. (1984). Groups process: An introduction to group dynamics (3rd
ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale:
Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.
Luke, M. (2014). Effective group leader skills. In J. L. DeLucia-
Waack, C. R. Kalodner, & M. T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of
group counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 107–119). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lun, J., Sinclair, S., Whitchurch, E. R., & Glenn, C. (2007). (Why)
do I think what you think? Epistemic social tuning and
implicit prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
93(6), 957–972.
Luong, A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2005). Meetings and more
meetings: The relationship between meeting load and the
R E F E R E N C E S 629
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

daily well-being of employees. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 9, 58–67.
Lutsky, N. (1995). When is “obedience” obedience? Conceptual
and historical commentary. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 55–65.
Lyman, S. M., & Scott, M. B. (1967). Territoriality: A neglected
sociological dimension. Social Problems, 15, 236–249.
Maass, A. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype
perpetuation through language. Advances In Experimental Social
Psychology, 31, 79–121.
Maass, A., West, S. G., & Cialdini, R. B. (1987). Minority
influence and conversion. Review of Personality and Social
Psychology, 8, 55–79.
Maccoby, E. E. (2002). Gender and group process: A
developmental perspective. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 11, 54–58.
MacCoun, R. J. (2012). The burden of social proof: Shared
thresholds and social influence. Psychological Review, 119(2),
345–372.
MacCracken, M. J., & Stadulis, R. E. (1985). Social facilitation of
young children’s dynamic balance performance. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 7, 150–165.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion
hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain.
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223.
Maciejovsky, B., Sutter, M., Budescu, D. V., & Bernau, P. (2013).
Teams make you smarter: How exposure to teams improves
individual decisions in probability and reasoning tasks.
Management Science, 59(6), 1255–1270.
MacIver, R. M., & Page, C. H. (1937). Society: An introductory
analysis. New York: Rinehart.
MacKenzie, K. R. (1994). Group development. In A. Fuhriman &
G. M. Burlingame (Eds.), Handbook of group psychotherapy
(pp. 223–268). New York: Wiley.
MacKenzie, K. R. (1997). Clinical application of group
development ideas. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 1, 275–287.
Mackie, D. M., & Queller, S. (2000). The impact of group
membership on persuasion: Revisiting “who says what to
whom with what effect?” In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg
(Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and
group membership (pp. 135–155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2015). Intergroup emotions. In
M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson
(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 263–293). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Mackie, M. (1980). The impact of sex stereotypes upon adult self
imagery. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 121–125.
MacKinnon, C. A. (2003). The social origin of sexual harassment.
In M. Silberman (Ed.), Violence and society: A reader
(pp. 251–258). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
MacNair-Semands, R. R. (2002). Predicting attendance and
expectations for group therapy. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 6, 219–228.
MacNair-Semands, R. R., & Lese, K. P. (2000). Interpersonal
problems and the perception of therapeutic factors in group
therapy. Small Group Research, 31, 158–174.
MacNair-Semands, R. R., Ogrodniczuk, J. S., & Joyce, A. S.
(2010). Structure and initial validation of a short form of the
Therapeutic Factors Inventory. International Journal of Group
Psychotherapy, 60(2), 245–281.
MacNeil, M. K., & Sherif, M. (1976). Norm change over subject
generations as a function of arbitrariness of prescribed norm.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 762–773.
Macy, B. A., & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change, design,
and work innovation: A meta-analysis of 131 North
American field studies—1961–1991. Research in Organizational
Change and Development, 7, 235–313.
Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Identification in work, war,
sports, and religion: Contrasting the benefits and risks. Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 31, 197–222.
Magee, J. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power,
propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive
interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 200–212.
Magee, J. C., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Emotional ties that bind:
The roles of valence and consistency of group emotion in
inferences of cohesiveness and common fate. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(12), 1703–1715.
Mahon, L., & Leszcz, M. (2017). The interpersonal model of group
psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy,
67(sup1), 121–130.
Maier, N. R. F., & Solem, A. R. (1952). The contribution of a
discussion leader to the quality of group thinking: The effective
use of minority opinions. Human Relations, 5, 277–288.
Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D.
(1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer
expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the
moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 418–431.
Maki, J. E., Thorngate, W. B., & McClintock, C. G. (1979).
Prediction and perception of social motives. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 203–220.
Mallett, K. A., Varvil-Weld, L., Turrisi, R., & Read, A. (2011).
An examination of college students’ willingness to experience
consequences as a unique predictor of alcohol problems.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25(1), 41–47.
Malloy, T. E., & Janowski, C. L. (1992). Perceptions and
metaperceptions of leadership: Components, accuracy, and
dispositional correlates. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18, 700–708.
Malone, K.-L. (2009). Dragon kill points: The economics of power
gamers. Games and Culture: A Journal of Interactive Media, 4(3),
296–316.
630 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Maltarich, M. A., Kukenberger, M., Reilly, G., & Mathieu, J.
(2016). Conflict in teams: Modeling early and late conflict
states and the interactive effects of conflict processes. Group &
Organization Management. doi:10.1177/1059601116681127
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M.
(2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal
reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 42–55.
Mann, F. C. (1965). Toward an understanding of the leadership
role in formal organizations. In R. Dubin, G. C. Homans,
F. C. Mann, & D. C. Miller (Eds.), Leadership and productivity.
San Francisco,CA: Chandler.
Mann, J. H. (1959). A review of the relationships between
personality and performance in small groups. Psychological
Bulletin, 56, 241–270.
Mann, L. (1970). The psychology of waiting lines. American
Scientist, 58, 390–398.
Mann, L. (1981). The baiting crowd in episodes of threatened
suicide. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 703–709.
Mann, L., Feddes, A. R., Doosje, B., & Fischer, A. H. (2016).
Withdraw or affiliate? The role of humiliation during
initiation rituals. Cognition and Emotion, 30(1), 80–100.
Mann, R. P., Faria, J., Sumpter, D. J. T., & Krause, J. (2013). The
dynamics of audience applause. Journal of the Royal Society
Interface, 10. doi:10.1098/rsif.2013.0466
Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty
Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The
parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, 62(6),
555–562.
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a
difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in
organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6,
31–55.
Maoz, I., & McCauley, C. (2008). Threat, dehumanization, and
support for retaliatory aggressive policies in asymmetric
conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 93–116.
Marion, S. B., & Thorley, C. (2016). A meta-analytic review of
collaborative inhibition and postcollaborative memory:
Testing the predictions of the retrieval strategy disruption
hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1141–1164.
Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., &
Alonso, A. (2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(5), 964.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally
based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of
Management Review, 26, 356–376.
Markus, H. (1978). The effect of mere presence on social
facilitation: An unobtrusive test. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 14, 389–397.
Marmarosh, C. L., & Corazzini, J. G. (1997). Putting the group in
your pocket: Using collective identity to enhance personal
and collective self-esteem. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 1, 65–74.
Marmarosh, C. L., Holtz, A., & Schottenbauer, M. (2005). Group
cohesiveness, group-derived collective self-esteem, group-
derived hope, and the well-being of group therapy members.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 32–44.
Marmarosh, C. L., & Markin, R. D. (2007). Group and personal
attachments: Two is better than one when predicting college
adjustment. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
11(3), 153–164.
Marmarosh, C. L., & Van Horn, S. M. (2010). Cohesion in
counseling and psychotherapy groups. In R. K. Conyne
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of group counseling (pp. 137–163).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Marques, J. M. (2010). Black sheep effect. In J. M. Levine & M. A.
Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of group process and intergroup relations
(pp. 55–57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Baumert, J., &
Köller, O. (2007). The big-fish-little-pond effect: Persistent
negative effects of selective high schools on self-concept after
graduation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3),
631–669.
Marsh, L. C. (1931). Group treatment for the psychoses by the
psychological equivalent of revival. Mental Hygiene, 15,
328–349.
Marshall, P. D., & Losonczy-Marshall, M. (2010). Classroom
ecology: Relations between seating location, performance,
and attendance. Psychological Reports, 107(2), 567–577.
Martin, D. L., & Harrod, R. P. (2015). Bioarchaeological
contributions to the study of violence. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, 156(S59), 116–145.
Martin, E. D. (1920). The behavior of crowds. New York: Harper.
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (2010). Minority influence and
innovation. New York: Psychology Press.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1947). The German ideology. New York:
International Publishers.
Maslach, C. (1972). Social and personal bases of individuation.
Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association, 7, 213–214.
Maslach, C., Stapp, J., & Santee, R. T. (1985). Individuation:
Conceptual analysis and assessment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49, 729–738.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological
Review, 50(4), 370–396.
Mason, W. A., Conrey, F. R., & Smith, E. R. (2007). Situating
social influence processes: Dynamic, multidirectional flows of
influence within social networks. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 11(3), 279–300.
Mathes, E. W., & Kahn, A. (1975). Diffusion of responsibility and
extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5,
881–886.
R E F E R E N C E S 631
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Mathieu, J. E., Kukenberger, M. R., D’Innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G.
(2015). Modeling reciprocal team cohesion–performance
relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members’
competence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 713–734.
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008).
Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent
advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of
Management, 34, 410–476.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger,
G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition
models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework.
Journal of Management, 40(1), 130–160.
Matsumoto, D., & Willingham, B. (2006). The thrill of victory and
the agony of defeat: Spontaneous expressions of medal
winners of the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 568.
Matthews, M. D., Eid, J., Kelly, D., Bailey, J. K. S., & Peterson, C.
(2006). Character strengths and virtues of developing military
leaders: An international comparison. Military Psychology,
18(Suppl.), S57–S68.
Matz, D. C., Hofstedt, P. M., & Wood, W. (2008). Extraversion as
a moderator of the cognitive dissonance associated with
disagreement. Personality and Individual Differences, 45,
401–405.
Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2005). Cognitive dissonance in groups:
The consequences of disagreement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88, 22–37.
Mausner, B. (1954). The effect of one partner’s success in a relevant
task on the interaction of observer pairs. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 49, 557–560.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An
integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L.
(2012). Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling
drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 342–365.
Mayo, E. (1945). The social problems of an industrial civilization.
Boston: Harvard University Press.
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over
time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness.
Organization Science, 11(5), 473–492.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1988). Social
movements. In N. J. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of sociology
(pp. 695–737). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McAdams, D. P. (1982). Experiences of intimacy and power:
Relationships between social motives and autobiographical
memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,
292–301.
McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a
person? Journal of Personality, 63, 365–396.
McAdams, D. P., & Constantian, C. A. (1983). Intimacy and
affiliation motives in daily living: An experience sampling
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
851–861.
McAdams, D. P., Healy, S., & Krause, S. (1984). Social motives
and patterns of friendship. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 828–838.
McCarty, M., & Karau, S. (2016). Social inhibition. In S. Harkins,
K. D. Williams, & J. Burger (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
social influence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York:
Irvington.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values
determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40,
812–825.
McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive
pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67, 737–743.
McClintock, C. G., Stech, F. J., & Keil, L. J. (1983). The influence
of communication on bargaining. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic
group processes (pp. 205–233). New York: Springer-Verlag.
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential
openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2013). Introduction to the
empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of
personality traits. In T. Widiger & P. Costa (Eds.), Personality
disorders and the five-factor model of personality (3rd ed.,
pp. 15–27). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2011). Evolved
mechanisms for revenge and forgiveness. In M. Mikulincer &
P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes,
manifestations, and consequences (pp. 221–239). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
McDonald, M. M., Navarrete, C. D., & Vugt, M. V. (2012).
Evolution and the psychology of intergroup conflict: The
male warrior hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1589), 670–679.
McDougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology. London:
Methuen.
McGarty, C., Thomas, E. F., Lala, G., Smith, L. G. E., & Bliuc, A.
(2014). New technologies, new identities, and the growth of
mass opposition in the Arab Spring. Political Psychology, 35(6),
725–740.
McGillicuddy, N. B., Pruitt, D. G., & Syna, H. (1984). Perceptions
of firmness and strength in negotiation. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 10, 402–409.
McGirt, E. (2016). Why race and culture matter in the c-suite.
Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/black-executives
-men-c-suite/
632 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McGrath, J. E., & Altermatt, T. W. (2001). Observation and
analysis of group interaction over time: Some methodological
and strategic choices. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes
(pp. 525–556). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
McGrew, J. F., Bilotta, J. G., & Deeney, J. M. (1999). Software
team formation and decay: Extending the standard model for
small groups. Small Group Research, 30, 209–234.
McGuire, G. M. (2007). Intimate work: A typology of the social
support that workers provide to their network members.
Work and Occupations, 34(2), 125–147.
McGuire, J. P., & Leak, G. K. (1980). Prediction of self-disclosure
from objective personality assessment techniques. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 36, 201–204.
McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1988). Content and process in
the experience of self. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 21, 97–144.
McIntyre, M. H., Li, A. Y., Chapman, J. F., Lipson, S. F., &
Ellison, P. T. (2011). Social status, masculinity, and
testosterone in young men. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51(4), 392–396.
McLeod, P. L. (2011). Effects of anonymity and social comparison
of rewards on computer-mediated group brainstorming. Small
Group Research, 42(4), 475–503.
McNeill, W. H. (1995). Keeping together in time: Dance and drill in
human history. Boston: Harvard University Press.
McNiel, J. M., & Fleeson, W. (2006). The causal effects of
extraversion on positive affect and neuroticism on negative
affect: Manipulating state extraversion and state neuroticism
in an experimental approach. Journal of Research in Personality,
40, 529–550.
McPhail, C. (1991). The myth of the madding crowd. Hawthorne, NY:
Aldine de Gruyter.
McPhail, C. (2006). The crowd and collective behavior: Bringing
symbolic interaction back in. Symbolic Interaction, 29, 433–464.
McPhail, C. (2008). Gatherings as patchworks. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 71(1), 1–5.
McPherson, M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2002). Cohesion and
membership duration: Linking groups, relations and
individuals in an ecology of affiliation. In S. R. Thye & E. J.
Lawler (Eds.), Group cohesion, trust and solidarity (pp. 1–36).
New York: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a
feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of
Sociology, 27, 415–444.
McPherson, S., & Parks, C. D. (2011). Intergroup and
interindividual resource competition escalating into conflict:
The elimination option. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 15(4), 285–296.
McRoberts, C., Burlingame, G. M., & Hoag, M. J. (1998).
Comparative efficacy of individual and group psychotherapy:
A meta-analytic perspective. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 2, 101–117.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a
social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meagher, B. R. (2016). There’s no place like a neurotic’s home.
Journal of Individual Differences, 37(4), 260–267.
Meagher, B. R., & Marsh, K. L. (2015). Testing an ecological
account of spaciousness in real and virtual environments.
Environment and Behavior, 47(7), 782–815.
Medalia, N. Z., & Larsen, O. N. (1958). Diffusion and belief in a
collective delusion: The Seattle windshield pitting epidemic.
American Sociological Review, 23, 180 186.
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006).
Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic
achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.
Meerloo, J. A. (1950). Patterns of panic. New York: International
Universities Press.
Mehrabian, A., & Diamond, S. G. (1971). Effects of furniture
arrangement, props, and personality on social interaction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 18–30.
Mehta, R., Zhu, R., & Cheema, A. (2012). Is noise always bad?
Exploring the effects of ambient noise on creative cognition.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 784–799.
Mehta, V., & Bosson, J. K. (2010). Third places and the social life
of streets. Environment and Behavior, 42(6), 779–805.
Meier, B. P., Hinsz, V. B., & Heimerdinger, S. R. (2008). A
framework for explaining aggression involving groups. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 298–312.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The
romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 90–109.
Mendelberg, T., & Karpowitz, C. F. (2016). Power, gender, and
group discussion. Advances in Political Psychology, 37(S1),
23–60.
Menges, J. I., & Kilduff, M. (2015). Group emotions: Cutting the
Gordian knots concerning terms, levels of analysis, and
processes. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 845–928.
Menschel, R. (2002). Markets, mobs, & mayhem: A modern look at the
madness of crowds. New York: Wiley.
Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas:
A review. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of
personality and social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 11–44). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meudell, P. R., Hitch, G. J., & Kirby, P. (1992). Are two heads
better than one? Experimental investigations of the social
facilitation of memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6,
525–543.
R E F E R E N C E S 633
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Meumann, E. (1904). Haus- und Schularbeit: Experimente an
Kindern der Volkschule. Die Deutsche Schule, 8, 278–303,
337–359, 416–431.
Meyer, B. (2017). Team diversity. In E. Salas, R. Rico, & J.
Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology
of team working and collaborative processes (pp. 151–176). West
Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Meyer, D. S. (2004). Protest and political opportunities. Annual
Review of Sociology, 30, 125–145.
Meyers, R. A., & Seibold, D. R. (2012). Coding group interaction.
In A. B. Hollingshead & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research methods
for studying groups and teams (pp. 329–357). New York:
Routledge.
Meyers, R. A., Seibold, D. R., & Kang, P. (2010). Examining
argument in a naturally occurring jury deliberation. Small
Group Research, 41(4), 452–473.
Michaels, J. W., Blommel, J. M., Brocato, R. M., Linkous, R. A.,
& Rowe, J. S. (1982). Social facilitation and inhibition in a
natural setting. Replications in Social Psychology, 2, 21–24.
Michaelsen, L. K., Watson, W. E., & Black, R. H. (1989). A
realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision
making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 834–839.
Michels, R. (1959). Political parties: A sociological study of the
oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York: Dover.
(original work published in 1915)
Michener, H. A., & Burt, M. R. (1975). Use of social influence
under varying conditions of legitimacy. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 32, 398–407.
Michener, H. A., & Lawler, E. J. (1975). The endorsement of
formal leaders: An integrative model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 31, 216–223.
Michinov, N. (2012). The use of electronic brainstorming for
collecting ideas in scientific research teams: A challenge for
future online research. In C. Silva (Ed.), Online research
methods in urban and planning studies: Design and outcomes
(pp. 157–172). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Middlemist, R. D., Knowles, E. S., & Matter, C. F. (1976).
Personal space invasions in the lavatory: Suggestive evidence
for arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33,
541–546.
Mikolic, J. M., Parker, J. C., & Pruitt, D. G. (1997). Escalation in
response to persistent annoyance: Groups versus individuals
and gender effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72, 151–163.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2014). An attachment perspective
on loneliness. In R. J. Coplan & J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The
handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation,
social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 34–50). Malden, MA:
Wiley Blackwell.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Simpson, J. A.
(Eds.). (2015). APA handbook of personality and social psychology:
Group processes (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Milanovich, D. M., Driskell, J. E., Stout, R. J., & Salas, E. (1998).
Status and cockpit dynamics: A review and empirical study.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 155–167.
Miles, J. R., & Kivlighan, D. M., Jr. (2010). Co-leader similarity
and group climate in group interventions: Testing the co-
leadership, team cognition-team diversity model. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(2), 114–122.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.
Milgram, S. (1992). The individual in a social world: Essays and
experiments (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note on the
drawing power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 13, 79–82.
Milgram, S., Liberty, H. J., Toledo, R., & Wackenhut, J. (1986).
Response to intrusion into waiting lines. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 683–689.
Milgram, S., & Toch, H. (1969). Collective behavior: Crowds and
social movements. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 507–610).
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Miller, A. G. (2016). Why are the Milgram experiments still so
extraordinarily famous–and controversial? In A. G. Miller
(Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (2nd ed.,
pp. 185–223). New York: Guilford.
Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (2016). Changing norms to change
behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 339–361.
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and
productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management
Journal, 29, 727–753.
Miller, M. D., & Brunner, C. C. (2008). Social impact in
technologically-mediated communication: An examination of
online influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2972–2991.
Miller, N., & Davidson-Podgorny, G. (1987). Theoretical models
of intergroup relations and the use of cooperative teams as an
intervention for desegregated settings. In C. Hendrick (Ed.),
Review of personality and social psychology: Group process (Vol. 9,
pp. 41–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, R. S. (2015). Intimate relationships (7th ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Minami, H., & Tanaka, K. (1995). Social and environmental
psychology: Transaction between physical space and group-
dynamic processes. Environment and Behavior, 27, 43–55.
Mintz, A. (1951). Non-adaptive group behavior. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 46, 150–159.
Mintz, A., & Wayne, C. (2016). The polythink syndrome: U.S. foreign
policy decisions on 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and ISIS.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
634 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler.
Miracle on the Hudson Survivors with Prochnau, W. W., &
Parker, L. (2009). Miracle on the Hudson: The extraordinary real-
life story behind Flight 1549, by the survivors. New York:
Ballantine.
Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement.
American Psychologist, 32, 246–254.
Mischel, W., & DeSmet, A. L., Kross, E. (2006). Self-regulation in
the service of conflict resolution. In M. Deutsch, P. T.
Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict
resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 294–314). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Misumi, J. (1995). The development in Japan of the performance-
maintenance (PM) theory of leadership. Journal of Social Issues,
51, 213–228.
Mitchell, M. S., Cropanzano, R. S., & Quisenberry, D. M. (2012).
Social exchange theory, exchange resources, and interpersonal
relationships: A modest resolution of theoretical difficulties. In
K. Tornblom & A. Kazemi (Eds.), Handbook of social resource
theory: Theoretical extensions, empirical insights, and social
applications (pp. 99–118). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer
Science+Business Media.
Mitchell, R. C., & Mitchell, R. R. (1984). Constructive
management of conflict in groups. Journal for Specialists in
Group Work, 9, 137–144.
Modigliani, A., & Rochat, F. (1995). The role of interaction
sequences and the timing of resistance in shaping obedience
and defiance to authority. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 107–123.
Moehrle, M. G. (2005). What is TRIZ? From conceptual basics to
a framework for research. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 14, 3–13.
Mohammed, S., Hamilton, K., & Lim, A. (2009). The
incorporation of time in team research: Past, current, and
future. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.),
Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary
perspectives and approaches (pp. 321–348). New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., Faulmüller, N., Vogelgesang, F., &
Schulz-Hardt, S. (2014). The consistency principle in
interpersonal communication: Consequences of preference
confirmation and disconfirmation in collective decision
making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 961.
Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Gardner, W. L., Dean, K., & Knowles,
M. L. (2009). Motivations for prevention or promotion
following social exclusion: Being rejected versus being ignored.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 415–431.
Molm, L. D. (1986). Gender, power, and legitimation: A test of
three theories. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 1156–1186.
Molm, L. D. (1997). Risk and power use: Constraints on the use of
coercion in exchange. American Sociological Review, 62,
113–133.
Monfardini, E., Redouté, J., Hadj-Bouziane, F., Hynaux, C.,
Fradin, J., Huguet, P., … Meunier, M. (2016). Others’ sheer
presence boosts brain activity in the attention (but not the
motivation) network. Cerebral Cortex, 26(6), 2427–2439.
Montoya, R. M., & Insko, C. A. (2008). Toward a more complete
understanding of the reciprocity of liking effect. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 477–498.
Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation
in America. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 679–716.
Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and
embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups.
American Sociological Review, 68(1), 103–127.
Moons, W. G., Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R.
(2009). I feel our pain: Antecedents and consequences of
emotional self-stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45(4), 760–769.
Moor, P. J., Heuvelman, A., & Verleur, R. (2010). Flaming on
Youtube. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1536–1546.
Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies
for resolving conflict. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Moore, J. (1991). Going down in the barrio: Homeboys and homegirls in
change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-
collectivism as an individual difference predictor of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16(2), 127–142.
Moreland, R. L. (1985). Social categorization and the assimilation
of “new” group members. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 1173–1190.
Moreland, R. L. (2010). Are dyads really groups? Small Group
Research, 41, 251–267.
Moreland, R. L. (2013). Composition and diversity. In J. M.
Levine (Ed.), Group processes (pp. 11–32). New York:
Psychology Press.
Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially shared
cognition at work: Transactive memory and group
performance. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s
social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognitions in
small groups (pp. 57–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small
groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 137–192.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2002). Socialization and trust in
work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5, 185–201.
Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., & Cini, M. A. (1993). Group
socialization: The role of commitment. In M. Hogg &
D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological
perspectives (pp. 105–129). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem
of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental
Disease Publishing Co.
R E F E R E N C E S 635
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Moreno, J. L. (1953). How Kurt Lewin’s “Research Center for
Group Dynamics” started. Sociometry, 16, 101–104.
Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005).
Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of
social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork
knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583–611.
Morran, K. D., Stockton, R., Cline, R. J., & Teed, C. (1998).
Facilitating feedback exchange in groups: Leader
interventions. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23,
257–268.
Morrill, C. (1995). The executive way. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Morris, W. N., Worchel, S., Bois, J. L., Pearson, J. A., Rountree,
C. A., Samaha, G. M., … Wright, S. L. (1976). Collective
coping with stress: Group reactions to fear, anxiety, and
ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33,
674–679.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. New York:
Academic Press.
Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 209–239.
Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In
G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology
(3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 397–412). New York: Random House.
Moscovici, S. (1994). Three concepts: Minority, conflict, and
behavioral styles. In S. Moscovici, A. Mucchi-Faina, &
A. Maass (Eds.), Minority influence (pp. 233–251). Chicago, IL:
Nelson-Hall.
Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a
consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color
perception task. Sociometry, 12, 365–380.
Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, B. (1980). Studies in social influence.
V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a
perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16,
270–282.
Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of
attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12,
125–135.
Moser, G., & Uzzell, D. L. (2003). Environmental psychology. In
T. Millon, M. J. Lerner, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp.
419–445). New York: Wiley.
Moskowitz, G. B., & Chaiken, S. (2001). Mediators of minority
social influence: Cognitive processing mechanisms revealed
through a persuasion paradigm. In C. K. W. De Dreu &
N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence:
Implications for innovation (pp. 60–90). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Moussaïd, M., Perozo, N., Garnier, S., Helbing, D., & Theraulaz,
G. (2010). The walking behavior of pedestrian social
groups and its impact on crowd dynamics, PLoS One, 5(4),
e10047.
Moxnes, P. (1999). Understanding roles: A psychodynamic model
for role differentiation in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 3, 99–113.
Moxnes, P., & Moxnes, A. (2016). Are we sucked into fairy tale
roles? Role archetypes in imagination and organization.
Organization Studies, 37(10), 1519–1539.
Mudrack, P. E., & Farrell, G. M. (1995). An examination of
functional role behavior and its consequences for individuals
in group settings. Small Group Behavior, 26, 542–571.
Muehlheusser, G., Roider, A., & Wallmeier, N. (2015). Gender
differences in honesty: Groups versus individuals. Economics
Letters, 128, 25–29.
Mullen, B. (1986). Atrocity as a function of lynch mob
composition: A self-attention perspective. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 12, 187–197.
Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive
representations: The phenomenology of being in a group.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297–323.
Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group
cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration
of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Special Issue: Social
cognition in small groups. Small Group Research, 25, 189–204.
Mullen, B., & Baumeister, R. F. (1987). Group effects on self-
attention and performance: Social loafing, social facilitation,
and social impairment. Review of Personality and Social
Psychology, 9, 189–206.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group
cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological
Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in
brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic review. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.
Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of
intense work groups: A study of British string quartets.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165–186.
Murphy, M. (2006). Sick building syndrome and the problem of
uncertainty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Murphy, S. A., & Keating, J. P. (1995). Psychological assessment of
postdisaster class action and personal injury litigants: A case
study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, 473–482.
Murphy-Berman, V., & Berman, J. (1978). Importance of choice
and sex invasions of personal space. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 4, 424–428.
Muukkonen, M. (2008). Continuing validity of the collective
behavior approach. Sociology Compass, 5, 1553–1564.
Myers, D. G. (1978). The polarizing effects of social comparison.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 554–563.
Myers, D. G. (1982). Polarizing effects of social interaction. In
H. Brandstätter, J. H. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kreichgauer
(Eds.), Group decision making (pp. 125–161). New York:
Academic Press.
636 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Myers, D. G., & Bishop, G. D. (1970). Discussion effects on racial
attitudes. Science, 169, 778–789.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization
phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–627.
Nagler, J., Levina, A., & Timme, M. (2011). Impact of single links
in competitive percolation. Nature Physics, 7, 265–270.
Nail, P. R., Di Domenico, S. I., & MacDonald, G. (2013).
Proposal of a double diamond model of social response.
Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 1–19.
Nardi, B. (2010). My life as a night elf priest: An anthropological account
of World of Warcraft. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Nardi, B., & Harris, J. (2006). Strangers and friends: Collaborative
play in World of Warcraft. In Proceedings of CSCW2006
(pp. 149–158). New York: Association for Computing
Machinery.
Nario-Redmond, M. R., Biernat, M., Eidelman, S., & Palenske,
D. J. (2004). The Social and Personal Identities scale: A
measure of the differential importance ascribed to social and
personal self-categorizations. Self and Identity, 3(2), 143–175.
Nastasi, B. K., Jayasena, A., Summerville, M., & Borja, A. P.
(2011). Facilitating long-term recovery from natural disasters:
Psychosocial programming for tsunami-affected schools of Sri
Lanka. School Psychology International, 32(5), 512–532.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1994). A review of flight
crew-involved, major accidents of U.S. air carriers, 1978 through 1990
(Safety Study NTSB/SS-94/01). Washington, DC: NTSB.
Nauts, S., Metzmacher, M., Verwijmeren, T., Rommeswinkel, V.,
& Karremans, J. C. (2012). The mere anticipation of an
interaction with a woman can impair men’s cognitive
performance. Archives of sexual behavior, 41(4), 1051–1056.
Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Molina, L. E., & Sidanius, J.
(2010). Prejudice at the nexus of race and gender: An
outgroup male target hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 98(6), 933–945.
Neale, M. A., & Mannix, E. A. (Eds.). (2012). Looking back, moving
forward: A review of group and team-based research. Bingley, UK:
Emerald Group Publishing.
Neighbors, C., O’Connor, R. M., Lewis, M. A., Chawla, N., Lee,
C. M., & Fossos, N. (2008). The relative impact of injunctive
norms on college student drinking: The role of reference
group. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22(4), 576–581.
Nemeth, C. J., Endicott, J., & Wachtler, J. (1976). From the ‘50s to
the ‘70s: Women in jury deliberations. Sociometry, 39, 293–304.
Nemeth, C. J., & Goncalo, J. A. (2011). Rogues and heroes:
Finding value in dissent. In J. Jetten & M. J. Hornsey (Eds.),
Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference, and defiance
(pp. 17–35). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1974). Creating the perceptions of
consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for
minority influence. Sociometry, 37, 529–540.
Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change. New York:
Dryden.
Newcomb, T. M. (1960). Varieties of interpersonal attraction. In
D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research
and theory (2nd ed., pp. 104–119). Evanston, IL: Row,
Peterson.
Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Newcomb, T. M. (1963). Stabilities underlying changes in
interpersonal attraction. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66, 376–386.
Newcomb, T. M. (1979). Reciprocity of interpersonal attraction: A
nonconfirmation of a plausible hypothesis. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 42, 299–306.
Newcomb, T. M. (1981). Heiderian balance as a group
phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,
862–867.
Newcomb, T. M., Koenig, K., Flacks, R., & Warwick, D. (1967).
Persistence and change: Bennington College and its students after 25
years. New York: Wiley.
Newman, K. S., Fox, C., Harding, D. J., Mehta, J., & Roth, W.
(2004). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings. Basic Books:
New York.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space. New York: Macmillan.
Newsom, J. T., Mahan, T. L., Rook, K. S., & Krause, N. (2008).
Stable negative social exchanges and health. Health Psychology,
27(1), 78–86.
Newton, J. W., & Mann, L. (1980). Crowd size as a factor in
the persuasion process: A study of religious crusade
meetings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
874–883.
Nezlek, J. B., Kowalski, R. M., Leary, M. R., Blevins, T., &
Holgate, S. (1997). Personality moderators of reactions to
interpersonal rejection: Depression and trait self-esteem.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(12), 1235–1244.
Nezlek, J. B., & Smith, C. V. (2016). Social influence and
personality. In S. G. Harkins, K. D. Williams, & J. Burger
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social influence. New York:
Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.
oxfordhandbooks.com/
Nicholas, M. W. (2017). The use of psychodrama and
sociometry techniques in psychodynamic and other process
groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 67(sup1),
131–140.
Nielsen, M. E., & Miller, C. E. (1997). The transmission of norms
regarding group decision rules. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 516–525.
Nier, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Ward,
C. M., & Rust, M. C. (2001). Changing interracial
evaluations and behavior: The effects of a common group
identity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 299–316.
R E F E R E N C E S 637
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Nijstad, B. A. (2009). Group performance. New York: Psychology
Press.
Nijstad, B. A. (2013). Performance. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group
processes (pp. 193–213). New York: Psychology Press.
Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the
mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186–213.
Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2006). The
illusion of group productivity: A reduction of failures
explanation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 31–48.
Nikitin, J., & Schoch, S. (2014). Social approach and avoidance
motivations. In R. J. Coplan & J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The
handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation,
social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 202–223). Malden, MA:
Wiley Blackwell.
Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology
of violence in the south. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Nisbett, R. E., & Storms, M. D. (1974). Cognitive and social
determinants of food intake. In H. London & R. E. Nisbett
(Eds.), Thought and feeling: Cognitive alteration of feeling states
(pp. 190–208). Chicago: Aldine.
Nixon, A. E., Mazzola, J. J., Bauer, J., Krueger, J. R., & Spector, P.
E. (2011). Can work make you sick? A meta-analysis of the
relationships between job stressors and physical symptoms.
Work & Stress, 25(1), 1–22.
Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral
ingroup membership status and public negativity toward
outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
127–137.
Nolan, J. M. (2016). Social norms and their enforcement. In S.
Harkins, K. D. Williams, & J. Burger (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of social influence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/
Noor, M., Branscombe, N. R., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (2015).
Special issue: Antecedents and consequences of intergroup
forgiveness. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18(5),
577–739.
Normand, A., Bouquet, C. A., & Croizet, J. C. (2014). Does
evaluative pressure make you less or more distractible? Role
of top-down attentional control over response selection.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1097.
Norris, F. H., & Murrell, S. A. (1990). Social support, life events,
and stress as modifiers of adjustment to bereavement by older
adults. Psychology and Aging, 5, 429–436.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The
lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97–105.
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Briggs, R. O., Mittleman, D. D. Vogel,
D. R., & Balthazard, P. A. (1997). Lessons from a dozen years
of group systems research: A discussion of lab and field
findings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13,
163–207.
Nutt, P. C. (2002). Why decisions fail: Avoiding the blunders and traps
that lead to debacles. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing,
and binge drinking. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
Nyquist, L. V., & Spence, J. T. (1986). Effects of dispositional
dominance and sex role expectations on leadership
behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
87–93.
O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel,
M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work
behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(3), 557–579.
Oberholzer-Gee, F., Waldfogel, J., & White, M. W. (2010). Friend
or foe? Cooperation and learning in high-stakes games.
Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(1), 179–187.
OED Online. (1989). Teams. Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved
from dictionary.oed.com
Offerman, T. (2002). Hurting hurts more than helping helps.
European Economic Review, 46(8), 1423–1437.
Office for Human Research Protections. (2009). Federal policy for the
protection of human aubjects (Common Rule). Washington:
Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved
from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/
regulations/common-rule/
Oishi, S., Lun, J., & Sherman, G. D. (2007). Residential mobility,
self-concept, and positive affect in social interactions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 131–141.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops,
bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other handouts at the heart of a
community. New York: Marlowe & Co.
Oldmeadow, J. (2007). Status generalization in context: The
moderating role of groups. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 43, 273–279.
Oliver, L. W., Harman, J., Hoover, E., Hayes, S. M., & Pandhi,
N. A. (1999). A quantitative integration of the military
cohesion literature. Military Psychology, 11, 57–83.
Olson, R., Verley, J., Santos, L., & Salas, C. (2004). What we teach
students about the Hawthorne studies: A review of content
within a sample of introductory I-O and OB textbooks. The
Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 41, 23–39.
Olweus, D. (1997). Tackling peer victimization with a school-
based intervention program. In D. P. Fry & K. Björkqvist
(Eds.), Cultural variation in conflict resolution: Alternatives to
violence (pp. 215–231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation
and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(1), 124.
638 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Ong, J. (2012). Former Apple CEO John Sculley says he never
fired co-founder Steve Jobs. Apple Insider. Retrieved from
www.appleinsider.com
Opotow, S. (2000). Aggression and violence. In M. Deutsch &
P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory
and practice (pp. 403–427). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ormont, L. R. (1984). The leader’s role in dealing with aggression
in groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 34,
553–572.
Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. (1968). On the ecological validity
of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6,
282–293.
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner.
Osgood, J. M. (2017). Is revenge about retributive justice, deterring
harm, or both? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(1).
doi: 10.1111/spc3.12296
Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock,
P. E. (2015). Using the IAT to predict ethnic and racial
discrimination: Small effect sizes of unknown societal
significance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(4),
562–571.
Otten, S. (2016). The Minimal Group Paradigm and its maximal
impact in research on social categorization. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 11, 85–89.
Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt:
Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 549–565.
Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence
what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and
collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311–342.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002).
Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of
theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological
Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the
prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 57, 401–421.
Pace, J. L., & Hemmings, A. (2007). Understanding authority in
classrooms: A review of theory, ideology, and research.
Review of Educational Research, 77, 3–27.
Pack, M. J. (2013). Critical incident stress management: A review
of the literature with implications for social work. International
Social Work, 56(5), 608–627.
Packer, D. J. (2008a). Identifying systematic disobedience in
Milgram’s obedience experiments: A meta-analytic review.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 301–304.
Packer, D. J. (2008b). On being both with us and against us: A
normative conflict model of dissent in social groups.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 50–72.
Packer, D. J. (2009). Avoiding groupthink: Whereas weakly
identified members remain silent, strongly identified members
dissent about collective problems. Psychological Science, 20(5),
546–548.
Packer, D. J., & Chasteen, A. L. (2010). Loyal deviance: Testing
the normative conflict model of dissent in social groups.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 5–18.
Padon, A. A., Rimal, R. N., Jernigan, D., Siegel, M., &
Dejong, W. (2016). Tapping into motivations for drinking
among youth: Normative beliefs about alcohol use among
underage drinkers in the United States. Journal of Health
Communication, 21(10), 1079–1087.
Pagano, M. E., Post, S. G., & Johnson, S. M. (2011). Alcoholics
Anonymous-related helping and the helper therapy principle.
Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 29(1), 23–34.
Page, R. C., Weiss, J. F., & Lietaer, G. (2002). Humanistic group
psychotherapy. In D. J. Cain & J. Seeman (Eds.), Humanistic
psychotherapies: Handbook of research and practice (pp. 339–368).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Palinkas, L. A. (1991). Effects of physical and social environments
on the health and well-being of Antarctic winter-over
personnel. Environment and Behavior, 23, 782–799.
Palmer, G. J. (1962). Task ability and effective leadership.
Psychological Reports, 10, 863–866.
Paluck, E. L. (2012). Interventions aimed at the reduction of
prejudice and conflict. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 179–192). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Pandey, C., & Kapitanoff, S. (2011). The influence of anxiety and
quality of interaction on collaborative test performance. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 163–174.
Panksepp, J., Nelson, E., & Bekkedal, M. (1997). Brain systems for
the mediation of social separation-distress and social-reward:
Evolutionary antecedents and neuropeptide intermediaries. In
C. S. Carter, I. I. Lederhendler, & B. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The
integrative neurobiology of affiliation (pp. 78–100). New York:
New York Academy of Sciences.
Paris, C. R., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1999). Human
performance in multi-operator systems. In P. A. Hancock
(Ed.), Human performance and ergonomics (2nd ed., pp.
329–386). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Park, E. S., & Hinsz, V. B. (2006). “Strength and safety in
numbers”: A theoretical perspective on group influences on
approach and avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion,
30(2), 135–142.
Parker, K. C. (1988). Speaking turns in small group interaction: A
context-sensitive event sequence model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 965–971.
Parkinson, C. N. (1957). Parkinson’s law and other studies in
administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Parkman, T. J., Lloyd, C., & Splisbury, K. (2015). Self-help groups
for alcohol dependency: A scoping review. Journal of Groups in
Addiction & Recovery, 10(2), 102–124.
R E F E R E N C E S 639
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Parks, C. D. (2015). Determinants of cooperation in social
dilemmas. In D. A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior. New York: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhand
books.com
Parks, C. D., & Stone, A. B. (2010). The desire to expel unselfish
members from the group. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 99(2), 303–310.
Parks, M. R. (2007). Personal relationships and personal networks.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Parks, S. D. (2005). Leadership can be taught: A bold approach for a
complex world. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Parrado, N. (with Rause, V.) (2006). Miracle in the Andes.
New York: Crown.
Parsons, T., Bales, R. F., & Shils, E. (Eds.). (1953). Working papers
in the theory of action. New York: Free Press.
Patterson, M. L. (1975). Personal space—Time to burst the bubble?
Man-Environment Systems, 5, 67.
Patterson, M. L., Kelley, C. E., Kondracki, B. A., & Wulf, L. J.
(1979). Effects of seating arrangement on small group
behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 180–185.
Patterson, M. L., & Sechrest, L. B. (1970). Interpersonal
distance and impression formation. Journal of Personality, 38,
161–166.
Paul, G. L. (1967). Strategy of outcome research in psychotherapy.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 109–118.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of
personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.
Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative
and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-
social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 248–265.
Paulus, P. B., & Coskun, H. (2013). Creativity. In J. M. Levine
(Ed.), Group processes (pp. 215–239). New York: Psychology
Press.
Paulus, P. B., Dickson, J., Korde, R., Cohen-Meitar, R., &
Carmeli, A. (2016). Getting the most out of brainstorming
groups. In A. B. Markham (Ed.), Open innovation: Academic
and practical perspectives on the journey from idea to market
(pp. 43–70). New York: Oxford University Press.
Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M.
(1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming:
The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 19, 78–89.
Paulus, P. B., Nakui, T., Putman, V. L., & Brown, V. R. (2006).
Effects of task instructions and brief breaks on brainstorming.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 206–219.
Pavelchak, M. A., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1986). Effects
of prior group memberships on subsequent reconnaissance
activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 56–66.
Paxton, P., & Moody, J. (2003). Structure and sentiment:
Explaining emotional attachment to group. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 66, 34–47.
Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A., & Locke, E. A. (2008). Shared
leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 622–628.
Pedersen, D. M. (1999). Model for types of privacy by privacy
functions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 397–405.
Peeters, M. A. G., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., &
Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2006). Personality and team
performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality,
20, 377–396.
Pemberton, M., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (1996). Memory for
and experience of differential competitive behavior of
individuals and groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 953–966.
Pemberton, M., & Sedikides, C. (2001). When do individuals help
close others improve? The role of information diagnosticity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 234–246.
Pender, D. A., & Anderton, C. (2016). Exploring the process: A
narrative analysis of group facilitators’ reports on critical
incident stress debriefing. Journal for Specialists in Group Work,
41(1), 19–43.
Peng, M., Chang, L., & Zhou, R. (2013). Physiological and
behavioral responses to strangers compared to friends as a
source of disgust. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(2), 94–98.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1982). Social and perceptual factors affecting
symptom reporting and mass psychogenic illness. In M. J.
Colligan, J. W. Pennebaker, & L. R. Murphy (Eds.), Mass
psychogenic illness: A social psychological analysis (pp. 139–153).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Opening up: The healing power of expressing
emotions (rev. ed.). New York: Guilford.
Pennington, D. C. (2002). The social psychology of behavior in small
groups. New York: Psychology Press.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in
complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 242–258.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence:
Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206.
Pentland, A. (2014). Social physics: How good ideas spread—the lessons
from a new science. New York: Penguin.
Pepitone, A., & Reichling, G. (1955). Group cohesiveness and the
expression of hostility. Human Relations, 8, 327–337.
Pepitone, A., & Wilpinski, C. (1960). Some consequences of
experimental rejection. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 60, 359–364.
Perls, F. (1969). Gestalt therapy verbatim. Lafayette, CA: Real People
Press.
Perrin, S., & Spencer, C. P. (1980). The Asch effect—A child of its
time? Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 32, 405–406.
640 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Perrin, S., & Spencer, C. P. (1981). Independence or conformity
in the Asch experiment as a reflection of cultural and
situational factors. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20,
205–210.
Perry, G. (2013). Behind the shock machine. New York: The New
Press.
Pescosolido, A. T. (2003). Group efficacy and group effectiveness:
The effects of group efficacy over time on group performance
and development. Small Group Research, 34(1), 20–42.
Peterson, D., & Panfil, V. R. (2014). Street gangs: The gendered
experiences of female and male gang members. In R. Gartner
& B. McCarthy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender, sex, and
crime (pp. 468–489). New York: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group
decision making can be both virtue and vice: Evidence from
elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 1107–1121.
Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship
between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups:
A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 92, 102–112.
Peterson, R. S., & Ferguson, A. J. (2014). Strategies for developing
trust through constructive conflict resolution in teams. In
O. B. Ayoko, N. M. Ashkanasy, & K. A. Jehn (Eds.),
The handbook of conflict management research (pp. 193–204).
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Peterson, R. S., & Nemeth, C. J. (1996). Focus versus flexibility:
Majority and minority influence can both improve
performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
14–23.
Peterson, R. S., Owens, P. D., Tetlock, P. E., Fan, E. T., &
Martorana, P. (1998). Group dynamics in top management
teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of
organizational failure and success. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 73, 272–305.
Petrie, T. A., & Greenleaf, C. A. (2007). Eating disorders in sport:
From theory to research to intervention. In G. Tenenbaum &
R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed.,
pp. 352–378). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on
prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
173–185.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review
of Psychology, 49, 65–85.
Pettigrew, T. F. (2001). The ultimate attribution error: Extending
Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. In M. A. Hogg &
D. Abrams (Eds.), Intergroup relations: Essential readings
(pp. 162–173). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact
reduce prejudice: Recent meta-analytic findings. S. Oskamp
(Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–114).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of
intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 751–783.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The
dynamics of intergroup contact. New York: Psychology Press.
Phillips, K. W. (2003). The effects of categorically based
expectations on minority influence: The importance of
congruence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 3–13.
Phoon, W. H. (1982). Outbreaks of mass hysteria at workplaces in
Singapore: Some patterns and modes of presentation. In M. J.
Colligan, J. W. Pennebaker, & L. R. Murphy (Eds.), Mass
psychogenic illness: A social psychological analysis (pp. 21–31).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Piazza, A., & Castellucci, F. (2014). Status in organization and
management theory. Journal of Management, 40(1), 287–315.
Pickard, G., Pan, W., Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Crane, R., Madan,
A., & Pentland, A. (2011). Time-critical social mobilization.
Science, 334(6055), 509–512.
Pickett, C. L., & Hess, Y. D. (2017). Social exclusion and the self.
In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion,
and rejection (pp. 113–129). New York: Routledge.
Pickett, C. L., Bonner, B. L., & Coleman, J. M. (2002). Motivated
self-stereotyping: Heightened assimilation and differentiation
needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-
stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4),
543.
Pierro, A., Cicero, L., & Raven, B. H. (2008). Motivated
compliance with bases of social power. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 38, 1921–1944.
Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Raven, B. H. (2012).
Motivational underpinnings of social influence in work
settings: Bases of social power and the need for cognitive
closure. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 41–52.
Piliavin, J. A., & Siegl, E. (2007). Health benefits of volunteering in
the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 48(4), 450–464.
Pinter, B., Insko, C. A., Wildschut, T., Kirchner, J. L., Montoya,
R. M., & Wolf, S. T. (2007). Reduction of interindividual-
intergroup discontinuity: The role of leader accountability
and proneness to guilt. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 250–265.
Piper, W. E. (2008). Underutilization of short-term group therapy:
Enigmatic or understandable? Psychotherapy Research, 18,
127–138.
Pisano, G. P., Bohmer, R. M. J., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001).
Organizational differences in rates of learning: Evidence from
the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery.
Management Science, 47, 752–768.
Pittinsky, T. L. (2010). A two-dimensional model of intergroup
leadership: The case of national diversity. American Psychologist,
65, 194–200.
R E F E R E N C E S 641
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Pittman, T. S., & Zeigler, K. R. (2007). Basic human needs. In
A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology:
Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 473–489). New York:
Guilford.
Platania, J., & Moran, G. P. (2001). Social facilitation as a function
of mere presence of others. Journal of Social Psychology, 141,
190–197.
Plotner, M., Over, H., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2016).
What is a group? Young children’s perceptions of different
types of groups and group entitativity. PLoS ONE, 11(3).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152001
Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social
movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305.
Polley, R. B. (1989). On the dimensionality of interpersonal
behavior: A reply to Lustig. Small Group Behavior, 20,
270–278.
Polzer, J. T., Kramer, R. M., & Neale, M. A. (1997). Positive
illusions about oneself and one’s group. Small Group Research,
28, 243–266.
Poole, M. S., & Dobosh, M. (2010). Exploring conflict
management processes in jury deliberations through
interaction analysis. Small Group Research, 41(4), 408–426.
Poole, M. S., & Hollingshead, A. B. (Eds.). (2005). Theories of small
groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Porter, N., Geis, F. L., Cooper, E., & Newman, E. (1985).
Androgyny and leadership in mixed-sex groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 808–823.
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative
behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group
norms in computer-mediated communication. Human
Communication Research, 26, 341–371.
Poulin, M. J., Holman, E. A., & Buffone, A. (2012). The
neurogenetics of nice receptor genes for oxytocin and
vasopressin interact with threat to predict prosocial behavior.
Psychological Science, 23(5), 446–452.
Poundstone, W. (1992). Prisoner’s dilemma. New York: Doubleday.
Powell, G. N. (2014). Sex, gender, and leadership. In S. Kumra,
R. Simpson, & R. J. Burke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
gender in organizations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/
Pozzi, F. (2010). Using Jigsaw and case study for supporting online
collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 55(1), 67–75.
Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997). Sacrifice, cohesion, and
conformity to norms in sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 1, 231–240.
Pratkanis, A. R. (Ed.). (2007). The science of social influence: Advances
and future progress. New York: Psychology Press.
Pratt, J. H. (1922). The principle of class treatment and their
application to various chronic diseases. Hospital Social Services,
6, 401–417.
Pratt, M. G., & Kim, N. (2012). Designing for drift: Planning
ethnographic qualititative research on groups. In A. B.
Hollingshead & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research methods for
studying groups and teams (pp. 6–29). New York: Routledge.
Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1980). Effects of
deindividuating situation cues and aggressive models on
subjective deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 104–113.
Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). Effects of public and
private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 503–513.
Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Deindividuation and
aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.),
Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (Vol. 1). New York:
Academic Press.
Prentice-Dunn, S., & Spivey, R. W. (1986). Extreme
deindividuation in the laboratory: Its magnitude and
subjective components. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 12, 206–215.
Pressman, S. D., Cohen, S., Miller, G. E., Barkin, A., Rabin, B. S.,
& Treanor, J. J. (2005). Loneliness, social network size, and
immune response to influenza vaccination in college
freshmen. Health Psychology, 24, 297–306.
Prislin, R., Brewer, M., & Wilson, D. J. (2002). Changing
majority and minority positions within a group versus an
aggregate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,
640–647.
Prislin, R., Limbert, W. M., & Bauer, E. (2000). From majority to
minority and vice versa: The asymmetrical effects of losing
and gaining majority position within a group. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 385–397.
Provine, R. R. (2017). Beyond the smile. Nontraditional facial,
emotinoal, and social behaviors. In J. A. Russell & J. M.
Fernandez-Dols (Eds.), The science of facial expression
(pp. 197–216). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pruitt, D. G. (1971). Choice shifts in group discussion: An
introductory review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
20, 339–360.
Pruitt, D. G. (2012). A history of social conflict and negotiation
research. In A. W. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook
of the history of social psychology (pp. 431–452). New York:
Psychology Press.
Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Social conflict: Escalation,
stalemate, and settlement (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pruitt, D. G., Parker, J. C., & Mikolic, J. M. (1997). Escalation as a
reaction to persistent annoyance. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 8(3), 252–270.
Putnam, L. L., Stohl, C., & Backer, J. S. (2012). Bona fide groups:
A discourse perspective. In A. B. Hollingshead & M. S. Poole
(Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams
(pp. 211–234). New York: Routledge.
642 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1980). The perception of
variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for
the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 141–152.
Quinn, A., & Schlenker, B. R. (2002). Can accountability produce
independence? Goals as determinants of the impact of
accountability on conformity. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 472–483.
Raafat, R. M., Chater, N., & Frith, C. (2009). Herding in humans.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 420–428.
Rabbie, J. (1963). Differential preference for companionship under
stress. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 643–648.
Radloff, R., & Helmreich, R. (1968). Groups under stress:
Psychological research in SEALAB II. New York: Irvington.
Rains, S. A., Peterson, E. B., & Wright, K. B. (2015). Communicating
social support in computer-mediated contexts: A meta-analytic
review of content analyses examining support messages shared
online among individuals coping with illness. Communication
Monographs, 82(4), 403–430.
Rajaram, S., & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2010). Collaborative
memory: Cognitive research and theory. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 5(6), 649–663.
Rakoczy, H., Brosche, N., Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009).
Young children’s understanding of the context-relativity of
normative rules in conventional games. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 445–456.
Rambaran, J. A., Dijkstra, J. K., Munniksma, A., & Cillessen, A. H.
(2015). The development of adolescents’ friendships and
antipathies: A longitudinal multivariate network test of
balance theory. Social Networks, 43, 162–176.
Randsley de Moura, G., Leader, T., Pelletier, J., & Abrams, D.
(2008). Prospects for group processes and intergroup relations
research: A review of 70 years’ progress. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 11, 575–596.
Rapee, R. M., Kim, J., Wang, J., Liu, X., Hofmann, S. G., Chen,
J., … Alden, L. E. (2011). Perceived impact of socially
anxious behaviors on individuals’ lives in Western and East
Asian countries. Behavior Therapy, 42(3), 485–492.
Ratner, K. G., & Amodio, D. M. (2013). Seeing “us vs. them”:
Minimal group effects on the neural encoding of faces. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 298–301.
Ratner, R. K., & Miller, D. T. (2001). The norm of self-interest
and its effects on social action. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 5–16.
Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner
& M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology
(pp. 371–382). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/intraction
model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and
Public Policy, 8(1), 1–22.
Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998).
Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of
interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,
307–332.
Read, P. P. (1974). Alive. New York: Avon.
Reader, T. W. (2017). Team decision making. In E. Salas,
R. Rico, & J. Passmore (Eds.), Wiley Blackwell handbook
of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes.
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Redl, F. (1942). Group emotion and leaders. Psychiatry, 5, 573–596.
Reeder, G. D., Monroe, A. E., & Pryor, J. B. (2008). Impressions
of Milgram’s obedient teachers: Situational cues inform
inferences about motives and traits. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95(1), 1–17.
Reeder, K., Macfadyen, L., Roche, J., & Chase, M. (2004).
Negotiating cultures in cyberspace: Participation patterns and
problematics. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 88–105.
Rees, C. R., & Segal, M. W. (1984). Role differentiation in
groups: The relationship between instrumental and expressive
leadership. Small Group Behavior, 15, 109–123.
Reichard, R. J., Riggio, R. E., Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H.,
Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (2011). A longitudinal
analysis of relationships between adolescent personality and
intelligence with adult leader emergence and transformational
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 471–481.
Reicher, S. D. (1996). “The Battle of Westminster”: Developing
the social identity model of crowd behavior in order to
explain the initiation and development of collective conflict.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 115–134.
Reicher, S. D. (2015). Mass action and mundane reality: An
argument for putting crowd analysis at the center of the social
sciences. In J. Drury & C. Stott (Eds.), Crowds in the 21st
century: Perspectives from contemporary social science (pp. 169–185).
New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2011). After shock? Towards a
social identity explanation of the Milgram ‘obedience’studies.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 163–169.
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity
model of deindividuated phenomena. In W. Stroebe & M.
Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 6,
pp. 161–198). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., Postmes, T., & Kende, A. (2016).
Disputing deindividuation: Why negative group behaviors
derive from group norms, not group immersion. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 39. doi:10.1017/S0140525X15001491
Reicher, S. D., & Stott, C. (2011). Mad mobs and Englishmen? Myths
and realities of the 2011 riots. London: Constable & Robinson.
Reichl, A. J. (1997). Ingroup favoritism and outgroup favoritism in
low status minimal groups: Differential responses to status-
related and status-unrelated measures. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 27, 617–633.
R E F E R E N C E S 643
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Reifman, A., Lee, L., & Apparala, M. (2004). Spreading popularity of
two musical artists: A “tipping point” study. Poster presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology, Austin, TX.
Reimer, T., Reimer, A., & Czienskowski, U. (2010). Decision-
making groups attenuate the discussion bias in favor of shared
information: A meta-analysis. Communication Monographs,
77(1), 121–142.
Reimer, T., Reimer, A., & Hinsz, V. B. (2010). Naïve groups can
solve the hidden-profile problem. Human Communication
Research, 36(3), 443–467.
Reinig, B. A., Horowitz, I., & Whittenburg, G. E. (2011). A
longitudinal analysis of satisfaction with group work. Group
Decision and Negotiation, 20(2), 215–237.
Reis, H. T., & Gosling, S. D. (2010). Social psychological methods
outside the laboratory. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1,
pp. 82–114). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., &
Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote
attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101(3), 557–570.
Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The
transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64, 104–112.
Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (1998). Testing the durability of job
characteristics as predictors of absenteeism over a six-year
period. Personnel Psychology, 51, 165–190.
Replogle, E. (2011). Reference groups, mob mentality, and
bystander intervention: A sociological analysis of the Lara
Logan case. Sociological Forum, 26(4), 796–805.
Reston, J., Jr. (2000). Our father who art in hell. Lincoln, NE:
iUniverse.com.
Rhee, E., Uleman, J. S., Lee, H. K., & Roman, R. J. (1995).
Spontaneous self-descriptions and ethnic identities in
individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 69, 142–152.
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution.
New York: Basic Books.
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One
hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described.
Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1989). Understanding legitimation in informal status
orders. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Sociological theories in
progress (Vol. 3, pp. 131–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2014). Why status matters for inequality.
American Sociological Review, 79(1), 1–16.
Ridgeway, C. L., Backor, K., Li, Y. E., Tinkler, J. E., & Erickson,
K. G. (2009). How easily does a social difference become a
status distinction: Gender matters. American Sociological Review,
74(1), 44–62.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Nakagawa, S. (2014). Status. In J. D. McLeod,
E. J. Lawler, & M. Schwalbe (Eds.), Handbook of the social
psychology of inequality (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer Science+Business Media.
Riess, M. (1982). Seating preferences as impression management:
A literature review and theoretical integration. Communication,
11, 85–113.
Riess, M., & Rosenfeld, P. (1980). Seating preferences as nonverbal
communication: A self-presentational analysis. Journal of
Applied Communications Research, 8, 22–30.
Riggio, H. R., & Kwong, W. Y. (2009). Social skills, paranoid
thinking, and social outcomes among young adults. Personality
and Individual Differences, 47(5), 492–497.
Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by
perceived norms: A test of the theory of normative social
behavior. Communication Research, 32, 389–414.
Ringelmann, M. (1913). Research on animate sources of power:
The work of man. Annales de l’Institut National Agronomique,
2e serié—tome XII, 1–40.
Ringer, T. M. (2002). Group action: The dynamics of groups in
therapeutic, educational, and corporate settings. Philadelphia, PA:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2011). From current state to desired state:
How compositional changes affect dissent and innovation in
work groups. In J. Jetten & M. J. Hornsey (Eds.), Rebels in
groups: Dissent, deviance, difference, and defiance (pp. 54–72).
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Riordan, C., & Riggiero, J. (1980). Producing equal-status
interracial interaction: A replication. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 43, 131–136.
Ripley, J. S., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Maclin, V. L. (2011). The
hope-focused approach to couple enrichment and counseling.
In D. K. Carson & M. Casado-Kehoe (Eds.), The family
therapy and counseling series. Case studies in couples therapy:
Theory-based approaches (pp. 369–381). New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Risman, B. J., & Davis, G. (2013). From sex roles to gender
structure. Current Sociology, 61(5/6), 733–755.
Ritter, K.-J., Matthews, R. A., Ford, M. T., & Henderson, A. A.
(2016). Understanding role stressors and job satisfaction over
time using adaptation theory. Journal of Applied Psychology,
101(12), 1655–1669.
Rivera, A. N., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1976). Public versus private
reactions to positive inequity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 895–900.
Rivers, J. J., & Josephs, R. A. (2010). Dominance and health: The
role of social rank in physiology and illness. In A. Guinote &
T. K. Vescio (Eds.), The social psychology of power (pp. 87–112).
New York: Guilford Press.
Robak, R. W. (2001). Self-definition in psychotherapy: Is it time
to revisit self-perception theory? North American Journal of
Psychology, 3, 529–534.
644 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Robbins, A. (2004). Pledged: The secret life of sororities. New York:
Hyperion.
Robert, C., & Wasti, S. A. (2002). Organizational individualism
and collectivism: Theoretical development and an empirical
test of a measure. Journal of Management, 28(4), 544–566.
Robinson, S., & Schabram, K. (2017). Workplace ostracism. In
K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion,
and rejection (pp. 240–257). New York: Routledge.
Robinson, T. T., & Carron, A. V. (1982). Personal and situational
factors associated with dropping out versus maintaining
participation in competitive sport. Journal of Sport Psychology,
4(4), 364–378.
Robison, F. F. (1999). Commentary on “Understanding roles:
A psychodynamic model for role differentiation in groups”
by Moxnes (1999). Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 3(2), 114–115.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R.
(2008). Toward a unifying model of identification with
groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 12, 280–306.
Rochat, F., & Blass, T. (2014). Milgram’s unpublished obedience
variation and its historical relevance. Journal of Social Issues,
70(3), 456–472.
Roche, W. K., Teague, P., & Colvin, A. J. S. (Eds.). (2014). The
Oxford handbook of conflict management in organizations.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A., & Mathauschek, B. (2007). Teams
take the better risks. Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, 63(3), 412–422.
Rodin, J., Solomon, S. K., & Metcalf, J. (1978). Role of control in
mediating perceptions of density. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 988–999.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the
worker. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Rofé, Y. (1984). Stress and affiliation: A utility theory. Psychological
Review, 91, 235–250.
Rogelberg, S. G., Leach, D. J., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L.
(2006). “Not another meeting!” Are meeting time demands
related to employee well-being? Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 83–96.
Rogelberg, S. G., & O’Connor, M. S. (1998). Extending the
stepladder technique: An examination of self-paced stepladder
groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2,
82–91.
Rogelberg, S. G., & Rumery, S. M. (1996). Gender diversity, team
decision quality, time on task, and interpersonal cohesion.
Small Group Research, 27, 79–90.
Rogers, C. (1970). Encounter groups. New York: Harper & Row.
Roll, S., McClelland, G., & Abel, T. (1996). Differences in
susceptibility to influence in Mexican American and Anglo
females. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 13–20.
Roloff, M. E., & Wright, C. N. (2009). Conflict avoidance: A
functional analysis. In T. D. Afifi & W. A. Afifi (Eds.),
Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions:
Theories and applications (pp. 320–340). New York:
Routledge.
Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment theory and group
processes: The association between attachment style and
group-related representations, goals, memories, and
functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
1220–1235.
Ronay, R., Greenaway, K., Anicich, E. M., & Galinsky, A. D.
(2012). The path to glory is paved with hierarchy: When
hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness.
Psychological Science, 23(6), 669–677.
Roos, P. D. (1968). Jurisdiction: An ecological concept. Human
Relations, 21, 75–84.
Rose, R., & Sergel, S. L. (1955). Twelve angry men: A play in three
acts. Woodstock, IL: The Dramatic Publishing Co.
Rose-Krasnor, L. (2009). Future directions in youth involvement
research. Social Development, 18(2), 497–509.
Rosenbloom, T., Shahar, A., Perlman, A., Estreich, D., & Kirzner,
E. (2007). Success on a practical driver’s license test with and
without the presence of another testee. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 39, 1296–1301.
Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership.
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617–633.
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008).
Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer
relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134,
223–246.
Rosnow, R. L. (1980). Psychology of rumor reconsidered.
Psychological Bulletin, 87, 578–591.
Rosnow, R. L., & Kimmel, A. J. (1979). Lives of a rumor.
Psychology Today, 13, 88–92.
Rosnow, R. L., Yost, J. H., & Esposito, J. L. (1986). Belief in
rumor and likelihood of rumor transmission. Language and
Communication, 6, 189–194.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings:
Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 10, 173–220.
Ross, L., Bierbrauer, G., & Hoffman, S. (1976). The role of
attribution processes in conformity and dissent: Revisiting the
Asch situation. American Psychologist, 31, 148–157.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus
effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution
processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3),
279–301.
Ross, M., & Sicoly, E. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and
attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
322–336.
R E F E R E N C E S 645
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Rossano, M. J. (2012). The essential role of ritual in the
transmission and reinforcement of social norms. Psychological
Bulletin, 138(3), 529–549.
Roth, B. E. (1993). Freud: The group psychologist and group leader.
In H. I. Kaplan & M. J. Sadock (Eds.), Comprehensive group
psychotherapy (3rd. ed., pp. 10–21). Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins.
Rothgerber, H. (1997). External intergroup threat as an antecedent
to perceptions in in-group and out-group homogeneity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1206–1212.
Rothgerber, H., & Worchel, S. (1997). The view from below:
Intergroup relations from the perspective of the disadvantaged
group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
1191–1205.
Rotton, J., & Cohn, E. G. (2002). Climate, weather, and crime. In
R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of
environmental psychology (pp. 481–498). New York: Wiley.
Rouhana, N. N., & Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Psychological dynamics of
intractable ethnonational conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian
case. American Psychologist, 53, 761–770.
Rouhana, N. N., & Kelman, H. C. (1994). Promoting joint
thinking in international conflicts: An Israeli-Palestinian
continuing workshop. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 157–178.
Rousseau, J.-J. (2008). A discourse upon the origin and foundation of the
inequality among mankind. New York: Cosimo. (original work
published 1755)
Roy, D. F. (1959). “Banana time”: Job satisfaction and informal
interaction. Human Organization, 18, 158–168.
Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD
triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions
(contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes
(community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 574–586.
Ruback, R. B., Dabbs, J. M., Jr., & Hopper, C. H. (1984). The
process of brainstorming: An analysis with individual and
group vocal parameters. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 558–567.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social withdrawal
in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 141–171.
Rubin, R. B. (1985). The validity of the Communication
Competency Assessment Instrument. Communication
Monographs, 52, 173–185.
Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of
founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among
U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68, 195–222.
Rufus, A. S. (2003). Party of one: The loners’ manifesto. New York:
Marlowe and Co.
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C. R., & Arriaga, X. B. (2012). The
investment model of commitment processes. In P. A. M. Van
Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of
theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 218–231). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ruscher, J. B., & Hammer, E. D. (2006). The development of
shared stereotypic impressions in conversation: An emerging
model, methods, and extensions to cross-group settings.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 221–243.
Russell, B. (2004). Power. London: Allen & Unwyn. (original work
published 1938)
Russell, G. W., & Arms, R. L. (1998). Toward a social
psychological profile of would-be rioters. Aggressive Behavior,
24, 219–226.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction
of emotion. Psychological Review, 110, 145–172.
Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, J. (1987). Emotion and the
environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of
environmental psychology (pp. 245–280). New York: Wiley.
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R.
(2011). Think crisis–think female: The glass cliff and
contextual variation in the think manager–think male
stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 470–484.
Rydell, R. J., Hugenberg, K., Ray, D., & Mackie, D. M. (2007).
Implicit theories about groups and stereotyping: The role of
group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33,
549–558.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex
interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(1), 61–72.
Saavedra, R., & Van Dyne, L. (1999). Social exchange and
emotional investment in work groups. Motivation and Emotion,
23(2), 105–123.
Sabini, J., Garvey, B., & Hall, A. L. (2001). Shame and
embarrassment revisited. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 27, 104–117.
Sacco, D. F., & Bernstein, M. J. (2015). Social inclusion leads
individuals to devalue groups of perceived inferior quality.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(4), 211–224.
Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you’re talking
to? Interpersonal style and complementarily in mixed-sex
interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
80–95.
Sagarin, B. J., & Henningsen, M. L. M. (2016). In S. Harkins,
K. D. Williams, & J. Burger (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
social influence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/
Sahdra, B., & Ross, M. (2007). Group identification and historical
memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3),
384–395.
Saks, M. J. (1977). Jury verdicts. Lexington, MA: Heath.
646 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Saks, M. J., & Hastie, R. (1978). Social psychology in court.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Saks, M. J., & Marti, M. W. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects
of jury size. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 451–467.
Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams,
teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and
developments. Human factors, 50(3), 540–547.
Salas, E., Grossman, R., Hughes, A. M., & Coultas, C. W. (2015).
Measuring team cohesion: Observations from the science.
Human Factors, 57(3), 365–374.
Salas, E., Nichols, D. R., & Driskell, J. E. (2007). Testing three
team training strategies in intact teams: A meta-analysis. Small
Group Research, 38, 471–488.
Salas, E., Priest, H. A. DeRouin, R. E. (2005). Team building. In
N. Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas, & H.
Hendrick (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics
methods (pp. 465–470). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Salas, E., Rico, R., & Passmore, J. (Eds.). (2017). The Wiley Blackwell
handbook of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes.
West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009).
The wisdom of collectives in organizations: An update of the
teamwork competencies. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S.
Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-
disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 39–79). New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B., & Driskell, J. E. (1999). The effect
of team building on performance: An integration. Small Group
Research, 30, 309–329.
Salas, E., Salazar, M. R., Feitosa, J., & Kramer, W. S. (2014).
Collaboration and conflict in work teams. In B. Schneider &
K. M. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational
climate and culture (pp. 382–399). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kozlowski, S. W., Miller, C. A.,
Mathieu, J. E., & Vessey, W. B. (2015). Teams in space
exploration: A new frontier for the science of team
effectiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3),
200–207.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A.
(2012). The science of training and development in
organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in
the Public Interest, 13(2), 74–101.
Salas, E., Vessey, W. B., & Estrada, A. X. (Eds.). (2015). Team
cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice.
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Wightman, D. C. (2006).
Does crew resource management training work? An update, an
extension, and some critical needs. Human Factors, 48, 392–412.
Salvatore, J. F., Meltzer, A. L., March, D. S., & Gaertner, L. (2016).
Strangers with benefits: Attraction to outgroup men increases
as dertility increases across the menstrual cycle. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(2), 204–217.
Sampson, E. E., & Brandon, A. C. (1964). The effects of role and
opinion deviation on small group behavior. Sociometry, 27,
261–281.
Samuelson, C. D., & Allison, S. T. (1994). Cognitive factors
affecting the use of social decision heuristics in resource-
sharing tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 58, 1–27.
Sandelands, L., & St. Clair, L. (1993). Toward an empirical concept
of group. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 23(4),
423–458.
Sanders, G. S., Baron, R. S., & Moore, D. L. (1978). Distraction
and social comparison as mediators of social facilitation effects.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 291–303.
Sanders, W. B. (1994). Gangbangs and drive-bys: Grounded culture and
juvenile gang violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Sanna, L. J., Parks, C. D., Chang, E. C., & Carter, S. E. (2005).
The hourglass is half full or half empty: Temporal framing and
the group planning fallacy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 9, 173–188.
Sapp, S. G., Harrod, W. J., & Zhao, L. (1996). Leadership
emergence in task groups with egalitarian gender-role
expectations. Sex Roles, 34, 65–83.
Sattler, D. N., & Kerr, N. L. (1991). Might versus morality
explored: Motivational and cognitive bases for social motives.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 756–765.
Savitsky, K., Van Boven, L., Epley, N., & Wight, W. (2005). The
unpacking effect in responsibility allocations for group tasks.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 447–457.
Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration.
New York: Basic Books.
Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190–207.
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Schachter, S., Ellertson, N., McBride, D., & Gregory, D. (1951).
An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity.
Human Relations, 4, 229–238.
Schafer, M., & Crichlow, S. (2010). Groupthink vs. high quality
decision making in international relations. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Schauer, A. H., Seymour, W. R., & Geen, R. G. (1985). Effects of
observation and evaluation on anxiety in beginning
counselors: A social facilitation analysis. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 63, 279–285.
Scheepers, D., de Wit, F., Ellemers, N., & Sassenberg, K. (2012).
Social power makes the heart work more efficiently:
Evidence from cardiovascular markers of challenge and
threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1),
371–374.
R E F E R E N C E S 647
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Scheeres, J. (2011). A thousand lives: The untold story of
hope, deception, and survival at Jonestown. New York: Free Press.
Schei, V., Rognes, J., & Shapiro, D. L. (2011). Can individualists
and cooperators play together? The effect of mixed social
motives in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 47(2), 371–377.
Schein, E. H. (1961). Coercive persuasion. New York: Norton.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist,
45(2), 109–119.
Schein, L. A., Spitz, H. I., Burlingame, G. M., & Muskin, P. R.
(Eds.) (with Vargo, S.) (2006). Psychological effects of catastrophic
disasters: Group approaches to treatment. New York: Haworth
Press.
Schein, V. (2007). Women in management: Reflections and
projections. Women in Management Review, 22, 6–8.
Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Scheuble, K. J., Dixon, K. N., Levy, A. B., & Kagan-Moore, L.
(1987). Premature termination: A risk in eating disorder
groups. Group, 11, 85–93.
Schlenker, B. R. (1975). Liking for a group following an initiation:
Impression management or dissonance reduction? Sociometry,
38, 99–118.
Schlenker, B. R., Phillips, S. T., Boniecki, K. A., & Schlenker, D. R.
(1995a). Championship pressures: Choking or triumphing in
one’s own territory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
632–643.
Schlenker, B. R., Phillips, S. T., Boniecki, K. A., & Schlenker, D. R.
(1995b). Where is the home choke? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 649–652.
Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. (1965). A thousand days. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Schmid Mast, M. S. (2002). Female dominance hierarchies: Are
they any different from males’? Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 29–39.
Schmid Mast, M. S., Jonas, K., & Hall, J. A. (2009). Give a person
power and he or she will show interpersonal sensitivity: The
phenomenon and its why and when. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 97(5), 835–850.
Schmidt, D. E., & Keating, J. P. (1979). Human crowding and
personal control: An integration of the research. Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 680–700.
Schmidt, L. A., & Miskovic, V. (2014). Shyness and the electrical
activity of the brain. In R. J. Coplan & J. C. Bowker (Eds.),
The handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social
isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 51–70). Malden,
MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Schmidt, S., Roesler, U., Kusserow, T., & Rau, R. (2014).
Uncertainty in the workplace: Examining role ambiguity and
role conflict, and their link to depression—a meta-analysis.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1),
91–106.
Schmitt, B. H., Dubé, L., & Leclerc, F. (1992). Intrusions into
waiting lines: Does the queue constitute a social system?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 806–815.
Schmitt, B. H., Gilovich, T., Goore, N., & Joseph, L. (1986). Mere
presence and social facilitation: One more time. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 242–248.
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why
can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five
personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 94(1), 168–182.
Schneider, D. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York:
Guilford.
Schneider, S. M., & Schupp, J. (2014). Individual differences in
social comparison and its consequences for life satisfaction:
Introducing a short scale of the Iowa–Netherlands
Comparison Orientation Measure. Social Indicators Research,
115(2), 767–789.
Schofer, E., & Longhofer, W. (2011). The structural sources of
association. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 539–585.
Schofield, J. W. (1986). Black-White contact in desegregated
schools. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Social psychology
and society. Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters
(pp. 79–92). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An
integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and
future. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.
Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1992). The discontinuity effect in
interpersonal and intergroup relations: Generality and
mediation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European
Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 121–151). Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Schopler, J., Insko, C. A., Drigotas, S. M., Wieselquist, J.,
Pemberton, M., & Cox, C. (1995). The role of identifiability
in the reduction of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 553–574.
Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards
and the social sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Eisenbach, R. J. (1995). An exploratory and
confirmatory factor-analytic investigation of item wording
effects on the obtained factor structures of survey
questionnaire measures. Journal of Management, 21,
1177–1193.
Schroeder, H. W. (2007). Place experience, gestalt, and the
human–nature relationship. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
27, 293–309.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Luethgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000).
Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 655–669.
648 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Schuster, M. A., Stein, B. D., Jaycox, L. H., Collins, R. L.,
Marshall, G. N., Elliott, M. N., … Berry, S. H. (2001).
A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks. New England Journal of Medicine, 345,
1507–1512.
Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of
interpersonal behavior. New York: Rinehart.
Schutz, W. C. (1992). Beyond FIRO-B. Three new theory-driven
measures—Element B: behavior, Element F: feelings,
Element S: self. Psychological Reports, 70, 915–937.
Schwartz, B., & Barsky, S. F. (1977). The home advantage. Social
Forces, 55, 641–661.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and
contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Schwartz, S. H., & Gottlieb, A. (1976). Bystander reactions to a
violent theft: Crime in Jerusalem. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 34, 1188–1199.
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986).
Group approaches for improving strategic decision making:
A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy,
and consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 51–71.
Scogin, F., & DiNapoli, E. A. (2016). Self-help programs. In
J. C. Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, D. K. Freedheim, &
R. Krishnamurthy (Eds.), APA handbook of clinical psychology:
Applications and methods (pp. 425–437). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Sculley, J. (2011). John Sculley on Steve Jobs. Bloomberg
Businessweek, October 6, 2011. Retrieved from www.busi-
nessweek.com
Sculley, J. (with J. A. Byrne). (1987). Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple … A
journey of adventure, ideas, and the future. New York: Harper &
Row.
Seal, D. W., Bogart, L. M., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1998). Small group
dynamics: The utility of focus group discussion as a research
method. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2,
253–267.
Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group.
Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Seashore, S. E., & Bowers, D. G. (1970). Durability of
organizational change. American Psychologist, 25, 227–233.
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural
self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 60–79.
Segal, H. A. (1954). Initial psychiatric findings of recently repatriated
prisoners of war. American Journal of Psychiatry, 111, 358–363.
Segal, M. W. (1974). Alphabet and attraction: An unobtrusive
measure of the effect of propinquity in a field setting. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 654–657.
Segal, M. W. (1979). Varieties of interpersonal attraction and their
interrelationships in natural groups. Social Psychology Quarterly,
42, 253–261.
Seitchik, A. E., Brown, A. J., & Harkins, S. G. (2016). Social
facilitation: Using the molecular to inform the molar.
In S. Harkins, K. D. Williams, & J. Burger (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of social influence. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhand
books.com/
Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype
threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on
women’s performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
39, 68–74.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). The effectiveness of psychotherapy:
The Consumer Reports study. American Psychologist, 50,
965–974.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1996). Science as an ally of practice. American
Psychologist, 51, 1072–1079.
Sell, A., Sznycer, D., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Krauss, A., Nisu, S., …
Petersen, M. B. (2017). Physically strong men are more militant:
A test across four countries. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(3),
334–340.
Semin, G. R. (2007). Grounding communication: Synchrony. In
A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology:
Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 630–649). New York:
Guilford.
Sessa, V. I., & London, M. (2008). Group learning: An introduction.
In V. I. Sessa & M. London (Eds.), Work group learning:
Understanding, improving and assessing how groups learn in
organizations (pp. 3–13). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Seta, C. E., & Seta, J. J. (1995). When audience presence is
enjoyable: The influences of audience awareness of prior
success on performance and task interest. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 16, 95–108.
Seta, J. J., Crisson, J. E., Seta, C. E., & Wang, M. A. (1989). Task
performance and perceptions of anxiety: Averaging and
summation in an evaluative setting. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56, 387–396.
Seta, J. J., Seta, C. E., & Donaldson, S. (1991). The impact of
comparison processes on coactors’ frustration and willingness
to expend effort. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17,
560–568.
Seta, J. J., Seta, C. E., & McElroy, T. (2006). Better than better-
than-average (or not): Elevated and depressed self-evaluations
following unfavorable social comparisons. Self and Identity, 5,
51–72.
Severt, J. B., & Estrada, A. X. (2015). On the function and
structure of group cohesion. In E. Salas, W. B. Vessey, &
A. X. Estrada (Eds.), Team cohesion: Advances in psychological
theory, methods and practice (Vol. 17, pp. 3–24). Bingly, UK:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Shaver, P., & Buhrmester, D. (1983). Loneliness, sex-role
orientation, and group life: A social needs perspective.
In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 259–288).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
R E F E R E N C E S 649
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion
knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1061–1086.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2013). Attachment orientations
and reactions to ostracism in close relationships and groups. In
C. N. DeWall (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social exclusion
(pp. 238–247). New York: Oxford University Press.
Shaw, M. E. (1964). Communication networks. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 111–147.
Shaw, M. E. (1978). Communication networks fourteen years later.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Group processes (pp. 351–361).
New York: Academic Press.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group
behavior (3rd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shaw, Ma. E. (1932). A comparison of individuals and small groups
in the rational solution of complex problems. American Journal
of Psychology, 44, 491–504.
Sheatsley, P. B., & Feldman, J. J. (1964). The assassination of
President Kennedy: A preliminary report on public attitudes
and behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 28, 189–215.
Shebilske, W. L., Jordon, J. A., Goettl, B. P., & Paulus, L. E.
(1998). Observation versus hands-on practice of complex
skills in dyadic, triadic, and tetradic training-teams. Human
Factors, 40, 525–540.
Shechtman, Z., & Dvir, V. (2006). Attachment style as a
predictor of behavior in group counseling with preadolescents.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(1),
29–42.
Shechtman, Z., Goldberg, A., & Cariani, R. (2008). Arab and
Israeli counseling trainees: A comparison of ethnically
homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(2), 85–95.
Shechtman, Z., & Kiezel, A. (2016). Why do people prefer
individual therapy over group therapy? International Journal of
Group Psychotherapy, 66(4), 571–591.
Shelly, R. K., Troyer, L., Munroe, P. T., & Burger, T. (1999).
Social structure and the duration of social acts. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 62, 83–95.
Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productive loss in performance groups:
A motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81.
Shepperd, J. A. (1995). Remedying motivation and productivity
loss in collective settings. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 5, 131–133.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York:
Harper & Row.
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup
conflict and cooperation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension.
New York: Harper & Row.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1956). An outline of social psychology
(rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif,
C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation. The Robbers
Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: Institute of Group Relations.
Sherif, M., White, B. J., & Harvey, O. J. (1955). Status in
experimentally produced groups. American Journal of Sociology,
60, 370–379.
Shestowsky, D. (2004). Procedural preferences in alternative
dispute resolution: A closer, modern look at an old idea.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(3), 211.
Shuffler, M. L., DiazGranados, D., & Salas, E. (2011). There’s a
science for that: Team development interventions in
organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6),
365–372.
Shuffler, M. L., Jiménez-Rodríguez, M., & Kramer, W. S. (2015).
The science of multiteam systems: A review and future
research agenda. Small Group Research, 46(6), 659–699.
Shure, G. H., & Meeker, J. R. (1967). A personality/attitude scale
for use in experimental bargaining studies. Journal of
Psychology, 65, 233–252.
Shure, G. H., Rogers, M. S., Larsen, I. M., & Tassone, J. (1962).
Group planning and task effectiveness. Sociometry, 25,
263–282.
Sias, P. M. (2009). Social ostracism, cliques, and outcasts. In
P. Lutgen-Sandvik & B. D. Sypher (Eds.), Destructive
organizational communication: Processes, consequences, and
constructive ways of organizing (pp. 145–163). New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Sias, P. M., Krone, K. J., & Jablin, F. M. (2002). An ecological
systems perspective on workplace relationships. In M. L.
Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal
communication (3rd ed., pp. 615–642). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup
theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sidanius, J., Haley, H., Molina, L., & Pratto, F. (2007). Vladimir’s
choice and the distribution of social resources: A group
dominance perspective. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
10, 257–265.
Siebold, G. L. (2007). The essence of military group cohesion.
Armed Forces & Society, 33, 286–295.
Siebold, G. L. (2015). The misconceived construct of task cohesion:
A research note. Armed Forces and Society, 41(1), 163–167.
Siem, B., Sturmer, S., & Pittinsky, T. L. (Eds.). (2016). Proactive
behavior across group boundaries: Seeking and maintaining
positive interactions with outgroup members. Journal of Social
Issues, 72(3). 419–613.
Sigall, H., Mucchi-Faina, A., & Mosso, C. (2006). Minority
influence is facilitated when the communication employs
linguistic abstractness. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
9(3), 443–451.
650 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Silver, R. C., & Garfin, D. R. (2016). Coping with disasters. In
J. C. Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, D. K. Freedheim, &
N. Pole (Eds.), APA handbook of clinical psychology:
Psychopathology and health (pp. 597–611). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Silver, W. S., & Bufanio, K. A. (1996). The impact of group
efficacy and group goals on group task performance. Small
Group Research, 27, 347–349.
Silverman, P. R. (2010). Mutual help groups: What are they and
what makes them work? In R. K. Conyne (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of group counseling (pp. 511–519). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Simmel, G. (1902). The number of members as determining the
sociological form of the group. American Journal of Sociology, 8,
1–46, 158–196.
Simon, B., Glässner-Bayerl, B., & Stratenwerth, I. (1991).
Stereotyping and self-stereotyping in a natural intergroup
context: The case of heterosexual and homosexual men. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 54, 252–266.
Simon, B., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Self-stereotyping and social
context: The effects of relative in-group size and in-group
status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4),
699–711.
Simon, B., Pantaleo, G., & Mummendey, A. (1995). Unique
individual or interchangeable group member? The
accentuation of intragroup differences versus similarities as an
indicator of the individual self versus the collective self. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 106–119.
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-
making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.).
New York: The Free Press.
Simon, R. J. (1980). The jury: Its role in American society. Lexington,
MA: Heath.
Simonton, D. K. (1985). Intelligence and personal influence in
groups: Four nonlinear models. Psychological Review, 92,
532–547.
Simpson, B. (2003). Sex, fear, and greed: A social dilemma analysis
of gender and cooperation. Social Forces, 82, 35–52.
Simpson, J. A. (2007). Psychological foundations of trust. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 264–268.
Simpson, L., Taylor, L., O’Rourke, K., & Shaw, K. (2011). An
analysis of consumer behavior on Black Friday. American
International Journal of Contemporary Research, 1, 1–5.
Sivunen, A., & Hakonen, M. (2011). Review of virtual
environment studies on social and group phenomena. Small
Group Research, 42, 405–457.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York:
Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory (2nd ed.). Hackensack,
NJ: World Scientific Publishing.
Slavson, S. R. (1950). Group psychotherapy. Scientific American,
183, 42–45.
Smeesters, D., Warlop, L., Van Avermaet, E., Corneille, O., &
Yzerbyt, V. (2003). Do not prime hawks with doves: The
interplay of construct activation and consistency of social
value orientation on cooperative behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 972–987.
Smelser, N. J. (1962). Theory of collective behavior. New York: Free
Press.
Smillie, L. D. (2013). Extraversion and reward processing. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 167–172.
Smith, C. M. (2008). Adding minority status to a source of conflict:
An examination of influence processes and product quality in
dyads. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 75–83.
Smith, D. H., Stebbins, R. A., Grotz, J., Kumar, P., Nga, J. L. H.,
& Van Puyvelde, S. (2016). Typologies of associations and
volunteering. In D. H. Smith, R. A. Stebbins, & J. Grotz
(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of volunteering, civic participation,
and nonprofit associations (pp. 90–125). New York: Palgrave.
Smith, E. R., Murphy, J., & Coats, S. (1999). Attachment to
groups: Theory and management. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 94–110.
Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions
be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual
criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
431–446.
Smith, H. J., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2015). Advances in relative
deprivation theory and research. Social Justice Research, 28(1),
1–6.
Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S.
(2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic
review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3),
203–232.
Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study
of leader emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 147–160.
Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., Littvay, L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2007).
Evolutionary theory and political leadership: Why certain
people do not trust decision makers. Journal of Politics, 69,
285–299.
Smith, P. B. (1975). Controlled studies of the outcome of
sensitivity training. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 597–622.
Smith, P. B. (1980). The outcome of sensitivity training and
encounter. In P. B. Smith (Ed.), Small groups and personal
change (pp. 25–55). New York: Methuen.
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Social psychology across cultures:
Analysis and perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, P. K., Jostmann, N. B., Galinsky, A. D., & van Dijk, W. W.
(2008). Lacking power impairs executive functions.
Psychological Science, 19, 441–447.
Smith, R. H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional
reactions to upward and downward social comparisons.
R E F E R E N C E S 651
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison:
Theory and research (pp. 173–200). New York: Kluwer
Academic.
Smokowski, P. R., Rose, S. D., & Bacallao, M. L. (2001).
Damaging experiences in therapeutic groups: How vulnerable
consumers become group casualties. Small Group Research,
32(2), 223–251.
Smrt, D. L., & Karau, S. J. (2011). Protestant work ethic moderates
social loafing. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
15(3), 267–274.
Sniezek, J. A. (1992). Groups under uncertainty: An examination of
confidence in group decision making. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 52, 124–155.
Snow, D. A., & Oliver, P. E. (1995). Social movements and
collective behavior: Social psychological dimensions and
considerations. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House
(Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 571–599).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Snow, D. A., Zurcher, L. A., & Peters, R. (1981). Victory
celebrations as theater: A dramaturgical approach to crowd
behavior. Symbolic Interaction, 4, 21–42.
Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Stucky, R. J. (1983). Excuses:
Masquerades in search of grace. New York: Wiley.
Sobel, R. (1947). The “Old Sergeant” syndrome. Psychiatry:
Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 10, 315–321.
Socolow, M. J. (2008, October 24). The hyped panic over “War of
the Worlds.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(9), B16.
Solomonov, N., Kuprian, N., Zilcha-Mano, S., Gorman, B. S., &
Barber, J. P. (2016). What do psychotherapy experts actually
do in their sessions? An analysis of psychotherapy integration
in prototypical demonstrations. Journal of Psychotherapy
Integration, 26(2), 202–216.
Sommer, R. (1959). Studies in personal space. Sociometry, 22, 247–260.
Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Hilpert, P., Cantarero, K.,
Frackowiak, T., Ahmadi, K. … Pierce, J. D. (2017). Preferred
interpersonal distances: A global comparison. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 477–592.
Sorrels, J. P., & Kelley, J. (1984). Conformity by omission.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 302–305.
Sorrentino, R. M., & Boutillier, R. G. (1975). The effect of quantity
and quality of verbal interaction on ratings of leadership ability.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 403–411.
Sorrentino, R. M., & Field, N. (1986). Emergent leadership over
time: The functional value of positive motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1091–1099.
Spears, R. (2016). Deindividuation. In S. G. Harkins, K. D.
Williams, & J. Burger (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social
influence. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved
from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/
Spears, R., Lea, M., & Postmes, T. (2007). CMC and social
identity. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, &
U-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology
(pp. 253–269). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2015). Group identity, social influence,
and collective action online: Extension and applications of the
SIDE model. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The handbook of the
psychology of communication technology (pp. 23–46). Malden,
MA: John Wiley & Sons.
Spencer Stuart. (2004). The 2004 Spencer Stuart route to the top:
Our survey of Fortune 700 CEOs provides a snapshot of
today’s CEOs and the major trends emerging. Retrieved from
www.spencerstuart.com/
Spencer, R. W., & Huston, J. H. (1993). Rational forecasts: On
confirming ambiguity as the mother of conformity. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 14, 697–709.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2007).
The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social
categories and task groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92(3), 369–388.
Spiro, E. S., Almquist, Z. W., & Butts, C. T. (2016). The
Persistence of division: Geography, institutions, and online
friendship ties. Socius, 2, 1–15.
Spisak, B. R., Dekker, P. H., Krüger, M., & van Vugt, M. (2012).
Warriors and peacekeepers: Testing a biosocial implicit
leadership hypothesis of intergroup relations using masculine
and feminine faces. PLoS ONE, 7(1), e30399.
Srivastava, S., & Beer, J. S. (2005). How self-evaluations relate to
being liked by others: Integrating sociometer and attachment
perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,
966–977.
St. John, W. (2004). Rammer jammer yellow hammer: A journey into
the heart of fan mania. New York: Crown.
Stager, S. F., Chassin, L., & Young, R. D. (1983). Determinants of
self-esteem among labeled adolescents. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 46, 3–10.
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010).
Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-
analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of
International Business Studies, 41, 690–709.
Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective
efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-
analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828.
Stangor, C., Jonas, K., Stroebe, W., & Hewstone, M. (1996).
Influence of student exchange on national stereotypes,
attitudes, and perceived group variability. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 26, 663–675.
Stark, E. M., Shaw, J. D., & Duffy, M. K. (2007). Preference
for group work, winning orientation, and social loafing
behavior in groups. Group & Organization Management, 32,
699–723.
652 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Starks, T. J., Golub, S. A., Kelly, B. C., & Parsons, J. T. (2010).
The problem of “just for fun”: Patterns of use situations
among active club drug users. Addictive Behaviors, 35(12),
1067–1073.
Stasser, G. (1992). Pooling of unshared information during group
discussions. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.),
Group process and productivity (pp. 48–67). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social
psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and
product. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), Psychology of the
courtroom (pp. 221–256). New York: Academic Press.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in
group decision making: Biased information sampling during
discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
1467–1478.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and
percentage of shared information on the dissemination of
unshared information during group discussion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81–93.
Stasson, M. F., & Bradshaw, S. D. (1995). Explanations of
individual-group performance differences: What sort of
“bonus” can be gained through group interaction? Small
Group Research, 26(2), 296–308.
Stasson, M. F., Kameda, T., & Davis, J. H. (1997). A model of
agenda influences on group decisions. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 316–323.
Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group
violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Staub, E. (1990). Moral exclusion, personal goal theory, and
extreme destructiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 47–64.
Staub, E. (2004). Basic human needs, altruism, and aggression. In
A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil
(pp. 51–84). New York: Guilford.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the
intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending
with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social
identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34,
379–440.
Steffel, M., Williams, E. F., & Perrmann-Graham, J. (2016). Passing
the buck: Delegating choices to others to avoid responsibility
and blame. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 135, 32–44.
Stein, R. T., & Heller, T. (1979). An empirical analysis of the
correlations between leadership status and participation rates
reported in the literature. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 1993–2002.
Steinel, W., & De Dreu, C. K. (2004). Social motives and strategic
misrepresentation in social decision making. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 419–434.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York:
Academic Press.
Steiner, I. D. (1974). Whatever happened to the group in social
psychology? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 94–108.
Steiner, I. D. (1983). Whatever happened to the touted revival of
the group? In H. Blumberg, A. Hare, V. Kent, & M. Davies
(Eds.), Small groups and social interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 539–547).
New York: Wiley.
Steiner, I. D. (1986). Paradigms and groups. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 251–289.
Steinkuehler, C. A., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody
knows your (screen) name: Online games as “Third Places.”
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885–909.
Steinzor, B. (1950). The spatial factor in face to face discussion
groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 552–555.
Stephan, F. F., & Mischler, E. G. (1952). The distribution of
participation in small groups: An exponential approximation.
American Sociological Review, 17, 598–608.
Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup
relations. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social
psychology: Group process (Vol. 9, pp. 13–40). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2005). Intergroup relations
program evaluation. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick & L. A.
Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after
Allport (pp. 431–446). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Rios, K. (2016). Intergroup threat
theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., 255–278). New York:
Psychology Press.
Stern, E. K. (1997). Probing the plausibility of newgroup
syndrome: Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. In P. ‘t Hart, E. K.
Stern, & B. Sundelius (Eds.), Beyond groupthink: Political group
dynamics and foreign policy-making (pp. 153–189). Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A duplex theory of hate: Development and
application to terrorism, massacres, and genocide. Review of
General Psychology, 7, 299–328.
Sternberg, R. J. (2012). The WICS model of leadership. In M. G.
Rumsey (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership (pp. 47–62).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Dobson, D. M. (1987). Resolving interpersonal
conflicts: An analysis of stylistic consistency. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 794–812.
Stets, J. E., & Thai, Y. (2010). Roles. In J. Levine & M. Hogg
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of group processes and intergroup relations
(pp. 709–713). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill,
and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for
human resource management. Journal of Management, 20,
503–530.
R E F E R E N C E S 653
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams:
Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork
settings. Journal of Management, 25, 207–228.
Stevenson, R. J., & Repacholi, B. M. (2005). Does the source of an
interpersonal odor affect disgust? A disease risk model and its
alternatives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3),
375–401.
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships
between team design features and team performance. Journal
of Management, 32, 29–55.
Stewart, P. A., & Moore, J. C. (1992). Wage disparities and
performance expectations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55,
78–85.
Stice, E., Marti, C. N., Spoor, S., Presnell, K., & Shaw, H. (2008).
Dissonance and healthy weight eating disorder prevention
programs: Long-term effects from a randomized efficacy trial.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 329–340.
Stiles, W. B., Lyall, L. M., Knight, D. P., Ickes, W., Waung, M.,
Hall, C. L., & Primeau, B. E. (1997). Gender differences in
verbal presumptuousness and attentiveness. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 759–772.
Stiles, W. B., Shapiro, D. A., & Elliott, R. (1986). Are all
psychotherapies equivalent? American Psychologist, 41, 165–180.
Stillwell, A. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Del Priore, R. E. (2008).
We’re all victims here: Toward a psychology of revenge. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 253–263.
Stinson, D. A., Logel, C., Zanna, M. P., Holmes, J. G., Cameron,
J. J., Wood, J. V. et al. (2008). The cost of lower self-esteem:
Testing a self- and social-bonds model of health. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 412–428.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership.
Journal of Psychology, 23, 35–71.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free
Press.
Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between density and
crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological
Review, 79, 275–278.
Stokols, D. (1978). In defense of the crowding construct. In
A. Baum, J. E. Singer, & S. Valins (Eds.), Advances in
environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 111–130). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Stoner, J. A. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions
involving risk. Unpublished master’s thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Stoner, J. A. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions:
The influence of widely held values. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 4, 442–459.
Stones, C. R. (1982). A community of Jesus people in South
Africa. Small Group Behavior, 13, 264–272.
Strauss, A. L. (1944). The literature on panic. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 39, 317–328.
Streufert, S., & Streufert, S. C. (1986). The development of
international conflict. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 134–152).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Strickland, L. H., Barefoot, J. C., & Hockenstein, P. (1976).
Monitoring behavior in the surveillance and trust paradigm.
Representative Research in Social Psychology, 7, 51–57.
Strodtbeck, F. L., & Hook, L. H. (1961). The social dimensions of
a twelve-man jury table. Sociometry, 24, 397–415.
Strodtbeck, F. L., James, R. M., & Hawkins, C. (1957). Social
status in jury deliberations. American Sociological Review, 22,
713–719.
Strodtbeck, F. L., & Lipinski, R. M. (1985). Becoming first among
equals: Moral considerations in jury foreman selection. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 927–936.
Strodtbeck, F. L., & Mann, R. D. (1956). Sex role differentiation in
jury deliberations. Sociometry, 19, 3–11.
Stroebe, W. (2012). The truth about Triplett (1898), but nobody
seems to care. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 54–57.
Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of
group effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,
643–650.
Stroebe, W., Stroebe, M. S., Abakoumkin, G., & Schut, H. (1996).
The role of loneliness and social support in adjustment to loss:
A test of attachment versus stress theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 1241–1249.
Strong, S. R., Hills, H. I., Kilmartin, C. T., DeVries, H., Lanier,
K., Nelson, B. N., … Meyer, C. W. (1988). The dynamic
relations among interpersonal behaviors: A test of
complementarity and anticomplementarity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 798–810.
Stroud, L. R., Tanofsky-Kraff, M., Wilfley, D. E., & Salovey, P.
(2000). The Yale Interpersonal Stressor (YIPS): Affective,
physiological, and behavioral responses to a novel
interpersonal rejection paradigm. Annals of Behavioral Medicine,
22(3), 204–213.
Strube, M. J. (2005). What did Triplett really find? A contemporary
analysis of the first experiment in social psychology. The
American Journal of Psychology, 118, 271–286.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future
of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4),
284–297.
Stryker, S., & Vryan, K. D. (2006). The symbolic interactionist
framework. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology
(pp. 3–28). New York: Plenum.
Stuster, J. (1996). Bold endeavors: Lessons from polar and space
exploration. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Suedfeld, P., & Steel, G. D. (2000). The environmental psychology
of capsule habitats. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 227–253.
Sugiman, T., & Misumi, J. (1988). Development of a new
evacuation method for emergencies: Control of collective
654 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

behavior by emergent small groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 3–10.
Sullenberger, C. B. (with Zaslow, J.) (2009). Highest duty: My search
for what really matters. New York: Harper Collins.
Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and
creative lives. New York: Pantheon Books.
Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. (1998). Person-environment fit
and its limits: Agreeableness, neuroticism, and emotional
reactivity to interpersonal conflict. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 88–98.
Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of social comparison:
Theory and research. New York: Kluwer Academic.
Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2012). Social comparison theory. In
P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1.,
pp. 460–482). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2014). On the trail of social comparison. In
S. Harkins, K. D. Williams, & J. Burger (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of social influence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn.
Sundstrom, E. (1987). Work environments: Offices and factories.
In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 733–782). New York: Wiley.
Sundstrom, E., & Altman, I. (1974). Field study of dominance and
territorial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
30, 115–125.
Sundstrom, E., Bell, P. A., Busby, P. L., & Asmus, C. (1996).
Environmental psychology: 1989–1994. Annual Review of
Psychology, 47, 485–512.
Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000).
Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of
the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 4, 44–67.
Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization. The Journal
of Political Philosophy, 10, 175–195.
Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2015). Wiser: Getting beyond
groupthink to make groups smarter. Boston: Harvard University
Press.
Sunwolf. (2002). Getting to “Group Aha!”: Provoking creative
processes in task groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in
group communication (pp. 203–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sunwolf. (2010). Investigating jury deliberation in a capital murder
case. Small Group Research, 41(4), 380–385.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter
than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies,
societies, and nations. New York: Random House.
Susarla, A., Oh, J.-H., & Tan, Y. (2012). Social networks and the
diffusion of user-generated content: Evidence from
YouTube. Information Systems Research, 23, 23–41.
Sussman, S., Pokhrel, P., Ashmore, R. D., & Brown, B. B. (2007).
Adolescent peer group identification and characteristics: A
review of the literature. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 1602–1627.
Svensson, J., Neumayer, C., Banfield-Mumb, A., & Schossböck, J.
(2015). Identity negotiation in activist participation.
Communication, Culture & Critique, 8(1), 144–162.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Jetten, J., Gómez, Á., Whitehouse, H., &
Bastian, B. (2012). When group membership gets personal: A
theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119(3), 441–456.
Swift, E. M. (1980, December). A reminder of what we can be.
Sports Illustrated, December 22, 1980. Retrieved from
sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/
MAG1124069/index.htm
Szanto, T. (2014). How to share a mind: Reconsidering the group
mind thesis. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13(1),
99–120.
’t Hart, P. (1991). Irving L. Janis’ Victims of Groupthink. Political
Psychology, 12(2), 247–278.
’t Hart, P. (1998). Preventing groupthink revisited: Evaluating and
reforming groups in government. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 73, 306–326.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social
Science Information, 13, 65–93.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of
intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of
intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago,
IL: Nelson-Hall.
Takeda, M. B., Helms, M. M., & Romanova, N. (2006). Hair color
stereotyping and CEO selection in the United Kingdom.
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 13, 85–99.
Takemura, K., & Yuki, M. (2007). Are Japanese groups more
competitive than Japanese individuals? A cross-cultural
validation of the interindividual–intergroup discontinuity
effect. International Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 27–35.
Talaifar, S., & Swann, W. B. (2016). Differentiated selves can
surely be good for the group, but let’s get clear about
why. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39. doi:10.1017/
S0140525X15000618
Talley, A. E., Kocum, L., Schlegel, R. J., Molix, L., & Bettencourt,
B. A. (2012). Social roles, basic need satisfaction, and
psychological health: The central role of competence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 155–173.
Tal-Or, N. (2008). Communicative behaviors of outperformers and
their perception by the outperformed people. Human
Communication Research, 34, 234–262.
R E F E R E N C E S 655
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Tausch, N., Maio, G., &
Kenworthy, J. (2007). The impact of intergroup emotions on
forgiveness in Northern Ireland. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 10(1), 119–136.
Tan, V. (2015). Using negotiated joining to construct and fill open-
ended roles in elite culinary groups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 60(1), 103–132.
Tang, J. (1997). The Model Minority thesis revisited: (Counter)
evidence from the science and engineering fields. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 291–314.
Tang, T. L., & Butler, E. A. (1997). Attributions of quality circles’
problem-solving failure: Differences among management,
supporting staff, and quality circle members. Public Personnel
Management, 26, 203–225.
Tanis, M. (2008). Health-related on-line forums: What’s the big
attraction? Journal of Health Communication, 13(7), 698–714.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the
impact of culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel,
meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 405–439.
Tarde, G. (1903). The laws of imitation. New York: Holt.
Tarnow, E. (2000). Self-destructive obedience in the airplane
cockpit and the concept of obedience optimization. In
T. Blass (Ed.), Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the
Milgram paradigm (pp. 111–123). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tata, J., Anthony, T., Hung-yu, L., Newman, B., Tang, S.,
Millson, M., & Sivakumar, K. (1996). Proportionate
group size and rejection of the deviate: A meta-analytic
integration. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11,
739–752.
Tausch, N., Becker, J. C., Spears, R., Christ, O., Saab, R., Singh,
P., & Siddiqui, R. N. (2011). Explaining radical group
behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to
normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 129–148.
Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me).
New York: Harcourt.
Taylor, H. F. (1970). Balance in small groups. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Taylor, H. (2009). Transfer of
management training from alternative perspectives. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(1), 104–121.
Taylor, R. B., & Lanni, J. C. (1981). Territorial dominance: The
influence of the resident advantage in triadic decision making.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 909–915.
Taylor, S. E. (2002). The tending instinct: How nurturing is essential for
who we are and how we live. New York: Henry Holt.
Taylor, S. E. (2006). Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of
affiliation under stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
15(6), 273–277.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L.,
Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral
responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-
or-flight. Psychological Review, 107, 411–429.
Teger, A. (1980). Too much invested to quit. New York: Pergamon.
Ten Velden, F. S., Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007).
Majority and minority influence in group negotiation: The
moderating effects of social motivation and decision rules.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 259–268.
Teppner, B. J. (2006). What do managers do when subordinates
just say, “No?” An analysis of incidents involving refusal to
perform downward requests. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L.
Neider (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: New empirical
and theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–20). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1998). In-group bias in response to an
organizational merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 2, 67–81.
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of
social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21,
181–227.
Tesser, A. (1991). Emotion in social comparison and reflection
processes. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison:
Contemporary theory and research (pp. 117–148). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tesser, A., Campbell, J., & Smith, M. (1984). Friendship choice
and performance: Self-evaluation maintenance in children.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 561–574.
Tetlock, P. E. (1979). Identifying victims of groupthink from
public statements of decision makers. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 1314–1324.
Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., McGuire, C., Chang, S., & Feld, P.
(1992). Assessing political group dynamics: A test of the
groupthink model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
63, 403–425.
Thayer, B. A., & Hudson, V. M. (2010). Sex and the Shaheed:
Insights from the life sciences on Islamic suicide terrorism.
International Security, 34(4), 37–62.
Thayer, S. D., & Burlingame, G. M. (2014). The validity of the
Group Questionnaire: Construct clarity or construct drift?
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(4),
318–332.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of
groups. New York: Wiley.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in
organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.,
Vol. 3, pp. 651–717). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America:
Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.
656 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Phillips, K. W. (2004). When what you
know is not enough: Expertise and gender dynamics in task
groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
1585–1598.
Thompson, L. L. (1991). Information exchange in negotiation.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 161–179.
Thompson, L. L. (2014). Making the team: A guide for managers
(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Thompson, L. L., Mannix, E. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1988). Group
negotiation: Effects of decision rule, agenda, and aspiration.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 86–95.
Thompson, L. L., Nadler, J., Lount, R. B., Jr. (2006). Judgmental
biases in conflict resolution and how to overcome them.
In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The
handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.,
pp. 243–267). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thompson, L. L., Wang, J., & Gunia, B. C. (2013). Negotiation. In
J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group processes (pp. 55–84). New York:
Psychology Press.
Thoreau, H. D. (1962). Walden and other writings. New York:
Bantam.
Thrasher, F. M. (1927). The gang. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated
communication: Social interaction and the Internet. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thurston, J. A. (2012). Exploring group perception: The relationship
between the perception of entitativity and assessments of cohesion.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Santa Barbara, CA:
University of California. Retrieved from http://gradworks.
proquest.com/3553785
Thye, S. R. (2000). A status value theory of power in exchange
relations. American Sociological Review, 65, 407–432.
Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves:
Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558–568.
Tiedens, L. Z., Unzueta, M. M., & Young, M. J. (2007). An
unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception
of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 402–414.
Tiger, L., & Fox, R. (1998). The imperial animal. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Tindale, R. S., & Kluwe, K. (2015). Decision making in groups
and organizations. In G. Keren & G. Wu (Eds.), Wiley-
Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (Vol. 2,
pp. 849–874). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tindale, R. S., Stawiski, S., & Jacobs, E. (2008). Shared cognition
and group learning. In V. I. Sessa & M. London (Eds.), Work
group learning: Understanding, improving and assessing how groups
learn in organizations (pp. 73–90). New York: Taylor & Francis
Group.
Tindale, R. S., Talbot, M., & Martinez, R. (2013). Decision
making. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group processes (pp. 165–192).
New York: Psychology Press.
Tjosvold, D., Wong, A. S., & Feng Chen, N. Y. (2014).
Constructively managing conflicts in organizations. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
1(1), 545–568.
Tobin, K. (2008). Gangs: An individual group perspective. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Toennies, F. (1963). Community and society [Gemeinscheaft and
Gesellschaft]. New York: Harper & Row. (original work
published in 1887)
Tolstoy, L. (1952). War and peace. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia
Britannica. (original work published in 1887)
Tong, E. M. W., Tan, C. R. M., Latheef, N. A., Selamat, M. F. B.,
& Tan, D. K. B. (2008). Conformity: Moods matter. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 601–611.
Toobin, J. (2007). The nine: Inside the secret world of the Supreme
Court. New York: Doubleday.
Torrance, E. P. (1954). The behavior of small groups under the
stress conditions of “survival.” American Sociological Review, 19,
751–755.
Tracey, T. J., Ryan, J. M., & Jaschik-Herman, B. (2001).
Complementarity of interpersonal circumplex traits.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 786–797.
Travis, L. E. (1928). The influence of the group upon the stutterer’s
speed in free association. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 23, 45–51.
Tremblay, S., Sharika, K. M., & Platt, M. L. (2017). Social
decision-making and the brain: A comparative perspective.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(4), 265–276.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural
syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407–415.
Triandis, H. C. (2009). Fooling ourselves. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). A theory of
individualism and collectivism. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A.
W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories
of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 498–520). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. L. (1985).
Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and
discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(4),
395–415.
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod
probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–1013.
Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on
personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133–160.
R E F E R E N C E S 657
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and
competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507–533.
Tropp, L. R. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Tropp, L. R., & Molina, L. (2012). Intergroup processes: From
prejudice to positive relations between groups. In K. Deaux
& M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and
social psychology (pp. 545–579). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Tropp, L. R., & Page-Gould, E. (2015). Contact between groups.
In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A.
Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 535–560). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., Gurtner, A., Bizzari, L., Spychiger, M.,
Breuer, M., & Marsch, S. U. (2009). Explicit reasoning,
confirmation bias, and illusory transactive memory: A
simulation study of group medical decision making. Small
Group Research, 40(3), 271–300.
Tsikerdekis, M. (2013). The effects of perceived anonymity and
anonymity states on conformity and groupthink in online
communities: A Wikipedia study. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1001–1015.
Tsoi, L., Dungan, J., Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2016). Distinct
neural patterns of social cognition for cooperation versus
competition. NeuroImage, 137, 86–96.
Tucker, C. W., Schweingruber, D., & McPhail, C. (1999).
Simulating arcs and rings in gatherings. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 50, 581–588.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups.
Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small group
development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2,
419–427.
Turnage, A. K. (2007). Email flaming behaviors and organizational
conflict. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1),
43–59.
Turner, A. L. (2000). Group treatment of trauma survivors
following a fatal bus accident: Integrating theory and practice.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 139–149.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social
group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup behavior
(pp. 15–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/
Cengage.
Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social
identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R.
Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity (pp. 6–34). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Turner, M. E. (Ed.). (2001). Groups at work: Theory and research.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998a). A social identity
maintenance model of groupthink. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 73(2/3), 210–235.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998b). Twenty-five years of
groupthink theory and research: Lessons from the evaluation
of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 73(2/3), 105–115.
Turner, R. H. (1964). Collective behavior. In R. E. L. Faris (Ed.),
Handbook of modern sociology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Turner, R. H. (2001a). Collective behavior. In E. F. Borgatta &
R. J. V. Montgomery (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology (Vol. 1,
2nd ed., pp. 348–354). New York: Macmillan Reference.
Turner, R. H. (2001b). Role theory. In J. H. Turner (Ed.),
Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 233–254). New York:
Springer Science+Business Media.
Turner, R. H., & Colomy, P. (1988). Role differentiation:
Orienting principles. Advances in Group Processes, 5, 1–27.
Turner, R. H., & Killian, L. M. (1972). Collective behavior (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive
reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.
Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits
over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325.
Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in
response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis,
1931–1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
133–145.
Twenge, J. M. (2009). Change over time in obedience: The jury’s
still out, but it might be decreasing. American Psychologist,
64(1), 28–31.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J.,
& Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 56–66.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S.
(2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social
exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 1058–1069.
Twenge, J. M., & Crocker, J. (2002). Race and self-esteem: Meta-
analyses comparing Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and
American Indians and comment on Gray-Little and Hafdahl
(2000). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 371–408.
Tyler, T. R. (2005). Introduction: Legitimating ideologies. Social
Justice Research, 18, 211–215.
Tyler, T. R. (2013). Justice. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group processes
(pp. 111–134). New York: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement
model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (2004). Report of the
Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. intelligence
658 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

community’s prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq together with
additional views. Retrieved from intelligence.senate.gov
/108301
Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health: Understanding
the health consequences of relationships. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Ugander, J., Backstrom, L., Marlow, C., & Kleinberg, J. (2012).
Structural diversity in social contagion. PNAS: Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 109(16), 5962–5966.
Uglow, J. S. (2002). Lunar men: Five friends whose curiosity changed the
world. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K.
(2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda.
The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104.
Ulbig, S. G., & Funk, C. L. (1999). Conflict avoidance and political
participation. Political Behavior, 21, 265–282.
Urban, L. M., & Miller, N. (1998). A theoretical analysis of crossed
categorization effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 894–908.
Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state:
A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1,
170–182.
Utz, S., & Sassenberg, K. (2002). Distributive justice in common-
bond and common-identity groups. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 5, 151–162.
Uziel, L. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation
effect: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 579–601.
Uziel, L. (2010). Look at me, I’m happy and creative: The effect of
impression management on behavior in social presence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1591–1602.
Uziel, L. (2015). Life seems different with you around: Differential
shifts in cognitive appraisal in the mere presence of others for
neuroticism and impression management. Personality and
Individual Differences, 73, 39–43.
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical
combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157),
468–472.
Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is
power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 157–176.
Vakoch, D. A. (Ed). (2013). On orbit and beyond: Psychological
perspectives on human spaceflight. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2007). Dynamical social
psychology: Finding order in the flow of human experience.
In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology:
Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 734–758). New York:
Guilford.
Van de Vliert, E. (2006). Autocratic leadership around the globe:
Do climate and wealth drive leadership culture? Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1), 42–59.
Van de Vliert, E. (2011). Climato-economic origins of variation in
ingroup favoritism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(3),
494–515.
Van de Vliert, E. (2013). Climato-economic habitats support
patterns of human needs, stresses, and freedoms. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 36(5), 465–480.
Van de Vliert, E. (2016). Human cultures as niche constructions
within the solar system. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
47(1), 21–27.
Van de Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and
activeness as components of conflict behaviors. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 674–687.
Van de Vliert, E., & Postmes, T. (2012). Climato-economic
livability predicts societal collectivism and political autocracy
better than parasitic stress does. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
35(2), 94–95.
Van de Vliert, E., & van Yperen, N. (1996). Why cross-national
differences in role overload? Don’t overlook ambient
temperature! Academy of Management Journal, 39(4),
986–1004.
Van den Assem, M. J., Van Dolder, D., & Thaler, R. H. (2012).
Split or steal? Cooperative behavior when the stakes are large.
Management Science, 58(1), 2–20.
van der Toorn, J., Tyler, T. R., & Jost, J. T. (2011). More than fair:
Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived
legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 47(1), 127–138.
Van Dijke, M., & Poppe, M. (2006). Striving for personal power as
a basis for social power dynamics. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 36, 537–556.
van Dijke, M., & Poppe, M. (2007). Motivation underlying power
dynamics in hierarchically structured groups. Small Group
Research, 38, 643–669.
van Ginneken, J. (2007). Mass movements in Darwinist, Freudian, and
Marxist perspective: Trotter, Freud, and Reich on war, revolution
and reaction, 1900–1933. Apeldoorn, NL: Het Spinhuis.
Van Hiel, A., & Franssen, V. (2003). Information acquisition bias
during the preparation of group discussion: A comparison of
prospective minority and majority members. Small Group
Research, 34, 557–574.
van Kleef, G. A. (2016). The interpersonal dynamics of emotion: Toward
an integrative theory of emotions as social information. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2002). Social value orientation
and impression formation: A test of two competing
hypotheses about information search in negotiation.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 59–77.
van Kleef, G. A., & Fischer, A. H. (2016). Emotional collectives:
How groups shape emotions and emotions shape groups.
Cognition and Emotion, 30(1), 3–19.
R E F E R E N C E S 659
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A.,
Goetz, J., & Keltner, D. (2008). Power, distress, and
compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others.
Psychological Science, 19(12), 1315–1322.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group
diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Agnew, C. R., Harinck, F., & Steemers,
G. E. M. (1997). From game theory to real life: How social
value orientation affects willingness to sacrifice in ongoing
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73(6), 1330–1344.
Van Lange, P. A. M., De Cremer, D., Van Dijk, E., & Van Vugt,
M. (2007). Self-interest and beyond: Basic principles of social
interaction. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 540–561).
New York: Guilford.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Klapwijk, A., & Van Munster, L. M. (2011).
How the shadow of the future might promote cooperation.
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14, 857–870.
Van Overwalle, F., & Heylighen, F. (2006). Talking nets: A
multiagent connectionist approach to communication and
trust between individuals. Psychological Review, 113, 606–627.
Van Raalte, J. L., Cornelius, A. E., Linder, D. E., & Brewer, B. W.
(2007). The relationship between hazing and team cohesion.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 30, 491–507.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Burnette, J. L., O’boyle, E. O., Worthington,
E. L., Jr., Forsyth, D. R. (2013). A meta-analysis of intergroup
forgiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 81–95.
van Uden-Kraan, C. F., Drossaert, C. H. C., Taal, E., Lebrun,
C. E. I., Drossaers-Bakker, K. W., Smit, W. M., & van de
Laar, M. A. F. J. (2008). Coping with somatic illnesses in
online support groups: Do the feared disadvantages actually
occur? Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 309–324.
Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender
differences in cooperation and competition: The male-
warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science, 18, 19–23.
Van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity as social glue:
The origins of group loyalty. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, 585–598.
Van Vugt, M., & Spisak, B. R. (2008). Sex differences in the
emergence of leadership during competitions within and
between groups. Psychological Science, 19(9), 854–858.
Van Zelst, R. H. (1952). Sociometrically selected work teams
increase production. Personnel Psychology, 5, 175–185.
van Zomeren, M. (2015). Psychological processes in social action.
In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A.
Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 507–533). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Vandello, J. A., Cohen, D., & Ransom, S. (2008). U.S. southern
and northern differences in perceptions of norms about
aggression: Mechanisms for the perpetuation of a culture of
honor. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 162–177.
Vandenberghe, C., & Bentein, K. (2009). A closer look at the
relationship between affective commitment to supervisors and
organizations and turnover. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 331–348.
Varvel, S. J., He, Y., Shannon, J. K., Tager, D., Bledman, R. A.,
Chaichanasakul, A., Mendoza, M. M., & Mallinckrodt, B.
(2007). Multidimensional, threshold effects of social support
in firefighters: Is more support invariably better? Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 54, 458–465.
Vaske, J. J., & Shelby, L. B. (2008). Crowding as a descriptive
indicator and an evaluative standard: Results from 30 years of
research. Leisure Sciences, 30(2), 111–126.
Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An
examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 444–451.
Vecchio, R. P., & Boatwright, K. J. (2002). Preferences for
idealized styles of supervision. Leadership Quarterly, 13,
327–342.
Vecchio, R. P., Bullis, R. C., & Brazil, D. M. (2006). The utility of
situational leadership theory: A replication in a military
setting. Small Group Research, 37(5), 407–424.
Venkatesh, S. (2008). Gang leader for a day: A rogue sociologist takes to
the streets. New York: Penguin Press.
Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., & Ickes, W. (2007). Social support
in couples: An examination of gender differences using
self-report and observational methods. Sex Roles, 57(3–4),
267–282.
Vickery, C. D., Gontkovsky, S. T., Wallace, J. J., & Caroselli, J. S.
(2006). Group psychotherapy focusing on self-concept
change following acquired brain injury: A pilot investigation.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 51, 30–35.
Vider, S. (2004). Rethinking crowd violence: Self-categorization
theory and the Woodstock 1999 riot. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behavior, 34, 141–166.
Vidmar, N., & Hans, V. P. (2007). American juries: The verdict.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Viesturs, E. (1996). Ed Viesturs on 1996: Turn around guys. National
Geographic Adventure. Retrived from http://www.national
geographic.com/adventure/everest/ed-viesturs-6.html
Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1974). The effects of partially shared
persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-
problem-solving approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 29, 305–315.
Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1978). Depolarization of attitudes in
groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 872–885.
Vinokur, A., Burnstein, E., Sechrest, L., & Wortman, P. M. (1985).
Group decision making by experts: Field study of panels
evaluating medical technologies. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 70–84.
660 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Vinsel, A., Brown, B. B., Altman, I., & Foss, C. (1980). Privacy
regulation, territorial displays, and effectiveness of individual
functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
1104–1115.
Vischer, J. C., & Wifi, M. (2017). The effect of workplace design
on quality of life at work. In G. Fleury-Bahi, E. Pol, &
O. Navarro (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology and
quality of life research (pp. 387–400). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer International.
Vogler, J. S., & Robinson, D. H. (2016). Team-based testing
improves individual learning. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 84(4), 787–803.
von Rueden, C. (2014). The roots and fruits of social status in
small-scale human societies. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, &
C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status
(pp. 179–200). New York: Springer Science+Business
Media.
von Rueden, C., & Van Vugt, M. (2015). Leadership in small-scale
societies: Some implications for theory, research, and practice.
The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 978–990.
Vroom, V. H. (2003). Educating managers in decision making and
leadership. Management Decision, 10, 968–978.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in
leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 17–24.
Vroom, V. H., & Mann, F. C. (1960). Leader authoritarianism and
employee attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 13, 125–140.
Waddington, D. (2008). The madness of the mob? Explaining the
“irrationality” and destructiveness of crowd violence. Sociology
Compass, 2, 675–687.
Wagner, C. C., & Ingersoll, K. S. (with contributors.) (2013).
Motivational interviewing in groups. New York: Guilford.
Wagner, D. G. (1995). Gender differences in reward preference: A
status-based account. Small Group Research, 26, 353–371.
Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects
on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal,
38(1), 152–173.
Wagner, U., & Hewstone, M. (2012). Intergroup contact. In
L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict
(pp. 193–209). New York: Oxford University Press.
Walder, A. G. (2009). Political sociology and social movements.
Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 393–412.
Walker, C. J., & Berkerle, C. A. (1987). The effect of state anxiety
on rumor transmission. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
2, 353–360.
Walker, H. A., Ilardi, B. C., McMahon, A. M., & Fennell, M. L.
(1996). Gender, interaction, and leadership. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 59, 255–272.
Wall, V. D., Jr., & Nolan, L. L. (1987). Small group conflict: A
look at equity, satisfaction, and styles of conflict management.
Small Group Behavior, 18, 188–211.
Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1962). Group influence
on individual risk taking. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 65, 75–86.
Walsh, Y., Russell, R. J. H., & Wells, P. A. (1995). The personality
of ex-cult members. Personality and Individual Differences, 19,
339–344.
Walters, S., Barr-Anderson, D., Wall, M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D.
(2009). Does participation in organized sports predict future
physical activity for adolescents from diverse economic
backgrounds? Journal of Adolescent Health, 44(3), 268–274.
Walther, J. B. (2013). Groups and computer-mediated
communication. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social
net: Understanding our online behavior (2nd ed., pp. 164–179).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Wann, D. L. (2006). Understanding the positive social
psychological benefits of sport team identification: The team
identification-social psychological health model. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 272–296.
Wann, D. L., & Craven, L. (2014). Further support for the Team
Identification-Social Psychological Health Model:
Relationships between identification of college sport teams,
vitality, and social avoidance/distress among college students.
Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 7, 352–366.
Warner HBO (Production Company). (2001). Do you believe in
miracles? The story of the 1980 U.S. Hockey Team [Videotape].
New York: HBO Studios.
Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal
conduct. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods
and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Watson, C., & Hoffman, L. R. (1996). Managers as negotiators: A
test of power versus gender as predictors of feelings, behavior,
and outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 63–85.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive
emotional core. In R. Hogan & J. A. Johnson (Eds.),
Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767–793). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Watson, J. C., & Schneider, K. (2016). Humanistic–existential
theories. In J. C. Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, D. K.
Freedheim, & B. O. Olatunji (Eds.), APA handbook of clinical
psychology: Theory and research (pp. 117–143). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Watson, R. I., Jr. (1973). Investigation into deindividuation using a
cross-cultural survey technique. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 25, 342–345.
Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and
public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4),
441–458.
Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2012). The group-member mind trade-
off: Attributing mind to groups versus group members.
Psychological Science, 23(1), 77–85.
R E F E R E N C E S 661
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Weber, B., & Hertel, G. (2007). Motivation gains of inferior group
members: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93, 973–993.
Weber, J. M., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Conflicting interests in social
life: Understanding social dilemma dynamics. In M. J. Gelfand &
J. M. Brett (Eds.), The handbook of negotiation and culture
(pp. 374–394). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Weber, J. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (2008). Suckers or saviors?
Consistent contributors in social dilemmas. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1340–1353.
Weber, M. (1946). The sociology of charismatic authority. In
H. H. Gert & C. W. Mills (Trans. & Eds.), From Max Weber:
Essay in sociology (pp. 245–252). New York: Oxford
University Press. (original work published in 1921)
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society (G. Roth & C. Wittich,
trans.). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
(original work published 1956)
Wegge, J., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). Improving work motivation
and performance in brainstorming groups: The effects of three
group goal-setting strategies. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 14, 400–430.
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary
analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals
(Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York:
Springer Verlag.
Weick, M., & Guinote, A. (2010). How long will it take? Power
biases time predictions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
46(4), 595–604.
Weigold, M. F., & Schlenker, B. R. (1991). Accountability and risk
taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 25–29.
Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component
complexity, effort, and planning on group performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 682–693.
Weingart, L. R., Behfar, K. J., Bendersky, C., Todorova, G., &
Jehn, K. A. (2015). The directness and oppositional intensity
of conflict expression. Academy of Management Review, 40(2),
235–262.
Weingart, L. R., Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2007).
Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994–1010.
Weingart, L. R., & Weldon, E. (1991). Processes that mediate the
relationship between a group goal and group member
performance. Human Performance, 4, 33–54.
Weisel, O., & Zultan, R. (2016). Social motives in intergroup
conflict: Group identity and perceived target of threat.
European Economic Review, 90, 122–133.
Weiss, T. (2011). The blurring border between the police and the
military: A debate without foundations. Cooperation and
Conflict, 46(3), 396–405.
Welch, D. A. (1989). Crisis decision making reconsidered. Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 33, 430–445.
Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that
mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved
group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61, 555–569.
Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group goals and group
performance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 307–334.
Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D. (1997). Collective memory:
Collaborative and individual processes in remembering.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 23, 1160–1175.
Weldon, M. S., Blair, C., & Huebsch, D. (2000). Group
remembering: Does social loafing underlie collaborative
inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1568–1577.
Wells, M. M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal displays:
The role of office personalization in employee and
organizational well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
20(3), 239–255.
Werner, P. (1978). Personality and attitude-activism correspondence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1375–1390.
Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2011). Ostracism in
Cyberspace: Being ignored and excluded on the Internet.
In Z. Birchmeier, B. Dietz-Uhler, & G. Stasser, (Eds.),
Strategic uses of social technology: An interactive perspective of
social psychology (pp. 127–144). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Wheelan, S. A. (2005). Group processes: A developmental perspective
(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Wheelan, S. A., Davidson, B., & Tilin, F. (2003). Group
development across time: Reality or illusion? Small Group
Research, 34, 223–245.
Wheeler, D. D., & Janis, I. L. (1980). A practical guide for making
decisions. New York: Free Press.
Wheeler, L. (1966). Toward a theory of behavioral contagion.
Psychological Review, 73, 179–192.
Wheeler, L., & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday
life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 760–773.
White, K. M., Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Greenslade, J. H., &
McKimmie, B. M. (2009). Social influence in the theory of
planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-
group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1),
135–158.
White, R. K. (1990). Democracy in the research team. In S. A.
Wheelan, E. Pepitone, & V. Abt (Eds.), Advances in field theory
(pp. 19–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
White, R. K., & Lippitt, R. (1960). Autocracy and democracy.
New York: Harper & Row.
White, R. K., & Lippitt, R. (1968). Leader behavior and member
reaction in three “social climates.” In D. Cartwright &
A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.,
pp. 318–335). New York: Harper & Row.
662 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Whitney, K., & Sagrestano, L. M., & Maslach, C. (1994).
Establishing the social impact of individuation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1140–1153.
Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Whyte, W. F. (1955). Street corner society (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1991). Participatory
action research: Through practice to science in social research.
In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participatory action research (pp. 19–55).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wicker, A. W. (1979). An introduction to ecological psychology. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Wicker, A. W. (1987). Behavior settings reconsidered: Temporal
stages, resources, internal dynamics, context. In D. Stokols &
I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 613–653). New York: Wiley.
Wicker, A. W. (2002). Ecological psychology: Historical contexts,
current conception, prospective directions. In R. Bechtel &
A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology
(pp. 114–126). New York: Wiley.
Wicker, A. W., & August, R. A. (1995). How far should we
generalize? The case of a workload model. Psychological
Science, 6, 39–44.
Wicker, A. W., Kirmeyer, S. L., Hanson, L., & Alexander, D.
(1976). Effects of manning levels on subjective experiences,
performance, and verbal interaction in groups. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 251–274.
Widmeyer, W. N. (1990). Group composition in sport. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 264–285.
Wijermans, N., Conrado, C., van Steen, M., Martella, C., & Li, J.
(2016). A landscape of crowd-management support: An
integrative approach. Safety Science, 86, 142–164.
Wilder, D. A. (1977). Perception of groups, size of opposition, and
social influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13,
253–268.
Wilder, D. A. (1986). Social categorization: Implications for
creation and reduction of intergroup bias. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 293–355.
Wilder, D. A., Simon, A. F., & Faith, M. (1996). Enhancing the
impact of counterstereotypic information: Dispositional
attributions for deviance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 276–287.
Wilder, D. A., & Thompson, J. E. (1980). Intergroup contact with
independent manipulations of in-group and out-group
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,
589–603.
Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Mathieu,
J. E., & Rayne, S. R. (2012). Task types and team-level
attributes: Synthesis of team classification literature. Human
Resource Development Review, 11(1), 97–129.
Wildschut, T., & Insko, C. A. (2007). Explanations of
interindividual–intergroup discontinuity: A review of
the evidence. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1),
175–211.
Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J.
(2003). Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the
interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 698–722.
Wilke, H. A. M. (1996). Status congruence in small groups. In
E. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior:
Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2,
pp. 67–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wilkinson-Weber, C. M. (2010). From commodity to costume:
Productive consumption in the production of Bollywood film
“looks.” Journal of Material Culture, 15, 1–28.
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A
multination study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,
425–452.
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314.
Williams, K. D. (2010). Dyads can be groups (and often are). Small
Group Research, 41, 268–274.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000).
Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762.
Williams, K. D., Govan, C. L., Croker, V., Tynan, D.,
Cruickshank, M., & Lam, A. (2002). Investigations into
differences between social- and cyber-ostracism. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 65–77.
Williams, K. D., Harkins, S., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a
deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303–311.
Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social
compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
570–581.
Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2017). Introduction and overview.
In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion,
and rejection (pp. 1–9). New York: Routledge.
Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by
coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–706.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and
diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.
Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical
warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322(5901),
606–607.
R E F E R E N C E S 663
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Willig, C., & Stainton-Rogers, W. (Eds.). (2008). The Sage handbook
of qualitative research in psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Willis, F. N. (1966). Initial speaking distance as a function of the
speakers’ relationship. Psychonomic Science, 5, 221–222.
Wills, T. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1991). Interpersonal analysis of the
help-seeking process. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth
(Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health
perspective (pp. 350–375). New York: Pergamon Press.
Wilson, T. D. (2011). Redirect: Changing the stories we live by.
New York: Little, Brown.
Winquist, J. R., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1998). Information pooling:
When it impacts group decision making. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 371–377.
Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press.
Winter, D. G. (2010). Power in the person: Exploring the
motivational underground of power. In A. Guinote &
T. K. Vescio (Eds.), The social psychology of power
(pp. 113–140). New York: Guilford Press.
Wiseman, R. L., & Schenck-Hamlin, W. (1981). A
multidimensional scaling validation of an inductively-derived
set of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication
Monographs, 48(4), 251–270.
Wisman, A., & Koole, S. L. (2003). Hiding in the crowd: Can
mortality salience promote affiliation with others who oppose
one’s worldviews? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 511–526.
Witbrodt, J., Mertens, J., Kaskutas, L. A., Bond, J., Chi, F., &
Weisner, C. (2012). Do 12-step meeting attendance
trajectories over 9 years predict abstinence? Journal of Substance
Abuse Treatment, 43(1), 30–43.
Witte, E. H. (1989). Köhler rediscovered: The anti-Ringelmann
effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 147–154.
Wittenbaum, G. M. (1998). Information sampling in decision-
making groups: The impact of members’ task-relevant status.
Small Group Research, 29, 57–84.
Wittenbaum, G. M. (2012). Running laboratory experiments with
groups. In A. B. Hollingshead & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research
methods for studying groups and teams (pp.41–57). New York:
Routledge.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. (2004).
From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups:
Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication
Monographs, 71, 286–310.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., Paulus, P. B., Hirokawa,
R. Y., Ancona, D. G., Peterson, R. S., … Yoon, K. (2004).
The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups.
Small Group Research, 35, 17–43.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P., & Zuckerman, C. (1999).
Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the
collective preference for shared information. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 967–978.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Stasser, G., & Merry, C. J. (1996). Tacit
coordination in anticipation of small group task completion.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 129–152.
Wolf, S. (1987). Majority and minority influence: A social impact
analysis. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.),
Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 207–235).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wolf, S. T., Insko, C. A., Kirchner, J. L., & Wildschut, T. (2008).
Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity in the domain of
correspondent outcomes: The roles of relativistic concern,
perceived categorization, and the doctrine of mutual assured
destruction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,
479–494.
Wölfer, R., Faber, N. S., & Hewstone, M. (2015). Social network
analysis in the science of groups: Cross-sectional and
longitudinal applications for studying intra- and intergroup
behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(1),
45–61.
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., &
Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical
and empirical conceptualization and the development of the
authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55,
385–399.
Wood, W. (1987). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in
group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53–71.
Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I., & Malone, T. W. (2015). Collective
intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 24(6), 420–424.
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., &
Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence
factor in the performance of human groups. Science,
333(6004), 686–688.
Woolley, A. W., Gerbasi, M. E., Chabris, C. F., Kosslyn, S. M., &
Hackman, J. R. (2008). Bringing in the experts: How team
composition and collaborative planning jointly shape analytic
effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39(3), 352–371.
Worchel, S. (1986). The role of cooperation in reducing intergroup
conflict. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of
intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 288–304). Chicago, IL:
Nelson-Hall.
Worchel, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1971). Direct and implied social
restoration of freedom. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 18, 294–304.
Worchel, S., & Teddlie, C. (1976). The experience of crowding: A
two-factor theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
34, 30–40.
Worchel, S., & Yohai, S. (1979). The role of attribution in the
experience of crowding. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 15, 91–104.
Worringham, C. J., & Messick, D. M. (1983). Social facilitation of
running: An unobtrusive study. Journal of Social Psychology,
121, 23–29.
664 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Wosniak, S., & Smith, G. (2006). iWoz. New York: Norton.
Wright, K. B. (2015). Computer-mediated support for health
outcomes. In S. S. Sundar (Ed)., The handbook of the psychology
of communication technology (pp. 488–506). New York: Wiley.
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A.
(1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-
group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 73–90.
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Including others
(and groups) in the self: Self-expansion and intergroup
relations. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), The social
self: Cognitive, interpersonal and intergroup perspectives
(pp. 343–363). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Wright, S. S., & Forsyth, D. R. (1997). Group membership and
collective identity: Consequences for self-esteem. Journal of
Social & Clinical Psychology, 16, 43–56.
Wright, T. L., Ingraham, L. J., & Blackmer, D. R. (1984).
Simultaneous study of individual differences and relationship
effects in attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47, 1059–1062.
Wrightsman, L. S., Nietzel, M. T., & Fortune, W. H. (1998).
Psychology and the legal system (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Wundt, W. (1916). Elements of folk psychology. New York:
MacMillan.
Wyden, P. H. (1979). Bay of Pigs: The untold story. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Yablonsky, L. (1962). The violent gang. New York: Macmillan.
Yakovleva, M., Reilly, R. R., & Werko, R. (2010). Why do we
trust? Moving beyond individual to dyadic perceptions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 79–91.
Yalom, I. D. (with Leszcz, M.) (2005). The theory and practice of group
psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of
transformational leadership and its effects among naval
officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark & M. B.
Clark (Eds.), Measure of leadership (pp. 151–169). West
Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of
and multi-level approaches to leadership. Leadership Quarterly,
19, 135–141.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F.
(2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-
of-the-science review. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879–919.
Yamori, K. (1998). Going with the flow: Micromacro dynamics in
the macrobehavioral patterns of pedestrian crowds.
Psychological Review, 105(3), 530–557.
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and
relationship conflict: The role of intragroup emotional
processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 589–605.
Yik, M., Russell, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2011). A 12-point
circumplex structure of core affect. Emotion, 11(4), 705–731.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
York, E. and Cornwell, B. (2006). Status on trial: Social
characteristics and influence in the jury room. Social Forces, 85,
455–477.
Youngreen, R., & Byron, J. (2016). Minority influence, status, and
the generation of novel ideas. Advances in Group Processes, 33,
127–158.
Youngs, G. A., Jr. (1986). Patterns of threat and punishment
reciprocity in a conflict setting. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 541–546.
Yu, R. F., & Wu, X. (2015). Working alone or in the presence of
others: Exploring social facilitation in baggage X-ray security
screening tasks. Ergonomics, 58(6), 857–865.
Yuen, F., & Johnson, A. J. (2017). Leisure spaces, community, and
third places. Leisure Sciences, 39(3), 295–303.
Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. (1996). Antecedents of influence
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 309–317.
Yukl, G., & Michel, J. W. (2006). Proactive influence tactics and
leader member exchange. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L.
Neider (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: New empirical
and theoretical perspectives (pp. 87–104). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Yzerbyt, V., & Demoulin, S. (2010). Intergroup relations. In S. T.
Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1024–1083). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley.
Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring
and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of
leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 308–315.
Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and
attributes. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg
(Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 101–124). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Lowe, C. A. (1986). Cohesiveness and
performance on an additive task: Evidence for
multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 547–558.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Compresence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.),
Psychology of group influence (pp. 35–60). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social
enhancement and impairment of performance in the
cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13,
83–92.
R E F E R E N C E S 665
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Zander, A. F. (1971). Motives and goals in groups. New York:
Academic Press.
Zander, A. F., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. (1960). Unity of group,
identification with group, and self-esteem of members. Journal
of Personality, 28, 463–478.
Zelenski, J. M., Sobocko, K., & Whelan, D. C. (2014).
Introversion, solitude, and subjective well-being. In R. J.
Coplan & J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The handbook of solitude:
Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and
being alone (pp. 184–201). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Zhou, R., & Soman, D. (2008). Consumers’ waiting in queues:
The role of first-order and second-order justice. Psychology
and Marketing, 25, 262–279.
Ziller, R. C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups.
Psychological Bulletin, 64, 164–182.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason,
and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 11, 237–307.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1975). Transforming experimental research into
advocacy for social change. In M. Deutsch & H. A. Hornstein
(Eds.), Applying social psychology (pp. 33–66). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A situationist perspective on the
psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are
transformed into perpetrators. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The
social psychology of good and evil (pp. 21–50). New York:
Guilford.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect. New York: Random
House.
Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C., & Haney, C. (2000). Reflections on
the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis, transformations,
consequences. In T. Blass (Ed.). Obedience to authority:
Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Zitek, E. M., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2012). The fluency of social
hierarchy: The ease with which hierarchical relationships are
seen, remembered, learned, and liked. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102(1), 98–115.
Zurcher, L. A., Jr. (1969). Stages of development in poverty
program neighborhood action committees. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 15, 223–258.
Zweig, D., & Scott, K. (2007). When unfairness matters most:
Supervisory violations of electronic monitoring practices.
Human Resource Management Journal, 17, 227–247.
666 REFER EN CES
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Name Index
Aarts, H., 159, 506
Abakoumkin, G., 331
Abel, T., 277
Aberson, C. L., 473
Abrahamsen, S., 548
Abrams, D., 7, 29, 81, 465, 469, 566
Achille, N. M., 97
Adams, G., 443
Adams, R. B., 46
Adarves-Yorno, I., 201
Adelman, L., 468
Adler, P., 46, 67, 182
Agazarian, Y. M., 534
Aggarwal, P., 351
Agnew, C. R., 122, 131
Aiello, J. R., 304, 306, 312
Al-Abideen, H. Z., 558
Albert, K. P., 566
Albright, L., 97
Aldrich, H. E., 3
Alexander, D., 270, 285
Alicke, M. D., 423
Allen, K., 308
Allen, N. J., 342
Allen, V. L., 97, 197
Alliger, G. M., 272
Allison, G., 46
Allison, S. T., 418, 420, 460, 476
Allmendinger, J., 36, 356
Allport, F. H., 23, 33, 34, 58, 63, 303, 305,
462, 468, 475, 476, 559
Allport, G. W., 461, 467, 559
Allport, F. H., 23, 33, 34, 58, 63, 303, 305,
462, 468, 475, 476
Alonso, O., 355
Altemeyer, B., 203
Alterman, E., 404
Altman, I., 498, 499, 501, 502, 503, 504,
505, 511, 512, 513, 534
Alvares, G. A., 74
Amegashie, J. A., 417
Ames, D. R., 272
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., 471, 528
Anca, J., 325
Ancona, D. G., 408
Anderman, E. M., 417
Anderman, L. H., 417
Andersen, J. A., 417
Anderson, C., 179, 180, 246, 247, 250,
252, 253, 263
Anderson, C. A., 453
Anderson, C. J., 254
Anicich, E. M., 13
Annett, J., 341
Annis, A. B., 459
Antony, M. M., 521
APA, 477
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S., 225
Apparala, M., 565
Appelbaum, R. P., 561
Ardry, R., 501
Arends, L., 317
Argote, L., 358
Argyle, M., 492
Ariely, D., 115
Arkes, H. R., 398
Arkin, R. M., 115, 118
Arms, R. L., 565
Arnardottir, A. A., 532
Arnold, D. W., 507
Aron, A., 85, 468
Aronson, E., 89, 150, 151, 154, 425, 473
Arriaga, X. B., 122, 131
Arrow, H., 15, 27, 29, 55, 116, 124, 132,
137, 143, 186, 346
Arvey, R. D., 273
Asch, S. E., 194–200, 202, 204, 206, 215,
226, 400, 485, 569
Asher, S. R., 65
Ashmore, R. D., 83
Atoum, A. O., 308
Au, W., 82, 455
Aubé, C., 358, 367
Aubert, B. A., 364
August, R. A., 507
Austin, R., 225, 471
Averill, J. R., 65, 429
Avolio, B. J., 267, 295
Axelrod, R., 426, 441
Ayman, R., 288
Ayoko, O. B., 430, 442, 503, 504
Ayres, M. M., 270
Back, K. W., 540, 559
Backstrom, L., 144
Bader, P., 271
Baer, D. E., 6
Bahns, A. J., 118
Bahrami, B., 329
Bailey, D. E., 342, 343, 555
Bailey, J. K. S., 342, 343, 555
Bainbridge, W. S., 39, 40, 58
Bakeman, R., 43
Baker, H. G., 47, 191
Baldes, J. J., 317
Bales, R. F., 10, 11, 13, 21, 25, 27, 41–43,
58, 141, 143, 154, 165, 166, 167,
170, 172, 189, 273, 359, 379, 406,
411, 497
Balliet, D., 416, 419
Baltes, B. B., 380
Banaji, M. R., 459
Bandura, A., 131, 464, 465, 530
Banks, C., 260
Barabási, A-L., 23
Barefoot, J. C., 256
Bargh, J. A., 200, 254, 257, 485
Barker, R. G., 248, 292, 506, 508, 512,
5077
Barlow, S. H., 517, 536, 544
Barnett, L. A., 86
Baron, R. A., 486
Baron, R. S., 199, 259, 309, 311, 402, 403
Barrett, D., 103, 184
Barrick, M. R., 118
Barsade, S. G., 133
Barsky, S. F., 502
Bar-Tal, D., 426, 450
Bartel, C. A., 376
667
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Bartels, J. M., 221
Bartholomew, R. E., 341, 547, 548, 559,
560, 574, 576, 578
Bartis, S., 308
Bartlem, C. S., 386
Barton, W. H., 570
Basow, S. A., 164
Bass, B. M., 265, 266, 295, 296, 299,
364
Bassett, R. L., 16, 500
Bateman, P. J., 144
Bates, J. E., 351
Batson, C. D., 150
Bauer, C. C., 217
Baum, A., 500–501
Baumann, M. R., 326, 378, 379
Baumeister, R. F., 23, 64, 69, 90, 103, 267,
309, 429, 502
Bavelas, A., 184, 185
Bazerman, M. H., 208, 421
Beach, S. R. H., 113, 378, 498, 499
Beadman, M., 97
Beal, D. J., 146, 147
Beale, D., 488
Beaman, A. L., 246, 568
Bechky, B. A., 169, 189
Beck, S. J., 166
Beck, E. M., 8, 9, 211, 555
Becker, J. C., 497
Bedeian, A. G., 272
Bednar, R. L., 536
Beer, J. S., 49, 74
Beersma, B., 208, 342
Behfar, K. J., 421, 423, 439, 442
Bekkedal, M., 111
Bell, S. T., 141
Bell, P. A., 71, 348, 349, 350, 356, 486,
488
Bellinger, K. D., 381
Belohlav, J. A., 141
Bem, D. J., 392, 535
Bem, S. L., 203, 204
Bendersky, C., 574
Benet-Martínez, V., 95
Bengry-Howell, A., 47
Benjamin, L. T., Jr., 467
Benne, K. D., 12, 167, 168, 189, 522
Bennett, M., 46, 84, 247
Bennis, W. G., 143, 351, 483
Bentein, K., 141
Berdahl, J. L., 15, 27, 29, 55, 124, 245,
254, 257, 258, 271
Berger, J., 249
Berger, R. E., 421
Berger, S. M., 308
Berkerle, C. A., 559
Berkowitz, L., 148, 183, 203, 267, 552,
553
Berman, J. J., 484, 485, 493, 539
Bernstein, M. J., 69, 70, 87, 345
Bernthal, P. R., 401
Berson, Y., 282
Best, D. L., 283
Betancourt, H., 437
Bettencourt, B. A., 177, 470
Bhatt, M. A., 412
Bicchieri, C., 162
Bickman, L., 552, 553
Biddle, B. J., 157, 167, 191
Biederman, P. W., 351, 483
Bieling, P., 521
Bierbrauer, G., 198
Biernat, M., 84, 250–251
Bilotta, J. G., 143
Birnbaum, M. L., 141
Bishop, G. D., 393
Black, L. W., 223, 250, 329, 430
Blader, S. L., 241, 421
Blair, C., 381, 437
Blake, R. R., 285, 286, 298
Blanchard, K. H., 286, 287, 298
Blanchard, F. A., 468
Blank, A., 212
Blanton, H., 89
Blascovich, J., 57, 272, 307, 308, 311, 335,
394
Blass, T., 236, 237, 243, 261
Blatt, R., 364
Blau, P., 54, 120
Bligh, M. C., 268
Bloch, S., 535
Block, C. J., 277
Blumberg, H., 167
Blumer, C., 6, 398, 550, 564, 577
Blumer, H., 564
Bó, P. D., 413
Boatwright, K. J., 287
Bogart, L. M., 46
Bohmer, R., 339, 347, 348, 369, 370
Bois, J. L., 445
Boldry, J. G., 460
Bollen, K. A., 132
Bonanno, G. A., 108
Bond, R., 198, 200, 204, 226, 277
Bond, C. F., 306, 308, 309
Bond, M., 547, 574, 578
Bonebright, D. A., 143
Bonikowski, B., 104
Bonito, J. A., 251
Bonner, B. L., 84, 326, 357, 376, 377, 378
Bono, J. E., 273
Bonta, B. D., 454
Bookwala, J., 164
Boone, C., 414
Borgatta, E. F., 25, 141, 166, 273
Borgatti, S. P., 185, 186, 191
Bornstein, R. F., 115, 203, 224, 458
Bosson, J. K., 500
Botero, I. C., 375
Bouchard, T. J., 334
Boumgarden, P., 361
Bourdieu, P., 560
Bourgeois, M. J., 202, 210
Bourguignon, D., 17
Boutillier, R. G., 276
Bowers, D. G., 269, 364
Bowers, C. A., 342, 357, 370, 380
Bowlby, J., 99
Bowles, S., 399
Bowling, N. A., 7, 38
Bowman, J. M., 391
Boyatzis, R., 248
Boyle, M. V., 430
Brabender, V. M., 544
Bradbury, T. N., 426
Braden, M., 150
Bradshaw, S. D., 98, 329
Brandon, A. C., 187, 188, 217
Branscombe, N. R., 86, 461, 465, 473
Brass, D. J., 191, 427
Bratko, D., 245
Brauer, M., 394, 460
Braun, D. E., 97
Bray, R. M., 207, 225
Brazil, D. M., 287
Brazy, D. P., 302
Brechner, K. C., 418
Brehm, J. W., 426
Brew, F. P., 438
Brewer, B. W., 447, 470
Brewer, M. B., 16, 80, 91, 447, 470
Brewer, M., 82, 207
Brewer, S., 101
Brewer, M., 82, 207, 434
Brewer, B. W., 447
Brickner, M. A., 131, 317
Bridgett, D. J., 316
Brief, A. P., 447
Brinthaupt, T. M., 104, 120
Brito, V. C. A., 46
Brockner, J., 386, 398
Brodbeck, F. C., 281
Bromley, D. G., 565
Brooks, D. K., 521
Brosnan, S. F., 420, 440
668 NAM E I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Brousseau, K. R., 376
Brown, B. B., 86, 99, 330, 394, 498
Brown, R., 4, 118, 184
Brown, M., 208
Brown, D. E., 265
Brown, V. R., 331
Brown, D. J., 412
Brown, R., 4, 118, 465, 467
Brown, G., 504, 522
Brucks, W. M., 418
Brunner, C. C., 210
Brunsman, B., 199
Bruun, S. E., 316
Bryant, E. M., 160
Buckley, W., 238
Buehler, R., 377
Bufanio, K. A., 396
Buffone, A., 111
Bugental, D. B., 239
Buhrmester, D., 65
Buhrmester, M. D., 66
Bullis, R. C., 287
Bullock, M., 202, 210, 228
Bunderson, J. S., 266, 361
Bunker, B. B., 244, 245
Burger, J. M., 115, 118, 237, 240, 244,
246
Burgoon, J. K., 492
Burke, C. S., 289
Burke, J., 295
Burke, M. J., 289
Burke, P. J., 166
Burkhalter, S., 223
Burkley, M., 89, 517, 532, 538, 540, 543,
544
Burnette, J. L., 32, 401, 421, 437, 489
Burnham, T., 413
Burns, J. M., 266, 294, 299
Burnstein, E., 394, 423
Burt, M. R., 258
Burt, R. S., 187
Bushe, G. R., 141
Bushman, B. J., 453, 486
Butera, F., 206
Butkovic, A., 245
Butler, E. A., 368
Butler, B. S., 144
Butler, D., 278
Butler, T., 536
Buunk, A. P., 111, 112, 113, 123, 124
Buxant, C., 97
Buys, C. J., 25, 26
Buysse, A., 109
Byrne, D., 101, 118
Byrne, Z. S., 185, 496
Cabanac, M., 483
Cable, D. M., 97
Cacioppo, J. T., 66
Cadinu, M., 88
Cai, D. A., 438
Cain, K. M., 99
Cain, S., 99
Caldwell, D. F., 244, 245
Callan, V., 88
Callaway, M. R., 400
Camacho, L. M., 331
Cammann, C., 364
Cabanac, M., 483
Cable, D. M., 97
Cacioppo, J. T., 66
Cadinu, M., 88
Cai, D. A., 438
Cain, K. M., 99
Caldwell, D. F., 244, 245
Callan, V., 88
Callaway, M. R., 400
Camacho, L. M., 331
Cameron, J. J., 263
Cammann, C., 364
Campbell, D. T., 16, 17, 27, 381
Campbell, J., 112
Campbell, L., 276, 278
Campbell, T., 488
Campion, M. A., 352
Canetti, E., 553, 556
Cannavale, F. J., 568
Cannon, M. D., 360
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., 342, 357, 370, 380
Cantor, N., 65, 108
Cantril, H., 41
Carey, H. R., 329
Cariani, R., 541
Carless, S. A., 130
Carli, L. L., 202, 250, 277, 300
Carlyle, T., 270
Carneiro, R. L., 447, 451
Carnevale, P. J., 437
Carpenter, C. R., 499
Carron, A. V., 135, 136, 145, 147, 148,
502
Carson, P. P., 245
Carson, R. C., 252
Carter, N. M., 3
Carter, S. E., 364
Carton, A. M., 277
Cartwright, D., 22, 28, 128, 231, 532
Caruso, E., 421
Carvalho, E. R., 46
Cascio, W. F., 386
Casey-Campbell, M., 136
Castano, E., 17
Castore, C. H., 383
Cecil, J. S., 224
Cerchioni, M., 80
Chagnon, N. A., 454
Chaiken, S., 203, 213
Chambliss, W. J., 561
Chanowitz, B., 212
Chansler, P. A., 364
Chapman, G. C., 486
Chartrand, T. L., 69, 97, 211, 564
Charuvastra, A., 65
Chassin, L., 88
Chasteen, A. L., 218
Chater, N., 212
Chatman, J. A., 354
Cheavens, J. S., 529
Cheema, A., 487
Chein, I., 467
Chemers, M. M., 283, 288, 289, 501
Chen, Y-R., 80
Cheng, S., 559
Chen, K. Y., 89
Chen, X., 99
Chen, Z., 203
Cheng, S., 254
Chen, X., 255
Cerchioni, M., 88
Chagnon, N. A., 454
Chaiken, S., 203, 213
Chambliss, W. J., 561
Chang, E. C., 447
Chang, S., 486
Chanowitz, B., 212
Chansler, P. A., 364
Chapman, G. C., 486
Chartrand, T. L., 69, 97, 211, 564
Charuvastra, A., 65
Chassin, L., 88
Chasteen, A. L., 218
Chater, N., 212
Chatman, J. A., 354
Chaturvedi, S., 273
Cheavens, J. S., 529
Cheema, A., 487
Chein, I., 467
Chemers, M. M., 283, 288, 289, 501
Chen, S., 80, 254
Chen, K. Y., 80
Chen, X., 99
Chen, Z., 203
Chertkoff, J. M., 556
Cheshire, C., 239
Cheung, C. K. T., 540
Cheyne, J. A., 499
NAME I NDEX 669
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Chiaburu, D. S., 178
Chiao, J. Y., 247
Chilstrom, J. T., Jr., 207
Chiocchio, F., 147
Chirot, D., 452, 454
Chiu, C., 16
Cho, N. G., 71
Choi, H., 175
Chow, C. W., 267
Christ, O., 568
Christakis, N. A., 66, 163
Christensen, A., 539
Christensen, P. N., 159, 531
Cialdini, R. B., 87, 131, 189, 191, 198,
206, 214, 243
Cianni, M., 277
Cicchetti, A., 141
Cicero, L., 258
Cimino, A., 151
Cini, M. A., 120, 508, 509
Ciulla, J. B., 258
Clack, B., 501
Claiborn, C. D., 531
Clapp, J. D., 49, 59
Clark, G., 555
Clark, K. B., 260
Clark, M. S., 77, 114
Clark, S., 125, 447
Clark, R. D., 198, 213, 219, 255
Clark, L. A., 254
Clark, G., 555
Claypool, H. M., 69
Clayton, D. A., 222
Clayton, L. D., 306
Clearwater, Y. A., 505
Clegg, C. W., 502, 557
Clement, R. W., 199, 212
Clements-Croome, D., 508, 513
Cleveland, C., 113
Cloitre, M., 65
Coats, S., 100
Coats, E. J., 491
Coch, L., 386, 406
Coetzer, G. H., 141
Cohen, T. R., 449
Cohen, D., 82
Cohen, S. P., 143
Cohen, F., 283, 284
Cohen, S. G., 342
Cohen, D., 455
Cohen, S., 486
Cohn, E. G., 486
Cole, C. M., 498
Coleman, P. T., 84, 398, 429, 442, 443
Colligan, M. J., 560
Collins, R., 139, 140, 162
Collins, R. L., 111
Collins, A., 218
Collins, B. E., 329, 381
Colman, A. M., 573
Colomy, P., 166
Colquitt, J. A., 386
Condon, C. A., 203
Conger, J. A., 293, 294
Conlon, D. E., 436
Connors, M. M., 505
Conroy, J., 502
Constantian, C. A., 101
Contractor, N., 45
Cook, K. S., 55, 239
Cook, T., 118
Cook, S. W., 468, 473
Cooley, C. H., 5–6, 23, 27, 531
Coon, H. M., 76, 92
Coovert, M., 295
Cope, C. J., 176, 505
Corazzini, J. G., 530, 533, 542
Corbin, L. H., 199
Cordery, J., 366
Corning, A. F., 566
Cornwell, B., 223, 250
Coser, L. A., 140
Costa, P. T., Jr., 95, 273, 434
Costanzo, P. R., 203
Côté, S., 255
Cotton, P., 540
Cottrell, C. A., 307, 308, 309, 311, 335
Couch, A. S., 166, 273
Coughlin, B. C., 121
Courneya, K. S., 502
Cousins, S. D., 82
Covey, S. R., 365, 366
Craig, S. B., 267
Crandall, C. S., 118
Crawford, A. M., 145
Cress, D. M., 55
Cress, U., 200
Crichlow, S., 401
Crisp, R. J., 86, 471, 472
Crocker, J., 87, 88, 91, 278
Croizet, J-C., 309
Cross, S. E., 103
Crouch, E. C., 535
Crowther, S., 219
Crutchfield, R. S., 198, 203
Cuddy, A. J. C., 237, 462
Cullum, J., 209, 210
Cunningham, G. B., 354
Curtin, N., 566
Curtis, J. E., 6
Custers, R., 159
Cybriwsky, R., 499
Czienskowski, U., 391
Dabbs, J. M., 57
Dabbs, J. M., Jr., 251, 332
Dabbs, M. G., 57
Daniels, E., 483
Dansereau, F., 290, 291
Darley, J. M., 218, 219, 228, 258, 261
Dasgupta, N., 458
David, B., 395
David, J. P., 424
Davidson, B., 141, 364, 474
Davidson-Podgorny, G., 474
Davies, D., 136
Davies, D. R., 141
Davies, M. F., 468
Davis, G. E., 501
Davis, J. H., 225, 326, 363, 364, 384, 400
Davis, J. R., 151
Davis, M. C., 502
Davis, W. L., 416
Dawes, R. M., 388
Dawkins, R., 13
Day, R. R., 522
Day, D. V., 530
De Cremer, D., 457
De Dreu, C. K. W., 57, 140, 208, 213,
402, 423, 426, 429, 435, 436, 438,
441, 442, 447, 459, 477
De Grada, E., 203
de la Roche, R. S., 571
De Paola, C., 130
De Vader, C. L., 272, 278
De Vries, N. K., 213
de Waal, F. B. M., 420, 440
de Wit, F., 439
Dean, J., 492
Dean, L. M., 491
Deaux, K., 83
Decety, J., 412
DeChurch, L. A., 341, 439
Deeney, J. M., 143
Del Priore, R. E., 429
Delbecq, A. L., 334
Delton, A. W., 419
DeLucia-Waack, J. L., 540, 544
DeMatteo, J. S., 317
Demoulin, S., 17, 478
Denissen, J. J. A., 74
Dennis, A. R., 229, 553
Denrell, J., 212
Denvir, B., 120
DePaulo, B. M., 535
670 NAM E I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Derlega, V. J., 449, 450
DeRosa, D. M., 333
DeRouin, R. E., 367
DeRue, D. S., 269, 271, 286
Desalvo, J., 199
DeSmet, A. L., 437
Devilly, G., 540
Devine, D. J., 222, 367, 472, 473
Devine, P. G., 147, 221, 225, 229, 341,
342
DeWall, C. N., 69–71, 75, 255, 453, 486
DeYoung, C. G., 203
Di Salvo, V. S., 382
Diamond, S. G., 496
Diamond, S. S., 220
Dickinson, A. M., 318
Diehl, M., 330, 331
Diener, E., 95, 568–570, 577
Dienesch, R. M., 290
Dierdorff, E. C., 141
Dies, R. R., 531
Dietz-Uhler, B., 88, 465
DiFonzo, N., 243
Dijksterhuis, A., 159, 506
Dillard, J. P., 246
Dillman, L., 492
Dion, K. L., 15, 155
Dionne, S. D., 269
Dipboye, R. L., 572
Dishion, T. J., 163
DiTomaso, N., 277
Dixon, J., 501
Dobosh, M., 224
Dobson, D. M., 434
Dodds, P. S., 565
Dodge, K. A., 163, 438
Doherty, W. J., 540
Doise, W., 392
Doll, B., 69, 423
Dollar, N. J., 41
Donaldson, S., 331
Doosje, B., 90
Doosje, B. J., 90
Dorfman, P. W., 281, 282
Douglas, C., 2, 456, 513
Douthitt, E. A., 304, 306, 312
Dovidio, J. F., 447, 462, 470–471, 477
Downing, L. L., 570
Drigotas, S. M., 118
Driskell, J. E., 51, 250, 348, 349, 350, 367,
484, 488
Drury, J., 564, 574
Dryer, D. C., 118
Dubé, L., 551
Dubé-Simard, L., 566
Dubro, A. F., 416
Ducheneaut, N., 40, 144
Duck, J. M., 282
Duckitt, J., 465
Duffy, F., 508, 509, 512
Duffy, M. K., 317
Dugosh, K. L., 332, 333
Dukerich, J. M., 268
Dukes, F. O., 3
Dulebohn, J. H., 290
Dunbar, R. I. M., 9, 11, 27, 455
Duncan, L. E., 566
Dunning, D., 377, 482
Dupont, C., 562
Dupue, R. L., 71
Durand, D. E., 504
Durkheim, É., 33, 153
Dvir, T., 295
Dvir, V., 534
Dyer, L., 376
Dzindolet, M. T., 333
Eagly, A. H., 204, 250, 270, 277, 282, 283,
285, 295, 296, 298, 390
Earley, P. C., 357
Eaton, J. W., 275
Ebbesen, E. B., 115
Eby, L. T., 317
Echterhoff, G., 161
Edmondson, A. C., 339, 347, 348, 353,
357, 360, 362, 366, 369, 370
Edney, J. J., 491, 499, 501
Efran, M. G., 499–500
Egan, T. D., 97
Egloff, B., 115
Ehrhardt, A. A., 46
Ehrhart, M. G., 130
Ehrlich, S. B., 268
Eisenbach, R. J., 269
Eisenberger, R., 75
Eisenberger, N. I., 74, 75, 90, 429
Ellemers, N., 63, 83, 90, 92, 217
Eller, A., 469
Elliott, T. R., 145
Elliott, R., 538
Elliott, M. N., 541
Ellis, A. P. J., 350
Ellis, J. B., 471
Ellison, N. B., 116
Ellsworth, P. C., 207, 220, 224, 225, 228
Elms, A. C., 233, 237
Elsaid, A. M. M. K., 103
Emerson, R. M., 39, 239
Emler, N., 255
Emmers-Sommer, T., 497
Emmitt, S., 143, 359
Emrich, C. G., 267
Endicott, J., 223
Engels, F., 447
Engstrom, E., 497
Ennis, J. G., 172
Epitropaki, O., 279
Epley, N., 199, 421
Erb, H-P., 203
Ericksen, J., 376
Esposito, J. L, 559
Esser, A. H., 504
Esser, J. K., 400, 401
Essiembre, H., 147
Estabrooks, P. A., 148
Ettin, M. F., 517
Euwema, M. C., 435
Evans, G. W., 491–494
Evans, H., 547, 548, 559, 574, 576, 578
Eys, M. A., 135
Faith, M., 470
Falbe, C., 258
Falbo, T., 243, 244, 245
Falk, A., 414
Fall, R., 185
Fallon, A., 544
Falloon, I. R. H., 531
Fannin, A. D., 109
Fanon, F., 260
Farbstein, J., 482
Faria, J. J., 324
Farrell, G. M., 166
Farrell, M. P., 46, 94, 105, 117, 123, 124
Faust, K., 186
Feather, N. T., 113, 117, 118
Feeley, T. H., 184
Feigenson, N., 219
Feld, P., 118
Feldman, J. J., 108
Feldman, S., 203
Fellenz, M. R., 420
Fennis, B. M., 199
Ferris, D. L., 312
Ferris, G. R., 248
Festinger, L., 37, 39, 46, 106, 115, 118,
124, 128, 150, 153, 566
Fiedler, F. E., 288, 289
Field, N., 272
Filkins, J. W., 226
Fincham, F. D., 426
Fincher, C. L., 487
Fine, G. A., 4, 28, 39, 46, 127, 158, 189,
370
Finkel, E. J., 13
NAME I NDEX 671
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Finkel, M. A., 151, 152
Fiore, S. M., 364, 366
Fischbacher, U., 414
Fischer, A. H., 420, 429
Fischer, G. W., 211, 219
Fischer, R., 420
Fishbaugh, L., 204
Fisher, J. D., 496
Fisher, R., 454
Fiske, A. P., 77
Fiske, S. T., 208, 237, 245, 257, 258, 263,
462, 464
Fleeson, W., 97
Fleishman, E. A., 268
Flores, P. J., 527
Flowers, M. L., 401
Floyd, S. W., 33, 303
Flynn, F. J., 241, 272
Flynn, K., 571
Foddy, M., 249
Fodor, E. M., 101, 248, 255, 401
Folk, G. E., Jr., 486
Foran, K. A., 164
Ford, D. E., 177
Forsyth, D. R., 32, 86, 139, 145, 147, 270,
334, 358, 387, 401, 421, 489, 533,
534, 541
Fortin, M., 420
Fortune, W.H., 122, 226, 276, 277, 361, 368
Foschi, M., 97, 241, 250
Foss, C., 225
Foti, R. J., 272, 273, 278, 280, 287
Foushee, H. C., 325
Fowler, J. H., 66, 163
Fox, C., 355
Foy, D. W., 524
Foy, E., 556
Frable, D. E. S., 529
Fragale, A. R., 179, 252
Frager, R., 204
Fraine, G., 502
Francis, L. J., 203
Francis, R. C., 323, 508
Francois, P-H., 179
Franssen, V., 208
Fraser, S. C., 246, 568
Freedman, J. L., 244, 494
Freeman, E. C., 185, 186
French, J. R. P., Jr., 146, 242, 243, 261,
386, 411
Fretz, R. I., 39
Freud, S., 169, 170, 205, 517, 519
Frey, D., 4
Friedkin, N. E., 114, 394
Friedland, N., 258
Friedman, S. D., 267
Frith, C., 212
Fromson, M. E., 465
Frost, A. G., 115
Fry, D. P., 456
Fuegen, K., 250
Fuhriman, A., 536, 538
Furman, W., 66
Furnham, A., 102
Futoran, G. C., 332
Gabarro, J. J., 141
Gabriel, S., 98
Gaertner, L., 71, 77, 85, 89, 90, 447, 460,
470, 472, 477
Gammage, K. L., 148
Garcia, S. M., 114, 220
Gardikiotis, A., 206
Gardner, B., 524
Gardner, W. L., 305
Garvey, B., 198
Gastil, J., 223
Gazda, G. M., 521
Gee, S. S., 417
Geen, R. G., 312
Gelfand, M. J., 76, 81, 92, 438
George, J. M., 153
Gerard, H. B., 45, 151, 199, 211,
212, 217
Gerbasi, A., 239
Gerber, G. L., 249
Gerber, J., 69
Gergen, K. J., 570
Gerhardt, G., 571
Gersick, C. J. G., 143
Geyer, A. L., 196
Giacalone, R. A., 248
Giammanco, C. A., 147, 421
Gibb, J. R., 274
Gibbons, D., 539
Gibson, C. B., 438
Gibson, D. E., 251, 421
Gibson, D. R., 251
Gieryn, T. F., 114, 481
Gigone, D., 390
Gilbert, D. T., 540
Gill, D. L., 350
Gillespie, D., 142, 313
Gilovich, T., 199, 413
Ginnett, R. C., 325
Ginsburg, G. P., 394
Giordano, P. C., 145
Gist, R., 540
Gladwell, M., 252, 554, 577
Glaser, D., 500
Glaser, K. H., 141
Glass, D. C., 308, 488
Glässner-Bayerl, B., 89
Gleijeses, P., 408
Glick, J. C., 374, 462
Glick, P., 453, 462
Gliner, M. D., 394
Godwin, R., 486, 512
Goethals, G. R., 267
Goetsch, G. G., 185
Goetz, J., 256
Goffman, E., 177, 335
Golant, M., 532
Goldberg, A., 541, 571
Goldhammer, J., 145
Goldstein, A. P., 162, 569
Goldstein, N. J., 198, 214
Goldstone, J. A., 563
Gómez, Á., 469
Goncalo, J. A., 206, 332
Gonsalkorale, K., 68
Goodacre, D. M., 141
Goodall, J., 67
Goode, E., 574
Goodman, G., 526
Goodwin, D. K., 46, 349
Goodyear, R. K., 531
Gordijn, E. H., 213
Gordon, L. R., 461, 467, 468
Gore, G., 555
Gorse, C. A., 143, 359
Gosling, S. D., 51, 96, 482, 503, 512
Gottlieb, A., 219
Gould, C. C., 4
Gould, S. J., 467
Gouldner, A. W., 77
Grabb, E. G., 6
Graen, G. B., 291
Graen, G. C., 290
Granovetter, M. S., 182, 185
Gray, J. R., 144
Graziano, W. G., 424
Green, L. R., 65
Green, M. L., 84
Greenberg, J., 283, 507
Greene, D., 212, 220, 223, 224
Greenleaf, C. A., 164
Greenwald, A. G., 458, 459, 476
Greer, D. L., 502
Greer, L. L., 410, 422, 439
Greitemeyer, T., 391
Griffin, C., 47
Griffin, D., 377
Griffin, M. A., 485
Griffitt, W., 486
672 NAM E I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Griskevicius, V., 199, 204, 243
Groff, B. D., 495
Grose, M., 272
Gruenfeld, D. H., 254
Grundmann, M. J., 491, 499
Guastella, A. J., 74
Guastello, S. J., 267
Guerin, B., 309
Guetzkow, H., 329, 381
Guimond, A., 566
Guinote, A., 208, 255, 405
Gullahorn, J. T., 115
Gully, S. M., 146, 147
Gump, P. V., 258, 507
Gunderson, E. K. E., 483
Gupta, V., 281, 299, 351
Gurr, T. R., 447
Gustafson, D. H., 334
Guthman, E., 399
Guzzo, R. A., 131
Haber, G. M., 498, 501
Hackman, J. R., 4, 13, 36, 340, 343, 356,
357, 360, 365–366, 370, 376
Haga, W., 290
Haines, V. Y., 341
Hains, S. C., 382
Hair, E. C., 424
Hakonen, M., 52
Hale, J. L., 492
Halevy, N., 282, 458
Hall, A. L., 198
Hall, E. T., 481, 490, 491, 511
Hall, J. A., 103, 198, 247, 255, 270
Halperin, E., 464
Halpin, A. W., 269
Halverson, C. B., 155
Hamaguchi, E., 81
Hamilton, D. L., 6, 16, 29, 85
Hamilton, K., 143
Hamilton, V. L., 259
Hammer, E. D., 374
Hammer, M. R., 438
Haney, C., 260
Hanges, P. J., 281, 299
Hans, V. P., 53, 220, 222, 224, 225, 229,
575, 578
Hansen, W. B., 2, 503
Hanson, J. R., 188, 190
Hardin, G., 418
Harding, D. J., 280
Hardy, C., 316
Hardyck, J. A., 150
Hare, A. P., 3, 25, 28, 43, 44, 46, 141, 170,
172, 274, 411, 497
Hareli, S., 54
Harkins, S., 315
Harkins, S. G., 308, 309, 311, 314–317,
335, 337
Harlow, A. F., 556
Harlow, R. E, 65, 108
Harms, P. D., 247
Harpin, R. E., 501
Harris, C. B., 378
Harris, J., 40
Harris, J. R., 23
Harris, L. T., 464
Harrison, A., 505
Harrison, A. A., 505, 509
Harrison, D. A., 354
Harrod, W. J., 278, 456
Hart, C. M., 88
Hart, J. W., 316
Hart, S. D., 241
Hart, S. L., 345
Harton, H. C., 202, 209, 210, 227, 228
Harvey, J. B., 407
Harvey, O. J., 398, 450
Haslam, N., 464
Haslam, S. A., 83, 92, 110, 240, 258,
263, 282, 318, 331, 395, 403, 460,
461
Hastie, R., 78, 213, 220, 221, 224, 225,
228, 283, 290, 563
Hastorf, A. H., 41, 58
Hauenstein, N. M. A., 273
Hawkley, L. C., 66
Hayduk, L. A., 489, 491
Haythorn, W. W., 505
Healey, A. N., 56
Hecht, T. D., 342
Hechter, M., 157, 191
Heerwagen, J. H., 510
Heffron, M. H., 500
Heider, F., 424
Heilman, M. E., 277
Heimerdinger, S. R., 453
Heinen, B. A., 177
Heinicke, C. M., 141
Helbing, D., 557, 558, 576
Heller, J. F., 495
Heller, T., 276
Helliwell, J. F., 54
Helmreich, R. L., 46, 325
Helms, J. E., 277
Helweg-Larsen, M., 552, 557
Hembroff, L. A., 250
Hemmings, A., 237
Henchy, T., 308
Henley, N. M., 491
Henningsen, D. D., 257, 378
Henrich, J., 78
Herek, G. M., 401
Herfordt, J., 309
Herman, C. P., 311, 315
Hernández, B., 498
Hersey, P., 287, 289, 298
Hertel, G., 316, 328
Herzog, T. R., 482, 484
Hess, J. A., 70, 109, 211
Hewitt, J., 491
Hewstone, M., 191, 213, 458, 461, 465,
470, 471, 472, 473, 478
Heylighen, F., 378
Hickie, I. B., 74
Higgins, D. M., 161
Higgins, E. T., 87, 203
Highhouse, S., 521
Hillyard, C., 313
Hinrichs, A., 237, 259
Hinsz, V. B., 56, 69, 317, 374, 378, 383,
391, 453
Hirokawa, R. Y., 376, 408
Hirt, E., 86, 87
Hitch, G. J., 379
Hoag, M. J., 538
Hobbes, T., 456
Hockenstein, P., 256
Hodges, B. H., 196, 211
Hodgkinson, G. P., 56
Hodson, G., 401, 470, 478
Hoel, H., 248
Hoey, S., 529
Hoffer, E., 565
Hoffman, J. R., 316
Hoffman, L. R., 277
Hoffman, S., 198
Hofstede, G., 24, 28, 81
Hogan, R., 267, 273
Hogg,M. A., 29, 83, 84–86, 91, 92, 132,
153, 282, 299, 395
Holland, C. H., 237
Hollander, E. P., 207, 227, 275
Hollenbeck, J. R., 342
Hollingshead, A. B., 52, 61, 251, 378, 380,
392, 408
Holman, E. A., 111
Holmes, J. G., 536
Holt, R., 225
Holtz, A., 529
Holyfield, L., 242
Homan, A. C., 354
Homans, G. C., 54 , 120
Honeywell-Johnson, J. A., 318
Hong, G., 16
NAME I NDEX 673
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Hood, W. R., 477
Hooijberg, R., 277
Hook, L. H., 222, 497
Hooper, D. T., 291
Hopper, C. H., 317, 332
Horne, A. M., 534
Horner, P. A., 531
Hornsey, M. J., 83, 201, 206, 229
Horowitz, I., 104
Horowitz, I. A., 225
Horowitz, L. M., 118
Hottes, J., 416
House, P., 212, 279
House, R. J., 280
Houser, J. A., 184
Howard, J. W., 461
Howard, R. B., 491, 562
Howe, J., 394
Howell, J. P., 47, 270
Howells, L. T., 497
Hoyle, R. H., 132, 145, 449
Hoyt, C. L., 267, 283, 284, 300
Huang, J. Y., 224
Hubbell, A. P., 391
Hudson, V. M., 416
Huebsch, D., 381
Hughes, R. L., 155, 350, 554, 558
Huguet, P., 309
Hui, C. H., 82
Humphrey, B., 275
Humphreys, L., 52
Hurley, J. R., 534
Huston, J. H., 199
Huth, P., 401
Hyman, H., 48, 220
Hyman, H. M., 381
Hymel, S., 248
Iannaccone, L. R., 149
Ickes, W., 109
IJzerman, H., 485
Ilgen, D. R., 56, 340, 347, 357,
366, 367
Ilies, R., 286, 287, 291
Imhoff, R., 203
Ingham, A. G., 314
Innella, A. N., 284
Innes, J. M., 309
Insko, C. A., 118, 119, 401, 448–451,
475, 478
Instone, D., 244, 245
Ip, G. W., 16
Isenberg, D. J., 172
Ito, H., 307
Izumi, H., 365
Jablin, F. M., 185
Jackson, D., 497
Jackson, J. M., 201, 202, 316
Jackson, S. E., 353
Jacobs, A., 535
Jacobs, D., 447
Jacobs, E., 358
Jacobs, M. K., 526
Jacobs, R. C., 162
Jacobson, N. S., 539
Jago, A. G., 385
Jahoda, G., 60
James, J., 3, 27
James, R. M., 222, 223
Janicik, G. A., 376
Janis, I. L., 46, 59, 145, 396, 397, 399, 401,
402, 404, 407
Janowski, C. L., 276
Jans, L., 17
Janssen, D. P., 199, 457
Jarvenpaa, S. L., 363, 370
Jaschik-Herman, B., 119
Jasper, J. M., 571
Javidan, M., 281, 299
Jehn, K. A., 376, 379, 380, 408, 422, 431,
439, 442
Jennings, J. R., 308
Jensen, M. A. C., 21, 138, 424, 517, 544
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., 424
Jermier, J. M., 269
Jetten, J., 83, 201, 206, 229, 461
Johansson, A., 558
John, P. F. U., 119
Johnson, B. T., 270, 295
Johnson, C., 57
Johnson, D., 207, 250, 286, 356, 417, 440,
474, 477
Johnson, D. E., 286
Johnson, D. W., 474
Johnson, N. R., 557
Johnson, R. D., 570
Johnston, J., 484
Joinson, A. N., 200
Joireman, J., 416
Jolliff, D. L., 534
Jonas, K., 255
Jones, E. E., 297
Jones, E. S., 277
Jones, J. T., 118
Jones, M. B., 350
Jonsen, K., 371
Jordan, A., 529
Jordan, J., 256
Jordan-Edney, N. L., 499
Jorgenson, D. O., 3
Joseph, S., 29
Jost, J. T., 239, 459
Jourard, S., 138
Joyce, E., 116, 537
Judd, C. M., 394, 460
Judge, T. A., 273, 286, 287, 291, 295, 348
Jung, D., 267
Kahn, A., 416, 568
Kahn, R. L., 87, 176, 345
Kahneman, D., 213, 376, 387, 389
Kaiser, R. B., 267
Kallgren, C. A., 214
Kalodner, C. R., 544
Kalven, H., 220, 223
Kamarck, T. W., 308
Kameda, T., 73, 78, 383, 384, 395, 400
Kandel, D. B., 119, 180
Kang, P., 225
Kang, Y., 486
Kanki, R. L., 325
Kantrowitz, M., 482
Kapitanoff, S., 325
Kaplan, M. F., 384
Kaplan, S., 484
Kaplowitz, S. A., 241
Karau, S. J., 103, 104, 107, 123, 283, 296,
316–319, 332, 336
Kark, R., 244
Karremans, J. C., 356
Kashy, D. A., 38, 61, 531
Katz, D., 176
Katz, N., 4, 10
Katz, R., 176
Katzenbach, J. R., 340, 360, 361
Kauffeld, S., 166, 367
Kaul, J. D., 536
Kayes, A. B., 46, 523
Kazdin, A. E., 536
Kearney, E., 245
Keating, C. F., 151
Keating, J. P., 46, 494
Keil, L. J., 434
Keinan, G., 349
Kelem, R. T., 568
Keller, K., 438
Kellermanns, F. W., 384
Kelley, J., 158
Kelley, H. H., 193, 194, 412, 414, 426,
556
Kelley, R. E., 293, 294
Kellogg, W. A., 471
Kelly, J. R., 54, 67, 276, 297, 402
Kelman, H. C., 258, 259, 474, 477
Kelsey, B. L., 364
674 NAM E I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Keltner, D., 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 263
Kemmelmeier, M., 76, 92
Kemp, C., 271
Kemp, R. I., 378
Kennedy, D. P., 367, 493
Kennedy, F. A., 367, 493
Kenrick, D. T., 54
Kent, M. V., 503
Kenworthy, J. B., 208
Kerckhoff, A. C., 548, 559
Kerr, N. L., 4, 32, 52, 60, 216, 217, 224,
225, 259, 269, 316, 327, 336, 387,
388, 406, 426, 436
Kerr, S., 269
Keshet, S., 244, 245
Kessler, T., 468
Keyton, J., 4, 211
Khalil, A., 546, 578
Kiesler, C. A., 199
Kiesler, D. J., 251, 560
Kiesler, S., 251, 560
Kilduff, G. J., 133, 250
Killian, L. M., 570
Kilmartin, C. T., 534
Kim, H., 203, 258
Kim, J., 455
Kim, S. H., 108
Kim, Y., 82, 108
Kimmel, A. J., 559
King, L. A., 43
King, M. C., 460
Kipnis, D., 244, 245, 253, 256
Kirby, P., 379
Kirkman, B. L., 24
Kirkpatrick, L. A., 225
Kirkpatrick, L. C., 107
Kishida, K. T., 253, 255
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., 527, 531–533, 536,
543
Kjos, G. L., 115
Klapwijk, A., 413
Klauer, K. C., 309
Klein, C., 367
Klein, J. D., 101
Klein, K. J., 296
Klein, M., 170
Kleingeld, A., 316
Klinenberg, E., 99
Klocke, U., 256, 391
Klonsky, B. G., 283
Kluger, J., 86, 98, 512
Knight, A. P., 416
Knoll, K., 363
Knowles, E. S., 16, 131, 499
Knowles, M. L., 305
Kobrynowicz, D., 250
Koenig, A. M., 283
Kogan, N., 392
Köhler, O., 327
Köhler, W., 16
Kohles, J. C., 268
Kojima, H., 82
Kolb, D. A., 523, 524
Kolb, D. M., 433
Komorita, S. S., 418, 431, 436
Konieczka, S. P., 4
Konrad, A. M., 430
Koocher, G. P., 493
Koole, S. L., 108
Korda, M., 504
Koren, M., 349
Koriat, A., 329
Korth, S., 524
Koslowsky, M., 243, 244
Kösters, M., 538
Kounin, J. S., 258, 292
Kovera, M. B., 225
Kowalski, R. M., 98, 120
Kowert, P. A., 400, 977
Kozlowski, S. W. J., 35, 165, 340, 346,
357, 366, 367
Krackhardt, D., 184, 187, 188, 190
Krakauer, J., 8, 9, 489
Kramer, G. P., 388
Kramer, R. M., 47, 174, 239, 331, 346,
350, 362, 390, 399, 400, 408, 418,
442
Kraus, L. A., 255
Kraus, M. W., 255
Kraut, R. E., 116
Kravitz, D. A., 314
Kreager, D., 72
Krishnan, R., 358
Kristof-Brown, A., 118
Krogel, J., 538
Krone, K. J., 185
Krueger, J., 199, 212
Kruglanski, A.W., 232, 402, 403, 407, 423
Ku, G., 68, 561
Kuhn, M. H., 79
Kuhn, T. S., 32, 58
Kulik, J. A., 107
Kurland, N. B., 243
Kurzban, R., 72, 437
Kushigian, R. H., 556
Kuypers, B. C., 141
Kwong, W. Y., 352
Labianca, G., 191
LaBrie, J. W., 163
Ladbury, J. L., 383
Lage, E., 206
Laing, R. D., 572
Lakens, D., 16
Lakin, J. L., 69, 211, 564
Lakin, M., 521
Lalonde, R. N., 88
Lam, A., 392
Lambert, A. J., 311
Lamm, H., 394, 396, 407
Lammers, J., 240
Lampe, C., 116
Landau, M. J., 283
Lang, G. E., 563
Lange, J. E., 413–415, 419, 440
Langer, E. J., 211, 212, 227
Langfred, C. W., 148
Langkamer, K. L., 177
Langner, C. A., 255
Lanni, J. C., 502
Lanzetta, J. T., 380
LaPiere, R., 260
Larimer, C. W., 253, 284
Larsen, I. M., 204, 548, 552, 557
Larsen, K. S., 204
Larsen, O. N., 548
Larson, J. R., 552, 557
Latané, B., 201, 202, 208, 210, 218–220,
228, 312, 314–316, 335
Latham, G. P., 317
LaTour, S., 437, 438
Lau, D. C., 135, 182, 353
Laughlin, P. R., 12, 326, 329, 336, 380
Lawler, E. E., 368
Lawler, E. J., 133, 134, 153, 239, 258
Lazarsfeld, P. F., 117
Lazonder, A. W., 374
Le Bon, G., 33, 547
Le Mens, G., 212
Lea, M., 200, 251
Leach, C. W., 86, 465
Leach, D. J., 502
Leak, G. K., 534
Leaper, C., 270
Leary, M. R., 74, 90, 92, 98, 120, 124,
247, 280, 387
Leather, P., 488
Leavitt, H. J., 184, 185
LeBeau, L. S., 491
Leclerc, F., 551
Lee, C. M., 82
Lee, D., 131
Lee, L., 565
Lee, S. W. S., 82
Lee-Chai, A. Y., 254, 257
NAME I NDEX 675
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Lehman, E.V., 36, 356
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., 166, 367, 382,
408
Leidner, D. E., 363
Leigh, G. K., 370, 540
LeMay, E., 114, 120, 125, 185
Lemos, A., 555
Lengel, L., 491
Leon, G. R., 106, 149, 505
Leonard, W. M., 571
Leong, F. T. L., 540
LePine, J. A., 348, 359
Lepkin, M., 34
Lepore, S. J., 494
Lese, K. P., 536
Leslie, L. M., 436
Lester, M. E., 386, 540
Leszcz, M., 520, 533, 534, 542, 544
Leung, A. K., 455
Leung, K., 449
Levett, L. M., 220, 224
Levin, H. M., 389
Levine, M., 217, 218
Levine, R. V., 228
Levine, J. M., 9, 29, 60, 82, 104, 160, 161,
173–175, 194, 203, 221, 227, 228,
229, 508, 509
Lewin, K., 4, 22, 28, 35, 50, 51, 59, 128,
153, 291, 292, 295, 299, 480, 515,
518, 521, 541
Lewis, A., 471
Ley, D., 499
Leyens, J-P., 464
Li, A. Y., 416
Li, N. P., 108, 416
Li, Q., 16
Lickel, B., 6, 16, 27, 29
Liden, R. C., 290, 291, 318
Lieberman, M. A., 532, 540, 543
Lieberman, M. D., 75, 522, 532
Lietaer, G., 519
Likert, R., 269, 341
Lim, A., 143
Limbert, W. M., 217
Lindeman, M., 466
Lindskold, S., 499
Linzmayer, O. W., 410, 442
Lipinski, R. M., 222
Lippitt, R., 50, 51, 291, 292
Lippmann, W., 461, 476
Lipset, S. M., 571
Lipsitz, A., 519
Lipton, J., 2
Littlepage, A. M., 358
Littlepage, G. E., 56, 241, 326, 358, 376, 377
Locke, E. A., 267, 293, 342, 386
Lodewijkx, H. F. M., 151, 332
Lofland, J., 554
Lohr, N., 86
Lois, J., 39, 46, 63, 92
LoMonaco, B. L., 552
London, M., 365, 398
Longenecker, C. O., 257
Longley, J., 396
Lopes, P. N., 275
Lord, R. G., 268, 272, 278, 279, 280, 298
Lott, A. J., 128, 199
Lott, B. E., 128, 199
Lount, R. B., Jr., 426
Lovaglia, M. J., 184
Lovell, J., 486, 498, 512
Loving, T. J., 402
Low, L. C. K., 489, 504
Lu, L., 390, 392
Lucas, G. M., 97
Luce, R. D., 412
Ludwig, D. C., 257
Luft, J., 535
Luhtanen, R., 86, 87, 91
Lun, J., 81, 160
LuoKogan, A., 256
Luong, A., 382
Lutsky, N., 258
Lyman, S. M., 499
Maass, A., 206, 459
Maccoby, E. E., 270
MacCoun, R. J., 202, 224, 388
MacCracken, M. J., 312
MacDonald, G., 74, 175
MacIver, R. M., 6
MacKenzie, K. R., 533, 538
Mackie, D. M., 132, 133, 395, 462
Mackie, M., 84, 132, 133, 395, 462
MacKinnon, C. A., 257
MacNair-Semands, R. R., 536, 539
MacNeil, M. K., 35, 162
Macy, B. A., 365
Magee, J., 16, 254, 263
Mahar, L., 289
Mahler, H. I. M., 107
Maier, N. R. F., 326
Major, B., 88, 244, 245
Makhijani, M. G., 283, 296
Maki, J. E., 426
Malanos, A. B., 97
Mallett, K. A., 163
Malloy, T. E., 97, 276
Malone, T. W., 144, 351
Maner, J. K., 69, 70
Mann, F. C., 293
Mann, J. H., 271
Mann, L., 551, 567
Mann, R. D., 222, 223
Manning, R., 218, 240
Mannix, E. A., 208, 352, 354, 371
Manuck, S. B., 308
Maoz, I., 464
Marcus, D. K., 442
Markin, R. D., 100
Marks, M. A., 345, 347, 370
Markus, H., 203, 305
Markus, H. R., 92
Marmarosh, C. L., 100, 529, 530, 532, 542
Marmo, J., 160
Marques, J. M., 218
Marriott, R. G., 400
Marsh, H. W., 112
Marsh, L. C., 520
Marshall, G. N., 60, 503
Martell, R. F., 277
Martens, A., 136
Marti, C. N., 224
Marti, M. W., 224
Martin, E. D., 565
Martin, R., 279, 291, 314, 424, 456
Martorana, P., 254
Marx, K., 447
Maslach, C., 83, 203, 209, 260, 572, 577
Maslow, A. H., 54
Mason, C. M., 208
Mathes, E. W., 568
Mathewson, G. C., 151
Mathieu, J. E., 147, 347, 348, 359, 362,
368
Matter, C. F., 493, 553
Matthews, A., 272
Matz, D. C., 203, 214
Mausner, B., 199
Mayer, R. C., 363, 364
Maynard, M. T., 341, 363
Mayo, E., 40
Maznevski, M. L., 143
McAdam, D., 561, 563
McAdams, D. P., 101, 102
McCabe, K., 413
McCanse, A. A., 286
McCarthy, J. D., 561, 563
McCarty, J., 107
McCauley, C., 452, 454, 464
McClelland, D. C., 248, 257
McClelland, G., 277
McClintock, C. G., 426, 434
McCool, M. A., Jr., 556
McCoy, S., 454
676 NAM E I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

McCrae, R. R., 95, 203, 273
McCullough, M. E., 437
McCusker, C., 82
McDaniel, D. M., 438
McDonald, M. M., 456
McDougall, P., 248
McDougall, W., 72
McElroy, T., 112
McFarland, D. D., 185
McGabe, R., 521
McGhee, D. E., 459
McGillicuddy, N. B., 436
McGovern, T.V., 533
McGrath, J. E., 4, 5, 13–15, 27, 29, 52, 55,
124, 332, 351
McGraw, K. M., 278
McGregor, D., 266, 294, 341
McGrew, J. F., 143
McGuire, C., 85
McGuire, G. M., 108
McGuire, J. P., 534
McIntyre, M., 248
McIntyre, M. H., 248
McKay, C. P., 505
McKenna, K. Y. A., 200
McLaughlin, M. L., 83
McLaughlin-Volpe, T., 83
McLeod, P. L., 333, 390, 392
McNeill, W. H., 134, 153
McNiel, J. M., 97
McPartland, T. S., 79
McPhail, C., 548, 553, 554, 574, 576, 578
McPherson, J. M., 55
McPherson, M., 104, 118, 128, 136
McPherson, S., 452
McQueen, L. R., 420
McRoberts, C., 538
Mead, G. H., 169
Medalia, N. Z., 548
Meece, J. L., 417
Meeker, J. R., 416
Meerloo, J. A., 565
Mehra, A., 191
Mehrabian, A., 496
Mehta, R., 487
Mehta, V., 500
Meier, B. P., 453
Meindl, J. R., 76, 268
Mendes, W. B., 308
Menschel, R., 574
Merrigan, G. M., 41
Merry, C. J., 391
Merton, H. W., 117
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., 439
Messervey, D., 377
Messick, D. M., 305, 413, 418, 420, 434,
460, 474
Metcalf, J., 494
Meudell, P., 379
Meumann, E., 303
Meyer, D. S., 353, 562
Meyers, R. A., 41, 225
Michaels, J. W., 305
Michaelsen, L. K., 329
Michel, J. W., 245
Michels, R., 252
Michener, H. A., 258
Michinov, N., 333
Middlemist, R. D., 493
Mikolic, J. M., 427
Mikulincer, M., 69, 100, 477
Milanovich, D. M., 325
Miles, J. R., 532
Miles, M., 371, 498, 538, 543
Milgram, S., 232, 234, 235, 238, 240, 251,
259, 261, 547, 551–553, 558, 572,
576, 578
Miller, A. G., 164, 236, 263
Miller, C. A., 118
Miller, C. E., 162, 184, 384
Miller, D. T., 77, 167, 236, 263
Miller, K. I., 293
Miller, M. D., 210
Miller, N., 259, 548, 549
Miller, R. S., 118
Mills, J., 154
Mills, J. R., 77
Minami, H., 499
Miner, A. G., 326
Minkov, M., 24
Mintz, A., 408, 556
Mintzberg, H., 266
Miracle on the Hudson Survivors, 323
Mischel, W., 198, 437
Mischler, E. G., 251
Misumi, J., 269, 556
Mitchell, A. A., 120
Mitchell, R. C., 540
Mitchell, R. R., 540
Mitchell, T., 421
Mizzaro, S., 355
Moehrle, M. G., 334
Mohammed, S., 143
Mohrman, S. A., 368
Molden, D. C., 66
Molina, L., 447
Molm, L. D., 239, 277
Monge, P. R., 293
Monroe, A. E., 260, 382
Montoya, R. M., 119
Moody, J., 135
Montoya, R. M., 119, 181, 468
Moore, D. L., 309
Moore, J. C., 249
Moore, P. J., 107
Moran, G. P., 308
Moreland, R. L., 4, 8, 9, 60, 104, 120,
173–175, 189, 358, 369, 508
Moreno, J. L., 44, 185, 519, 522, 541
Morgan, N., 509
Morgeson, F. P., 272, 291, 352
Morran, K. D., 511
Morrill, C., 422, 424, 435, 440
Morris, C. G., 13, 376
Morris, W. N., 107
Morsella, E., 428
Moscovici, S., 205, 207, 393
Moser, G., 502
Mosier, J., 538
Moskowitz, G. B., 213, 434
Mossholder, K. W., 437
Mosso, C., 213
Moussaïd, M., 558
Mouton, J. S., 285, 286, 298
Moxnes, P., 170, 189
Mphuthing, T., 465
Mucchi-Faina, A., 213
Mudrack, P. E., 166
Mueller, A. L., 241, 276
Mukerji, P., 557
Mulder, L. B., 419
Mullen, B., 17, 146, 147, 154, 250, 309,
331, 401, 568
Mullison, D., 536
Mummendey, A., 460, 468
Murnighan, J. K., 135, 182, 353, 383, 418,
436
Murphy, B., 69, 423
Murphy, J., 100
Murphy, L. R., 560
Murphy, M., 560
Murphy, P., 69, 423
Murphy, S. A., 46
Murphy-Berman, V., 493
Murrell, A., 88, 465
Murrell, S. A., 110
Muskin, P. R., 544
Myers, D. G., 392–394, 407, 556
Nadler, J., 426
Naffrechoux, M., 206
Nagler, J., 115
Nahrgang, J. D., 272, 291
Nail, P. R., 195
Nardi, B., 40, 46
NAME I NDEX 677
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Nario-Redmond, M. R., 80
Nastasi, B. K., 541
National Transportation Safety Board, 325
Naumann, S. E., 130
Nauta, A., 112, 113, 459
Navarrete, C. D., 456
Naveh, D., 46, 141
Neale, M. A., 331, 352, 354, 371
Nelson, B. N., 111
Nemeth, C., 206, 213, 223, 497
Newcomb, T. M., 47, 48, 59, 114, 117,
119, 124, 159, 180, 182, 566
Newman, K. S., 71
Newman, O., 500
Newsom, J. T., 109
Newton, J. W., 568, 577
Nezlek, J. B., 68
Nichols, D. R., 221, 367
Nida, S. A., 62, 98, 219
Nielsen, M. E., 162
Nier, J. A., 472
Nietzel, M. T., 226
Nijstad, B. A., 331, 332, 337, 391
Nikkel, E., 382
Nisbett, R. E., 312, 455
Nixon, A. E., 177
Noel, J. G., 465
Nolan, L. L., 214, 411, 418
Norenzayan, A., 82
Norris, F. H., 110
Norton, M. I., 115
Nosek, B. A., 459
Nowak, A., 210
Nunamaker, J. F. Jr., 382
Nutt, P. C., 398
Nuwer, H., 151, 152, 155
Nyberg, A. J., 131
Nyquist, L. V., 278
Oakes, P. J., 460
Oberholzer-Gee, F., 417
O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., 274
OED Online, 341
Offerman, T., 414
Oh, J-H., 212, 565
Oishi, S., 81
Oldenburg, R., 500, 511, 513
Oldmeadow, J., 249
Oliver, L. W., 147, 547
Olk, P. M., 117
Olson, R., 40
Olweus, D., 248
Ong, A. D., 419
Opotow, S., 464
Orive, R., 212
Ormont, L. R., 534
Orne, M. T., 237
Osborn, A. F., 330
Osgood, D. W., 429
Ostrom, T. M., 317
Otten, S., 458
Oveis, C., 256
Overbeck, J. R., 255
Oyserman, D., 76, 78, 80, 81, 82, 86
Ozer, D. J., 95
Pace, J. L., 237
Packer, D. J., 195, 218, 234, 261
Page, R. C., 6, 519
Page-Gould, E., 467
Palmer, G. J., 275, 326
Paluck, E.L., 473
Pandey, C., 325
Panksepp, J., 111
Pantaleo, G., 460
Paquette, J. A., 65
Paris, C. R., 103, 105
Park, B., 255
Park, E. S., 69
Parker, J. C., 427
Parker, K. C., 251
Parkinson, B., 54
Parkinson, C. N., 377
Parks, C. D., 267, 418, 419, 436, 452
Parks, C., 416
Parks, C. D., 115, 267, 418, 419, 436, 452
Parrado, N., 160, 190
Parsons, H. M., 167
Passy, F., 562
Paterson, H. M., 378
Patnoe, S., 473
Patterson, H. N., 490, 491, 496
Patton, B., 432, 442
Paul, G. L., 167, 170, 190, 522, 538
Paulus, P. B., 330–333
Pavelchak, M. A., 104, 123
Paxton, P., 181, 190
Pearce, C. L., 293
Pedersen, D. M., 65
Peeters, M. A. G., 348
Pelled, L. H., 243
Pelletier, J., 29
Pemberton, M., 114, 449
Peng, K., 486
Pennebaker, J.W., 488, 534, 559, 560
Pennington, D. C., 4, 220, 228
Penrod, S. D., 220, 228
Pentland, A., 57, 60, 318, 502
Pepitone, A., 119, 146, 568
Peplau, L. A., 243–245
Perls, F., 519, 541
Perrin, S., 204
Perry, E. S., 236
Personnaz, B., 207
Pescosolido, A. T., 131
Peters, R., 554
Peterson, J. B., 203
Peterson, R. S., 145, 213, 401, 421, 436,
454, 538
Petrie, T. A., 164
Pettigrew, T. F., 458, 461, 467–470, 477,
478, 566
Philbrick, K., 82
Phoon, W. H., 559
Piccolo, R. F., 286, 287, 295
Pickett, C. L., 84, 118
Pickett, K. M., 70
Pierro, A., 239, 243, 258
Pillai, R., 268
Pinkley, R. L., 449
Pinter, B., 449, 450
Piper, W. E., 539
Pisano, G. P., 347, 365, 369, 370
Pittinsky, T. L., 272, 296, 478
Pittman, T. S., 101
Platania, J., 308
Platow, M. J., 282, 299
Platt, L., 307, 529
Pollack, J. M., 312, 401
Polletta, F., 571
Polley, R. B., 172
Pollom, L. H., 109
Polzer, J. T., 331, 349
Pomerantz, J., 244
Pomerantz-Zorin, L., 244
Poole, M. S., 52, 60, 377
Poppe, M., 247, 257, 258
Porter, C. O. L. H., 184, 278
Porter, L. W., 184
Porter, N., 278
Postman, L. J., 461, 559
Postmes, T., 17, 200, 251, 487, 571
Poulin, M. J., 111
Poundstone, W., 412
Powell, C., 277, 278
Powers, J., 191
Pozzi, F., 474
Pradhan, P., 376
Prapavessis, H., 145
Pratkanis, A. R., 401–403
Pratt, N. C., 97, 515
Pratto, F., 38
Prentice, D. A., 163, 164, 570
Prentice-Dunn, S., 570
Priest, H. A., 367
678 NAM E I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Prislin, R., 194, 207, 217
Prochnau, W. W., 337
Promislo, M. D., 248
Provine, R. R., 550
Pruitt, D. G., 393, 396, 398, 427, 431, 436,
442
Prusaczyk, W. K., 97
Pruyn, A. T.H., 199
Pryce, J., 222
Pryor, J. B., 260
Pyszczynski, T., 283
Quattrone, G. A., 460
Queller, S., 395
Quinn, A., 199
Quinn, J., 460
Raafat, R. M., 212
Rabbie, J., 108
Radloff, R., 46
Ragan, J. W., 384
Raiffa, H., 412
Rakoczy, H., 162
Randsley de Moura, G., 29
Ransom, S., 373, 455
Rapee, R. M., 99
Ratner, R. K., 77, 457
Rause, V., 190
Raven, B. H., 238, 239, 243, 258
Ray, D., 500, 513
Read, A., 160, 166, 180
Real, K., 159
Reddington, K., 276, 358
Redl, F., 117
Reed, E. S., 447
Reeder, G. D., 260, 491
Rees, C. R., 166
Reichard, R. J., 271
Reicher, S., 574
Reicher, S. D., 110, 240, 258, 263, 282,
555, 571, 577, 578
Reichl, A. J., 465
Reichling, G., 146
Reider, M. H., 352
Reifman, A., 224, 225, 565
Reilly, R. R., 155, 364
Reimer, A., 391
Reinig, B. A., 104
Reips, U., 418
Reis, H. T., 51, 116, 124
Reno, R. R., 214
Rentfrow, P. J., 96
Rentsch, J. R., 176
Repacholi, B. M., 486
Reston, J. R., Jr., 241, 263
Rhee, E., 80
Rheingold, H., 562
Rice, E., 55
Richard, F. D., 25
Richeson, J. A., 250, 356, 454
Ridgeway, C. L., 249–251
Riecken, H. W., 37, 39, 46
Riess, M., 497
Riggiero, J., 467
Riggio, H. R., 352
Rimal, R. N., 159
Ringelmann, M., 314
Ringer, T. M., 535
Rink, F., 217
Riordan, C., 255, 467
Riordan, J. M., 255, 467
Ripley, J. S., 529
Rivera, A. N., 420
Rivers, J. J., 248
Robak, R. W., 535
Robbins, A., 46
Robert, C., 78
Roberts, B. W., 247
Robertson, T. E., 345, 371
Robinson, S. L., 504
Robinson, T. T., 67, 145, 374
Robison, F. F., 170, 276, 358
Roby, T. B., 380
Roccas, S., 83
Rochat, F., 236
Roche, J., 442, 571
Rodin, J., 494
Roe, C. W., 245
Roethlisberger, F. J., 40
Rofé, Y., 108
Rogelberg, S. G., 316, 334, 356, 382, 406,
408
Rogers, C., 60, 570
Rognes, J., 412
Roland, E. J., 265
Roll, S., 46, 277
Rom, E., 100
Romanova, N., 277
Romberger, B., 277
Ronay, R., 253
Roos, P. D., 499, 500
Rose, R., 194
Rose-Krasnor, L., 98
Roseman, I. J., 429
Rosen, B., 340
Rosenbloom, D., 305
Rosenfeld, P., 497
Rosenthal, R. A., 272
Roseth, C. J., 474
Rosette, A. S., 277
Rosnow, R. L., 559, 576
Ross, L., 23, 421, 426
Rossano, M. J., 162
Roth, B. E., 517
Roth, D. A., 312
Roth, W., 534
Rothbart, M., 561
Rothgerber, H., 561
Rotolo, T., 55
Rotton, J., 486
Rouby, D. A., 70
Rousseau, J-J., 358, 367
Rowland, K. M., 125, 312
Roy, D. F., 39, 64, 381
Rozin, P., 78
Rubin, J. Z., 98
Rubin, M., 458
Rubin, R. B., 381, 398
Ruef, M., 3
Rufus, A. S., 99
Rumery, S. M., 356
Runciman, W. G., 566, 577
Runkel, M., 417
Rusbult, C. E., 122
Ruscher, J. B., 374
Russ-Eft, D. F., 289
Russell, G. W., 565
Russell, J. A., 483
Russell, R. J. H., 565
Russo, E. M., 207
Ruxton, G. D., 324
Ryan, C. S., 119, 280
Rydell, R. J., 17
Ryf, B., 418
Ryterband, E. C., 364
Saab, R., 341
Saavedra, R., 120, 357
Sabini, J., 198
Sacco, D. F., 87
Sadler, M. S., 252
Sagrestano, L. M., 203
Saks, M. J., 224, 225
Salas, E., 350, 357, 360, 367, 370, 488
Salovey, P., 275
Sampson, E. E., 217
Samuelson, C. D., 420
Sandberg, W. R., 384
Sandelands, L., 35
Sanders, G. S., 259, 309, 499, 571
Sani, F., 84
Sanna, L. J., 376
Santee, R. T., 83, 209
Sapp, M., 278
Saroglou, V., 97
NAME I NDEX 679
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Sassenberg, K., 79
Sattler, D. N., 426
Saul, J. R., 267
Savitsky, K., 421
Scarr, H. A., 568
Schachter, S., 37, 39, 46, 106, 108, 123,
148, 215
Schaerfl, L. M., 420
Schafer, M., 401
Schaubroeck, J., 392
Schauer, A. H., 312
Scheepers, D., 255
Scheeres, J., 263
Schein, E. H., 158, 277
Schelling, T. C., 411
Scheuble, K. J., 531
Schippers, M. C., 353, 354
Schlenker, D. R., 502
Schlenker, B. R., 151, 191, 394
Schlesinger, A. M., Jr., 397
Schmid, T., 271
Schmid Mast, M. S., 271
Schmidt, D. E., 494
Schmidt, L. A., 98, 177
Schmitt, B. H., 551
Schmitt, D. P., 103
Schmukle, S. C., 115
Schneider, D. J., 461
Schofield, J. W., 467, 473
Schoorman, F. D., 363–364
Schopler, J., 118, 448, 449
Schottenbauer, M., 529
Schouten, M. E., 342
Schroeder, H. W., 421, 482
Schuler, R. S., 176
Schulz-Hardt, S., 388
Schuster, M. A., 108
Schutz, W. C., 102, 119, 124
Schwartz, B., 78, 219, 459, 502
Schwartz, J. L. K., 459
Schwartz, B., 502
Schwartz, S. H., 98, 219
Schwarzwald, J., 244, 423
Schweiger, D. M., 384
Schweingruber, D., 553
Scott, M. B., 499
Sculley, J., 419
Seal, D. W., 46
Seashore, S. E., 145, 148, 269, 364
Sechrest, L., 255, 491
Sedikides, C., 77, 89, 118
Segal, H. A., 246
Segal, M. W., 115, 166, 180
Seger, C. R., 132, 133
Seibold, D. R., 45, 225
Sekaquaptewa, D., 250
Seligman, M. E. P., 539
Sell, J., 176, 456
Semin, G. R., 485, 564
Sensenig, J., 426
Sergel, S. L., 193, 194, 204, 228
Sessa, V. I., 365
Seta, C. E., 112, 308, 311
Sethna, B. N., 251
Seying, R., 222
Seymour, W. R., 312
Shah, J. Y., 379, 380
Shannon, J. K., 544
Shapiro, D. A., 538
Sharp, L. B., 412
Shaver, P., 65, 69, 100, 107, 429
Shaw, H., 184
Shaw, J. C., 39
Shaw, M. E., 39, 184, 375
Shaw, L., 89
Shaw, M. E., 203
Shaw, T. R., 85
Sheats, P., 12, 167, 168, 522
Sheatsley, P. B., 108
Shebilske, W. L., 531
Shechter, D., 203
Shechtman, Z., 534, 539, 541
Sheldon, K., 177
Shelly, R. K., 183
Shepard, H. A., 143
Sherif, C. W., 4, 34, 35, 58, 135, 136, 153,
160, 468, 474, 475, 477
Sherman, D. K., 16, 81
Sherman, G. D., 16, 29
Shils, E., 167
Showers, C. J., 502
Shuffler, M. L., 346, 367
Shure, G. H., 376, 416
Sias, P. M., 185
Sicoly, E., 421
Sidanius, J., 475
Siebold, G. L., 136, 155
Siegl, E., 65
Sigall, H., 213
Silbiger, H., 276, 358
Silver, W. S., 110, 396, 523
Silvera, D. H., 540
Silverman, P. R., 525
Simmel, G., 3
Simon, A. F., 470
Simon, B., 85, 460
Simon, R. J., 223
Simon, S., 284
Simonton, D. K., 274
Simpson, B., 416
Simpson, J. A., 437, 477
Simpson, L., 556
Singer, J. E., 488
Sivanathan, N., 256
Skinner, B. F., 54
Slater, P. E., 166
Slavson, S. R., 516
Slim, R., 489
Smeesters, D., 416
Smelser, N. J., 549, 558
Smith, C. L., 132, 133, 253
Smith, C. M., 136, 255
Smith, D. H., 16
Smith, E. R., 123, 132, 133, 208, 284, 333
Smith, G., 99
Smith, H. J., 566
Smith, L., 340, 361
Smith, M., 112
Smith, P. B., 204, 277, 540
Smith-Lovin, L., 118, 128, 136
Smithson, M., 249
Smokowski, P. R., 104
Smrt, D. L., 317
Sniezek, J. A., 403
Snodgrass, J., 483
Snow, D. A., 547, 554
Snyder, C. R., 87
Sobel, R., 145
Socolow, M. J., 574
Solem, A. R., 326
Solomon, S., 494, 495
Solomon, S. H., 494, 495
Solomon, S. K., 494
Soman, D., 551
Sommer, K. L., 70, 103
Sommer, R., 495–497, 511
Song, H., 69, 423
Sorrels, J. P., 158
Sorrentino, R. M., 272, 274, 401
Spataro, S. E., 354
Spears, R., 90, 200, 251, 571, 574, 578
Spence, J. T., 278
Spencer, C. P., 204
Spencer, R. W., 199
Spisak, B. R., 285
Spitz, H. I., 544
Spivey, R. W., 570
Spoor, J. R., 54
Srivastava, S., 74
St. Clair, L., 35
St. John, W., 46, 87
Stadulis, R. E., 312
Stager, S. F., 88
Stahelski, A. J., 414, 426
Stahl, G. K., 354, 371
680 NAM E I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Stainton-Rogers, W., 60
Stajkovic, A. D., 131
Staley, K., 374
Stangor, C., 467
Stanton, N., 341
Staples, D. S., 363
Stapp, J., 83, 209
Stark, E. M., 317
Starks, T. J., 164
Stasser, G., 225, 390, 391, 406
Stasson, M. F., 329, 400
Staub, E., 258, 453, 464
Staw, B. M., 332
Stawiski, S., 358
Stech, F. J., 434
Steel, G. D., 489
Steel, P., 24
Steel, R. P., 176
Steele, C. M., 89
Steiger, J. H., 483
Stein, B. D., 276
Steinel, W., 426
Steiner, I. D., 33, 320, 322, 326, 327, 332
Steinfield, C., 116
Steinkuehler, C. A., 500
Steinzor, B., 496
Stephan, C., 473
Stephan, F. F., 251
Stephan, W. G., 251, 467, 470, 473
Stern, E. K., 243, 376
Sternberg, R. J., 275, 434, 462
Stets, J. E., 165
Stevens, C. K., 118, 352
Stevenson, R. J., 486
Stewart, A. J., 566
Stewart, G. L., 343
Stewart, P. A., 249
Stice, E., 164
Stiles, W. B., 247, 538
Stillwell, A. M., 429
Stinson, D. A., 110
Stogdill, R. M., 271, 274, 275, 293
Stokes, J. P., 25
Stokes-Zoota, J. J., 25
Stokols, D., 492
Stone, A. B., 419
Stoner, J. A., 392
Stones, C. R., 46
Storms, M. D., 312
Stotland, E., 17
Stott, C., 555, 571, 574, 578
Stratenwerth, I., 89
Streufert, S., 447, 454
Strickland, D., 256
Strodtbeck, F. L., 42, 141, 154, 222, 223,
249, 497
Stroebe, M. S., 66
Stroebe, W., 23, 331, 332
Stroud, L. R., 74
Strube, M. J., 303, 304
Stryker, S., 165, 167
Stuster, J., 483, 513
Su, S. F., 45
Suedfeld, P., 488, 489
Sugiman, T., 556
Suh, E. M., 82
Sullenberger, C. B., 302, 313, 317
Sullivan, L., 488
Sulloway, F. J., 203
Suls, J., 106, 124, 424, 530
Sumner, W. G., 458, 476
Sun, H., 205
Sundstrom, E., 317, 341, 364, 493, 502,
504, 507, 511
Sunstein, C. R., 213, 395, 563
Surowiecki, J., 323
Susarla, A., 565
Sussman, S., 86
Swamidass, P. M., 364
Swann, W. B., Jr., 96, 132
Swift, E. M., 127, 130, 155, 277
Syna, H., 436
Syroit, J. E., 151
Szymanski, K., 308, 316, 317
’t Hart, P., 46, 405
Tabak, B. A., 437
Taggar, S., 341
Tajfel, H., 7, 8, 27, 83, 85, 91, 476
Takeda, M. B., 277
Takezawa, M., 78
Talley, A. E., 177
Tal-Or, N., 114
Tam, T., 467
Tamura, R., 395
Tan, Y., 565
Tanaka, K., 499
Tang, J., 277, 368
Tang, T. L., 277, 368
Tanis, M., 528
Taras, V., 24
Tarde, G., 564
Tarnow, E., 325
Tarrant, C. M., 220
Tata, J., 217
Tausch, N., 105
Taylor, D. A., 505, 534
Taylor, H., 289
Taylor, H. F., 425
Taylor, P. J., 289
Taylor, R. B., 502
Taylor, S. E., 69, 71, 74, 90, 103, 108,
124
Teddlie, C., 494
Tedeschi, J. T., 420
Ten Velden, F. S., 208
Teppner, B. J., 245
Terry, D. J., 88
Tesser, A., 97, 112
Tetlock, P. E., 396, 401
Thai, Y., 165
Thayer, A. L., 416, 532
Thibaut, J. W., 54, 120, 122, 124
Thomas, D. S., 17, 28
Thomas, K. W., 434
Thomas, W.I., 17, 28
Thomas-Hunt, M. C., 250
Thompson, J. E., 468
Thompson, L. L., 208, 431
Thompson, M. E., 258
Thoreau, H. D., 64, 65
Thorngate, W. B., 426
Thornhill, R., 487
Thrasher, F. M., 499
Thurlow, C., 491
Thye, S. R., 133, 134, 153
Tiedens, L. Z., 16, 118, 179, 252
Tiger, L., 355
Tilin, F., 141
Timme, M., 115
Tindale, R. S., 4, 32, 52, 56, 60, 73, 194,
213, 226, 229, 357, 358, 378, 408
Titus, L. J., 306, 390, 406
Tjosvold, D., 434, 435
Tobin, K., 117
Toch, H., 547, 552, 553, 572, 575, 578
Toennies, F., 6
Toguchi, Y., 77, 89
Tolnay, S. E., 555
Tolstoy, L., 270
Tomasello, M., 215, 305
Tomic, A., 491
Toobin, J., 46
Torrance, E. P., 249
Tracey, T. J., 119
Travis, L. E., 305, 482
Treadwell, T., 555
Tredoux, C., 501
Tremblay, S., 307
Triandis, H. C., 76, 80, 81, 92
Triplett, N., 23
Tropp, L. R., 85, 467, 469, 470, 477,
478
Trost, M. R., 198
NAME I NDEX 681
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Tschan, F., 380
Tucker, C. W., 553
Tuckman, B. W., 21, 138, 139, 543
Turnage, A. K., 430
Turner, A. L., 46, 151, 524, 539, 544
Turner, J. C., 4, 84, 85, 91, 166, 458
Turner, M. E., 231, 401, 402
Turner, R. H., 167, 570, 572
Turner, R. N., 471
Tushman, M., 379
Tversky, A., 376, 379
Twenge, J. M., 68, 69, 88, 103, 204,
237
Tyler, T. R., 239–241, 385, 419,
421
U.S. Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, 402
Uchino, B. N., 109
Ugander, J., 564
Uglow, J. S., 46
Uhl-Bien, M., 290, 291, 293
Ulbig, S. G., 566
Underwood, B., 465
Undre, S., 339
Unzueta, M. M., 118
Urban, L. M., 472, 500
Ury, W., 442
Utman, C. H., 313
Utz, S., 79
Uziel, L., 310, 311
Uzzell, D. L., 502
Vaillancourt, T., 248
Valins, S., 500, 501
Vallacher, R. R., 210
Van de Ven, A. H., 334
van de Vijver, F. J. R., 540
Van de Vliert, E., 487
van der LÖwe, I., 256
van der Toorn, J., 239
Van der Zee, K. I., 17
van Dijke, M., 247, 257, 258
Van Dyne, L., 120, 357
Van Emmerik, I. H., 435
van Ginneken, J., 574
Van Hiel, A., 208
Van Horn, S. M., 532
Van Kleef, G. A., 256, 426, 429
van Knippenberg, D., 353, 354
Van Lange, P. A. M., 414, 415, 419
van Mierlo, H., 316
Van Munster, L. M., 413
Van Overwalle, F., 378
Van Raalte, J. L., 152
Van Sell, M., 176
Van Tongeren, D. R., 473
van Uden-Kraan, C. F., 528
Van Vianen, A. E. M., 535, 536
Van Vugt, M., 88, 285, 456
Van Zelst, R. H., 145
van Zomeren, M., 151, 578
Vandello, J. A., 199, 455
Vandenberghe, C., 141
VanLeeuwen, M. D., 308
Varvel, S. J., 110
Vecchio, R. P., 287
Veitch, R., 486
Venkatesh, S., 37, 39, 46, 121
Verhofstadt, L. L., 109
Vescio, T. K., 84
Vickery, C. D., 535
Vider, S., 559
Vidmar, N., 53, 224, 225, 229
Vincent, C. A., 339
Vinokur, A., 376, 394
Vinsel, A., 503
Vischer, J. C., 508
Vohs, K. D., 23
Voigt, A., 371
Vollrath, D. A., 56, 378
Volpe, C. E., 83
Voss, A., 309
Vroom, V. H., 293, 385
Vryan, K. D., 167
Wachtler, J., 223, 497
Waddington, D., 571
Wagner, D. G., 76, 249
Walder, A. G., 563
Waldfogel, J., 417
Walker, C. J., 559
Walker, H. A., 277
Wall, V. D., Jr., 411, 418
Wallach, M. A., 392
Walsh, Y., 565
Walter, J., 461, 566
Walters, S., 104
Walther, E., 251
Wan, C., 16
Wang, A. Y., 431
Wanlass, J., 535
Wann, D. L., 87, 465
Warner HBO, 131, 140, 144
Warr, M., 374
Warriner, G. K., 241
Wasserman, S., 186
Wasti, S. A., 78
Watson, C., 277
Watson, D., 254
Watson, P. J., 524
Watson, R. I., Jr., 567
Watson, W. E., 329
Watts, D. J., 565
Wayne, S. J., 408
Waytz, A., 34, 58
Weber, B., 328
Weber, J. M., 413, 418
Weber, M., 241, 294
Webster, D. M., 249, 423
Wegge, J., 331
Wegner, D. M., 358, 378
Weick, M., 255
Weigold, M. F., 394
Weingart, L. R., 317, 376, 379, 423, 427,
435, 438, 442
Weinstein, N., 486
Weiss, J. A., 376
Weiss, J. F., 519
Weiss, T., 351
Welch, B. K., 401
Weldon, E., 317, 376, 379, 381
Wells, P. A., 503, 565
Wener, R. E., 492
Werko, R., 364
Werner, C. M., 566
Wesselmann, E. D., 70
West, B. J., 534
Wheelan, S. A., 137, 141, 155
Wheeler, L., 69, 106, 505, 564
White, B. J., 450
White, D. R., 135
White, M. W., 417
White, R., 50
Whitney, D. J., 147, 203
Whittenburg, G. E., 104
Whyte, W. F., 37, 39, 58, 60, 499,
501
Wick, D. P., 248
Wicker, A. W., 507
Widmeyer, W. N., 350
Wiesenfeld, B. M., 386
Wiggins, E. C., 224
Wilder, D. A., 201, 468, 470
Wildman, J. L., 342
Wildschut, T., 448–450, 478
Wilke, H. A. M., 249
Wilkinson, I., 46
Wilkinson-Weber, C. M., 46
Williams, D., 500
Williams, J., 433
Williams, K. D., 4, 66, 68, 70, 75, 274,
315, 335
Willig, C., 60
Willis, F. N., 491, 493
682 NAM E I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Willis, H., 458
Wills, T. A., 535
Wilpinski, C., 119
Wilson, D. J., 207
Winquist, J., 391
Winter, D. G., 247, 257, 552
Wiseman, R., 170
Wit, A., 439
Witte, E. H., 327
Wittenbaum, G. M., 51, 390, 391
Witty, T. E., 171
Wolf, S., 201, 202
Wolf, S. T., 449, 450
Wolfe, D., 17
Wolin, S. S., 571
Wood, A. M., 203
Wood, D., 247
Wood, J. V., 203
Wood, W., 355
Woody, E., 252
Woolley, A. W., 351
Worchel, P., 423
Worchel, S., 426, 454, 468, 494
Worringham, C. J., 305
Worthington, E. L., Jr., 529
Wosniak, S., 99
Wright, S. S., 86, 469, 477
Wrightsman, L. S., 228
Wu, A., 267, 305
Wundt, W., 32, 58
Wyden, P. H., 373, 408
Yablonsky, L., 499
Yakovleva, M., 364
Yalom, I. D., 520, 530, 532, 538, 543,
544
Yammarino, F. J., 291, 295
Yang, D., 437
Yee, N., 144
Yik, M., 483
Yin, R. K., 46, 47, 60
Yohai, S., 494
Yoon, J., 133, 134, 239, 408
Yost, J. H., 559
Young, L., 34, 58
Young, R. D., 88
Young, M. J., 118
Youngs, G. A., Jr., 258, 429
Yuan, Y. C., 251, 390, 392
Yuki, M., 449
Yzerbyt, V., 17
Zaccaro, S. J., 146, 271, 287, 347, 359
Zajonc, R. B., 304, 311, 313, 335
Zald, M. N., 561, 563
Zander, A. F., 17, 28, 130
Zanna, M. P., 199
Zaslow, J., 337
Zavalloni, M., 393
Zeigler, K. R., 101
Zeisel, H., 220, 223
Zelikow, P., 46
Zhao, L., 278
Zhu, R., 487
Ziller, R. C., 9, 135
Zimbardo, P. G., 260, 567, 568, 573,
577
Zimpfer, D. G., 539
Zitek, E. M., 179
Zuckerman, C., 391
Zurcher, L. A., 141, 554
Zyzniewski, L. E., 147, 421
NAME I NDEX 683
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Subject Index
Page numbers for definitions are in boldface.
Abdera outbreak, 547
Abilene paradox, 398
Acquaintance process, 114
Acquisitive panics, 556
Actual productivity (AP), 320
Adaptive structures, of teams, 360–361
Additive tasks, 322
Adventure Consultants Guided
Expedition, 2
Advisory teams, 343
Affect, and relational cohesion, 133–134
Affiliation, 105–114
health and, 109–111
need for, 101
safety in numbers, 108
social comparison, 106–108
social comparison and the self,
111–114
social support and, 108–109
stress and, 108–111
Agentic state, 240
Aggression
deindividuation, 566–570
exclusion and, 71–72
general aggression model, 453
intergroup, 452–454
temperature and, 486
Aggressive mobs, 555
Agreeableness, as personality trait, 95
Alcohol drinking, and norms, 163
Alcoholics Anonymous, 526–527, 539
Alive (Read), 157
Ambience, 482
Amygdala, 98, 215, 255, 412, 464, 493
Anonymity, 449–450, 567
Anticonformity (counterconformity), 196
Anxiety, 98–100
social, 98–99
Approach/inhibition theory, 254–257
Arab Spring, 546, 562, 563, 576
Arbitration, 437
Aristotle, 64, 362, 462
Artists circle, 94, 105
Asch situation, 194–195
Assembly bonus effect, 329
Associations, 6
Assumptions, 136–137
multicomponent, 136
multilevel, 136
multimethod, 136–137
Attachment, 98–100
Attachment style, 99–100
Attachment theory, 99
Attentional processes, and social faciliation,
309
Attention restoration theory, 484
Attitude(s), 103–105
prejudice, 461–469
Attraction, 114–122
conflict and, 424
economics of membership, 120–122
group-level, 130
interpersonal, 128–130
principles of, 114–120
temperature and, 487
Attraction relations, 180–182
balance theory, 182
sociometric differentiation, 180–182
Attribution
during conflict, 426
fundamental attribution error, 23, 260,
426, 460
group attribution error, 460
misattribution, 426
overhelping, 529–530
ultimate attribution error, 460–461
Audience(s), 550
Authority, 231–238
group effects, 235–236
harm vs. rights, 233–234
prestige and legitimacy, 234–235
proximity and surveillance effects, 234
Authority matrix model, 343, 344
Autocratic leaders, 50, 291
Autocratic leadership, 50, 291–292
Autokinetic (self-motion) effect, 160–161
B ¼ f (P, E), 35, 480
Babble effect, 276
Balance theory, 182
Bale’s SYMLOG Model, 170–172
Basking in reflected glory (BIRG), 87
Bathsheba syndrome, 257
Bazille, Frederic, 94–95, 108, 114, 120
Beers, Charlotte, 265, 270, 294
Behavioral assimilation, 413–414
Behavioral perspectives on groups, 54–55
Behaviorism, 54
Behavior setting, 506
Beliefs about Groups (BAG) scale, 103–104
Belong/belonging, 109
identity and, 131–132
need to, 64–66
Betweenness, SNA, 186
Bias(es)
confirmation, 388
correcting, 404
ingroup-outgroup, 88, 458–459
judgmental, 387–389
in leadership selection, 277–278
shared information, 390–392
684
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Big-fish-little-pond effect, 112
Bilateral power tactics, 245
Biological perspectives on groups, 57
Biology of ostracism, 74–75
Biopsychosocial (BPS) threat/challenge
model, 57
Biting mania, 559
Black-sheep effect, 217–218
Bona fide groups, 47
Boundaries, and groups, 8–9
Boundary spanners, 344
Bowling Alone (Putnam), 7
Brainstorming, 330–334
alternatives to, 333–334
electronic, 333
improving, 332
nominal groups, 330
Brainwashing, 246
Brainwriting, 332
Brooks, Herb, 127, 130–131, 133, 137,
139–140, 143, 152–153
Brown v. Board of Education, 467
Buffering effect, 110
Bulimia, 164
Bullying, 248
Burns, James McGregor, 266, 294
Bystander effect, 218–220, 219
helping and, 218–219
Caillebotte, Gustave, 94, 95, 120
Cannibalism, 569
Carlyle, Thomas, 270
Cascade, 213
Cases
1980 US hockey team, 127
Andes rugby team, 157
Apollo 13 crew, 480
Arab Spring collective, 546
Bay of Pigs planners, 373
Bus group, 515
Charlotte Beers, 265
Flight crew of 1549, 302
Impressionists, 94
Jobs vs. Sculley, 410
MIT red ballon search team, 31
Mountain Medical surgery team, 339
Mt. Everest expedition, 2
Peak search and rescue, 63
People’s Temple, 231
Robbers Cave Experiment, 445
Twelve angry men jury, 193
Case studies, 46
advantages and disadvantages, 47
conducting, 46–47
Casualty, 540
Catharsis, 534
Cebrian, Manuel, 31
Celebratory mobs, 554
Cézanne, Paul, 94–95, 98, 101
Charisma, 241
Charismatic leadership, 294
Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire, 392
Choreomania, 559
Client-centered therapy, 518
Climato-economic theory, 487
Cliques, 180, 181, 187
Closed-mindedness, 397
Closeness, SNA, 186
Clustering, 209–210
Clusters, 180
Coaction, 303–304
Coalitions, 430
Coercion
conflict and, 258
power and, 256–257
Coercive power, 239
Cognitive-behavioral therapy group(s),
520–521
Cognitive closure, 402
Cognitive dissonance, 149, 214
Cognitive processes, 56
and social faciliation, 309–310
Cohesion, 20, 23
application, 148–153
benefits, 361–362
collective, 131–132
consequences of, 144–148
developing, 137–144
emotional, 132–134
entitativity and, 131
explaining initiations, 148–153
group dynamics and influence,
145–146
group productivity, 146–148
groupthink and, 399–400, 401
hazing, 151–153
initiations and commitment, 149–151
member satisfaction and adjustment,
144–145
multicomponent assumption, 136
multilevel assumption, 136
multimethod assumption, 136–137
primary and secondary forms of, 136
severe initiations and, 150–151
social, 128–130
sources of, 127–137
structural, 134–136
task, 130–131
therapeutic groups and, 532–534
trust and, 362–364
Cohesive alliance, 361–364
Cohesiveness, 15
Coleadership, 532
Collaboration, in online groups, 430
Collaborative circles, 94, 105
Collective cohesion, 131–132
Collective effervescence, 133
Collective efficacy, 130–131
Collective effort model (CEM),
318–319
Collective induction problems, 380
Collective memory, 378–379
Collective movements, 558–560
Collective potency, 130–131
Collective rationalization, 397
Collective representations, 33
Collective(s), 6–7, 547–578
of anger, 429–430
characteristics of, 547–549
composition of, 565–566
crowds, 552–554
deindividuation theory of, 566–570
early crowd studies, 6, 21
in e-groups, 430
emergent norms, 570–571
examples of, 548, 549, 561
groups and, 572–575
mobs, 554–555
theories of, 563–572
Collective self, protecting, 87–89
Collective self-esteem, 86
Collectivism, 63, 76
conflict, 412, 438
core features of, 76
cultural differences, 487
individualism and, 75–83
Collectivists, 80–81
Common ingroup identity model, 470
Common knowledge effect, 390
Communal relationships, 77
SUBJ ECT I NDEX 685
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Communication
of anger, 429–430
babble effect, 276
coding systems of, 41–43, 170–172
conflict and, 410, 427–429
disagreement, 424,
discussion, 377–382
of inclusion and exclusion, 67–68
in juries, 222
in noisy environments, 486–488
meetings and, 382
negotiation, 431–433
networks, 182–184
nonverbal, 221, 247, 251, 462, 492
in online groups and teams, 251, 363
out-of-the-loop, 67
power and, 247, 251
problems, 377, 380–382
reactions to deviants, 216–217
relationship and task, 41–43
rumors, 558–559
self-disclosure, 534
shared information bias, 390–391
skill, 352
Steinzor effect, 496–497
supportive, 534–535
vocalizations of crowds, 554
Communication networks, 182–183
centralization and performance, 184
chain network, 183
circle network, 183–184
comcon network, 183
pinwheel network, 184
wheel network, 183
Communication norms, 160
Communication relations, 182–185
Comparison level (CL), 121–122
Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt),
121–122
Compatibility
interchange, 119
originator, 119
Compensatory tasks, 322–326
intellective and judgmental tasks, 326
swarm intelligence, 323–324
wisdom of the crowd effect, 323
Competition, 411, 447–451
Complementarity principle, 118–119
Compliance (or acquiescence), 195
Composition, 8
Compresence, 306–307
Confirmation bias, 388
Conflict (in groups), 410–443; see also
Intergroup conflict
causes of, 411–424
coercion and, 258
competition and, 411–412
cooperation and, 438
cultural differences, 438
escalation, 424–431
group development and, 533
negotiation and, 427, 431–433
norms and, 454–455
regulatory norms and, 430
resolution, 431–438
social justice and, 431
social value orientation, 414–416
soft and hard power tactics, 431–432
task vs. process, 422–423, 438–439
value of, 423, 438–439
Conflict resolution, 431–438
emotions and, 429–430, 437
negotiation, 431–433
styles of, 434–435
third parties and, 437–438
Conformity, 194; see also Social influence
across cultures and eras, 204
across people, 202
across the sexes, 202–204
independence and, 194–196
majority influence, 194–204
minority influence, 194, 205–210
in newly formed groups, 197–202
and online groups, 200
and situational characteristics, 199
types of, 195
Congregations, 6, 11, 13, 19, 231
Congruence (or uniformity), 195
Conjunction error, 389
Conjunctive tasks, 326–328, 327
Conscientiousness, as personality trait, 95
Consolidation, dynamic social impact
theory, 209
Contact cultures, 491
Contact hypothesis, 466
Contagion, 563–565
Contingency theory, 287–289, 288
Continuing diversity, dynamic social
impact theory, 210
Convergence theory, 565–566
Conversion, 411
Conversion (private acceptance), 195
Conversion theory, 205
comparison process, 205–206
of minority influence, 205–206
validation process, 205–206
Cooperation
collectivism, 76
creating, 76–79
hierarchies, 251–252
individualism, 76
social goals, 78–79
social obligations, 77–78
social relations, 77
Coordinated interaction, 358–360
action processes, 359
interpersonal processes, 360
transition processes, 359–360
Correlation, dynamic social impact theory,
210
Correlational studies, 46, 47–50, 49
advantages and disadvantages, 49–50
conducting, 48–49
reference group, 48
Correlation coefficients, 48
Corruptive effects of dominance, 451
Court cases
Apodaca vs. Oregon, 224–225
Brown v. Board of Education, 467
Ham v. S. Carolina, 225
Terry Nichols and the Oklahoma City
bombing, 221
Williams v. Florida, 224
Covert observation, 37
Crane, Riley, 31
Crazes, 560
Creative intelligence, 275
Crew resource management (CRM), 325
Cross-categorization, 472
Cross-cuing, 378–379
Cross-functional teams, 344–345
Crowding, 492
Crowd(s), 552–554
collectives, 6, 21
density, 492
neuropsychology of, 493
personal space and, 489–492
safety, 557–558
sex differences and, 491
stampedes, 558–560
686 SUBJECT I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Crowdsourcing, 355
Crowd stampedes, 555–557
Crowd turbulence, 556
Crutchfield situation, 198
Cults, 23, 259
Culture, 487
contact and noncontact, 491
Hofstede’s dimensions of, 24
honor, dignity, and face, 454–455
intergroup conflict, 454–455
perceptions of groups, 17
temperature and, 487
Cutting off reflected failure (CORFing), 87
Cyberostracism, 70
Dark Triad (DT), 274
DARPA (Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency), 31, 38
Darwin, Charles, 72
Decategorization, 470
Decisional biases
group polarization, 392–395
judgmental biases, 387–389
shared information bias, 390–392
Decision making
defective, 399
delegating in, 384
discussion, 377–382
group polarization, 392–395
groups and, 381–382
groupthink, 395–405
implementation, 384–387
judgmental biases, 387–389
meetings and, 382
orientation, 375–377
process, 373–387
shared information bias, 390–392
social decision scheme, 383
statisticized decisions, 383
stress and, 400
techniques, 404–405
unanimous decisions, 384
voting and, 383–384
Decisions
plurality, 383–384
sharing, 384
statisticized, 383
unanimous, 384
Deep roles, 170
Degas, Edgar, 94, 120–122
Degree centrality, 186
Degrees of separation, 66
Dehumanization, 464
Deindividuation, 566–570
Delphi technique, 334
Democratic leaders, 50, 291
Democratic leadership, 291–292
Density, 187, 492
Density-intensity hypothesis, 494
Dependent variables, 51
Descriptive norms, 158
Destructive obedience, 259–260
Diffuse status characteristics, 249–250
Diffusion of responsibility, 219–220, 568
Directional (Up–Down) effects, commu-
nication networks, 184–185
Direct power tactics, 245
Direct processes, cognitive responses, 213
Discontinuity effect, 447–448
Discretionary task, 328
Discussion, 377–382
collective memory processes, 378–379
difficulty of, 380–382
error detection and correction, 380
information exchange, 379
processing information, 379–380
Disjunctive tasks, 324–325
Dissent
decision rules and, 208
dissonance and, 214
rejection and, 423
social identity and, 218
Dissenters, diligence of, 208
Dissonance, 149, 214
Distinctiveness, optimal, 82–83
Distraction–conflict theory, 309
Distributive justice, 384, 419
Distributive negotiation, 431
Divergence, 175
Diversity
categories and types of, 353
designing for, 354
leaders, 277
studies of team, 353–354
team performance and, 352–353
teams, 352–354
Divisible tasks, 322
Dominance
hierarchies, 251–252
territorial disputes and, 504
Dominant responses, 304
Double minorities, 217
Double-standard thinking, 458–459
Downward social comparison, 111–112
Drive theory, 307
Dual concern model, 434
Dual process theories of influence, 212
Dunbar number, 11, 455
Durkheim, Émile, 132–133
Dynamic role theories, 169–170
Dynamic social impact theory, 208–210
clustering, 209–210
consolidation, 209
continuing diversity, 210
correlation, 210
Dynamogenic factors, 303
Dysfunctional postdecision tendencies, 387
Eating, in groups, 311–312
Eating disorders, 164
Educational settings
cooperative classrooms, 417, 474
jigsaw learning groups, 473–474
psychoeducational groups, 522–525
social facilitation in, 312–313
Egocentrism, 421
Egoistic deprivation, 566
Elaboration principle, 115–117, 116
Electronic brainstorming (EBS), 333
Electronic performance monitoring
(EPM), 312
Emergent groups, 14–15
Emergent norm theory, 570–571
Emotional cohesion, 132–134, 133
affect and relational cohesion, 133–134
group-level emotions, 133
Emotional intelligence, 274–275
Emotional loneliness, 65–66
Emotional support, 109
Emotion(s), 54
anger, 422, 429–430, 453, 555
arousal and, 568–569
catharsis, 534–535
celebratory crowds, 554–555
conflict and, 429–430, 437
environments and, 482–483
fear, 449
greed, 412, 449
group hate, 462–464
group-level, 133
intergroup contact, 461–462, 467
moods and conflict, 424
neural mechanisms, 493
SUBJ ECT I NDEX 687
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Emotion(s) (continued)
in online groups, 430
and power, 254–255
Empathy, and power, 255–256
Encounter group(s), 522
Endurance, 146, 488
Entitativity, 16
Campbell’s theory of, 16, 17
cohesion and, 131
Entrapment, 398
Environment(s)
ambient, 481–489
behavior settings, 506
crowded, 489–494
extreme and unusual, 488–489, 505–506
location, 497–506
personal space, 489–492
restorative effects of, 484
seating, 495–497
sick building syndrome, 560
workspaces, 506–510
Equality norm, 79
Equifinality, 128
Equilibrium model of communication,
492
Equilibrium model of group development,
143
Equity and equality, sex differences,
420–421
Equity norm, 79
Error detection, in information, 380
Escape panics, 556
Essentialism, 17
Ethic(s)
of group research, 52–53
and power, 257
Ethnocentrism, 458
Ethnographic research, 39
Evaluation apprehension, 331
Evaluation apprehension theory, 308
Evidence-based treatment, 536
Evidence-driven jurors, 220
Evolution
cheater (free-rider) detection, 419
Dunbar number, 11, 455
intergroup conflict and, 455–457
mismatch hypothesis, 285
psychology and, 72
theory, 72–73, 284–285
Exchange relationships, 77
Exclusion
and aggression, 71–72
reactions to, 68
Expectancy violations theory, 492
Expectation-states theory, 249
Experience sampling, 98
Experiential learning theory, 523
Experiment, 50
Experimental studies, 46, 50–51
advantages, 51
conducting experiments, 50–51
disadvantages, 51
Expert power, 241
Extended contact hypothesis, 469
Extraversion, 95
as personality trait, 95
Extreme and unusual environments,
488–489, 505–506
Facebook, 3, 7, 31, 160, 471, 546, 562
Fads, 560
False consensus effect, 212
Faultlines, 353
Festinger’s theory of social comparison, 106
Field theory, 35
Fight-or-flight response, 68–69
Fischbeck, Frank, 8
Five-factor model (FFM) of personality, 95
Five-stage model of group development,
138
Flash mob(s), 554–555
Focus theory of normative conduct,
214–215
“Folk psychology,” 32
Followers, 294
Followership theory, 293–294
Foot-in-the-door technique, 245
Forgiveness, 436–437
Formation
affiliation, 105–114
attraction, 114–122
joining groups, 94–105
social movements, 560–563
Founded groups, 15
Framing theory, 563
Fraternal deprivation, 566
Free riding, 316, 418–419
Freud, Sigmund, 169–170
Friend or foe, 416–417
Frustration-aggression hypothesis, 453
Functional role theories, 167
Fundamental attribution error (FAE), 23,
260, 426, 460
Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orientation (FIRO), 102
Gangs, 121, 455, 499, 501
General aggression model, 453
General mental ability (GMA), 274
Generational paradigm, 161
Gesellschaften, 6
Gestalt group therapy, 519
Glass ceiling, 277
Global Leadership and Organizational
Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE)
project, 280–282
Goal-path clarification, 375–376
Goals, 13–14
clarification, 375–376
social loafing and, 316–317
superordinate, 467–468
Goal-striving, and power, 255
Goffman, Erving, 167
Going Solo (Klinenberg), 99
Google, 362
Great leader theory, 270
Groom, Mike, 9
Group(s), 3
behavioral perspectives on, 54–55
beliefs about, 103–104
cautious shifts in, 392–393
characteristics of, 8–17
cognitive perspectives on, 56–57
defining, 3–5
development, stages of, 22
fourfold taxonomy of, 5
interdisciplinary interest in, 26
motivational perspectives on, 53–54
polarization in, 393–394
reality of, 34–35
risky shifts in, 392
scientific study of, 32–36
systems perspectives on, 55–56
value of, 25–26
varieties of, 5–8
Group attachment styles, 100
Group attraction, 150–151
Group attribution error, 460
Group-centrism, 402
Group cohesion, 15; see cohesion
688 SUBJECT I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Group composition, 416, 424
Group creativity, 330–334
Group culture, 77
Group development
course of conflict in groups, 410–411
cycles of, 142–144
five stages of, 137–142
stages of self-disclosure, 534
theories of, 137
therapeutic groups and, 533
Tuckman’s theory of, 137–142, 533–534
Group dynamics, 18
cohesion and, 145–146
dynamic group processes, 17–19
interdisciplinary nature of, 25, 26
process and progress over time, 19–21
research methods in, 46–53
subjective group dynamics, 217
topics in the field of, 20–21
Group ecology, 481
Group fallacy, 33
Group-level analysis, 33
Group-level attraction, 130
Group-level emotions, 133
Group mind (collective consciousness),
33–34
Group polarization, 392–395, 393
causes of, 394–395
consequences of, 395
discontinuity and, 448–450
Group potency, 131
Group Process and Productivity (Steiner),
320
Group productivity, 146–148, 314–334,
494–495, 507–508; see also
Performance
Group psychoanalysis, 517–518
Group-reference effect, 56
Group research
ethics of, 52–53
issues and implications, 51–52
selecting a method, 52
Group socialization, 172–175
defined, 172
newcomers’ role, 174–175
resocialization, 175
role transitions, 175
theory, 173–174
Group space, 499–500
Group structure, 12; see also Structure
Groupthink, 47, 395–405
alternative models, 402–403
causes of, 399–400
cohesion and, 399–400, 401
emergence of, 400–402
preventing, 403–405
structural faults and, 401
symptoms of, 396–399
Hall, Rob, 2, 3, 13
Hansen, Douglas, 2, 17
Hard power tactics, 243, 245
Hare Krishna, 40
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, 364
Harris, Andrew, 2
Hatfield and McCoy feud, 454
Hawthorne effect, 39–40
Hazing, 151–153
bonding and dependence, 151
commitment, 152
dominance, 151–152
effective, 152
groups and, 152–153
tradition, 152
Head-of-the-table effect, 497
Health
affiliation and, 109–111
alcohol use and groups, 526–527
crowd safety, 557–558
eating disorders, 164
heat and, 486
interpersonal approaches to, 519–520
noise and, 486
norms and, 163–164
psychogenic illnesses, 559–560
psychotherapy and, 536–541
territoriality and, 505–506
Helping
bystander effect and, 218–219
in crowds, 575
overhelping, 529–530
in therapeutic groups, 535
Herd instinct, 72–73
Heuristics, 213
Hidden profile problem, 390
Hierarchy of needs, 54
Hofstede’s theory of culture, 24
Holacracy, 345
Holes, 187
Home advantage, 501
Home field advantage, 502
Homophily, 117–118, 182
Humanistic group, 518–519
Human nature
herd instinct, 72–73
inclusion and, 72–75
sociometer theory, 73–74
Human Relations Area Files, 456
Hung juries, 222
Identifiability, and social loafing, 316
Identification, 84–85
and powerholder, 258–259
social, 85
Identity, 63; see also Social identity
belonging and, 131–132
increasing, within group, 318
personal, 80, 83–90
self and, 85
social, 80, 83–90
social identity theory and, 282
territorial displays and, 502–503
therapeutic groups and, 529
Identity affirmation approach, 572
Identity fusion theory, 132
Idiosyncrasy credits, 207
I’d Rather Be in Charge (Beers), 294
Illusion of group productivity, 331–332
Illusion of invulnerability, 396
Illusion of unanimity, 397
Illusion of morality, 396–397
Implicit Association Test, 459
Implicit influence, 211–212
Implicit leadership theories (ILTs), 278–279
across cultures, 280–282
biases and, 280
Impressionists, 94
Inclusion and exclusion, 63, 66–72
aggression and, 71–72
biology of, 74–75
fight-or-flight response, 68–69
human nature and, 72–75
isolation and, 63–75
ostracism, 66–68
reactions to, 68
tend-and-befriend response, 69–71
Inclusion–exclusion continuum, 67
Indegree, 186
Independence (dissent), 195
Independent variable, 50
SUBJ ECT I NDEX 689
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Indirect power tactics, 245
Indirect processes, cognitive responses, 213
Individualism, 24, 63, 76
collectivism and, 75–83
conflict, 412, 438
core features of, 76
cultural differences, 487
Individualists, 80–81
Individual-level analysis, 33
Individual mobility, 90
Influence
application, 220–226
consistency and, 206–207
implicit, 211–212
informational, 212–213
interpersonal, 215–218
majority, 194–204
minority, 194, 205–210
normative, 213–215
ostracism and, 216–217
power and, 255
sources of group, 210–220
Information
error detection and correction, 380
exchange, 379
processing, 379–380
Informational influence, 212–213, 391
Informational power, 241–243
Informational support, 109
Information saturation, 184
Ingroup-outgroup bias, 88, 458–459
Injuctive norms, 158–159
Input-process-output (I-P-O) models,
55–56, 346–347, 567
Institutional Review Board (IRB), 53
Instrumental support, 109
Integrative negotiation, 431
Intellective tasks, 326
Interactional approach, leadership, 271
Interactionism, 35
Interactionist teories, 167–169
Interaction Process Analysis (IPA), 41–42,
166, 359
Interchange compatibility, 119
Interdependence, 11
groups, 11–12
teams and, 341
Intergroup biases, 457–466
dehumanization, 464–465
exclusion and, 462–465
group attribution error, 460
implicit, 459
ingroup-outgroup, 458
linguistic, 459
outgroup homogeneity, 459–460
stereotypes, 461–462
ultimate attribution error, 460–461
Intergroup conflict, 411, 445–475
categorization and, 457–458, 465–466,
470–473
causes of, 445–446, 447–457
collectivism and, 438
discontinuity effect and, 448–450
intergroup biases, 457–466
moral exclusion and, 464
relative deprivation and, 566
resolution of, 466–475
Robbers Cave study of, 445–475
Interlocking interdependence, 357–358
shared mental models, 357–358
transactive memory systems, 358
Intermember relations, 178–185
attraction relations, 180–182
communication relations, 182–185
status relations, 178–180
Internalization of norms, 159
Interpersonal attraction, 128–130
Interpersonal complementarity hypothesis,
252
Interpersonal group psychotherapy, 519–520
Interpersonal influence, 215–218
Interpersonal learning group(s), 516
Interpersonal liability, shyness as, 99
Interpersonal rejection, 217
Interpersonal trust, 362–363
Interpersonal zones, 490–491
Interrater reliability, 43
Interrole conflict, 176
Interviews, 44
Intimacy, need for, 101
Intragroup conflict, 411
Intrarole conflict, 176
Introverts, 97
Iron law of oligarchy, 252
Isolation
effects of, 483
and inclusion, 63–75
Jigsaw method, 483
Jobs, Steve, 410, 411, 412–413, 417, 419–431
John Birch Society, 40
Joining groups, 94–105
Jones, Jim, 231, 260
Jonson, Ben, 341
Judgmental biases, 387–389
decisional sin, 387–388
restoring rationality, 388–389
Judgmental tasks, 326
Juries, 220–226
dynamics, 220–223
effectiveness, 223–224
improving, 224–226
minority influence in, 221–222
procedural innovations, 225
racial differences and, 223
sex and, 223
size, 224
socioeconomic status and, 222–223
story model, 220
unanimity, 224–225
voir dire, 225–226
Keech, Marion, 150
Keeping Together in Time (McNeill), 134
Kennedy, J. F., 373–405, 480
Kennedy, R., 399
King, Martin Luther, Jr., 205
Kitty Genovese, 218
Knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), 350
collective intelligence, 351
interpersonal skills, 351–352
task-specific proficiencies, 350–351
Köhler effect, 327–328
Krakauer, Jon, 9, 17, 489
Ku Klux Klan, 68, 561
Laissez-faire leaders, 50, 291
Law of effect, 54
Law of small numbers, 460
Law of triviality, 377
Leader Match, 288–289
Leader–member exchange theory (LMX
theory), 289–291
Leader prototypes; see Implicit leadership
theories (ILTs)
Leaders, 271
autocratic, 50
charismatic, 284
creative intelligence, 275
Dark Triad (DT), 274
690 SUBJECT I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Leaders (continued)
democratic, 50
effectiveness, 285–296
emotional intelligence, 274–275
expertise, 275–276
gender of, 277–278
general mental ability, 274
laissez-faire, 50
personality, 273
physical appearances, 276–277
practical intelligence, 275
relationship-oriented, 283
role of, 268–270
task-oriented, 283
traits, 271–276
Leadership, 265
autocratic vs. democratic, 291–292
defined, 266–268
dominance and, 284
emergence, 270–271, 272, 278–285
goal-oriented process, 267–268
heat-of-the-table effect, 497
influence process, 266
personality and, 273
reciprocal and copperative relationship,
266–267
relationship, 268, 269
sex differences in, 270
shared, 292–293
shared (distributed), 533
task, 268, 269
theories, 282–285
in therapeutic groups, 531–532
transformational, 294–295
Leadership emergence, 521
Leadership Grid, 285–286
Leadership labyrinth, 277
Leadership substitutes theory, 269–270
Least Preferred Coworker Scale (LPC),
288, 290
Le Bon, Gustave, 32
Legitimate power, 240–241
Levels of analysis, 33
Lewin, Kurt, 22, 50
field theory, 35
and interactionism, 35
law of change, 515
LGBTQ persons, 7
Linguistic intergroup bias, 459
Loneliness, 65
contagious, 66
emotional, 65–66
social, 65–66
Lovell, J., 480, 486, 489, 490, 498, 512
Lucifer effect, 260
Lynch mob(s), 555, 571
Machiavellianism, 274
Madan, Anmol, 31
Majority influence, 194
conformity across contexts, 197–202
conformity amomg people/groups,
202–204
conformity and independence, 194–196
conformity or independence, 196
Management teams, 342–343
Manager-led team, 344
Manet, Edouard, 94, 100, 114, 120
Marx, Groucho, 119
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, 54
Mass delusion, 559–560
Maximizing tasks, 322
Mayo, Elton, 40
Measurement, 37–46
observation, 37–43
self-report, 43–46
Mediator, 437
Meetings
communication and, 382
decision making and, 382
egocentric behavior and, 382
interruptions and, 382
low engagement and, 382
negative attitudes and emotions, 382
poor planning, 381
Memberships
economics of, 120–122
group, 10–11
Men
bonding in teams, 354–355
groups and, 102–103
teams and, 354–356
Mental model, 357
Mental models, 484
Mentor, 176
Metacontrast principle, 84
Methol, Liliana, 165–166
Milgram’s studies of obedience, 231–238
challenges and replications, 236–238
group effects, 235–236
harm vs. rights, 233–234
prestige and legitimacy, 234–235
proximity and surveillance effects, 234
Mimicry, 211, 564
Mindguards, 397–399
Mindlessness, 211–212
Minimal intergroup situation, 83
Minimax principle, 119–120
Minority influence, 194, 205–210
conversion theory of, 205–206
idiosyncrasy credit, 207
informational influence, 213
in juries, 221–222
predicting, 206–208
Mismatch hypothesis, 284–285
MIT, 36
Mixed-motive situation, 412–413
Mob(s), 554–555, 572
Monet, Claude, 94–97, 99, 100, 102, 106,
108, 111, 114, 120
Moral exclusion, 464
Motivation, 53
group, 130
misperceiving, 426
mixed-motive situation, 412–413
social faciliation and, 307–308
and social identity, 86–90
Motivational perspectives on groups, 53–54
Mount Everest, 489
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ),
295, 296
Multilevel perspective, 35–36, 482–483
Multiteam systems (MTSs), 345–346
Myth of the madding crowd (McPhail),
573–575
Nanba, Yasuko, 2
Narcissism, 274
National Training Laboratory (NTL), 167,
522
National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), 325
Need for affiliation, 101
Need for intimacy, 101
Need for power, 101–102
Need to belong, 64–66
social and emotional loneliness, 65–66
solitude and social isolation, 64–65
strength of, 64
Need to Belong Scale (NTB Scale), 64
SUBJ ECT I NDEX 691
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Negative reciprocity, 119
Negotiation, 431
impact of anger on, 429–430
integrative, 431
Neuroimaging research, 74–75
Neurological processes
biopsychosocial model, 28–29
conflict, 412
conformity, 215
inclusion and exclusion, 74–76
interpersonal distance, 493
moral exclusion, 464
oxytocin, 57, 74
social facilitation, 307
Neuroticism, 95
Nichols, Terry, 221
“Noise Tolerance” test, 71
Nominal groups, 330
Nominal group technique (NGT),
333–334
Nonconformity, 195–196
Nondominant responses, 304
Nonhuman groups
howler monkeys, 499
Nonrational power tactics, 245
Nonverbal communication distance, 492
Normative influence, 213–215, 391
Normative model of decision making, 385
Norm of reciprocity, 77, 413
Norm(s), 12, 158–164
application, 162–164
characteristics and varieties of, 162
development of, 12, 159–163
distributive, 419–420
emergent, 570–571
intergroup conflict, 454–455, 467
internalization of, 159
in online groups, 430
social dilemmas and, 417–418
transmission of, 161–162
Obedience, 232
to authority, 231–238
destructive, 259–260
Observational learning, 530–531
Observation, 37–43
covert, 37
defined, 37
overt, 37
participant, 37–39
reliability of, 43
structuring, 41–43
validity of, 43
Occupy Wall Street, 560, 562
ODDI process model, 374–375, 378
Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide, 265
Old sergeant syndrome, 145
Online groups, 40, 116
and conformity, 200
disinhibition, 430
smart mobs, 562
virtual intergroup contact, 471
yelling in, 430
Online ostracism, 70
Online teams, 363
Open groups, 8
Openness to experience, as personality
trait, 95
Optimal distinctiveness, 82–83
Optimal distinctiveness theory, 82–83
Optimizing tasks, 322
Organizational citizenship behaviors, 290–
291
Organizational contexts
noise in the workplace, 488
office design, 508–509
territoriality in, 503–504
Organizational trust model, 363–364
Orientation process, 375–377
Originator compatibility, 119
Ostraca, 66
Ostracism, 66, 66–68, 216–217
biology of, 74–75
humans and, 67
online, 70
reflective stage, 68
reflexive stage, 68
resignation stage, 68
temporal need-threat model of, 68
Outdegree, 186
Outgroup homogeneity bias, 460
Overhelping, 540
Overload, 483
Overt observation, 37
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), 146
Pan, Wei, 31
Panic(s), 555–557
Paradigm, 32
Parkinson’s Law, 377
Participant observation, 37–39
Participation theories, 291–294
Party of One (Rufus), 99
Peak Search and Rescue, 63
Pecking order, 247
Pentland, Alex “Sandy,” 31
People’s Temple Full Gospel Church, 231
Performance
circumplex model of group tasks, 13–14
cognitive overload and, 483–484
composition and, 8
free riding, 419
group creativity, 330–334
home advantage, 501–502
in overcrowded situations, 494–495
productivity losses, 314
Ringelmann effect, 313–315
social facilitation, 303–313
social loafing, 313–319
staffing and, 507–508
working in groups, 320–330
Personal conflict, 423
Personal identity, 80, 83–90
Personality, 95
five-factor model (FFM) of, 95
and joining groups, 565–566
leaders, 273
leadership and, 273
self-esteem, 417, 465–466
social dominance orientation, 451
social faciliation and, 310
social value orientation and, 414–416
Personality–group fit, 97
Personality traits, 95–97
agreeableness, 95
conscientiousness, 95
extraversion, 95
joiners and loners, 95–97
neuroticism, 95
openness to experience, 95
Personal space, 490
Person–role conflict, 177
Persuasive arguments, 394
Pickard, Galen, 31
Pissarro, Camille, 94, 98, 120
Planned dissolution, 141
Planned groups, 13–14
Planning fallacy, 376–377
Pluralistic ignorance, 163
Plurality decisions, 383–384
692 SUBJECT I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Political opportunity theory, 562
Positive orientation, 310
Potential productivity (PP), 320
Power; see also specific types of power
authority, 231–238
bases of, 238–243
of commitment, 245–246
conflict and control, 421–422, 426–429
intergroup dominance, 450–452
metamorphic effects of, 231, 253–261
Milgram’s studies of obedience,
231–238
need for, 101–102
negative effects, 255–257
paradoxical effects of, 254
positive effects, 254–255
priming, 253–254
reactions to use of, 257–260
social dominance orientation and,
450–452
social justice and, 419–420
social status and, 246–253
tactics, 426–427
unilateral and bilateral, 428
Power bases, 238–243
Power Distance Index (PDI), 24
Power tactics, 243–246
types, 243–245
Practical intelligence, 275
Prejudice(s)
intergroup contact and, 469–470
scapegoat theory of, 453
social dominance orientation and,
450–452
social facilitation and, 310–311
Premature termination, 539–540
Prescriptive norms, 158
Primary groups, 5–6
Prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG), 412–416,
448
Privacy, 502–503
Procedural justice, 385, 419–420
Process Church of the Final Judgement, 40
Process conflict (procedural), 423
Process debriefing group(s), 523–525
Process loss, 320
Production blocking, 330–331
Project teams, 343
Proscriptive norms, 158
Protestant Ethic Scale, 317
Prototype-matching hypothesis, 279–280
Prototypicality, 282
Proximity principle, 114–115, 116
Psychoanalytic approaches, 517–518
Psychodrama, 519
Psychoeducational groups, 522–525
Psychogenic illness, 559–560
Psychological safety, 362
Psychology of Crowds (Le Bon), 32
Psychopathy, 274
Public goods dilemma, 418–419
Punctuated equilibrium models, 143
Qualitative study, 41
Quality circles (QCs), 368
Quantitative study, 41
Questionnaires, 44
Queueing effect, 557
Queue(s), 6, 550–552
Quiet (Cain), 99
Race riots, 555
Rahwan, Iyad, 31
Rational power tactics, 245
Reactance, 425–426
Read, Pier Paul, 157
Realistic group conflict theory, 447
Reality of groups, 34–35
Real teams model, 360
Recategorization, 470–472, 471
Reciprocity, 12
in groups, 180
intergroup conflict and, 454
negative and positive, 413–414, 420–421
norm of, 77
overmatching and undermatching, 429
retaliation as, 429
rough and exact, 429
social justice, 419–420
Reciprocity principle, 119
Red Balloon Challenge Team, 31
Reference group, 48
Referent power, 241
Relational cohesion, and affect, 133–134
Relational cohesion theory, 133
Relationality, 103
Relationship interaction, 10, 41; see also
socioemotional interaction
Relationship leadership, 268, 269, 283
Relationship maintenance norms, 160
Relationship role, 166
Relative deprivation, 566
Reliability, 43
interrater, 43
of observations, 43
of self-report measures, 45–46
Remote Associates Test (RAT), 309–310
Renoir, Auguste, 94–95, 106, 108, 111,
114
Replacement hypothesis, 170
Research Center for Group Dynamics,
522
Research methods, 46–53
case studies, 46–47
correlational studies, 47–50
experimental studies, 50–51
studying groups, 51–53
Resocialization, 175
Resource mobilization theory, 563
Responsibility
conflict and, 421
deindividuation and, 567–568
self-serving attributions, 421
unpacking effect, 421
Revolutionary coalition, 258
Reward power, 238–239
Ringelmann effect, 313–315, 314
Riot(s), 555
Risk-taking, and power, 255
Risky-shift effect, 392
The Rite of Spring (Stravinsky), 205
Robbers Cave experiment, 447
Role(s), 12, 164–178
ambiguity, 176
group socialization, 172–175
social, 164–166
stress, 175–178, 487
theories, 166–172
transitions, 175
well-being and, 177–178
Role conflict, 176–177
Role differentiation, 165
Role enactment, 167
Role fit, 177
Role incongruity, 283
Role sending, 167
Role-taking, 169
Romance of leadership, 268
Romance of teams, 342
Rose, Reginald, 194, 204
SUBJ ECT I NDEX 693
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Rumors, 558–559
Russell, Bertrand, 238
Scapegoat theory, 453
Schadenfreude, 465
Scientology, 40
Sculley, John, 410, 411, 412–413, 417,
419–426, 431
SEALAB, 488
Seating, 495–497
Second Life, 471, 500
Self
awareness and deindividuation, 569–570
disclosure, 534
evaluating, 86–87
identity, 572
and identity, 85
inclusion of the group in, 85
insight, 535–536
personal identity, 80
social comparison and, 111–114
social identity, 80
Self-censorship, 397
Self-designing teams, 344
Self-disclosure, 534
Self-esteem
collective, 86
cooperative classrooms, 417
intergroup rejection and, 465–466
Self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) model,
112–114
Self-governing teams, 344
Self-managing teams, 343–344
Self-organizing groups, 15
Self-presentation, 167
Self-presentation theory, 308
Self-reference effect, 56
Self-report, 43–46
Self-report measures, 44
reliability of, 45–46
validity of, 45–46
Self-satisfaction, and power, 256
Self-serving biases, 421
Self-stereotyping (autostereotyping), 84, 84
Semester at Sea, 515, 516, 520
Severe initiations, 150–151
Sex differences
bonding in teams, 355
bullying, 248–249
conformity, 202–204
influence in juries, 223–224
joining groups, 102–103
leadership effectiveness, 296
leadership emergence, 277–278
leadership style, 270
personal space, 491–492
power tactics, 245
preference for a leader, 271
reactions to ostracism, 70–71
rejection by outgroups, 456
relationality, 102–103
seating preferences, 496
social dominance orientation
social support, 109
teams and, 354–356
testosterone, 248
Shackleton, E., 146, 488
Shared information bias, 390, 390–392
avoiding, 391–392
causes of, 390–391
common knowledge effect, 390
hidden profile problem, 390
Shared leadership, 292–293
Shared mental models, 357–358
Shyness, 98
as interpersonal liability, 99
Sick building syndrome, 560
Similarity principle, 117–118
Simpatico, 221
Sins of commission, 387–388
Sins of imprecision, 387–388
Sins of omission, 387–388
Sisley, Alfred, 94–94, 102, 111
Situational approach, leadership, 271
Situational leadership® theory, 286–287
Size
coalitions and subgrouping, 430–431
crowd formation and, 552
deindividuation and, 568
groups, 9–10
groups and collectives, 547
restrictions in automobiles, 484
staffing and performance, 507–508
Skiles, J. B., 302–303, 307, 308, 320,
324–325, 330
Smart mob(s), 562
Social anxiety, 98–99
Social anxiety disorder (SAD), 99
Social brain hypothesis, 11
Social capital, 7
Social categorization, 84
Social category, 7–8
Social cognition
intergroup perceptions, 458–459
nonconscious reactions to settings, 506
overload, 483–484
sereotyped thinking, 472–473
shared mental models, 484
stereotypes, 461
uncertainty, 425–426
Social cohesion, 128–130
group-level attraction, 130
interpersonal attraction, 128–130
Social comparison, 106, 394
affiliation and, 106–108
downward, 111–112
polarization and, 394-395
and the self, 111–114
therapeutic groups, 529–530
upward, 111–112
Social comparison orientation, 113
Social comparison theory, 212
Social compensation, 318
Social creativity, 88
Social decision scheme, 383
Social diffusion, 564–565
Social dilemma, 417–418
Social dominance theory, 450
Social exchange theories, 54
Social exclusion, 75
Social facilitation, 303–313
causes of, 306–310
coaction, audiences, and inconsistencies,
303–304
conclusions and applications, 310–313
in educational settings, 312–313
empirical demonstrations of, 305
prejudices and, 310–311
Triplett’s early study of, 303
Zajonc’s resolution, 304
Social group, 6
Social (secondary) groups, 6
Social identification, 85
Social identity, 7, 80, 83–90, 394–395
collective movements and, 571–572
dissent and, 218
evaluating the self, 86–87
intergroup conflict, 458, 465
motivation and, 86–90
protecting the collective self, 87–89
694 SUBJECT I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Social identity (continued)
protecting the personal self, 89–90
relative deprivation, 566
social loafing and, 318
stereotype verification and threat, 89
ubiquity model and, 402–403
Social Identity Model of Deindividuation
Effects (SIDE), 200, 571
Social identity theory, 83–86, 87, 282, 465
identity, 282
intergroup situations and, 282
prototypicality, 282
Social impact theory, 201–202
Social influence, 193; see also Influence
black-sheep effect and, 217–218
bystander effect and, 219–220
delayed, 206
dissent and, 208
dynamic social impact theory, 208–210
idiosyncrasy credits, 207
implicit influence, 211–212
informational influence, 212–213
interpersonal influence, 215–218
interpersonal rejection, 217
majority influence, 194–204
minority influence, 194, 205–210
normative influence, 213–215
ostracism and, 216–217
social identity, 218
social impact theory, 201–202
sources, 210–220
Social isolation, 64–65
Social justice, 384–386
conflict and, 419–420, 431
intergroup conflict and, 447–449, 450
moral exclusion and, 464–465
social movements and, 546, 560–561
Social learning, 530–532
Social learning theory, 530
Social loafing, 313–319, 314
causes of, 315–318
collective effort model, 318–319
cures for, 315–318
Ringelmann effect, 313–315, 314
Social loneliness, 65–66
Social matching effect, 331
Social motivation, 100–102, 313–318
Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orientation (FIRO), 102
need for affiliation, 101
need for intimacy, 101
need for power, 101–102
Social movement(s), 105, 560–563
Arab Spring, 546
joining, 560–561, 565–566
smart mobs and, 562
theories of, 561–563
Social network analysis (SNA), 44–45, 185
applying, 187–188
groups in, 187
individuals in, 186
mapping social network, 185–187
Social networking, 564
Social network(s), 9
mass delusions and, 559–560
Social norms, 158–159
descriptive norms, 158
injuctive norms, 158–159
prescriptive norms, 158
proscriptive norms, 158
Social obligations, 77–78
Social orientation theory, 310
Social perception
misperception during conflict, 433–434
during social conflict, 416
social warmth, 487
Social power, 231
in groups, 238–246
power bases, 238–243
Social relations, 4–5, 77
communal relationships, 77
exchange relationships, 77
norm of reciprocity, 77
Social roles, 164–166
Social role theory, 282–283
Social self, 79–83
categories of information in, 79
cultural differences, 81–82
individualists and collectivists, 80–81
and optimal distinctiveness, 82–83
Social status
achieving, 249–251
claiming, 247–248
hierarchies and stability, 251–253
personal space and, 491
power and, 246–253
seating choices and, 497
signaling, 247
territoriality and, 503–504
Social support, 108
affiliation and, 108–109
belonging, 109
emotional support, 109
informational support, 109
instrumental support, 109
meaning, 109
support groups, 516–527, 534
Social surrogates, 98
Social trap (or commons dilemma), 418
Social tuning, 159–160
Social values orientation (SVO), 414–416
Socioemotional interaction, 10; see also
relationship interaction
Sociofugal spaces, 495
Sociogram, 44
Sociometer theory, 73–74
Sociometric differentiation, 180–182
Sociometry, 44
Sociopetal spaces, 495
Soft power tactics, 243, 245
Solitude, 64–65
Solo status, 250–251
Specific status characteristics, 249
Spiral model of conflict intensification, 454
Spontaneous dissolution, 141
Sports fans, 455, 555
Sports Illustrated, 127
Staffing theory, 507–508
Statisticized decisions, 383
Status; see Social status
Status differentiation, 179
Status generalization, 250
Status rank, 179–180
Status relations, 178–180
Steinzor effect, 497
Stereotype content model, 461
Stereotype(s), 8, 461, 472–473
threat, 89
verification, 89
Stereotype threat, 89
Stereotyping, 397
Story model, 220
Strategic anticonformity (devil’s advocate),
196
Stravinsky, Igor, 205
Street Corner Society (Whyte), 37, 38
Stress, 485
affiliation and, 108–111
cognitive overload, 483–484
environmental stressors, 485–489
SUBJ ECT I NDEX 695
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Stress (continued)
group-level responses to, 109
overcrowding, 489–494
physiological reactions to, 492–493
role, 487
therapeutic treatments for, 516–544
Strong situations, conformity in, 198
Structural cohesion, 134–136
Structure, 12–13, 156–191
balance theory, 182
communication networks, 182–184
formal and informal, 187–188
indexes, 186–187
intermember relations, 178–185
norms, 158–164
of queues and crowds, 553–554
roles, 164–178
Structured observational methods, 41
Subjective group dynamics, 217
Successive-stage models, 137
Sucker effect, 316
Sullenberger, C. B., 302–303, 307, 308,
313, 317, 320, 324–326, 330, 337
Sunk cost, 398
Superordinate goal, 467
Support group(s), 516–527, 534
Swigert, J., 480, 489, 498
Synergy, 328
strong, 329–330
weak, 329–330
Synomorphy, 506–507
Systematic Multiple Level Observation of
Groups (SYMLOG) Model, 43,
170–172
Systems perspectives on groups, 55–56
Systems theory, 55
Tahrir Square, 546, 547, 555, 558, 562, 571
Task(s)
circumplex model, 13
complexity and performance, 339–340
demands, 320–321
intellective and judgmental, 326
interdependency, 508–509
Steiner’s taxonomy of tasks, 321–327
task and process conflict, 423
Task cohesion, 130–131
collective efficacy and potency, 130–131
group motivation, 130
Task conflict, 422
Task demands, 320–322, 321
Task interaction, 10, 42
Task leadership, 268, 269
Task role, 165
Team(s), 340
adaptive structures, 360–361
building, 347–356
cohesive alliance, 361–364
compelling purpose, 360
composition, 348–350
conflict in, 435–436, 438–439
coordinated interaction, 358–360
designing team settings, 509–510
diversity, 352–354
evaluating, 364
in extreme environments, 488–489
heterogeneously gendered, 355–356
importance of, 341–342
innovations, 366–367
interlocking interdependence, 357–358
knowledge, skills, and abilities, 350–352
learning, 365–366
mental models, 484
orientation, 350
performance, 364–368, 483
process, 356–364
productivity, 365
shared mental models, 484
situational support and, 367–368
success of, 364–365
systems model of, 346–347
varieties of, 342–346
working in, 339–347
Team building, 367
Team player(s)
composition of team and, 348–350
personality traits, 348
team orientation and, 350
Team training, 367
Teamwork, 340
Tend-and-befriend response, 69–71
Territoriality, 497–506, 498
functions of, 500–501
groups, 499–502
home advantage, 501–502
member, 502–504
third places, 500
types, 498
Terror management theory (TMT), 283–284
T-groups, 521–522
Theories of group development, 137
Theory of national cultures, 24
Therapeutic factor(s), 527–536
Therapeutic group(s), 516–544
Alcoholics Anonymous, 526–527, 539
cognitive-behavioral, 520–521
cross-cultural complexities and, 540–541
effectiveness of, 536–541
humanistic, 518–519
interpersonal learning groups, 521–525
leadership in, 531–532, 538
participant’s appraisals, 539
process debriefing groups, 523–525
psychoanalytic, 517–518
social learning in, 530–532
support, 525
types of, 516–517
“They Saw a Game” (Hastorf and Cantril),
41
Third places, 500
Thomas Theorem, 17
Thoreau, Henry David, 64
Tit for tat (TFT), 436
Tolkien, J. R. R., 105
Tolstoy, Leo, 270–271
Tragedy of the commons, 418
Training group or T-group, 521–522
Transactional leadership, 294
Transactive memory systems, 358, 378
Transference, 517
Transformational leadership, 294–295
measuring, 295
vs. transactional leadership, 294
Trend, 560
Triplett, Norman, 23, 303
Trucking game experiment, 427
Trust
cohesion and, 362–364
interpersonal, 362–363
online team and, 363
Tulipomania, 559
Twelve Angry Men (Rose), 194, 195, 201,
204, 222
Twitter, 31
Two-factor model of leadership,
268–269
Ubiquity model, 402–403
Ultimate attribution error, 460
Ultimatum game, 78
696 SUBJECT I NDEX
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Unanimity, 197–198
decisions and, 384
juries, 224–225
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI), 24
Unilateral power tactics, 245
Unitary tasks, 322
Upward social comparison, 111–112
U.S. Olympic hockey team, 127
Validity, 43
of observations, 43
of self-report measures, 45–46
Vietnam War, 47
Virtual contact hypothesis, 471
Vladimir’s choice, 451
Voir dire, 225–226
Völkerpsychologie (Wundt), 32
The Warcraft Civilization (Bainbridge), 40
Warren Harding Effect, 280
Washington, Jack, 259
Weak situations, conformity in, 198
Weathers, Beck, 8, 9
Werther syndrome, 559
Western Electric Company, 40
Wikipedia, 430
Williams v. Florida, 224
Wisdom of the crowd effect, 323
Workshops, 522–523
Work teams, 342
World of Warcraft, 37, 500
Wosniak, Steve, 99
Yanomamö, 454
Zappos, 345
Zeitgeist theory, 270–271
Zilstein, Gregor, 106–107
Zoot suit riots, 547
SUBJ ECT I NDEX 697
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

Cover
Brief Contents
Contents
Perface
Chapter 1: Introduction to Group Dynamics
1-1 What Are Groups?
1-2 What Are Group Dynamics?
1-3 Why Study Groups?
1-4 The Value of Groups��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 2: Studying Groups
2-1 The Scientific Study of Groups��
2-2 Measurement��
2-3 Research Methods in Group Dynamics��
2-4 Theoretical Perspectives��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 3: Inclusion and Identity
3-1 From Isolation to Inclusion��
3-2 From Individualism to Collectivism��
3-3 From Personal Identity to Social Identity��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 4: Formation
4-1 Joining Groups��
4-2 Affiliation��
4-3 Attraction��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 5: Cohesion and Development
5-1 Sources of Cohesion��
5-2 Developing Cohesion��
5-3 Consequences of Cohesion��
5-4 Application: Explaining Initiations��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 6: Structure
6-1 Norms��
6-2 Roles��
6-3 Intermember Relations��
6-4 Application: Social Network Analysis��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 7: Influence
7-1 Majority Influence: The Power of the Many��
7-2 Minority Influence: The Power of the Few��
7-3 Sources of Group Influence��
7-4 Application: Understanding Juries��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 8: Power
8-1 Obedience to Authority��
8-2 Social Power in Groups��
8-3 Social Status in Groups��
8-4 The Metamorphic Effects of Power��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 9: Leadership
9-1 Leading Groups��
9-2 Leadership Emergence
9-3 Theories of Leadership Emergence
9-4 Leader Effectiveness
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 10: Performance
10-1 Social Facilitation��
10-2 Social Loafing��
10-3 Working in Groups��
10-4 Group Creativity��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 11: Teams
11-1 Working Together in Teams��
11-2 Input: Building the Team��
11-3 Process: Working in Teams��
11-4 Output: Team Performance��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 12: Decision Making
12-1 The Decision-Making Process��
12-2 Decisional Biases��
12-3 Victims of Groupthink��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 13: Conflict
13-1 The Roots of Conflict��
13-2 Confrontation and Escalation��
13-3 Conflict Resolution��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 14: Intergroup Relations
14-1 Intergroup Conflict: Us versus Them��
14-2 Intergroup Bias: Perceiving Us and Them��
14-3 Intergroup Conflict Resolution: Uniting Us and Them��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 15: Groups in Context
15-1 Places��
15-2 Spaces��
15-3 Locations��
15-4 Workspaces��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 16: Growth and Change
16-1 Growth and Change in Groups��
16-2 Sources of Support and Change��
16-3 The Effectiveness of Groups��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
Chapter 17: Crowds and Collectives
17-1 Collectives: Forms and Features��
17-2 Collective Dynamics��
17-3 Collectives Are Groups��
Chapter Review��
Resources��
References
Name Index
Subject Index

2018-01-23T01:18:18+0000
Preflight Ticket Signature

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ assignment ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order a unique copy of this paper

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

600 words

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM

Total price:

$26

Our Services

assignment

Order a unique copy of this paper