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

Our Services

assignment