Forsyth Donelson R. Group dynamics Cengage 2019

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-steplearningpath. • Stayfocusedwithanall-in-one-place,integrated presentationofcoursecontent. • GetthefreeMindTapMobileAppandlearn wherever you are. Break limitations. Create your ownpotential,andbeunstoppable withMindTap. MINDTAP. POWERED BY YOU. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

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.

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.

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.

Brief Contents PREFACE x v 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.

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.

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 T E 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.

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.

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 T E 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.

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.

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 T E 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.

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.

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 T E 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.

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.

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 T E 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.

Preface Welcome to the study of groups and their dynamics. The theories, research findings, 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.

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 N G E S F R O M T H E S I X T H E D I T I O 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 P R E F A C E Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

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. P R E F A C E 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.

I N S T R U C T O R S U P P L E M E N 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. A C K N O W L E D G M E N T 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 P R E F A C E Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

C H A P T E R 1 Introduction to Group Dynamics C H A P T E R O V E R V I E W 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? C H A P T E R O U T L I N E 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.

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 H A T A R E G R O U P S ? 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 E R 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.

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. I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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.

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. I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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.

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. I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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.

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. I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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.

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. I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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.

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 I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 Conflict Cooperation 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 E R 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.

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. I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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 requir

1 - 2 W H A T A R E G R O U P D Y N A M I C S ? 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. I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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.

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 I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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.

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? I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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.

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. I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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

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 A L U E O F G R 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 I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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.

C H A P T E 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 I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

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 E R 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.

R E S O U R C E S 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. I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G R O U P D Y N A M I C 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.

C H A P T E R 2 Studying Groups C H A P T E R O V E R V I E W 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? C H A P T E R O U T L I N E 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.

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 G R 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

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 O F G R O U P S 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 E R 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.

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 G R 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.

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 E R 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.

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 G R 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.

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 E R 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.

2 - 2 M E A S U R E M E N T 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 G R 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.

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 E R 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.

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 G R 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.

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 E R 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

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 G R 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.

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 E R 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.

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 G R 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.

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 E R 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.

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 G R 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.

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 E S E A R C H M E T H O D S I N G R O U P D Y N A M I C S 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 E R 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.

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 G R 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.

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 E R 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.

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 G R 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 res

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 E R 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.

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 G R 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.

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 E R 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.

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 P E R S P E C T I V E S 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 G R 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.

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 E R 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.

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 G R 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.

(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 E R 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.

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 G R 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.

C H A P T E R R E V I E W 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 E R 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.

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 G R 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.

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 E R 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.

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 G R 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.

C H A P T E R 3 Inclusion and Identity C H A P T E R O V E R V I E W 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? C H A P T E R O U T L I N E 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.

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 R O M I S O L A T I O N T O I N C L U S I O N 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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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.

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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.

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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.

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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.

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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.

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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.

(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 I N 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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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.

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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.

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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.

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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

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 F R O M P E R S O N A L I D E N T I T Y T O S O C I A L I D E N T I T Y 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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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 requi

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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.

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 E R 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.

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

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 H A P T E R R E V I E W 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 E R 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.

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 L U S I O N A N D I D E N T I 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.

■ 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 E R 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.

C H A P T E R 4 Formation C H A P T E R O V E R V I E W 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? C H A P T E R O U T L I N E 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.

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 O I N I N G G R O U P S 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 E R 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.

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. F O R M A T I O 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.

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 E R 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.

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. F O R M A T I O 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

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 E R 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.

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. F O R M A T I O 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.

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 E R 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.

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. F O R M A T I O 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.

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 E R 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.

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. F O R M A T I O 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.

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 E R 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.

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 F F I L I A T I O N 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. F O R M A T I O 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.

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 E R 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.

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. F O R M A T I O 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.

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 E R 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.

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. F O R M A T I O 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.

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 E R 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.

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. F O R M A T I O 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.

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 Student Ratings 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 E R 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.

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). F O R M A T I O 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.

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 T T 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 E R 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.

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 F O R M A T I O 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.

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 E R 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 d

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.” F O R M A T I O 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.

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 E R 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

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. F O R M A T I O 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.

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 E R 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.

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). F O R M A T I O 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.

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 H A P T E R R E V I E W 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 E R 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.

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 F O R M A T I O 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.

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 E R 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.

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. F O R M A T I O 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.

C H A P T E R 5 Cohesion and Development C H A P T E R O V E R V I E W 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? C H A P T E R O U T L I N E 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.

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. C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

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.) C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

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. C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

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. C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

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 Number of Choices 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 Number of Choices 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. C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

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 E V E L O P I N G C O H E S I O N 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 C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

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). C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

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 C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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 rig

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 E R 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.

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. C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

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. C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

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 C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 P P L I C A T I O N : 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 E R 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.

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 Productivity 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. C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

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. C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

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 T E 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 C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

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 E R 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.

■ 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. R E S O U R C E S 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. C O H E S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

C H A P T E R 6 Structure C H A P T E R O V E R V I E W 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? C H A P T E R O U T L I N E 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.

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). S T R U C T U R E 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.

6 - 1 N O R M S 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 E R 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.

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. S T R U C T U R E 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.

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 E R 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.

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 Increasing distance estimates 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. S T R U C T U R E 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.

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 E R 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.

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). S T R U C T U R E 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.

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 O L E S 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 E R 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.

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. S T R U C T U R E 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.

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 E R 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.

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. S T R U C T U R E 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.

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 E R 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.

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. S T R U C T U R E 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.

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 E R 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.

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) S T R U C T U R E 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.

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 E R 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.

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 Friendly behavior Unfriendly behavior 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. S T R U C T U R E 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.

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 Commitment 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 E R 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.

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 S T R U C T U R E 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.

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 E R 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.

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. S T R U C T U R E 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

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 N T E R M E M B E R 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 E R 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.

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. S T R U C T U R E 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.