Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
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.
• G et more from your time online with an easy-to-follow
five-step learning path.
• S tay focused with an all-in-one-place, integrated
presentation of course content.
• G et the free MindTap Mobile App and learn
wherever you are.
Break limitations. Create your
own potential, and be unstoppable
with MindTap.
MINDTAP. POWERED BY YOU.
cengage.com/mindtap
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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
DYNAMICS
SEVENTH EDITION
Donelson R.
FORSYTH
University of Richmond
Australia • Brazil • Mexico • Singapore • United Kingdom • United States
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Group Dynamics, Seventh Edition © 2019, 2014 Cengage Learning, Inc.
Donelson R. Forsyth
Unless otherwise noted, all content is © Cengage.
Product Director: Marta Lee-Perriard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright
Product Manager: Star Burruto/Nedah Rose herein may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means,
Project Manager: Seth Schwartz except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, without the prior written
Content Developer: Kendra Brown, LD permission of the copyright owner.
Product Assistant: Leah Jenson
Marketing Manager: Heather Thompson For product information and technology assistance, contact us at
Digital Content Specialist: Allison Marion Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706.
Digital Project Manager: Jayne Stein
Manufacturing Planner: Karen Hunt For permission to use material from this text or product,
Sr. Art Director: Vernon Boes submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions.
Cover Image Credit: ju.grozyan/Shutterstock
.com Further permissions questions can be e-mailed to
Production Management, and Composition: permissionrequest@cengage.com.
Lumina Datamatics, Inc.
Intellectual Property Library of Congress Control Number: 2017952406
Analyst: Deanna Ettinger ISBN: 978-1-337-40885-1
Project Manager: Betsy Hathaway
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.
Printed in the United States of America
Print Number: 01 Print Year: 2017
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 5 7 9
AUTHOR INDEX 6 6 7
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.
vi C O N T E N T S
2-4 Theoretical Perspectives 53 57
Motivational Perspectives 53
Behavioral Perspectives 54
Systems Perspectives 55
Cognitive Perspectives 56
Biological Perspectives 57
Selecting a Theoretical Perspective
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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 vii
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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
viii C O N T E N T S
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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 ix
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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
x CONTENTS
10-3 Working in Groups 320 320
The Process Model of Group Performance
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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 xi
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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
xii C O N T E N T S
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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 xiii
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 545 547
17-1 Collectives: Forms and Features
What Are Collectives? 547
Gatherings 550
Crowds 552
Mobs 554
Panics 555
Collective Movements 558
Social Movements 560
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
xiv C O N T E N T S
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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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.
FEATURES
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.
xvi P R E F A C E
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.
CHANGES FROM THE SIXTH EDITION
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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 xvii
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.
MINDTAP
■ 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.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
xviii PREFACE
INSTRUCTOR SUPPLEMENTS
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.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Introduction
to Group
Dynamics
1C H A P T E R
CHAPTER OVERVIEW CHAPTER OUTLINE
Groups come in all shapes and sizes and their pur- 1-1 What Are Groups?
poses are many and varied, but their influence is 1-1a Defining Groups
universal. The tendency to join with others in 1-1b Varieties of Groups
groups is perhaps the single most important char- 1-1c Characteristics of Groups
acteristic of humans, and the processes that unfold
within these groups leave an indelible imprint on 1-2 What Are Group Dynamics?
their members and on society. Yet, groups remain 1-2a Dynamic Group Processes
something of a mystery: unstudied at best, misun- 1-2b Process and Progress over Time
derstood at worst. This investigation into the
nature of groups begins by answering two funda- 1-3 Why Study Groups?
mental questions: What is a group and what are 1-3a Understanding People
group dynamics? 1-3b Understanding the Social World
1-3c Applications to Practical Problems
■ What are groups?
1-4 The Value of Groups
■ What are the four basic types of groups? Chapter Review
Resources
■ What distinguishes one group from another?
■ What are group dynamics?
■ Why study groups and their dynamics?
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.
2 CHAPTER 1
The Adventure Expedition: Groups and Their Dynamics
On May 10, 1996, just after midnight, the members The Adventure Expedition broke that rule. The
of the Adventure Consultants Guided Expedition most experienced climbers reached the summit by early
crawled from tents pitched high on Mt. Everest to afternoon, but other group members continued their
begin the final leg of their journey to the top of the dogged ascent well after caution demanded they turn
world. The group included ten clients who had paid around. Many of them suffered from oxygen depriva-
hefty sums to join the expedition; guides who set the tion, for the atmosphere above 24,000 feet is so thin
climbing lines, carried provisions, and helped climbers that most hikers breathe from tanks of compressed air.
along the way; and Rob Hall, the team’s leader. Hall Even these supplements cannot counteract the exhaus-
was one of the most experienced high-altitude clim- tion that comes of climbing treacherous, ice-coated
bers in the world; he had scaled Everest four times terrain, and many suffered from confused thinking,
before. nausea, and dizziness. Yet, they may still have managed
to climb to safety had it not been for the storm—a
The climb to the summit of Mt. Everest is a care- rogue blizzard with 60-knot winds that cut the climbers
fully orchestrated undertaking. Teams begin the off from camp and any hope of rescue. When the storm
ascent in the middle of the night to reach the peak lifted the next day, four members of the Adventure
and return in a single day. But if their progress up the Expedition were dead. The victims included two clients
mountain is too slow, even a midnight departure is not (Douglas Hansen and Yasuko Nanba), a guide (Andrew
early enough to get them up to the top and back Harris), and the group’s leader (Rob Hall). Hall guaran-
down safely. So groups typically establish and adhere teed his clients that they would reach the top of the
to the turnaround rule: If you have not reached the mountain and return safely; he could not keep that
summit by 2 PM—at the very latest—your group must promise (Krakauer, 1997).
turn back.
Groups are and always will be essential to human work, to the very large groups of people with
life. Across all cultures and eras we have lived, whom we share an important quality that creates
worked, thrived, and died in our families, tribes, a psychological bond between us all. Given we
communes, communities, and clans. Our ancestors spend our entire lives getting into, getting out of,
protected themselves from dangers and disasters by and taking part in groups, it’s best to not ignore
joining together in groups. Early civilizations—the them. Even better, it’s best to understand them:
Aztecs, Persians, Greeks, and Romans—organized to recognize their key features, to study the psycho-
their societies by forming legions, assemblies, pub- logical and interpersonal processes that continually
lics, legislative bodies, and trade associations. For shape and reshape them, and to learn ways to help
time immemorial, people have gathered for civic them function effectively.
and religious purposes, including worship, celebra-
tions, and festivals. 1-1 WHAT ARE GROUPS?
So why study these groups? The answer is not Fish swimming in synchronized unison are called a
complicated: Groups hold the secret to the school. A gathering of kangaroos is a mob. A three-
universe—the human universe, at any rate. The some of crows cawing from their perch on a tele-
rare individual—the prisoner in solitary confine- phone wire is a murder. A gam is a group of whales.
ment, the recluse, the castaway—is isolated from A flock of larks in flight is an exaltation (Lipton,
all groups, but most of us belong to all manner of 1991). But what is a collection of human beings
groups: from our small, close-knit groups such as called? A group.
families or very close friends to larger groups of
associates and colleagues at school or where we
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 3
What Groups Do You Belong To?
Some may bemoan the growing alienation of Interpretation: Did you include your family?
individuals from the small social groups that once The people you work or study with? How about
linked them securely to society-at-large, but the sin- your roommates, housemates, or classmates? All of
gle man or woman who has no connection to other the people you have friended on Facebook? How
men and women is an extraordinarily rare human about people of your sex, race, and citizenship
being. and those who share your political beliefs? Are
African American men, Canadians, and Republicans
Instructions: Most people belong to dozens of groups? Are you in a romantic relationship?
groups, but we can become so accustomed to them Did you include you and your partner on your list
that their influence on us goes unnoticed. Before of groups? Some people’s lists are longer than
reading further, make a list (written or mental) of all others, but a list of 40 or more groups would not
the groups to which you belong. be unusual.
1-1a Defining Groups evidenced by the criteria of gesticulation, laughter,
smiles, talk, play or work” (James, 1951, p. 475).
The Adventure Expedition was, in many respects, a He recorded pedestrians walking down the city
unique collection of people facing an enormous streets, people shopping, children on playgrounds,
challenge. Rob Hall, its leader, deliberately created public gatherings at sports events and festivals, patrons
the group by recruiting its 26 members: climbers, during the intermissions at plays and entering movie
guides, cooks, medical staff, and so on. Its members theaters, and various types of work crews and teams.
were united in their pursuit of a shared goal, as is so Most of these groups were small, usually with only
often the case with groups, but some of the members two or three members, but groups that had been
put their own personal needs above those of the deliberately created for some specific purpose, such
group. The members not only interacted with each as the leadership team of a company, tended to be
other face-to-face in a physical space, but they also larger. His findings, and the results of studies con-
used technology to communicate with one another ducted in other settings (e.g., cafeterias, businesses),
and with people who were not part of the team. But suggest that groups tend to “gravitate to the smallest
Adventure Expedition, although unique in many size, two” (Hare, 1976, p. 215; Jorgenson & Dukes,
ways, was nonetheless a group: two or more individuals 1976; Ruef, Aldrich, & Carter, 2003).
who are connected by and within social relationships.
Who Are Connected Definitions of the word
Two or More Individuals Groups come in a stag- group are as varied as groups themselves, but a com-
gering assortment of shapes and sizes, from dyads (two monality shared by many of these definitions is an
members) and triads (three members) to huge crowds, emphasis on social relations that link members to one
mobs, and assemblies (Simmel, 1902). Sociologist another. Three persons working on math problems
John James was so intrigued by the variation in the in separate rooms can hardly be considered a group;
size of groups that he took to the streets of Eugene they are not connected to each other in any way. If,
and Portland, Oregon, to record the size of the 9,129 however, we create relationships between them—
groups he encountered there. He defined a group to for example, we let them send notes to each other
be two or more people in “face-to-face interaction as or we pick one person to distribute the problems to
the others—then these three individuals can be con-
group Two or more individuals who are connected by sidered a rudimentary group. Neither would we call
and within social relationships. people who share some superficial similarity, such as
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
4 CHAPTER 1
eye color, a favorite football team, or birth date, based on task-related interdependencies. In some
group members for we expect them to be connected groups, members are friends, but in others, the
to each other in socially meaningful ways. A family is members are linked by common interests or experi-
a group because the members are connected, not just ences. Nor are the relationships linking members
by blood but also by social and emotional relation- equally strong or enduring. Some relationships,
ships. Adventure Expedition was a group because like the links between members of a family or a
the members were linked by the tasks that they clique of close friends, are tenacious, for they have
completed collectively and by friendships, alliances, developed over time and are based on a long history
responsibilities, and inevitable antagonisms. of mutual influence and exchange. In others, the
ties between members may be so fragile that they
By and Within Social Relations The relations are easily severed. Every individual member of the
that link the members of groups are not of one group does not need to be linked to every other
type. In families, for example, the relationships are person in the group. In the Adventure Expedition
based on kinship, but in the workplace, they are group, for example, some people were liked by all
What Is a Group?
No one definition can capture the many nuances of the and perceive themselves to be in a group” (Pen-
word group. Some definers stress the importance of nington, 2002, p. 3).
communication or mutual dependence. Still others sug-
gest that a shared purpose or goal is what turns a mere ■ Relations: “Individuals who stand in certain rela-
aggregate of individuals into a bona fide group. Even the tions to each other, for example, as sharing a
minimal number of members needed for a true group is common purpose or having a common intention-
debated, with some definitions requiring three members ality, or acting together, or at least having a
but others only two (Moreland, 2010; Williams, 2010). common interest” (Gould, 2004, p. 119).
■ Categorization: “Two or more individuals … ■ Shared identity: “Two or more people possessing
[who] perceive themselves to be members of the a common social identification and whose exis-
same social category” (Turner, 1982, p. 15). tence as a group is recognized by a third party”
(Brown, 2000, p. 19).
■ Communication: “Three or more people … who (a)
think of themselves as a group, (b) are interdepen- ■ Shared tasks and goals: “Three or more people
dent (e.g., with regard to shared goals or behaviors who work together interdependently on an
that affect one another), and (c) communicate agreed-upon activity or goal” (Keyton, 2002, p. 5).
(interact) with one another (via face-to-face or tech-
nological means)” (Frey & Konieczka, 2010, p. 317). ■ Size: “Two or more people” (Williams, 2010, p. 269).
■ Influence: “Two or more persons who are inter- ■ Social unit: “Persons who recognize that they
acting with one another in such a manner that constitute a meaningful social unit, interact on
each person influences and is influenced by each that basis, and are committed to that social unity”
other person” (Shaw, 1981, p. 454). (Fine, 2012, p. 21; Kerr & Tindale, 2014).
■ Interdependence: “A dynamic whole based on ■ Structure: “A social unit which consists of a number
interdependence rather than similarity” (Lewin, of individuals who stand in (more or less) definite
1948, p. 184). status and role relationships to one another and
which possesses a set of values or norms of its own
■ Interrelations: “An aggregation of two or more regulating the behavior of individual members, at
people who are to some degree in dynamic inter- least in matters of consequence to the group”
relation with one another” (McGrath, 1984, p. 8). (Sherif & Sherif, 1956, p. 144).
■ Psychological significance: “A psychological group ■ Systems: “An intact social system, complete with
is any number of people who interact with each boundaries, interdependence for some shared
other, are psychologically aware of each other, purpose, and differentiated member roles”
(Hackman & Katz, 2010, p. 1210).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 5
Groups
Primary groups Social groups Collectives Categories
Families, close Coworkers, Audiences, Men, Asian
friends, small teams, crews, queues, mobs, Americans,
combat squads study groups, crowds, social New Yorkers,
(fireteams), task forces, etc. movements, etc.
doctors,
etc. Britons, etc.
F I G U R E 1.1 A fourfold taxonomy of groups and examples of each type.
the other group members, but others had only a groups profoundly influence the behavior, feel-
few friends in the group. In some cases, such as ings, and judgments of their members, for mem-
groups based on ethnicity, race, or gender, the bers spend much of their time interacting with
connection linking members may be more psycho- one another, usually in face-to-face settings with
logical than interpersonal. But no matter what the many of the other members present. Even when
nature of the relations, a group exists when some the group is dispersed, members nonetheless feel
type of bond links the members to one another and they are still “in” the group, and they consider
to the group itself (Bosse & Coughlan, 2016). the group to be a very important part of their
lives.
1-1b Varieties of Groups
In many cases, individuals become part of primary
No one knows for certain how many groups exist at groups involuntarily: Every member of Adventure
this moment, but given the number of people on the Expedition was born into a family that provided
planet and their groupish proclivities, 30 billion is a for their well-being until they could venture out
conservative estimate. Groups are so numerous that to join other groups. Other primary groups form
the differences among them are as noteworthy as when people interact in significant, meaningful
their similarities. Figure 1.1 brings some order to this ways for a prolonged period of time. For exam-
challenging miscellany by distinguishing between four ple, and unlike Adventure Expedition, some
types of groups: primary groups, social groups, collec- climbing teams have summited so many moun-
tives, and categories. tains on so many expeditions that these groups
are more like families than expeditions. They
Primary Groups Sociologist Charles Horton “continue, with more or less the same people in
Cooley (1909) labeled the small, intimate clusters them, for a very long time” (McGrath, 1984,
of close associates, such as families, good friends, p. 43), and affect the members’ lives in significant
or cliques of peers, primary groups. These and enduring ways. They are broad rather than
limited in their scope.
primary group A small, long-term group characterized
by frequent interaction, solidarity, and high levels of inter- Cooley (1909) considered such groups to be
dependence among members that substantially influences primary because they transform individuals into
the attitudes, values, and social outcomes of its members. 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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 CHAPTER 1
connection between the individual and society clubs, secretarial pools, congregations, study groups,
at large: guilds, task forces, committees, and meetings, are
extremely common (Schofer & Longhofer, 2011).
They are primary in several senses, but chiefly When surveyed, 35.7% of Americans reported they
in that they are fundamental in forming belonged to some type of religious group (e.g., a
the social nature and ideals of the individual. congregation) and 20.0% said they belonged to a
The result of intimate association, psycho- sports team or club. The majority, ranging from
logically, is a certain fusion of individualities 50% to 80%, reported doing things in groups, such
in a common whole, so that one’s very as attending a sports event together, visiting one
self, for many purposes at least, is the another for the evening, sharing a meal together,
common life and purpose of the group. or going out as a group to see a movie (Putnam,
Perhaps the simplest way of describing this 2000). People could dine, watch movies, and travel
wholeness is by saying that it is a “we.” singly, but most do not: They prefer to perform
(Cooley, 1909, p. 23) these activities in social groups. Americans are
above average in their involvement in voluntary asso-
Social (Secondary) Groups In earlier eras, peo- ciations, but some countries’ citizens—the Dutch,
ple lived most of their lives in primary groups that Canadians, Scandinavians—are groupier still (Curtis,
were clustered together in relatively small tribes or Baer, & Grabb, 2001).
communities. But, as societies became more com-
plex, so did our groups. We began to associate with Collectives Some groups come into existence
a wider range of people in less intimate, more pub- when people are drawn together by something—
lic settings, and social groups emerged to structure an event, an activity, or even danger—but then the
these interactions. Social groups are larger and more group dissolves when the experience ends.
formally organized than primary groups, and Any gathering of individuals can be considered a
memberships tend to be shorter in duration and collective, but most theorists reserve the term for
less emotionally involving. Their boundaries are larger, less intricately interconnected associations
also more permeable, so members can leave old among people (Blumer, 1951). A list of examples
groups behind and join new ones, for they do of collectives would include crowds watching a
not demand the level of commitment that primary building burn, audiences seated in a movie theater,
groups do. People usually belong to a very small line (queues) of people waiting to purchase tickets,
number of primary groups, but they can enjoy gatherings of college students protesting a govern-
membership in a variety of social groups. Various ment policy, and panicked mobs fleeing from dan-
terms have been used to describe this category of ger. But the list would also include social movements
groups, such as secondary groups (Cooley, 1909), asso- of individuals who, though dispersed over a wide
ciations (MacIver & Page, 1937), task groups (Lickel, area, display common shifts in opinion or actions.
Hamilton, & Sherman, 2001), and Gesellschaften The members of collectives are joined by their com-
(Toennies, 1887/1963). mon interest or shared actions, but they often owe
little allegiance to the group. In many cases, such
Social groups, such as the Adventure Expedi- groups are created by happenstance, convenience,
tion, military squads, governing boards, construc-
tion workers, teams, crews, fraternities, sororities, collective A relatively large aggregation or group of indi-
dance troupes, orchestras, bands, ensembles, classes, viduals who display similarities in actions and outlook. A
street crowd, a line of people (a queue), and a panicked
social group A relatively small number of individuals group escaping a fire are examples of collectives, as are
who interact with one another over an extended period more widely dispersed groups (e.g., listeners who respond
of time, such as work groups, clubs, and congregations. similarly to a public service announcement).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 7
Are People Bowling Alone?
The numbers tell the tale. In 1975, people reported terms. A person with considerable social capital is well
playing card games together, like poker and bridge, connected to other people across a wide variety of
about 14 times a year. By 2000, that number had been contexts, and these connections provide the means for
halved. In the 1970s, 50% of the people surveyed agreed him or her to accomplish both personal and collective
that their family usually eats dinner together. By the end outcomes.
of the century, only about 33% reported regular family
meals and the family vacation was also becoming rarer. Putnam’s findings suggest that the types of
Today fewer people report visiting with neighbors fre- groups people join are changing. People are not as
quently and they are less likely to join social clubs, such interested in joining traditional types of community
as the Kiwanis and garden clubs. As the political scientist groups, such as garden clubs, fraternal and professional
Robert Putnam (2000) wrote in his book Bowling Alone, organizations, or even church-based groups. But some
in the 1960s 8% of all adult American men belonged to types of groups, such as book groups, support groups,
a bowling league, as did nearly 5% of all adult women. teams at work, and category-based associations (e.g.,
However, even though the total number of bowlers in the American Association of Retired Persons), are
America continues to increase over time, fewer and increasing in size rather than decreasing. Individuals
fewer belong to bowling leagues. are also more involved in online associations, interac-
tions, and networks, such as Facebook. These social
Putnam concluded that Americans’ withdrawal groups are the ubiquitous “dark matter” of social cap-
from groups and associations signals an overall decline ital, for they knit people together in social relations but
in social capital. Like financial or economic capital, are often overlooked in tallies that track the number
social capital describes how rich you are, but in inter- and variety of more formal and official groups (Smith,
personal terms rather than monetary or commercial Stebbins, et al., 2016).
or a short-lived experience, and so the relations join- someone celebrates St. Patrick’s Day because of his
ing the members are so transitory that they dissolve Irish heritage, if people respond to a woman differently
as soon as the members separate. when they see she is an African American, or if a gay
man identifies with other LGBTQ persons—then a
Categories A social category is a collection of category may be transformed into a highly influential
individuals who are similar to one another in some group (Abrams, 2013).
way. For example, citizens of Ireland are Irish,
Americans whose ancestors were from Africa are As social psychologist Henri Tajfel (1974)
African Americans, and men who are sexually attracted explained, members of the same social category
to other men are gay. If a category has no social impli- often share a common identity with one another.
cations, then it only describes individuals who share They know who is in their category, who is not,
a feature in common. If, however, these categories and what qualities are typical of insiders and out-
set in motion personal or interpersonal processes—if siders. This perception of themselves as members of
the same group or social category—this social
social capital The degree to which individuals, groups, identity—is “that part of an individual’s self-
or larger aggregates of people are linked in social relation- concept which derives from his knowledge of his
ships that yield positive, productive benefits; analogous to membership of a social group (or groups) together
economic capital (fiscal prosperity), but determined by
extensiveness of social connectedness. social identity An individual’s sense of self derived from
social category A perceptual grouping of people who are relationships and memberships in groups; also, those
assumed to be similar to one another in some ways but dif- aspects of the self that are assumed to be common to
ferent in one or more ways, such as all women, the elderly, most or all of the members of the same group or social
college students, or all the citizens of a specific country. category.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 CHAPTER 1
with the emotional significance attached to that were all clients: Weathers was “garrulous,” Fischbeck
membership” (Tajfel, 1974, p. 69). was “dapper” and “genteel,” and Kasischke was tall
and athletic (Krakauer, 1997, p. 37).
But social categories can also influence the per-
ceptions of people who are not part of the category. Groups may be more than the sum of their parts
When perceivers decide a person they encounter is but each part defines the whole (Moreland, 2013). A
one of “those people,” they will likely rely on any group with a member who is naturally boisterous,
stereotypes they have about the members of that mean-spirited, hard-working, chill, or close-minded
social category to formulate an impression of the will be different from the group with a member who
person. Social categories tend to create divisions is domineering, self-sacrificing, lazy, anxious, or cre-
between people, and those divisions can result in ative. A group with many members who have only
a sense of we and us versus they and them. just joined will differ from one with mostly long-
term, veteran members. A group whose members
1-1c Characteristics of Groups differ from each other in terms of race, sex, eco-
nomic background, and country of origin will differ
Each one of the billions of groups that exist at this from a group with far less diversity. Were we to
moment is a unique configuration of individuals, assign 100 people to twenty 5-person groups, each
processes, and relationships. The Adventure Expedi- group would differ from every other group because
tion mountaineering group, for example, differed in it joins together 5 unique individuals.
a hundred ways from the other teams of climbers on
Mt. Everest that season. But all groups, despite their Boundaries: Who Does NOT Belong? The
uniqueness, share some common features. Some of relationships that link members to one another
these features, such as the size of the group and the define who is in the group and who is not.
tasks they are attempting, are relatively obvious ones. A group is boundaried in a psychological sense;
Other qualities, such as the group’s cohesiveness or those who are included in the group are recognized
the permeability of the group’s boundaries, must be as members and those who are not part of the
uncovered, for they are often overlooked, even by group are excluded outsiders. In some cases, these
the group members themselves. boundaries are publicly acknowledged: Both mem-
bers and nonmembers know who belongs to an
Composition: Who Belongs to the Group? To honor society, a rock band, or a baseball team.
understand a group, we must know something about But in other cases, the boundaries may be indistinct
the group’s composition: the qualities of the indi- or known only to the group members themselves.
viduals who are members of the group. The Adven- A secret society, for example, may not reveal its exis-
ture Expedition team, for example, differed from the tence or its membership list to outsiders. A group’s
other teams on Mt. Everest that year because each boundary may also be relatively permeable. In open
member of that group was a unique individual with groups, for example, membership is fluid; members
specific talents, weaknesses, attitudes, values, and per- may voluntarily come and go as they please with no
sonality traits. Hall, the group’s leader, was a world- consequences (and they often do), or the group may
class high-altitude climber. Andy Harris, a guide, was frequently vote members out of the group or invite
outgoing, physically fit, and passionate about climb- new ones to join. In closed groups, in contrast, the mem-
ing, but he had never been to Mt. Everest before. bership roster changes more slowly, if at all. But,
Beck Weathers, Frank Fischbeck, and Lou Kasischke regardless of the reasons for membership fluctuations,
open groups are especially unlikely to reach a state of
stereotype A socially shared set of qualities, characteris- equilibrium since members recognize that they may
tics, and behavioral expectations ascribed to a particular lose or relinquish their place within the group at any
group or category of people. time. Members of such groups, especially those in
composition The individuals who constitute a group. which membership is dependent on voting or meeting
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 9
Are Social Networks Groups?
Social networks are in most respects very group-like. the only requirement to join a network is the accep-
Their members are linked to each other by social tance of a link request from someone already linked
relationships, which can vary from the inconsequen- to others in the network. If Helen and Rob are
tial and ephemeral to the deeply meaningful and already linked, then Pemba can join their network by
long-enduring. Networks, however, lack clear establishing a relationship with Helen or Rob. In
boundaries that define who is in the network and consequence, social networks tend to be more fluid
who is not. To become part of a social network, an in terms of membership than groups with clearly
individual need only establish a relationship of some identified boundaries, but they can also attract
sort with a person who is already part of the net- more diverse members to their ranks (Svensson,
work. In most social networking sites, for example, Neumayer, Banfield-Mumb, & Schossböck, 2015).
a particular standard, are more likely to monitor the to all other members, subgroups are very likely to
actions of others. In contrast, closed groups are form, and one or more leaders may be needed to orga-
often more cohesive as competition for member- nize and guide the group.
ship is irrelevant and group members anticipate
future collaborations. Thus, in closed groups, indi- A group’s size also determines how many social
viduals are more likely to focus on the collective ties—links, relationships, connections, edges—are
nature of the group and to identify with the needed to join members to each other and to the
group (Ziller, 1965). group. The maximum number of ties within a
group in which everyone is linked to everyone
Size: How Large Is the Group? Jon Krakauer else is given by the equation n(n – 1)/2, where n
(1997), who chronicled the experiences of Adven- is the number of people in the group. Only one
ture Expedition as it attempted its climb of Mt. relationship is needed to create a dyad, but as
Everest, admitted he was unsettled by the size of Figure 1.2 illustrates, the number of ties needed to
the group: “I’d never climbed as a member of such connect all members grows as the group gets larger.
a large group … all my previous expeditions had Three relationships would be needed to join each
been undertaken with one or two trusted friends, member of a three-person group, but six, ten, and
or alone” (p. 37). fifteen relationships are needed to link the members
of four-, five-, and six-person groups. Even larger
A group’s size influences many of its other features, groups require even more ties. For example, a
for a small group will likely have different structures, group the size of the Adventure Expedition (26
processes, and patterns of interaction than a larger one. members) would require 325 ties to completely
A two-person group is so small that it ceases to exist link each member to every other member.
when one member leaves, and it can never be broken
down into subgroups. The members of dyads (e.g., Because of the limits of most people’s capacity
best friends, lovers) are sometimes linked by strong to keep track of so many social relationships, once
emotional bonds that make their dynamics so intense the group surpasses about 150 individuals, members
that they belong in a category all their own (Levine & usually cannot connect with each and every mem-
Moreland, 2012). Larger groups can also have unique ber of the group (Dunbar, 2008). In consequence,
qualities, for the members are rarely connected directly in larger groups, members are connected to one
another indirectly rather than directly. Beck
social network A set of interpersonally interconnected Weathers might, for example, be linked to guide
individuals or groups. Mike Groom, and Groom might establish a bond
with Jon Krakauer, but Weathers may not get to
know Krakauer. In even larger groups, members
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 C H A P T E R 1
Two Three Four Five Six
members members members members 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.
may only feel connected to the group as a whole, Task interaction includes all group behavior that
or to subgroups within the larger group (Katz et al., is focused principally on the group’s work, projects,
2005). Larger groups are more schismatic than plans, and goals. In most groups, members must coor-
smaller ones; they more easily break up into smaller dinate their various skills, resources, and motivations
groups. so that the group can make a decision, generate a
product, or achieve a victory. When a jury reviews
Interaction: What Do Members Do? Groups each bit of testimony, a committee discusses the best
are the setting for an infinite variety of interper- course of action to take, or the Adventure Expedition
sonal actions. If we were to watch a group for plans the approach they will take to the summit, the
even a few minutes, we would see people doing group’s interaction is task-focused.
all sorts of things: talking over issues, getting into
arguments, and making decisions. They would But groups are not simply performance
upset each other, give each other help and support, engines, for much of what happens in a group is
and take advantage of each other’s weaknesses. relationship interaction (or socioemotional interac-
They would likely work together to accomplish tion). If group members falter and need support,
difficult tasks, find ways to not do their work, others will buoy them up with kind words, sugges-
and even plot against the best interests of those tions, and other forms of help. When group mem-
who are not a part of their group. Many of the bers disagree with others, they are often roundly
most interesting, influential, and entertaining criticized and made to feel foolish. When a
forms of human action are possible only when peo- coworker wears a new suit or outfit, others in his
ple join with others in a group. or her work unit notice it and offer compliments or
criticisms. Such actions sustain or undermine the
Sociologist Robert Freed Bales (1950, 1999),
intrigued by the question “What do people do task interaction The conjointly adjusted actions of
when they are in groups?” spent years watching and group members that pertain to the group’s projects,
recording people in relatively small, face-to-face tasks, and goals.
groups. He recognized the diversity of group interac- relationship interaction (socioemotional interaction)
tion, but eventually concluded that the countless The conjointly adjusted actions of group members that
actions he had observed tend to be of two types: relate to or influence the nature and strength of the emo-
those that focused on the task the group was dealing tional and interpersonal bonds within the group, includ-
with and those that sustained, strengthened, or weak- ing both sustaining (social support, consideration) and
ened interpersonal relationships within the group. undermining actions (criticism, conflict).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 11
Why Do Humans Have Such Big Brains?
Humans have done well, evolutionarily speaking. Their size of the average group for a species with the brain
large, sophisticated brains provide them with the means size of the species, he discovered that species with
to store and share information, solve problems, and bigger brains did tend to live in larger social groups.
plan for future contingencies. To account for the rapid Dunbar’s findings also suggest that, given the size of
development of humans’ intellectual prowess, conven- the human neocortex, humans were designed by evo-
tional explanations usually suggest big brains helped lution to live in groups of 150 people or less; anything
early humans find food and shelter and survive envi- more would overload humans’ information-processing
ronmental threats. But what if humans’ brains devel- capacity. Dunbar sees evidence of this constraint in
oped to deal with the mental demands of group life? his studies of the size of naturally occurring groups.
Although the size of traditional hunter-gatherer soci-
Anthropologist Robin Dunbar’s (2008) social brain eties varies with habitat, in many cases, they range up
hypothesis assumes that group life is more psycholog- to—but not over—150 members. Until recently, small
ically demanding than a more isolated, independent communal villages and townships included about 150
one. With groups come not only survival advantages, people. Armies often organize soldiers into divisions of
but also substantial amounts of new information to about 150 soldiers. Some businesses and organizations,
continually process. Individuals must be able to recog- too, have learned that productivity and solidarity suf-
nize other members of the group, track shifting pat- fer when too many people work in one place. If they
terns of alliances and coalitions, and remember who need to expand their operation, they do not add more
can be trusted and who is likely to refuse to share. people to an existing plant; instead, they build an
To deal with the increasing complexity of their social additional plant next to the old one and fill it with
worlds, humans’ ancestors needed bigger brains another 150 personnel. Dunbar’s recommendation:
capable of processing more information. To avoid taxing the processing capacity of members,
limit your groups to 150 members or fewer.
Dunbar tested this hypothesis by studying a vari-
ety of group-living species. When he correlated the
emotional bonds linking the members to one means that members depend on one another; their
another and to the group. We will review the outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experi-
method that Bales developed for objectively record- ences are partially determined by others in the
ing these types of interactions, Interaction Process group.
Analysis (IPA), in Chapter 2.
Some groups create only the potential for
Interdependence: Do the Members Depend on interdependence among members. The outcomes
Each Other? The acrobat on the trapeze drops of people standing in a queue at a store’s checkout
to the net unless her teammate catches her out- counter, audience members in a darkened theater,
stretched arms. The assembly line worker is unable or the congregation of a large mega-church are
to complete his work until he receives the unfin- hardly intertwined at all. The individuals within
ished product from a worker further up the line. these groups can reach their goals on their own
The business executive’s success and salary are deter- without making certain their actions mesh closely
mined by how well her staff complete their work; if with the actions of those who are nearby. Other
her staff fail, then she fails as well. In such situations, groups, such as gangs, families, sports teams, and
members are obligated or responsible to other military squads, create far higher levels of interde-
group members, for they provide each other with pendency since members reliably and substantially
support and assistance. This interdependence influence one another’s outcomes over a long
period of time and in a variety of situations.
interdependence Mutual dependence, as when one’s But even the interdependencies in these tightly
outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experiences meshed groups are rarely invariant or undifferen-
are influenced, to some degree, by other people. tiated. As Figure 1.3 suggests, in symmetric
groups with a flat, nonhierarchical structure, the
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 C H A P T E R 1
ABC A group structure—the complex of roles, norms,
and intermember relations that organizes the group.
(a) Symmetric B CD Roles specify the general behaviors expected of peo-
interdependence (b) Hierarchical ple who occupy different positions within the group.
with reciprocity interdependence The roles of leader and follower are fundamental ones
in many groups, but other roles—information
A without reciprocity seeker, information giver, and compromiser—may
emerge in any group (Benne & Sheats, 1948).
B CD ABC Group members’ actions and interactions are also
shaped by the group’s norms that describe what
(c) Hierarchical (d) Sequential behaviors should and should not be performed in
interdependence with interdependence a given context.
(unequal) reciprocity without reciprocity
Roles, norms, and other structural aspects of
F I G U R E 1.3 Examples of interdependence among groups, although unseen and often unnoticed, lie at
group members. the heart of their most dynamic processes. When peo-
ple join a group, they initially spend much of their time
influence among members is equal and reciprocal trying to come to terms with the requirements of their
(Figure 1.3a). But more typically interdependen- role. If they cannot meet the role’s demand, they might
cies are asymmetric, unequal, and hierarchical. In not remain a member for long. Norms within a group
a business, for example, the boss may determine are defined and renegotiated over time, and conflicts
how employees spend their time, what kind of often emerge as members violate norms. In group
rewards they experience, and even the duration meetings, the opinions of members with higher status
of their membership in the group (Figure 1.3b). carry more weight than those of the rank-and-file
In other cases, the employees may be able to members. When several members form a subgroup
influence their boss to a degree, but the boss influ- within the larger group, they exert more influence
ences them to a much greater extent (Figure 1.3c). on the rest of the group than they would individually.
Interdependency can also be ordered sequentially, When people manage to place themselves at the hub of
as when C’s outcomes are determined by B’s the group’s information-exchange patterns, their influ-
actions, but B’s actions are determined by A ence over others also increases.
(Figure 1.3d).
If you had to choose only one aspect of a group
Structure: How Is the Group Organized? to study, you would probably learn the most by
Group members are not connected to one another studying its structure. The Adventure Expedition’s
at random, but in organized and predictable pat- structure, for example, improved the group’s overall
terns. In all but the most ephemeral groups, patterns efficiency, but at a cost. When researchers surveyed
and regularities emerge that determine the kinds of
actions that are permitted or condemned: who talks group structure The organization of a group, including
to whom, who likes whom and who dislikes the members, their interrelations, and their interactions.
whom, who can be counted on to perform partic- role A socially shared set of behaviors, characteristics, and
ular tasks, and whom others look to for guidance responsibilities expected of people who occupy a partic-
and help. These regularities combine to generate 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.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 13
expert mountain climbers asking them to evaluate the ideas or plans, choosing a solution, negotiating a
wisdom of hiking in a team with a clear chain- solution to a conflict, or executing (performing) a
of-command versus one with a less leader-centered task. As Figure 1.4 indicates, each of these basic
culture, these experts favored a hierarchical structure categories can be further subdivided, yielding a
for its efficiency. However, they also warned that such total of eight goal-related activities.
groups were not as safe as groups that were more
egalitarian, since members were less likely to share ■ Generating: Groups concoct the strategies they
information about threats and concerns. These will use to accomplish their goals (Type 1:
researchers then confirmed the experts’ prognosis by planning tasks) or create altogether new ideas
examining the records of 5,104 group expeditions in and approaches to their problems (Type 2:
the Himalayas. Sure enough, more climbers reached creativity tasks)
the top of the summit when they hiked in teams with
hierarchical cultures, but more climbers also died in ■ Choosing: Groups make decisions about issues
these groups during the expedition. The researchers that have correct solutions (Type 3: intellective
concluded: “Hierarchy, structurally and as a cultural tasks) or questions that can be answered in
value, can both help and hurt team performance” many ways (Type 4: decision-making tasks)
(Anicich, Swaab, & Galinsky, 2015, p. 1340).
■ Negotiating: Groups resolve differences of
Goals: What Is the Group’s Purpose? Humans, opinion among members regarding their goals
as a species, seem to be genetically ready to set goals or decisions (Type 5: cognitive conflict tasks) or
for themselves—“what natural selection has built into settle competitive disputes among members
us is the capacity to strive, the capacity to seek, the (Type 6: mixed-motive tasks)
capacity to set up short-term goals in the service of
longer-term goals” (Dawkins, 1989, p. 142)—and ■ Executing: Groups do things, including taking
that tendency is only amplified in groups. A study part in competitions (Type 7: contests/battles/
group wants to help members get better grades. A competitive tasks) or creating some product
jury makes a decision about guilt or innocence. The or carrying out collective actions (Type 8:
members of a congregation seek religious and spiritual performances/psychomotor tasks)
experiences. The team Rob Hall created, the Adven-
ture Expedition, pursued its goals relentlessly and, for McGrath’s task circumplex model also distin-
some members, fatally. The groups Bales (1999) stud- guishes between conceptual–behavioral tasks and
ied spent the majority of their time (63%) dealing cooperation–conflict tasks. Groups dealing with
with goal-related activities and tasks. The members conceptual tasks (Types 2–5) generally exhibit high
of groups pursue their own goals, but because their levels of information exchange, social influence, and
goals are interdependent, groups promote the process-oriented activity. Groups dealing with behav-
pursuit of other members’ goals and group-level ioral tasks (Types 1, 6, 7, 8) are those that produce
goals (Fitzsimons, Finkel, & vanDellen, 2015). things or perform services. Members of these groups
perform a series of motor tasks that range from the
The goals groups pursue are many and varied. simple and relatively individualistic through to the
One approach to their classification suggests that a complex and highly interdependent. Conflict tasks
broad distinction can be made between intellectual (Types 4–7) pit individuals and groups against each
and judgmental tasks (Laughlin, 1980). Another other, whereas cooperative tasks require collaboration
emphasizes three different categories: production, (Types 1–3, and 8). Some groups perform tasks from
discussion, and problem-solving goals (Hackman nearly all of McGrath’s categories, whereas others
& Morris, 1975). A third model, proposed by social concentrate on only one subset of goals.
psychologist Joseph E. McGrath (1984), distin-
guishes among four basic group goals: generating Origin: Founded or Formed? Groups tend to
fall naturally into two categories: planned groups,
which are deliberately formed by its members or
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
14 C H A P T E R 1
Generating Quadrant I Generating
ideas Generate plans
Cooperation Type 2: Type 1:
Creativity
Solving Planning
problems tasks
tasks Executing
with Type 3:
correct Intellective tasks performance
answers
Type 4: Type 8: tasks
Quadrant II Decision-making
Choose Performances/
tasks
Deciding psychomotor tasks
issues Type 5:
with no Congnitive Quadrant IV
right conflict tasks
answer Execute
Type 7:
Contests/battles/
Conflict competitive Resolving
tasks conflicts
Type 6: of power
Mixed-motive
tasks
Resolving conflicts Resolving conflicts
of viewpoint Quadrant III of interest
Negotiate
Conceptual Behavioral
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.
an external authority for some purpose, and emer- and formal. Such groups generally define their
gent groups which come into existence spontane- membership criteria clearly, and so at all times they
ously when individuals join together in the same know who is and who is not in the group. They
physical location or gradually over time as indivi- often operate under a set of bylaws, contracts, or
duals find themselves repeatedly interacting with similar regulations that describe the group’s accept-
the same subset of individuals. People found groups able procedures and practices. The group’s structure
(planned), but they also find them (emergent). may even be formalized in an organizational chart
that defines who has more authority than others,
Arbitration boards, civil rights groups, commis- who reports to whom, and how subgroups within
sions committees, expeditions, juries, legislative bod- the overall group are connected. Such groups,
ies, military units, musical groups, research teams, despite their overall level of organization and defini-
self-help groups, social agencies, sports teams, study tion, may also lack emotional substance. They may
groups, task forces, therapy groups, trade associa- be characterized by considerable routines, ceremo-
tions, veterans organizations, work groups, and the nies, and procedures, but they may also be devoid of
Adventure Expedition are all examples of planned any warmth or emotional depth.
groups; they tend to be organized, task-focused,
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 15
Emergent groups, such as audiences at events, of travelers stranded together when their bus
bystanders at a crime scene, crowds, customers at a breaks, a mob breaking shop windows and
club, gangs, families, friendship networks in work setting parked cars on fire, and patrons at a
settings, mobs, people waiting to board an airplane, movie theater would be circumstantial groups.
and all manner of queues and lines, arise over time
and through repeated association of the eventual ■ Self-organizing groups emerge when interacting
members. These groups are not explicitly orga- individuals gradually align their activities in a
nized, but they often develop elements of structure cooperative system of interdependence. Parties,
as members determine what kinds of behaviors are gatherings of surfers waiting for waves just off-
expected of members, who is more or less liked, shore, drivers leaving a crowded parking lot
who leads and who follows, and so on. Such groups through a single exit, and a half dozen adolescents
often have unclear boundaries, for they allow who hang out together are all organized groups,
members to come and go rather than requiring but their organization is generated by implicit
them to join in a formal way. They have no written adjustments of each member to each other
rules, but they likely develop unwritten norms that member.
define what behaviors are appropriate and what
behaviors are inappropriate. Unlike planned groups, Unity: How Cohesive Is the Group? In physics,
membership in an emergent group is sought as a the molecular integrity of matter is known as cohe-
means in and of itself: people don’t join to gain siveness. When matter is cohesive, the particles that
some goal but because they find satisfaction in asso- constitute it bond together so tightly that they resist
ciating with the group members. any competing attractions. But when matter is not
cohesive, it tends to disintegrate over time as the
Social psychologists Holly Arrow, Joseph E. particles drift away or adhere to some other nearby
McGrath, and Jennifer L. Berdahl (2000) extend this object. Similarly, group cohesion is the integrity,
distinction between planned and emergent groups by solidarity, social integration, unity, and groupiness
asking a second question: Is the group created by of a group. All groups require a modicum of cohe-
forces within the group (internal origins) or forces siveness or else the group would disintegrate and
outside of the group (external origins)? Arrow and cease to exist as a group. Close-knit, cohesive
her colleagues combine both the planned-emergent groups suffer little from turnover or intragroup
dimension and the internal-external dimension to conflict. Cohesive groups hold on to their members
generate the following fourfold taxonomy of groups: tightly, and members usually value their member-
ship, and are quick to identify themselves as mem-
■ Concocted groups are planned by individuals or bers. A group’s cohesiveness, however, is often
authorities outside of the group. A team of based on commitment to the group’s purposes,
laborers digging a trench, a flight crew of an rather than on social bonds between members.
airplane, and a military squad would all be Individuals may not like each other a great deal,
concocted groups, since those who created and yet, when they join together, they experience
them are not actually members of the group. powerful feelings of unity as they work collabora-
tively to achieve an important end (Dion, 2000).
■ Founded groups are planned by one or more
individuals who remain within the group. A group cohesion The solidarity or unity of a group
small Internet start-up company, a study group, resulting from the development of strong and mutual
a expeditionary team, or grassroots community interpersonal bonds among members and group-level
action group would all be founded groups. forces that unify the group, such as shared commitment
to group goals and esprit de corps.
■ 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
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
16 C H A P T E R 1
Entitativity: Does the Group Look Like a Group? 2004; Ip, Chiu, & Wan, 2006). Their emotional dis-
Observers back at basecamp who watched the plays would also provide you with information about
Adventure Expedition climb that day did not just their entitativity. If the women all seem to be happy or
see single individuals scaling Everest through their sad, then you would be more likely to think the group
binoculars and telescopes: They saw an intact, is responsible for their emotional state and that the
organized group making its way ever upward group itself is a unified one (Magee & Tiedens,
(Viesturs, 1996). 2006). Proximity is also a signal of entitativity, for the
smaller the distance separating individuals, the more
Social psychologist Donald Campbell (1958a) likely perceivers will assume they are seeing a group
coined the term entitativity to describe the extent rather than individuals who happen to be collocated
to which a group seems to be a single, unified (Knowles & Bassett, 1976). The principle of common
entity—a real group. Campbell grounded his anal- fate also predicts perceived entitativity, for if all the
ysis of group entitativity in the principles of percep- members begin to act in similar ways or move in a
tion studied most closely by gestalt psychologists relatively coordinated fashion, then your confidence
(e.g., Köhler, 1959). The researchers identified that this cluster is a unified group would be bolstered
these principles in their studies of the cues people (Lakens, 2010).
rely on when perceptually organizing objects into
unified, well-organized wholes (gestalts). An auto- Social psychologist Brian Lickel and his collea-
mobile, for example, is not perceived to be four gues (2000) investigated Campbell’s theory of enti-
wheels, doors, a trunk, a hood, a windshield, and tativity, asking people to rate all sorts of human
so on, but a single thing: a car. Similarly, a collec- aggregations in terms of their size, duration, perme-
tion of individuals—say four young men walking ability, amount of interaction among members,
down the street—might be perceived to be four importance to members, and so on. These analyses,
unrelated individuals, but the observer may also as they expected, yielded four natural groupings
conclude the individuals are a group. Entitativity, that were very similar to the four categories listed
then, is the “groupiness” of a group, perceived in Figure 1.1 (which they labeled intimacy groups,
rather than actual group unity or cohesion. task groups, loose associations, and social catego-
ries). Primary groups, such as professional sports
Entitativity, according to Campbell, is substantially teams, families, and close friends, received the high-
influenced by similarity, proximity, and common fate, est entitativity ratings, followed by social groups
as well as such perceptual cues as pragnanz (good form) (e.g., a jury, an airline crew, a team in the work-
and permeability. Say, for example, you are walking place), categories (e.g., women, doctors, classical
through a library and see a table occupied by four music listeners), and collectives (e.g., people waiting
women. Is this a group—four friends or classmates for a bus, a queue in a bank). These findings suggest
studying together—or just four independent indivi- that people are more likely to consider aggregations
duals? Campbell predicts that you would, intuitively, marked by strong bonds and frequent interactions
notice if the four have certain physical features in com- among members to be groups, but that they are less
mon, such as age, skin color, or clothing. You would certain that such aggregations as crowds, waiting
also take note of the books they were reading, for if lines, or categories qualify as groups (Lickel et al.,
they were studying the same subject, you would 2000, Study 3). They also suggest that social
assume they share a common goal—and hence are categories—which include vast numbers of people
more likely to be a true group (Brewer, Hong, & Li, whose only qualification for membership in the cat-
egory may be a demographic quality, such as sex or
entitativity The apparent cohesiveness or unity of an nationality—were viewed as more group-like than
assemblage of individuals; the quality of being a single such temporary gatherings as waiting lines and audi-
entity rather than a set of independent, unrelated indivi- ences and, in some cases, task-focused groups
duals (coined in Campbell, 1958a). (Spencer-Rogers, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2007).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 17
When Does a Group Look Like a Group?
The sociologist W. I. Thomas stated that “if men define when researchers repeatedly told women working in
situations as real, they are real in their consequences” isolation that they were nonetheless members of a
(Thomas & Thomas, 1928, p. 572); this statement is group, the women accepted this label and later rated
now known as the Thomas Theorem. Applied to themselves more negatively after the group failed—even
groups, this theorem predicts that if people define though the group existed only in their perceptions (Zan-
groups as real, they are real in their consequences. der, Stotland, & Wolfe, 1960). Even children as young as
Once people think an aggregate of people is a true 5 years of age know they can count on others in their
group—one with entitativity, as Donald Campbell group to help them and share with them: but only if the
(1958a) suggested—then the group will have impor- group is high in entitativity (Plötner et al., 2016).
tant interpersonal consequences for those in the group
and those who are observing it. Entitativity also influences those who are not in
group, often biasing their judgments, attitudes, and
This shift in thinking—construing a group to be a intergroup actions. As entitativity increases, perceivers
true group rather than many individuals—triggers a are more like to perceive the group members in stereo-
series of psychological and interpersonal changes for typical ways, since they expect that the group members
both members and nonmembers. As entitativity increases are essentially interchangeable: they are thought to be
members identify more with the group and its goals, they all the same (Rydell et al., 2007). A sense of essentialism
value their membership more, and they feel more may also permeate perceivers’ beliefs about groups that
bonded to the group (Castano, Yzerbyt, & Bourguignon, are high in entitativity. They may assume such groups
2003; Jans, Postmes, & Van der Zee, 2011). When mem- have deep, relatively unchanging essential qualities
bers feel they are part of a high-entitativity group, they that give rise to their more surface-level characteristics
are more likely to think that they fit well within the (Yzerbyt & Demoulin, 2010). In consequence, even
group, they believe that they are similar to other group though entitativity is difficult to pronounce, its influence
members in terms of values and beliefs, and they are on people is not to be underestimated. Thinking a group
more willing to accept the consequences of group-level is real makes the group real in the eyes of those who are
outcomes as their own (Mullen, 1991). For example, in it and outside of it.
1-2 WHAT ARE GROUP accounting of the expedition and its outcomes must
also recognize that the individual climbers were
DYNAMICS? members of a group, and that the interpersonal pro-
cesses that unfolded in that group significantly influ-
Why did the Adventure Expedition end tragically? enced the thoughts, emotions, and actions of each
The answer lies, in part, in the motivations, actions, one of the group’s members.
and intentions of the individual members of the
expedition: Hall’s decision to continue climbing late 1-2a Dynamic Group Processes
into the afternoon, client Doug Hansen’s intense
desire to reach the summit, client Jon Krakauer’s The word dynamic comes from the Greek dynami-
superb mountaineering skills, and guide Andy Harris’s kós, which means to be strong, powerful, and ener-
mental confusion in the high altitude. But a full getic. Dynamic implies the influence of forces that
Thomas theorem The theoretical premise, put forward essentialism The belief that all things, including individuals
by W. I. Thomas, which maintains that people’s conception and groups, have a basic nature that makes them what they
are and distinguishes them from other things; a thing’s
of a social situation, even if incorrect, will determine their essence is usually inferred rather than directly observed and
reactions in the situation; “If men define situations as real, is generally assumed to be relatively unchanging.
they are real in their consequences” (Thomas & Thomas,
1928, p. 572).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
18 C H A P T E R 1
combine, sometimes smoothly but sometimes in of their team. As reliable alliances took root, the
opposition, to create continual motion and change. group achieved a rudimentary level of cohesion.
Group dynamics, then, are the influential inter-
personal processes that occur in and between Chapters 3–5 examine the personal and interper-
groups over time. These processes not only deter- sonal processes that turned these strangers into a true
mine how members relate to and engage with one group. Chapter 3, Inclusion and Identity, suggests that
another, but they also determine the group’s inher- groups satisfy a very basic human need—the need to
ent nature and trajectory: the actions the group takes, belong—and the consequences of shifting from an
how it responds to its environment, and what it individualistic, self-focused orientation to a group-
achieves. For example, groups tend to become more level perspective. Chapter 4, Formation, explores the
cohesive over time. Larger groups often break down personal and situational forces that prompt people to
into smaller subgroups. In most groups, one person is join groups or remain apart from them, as well as the
allowed to exert more influence over the other mem- part interpersonal attraction plays in creating stable rela-
bers. Even in the most temperate of group climates, tionships among group members. Chapter 5, Cohesion
disagreements can lead to prolonged conflicts. Why? and Development, reviews theory and research exam-
Because these processes occur with predictable regu- ining one of the most central concepts in the field of
larity in groups. group dynamics, cohesion, the many factors that
increase the unity of a group, and the way those factors
These processes are reviewed here, but only wax and wane as the group changes over time.
briefly: for the rest of this book is devoted to the anal-
ysis of the dynamic processes that create groups, sustain Influence Processes No group would exist for
them over time, and ultimately, determine their fate. very long if the members refuse to coordinate
their actions with the actions of others in group.
Formative Processes In April 1996, the mem- Once Krakauer, Weathers, and the other climbers
bers of the Adventure Expedition group assembled agreed to join the Adventure Expedition, they were
in the village of Lukla, at the foot of Mt. Everest, to no longer entirely in control of their actions and
prepare to climb the world’s tallest mountain. The outcomes. Members of groups, to get along with
climbers exchanged some pleasantries over the one another, must often go along: They must find
evening meal, but were reluctant to discuss their their place in the group, comply with the group’s
personal views and values with people they knew standards, accept guidance from the group’s leaders,
so little about. As Krakauer (1998, p. 37) recounts, and learn how to best influence one another.
“I wasn’t sure what to make of my fellow clients,”
and concluded: “they seemed like nice, decent A host of group processes operate to transform
folks.” But this period of reserve did not last long. individuals, with their own personal motives, incli-
As their initial inhibitions subsided, the climbers nations, and preferences, into a socially coordinated,
began exchanging information about themselves smooth-functioning collective. Chapter 6, Struc-
and their goals. Recognizing they needed the ture, argues that in even the most rudimentary of
group to survive the climb, they appraised one groups structural processes organize the group’s
another’s experience, strengths, and weaknesses. procedures, interaction patterns, and intermember
Once at basecamp, they spent nearly all their time relations. Members take on specific roles within
with their own group, and actively excluded from the group that generate regularities in their actions,
the circle of compatriots those who were not part and they accept and conform to the group’s norms
that define what the group expects of them. Dis-
group dynamics Interpersonal processes that occur tinctive networks of communication and influence
within and between groups; also, the scientific study of often develop in groups, as some members of the
those processes. group enjoy strong, positive interpersonal ties with
others in the group but others’ capacity to influence
others atrophies.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 19
A group is a complex social system—a micro- Conflict Processes Conflict is omnipresent in and
cosm of powerful interpersonal forces that significantly between groups. When conflict occurs in a group, the
shape members’ actions—and Chapters 7, 8, and 9 actions or beliefs of one or more members of the group
examine the flow of information, influence, and are unacceptable to and resisted by one or more of the
interaction in that microcosm. Chapter 7, Influence, other members. These tensions tend to undermine the
looks at the way group members sometimes change cohesiveness of the group and cause specific relation-
their opinions, judgments, or actions so that they ships within the group to weaken or break altogether.
match the opinions, judgments, or actions of the Many group and individual processes conspire to
rest of the group (conformity). Chapter 8, Power, create conflict in a group, but as Chapter 13, Conflict,
extends this topic by considering how group members explains, the most common sources are competition,
make use of social power to influence others and how disagreements over the distribution of resources, power
people respond to such influence. Individuals in the struggles, uncertainty and disagreement over a deci-
group who are more influential than others are often sion, and personal antipathies. Some conflicts turn
recognized as the group’s leaders, and Chapter 9, member against members, but others turn group
Leadership, examines the processes that determine against group. Intergroup relations, the subject of
who emerges as a group’s leader and their effective- Chapter 14, can be harmonious and cooperative, but
ness when in that position. in many cases they are rife with tension and conflict.
Performance Processes The climbers equipped Contextual Processes An analysis of the Adven-
themselves with ropes, tents, snow axes, and all man- ture Expedition group would not be complete if it
ner of cold-weather gear as they prepared for their failed to take into account the group’s location: one
arduous ascent of Mt. Everest. But, even more critical of the coldest, most remote, and dangerous places on
than their equipment was their personnel, for no one Earth.
has succeeded in climbing Mt. Everest alone. It is a
task so daunting, so complex, and so dangerous that it All groups are embedded in a social and envi-
required the combined skills and energy of a group. ronmental context, and Chapter 15, Groups in
Context, considers how the physical environment
Groups get things done. Across the gamut of affects a group’s dynamics. Chapter 16, Growth and
human experience, we find example after example Change, reviews the use of groups to promote
of interdependent individuals pooling their personal adjustment, human development, and therapeutic
efforts to reach specifiable goals. Chapter 10, Per- change, including helping, supportive, and
formance, examines the processes that facilitate and change-promoting groups. Chapter 17, Collectives,
inhibit people’s performance in groups and con- concludes this analysis by examining processes that
cludes that groups outperform individuals when influence people when they are part of larger, more
interpersonal processes boost members’ motivation. diffuse, but nonetheless very influential groups,
Chapter 11, Teams, continues the analysis of group such as mobs, crowds, and social movements.
performance by examining the unique features
of groups whose members are highly interdepen- 1-2b Process and Progress over Time
dent, task-focused, and productive. The Adventure
Expedition functioned as a team in most respects. The members of cliques, teams, crews, families,
Unfortunately, when the group members encoun- gangs, peer groups, military squads, professional asso-
tered obstacles during the summit to the top of ciations, clubs, congregations, and the like are linked
Mt. Everest, they made the wrong decision: they to one another by social relationships, but these rela-
continued to climb, when caution warranted retreat- tionships are rarely static. The dynamic processes that
ing back down the mountain. The processes that occur in groups and summarized in Table 1.1—
guide groups’ choices and decisions are examined in emerging patterns of likes and dislikes among the
Chapter 12, Decision Making. members, shifts in influence and power as members
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
20 C H A P T E R 1
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)
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 21
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?
vie for social status, pressures put on individual mem- its goals. These conflicts subside when the group
bers to adhere to the group’s standards, the eruption becomes more structured and standards emerge in
of conflict and discord as members find that others the structure (norming) phase. In the performance
do not share their beliefs or interests—continually (performing) phase, the group moves beyond dis-
change the group and the relationships among mem- agreement and organizational matters to concentrate
bers that the group sustains. on the work to be done. The group continues to
function at this stage until it reaches the dissolution
But nearly every theorist who has ever wondered (adjourning) stage. As Chapter 5 explains in more
about some aspect of groups and their dynamics has detail, groups also tend to cycle repeatedly through
also speculated about regularities in the way groups some of these stages as the members strive to maintain
change over time. In most groups, the same sorts of a balance between task-oriented actions and emotion-
issues arise over time, and once resolved new processes ally expressive behaviors (Bales, 1965).
are initiated that further change the nature of the
group and its members. Educational psychologist 1-3 WHY STUDY GROUPS?
Bruce Tuckman, for example, identified five process
stages in his theory of group development (see If you were limited to a single word, how would
Figure 1.5; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, you describe the activities, processes, operations,
1977). In the orientation (forming) phase, the group and changes that transpire in social groups? What
members become oriented toward one another. In word illuminates the interdependence of people
the conflict (storming) phase, conflicts surface in the
group as members vie for status and the group sets
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
22 C H A P T E R 1
Orientation (forming)
Exchange of background personal
information, uncertainty, tentative
communication
Conflict (storming)
Dissatisfaction, disagreement,
challenges to leader and procedures,
cliques form
Structure (norming)
Cohesiveness, agreement on
procedures, standards, and roles,
improved communication
Performance (performing) F I G U R E 1.6 The face-vase-group ambiguous fig-
Focus on the work of the group, task ure. Most people, when asked to describe this image,
report two interpretations—either a vase, or two faces—
completion, decision making, but few mention the third interpretation of this ambig-
cooperation uous image: a group with two members conversing.
Dissolution (adjourning) advancing knowledge about the nature of groups,
Departures, withdrawal, the laws of their development, and their interrela-
decreased dependence, regret tions with individuals, other groups, and larger
institutions” (1968, p. 7).
F I G U R E 1.5 Stages of group development. Tuck-
man’s theory of group development suggests that groups But let’s return to the question asked at the
typically pass through five stages during their develop- beginning of the chapter: Why study groups? Why
ment: orientation (forming), conflict (storming), structure investigate the nature of groups and their dynamics
(norming), performance (performing), and dissolution when one can investigate brain structures, rocks, cul-
(adjourning). tures, biological diseases, organizations, ancient civi-
lizations, or even other planets? In the grand scheme
in groups? And what word adequately summarizes a of things, how important is it to investigate groups?
group’s capacity to promote social interaction, create
patterned interrelationships among its members, and 1-3a Understanding People
bind members together to form a single unit?
Groups may be everywhere, doing just about
Kurt Lewin (1951), recognized by many as the everything, but they stand outside the limelight
founder of the field, chose the word dynamic. that shines on most people’s explanation of what
Groups tend to be powerful rather than weak, makes the world go around. Consider, for example,
active rather than passive, and fluid rather than the well-known face–vase visual illusion. This
static. Lewin also used the term group dynamics to image can be construed as either a vase or the
describe the scientific discipline devoted to the faces of two individuals looking at each other (see
study of these dynamics. Later, psychologists Dor- Figure 1.6). Illustrating the figure–ground gestalt
win Cartwright and Alvin Zander supplied a formal
definition, calling it a “field of inquiry dedicated to
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 23
principle of perception, when people report seeing (1898) verified what is too often forgotten—that
a vase, the image of the vase becomes the figure, people behave differently when they are part of a
and the individuals become the ground. Con- group rather than alone—and this group effect has
versely, when people report seeing two individuals been documented time and again in studies of
looking at each other, the faces become figure and motivation, emotion, and performance. (Many
the vase retreats into the background. But the have suggested that Triplett’s study marks the
image hides yet a third image—a two-person start of the scientific investigation of interpersonal
group—but the group is rarely noticed. processes, but in all likelihood the field’s roots
reach even further back in time; see Stroebe,
Because people, when they encounter a group 2012.) As Cooley (1909) explained, people acquire
of some type, tend to see only the individuals in their attitudes, values, identities, skills, and princi-
these groups and not the groups themselves, they ples in groups. As children grow older, their peers
resist explanations that highlight group-level influ- replace the family as the source of social values
ences. Even though people speak of such concepts (Harris, 1995), and when they become adults,
as teamwork, leadership, and cohesion, they tend their actions and outlooks are then shaped by an
to translate these group-level processes into indi- even larger network of interconnected groups
vidualistic ones. Why was Adventure Expedition (Barabási, 2003).
cohesive? Because the individual members were
very focused on achieving a goal they valued. But groups also change people in ways that are
Why did Hall push the group beyond its limits? not subtle at all. The earliest investigations of
Because he was a driven, high achiever. Why did groups described the abrupt changes in people’s
Jon Krakauer live? Because he was highly skilled. behavior when immersed in crowds, and many
The well-documented fundamental attribution concluded that the person who is a member of a
error (FAE) occurs because perceivers are more group is very different, psychologically, than the
likely to attribute a person’s actions to personal, person who is all alone (Baumeister, Ainsworth, &
individual qualities rather than external, situational Vohs, 2016). People, when in groups, conform to
forces—including groups (Ross, 1977). Perceivers group pressures, and as a result engage in all sorts of
are also often surprised when the same individual behaviors that they would never do had they been
acts very differently when he or she changes isolated from the group’s influence. And although
groups, for they feel that personal, individualistic in many cases the group’s influence is short-lived
qualities are the primary causes of behavior, and and ends when the person leaves the group, people
that group-level processes should play only a who join religious or political groups that stress
minor role in determining one’s outcomes. Early secrecy, obedience to leaders, and dogmatic accep-
researchers were not certain that studying groups tance of unusual or atypical beliefs (cults) often
would yield scientific insights beyond those gener- undergo fundamental and relatively permanent
ated by studies of the individuals who were mem- changes in their beliefs and behaviors.
bers of the groups (Allport, 1924).
Theories about groups have also proven to
Group researchers, however, are convinced be particularly resilient, scientifically speaking,
that if one wishes to understand individuals, one when put to an empirical test. In the last 100
must understand groups. In one of the earliest years, researchers have conducted more than
experimental studies in the field, Norman Triplett 25,000 studies involving over 8 million partici-
pants. A review of these studies suggests that
fundamental attribution error The tendency to over- much can be learned by studying people’s atti-
estimate the causal influence of dispositional factors while tudes, cognitions, personalities, and relationships,
underemphasizing the causal influence of situational but one area of study surpassed all others in
factors. terms of providing an explanation for human
social behavior. Leading the way, across all 18
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
24 C H A P T E R 1
Is Living in Groups a Cultural Universal?
Without exception, humans in all societies join with ■ Masculinity (MAS) refers to the extent to which
other humans to form groups, but because each masculinity and its associated elements—
society is unique in its traditions, culture, and competition, assertiveness, machismo—are
ecology, the groups within any given culture may manifested in the culture’s practices, including
display unique interpersonal processes. The groups role expectations associated with men and
of the Ghorbat of Central Asia and the Balkans are women.
highly egalitarian with no permanent leadership
roles and no hereditary positions of authority. The ■ Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) describes the
Kpelle of Liberia, before Westernization, formed extent to which the culture’s practices minimize
secret societies within their villages based on uncertainty and ambiguity, generally by develop-
animal magic, and members reaffirm their bonds by ing extensive social and legal guidelines, empha-
performing certain sacred rituals. The Hubeer and sizing security, and adopting religious or
the Rahanweyn of Somali cited kinship ties as the philosophical beliefs that define how one should
basis of their groups, yet many of the groups behave.
included “adopted” individuals who were unrelated
to anyone in the group (Human Area Relations These dimensions of variation leave their mark on
Files, 2012). the group dynamics that occur within cultures. For
example, in cultures with high levels of power distance
Social and organizational psychologist Geert (e.g., Russia, Panama, Malaysia) rather than low levels
Hofstede’s theory of national cultures offers one way (e.g., Austria, New Zealand, Israel), people prefer a
of identifying similarities and differences in values group’s leader to be directive rather than participative,
and cultural norms. In the late 1960s, Hofstede, and they are less interested in seeking feedback about
working with a large international corporation their impact on others in the group. They are more
(IBM), collected data about the beliefs, outlooks, and likely to trust others in the group but do not express
perspectives of employees in countries located all that trust openly since they are more guarded in dis-
over the world. He then used these data to describe playing their emotions. The degree of individualism,
the culture-specific beliefs, traditions, practices, and too, has marked effects on group processes. Most
philosophies shared by members of a group or Western, industrialized cultures are individualistic—
region; what Hofstede calls “the collective program- the United States, Australia, and Great Britain have the
ming of the mind” (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, highest scores on Hofstede’s individualism dimension—
2010). His analyses identified a number of key whereas Eastern countries and those with more
dimensions that underlie variations in cultural out- agrarian rather than manufacturing economies tend to
looks, including: be more communal (e.g., Columbia, Pakistan, Thai-
land). Chapter 3 considers the impact of these cultural
■ The Power Distance Index (PDI) is an indicator differences on a number of group processes, for
of inequality within a given culture, across individualism is associated with self-promotion, con-
individuals, groups, and classes. When PDI is frontation, and independence, whereas collectivism
low, cultures strive to minimize inequalities in increases accommodation, compromising, the degree
the distribution of power within society, but of identification with groups and organizations,
when PDI is high, both those with and without and a preference to work in teams (Taras, Kirkman, &
power accept hierarchy as the natural order of Steel, 2010).
things.
These differences in group processes across cul-
■ Individualism (IDV) contrasts group-centered and tures should not be altogether unexpected. Humans in
more individualistic cultures. In more individualis- all societies join with other humans to form groups, but
tic cultures, ties between people are looser, for the groups within any given culture may display unique
each person focuses on his or her own needs (or interpersonal processes, as may the individuals within
those of their immediate family). In collective those groups and cultures. In consequence, even when
cultures, people are integrated into cohesive a finding is obtained in one particular country, it is best
groups that support them in exchange for their to exercise caution before generalizing those findings
loyalty. to other people, places, and situations.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 25
topics examined in the review, was the scientific are often used by those in mental health fields to
study of groups and their dynamics (Richard, help individuals find the motivation to change
Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003). their thoughts and behaviors.
1-3b Understanding the Social World This pragmatic orientation gives the field of
group dynamics an interdisciplinary character.
The study of groups and their dynamics is not only Although the listing of disciplines that study group
essential for understanding people, but also for dynamics in Table 1.2 is far from comprehensive, it
understanding organizations, communities, and does convey the idea that the study of groups is not
society itself. Groups are the interpersonal micro- limited to any one field. As A. Paul Hare and his
structures that link individuals to society. Societies colleagues once noted, “This field of research does
of all types, from the tribes of hunter/gatherers to not ‘belong’ to any one of the recognized social
postindustrial societies, are defined by the small sciences alone. It is the common property of all”
groups that create them. Just as characteristics of (Hare, Borgatta, & Bales, 1955, p. vi).
the specific individuals who belong to a group
shape that group’s basic nature, so the groups within 1-4 THE VALUE OF GROUPS
a social system determine that society’s culture and
institutions. Legal and political systems, religious In 1996, the Adventure Expedition climbed to the
institutions, and educational and economic systems top of the world’s tallest mountain. The group did
are based, at core, on small groups and subgroups not survive that climb, however, for the one that set
of connected individuals. As sociologist Gary Alan off for the summit at midnight on April 10 never
Fine (2012) writes, “the group, a level between self returned. Some of the individual members man-
and society, should properly have a central place in aged to descend from the peak but the original
sociological theorizing. … it creates allegiance; group itself was gone.
members know each other, come to create a culture
and shared history, and can use the group as a basis of For centuries, philosophers and scholars have
connection to the larger society” (p. 32). debated the value of groups. Groups are often the
arena for profound interpersonal conflicts that end in
1-3c Applications to Practical violence and aggression. Even though group mem-
bers may cooperate with one another, they may also
Problems engage in competition as they strive to outdo one
another. When individuals are members of very large
These days, anyone who wants to get something groups, such as crowds, they sometimes do things
accomplished should probably understand groups that they would never do if they were acting indi-
and their dynamics. Groups are now the makers, vidually. Many of the worst decisions ever made in
the builders, and producers of nearly everything the history of the world were made not by lone,
the world needs and consumes. Groups, too, are misguided individuals but by groups of people
the world’s deciders. Who judges guilt and inno- who, despite working together, still managed to
cence? Juries. Who will decide how to maximize make a disastrous choice. The Adventure Expedition
an organization’s financial success? The company’s provides a case in point, for this group failed to take
executive team. Who will plan and execute a mil- advantage of the expertise and skill of its members.
itary operation: elite forces such as the U.S. Navy Given these problems, perhaps “humans would do
SEa, Air and Land teams (SEALs). Even medical better without groups” (Buys, 1978a, p. 123).
doctors, who once worked alone in their practice,
now more often than not are part of a medical This satirical suggestion—Eliminate All
team whose members each perform functions Groups!—is a reminder that groups are neither
vital to the health of the patient. Groups, too, all good nor all bad. Groups can and do result
in challenges, hardships, and even disaster for
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
26 C H A P T E R 1
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
their members and for society. Yet, they are so Even though we must sometimes bend to the will
“beneficial, if not essential, to humans” that “it of a group and its leaders, through groups we can
seems nonsensical to search for alternatives to reach goals that would elude us if we attempted
human groups” (Buys, 1978b, p. 568). Through them as individuals. Our groups are sometimes
membership in groups, we define and confirm filled with conflict, but by resolving this conflict,
our values and beliefs and take on or refine our we learn how to relate with others more effec-
social identity. When we face uncertain situations, tively. Groups are the bedrock of humans’ social
we join groups to gain reassuring information existence, and we must accept the charge of
about our problems and security in companionship. understanding them.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 27
CHAPTER REVIEW
What are groups? What distinguishes one group from another?
1. No two groups are identical to each other, but 1. Composition: Each person who belongs to a
a group, by definition, is two or more indivi- group defines, in part, the nature of the group.
duals who are connected by and within social
relationships. 2. Boundaries: Groups’ boundaries define who is
a member and who is not, although open
■ Groups vary in size from dyads and triads groups and social networks are more permeable
to very large aggregations, such as mobs than closed groups.
and audiences. The most commonly found
groups include only two or three members 3. Size: The number of possible relations in a
(James, 1951). group increases exponentially as groups
increase in size. The social brain hypothesis
■ The relations that connect members vary suggests humans’ advanced cognitive capacity
in type, strength, and duration; some are evolved to meet the informational demands of
more psychological than interpersonal. living in large groups (Dunbar, 2008)
2. Definitions of groups vary, with some focus- 4. Interaction: Bales’ (1950) Interaction Process
ing on such qualities as communication, Analysis (IPA) system distinguishes between
influence, interdependence, shared identity, task interaction and relationship interaction.
and so on.
5. Interdependence: Groups create various types of
What are the four basic types of groups? dependencies among members (e.g., unilateral,
reciprocal).
1. A number of different types of groups have
been identified. 6. Structure: Group interaction is patterned by
group structure, including roles, norms, and
■ Primary groups are relatively small, person- interpersonal relations.
ally meaningful groups that are highly
unified. Cooley (1909) suggested such 7. Goals: Groups seek a variety of goals, such as
groups are primary agents of socialization. those specified by McGrath (1984): generating,
choosing, negotiating, and executing.
■ Members of social groups, such as work
groups, clubs, and congregations, interact 8. Origin: Planned groups (concocted and
with one another over an extended period founded) are deliberately formed, but emergent
of time. Such groups are a key source of groups (circumstantial and self-organizing)
members’ social capital (Putnam, 2000). come into existence gradually over time
(Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000).
■ Collectives are relatively large aggregations
or groups of individuals who display 9. Unity: Group cohesion, or cohesiveness, is the
similarities in actions and outlook. unity of a group.
■ Members of a social category share some 10. Entitativity: The perception of entitativity
common attribute or are related in some (groupness), according to Campbell (1958a),
way. is substantially influenced by common fate,
similarity, and proximity cues within an
2. Social categories, even though based on aggregation.
similarity rather than interaction, often influ-
ence members’ social identity (Tajfel, 1974) and ■ Research conducted by Lickel and his
perceivers’ stereotypes. colleagues (2000) suggests that people
spontaneously draw distinctions among
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
28 C H A P T E R 1
primary groups, social groups, collectives, Why study groups and their dynamics?
and more general social categories.
1. Lewin (1951) first used the phrase group
■ The Thomas Theorem, applied to groups, dynamics to describe the powerful processes
suggests that if individuals think an aggre- that take place in groups, but group dynamics
gate is “real”—a true group—then the also refers to the scientific study of groups
group will have important interpersonal (Cartwright & Zander, 1968).
consequences for those in the group and
for those who are observing it (Thomas & 2. Individuals are commonly members of groups
Thomas, 1928). rather than isolated from them, so to under-
stand people one must understand groups.
■ Groups that are high in entitativity are
assumed to have a basic essence that defines ■ Due to the fundamental attribution error, the
the nature of their members (essentialism). influence of groups on individuals is often
underestimated, particularly by individuals
What are group dynamics? raised in more individualistic, Western
cultures.
1. Group dynamics are the interpersonal processes
that occur in and between groups over time, ■ Groups alter their members’ attitudes,
including the following: values, and perceptions. Triplett’s (1898)
study of group performance demonstrated
■ Formative processes, such as the need to the impact of one person on another, but
belong to and affiliate in groups, contex- some groups (primary groups, cults, etc.)
tual factors that promote the formation of influence members in substantial and
groups, and the development of group enduring ways.
cohesion (Chapters 3–5)
■ A review of 25,000 studies indicated that
■ Influence processes, including aspects of hypotheses about groups yielded clearer
group structure (norms, roles, relation- findings than studies of other social
ships), conformity and dissent, social psychological topics.
power, obedience to group authority, and
leadership (Chapters 6–9) 3. Groups influence society.
■ Performance processes, such as group ■ Groups mediate the connection between
productivity, social motivation, working in individuals and society at large (Fine, 2012).
teams, and collaborative decision making
(Chapters 10–12) ■ Hofstede’s theory of national cultures
identifies the key dimensions of variation
■ Conflict processes within groups— that influence groups and their members,
intragroup conflict—and between including power distance, individualism,
groups—intergroup conflict (Chapters 13 masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance
and 14) (Hofstede et al., 2010).
■ Contextual processes that are dependent on 4. Applied studies of groups and their dynamics
the group’s physical setting and specific pur- yield solutions to a number of practical pro-
pose, including change-promoting groups blems making the study of groups relevant to
and large collectives (Chapters 15–17) many professional and scientific fields of study
(Hare et al., 1955).
2. Tuckman’s (1965) theory of group develop-
ment assumes that over time most groups 5. Despite the many problems caused by groups
move through five stages: forming, storming, (competition, conflict, poor decisions), humans
norming, performing, and adjourning could not survive without groups.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 29
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: The Adventure Consultants Guided perceptual processes that determine when
Expedition a group will be considered to be a true
group or just a gathering of unrelated
■ Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer (1997) is an individuals.
engagingly written description of the group
that attempted to climb Mt. Everest in 1996 ■ Small Groups as Complex Systems by Holly
(see, too, Boukreev & DeWalt, 1997). Arrow, Joseph E. McGrath, and Jennifer L.
Berdahl (2000) uses systems theory to
Introduction to Groups examine the formation, performance, and
dissolution of small, performance-focused
■ Encyclopedia of Group Processes & Intergroup groups.
Relations, edited by John M. Levine and
Michael A. Hogg (2010), is a two-volume, Contemporary Group Dynamics
998-page compendium of current knowl-
edge about groups and their relations, with ■ “Prospects for Group Processes and
over 300 entries ranging from action research Intergroup Relations Research: A Review
to xenophobia. of 70 Years’ Progress” by Georginia
Randsley de Moura, Tirza Leader, Joseph
■ Group Processes, edited by John Levine (2013), Pelletier, and Dominic Abrams (2008)
includes chapters on all the key topics and documents the growing interest in group-
processes in the field of group dynamics, level analyses of interpersonal behavior
including group composition, affective across a range of disciplines.
processes, conflict and negotiation, influence,
performance, and decision-making. ■ Tiny Publics: A Theory of Group Action and
Culture by Gary Alan Fine (2012) provides
Groups: Characteristics and Processes a compelling argument for recognizing
the fundamental impact that groups and
■ “Elements of a Lay Theory of Groups” by group processes have on individuals,
Brian Lickel, David L. Hamilton, and organizations, communities, and cultures.
Steven J. Sherman (2001) reviews the
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 500
- 501 - 550
- 551 - 600
- 601 - 650
- 651 - 700
- 701 - 723
Pages: