Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc

80 C H A P T E R 3

Are You an Individualist or a Collectivist?

Individualism and collectivism are not only cultural and group-level orientations, but also qualities of individuals.
Those who are more individualistic stress their autonomy and uniqueness, whereas those who are collectivistic
are more other-oriented.

Instructions. To assess your own orientation, put a checkmark in front of each item you agree with in these
two lists.

q Independence: “I tend to do my own thing, and q Relating: “To understand who I am, you must see
others in my family do the same.” me with members of my group.”

q Goals: “I take great pride in accomplishing what q Belonging: “To me, pleasure is spending time
no one else can accomplish.” with others.”

q Competition: “It is important to me that I perform q Duty: “I would help, within my means, if a rela-
better than others on a task.” tive were in financial difficulty.”

q Uniqueness: “I am unique—different from others q Harmony: “I try to avoid disagreements with my
in many respects.” group members.”

q Privacy: “I like my privacy.” q Advice: “Before making a decision, I always con-
sult with others.”
q Self-knowledge: “I know my weaknesses and
strengths.” q Hierarchy: “I have respect for the authority fig-
ures with whom I interact.”
q Communication style: “I always state my opinions
very clearly.” q Context: “How I behave depends on who I am
with, where I am, or both.”

Scoring. Count up the checkmarks in the two sides: If you checked more of the items on the left side you
endorse more individualistic qualities, if more on the right side you are more collectivistic in your interpersonal
orientation (adapted from Oyserman et al., 2002; Triandis et al., 1985).

groups, and memberships in larger social categories, qualities that derive from connections with and simi-
based on ethnicity, age, religion, or some other larity to other people and groups. The personal iden-
widely shared characteristic (Brewer & Chen, 2007; tity is the me of the self, and the social identity is the
Nario-Redmond et al., 2004). we (Rhee et al., 1995).

The self, then, is based both on personal qualities Individualists and Collectivists Selves tend to be
and interpersonal qualities. The personal identity dualistic with both a personal and social side, but some
encompasses all those unique qualities, traits, beliefs, people stress their personal, individualistic qualities,
skills, and so on that differentiate one person from and others their social, collectivistic qualities. Those
another. The social identity includes all those who lean toward individualism—variously called
individualists, independents, or idiocentrics—speak
personal identity An individual’s perception of those of their independence, their personal goals, and their
aspects of his or her self-concept that derive from indi-
vidualistic, personal qualities such as traits, beliefs, and individualists (or independents or idiocentrics)
skills. Individuals predisposed to put their own personal inter-
social identity (or collective self) An individual’s per- ests and motivations above the group’s interests and
ception of those aspects of his or her self-concept that goals.
derive from his or her relationships with other people,
groups, and society.

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 81

Who Most Favors Their Group?

One of the ironies of collectivism is apparent when view boundaries between one group and another to
individualists and collectivists encounter a member of be relatively impermeable. Individualists are less likely
another group. Collectivists may be benevolent, trust- to restrict their relationships to the ingroup, and they
ing, and caring, but this goodwill is reserved for the are more trusting of strangers than are collectivists.
ingroup. When individualists think about group mem- Collectivists spend more time in ingroup interactions,
bership, they consider it to consist of relatively loose and they are not as trusting of people who are not
associations that are selected by members and not the members of their groups. Collectivists divide the world
groups themselves. Collectivists, in contrast, define up into “us” and “we”—the ingroup—versus “them”
belonging as “belonging securely,” and they tend to and “they”—the outgroup (Triandis, 2009).

uniqueness. Collectivists—also called interdepen- with other people, and their satisfaction with their
dents or allocentrics—stress their connections to work depends on the quality of their relationships
others (Triandis, 2009). with their coworkers. Individualists choose jobs that
are personally fulfilling and that offer them opportu-
These differences in individualism and collectiv- nities for advancement. Collectivists, compared to
ism influence the way individuals think, feel, and act in individualists, have a more favorable attitude toward
groups. When explaining why people act as they do, group-level rewards for collective work (for reviews,
individualists attribute behaviors to the internal, per- see Gelfand et al., 2004; Triandis & Gelfand, 2012).
sonal characteristics of the person, whereas collectivists Collectivists are more firmly rooted in their commu-
recognize that people’s actions are often determined by nities: they report having moved less frequently than
the social circumstance in which they find themselves. individualists (Oishi, Lun, & Sherman, 2007).
Collectivists think of personality differently than indi-
vidualists do—as a flexible set of tendencies that can Cultural Differences The view of people as
change when a person moves from one social situation independent, autonomous creatures may be pecu-
(e.g., the family) to another (e.g., the workplace). liar to Western society’s individualistic leanings.
Those who are more individualistic are emotionally When researchers measured the relative emphasis
detached from their groups; they put their own per- on the individual and the group in countries all
sonal goals above the goals of the group, and they find around the world, they found that the United
more enjoyment in personal success and competition. States, other English-speaking countries (e.g., Eng-
Collectivists are more respectful of other members of land and Australia), and Western European coun-
their groups, and they are more likely to be good cor- tries (e.g., Finland and Germany) tended to be
porate citizens who help coworkers rather than com- more individualistic than Asian, Eastern European,
pete with them (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). African, and Middle Eastern countries. Latin and
Individualists and collectivists do not differ in their ten- South American countries were more varied, with
dency to join groups, but collectivists value their mem- such countries as Puerto Rico and Chile exhibiting
berships in their groups more, consider these greater individualism than others (e.g., Hofstede,
relationships to be stable and long-lasting, and are less 1980; Oyserman et al., 2002).
willing to sever their memberships. Collectivists seek
jobs that will enhance the quality of their relationships The very idea of self may differ across cultures.
In Japan, a relatively collectivistic culture, the word
collectivists (or interdependents or allocentrics) for self, Jibun, means “one’s portion of the shared
Individuals predisposed to put the group’s interests and space” (Hamaguchi, 1985). To the Japanese, “the
goals above their personal interests and motivations. concept of a self completely independent from the
environment is very foreign,” as people are not

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

82 C H A P T E R 3

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

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 83

Groups offer the members a convenient means these questions: social identity theory. (For detailed
to meet all these needs. Peak may have restrained analyses of groups and identity, see Ashmore, Deaux,
Patrick’s individuality to some degree, but member- & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Ellemers & Haslam,
ship in this group was itself a distinguishing creden- 2012; Hogg & Abrams, 2003; Roccas et al., 2008.)
tial. When individuals join a small, distinctive group
like Peak, their feeling of uniqueness increases— 3-3a Social Identity Theory:
many of the newcomers mentioned that one of the
reasons they initially sought membership was because The Basics
they wanted to do something that set them apart
from the mainstream (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004, Social psychologists Henri Tajfel, John Turner, and
2016). Groups also provide many means for each their colleagues originally developed social identity
member to act in ways that are unique, for even theory in an attempt to understand the causes of
within a group as small as Peak members gravitated conflict between people who belonged to different
to specific role assignments, which they enacted in groups. They began their work by first creating the
ways that were distinctively their own. Peak also minimal intergroup situation: gatherings of two
included a variety of overlapping subgroups, so groups of volunteers with no history, no future
while all were members of the overall group, it together, and no real connection to one another.
was easy for members to feel a common bond They randomly assigned participants to one of two
with a few other members who remained set apart groups, but they told the participants that the division
to a degree from the rest of the group. Groups, then, was based on some irrelevant characteristic, such as art
offer something to both the collectivist and the indi- preference. Next, the participants were given surveys
vidualist, for they provide the means to maximize asking them to divide a certain amount of money
both a sense of uniqueness as well as satisfying the among the participants in the study. The names of
need to belong (Maslach, Stapp, & Santee, 1985). the individuals were not listed on the survey, but
the participant could tell which group a person
3-3 FROM PERSONAL belonged to by looking at his or her code number.

IDENTITY TO SOCIAL IDENTITY Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986) assumed that the
members of such rudimentary groups would not even
Before he joined Peak, Patrick probably answered notice which group they were in or who belonged to
the question “Who are you?” by listing his accom- some other group, but they were wrong. Even though
plishments, his personal qualities, and his goals. But participants did not know one another, they would
his answer changed after spending two years as an not be working together in the future, and their mem-
active member of the rescue squad. His need for bership in the so-called group had absolutely no per-
inclusion prompted him to seek membership in sonal or interpersonal implications, they still favored
Peak. The group taught him to put the collective’s the ingroup over the outgroup. How could these
needs before his own. In time he came to identify “purely cognitive” groups—groups that had no inter-
with Peak and its members. Now, if asked “Who personal meaning whatsoever—nonetheless influence
are you?” Patrick likely explained “I’m a member
of Peak Search and Rescue.” social identity theory A theoretical analysis of group
processes and intergroup relations that assumes groups
How does a group become a part of one’s social influence their members’ self-concepts and self-esteem,
identity? What impact does this acceptance of the particularly when individuals categorize themselves as
group into one’s identity have on one’s self- group members and identify with the group.
concept and self-esteem? In this final section, we minimal intergroup situation A research procedure
consider one compelling theoretical answer to used in studies of intergroup conflict that involves creat-
ing temporary groups of anonymous, unrelated people
(developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner).

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

84 C H A P T E R 3

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 85

Self Group SG SG SG

S G S GS G

F I G U R E 3.5 The inclusion of the group in the self. If asked to select the set of circles that best indicates the extent
to which the group (G) overlaps with the self (S), people who do not identify with their group select circles that don’t
overlap. Increasing identification is indicated by selecting circles where the self and the group overlap to a large degree.

SOURCE: From “Ingroup Identification as the Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self,” by Linda R. Tropp & Stephen C. Wright, 2001, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, pp. 585–600. Copyright 2001 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. Adapted with permission.

Group membership is a matter of collective group of five women or the only left-hander in a
self-construal—we, us, and them. class of otherwise all right-handers—may become
very aware that they are “men” or “lefties” (McGuire
As social identification increases, individuals & McGuire, 1988). People are also more likely to
come to think that their membership in the group is think of themselves collectively if they are part of a
personally significant. They feel connected and inter- group that others have labeled a group, even if the
dependent with other members, are glad they belong group members are minimally interdependent (Gaert-
to the group, feel good about the group, and experi- ner et al., 2006). But one of the most important situa-
ence strong attachment to the group. Their connection tional triggers of a collective self-categorization is the
to the group also becomes more affectively toned—a presence of other groups. For example, Patrick’s male
“hot” cognitive reaction rather than a “cold” recogni- identification may be muted when he is seated in a
tion of membership—as individuals incorporate the room with 9 other men, but his membership in the
group into their social identity, “together with the category man is activated when 10 women enter the
value and emotional significance attached to that mem- room (Hogg & Turner, 1987).
bership” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255). Their self-descriptions
also become increasingly depersonalized as they include Another group-level determinant of self-
fewer idiosyncratic elements and more characteristics categorization is the relative size of one’s group com-
that are common to the group. As indicated by pared to other groups. People in groups with fewer
Figure 3.5, the sense of self changes as the group is members, such as minority groups based on ethnic-
included in the self (Wright, Aron, & Tropp, 2002). ity, race, or religion, tend to categorize themselves as
members more quickly than do those people who
Self and Identity A person’s identification with a are members of the larger, dominant, majority
group can become so pronounced that across situations group. The experience of being in the minority
they think of themselves as group members first and apparently increases the salience of the social identity
individuals second. More typically, however, the self based on that membership, and so people are more
will shift from me to we if something in the situation likely to apply the stereotypical features of the
increases the salience of one’s membership. Individuals minority group to themselves. Researchers informed
who find that they are the only representative of a some participants that a survey they had just com-
particular group—for example, the only man in a pleted suggested that they were extraverted and that
only 20% of the general population is extraverted.
social identification Accepting the group as an exten- These individuals then gave themselves higher rat-
sion of the self and therefore basing one’s self-definition ings on such traits as sociable and lively than did people
on the group’s qualities and characteristics. who were told that 80% of the population is extra-
verted (Simon & Hamilton, 1994).

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

86 C H A P T E R 3

T A B L E 3.3 Items from the Collective Self-Esteem Inventory

Subscale Issue Example Item
Membership esteem
Am I a valuable or an ineffective member I am a worthy member of the social
of the groups to which I belong? groups I belong to.

Private collective Do I evaluate the groups I belong to posi- I feel good about the social groups I
self-esteem
tively or negatively? belong to.

Public collective Do other people evaluate the groups I In general, others respect the social
self-esteem belong to positively or negatively? groups that I am a member of.

Identity Are the groups I belong to an important or In general, belonging to social groups is

unimportant part of my identity? an important part of my self-image.

SOURCE: “A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One’s Social Identity” by R. Luhtanen and J. Crocker, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 1992.

3-3b Motivation and Social Identity girls are known to seek out membership in a particular
peer group, and these group memberships influence
Social identity theory provides key insights into a their identity and their self-esteem. One study identi-
host of psychological and interpersonal processes, fied four frequently reported groups, listed here in
including collectivism, perceptions of the outgroup, order of prestige: the elites, athletes, academics, and
presumptions of ingroup permeability, tolerance of deviants (Sussman et al., 2007). Those who are mem-
deviance within the group, increased satisfaction bers of the most prestigious groups generally report
with the group, and feelings of solidarity (Leach feeling very satisfied with themselves and their group.
et al., 2008). Later chapters will elaborate on the Those students who want to be a part of an “in crowd”
further implications of this theory, but we conclude but are not accepted by this clique are the most dissat-
this chapter by considering the role social identity isfied (Brown & Lohr, 1987), and this interpersonal
processes play in helping individuals protect and failure can lead to long-term negative effects (Barnett,
maintain their sense of self-worth. 2006; Wright & Forsyth, 1997).

Evaluating the Self Hogg (2005) suggests that at Social psychologist Jennifer Crocker and her
least two basic motives influence the way social colleagues examined the relationship between peo-
categorization and identification processes combine ple’s self-esteem and their feelings about the groups
to shape one’s sense of self. In general, individuals to which they belonged by developing a measure of
are motivated to think well of themselves, and, collective self-esteem. Instead of asking people if
since their groups comprise a significant portion of they felt good or bad about themselves, they asked
their selves, they maintain their self-worth by individuals to evaluate the groups to which they
thinking well of their groups. Second, Hogg sug- belonged. Drawing on prior work on social identity
gests that self-understanding is a core motive for and self-esteem, the researchers developed items that
most people and that groups offer people a means tapped four basic issues: membership esteem, private
of understanding themselves. collective self-esteem, public collective self-esteem,
and importance to identity (see Table 3.3). When
When individuals join groups, their self-concept they compared scores on the collective self-esteem
becomes connected to that group, and the value of
that group influences their feelings of personal worth. collective self-esteem Individuals’ overall assessment of
People who belong to prestigious groups tend to have that portion of their self-concept that is based on their
higher self-esteem than those who do not (Bran- relationships with others and membership in social
scombe, 1998). Sports fans’ moods swing up and groups.
down as their favorite team wins and loses (Crisp
et al., 2007; Hirt et al., 1992). Adolescent boys and

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 87

Can Social Identity Theory Explain Sports Fans?

Fan derives from a slightly longer word: fanatic. A support, a sense of belonging, and enhanced overall
fanatic is a person who engages in extreme, unrea- well-being.
sonable devotion to an idea, philosophy, or practice.
Similarly, the die-hard sports fan displays great But what if their team should lose? Casual fans can
devotion to a team, with emotions rising and falling just downplay the loss by switching their allegiance to
with the team’s accomplishments. Fans are not actu- some other team: cutting off reflected failure (CORFing)
ally members of the teams they support. They are (Snyder, Higgins, & Stucky, 1983). Dedicated fans,
only watching the games from the sidelines, and they whose homes are decorated with team insignia, who
are not directly involved in the outcome. Yet they wear the team’s colors, and who have based much of
often seem to be very closely connected psychologi- their sense of self on their loyalty to the team, cannot
cally to their teams. They are happy when their team CORF. Their team’s loss will be their loss (St. John, 2004).
wins, but after a loss, fans experience a range of But these die-hard fans can and do rely on a variety of
negative emotions: anger, depression, sadness, psychological and social tactics to ease the pain of the
hopelessness, and confusion (Wann & Craven, 2014). loss. They may blame their failure on external factors,
Moreover, the “agony of defeat” appears to be more such as field conditions or the referee. They may spend
psychologically profound than the “thrill of victory.” time talking about past successes, and convince one
Fans’ moods become somewhat positive after their another that better times lie ahead. The can take solace
team wins, but their mood plummets following fail- in their failure collectively, and mourn over their
ure (Hirt et al., 1992). group’s loss together. They may also take pride in other
aspects of their team, such as its sportsmanship or esprit
Social identity theory offers insight into this odd de corps (Wann, 2006). They may even vent their frus-
but exceedingly common group behavior (Mael & tration by acting violently, destroying property, and
Ashforth, 2001). Sports fans identify with their team attacking the supporters of other teams.
and so experience the team’s outcomes as their own.
When the team wins, they can share in that victory. Fanship, like many social identities, comes with a
They experience a range of positive emotions, risk—identifying with a group whose outcomes one
including pride, happiness, and even joy, and they can cannot control means that one will experience the plea-
gloat over the failure of their rivals. They can, when sure of victory but also the agony of a shared defeat.
interacting with other people, bask in reflected glory That despair can be profound: Suicide rates track the
or (BIRG), by stressing their association with the rise and fall with the success of the local college sports
successful group, even though they have contributed team in some college-towns with strong fan allegiance
little to that success (Cialdini et al., 1976). They also (Joiner, Hollar, & Van Orden, 2006). However, victory can
experience a host of positive interpersonal benefits bring great elation. When the U.S. Olympic Hockey Team
from supporting a specific team—particularly a local beat the Russian national team on February 22nd, 1980,
one (Wann, 2006). Fans who support the same team fewer people committed sucide on that day than on
may spend considerable time in enjoyable shared other February 22s from 1972 to 1989. Whereas failure
activities, and gain from that group experience social may set the stage for collective misery, a team victory
may be the “sweetest song of all” (Kahn, 1973).

scale to scores on more traditional measures of feelings of self-worth (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990;
self-esteem, they found that people with high mem- Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Luhtanen & Crocker,
bership esteem and public and private collective 1992; see, too, Sacco & Bernstein, 2015).
self-esteem scores had higher personal self-esteem,
suggesting that group membership contributes to Protecting the Collective Self People protect
their collective self-esteem just as they protect

basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) Seeking direct cutting off reflected failure (CORFing) Distancing
or indirect association with prestigious or successful oneself from a group that performs poorly.
groups or individuals.

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

88 C H A P T E R 3

their personal self-esteem. They deny that their where stereotypes about their group tend to be
group possesses negative qualities. They consider negative, have higher self-esteem than European
their group to be superior to alternative groups. Americans (Twenge & Crocker, 2002). Members
They give their group credit for its successes, but of groups that are criticized often respond by
blame outside influences when their group fails. defending their group and reaffirming their com-
Should other, more rewarding groups stand will- mitment to it (Dietz-Uhler & Murrell, 1998). So
ing and ready to take them in, individuals remain long as individuals believe that the groups they
loyal to their original group. Identity is the glue belong to are valuable, they will experience a
that binds individuals to their groups (Van Vugt & heightened sense of personal self-esteem (Crocker
Hart, 2004). & Wolfe, 2001).

When individuals identify with their group, Even if the group falters, members can none-
they also tend to exaggerate the differences theless find ways to protect the group and, in so
between their group and other groups. Once peo- doing, protect their own selves. A setback, particu-
ple begin to think in terms of we and us, they also larly at the hands of another group, calls for social
begin to recognize them and they. The tendency to creativity: Group members compare the ingroup
look more favorably on the ingroup is called the to the outgroup on some new dimension. Members
ingroup–outgroup bias. Gang members view of a last-placed ice hockey team (1 win and 21
their group more positively than rival gangs. Team- losses), when asked if their team and their oppo-
mates praise their own players and derogate the nents were aggressive, dirty, skilled, and motivated,
other team. If Group A and Group B work side admitted that their opponents were more skilled,
by side, members of A will rate Group A as better but they also argued that their opponents were
than B, but members of B will rate Group B more more aggressive and that they played dirty
favorably than A. (Lalonde, 1992). When emergency medical techni-
cians (EMTs) were told that their group had per-
The ingroup–outgroup bias contributes to the formed more poorly than another group of EMTs,
self-esteem and emotional well-being of group they later claimed their group members had nicer
members. Social identity theory posits that people personalities (Cadinu & Cerchioni, 2001). Hospital
are motivated to maintain or enhance their feelings employees, when asked to evaluate their hospital
of self-worth, and, because members’ self-esteem is and a second hospital that was larger and better
linked to their groups, their feelings of self-worth equipped, gave the other hospital higher ratings
can be enhanced by stressing the relative superiority on such variables as community reputation, chal-
of their groups to other groups. Even membership lenge, and career opportunity, but claimed that
in a group that others may not admire is generally their hospital was a better place to work because
associated with higher levels of self-esteem everyone got along better (Terry & Callan, 1998).
(Crocker & Major, 1989). Adolescents with mental
retardation do not necessarily have lower self- The ingroup–outgroup bias has a significant
esteem, even though they know they belong to negative side effect. As individuals champion their
the negatively stereotyped social category “special group, they sometimes denigrate those who belong
education students” (Stager, Chassin, & Young, to other groups. The tendency to feel good about
1983). African Americans, despite living in a culture one’s own group is not as strong as the tendency to
derogate other groups, and social identification can

ingroup–outgroup bias The tendency to view the social creativity Restricting comparisons between the
ingroup, its members, and its products more positively ingroup and other groups to tasks and outcomes when
than other groups, their members, and their products. the ingroup is more successful than other groups and
Ingroup favoritism is more common than the outgroup avoiding areas in which other groups surpass the ingroup.
rejection.

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 89

still occur even in the absence of a contrasting out- rejection of others that is both unfair and irratio-
group (Gaertner et al., 2006). But as Chapter 14’s nal, causing perceivers to prejudge people solely
analysis of intergroup conflict explains, the social on the basis of their membership in a group or
and psychological processes that generate social category. Stereotypes provide the cognitive foun-
identity can also create conflict between groups. dation of prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup
hostility.
Stereotype Verification and Threat In social
identity theory, stereotypes serve to create identity, Stereotypes can also trigger a process known as
but they can also constrain identity. When people are stereotype threat when individuals know that
proud members of their groups, they readily admit that others they are interacting with may be relying on
they are stereotypical and will also take steps to confirm group stereotypes to judge them. This worry that
these stereotypes when they interact with people who they might confirm these stereotypes may, in
are not part of their group. They prefer to interact with turn, undermine individuals’ actual performance.
people who confirm their stereotype about their A college professor may not wish to be labeled
group, rather than people who hold beliefs that con- absentminded and a blonde-haired woman may
tradict these assumptions (Chen, Chen, & Shaw, prefer to be recognized for her scientific acumen
2004; Gómez et al., 2009). They may even accept, rather than her sense of fashion. But when such
and apply to themselves and to other members of individuals enter into situations where they are at
their group, stereotypical qualities that are negative risk of being judged on the basis of stereotypes that
rather than positive. A professor who admits that he they wish to resist, they may fail to perform as well
left behind all the papers he was to return that day to as they could, and the stereotype becomes a self-
his class mumbles something about being an “absent- fulfilling prophecy (Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele,
minded professor.” A fair-haired young woman who Spencer, & Aronson, 2002).
complains about the amount of statistical information
discussed in a class opines, “I’m just a blonde—I don’t Protecting the Personal Self In general, people
really like math.” are more disturbed by threats to their personal self-
esteem than to their collective self-esteem. They are
Such negative ingroup stereotyping has been more likely to deny the accuracy of negative indi-
shown to protect individuals’ feelings of self-worth. vidualized information relative to negative group
Women who had just discovered they had done information, and they more readily claim positive
poorly on a math test, when reminded of the stereo- feedback when it focuses on them rather than on
type of women as weak at math, had higher self- their group. For example, an individual, if told
esteem than those in a control condition. A second “you did very poorly—you must be slow” or “you
study indicated that it was women with higher self- are excessively moody,” will react more negatively
esteem who embraced the stereotype after failure than a person who is part of a group told “your
rather than women with lower self-esteem (Burkley group did very poorly—you must be slow” or “peo-
& Blanton, 2008). These studies suggest that a social ple in your group are excessively moody” (Gaertner
identity can protect the self, even if the identity is et al., 2002; Gaertner & Sedikides, 2005; Sedikides,
one that includes qualities that are not socially prized Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). Personal failure is more
(Simon, Glässner-Bayerl, & Stratenwerth, 1991). troubling than collective failure, in most cases.

In many cases, however, stereotypes distort the stereotype threat The anxiety-provoking belief that
accuracy of people’s perceptions of the members of others’ perceptions and evaluations will be influenced
other groups and contribute to intergroup conflict. by their negative stereotypes about one’s group that
Stereotypes are resistant to revision, so perceivers can, in some cases, interfere with one’s ability to perform
continue to apply them even when experience up to one’s capabilities.
tells them these generalizations about people are
distorted. Stereotypes often trigger an unfavorable

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

90 C H A P T E R 3

People will also turn away from a group that is individual mobility (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje,
continues to threaten their personal self-esteem. 1997). More common ways to describe this process
When people can choose the groups they belong include resigning, dropping out, quitting, breaking
to or identify with, they often shift their allegiances, up, escaping, bailing, and ditching: The member
leaving groups that are lower in status or prone to leaves the group for a more promising one. As the
failure and seeking membership in prestigious or suc- analysis of group formation in Chapter 4 shows,
cessful groups (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002). when people’s groups are too much trouble, they
The technical term for such a change in allegiance leave them in search of better ones.

CHAPTER REVIEW

Do humans, by nature, seek solitude or inclusion in reconnection), or, in rare cases, violence
groups? targeting the source of the exclusion
(Gaertner et al., 2008; Leary et al., 2003).
1. Three interrelated processes determine the ■ Individuals also react negatively to exclu-
relationship between individuals and groups: (a) sion from computer-mediated interaction,
inclusion and exclusion, (b) individualism and or cyberostracism.
collectivism, and (c) personal identity and social
identity. 4. Evolutionary psychology suggests that the need
to belong resulted from natural selection as
2. Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggest that much individuals who were affiliated with groups
of human behavior is motivated by the need to were more likely to survive.
belong.
■ Sociometer theory (Leary, 2017a) hypothe-
■ Solitude is sometimes rewarding, but pro- sizes that self-esteem provides individuals
longed isolation is highly stressful. with feedback about their degree of
inclusion in groups.
■ Groups help members avoid basic
forms of loneliness: social and emotional. ■ The intensely negative reactions most
Ironically, individuals with one to three people experience when they feel
degrees of separation from a lonely indi- excluded are associated with specific hor-
vidual are more likely to themselves be monal and neurological processes.
lonely.
■ Studies of the brain using fMRI technol-
3. Ostracism, or deliberate exclusion from groups, ogy (Eisenberger, 2003) and the effects of
is highly stressful, as indicated by self-reports analgesics on emotional reactions follow-
of negative affect in everyday situations and ing rejection suggest that the pain of
people’s reactions in experimental studies of exclusion is maintained by the same bio-
exclusion. logical systems responsible for the experi-
ence of physiological pain.
■ Williams’ (2007) temporal need–threat
model of ostracism identifies a three-stage individual mobility Reducing one’s connection
response to exclusion: reflexive, reflective, to a group in order to minimize the threat to individual
and resignation. self-esteem.

■ Exclusion can trigger a fight-or-flight response
(confront or withdraw, Taylor, 2006), a
tend-and-befriend response (social

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 91

When do people put the group’s needs before their collective self. Her optimal distinctiveness theory
own? suggests that individuals strive to maintain an
optimal balance between their personal and
1. Individualism and collectivism are distinguish- collective identities.
able in their relative emphasis on individuals
and groups. Triandis (2009) identifies four What processes transform an individual’s sense of self
distinct differences between these two into a collective, social identity?
orientations:
1. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)
■ Social relations: Collectivism endorses traces the development of a collective identity
communal relationships, whereas individual- back to two key processes (categorization and
ism supports exchange relationships and allo- identification) that occur even in minimal inter-
cations based on the norm of reciprocity. group situations.
Sharing with others is more likely in a
collectivistic culture, as suggested by 2. Social categorization involves automatically clas-
responses to the ultimatum game. sifying people into categories.

■ Social obligations: Groups with collectiv- ■ Through self-categorization, individuals
istic group cultures stress loyalty, hierarchy, classify themselves into categories.
and conformity more so than individualis-
tic groups. ■ Self-stereotyping (or autostereotyping)
occurs when individuals apply stereotypes
■ Social goals: When members gain rewards (prototypes) based on those categories
through cooperative goal-seeking, the to themselves.
allocation of those rewards can be based on
the equality norm (collectivistic) or the 3. Social identification occurs when the individual
equity norm (individualistic). accepts the group and its characteristics as an
extension of the self (Hogg, 2005). Identifica-
■ Self-concepts: personal identity includes tion and categorization become more likely
qualities that distinguish individuals from when outgroups are salient and when people
one another, whereas social identity includes are members of smaller groups.
all those qualities shared in common with
others. Individualists’ identities emphasize 4. Social identity assumes individuals are moti-
their personal qualities, whereas collectivists’ vated to maintain self-esteem and to clarify
identities emphasize connections to other their understanding of themselves and other
people. people (Hogg, 2005).

2. Cultures vary in their relative emphasis on ■ Self-esteem is related to membership in
individualism and collectivism. People who higher status groups and to collective self-
live in collectivistic cultures (e.g., Asian, esteem (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990).
Eastern European, African, and Middle
Eastern countries) think of themselves as ■ Members of stigmatized groups, failing
group members first and individuals groups, or groups that are derogated by
second, whereas people who live in indi- nonmembers often protect their self-
vidualistic cultures (Western countries) are esteem by rejecting negative information
self-centered rather than group-centered about their group, basking in reflected glory
(Triandis, 2009). (BIRGing), cutting off reflected failure
(CORFing), stressing the relative superi-
3. Brewer (2012) distinguishes between two ority of their group (the ingroup–outgroup
group-level selves: the relational self and the bias), and selectively focusing on their
group’s superior qualities (social creativity).

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

92 C H A P T E R 3 ■ In general, personal failure is more trou-
bling than collective failure. Individuals
■ When stereotype threat is high, members will minimize their association with groups
become concerned that they will be ste- that are performing poorly or will resign
reotyped if considered a member of a from the group (individual mobility).
particular group.

RESOURCES

Chapter Case: Peak Search and Rescue Individualism and Collectivism

■ Heroic Efforts: The Emotional Culture of ■ “Rethinking Individualism and Collectiv-
Search and Rescue Volunteers by Jennifer Lois ism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions
(2003) details the complex nuances of and Meta-Analyses” by Daphna Oyserman,
membership in a high demanding group Heather M. Coon, and Markus Kemmel-
that regularly engages in heroic and dan- meier (2002) thoroughly explores the psy-
gerous community service. chological implications of individual and
cultural differences in individualism and
Inclusion, Exclusion, and Belonging collectivism and is followed by a number of
fascinating expert commentaries.
■ Ostracism, Exclusion, and Rejection, edited
by Kipling D. Williams and Steve A. Nida ■ “A Theory of Individualism and Collectiv-
(2017), summarizes the latest theoretical ism” by Harry C. Triandis and Michele J.
and empirical work examining how being Gelfand (2012) traces the development of
excluded from a group influences people cultural variations from the time of Ham-
physically, socially, and psychologically. murabi’s Code through to contemporary
anthropological, sociological, and psycho-
■ The Handbook of Solitude: Psychological Per- logical studies of individualism and
spectives on Social Isolation, Social Withdrawal, collectivism.
and Being Alone, edited by Robert J.
Coplan and Julie C. Bowker (2014), draws Social Identity
together over 30 chapters examining all
aspects of isolation, loneliness, and ostra- ■ “The Social Identity Perspective” by
cism. No one perspective on isolation is Michael A. Hogg (2005) provides a compact
overlooked, for the wide-ranging chapters but comprehensive review of the basic the-
consider the neurological, developmental, oretical assumptions of social identity theory.
social, personality, and clinical causes and
consequences of solitude. ■ “Social Identity Theory” by Naomi Elle-
mers and S. Alexander Haslam (2012)
■ “Sociometer Theory” by Mark R. Leary examines the history of the development
(2012) summarizes the evidence that sup- of the theory of social identity, beginning
ports the idea that self-esteem is not with the earliest work on minimal group
determined by personal appraisals of one’s situations through to current theoretical
value, but by the extent to which one is issues pertaining to depersonalization, cat-
accepted by others. egorization, and self-esteem.

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

Formation

4C H A P T E R

CHAPTER OVERVIEW CHAPTER OUTLINE

Groups form through a combination of personal, 4-1 Joining Groups
situational, and interpersonal processes. Formation 4-1a Personality Traits
depends on the members themselves; some people 4-1b Anxiety and Attachment
are more likely than others to join groups. Groups 4-1c Social Motivation
also come into existence when the press of environ- 4-1d Men, Women, and Groups
mental circumstances pushes people together rather 4-1e Attitudes, Experiences, and Expectations
than keeping them apart. They also spring up,
sometimes unexpectedly, when people discover 4-2 Affiliation
that they like one another, and this attraction pro- 4-2a Social Comparison
vides the foundation for the development of inter- 4-2b Stress and Affiliation
personal bonds. 4-2c Social Comparison and the Self

■ Who joins groups and who stays apart? 4-3 Attraction
4-3a Principles of Attraction
■ When do people affiliate with other people? 4-3b The Economics of Membership

■ What processes generate bonds of interpersonal Chapter Review
attraction between members of groups? Resources

93

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

94 C H A P T E R 4

The Impressionists: The Group That Redefined Beauty

The group was born in Paris in 1862. Four young men, studio paintings of religious, historical, and mythic
all students at a small school of the arts on the Rue de scenes.
l’Ouest, formed its core: Frederic Bazille, Claude
Monet, Auguste Renoir, and Alfred Sisley. They The young artists developed a new approach to
banded together to refine their artistic styles and painting. They left the studio to journey into the coun-
techniques, but also to ridicule long-held assumptions tryside to paint landscapes. They sometimes painted side
about what qualified as good art. They were soon by side and critiqued one another’s work. They met in
joined by other disgruntled artists, including the cafés in Paris to discuss technique, artistic philosophies,
unconventional Edouard Manet, the detail-oriented and politics.
Gustave Caillebotte, the contentious Edgar Degas, the
irritable Paul Cézanne, and the tactful Camille Pissarro. They borrowed brushes, paints, and canvases from
one another, shared meals and models, and slept on
Other than their work, they had little in common. each other’s floors when no better bed could be had.
Some were the sons of wealthy families but others had They competed with one another constantly, but when
working-class backgrounds. Some were outgoing and one of them fell ill or faced financial crises, the others
confident but others were quiet and uncertain. Some were there to provide support. Some became fast
had been working at their craft for many years and friends, others remained more at the group’s fringes,
others were struggling to learn the basics. But they but together they worked to change the public’s atti-
were united in their opposition to the state-supported tudes about their work. Art critics rejected their
Academy of Fine Arts. The academy alone determined approach for years, and the artists scarcely earned
which paintings and sculptures could be displayed at enough money to survive. But, in time, they were rec-
the Exhibition of the Works of Living Artists (the ognized by the art community as a new school of
“Salon”), and most artists acquiesced to the academy’s painting. Separately, they were just artists learning their
guidelines. But this small group of renegade painters craft, defining their style, and earning enough to pay
shared a different vision. They wanted to capture the the bills. But when they joined together to form a
beauty of everyday life, outdoor scenes, and real peo- group, they transformed themselves and their art, and
ple instead of posed portraits and technically precise in time they redefined the world’s conception of beauty.
They were the Impressionists (Farrell, 1982, 2001).

We can ask many questions about the Impressio- groups. Some are joiners; some are loners. Next, it con-
nists. How did they make decisions and strategize? siders the situation, for even a collection of highly
Why did Manet rank so high in status, and why did sociable joiners must affiliate on at least one occasion
one of the group’s finest painters—Degas—become before a group will form. Some situations push people
the malcontent? How did the group counter the together; others keep them apart. Affiliation, how-
constraints imposed by the status quo? But one ever, only sets the stage for group formation. If the
question—perhaps the most basic one of all—asks individuals who find themselves together are not
why did it come into existence in the first place? In attracted to each other, then a long-lasting group like
1858, Manet, Monet, Degas, and the others were the Impressionists likely will not form. Some people
busy pursuing their careers independently. But by like each other; some do not.
the late 1860s, they had joined to form the most
influential artists circle of all time. What were the 4-1 JOINING GROUPS
circumstances that drove these individuals to com-
bine their resources in a group that endured for Monet and Vincent van Gogh were both brilliant
more than 30 years? artists, both dropped out of traditional schools of art,
and both experimented continually as they struggled
This chapter answers this question in three parts. to perfect their craft. But Monet joined with other
It begins with the artists themselves, for people’s per- artists, whereas van Gogh kept to himself. Not
sonalities, preferences, and prior experiences influence
the extent to which they seek out membership in

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

FORMATION 95

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

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

96 C H A P T E R 4

How Extraverted, Agreeable, Conscientious, Neurotic, and Open Are You?

Personality traits are complex and multifaceted, and so are more precisely measured by long surveys with many
questions. But, the TIPI (Ten-Item Personality Inventory) is a good way to measure the key personality traits of
the FFM in under a minute.

Instructions: Here are a number of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Please write a num-
ber next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement. You
should rate the extent to which the pair of traits applies to you, even if one characteristic applies more strongly
than the other.

1 ¼ Disagree strongly 4 ¼ Neither agree nor disagree 6 ¼ Agree moderately
2 ¼ Disagree moderately 7 ¼ Agree strongly
3 ¼ Disagree a little 5 ¼ Agree a little

1. _______ Extraverted, enthusiastic. 6. _______ Reserved, quiet.
2. _______ Critical, quarrelsome. 7. _______ Sympathetic, warm.
3. _______ Dependable, self-disciplined. 8. _______ Disorganized, careless.
4. _______ Anxious, easily upset. 9. _______ Calm, emotionally stable.
5. _______ Conventional, uncreative. 10. _______ Open to new experiences, complex.

Scoring: For some of the items, agreement indicates a lower level of the trait, but for others agreement
indicates a higher level of the trait. So, the negatively worded items are reversed before summing.

Trait Average Your score

Extraversion 8.9 Item 1 þ (8 À Item 6) ¼ ____
Agreeableness 10.5 (8 À Item 2) þ Item 7 ¼ ____
Conscientiousness 10.8 Item 3 þ (8 À Item 8) ¼ ____
Neuroticism Item 4 þ (8 À Item 9) ¼ ____
Openness 9.7 (8 À Item 5) þ Item 10 ¼ ____
10.8

Scores can range from a low of 2 to a high of 14. If your score is higher or lower than the average
score by several points, you are high or low on that particular trait. For example, if Monet scored a 9.0 on
extraversion, he would be average on that trait. But if his score was 12, he would be above average:
extraverted.

The TIPI is a valid measure of personality, but care should nonetheless be exercised in interpreting your
scores. These five traits are complex and multifaceted, but the TIPI does not measure the specific components of
each trait. Also, the TIPI scores vary depending on a person’s age, cultural background, and sex. Men, for exam-
ple, tend to have lower scores on extraversion and neuroticism in comparison to women, and younger people
have higher openness scores than do older people. (For more information see http://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/scales-
weve-developed/ten-item-personality-measure-tipi/.)

Source: Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37(6), 504–528.

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

FORMATION 97

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

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

98 C H A P T E R 4

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

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

FORMATION 99

Is Shyness an Interpersonal Liability?

Going Solo (Klinenberg, 2012), Quiet (Cain, 2012), and et al., 2011). But shyness has a different meaning in
Party of One (Rufus, 2003) are just a few of the books some Asian countries, for it is associated with one’s
that have spoken, encouragingly, about the contribu- recognition of one’s place in the group and a will-
tions shy, introverted people make to their groups and ingness to fit in rather than stand out from the
organizations. But groups, if given the choice, prefer crowd. Parents of shy children in China are not con-
those who are outgoing and vociferous to those who cerned that they are “too withdrawn” or “friendless,”
are quiet and reserved. and some evidence suggests that shyness facilitates
adjustment and success rather than impedes it (Chen,
This preference for the nonshy over the shy 2011). Eastern cultures, by tradition, believe enlight-
depends, however, on one’s cultural background. enment requires solitude rather than socializing. And
When people in different countries and cultures some Westerners, agree. Steve Wosniak, the
evaluated the personality profiles of a shy person and cofounder of Apple Computing, wrote in his memoirs
an outgoing person, people from western countries that one must be wary of spending too much time
(e.g., United States and Canada) judged outgoing with other people: “I’m going to give you some
people more positively and the career prospects of advice that might be hard to take. That advice is:
the shy more negatively than did individuals from Work alone” (Wosniak & Smith, 2006, p. 291).
East Asian countries, such as China and Korea (Rapee

times a day, asking them to complete a short set of people, including during a group meeting or a class;
questions about their emotions, thoughts, and activi- attending social events, including parties; and eating
ties. Those who were socially anxious did not spend with other people. Women are more likely to seek
more time alone, but they were more likely to wish pharmacological treatment for SAD, whereas men
they were alone when they were with other people tend to use alcohol and illicit drugs to reduce their
they did not know very well. They felt more self- social anxiety (Altemus, Sarvaiya, & Epperson, 2014).
conscious and their emotions were more negative
when they were with others (Brown et al., 2007). Attachment Style When individuals join a group,
they are agreeing, even if implicitly, to be part of a
If these feelings of anxiety are paired with a pro- set of intertwined relationships with one or more
nounced fear of embarrassment or humiliation, other individuals. If you are the type of person,
the individual may be experiencing social anxiety like Monet, who by nature is comfortable forming
disorder (SAD). This clinical disorder, which affects relationships with other people, then joining groups
approximately 5% of adults (4.2% of men, 5.7% of poses no challenge. But if you are a person who
women), is an excessive and unreasonable fear of avoids forming relationships with others or experi-
social situations, qualifying as a phobia rather than ences problems maintaining relationships, like van
distress and discomfort when facing a social challenge. Gogh, then groups become one more arena where
The anxiety is also relatively unrelieved, in that the one’s relational style will find expression.
individual consistently reacts whenever exposed to the
situation, although in most cases individuals cope by The idea that individuals differ in their orienta-
avoiding the source of the anxiety—all groups. Group tions to their relationships is the basis of attachment
situations that are most disturbing to individuals suf- theory (e.g., Bowlby, 1980). This theory suggests that,
fering from SAD are speaking in front of other from an early age, children differ in the way they
relate to others, with some children developing
social anxiety disorder (or social phobia) A persistent very secure and comfortable relationships with their
and pervasive pattern of overwhelming anxiety and self- caregivers but others exhibiting dependence and
consciousness experienced when anticipating or actually uncertainty. The theory suggests that these child-
interacting with other people. hood differences emerge in adulthood as variations

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

100 C H A P T E R 4

in attachment style—one’s basic cognitive, emo- High
tional, and behavioral orientation when in a relation- anxiety
ship with others (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2014). Some
people enjoy forming close relationships, and they Preoccupied: Fearful:
do not worry about being abandoned by their Seek out So insecure about
loved ones. Others, however, are uncomfortable
relying on other people, they worry that their membership but themselves that
loved ones will reject them, or they are simply unin- worry excessively they fear rejection
terested in relationships altogether. The four basic
styles shown in Figure 4.1—secure, preoccupied, fear- about rejection
ful, and dismissing—reflect two underlying dimen-
sions: anxiety about relationships and avoidance of Low High
closeness and dependency on others. avoidance avoidance

Social psychologist Eliot Smith and his collea- Secure: Dismissing:
gues theorized that people also have group-level Self-confident and Uninterested in
attachment styles. They suggested that some indi- joining groups
viduals are anxious about their group experiences, willing to rely on
for they question their acceptance by their group others
and report feeling as if they were unworthy of
membership. They tend to agree with such state- Low
ments as “I often worry my group will not always anxiety
want me as a member” and “I sometimes worry
that my group doesn’t value me as much as I F I G U R E 4.1 Group attachment styles. The four
value my group” (Smith, Murphy, & Coats, basic styles (secure, preoccupied, fearful, and dismissing)
1999, p. 110). Others, however, are avoidant; are defined by two dimensions: level of anxiety and degree
they are not interested in getting close to their of avoidance. For example, individuals who are low in
group, for they agreed with such statements as “I avoidance but high in anxiety would be preoccupied.
prefer not to depend on my group or to have my
group depend on me” and “I am comfortable not interacting in small groups, they discovered that peo-
being close to my group” (1999, p. 110). Smith’s ple with secure attachment styles contributed to both
research team discovered that people with anxious the instrumental and the relationship activities of
group attachment styles spend less time in their the group. Those with more anxious attachment
groups, engage in fewer collective activities, and styles, in contrast, contributed less to the group’s
are less satisfied with the level of support they instrumental work, and those with avoidant attach-
received from the group. Those with avoidant ment styles contributed less to both instrumental
group attachment styles felt that the group was and relationship activities (Rom & Mikulincer,
less important to them, and they were more likely 2003). Other work suggests that individuals’ feelings
to claim that they were planning to leave the of anxiety about their personal relationships covary
group. When researchers followed up these ideas with their anxiety about groups but that avoidance
by watching people with varying attachment styles of groups and personal relations are unrelated.
Both types of attachment styles, however, pre-
dicted how well individuals adjusted when they
were transitioning to a new living situation (as
new students on a college campus; Marmarosh &
Markin, 2007).

attachment style One’s characteristic approach to rela- 4-1c Social Motivation
tionships with other people; the basic styles include
secure, preoccupied, fearful, and dismissing, as defined Why did Monet rely on other people rather than
by the dimensions of anxiety and avoidance. pursue his goals alone? Why did Manet refuse 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.

FORMATION 101

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

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

102 C H A P T E R 4

T A B L E 4.1 Example Items from the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B) Scale

Expressed toward Inclusion (I) Control (C) Affection (A)
other people
• I try to be with other • I try to take charge of things • I try to be friendly to
people. when I am with people. people.

• I join social groups. • I try to have other people do • I try to have close rela-
things I want done. tionships with people.

Wanted from • I like people to invite me to • I let other people decide • I like people to act friendly
other people things. what to do. toward me.

• I like people to include me in • I let other people take charge • I like people to act close
their activities. of things. toward me.

SOURCE: FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior by W. C. Schutz. Copyright 1958 by Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.

not because they wish to bond with others, but Affection (need for intimacy) is a desire to like others
because groups provide them with the means to as well as a desire to be liked by them. Control (need
reach their more primary goal of influencing other for power) includes the need to dominate others but
people. In consequence, those who are high in also the willingness to let others be dominant. Schutz
power seek to lead the groups they join. When developed the FIRO-B scale (the B is for behavior),
such individuals were asked to think about the which is sampled in Table 4.1, to measure both the
groups they participated in recently, those with a need to express and the need to receive inclusion,
high power motive reported taking part in relatively affection, and control. Inclusion and agreeableness
fewer dyadic interactions but in more large-group (both wanted and expressed) are associated with gre-
interactions (groups with more than four members). gariousness and warmth, expressed control with extra-
They also reported exercising more control in these version, and wanted control with neuroticism
groups by organizing and initiating activities, assum- (Furnham, 2008).
ing responsibility, and attempting to persuade others
(McAdams, Healy, & Krause, 1984). FIRO theory assumes that people join groups, and
remain in them, because they meet one or more of
FIRO Psychologist William Schutz (1958, 1992) these basic needs. If, for example, Monet did not
integrated the three basic needs for affiliation, intimacy, need to receive and express inclusion, he probably
and power in his Fundamental Interpersonal would have been content to develop his skills alone
Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory (rhymes or in a more traditional teacher-led class setting. But
with “I row”). He labeled them the need for inclusion, he had a vigorous need to express inclusion, affection,
affection, and control, and argued they combine to and control, and so he created and maintained the cir-
determine how people treat others and how people cle of impressionist painters. Sisley, in contrast, wished
want others to treat them. Inclusion (need for affilia- to receive inclusion and affection but was not as
tion) refers to peoples’ desire to join with others but strongly motivated to include others in his activities.
also their need to be accepted by those others.
4-1d Men, Women, and Groups
Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation
(FIRO) A theory of group formation and development Nearly all the Impressionists were men; Berthe
that emphasizes compatibility among three basic social Morisot and Mary Cassatt were exceptions. Is the
motives: inclusion, control, and affection (developed by need to seek out and join groups stronger in men
William Schutz). than women?

Studies find that men and women differ in
their tendency to join groups, but the differences

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

FORMATION 103

are not great in magnitude. Women tend to be as attitudes toward the role of women have chan-
somewhat more extraverted and agreeable than ged in contemporary society, differences in social
men, and these differences are pronounced in eco- participation have diminished (Risman & Davis,
nomically developed nations (Schmitt et al., 2008). 2013). Sexism also works to exclude women and
Women remember more details about their rela- men from certain types of groups. Women, for
tionships than do men, and they more accurately example, were until recently deliberately excluded
recount events that occurred in their social net- from juries in the United States. (The U.S.
works (Taylor, 2002). Women are, in general, Supreme Court ruled that women could not be
higher in relationality—that is, their values, atti- excused from jury duty because of their sex in
tudes, and outlooks emphasize and facilitate estab- 1975.) In Paris, in the 1860s, women modeled for
lishing and maintaining connections to others (Gore artists, but few could be artists themselves. Morisot
& Cross, 2006). Women expect more reciprocity and Cassatt could not even join the other Impres-
and loyalty in their one-to-one friendship relation- sionists in the extended discussions at the Café
ships as well as intimacy, solidarity, and companion- Guerbois. As sexist attitudes continue to decline,
ship (Hall, 2011). Men are more agentic than differences in membership in various types of
women and so are more likely to join with other groups will also abate.
men in order to perform a task or reach a goal
(Twenge, 1997). 4-1e Attitudes, Experiences,

These tendencies may reflect women’s and and Expectations
men’s differing interpersonal orientations, with
women more likely to define themselves in terms Not everyone is thrilled at the prospect of joining
of their memberships in groups and their relation- groups. In many situations, people have the oppor-
ships. The sexes may also differ in their emphasis on tunity to join a new group—a club, a group of
achieving power and establishing connections with people who socialize together, an amateur sports
others. Both of these goals can best be achieved in team—but decline for personal reasons. Their gen-
groups, but they require membership in different eral attitude about groups and the demands they
types of groups. Men, seeking power and influence, make on members may be negative. They may
join competitive, goal-oriented groups where they have little experience in groups and so are too cau-
can vie for status. Women, seeking intimate relation- tious to take part. They may value individual effort
ships and, in some cases, safety, would be more over team engagement. People’s attitudes, experi-
likely to join small, supportive groups (Baumeister, ences, and expectations are all factors that influence
2010; Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; David-Barrett their decision to join a group.
et al., 2015).
Beliefs about Groups Even though humans seem
These sex differences are also entangled with to sort themselves into groups in most contexts,
role differences and cultural stereotypes. In cultures some remain ambivalent about them. Whereas
where men and women tend to enact different roles, some people look forward with breathless anticipa-
the roles may shape opportunities for involvement in tion to their next subcommittee meeting, group-
groups. If women are primarily responsible for learning experience, or business meeting, others
domestic duties and childbearing, they may have question—quite openly—the worth of these social
more opportunities to join informal, localized groups contrivances. When management researchers
but not occupational groups (Taylor, 2002). Hence, Steven J. Karau and Abdel Moneim M. K. Elsaid
(2009) investigated these variations, they discovered
relationality The degree to which one’s values, atti- that people with more negative beliefs about groups
tudes, and outlooks emphasize and facilitate establishing and their effectiveness were less likely to take part in
and maintaining connections to others. them. Karau and Elsaid began their analysis by

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

104 C H A P T E R 4

T A B L E 4.2 A Sample of Items from the Beliefs about Groups Scale

Factor Example Items
Group preference
• I’m more comfortable working by myself rather than as part of a group (reversed).
• I prefer group work to individual work.

Effort beliefs • People tend to work especially hard on a group task.
• Most people can be trusted to do their fair share of the work.

Negative performance • Group projects usually fail to match the quality of those done by individuals.
beliefs • Assigning work to a group is a recipe for disaster.

Positive performance • Generally speaking, groups are highly effective.
beliefs • Groups often produce much higher quality work than individuals.

SOURCE: Karau, S. J., & Elsaid, A.M.M.K. (2009). Individual differences in beliefs about groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 1–13.

developing the Beliefs about Groups (BAG) scale to are more likely to join such groups when they
measure people’s preferences for taking part in themselves reach adulthood (Bonikowski &
groups, expectations about how hard people work McPherson, 2007).
in groups, and predictions of the positive and negative
effects groups will have on performance (see Social psychologists Richard Moreland, John
Table 4.2). Individuals who had more positive beliefs Levine, and their colleagues studied the impact of
about a group’s capacity to enhance performance and expectations on students’ decisions to join a group
effort expressed a stronger preference to join in when they got to college. In one of their studies,
groups, whereas those who had more negative expec- they surveyed more than 1,000 first-year students at
tations about groups were disinclined to take part in the University of Pittsburgh, asking them if they took
them. In addition, preference to work in groups was part in groups in high school and if they expected to
also related to collectivism (see Chapter 3), trust in join groups in college. They identified those students
others, agreeableness, and experience working in who had positive experiences in their high school
groups in educational settings. groups—they rated their high school groups as both
important and enjoyable. These students, when they
Experiences in Groups One’s previous experi- enrolled in college, actively investigated the groups
ence in groups, whether good or bad, influences available to them. They tried harder to find a group
one’s interest in joining groups in the future. College on campus to join, and they were also more optimistic
students who receive low scores on assessments based in their evaluations of potential groups; they expected
on team-learning activities evaluate group work that the positive aspects of joining a group would be
more negatively than students who get higher grades particularly rewarding. Experience in groups in high
(Reinig, Horowitz, & Whittenburg, 2011). Partici- school dampened that enthusiasm somewhat, at least
pation in organized sports teams in adolescence pre- for the specific groups that interested them. For exam-
dicts participation in such groups in adulthood ple, those who were in student government in high
(Walters et al., 2009). Individuals who have had a school and were interested in taking part in student
negative experience in a therapeutic group are less politics in college felt that this group would be reward-
likely to choose that form of treatment in the future ing, but they also recognized that it would impose
(Smokowski, Rose, & Bacallao, 2001). In some costs as well. These students tended to be more delib-
cases, too, the experience can be a vicarious one. erate in their review of potential groups and displayed
Children who see their parents joining and enjoy- a commitment to a specific group throughout the
ing memberships in civic and volunteer associations search process (Brinthaupt, Moreland, & Levine,
1991; Pavelchak, Moreland, & Levine, 1986).

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

FORMATION 105

What Is a Collaborative Circle?

There is something special about those small groups human mind (the Vienna Circle), and poets who
that come into existence to support and sustain the worked at their craft when students at Vanderbilt
work of artists, scientists, writers, and reformers. University (the Fugitives). These groups provided
Sociologist Michael Farrell (2001, p. 11) calls them members with the support, encouragement, and
collaborative circles: “peers who share similar occu- stimulation they needed to pursue their literary, sci-
pational goals and who, through long periods of dia- entific, and philosophical projects, and so served as a
logue and collaboration, negotiate a common vision buffer against the unrelenting pressure to conform to
that guides their work.” The Impressionists were a the status quo. These groups are reminders that the
collaborative circle, but so were the Oxford writers greatest advances in the arts, sciences, and technolo-
who joined with J. R. R. Tolkien to discuss fantasy gies are often the result of collaboration in groups
narratives (the Inklings), Freud’s colleagues who met rather than the labors of brilliant individuals working
regularly to redefine common conceptions of the in isolation.

Taking Collective Action The Impressionists They were angered by the situation, and anger has
were part collaborative circle but also part social been identified as a key factor in distinguishing
movement, for its members were attempting to between who will join a movement and who will
undo the academy’s tight hold on the Salon and not. A person may feel that a situation is unjust, but
the art world, in general. Many factors influence the person who is also angry about the unfairness is
people’s decisions to join a social movement, but more likely to join with others to redress the wrong.
two factors—a sense of injustice and strong Contempt, too, can be critical in motivating people
emotions—are particularly critical. Many artists in to take action, particularly more extreme, counter-
Paris in the 1860s were rejected by the Salon normative forms of civil disobedience (Tausch et al.,
judges, but those who joined the Impressionists 2011). Chapter 17 examines the dynamics of collec-
were certain that the existing system was an unfair tive movements in more detail.
one. Time and again the artists submitted to the
Salon, and only a few of them were ever permitted 4-2 AFFILIATION
to display their work. The Salon’s refusal to con-
sider alternative, emerging views of art was consid- Birds flock, insects swarm, fish shoal, and humans
ered unjust, for it harmed not only the individual affiliate. Affiliation, generally speaking, is the gath-
artists, but the group itself. This sense of injustice ering together of conspecifics in one location. This
against the ingroup also fueled the artists’ emotions. process, as we have seen, depends in part on the
personalities, preferences, and other personal qualities
collaborative circle A relatively small group of peers of the group members. Affiliation, however, also
who work together for an extended period of time, becomes more likely in some situations and less
exchanging ideas for commentary and critique and likely in others. When we face uncertain or bewil-
developing a shared conception of what their methods dering conditions, when we experience stressful
and goals should be.
social movement A deliberate, sustained, and organized affiliation The gathering together of individuals (typi-
group of individuals seeking change or resisting a change cally members of the same species) in one location; also,
in a social system. Movements are sustained by individuals a formalized relationship, as when an individual is said to
who may share a common outlook on issues or by mem- be affiliated with a group or organization.
bers of identifiable social groups or categories, but not by
businesses, political organizations, or governments.

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

106 C H A P T E R 4

Ambiguous, Psychological Affiliation Cognitive
confusing reaction and social clarity
circumstances comparison
• Negative with others
emotions

• Uncertainty
• Need for

information

F I G U R E 4.2 Festinger’s (1954) theory of social comparison assumes that people, when facing ambiguous situa-
tions, seek out others so they can compare other people’s reactions and interpretations to their own.

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

FORMATION 107

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

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

108 C H A P T E R 4

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

FORMATION 109

Threat to well-being Type of Stress Group
Threat Response Processes

Imminent “Fight” Concerted response to
threat source of the danger
“Flight”
Long-term Organized escape
threat “Tend” from the situation

“Befriend” Support and nurturing
of group members

Elaboration of supportive
relations among members

F I G U R E 4.3 Group-level responses to stress. The two basic responses to stress—fight-or-flight and
tend-and-befriend—are both enhanced when people rely on resources made available by their groups.

companionship extended to those who are dealing existential anxiety, reconfirming members’
with turbulence and trouble (Gleason & Iida, 2015). world views, and sharing faith and perspectives.

Social support can take many forms, ranging Admittedly, some groups fail to deliver on their
from acceptance and inclusion to confirmation of promise of support. They may even add stressors by
identity and purpose (see Uchino, 2004). stirring up conflicts, increasing responsibilities,
exposing members to criticism, or displaying their
■ Belonging: Groups let members know that they own anxieties about the situation (e.g., Newsom
are valued members and reassure them that et al., 2008). Nor are all members equally adept at
they are not alone in facing their problems; providing social support to others, or providing the
they meet members’ need to feel included and type of support that the individual experiencing
accepted. problems most needs. Some work suggests that
the men in a group are quicker to provide instru-
■ Emotional support: Group members express their mental support, such as tangible assistance or prac-
caring, concern, and affection for one another; tical advice, whereas the women in the group
they minimize self-doubt, tension, and vulner- provide more emotional support, such as expres-
ability while increasing self-esteem, resilience, sions of concern and caring (Verhofstadt, Buysse,
and self-satisfaction. Members compliment, & Ickes, 2007). Some people, too, are just naturally
encourage, and listen to one another. better at doing the sorts of things that make other
people feel supported. Only some of the individuals
■ Informational support: Groups provide members in one study reported that they knew how to make
with useful information for solving problems, sure their friends felt cared for and supported (Hess,
making decisions, and setting their goals; they Fannin, & Pollom, 2007).
offer advice, guidance, and suggestions.
Affiliation and Health Groups, although they
■ Instrumental support: Groups offer tangible can sometimes irritate their members as much as
assistance to their members, as when they help they support them, are usually a safe haven from
each other with assigned tasks, loan money and the storm of stress. People who enjoy strong social
materials to one another, or work collaboratively bonds tend to experience less stress in their lives, are
on shared tasks.

■ Meaning: Groups provide members with exis-
tential, or spiritual support, by allaying

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

110 C H A P T E R 4

Is Your Group a Source of Social Support?

Where can you turn when you are having a bad day, q My group is a source of much useful information.
when you need help solving a problem, or are facing a q We get good advice from each other.
significant personal crisis? The groups to which we q We deal with problems together.
belong can be a source of support, encouragement,
and assistance in times of need. Instrumental Support

Instructions. To explore the many sources of sup- q We share what we have with each other.
port groups can provide, think of a group you belong q We help each other.
to—one that is a significant one for you personally. q Those who can, help those who can’t.
Then put a check in each box if the group provides q We do favors for each other.
each form of support.
Meaning
Belonging
q My group gives me a sense of meaning and
q My group accepts me. purpose.
q I enjoy being part of my group.
q Members of my group share a common bond. q My group defines who I am.
q I can be myself in my group. q My group gives me standards by which to live my

Emotional Support life.
q Because of this group, I understand things
q I feel cared for in this group.
q We show our concern for each other. better.
q I feel safe in my group.
q We are like a family. Interpretation. Is your group a supportive one? If
you checked at least two of the four indicators for each
Informational Support type of support, then the group can be considered a
source of that form of support. But if your group did not
q We learn things in my group. earn many checks then it cannot be considered to be one
that would provide you with support when you need it.

less likely to suffer from depression and other psy- closely connected to their group members (Varvel
chological problems, and are physically healthier et al., 2007). A survey of New York City residents
(Stinson et al., 2008). Stressful life circumstances following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
leave people at risk for psychological and physical indicated that those who were members of groups
illness, but groups can serve as protective buffers or affiliative organizations (e.g., church groups, dis-
against these negative consequences. Researchers cussion groups, or veterans groups) were more resil-
verified this buffering effect in studies of stressors, ient to the stressful effects of the attacks (Silver &
including health crises, personal tragedies, terrorist Garfin, 2016). Participants who played the role of
attacks, and intergroup conflict. For example, indi- prisoners in a simulation of a prison (in England)
viduals trying to recover from a devastating crisis provided one another with substantial social sup-
(e.g., the death of a spouse or child) who were port, and, in consequence, they were relatively
more firmly embedded in a social network of unaffected by situational stressors (Haslam &
friends, relatives, and neighbors were less depressed Reicher, 2006).
than people who were not integrated into groups
(Norris & Murrell, 1990). Firefighters who felt they These salutary effects of affiliation occur
were supported by their peers and their supervisor because of the close connection between the bio-
reported less stress than those who did not feel as logical systems that maintain and promote health
and the quality of one’s connection to other people.

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

FORMATION 111

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

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

112 C H A P T E R 4

But upward social comparison can also provoke Student Ratings4.5 Activity
darker, more negative, emotions, such as resent- High self-relevance
ment, envy, and shame rather than pride and admi-
ration (Smith, 2000). When students were asked to 4.0 Low self-relevance
keep track of the people they compared themselves
to over a two-week period, they reported feeling 3.5
depressed and discouraged when they associated
with more competent people (Wheeler & Miyake, 3.0
1992). Academically gifted students who attend
selective schools are more unsure of their abilities Self Close Distant
and their intellectual worth than equally bright stu- classmate classmate
dents who attend schools with a wide range of stu-
dent ability—the so-called big-fish-little-pond effect F I G U R E 4.4 Ratings of oneself, a close classmate,
(Marsh et al., 2007). When people see updates of and a distant classmate on tasks that are low and high in
their friends on Facebook celebrating accomplish- self-relevance. When students rated their own perfor-
ments or receiving noteworthy awards, their emotions mance on a task they felt was important to them, they
are more negative than positive (Appel, Gerlach, & rated themselves as somewhat better than their close
Crusius, 2016). Even if people know they have per- classmate and much better than the distant classmate.
formed better than average, if they compare them- But students rated their friend more positively than
selves to someone who has far outperformed them, themselves when the task had no implications for their
they feel discouraged (Seta, Seta, & McElroy, 2006). self-worth. Students rated their own performance as
In consequence, some of the happiest people are superior to their friend’s when the task was relevant, but
those who join groups, but don’t spend too much this tendency reversed for the low-relevance task.
time comparing themselves to the other people in
their group (Buunk, Nauta, & Molleman, 2005). SOURCE: Tesser, A., Campbell, J., & Smith, M. (1984). Friendship choice and
performance: Self-evaluation maintenance in children. Journal of Personal-
Self-Evaluation Maintenance When our own ity and Social Psychology, 46, 561–574.
accomplishments pale in comparison to those of a
friend or fellow group member, social comparison Tesser and his colleagues examined this tension
often leaves us feeling more dejected than elated. But between sharing others’ successes and highlighting
not always. As Abraham Tesser’s self-evaluation their failures by asking elementary school students
maintenance (SEM) model suggests, we will gra- to identify the types of activities (sports, art, music,
ciously celebrate others’ accomplishments, provided and math) that were personally important to them.
they perform very well on tasks that are not central The students also identified their most and least
to our sense of self-worth (Tesser, 1988, 1991). preferred classmate. One week later, the students
rated their ability, their close classmate’s ability,
self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) model A theo- and their distant classmate’s ability in one area
retical analysis of social comparison processes that assumes they felt was important and one area they felt was
that individuals maintain and enhance their self-esteem unimportant. As Figure 4.4 indicates, if the students
by associating with high-achieving individuals who thought that the task was important, they judged
excel in areas that are not relevant to the individual’s their performance to be superior to that of their
own sense of self-esteem and avoiding association with close classmate. If the task was not important to
high-achieving individuals who excel in areas that are them personally, they felt that they had performed
important to the individual’s sense of self-esteem (devel- relatively worse (Tesser, Campbell, & Smith, 1984).
oped by Abraham Tesser). Similarly, in a study of married couples, Tesser and
his colleagues discovered that happy couples felt
that it was more pleasant to be outdone by one’s
partner in an area that their partner valued but to
outperform the partner in an area that he or she did

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

FORMATION 113

Who Is the Happiest Group Member?

One of the members of your study group gets the highest grade on the exam. A member of your work team is
singled out by management for a raise. A single player out of 42 is chosen for the all-star team. It isn’t you.

Joining together with highly competent people working on shared tasks can be, at the same time, both inspi-
rational and threatening. We can bask in the reflected glory of our friends and classmates but, then again, when
we compare ourselves to our betters our own efforts and accomplishments seem all the more meager. Because
upward comparison can be so discouraging, people may deliberately avoid joining groups that include people who
will outperform them in spheres they consider to be personally important (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997).

Social comparison researchers Abraham Buunk, Rick Gibbons, and their colleagues (2007) suggest that some
people have found a way to escape this downside to group life; they do not compare themselves to other group
members, and they are happier people for it. To test this hypothesis, they first measured people’s overall affilia-
tion orientation. But, they also measured people’s social comparison orientation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). They
reasoned that, just as people vary in their affiliative desires, they may also vary in their tendency to compare
themselves to other people. A few of their questions are listed below.

Instructions: We would like to find out how often you compare yourself with other people. To do that we
would like you to indicate how much you agree with each statement below, by using the following scale.

1 ¼ I disagree strongly 3 ¼ I neither agree nor disagree 4 ¼ I agree
2 ¼ I disagree 5 ¼ I agree strongly

_______ I always pay a lot of attention to how I do things compared with how others do things.

_______ I often compare how I am doing socially (e.g., social skills and popularity) with other people.

_______ I often try to find out what others think who face similar problems as I face.

_______ I always like to know what others in a similar situation would do.

Scoring: This is a shortened version of their scale, but if you add your four ratings your score can be as low
as 4 or as high as 20. The average score is 11.64, so a relatively low score would be 10 or less, and a relatively
high score would be 14 or more (Schneider & Schupp, 2014).

Gibbons and Buunk discovered affiliation orientation and social comparison orientation combine to deter-
mine group satisfaction. The participants were generally satisfied with their groups, but people who were highly
affiliative and low in their social comparison orientation were particularly happy with membership. Apparently,
those who could not resist comparing themselves to others could never completely avoid the negative emotional
consequences of upward social comparison. So who is the person who most enjoys being a member of a group?
“The typical ‘group animal’ is someone who has a strong preference for affiliation, combined with a low ten-
dency to compare him- or herself with others” (Buunk, Nauta, & Molleman, 2005, p. 69).

not value. Unhappy couples did not recognize this rather than sustain the group and its members.
secret ingredient for marital bliss (Beach et al., Studies of newly formed teams suggest that mem-
1998). bers feel threatened by teammates who have super-
ior abilities, even if they have had an opportunity to
In sum, even though social comparison pro- bond with their teammates before they start work-
vides an indispensable social and cognitive service, ing together (Cleveland et al., 2011). Group mem-
it can also set in motion processes that destabilize bers, to avoid the pain of social comparison, can
turn against the highest performing members—the
social comparison orientation The dispositional ten- “tall poppies” of their group—ostracizing them or
dency to compare oneself to others. criticizing them unfairly (Feather, 1994). Given 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.

114 C H A P T E R 4

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

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

FORMATION 115

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

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

116 C H A P T E R 4

Does the Proximity Principle Apply to Online Groups?

Distance does not apply to people who communicate disagreed with the newcomer or if their comment was
using the Internet, but the proximity principle’s key negative in its emotional tone (Joyce & Kraut, 2006).
corollary—frequent interaction tends to promote
group formation—does. Online groups, like offline These studies suggest that social media, by facili-
groups, result when individuals find themselves tating interaction between remotely located indivi-
repeatedly interacting with each other. It’s just that duals, increases attraction and group formation, but
these interactions do not occur in face-to-face since they make use of correlational designs, it is diffi-
encounters, but through instant messaging, in Face- cult to determine which came first. Did people who
book, via Twitter and Skype, on email, and so on. like each other make use of the Internet to interact
College students, for example, use Facebook to solidify with one another, or did their interactions on the
the emergent social groups and relationships that Internet increase their attraction to one another? To
form when they first arrive on campus. They also use determine the direction of this cause–effect relation-
Facebook as a tool for interacting with people they ship, social psychologist Harry T. Reis and his collea-
already know (e.g., family, classmates, and old friends). gues (2011) manipulated the frequency of interaction
Students who report using Facebook more intensively and then measured attraction. In one of their studies,
say that they feel more closely connected to other they required same-sex pairs of college students who
students on their campus and to their friends (Ellison, were strangers to one another to use instant messag-
Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). ing (IM) to exchange messages in sessions lasting 15
minutes or more. They manipulated the number of IM
Not all Internet sites are equally effective in pro- chat sessions, requiring only one session for some, but
moting social interaction, however. Many areas of the two, four, six, or eight sessions for others. As the
Web that are designed to encourage interaction proximity-turned-presence principle predicts, pairs that
between people, such as discussion areas and the IM-chatted more frequently liked each other more,
comment areas of blogs, are nearly empty of com- and these effects were mediated by increases in
mentaries because people visit only once and never knowledge of one another and perceived responsive-
return. So, when will individuals visit a second time? ness (e.g., “sees the ‘real’ me,” “understands me,” and
The best predictor of continuing engagement in the “seems interested in what I am thinking and feeling”).
site is how they are treated during their very first visit. These interactions were strictly anonymous ones, but
In one study, researchers examined the posts of 2,777 at the end of the study, 62.5% of the dyads who had
newcomers to one of six public discussion areas that IM-chatted eight times wanted to know the name and
dealt with various topics, including dieting, gun rights, contact information of their partner, but only 17.6%
and the NY Rangers hockey team. They discovered that of those dyads who chatted but one time expressed
61% of the newcomers received a reply and that the interest in continuing the relationship. These investi-
reply increased the likelihood of the person returning gators were thus justified in concluding that interac-
to the site in the future by 21%. Getting an answer— tion causes attraction rather than attraction causing
interaction itself—was more important than the con- interaction—and it matters not if that interaction
tent of the response. It did not matter if the responder occurs online or in face-to-face settings.

linked together to form a functional unit called a evolved from smaller, dyadic pairings. The first
group” (Arrow et al., 2000, pp. 91–92). friendships were two-person pairs—usually room-
mates or people living in adjoining rooms who
Newcomb’s groups, for example, conformed became friends. Over time, these dyads expanded
to this elaboration principle, for cliques usually to include other individuals who were attracted to
one or both of the original members. This same
elaboration principle The tendency for groups to kind of self-organizing process has been documen-
expand in size as nonmembers become linked to a ted in other emerging groups, such as adolescents’
group member and thus become part of the group itself; peer group associations, leisure groups, and social
this process is termed percolation in network theory. movements. Gangs, for example, form when three

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

FORMATION 117

Time 1 4 containing nine and seven members; one person
5 remained at the fringe of both groups. The seven-
man group was particularly unified, for when asked
127 to indicate who they liked out of the total list of 17,
they gave relatively high rankings to one another
9 6 Time 2 4 and not to those young men in the other cluster.
3 5 The members of the other group did not show the
8 10 same level of mutual attraction as the smaller clique.
12 11
When Newcomb (1963) examined these sub-
127 groups, he noticed that subgroup members’ values,
beliefs, and interests were similar. One clique, for
Time 3 4 9 6 example, contained men who endorsed liberal
5 3 political and religious attitudes, were all registered
8 10 in the arts college, came from the same part of the
12 11 country, and shared similar aesthetic, social, theo-
retical, economic, political, and religious values.
127 The members of the second subgroup were all
veterans, were majors in engineering, and shared
9 6 similar religious, economic, and political values. New-
3 comb had found strong evidence for the similarity
8 10 principle: People are attracted to those who are
12 11 similar to them in some way.

F I G U R E 4.5 The elaboration of groups over time. Similarity is a social magnet that creates all kinds
Groups that begin as simple two-person groups become of relationships. People tend to marry people who are
more complex over time as individuals who are initially similar to them; they join groups composed of others
linked together only in one-to-one, dyadic relationships who are like them; and they live in communities
(e.g., persons 1 and 2, persons 3 and 8) expand their where people are more alike than different. Although
networks to include additional elements (members). these similarities often reflect agreements in attitudes,
values, and beliefs, they are also based on demo-
friends refer to themselves with a shared name and graphic characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, sex,
recruit other friends to join the group (Tobin, and age (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954). As a result,
2008). Friendships are very likely to form between homophily—similarity of the members in attitudes,
students who were linked to the same individuals values, demographic characteristics, and so on—is
(Gibbons & Olk, 2003). Groups form when other- common in groups. The cliques that form in large
wise unrelated individuals are drawn to a single volunteer organizations tie together people who are
individual who becomes the hub for gradually
developing bonds among the various members similarity principle The tendency for individuals to
(Redl, 1942). The Impressionists developed into a seek out, affiliate with, or be attracted to an individual
group through such a self-organizing process. Each who is similar to them in some way; this tendency causes
member of the core group drew in others, until in groups and other interpersonal aggregates to be homog-
time the group included artists, sculptors, and wri- enous rather than diverse.
ters (Farrell, 2001, p. 44; see Figure 4.5). homophily “Love of the same”; the tendency for the
members of groups and other collectives to be similar to
The Similarity Principle Newcomb found that one another in some way, such as demographic back-
the 17 men clustered naturally into two groups ground, attitudes, and values; generally expressed infor-
mally as “birds of a feather flock together.”

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

118 C H A P T E R 4

similar in some way rather than dissimilar (Feld, friendship choices—they offered fewer people to join
1982). If a group decreases in size, the first individual with—the pairs on the smaller campus were signifi-
who is dropped from membership will likely be the cantly more heterogeneous in their attitudes than the
one who is the least similar to the other members; pairs on the larger campus. Ironically, students often
ties between similar people are maintained, but ties choose to attend larger universities because such an
with dissimilar people dissolve. “Birds of a feather environment will offer them more opportunities to
flock together” describes most groups (McPherson, make friends with a wider variety of people, but,
Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). once on campus, people who are similar in terms of
attitudes and values find each other and form stable
Homophily appears to be sustained by a number networks of association. As a result of this natural
of psychological, sociological, and relational factors that assortive process, the groups that form in an environ-
combine to promote contacts between people who ment where diversity was greatest tended to be more
share similarities rather than differences. People who homogenous (Bahns, Pickett, & Crandall, 2012).
adopt the same values and attitudes reassure each
other that their beliefs are accurate, and people find The Complementarity Principle The similarity
association with such people very rewarding (Byrne, principle exerts a powerful influence on groups,
1971). People may also assume, with some justification, but in some cases opposites attract. If people’s quali-
that future group interactions will be more cooperative ties complement each other—they are dissimilar but
and conflict-free when members are all similar to one they fit well together—then this unique form of dis-
another (Insko & Schopler, 1972). Similarity’s oppo- similarity may encourage people to associate with
site, dissimilarity, also works to push people away from one another. Claude, for example, may enjoy lead-
each other—the dissimilarity–repulsion effect is as ing groups, so he is not attracted to other individuals
influential as the similarity–attraction effect (Drigotas, who also strive to take control of the group. Instead,
1993). Similarity may also increase a sense of connect- he responds best to those who accept his guidance
edness to the other person (Arkin & Burger, 1980). (Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007). Similarly, indi-
Two strangers chatting casually on an airplane, for viduals who are forming a group may realize that the
example, feel united if they find that they share even members’ skills and abilities must complement each
the most trivial similarity, such as the same middle other if the group is to be successful (Kristof-Brown,
name or favorite television program (Jones et al., Barrick, & Stevens, 2005). These cases are consistent
2004). Disliking a person who seems similar may also with the complementarity principle, which sug-
be psychologically distressing. After all, if a person is gests that people are attracted to those who possess
similar to us, it follows logically that he or she must characteristics that complement their own personal
be attractive (Festinger, 1957). characteristics (Miller, 2015).

Homophily also tends to beget homophily. In all likelihood, group members respond posi-
Because communities, schools, and most workplaces tively to both similarity and complementarity (Dryer
bring people together who are similar in terms of race, & Horowitz, 1997). People who consider themselves
attitudes, religion, and ethnicity, people’s options for to be warm and friendly seek out others who are
relationships are limited to those who are already sim- sociable and positive; those who are cold and critical
ilar to them in these ways (McPherson et al., 2001). are more comfortable in the company of those who
Also, even when individuals have the opportunity to are cantankerous and negative. However, people
form relationships with people who are different from generally respond to dominant behaviors by acting
them in some way, they nonetheless gravitate toward submissively and vice versa; so leaders seek out
those who are similar. Researchers demonstrated this
tendency by interviewing pairs of students who were complementarity principle A tendency for opposites
attending classes at a large university (25,000 students) to attract when the ways in which people are dissimilar
or one of several smaller colleges located nearby. Even are congruent (complementary) in some way.
though the smaller campuses constrained individuals’

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

FORMATION 119

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

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

120 C H A P T E R 4

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

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

FORMATION 121

Why Do People Join Gangs?

Gangs are often characterized as disruptive, violent back to a much smaller cluster of friends who lived
groups of delinquents who commit robberies, hijack near one another (Moore, 1991). The founders of the
cars, distribute drugs, murder, and generally live out- group were very similar to one another in terms of
side the boundaries of “normal” society. Gangs do ethnicity and age, and they were committed to
contend against legal authorities and members may increasing the level of safety in their neighborhoods.
use violence to establish status and control in the Over time, more people joined the groups, which
group. Gangs can, however, be relatively stable asso- gradually became more formally organized, more
ciations within many communities, and their members territorial, and more likely to engage in criminal
also connect to their community through more tradi- behavior. Gangs also tend to be relatively task
tional social groups (church congregations, families, focused (Venkatesh, 2008). When members were
and schools). Larger gangs also tend to be hierar- asked why they joined the gang, most stressed prac-
chically organized, much like a business or formal tical outcomes, such as safety and financial gain. As
organization, and the members vary in their commit- one member remarked, “There’s money in a gang. I
ment to their groups (Vankatesh, 2008). The few core want to be in it, you see a lot of money in it, man.
members (called variously ancients, old gangsters, and That’s why I really got in the gang, money and all”
veteranos) may remain in the group for many years, (quoted in Decker & Van Winkle, 1996, p. 74). Many
and for them the gang dominates their social lives. gang members also agreed that gang membership
Most members, however, only take part in some gang- increased their status in the community and helped
related activities (Coughlin & Venkatesh, 2003). them socially. “One thing I like about gangs it’s more
people to be around, more partners to go places
Gangs also form for many of the same reasons with … social stuff” (quoted in Decker & Van Winkle,
any group does. One study of gangs in East Los 1996, p. 75).
Angeles, for example, traced many of these groups

Kelley (1959), the decision to join is based on two entailing outcomes that fall below CL would be rela-
factors: the comparison level and the comparison level for tively ‘unsatisfying’ and unattractive.”
alternatives. Comparison level (CL) is the standard
by which individuals evaluate the desirability of Comparison level, however, only predicts when
group membership. The CL derives from the average people will be satisfied with membership in a group. If
of all outcomes known to the individual and is usually we want to predict whether people will join groups
strongly influenced by previous relationships. If, for or leave them, we must also take into account the
example, Degas’s prior group memberships yielded value of other, alternative groups. What if Degas
very positive rewards with very few costs, his CL could have joined several artists circles, all of
should be higher than that of someone who has expe- which surpassed his CL? Which one would he then
rienced fewer rewards and more costs through group select? According to Thibaut and Kelley (1959),
membership. According to Thibaut and Kelley (1959, the group with the best reward/cost balance will
p. 21), groups that “fall above CL would be relatively determine Degas’ comparison level for alternatives
‘satisfying’ and attractive to the member; those (CLalt). Thibaut and Kelley argued that “CLalt can be
defined informally as the lowest level of outcomes a
comparison level (CL) In social exchange theory, the member will accept in the light of available alternative
standard by which the individual evaluates the quality of opportunities” (1959, p. 21).
any social relationship. In most cases, individuals whose
prior relationships yielded positive rewards with few costs comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) In social
will have higher CLs than those who experienced fewer exchange theory, the standard by which individuals eval-
rewards and more costs in prior relationships (described uate the quality of other groups that they may join
by John Thibaut and Harold Kelly). (described by John Thibaut and Harold Kelly).

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

122 C H A P T E R 4

T A B L E 4.3 The Impact of Comparison Level (CL) and Comparison Level for Alternatives

(CLalt) on Satisfaction with Group Membership and the Decision to Join a
Group

Membership in the group is

Above CL Below CL

Above CLalt Membership is satisfying, will join Membership is dissatisfying, but
Below CLalt
Membership in the group. will join group.
group is
Membership is satisfying, but will Membership is dissatisfying and
not join group. will not join group.

SOURCE: Adapted from Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Entering and exiting groups is largely determined committed to it, with commitment determined by
by CLalt, whereas satisfaction with membership is the resources he had invested in it previously. In
determined by CL (see Table 4.3). For example, Degas’ case, the alternative of remaining alone estab-
why did Degas initially join the Impressionists, but lished the lower level of his CLalt, and he did not feel
eventually leave the group? According to Thibaut sufficiently invested in the group to remain a member
and Kelley, Degas intuitively calculated the positive (Rusbult, Agnew, & Arriaga, 2012).
and negative outcomes that resulted from member-
ship in the group. This index, at least at first, favored The rest of the Impressionists, however, remained
the Impressionists. If Degas believed that joining the friends. They often exhibited their works individually
group would surpass his comparison level (CL), then and spent months in isolation, but they still pro-
he would likely be satisfied with membership. But vided each other with help as necessary. Indeed,
over time, the demands of the group became too for many years, they met regularly at the Café
great and the rewards too small, the group’s value Riche, where they would discuss art, politics, and
dropped below his CL, and he became dissatisfied. literature. In time, they reached their goal of fame
If the group’s value dropped below Degas’s intuitive and fortune. By the turn of the century, most were
estimations of the value of other groups (his CLalt), invited, at last, to present in traditional shows, and
then he would likely leave the Impressionists and collectors paid handsome prices for their work. As
join another, more promising group. He would also individuals, they came to Paris to learn to paint, but
be more likely to exit the group if he did not feel as a group they changed the world’s definition of
fine art.

CHAPTER REVIEW

Who joins groups and who stays apart? individual differences influence their degree of
interest in joining groups.
1. The Impressionists formed in Paris in the
1860s as a result of three basic sets of influ- ■ The FFM of personality identifies five traits
ences: personal qualities of the members, the that influence group formation and mem-
nature of the situation, and their liking for one bers’ behavior: extraversion, agreeableness,
another. conscientiousness, neuroticism, and open-
ness. Extraversion is associated with
2. People differ in personality, motivations, past increased happiness and sociality. Other
experiences, and expectations, and these

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

FORMATION 123

traits, such as openness, influence the type When do people affiliate with other people?
of group individuals seek to join.
1. Festinger’s (1950) theory of social comparison
■ Personal qualities that reduce the likelihood assumes that affiliation is more likely when
that a person will join a group, as indicated individuals find themselves in ambiguous,
by both self-report and studies that have frightening, and difficult circumstances.
made use of experience sampling, include shy-
ness, social anxiety, social anxiety disorders, and 2. Schachter (1959) found that people prefer to
certain attachment styles (Smith et al., 1999). affiliate (“misery loves company”) when fear-
ful, but they prefer to join individuals who
3. The strength of social motives, such as the need have useful information about a situation and
for affiliation, the need for intimacy, and the need others who are in a similar situation (“misery
for power also predict one’s group-joining pro- loves miserable company”). Fear of embarrass-
clivities, as demonstrated by the following: ment reduces affiliation.

■ Byrne’s (1961) studies of the relationship 3. Groups provide their members with social sup-
between need for affiliation and rejection port during times of stress and tension.
sensitivity.
■ Groups facilitate both “fight-or-flight” and
■ Schutz’s (1958) work on his Fundamental “tend-and-befriend” responses to stress.
Interpersonal Relations Orientation theory
that explains how people use groups to ■ Basic types of support from groups include
satisfy their need to receive and express belonging, emotional, informational, and
inclusion, control, and affection. instrumental support, and meaning.

4. Women tend to be higher than men in ■ Group support buffers the negative
relationality. health consequences of stress, possibly by
triggering improved autoimmune and
■ Women seek membership in smaller, reward system functioning.
informal, intimate groups, whereas men
seek membership in larger, more formal, 4. By choosing comparison targets who are per-
task-focused groups. forming poorly compared to themselves
(downward social comparison), individuals bolster
■ These differences are likely due, in part, to their own sense of competence; by choosing
sex roles and sexism. superior targets (upward social comparison), indi-
viduals refine their expectations of themselves.
5. People’s attitudes, experiences, and expecta-
tions are all factors that influence their decision ■ As the big-fish-little-pond effect suggests,
to join a group. upward social comparison generally lowers
self-esteem. Other negative effects include
■ The Beliefs about Groups inventory assesses sabotaging other’s performances.
individuals’ general orientation toward
working in a group (Karau & Elsaid, 2009). ■ Tesser’s self-evaluation maintenance (SEM)
model argues that people prefer to associ-
■ Individuals who had prior positive experi- ate with individuals who do not outper-
ences in groups tended to seek out further form them in areas that are very relevant to
group memberships (Pavelchak et al., 1986). their self-esteem.

■ Two key factors that influence participation ■ Individuals who are low in social compar-
in a social movement are sense of injustice and ison orientation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999)
angry emotions. The collaborative circle that and higher in affiliation respond more
became the Impressionists was, in part, a positively in groups
social movement group (Farrell, 2001).

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

124 C H A P T E R 4

What processes generate bonds of interpersonal ■ Similarity principle: People like others who
attraction between members of groups? are similar to them in some way. In con-
sequence, most groups tend toward
1. Newcomb (1960), in his studies of the increasing levels of homophily.
acquaintance process, found that people who
like one another often join together to form ■ Complementarity principle: People like others
groups. Attraction patterns are generally con- whose qualities complement their own
sistent with the following principles: qualities. Schutz (1958) identified two key
forms of compatibility: interchange compati-
■ Proximity principle: Festinger and his col- bility (based on similarity) and originator
leagues (1950), drawing on their studies of compatibility (based on complementarity).
Westgate and Westgate West, concluded
people tend to like those who are situated ■ Reciprocity principle: Liking tends to be
nearby due to increased familiarity and mutual.
interaction. Although members of online
are not near each other physically, such ■ Minimax principle: Individuals are attracted
groups generate a sense of presence to groups that offer them maximum
through frequent interaction (Reis et al., rewards and minimal costs.
2011).
2. Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959) social exchange
■ Elaboration principle: From a systems per- theory maintains that satisfaction with group
spective, groups often emerge when addi- membership is primarily determined by com-
tional elements (people) become linked to parison level (CL), whereas the comparison level for
the original members. alternatives (CLalt) determines whether members
will join, stay in, or leave a group.

RESOURCES

Chapter Case: The Impressionists theory and research examining the factors
that draw people into social interaction
■ Collaborative Circles by Michael P. Farrell with other people, but also the processes
(2001) provides a richly detailed analysis of that lead to rejection and exclusion.
the Impressionists and a number of other
influential groups and offers a stage theory ■ Handbook of Social Comparison: Theory and
that describes how these highly creative Research, edited by Jerry Suls and Ladd
groups develop over time. Wheeler (2000), includes chapters on all
aspects of social comparison processes.
Formation
■ “Social Comparison: The End of a Theory
■ Small Groups as Complex Systems by Holly and the Emergence of a Field” by Abra-
Arrow, Joseph E. McGrath, and Jennifer L. ham P. Buunk and Frederick X. Gibbons
Berdahl (2000) uses the conceptual frame- (2007) is a masterful review of the volu-
work of systems theory to examine the minous literature dealing with comparison
formation, performance, and dissolution of processes.
small, performance-focused groups.
■ The Tending Instinct by Shelley E. Taylor
Affiliation (2002) discusses the scientific support for
and implications of her tend-and-befriend
■ “Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging” by theory of sex differences.
Mark R. Leary (2010) thoughtfully reviews

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

FORMATION 125

Attraction ■ Intimate Relationships by Rowland S. Miller
(2015) surveys the copious research and
■ “Close Relationships” by Margaret S. Clark theory examining the causes of attraction
and Edward P. Lemay, Jr. reviews the and intimacy in relationships.
nature of close, intimate relationships,
defining them as the reliable giving and
receiving of responsiveness from others.

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

Cohesion and
Development

5C H A P T E R

CHAPTER OUTLINE CHAPTER OVERVIEW

5-1 Sources of Cohesion A group is not just a set of individuals, but a cohe-
5-1a Social Cohesion sive whole that joins the members together in inter-
5-1b Task Cohesion locking interdependencies. This solidarity or unity
5-1c Collective Cohesion is called group cohesion and is a necessary, if not suf-
5-1d Emotional Cohesion ficient, condition for a group to exist. A group may
5-1e Structural Cohesion begin as a collection of strangers, but, as uncertainty
5-1f Assumptions and Assessments gives way to increasing unity, the members become
bound to their group and its goals. As cohesion and
5-2 Developing Cohesion commitment ebb and flow with time, the group’s
5-2a Theories of Group Development influence over its members rises and falls.
5-2b Five Stages of Development
5-2c Cycles of Development ■ What is group cohesion, and what are its
sources?
5-3 Consequences of Cohesion
5-3a Member Satisfaction and Adjustment ■ How does cohesion develop over time?
5-3b Group Dynamics and Influence
5-3c Group Productivity ■ What are the positive and negative conse-
quences of cohesion?
5-4 Application: Explaining Initiations
5-4a Cohesion and Initiations ■ Do initiations increase cohesion?
5-4b Hazing

Chapter Review

Resources

126

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

COHESION AND DEVELOPMENT 127

The U.S. Olympic Hockey Team: Miracle Makers

They were underdogs, and they knew it. Their mission: down the seconds into his microphone before asking his
To represent the United States in the 1980 Winter listeners, “Do you believe in miracles?” What else could
Olympics hockey competition held in Lake Placid, New explain the game’s outcome? The U.S. Olympic hockey
York. Their task: To defeat teams from such hockey-rich team had just beaten an unbeatable team.
countries as Sweden and Germany. Their goal: To win a
medal, preferably a gold one. Their major obstacle: The The U.S. team was inferior to the Russian team in
powerful U.S.S.R. National Championship Team. At a nearly all respects. The Americans were mostly college
time when Olympic athletes were amateurs, the Russian students or recent graduates. They were smaller, slower,
players were practically professionals. They were mem- and far less experienced. The team had practiced dili-
bers of the Russian army, and they were paid to practice gently for months before the tournament, but the
and play their sport. The Russian team had dominated Soviets had been playing as a team for years. Yet for all
hockey for many years and was poised to take its fifth their relative weaknesses, they were stronger than the
consecutive gold medal in the sport. In an exhibition Russian team in one key way: They were more cohesive.
game played on February 9, just a few days before the They were unified by friendship, a sense of purpose, and
start of the Olympic Games, Russia defeated the U.S. esprit de corps. No one player took credit for the victory,
Olympic hockey team 10 to 3. but instead spoke only of “we,” repeating “we beat
those guys” over and over as the bewildered Russian
But strange things can happen when groups team looked on. As a writer for the magazine Sports
compete against groups. The U.S. team made its way Illustrated explained (Swift, 1980, p. 32):
through the preliminary rounds and faced the Russian
team in the medal round. The U.S. team fell behind by Individually, they were fine, dedicated sports-
two goals, and it looked as though the Russians would men…. But collectively, they were a transcendent
take the victory with ease. But the Americans struggled lot. For seven months they pushed each other on
on, finally tying, and then taking the lead. During the and pulled each other along, from rung to rung,
game’s last minutes, the Russians launched shot after until for two weeks in February they—a bunch of
shot, but all the while the U.S. coach, Herb Brooks, unheralded amateurs—became the best hockey
calmed his players by telling them “Play your game!” team in the world. The best team. The whole was
As the game’s end neared, the announcer counted greater than the sum of its parts by a mile.

The U.S. Olympic team that faced the Russians on group will be more likely to prosper over time,
that February day in Lake Placid had many noteworthy since it retains its members and allows them to reach
qualities. The players were handpicked to represent goals that would elude a more incoherent aggregate.
their country, and they had trained diligently for The group that lacks cohesion is at risk, for it may
months leading up to the game. They were each one break into subgroups at the first sign of conflict, lose
highly skilled, for the majority went on to professional members faster than it can replace them, and fail to
careers in hockey after the Olympics. The team’s reach its agreed upon goals. The concept of group
coach was known for his hard-driving style of leader- cohesion provides insight into a host of core processes
ship, and each player could tell more than one story that occur in groups, including productivity, mem-
about the indignities visited upon them by the coach in bers’ satisfaction and turnover, morale, formation, sta-
his dogged pursuit of excellence. But most of all, they bility, influence, and conflict.
were cohesive, and many believed that the team’s
cohesiveness was the deciding factor in their victory. 5-1 SOURCES OF COHESION

Group cohesion can lay claim to being group The Latin word haesus means to cling to; it is the
dynamics’ most theoretically important concept. basis of such words as adhesive, inherit, and, of
Uniquely group-level, cohesion comes about if, and course, cohesive. In physics, things that are cohesive
only if, a group exists. Cohesiveness signals, if only
indirectly, the health of the group. A cohesive

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

128 C H A P T E R 5

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

equifinality In an open system, the potential to reach a social cohesion The attraction of members to one
given end state through any one of a number of means another and to the group as a whole.
(identified by Ludwig von Bertalanffy).

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

COHESION AND DEVELOPMENT 129

Attraction between individuals is a basic ingre- days. During this period, friendships developed
dient for most groups, but when these relations quickly based on proximity of bunks, similarities
intensify and proliferate throughout a group, they in interests, and maturity. The Sherifs then inter-
can transform a run-of-the-mill group into a cohe- vened and broke the large group into two smaller
sive one. Social psychologists Muzafer and Carolyn ones by deliberately splitting up any friendship pairs
Sherif documented this process in a series of unique that had formed. They assigned one best friend to
field studies conducted in 1949, 1953, and 1954. one group (named the Bulldogs) and the other to
During the summers of those years, the Sherifs ran the other group (the Red Devils).
camps for 11- and 12-year-old boys that seemed
like typical summer camps—with canoeing, camp- Even under these conditions—with the factors
fires, crafts, hikes, and sports. But, unbeknown to that produced attraction between the boys
the campers, the Sherifs also recorded the behavior minimized—new attractions formed quickly and
of the boys as they reacted to one another and to resulted in two highly cohesive groups. The Sherifs
situations introduced by the investigators. In the made certain that the boys’ first few days in their new
1949 study, conducted in northern Connecticut, groups were spent in a variety of positive experiences
the 24 campers all bunked in one cabin for three (hiking, cookouts, and games), and before long, the
boys, when asked to name their friends, chose

Is Your Group Cohesive?

For every group that never quite jells is a group of the q I feel like a part of this group.
unlikeliest of allies who become so interlocked that q I identify with this group.
the members fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puz-
zle. What is this unseen “social chemistry” that trans- Emotional Cohesion: Affect
forms humdrum groups into tight-knit teams, cliques,
squads, bands, and so on? q The group has a great amount of energy.
q The group has team spirit.
Instructions. To explore the concept of cohesion, q I share in this group’s excitement (and
think of a group you belong to—one that is significant
for you personally. Then, put a check in each box if you disappointments).
think the statement accurately describes your group. q I am proud of this group.

Social Cohesion: Attraction Structural Cohesion: Integrity

q Most of us really like this group. q The group is well organized.
q People get along well in this group. q This group has a high level of structural
q I like the people who are in this group.
q I am friends with many of the members of this group. integrity.
q I understand my place in this group.
Task Cohesion: Goals q My role in this group is well defined.

q We work well together to achieve group goals. Interpretation. Is your group a cohesive one?
q We work together diligently pursuing our goals. If you checked at least two of the four indicators
q I work enthusiastically in this group. for each type of cohesion, then the group can be
q I am willing to work hard for this group’s goals. considered cohesive—at least, cohesive in that
particular form of cohesiveness. But if your group
Collective Cohesion: Unity did not earn many checks then it cannot be consid-
ered cohesive. (Note: The first two indicators in each
q We stick together. set pertained to group-level cohesion, whereas the
q The group is a unified one. second two were individual-level indicators of
cohesion.)

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