130 C H A P T E R 5
members of their new groups rather than the boys Group Motivation Task cohesion is based on
they had liked when camp first began. When first group-level goal motivation. Many of the players
split up, 65% of the boys picked as friends those in on the hockey team were the stars of their college
the other group. But when the groups became cohe- teams, and when they played they wanted to do
sive, fewer than 10% named boys as friends who were their personal best by scoring the most goals or
in the other group. The Sherifs’ well-known Robbers defending their own net. But success in hockey is
Cave Experiment, which is discussed in more detail in not based on personal performance. A good player
Chapter 14’s analysis of conflict between groups, may do much to help the team win, but success in
yielded similar findings. hockey requires collaboration, so all members must
contribute to the group and its objectives. Group
Group-Level Attraction Social cohesion increases members typically have the choice of working for
when group members like each other. Cohesion, the group, for themselves, for both the group and
however, is a multilevel process, for group members themselves, or for neither, and thus do not always
may be bonded to each other, to their group, and choose to strive for group success. If, however,
to the organization in which their group is embed- group cohesiveness is so strong that all members feel
ded. The players on the hockey team, for example, united in a common effort, then group-oriented
liked each other, but they also liked the team as a motives should replace individualistic motives, and
whole (Carless & De Paola, 2000). These two forms the desire among members for group success should
of social cohesion usually go hand in hand: if you be strong (Zander, 1971).
like many individuals in the group, you likely also
like the group itself. But, when cohesion is based The coach of the hockey team, Herb Brooks,
only on individual-level attraction and those who was careful to emphasize the importance of team
are liked leave the group, the remaining members goals rather than individual performance as he pre-
are more likely to quit. When cohesion is based on pared his team for the Olympics. Rather than
group-level attraction, people remain members appealing to player-centered motivations by
even when specific members leave the group (Ehr- emphasizing personal performance and rewarding
hart & Naumann, 2004). individual expertise, Brooks instilled a strong
desire for group rather than individual success.
5-1b Task Cohesion He deliberately avoided developing personal rela-
tionships with the players and reminded each one
Studies of task-oriented groups, such as teams, military frequently that, as a hockey player, he was expend-
squads, and expeditions, find that members, when able. As one of the players remarked in describing his
asked to describe their team’s cohesiveness, stress the coach: “He treated us all the same: rotten” (Swift,
quality of their group as a performing unit. The U.S. 1980, p. 32).
Olympic hockey team players, for example, were not
just individuals seeking personal goals, but teammates Collective Efficacy and Potency Groups that
who combined their strengths and talents to create a are cohesive, in terms of task commitment, tend
single, performance-focused hockey team. They to exhibit high levels of collective efficacy and
achieved task cohesion: a shared commitment group potency. Collective efficacy is determined
among members to achieve a goal that requires the by members’ shared beliefs that they can accom-
collective effort of the group (Severt & Estrada, 2015). plish all the components of their group’s tasks
task cohesion A shared commitment among members collective efficacy The belief, shared among a substan-
to achieve a goal and the resulting capacity to perform tial portion of the group members, that the group is capa-
successfully as a coordinated unit. ble of organizing and executing the actions required to
attain the group’s goals and successfully complete its tasks.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 131
competently and efficiently. Unlike self-efficacy, or just we to describe their group. They may also
which is confidence in one’s own abilities, collec- refuse to differentiate among the members of the
tive efficacy is a group-level process: Most or all of group, as when one member refuses to take
the members must believe the members will com- responsibility for the victory or win and insists
petently coordinate their individual actions in a that the team as a whole deserves the credit. Indi-
skilled, collective performance (Pescosolido, viduals who are members of cohesive groups—
2003). Hence, collective efficacy is “a group’s with cohesion defined as a strong sense of being
shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize a part of a larger whole—are more committed to
and execute the courses of action required to pro- their groups, where commitment is indicated by
duce given levels of attainment” (Bandura, 1997, the degree of attachment to the group, a long-
p. 476). A similar construct, group potency, is a term orientation to the group, and intentions to
generalized positive expectation about the group’s remain within the group (Arriaga & Agnew,
chances for success (Guzzo et al., 1993). High- 2001). Physically, member stand closer together
potency groups tend to select more difficult goals and they position themselves to prevent nonmem-
to pursue and they tend to outperform their less bers from intruding on the group’s space (Knowles
potent counterparts (Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg, & Brickner, 1981).
2009).
Cohesion and Entitativity A group that is higher
5-1c Collective Cohesion in collective cohesion will, in most cases, be a group
that is higher in entitativity: It will be perceived to
Brooks, the coach, did not just stress a sense of cama- be a single, unified entity that resists disintegration.
raderie or shared goals, but team unity. His goal, he As noted in Chapter 1, small, highly unified groups
explained, was to “build a ‘we’ and ‘us’ in ourselves such as families, cliques of friends, gangs, and sports
as opposed to an ‘I,’ ‘me,’ and ‘myself’” (Warner teams are all thought to be high in entitativity, and
HBO, 2001). The team’s collective cohesion these are also the types of groups that are high in
reached its peak in the medal ceremonies after the cohesiveness. Confirming this close association
U.S. team had won its gold medal. Team captain between cohesiveness and entitativity, one team
Mike Eruzione waved to the team to join him on of investigators found that level of entitativity, as
the small stage, and somehow the entire team measured by such items as “do you think about
crowded onto the platform. Instead of the team cap- this collection of people as a number of individuals
tain representing the group, the entire group, as a or as a whole” was correlated with both social
whole, received the medal. cohesion (r = .55) and task cohesion (r = .67).
They also found that qualities that were associated
When a group is cohesive, collectively, mem- with increases in entitativity, such as the impor-
bers are united; fused to form a single whole. When tance of the group for the members, the amount
members talk about themselves and their group, of interaction among members, and the duration
they use more plural pronouns than personal pro- of the group, also predicted increases in cohesion
nouns: “We won that game” or “We got the job (Thurston, 2012).
done” rather than “I got the job done” (Cialdini
et al., 1976). They use words like family, community, Belonging and Identity The members of the
U.S. Olympic Hockey team did not just meld
group potency The level of the group’s shared opti- together to form a single, unified group—each
mism regarding its collective capabilities. individual player also came to strongly identify
collective cohesion The degree to which the group himself as a member of that group. Members of
unites it’s members, as indicated by the perceived solidar- groups that are high in collective cohesiveness,
ity of the group (entitativity) and members’ identification when asked to comment directly on their sense of
with the group.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
132 C H A P T E R 5
Can Members Get Lost in Their Groups?
When individuals identify with their group, their sense between themselves and their group (Swann et al.,
of self combines elements drawn from both their indi- 2012; Talaifar & Swann, 2016).
vidualized, personal self and their collective, group-
level self. But what happens if this distinction between Researchers studied this process by surveying a
the individual self and collective self dissolves—if the large number of students, asking them if they agreed
individual’s personal self becomes fused with the col- with such items as “I am one with my group” and
lective? Identity fusion theory suggests that in such “I feel immersed in my group” (paraphrased from
cases—which are admittedly rare—both the personal Gómez et al., 2011, p. 992). Individuals who agreed
self and the collective selves become amplified, with with these items, when recontacted six months later,
the result that individuals are willing to engage in were asked if they were willing to fight and die for
extreme forms of behavior on behalf of their group. their group. Many said they would. Fusion also pre-
Individuals who sacrifice themselves for their group— dicted how they responded to a modified version of
heroes in combat but also suicide bombers—perform the trolley-car dilemma used in studies of ethics. Par-
actions that seem objectively inexplicable; they sacri- ticipants were asked to imagine that they were on a
fice their own lives to either save group members or to footbridge and could see that a runaway trolley was
harm others who they believe are their enemies. about to run over five members of their group. The
Identity fusion theory suggests that individuals engage only thing they could do to stop the trolley would be
in these actions because their identification with their to jump from the bridge into its path. More of the
group is so great that they no longer distinguish individuals with fused identifies said they would do so
(Gómez et al., 2011).
connection to the group, are more likely to say “I in the group will become more important to them
feel a sense of belonging to my group” (Bollen & than their personal relationships with specific
Hoyle, 1990), “I think of this group as a part of group members. Any factor that increases mem-
who I am” (Henry, Arrow, & Carini, 1999), and bers’ tendency to categorize themselves as group
“I see myself as a member of the group” (Smith, members (e.g., conflict with other groups, the
Seger, & Mackie, 2007). They not only consider presence of outgroups, and activities that focus
their group to be a single, unified entity, but they members’ attention on their group identity) will
also consider themselves to be a component part of reduce personal attraction but increase depersona-
that inseparable whole. lized attraction to the group as a whole.
This increased identification of individuals 5-1d Emotional Cohesion
with cohesive groups is predicted by social identity
theory (Hogg, 1992, 2001). When a group is Napoleon is said to have proclaimed that the great
highly cohesive, members’ identities will be strength of an army lies not in the skill of its leaders,
based more on their membership in that group but in the élan—the emotional intensity—of its
rather than their own personal, unique qualities. members. The sociologist Émile Durkheim, in dis-
In consequence, their sense of self will become cussing the nature of ritualized interactions in cohe-
depersonalized: They will view themselves and sive groups, stressed how they develop intense
their fellow members as relatively interchangeable emotional experiences, for when all “come
parts of the whole, and their sense of membership together, a sort of electricity is formed by their col-
lecting which quickly transports them to an
identity fusion theory A conceptual analysis that extraordinary degree of exaltation” (1912/1965,
explains the extreme self-sacrifice (such as heroism in p. 262). Durkheim was describing the large gather-
the face of danger and terrorism) that sometimes occurs ings of local communities in New Guinea, but he
when individual identity is fused with group identity.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 133
believed that collective effervescence resulted from the group’s day-to-day activities. The group’s mood
sharing of emotional reactions within a group. As may be so taken-for-granted that members do not
the positive and elevated mood of one person is realize its influence, but George believes that a pos-
picked up by the next, the group members eventu- itive group affect will lead to increases in a number
ally display a shared emotional intensity. of pro-group actions, including helping out other
members, protecting the group, making construc-
A variety of terms is used to describe group-level tive suggestions, and even enhancing survival (Bar-
emotional states, including élan, morale, pride, esprit sade & Gibson, 2012). In some cases, the members
de corps, and positive affective tone, but no matter of groups may experience emotions in response to
what its label, this shared emotional cohesion is events and outcomes that they personally did not
one of the most obvious features of many unified experience, as when all members of a group are
groups. The Russian and U.S. teams were equal in happy when one of the members receives an
confidence and collective efficacy, for both groups award or all become angry when they learn one
had the talent needed to win at hockey. But they of their own has been mistreated (Smith, Seger, &
differed dramatically in their level of emotionality. Mackie, 2007). Group-level emotions can even
The Russian team was confident but unenthusiastic. emerge when people are isolated from their groups,
The U.S. team was not so confident, but the team but nonetheless identify with them. For example:
was brimming with energy, enthusiasm, and team
spirit. A group with high levels of collective efficacy Imagine all of the new college students who
may expect to succeed, but a group with emotional wander across campuses and settle into dorm
cohesion has vitality, passion, vim, and vigor. It was rooms at the beginning of their freshman
this emotionality that Coach Brooks whipped up to semester. Despite geographic divides, these
its peak intensity before the U.S. team’s game with students may nevertheless feel very similar
the Russians. He told them that the Russians were emotions when thinking about themselves as
taking their victory for granted, but “we can beat college freshmen. Or consider the business
them.” He told his team: “you were born to be a traveler, holed up alone in a foreign hotel
player,” you were “destined to be here today,” and room. Despite the absence of even a single
this is “our time.” When he told them to “spit in the compatriot, she may nevertheless feel the same
eye of the tiger,” they did. surge of pride as she reads about her country’s
exploits at the summer Olympics that her fel-
Group-Level Emotions Emotional cohesion, low countrymen thousands of miles away do
like the other components of cohesion, is a multi- (Moons et al., 2009, p. 760).
level process. Emotions, although traditionally
thought to be personal and private are more often Affect and Relational Cohesion A number of
interpersonal and socially shared (Menges & Kil- theorists believe that the positive emotions that gener-
duff, 2015). The management and organizational ate cohesion arise spontaneously during the course of
behavior researcher Jennifer George (1996), for routine interactions in groups—so long as these inter-
example, suggests cohesive groups are more likely actions are relatively pleasant. For example, sociologists
to display collective mood states; members’ emo- Edward Lawler, Shane Thye, and Jeongkoo Yoon
tions and moods become synchronized, as if they (2014), in their relational cohesion theory, argue
had reached consensus on the feelings they should
be experiencing. This group affective tone is not tied relational cohesion theory A conceptual analysis of
to any specific aspect of the group’s activities or to cohesion that assumes members of groups develop stron-
any one individual, but rather pervades all the ger ties to groups that are perceived to be sources of
positive feelings or emotions and weaker ties to those
emotional cohesion The emotional intensity of the perceived to be sources of negative feelings or emotions.
group and individuals when in the group.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
134 C H A P T E R 5
Does Collective Movement Build Cohesion?
Some rituals and practices, such as collective singing, effects of close-group training. His collective-movement
chanting, praying, and marching, result in the devel- hypothesis offers, for example, a solution to one of mili-
opment of a shared emotional elevation among group tary history’s great mysteries: How did the Greek forces of
members. Historian William McNeill (1995), in his book Athens and Sparta, in the period from 600 B.C. to 300 B.C.,
Keeping Together in Time, describes this feeling by manage to overwhelm vastly superior forces? McNeill’s
drawing on his personal experience as a new recruit proposal: The Greeks relied on highly cohesive groups of
during basic training in the U.S. Army. ground forces that moved forward as a synchronized unit.
This formation is known as a phalanx, from the Greek
Marching aimlessly about on the drill field, swag- word for fingers. These units varied in size, but were typ-
gering in conformity with prescribed military ically at least eight rows deep and stretched wide enough
postures, conscious only of keeping in step so as to across a field of battle to prevent flanking. In some cases,
make the next move correctly and in time some- each man’s shield was designed so that it covered the
how felt good. Words are inadequate to describe soldier beside him as well, thereby further increasing the
the emotion aroused by the prolonged movement unity of the group. The men of these phalanxes trained
in unison that drilling involved. A sense of perva- together over long periods of time, and they became
sive well-being is what I recalled; more specifically, synchronized to the point that they acted as a single unit
a strange sense of personal enlargement; a sort of that could inflict great damage against even the best-
swelling out, becoming bigger than life, thanks to trained individual soldiers. These phalanxes eventually
participation in collective ritual (p. 2). gave way to other means of organizing men in battle,
given their vulnerability to cavalry and more maneuver-
McNeill suggests that much of the history of modern able adversaries.
forms of warfare can be traced to the cohesion-building
that group members, because they are linked to one was cohesive (e.g., close, solid, and coming
another in recurring (and mostly positive) exchange together) or divisive (e.g., distant, fragile, or coming
relationships, eventually experience positive emotions apart). As relational cohesion theory predicts, the
when interacting with one another. Particularly when more frequently the groups successfully completed
“jointness” is high—members must align their beha- their negotiations, the more positive their emo-
viors with each other in order to reach their goals— tions, and the more positive their emotions, the
then members will attribute their positive feelings to higher their group’s level of cohesion.
the group and become more strongly committed to it.
5-1e Structural Cohesion
Lawler, Thye, and Yoon (2000) tested the the-
ory by arranging for groups of three students seated Structural cohesion is unity of a group that
in separate cubicles to work together on an eco- results from the integrity of its structural features,
nomic decision-making task. Participants were including norms, roles, and intermember relations.
told on each round they would have the opportu- The U.S. Olympic team, for example, was a well-
nity to draw out points from a common pool and structured group, in terms of roles, norms, and rela-
that at the end of 20 rounds the points they earned tionships. Each player had a position on the ice that
would be converted into monetary payment. The he played, and his responsibilities in that role were
group members needed to negotiate the amounts
each withdrew among them; if too much was structural cohesion The unity of a group that derives
taken, no one would receive any points at all. from the group’s structural integrity, including normative
After numerous rounds of these negotiations the coherence, clarity of roles, and strength and density of
members were asked to describe their emotions relationships linking members.
using such adjectives as pleased, happy, satisfied, and
contented. They also indicated if they felt their group
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
COHESION AND DEVELOPMENT 135
Popularity Reciprocated C Popularity L
8 choices E
10 Reciprocated S
7 One-way choices
choices
9 One-way
choices
8
6 7
L6
5HNumber of Choices C
Number of Choices
4T 5M
4 B
3B L T
3
H
2 2F
1 1T D B CM
0H
0 H
W
B
F I G U R E 5.1 The attraction relations among the members of the Bulldogs (on the left) and the Red Devils (on
the right), as documented by Sherif and Sherif (1956) in their field studies of group processes.
well defined. The players, through practice, knew (1953, 1956) discussed earlier in the chapter—the
what they were supposed to do when on offense Bulldogs and Red Devils—developed very different
and defense, and their success in enacting these organizational structures. As Figure 5.1 indicates,
duties was reviewed regularly by the coaching the Bulldogs had a dense network of relationships
staff that had authority over all the players. The linking members, whereas the Red Devils team was
group also had clear norms about how it operated, more stratified. When the boys were asked to name
what kinds of behaviors were acceptable, and the as many as five friends at the camp, 9 of the 12
goals that it sought. The group was also closed, Bulldogs named each other in a tightly knit pattern
rather than open: only certain individuals could of reciprocal and overlapping choices. The remain-
join, and membership was regarded by most as a ing three individuals received no friendship nomi-
noteworthy accomplishment (Ziller, 1965). These nations, but they picked others who were part of
social structures regulated members’ behavior, min- the main cluster as friends and were not rejected. In
imized conflict within the group, routinized com- the Red Devils, liking was more concentrated: the
munication and interdependencies, and, in doing two most-liked individuals in the group garnered
so, increased the group’s cohesiveness (Eys & Car- 50% of all friendship choices. The Red Devils’
ron, 2001; Moody & White, 2003). group structure also included a large subgroup—
50% of the members were nested in a clique linked
Just as a well-designed building can withstand to one of the mid-level leaders. Such subgroups
the vicissitudes of time and weather, so can a struc- create fault lines in groups, and, when the group
turally cohesive group withstand stresses and strains experiences turmoil, it can break apart along
that would cause a less coherent group to crumble. these lines (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). These
For example, the two groups studied by the Sherifs
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
136 C H A P T E R 5
differences in structure corresponded to differences The Multilevel Assumption Cohesion is also a
between the two groups both in cohesiveness and multilevel process as well as a multicomponent one.
in performance. The Bulldogs were a more tight- Social cohesion includes both liking for specific
knit, cohesive group, and they were the victors members but also liking for the group itself. Task
when the two teams played each other in a series cohesion is commitment to one’s personal goals,
of competitions. “The results of the intergroup but also the goals that the group is pursuing. But
competition for the Bulldogs were elation and each of the other sources of cohesion considered in
heightened ingroup pride and identification” this section—identity, emotions, and structure—
(Sherif & Sherif, 1956, p. 294). also operate at multiple levels. Members of cohesive
groups not only identify with other members,
5-1f Assumptions and Assessments mimic their emotions, and meet their role obliga-
tions: They embrace the group’s identity, share its
The concept of cohesion, given its theoretical emotions, and fit into its structure. A multilevel
importance, has been defined and redefined by doz- analysis must also take into account vertical and
ens of different theorists. Some consider cohesion to organizational bonding (Siebold, 2007). Cohesion
be strong feelings of attraction that link members is substantially influenced by the strength of the
together. Others, in contrast, focus on morale and relations between members and their leaders (verti-
trust, and still others stress the cohesive group’s cal bonding) and the relationship between the
capacity to combine members in a highly productive group and the organization or institution in which
unit. Cohesiveness’s many definitions have caused it is embedded (organizational bonding).
some to complain that the concept, ironically, lacks
cohesion (e.g., Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009). The Multimethod Assumption Since cohesion
is multifaceted, researchers use a wide variety of
The Multicomponent Assumption A multicom- methods to measure it. Some make use of social
ponent approach embraces this definitional diversity network methods, indexing the unity of a group
by suggesting that many different factors contribute by considering who likes who and the group’s
to the unity of a group. The members of the U.S. structure. Others rely on observational strategies,
Olympic hockey team, for example, became good monitoring interpersonal relations among members,
friends as well as teammates, they worked well noting instances of conflict or tension, and mem-
together, they identified with their team, they played bers’ physical locations over time. In many cases,
with great emotional intensity, and the group was too, investigators hope that group members are
highly structured. But, as is consistent with the con- accurate observers of their group’s cohesiveness
cept of equifinality, other cohesive groups may not and, if asked, will share these perceptions. They
exhibit all of these qualities. might ask members of a group to only describe
their own attraction to and commitment to the
Some kinds of cohesion are more common group through such questions as, “Are you attracted
than others. For example, studies of performance- to the group?” or “Do you feel a strong sense of
focused groups, such as military squads and sports belonging to the group?” Other researchers, in
teams, identify two components—social cohesion contrast, may ask group members to estimate the
and task cohesion—as the two primary forms of group’s cohesion directly through such questions
cohesion and distinguish between these two forms as, “Are members attracted to this group?” and “Is
and secondary forms of cohesion (Siebold, 2007, this group a cohesive one?” (Salas et al., 2015).
2015). Sociological and network studies, in con-
trast, tend to emphasize the importance of structural This plethora of operational definitions can cre-
features as critical determinants of cohesion (e.g., ate challenges for researchers. When they measure
Burke, Davies, & Carron, 2014; McPherson & cohesiveness in different ways, they often report
Smith-Lovin, 2002). different conclusions. A study using a self-report
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 137
measure of cohesion might find that cohesive groups Theories of group development seek to describe
produce more than cohesive ones, but other investi- these recurring patterns of change in a group’s structure
gators may not replicate this finding when they use and interactions that occur over the course of the
observational measures. Moreover, some operational group’s existence. Some theories—successive-stage
definitions of cohesion may correspond more closely models—suggest that groups move through a series of
to the theoretical definition than others. A measure separable stages as they develop. The U.S. Olympic
that focuses only on group members’ perceptions of team, for example, became unified, but only after pro-
their group’s cohesiveness, for example, may be asses- gressing through earlier stages marked by confusion,
sing something very different than measures of the conflict, and growing group structure. Cyclical models,
actual strength of the relationships linking individuals in contrast, argue that groups repeatedly cycle through
to their group. periods or phases during their lifetimes, rather than just
moving through each stage once. The U.S. Olympic
5-2 DEVELOPING COHESION team, for example, experienced substantial shifts in its
levels of conflict between the coach and the players
The U.S. Olympic hockey team that faced the throughout its existence, but these shifts triggered pro-
Russian team in February of 1980 was extraordi- cesses that worked to control tension and increase har-
narily unified, but the group did not become cohe- mony. Still other theories mix elements of both stage
sive all at once. When Coach Brooks invited the and cycle models and extend these two basic perspec-
best amateur hockey players to a training camp in tives in various ways. We consider examples of these
Colorado Springs in July 1979, the players showed approaches to the analysis of group development in this
few signs of camaraderie, fellowship, or cohesion. section (Arrow et al., 2005; Wheelan, 2005).
Many had played against one another in college and
still held grudges, and some were so temperamental 5-2b Five Stages of Development
that no one would befriend them. But the hockey
team changed over time, transforming from a col- Just as humans mature from infancy to childhood,
lection of talented individuals into a cohesive team. adolescence, adulthood, and old age, stage models
of group development theorize that groups move
5-2a Theories of Group Development from one stage to the next in a predictable, sequen-
tial fashion. It is not the passage of time, per se,
New groups are different from established groups. which is critical, but rather the processes that take
The committee meeting for the first time will not place as the group transforms from an amalgam of
act the way it will during its tenth meeting. The individuals into a cohesive unit. As the group deals
team playing its first game of the season will not with the challenges that it must confront at each
perform in the same way it will on its last game. stage, the group’s interactions stabilize, the relations
The partygoers at 2 AM don’t do the sorts of things joining the members strengthen, and the group
they did at the party’s start at 9 PM. Some of the becomes more proficient. A group that has com-
changes that a group and its members undergo are pleted its movement through each stage in the
specific to that particular group, for they are the sequence should, in theory, function more effec-
result of the unique characteristics of the members, tively than one that has not.
the distinctive way these individuals interact with
each other, and the group’s reaction to external The number and names of the stages vary
pressures that it may encounter. But along with among theorists, but many models highlight certain
these idiographic changes are more predictable pat- interpersonal outcomes that must be achieved in
terns of change that are common to most groups any group that exists for a prolonged period (see
the longer their duration. Table 5.1). At the outset, the group members
must become oriented toward one another. Sec-
ond, they often find themselves in conflict, 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.
138 C H A P T E R 5
T A B L E 5.1 Stages of Group Development
Stage Major Processes Characteristics
Orientation: Forming Communications are tentative, polite;
Members become familiar with each concern for ambiguity, group’s goals;
other and the group; dependency and leader is active; members are compliant
inclusion issues; acceptance of leader
and group consensus Criticism of ideas; poor attendance; hos-
tility; polarization and coalition formation
Conflict: Storming Disagreement over procedures; expres-
sion of dissatisfaction; tension among Agreement on procedures; reduction in
members; antagonism toward leader role ambiguity; increased “we-feeling”
Structure: Norming Growth of cohesiveness and unity; Decision making; problem solving; mutual
establishment of roles, standards, and cooperation
relationships; increased trust,
communication Disintegration and withdrawal; increased
independence and emotionality; regret
Performance: Performing Goal achievement; high task orienta-
tion; emphasis on performance and
production
Dissolution: Adjourning Termination of roles; completion of
tasks; reduction of dependency
some solution is sought to improve their working guarded interchanges, and relatively low levels of
relationship. Next, norms and roles develop that interaction. During this initial forming stage, members
regulate behavior, and the group achieves greater monitor their behavior to avoid any embarrassing
unity. In the fourth phase, the group can perform lapses of social poise and are tentative when expres-
as a unit to achieve desired goals. The final stage sing their personal opinions. Because the group’s
ends the sequence of development with the group’s structure has not had time to develop, the members
adjournment. The educational psychologist Bruce are often uncertain about their role in the group,
Tuckman (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, what they should be doing to help the group reach
1977) gave these stages in the five-stage model its goals, or even who is leading the group.
of group development poetically pleasant
names: forming (orientation), storming (conflict), With time, tension is dispelled as the ice is broken
norming (structure development), performing (work), and group members become better acquainted. After
and adjourning (dissolution). the initial inhibitions subside, group members typically
begin exchanging information about themselves and
Forming: The Orientation Stage The first few their goals. To better understand and relate to the
minutes, hours, days, or even weeks of a newly group, individual members gather information about
formed group’s life are often marked by tension, their leaders’ and members’ personality characteristics,
interests, and attitudes. In most cases, too, members
five-stage model of group development A theoreti- recognize that the others in the group are forming an
cal analysis of the regularities groups exhibit as they change impression of each other, and so they facilitate this
over time that identifies five stages: orientation (forming), process by revealing some private, personal informa-
conflict (storming), structure (norming), performance tion during conversations and Internet-based
(performing), and dissolution (adjourning) (identified and exchanges. This gradual, and in some cases tactical,
labeled by Bruce Tuckman). communication of personal information is termed
self-disclosure, and it serves the important function of
helping members get to know one another (Jourard,
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 139
Can Cohesion Make a Bad Job Good?
Cohesiveness increases with interaction, for the more days with jokes, teasing, kidding around, and horse-
people do things together as a group—talking, work- play that gave structure and meaning to their work.
ing, eating, relaxing, socializing, traveling, and so on— To break up the day into smaller segments, the men
then the more cohesive the group will become. This stopped from time to time for various refreshments
generalization, however, comes with qualifications, for and breaks. There was, of course, lunch time, but the
any number of situational factors can shift interaction men added many others, such as coffee time, peach
out of the plus column into the minus. If the interac- time, fish time, and banana time. These rituals and
tions take place in a hostile environment; if a substan- social activities, collectively called “banana time” by
tial number of group members are interpersonally Roy, turned a bad job into a good one.
irritating in some way; if the group interactions are
uncoordinated and boring; if many of the members All cohesive groups have their banana times—
feel that they are unfairly excluded from the group’s interaction rituals that elevate the degree of social
activities, the group’s development of cohesiveness connection among the members. Like traditional
will be delayed. rituals, such as grace said before meals or singing
the national anthem, such interaction rituals provide
Cohesion, however, can manifest in even the most structure and meaning for the group and its mem-
challenging of group circumstances, as sociologist bers. Reading the minutes of the last meeting,
Donald Roy’s (1959) “banana time” case study reveals. introducing new members, joking about the mem-
Roy worked, for two months, in 12-hour shifts lasting ber who is always late, or commenting on someone’s
from 8 AM to 8:30 PM, with three other men in an appearance, are all simple rituals that ensure that
isolated room in a garment factory operating a press the group’s activities will unfold in a predictable and
machine. The work was not just tedious, but menial, orderly way. Rituals and ceremonies have been
repetitive, and tiring. Roy felt he could not last more linked to increases in a shared focus among mem-
than a week, but that was before he was drawn into bers, emotional energy, and overall cohesiveness
the interaction of the small group. The group filled its (Collins, 2004).
1971). Eventually, the group members feel familiar between individual members who discover that they
enough with one another that their interactions just do not get along, procedural conflict over the
become more open and spontaneous. group’s goals and procedures, and competition
between individual members for authority, leadership,
Storming: The Conflict Stage As the relatively and more prestigious roles. In groups that have an
mild tension caused by the newness of a group official leader, like the U.S. Olympic team, the con-
wanes, tension over goals, procedures, and authority flict often centers on relationships between the leader
often waxes. On the U.S. Olympic team, for exam- and the rest of the group. In the orientation stage,
ple, the players from the schools in the eastern part of members accept the leader’s guidance with few ques-
the United States often excluded the players from tions, but as the group matures, leader–member con-
the Midwest. Several players were considered hot- flicts disrupt the group’s functioning. Members may
shots more interested in their personal performance oscillate between fight (counter dependency) and
than in team success. And nearly all the players flight (withdrawal) as some openly challenge the lea-
rebelled against the hard-driving coaching style of der’s authority and others exude submissiveness. In
Herb Brooks. He would yell, insult, swear, and groups that have no formally appointed leader, con-
curse the players whenever they failed to perform flicts erupt as members vie for status and roles within
up to his standards, and he often threatened to cut the group. Once stable patterns of authority, attrac-
players from the team. tion, and communication have developed, conflicts
subside, but until then, group members jockey for
The storming stage is marked by a “lack of unity” authority and power (Forsyth & Diederich, 2014).
(Tuckman, 1965, p. 386), including personal conflicts
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
140 C H A P T E R 5
Many group members are discouraged by this the team rules, the practice schedules, and the
outbreak of conflict in their young groups, but con- coach’s constant criticisms, but they became fiercely
flict is the yang to the yin of group harmony. As loyal to the team, their teammates, and their coach.
Chapter 13’s analysis of the roots of conflict suggests, Whereas groups in the orientation and conflict stages
the dynamic nature of the group ensures continual are characterized by low levels of intimacy, friend-
change, but along with this change come stresses ship, and continuity, in the norming stage members
and strains that surface in the form of conflict. In become more trusting, supportive, and cooperative.
rare instances, group members may avoid all conflict The group becomes cohesive.
because their actions are perfectly coordinated; but in
most groups, the push and pull of interpersonal forces As the group becomes more organized, it
inevitably exerts its influence. Low levels of conflict in resolves the problems that caused earlier conflicts—
a group can be an indication of remarkably positive uncertainty about goals, roles, and authority—and
interpersonal relations, but it is more likely that the prepares to get down to the work at hand. Norms
group members are simply uninvolved, unmotivated, emerge more clearly and guide the group members
and bored (Chin et al., 2017). as they interact with one another. The group begins
to display interaction rituals that provide structure
Conflict is not just unavoidable, however; it and meaning for the group and its members, such
may be a key ingredient for creating group cohe- as regularities in small talk or repetitive mundane
sion. If conflict escalates out of control, it can practices (Collins, 2004). Differences of opinion still
destroy a group. But in some cases, conflict settles arise, but now they are dealt with through construc-
matters of structure, direction, and performance tive discussion and negotiation. Members communi-
expectations. Group members must learn to live cate openly with one another about personal and
and work together, and to do so they may need group concerns, in part because members know one
to openly discuss—and even argue over—a specific another better. On the U.S. Olympic team, the
problem or task they are dealing with (task con- players did not always agree with the coach, but
flict), the way they work together (process conflict), they changed the way they dealt with disagreement.
the stresses and strains of their interpersonal rela- Instead of grumbling about their treatment, several
tionships (personal conflict), and who is in charge players started compiling a book of Brooksisms—the
(status conflict). To move along in their develop- odd expressions Coach Brooks used during prac-
mental process, the members of cohesive groups tice to motivate his players. Nearly every player,
must learn to manage their conflict: when hostility interviewed 20 years after they played for Brooks,
surfaces it must be confronted and resolved (Bradley remembered such Brooksisms as “You are playing
et al., 2015). Successful conflict resolution may worse every day and now you are playing like the
even “serve to ‘sew the social system together’” middle of next week” and “Gentlemen, you don’t
by identifying and resolving disagreements that if have enough talent to win on talent alone.”
left untended could destabilize the group (Coser,
1956, p. 801). Groups that spend too much time Performing: The Work Stage The U.S. Olym-
in the storming stage, however, may find that the pic hockey team played 41 games against other
harmful effects of protracted conflict-laden interac- teams in preparation for the Olympics and won
tions cannot be undone (De Dreu, 2010). 30 of those matches. They reached their peak of
performance when they beat the Russian team to
Norming: The Structure Stage With each crisis qualify for the final, gold-medal game against Fin-
overcome, the U.S. Olympic hockey team became land. Before that game, Coach Brooks did not give
more stable, more organized, and more unified. The them a pep talk, as he had before the Russian game.
players revised their initial impressions of each other Instead, he only said, “You lose this game and you
and reached more benevolent conclusions about will take it to your [expletive deleted] graves”
their teammates. The players still complained about (Warner HBO, 2001). They won.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 141
Few groups are productive immediately; instead, was celebrated by a nation of sudden hockey fans,
productivity must usually wait until the group including the president of the United States. But the
matures. Various types of groups, such as conferences, ceremony at the White House marked the end of
factory workers assembling relay units, workshop par- the group’s existence, for the team never reconvened
ticipants, and the members of expeditions, become or played again. After meeting the president, the
more efficient and productive later in their group’s teammates clapped one another on the back one
life cycle (Hare, 1967, 1982; Hare & Naveh, 1984). last time, and then the group disbanded.
The more “mature” a group, the more likely the
group will spend the bulk of its time working toward A group’s entry into the dissolution stage can be
its chosen goals rather than socializing, seeking direc- either planned or spontaneous. Planned dissolution takes
tion, or arguing (Dierdorff, Bell, & Belohlav, 2011). place when the group accomplishes its goals or
When researchers coded the content of group mem- exhausts its time and resources. The U.S. Olympic
bers’ verbal interactions, they discovered task-focused hockey team meeting the president, a wilderness
remarks occur later rather than sooner in the group’s expedition at the end of its journey, a jury delivering
life (e.g., Bales & Strodtbeck, 1951; Borgatta & Bales, its verdict, and an ad hoc committee filing its final
1953; Heinicke & Bales, 1953). Conflict and uncer- report are all ending as scheduled. Spontaneous dissolu-
tainty also decrease over time as work-focused com- tion, in contrast, occurs when the group’s end is not
ments increase. Groups that have been together scheduled. In some cases, an unanticipated problem
longer talk more about work-related matters, whereas may arise that makes continued group interaction
younger groups are more likely to express conflict or impossible. When groups fail repeatedly to achieve
uncertainty and make requests for guidance their goals, their members or some outside power
(Wheelan, Davidson, & Tilin, 2003). Once the may decide that maintaining the group is a waste of
group reaches the performing stage “members shift time and resources. In other cases, the group members
their attention from what the group is to what the may no longer find the group and its goals sufficiently
group needs to do” (Bushe & Coetzer, 2007, p. 193). satisfying to warrant their continued membership. As
social exchange theory maintains, when the number
Not all groups, however, reach this productive of rewards provided by group membership decreases
work stage. If you have never been a member of a and the costly aspects of membership escalate, group
group that failed to produce, you are a rare individ- members become dissatisfied. If the members feel that
ual indeed. In a study of neighborhood action com- they have no alternatives or that they have put too
mittees, only 1 of 12 groups reached the productivity much into the group to abandon it, they may remain
stage; all the others were bogged down at the form- in the group even though they are dissatisfied. If,
ing or storming stages (Zurcher, 1969). An early however, group members feel that other groups are
investigation of combat units found that out of 63 available or that nonparticipation is preferable to par-
squads, only 13 could be clearly classified as effective ticipation in such a costly group, they will be more
performance units (Goodacre, 1953). An analysis of likely to let their current group die (Vandenberghe &
18 personal growth groups concluded that only 5 Bentein, 2009).
managed to reach the task performance stage (Kuy-
pers, Davies, & Glaser, 1986). These studies and The dissolution stage can be stressful for mem-
others suggest that time is needed to develop a bers (Birnbaum & Cicchetti, 2005). When disso-
working relationship, but time alone is no guarantee lution is unplanned, the final group sessions may
that the group will be productive (Gabarro, 1987). be filled with conflict-laden exchanges among
Chapters 10, 11, and 12 examine issues pertaining to members, growing apathy and animosity, repeated
team performance in detail. failures at the group’s task, and loss of trust within
the group. Even when dissolution is planned, the
Adjourning: The Dissolution Stage After its members may feel distressed. Their work in the group
astounding victory, the U.S. Olympic hockey team may be over, but they still mourn for the group
and suffer from a lack of personal support. 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.
142 C H A P T E R 5
many cases, too, group members deal with the usual order of the phases of group development.
demise of the group for blaming each other for Sometimes, however, group development takes a
the group’s errors and misadventures (Gillespie & different course. Although interpersonal exploration
Dietz, 2009). is often a prerequisite for group solidarity, and cohe-
sion and conflict often precede effective perfor-
5-2c Cycles of Development mance, this pattern is not universal. Some groups
manage to avoid particular stages; others move
Tuckman’s model, which is operationalized in through the stages in a unique order; still others
Figure 5.2, is a successive-stage theory: It specifies the seem to develop in ways that cannot be described
The members don’t know very much about each other. Yes Forming
The purposes of the group are not yet well-defined or clear. Storming
The future activities and procedures of the group are, as yet, ambiguous.
Members go along with whatever the group or leader suggests.
No
There is uncertainty about or competition over who is leading this group. Yes
The members are often not willing to follow each other’s suggestions.
There is a high level of conflict in this group.
The members of this group do not get along well with one another.
No
The group is not yet well organized. Norming
The group’s norms and roles are not yet clear to most members.
This group is spending time discussing how it will get things done. Yes
This group is not very cohesive.
No
The group is making progress toward completing its work successfully. Performing
The group is growing more coordinated over time.
The group is seeking out feedback about its level of performance. Yes
The group is making adjustments to improve its effectiveness.
No
No plans have been made for future group activities. Adjourning
Many of the members no longer take part in the group’s activities.
Group members are no longer actively engaged in the group. Yes
The group has reached its goals and is ready to disband.
No
F I G U R E 5.2 Charting the development of groups. The five-stage model of group development assumes that
groups naturally progress through five stages as their processes, procedures, and personal relationship change over
time. To apply the model, think of a group to which you currently belong. Then, beginning at the topmost box, ask if
your group displays the qualities of a “young” group, or if it has moved on to a later stage of development. If the
group you are analyzing is one that is responsible for completing a task, the sooner it reaches the performing stage,
then the more likely it will be successful in reaching its goals.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 143
by Tuckman’s five stages (Bonebright, 2010). Also, followed this general pattern of oscillation
the demarcation between stages is not clear-cut. between the two types of group activity (Bales
When group conflict is waning, for example, feelings & Cohen, 1979).
of cohesion may be increasing, but these time-
dependent changes do not occur in a discontinuous, Punctuated equilibrium models agree with
stepwise sequence (Arrow, 1997). Bales’ view, but they add that groups often go
through periods of relatively rapid change. These
Many theorists believe that groups repeatedly changes in the group’s developmental trajectory
cycle through stages during their lifetime, rather can be triggered by a barometric event: an incident
than just moving through each stage once. These or outcome that causes a significant shift in the
cyclical models agree that certain issues tend to interpersonal dynamics of the group (Bennis & She-
dominate group interaction during the various pard, 1956). The halfway point in the group’s life,
phases of a group’s development, but they add too, can trigger dramatic changes in the group, as
that these issues can recur later in the life of the members realize that the time they have available to
group. Very long-term groups, such as teams of them is dwindling (Gersick, 1989). Groups must
software engineers who work on products for deal with deadlines and time pressures, and as
many years, show signs of shifting from task- time runs out conflict and tension can rise, whereas
focused stages back to conflict (re-storming) and the group’s cohesiveness can drop (Mohammed,
norming (re-norming) stages (McGrew, Bilotta, & Hamilton, & Lim, 2009).
Deeney, 1999). Production crews in progress
meetings spend much of their time discussing The U.S. Olympic team’s development,
the work itself—the tasks they have completed although stage-like in many respects, changed
and those still undone—but their conversations more rapidly following critical events. Perhaps
also include relational, group-focused topics that the most dramatic turning point in the group’s life
increase cohesiveness. Notably, groups that bal- occurred when the team lost an exhibition game to a
ance the task side with the relational side are weak team. Coach Brooks believed the team played
more likely to complete their projects on time without any heart or energy, and after the game he
than are groups whose meetings are all business kept them on the ice rather than letting them
and no relationships (Gorse & Emmitt, 2009). shower and change. He made the players skate
back and forth between the goals (the players called
The sociologist Robert Freed Bales’ equilib- these drills “Herbies”) for what seemed like hours.
rium model of group development assumes that Even when the arena manager turned off the lights
group members strive to maintain a balance and went home, Brooks kept the team skating back
between accomplishing the task and enhancing and forth in the dark. The experience created a feel-
the quality of the interpersonal relationships ing of unity in the group, and this cohesiveness car-
within the group. In consequence, groups cycle ried them through the remainder of their games and
back and forth between what Tuckman called on to victory. Such turning points may, however, be
the norming and performing stages: A period relatively rare in groups. More typically, the shift
of prolonged group effort must be followed by from an initial orientation focus to a task focus occurs
a period of cohesion-creating, interpersonal gradually as groups and their members pace their
activity. The discussion groups that Bales studied progress toward the completion of their final goal
(Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000).
equilibrium model A conceptual analysis of group punctuated equilibrium model A group development
development that assumes the focus of a group shifts theory that assumes groups change gradually over time
back and forth between the group’s tasks and the inter- but that the periods of slow growth are punctuated by
personal relationships among group members (proposed brief periods of relatively rapid change.
by Robert Bales).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
144 C H A P T E R 5
How Do Online Groups Build Cohesion?
Many online groups are as collaborative, cohesive, and because they consider their membership to be more
continuous as their corresponding offline cousins. For enduring than temporary.
example, online project-focused groups and teams—such
as groups created in college courses that complete group- Many online groups, recognizing the benefits of a
level learning activities and groups in organizational stabilized membership and the cohesiveness that sta-
contexts that have explicit work-related purposes—are bility brings, use various technological and interper-
initially less unified than offline groups, but most even- sonal strategies to transform their open groups into
tually catch up to groups that interact in face-to-face set- closed ones. Those who create e-groups often set up
tings (e.g., Bateman, Gray, & Butler, 2011). the membership procedures so that the group has clear
boundaries between those who belong and those who
Some types of online groups, however, are less do not. In some cases, those seeking to join must be
successful when it comes to reaching high levels of approved by the group before they are admitted, and
cohesiveness. Groups that form in social networking only then will they be able to access the contents of the
sites, for example, often exhibit one telling sign of low group’s communications (Backstrom et al., 2008). Many
cohesion: membership instability. In a social network of the most successful, long-term guilds in World of
site, such as Facebook, people can leave or join a Warcraft, for example, are highly selective, accepting
group or sever a connection (“unfriend” someone) at only applicants with certain credentials or those who
the push of a button. Similarly, studies of the guilds have been referred to the guild by a current member.
that form in the multiplayer game World of Warcraft Guilds also increase the commitment of members to the
indicate that members join and leave these groups at a group by requiring each member to contribute some of
relatively high rate (Ducheneaut &Yee, 2014). their resources to a common pool—a “guild bank”—
and those resources are forfeited if one leaves the guild
Robert Ziller’s (1965) theory of open and closed (Malone, 2009). Although research is needed to evalu-
groups offers an explanation. Ziller suggests that ate the impact of these methods of increasing the unity
groups with permeable boundaries—open groups— of online groups, anecdotal evidence suggests they are
are especially unlikely to become cohesive, since effective means of increasing the cohesiveness of e-
members do not remain in the group long enough to groups. A Google search of the phrase “I love my guild”
develop attraction bonds, commitment to group goals, yielded about 47,000 results, whereas a search for “I
or a sense of solidarity. Members of closed groups, in hate my guild” had only 4,500 hits.
contrast, are more willing to invest in their groups,
5-3 CONSEQUENCES grueling, the pressure to improve was relentless,
the flow of criticism from their coach never ceased,
OF COHESION but nonetheless: each one considered their six
months together in 1980 to be a special time in
Cohesion is something of a purr word. Most peo- their lives. As one of the team’s coaches, Craig
ple, if asked to choose between two groups—one Patrick, explained: “in the end it was the camara-
that is cohesive and another that is not—would derie of the unit that developed; it was something
likely pick the cohesive group. But cohesiveness special” (Warner HBO, 2001).
has its drawbacks. A cohesive group is an intense
group, and this intensity affects the members, the Across a range of groups in industrial, athletic,
group’s dynamics, and the group’s performance in and educational settings, people who are members
both positive and negative ways. Cohesion leads to of highly compatible, cohesive groups report more
a range of consequences—not all of them desirable. satisfaction and enjoyment than members of nonco-
hesive groups. One investigator studied teams of
5-3a Member Satisfaction and masons and carpenters working on a housing devel-
opment. For the first five months, the men worked at
Adjustment various assignments in groups formed by the supervi-
sor. This period gave the men a chance to get to
The men who were part of the U.S. Olympic know virtually everyone working on the project
hockey team had no regrets. The work load was
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 145
and natural likes and dislikes soon surfaced. The their interactions, and these “old sergeants” can
researcher then established cohesive groups by mak- eventually become completely isolated within the
ing certain that the teams only contained people who group (Sobel, 1947). Some highly cohesive groups
liked each other. As anticipated, the masons and car- may also sequester members from other groups in an
penters were much more satisfied when they worked attempt to seal members off from competing inter-
in cohesive groups. As one of them explained, ests. Individuals who leave highly cohesive groups,
“Seems as though everything flows a lot such as small religious communities, combat units,
smoother.... The work is more interesting when and gangs, may experience loneliness, chronic guilt,
you’ve got a buddy working with you. You certainly and isolation when their membership in such groups
like it a lot better anyway” (Van Zelst, 1952, p. 183). ends. As groups become highly cohesive, they can
become so self-contained that members’ links to
A cohesive group creates a healthier workplace, nonmembers are severed, virtually isolating the
at least at the psychological level. Because people in group and its members (Junger, 2015).
cohesive groups respond to one another in a more
positive fashion than the members of noncohesive Cohesive groups can also make those few
groups, people experience less anxiety and tension members who are not closely bonded with the
in such groups (Seashore, 1954). People who group feel like outsiders. Individuals who dropped
belong to cohesive groups—with cohesion defined out of cohesive groups often recognized that the
as a strong sense of belonging to an integrated group was cohesive, but they did not feel that
community—are more actively involved in their they were part of that close-knit unit (Robinson
groups, are more enthusiastic about their groups, & Carron, 1982). Being part of a cohesive group
and even suffer from fewer social and interpersonal is not that enjoyable for those on the fringe.
problems (Hoyle & Crawford, 1994). They are also
happier people. Who responds the most positively 5-3b Group Dynamics and Influence
when asked such questions as “How happy would
you say you are?” and “Would you say you are As cohesion increases, the internal dynamics of the
satisfied with your life right now?” People who group intensify, so pressures to conform are greater
live and work in cohesive groups, communities, in cohesive groups, and individuals’ resistance to
and societies (Delhey & Dragolov, 2016). these pressures is weaker. Anecdotal accounts of
highly cohesive groups—military squads, adolescent
Cohesive groups can, however, be emotionally peer groups, sports teams, gangs, fraternities and
demanding (Forsyth & Elliott, 1999). The old sororities, and cults—often describe the strong pres-
sergeant syndrome, for example, is more common sures that these groups put on their members
in cohesive military squads. Although the cohesive- (Goldhammer, 1996). Cohesive groups—as the
ness of the unit initially provides psychological final section of this chapter concludes—are more
support for the individual, the loss of comrades dur- likely to initiate their members. Drug use and illegal
ing battle causes severe distress. When the unit is activities are often traced back to conformity pres-
reinforced with replacements, the original group sures of adolescents’ peer groups (Giordano, 2003).
members are reluctant to establish emotional ties Cohesive gangs exert strong pressure on members
with the newcomers, partly in fear of the pain pro- (Peterson & Panfil, 2014). Alternative religious
duced by separation. Hence, they begin restricting groups (“cults”) may demand extreme sacrifices
from members, including suicide. Sports teams, if
old sergeant syndrome Symptoms of psychological dis- highly cohesive, may extract both compliance and
turbance, including depression, anxiety, and guilt, exhibited sacrifice from members (Prapavessis & Carron,
by noncommissioned officers in cohesive units that suffer 1997). Highly cohesive decision-making groups
heavy casualties. Strongly loyal to their unit and its mem- may err in their judgments when members feel
bers, these leaders feel so responsible for their unit’s losses pressured to keep their concerns and disagreements
that they withdraw psychologically from the group. to themselves (Janis, 1972).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
146 C H A P T E R 5
Cohesion can also increase negative group pro- cohesive groups over noncohesive ones (Mullen &
cesses, including hostility, scapegoating, and hostility Copper, 1994). Another review, this time aggregat-
toward other groups (Pepitone & Reichling, 1955). ing the results of 19 studies of 778 groups, found
In one study, cohesive and noncohesive groups that increases in cohesion were reliability associated
worked on a series of unsolvable problems. Although with increases in performance (r = .30; Beal et al.,
all the groups seemed frustrated, coalitions tended to 2003). And when researchers directly manipulate
form in noncohesive groups, whereas cohesive the cohesiveness of the groups they are studying
groups vented their frustrations through interper- experimentally, they routinely find that groups
sonal aggression: overt hostility, joking hostility, sca- assigned to the high-cohesion conditions outper-
pegoating, and domination of subordinate members. form those assigned to the low-cohesion conditions
The level of hostility became so intense in one group (e.g., Back, 1951; Zaccaro & Lowe, 1986).
that observers lost track of how many offensive
remarks were made; they estimated that the number What is it about a cohesive group that makes it
surpassed 600 comments during the 45-minute work more successful? Does the high level of attraction
period (French, 1941). among members reduce conflict, making it easier
for the group to concentrate on its work? Or per-
5-3c Group Productivity haps group members are more dedicated to their
group if it is cohesive, and this sense of dedication
The cohesive, unified group has, throughout history, and group pride prompts them to expend more
been lauded as the most productive, the most likely effort on behalf of their group.
to win in battle, and the most creative. The Spartans
who held the pass at Thermopylae were a model of The success of cohesive groups lies, in part, in
unity, courage, and strength. The crew of the ship the enhanced coordination of their members. In
Endurance, which was crushed by ice floes during a noncohesive groups, members’ activities are uncoor-
voyage to the Antarctic, survived by working dinated and disjointed, but in cohesive groups, each
together under the able leadership of Ernest Shack- member’s contributions mesh with those of the
leton. The interpersonally enmeshed engineers at the other group members. Cohesion thus acts as a
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) invented the “lubricant” that “minimizes the friction due to the
personal computer and other assorted technologies, human ‘grit’ in the system” (Mullen & Copper,
including the mouse, a graphical interface (clickable 1994, p. 213). Members of cohesive groups all
icons), e-mail, and laser printers. When the U.S. share the same “mental model” of the group’s task
Olympic hockey team won, most sports commenta- and its demands, and this shared prescription for how
tors explained the victory by pointing to the U.S. the task is to be accomplished facilitates their perfor-
team’s cohesiveness, even suggesting that a unified mance. Hence, cohesive groups are particularly likely
team could work “miracles.” But is this folk wisdom to outperform noncohesive groups when the group’s
consistent with the scientific evidence? Are cohesive task requires high levels of interaction and interde-
groups really more productive? pendence. The degree of interdependency required
by the type of tasks the group is working on also
The Cohesion ! Performance Relationship determines the size of the cohesion–performance
Both correlational and experimental studies of all relationship; the more group members must coordi-
kinds of groups—sports teams, work groups in busi- nate their activities with one another, the more likely
ness settings, expeditions, military squads, and labo- a cohesive group will outperform a less cohesive one
ratory groups—generally confirm the cohesion ! (Beal et al., 2003; Gully et al., 1995).
performance relationship: Cohesive groups tend to
outperform less unified groups. One analysis of These meta-analytic studies also show support for
49 studies of 8,702 members of a variety of the value of a multicomponent conceptualization of
groups reported that 92% of these studies supported cohesion, for they suggest that even when cohesion is
operationalized in different ways, the cohesion–
performance relationship still holds true. In their anal-
ysis, social psychologists Brian Mullen and Carolyn
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 147
Copper (1994) gave the edge to task cohesion, partic- in cohesiveness. Mullen and Copper closely exam-
ularly in studies involving bona fide groups rather than ined seven correlational studies that measured cohe-
artificial ones. Subsequent analyses, however, found sion and performance twice rather than once. These
evidence that all three components—social, task, and studies suggested that a group’s cohesiveness at
perceptual (“group pride”) cohesion—were related to Time 1 predicted its performance at Time 1 and
performance when one looked only at group-level at Time 2. But in these studies, group performance
studies (Beal et al., 2003). at Time 1 was a particularly powerful predictor of
cohesiveness at Time 2. These findings prompted
The Performance ! Cohesion Relationship Mullen and Copper to conclude that the
When the U.S. Olympic hockey team received cohesion–performance relationship is a reciprocal
their gold medals in the 1980 games, the team one: Cohesion makes groups more successful, but
likely reached the apex of its cohesion. They not groups that succeed also become more cohesive (see
only liked one another, shared positive emotions, Figure 5.3). Other researchers have confirmed the
and were structurally organized, but they were also bidirectional nature of the cohesion–performance
victorious: they were a successful group, whereas relation, but further suggest that the impact of
the Russian team had failed—and this achievement cohesion on performance becomes stronger over
likely further enhanced the group’s overall level of time, whereas the impact of performance on cohe-
cohesiveness. sion remains relatively stable (Mathieu et al., 2015).
The cohesion ! performance relationship is Exceptions and Conditions Increasing a group’s
actually a reciprocal one: When a group performs cohesion does not guarantee that it will perform
well at its identified task, the level of cohesion in more effectively. The cohesion ! performance
the group increases, but should it fail, disharmony, relationship is stronger (1) in bona fide groups
disappointment, and a loss of esprit de corps are typi- than in ad hoc laboratory groups, (2) in correla-
cally observed. These effects of performance on cohe- tional studies than in experimental studies, (3) in
sion occur even when groups are identical in all smaller groups than in larger groups, (4) in sports
respects except one—when some are arbitrarily told teams rather than in other types of groups, and (5)
they performed well, but others are told they did not in project-focused teams rather than in production
do well. Even under these highly controlled circum- or service teams (Carron et al., 2002; Chiocchio &
stances, groups given positive feedback became more Essiembre, 2009; Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995;
cohesive than groups that are told they performed Mathieu et al., 2015; Mullen & Copper, 1994; Oli-
poorly. These studies suggest that cohesion is related ver et al., 1999). The relationship also takes time to
to performance, not because cohesion causes groups reach its full strength. The performance-enhancing
to perform better, but because groups that perform effects of cohesion may not yield gains when groups
better become more cohesive (e.g., Forsyth, Zyz- are only beginning their work, but will instead
niewski, & Giammanco, 2002). emerge over time (Mathieu et al., 2015).
Mullen and Copper (1994) examined the flow In some cases, too, cohesion can actually
of causality in the cohesion–performance relation- undermine performance. In a field study of this
ship by comparing experimental studies that manip- process, researchers surveyed 5,871 factory workers
ulated cohesion with studies that used correlational who worked in 228 groups. They discovered that
designs. Because the cohesion–performance rela- the more cohesive groups were not necessarily
tionship emerged in both types of studies, they con- more productive, but their productivity level from
cluded that cohesion causes improved performance. one member to the next was less variable. The indi-
However, the relationship between cohesion and viduals working in cohesive groups produced nearly
performance is stronger in correlational studies. equivalent amounts, but individuals in noncohesive
This disparity suggests that cohesion aids perfor- groups varied considerably from one member to the
mance, but that performance also causes changes
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
148 C H A P T E R 5
Social: Attraction to group Cohesion Performance
and members
Moderating factors
Task: Collective efficacy
and goal pursuit (Time, task interdependence, etc.)
Collective: Entitativity and
identity
Emotional: Group affect
and esprit de corps
Structural: Norms, roles,
relations
F I G U R E 5.3 The hypothetical relationship between five sources of cohesion (social, task, collective, emotional, and
structural), cohesion, and performance. Meta-analyses suggest that the cohesion–performance relationship is a reciprocal rela-
tionship: cohesion causes improvements in performance, but performance also feeds back and causes changes in cohesion.
The magnitude of the cohesion ! performance and performance ! cohesion relationships varies over time and settings.
next in their productivity. Furthermore, fairly low about by the negative messages were greater than the
standards of performance had developed in some of increases brought about by the positive messages
the highly cohesive groups; thus, productivity was (Schachter et al., 1951).
uniformly low in these groups. In contrast, in cohe-
sive groups with relatively high-performance goals, The take-home lesson from these studies—that
members were extremely productive (Langfred, creating social cohesiveness may make members
1998; Seashore, 1954). As Figure 5.4 indicates, so happy but not productive—does not apply to the
long as group norms encourage high productivity, U.S. team. Every one of the team members was com-
cohesiveness and productivity are positively related: mitted to the goal of winning the Olympics, so there
a highly cohesive group produces more than a less was no worry that the performance norm would be
cohesive one. If group norms encourage low pro- set too low. In addition, because of the intervention
ductivity, however, the relationship is negative. of a thoughtful coach who skillfully built the group’s
unity, their cohesion developed over time until its
This tendency for the group’s norms about peak during the Olympics. The team’s triumph was
productivity to moderate the strength of the called a miracle by some, but in retrospect, it was due
cohesion–performance relationship was also confirmed to effective group dynamics.
experimentally by manipulating both cohesion
and production norms (Berkowitz, 1954; Gammage, 5-4 APPLICATION:
Carron, & Estabrooks, 2001). In one illustrative study,
cohesive and noncohesive groups worked on a simple EXPLAINING INITIATIONS
assembly-line-type task. Then, during the task,
messages were ostensibly sent from one worker to Cohesiveness is no cure-all for what ails the ineffec-
another to establish performance norms. In some tive group, but many groups in a variety of
instances, the messages called for increased production contexts—sports teams, military units, educational
(positive messages), but in other instances, the messages fraternities, sororities, clubs, work squads, and so
requested a slowdown (negative messages). As expected, on—nonetheless often take steps to deliberately
the impact of the messages was significantly greater in increase their cohesion in the hopes their perfor-
the cohesive groups than in the noncohesive groups. mance will improve. As Chapter 12’s analysis of
Furthermore, the decreases in productivity brought
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 149
Groups with norms that
stress high productivity
Productivity
Groups with norms that
stress low productivity
Low High
Cohesiveness
F I G U R E 5.4 The relationship between cohesion and productivity when norms stress high and low productivity.
If the group’s norms encourage productivity, cohesiveness and productivity will be positively correlated. If the group
standards for performance are low, however, cohesiveness will actually undermine productivity.
teambuilding explains, some of these interventions more attractive to members, since their exclusive-
are effective—when groups identify shared goals, ness may make them seem more prestigious. Since
improve coordination, and identify sources of con- membership must be earned, people who join do so
flict, performance often improves. This section, more intentionally and therefore will more likely
however, concludes the analysis of cohesion by be active, contributing members. Groups with less
examining a common, but more controversial, stringent requirements are hampered by the
means of unifying a group: initiations. unevenness of the contributions of their members:
Some may contribute a great deal to the group, but
5-4a Cohesion and Initiations others may actually draw out more resources than
they contribute. Groups with strict membership
Many groups require individuals to demonstrate policies, including initiations, avoid this problem
their commitment to the group before they are by screening and monitoring members closely and
allowed to become full-fledged group members. dismissing those individuals who do not demon-
Elite military squads, for example, require a new strate their worth (Iannaccone, 1994).
member to pass extremely demanding tests of phys-
ical ability. Religious organizations typically require Initiations and Commitment Leon Festinger’s
members to study the group’s beliefs and practices (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance offers an
and then pass tests on the material before they gain intriguing explanation for the relationship between
entrance. Other groups require the members to how much new members invest in the group and
invest considerable time, energy, and personal
resources in the group before they can join. cognitive dissonance An adverse psychological state
that occurs when an individual simultaneously holds
These investments may strengthen the bond two conflicting cognitions.
between the individual and the group. Groups
with admission standards and policies may be
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
150 C H A P T E R 5
their commitment to the group. This theory initiations. Their experimenter, who was a young
assumes that people prefer to maintain consistency man, greeted each subject individually and told her
in their thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs. Their belief, that she had been chosen to take part in a group
for example, that they invested considerable time in discussion on the psychology of sex. However,
a group would be consonant with the belief that because only women who could discuss sex with-
this group was of high caliber. But what if, once out embarrassment would be welcome in the
they joined a group, they discovered it was worth- group, all prospective members had to pass an
less? Such a situation would generate dissonance “embarrassment test.” At this point, the experi-
and would cause the member psychological dis- menter randomly assigned women to one of the
comfort. Although people can reduce cognitive dis- three conditions. Those in severe initiation condi-
sonance in many ways, one frequent method is to tion were required to read descriptions of sexual
emphasize the rewarding features of the group interludes and a series of obscene words aloud to
while minimizing its costly characteristics. As the the male experimenter. (In 1959, women were pre-
group demands more and more in the way of per- sumably embarrassed by such vulgarities.) Women
sonal commitment, members become more enam- in the mild initiation condition read some mildly
ored of the group to justify their investment in it. provocative passages and words, and women in
the control condition only agreed to be screened.
Severe Initiations and Group Attraction Social
psychologists Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills After the initiation, the researchers told the
(1959) tested dissonance theory in their classic women that the group they would be joining was
experimental study of young women’s reactions to already meeting but that they could listen in using
an intercom system. But instead of listening to an
How Do Groups Respond When Their Prophecies Fail?
Festinger developed cognitive dissonance theory after So how did her followers respond? Did they
studying a small “doomsday” group (Festinger et al., denounce Mrs. Keech as a fraud? Did they try to con-
1956). This group formed around a psychic named tact the Guardians themselves? Did they sew all their
Marion Keech, who believed she was receiving mes- zippers back into their clothes? No, they became more
sages from aliens—the Guardians—who lived on a committed to Mrs. Keech’s teachings. They accepted
planet named Clarion. Through these messages, the her rationalization that the tremendous faith and
Guardians warned Ms. Keech of the impending devotion of the group was so impressive that God had
destruction of the world by flood, but they assured her decided to call off the flood, and they spread this
that the small group of men and women who met important message to the news media. Although the
regularly to discuss their messages would be rescued central beliefs of the group had been disconfirmed,
by a flying saucer before the December 21 deadline. they refused to abandon them. If they admitted that
Ms. Keech was mistaken, they would have no justifi-
Festinger and his colleagues joined this group and cation for their actions over the previous months;
recorded members’ growing commitment to the group many had quit their jobs, dropped out of school,
and to Ms. Keech as the deadline loomed. On that moved hundreds of miles to be closer to Ms. Keech,
date, the faithful gathered in readiness in Ms. Keech’s and alienated their friends and relatives. If, however,
living room, with their bags packed, all metal zippers, they became more firmly committed to Ms. Keech,
buttons, snaps removed from their clothing (metal then their cognitions and behaviors would all be con-
does strange things in flying saucers), and passwords sistent with one another, and they could avoid the
all memorized. Unfortunately, midnight came and dissonance that arises from inconsistency (cf. Batson,
went with no sign of a flying saucer. The bad news was 1975; Hardyck & Braden, 1962). Festinger concluded
that Mrs. Keech was wrong when she predicted they that the need for cognitive consistency is a powerful
would be rescued; the good news was that she was human motive.
also wrong about the flood.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 151
actual group, the researchers played a recording of a subject new members to cost-creating experiences
discussion that was contrived deliberately to be that have nothing to do with the actual qualities
exceedingly boring and dull. After listening for a needed to be a successful group member. Initiates
time, the participants rated the group they had lis- in biker gangs, for example, must earn the right to
tened to on a number of dimensions. Although a wear the letters and emblems of their gang—their
rational person should judge a group that was dou- “colors”—by performing a variety of distasteful
ble costly—causing them both embarrassment and behaviors (Davis, 1982). Pledges to fraternities at
boredom—very negatively, the results instead con- some universities are ritually beaten, subjected to
firmed cognitive dissonance theory: Women who ridicule and embarrassment, and required to drink
experienced the severe initiation rated the group unhealthy amounts of alcohol (Nuwer, 1999). New
more positively than those who had experienced a members of sports teams are frequently subjected to
mild initiation or no initiation at all. ritualized physical, psychological, and sexual abuse
(Finkel, 2002). These practices qualify as hazing
Several replications of this unusual study have because they expose the new member to significant
confirmed the basic finding that initiations influence risk of psychological and physical harm.
attraction to and dependency on the group. In one
study, researchers used electric shocks rather than Hazing is an entrenched group practice and
obscene readings to manipulate the severity of the has been documented in ancient and modern soci-
initiation into the group and found very similar eties and in all parts of the world. Newcomers to
results: People who received stronger shocks liked groups are routinely subjected to various abuses for
the group the best (Gerard & Mathewson, 1966). reasons both rational and completely irrational
In another set of studies, participants completed a (Cimino, 2011).
series of embarrassing, socially awkward activities
(such as acting out demeaning situations or perform- ■ Bonding and dependence: As Festinger’s disso-
ing silly behaviors) or neutral activities before joining nance theory suggests, individuals who suffer to
a group. In these studies, individuals who suffered join a group value the group more and become
through the more severe initiation were more likely more dependent on the group as a source of
to conform to the group’s decisions, rated the group support and acceptance. Initiation of groups of
more positively, and felt more comfortable when newcomers, which is typical of certain groups
part of the group (Keating et al., 2005). (e.g., sororities, fraternities, and sports teams),
increases feelings of unity, for they tend to affili-
Aronson and Mills concluded that the initiation ate more extensively as they deal with the threat
increased cohesion by creating cognitive dissonance, and stress. The initiation process thus creates
but other factors may also account for the initiation– greater cohesion in the overall group, as the
cohesion relationship. Rather than attempt to reduce individuality of each newcomer is diminished and
cognitive dissonance, their public expressions of lik- they learn to rely socially on others (Lodewijkx,
ing for such groups may also stem more from a desire van Zomeren, & Syroit, 2005). Hazing of
to save face after making a faulty decision than from novices, as a group, also increases the unity of the
the psychic discomfort of cognitive dissonance novices, creating a more committed subgroup
(Schlenker, 1975). Initiations also fail to heighten within the larger group (Mann et al., 2016).
attraction if they frustrate new members or make
them angry (Lodewijkx & Syroit, 1997). ■ Dominance: Initiations serve to introduce new
members to the hierarchical order of the group
5-4b Hazing and the requirements to recognize and respect
Some groups do not just require members to meet hazing An initiation into a group that subjects the new
certain criteria and pass tests of stamina or intellec- member to mental or physical discomfort, harassment,
tual fitness before allowing entrance. They instead embarrassment, ridicule, or humiliation.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
152 C H A P T E R 5
veteran members. The initiation process hum- activities included requirements to take part in
bles the newcomers and signals to them their group activities, swearing an oath, taking part in
low status, which they can raise only by con- skits and team functions, doing community service,
tributing in substantial ways to the group. The and maintaining a specific grade point average.
hazing rituals also provide the current members Inappropriate activities, in contrast, included kid-
with the means to exercise their power over napping and abandonment, verbal abuse, physical
the newcomers. punishment (spankings, whippings, and beatings),
degradation and humiliation (such as eating disgust-
■ Commitment: Hazing requires a substantial com- ing things or drinking alcohol in excessive
mitment from newcomers and serves to weed amounts), sleep deprivation, running errands, and
out individuals who are not willing to meet the exclusion. Somewhat unexpectedly, a number of
group’s demands. Hazing provides newcomers the behaviors that the researchers felt belonged on
with the means to prove their worth. the list of inappropriate hazing behaviors, such as
wearing inappropriate clothing, head shaving, and
■ Tradition: Many groups haze new members sexual activities, were viewed as relatively innocu-
because they feel that they must honor the ous by participants (van Raalte et al., 2007).
group’s traditions, established by founding
members of the society (Nuwer, 1999). Did these experiences work to build a cohesive
group? Some of these practices were rarely used by
Newcomers continue to accept membership groups, but groups that did use inappropriate hazing
in groups that use hazing for many reasons, as methods were judged to be less cohesive rather than
well, including a desire to be accepted and to more cohesive. Hazing, and illicit hazing in partic-
make a good impression with others. In many ular, backfired, for it did not contribute to increased
cases, newcomers are not made aware of the haz- cohesion, whereas more positive forms of team-
ing demands and dangers until they are seques- building did (van Raalte et al., 2007).
tered by the group, and they may fear that
refusing to comply with the group’s demands Should Groups Haze? Hazing is illegal in a num-
will cause more problems and pose greater risks ber of states, is aggressive in character, yields unhealthy
than compliance. Although victims of hazing consequences, and does not even work to increase
appear to have voluntarily taken part in the initia- cohesion, yet this practice continues unofficially.
tion rites, group influence processes create Some mild rites and rituals—as when new members
extremely strong pressures that limit hazing vic- must take a public oath of loyalty, memorize the
tims’ capacities to act of their own free will. One group’s mission, or carry a distinctive object—cause
emergency room physician, who has experience little harm, but in other cases, new members must
dealing with hazing-related injuries, recommends endure physical and psychological abuse before they
treating “hazing patients as victims of violent are accepted into the group. Emergency room physi-
crime, rather than willing participants in their cians report that they have treated victims of hazing
traumatic injuries” (Finkel, 2002, p. 231). for alcoholic coma, chest trauma, aspiration, 1st, 2nd,
and 3rd degree burns, syncope, vomiting, organ dam-
Is Hazing Effective? Many members of groups age, heart irregularities, gastrointestinal distress, brain
defend their right to haze, citing the benefits of damage, multiorgan system failure, spinal cord injury,
initiation for increasing the cohesion of the group. exposure, depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and
However, research does not offer very much sup- anal, oral, and vaginal trauma (Finkel, 2002). Each
port for this position. One team of investigators year many students are killed or seriously injured in
asked the members of a number of groups and hazing incidents (Goldstein, 2002).
teams to differentiate between appropriate and
inappropriate activities on a list of 24 practices com- Herb Brooks, the coach of the U.S. Olympic
monly used in initiations and hazing. Appropriate hockey team, did not use hazing, but instead
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 153
timeworn traditions in sports fitness and training to standards. Through these experiences, the group
build the group into a cohesive unit. He was tough reached a very high level of cohesiveness, without
on his players, they played dozens of exhibition recourse to hazing. Given that groups can turn to a
games leading up to the Olympics, and Brooks variety of equally effective but safe methods to
kept all of them on edge, threatening to send any build their group’s cohesiveness, the use of hazing
one of them home who did not perform up to his is completely unjustified (Diamond et al., 2016).
CHAPTER REVIEW
What is group cohesion, and what are its tone (George, 1996). Lawler, Thye, and
sources? Yoon’s (2014) relational cohesion theory suggests
that cohesion results from the positive emo-
1. Group cohesion is the integrity, solidarity, and tions members’ attribute to social exchange in
unity of the group. Cohesiveness is an indica- groups. Behaviorally synchronized move-
tion of the health of the group and is related to ment (such as marching, as described by
a variety of other group processes. McNeill, 1995) increases cohesion.
2. Cohesion, as the principle of equifinality sug- ■ Structural cohesion is group unity based on
gests, can result from one or more sources, the structural integrity of the group,
including attraction relations, task relations, including roles, norms, and interpersonal
identity, emotions, and structure. networks of member-to-member relation-
ships. The Sherifs’ (1956) study of groups
■ Social cohesion: unity based on bonds of suggested that some structural features (such
attraction among members and attraction as the absence of subgroups and less hier-
to the group itself (Festinger et al., 1950; archy) promote increases in cohesiveness.
Lewin, 1948). Sherif and Sherif (1956)
manipulated those forces in their study of 3. Cohesion is a multicomponent and multilevel
cohesion and attraction in the field setting. process, so its measurement often requires the
use of multimethod procedures.
■ Task cohesion: shared task commitment that
motivates members to work together to How does cohesion develop over time?
achieve group goals. Task cohesion is
associated with increases in collective efficacy 1. Cohesion is, in most cases, the consequence of
and group potency. a period of group development—a pattern of
growth and change beginning with initial for-
■ Collective cohesion: the extent to which the mation and ending, in most cases, with disso-
group unites it members in a single, unified lution. Tuckman’s (1965) five-stage model of
collective, as indicated by the perceived group development identifies the following stages:
solidarity of the group (entitativity) and
members’ identification with the group ■ Orientation (forming) stage: Members
(Hogg, 1992). Identity fusion theory suggests experience tentative interactions, tension,
that, in extreme cases, self and group concern over ambiguity, growing interde-
identities can be fused into one. pendence, and attempts to identify the
nature of the situation.
■ Emotional cohesion: the affective intensity of
the group, often described as collective ■ Conflict (storming) stage: Members express
effervescence (Durkheim, 1912/1965), élan, dissatisfaction with the group, respond
morale, esprit de corps, or group affective
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
154 C H A P T E R 5
emotionally, criticize one another, and ■ Cohesive groups can be so psychologically
form coalitions. demanding that they cause emotional
problems for members (e.g., the old
■ Structure (norming) stage: Unity increases, sergeant’s syndrome).
membership stabilizes, members report
increased satisfaction, and the group’s 2. Cohesion intensifies group processes. Depen-
internal dynamics intensify. Roy’s dence, pressure to conform, and acceptance of
(1960/1973) analysis of “banana time” in influence are greater in cohesive groups and
work groups illustrates the impact of rituals can result in mistaken decisions.
and social interaction on cohesion.
3. Cohesion and performance are linked, both
■ Performance (performing) stage: The because success increases a group’s cohesion
group’s focus shifts to the performance of and because cohesive groups tend to perform
tasks and goal attainment. Not all groups better than less cohesive groups.
reach this stage, for even highly cohesive
groups are not necessarily productive. ■ Meta-analytic studies by Mullen and
Copper (1994), and other researchers
■ Dissolution (adjourning) stage: The group suggest that each component of cohesion
disbands. A group’s entry into the disso- contributes to task proficiency.
lution stage can be either planned or
spontaneous, but even planned dissolu- ■ Cohesive groups tend to outperform less
tion can create problems for members as cohesive groups, but this relationship is
they work to reduce their dependence on strongest when members are committed
the group. to the group’s tasks.
2. Many groups follow a different developmental Do initiations increase cohesion?
course over time.
1. Many groups put in place methods for
■ Tuckman’s model is a successive-stage increasing the group’s level of cohesion.
theory; it specifies the usual order of the Online groups, for example, increase commit-
phases of group development. Cyclical ment by requiring members invest resources in
models, such as Bales’ equilibrium model, the group. Other groups require members to
maintain that groups cycle through vari- pass an initiation before they can join.
ous stages repeatedly (Bales & Strodtbeck,
1951). 2. Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance
suggests that initiations create dissonance that
■ Punctuated equilibrium models suggest that new members resolve by increasing their
groups sometimes move through periods commitment to the group.
of accelerated change.
■ The increased dedication of the members of
■ Online groups, particularly if open rather the doomsday group formed by psychic
than closed groups, may not progress Marion Keech supported dissonance theory.
through the stages of group development
due to membership instability. ■ Aronson and Mills (1959) confirmed that
people who go through some kind of ini-
What are the positive and negative consequences of tiation to join a group tend to like that
cohesion? group more.
1. In most instances, cohesion is associated with 3. Hazing is a severe initiation that exposes new
increases in member satisfaction and decreases members to significant psychological and
in turnover and stress. physical risk.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not 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 155
■ Hazing is sustained by a number of group- ■ The use of hazing is unjustified. It is inef-
level processes, including bonding, domi- fective as a means of increasing cohesion
nance, commitment, and tradition. and is illegal.
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: U.S. Olympic Hockey Team ■ “Team Development” by Claire B. Hal-
verson (2008) provides a practical guide to
■ “A Reminder of What We Can Be” by dealing with the changes groups experi-
E. M. Swift (1980) provides many of the ence over time.
basic details about the 1980 U.S. Olympic
hockey team and its coach. Consequences of Cohesion
Defining and Measuring Cohesion ■ “Modeling Reciprocal Team Cohesion–
performance Relationships, as Impacted by
■ “Group Cohesion: From ‘Field of Forces’ Shared Leadership and Members’ Com-
to Multidimensional Construct” by Ken- petence” by John E. Mathieu, Michael R.
neth L. Dion (2000) reviews key issues in Kukenberger, Lauren D’Innocenzo, and
the study of cohesion, with a focus on Greg Reilly (2015) investigates the
definitional debates and problems in cohesion–performance relationship by
measurement. examining the unique empirical findings
generated by studies that make use of
■ “Measuring Team Cohesion: Observations cross-lagged panel designs.
from the Science” by Eduardo Salas,
Rebecca Grossman, Ashley M. Hughes, ■ “The Essence of Military Group Cohe-
and Chris W. Coultas (2015) reviews the sion” by Guy L. Siebold (2007) provides a
many and varied methods investigators clear introduction to the standard model of
have used to measure group cohesion, and cohesion that guides experts’ analyses of
offers researchers clear suggestions for cohesion in combat groups.
methods that best suit their specific needs.
Hazing
Group Development
■ Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities,
■ Group Processes: A Developmental Perspective Hazing, and Binge Drinking by Hank Nuwer
by Susan A. Wheelan (2005) reviews (1999) remains one of the best researched
theory and research pertaining to the analyses of hazing on college campuses.
development of task-focused groups.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
6C H A P T E R Structure
CHAPTER OUTLINE CHAPTER OVERVIEW
6-1 Norms Groups are dynamic—characterized by continual
6-1a The Nature of Social Norms change and adjustment—but these processes are
6-1b The Development of Norms patterned ones—shaped by the group’s social
6-1c The Transmission of Norms order. In all but the most ephemeral groups, mem-
6-1d Application: Norms and Health bers are distributed into roles, and their behavior
when in these roles is regulated by norms that dic-
6-2 Roles tate what is and what is not proper conduct. The
6-2a The Nature of Social Roles group structure also includes the relationships that
6-2b Role Theories join members to one another in an integrated net-
6-2c Bale’s SYMLOG Model work that regulates interdependencies and increases
6-2d Group Socialization the group’s unity and durability.
6-2e Role Stress ■ What is group structure?
■ What are norms, how do they develop, and
6-3 Intermember Relations
6-3a Status Relations how do they work to regulate behavior?
6-3b Attraction Relations ■ What kinds of roles are common in groups,
6-3c Communication Relations
and how do they influence members?
6-4 Application: Social Network Analysis ■ How do social networks shape status, attrac-
6-4a Mapping Social Networks
6-4b Applying Social Network Analysis tion, and communication processes in groups?
Chapter Review
Resources
156
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 157
Andes Survivors: One Group’s Triumph Over Extraordinary Adversity
The Old Christian’s rugby team had chartered the A lone individual would have certainly perished
Fairchild F-227 twin-engined turboprop to travel from in the harsh climate. But the group, by pooling its
Montevideo, Uruguay to Santiago, Chile. Most of the resources, survived. They organized their work, with
passengers on the flight were members of the team or some cleaning their sleeping quarters, some tending
their family and friends. But they never reached their the injured, and others melting snow into drinking
destination. The pilots misjudged their course and water. When their food ran out, they made the dif-
began their descent too soon. The plane clipped the ficult decision to eat the frozen bodies of those who
peak of Mt. Tinguiririca and crashed in the snow- had died in the crash. And when starvation seemed
covered Andes. imminent, they sent two men, Fernando Parrado
and Roberto Canessa, down the mountain to seek
Those who survived the crash struggled to stay help. After hiking for 14 days, the two explorers,
alive in the harsh, subzero temperatures of the barren running low on food and supplies, chanced on a
Andes. During the first days of the ordeal, they argued farmer tending his cattle. Parrado himself guided
intensely over the likelihood of a rescue. Some insisted the rescue helicopters back to the crash site. All of
that searchers would soon find them. Others wanted them, when asked how they survived, credited the
to climb down from the mountain. Some became so unity of the group. When they read author Pier Paul
apathetic that they didn’t care. But the search planes Read’s book about their ordeal, Alive, they com-
never spotted them, and their hopes began to fade plained of only one inaccuracy: They felt that he
when a second tragedy struck the group: Early one failed to capture the “faith and friendship which
morning an avalanche filled the wrecked fuselage inspired them” for 70 days in the frozen cordillera
where they slept with snow and many died before (Read, 1974, p. 10).
they could dig their way out.
The group that came down from the Andes was not status, liking, and communication, also changed.
the same group that began the flight. Many mem- Men who were at first afforded little respect or
bers were lost to the group forever, and the trauma courtesy eventually earned considerable status
changed each one of the survivors permanently. within the group. Some who were well-liked
But its group structure also changed. The structure before the crash became outcasts. Some who had
of a thing is the relatively fixed arrangement of hardly spoken to the others became active commu-
and relations among its constituent elements that nicators within the group.
links those elements together to form a single inte-
grated whole. In groups, structure creates the social If you want to understand a group—whether
order, including the regulatory standards that define one stranded in the Andes, sitting at a conference
how members are supposed to behave (norms) table, or working to manufacture some product—
given their position in the group (roles) and the you need to understand its structure. Explaining
connections among members (intermember rela- group behavior in structural terms is analogous to
tions). When the group was a rugby team, members tracing individuals’ actions back to their personalities.
paid heed to a very different set of norms than they Personality traits and dispositions cannot be observed
did when they were transformed into a group fight- directly, yet they influence people’s actions across
ing for its very survival. The group began the flight time and settings. Similarly, a structural analysis
with one set of roles and positions—a captain, a assumes that group interactions follow a predictable,
coach, parents, supporters, and friends—but ended organized pattern because they are regulated by influ-
with an entirely different set of roles, including lea- ential interpersonal structures. This chapter examines
ders, helpers, and explorers. The network of relation- three of these core determinants of a group’s “person-
ships linking members one to another, in terms of ality”: norms, roles, and relations (see Biddle, 2001;
Hechter & Op, 2001 for 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.
158 C H A P T E R 6
6-1 NORMS recommends a medicine, so prescriptive norms
define the socially appropriate way to respond in a
The survivors of the crash needed to coordinate situation. Proscriptive norms, in contrast, are pro-
their actions if they were to stay alive. With food, hibitions; they define the types of actions that should
water, and shelter severely limited, they were be avoided if at all possible (Sorrels & Kelley, 1984).
forced to interact with and rely on each other con- For example, some of the prescriptive norms of the
tinually, and any errant action on the part of one Andes group were “Food should be shared equally”
person would disturb and even endanger several and “Those who are not injured should work to help
other people. So, members began to abide by a those who are injured,” whereas some proscriptive
set of unstated rules that defined how the group norms were “Do not urinate inside the airplane”
would sleep at night, what types of duties each and “Do not give up hope.”
healthy individual was expected to perform, and
how food and water were to be apportioned. Norms also differ in their evaluative implications.
These consensual, regulatory standards are norms. Descriptive norms describe what most people usu-
ally do, feel, or think in a particular situation. None of
6-1a The Nature of Social Norms the survivors in the Andes groups had ever been in such
a desperate situation before, and so they intuitively did
Norms are a fundamental element of social structure; what most of the others did: They listened to the radio
the group’s rules of order (Fine, 2012). As group for information about the rescue and did what the
standards, they provide direction and motivation, leader told them to do. Everyone did not perfectly
organize social interactions, and make other people’s match their behavior up to these norms, but most
responses predictable and meaningful. Both simple did. This high degree of similarity in everyone’s actions
behaviors, such as choice of clothing, manners, and provided members with information about how they
conversational pleasantries, and more complex social should think, feel, and act. Social psychologist Robert
processes, such as fairness, morality, and justice—are Cialdini’s (2009) calls the tendency for people to use
based on norms. Each group member is restrained to other people’s responses as useful information about
a degree by norms, but each member also benefits how they should themselves respond the principle of
from the order that norms provide. social proof: People assume that a behavior is the correct
one when they see others performing it.
How people speak, dress, and interact are
determined by norms that define conventional Injunctive norms are more evaluative—they
behavior within that society. But each group describe the sorts of behaviors that people ought to
within that society may adopt its own unique nor- perform—or else (Gibbs, 1965). People who do not
mative standards. For example, in one group it conform to descriptive norms may be viewed as
may be appropriate to interrupt others when unusual, but people who violate injunctive norms are
they are talking, to arrive late and leave meetings negatively evaluated and are open to sanction by the
early, and to dress informally. In another group,
such behaviors would be considered inappropriate prescriptive norm A consensual standard that identifies
violations of group norms of dress and decorum. preferable, positively sanctioned behaviors.
These group-specific norms combine to form the proscriptive norm A consensual standard that identifies
group’s consensually accepted knowledge, beliefs, prohibited, negatively sanctioned behaviors.
rituals, customs, rules, language, norms, and prac- descriptive norm A consensual standard that describes
tices: the group’s culture (Schein, 1990). how people typically act, feel, and think in a given
situation.
Types of Norms Norms prescribe the socially injunctive norm An evaluative consensual standard that
appropriate way to respond in the situation—the nor- describes how people should act, feel, and think in a
mal course of action. Just as a physician’s prescription given situation rather than how people do act, feel, and
think in that situation.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 159
other group members (Rimal & Real, 2005). In the gave up their seats, apparently because the request
Andes group, for example, those who failed to do took them by surprise and they wanted to avoid inter-
their fair share were criticized by the others, given action, or because they normalized the situation by
distasteful chores, and sometimes even denied food concluding that the requestor was ill. Milgram was
and water. People who violate injunctive norms are particularly intrigued, however, by the reactions dis-
disliked, assigned lower status jobs, pressured to played by the norm violators. Even though they were
conform, and, in some cases, excluded from the volunteers who were deliberately breaking the situa-
membership. As sociologist Gary Alan Fine (2012) tional norms in the name of research, all experienced
explains, “norms are not merely behavioral regular- severe emotional turmoil as they approached the situ-
ities but involve a collective embrace of the propri- ation. “Students reported that when standing in front
ety of this regularity” (p. 69). of a subject, they felt anxious, tense, and embarrassed.
Frequently, they were unable to vocalize the request
Internalization of Norms Norms are not simply for a seat and had to withdraw” (Milgram, 1992,
external rules but internalized standards. Members p. 42). Milgram, who also performed the norm
comply with their group’s norms not because they violation task, described the experience as wrench-
have to but because they want to: The group’s ing, and concluded that there is an “enormous
norms are their own, personal norms. Women inhibitory anxiety that ordinarily prevents us
who are members of groups whose norms emphasize from breaching social norms” (p. xxiv).
healthy eating habits personally endorse healthier
dieting practices (Cruwys et al., 2015). People who 6-1b The Development of Norms
live in communities that stress the importance of
pro-environmental practices such as water conserva- Where do a group’s norms come from? Some are
tion themselves express more positive attitudes about deliberately put in place when a group is estab-
protecting the environment (White et al., 2009). lished; the founders of a group may make explicit
Students who enroll in a school whose norms sup- the dos and don’ts for a group and make acceptance
port liberal rather than conservative causes come of these standards a condition for members. In
to accept their school’s position on political issues many cases, too, a group that weathers a difficult
as their own personal position on those issues issue or experience may endorse new standards
(Newcomb, 1943). Students report significantly that will provide guidance in the future. But even
more positive emotions when they think they if the group does not explicitly adopt standards
have done something that is consistent with the norms will develop as members gradually align
norms of their school, and more negative emo- their behaviors with commonly accepted behavioral
tions when they have acted in ways that violate practices in the group. People do not, for example,
their school’s norms—especially if they identify spend a great deal of time wondering “Should I be
with their school and if the norm they violated quiet in the library?” “Should I nap during the
was an injunctive one (Christensen et al., 2004). group meeting?” or “Should I stop when the light
turns red?” Most take these norms for granted so
Acting in ways that run counter to norms is fully that their guiding influence is only noticed
personally upsetting—as social psychologist Stanley when someone violates them (Aarts, Dijksterhuis,
Milgram discovered when he asked his students to & Custers, 2003). Like the members of a concert
violate a norm deliberately. He asked his students to orchestra tuning their instruments before a perfor-
board a New York City subway and to perform a mance, this social tuning results in the alignment
simple counter-normative behavior: asking someone
for their seat. In this situation, all interactants recog- social tuning The tendency for individuals’ actions and
nize and accept the rule “All seats are filled on a first- evaluations to become more similar to the actions and
come, first-served basis,” so asking for people to give assumed evaluations of those around them.
up their seat is a norm violation. Still, many 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.
160 C H A P T E R 6
Do Your Facebook Friends Know the Norms?
Groups that once convened in physical locations, such Facebook (e.g., “I should not let Facebook use
as clubs, conference rooms, and bars, now meet virtu- with this person interfere with getting my work
ally in social networking sites. Individuals who use the done”).
very popular Facebook social networking site, for
example, connect with others by “friending” each ■ Negative friend-consequences norms warn against
other. One person sends another person a “friend doing things that might harm one’s friends (e.g.,
request,” and the person who receives the request “I should consider how a post might negatively
must accept this offer to create the friend link. impact this person’s relationships”).
Just as the interactions that occur in face-to-face ■ Deception and control norms define what steps to
groups are guided by a set of rules of comportment, so take if one violates Facebook norms. For example,
norms have emerged on social networks that define “I should delete or block this person if he/she
what is appropriate and what is not (Bryant & Marmo, compromises my Facebook image” and “I should
2012). intentionally control the level of access this person
has to my profile.”
■ Communication norms set expectations about
how frequently one should communicate with Not heeding these norms will not yield the same
friends and the types of messages that should be consequences that violating a Facebook official users
exchanged. rule will. As Facebook explains, “If you violate the
letter or spirit of this Statement, or otherwise create
■ Relationship maintenance norms encourage using risk or possible legal exposure for us, we can stop
Facebook to strengthen one’s relationship with providing all or part of Facebook to you.” But violat-
others, primarily by keeping up-to-date on what is ing these social norms may be injurious socially. No
happening in others’ lives and also by wishing one is directly taught the norms of Facebook, but
them happy birthday via Facebook. those who do not follow them will likely pay the
ultimate Facebook price: They will get themselves
■ Negative self-consequences norms include taking unfriended.
steps to avoid causing oneself harm when using
of each individual’s action with the actions of others the autokinetic (self-motion) effect. This visual illusion
around him or her (Lun et al., 2007). occurs when a person stares at a pinpoint of light in
an otherwise dark room. Ordinarily the visual sys-
The Andes survivors, for example, grew up in a tem compensates for naturally occurring motions of
culture where cannibalism was taboo. But when the the eye, but when only a single light is visible with
group grew weak from starvation, one member no frame of reference, the light appears to wander
casually remarked that the only source of nourishment in unpredictable directions and at variable speeds.
was the frozen bodies of the crash victims. The others Sherif found that when individuals judged the
ignored his remark until the tenth day when “the dis- dot’s movement repeatedly, they usually established
cussion spread as these boys cautiously mentioned it to their own idiosyncratic average estimates that varied
their friends or those they thought would be sympa- from 1 to 10 inches. But when people made their
thetic” (Read, 1974, p. 76). When the topic was dis- judgments in groups, their personal estimates
cussed by the entire group, two cliques emerged: one blended with those of other group members. One
favored eating the corpses and the other opposed group, for example, included three people who had
breaking this norm. But when the group learned by already been tested individually. During these initial
radio that the air force had given up the search, most of tests, person A thought the light moved very
the members ate a few pieces of meat; over time, can- little—about 1 inch. Person B estimated the move-
nibalism became the norm (Parrado, 2006). ment at 2 inches, but C’s estimates were higher,
averaging about 7 inches. When these three people
Social psychologist Muzafer Sherif (1936) stud-
ied this social tuning process by taking advantage of
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 161
Person
C
Increasing distance estimates Convergence
Person
B
Person
A
Alone Group Group Group
session 1 session 2 session 3
F I G U R E 6.1 Sherif’s experimental creation of group norms. Individuals’ private, pregroup judgments differed
markedly, but when they joined with others their judgments converged.
SOURCE: Data from M. Sherif, The Psychology of Social Norms, 1936, Harper & Row.
made their estimates of the movement aloud when the individuals’ judgments were still consistent with
seated together, their judgments converged. It took the group’s norms (Sherif, 1966). They had internal-
three meetings, but by the third session, a norm had ized the norm.
emerged: All the members felt the light was moving
about 3 inches. Figure 6.1 graphs this convergence Norms, because they are both consensual
process: Over time, individuals with the highest and (accepted by many group members) and internal-
lowest estimates revise their judgments to match the ized (personally accepted by each individual mem-
group average. ber), are social facts—taken-for-granted elements of
the group’s stable structure. Even if the individuals
6-1c The Transmission of Norms who originally fostered the norms are no longer
present, their normative innovations remain a part
Sherif confirmed that norms emerge, gradually, as of the organization’s culture, and newcomers must
group members’ behaviors, judgments, and beliefs change to adopt that tradition. Researchers have
align over time (Echterhoff, Higgins, & Levine, studied this norm transmission experimentally
2009). But Sherif also arranged for people to using a generational paradigm: They create a group
make their judgments alone after taking part in and then add newcomers to it and retire old-timers
the group sessions when a norm emerged. Did until the entire membership of the group has turned
these individuals revert back to their original esti- over. Do these succeeding generations of members
mates of movement, or did they continue to base remain true to the group’s original norms, even if
their estimates on the norm that emerged within these norms are arbitrary or cause the group to
their group? Sherif discovered that, even though make errors and mistakes? In one autokinetic effect
the other group members were no longer present, study, researchers established an extreme norm by
planting a confederate in each three-member
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
162 C H A P T E R 6
group. The confederate steadfastly maintained that 6-1d Application: Norms and Health
the dot of light was moving about 15 inches—an
excessive estimate given that most estimates aver- Because norms tend to resist revision, some group’s
aged about 3–4 inches. Once the confederate norms may seem pointless and arbitrary rather than
deflected the group’s distance norm upward, he reasonable and functional (see Table 6.1). But
was removed from the group and replaced by a norms are essential to group functioning, for even
naive participant. The remaining group members, odd or unusual norms organize interactions,
however, still retained the large distance norm, and increase predictability, and enhance solidarity
the newest addition to the group gradually adapted (Collins, 2004). Why do people feel obligated to
to the higher standard. The researchers continued to help others who help them (Chapter 3)? Why do
replace group members with new participants, but members of cohesive groups tend to work only as
new members continued to shift their estimates in hard as everyone else in the group (Chapter 5)?
the direction of the group norm. This arbitrary Why do people sometimes abandon their own
group norm gradually disappeared as judgments of beliefs and adopt the group’s position as their own
distance came back down to an average of 3.5 (Chapter 7)? Why do group members feel justified
inches, but in most cases, the more reasonable
norm did not develop until group membership had T A B E L 6.1 Characteristics and Varieties
changed five or six times (Jacobs & Campbell, 1961; of Norms
MacNeil & Sherif, 1976). In another generational
study, researchers gave groups feedback that sug- Common Description
gested that their norm about how decisions should Features
be made was causing them to make errors, but this Describe how most members act,
negative feedback did not reduce the norm’s longev- Descriptive feel, and think
ity across generations (Nielsen & Miller, 1997).
Consensual Shared among group members,
Studies of the emergence and transmission of rather than personal, individual-
norms in a variety of settings—in workgroups, level beliefs
families, sports teams, and children’s groups—all
demonstrate just how rapidly norms can emerge Injunctive Define which behaviors are con-
to structure group behavior (e.g., Bicchieri, 2006; sidered “bad” or wrong and
Rossano, 2012). Even children as young as three which are “good” or acceptable
years old learn norms quickly and respond negatively
when newcomers violate these rules. In one study, Prescriptive Set the standards for expected
for example, two- and three-year-olds played for a behavior; what should be done
time with a familiar object—a sponge—in two
areas of the day care center (Rakoczy et al., Proscriptive Identify behaviors that should
2009). When in the rest area, they were taught to not be performed
use the sponge to clean. But when in the games
area, they were taught to roll the sponge as part Informal Describe the unwritten rules of
of a game. Later, someone else (a puppet, actually) conduct in the group
tried to use the sponge for cleaning in the game
area or for playing in the rest area, and the research- Implicit Often so taken for granted that
ers watched to see how the children reacted. As members follow them
they expected, three-year-olds complained when automatically
the sponge was misused, saying things like “No!
It does not go like this” or “No, you are not Self-generating Emerge as members reach a
allowed to clean up here.” consensus through reciprocal
influence
Stable Once they develop, resistant to
change and passed from current
members to new 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.
STRUCTURE 163
Why Do Unhealthy Norms Persist?
Why do group members continue to conform to norms misperceive the extent to which other students drink
that are harmful rather than healthy? The answer lies, excessive amounts of alcohol. Even though most of the
in part, in the tenacity of norms. Even norms that run students who participated in one study were person-
counter to society’s general traditions can establish a ally opposed to overindulgence, they believed that
life of their own in small groups within that society. In their campus’s norms encouraged heavy alcohol con-
some cases, too, norms remain in place because of sumption. The men responded to this norm by gradu-
pluralistic ignorance: Members privately disagree with ally internalizing the misperceived norm. They began
the group’s norm, but feel that their outlook is shared to drink more the longer they stayed at the school. The
by few others in the group. So, the norm continues to women, in contrast, responded by distancing them-
regulate behavior due to misperception rather than selves from their university and its norms about drink-
shared consensus. College students, for example, often ing (Krieger et al., 2016; Miller & Prentice, 2016).
in retaliating against other members who treat them to that norm (Neighbors et al., 2008). Many stu-
harshly (Chapter 13)? Why do people who are part dents, when asked about the drinking norms
of social movements or large crowds sometimes endorsed by the groups to which they belong,
engage in aberrant behavior (Chapter 17)? Because such as their primary friendship groups, campus
of the influence of norms on members’ thoughts, clubs, and sororities and fraternities, reported that
feelings, and actions. these groups often approve of “drinking alcohol
every weekend” and “drinking enough to pass
Norms about Drinking Alcohol Norms regulate out” (LaBrie et al., 2010, p. 345)—and the stronger
interactions in groups, facilitate productivity, and the group’s endorsement of drinking, the more
limit conflict, but such negative, unhealthy beha- heavily students who belong to such groups
viors as alcohol abuse, overeating, and drug use drank. Many students, when asked about clearly
can also be traced to normative processes. Consider, abnormal consequences of drinking—such as sub-
for example, the impact of social norms on the stantial loss of memory (e.g., blackouts), loss of con-
consumption of alcohol by young adults. Heavy sciousness (“passing out”), physical impairment
use of alcohol is common on college campuses, (e.g., dizziness and staggering gait), and illness
even among students who are too young to possess (vomiting)—considered them to be “normal”
alcohol legally. This excessive use of alcohol is asso- rather than abnormal (e.g., Mallett et al., 2011).
ciated with a number of negative outcomes, includ-
ing lower performance, physical injury, and Norms and Health Normative processes contrib-
violence (Padon et al., 2016). Yet, drinking exces- ute to many other unhealthy behaviors besides
sively is considered “normal” on many campuses. excessive use of alcohol. Obesity, for example,
Polls of students suggest that most consider drinking tends to spread among individuals who are linked
five drinks in succession to be appropriate if one is together in a social network, in part because norms
partying, and more than 40% of students conform encourage lifestyle choices that promote weight
gain rather than fitness (Christakis & Fowler,
pluralistic ignorance When members of a group pri- 2007). Interventions designed to help at-risk ado-
vately vary in outlook and expectations, but publicly lescents by placing them in special programs may
they all act similarly because they believe that they are actually contribute to increased violence, drug use,
the only ones whose personal views are different from and other antisocial behaviors when these groups
the rest of the group. develop negative rather than positive norms (Dish-
ion & Dodge, 2005). Individuals who are frequent
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
164 C H A P T E R 6
users of “club drugs” (methamphetamine, cocaine, preventing the onset of eating disorders, such as
ketamine, ecstasy, GHB, and LSD) are more likely bulimia, in young women (Stice et al., 2008).
to report that they do so because of social pressure Groups, then, can either promote or threaten mem-
(e.g., “When I was out with friends and they kept bers’ health, depending on their norms. Some groups
suggesting we go somewhere to do drugs,” “When may put members at risk by encouraging unhealthy
I felt pressured to use drugs and felt I couldn’t actions, whereas others keep members on the path to
refuse”; Starks et al., 2010, p. 1067). good health and wellness (Miller & Prentice, 2016).
Eating disorders, too, have been linked to nor- 6-2 ROLES
mative processes. Social psychologist Chris Crandall
(1988), for example, documented the detrimental On the day after the Andes crash, Marcelo, the captain
effects of norms on group members in a study of the rugby team, organized the efforts of those who
of one particular unhealthy behavior: bulimia—a could work. Two young men and one of the women
pernicious cycle of binge eating followed by administered first aid to the injured. One subgroup of
self-induced vomiting or other forms of purging. boys melted snow for drinking water, and another
Certain social groups, such as cheerleading squads, team cleaned the cabin of the airplane. These various
dance troupes, sports teams, and sororities, tend to positions in the group—leader, doctor, snow melter,
have strikingly high rates of eating disorders (Petrie cabin cleaner—are all examples of roles: coherent sets of
& Greenleaf, 2007). In explanation, Crandall noted behaviors expected of people in specific positions (or
that such groups adopt norms that encourage bing- statuses) within a group or social setting.
ing and purging. Rather than viewing these actions
as abnormal and a threat to health, the sororities 6-2a The Nature of Social Roles
that Crandall studied accepted purging as a normal
means of controlling one’s weight. The women The concept of roles explains the changes that some
who were popular in such groups were the ones people exhibit when they become members of a
who binged at the rate established by the group’s group. The quiet recluse, taciturn by nature, may
norms. Even worse, women who did not binge become convivial when given responsibility for
when they first joined the group were more likely organizing the group’s annual fund-raising event.
to take up the practice the longer they remained in The otherwise mild-mannered colleague may
the group. Other studies suggest that unhealthy eat- become habitually critical of process when taking
ing patterns increase with the perceived strength of part in group discussions. The staffer with the messi-
peer pressure within the sorority and the longer the est office may become methodical and precise when
woman lives in the sorority house itself (e.g., elected the group’s secretary. Groups may pressure
Basow, Foran, & Bookwala, 2007). members to conform to the group’s norms, but
they do not require that members all act the same
Norms may, however, promote healthy actions as one another. Groups instead require members to
as well as unhealthy ones. Individuals who wish to enact a specific set of behaviors consistently, depend-
reduce their negative indulgences often find success ing on one’s role within the group. Roles define
by joining a group and accepting that group’s norms responsibilities and expectations and facilitate coordi-
as their own. Many fitness, weight-loss, and anti- nation by specifying who can be counted on to do
addiction programs, as noted in more detail in what within the group. Over the course of repeated
Chapter 16, take a group approach to change. Alco- interactions, members not only learn what others in
holics Anonymous, for example, has clear norms the group usually do, but also what everyone in the
about the types of behaviors members must enact group expects of them. By enacting roles, individuals
in order to stay sober, and those individuals who establish an exchange relationship with their fellow
become highly involved members are less likely to
continue to drink heavily (Witbrodt et al., 2012).
Groups have also been found to be effective in
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 165
members, building the interdependence that is essen- an informal role structure. Members may initially
tial for the coordination of behavior, group cohe- consider themselves to be just members, basically
sion, and productivity. similar to each other. But in time, some group mem-
bers will begin to perform specific types of actions
The concept of a social role is similar, in many and interact with other group members in a particu-
respects, to a theatrical role. In a play or film, a role lar way. As this role differentiation process
is the part the actors portray before the audience. unfolds, the number of roles in the group increases,
To become Juliet in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, whereas the roles themselves gradually become more
for example, an actor must perform certain actions narrowly defined and specialized. In the Andes sur-
and recite her dialogue accordingly. Similarly, roles vivors, for example, the roles of leader, doctor, and
in groups structure behavior by dictating the part cleaner emerged first, soon followed by the inventor
that members take as they interact. Once cast in a who created makeshift snowshoes, hammocks, and
role, such as leader, outcast, or questioner, members water-melting devices; explorer who was determined
perform certain actions and interact with others in a to hike down from the mountain; and complainer,
particular way—but this consistency reflects the pessimist, optimist, and encourager. This proliferation
requirements of their role rather than their personal of roles is typical of groups facing difficult problems
predilections or inclinations (Stets & Thai, 2010). or emergencies (Bales, 1958).
But just as some variability is permitted in theatrical
roles, group roles do not structure group members’ Task and Relationship Roles What roles emerge
actions completely. An actor playing the role of more frequently in groups? Certainly, the role of
Juliet must perform certain behaviors as part of her leader is a fundamental one in many groups, but
role—she would not be Shakespeare’s Juliet if she other roles should not be overlooked. Many of
did not fall in love with Romeo. She can, however, these roles, such as solution seeker, the problem analyst,
recite her lines in an original way, change her stage and procedural facilitator, are similar in that they
behaviors, and even ad-lib. In social groups, too, revolve around the task the group is tackling (Fuji-
people can fulfill the same role in somewhat different moto, 2016). People who fulfill a task role focus
ways, and, so long as they do not stray too far from on the group’s goals and on the members’ attempts
the role’s basic requirements, the group tolerates this to support one another as they work. Marcelo, in
variation. However, like the stage director who the Andes group, was a task-oriented leader, for he
replaces an actor who presents an unsatisfactory Juliet, organized work squads and controlled the rationing
the group can replace members who repeatedly fail to of the group’s food supplies; the rest of the mem-
play their part within the group. The role often super- bers obeyed his orders. He did not, however, satisfy
sedes any particular group member. When the role the group members’ interpersonal and emotional
occupant departs, the role itself remains and is filled needs. As if to offset Marcelo’s inability to cheer
by a new member (Stryker & Burke, 2000). up the survivors, several group members became
more positive and friendly, actively trying to reduce
Role Differentiation As with norms, groups conflicts and to keep morale high. Liliana Methol,
sometimes deliberately create roles to organize the
group and thereby facilitate the attainment of the role differentiation An increase in the number of roles
group’s goals. A group may decide that its efficiency in a group, accompanied by a gradual decrease in the
would be augmented if someone takes charge of the scope of these roles as each one becomes more narrowly
meetings and different tasks are assigned to subcom- defined and specialized.
mittees. In some cases, too, someone outside the task role Any position in a group occupied by a member
group, such as the group’s supervisor, may mandate who performs behaviors that center on tasks and activi-
roles within the group (Kozlowski et al., 2015). But ties, such as initiating structure, providing task-related
even without a deliberate attempt at creating a for- feedback, and setting goals.
mal group structure, the group will probably develop
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
166 C H A P T E R 6
in particular, provided a “unique source of solace” roles (labeled the “best-liked man”) showed solidar-
(Read, 1974, p. 74) to the young men. She came to ity, more tension release, and greater agreement
fill a relationship role (also frequently termed socio- with other group members. Moreover, this differ-
emotional role) in the Andes group. Whereas the coor- entiation became more pronounced over time.
dinator and energizer structure the group’s work, such During the first session, the same leader occupied
roles as supporter, clown, and even the complainer help both the task and the relationship roles in 56.5% of
satisfy the emotional needs of the group members the groups. By the fourth session, only 8.5% of the
(Lehmann-Willenbrock, Beck, & Kauffeld, 2016). leaders occupied both roles. In most cases, indivi-
duals dropped their role as task leader in favor of the
Why Differentiation? Why do task roles and rela- relationship role (Bales, 1958; Bales & Slater, 1955).
tionship roles emerge in so many different groups?
One answer, proposed by Robert Bales (1950, Subsequent work suggests that this division of
1955, 1958), suggests that very few individuals can task and relationship roles is not an inevitable occur-
simultaneously fulfill both the task and the relationship rence in groups (Turner & Colomy, 1988). Some
needs of the group. When group members are task- individuals are the small-group equivalent of master
oriented, they must direct others to act in certain leaders, for they are both well-liked and focused on
ways, restrict others’ options, criticize other members, the work to be done (Borgatta, Couch, & Bales,
and prompt them into action. These actions may be 1954). When players on football teams were asked
necessary to reach the goal, but others may react neg- to identify the best players on the team and those
atively to these task-oriented activities, so they then who contributed most to the group’s harmony,
look to others in the group for socioemotional, rela- many named the same person—usually a senior- or
tional support. The peacekeeper who intercedes and first-string player—to both roles (Rees & Segal,
tries to maintain harmony is the relationship specialist. 1984). When students in groups rated each other’s
Task and relationship roles, then, are a natural conse- role activity, many slotted the same person into both
quence of these two partly conflicting demands. task and relationship roles. Cohesive groups tend to
have leaders who can fill both roles, whereas the
Bales identified these tendencies by tracking roles tend to be separated in groups with high levels
role differentiation in decision-making groups of conflict (Burke, 1967; Mudrack & Farrell, 1995).
across four sessions. Bales used his interaction process Differentiation of these two types of roles is more
analysis (IPA) system to identify certain specific common than their combination, however, perhaps
types of behavior within the groups. As noted in because few people have the interpersonal and cog-
Chapter 2 (see Figure 2.2), half of the categories nitive skills needed to enact both roles successfully.
in IPA focus on the task-oriented behaviors and
the other half focus on the relationship behaviors. 6-2b Role Theories
Bales found that individuals rarely performed both
task and relationship behaviors: Most people gravi- The concept of role is a redoubtable one and has given
tated toward either a task role or a relationship role. rise to a number of alternative theories that describe
Those who took on a task role (labeled the “idea roles and role-related processes. These conceptualiza-
man”) offered mostly suggestions and expressed tions agree on many points. Roles, they note, organize
opinions. Those who gravitated to the relationship group interactions by creating a set of shared expecta-
tions that script the behavior of the individuals who
relationship role Any position in a group occupied by a occupy them. These theories, however, disagree on
member who performs behaviors that improve the other points, including what roles are common to
nature and quality of interpersonal relations among most groups and what functions roles serve. This sec-
members, such as showing concern for the feelings of tion reviews a sample of theories that seek to explain
others, reducing conflict, and enhancing feelings of satis- roles and role-related processes, focusing on three
faction and trust in the group. models that are most relevant to understanding groups:
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 167
functional role theory, interactionism, and dynamic in personality, naturally gravitate to a particular type
role theory (Biddle, 1986; Turner, 2001b). of role across all the groups they join. However,
because a group’s need for a particular role will
Functional Role Theories A number of theorists, vary depending on the type of task it is attempting
in seeking to explain why roles develop in groups, and the group’s stage of development, the most
stress their functional utility. All groups must, for exam- skilled group member is one with role flexibility:
ple, respond in adaptive ways to their environment by the capacity to recognize the current requirements
recognizing challenges and responding successfully. of the group and then enact the role-specific beha-
Most groups, too, usually exist for some purpose, viors most appropriate in the given context. A group
so they must develop methods that facilitate goal striving to be creative, for example, has less need of
attainment—all the while making certain that members an evaluator/critic than a group examining a range
are so satisfied with membership that they remain in the of solutions after extensive deliberation. Individual
group and continue to meet their obligations (Parsons, roles will prove more problematic in the early stage
Bales, & Shils, 1953). Roles exist in groups to fulfill, at of a group’s life.
least in part, these personal and interpersonal needs
(Belbin, 2010; Blumberg et al., 2012). Interactionist Theories Some theoretical analyses
of roles put more emphasis on the generative process
Education theorists and practitioners Kenneth of role-related actions, arguing that “the patterning of
Benne and Paul Sheats (1948) developed their behavior that constitutes roles arises initially and
well-known functional theory of roles by observing recurrently out of the dynamics of interaction”
the interactions of groups at the National Training (Turner, 2001b, p. 234). Group members share a
Laboratories (NTL), an organization devoted to the basic sense of the requirements of the roles that are
improvement of groups. They noted that while common in most group settings, but they work out
much work had been done to train people to lead the details of their roles and their demands as they
groups, little had been done to train people to work interact with one another. Interactionist approaches
in groups—even though the “setting of goals and recognize that group roles are analogous to theatrical
the marshaling of resources to move toward these roles, but the group setting is more like improv than a
goals is a group responsibility in which all members well-rehearsed stage play. Roles are negotiated by all
of a mature group come variously to share” (pp. group members through a reciprocal process of role
41–42). Leaders, they suggested, are responsible enactment—displaying certain behaviors as part of
for making sure roles are filled, but members are one’s role in the group—and role sending—the trans-
responsible for fulfilling the demands of the roles. mission of one’s expectations about what kinds of
behaviors are expected of people who occupy partic-
Benne and Sheats suggested that a group, to ular roles (Stryker & Vryan, 2006).
survive, must meet two basic demands: The group
must accomplish its tasks, and the relationships This view is consistent with the sociologist
among members must be maintained. But they iden- Erving Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical approach
tified 19 specific roles within these two broad cate- to social interaction. He maintained that individuals
gories, such as initiator/contributor, opinion seeker, engage in self-presentation (also termed impres-
and energizer on the task side and encourager, har- sion management) in order to steer others’ impres-
monizer, and compromiser on the relationship side. sions and expectations. Marcelo, for example, as the
They also identified a third set of eight individual
roles enacted by group members who are more con- self-presentation Influencing other people’s social per-
cerned with their own personal needs rather than the ceptions by selectively revealing personal information to
needs of the group. This category includes such roles them; includes both deliberate and unintentional
as aggressor, blocker, and dominator. attempts to establish, maintain, or refine the impression
that others have; also known as impression management.
Benne and Sheats theorize that individuals,
given previous experiences in groups and 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.
168 C H A P T E R 6
What Roles Are Filled and by Whom in Your Group?
Although the parts people play in their groups—their Group Building and Relationship Roles
roles—may be as varied as the diverse situations where
groups exist, some roles occur with great regularity q Encourager: Reassures others by expressing
across all kinds of groups. Most groups need someone agreement, praise, and solidarity
who consistently keeps the group on course; someone
who intervenes to soothe the group’s feelings; some- q Harmonizer: Reconciles disagreements and conflicts
one who cheers the group up with its mood turns among group members (often through humor)
dark. Groups have needs, just as their members do.
q Compromiser: Agrees to shift his or her own
Instructions. Take a moment to reflect on the position on an issue to reduce conflict or move the
roles in a group to which you belong. The group can group along
be one that meets regularly in a work or social setting,
or it can be a smaller group that is part of a larger q Gatekeeper/expediter: Facilitates communication
group or organization. After you generate the list of by drawing out reticent members and proposing
all the group’s members, can you identify a person in ways to improve the discussion
the group who regularly takes on one or more of the
following roles (including yourself, of course)? q Standard setter: Calls for discussion of the group’s
procedures and processes
Group Task Roles
q Group observer and commentator: Tracks the
q Initiator/contributor: Offers novel ideas about the group’s processes and provides data during the
problem at hand, new ways to approach the prob- review of group’s procedures
lem, or different ways of doing or organizing things
q Follower: Agrees with others in the group
q Information seeker: Emphasizes getting the facts
clear or seeks out data Individual Roles
q Opinion seeker: Asks for more information about q Aggressor: Expresses disapproval of acts, ideas,
the attitudes and values of the group members on and feelings of others; denigrates the group,
issues purposes, and procedures
q Information giver: Provides objective facts and q Blocker: Resists the group’s influence, often by
information, drawing on own expertise or claimed not dropping issues after the group has settled
authority them
q Opinion giver: Expresses own opinions and values q Recognition seeker: Protects and promotes own
on issues status, accomplishments
q Elaborator: Gives additional information, uses q Self-confessor: Discloses excessively personal
examples to clarify suggestions, or explores interests, feelings, and opinions unrelated to
implications group goals
q Coordinator: Organizes the various contributions q Playboy: Shows a lack of engagement by expres-
of others and shows their relevance and relation- sing cynicism, boredom, and so on
ship to the overall problem
q Dominator: Asserts authority or superiority;
q Orienter: Offers summaries, guides the group back manipulative
to its purposes, or reminds group to stay focused
q Help seeker: Expresses insecurity, confusion, and
q Evaluator/critic: Appraises the quality of the self-deprecation
group’s activities, methods, processes, or results
q Special-interest pleader: Remains apart from the
q Energizer: Stimulates the group to continue group by invoking an extra-group identity
working when discussion drags
Interpretation. The number of roles in your group,
q Procedural technician: Cares for operational the type of roles, and the distribution of members in
details, such as arranging the room, providing those roles is indicative of your group’s functioning. If,
materials, and attending to technology for example, your group has very few individuals in task
roles, your group is either focused more on relational
q Recorder: Takes notes and maintains records concerns or it might still be developing role structures
that facilitate its performance (Benne & Sheats, 1948).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 169
rugby team captain, considered himself well-suited scouts, makeup artists, photographers, producers,
for the role of group leader following the crash, so and prop managers. Those who occupy these
he exhibited the kinds of behaviors appropriate for roles work in a highly coordinated manner during
that role: He assigned tasks to the others, set goals for the actual production process.
the group, and sanctioned members who did not do
their part. He did so because these actions were Bechky also discovered, however, that the coor-
required by the role of leader, but also because he dination of these groups is further enhanced on a
wished to define himself as the leader in the other continual basis through the interactions among the
group members’ eyes. Roles, then, are negotiated group members on each set. Many of those who
among members through a process that requires work in a particular role have also performed other
motivation, experience, and the ability to step out roles in other projects. An electrician on one shoot,
of one’s own role and mentally imagining how for example, may have worked as a camera loader on
others in the groups are seeing you. This process is another, and so the level of consensual agreement
termed role-taking. It includes not only taking on a regarding roles is substantial. The complexity of the
role but also a willingness to put oneself into others’ work, however, required even the most experienced
roles to see the group as they do (Mead, 1934). members to modify their actions to suit the needs of
others. Throughout every production day, group
Beth A. Bechky (2006), an ethnographer of members were regularly providing each other with
work and occupation, applied an interactionist corrective feedback about one another’s role-based
approach to roles in her participant observation performances, but they did so through “effusive
study of the interpersonal dynamics of temporary thanking, polite admonishing, and role-oriented jok-
film-production teams. These production groups ing” (p. 11). Group members openly and routinely
are common in the construction and film industries. thanked each other for completing actions required
The groups are assembled by production managers by their roles, but they were also quick to intervene
or contractors, and they set to work immediately on with suggestions for improvement, if needed, usually
their task. Bechky, for example, observed crews phrased as “don’t worry about it for now, but next
ranging in size from 35 to 175 set up and film time be sure to…”. Humor was often used to give a
commercials, music videos, and movies. These lighter touch to these suggestions, but also to ridicule
group members may have worked together previ- someone who had displayed a more jarring role-
ously, but usually as individuals—they were not related misstep. Her observations convinced Bechky
members of any larger production teams that (2006, p. 11) that
moved as a unit from project to project. These
groups can assemble quickly, however, because within each project, the generalized role struc-
each group member’s role is relatively well- ture is instantiated by a set of crew members
defined. Filming a commercial, video, or movie who negotiate and modify their particular roles.
requires completion of a number of highly special- The generalized role structure and the role
ized tasks, and these tasks are assigned to specific enactments mutually support one another, while
roles. The production team includes, for example, at the same time establishing a means for almost
camera assistants and operators, costume designers, immediate coordination on each new project.
crane and dolly operators, directors, film loaders,
gaffers (electricians), grips (lighting and rigging tech- Dynamic Role Theories Sigmund Freud (1922)
nicians), hair stylists, lighting technicians, location is best known for his insightful analyses of person-
ality and adjustment, but he also analyzed group
role-taking Perceiving the role requirements of other behavior. He suggested our actions when in a
group members’ roles, by taking their perspective; also, group are based, in part, on our rational plans,
the enactment of a role within a group. motives, and goals, but also on unconscious inter-
personal and psychological processes that are largely
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
170 C H A P T E R 6
Do Group Roles Have a Deeper Meaning?
Organizational psychologist and group therapist Paul assumptions, Moxnes identified a number of deep
Moxnes (1999) extended Freud’s psychodynamic per- roles that he creatively named the king (the “good
spective in his theory of “deep roles.” Moxnes theo- father”), queen (the “good mother”), princess (the
rized that group members’ early experiences in daughter), and so on.
families, with their apportionment of roles based on
biological sex and cultural practices, creates similar When Moxnes asked members of groups to use
structures in groups that are not kin-based. Like func- these role labels to describe their fellow group mem-
tional theorists, Moxnes distinguishes between task bers, he found that the primary deep roles—King,
and relationship roles, but links this division to the Queen, Princess, Prince, and Wiseman—were used very
separation of mother and father roles in families. He frequently (Moxnes & Moxnes, 2016). Members’
also suggests that these roles are viewed with some agreement on who in their group fit which role
ambivalence, due to the differences in power associ- exceeded random chance: members tend to place the
ated with each role. The occupants of some role posi- same person in the “good father” (king) role, “bad
tions are powerful, whereas the occupants of other mother” role, and so on. Moxnes’ intriguing theory
roles are less influential. On the basis of these awaits further empirical testing (see Hare, 1999; Robi-
son, 1999).
unrecognized. He believed, for example, that of roles—task and relationship roles—and based his
groups psychologically replace our first, and most IPA system on this distinction. In time, however, he
basic, group: our family. This replacement hypothesis came to recognize the critical importance of two
suggests that in highly cohesive groups, the other other aspects of roles and intermember relations:
group members come to take the place of our sib- dominance and friendliness. So, he developed a
lings, so the emotional ties that bind us to our new, more complex model—Systematic Multiple
groups are like the ties that bind children to fami- Level Observation of Groups (SYMLOG)—based
lies. We also unconsciously accept our leaders as on the following three dimensions:
parental figures, so they become the “mother” or
“father” of our groups. Those leaders who identify ■ Dominance or submissiveness: Is this member
with the mother role adopt more relational beha- active, outgoing, and talkative or passive, quiet,
viors, whereas those who identify with the father and introverted? (dominance is Up, submissive
role engage in more task-oriented, agentic actions. is Down.)
Freud believed, however, that children were not
wholly accepting of their parents, and so this ■ Friendliness or unfriendliness: Is this member
ambivalence is transferred to our leaders. We there- warm, open, and positive or negative and irri-
fore consider some leaders to be persecutory, critical table? (friendliness is Positive, unfriendliness is
“bad mothers” or “bad fathers” rather than benev- Negative.)
olent, supportive, ones (Klein, 1948).
■ Acceptance or nonacceptance of task-oriented author-
6-2c Bale’s SYMLOG Model ity: Is this member analytic and task-oriented or
emotional, nontraditional, and (in some cases)
Sociologist Robert Bales’s (1970, 1980, 1999) SYM- resentful? (acceptance of the task-orientation
LOG model provides a final example of a compre- of established authority is Forward, nonaccep-
hensive explanation for the types of roles commonly tance is Backward.)
observed in groups. Bales (1950), in his earliest studies
of groups, distinguished between two basic categories Observers, or the group members themselves,
can rate each individual in the group using the 26
categories shown in Table 6.2. The group leader’s
behaviors, for example, might be concentrated in
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 171
T A B L E 6.2 The SYMLOG Model of Group Structure
Trait (Direction) General Behaviors Individual and Organizational Values
Dominant (U) Dominant, active, talkative
Individual financial success, personal prominence
and power
Sociable (UP) Outgoing, sociable, extraverted Popularity and social success, being liked and
admired
Persuasive (UPF) Persuasive, convincing, shows task Active teamwork toward common goals, organi-
leadership zational unity
Managerial (UF) Business-like, decisive, impersonal Efficiency, strong impartial management
Moralistic (UNF) Strict, demanding, controlling Active reinforcement of authority, rules, and
regulations
Tough (UN) Tough, competitive, aggressive Tough-minded, self-oriented assertiveness
Rebellious (UNB) Rebellious, unruly, self-centered Rugged, self-oriented individualism, resistance to
authority
Funny (UB) Joking, witty, clever Having a good time, releasing tension, relaxing
control
Warm (UPB) Protects others, sympathetic, nurturant Protecting less able members, providing help
when needed
Equalitarian (P) Friendly, democratic, group-oriented Equality, democratic participation in decision-
making
Cooperative (PF) Cooperative, reasonable, constructive Responsible idealism, collaborative work
Task-oriented (F) Serious, logical, objective Conservative, established, “correct” ways of doing
things ways of doing things
Persistent (NF) Rule-oriented, insistent, inflexible Restraining individual desires for organizational
goals
Selfish (N) Self-protective, unfriendly, negativistic Self-protection, self-interest first, self-sufficiency
Cynical (NB) Uncooperative, pessimistic, cynical Rejection of established procedures, rejection of
conformity
Unpredictable (B) Expresses emotions, shows feelings Change to new procedures, different values,
creativity
Likable (PB) Likeable, affectionate, enjoyable Friendship, mutual pleasure, recreation
Trustful (DP) Trustful, accepting, sensitive Trust in the goodness of others
Responsible (DPF) Modest, respectful, dedicated Dedication, faithfulness, loyalty to the
organization
Obedient (DF) Cautious, dutiful, obedient Obedience to the chain of command, complying
with authority
(Continued)
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
172 C H A P T E R 6
T A B L E 6.2 The SYMLOG Model of Group Structure (continued )
Trait (Direction) General Behaviors Individual and Organizational Values
Self-sacrificing (DNF)
Constrained, conforming, self- Self-sacrifice if necessary to reach organizational
sacrificing goals
Resentful (DN) Depressed, unsociable, resentful Passive rejection of popularity, going it alone
Withdrawn (DNB) Alienated, rejects task, withdraws Admission of failure, withdrawal of effort
Indecisive (DB) Indecisive, anxious, holds back Passive noncooperation with authority
Contented (DPB) Quietly contented, satisfied, Quiet contentment, taking it easy
unconcerned
Silent (D) Silent, passive, uninvolved Giving up personal needs and desires, passivity
SOURCE: Used with Permission. Copyright © 1983, 1985, 1998 SYMLOG Consulting Group.
the “active, dominant, talks a lot” category rather positions at the friendly end of this dimension
than the “passive, introverted, says little” category. because they were both very popular within the
A disillusioned group member, in contrast, might group, whereas Delgado’s and Canessa’s low social
get high scores for “irritable, cynical, won’t standing places them at the unfriendly end. Bales uses
cooperate.” These ratings can be used to chart circles of varying size to illustrate the third structural
the flow of a group’s interaction over time. dimension: dominance/submission. The larger the
When a group first begins to discuss a problem, circle, the greater the group member’s status in the
most of the behaviors may be concentrated in group; hence, Fito Strauch is represented by a very
the dominant, friendly, and accepting authority large circle, whereas Harley (one of the malingerers)
categories. But if the group is wracked by dis- is represented by a very small circle.
agreement, then scores in the unfriendly, nonac-
cepting authority categories may begin to climb. SYMLOG, by taking into account role, status,
SYMLOG can also be used to create a graph of the and attraction, yields an integrative and in-depth
group profile based on dominance, friendliness, picture of the organization of groups (Hare et al.,
and authority dimensions (Hare & Hare, 2005; 2005). The task-oriented acceptance of authority/
Isenberg & Ennis, 1981; Polley, 1989). nonacceptance of authority dimension focuses on
role structure, but distinguishes between roles that
Although SYMLOG ratings were never com- are higher and lower in status, and ones that exert a
pleted for the Andes group, Figure 6.2 is a specu- positive or negative influence on the group and its
lative mapping of the group’s structure into the processes. Thus, SYMLOG is a powerful concep-
three dimensions in Bales’ model. The vertical tual and methodological tool that provides a clearer
axis corresponds to the role-related behavior in understanding of the unseen group structures that
the group. People like Fito Strauch and Fernandez underlie recurring patterns of interpersonal beha-
rank near the task-oriented, accepting of authority viors in groups.
end of this dimension, whereas Harley and Man-
gino are located near the opposing authority end 6-2d Group Socialization
of this dimension because they tended to resist
group pressures and to express their feelings and An actor answering a casting call may hope to
emotions within the group. The horizontal axis land the lead role of Juliet, but the director may
pertains to attraction relations among the mem- instead offer her only a smaller part, such as the
bers. Parrado and Turcatti, for example, occupy role of the nurse or Lady Capulet. She may
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 173
Accepting task orientation of authority Parrado
F Turcatti
Canessa F. Strauch
E. Strauch
Fernandez
Paez
Unfriendly behavior Zerbino
Friendly behavior
Delgado P
N
Vizintin
Mangino
Inciarte Methol
Harley
B
Opposing task orientation of authority
F I G U R E 6.2 Possible locations of a subset of the Andes group members in the three-dimensional space
described by the SYMLOG rating system.
SOURCE: Used with Permission. Copyright © 1983, 1985, 1998 SYMLOG Consulting Group.
decide that the role is too insubstantial for her group socialization to explain how individuals
talents and not accept it, or she may decide that negotiate their role assignments in groups. Their
any role in the production is better than no role theory, which is summarized in Figure 6.3, recog-
at all. Similarly, individuals often seek particular nizes that individuals are often asked to take on
roles in groups, but the group may not permit roles that they would prefer to avoid. Newcomers
them to occupy these roles. In the Andes group, must “learn their place” in the group and acquire
for example, many sought to be one of the the behaviors required by the roles to which they
“expeditionaries”—explorers who were selected
to hike away from the crash site and seek help. group socialization A pattern of change in the rela-
But only three were chosen. tionship between an individual and a group that begins
when an individual first considers joining the group and
Group Socialization Theory Richard Moreland ends when he or she leaves it.
and John Levine (1982) developed their theory of
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
174 C H A P T E R 6
Prospective New Full Marginal Ex-
member member member member member
Acceptance
Commitment Divergence
Entry
Exit
Investigation Socialization Maintenance Resocialization Remembrance
Recruitment Accommodation Role Accommodation Tradition
Reconnaissance Assimilation Negotiation Assimilation Reminiscence
Time
F I G U R E 6.3 The Moreland and Levine theory of group socialization. The model identifies five types of roles (top
of the figure), five stages and processes of socialization (bottom of the figure), and four transition points (identified as
stars on the curve). The curved line represents the gradual increase (and eventual decrease) of a hypothetical member’s
commitment to the group. Commitment increases as the member moves from prospective member to new member to
full member, but then declines as the member moves to the role of marginal member and finally to ex-member.
SOURCE: Adapted from “Socialization in Small Groups: Temporal Changes in Individual-Group Relations,” by Richard L. Moreland and John M. Levine.
In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 15). Copyright © 1982 by Academic Press. Published by Elsevier Inc.
have been assigned. Veteran group members must, of this reconnaissance involves identifying the type of
in some cases, be ready to take on new roles within role they will be given should they join. The group,
the group that force them to learn new skills and in contrast, seeks to recruit new members, often by
seek new challenges. But group members also feel promising them desirable roles and responsibilities
that their groups should be flexible enough to (Kramer, 1998). Should the individuals choose to
change to meet their particular needs. So, indivi- enter the group (entry), their commitment to the
duals attempt to influence the group. Hence, group increases, and their socialization by the full
group socialization is a mutual process: Through members begins in earnest (Tan, 2015). To the full
assimilation, the individual accepts the group’s members, the newcomers are inexperienced and can-
norms, values, and perspectives, and through not be completely trusted until they accept the
accommodation, the group adapts to fit the new- group’s norms and role allocations.
comer’s needs.
The Newcomer Role The role of newcomer can
Moreland and Levine’s theory distinguishes be a stressful one (Moreland & Levine, 2002). New
between five classes of roles—prospective member, new to the group and its procedures, newcomers lack
member, full member, marginal member, and ex-member. basic information about their place in the group
Prior to actually joining a group, individuals may and their responsibilities. Although the passage of
study the group and the resources it offers, and part
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 175
time will eventually transform them into rank- elected official whose term in office expires all leave
and-file members, newcomers often prolong their the group after months or years of successful main-
assimilation into the group by remaining cautiously tenance. In some cases, however, the maintenance
aloof or by misinterpreting other members’ reac- process builds to a transition point that Moreland
tions. Moreland (1985), to study this process, led and Levine labeled divergence. The group may, for
some members of a newly formed group to think example, force individuals to take on roles that they
that they were newcomers surrounded by more do not find personally rewarding. Individuals, too,
senior members. He arranged for groups of five may fail to meet the group’s expectations concern-
unacquainted individuals to meet for several ing appropriate behavior, and role negotiation may
weeks to discuss various topics. He told two of reach an impasse.
the five that the group had been meeting for some
time and that they were the only newcomers. Resocialization When the divergence point is
Although the role of newcomer existed only in the reached, the socialization process enters a new
minds of these two participants, the people who phase—resocialization. During resocialization, the
thought themselves newcomers behaved differently former full member takes on the role of a marginal
from the others. They interacted more frequently member, whose future in the group is uncertain.
and more positively with each other, they were less The individual sometimes precipitates this crisis
satisfied with the group discussion, and their descrip- point, often in response to increased costs and
tions of the group made reference to members’ dwindling rewards, waning commitment to the
seniority. Thus, the belief that one is a newcomer group, and dissatisfaction with responsibilities and
who will be treated differently by the old-timers can duties. The group, too, can be the instigator, react-
act as a self-fulfilling prophecy: Just thinking of one- ing to a group member who is not contributing or
self as a newcomer caused people to act in ways that is working against the group’s explicit and implicit
isolated them from the rest of the group (Major purposes. Moreland and Levine identified two pos-
et al., 1995). This “mistreatment,” which they them- sible outcomes of resocialization. The group and
selves partially caused, may undermine their loyalty the individual, through accommodation and assim-
to the group (Levine, Moreland, & Choi, 2001). ilation, can resolve their differences. In this instance,
convergence occurs, and the individual once more
Role Transitions The socialization process does becomes a full member of the group. Alternatively,
not end when individuals become full-fledged group resocialization efforts can fail (see Figure 6.3). The
members. Even seasoned group members must adjust group may conclude that the individual is no longer
as the group adds new members, adopts new goals in acceptable as a member and move to expel him or
place of its old objectives, or modifies status and role her. Similarly, the individual may reevaluate his or
relationships. Much of this maintenance phase is her commitment to the group and decide to leave.
devoted to role negotiation. The group may, for As a result, the divergence between the group and
example, require the services of a leader who can the individual becomes so great that a final role
organize the group’s activities and motivate members. transition is reached: exit.
The individual, in contrast, may wish instead to
remain a follower who is responsible for relatively 6-2e Role Stress
routine matters. During this phase, the group and
the individual negotiate the nature and quantity of Roles influence group members’ happiness and
the member’s expected contribution to the group. well-being in significant ways. Some roles are
more satisfying than others; people prefer to occupy
Many group members remain in the mainte- roles that are prestigious and significant rather than
nance period until their membership in the group roles that are menial and unimportant. They also
reaches a scheduled conclusion. An employee who like roles that require specialized skills and talents
retires, a student who graduates from college, or an
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
176 C H A P T E R 6
more than unchallenging, uninvolving roles (Rentsch are incompatible, role conflict may occur (Brief,
& Steel, 1998). The demands of a role can also be Schuler, & Van Sell, 1981).
stressful for the occupants of that role. A player on a
sports team, for example, may be called the spark plug, Interrole conflict develops when role takers
the comedian, or the mentor, but what are the duties discover that the behaviors associated with one of
associated with such an amorphous role (Cope et al., their roles are incompatible with those associated
2011)? And what if the leader of a group believes her with another of their roles. When assembly line
role involves keeping members on track, but others in workers are promoted to managerial positions, for
the group think that the leader’s role is to provide example, they often feel torn between the demands
emotional support, encouragement, or advice (Junker of their new supervisory role and their former roles
& van Dick, 2014). When a role is ambiguously as friend and workmate. Similarly, college students
defined, internally inconsistent, or fits the occupant often find that their student role conflicts with
poorly, roles can be great challenges for group mem- other roles they occupy, such as spouse, parent, or
bers (Kahn et al., 1964). employee. If the student role requires spending
every free moment in the library studying for
Role Ambiguity The responsibilities and activi- exams, other roles will be neglected.
ties that are required of a person who occupies a
role are not always clear either to the occupant of Intrarole conflict results from contradictory
the role (the role enactor or the role taker) or to the demands within a single role. A supervisor in a fac-
rest of the group (the role senders). Even when a role tory, for example, may be held responsible for over-
has a long history in the group or the group delib- seeing the quality of production, training new
erately creates the role for some specific purpose, personnel, and providing feedback or goal-
the responsibilities of the role may be ill-defined. orienting information. At another level, however,
In such cases, role takers will likely experience supervisors become the supervised because they
role ambiguity—they wonder if they are acting take directions from a higher level of management.
appropriately, they perform behaviors that others Thus, the members of the team expect the manager
in the group should be carrying out, and they ques- to keep their secrets and support them in any dis-
tion their ability to fulfill their responsibilities. putes with the management, but the upper echelon
expects obedience and loyalty (Katz & Kahn, 1978).
Role Conflict In some instances, group members
may find themselves occupying several roles at the Role conflict also arises when role takers and
same time with the requirements of each role mak- role senders have different expectations. The newly
ing demands on their time and abilities. If the mul- appointed supervisor may assume that leadership
tiple activities required by one role mesh with those means giving orders, maintaining strict supervision,
required by the other, role takers experience few and criticizing incompetence. The work group,
problems. If, however, the expectations that define
the appropriate activities associated with these roles role conflict A state of tension, distress, or uncertainty
caused by inconsistent or discordant expectations associ-
role ambiguity Unclear expectations about the beha- ated with one’s role in the group.
viors to be performed by an individual occupying a par- interrole conflict A form of role conflict that occurs
ticular position within the group caused by a lack of when individuals occupy multiple roles within a group
clarity in the role itself, a lack of consensus within the and the expectations and behaviors associated with one
group regarding the behaviors associated with the role, or of their roles are not consistent with the expectations and
the individual role taker’s uncertainty with regard to the behaviors associated with another of their roles.
types of behaviors expected by others. intrarole conflict A form of role conflict that occurs
when the behaviors that make up a single role are incon-
gruous, often resulting from inconsistent expectations on
the part of the person who occupies the role and other
members of the group.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 177
however, may feel that leadership entails eliciting individuals assigned to roles that required the kinds of
cooperation in the group, providing support and characteristics that they believed they possessed felt
guidance, and delivering rewards. Because the more authentic, and their moods were more positive
demands of roles vary from one country to another, (Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001).
in multicultural groups, individuals often misunder-
stand what their roles require of them. Roles and Well-Being Uncertainty about one’s
role, including role ambiguity, role conflict, and
Person–Role Conflict Sometimes, the behaviors poor role fit, results in stress and tension, and the
associated with a particular role are completely congru- results are rarely positive for the group member or
ent with the basic values, attitudes, personality, needs, for the group itself. In study after study, increases in
or preferences of the person who must enact the role: role ambiguity, role conflict, and person–role con-
A stickler for organization is asked to be in charge of flict are associated with a host of negative psycho-
organizing the group’s records; a relationship expert logical and interpersonal outcomes, including
must take on a role that requires sensitivity and heightened levels of tension, employee turnover,
warmth. In other cases, though, role fit is poor. An absenteeism, interpersonal conflict within the
easygoing, warm person must give performance group, and declines in job satisfaction and perfor-
appraisals to the unit’s employees. An individual with mance quality (Ritter et al., 2016). Individuals who
high ethical standards is asked to look the other way experience conflicts between the work roles and
when the company uses illegal accounting practices. their family roles experience declines in family sat-
isfaction and, to a lesser extent, their work satisfac-
When role fit is low, people do not feel that they tion (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007). Role
can “be themselves” in their roles; they also question stress is also associated with physical well-being.
their capacity to enact the role’s demands competently One meta-analytic review of 79 studies of the rela-
(Talley et al., 2012). In one study, college students tionship between role stress and physical maladies
who held roles in campus groups were asked if they concluded that role conflict predicts backaches,
felt that their role “reflected their authentic self and sleep disturbances, dizziness, and gastrointestinal
how much they felt free and choiceful as they fulfilled problems, whereas role ambiguity predicted fatigue.
their role” (Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001, p. 1136). Interpersonal conflict—not getting along with
Those who felt more authentic when enacting their people at work—predicted increases in all of these
role reported more positive mood, less negative negative physical symptoms (Nixon et al., 2011).
mood, and a higher level of satisfaction with life over-
all. Feeling competent when enacting one’s role was What can groups and organizations do to help
also a powerful predictor of well-being. In another their employees cope with role stress? One solution
study, students first rated themselves on 20 different involves making role requirements explicit: Managers
traits (e.g., cooperative, outgoing, and imaginative). should write job descriptions for each role within the
Later in the semester, they were given a list of five organization and provide employees with feedback
discussion roles (idea person, devil’s advocate, moder- about the behaviors expected of them (Schmidt
ator, secretary, and announcer) and then asked to et al., 2014). The workplace can also be designed so
indicate how valuable these 20 traits were for enacting that potentially incompatible roles are performed in
each role. For example, how important is it for the different locations and at different times. In such
idea person to be cooperative? Outgoing? Imagina- cases, however, the individual must be careful to
tive? Then they were assigned to one of these roles engage in behaviors appropriate to the specific role,
in a class discussion. As the concept of role fit suggests, because slipping into the wrong role at the wrong
time can lead to both embarrassment and a loss of
role fit The degree of congruence between the demands coordination within the group (Goffman, 1959).
of a specific role and the attitudes, values, skills, and other Some companies, too, develop explicit guidelines
characteristics of the individual who occupies the role. regarding when one role should be sacrificed so 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.
178 C H A P T E R 6
Was It You or Role Conflict?
Have you ever held a position in a group that you 6. If I did what one of my roles required I could not
never managed to master? That despite your best take care of my other duties.
efforts, the final result never quite met the group’s
standards? Your experience in the group may have 7. I had a mishmash of mismatched responsibilities in
been due, in part, to inadequacies in the group’s this group.
structure rather than your own insufficiencies. Review
that disappointing group experience using the items 8. I could not be myself when I was in this group.
listed below.
9. I did not know what I was supposed to do when I
Instructions: Circle the number of any items with was in this group.
which you agree.
10. I had taken on too many commitments to too
1. Too often it was unclear what I was supposed to many groups.
do for this group.
11. People in my group misunderstood what I was
2. The various roles I took on in this group did not supposed to do for this group.
mesh well with each other.
12. I too frequently had to do things in this group
3. The role I had in the group pulled me in too many that I did not agree with.
different directions.
Scoring: Add up the number of items you circled
4. I was expected to do things that I was uncom- for each type of role-related frustration—role ambigu-
fortable doing. ity: Items 1, 5, and 9; interrole conflict: Items 2, 6, and
10; intrarole conflict: Items 3, 7, and 11; person–role
5. I often wondered “Who is supposed to do what?” conflict: Items 4, 8, and 12. A score of 2 or more in any
in this group. category indicates that you may have experienced that
form of role-related stress as a member of the group.
another can be enacted, or they may prevent employ- killed, and soon a new order emerged in the
ees from occupying positions that can create role con- group. Three young men stepped forward to take
flict. Managers and the leaders of groups should also over control of the group. They were cousins, and
be mindful of the characteristics of the members of their kinship bonds securely connected them to one
their groups and be careful to maximize role fit when another, but they also were friends with many of
selecting members for particular tasks. Work set- the remaining group members.
tings should also do what they can to maximize
the salutary effects of positive, supportive member Connections among the members of a group
relationships. Antagonistic coworkers increase role provide the basis for the third component of group
stress, but people who work with others who are structure—the network of intermember relations.
supportive and helpful experience fewer of the Which one of the three cousins had the most
negative consequences of role stress, particularly authority? Who in a group is most liked by others,
when they work in settings that are more socially and who is an isolate? How does information flow
focused (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). through a group from one person to the next? The
answers depend on the group’s status, attraction,
6-3 INTERMEMBER and communication networks.
RELATIONS 6-3a Status Relations
On the 17th day of their ordeal, an avalanche swept The roles that emerged in the Andes group follow-
down on the Andes survivors as they slept, filling ing the crash defined who would lead, explore, and
their makeshift shelter with snow. Many were care for the injured. The individuals who took on
these roles, however, were not equal in terms of
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 179
Fito Strauch
E. Strauch Fernandez
Zerbino Paez Algora
Parrado Canessa Vizintin Turcatti
Younger Members Disabled and Injured Malingerers
Francois, Jabella, Methol, Inciarte, Harley,
Delgado
Mangino Nogueira, Echavarren
F I G U R E 6.4 The status hierarchy in the Andes group.
authority in the group. In the Andes group, Fito authority than others. Although the effects of status
Strauch, Eduardo Strauch, and Fernandez formed vary from one group to the next, in general those
a coalition that controlled most of the group’s activ- with higher status are afforded more attention by
ities (see Figure 6.4). Below this top level was a others in the group, they are held in higher regard,
second stratum of members who had less power and they are more influential; they exert more control
than the leaders but more prestige than the occu- over the group’s processes (Anderson et al., 2001).
pants of lower echelons. The explorers (“expedi-
tionaries”) occupied a special niche. These Status differentiation turns groups with flat,
individuals had been chosen to hike down the undifferentiated structures into ones with centralized,
mountain in search of help. In preparing for their hierarchical structures, rather like the pyramid-
journey, they were given special privileges, includ- shaped organizational charts of businesses and mili-
ing better sleeping arrangements and more clothing, tary organizations. This pattern is ubiquitous across
food, and water. The rank-and-file members groups, organizations, and cultures, and it will
included the youngest men in the group, the develop quickly in both informal, socioemotional
injured, and those thought to be malingering. groups and in those that are more task-focused
(Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). Furthermore, even
Status Differentiation These stable variations in though individuals often express a preference for
members’ relative status have many names—authority, more egalitarian structures where each person is
power, status network, pecking orders, chain of command, or equal to every other person in terms of influence
prestige ranking—but whatever their label they result in and control of resources, people are generally more
elevated authority for some and less for others. Group comfortable when they are members of hierarchical
members may start off on an equal footing, but over groups (Zitek & Tiedens, 2012).
time status differentiation takes place: Certain
individuals are granted, or they acquire, more Status Rank Who gains status in a group is the
complex result of individual, group, and cultural fac-
status differentiation The gradual rise of some group tors (Piazza & Castellucci, 2014). Some individuals,
members to positions of greater authority, accompanied given their personalities, skills, behavioral tendencies,
by decreases in the authority exercised by other and levels of experience, are more readily granted
members. authority than others. Extraverts, for example, tend
to more quickly gain status in groups, relative to
introverts, as do individuals who are particularly
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 500
- 501 - 550
- 551 - 600
- 601 - 650
- 651 - 700
- 701 - 723
Pages: