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

480 C H A P T E R 15

Apollo 13: The Group That Lost the Moon

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy set the goal: to control teams in Houston, Texas. Once in orbit around
send Americans to the surface of the moon by the the moon, Lovell and Haise would descend to the sur-
end of the decade. His plan initiated the largest face of the moon in the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM),
engineering project in modern history with as many the Aquarius.
as 400,000 individuals eventually working together to
solve the endless technical, psychological, and medical But 56 hours into the mission, Swigert initiated a
problems posed by such an unprecedented undertak- procedure designed to stir the cryogenic oxygen tanks.
ing. On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 commander Neil One of the tanks exploded. With oxygen escaping
Armstrong made history when he stepped on the from their ship and battery power dwindling, Lovell
moon’s surface. coolly radioed NASA his famous understatement,
“Houston, we have a problem.” (Actually, it was Jack
One year later, the crew of Apollo 13—James Swigert who first told mission control, “we’ve had a
Lovell, John Swigert, and Fred Haise—also made his- problem here.”) To conserve power in the command
tory, but in their case by not stepping on the moon. On module for the reentry phase of the mission, the crew
April 11, 1970, they piloted the National Aeronautics moved to the lunar excursion module—a tight space
and Space Administration’s (NASA) Apollo 13 into for two people, but crowded with three. For three
space without any sign of a problem. Lovell, Swigert, days, the crew and the experts at NASA worked to
and Haise were to spend four days crowded together solve one problem after another, including near-
in their command module, named the Odyssey, before freezing temperatures and a buildup of carbon dioxide
reaching the moon. The team members had trained in the cabin. But all ended well: The group circled
for years for the mission, and throughout the trip they the Moon, returned to Earth, and splashed down
would remain in constant communication with ground safely in the Pacific Ocean on April 17, 1970.

Groups exist in any number of distinct locations, on human behavior. Just as a group-level orienta-
ranging from classrooms, museums, factories, and tion assumes that individuals’ actions are shaped by
boardrooms to copper mines, battlefields, and even the groups to which they belong, an environmental
space capsules. The mountain climbers of the orientation assumes that groups are shaped by their
Adventure Consultants Guided Expedition camped environments. As Figure 15.2 suggests, a multilevel
and hiked on the cliffs of Mount Everest. The 1980 analysis of human behavior recognizes that indivi-
U.S. Olympic Hockey Team trained and played for duals are nested in a hierarchy of increasingly inclu-
hours and hours on hockey rinks across the world. sive social aggregates, such as groups, organizations,
The Bay of Pigs planners met in an elegantly and communities. But individuals and their groups
appointed conference room, speaking to each other also exist in a physical setting located in a particular
in subdued voices across an imposing mahogany geographic locality in a specific region of the
table. The Rattlers and the Eagles met, fought, and world, and that place will eventually influence the
befriended each other on the fields of the Robbers group’s dynamics and outcomes. After all, did not
Cave State Park. The crew of Apollo 13 lived in a Kurt Lewin (1951) remind us that B ¼ f ðP, EÞ:
“high-tech tin can” filled with multiple controls and each group member’s reactions, including their
few comforts (see Figure 15.1). The members of each thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (B), are a func-
one of these groups slept, worked, played, argued, tion of members’ personal qualities (P), but also the
and fought in specific places, and these places substan- social and physical environment (E) where the
tially influenced their dynamics. group is located?

Many disciplines, including anthropology, archi- This chapter, in reviewing theory and research
tecture, demography, environmental psychology, dealing with the group–environment interface,
ethology, human geography, interior design, and soci- focuses on group places, spaces, locations, and
ology, affirm the important impact of the environment workspaces. It begins by examining the features

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 481

F I G U R E 15.1 The interior of the lunar module, the Aquarius, which became the “life boat” for the crew of
Apollo 13 when an oxygen tank stored in the service module exploded.

SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/ad016.gif

of the physical place that influence the group (e.g., itself. Similarly, group ecology is the study of
temperature and noise) before turning to the way individuals and groups interacting with and adapt-
group members act within the space (personal dis- ing to the group’s habitat. In some cases, groups and
tance and seating choices). The analysis then con- the setting fit comfortably together. The place suits
siders how individuals and groups come to develop the group, leaving members free to focus on inter-
a proprietary orientation to a given location— personal and task dynamics. The materials they
territoriality—before closing with a more practical require are available, distractions are minimal, the
question: Given what we know about group places, temperature is comfortable, and the only sounds
spaces, and locations, what features should be built are those that the group members themselves cre-
into the group’s habitat to ensure the members are ate. But other environments are less hospitable.
contented and the group is productive? (For Humans have been remarkably successful in chang-
reviews, see Augustin, 2009; Gieryn, 2000; Gifford, ing their environment to suit their preferences, but
Steg, & Reser, 2011). sometimes the place shapes the group rather than
the group shaping the place.

15-1 PLACES group ecology The study of the interactions among the
living (the group and its members) and the nonliving (the
Ecology is the study of organisms and their habitats: physical setting) components of a group’s environment,
How they interact with and adapt to other organ- with particular emphasis on the spatial arrangements of
isms in their environment and to the environment individuals in small 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.

482 C H A P T E R 15

All Humanity control panels, gauges, sensors, warning lights, and
Society all sorts of buttons and switches. The space had
been designed with meticulous care, but only an
Community engineer or an astronaut would likely call it com-
fortable or beautiful.
Organization
Group Perceptions of Places A group’s response to its
environment is a subjective one, for the manifest
Person physical features of the place are filtered through
each member’s personal preferences, expectations,
Setting values, and attitudes. Their response is based more
Locality on their psychological representation of the physical
Region location as much as it is based on the place’s physi-
cal features (Graham, Gosling, & Travis, 2015). Pre-
Global ferences and aesthetics all vary from one person to
the next, so a setting that is considered pleasant or
F I G U R E 15.2 A multilevel model of both social comfortable by one person may evoke the opposite
aggregates (e.g., groups, organizations, and communities) reaction for another. The very same aspects of a
and geographic domains (e.g., settings, localities, and setting, such as the color of the walls or the way
regions). the table and chairs are arranged, are embraced if
the person chose these features, but not if they were
15-1a A Sense of Place imposed by someone else (Balcetis & Dunning,
Physical settings are often said to have ambience, 2010). One’s goals matter, as well. A person who
or atmosphere, for they can create a distinctive cog- wishes, for example, to study for an examination
nitive and emotional reaction in people who will respond very differently to a room with
occupy these spaces (Schroeder, 2007). music, dancing, and party streamers than will a per-
son whose goal is to have a good time (Herzog
We have strong feelings in and about places. et al., 2011a). The beauty of a place is often in
Some places make us feel good: glad to be there, the eye of the beholder.
relaxed, excited, warm all over. We are drawn to
these places and return to them as often as we Psychologist James A. Russell and his collea-
can. Other places make us feel bad: uncomfort- gues, however, have found that people’s percep-
able, insignificant, unhappy, out of place. We tions of places are substantially influenced by their
avoid these places and suffer if we have to be in answers to two basic questions: How pleasant is the
them. (Farbstein & Kantrowitz, 1978, p. 14) place (positive versus negative), and how arousing is
The crew of the Apollo 13, for example, lived the place (activating versus relaxing)? First, a group
for six days in a space the size of a closet filled with environment that is orderly, tastefully decorated,
clean, and spacious usually prompts a more favor-
ambience The psychological reaction (mood, feelings, able reaction than one that is poorly designed,
or emotions) evoked by a setting. shabby, unkempt, and odorous (see Figure 15.3).
Second, whereas some places are restful, others
stimulate their occupants rather than relax them.
The astronauts and engineers working in the con-
trol room at Houston all responded positively to
their highly arousing habitat, and so they consid-
ered it an exhilarating place. Visitors to the control
room, in contrast, often reacted negatively to its

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 483

Activation counterproductive levels of comfort. Highly effec-
tive groups may also be so focused on the task that
Tense • •Astonished they can work anywhere, since what matters is the
• Afraid •Excited quality of their tools and their personnel rather than
• Angry • Aroused the setting (Bennis & Biederman, 1997).
Happy •
Groups also thrive in stimulating spaces. Studies
•Annoyed • Delighted of groups living in harsh circumstances, such as
• Distressed • Glad teams stationed in Antarctica and explorers living
for months on end in a confined space, complain
•Pleased more about the monotony of the environment than
Negative about the danger, discomfort, or isolation (Stuster,
Positive 1996). During the International Geophysical Year
• Miserable •Contented (1957–1958), for example, several countries sent
Sad • •Satisfied small groups of military and civilian personnel to
• Gloomy • Serene outposts in Antarctica. These groups were responsi-
• Calm ble for collecting various data concerning that
• Bored largely unknown continent, but the violent
• Lethargic •Relaxed weather forced the staff to remain indoors most of
Sleepy • the time. As months went by with little change in
• Tired their situation, morale declined and group members
found themselves arguing over trivial issues. The
Deactivation members summarized their group malaise with the
term antarcticitis—lethargy, low morale, grouchi-
F I G U R E 15.3 Core affect experienced by people in ness, and boredom brought on by their unstimulat-
various types of group environments. ing living conditions (Gunderson, 1973; see also
Loukidou, Loan-Clarke, & Daniels, 2009).
SOURCE: Adapted from “A Circumplex Model of Affect,” by J. A. Russell
(1980), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178; “Core Cognitive Overload Excessively stimulating set-
Affect and the Psychological Construction of Emotion,” J. A. Russell (2003), tings can also be problematic. Groups experience
Psychological Review, 110, 145–172. cognitive overload if they are overwhelmed by
the sheer volume of information in the environ-
harsh lights, countless monitors, and a cacophony of ment (Kirsh, 2000). People generally prefer to be
voices issuing orders, relaying information, and ask- located at the center of their group’s communica-
ing questions. Few considered it boring or tranquil tion network rather than on the periphery, but not
(Russell, 1980, 2003; Russell & Snodgrass, 1987; if the flow of information is so great they cannot
Yik, Russell, & Steiger, 2011). keep up with it. College students who rated their
environment as overly stimulating—they agreed
Groups generally respond best, in terms of per- with such items as “I was bothered by stimuli that
formance and satisfaction, in affectively pleasant were interesting but irrelevant” and “I couldn’t
situations. Manufacturing teams in factories, stu- think about something because there was too
dents in classrooms, and workers in offices, for much going on around me”—also evidenced signs
example, perform better when working in attrac-
tive spaces that are visually interesting rather than overload A psychological reaction to situations and
drab (Cabanac, 2006). Physical features that stimu- experiences that are so cognitively, perceptually, or emo-
late or provoke positive emotions—including tionally stimulating that they tax or even exceed the
music, furnishings, art, decor, decorations, color, individual’s capacity to process incoming information.
and lighting—are associated with a range of positive
group dynamics, including increased cohesion,
improved communication, productivity, and
reduced absenteeism (Augustin, 2009). An attrac-
tive environment is not, however, a requirement
for group effectiveness. Many successful groups
work without problems in relatively shabby set-
tings. A too pleasant environment may distract
the group from the task at hand, providing

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

484 C H A P T E R 15

of mental fatigue, including an inability to groups work in challenging environments (Driskell,
concentrate and difficulty following directions Salas, & Johnston, 1999).
(Herzog et al., 2011b). Novice automobile drivers
(ages 16–18) traveling with other young passen- Coping with Complexity In everyday situations,
gers create a group situation that is overly com- people cope with overload by reducing their contact
plex, resulting in increases in fatal accidents. In with others, limiting the amount of information they
consequence, many states in the United States notice and process, ignoring aspects of the situation,
have banned these groups from the highway and engaging in restorative practices: spending time
(Chen et al., 2000; Ehsani et al., 2015). in an environment that does not demand high levels
of directed attention. According to psychologist
Even a highly effective team with a well- Stephen Kaplan’s attention restoration theory
developed mental model (see Chapter 11) will display (ART), directed attention is mentally draining, for
a significant loss in functioning if the members experi- it requires group members to monitor their atten-
ence cognitive overload. Researchers examined this tion, direct it to focus on a particular stimulus, and
process by bombarding expert teams of naval ignore other aspects of the environment. The crew
personnel with substantial amounts of information. monitoring their radar screens, students in their class-
The teams worked on a task that simulated a critically rooms, and groups making complicated decisions
important naval decision—deciding on the basis of may all be impressively productive, but they are
radar and database information whether an unidenti- also becoming cognitively depleted as these activities
fied contact was a threat to the ship or nonhostile. rely on finite and exhaustible psychological resources
The participants worked in teams of three, but in the (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Berman, 2010).
coaction condition, members made their decisions
independently of one another. In the interdependent Other situations, in contrast, make far fewer cog-
condition, the members had to work together to nitive demands on group members. People often
gather information about the possible target. The report feeling rejuvenated and energized by such places
researchers manipulated cognitive load by exposing (Collado et al., 2017). The ART model suggests these
some of the groups to distracting sound and noise places have four key qualities: they are interesting (fas-
while they worked and by increasing the number of cination), set apart from their surroundings (being
contacts presented on the radar screens. They also pres- away), free of distractions (extent), and compatible
sured these groups by telling members to “work with the members’ purposes and intents (compatibil-
harder” and to “hurry up.” ity). Kaplan and his colleagues find that natural envir-
onments, in particular, are deeply restorative ones.
The study’s results confirmed the researchers’ Individuals who spend time walking in a park, sitting
initial suspicions: Interdependent groups working on a bench in a garden, or viewing photographs of
in a stressful situation lost their group perspective. nature scenes are better able to concentrate, control
They were more likely to report feeling like three their thinking, tolerate frustration, and perform more
individuals rather than like a team, and they were successfully on a wide array of tests of mental acuity.
not focused on the task. They were also less likely Sleep and meditation may also serve to rejuvenate
to use plural pronouns such as we, us, our, ours, and attention. Watching television, by the way, does not
ourselves when describing their response to the sim- (Kaplan & Berman, 2010).
ulation. Moreover, groups that lost their team per-
spective tended to perform more poorly—they attention restoration theory (ART) A conceptual
were more likely to identify a harmless contact on analysis of the cognitive processes that sustain high-level
their radar screens as hostile and less likely to cor- executive functioning, including attentional focus and
rectly identify contacts that were dangerous. These self-regulation, which assumes that these cognitive
findings suggest that a well-trained team may han- resources can be replenished through an interaction with
dle routine problems effectively, but that the natural environments (developed by Stephen Kaplan).
advantages of extensive training may be lost when

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 485

Do You Have a Restorative Place?

Your group has just finished a day-long goal setting Extent
retreat. You have just turned in a 20-page paper for
your group dynamics class. Or you have just finished q I can get completely involved here in what
crunching the numbers for your annual tax return. You I’m doing and not think about anything
are tired, your performance has started to decline, and else.
you need to take a break. Attention restoration theory
recommends spending time in a supportive, refreshing q I feel like I’m in a world of my own when I’m
environment (Kaplan & Berman, 2010). here.

Instructions. Think of the place where you or your Compatibility
group goes when seeking to think things through,
replenish your energy, and regain a sense of perspec- q I can get done what I need to here.
tive and cognitive control. Once you have a place in
mind, put a check in each box if the place provides q I’m comfortable and at ease when I’m here.
each type of restorative benefit.
Scoring. Is your place restorative? If you checked
Fascination at least half of the items listed above, then your place
may qualify as one where you can gain a renewed
q This place engages my interest in an easy, sense of purpose and self-regulation. Researchers
relaxed way. find most restorative places exhibit all four types of
qualities, but if your place did not earn checks in any
q This place doesn’t demand my attention, but it one category, consider ways to improve the place so
has many interesting features. that it more fully meets your restorative needs. (See
Felsten, 2009; Meagher, 2016 for more psychometri-
Being Away cally precise measures of the restorative properties of
places.)
q I can get away from everyday concerns and
demands here.

q I am free of distractions here.

15-1b Stressful Places place influences its interpersonal properties. People
often describe other people, groups, and relation-
Some settings sustain and restore, but others strain and ships as warm and cold. Warm people are thought to
stress. Groups do not exist in neutral, passive voids, be intelligent, skillful, industrious, determined,
but in fluctuating environments that are sometimes practical, and cautious. Cold ones: ungenerous,
too hot, too cold, too impersonal, too intimate, too unhappy, irritable, unsociable, unpopular, and
big, too little, too noisy, too quiet, too restrictive, or humorless (Asch, 1946).
too open—but rarely just right. These settings are
sources of stress—strain caused by environmental cir- People so closely associate ambient warmth
cumstances that threaten one’s sense of well-being with interpersonal warmth that they rate other peo-
and safety (Gatersleben & Griffin, 2017). ple more positively when they themselves are feel-
ing warm (Williams & Bargh, 2008). And, just as
Temperature Temperature is a property of the warm temperatures create increases in social
environment, but this physical characteristic of a warmth, social warmth causes people to misjudge
ambient temperature. When individuals felt inter-
stress Negative physiological, emotional, cognitive, and personally closer to others in their group, they
behavioral responses to circumstances that threaten—or are judged the room to be slightly warmer than did
thought to threaten—one’s sense of well-being and safety. individuals who did not feel as close to others
(IJzerman & Semin, 2010). Social neuroscience

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

486 C H A P T E R 15

findings even suggest that areas of the brain that are people are more likely to suffer from exhaustion,
responsible for processing information about ambi- stroke, and heart attacks. Extreme cold can lead to
ent temperature also handle the processing of infor- hypothermia and death. The Apollo 13 astronauts,
mation about social warmth and trust, suggesting for example, struggled to maintain their body heat
that social connections actually are “heartwarming” at healthy levels when the loss of power forced
(Inagaki, 2014; Kang et al., 2011). them to turn off the cabin heaters. It was, as Lovell
characteristically understated, “very uncomfortable.
One of the minor miseries of life, however, Basically, the cold made it uncomfortable” (quoted
occurs when people must work in a room that in Godwin, 2000, p. 109). Accounts of groups strug-
is either too hot or too cold. Although people gen- gling in extremely cold natural environments, such
erally rate temperatures from the mid-60s to the as teams wintering over in Antarctica or mountain
mid-80s Fahrenheit as “comfortable,” temperatures climbers, document the lethal effects of exposure to
that fall outside this range cause discomfort, irrita- extremely cold temperatures.
bility, and reduced productivity (Bell, 1992). When
groups were assigned to work either in a room at Noise The crew of Apollo 13 lived with constant
normal temperature (72:4 F) or in a hot room noise during their five days in space. The Saturn V
(93:5 F), the overheated group members reported rockets were deafening, burning 3,400 gallons of
feelings of fatigue, sadness, and discomfort, whereas fuel per second. Once in orbit, the cabin was filled
participants in the normal temperature room with the humming of computers, the whirring of
reported feeling more elated, vigorous, and com- fans and pumps circulating air and liquids, and the
fortable (Griffitt & Veitch, 1971). People also tend crackling of transmissions between the crew and
to sweat more when working in high temperatures, COMCON, the flight controller back in Houston.
and exposure to others’ body odors is a sensation that There was also the one sound that signaled to the
most people find objectionable (Stevenson & Repa- crew that something was wrong; Lovell described
choli, 2005). Fortunately, people find the smell of the explosion as a “bang-whump-shudder” that was
group members to be less repugnant than the smell felt more than heard (Lovell & Kluger, 1994, p. 94).
of a stranger (Peng, Chang, & Zhou, 2013).
Noise is any sound that is unwanted. Sounds in
Groups tend to be more aggressive when they the range of 0–50 decibels (dB) are very soft and
are hot; tempers can “flare” and discussions get generally produce little irritation for the listener.
“heated.” Heat and aggression are so closely linked, Sounds of more than 80 dB, in contrast, may be
psychologically, that just thinking about hot tem- bothersome enough to be called noise. In general,
peratures can also trigger thoughts about aggression the louder the noise, the more likely it will produce
(DeWall & Bushman, 2009). Collective violence distraction, irritation, and psychological stress
tends to be seasonal, for people are more likely to (Cohen & Weinstein, 1981). Group communica-
riot in the warm days of the summer than they are tion becomes impossible in such environments, so
in the colder winter months (Rotton & Cohn, members have problems coordinating their efforts.
2002). Groups, too, tend to be more hostile when Coping with chronic noise also exacts a psycholog-
temperatures are high, but not extremely high. In ical toll. Groups in noisy places—people who work
one study, researchers created groups that worked in noisy offices, families living in homes near air-
on individual tasks in a comfortable room versus a ports, and children on playgrounds located near
hot room. The heat-stressed participants were major highways—behave differently than groups
angry, but they were so uncomfortable that their in quieter contexts. People are less likely to interact
primary concern was to escape. They finished the with other people in noisy places, and they also
experiment as quickly as possible and then left tend to be less helpful (Jones, Chapman, & Auburn,
(Baron & Bell, 1975; Bell, 1992). 1981). Over time, exposure to loud noise is associ-
ated with substantial threats to health, including
Extreme temperatures are also physically harm-
ful (Folk, 1974). When temperatures are high,

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 487

Is It Cold or Hot Where You Live?

They say that there is no place like home, but where is the harshness of the climate where it is located. He
home for the human species? People live in every part of also found that the residents of relatively poorer
the world, from the frozen Antarctic to its most arid countries tended to evidence higher levels of inter-
deserts. But do these different climates change the group bias—but only if they were also located in a cli-
groups within them? Do groups in cold places, such as mate that was too hot or too cold; only then were
Iceland or upstate New York, act differently than groups these countries’ residents more negative about other
in warm places, such as Saudi Arabia and Mexico? groups, more supportive of nepotistic hiring practices,
and more family-focused. Countries where the climate
Social psychologist Evert Van de Vliert (2013), in was more temperate exhibited varying levels of sup-
his climato-economic theory, argues that climate port for authoritarian leaders and they also ranged
makes different demands on the people who live in a from individualism to collectivism, but these variables
place. Physically, humans are most comfortable in cli- were not related to the country’s level of economic
mates with temperatures of about 72 F, so groups prosperity.
who live in habitats where the temperature hovers
near this mark experience less climate-related stress. Some of Van de Vliert’s other findings provide
Colder and hotter climates, in contrast, are more chal- only partial support for his climato-economic theory.
lenging, and so groups develop cultural practices to When, for example, he studied the sources of role
survive in such places. stress in work groups in organizations, he discovered
that conflict was associated with higher temperatures
These cultural practices, however, will be differ- and so was not moderated either by wealth or harsh-
ent depending on the society’s economic prosperity. If ness of the climate (Van de Vliert, 1996). And other
the groups who live in a particular geographic area are investigators have suggested that factors that vary
economically prosperous, then the culture will likely with temperature—such as susceptibility to infectious
develop production and trade systems to make or diseases—may be more causally influential factors (see,
acquire the resources needed to deal with environ- Fincher & Thornhill, 2012; Van de Vliert & Postmes,
mental challenges. Cultures that lack economic 2012). Researchers continue to test hypotheses derived
resources, including wealth or natural resources, can- from the theory, but it may be that global climate
not generate the food, clothing, shelter, and medical changes will provide the ultimate test. If the world-
facilities they need by developing strong economies, so wide increase in temperatures continues for much
they instead shift toward self-sufficiency, localized longer, people living in colder climates may find that
trade, and a more communal orientation. In essence, their climate is less of a challenge, whereas others may
less affluent cultures cope with living in a difficult discover that their once temperate climate has become
environment by building social capital, whereas too hot to sustain their way of life. These countries,
wealthier cultures rely on their economic capital. according to Van de Vliert, will undergo changes in
their cultural traditions to deal with these climate
Van de Vliert (2006, 2011) offers a number of changes, depending as well on their overall level of
compelling pieces of evidence in support of this the- wealth. Time, then, and temperature, will tell (Van de
ory. He discovered, for example, that he could predict Vliert, 2016).
a cultures’ acceptance of an autocratic leader by taking
into account the country’s baseline level of wealth and

physical illnesses (headaches, heart disease, allergies, low levels of noise are deleterious, but a moderate
and digestive disorders), infant and adult mortality level of background noise improves performance
rates, mental illness, interpersonal conflict, and even (Mehta, Zhu, & Cheema, 2012). If, however, the
impotence (Basner, 2014). group is attempting a task that requires the accurate
communication of information across members,
Not all noisy places are bad places, however. A then the less noise the better. Groups are particu-
moderate level of ambient noise, for example, may larly sensitive to noise because much of the
actually help people concentrate on their work. unwanted sound in a group setting originates
When attempting to perform a task that calls for within the group itself. Depending on the qualities
creativity and divergent thinking, high levels 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.

488 C H A P T E R 15

of the room, 15 people talking informally with one to face difficult environmental circumstances. For
another will create so much noise that conversation centuries, explorers have hiked, sailed, flown, and
between adjoining pairs is inhibited. When a con- ridden from their homes to distant lands and
versing group passes by an individual who is attempt- places, and many of these groups have endured
ing to perform a difficult task, the noise of the group long periods of isolation in extreme and unusual
can be distracting. People can often ignore ambient environments (EUEs) (Bell et al., 2017). In some
sounds, but overheard speech is another matter. cases, a natural calamity, such as a flood, earthquake,
Neurological evidence indicates that even when or blizzard, may overtake a group, which must then
people strive to deliberately ignore speech by refo- struggle to survive. For example, Sir Ernest Shackle-
cusing attention on the task at hand, some of their ton and the crew of Endurance survived the destruc-
cognitive resources are being used to monitor the tion of their ship on an ice floe in the Antarctic.
nearby conversations (Campbell, 2005). More recently, 33 miners in Chile survived the col-
lapse of the mine where they worked, but all sur-
People can cope with noise for short periods of vived the cave-in and were reunited with their
time. When researchers bombarded people work- families after 69 days. Some groups, too, work at
ing on both simple and complex tasks with tape- jobs that are riskier than most: Ship crews, police
recorded noise, the participants became so inured to officers, and military units often live and work in
the stimulus that it had no effect on their perfor- circumstances that can be life threatening. Teams
mance (Glass, Singer, & Pennebaker, 1977). Groups of divers have lived for weeks on end in SEALAB,
cannot, however, cope with noise for long periods 200 feet beneath the ocean’s surface. NASA’s crews
of time. As “individuals expend ‘psychic energy’ in have endured months in space, and plans are being
the course of the adaptive process,” they become made for a three-year voyage to Mars (Suedfeld &
“less able to cope with subsequent environmental Steel, 2000).
demands and frustrations” (Glass et al., 1977,
p. 134). One investigation found that exposure to Surviving Environmental Challenges Although
low levels of ambient noise in an office setting was technological innovations make survival in even the
not stressful, but people had trouble coping with most hostile environments possible, groups living in
other stressful events—an irritating boss or these space-age settings must learn to cope with
coworker, role ambiguities, or time pressures— age-old problems of interpersonal adjustment.
when they worked in a noisy place (Leather, Whereas harsh environments and circumstances
Beale, & Sullivan, 2003). overwhelm lone individuals, groups generally cope
with danger by taking precautions that make the
15-1c Dangerous Places situation safer. Astronauts, military combat squads,
and explorers all minimize the danger by training,
The astronauts sat atop millions of pounds of rocket stressing cooperation among members, and moni-
fuel at launch, traveled through space in a thin- toring each individual’s connection to the group
shelled spacecraft at speeds of nearly 25,000 miles (Driskell, Salas, & Driskell, 2017). But many groups
an hour, and during reentry relied on a heat shield not only persevere in these adverse circumstances;
to deflect the heat away from the command module they find the experience to be exhilarating. Groups
and parachutes that would slow the craft’s descent. like Apollo 13 and the Shackleton explorers have
All the dangers were minimized through planning, faced disaster, death, and ruin at each turn, yet their
design, and training, but one danger that all crews
faced but could not protect themselves against was extreme and unusual environments (EUEs) Envi-
always present—a collision with a meteor. ronmental contexts that are unlike those where humans
usually live, including confined and isolated environments.
EUEs: Extreme and Unusual Environments
The Apollo 13 astronauts were not the first 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.

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 489

Why Is Mount Everest So Dangerous?

On May 10, 1996, two groups set off to scale Mt. group, and they did not remain in contact with the other
Everest, the highest peak in the world. Both teams met guides during the climb. They also made errors in judg-
with disaster, caused in part by the environmental ment, possibly due to inexperience, the ill effects of too
challenges they encountered. Everest is subject to high little oxygen (hypoxia), and the desire to outdo the other
winds, bitter temperatures, and icy conditions. As team. As a result, several climbers managed to reach the
Chapter 1 explained, climbers must reach the peak and summit, but they were overtaken by the snowstorm dur-
return to camp in a single day, because the chances of ing the descent and perished.
surviving a night on the summit of Everest are slim. But
the teams in 1996 were overtaken by an unexpectedly As Krakauer later described, a sense of isolation
powerful storm as they descended and they could not pervaded the camp on the night before the summit
reach the shelter of their camp. Several members of attempt:
the team also suffered from a lack of oxygen, for the
air is thin at that altitude. Everest climbers usually carry The roar of the wind made it impossible to
tanks of oxygen, but even these supplements cannot communicate from one tent to the next. In this
counteract the negative effects of climbing treacher- godforsaken place, I felt disconnected from the
ous terrain 29,000 feet above sea level. climbers around me—emotionally, spiritually,
physically—to a degree I hadn’t experienced on
Neither team responded effectively to these nega- any previous expedition. We were a team in name
tive environmental events. Jon Krakauer (1997), a mem- only, I’d sadly come to realize. Although in a
ber of one of the groups, suggested that an inattention few hours we would leave camp as a group, we
to teamwork may have contributed to the failure. Even would ascend as individuals, linked to one
though the climb is extremely dangerous and many who another by neither rope nor any deep sense of
attempt it are killed, the groups did not practice together, loyalty. (Krakauer, 1997, p. 163)
did not establish routines for dealing with supplies
(including oxygen), and did not set up contingency plans. Krakauer’s foreboding proved prophetic. Everest
A hierarchy of authority was not established, despite the claimed the lives of eight members of the two teams,
possibility that one of the leaders could be injured. The including both team leaders (Burnette, Pollack, &
leaders did not share their plans for the summit with the Forsyth, 2011).

autobiographical accounts of their experiences speak Swigert and Haise; his fellow crewmen influenced
eloquently about their adventures—which they do
not regret—describing them as “a cherished and his actions and outcomes as much as the physical
important part of their life, perceived as an impetus features of the spacecraft did. This section examines

to growing, strengthening, and deepening, to be two key aspects of group ecology: the distances
remembered with pride and enjoyment” (Suedfeld members maintain between each other—personal
& Steel, 2000, p. 229). space—and the way they position themselves relative
to one another—seating arrangements (Fuller &
Löw, 2017; Hayduk, 1983).

15-2 SPACES 15-2a Personal Space

Groups exist in any number of distinct locations, and Anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1966) argued that
the physical qualities of these places—temperature, much of our behavior is shaped by a “hidden
noise, and stress—substantially influence a group’s dimension.” In Apollo 13, this dimension deter-
dynamics. But the group’s environment also includes mined where each astronaut sat as he carried out
the other people present in the physical space. Lovell his scheduled tasks; how crew members moved
was not alone in the Apollo 13 capsule but with through the tunnel between the command module
and the service module; where they positioned

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

490 C H A P T E R 15

T A B L E 15.1 Types of Social Activities That Occur in Each Interpersonal Zone

Zone Distance Characteristics Typical Activities
Intimate Touching to 18 inches
Sensory information concerning Sex, hugging, massage, com-
the other is detailed and diverse; forting, jostling, handshakes,
stimulus person dominates the and slow dancing
perceptual field.

Personal 18 inches to 4 feet Other person can be touched if Conversations, discussion, car
desired; gaze can be directed away travel, viewing performances,
from the other person with ease. and watching television.

Social 4 to 12 feet Visual inputs begin to dominate Dining, meeting with business
other senses; voice levels are nor- colleagues, interacting with a
mal; appropriate distance for many receptionist
informal social gatherings.

Public 12 feet or more All sensory inputs are beginning to Lectures, addresses, plays, and
become less effective; voices may dance recitals
require amplification; facial
expressions unclear.

Remote Different locations Primarily verbal inputs; facial and Electronic discussions, confer-
other behavioral and nonverbal ence calls, telephone voice
cues limited if audio and video mail, email, and online
feed is unavailable. gaming communities

SOURCE: Adapted from E. T. Hall, 1966.

themselves when they looked out the windows of Interpersonal Zones Different group activities
their ship as it passed over the surface of the moon. require different amounts of personal space. Hall, in
What is this hidden dimension? Space. describing these variations, proposed four types of
interpersonal zones (see Table 15.1). The intimate
People prefer to keep some space between zone is appropriate only for the most involving and
themselves and others. This personal space pro- personal behaviors, such as arm wrestling and whisper-
vides a boundary that limits the amount of physical ing. The personal zone, in contrast, is reserved for a wide
contact between people. This boundary extends range of small group experiences, such as discussions
farther in front of a person than behind, but the with friends, interaction with acquaintances, and con-
individual is always near the center of this invisible versation. More routine transactions are conducted in
buffer zone. Personal space is portable, but it is the social zone. Meetings held over large desks, formal
actively maintained and defended. When someone dining, and professional presentations to small groups
violates our personal space, we tend to take steps to generally take place in this zone. The public zone is
correct this problem. The term personal space is reserved for even more formal meetings, such as stage
something of a misnomer, as the process actually presentations, lectures, or addresses. The interactions
refers to distances that people maintain between between the crews of Apollo 13 occurred almost
one another. Hence, it is an interpersonal space (Pat- exclusively in the personal zone, except when Lovell
terson, 1975). hugged the shivering Haise, who had become increas-
ingly ill during the mission.
personal space The area that individuals maintain
around themselves into which others cannot intrude Table 15.1 adds a fifth zone to those described
without arousing discomfort. by Hall. In the years since Hall proposed his taxon-
omy of interpersonal zones, groups have begun to

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 491

meet more frequently in the remote zone. Instead of crossing their legs (Henley, 1995). They also prefer
interacting face-to-face or even via voice commu- greater distance between themselves and strangers
nication, online groups use computer-based tools (Sorokowska et al., 2017).
such as email, chat rooms, social networking sites,
and other multiuser support interfaces. The mem- Status People tend to “keep their distance” when
bers of these groups are not physically present with interacting with higher status group members.
each other, making online groups considerably Researchers documented this tendency by watch-
different—at least spatially—than face-to-face ing conversations between U.S. naval personnel
groups. The astronauts, for example, communi- that took place in nonwork settings, such as the
cated with COMCON from a distance—a great cafeteria or a recreation center. The floors in these
distance, in fact. They used voice messages, in spaces were tiled, so observers measured distance by
some cases, but they were also in touch using com- counting how many tiles separated the two indivi-
munication technologies that allowed them to send duals. As anticipated, rank determined distance:
and receive information via computers. officers approached subordinates more closely than
did individuals of a lower rank who were initiating
Closer, smaller spaces are generally reserved for a conversation with an officer (Dean, Willis, &
friendlier, more intimate interpersonal activities. As a Hewitt, 1975; see Hall, Coats, & LeBeau, 2005).
result, cohesive groups tend to occupy smaller spaces
than noncohesive gatherings (Evans & Howard, Culture Hall (1966) argued that cultures differ in
1973); extraverted people maintain smaller distances their use of space. People socialized in the contact
from others than do introverted ones (Patterson & cultures of the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and
Sechrest, 1970); people who wish to create a friendly, Latin America prefer strong sensory involvement
positive impression usually choose smaller distances with others, and so they seek direct social contact
than do less friendly people (Evans & Howard, whenever possible. In contrast, residents in such non-
1973); groups of friends tend to stand closer to one contact cultures as the United States, England, and
another than do groups of strangers (Edney & Germany try to limit their spatial openness with
Grundmann, 1979); and people who have experi- others. Given that the crew of Apollo 13 included
enced significant trauma have larger personal spaces only Americans, they shared similar norms about
than those who have not (Bogovic et al., 2014). how much distance should be maintained. Crews
Physical distance has less impact on remote groups, on space stations, such as Mir or Salyut, are more
but even individuals who interact online tend to be culturally diverse, so misunderstandings caused by
located closer to one another geographically (Spiro, spatial confusions are more common. Culture also
Almquist, & Butts, 2016). In general, individuals influences how people interact in the remote zone,
communicating via computer respond differently for people with different cultural backgrounds vary
when their interface becomes informationally richer in how much emotion, personal information, and
by including voice and video information (Thurlow, responsiveness to others they express when commu-
Lengel, & Tomic, 2004). nicating via the Internet (Reeder et al., 2004).

Men, Women, and Distance Would the amount These cultural differences, however, vary across
of personal space maintained by the astronauts in Hall’s interpersonal zones. When investigators mea-
Apollo 13 have differed if they had been women? sured the personal space needs of nearly 9,000 indi-
Probably, for studies suggest that women’s personal viduals living in 42 countries they discovered
spaces tend to be smaller than men’s (Hayduk, people living in some countries (e.g., Romania,
1978, 1983). Relative to men, women allow others Turkey, Uganda, and Pakistan) had relatively large
to get closer to them, they approach people they personal spaces needs, but only when interacting in
know more closely, and they take up less space by the social zone. Their spatial needs were relatively
sitting with their arms close to their sides and by small when in the personal or intimate zone. This

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

492 C H A P T E R 15

study also identified differences between countries from one involving status and dominance to one
with warmer and colder climates: in warmer places suggesting informality and intimacy (Burgoon &
people needed less space in the social zones, but Dillman, 1995; Burgoon & Hale, 1987).
more space in the intimate zone. Colder climates
reversed that tendency, with people seeking close- 15-2b Reactions to Spatial Invasion
ness with intimates but more distance between
strangers (Sorokowska et al., 2017). Individuals cannot always protect their personal
space from intrusion by others. A group may find
Maintaining Equilibrium Why does distance itself in a place where the available space is so lim-
influence so many group processes? Most theories ited that people cannot maintain appropriate dis-
of nonverbal communication recognize that dis- tances between one another. In other instances,
tance, like body orientation, eye contact, and physi- the group may have sufficient space, but for some
cal touch, function to define the nature of the reason, a member approaches so closely that he or
relationship between people. The equilibrium she seems “too close for comfort.”
model of communication, for example, suggests
that these nonverbal cues interact to influence per- A high density situation is not always a prob-
ceptions of intimacy. If group members feel that a lematic situation. Density is a characteristic of the
low level of intimacy is appropriate, they may sit far group context—the number of people per unit of
apart, make little eye contact, and assume a relatively space. Crowding, in contrast, is the psychological
formal posture. If, in contrast, the members are reaction people experience when they feel that they
relaxing and discussing personal topics, they may do not have enough space (Stokols, 1972, 1978).
move close together, make more eye contact, and Although the density of a given situation, such as
adopt more relaxed postures. By continually adjust- a party, a rock concert, or Apollo 13, may be very
ing their nonverbal and verbal behavior, group high, the group’s members may not feel crowded at
members can keep the intimacy of their interactions all. Yet two people sitting in a large room may feel
at the level they desire (Argyle & Dean, 1965). crowded if the other person is sitting too close to
them, they expected to be alone, or dislike each
Communication researcher Judee Burgoon’s other intensely. Passengers on a train where density
(1978, 1983) expectancy violations theory extends this was low—there were plenty of empty seats in the
analysis by identifying the types of messages that car—displayed the negative effects of crowding
distance—taken in combination with other nonver- (e.g., more negative mood, evidence of stress, and
bal cues—can signal. Sitting close to another person loss of motivation) if others were seated near them
may indicate warmth and acceptance, but it may also in their row (Evans & Wener, 2007).
be an indication of similarity, trust, composure
(absence of nervousness), formality, dominance, Arousal and Stress Unexpected and unwarranted
equality, or task orientation. In one study, for exam- violations of one’s personal space needs are, in most
ple, she found that closer proximity signaled domi- cases, aversive experiences. When confederates
nance, similarity, and composure, but that this approached too closely people studying in libraries,
meaning changed when one person in the group sitting outdoors, standing on escalators, or walking
leaned forward, smiled, and briefly touched the down the street, the targets displayed a number of
other person. The interaction was transformed negative reactions, including reduced eye contact,
shifts in body posture, verbal rebukes, and withdrawal
equilibrium model of communication An explana-
tion of distancing behavior in interpersonal settings argu- density The number of individuals per unit of space.
ing that the amount of eye contact and the intimacy of crowding A psychological reaction that occurs when
the topic influence the amount of personal space individuals feel that the amount of space available to
required by group members. them is insufficient for their needs.

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 493

How Crowded Was Your Last Outdoor Adventure?

When people head out into the natural environment ____ Fishing
seeking recreation, entertainment, and leisure, but
they encounter far more people than they expected ____ Boating
during their getaway, they often express considerable
disappointment. They feel crowded. ____ Hiking

Instructions. Given that crowding is a psychologi- When researchers compiled the results of 181
cal experience, rather than an objective evaluation of reports of people’s reactions to over 600 different
density, rank the following group activities from 1 to recreational locations they discovered people felt the
5, giving a 1 to the activity you feel most often felt most crowded when they were fishing. The rankings
crowded, a 2 to the next most crowded, and so on. were fishing (1), boating (2), camping (3), biking (4),
and hiking (5), although bikers and hikers felt much
____ Camping less crowded compared to the others. The least
crowding was reported by people who were floating
____ Biking down a river on a raft or inflated inner tube (Vaske &
Shelby, 2008).

from the situation (Sundstrom et al., 1996). People reached a comfortable distance, she approached so
report the experience to be stressful, and measures of closely she touched the other person and rated the
their physiological reactions confirm this description: experience as “completely comfortable.” Upon anal-
Personal space violations cause increases in heart rate ysis, the researchers found she had complete bilateral
and blood pressure, more rapid breathing, and perspi- damage to her amygdala, which is the area of the
ration (Evans, 1979). brain that regulates strong emotions, including fear.
The investigators also studied, using fMRI, healthy
One of the more creative—if ethically controver- individuals’ brain patterns when the experimenter
sial (see Koocher, 1977)—investigations of the arousal stood close to the scanner and when he maintained
properties of personal space invasion was conducted in a greater distance. These subjects evidenced increased
a men’s restroom (Middlemist, Knowles, & Matter, activation of the amygdala, providing further corrob-
1976). Reasoning that arousal would lead to a general oration of the source of the strong negative emotion
muscular contraction that would delay urination onset most people experience when others approach too
and reduce its duration, the researchers set up a situa- closely (Kennedy et al., 2009).
tion in which men using wall-mounted urinals were
joined by a confederate who used either the next Causal Attributions Every close encounter with
receptacle (near condition) or one located farther another person is not necessarily a negative experience.
down the wall (far condition). When onset times and If the intruder is our close friend, a relative, or an
duration for men in the near and far condition were extremely attractive stranger, closeness can be a plus
compared with those same times for men in a no- (Willis, 1966). Similarly, if we believe that the other
confederate control condition, the researchers found person needs help or is attempting to initiate a friendly
that personal space invasion significantly increased relationship, we tend to react positively rather than
general arousal. negatively (Murphy-Berman & Berman, 1978).
These findings suggest that the label that individuals
One team of researchers identified the brain areas use to interpret their arousal determines the conse-
that govern how people respond to violations of their quences of crowding. If people attribute the arousal
personal space by studying the neural functioning of a to others’ standing too close, they will conclude, “I feel
42-year-old woman who showed no discomfort crowded.” If, in contrast, they explain the arousal in
when others approached too closely. When asked to
walk toward another person and stop when she

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

494 C H A P T E R 15

some other way—“I drank too much coffee,” “I’m in clearest for all-female groups as opposed to all-male
love,” “I’m afraid our ship will burn up in the atmo- or mixed-sex groups (Freedman, 1979).
sphere,” and so on—they will not feel crowded.
Controllability Crowded situations are unsettling
Researchers tested this attributional model of because they undermine group members’ control
crowding by seating five-person groups in chairs over their experiences. Crowded situations bring peo-
placed either 20 inches apart or touching at the legs. ple into contact with others they would prefer to
These researchers told the groups that an inaudible avoid, and if working groups cannot cope with the
noise would be played in the room as they worked constraints of their environment, they may fail at their
on several tasks. They told some groups that the noise tasks. Group members can therefore cope with
was detectable at the unconscious level and would crowding by increasing their sense of control over
lead to stressful, discomforting effects. They told the situation. Just as a sense of high personal control
other groups that the noise would have relaxing and helps people cope with a range of negative life events,
calming effects, or they gave no explanation for the including failure, divorce, illness, and accidents, peo-
noise at all. The groups were not actually exposed to ple are less stressed by environmental threats when
any noise, but crowded groups who thought that the they feel they can control their circumstances (Evans
noise would arouse them felt less crowded. Why? & Lepore, 1992; Schmidt & Keating, 1979).
Because they attributed the arousal caused by crowd-
ing to the supposed noise rather than to the proximity Researchers tested the benefits of controllability
of other people (Worchel & Yohai, 1979; see also by asking groups of six men to work on tasks in either
Worchel & Teddlie, 1976). a small room or a large one. One task required partici-
pating in a 15-minute discussion of censorship, and the
Intensity Crowding does not always vitiate an second involved blindfolding a member and letting
experience, but instead only intensifies it. According him wander about within a circle formed by the rest
to the density–intensity hypothesis, if the group of the group. To manipulate control, one of the parti-
interaction is an unpleasant one, high density will cipants was designated the coordinator; he was responsi-
make the situation seem even more unpleasant ble for organizing the group, dealing with questions
(Freedman, 1975, 1979). But if the situation is a concerning procedures, and blindfolding members
pleasant one, high density will make the good situa- for the second task. A second participant, the terminator,
tion even better. In one study of the intensifying was given control over ending the discussion and reg-
effects of crowding groups of 6–10 high school stu- ulating each member’s turn in the center of the circle.
dents sat on the floor of either a large room or a Significantly, the two group members who could con-
small room. Each delivered a speech and then trol the group tasks through coordination or termina-
received feedback from the other group members. tion were not as bothered by the high-density situation
By design, in some cases the feedback was quite pos- as the four group members who were given no control
itive, whereas in other groups, the feedback was (Rodin, Solomon, & Metcalf, 1978).
always negative. Participants later rated the room
and their group more positively when they received Interference Crowding is particularly troublesome
positive feedback under high-density conditions, and when it interferes with the group’s work. The Apollo
they liked their group the least when they got nega- 13 crew, for example, did not react negatively to their
tive feedback when crowded. These effects were high-density living conditions so long as the crowding
did not undermine their group’s effectiveness. Diffi-
density–intensity hypothesis An explanation of culties only occurred when they needed to fix a
crowding that predicts that high density makes unpleas- problem—such as a hatch that would not secure
ant situations more unpleasant but pleasant situations properly when there was only enough room for
more pleasant. one person to reach it. Similarly, studies that find no
ill effects of crowding generally study groups working

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 495

on coaction problems that require little interaction. interaction among group members by heightening
Studies that require the participants to complete inter- eye contact, encouraging verbal communication,
active tasks in rooms with restrictive furnishings, in and facilitating the development of intimacy. Socio-
contrast, tend to find negative effects of crowding fugal spaces, in contrast, discourage interaction
(see, Meagher & Marsh, 2015). among group members and can even drive partici-
pants out of the situation altogether. A secluded
Researchers demonstrated the importance of booth in a quiet restaurant, a park bench, or five
interference by deliberately manipulating both density chairs placed in a tight circle are sociopetal environ-
and interaction. All-male groups worked either in a ments, whereas classrooms organized in rows, movie
small laboratory room or in a large one collating theaters, waiting rooms, and airport waiting areas are
eight-page booklets. The order of the pages was not sociofugal. Sommer concluded that airport seating
constant, however, but was determined by first select- was deliberately designed to disrupt interaction. He
ing a card that had the order of the pages listed in a noted that even people seated side by side on airport
random sequence. In the low-interaction condition, each chairs cannot converse comfortably:
person had all eight stacks of pages and a set of
sequence cards. In the high-interaction condition, the The chairs are either bolted together and
stacks were located at points around the room, so arranged in rows theater-style facing the ticket
participants had to walk around the room in unpre- counters, or arranged back-to-back, and even if
dictable patterns. In fact, the participants often they face one another they are at such distances
bumped into one another while trying to move that comfortable conversation is impossible. The
from one stack to another. The interference created motive for the sociofugal arrangement appears
in the high-interaction condition led to decrements in the same as that in hotels and other commercial
task performance—provided that density was high places—to drive people out of the waiting areas
(Heller, Groff, & Solomon, 1977). into cafés, bars, and shops where they will spend
money. (Sommer, 1969, pp. 121–122)
15-2c Seating Arrangements
Group members generally prefer sociopetal
At launch and during most key maneuvers, the arrangements. This preference, however, depends
three Apollo 13 astronauts were seated side by in part on the type of task undertaken in the situa-
side in front of the control panel, and the seat on tion (Augustin, 2009). As Figure 15.4 shows, Som-
the left was reserved for the mission commander or mer found that corner-to-corner and face-to-face
the officer who was piloting the ship. Each seat arrangements were preferred for conversation, and
defined the role requirements of the person who side-by-side seating was selected for cooperation.
occupied it, but the seat also defined his status in Competing dyads either took a direct, face-to-face
the group. Although often unrecognized, or simply orientation (apparently to stimulate competition) or
taken for granted, seating patterns influence inter- tried to increase interpersonal distance, whereas
action, communication, and leadership in groups. coacting dyads preferred arrangements that reduced
eye contact. As one student stated, such an arrange-
Seating Patterns and Social Interaction Social ment “allows staring into space and not into my
psychologist Robert Sommer (1969), after studying neighbor’s face” (Sommer, 1969, p. 63). Similar
the ecology of small groups located in a variety of choices were found with round tables.
settings, drew a distinction between sociopetal and
sociofugal spaces. Sociopetal spaces promote Groups in sociopetal environments act differ-
ently than groups in sociofugal spaces. In one

sociopetal spaces Environmental settings that promote sociofugal spaces Environmental settings that discour-
interaction among group members, including seating age or prevent interaction among group members.
arrangements that facilitate conversation.

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

496 C H A P T E R 15

Percentage choosing 60 Conversing
each arrangement 50 Cooperating
40 Competing
30 Coacting
20
10

0

Type of seating pattern

F I G U R E 15.4 Preference for various types of seating arrangements when individuals expected to converse,
cooperate, compete, or coact.

SOURCE: Personal Space by Robert Sommer, © 1969 by Prentice-Hall, Inc. Reprinted by permission of the author.

study, dyads whose members sat facing each other and men working in a library. After a brief and
seemed more relaxed, but dyads whose members sat uneventful period, the confederate left. When a
at a 90-degree angle to each other were more second researcher then asked the participant some
affiliative (Mehrabian & Diamond, 1971). When questions about the confederate and the library, the
researchers compared circle seating with L-shaped researchers discovered that men were the least
seating, the circle was associated with feelings of favorably disposed toward the stranger who sat
confinement but fostered greater interpersonal across from them but that women reacted more
attraction (Patterson et al., 1979). People seated in negatively to the stranger who sat next to them
the L-shaped groups, on the other hand, engaged in (Fisher & Byrne, 1975). Clearly, group members
more self-manipulative behaviors and fidgeting, and should be sensitive to the possibility that their spa-
they paused more during group discussions. Over- tial behaviors will be misinterpreted by others, and
all, the positive effects of the circle arrangement they should be willing to make certain that any
relative to the L-shaped arrangement were stronger possible misunderstandings will be short-lived.
in female groups than in male groups.
Communication Patterns Psychotherapist Bernard
Men, Women, and Seating Preferences Women Steinzor’s early studies of face-to-face discussion
and men diverge, to a degree, in their preferences groups indicated that spatial patterns also influence
for seating arrangements. Men prefer to position communication rates in groups. Although at first he
themselves across from those they like, and could find few significant relationships between seat
women prefer adjacent seating positions (Sommer, location and participation in the discussion, one day,
1959). Conversely, men prefer that strangers sit by while watching a group, he noticed a participant
their side, whereas women feel that strangers should change his seat to sit opposite someone he had argued
sit across from them. Researchers studied the con- with during the previous meeting. Inspired by this
fusion that this difference can cause by sending con- chance observation, Steinzor (1950) reanalyzed his
federates to sit at the same table as solitary women findings and discovered that individuals tended to

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 497

speak after the person seated opposite them spoke. He greater amounts of eye contact with more of the
reasoned that people have an easier time observing group members, can move to the center of the
and listening to statements made by those who are communication network, and (as the Steinzor effect
seated in the center of the visual field, so that their suggests) can comment more frequently. Moreover,
remarks serve as stronger stimuli for listeners’ ideas and in Western cultures where most studies of leader-
statements. The tendency for members of a group to ship have been conducted, the chair at the head of
comment immediately after the person sitting oppo- the table is implicitly defined to be the most appro-
site them is now termed the Steinzor effect. The priate place for the leader to sit. Sommer noted that
phenomenon appears to occur primarily in leaderless this norm may not hold in other societies, but in
discussion groups, for later research has suggested that most Western cultures, leadership and the head of
when a leader is present group members direct more the table go together.
comments to their closest neighbor (Hearne, 1957).
Both factors influence the head-of-the-table
Seating Locations Where should the leader sit? effect. Investigators manipulated salience by having
At the head of the table or in one of the side two persons sit on one side of the table and three on
chairs? With great consistency, leaders seek out the other side. Although no one sat in the end seat,
the head of the table. Sommer (1969), found that those seated on the two-person side of the table could
people appointed to lead small discussion groups maintain eye contact with three of the group members,
tended to select seats at the head of the table. but those on the three-person side could focus their
Those who move to this position of authority attention on only two members. Therefore, group
also tend to possess more dominant personalities members on the two-person side should be able to
(Hare & Bales, 1963), talk more frequently, and influence others more and hence be the more likely
exercise greater interpersonal influence (Strodt- leaders. As predicted, 70% of the leaders came from the
beck & Hook, 1961). When people are shown two-person side (Howells & Becker, 1962).
pictures of groups with members seated around a
rectangular table and are asked to identify the In another study, the tendency for people to
likely leader, they tend to settle on the person automatically associate the head of the table with lead-
sitting at the head of the table (Jackson, Engstrom, ership was examined by arranging for confederates to
& Emmers-Sommer, 2007). voluntarily choose or be assigned to the end position
or to some other position around a table (Nemeth &
Sommer suggested two basic explanations for Wachtler, 1974). These confederates then went about
this intriguing head-of-the-table effect—percep- systematically disagreeing with the majority of the
tual prominence and the social meaning associated group members on the topic under discussion, and
with sitting at the head of the table. Looking first the extent to which the participants altered their opi-
at prominence, Sommer suggested that in many nions to agree with the deviant was assessed. Interest-
groups, the chair at the end of the table is the ingly, the deviants succeeded in influencing the others
most salient position in the group and that the only when they had freely chosen to sit in the head
occupant of this space can therefore easily maintain chair. Apparently, disagreeing group members sitting
at the “side” locations around the table were viewed
Steinzor effect The tendency for members of a group as “deviants,” whereas those who had the confidence
to comment immediately after the person sitting opposite to select the end chair were viewed more as “leaders”
them (named for Bernard Steinzor). (Riess, 1982; Riess & Rosenfeld, 1980).
head-of-the-table effect The tendency for group
members to associate the leadership role and its responsi- 15-3 LOCATIONS
bilities with the seat located at the head of the table; as a
result, individuals who occupy such positions tend to Like so many animals—birds, wolves, lions, seals,
emerge as leaders in groups without designated leaders. geese, and even seahorses—human beings 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.

498 C H A P T E R 15

T A B L E 15.2 Three Types of Territories Established and Protected by Individuals and Groups

Type Degree of Control Duration of Claim Examples
Primary
High: occupants control access Long term: individuals maintain A family’s house, a bed-
and are very likely to actively control over the space on a rel- room, a clubhouse, a dorm
defend this space. atively permanent basis; own- room, a study
ership is often involved.

Secondary Moderate: individuals who Temporary but recurrent: A table in a bar, a seat in a
habitually use a space come to others may use the space, but classroom, a regularly used
consider it “theirs”; reaction to must vacate the area if the parking space, the sidewalk
intrusions is milder. usual occupant requests. in front of your home

Public Low: although the occupant None: the individual or group Elevator, beach, public tele-
may prevent intrusion while uses the space only on the most phone, playground, park,
present, no expectation of temporary basis and leaves bathroom stall, restaurant
future use exists. behind no markers. counter

SOURCE: The Environment and Social Behavior by Irving Altman, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1976.

proprietary orientations toward certain geographical jettison the module prior to their descent, Haise
locations and defend these areas against intrusion collected small objects as mementos, and mission
by others. A person’s home, a preferred seat in a class- control remarked, “Farewell, Aquarius, and we
room, a clubhouse, a football field, and a space capsule thank you” (Lovell & Kluger, 1994, p. 329).
are all territories—specific areas that an individual or
group claims, marks, and defends against intrusion by When people establish a territory, they gener-
others. Since groups and group members develop ally try to control who is permitted access. As envi-
attachment to places, this tendency influences both ronmental psychologist Irwin Altman noted,
intragroup and intergroup functioning. however, the degree of control depends on the
type of territory (see Table 15.2). Control is highest
15-3a Types of Territoriality for primary territories—areas that are maintained and
“used exclusively by individuals or groups … on a
When Lovell, Swigert, and Haise entered the relatively permanent basis” (Altman, 1975, p. 112).
Apollo 13 spaceship for their mission, they People develop strong place attachments to these areas,
entered a cylinder filled with computers, con- for they feel safe, secure, and comfortable when in
trols, equipment, and supplies. But within days, them (Hernández et al., 2007). Individuals maintain
this physical space was transformed into the only a moderate amount of control over their sec-
group’s territory. The men stowed personal gear ondary territories. These areas are not owned by the
in their lockers. The controls over which they group members, but because the members use such
had primary responsibility became “their con- an area regularly, they come to consider it “theirs.”
trols,” and they were wary when any of the College students, for example, often become very
other crew members would carry out procedures territorial about their seats in a class (Haber, 1980,
in their area. Haise, more so than either Lovell or 1982). Control over public territories is even more lim-
Swigert, became attached to Aquarius, the lunar ited. Occupants can prevent intrusion while they are
excursion module. When the time came to physically present, but they relinquish all claims
when they leave. A bathroom stall or a spot on the
territories A specific geographic area that individuals or beach can be claimed when occupied, but when the
groups of individuals claim, mark, and defend against occupant leaves, another person can step in and
intrusion by others. claim the space. (Brown, 1987, thoroughly reviewed
much of the work on human territoriality.)

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 499

15-3b Group Territories home gang or, at least, to append a choice obscen-
ity. The frequency of graffiti attributable to out-
Territoriality is, in many cases, a group-level pro- side groups provided an index of a gang’s prestige,
cess. Instead of an individual claiming an area and for the more graffiti written by opposing gangs in
defending it against other individuals, a group will one’s territory, the weaker was the home gang
lay claim to its turf and prevent other groups from (Ley & Cybriwsky, 1974).
using it. South American howler monkeys, for
example, live together in bands of up to 20 indivi- Group Spaces Human groups also maintain sec-
duals, and these groups forage within a fairly well- ondary and public territories. Groups at the beach,
defined region. The bands themselves are cohesive for example, generally stake out their claim by
and free of internal strife, but when another group using beach towels, coolers, chairs, and other
of howlers is encountered during the day’s wander- personal objects (Edney & Jordan-Edney, 1974).
ing, a fight begins. Among howlers, this territorial These temporary territories tend to be circular,
defense takes the form of a “shouting match,” in and larger groups command bigger territories than
which the members of the two bands howl at the smaller groups. Groups also create territories when
opposing group until one band—usually the invad- they interact in public places, for, in most cases,
ing band—retreats. Boundaries are rarely violated, nonmembers are reluctant to break through group
because each morning and night, the monkeys raise boundaries. Just as individuals are protected
their voices in a communal and far-carrying howl- from unwanted social contact by their invisible
ing session (Carpenter, 1958). bubble of personal space, so groups seem to be sur-
rounded by a sort of “shell” or “membrane” that
Human groups also establish territories. Socio- forms an invisible boundary for group interaction.
logical analyses of gangs, for example, highlight Various labels have been used to describe this
the tendency for young men to join forces in public territory, including group space (Edney &
defense of a few city blocks that they considered Grundmann, 1979; Minami & Tanaka, 1995),
to be theirs (Thrasher, 1927; Whyte, 1943; interactional territory (Lyman & Scott, 1967), tempo-
Yablonsky, 1962). Many gangs take their names rary group territory (Edney & Jordan-Edney, 1974),
from a street or park located at the very core of jurisdiction (Roos, 1968), and group personal space
their claimed sphere of influence and control areas (Altman, 1975). No matter what this boundary is
around this base. Contemporary gangs, despite called, the evidence indicates that it often effectively
changes in size, violence, and involvement in serves to repel intruders. Most people will avoid
crime, continue to be rooted to specific locations. walking through the group and, when approaching
Gangs in San Diego, California, for example, can a group, will shift their path to increase the distance
be traced to specific geographical origins: the Red between themselves and the group (Knowles, 1973;
Steps and the Crips to Logan Heights and the Knowles et al., 1976). Mixed-sex groups whose
Sidros to San Ysidro (Sanders, 1994). members are conversing with one another seem to
have stronger boundaries (Cheyne & Efran, 1972), as
Gangs identify their territories through the do groups whose members are exhibiting strong
placement of graffiti, or “tags.” Philadelphia emotions (Lindskold et al., 1976). People begin invad-
researchers found that the number of graffiti men- ing a group’s public territory only if the distance
tioning the local gang’s name increased as one between interactants becomes large (Cheyne &
moved closer and closer to the gang’s home base,
suggesting that the graffiti served as territorial mar- group space A temporary spatial boundary that forms
kers, warning intruders of the dangers of encroach- around interacting groups and serves as a barrier to
ment. This marking, however, was not entirely unwanted intrusion by nonmembers.
successful, for neighboring gangs would occasion-
ally invade a rival’s territory to spray paint their
own names over the territorial markers of the

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

500 C H A P T E R 15

Have You Ever Frequented a Third Place?

Third places, identified by urban sociologist Ray Old- Not all third places, however, are located in
enburg (1999), are semipublic areas where people go physical locations (Yuen & Johnson, 2017). In the not
to meet their friends, socialize, or just “hang out.” too distant past, people could only congregate in the
They are usually located near people’s homes (first confines of a friendly business place. Now, however,
places) and where they work (second places). As people can achieve this connection to other people
described by urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg (1999), through online interactions in social networking sites,
they are typically businesses, but they welcome indivi- multiuser domains, and multiplayer games. As these
duals who may not be customers. A third place might sites have increased in popularity, they have evolved
be a coffee shop, where people can spend time read- from places where people post messages or acquire
ing a book (about group dynamics) and talking to information into places that have many of the same
friends who stop by for a cup and a conversation. It characteristics Oldenburg attributes to high-quality
might be the barbershop on the corner where people third places. As with real-world third places, people can
often stop to read the newspaper and talk sports and come and go as they please in online third places. In
politics. But the prototypical third place is the neigh- avatar-based games, in particular, people create identi-
borhood tavern, where people drink, socialize, and ties that they use to interact with others, and others
entertain each other. The most famous third place is come to recognize them through their repeated use of
the bar depicted in the television program Cheers. At a these personas. Some online games have even devel-
third place, “everybody knows your name.” oped places within the game for socializing. World of
Warcraft, BlueSky, Second Life®, Lineage, and Asheron’s
Not just any restaurant or bookstore qualifies as a Call, for example, all have locations within them where
third place (Mehta & Bosson, 2010). As Oldenburg players go to converse, tease, relax, dance, and joke
(1999) explains, third places are uniquely hospitable, with other players. In sites with graphics, these locations
socially entertaining, and informal. They are places are often designed to resemble real-world third places;
where people can come and go, unfettered by obliga- they are virtual pubs, bars, inns, coffee houses, and the
tions or the entanglements of roles and responsibili- like. At online third places “everyone knows your
ties. They are also diverse, in that people from all (screen) name” (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).
walks of life are welcome—there are no dues, no
membership requirements, nor much respect for The relations that individuals establish in third
wealth, professionalism, or breeding. But most of all, places, whether online or offline, are not close ones.
third places are a home away from home. Those who These are public places, and even though the people
are regulars make newcomers feel welcome, and the who join them support and entertain each other, they
norms of the setting stress connecting with others in a remain acquaintances rather than close friends. But in
positive, playful way. Writes Oldenburg (1999, p. 29): an evolving world where traditional forms of commu-
“The atmosphere, both physical and social, is the nity, such as bridge clubs, civic associations, and sports
trickiest and most essential part of creating a warm leagues have dwindled, virtual third places “stand ready
and welcoming third place. Both need constant atten- to serve people’s needs for sociability and relaxation in
tion and periodic tweaking. Both show signs of neglect the intervals before, between, and after their manda-
and fatigue immediately” (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 29). tory appearances elsewhere” (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 32).

Efran, 1972) or if the group is perceived as a crowd Benefits of Territories Studies of territoriality in
rather than as a single entity (Knowles & Bassett, 1976). prisons (Glaser, 1964), naval ships (Heffron, 1972;
Roos, 1968), neighborhoods (Newman, 1972), and
third places Semipublic places, such as bookstores, cof- dormitories (Baum & Valins, 1977) have suggested
fee shops, and taverns, where members of a community that people feel far more comfortable when their
gather informally for conversation and camaraderie; often groups can territorialize their living areas. For
located close to individuals’ homes (first places) and their example, environmental psychologists Andrew
work (second places). Baum, Stuart Valins, and their associates confirmed
the benefits of territories in their studies of college

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 501

students who were randomly assigned to one of Group members often feel more comfortable
two types of dormitories. Some students lived in a when they can establish a territory for their group,
traditionally designed, corridor-style dorm, which but territoriality can cause conflict if the groups do
featured 17 double-occupancy rooms per floor. not agree on their borders. All kinds of intergroup
These residents could only claim the bedrooms conflicts—from disputes between neighbors to
they shared with their roommates as their territo- drive-by gang shootings, to civil wars, to wars
ries. In contrast, students who lived in suite-style between nations—are rooted in disputes over terri-
dorms controlled a fairly well-defined territory tories (Ardry, 1970). Such conflicts may be based on
that included a private space shared with a room- ancient group traditions. Because most human cul-
mate as well as a bathroom and lounge shared with tures harvest the animals and plants from the land
several suitemates. around them, they establish control over certain
geographical areas (Altman & Chemers, 1980).
Even though nearly equal numbers of indivi- Nations patrol their borders to make certain that
duals lived on any floor in the two types of designs, people from neighboring countries cannot enter
students in the corridor-style dormitories reported the country easily. Neighborhood associations
feeling more crowded, complained of their inability erect fences and gates to keep others out. When
to control their social interactions with others, and families move into a new home or apartment,
emphasized their unfulfilled needs for privacy. they often install locks and elaborate burglar alarms
Suite-style dorm residents, on the other hand, to prevent intrusions by nonmembers. Students
developed deeper friendships with their suitemates, who find someone sitting in their usual chair will
worked with one another more effectively, and ask the intruder to leave (Haber, 1980).
even seemed more sociable when interacting with
people outside the dormitory. Baum and Valins The Home Advantage A group’s power is often
concluded that these differences stemmed from the defined by the quality and size of the space it
corridor-style dorm residents’ inability to territori- controls, so groups protect their turf as a means of
alize areas that they had to use repeatedly (Baum & protecting their reputations. Disputes over territories
Davis, 1980; Baum, Davis, & Valins, 1979; Baum, are often one-sided, however, for groups that are
Harpin, & Valins, 1975). defending their territory usually triumph over
groups that are invading territories—the home
Territories and Intergroup Conflict Territories advantage. Case studies of street gangs, for exam-
tend to reduce conflict between groups since they ple, find that defending groups usually succeed in
organize and regulate intergroup contact by isolating repelling invading groups, apparently because they
one group from another. Even in the absence of are more familiar with the physical layout of the area
open conflict between groups, members tend to and have access to necessary resources (Whyte,
remain within their group’s territories, and they 1943). One member of the Nortons, a street gang
avoid trespassing into other areas. Consider, for discussed in Chapter 2, explained that his group
example, the distribution of people in a cafeteria of never lost a fight (“rally”) so long as it took place
a public university in the United Kingdom. Over the on the group’s turf: “We never went looking for
course of two weeks when researchers studied where trouble. We only rallied on our own street, but we
students sat for their meals, they discovered that always won there” (Whyte, 1943, p. 51).
White students tended to sit in one area of the cafe-
teria, but that Asian students tended to sit in a differ- home advantage The tendency for individuals and
ent area. Some members of one racial group moved groups to gain an advantage over others when interacting
across territorial lines, but for the most part students in their home territory; also known as the home field
in this desegregated school tended to resegregate advantage.
themselves by forming territories based on their
race (Clack, Dixon, & Tredoux, 2005).

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

502 C H A P T E R 15

Individuals, too, are often more assertive when them with a means of reducing contact with others
they are within their own territorial confines rather (Fraine et al., 2007).
than encroaching on others’ turf. College students
working with another student on a cooperative Territoriality and Privacy As Altman (1975)
task spent more time talking, felt more “resistant to noted, depending on the situation, people prefer a
control,” and were more likely to express their own certain amount of contact with others, and interac-
opinions when they were in their own room rather tion in excess of this level produces feelings of
than in their partner’s room (Conroy & Sundstrom, crowding and privacy invasion. The student in the
1977; Edney, 1975; Taylor & Lanni, 1981). Indivi- classroom who is distracted by a jabbering neigh-
duals and groups seem to gain strength and resolve bor, employees who are unable to concentrate on
when the dispute takes place on their home territory, their jobs because of their noisy officemates’ antics,
even if they are encountering an opponent who is and the wife who cannot enjoy reading a novel
physically stronger or more socially dominant. because her husband is playing his music too loudly
are all receiving excessive inputs from another
This home advantage, becomes the home field group member. If they moderated their accessibility
advantage at sporting events, for the home team is by successfully establishing and regulating a territo-
more frequently the victor than the loser (Schlenker rial boundary, they could achieve a more satisfying
et al., 1995a). When a basketball team must travel to balance between contact with others and solitude.
the rival team’s home court to play, they often make
more errors, score fewer points, and end up the losers Territories also work as organizers of group
rather than the winners of the contest (Schwartz & members’ relationships (Edney, 1976). Once we
Barsky, 1977). This advantage becomes even greater know the location of others’ territories, we can
when the visiting team must travel longer distances find or avoid them with greater success. Further-
and when the fans watching the game support the more, because we often grow to like people we
home team and jeer the opponent (Courneya & interact with on a regular basis, people with
Carron, 1991; Greer, 1983). Playing at home, how- contiguous territories are more likely to form inter-
ever, can become something of a disadvantage in rare personal, performance-enhancing relations with
circumstances. When athletes play must-win games each other (Pentland, 2014). Studies of workplace
on their home field and they fear they will fail, the design repeatedly return to one key point: frequent
pressure to win may become too great. And when a interaction between people—and informal, spon-
team is playing a series of games and it loses an early taneous interactions in particular, such as encoun-
game at home, it may lose its home advantage to the ters in the hall, stopping by a person’s desk, or
emboldened adversary. Overall, however, groups popping into their office with a quick question—
tend to win at home (for more details, see Baumeister, are more influential than routinized group interac-
1984, 1985, 1995; Baumeister & Showers, 1986; tions such as meetings. Members’ whose offices and
Schlenker et al., 1995a, 1995b). workspaces—their territories—are located near one
another are more likely to work together with better
15-3c Territoriality in Groups results, as are those whose territories are not tightly
defined by walls and doors (see Davis, Leach, &
Territoriality also operates at the level of each indi- Clegg, 2011).
vidual in the group. Although members develop
attachment to the group’s space, they also develop Territories also regulate certain group pro-
spatial attachments to specific areas within the cesses, structures, and activities. In a classroom, for
group space (Moser & Uzzell, 2003). Such individ- example, the instructor’s space is usually differenti-
ual territories—a bedroom, a cubicle at work, a park ated from the students’ space. And the students tend
bench no one else frequents, or one’s car—can help to return to the same seat over and over again, and
group members maintain their privacy by providing over time these short-term territories regularize
interaction patterns and influence achievement

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 503

What Do Your Places and Spaces Say about You?

Members of groups often develop a proprietary ori- q Sports: Posters, items related to athletes, sports-
entation toward specific areas; for example, family related magazines.
members have their own rooms, faculty their offices,
and students their apartments and dorm rooms. q Idiosyncratic: Awards, knickknacks, coffee mugs,
crafts, wall hangings, plants.
Instructions. After securing permission, study the
territory of a professor at a university, a colleague Interpretation: A discerning cataloger of spatial
where you work, or your own territory (your dorm adornments can learn much from the analysis of the
room, the living room of your home). Spend some time things people leave on display in their homes, dorm
in the territory you are studying, taking notes and rooms, and offices. Conscientious people, for example,
sketching its layout, and then note the following tend to have more reference items posted in their
markings (adapted from Vinsel et al., 1980): spaces, and they keep their spaces relatively tidy.
Outgoing, extraverted people’s spaces, in contrast,
q Entertainment and equipment: Bicycles, skis, are often more extensively decorated, usually to good
radios, tennis rackets, climbing gear, soccer balls. effect (Gosling, 2008). The overall diversity of the
markers may also be an indicator of commitment to
q Technology: Computers, tablets, phones, monitors, the group and its values. When researchers studied
screens. college students’ dorm rooms, they found that stu-
dents who eventually left the school marked their
q Personal relations: Framed photographs of walls extensively but with less diversity. A dropout’s
friends, pets, and family, letters, vacation photos, wall would feature, for example, dozens of skiing
drawings by siblings. posters or high school memorabilia, whereas the
stay-in’s decorations might include syllabi, posters, wall
q Values: Religious symbols, political posters, hangings, plants, and family photos. The researchers
bumper stickers, flags, sorority signs, placards. concluded that the wall decorations of dropouts
“reflected less imagination or diversity of interests
q Art: Paintings, prints, cartoons, statues. and an absence of commitment to the new university
environment” (Hansen & Altman, 1976; Vinsel et al.,
q Reference items: Calendars, bulletin board with 1980, p. 1114).
notes, schedules, to-do lists.

q Music and theater: Posters and memorabilia of
musical groups, shows, performances.

(Marshall & Losonczy-Marshall, 2010). Similarly, in home (Wells, 2000). Territories also define what
organizational settings, functions are closely aligned belongs to whom; without a sense of territory,
with specific locations, for employees are located— the concept of stealing would be difficult to define,
sometimes for reasons that are not altogether because one could not be certain that the objects
rational—in various places throughout the space carried off actually belonged to someone else.
the organization maintains for its enterprise
(Ayoko & Härtel, 2003). Territory and Status The size and quality of
individuals’ territories within a group often indi-
Territories also help individual group members cates their social status within the group. In undif-
define and express a sense of personal identity. ferentiated societies, people rarely divide up space
Office walls often display posters, diplomas, crude into “yours,” “mine,” and “ours.” The Basarwa of
drawings produced by small children, pictures of Africa, for example, do not make distinctions
loved ones, or little signs with trite slogans, even between people on the basis of age, sex, or prestige.
when company regulations specifically forbid such Nor do they establish primary territories or build
personalizing markings. Although such decorations permanent structures (Kent, 1991). But stratified
may seem insignificant to the chance visitor, to the societies with leaders, status hierarchies, and classes
occupant of the space, they have personal meaning are territorial. Moreover, the size and quality of the
and help turn a drab, barren environment into

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

504 C H A P T E R 15

territories held by individuals tend to correspond to this relation varied over time. During the first
their status within society. The political and social phase of the project, the high-status boys main-
elite in the community live in large, fine homes tained clear control over more desirable areas, but
rather than small, run-down shacks (Fuller & when two of the most dominant boys were
Löw, 2017). Executives with large offices hold a removed from the group, the remaining boys com-
higher, more prestigious position in the company peted with one another for both status and space. In
than executives with small offices (Durand, 1977). time the group had quieted back down, although
Prison inmates who control the most desirable por- certain highly dominant members continued to be
tions of the exercise yard enjoy higher status than disruptive. When formal observations ended, the
individuals who cannot establish a territory (Esser, group’s territorial structures were once more begin-
1973). As one informal observer has noted, in many ning to stabilize with higher-status members con-
large corporations, the entire top floor of a com- trolling the more desirable areas.
pany’s headquarters is reserved for the offices of the
upper-echelon executives and can only be reached Reactions to Territorial Intrusions Just as
by a private elevator (Korda, 1975). Furthermore, groups defend their territories, so do individuals
within this executive area, offices swell in size and within groups protect their individual spaces
become more lavishly decorated as the occupant’s (Ayoko & Härtel, 2003). Management researcher
position in the company increases. Substantiating Graham Brown and his colleagues, for example,
these informal observations, a study of a large in their studies of territories in work settings,
chemical company headquarters, a university, and found that territorial intrusions are relatively com-
a government agency found a clear link between mon but that they are also quite irritating (Brown,
office size and status (Durand, 1977). The correla- 2009; Brown & Robinson, 2011). When they
tion between the size of the territory and the posi- asked a sample of 180 adults who worked in busi-
tion in each group’s organization chart was .81 for ness settings in the United States if they had ever
the company, .79 for the government agency, and experienced a territorial intrusion at work, 73.8%
.29 for the university. reported they had, and most of them were still
angry about it. By far, the most frequent type of
The link between territory and dominance in territorial intrusion was the use of one’s tools, sup-
small groups tends to be more variable. Several plies, or equipment by others without the indivi-
studies have suggested that territory size increases dual’s explicit permission. A second category of
as status increases (Sundstrom & Altman, 1974). territorial intrusions was spatial: people taking over
Other studies, however, indicated that territory another person’s primary or secondary territory or
size seems to decrease as status in the group intruding into that territory without permission.
increases (Esser, 1968; Esser et al., 1965). Psychol- Other intrusions included people trying to take
ogists Eric Sundstrom and Irwin Altman (1974) over duties or projects and plagiarism of their
suggested that these contradictory results occur ideas and innovations. These infringements trig-
because territorial boundaries are more fluid in gered all kinds of negative reactions, including
small groups. In one study conducted at a boys’ complaints to supervisors, verbal rebukes, plots to
rehabilitation center, they asked each participant seek revenge, and even physical confrontations.
to rank the other boys in terms of ability to influ- Most of these responses were mediated by one
ence others. Also, an observer regularly passed key psychological factor: anger. Some reported
through the residence bedrooms, lounge, TV area, they felt “annoyed” or “irritated,” but others
and bathrooms and recorded territorial behaviors. were “upset” and “bitter.” Still a third group
The boys evaluated each area to determine which reported feeling “irate” and “furious.” Individuals
territories were more desirable than others. in this third group rarely suffered the territorial
intrusion in silence (Brown & Robinson, 2011).
Sundstrom and Altman found evidence of the
territory–dominance relation, but the strength 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.

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 505

Territory and Stress in Extreme and Unusual groups had small adjoining rooms for sleeping, nap-
Environments The crew of the Apollo 13, like ping, reading, etc.); (2) expected duration of the
many other groups that must function in EUEs, isolation (pairs expected the study to last either 4
were careful to monitor their territorial reactions, days or 20 days); and (3) amount of communication
for attention to spatial concerns is critical for with the outside world. Although the study was to
long-term success in such groups (Harrison, Clear- last for eight days for all the pairs, more than half
water, & McKay, 1991; Harrison & Connors, 1984; terminated their participation early. Altman
Leon, 1991; Palinkas, 1991). explained this high attrition rate by suggesting that
the aborting groups tended to “misread the
Altman and his colleagues at the Naval Medical demands of the situation and did not undertake
Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, studied effective group formation processes necessary to
territoriality in EUEs by confining pairs of volun- cope with the situation” (1973, p. 249). On the
teers to a 12-by-12-foot room equipped with beds, first day of the study, these men tended to keep
a toilet cabinet, and a table and chairs (see Altman, to themselves, never bothering to work out any
1973, 1977). The groups worked for several hours plans for coping with what would become a stress-
each day at various tasks, but were left to amuse ful situation. Then, as the study wore on, they
themselves with card games and reading the rest reacted to increased stress by significantly strength-
of the time. The men in the isolation condition ening their territorial behavior, claiming particular
never left their room during the 10 days of the areas of the room. They also began spending more
experiment; matched pairs in a control condition time in their beds, but they seemed simultaneously
were permitted to eat their meals at the base mess to be increasingly restless. Access to a private room
and sleep in their regular barracks. and an expectation of prolonged isolation only
added to the stress of the situation and created addi-
The members of isolated groups quickly claimed tional withdrawal, dysfunction, and eventual termi-
particular bunks as theirs. Furthermore, this territorial nation (Altman, Taylor, & Wheeler, 1971).
behavior increased as the experiment progressed,
with the isolated pairs extending their territories to Groups that lasted the entire eight days used
include specific chairs and certain positions around territoriality to structure their isolation. On the
the table. Not all of the groups, however, benefited first day, they defined their territories, set up sche-
by establishing territories. In some of the groups, dules of activities, and agreed on their plan of action
territories structured the group dynamics and eased for getting through the study. Furthermore, the
the stress of the situation, but in other dyads, these successful groups relaxed territorial restraints in the
territories worked as barricades to social interaction later stages of the project, thereby displaying a
and exacerbated the strain of isolation. Overall, with- greater degree of positive interaction. As Altman
drawal and time spent sleeping increased across the (1977) described,
10 days of the study, whereas time spent in social
interaction decreased. Other measures revealed The epitome of a successful group was one in
worsened task performance and heightened interper- which the members, on the first or second
sonal conflicts, anxiety, and emotionality for isolates day, laid out an eating, exercise, and recrea-
who drew a “psychological and spatial ‘cocoon’ tion schedule; constructed a deck of playing
around themselves, gradually doing more things cards, a chess set, and a Monopoly game out
alone and in their own part of the room” (Altman of paper. (p. 310)
& Haythorn, 1967, p. 174).
The men who adapted “decided how they
Altman and his colleagues followed up these would structure their lives over the expected
provocative findings in a second experiment by lengthy period of isolation” (Altman, 1977,
manipulating three aspects of the group environ- p. 310). Although territorial behavior worked to
ment: (1) availability of privacy (half of the groups the benefit of some of the groups, the last-minute
lived and worked in a single room; the remaining

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

506 C H A P T E R 15

attempts of some of the faltering groups to organize when a group is present only during a certain time
their spatial relations failed to improve their inade- (e.g., a group may occupy a classroom only on
quate adaptation to the isolation. Mondays and Wednesdays from 9 to 10:30). Most
settings also include both people (group members)
15-4 WORKSPACES and things (equipment, chairs, etc.); Barker called
them both components of the setting. Barker noted
Every square inch of the Odyssey, the Apollo 13 that individuals and settings are often inseparable,
command module, and its landing craft, the Aquar- for the meaning of actions often depends on the
ius, was designed by considering how the group of physical features of the situation, just as a situation
astronauts would function within the confines of takes its meaning from the individuals in the setting.
the spacecraft. Unfortunately, not all physical set- Barker believed that people routinely follow a pro-
tings are designed so carefully as the Apollo 13: gram that sequences their actions and reactions in
Many groups inhabit places that inhibit, rather behavior settings. They may, for example, make
than facilitate, their functioning. use of the settings’ objects in very predictable, rou-
tine ways, as when people who enter a room with
15-4a The Person–Place Fit chairs in it tend to sit on them (Barker, 1968, 1987,
1990; Barker et al., 1978).
Roger Barker, an ecological psychologist, studied the
relationship between people and the places where Not every physical setting is a behavior setting.
they live and work: offices, homes, schools, neigh- Some situations are novel ones that group members
borhoods, communities, and entire towns. He dis- have never before encountered, so they have no
covered that in most of these settings, people adapted expectations about how they should act. Some indi-
to fit the requirements of the place. For example, viduals, too, may enter a behavior setting but they
when people enter a fast-food restaurant, they join are not aware of the norms of the situation, or they
a line, place their order, pay for their food, and then simply do not accept them as guides for their own
find a table where they eat their meal. A group in a actions. But in most cases, group members act in
conference room sits in chairs, exchanges informa- predictable, routine ways in such situations. Libraries,
tion, and eventually decides to adjourn. The astro- for example, are behavior settings because they cre-
nauts, once they entered the Apollo 13, acted in ate a readiness for certain types of action: One should
ways that the situation required. be subdued, quiet, and calm when in a library. These
normative expectations guide behavior directly, and,
Behavior Settings Barker called physical loca- in many cases, group members are not even aware of
tions where people’s actions are prescribed by the how the situation automatically channels their
features and functions of the situation behavior actions. To demonstrate this automatic, unconscious
settings. They tend to be specific spatial areas— impact of place on people, researchers first showed
actual places where group members interact with people a picture of either a library or a railroad sta-
one another—with boundaries that identify the tion. Later, their reaction times to various words,
edge of one behavior setting and the beginning of including words relevant to libraries (e.g., quiet, still,
the next. Some boundaries can also be temporal, as and whisper), were measured. As expected, people
recognized library-related words more quickly after
behavior settings In ecological psychology, a physically seeing the picture of a library, suggesting that the
and temporally bounded social situation that determines picture activated norms pertaining to the situation
the actions of the individuals in the setting (defined by (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2003).
Roger Barker).
Synomorphy Barker and his colleagues noted
that in some behavior settings, people are embed-
ded in the place itself. The cockpit of the Apollo

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 507

13, for example, was designed so that the astronauts But if, for example, telephones are ringing unan-
could monitor all their instruments and reach all swered, reports are days late, and the photocopier is
their controls. A fast-food restaurant may use a sys- broken and no one knows how to fix it, then the
tem of guide chains and multiple cash registers to office lacks “enough people to carry out smoothly
handle large numbers of customers efficiently. A the essential program and maintenance tasks” and is
classroom may contain areas where students can understaffed (Wicker, 1979, p. 71). On the other
work on individual projects, a reading circle hand, if the number of group members exceeds
where the teacher can lead small groups, and an that needed in the situation, the group is overstaffed
art area where students can easily access the supplies (Sundstrom, 1987).
they need. In other behavior settings, however, the
people do not fit the place. A classroom may have Table 15.3 summarizes staffing theory’s predic-
chairs bolted to the floor in rows, so the teacher can tions about the relationship between staffing and
never have students work in small groups. An office performance. Overstaffed groups may perform
may have windows that provide workers with a adequately—after all, so many extra people are
view of the city, but the light from the windows available to carry out the basic functions—but over-
prevents them from reading their computer screens. staffing can lead to dissatisfaction with task-related
A concert hall may have so few doors that concert- activities and heightened rejection among group
goers clog the exits. Barker used the word syno- members. Understaffed groups, in contrast, often
morphy to describe the degree of fit between the respond positively to the challenging workload.
setting and its human occupants. When settings are Instead of complaining about the situation, under-
high in synomorphy, the people fit into the physical staffed groups sometimes display increased involve-
setting and use its objects appropriately. The people ment in their work and contribute more to the
and the place are unified. Settings that are low in group’s goals (Arnold & Greenberg, 1980; Wicker
synomorphy lack this unity, for the people do not & August, 1995). Four-man groups, for example,
mesh well with the physical features and objects in when placed in an overstaffed situation (too few
the place. tasks to keep all members active), reported feeling
less important, less involved in their work, less con-
Staffing Theory Ecological psychologist Allan cerned with performance, and less needed. These
Wicker’s staffing theory draws on the concept effects were reversed in understaffed groups
of synomorphy to explain group performance (Wicker et al., 1976). In another study, the
(Wicker, 1979, 1987, 2002). Consider office work- increased workload brought on by understaffing
ers in a small business, university, or government increased professionals’ and long-term employees’
agency who are responsible for typing papers and involvement in their work, but understaffing also
reports, answering the telephone, duplicating mate- led to decreased commitment among new employ-
rials, and preparing paperwork on budgets, sche- ees and blue-collar workers. Understaffing was also
dules, appointments, and so on. If the number of associated with more negative attitudes toward the
people working in the office is sufficient to handle group (Wicker & August, 1995). Staffing theory
all these activities, then the setting is optimally staffed. also explains why individuals who are part of smal-
ler groups and organizations get more involved in
synomorphy In ecological psychology, the quality of their groups; for example, even though a large
the fit between the human occupants and the physical school offers more opportunities for involvement in
situation. small-group activities, the proportion of students
staffing theory An ecological analysis of behavior set- who join school-based groups is higher in smaller
tings arguing that both understaffing (not enough peo- schools (Gump, 1990).
ple) and overstaffing (too many people) can be
detrimental (developed by Allan Wicker). How do groups cope with staffing problems?
When researchers asked leaders of student groups
this question, nearly 75% recommended recruiting

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

508 C H A P T E R 15

T A B L E 15.3 Group Members’ Reactions to Understaffed and Overstaffed Work Settings

Reaction Understaffed Groups Overstaffed Groups
Task performance
Members engage in diligent, consistent, Members are perfunctory, inconsistent,
goal-related actions and sloppy

Performance monitoring Members provide one another with Members exhibit little concern for the
corrective, critical feedback as needed quality of the group’s performance

Perceptions Members are viewed in terms of the jobs Members focus on the personalities
they do rather than their individual and uniqueness of members rather
qualities than on the group

Self-perceptions Members feel important, responsible, Members feel lowered self-esteem
and capable with little sense of competence

Attitude toward the group Members express concern over the con- Members are cynical about the group

tinuation of the group and its functions

Supportiveness Members are reluctant to reject those Members are less willing to help other
who are performing poorly members of the group

SOURCE: Adapted from Barker, 1968; Wicker, 1979.

more members or reorganizing the group as the best these areas need to be redesigned to maximize the
ways to deal with understaffing. Other solutions fit between the people and the place (Clements-
included working with other groups and adopting Croome, 2015; Vischer & Wifi, 2017).
more modest group goals (see Figure 15.5). These
leaders offered a wider range of solutions for over- Hives, Cells, Dens, and Clubs What kind of
staffing, including encouraging members to remain spaces do we need to be maximally productive?
active in the group (often by assigning them specific Architect Francis Duffy (1992), after examining a
duties), enforcing rules about participation, dividing number of groups working in large corporations,
the group, taking in fewer members, changing the concluded that the answer depends on the degree
group’s structure to include more positions, and of interaction and level of individual autonomy
adopting more ambitious goals (Cini, Moreland, & the group’s tasks require. Interaction is determined
Levine, 1993). by the task’s interdependency demands. If the
group is working on a project that requires very
15-4b Fitting Form to Function little interaction among members, the setting must
provide for areas where the group members can
When we work in a group in a natural setting, we work independently. But groups that work on
can exert little control over our workplace. We can more collaborative tasks require an office that
dress more warmly when it is cold, carry lights to facilitates productive interdependence. Autonomy
illuminate the darkness, and adjust our schedules to refers to the group and its members’ control over
deal with inclement weather, but in many cases we the work itself: what tasks must be completed as
must work in whatever conditions we find. When well as when and how. Autonomy is important
we work in indoor spaces, in contrast, we can mod- because “the more autonomy office workers
ify our workplace so that it both comfortable and enjoy, the more they are likely to want to control
functional. Yet, studies of all types of behavior their own working environments, singly and
settings—classrooms, factories, offices, playgrounds, collectively, and the more discretion they are
highways, theaters, and so on—frequently find that likely to want to exercise over the kind and quality

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 509

Overstaffed groups collective tasks and projects, they need an open
space that all members share. Members may
Encourage members have individual areas within the collective
Restrict membership space that they claim as their own, but
boundaries do not separate these spaces from
Punish deviance one another. These groups work on specific,
Divide relatively short-term projects where success
Other depends on maintaining very high levels of
information exchange (high interaction/low
Understaffed groups autonomy).

Reorganize ■ Clubs: Members who are talented, well-
Recruit new members trained, or possess very specialized skills often
work on diverse tasks and projects that vary
Other greatly in their collaborative demands. Their
work space must be flexible, permitting them
0 10 20 30 60 70 to collaborate as needed but also to secure
Percentage privacy (high interaction/high autonomy).

F I G U R E 15.5 Leaders’ recommendations for deal- Duffy found that club offices tend to be the
ing with understaffed groups and overstaffed groups. most productive, but he added that nearly all
group spaces must be flexible. As the group and
SOURCE: From Data in “Group Staffing Levels and Responses to Prospective its tasks change, even the most carefully designed
and New Group Members” by M. A. Cini, R. L. Moreland, & J. M. Levine and implemented setting may fail to meet members’
(1993), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65. American Psycho- needs and would require modification.
logical Association. Reprinted by permission.

of their surroundings in their places of work” Group Spaces in the Future More of the world’s
(Duffy, 1992, p. 60). work is now being completed by teams, and as
Duffy’s work suggests, these groups require a differ-
Duffy uses these two dimensions to identify ent type of office than individuals require. Archi-
four basic types of configurations of work and tects and designers, recognizing the need for
their ideal spatial arrangements: hives, cells, dens, innovative solutions, have begun to experiment
and clubs. with new types of spaces that promote group pro-
ductivity rather than just individual productivity.
■ Hives: Members who function as “worker The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), for
bees”—they perform individualized, routine example, redesigned its facility at Broadcast Center,
tasks—require little interaction with other being careful to make certain each work area cor-
group members. Such groups function well in responded to the interactional demands of the par-
open, cubicle-type offices where each individ- ticular project group. The result was a highly
ual has a defined, relatively small work space effective and flexible space that includes spaces for
(low interaction/low autonomy). meetings, seclusion, and for creative work (Harrison
& Morgan, 2006). Another project, at NASA’s Jet
■ Cells: Members working on complex, long- Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), relied on technologi-
term, relatively individualized projects need cal innovations to create close connections among
private spaces to carry out their work. They may collaborators: data visualization programs, shared
also be able to work by telecommuting from a spreadsheets, interactive graphic displays for model-
home office (low interaction/high autonomy). ing, and tools for building simulations. The team

■ Dens: When members who are similar in terms
of skills and responsibilities work together on

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

510 C H A P T E R 15

members, who were primarily engineers and com- functioning in a collocated setting longer than any
puter scientists, had personal work stations within a other team or group ever has before. It will face
larger room, as well as private offices elsewhere. extraordinary and unanticipated performance chal-
They gathered at the main team room, however, lenges that will likely require solutions and interven-
for collaborative sessions that lasted for several tions unrelated to both training and experience. The
hours. The room, and the group within in it, per- group will be so small in size that it cannot fractionate
formed far more efficiently than similar types of into subgroups to deal with interpersonal conflict, and
teams, completing tasks in days that before took its habitat will be so restrictive that contact with other
weeks or even months (Heerwagen et al., 2006). members is continual and unavoidable. The Mars
mission team will live and work in conditions that
These innovations are good news for one group no other group has ever experienced. That group is
that will need an improved habitat in the future: the going to need a very nice habitat to survive the chal-
crew that NASA will be sending to Mars. The team lenges of its extreme and unusual environment.
that takes on that mission will remain intact and

CHAPTER REVIEW

What is the ecology of a group? unpleasant consequences, including dis-
comfort, reduced productivity, conflict,
1. Researchers who study group ecology explore and aggression.
how individuals and groups interact with and
adapt to the group’s habitat. ■ Van de Vliert’s (2013) climato-economic the-
ory assumes that cultures that exist in places
2. A physical setting’s ambience, or atmosphere, with harsh climates cope by developing
creates a distinctive cognitive and emotional economically if wealthy and by becoming
impression. more collectivistic if not wealthy.

■ Russell’s (2003) studies indicate that peo- ■ Group members can cope with exposure
ple’s affective reactions range from to noise for a short duration, but pro-
positive–negative (pleasant) and activating– longed exposure is associated with psy-
relaxed (arousing). People prefer positive, chological and physical difficulties.
stimulating environments, but excessive
stimulation can lead to overload. ■ Groups that must live or work in extreme
and unusual environments (EUEs) adapt by
■ Kaplan’s (1995) attention restoration theory improving communication and teamwork.
assumes situations that require directed Groups that do not emphasize a team
attention deplete cognitive resources that approach in such environments, such as the
can be replenished by certain types of 1996 expeditions to Mount Everest, are less
places, such as the natural environment. likely to escape such situations unharmed.

3. Features of the environment, such as extremes What are the determinants of spatial relations in a
in temperature and noise and dangerousness, group?
can engender stress in groups and undermine
performance. 1. Studies of personal space suggest that group
members prefer to keep a certain distance
■ People associate warm temperatures with between themselves and others.
social warmth.
■ Closer distances are associated with greater
■ High temperatures are linked to loss of intimacy, so space requirements tend to
attention as well as a number of other

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 511

increase as the situation becomes less inti- What are the causes and consequences of a group’s
mate. The four zones described by Hall tendency to establish territories?
(1966) are the intimate, personal, social,
and public. Online groups meet in the 1. Like many other animals, humans establish
remote zone. territories—geographical locations that an
individual or group defends against intrusion
■ Spacing in groups is influenced by the sex, by others.
status, and cultural background of the
group members. 2. Altman (1975) distinguished between primary
territories, secondary territories, and public
■ Both the equilibrium model of communication territories.
and Burgoon’s (1978) expectancy viola-
tions model predict that individuals will ■ Oldenburg (1999) suggests that some sec-
moderate their distances to achieve the ondary territories can serve as third places
desired level of intimacy. where individuals can gather to socialize
and build community. Some third places
2. Density describes the number of people are located in online communities.
per unit of space, whereas crowding is a
psychological reaction to high physical ■ Various groups, including gangs, territori-
density. alize areas; they prevent nongroup mem-
bers from entering them, and they mark
3. Crowding is exacerbated by the following them in various ways.
factors:
■ Studies of group space suggest that groups
■ cognitive processes that prompt individuals are surrounded by an interaction boundary
to make attributions about the causes of that prevents nongroup members from
their arousal; approaching too closely.

■ group members’ overall evaluation of the ■ Individuals feel more comfortable when
high-density setting (the density–intensity their groups can territorialize their living
hypothesis); areas. Territories promote adjustment
and reduce stress, but they also promote
■ perceptions of control; intergroup conflict, as in the case of
gang-related territoriality.
■ the degree to which others interfere with
task performance. ■ Groups with a home advantage tend to
outperform groups that are outside their
4. Sommer (1969) suggests sociopetal spaces territories.
encourage interaction, whereas sociofugal pat-
terns discourage interaction. People generally 3. Individual members establish personal territories
prefer interaction-promoting, sociopetal pat- within the group’s territory.
terns, but these preferences vary with the type
of task being attempted and the sex of the ■ Personal territories fulfill privacy, orga-
group members. nizing, and identity functions for indi-
vidual members. Territorial markings, for
5. Seating arrangements significantly influence example, are associated with membership
patterns of attraction, communication, and stability.
leadership. For example, in many groups,
individuals tend to speak immediately after the ■ Higher-status individuals generally control
person seated opposite them (the Steinzor larger and more desirable territories;
effect), and leadership is closely associated with Sundstrom and Altman’s (1974) work
sitting at the end of the table (the head- suggests changes in status hierarchies can
of-the-table effect). disrupt the allocation of territory.

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

512 C H A P T E R 15

■ Brown’s (2009) studies suggest that terri- of the situation and the type of behaviors
torial intrusions are common in the performed in it.
workplace, and they generally generate
strong, negative emotional reactions ■ Behavior settings that lack synomorphy are
(anger). inefficient and distressing.

■ A group’s capacity to adapt and even ■ Staffing theory, developed by Wicker
thrive in extreme and unusual environ- (2002), describes the causes and conse-
ments (EUEs) depends on its members’ quences of understaffing and overstaffing.
judicious management of the environ-
ment, including territories (Altman, 2. Some groups work and interact in spaces that
1973). need to be redesigned to maximize the fit
between the people and the place.
How can group places, spaces, and locations be
improved? ■ Duffy (1992), differentiating between
group tasks that call for more or less
1. Barker (1968), after studying many groups in interaction and autonomy, identified four
their natural locations, concluded that most types of group workplaces; hives, cells,
behavior is determined by the behavior setting in dens, and clubs.
which it occurs.
■ Workplaces are currently being reconfi-
■ The boundaries, components, and pro- gured to create spaces that will facilitate
grams of such settings define the functions group productivity rather than individual
productivity.

RESOURCES

Chapter Case: Apollo 13 psychology, and includes reviews of recent
studies examining place attachment, habitat
■ Apollo 13: The NASA Mission Reports, design, reactions to noise and spatial inter-
edited by Robert Godwin (2000), provides ference, and environmental perception and
complete documentation of the mission, evaluation.
including press releases, transcripts of the
crew debriefing, the text of the committee ■ Handbook of Environmental Psychology and
investigations of the cause of the accident, Quality of Life Research, edited by Ghozlane
and recordings of the crew transmissions Fleury-Bahi, Enric Pol, and Oscar Navarro
during the flight. (2017), examines the relationship between
well-being and the natural, social, and
■ Lost Moon: The Perilous Journey of Apollo 13 built environment, with chapters devoted
by Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger (1994) is a to place attachment, environmental stress,
forthright summary of the Apollo 13 workplace design, and comfort at work.
mission with details about the group’s
dynamics and relations with ground Group Ecology and Territoriality
control teams and family members.
■ Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You by
Groups in Context Sam Gosling (2008) reviews a series of
investigations into the way people adorn
■ “Environmental Psychology Matters” by their spaces—especially their homes and
Robert Gifford (2014) provides a broad their offices—and what environmental
review of topics in the field of environmental

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

GROUPS IN CONTEXT 513

cues say about the inhabitants’ personality mines the research literature for insights
traits, their interests and motivations, and and ideas about how to best configure
even their identities. places where groups live, work, and
relax, with special attention to homes,
■ The Environment and Social Behavior by workplaces, learning environments, and
Irwin Altman (1975) remains the definitive health care facilities.
analysis of privacy, personal space, territo-
riality, and crowding in groups. Groups in Extreme and Unusual Environments

■ The Great Good Place by Ray Oldenburg ■ Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space
(1999) is an inspiring analysis of third places Exploration by Jack Stuster (1996) draws on
where groups often congregate in com- interviews, historical documentation, and
fortable, public establishments that provide empirical research to develop a compre-
the setting for socialization and support. hensive, detailed analysis of the dynamics
of groups that live and work in atypical
Designing Group Spaces environments, such as bases in Antarctica
and space stations.
■ Creating the Productive Workplace, edited by
Derek Clements-Croome (2006), is a ■ On Orbit and Beyond: Psychological Perspectives
compendium of chapters written by on Human Spaceflight, edited by Douglas A.
engineers, architects, and design experts Vakoch (2013), summarizes much of the
who explore, in detail, the physical, scientific work examining how people react
psychological, and social demands of the when working and living under conditions
twenty-first-century workplace. of prolonged confinement, with a focus on
group-level factors that will influence the
■ Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Inte- success of long-term space flight.
rior Architecture by Sally Augustin (2009)

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

16C H A P T E R Growth and
Change
CHAPTER OUTLINE
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
16-1 Growth and Change in Groups
16-1a Therapeutic Groups The value of groups is nowhere more apparent than
16-1b Interpersonal Learning Groups when they are used to help their members change
16-1c Support Groups for the better. In therapeutic groups, interpersonal
learning groups, and self-help groups, people find
16-2 Sources of Support and Change the support, information, motivation, and guidance
16-2a Universality and Hope they need to grow and change. As Lewin’s law of
16-2b Social Learning group change suggests, changing people one by one
16-2c Group Cohesion is difficult; changing them when they are part of a
16-2d Disclosure and Catharsis group is easier.
16-2e Altruism ■ What are some of the ways that groups are used
16-2f Insight
to help members change?
16-3 The Effectiveness of Groups ■ How do groups promote change?
16-3a Empirical Support for Group ■ How effective are groups in bringing about
Treatments
16-3b Using Groups to Cure: Cautions change?
16-3c The Value of Groups

Chapter Review
Resources

514

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

GROWTH AND CHANGE 515

The Bus Group: Groups as Interpersonal Resources

The group was returning from a visit to the Taj Mahal With great sensitivity, the therapists helped each
when the accident happened. They were teachers and survivor deal with the painful memories of that night,
students taking part in Semester at Sea: An educa- the recurrent nightmares most reported, and the
tional program that combined classes on a floating inability to concentrate on normal activities. The
university with tours to historic sites in countries group also examined ways to remain connected
throughout the world. Their bus fishtailed, flipped to the other students on the ship who were not
twice, and came to rest in a ravine by the roadside. Of involved in the accident, and explored existential
the 25 students on the bus, 4 were killed. Three staff issues related to their survival and the loss of the
members also died in the crash. lives of their friends and classmates. Some had more
difficulty than others in dealing with the tragedy;
The physicians in local clinics and on the Semester they worked with therapists individually as well as
at Sea ship dealt with the survivors’ physical injuries, in the bus group. The group met for a dozen times
and counselors and therapists sought to help them on the ship, in sessions lasting approximately
with their psychological problems. In the days imme- 90 minutes.
diately after the accident, the members of the “bus
group,” as they came to call themselves, met to deal When the ship docked at Seattle, Washington,
with their emotions, pain, and uncertainties. The ship the members went their separate ways. They left
continued on its way, and the group met regularly in behind the bus group, but it had served its purpose.
therapy sessions designed to help members cope with A year after the tragedy, most “appeared to be
their grief and attempt to stave off the long-term coping well and getting on with their lives” (Turner,
negative consequences of such a horrific experience. 2000, p. 147).

The idea that a group can be used for therapeutic pur- formed into a group than to change any one of them
poses is not a new one. For centuries, people suffering separately” (Lewin, 1951, p. 228).
from both physical and psychological problems have
sought help from groups in religious services, commu- This chapter asks three questions about groups as
nity ceremonies, and tribal rites. These palliative and agents of treatment and change. First, what are some
therapeutic effects of groups were rediscovered early in of the ways that groups are used to achieve change in
the twentieth century when health care providers their members? Second, how do groups and group
began to use groups to help their patients better man- processes promote change? Third, are groups an
age their illnesses (Pratt, 1922). At first, practitioners effective means of bringing about change? For exam-
used groups to avoid meeting with each patient sepa- ple, did the bus group actually help the members, or
rately, but they soon realized that their patients were did it do more harm than good?
benefiting from the groups themselves. Members sup-
ported each other, shared nontechnical information 16-1 GROWTH AND CHANGE
about their illnesses and treatment, and seemed to
appreciate the opportunity to express themselves to IN GROUPS
attentive and sympathetic listeners. The wisdom of
Kurt Lewin’s law of group change could not be People join groups to solve many different kinds of
disputed: “It is usually easier to change individuals problems. Some want to get rid of something—
weight, sadness, irrational thoughts, or overwhelming
Lewin’s law of group change A basic principle of atti- feelings of worthlessness and despair. Others are seek-
tude and behavioral change stating that individuals are ing something—new skills and outlooks, insight into
more easily changed when they are part of a group (pro- their own characteristics, or a new repertoire of beha-
posed by Kurt Lewin). viors they can use to improve their relationships with
others. Still others seek the strength they need to cope

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

516 C H A P T E R 16

T A B L E 16.1 Varieties of Change-Promoting Groups
Type
Therapeutic Basic Goal Leader Examples

Interpersonal Help members improve Mental health professionals ■ Group psychotherapy
learning their psychological func- (e.g., psychologist, social ■ Humanistic approaches
tioning and adjustment worker, and psychiatrist) ■ Cognitive-behavioral group therapy
Support
Help members gain self- Varies from trained and ■ T-groups
understanding and improve licensed professionals to ■ Psychoeducational groups
their interpersonal skills untrained laypersons ■ Trauma/disaster response groups

Help members cope with Usually a volunteer; some ■ Support groups
and identify solutions to groups do not include a ■ Anti-addiction groups (e.g., AA)
specific problems or life leadership position ■ Advocacy groups
crises

with some challenge they face in their life—a serious members cope with or overcome a problem all the
illness, the loss of a loved one, or an addiction they members have in common. But not all change-
have been unable to conquer on their own. promoting groups fall neatly into one and only
one of the three categories shown in Table 16.1.
The variety of change-promoting groups reflects Therapeutic groups, for example, provide members
the variety of individuals’ goals. The group formats with the support they need when they encounter dif-
devised by early psychologists and physicians have ficult, stressful circumstances, and, in many cases, inter-
evolved into today’s jogging and fitness clubs; personal learning groups are quite therapeutic (Corey
consciousness-raising groups; support groups for & Corey, 2016).
parents, children, grandparents, and ex-spouses;
workshops and leadership seminars; marriage and fam- 16-1a Therapeutic Groups
ily counseling groups; religious retreats; mutual-
support, self-help groups; psychotherapy groups; and The therapists who worked with the bus group
so on. These groups, despite their many varieties, all from Semester at Sea were trained to help people
help individuals to achieve goals that they cannot overcome psychological and personal problems.
reach on their own. Therapeutic groups help their They worked with the students and the staff in
members overcome such psychological problems as one-to-one psychotherapy sessions, but they also
depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and trauma- treated the students “in groups, with the group
induced stress. Interpersonal learning groups help itself constituting an important element in the
members gain self-understanding and improve therapeutic process” (Slavson, 1950, p. 42).
their relationships with others. Support groups help When such groups were initially proposed, skep-
tics questioned the wisdom of putting people
therapeutic group A group of individuals seeking treat- who were suffering from psychological problems
ment for a psychological problem who meet regularly together in one group. How, they asked, could
with a trained mental health professional. troubled individuals be expected to cope in a
interpersonal learning group A group formed to help group when they had failed individually? How
individuals extend their self-understanding and improve could the therapist guide the therapeutic process
their relationships with others (e.g., experiential group in a group?
and growth group).
support group A group of people who meet or com- History, however, has proved the skeptics wrong.
municate with one another regularly to help each other Many mental health practitioners, including psychol-
cope with or overcome a problem they hold in common. ogists, psychiatrists, and clinical social workers, use

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

GROWTH AND CHANGE 517

group methods to treat a wide variety of psychological about others to the therapist, who uses this
problems, including addictions, thought disorders, transference to help the client understand his or
depression, eating disorders, posttraumatic stress her relations with others. With time, the client
disorder, and personality disorders (Burlingame & develops healthy insights into unresolved conflicts
Jensen, 2017). that have been repressed in the unconscious mind
(Barber & Solomonov, 2016).
Group therapists vary widely in theoretical
orientation. Some, for example, are primarily psy- Psychoanalysis, by tradition, was used with the
choanalytic, for their basic approach is based on smallest of groups—one patient and one therapist.
Sigmund Freud’s (1926/1955) therapeutic princi- But Freud (1922) discussed the psychodynamic
ples. Others, in contrast, adopt a more interper- processes that occur in larger groups, and later psy-
sonal perspective that stresses the exploration of choanalysts adapted his basic methods to groups
the social processes that unfold in the group. with multiple clients. In group psychoanalysis,
Other approaches are more behavioral; they the therapist is very much the leader, for he or
teach group members specific behaviors they can she directs the group’s discussion during the session,
use to cope with the problems they are facing. offers interpretations, and summarizes the group’s
Most therapists, however, are eclectic: They base efforts. Just as the goal of individual therapy is the
their work on a melding of many theoretical per- gradual unfolding of repressed conflicts, in group
spectives (Ettin, 1992). This section reviews these therapy, as members talk about their memories,
approaches, but the review must be selective fantasies, dreams, and fears, they gain insight into
given the many techniques that are currently in their unconscious motivations. Some have sug-
use (Barlow, 2014). gested that Freud himself practiced group psycho-
analysis when he and his students met to discuss his
But just to clear up one possible misunder- theories and cases (Roth, 1993).
standing: Group therapy is a treatment for indivi-
duals rather than a way of treating dysfunctional As in one-to-one therapy, group psychoanaly-
groups. Group therapists are mindful of and make sis capitalizes on transference, for the group format
use of the group’s interpersonal processes. As treat- provides the means for transferring external rela-
ment progresses, the group as a whole generally tionships onto the group itself. As Freud’s (1922)
becomes more adept in dealing with issues, provid- replacement hypothesis suggests, the group
ing support for its members, and acting in ways that becomes a surrogate family with members serving
help members’ reach their personal goals for as symbolic siblings and the group therapist acting as
growth, adjustment, and well-being. The goal of the primal authority figure. As transference devel-
treatment, however, is not the creation of a well- ops, the group provides the therapist with the
functioning group, but the promotion of the means of exploring the childhood roots of current
adjustment of the individuals in the group. adult anxieties. Members may find themselves
reacting to one another inappropriately, but their
Group Psychoanalysis For many, the psychoan- actions, when examined more closely, may parallel
alytic interview, derived from Sigmund Freud’s
(1926/1955) early therapeutic procedures, is the transference The displacement of emotions from one
prototypical psychotherapy experience. The client person to another during treatment, as when feelings
talks in detail about early life experiences, current for a parent are transferred to the therapist or feelings
problems and difficulties, dreams, worries, and about siblings are transferred to fellow group members.
hopes, and the therapist provides interpretations group psychoanalysis An approach to group therapy
and directions that help the client extract meaning that is grounded in Sigmund Freud’s method of treat-
from these materials. As the relationship between ment and so includes a directive therapist who makes
the therapist and client becomes stronger, the client use of free association, interpretation, and transference
unconsciously transfers feelings for and thoughts processes.

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

518 C H A P T E R 16

Is It Easier to Change People When They Are in Groups?

Making a change—in one’s habits, attitudes, beha- decision condition discussed the same information
viors, or lifestyle—is easier said than done. Progress used in the lecture, but they were also urged to reach
often comes slowly, and the early excitement that a group consensus on the issue. Thus, the first
provides the motivation to make a start flags with approach sought to change the individual’s opinion,
each setback. Without support, too many times people whereas the second approach focused on changing the
slip back to their old ways rather than continuing to group’s opinion.
pursue their goals.
This study lent support to Lewin’s law of group
Kurt Lewin (1943), many years ago, offered a change (Lewin, 1951). Follow-up interviews revealed
solution to the problem of achieving change: rather striking differences between the two approaches. Only
than changing individuals, change their groups, 4 of the women who heard the lecture served the
instead. He even tested his recommendation in a series unique meats (10%), but 23 of the women who dis-
of classic studies of food habits (Lewin, 1943). During a cussed the meats in their group served at least one dish
period of beef shortages caused by the Second World containing the less desirable foods (52%). Of the 14
War, the Food Habits Committee of the National women in the group condition who had never before
Research Council asked Lewin to find ways to convince served these foods, 29% tried them within the next
homemakers to serve readily available but less desir- week. In contrast, none of the 11 women in the lecture
able meat products (beef hearts, brains, and kidneys) conditions who had never served the food tried the
to their families. Lewin developed two approaches and foods the following week. As Lewin explained, “the
tested them experimentally. Women in the lecture group setting gives the incentive for the decision, and
condition listened to a well-informed nutrition expert facilitates and reinforces it” (1943, p. 63). These pro-
who stressed the patriotic importance of serving these cesses caused many of them to not just comply with the
meats, ways to prepare the foods, and the nutritional group’s decision during the meeting, but to actually
value of these foods. The homemakers in the group change their behavior even after the group adjourned.

the way they respond to people they know in their gain deeper understanding of themselves and their
everyday lives. Hostilities, needs, and wants that are relationships with other people: to “more clearly
repressed in relationships with others outside of the sort out what they believe and who they experi-
group often surface within the group, and the ther- ence themselves to be” (Wagner & Ingersoll, 2013,
apist can use these experiences to help clients gain p. 4). Humanistic approaches include the histori-
insight into their unconscious conflicts. Some cally significant encounter and sensitivity groups
therapists are more fully Freudian in their orienta- of the 1960s and 1970s, experiential groups, Gestalt
tion than others, but rare is the therapist who does groups, and psychodrama groups (Watson &
not deal with transference processes, the interpreta- Schneider, 2016).
tion of fantasies or dreams, familial tensions, and
other latent conflicts (Kauff, 2017). Carl Rogers’s (1970) client-centered approach to
treatment exemplifies the assumptions and proce-
Humanistic Groups Humanistic group psy- dures of a humanistic approach. Rogers believed
chotherapists use a range of methods to promote that most people come to experience a loss of
therapeutic change, but most are united by a posi- self-regard because their needs for approval and
tive, aspirational view of human potential. They do love are rarely satisfied. Humanistic groups address
not consider people to be irrational, selfish, or this lack by helping people trust in their own feel-
deeply troubled, but instead sane seekers of mean- ings, accept themselves, and act more openly with
ing and self-development. Adopting an existential others. Rogerian therapists focus on emotions and
orientation, humanistic therapists help members encourage members to “open up” to one another
explore the meaning of their life choices, and also by displaying their inner feelings, thoughts, and
worries. Recognizing that the group 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.

GROWTH AND CHANGE 519

probably feel insecure about their social competen- chair and then carrying on a dialogue with that
cies, therapists are sources of unconditional positive person. These techniques, when properly applied,
regard—meaning that they avoid criticizing group often elicit strong emotional reactions among
members if possible. Rogers believed that group members, but Gestalt therapists resist offering inter-
members, in the security of the group, would pretations to their patients (Gaffney, 2012).
drop their defenses and encounter each other
“authentically” (Page, Weiss, & Lietaer, 2002). Psychodrama Jacob Moreno (1934), one of the
first therapists to treat his patients in groups, used
Gestalt Groups Influential psychiatrist Fritz Perls special exercises to stimulate emotional experiences
(1969) combined elements of both psychodynamic in group members. Moreno conducted therapeutic
and humanistic techniques in his unique approach groups perhaps as early as 1910, and he used the
to group therapy. Perls drew his theoretical princi- term group therapy in print in 1932. Moreno
ples from Gestalt psychologists who argued that believed that the interpersonal relations that devel-
perception requires the active integration of per- oped in groups provided the therapist with unique
ceptual information. The word Gestalt, which insights into members’ personalities and proclivities,
means both “whole” and “shape,” suggests that and that by taking on roles, the members become
people perceive the world as unified, continuous, more flexible in their behavioral orientations. He
and organized. Like Freud, Perls assumed that indi- made his sessions more experientially powerful by
viduals often repress their emotions to the point developing psychodrama techniques. When role
that unresolved interpersonal conflicts turn into playing, for example, members take on the identity
“unfinished business.” Perls, however, believed of someone else and then act as that person would in
that people are capable of self-regulation and great a simulated social situation. Role reversal involves
emotional awareness, and he used therapy to help playing a role for a period of time before changing
patients reach their potential. roles with another group member. Doubling is the
assignment of two group members to a single role,
In some cases, Gestalt group therapy is often with one member of the pair playing him or
individual-level therapy conducted in a group set- herself. Moreno believed that the physical action of
ting: Group members observe one another’s psychodrama helped members overcome their reluc-
“work,” but they do not interact with each other. tance to discuss critical issues (Nicholas, 2017).
More frequently, however, interaction takes place
among group members with the therapist actively Interpersonal Group Psychotherapy Many ther-
orchestrating the events. Many group therapists apeutic methods, including psychoanalysis and
make use of unstructured interpersonal activities, Gestalt therapy, trace difficulties in achieving well-
such as the “hot seat” or the “empty chair,” to being and adjustment back to psychological causes:
stimulate members’ emotional understanding. inner conflicts, unmet needs, and functional but
When using the hot seat, one person in the group potentially unhealthy defense mechanisms. An
sits in the center of the room and publicly works interpersonal approach, in contrast, assumes that
through his or her emotional experiences. The psychological problems are the result of social
empty chair method involves imagining that another problems—difficulties relating to others, rejection
person or a part of oneself is sitting in an empty by loved ones, abrasive interpersonal styles, and so
on (Lipsitz & Markowtiz, 2016). Because people’s
Gestalt group therapy An approach to group therapy
in which clients are taught to understand the unity of psychodrama A therapeutic tool that stimulates active
their emotions and cognitions through a leader-guided involvement in a group session through role playing
exploration of their behavior in the group situation (developed by Jacob Moreno).
(developed by Fritz Perls and his associates).

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

520 C H A P T E R 16

problems stem from their “failure to attend to and two members begin criticizing each other, someone
correct the self-defeating, interpersonally unsuccess- uses powerful or bizarre influence tactics, or
ful aspects” of their interpersonal acts (Kiesler, another refuses to get involved in the group’s pro-
1991, pp. 443), therapies that focus specifically on cess, the group members can discuss this shared
groups and social relationships are particularly experience and gain an understanding of both
potent since they highlight the origin of the dys- themselves and others (Yalom with Leszcz, 2005).
function (Mahon & Leszcz, 2017). Conversely, just
as interpersonal processes are the source of indivi- Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Groups Some
duals’ problems, so submersion in a rich, interper- therapists, rather than searching for the cause of the
sonally dynamic group provides the cure: by the problematic behavior in unseen, unconscious con-
group they have been broken, and by the group flicts or interpersonal transactions, take a behavioral
they will be healed (Marsh, 1931). approach to mental health. This approach assumes
that problematic thoughts and behaviors are acquired
Psychiatrist Irvin Yalom’s interpersonal through experience, so behavior therapists encourage
group psychotherapy is perhaps the most influ- the development of healthy cognitions and behaviors
ential of the interpersonal approaches (also called and the avoidance of undesirable cognitions and
interactive group psychotherapy or process groups). behaviors. Cognitive-behavioral therapy groups
Yalom uses the group as a “social microcosm” use these principles with two or more individuals.
where members respond to one another in ways A cognitive-behavioral approach to the Semester at
that are characteristic of their interpersonal tenden- Sea bus group, for example, may ask members to
cies outside of the group. Therapy groups, as identify the thoughts that are triggered by their
groups, display a full array of group features and memory of their experiences and then provide
dynamics, including social influence, structure, con- them with the cognitive and behavioral skills they
flict, and development. Yalom takes advantage of need to control those reactions. The therapist may
the group’s dynamics to help members learn ask the group members to focus their attention on
about how they influence others and how others the accident and then to share their reaction with
influence them. Uniquely, members do not spend the others in the group. When members report
very much time discussing problems they are facing experiencing dysfunctional ideation—such as “I won-
at home or at work—a then and there focus. Instead, der why I survived and others didn’t?” or “I wonder if
the group members focus on each other and the I deserve to live”—then the leader guides the group
processes that sustain or detract from their relation- through the disputation of such thoughts. The leader
ships with one another: the here and now focus. might also model, with the group members assisting,
Yalom’s process approach assumes that, during the methods of emotional and cognitive self-regulation
course of the group sessions, each member’s inter- such as mood monitoring, relaxation, and thought-
personal inclinations will express themselves, pro- stopping (DiGiuseppe, David, & Venezia, 2016).
viding an opportunity to identify and possibly
ameliorate those that are disadvantageous. As the A group format interfaces seamlessly with the
group grapples with personal conflicts, problems process-structuring methods used in behavioral
of organization, goals, and communication failures, treatments. In many cases, therapists follow a series
the members reveal their preferred interaction styles of standard procedures before, during, and after the
to others and to themselves. When, for example, group intervention. Prior to treatment, they can
observe the reactions of each member to the
interpersonal group psychotherapy An approach to group to index the degree of functioning prior to
the treatment of psychological, behavioral, and emo-
tional problems that emphasizes the therapeutic influence cognitive-behavioral therapy groups The treatment
of interpersonal learning (developed by Irvin Yalom). of interpersonal and psychological problems through the
application of behavioral principles in a group setting.

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

GROWTH AND CHANGE 521

any intervention. Pretherapy reviews, in which the interest, they nonetheless provide the basis for con-
therapist reviews the theories and procedures that sus- temporary interpersonal learning groups (Gazda &
tain the intervention, can be carried out in a psychoe- Brooks, 1985; Lakin, 1972).
ducational group setting, and, through discussion, the
members can clarify their expectations and goals. Training Groups (T-Groups) How can people
Therapists can also use public commitment to these learn about group dynamics? Members could learn
goals to enhance the binding strengths of a behavioral the facts about effective interpersonal relations by
contract that describes in objective terms the goals the attending lectures or by reading books about
group members are trying to achieve. During the group dynamics (as you are doing now), but
therapeutic sessions themselves, the cognitive- Lewin argued that good group skills are most easily
behavioral group therapist can capitalize on the pres- acquired by directly experiencing human relations.
ence of multiple actors to magnify the effects of Hence, he developed specialized training groups,
modeling, rehearsal, and feedback. Members of the or T-groups. Lewin discovered the utility of such
group can practice interpersonal exchanges with groups when running educational classes dealing
other members, and other members can act as obser- with leadership and group dynamics. At the end
vers. These practice sessions can be recorded and of each day, he arranged for observers to discuss
played back to the group so that the participants can the dynamics of the groups with the group leaders
see precisely what they are doing correctly and what who conducted the training sessions. The group
aspects of their behavior need improvement. During members themselves did not usually take part in
this feedback phase, the leader offers reassurance and the sessions, but that changed when several asked
praise, and members add their support and encourage- if they could listen to the observers’ and leaders’
ment (Bieling, McGabe, & Antony, 2006). interpretations. Lewin agreed to their request, but
they took issue with the observers’ and the leaders’
16-1b Interpersonal Learning Groups interpretations of the events that transpired in the
group. However, the animated discussion that
Many psychologists are united in their belief that the followed proved to be highly educational, and
human race too frequently fails to reach its full Lewin realized that everyone in the group was
potential. Although human relationships should be benefiting enormously from the analysis of the
rich and satisfying, they are more often than not group’s processes and dynamics (Highhouse, 2002).
superficial and limiting. People are capable of pro-
found self-understanding and acceptance, yet most One of the most noteworthy aspects of T-groups
people are strangers to themselves. These limitations was their lack of structure. Although, from time to
are not so severe that the help of a psychotherapist is time, the trainees would meet in large groups for
needed, but people’s lives would be richer if they lectures or presentations, most of the learning took
could overcome these restraints. place in small groups. Even though the group
included a designated leader, often called a facilitator
Kurt Lewin was one of the first to suggest using or trainer, this individual acted primarily as a catalyst
small groups to teach people interpersonal skills and for discussion rather than as a director of the group.
self-insight. Lewin believed that groups and organiza- Indeed, during the first few days of a T-group’s
tions struggle because their members are not trained existence, group members usually complain
in human relations. He therefore recommended close about the lack of structure and the ambiguity,
examination of group experiences to give people a blaming the trainer for their discomfort. This
deeper understanding of themselves and their groups’
dynamics. Other theorists expanded on this basic idea, training groups (T-groups) A skill development train-
which forms the basis of a number of approaches to ing intervention in which individuals interact in unstruc-
maximize human potential. Although some of these tured group settings and then analyze the dynamics of that
methods, such as T-groups, are primarily of historical interaction.

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

522 C H A P T E R 16

ambiguity was intentional, however, and was planned interventions that focus on a specific inter-
designed to shift responsibility for structuring, personal problem or skill. Integrating a traditional
understanding, and controlling the group’s activ- classroom format with a therapeutic group, the lead-
ities to the members themselves. As the group ers identify specific learning outcomes before the
grappled with problems of organization, agenda, sessions. They then develop short lectures, exercises,
goals, and structure, each member’s preferred media, simulations, and discussion questions that will
interaction style became apparent to others in help members practice these targeted skills. In a ses-
the group. The members also learned to disclose sion on nonverbal communication, for instance,
their feelings honestly, gained conflict reduction group members may be assigned a partner and then
skills, and found enjoyment from working in col- be asked to communicate a series of feelings without
laborative relationships (Lieberman, 1994). using spoken language. During assertiveness training,
members might practice saying no to one another’s
Although T-groups and training groups are anti- requests. In a leadership training seminar, group
quated terms, the principles on which they were members may be asked to role-play various leader-
based continue to influence methods for training ship styles in a small group. These exercises are simi-
individuals to work more effectively in groups lar in that they actively involve the group members
(Burke & Day, 1986). For example, T-groups pro- in the learning process (Brown, 2011).
vided the basic educational model for the National
Training Laboratory (NTL). This facility, which was Thousands of local and national institutes use
founded by Lewin’s colleagues after his death, was structured learning groups in their seminars and
jointly sponsored by the National Education Associ- workshops. Although the formats of these structured
ation, the Research Center for Group Dynamics, and experiences differ substantially, most include directly
the Office of Naval Research. Researchers and experiencing the targeted skill or process and then
teachers at the center refined their training methods examining the experience through discussion, guided
in special workshops, which they termed laboratories. analysis, personal reflection, and so on. Figure 16.1
Their approach stressed the importance of learning summarizes this process. The session generally begins
about groups by experiencing them and yielded with a brief orientation that reviews the critical issues
Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats (1948) well-known and focuses members on the exercise’s goals. Next,
functional theory of roles discussed in Chapter 6. the group members experience the event or situation
T-groups were the precursor to such humanistic by carrying out a structured group exercise. When
group therapies as encounter groups but also psy- they have completed the exercise, the members
choeducational groups. (Moreno, 1953, provides a engage in a general discussion of their experiences
very different historical perspective on the devel- within the group. This phase can be open-ended,
opment of interpersonal skill training.) focusing on feelings and subjective interpretations,
or it, too, can be structured through the use of ques-
Psychoeducational Groups Many learning tioning, information exchange procedures, or video
groups are open-ended, unstructured approaches recording. This discussion phase should blend into a
to interpersonal learning. Members of such groups period of analysis, during which the consultant helps
follow no agenda; they examine events that unfold group members to identify consistencies in their
spontaneously within the confines of the group behavior and the behaviors of others. In many
itself, and give one another feedback about cases, the consultant guides the group’s analysis of
their interpersonal effectiveness when appropriate. underlying group dynamics and offers a conceptual
Psychoeducational groups, in contrast, are analysis that gives meaning to the event. The inter-
personal learning cycle ends with application, as
psychoeducational groups A planned intervention, the group members use their new-found knowledge
such as a workshop, seminar, or retreat, focusing on a to enhance their relationships external to the group
specific interpersonal problem or skill. context. The model may also include a reflection

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

GROWTH AND CHANGE 523

Orientation understanding of the phenomenon they are examin-
Overview of the goals of the exercise ing, but by reflecting on the meaning of the experi-
ence, they transform these concrete data into abstract
Experience knowledge. The second polarity contrasts doing and
Group interaction observing. Like most analyses of experiential learning,
(including observation and Kolb stresses the importance of learning through
action, engagement, and active experimentation, but
direct activity) he also suggests that considerable learning occurs
through detached, objective observation—particularly
Discussion because few individuals can act and accurately observe
Summarizing the experience, sharing the effects of their action simultaneously. Kolb suggests
personal reactions and interpretations that learning is deepest when individuals experience all
four modes of learning: direct experience, observation,
Analysis analysis, and action (Kayes, Kayes, & Kolb, 2005).
Making sense of the experience,
Process Debriefing Groups Because psychoedu-
formulating meaning, drawing cational groups are both structured and problem-
conclusions focused, they are often used to lessen the likelihood
of negative aftereffects following trauma. Although
Application homo sapiens is a resilient species that can withstand
Identifying implications, planning great hardship, traumatic events—disasters, accidents,
changes to make outside of the the loss of loved ones, physical assaults, victimization,
and so on—can take a psychological toll. The stu-
group setting dents who survived the horrific night of the bus
crash likely suffered from anxiety, sleeplessness, and
F I G U R E 16.1 The experiential learning cycle. fearfulness as they struggled to regain their psycho-
logical equilibrium. Given the severity of the trauma,
component, in which participants examine the impli- had they not received treatment they would have
cations of their experience. likely exhibited symptoms of posttraumatic stress dis-
order (PTSD): a serious psychological reaction to
Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model Educator stressful events characterized by high levels of anxi-
and social psychologist David Kolb (1984) has applied ety, depression, fearfulness, and physical symptoms,
principles of experiential learning in organizational, such as migraines, sleep problems, and gastrointesti-
educational, and governmental settings. His experien- nal distress (Silver & Garfin, 2016).
tial learning theory identifies two sets of polarities in
the way people learn. The first polarity contrasts con- These negative mental health consequences can
crete, direct experiences with conceptual analysis. be reduced through stress management crisis inter-
Through direct experiences people gain a firsthand ventions. Variously termed process debriefing
groups, critical incident stress debriefing groups, or
experiential learning theory A conceptual analysis of
the experiential learning cycle that identifies four basic process debriefing groups Brief, highly structured inter-
modes of acquiring information and transforming that ventions delivered by trained mental health professionals to
information into knowledge: concrete experience, members of a group or community who have experienced
observation, active experimentation, and conceptual some type of trauma, such as a natural disaster or fatal acci-
analysis (developed by David Kolb). dent; these interventions are designed to help individuals
deal with the emotional and cognitive consequences of the
experience.

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

524 C H A P T E R 16

What Style of Learning Do You Prefer?

As educator and social psychologist David A. Kolb ___ Reflective: I like to watch and listen; I look at all
(1984) explains in his theory of learning styles, not sides of an issue, and often take my time before I
everyone likes to learn new things in the same way. respond. I am reserved.
Some prefer learning in situations that provide them
with immediate, direct experiences, but others feel ___ Active: I like to learn by doing things; I try things
they learn best by studying abstract, theoretical con- out, and enjoy seeking results; I am hands on.
cepts. People also differ in their preference for active
versus reflective learning. Interpretation. Differences in learning styles
influence people’s reactions to group-learning experi-
Instructions. Four different “styles” of learning ences. Those who prefer to learn through active, con-
are listed below. Take a moment and think about how crete experiences are more positive when evaluating
you most prefer to learn new things. Then rank the group learning, particularly in comparison to those
four alternatives, giving 1 to your most preferred who like to learn through abstract, reflective experi-
route to learning, a 2 to the next most preferred, and ences. They are more likely to agree with such items as
so on. “Group work helps me learn better” and “Group work
engages my interest,” whereas students’ whose learn-
___ Abstract: I like to think about ideas and concepts, ing style emphasized reflection and observation were
rely on reason, and examine ideas carefully. I tend more likely to say “I learn best when I am working
to be evaluative. alone.” Reflective and abstract students rated listening
to lectures as more educationally beneficial than most
___ Experiential: I like to make my learning personal, as other students (Gardner & Korth, 1998, p. 31; for a
I experience things deeply and respond at an more extensive analysis of individual differences in
emotional level. I am intuitive. learning style see Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

trauma/disaster groups, these interventions were first training for staff. This process debriefing phase was
used to help combat veterans deal with the psycho- relatively brief, ending when the students transitioned
logical turmoil produced by the experience of com- to group therapy sessions (Turner, 2000).
bat. As the positive effects of these groups became
evident, they came to be used to help individuals The effectiveness of such interventions
deal with traumatic community-level events, such depends, in part, on timing, procedures, and the
as natural disasters, accidents, and school shootings characteristics of the individuals involved. Ideally,
(Foy, Drescher, & Watson, 2010). the intervention occurs immediately following the
event, and provides continuing treatment as group
These interventions—usually designed and members progress through the cumulative stages of
implemented by community health professionals— the coping process. Interventions should also be
often make use of group-level therapeutic coping planned carefully in advance, and in some cases,
processes, including social comparison, social support, methods used in traditional therapeutic circum-
and social learning (Pender & Anderton, 2016). The stances must be replaced by methods that will
members of the bus group, for example, met with work in the chaos and confusion of a disaster or
therapists when they returned to the ship and collec- community trauma. Interventions must also take
tively processed the experience, clarified the events into account the characteristics of the individuals
leading up to the accident and after it, and began to involved. Children and elderly people, for example,
prepare for the weeks of recover that lay before require a different set of group experiences than do
them. The ship’s counselors also worked with the adults, family members, and emergency personnel.
entire Semester at Sea community, providing infor- Interventions must also be sensitive to each indivi-
mation about the incident, initiating grief counseling, dual’s reaction to the event. Some may appreciate
organizing the community response, and providing the opportunity to interact with others who are

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

GROWTH AND CHANGE 525

coping with a disaster, but others may not respond whose members share a common problem and
well to the evocative demands of the group. Not meet for the purpose of exchanging social support
everyone can share their grief with others, and the (Scogin & DiNapoli, 2016).
continued discussion of the event may only exacer-
bate their anxieties and emotional reprocessing. A Types of Support Groups Support groups go by
group approach to treatment works for many peo- a variety of names, including mutual aid groups and
ple, but some will require individual assistance mutual help groups. They are frequently called self-help
rather than group help (Pack, 2013). groups, even though members of such groups are
deliberately encouraged to rely on other group mem-
16-1c Support Groups bers for help and to provide those others with assis-
tance in return. These groups meet at a wide variety
In times of trouble, such as illness, divorce, loss, or of locations in the community, including churches,
crisis, people tend to join with others rather than schools, universities, and private homes. They also
cope alone. Families, friends, and professional care- meet, in some cases, using the Internet. Internet sup-
givers such as physicians and therapists are excellent port groups provide individuals with advice, support,
sources of help and information in stressful, difficult and information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
circumstances, but some individuals’ social net-
works may be too worn, too fragile, or too inexpe- These groups generally began when individuals
rienced to provide them with the solace they facing similar problems decided to share informa-
require. Sometimes, too, individuals may not wish tion with and support for one another. Because
to reveal their problems and their needs to their they are problem-focused, there are as many differ-
intimates and would prefer to unburden themselves ent support groups as there are specific problems
with others who are knowledgeable but more that people encounter. However, most support
objective and hence will be less likely to judge groups fall into one of the four categories summa-
them harshly. In such circumstances, people join rized in Table 16.2: mental and physical health,
with others in support groups: voluntary groups family and life transitions, advocacy, and addiction
(Silverman, 2010).

T A B L E 16.2 Varieties of Support (Mutual Help) Groups

Type of Group Examples

Mental and physical health: members dealing ■ CARE (Cancer Aftercare and Rehabilitation Society)
with psychological disorders, physical illness, ■ Bell’s Palsy Network
and recovery from injury ■ Recovery, Inc. (a mental health group)

Family and life transitions: individuals facing ■ Mommies of Miracles (mothers of children with disabilities)
stressful life experiences, such as divorce, ■ Parents without Partners
bereavement, and ill family members ■ Alzheimer’s Disease Support and Information Group

Advocacy: individuals advocating support for a ■ Campaign for Homosexual Equality
personal and/or social issue ■ Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
■ Gay Activists’ Alliance

Addictions: members seeking to control ■ AA (Alcoholics Anonymous)
intemperate behaviors and maladaptive ■ NA (Narcotics Anonymous)
dependencies ■ Weight Watchers

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

526 C H A P T E R 16

Defining Features of Support Groups How do ■ Autonomous: Some support groups are created
support groups help their members, given that they by health care practitioners, who use them to
usually have no formally designated leaders, no pro- provide additional services to their patients.
fessionally trained staff, and no facility or budget? No However, the traditional support group is a
two support groups adopt identical procedures and grassroots organization, initiated by members
structures, but most focus on a specific problem, rather than an external coordinating profes-
encourage members to form personal relations with sional. In fact, they often stand in contrast to
one another, and stress mutuality in helping. These more traditional forms of treatment, for they
often-seen features of support groups are as follows: arise spontaneously because their members’
needs are not being satisfied by existing edu-
■ Problem-focused: Support groups are communi- cational, social, or health agencies. Local groups
ties of similar sufferers. Members may differ may be aligned to national organizations that
from one another in terms of age, sex, race, and mandate specific procedures for all their chap-
wealth, but they share one important similarity: ters, but even this standardization does not
They are all coping with the same kind of eliminate the emphasis on the local group’s
problem. The members face a common pre- control of its methods.
dicament, so they are “psychologically bonded
by the compelling similarity of member con- ■ Perspective-based: Support groups’ independence
cerns” (Jacobs & Goodman, 1989, p. 537). from more traditional approaches is also mani-
fested in their adoption of a novel perspective
■ Relationship-oriented: Support groups tend to be with regard to their problem domain. A grief
personally and interpersonally involving. Even group may adopt fervently a particular model
though individuals’ identities are often masked of the stages of grieving and base its interven-
within such groups (e.g., Alcoholics Anony- tions and recommendations on that perspec-
mous), members nonetheless establish personal tive. A support group for alcoholics may
relationships with one another that might con- maintain that recovery is never permanent, and
tinue outside of the confines of the group (unlike so one must abstain from all forms of alcohol to
in psychotherapy groups). Members are expected overcome the addiction. These perspectives
to be honest and open, so that they learn to trust may not be complex nor are they always
and rely on one another. Members are also explicitly recognized by members, but, in
expected to be respectful of one another and one many cases, the group’s perspective on its
another’s needs and to treat people fairly. affliction may become the centerpiece of the
group’s discussions with new members urged
■ Communal: Most support groups develop a to adopt the group’s worldview as a means
strong sense of community and sharing within of coping effectively with the problem.
the group. Members of the group draw support
and encouragement from the group, but they Alcoholics Anonymous Alcoholics Anonymous
are also expected to provide support and (AA) is an example of a support group. AA was
encouragement to others within the group. founded by Bill Wilson in 1935. Wilson had tried
Each person, then, is both a provider and a to quit drinking for years, but no matter what he
recipient of help and support. The primary tried, he always returned to his addiction. After a
determinant of status in such groups is experi- fourth hospital stay for acute alcoholism, Wilson
ence with the problem. Most support groups became convinced that he could overcome his drink-
include veteran individuals who have more ing problem and sought help from a small spiritual
knowledge and experience with both the group, the Oxford Group Movement. With his phy-
problem and with the means of dealing with sician and friend William D. Silkworth, he developed
the problem; these individuals serve as role
models for others.

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

GROWTH AND CHANGE 527

a support system that included self-examination, 16-2 SOURCES OF SUPPORT
admitting past wrongs, rebuilding relationships and
making amends, and reliance on and helping others. AND CHANGE

Wilson’s program formed the basis of AA, Group approaches to change, despite their variations
which grew to be an international organization in goals and methods, have certain key elements in
with millions of members. Despite AA’s size, change common. Some of these common therapeutic fac-
is still achieved through local chapters of alcoholics tors are equivalent to the change-promoting forces
who meet regularly to review their success in main- that operate in individual-level therapies, but others
taining their sobriety. AA meetings emphasize testi- are unique to group-level approaches. All therapies,
monials, mutual help, and adherence to the 12-stage for example, help clients gain self-insight, but only
program (the “12 steps”) described by the AA doc- group approaches stimulate interpersonal comparisons
trine. These steps recommend admitting one’s pow- and provide members with a forum for practicing
erlessness over alcohol; surrendering one’s fate to a their interpersonal skills. All therapies provide clients
greater power; taking an inventory of personal with support and help, but in groups, members don’t
strengths, weaknesses, and moral failings; and helping just get help—they also give help to other group
others fight their addiction (Flores, 1997). members (Kivlighan & Kivlighan, 2014).

AA is a multipronged approach to addiction. It Although no one list of therapeutic factors has
stresses the goal of total abstinence and the need to been verified by researchers and accepted by practi-
remain ever vigilant against the pressure to resume tioners, Table 16.3 lists the most frequently cited and
drinking. It asks members to take specific actions to empirically confirmed change-promoting factors.
prevent relapse and assigns veteran members to Some of these factors, such as giving hope to
newcomers to help strengthen their resilience. Its group members, are more influential during the
effectiveness in helping people control their drink- early stages of the group’s history, whereas others
ing depends substantially on regular attendance. become more potent with time. Some focus on cog-
Individuals who regularly attend AA meetings— nitive processes, whereas others promote changes in
they are core members of the group who rarely miss behavior directly. Some pertain more to task aspects
meetings—are much more likely to maintain absti- of the group setting, such as guidance and gaining
nence, relative to individuals who miss meetings or skills. Others originate from the positive social rela-
attend meetings for one year or less. A second key tions that unify the group. But all these processes
predictor of AA success is level of engagement in combine to transform ordinary groups into thera-
the group—indicated by willingness to speak at ses- peutic ones (Solomonov et al., 2016).
sions and to accept help from a member who acts as
a “sponsor” (Parkman, Lloyd, & Splisbury, 2015). 16-2a Universality and Hope

AA is also more effective when it changes mem- In the aftermath of the bus accident, the survivors
bers’ social networks, limiting their ties to heavy drin- coped with their physical injuries, their fears, and
kers, and increasing their relationships with individuals their grief. In unguarded moments, they may
who support them in their efforts to control their have flashed back to the accident and psycholog-
drinking. By participating actively in AA, members ically relived it. As they found that they could not
associate with people who are pro-abstinence, and concentrate on their work even months after the
the longer this positive association continues the
more they can resist the negative effects of pro- therapeutic factors An aspect of group settings that aids
drinkers in their social network. Pro-drinking and promotes personal growth and adjustment including
network ties in one’s social network increased the such factors as the installation of hope, universality, pro-
likelihood of drinking by 35.9%, whereas pro- viding information, altruism, and interpersonal learning.
abstinent social network ties lowered the likelihood
of drinking by 9.9% (Kelly et al., 2011).

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

528 C H A P T E R 16

Can People Find Support Online?

Just as the Internet offers new ways for groups to support, as well as encouragement, approval, and
solve problems, collaborate on projects, and make acceptance. The type of support provided was also
decisions, so too has it opened up new possibilities for related to the severity of the problem and the needs of
those seeking help and support for the problems they the individual. Nurturing forms of support—emotional
face. Members, instead of leaving their homes and sharing, approval, and acceptance—were more com-
traveling to a meeting, can now take part in a range mon when people were dealing with turmoil in their
of group activities using a computer and a connection interpersonal relationships or facing a health crisis that
to the Internet. No matter what problem an individ- could result in a loss of life. Action-focused support
ual faces—a serious physical illness, stress caused by was offered by experienced members to those who
providing care for an ill family member, a negative were dealing with chronic conditions that could be
life event such as divorce or the death of a loved one, remediated to a degree (Rains, Peterson, & Wright,
addiction and drug dependency, social rejection, 2015). Participants report that they felt supported and
prejudice, or problems of adjustment and mental valued by their group and, after taking part in an
health—an online group likely exists somewhere on online session, felt more hopeful about their situation.
the Internet that can provide self-care information, Two issues that could cause problems—people posting
support, and referral services. Some of these sites inaccurate information or leaving comments that
are primarily repositories of information about the could be emotionally harmful—occur very rarely in
problem or issue and may be sponsored by profes- such groups, and probably no more frequently than
sionals who treat these problems. Others, however, in offline groups (van Uden-Kraan et al., 2008).
are unmoderated, self-sustaining mutual help groups,
for they were created by individuals who all face the Some aspects of the online format may even
same difficulty and wish to connect to and support enhance aspects of a mutual help approach to
each other (Wright, 2015). coping with negative events (Tanis, 2008). Because
members need not disclose their identity, they report
Most support groups create asynchronous com- being able to reveal more intimate information
munication among members who post their comments about their experiences and to respond more emo-
and questions on forums and discussion areas. Other tionally to others than they would if interacting face
sites set up meeting times when people can commu- to face. Members of online sessions also tend to
nicate synchronously, using video, audio, or text-only exchange more practical advice and factual infor-
communication tools. Both synchronous and asynchro- mation than they do in face-to-face sessions, and
nous groups can be moderated by a group leader who members value this aspect of online groups as well.
facilitates the discussion (and intervenes to remove They report that the information is useful to them in
content as necessary). understanding their condition and in dealing more
effectively with their health care providers (Wright,
How helpful can these online support groups be, 2015). Internet support groups are also particularly
given that they meet in a relatively sterile online valuable for individuals whose illness restricts their
world? Studies of online groups for problems ranging mobility and for those who are suffering from a
from cancer to sexual abuse to psychological disorders stigmatized illness, such as prostate cancer or
suggest that these groups are surprisingly effective AIDS. Individuals may feel self-conscious about
and may even rival face-to-face groups in terms of their condition, but the comfort they experience
functionality. When researchers examined the posted by joining with others who are “in the same boat”
messages in a wide range of online support groups overwhelms this concern about embarrassment
they affirmed their effectiveness—for these sites (see Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2016).
provided individuals with emotional and informational

accident, they may have started to feel that they once fascinated them. If they never discussed
would never get over the anguish. They may also these reactions with others, how would they
have found that their moods would take unex- know that these changes in mood, thinking, and
pected turns—they may have become angry for memory are common occurrences for those who
little reason or were disinterested in things that survive a traumatic experience?

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

GROWTH AND CHANGE 529

T A B L E 16.3 Factors That Promote Change distinctive, unusual, and different from others, but
in Groups few people wish to feel uniquely singled out for
Factor misfortune (Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998).
Universality Definition
The AA “hello” ritual illustrates this collective
Hope Recognizing one is not the only sharing. Members, when addressing the group, state
one suffering; identification with their first name, followed by the announcement “I
Observational others am an alcoholic.” This public declaration reassures all
learning the other participants that their problem is shared by
Interpersonal Increasing optimism from seeing others, but also accentuates the members’ identification
learning others improve with the group. Just as individuals who strongly iden-
Guidance tify with their racial and ethnic group show elevated
Developing social skills through levels of self-esteem, so do individuals who identify
Cohesion and observation and imitation with their therapeutic group show greater well-being
support (Marmarosh, Holtz, & Schottenbauer, 2005).
Self-disclosure Developing social skills by inter-
acting with others Social Comparison and Hope Groups do more
Catharsis than just reassure members that they are not facing
Altruism Offering and accepting direction challenging life circumstances alone. Through the
to and from the group installation of hope, they transform members’ percep-
Insight tions of the intractability of their problems. By joining
Building strong, supportive rela- with others, members gain a renewed sense of confi-
tionships with others; acceptance dence about their problems and their resolution: they
become hopeful, optimistic, and goal focused rather
Revealing personal information than helpless, pessimistic, and directionless.
to others
Research confirms that group-derived hope
Releasing pent-up emotions contributes to well-being, life satisfaction, and inspi-
ration. Members of a short-term therapeutic group
Increasing sense of efficacy from that focused directly on members’ sense of hope
helping others reported more optimism about reaching their goals,
as well as reduced anxiety and depression, than did
Gaining a deeper understanding members of a control group (Cheavens et al., 2006).
of oneself Groups that are designed so that they elevate mem-
bers’ sense of hope tend to be more powerful agents
In It Together: Universality When suffering of change than groups that use other procedures (see
alone, individuals may not realize that their feelings Ripley, Worthington, & Maclin, 2011).
and experiences are relatively common ones. But
when surrounded by other people who are suffer- These therapeutic gains may be due, in part, to
ing similarly, members recognize the universality of group members’ tendencies to compare themselves
the problems they face. Most people are careful to to other members—the process of social comparison,
keep their negative emotions hidden from others, as described in Chapter 4. Therapeutic and growth-
but they do not realize that others are doing this as oriented groups bring together a mix of people who
well. In consequence, people tend to assume that have reached different stages in the change process.
their situation is a relatively bleak one, and this Some may be making great progress toward their
misperception can lead to self-blame, depressive goals, but others may be struggling. Those members
rumination, and declines in overall well-being who are experiencing particularly negative outcomes
(Jordan et al., 2011). Research confirms that when may trigger downward social comparison, for they remind
people are with others who face similar problems members that their own situation is not as bad as they
or troubling events, they feel better, in terms of
self-esteem and mood, than when they are with
dissimilar people. People often enjoy feeling

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