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

Studying
Groups

2C H A P T E R

CHAPTER OUTLINE CHAPTER OVERVIEW

2-1 The Scientific Study of Groups Just as researchers in the natural sciences use exact-
2-1a The Individual and the Group ing procedures to study aspects of the physical envi-
2-1b The Multilevel Perspective ronment, so do group researchers use scientific
methods to further their understanding of groups.
2-2 Measurement This chapter reviews the emergence of group dynam-
2-2a Observation ics as a field of study before examining three key
2-2b Self-Report components of the scientific method—measurement,
hypothesis testing, and theorizing. Researchers must
2-3 Research Methods in Group Dynamics measure as precisely as possible group processes, col-
2-3a Case Studies lect evidence to test the adequacy of their predictions
2-3b Correlational Studies and assumptions, and develop theories that provide
2-3c Experimental Studies coherent explanations for the group phenomenon
2-3d Studying Groups: Issues and Implications they study.

2-4 Theoretical Perspectives ■ What assumptions do researchers make while
2-4a Motivational Perspectives studying groups and their dynamics?
2-4b Behavioral Perspectives
2-4c Systems Perspectives ■ How do researchers measure individual and
2-4d Cognitive Perspectives group processes?
2-4e Biological Perspectives
2-4f Selecting a Theoretical Perspective ■ What are the key characteristics of and differences
between case, correlational, and experimental
Chapter Review studies of group processes?

Resources ■ What are the strengths and weaknesses of case,
correlational, and experimental methods?

■ Which theoretical perspectives guide researchers’
studies of groups?

30

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

STUDYING GROUPS 31

The Red Balloon Challenge Team: The Science of Groups

“Find The Balloons!” was the challenge issued by team. They debated alternatives, such as monitoring
DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Twitter for posts like “I saw a big red balloon on my
on October 29, 2009. The contest’s rules were simple: If way to work today” or offering a portion of the prize
you were the first to report the location of ten bright money to Internet celebrities with many Twitter and
red weather balloons tethered at fixed locations across Facebook followers. But then, just a few days before
the continental United States, the $40,000 prize is the deadline, a new idea emerged during their discus-
yours. DARPA announced the contest just one month sions. Instead of just offering a reward to the first
before the date they would be hoisting the balloons to person on the Red Balloon Challenge Team to find a
push competitors to be creative in their approach to balloon, why not also reward the person who invited
the problem. DARPA considered the search to be that person to the team? And why stop there? Why
unsolvable using conventional information-gathering not reward the entire chain of people who linked the
methods. balloon finder back to their team? To implement this
idea, the team built an online registration page and
When Dr. Alex “Sandy” Pentland learned of the then used email, Twitter, and Facebook to promise
challenge he asked his colleagues at Media Lab at $2,000 to the first person who submitted the correct
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) if coordinates for a single balloon, $1,000 to the person
they wanted to give it a go. Enthusiasm for the who invited that person to the challenge, $500 to the
contest built quickly, and before long Riley Crane, person who invited the inviter, and so on.
Galen Pickard, Wei Pan, Manuel Cebrian, Anmol
Madan, and Iyad Rahwan joined with Pentland to As the message passed from person to person
develop a method for finding the balloons in the least across the Internet, thousands of people registered to
amount of time. They had to work fast to devise be searchers but even more important—they also asked
a strategy and put it into play, but they were their friends to join. The result: Their team’s system
nonetheless confident: “We figured that we had a spawned a geographically broad, dense network of
chance of winning, because this was the sort of highly motivated balloon searchers. So when DARPA
thing we were expert at” (Pentland, 2014). deployed the balloons at 10:00 AM on December 5,
2009, the Red Balloon Challenge Team’s network went
How could such a small group—only seven into action. Eight hours and fifty-two minutes later, the
strong—possibly locate all those balloons scattered team contacted DARPA with the verified coordinates of
across the continental United States? The Red Balloon the balloons in Oregon, Texas, Arizona, Tennessee,
Challenge Team knew that social media resources such Florida, Georgia, Virginia, California (2), and Delaware,
as Twitter and Facebook could be harnessed to find and DARPA declared the Red Balloon Challenge Team
the balloons, but they were unsure of how they could the winner (DARPA, 2010).
convince people to share their observations with the

The Red Balloon Challenge Team won the first and foremost deal with the existing web of
DARPA challenge not only because the members relationships, rather than treat people as isolated
were social network experts but also because they individuals” (quoted in Chu, 2011). The team mea-
were experts at working together as a team. DAR- sured the strength and extent of the social network
PA’s problem was too much for any single person they were building, both locally and globally. They
to solve: It required the skills, energy, and creativity tested their assumptions about group processes in
of a group whose members knew how to combine order to identify assumptions that were not tenable
their individual talents in group-level processes that and ones that were consistent with their observa-
maximized their efficiency. And how did the team tions. They also sought to understand, more fully,
acquire this knowledge of networks and groups? why their approach to the challenge succeeded
Through research. As Sandy Pentland, the team’s when others failed. They even developed a theory
leader, explained, “If you want to get people to of social mobilization processes that specified the
coordinate or change their behavior, you have to parameters of the “recursive incentive mechanisms”

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

32 C H A P T E R 2

responsible for their network’s success (Pickard another. These shared beliefs and unstated assump-
et al., 2011). tions give them a worldview—a way of looking at
that part of the world that they find most interest-
Group dynamics is more than a set of facts and ing. The paradigm determines the questions they
information about groups. It is also the means of consider worth studying, using the methods that
accumulating information about group processes are most appropriate.
through scientific research. This chapter briefly
reviews the emergence of the scientific study of What are the core elements of the field’s para-
groups before examining three key components of digm? What do researchers notice when they
the scientific method—measurement, hypothesis observe a group acting in a particular way? What
testing, and theorizing—used by researchers to kinds of group processes do they find fascinating,
study, explore, and understand groups. and which ones do they find less interesting? We
examine these questions by considering some of the
2-1 THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY basic assumptions of the field and tracing them back
to their source in the work of early sociologists,
OF GROUPS psychologists, and social psychologists. We then
shift from the historical to the contemporary and
Group dynamics—the scientific field devoted to the review practices and procedures used by researchers
study of groups and their dynamics—was not estab- when they collect information about groups (see
lished by a single theorist or researcher who laid Kerr & Tindale, 2014).
down a set of clear-cut assumptions and principles.
Rather, group dynamics resulted from group pro- 2-1a The Individual and the Group
cesses. One theorist would suggest an idea, another
might disagree, and the debate would continue until When anthropology, psychology, sociology, and
consensus would be reached. Initially, researchers the other social sciences emerged as unique disci-
were uncertain how to investigate their ideas empir- plines in the late 1800s, the dynamics of groups
ically, but through collaboration and, more often, became a topic of critical concern for all of them.
spirited competition, researchers developed new Sociologists discovered groups influence a society’s
methods for studying groups. World events also religious, political, economic, and educational social
influenced the study of groups, for the use of groups systems. Anthropologists’ investigations of the
in manufacturing, warfare, and therapeutic settings world’s cultures noted similarities and differences
stimulated the need to understand and improve such across among the world’s small-scale societies. Political
groups. scientists’ studies of voting, public engagement, and
political parties led them to the study of small groups
These group processes shaped the field’s of closely networked individuals. Gustave Le Bon
paradigm. The philosopher of science, Thomas (1895), in his book the Psychology of Crowds
S. Kuhn (1970), used that term to describe scien- (Psychologie des Foules), concluded individuals are
tists’ shared assumptions about the phenomena they transformed when they join a group. And the pre-
study. Kuhn maintained that when scientists learn eminent psychologist of that period, Wilhelm
their field, they master not only the content of the Wundt (1916), published his book Völkerpsychologie;
science—important discoveries, general principles, sometimes translated as “folk psychology,” but
facts, and so on—but also a way of looking at the another translation is “group psychology.” It com-
world that is passed on from one scientist to bined elements of anthropology and psychology by
examining the conditions and changes displayed by
paradigm Scientists’ shared assumptions about the phe- social aggregates and how groups influence mem-
nomena they study; also, a set of research procedures. bers’ cognitive and perceptual processes (Forsyth &
Burnette, 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.

STUDYING GROUPS 33

Levels of Analysis Early theorists disagreed about the individual group members. Groups, according
the level of analysis to take when studying groups. to Allport, were not real entities and warned of the
Some favored a group-level analysis, for they recog- group fallacy: “An individual can be said to ‘think’
nized that humans are the constitutive elements of or ‘feel’; but to say that a group does these things has
groups and that groups and their processes have a no ascertainable meaning beyond saying that so
profound impact on their members. Others advo- many individuals do them” (Allport, 1962, p. 4).
cated for an individual-level analysis that focused on He is reputed to have said, “You can’t trip over a
the person in the group. Researchers who took this group.”
approach sought to explain the behavior of each
group member, and they ultimately wanted to The Group Mind The idea of group mind (or
know if psychological processes such as attitudes, collective consciousness) brought the group- and
motivations, or personality were the true determi- individual-level perspectives into clear opposition
nants of social behavior (Steiner, 1974, 1983, 1986). (Szanto, 2014). Many have noted that group mem-
bers often act together, particularly when the
Sociological researchers tended to conduct majority of the members share the same views,
group-level analyses, and psychological researchers attitudes, intentions, and so on. But early commen-
favored individual-level analyses. Sociologist Émile tators on the human condition, noting how people
Durkheim (1897/1966), for example, traced a sometimes engage in unusual forms of behavior
highly personal phenomenon—suicide—back to when in large crowds, suggested that such groups
group-level processes. He concluded that indivi- may actually develop a group mind—a single, shared,
duals who are not members of friendship, family, unifying consciousness. Le Bon (1895/1960, p. 23),
or religious groups can experience anomie and, for example, wrote “Under certain circumstances, and
as a result, are more likely to commit suicide. only under those circumstances, an agglomeration of
Durkheim strongly believed that widely shared men presents new characteristics very different from
beliefs—what he called collective representations—are those of the individuals composing [the group].”
the cornerstone of society. He wrote: “emotions Durkheim, too, suggested that groups, rather than
and tendencies are generated not by certain states being mere collections of individuals in a fixed pattern
of individual consciousness, but by the conditions of relationships with one another, were linked by an
under which the social body as a whole exists” “esprit de group” (group mind), for “A collectivity
(Durkheim, 1892/2005, p. 76). has its own ways of thinking and feeling to which
its members bend but which are different from
Other researchers questioned the need to go those they would create if they were left to their
beyond the individual to explain group behavior. own devices” (Durkheim, 1900/1973, p. 17).
Psychologist Floyd Allport (1924), for example,
chose the individual in the group, and not the Researchers who preferred to study individuals
group itself, as his unit of analysis when he wrote in groups and not groups themselves were willing
that “nervous systems are possessed by individuals;
but there is no nervous system of the crowd” (p. 5). group fallacy Explaining social phenomena in terms of
Because Allport believed that “the actions of all are the group as a whole instead of basing the explanation on
nothing more than the sum of the actions of each the individual-level processes within the group; ascribing
taken separately” (p. 5), he thought that a full under- psychological qualities, such as will, intentionality, and
standing of the behavior of individuals in groups mind, to a group rather than to the individuals within
could be achieved by studying the psychology of the group.
group mind (or collective consciousness) A hypo-
level of analysis The focus of study when examining a thetical unifying mental force linking group members
multilevel process or phenomenon, such as the individ- together; the fusion of individual consciousness or mind
ual-level or the group-level of analysis. into a transcendent consciousness.

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

34 C H A P T E R 2

Do Groups Have Minds?

Researchers continue to debate the idea of a group cohesive aggregates—such as organizations (e.g., Bank
having a mind, but most people are quite willing to of America), teams (e.g., Boston Red Sox), and decision-
attribute a “mind” to a group. making groups (e.g., the Supreme Court)—received
higher ratings of mind.
Instructions. Rank these groups, from 1 to 5, giv-
ing a 1 to the group you feel can be credited with a Interestingly, they also discovered a trade-off
mind (the capacity to think collectively), a 2 to the next between the group- and individual-level conceptions
most mindful group, and so on. of mind: as judgments of group mind went up, esti-
mates of individual mind went down. Those who were
___ Twitter users members of groups that the perceiver thought had
___ U.S. Congress mind-like qualities were viewed as less mindful indivi-
duals, whereas those individuals who were members
___ Boston Red Sox of groups that did not seem to have group minds were
___ Tax lawyers viewed as having minds of their own. Because attribu-
___ Citibank tions of mind to groups increased along with percep-
tions of the group’s cohesiveness (entitativity),
Interpretation: When psychologists Adam Waytz members of low-cohesive groups were held more
and Liane Young (2012, p. 78) asked people to review a accountable for their group’s actions, whereas mem-
list of groups and indicate if each group on the list had bers of highly cohesive groups were given less personal
a mind (“the capacity to make plans, have intentions, responsibility. Here, the group was held accountable,
and think for itself”), they discovered that general cat- since it was thought to have a “mind.” (The people
egories of people, such as all blondes or Facebook users, who took part in this study ranked the groups as fol-
were not thought to have minds, but that smaller, more lows: U.S. Congress (1), Citibank (2), Boston Red Sox (3),
Tax lawyers (4), and Twitter users (5).)

to concede that group members often act as if they creates a single group mind. But just because this
were of one mind—they all respond very group-level concept has little foundation in fact
similarly—but they rejected the idea that group does not mean that other group-level concepts are
members shared a single conscious mental state. All- equally unreasonable. The Red Balloon Challenge
port, for example, conducted extensive studies of Team, for example, may not have shared a group
such group phenomena as rumors and morale dur- mind, but their work was significantly influenced
ing wartime (Allport & Lepkin, 1943) and confor- by group-level processes that could not be entirely
mity to standards (the J-curve hypothesis; Allport, reduced down to individual members’ qualities.
1934, 1961), but he continued to question the sci-
entific value of the term group. He did, however, Consider, for example, the group’s norms about
eventually conclude that individuals are often exchanging information, apportioning of work load,
bound together in “one inclusive collective structure” and expressing emotions. As noted in Chapter 1, a
but he could not bring himself to use the word norm is a standard that describes what behaviors should
group to describe such collectives (Allport, 1962, and should not be performed in a group. Norms are
p. 17, italics in original). not just individual members’ personal standards, for
they are shared among group members. Only when
The Reality of Groups Allport’s reluctance to members agree on a particular standard does it function
accept such dubious concepts as group mind helped as a norm, so this concept is embedded at the level of
ensure the field’s scientific status. Researchers have the group rather than at the level of the individual.
never found any evidence that group members are
linked by a psychic, telepathic connection that The idea that a norm is more than just the sum
of the individual beliefs of all the members of a
group was verified by Muzafer Sherif in 1936. Sherif,

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

STUDYING GROUPS 35

a social psychologist, deliberately created norms by was created and that the new product itself had to
asking groups of men to state aloud their estimates of be the object of study.
the distance that a dot of light had moved. He found
that the men gradually accepted a standard estimate Many group phenomena are consistent with
in place of their own idiosyncratic judgments. He Lewin’s belief that a group is more than the sum of
also found, however, that even when the men the individual members. A group’s cohesiveness, for
were later given the opportunity to make judgments example, goes beyond the mere attraction of each indi-
alone, they still based their estimates on the group’s vidual member for one another. Groups sometimes
norm. Moreover, once the group’s norm had devel- perform tasks far better—and far worse—than might
oped, Sherif removed members one at a time and be expected, given the talents of their individual mem-
replaced them with fresh members. Each new mem- bers. Groups sometimes (although rarely) unite mem-
ber changed his behavior until it matched the bers so intensely that members’ sense of personal
group’s norm. If the individuals in the group are identity is overwhelmed by a collective one. In some
completely replaceable, then where does the group groups, patterns of thought, feeling, and action emerge
norm “exist”? It exists at the group level rather than spontaneously without any deliberate intervention by
the individual level (MacNeil & Sherif, 1976). the group members (Kozlowski et al., 2013). Some
groups possess supervening qualities “that cannot be
Lewin and Interactionism The debate between reduced to or described as qualities of its participants”
individual-level and group-level approaches waned, (Sandelands & St. Clair, 1993, p. 443).
in time, as theorists developed stronger models for
understanding group-level process. Lewin’s (1951) 2-1b The Multilevel Perspective
theoretical analyses of groups were particularly
influential. His field theory is premised on the prin- In time, the rift between individual-level and group-
ciple of interactionism, which assumes that the level researchers closed as the unique contributions
actions, processes, and responses of people in groups of each perspective were integrated in a multilevel
(“behavior”) are determined by the interaction perspective on groups. This perspective does not
of the person and the environment. The formula favor a specific level of analysis when examining
B ¼ f(P,E) summarizes this assumption. In a human behavior, for it argues for examining pro-
group context, this formula implies that group cesses that range along the micro–meso–macro con-
members’ reactions (B) are a function (f ) of the tinuum (see Figure 2.1). Micro-level factors include
interaction of their personal characteristics (P) the qualities, characteristics, and actions of the indi-
with environmental factors (E ), which include fea- vidual members. Meso-level factors are group-level
tures of the group, the group members, and the qualities of the groups themselves, such as their cohe-
situation. Lewin believed that a group is a unified siveness, their size, their composition, and their struc-
system with emergent properties that cannot be ture. Macro-level factors are the qualities and processes
fully understood by piecemeal examination. Adopt- of the larger collectives that enfold the groups, such as
ing the Gestalt dictum, “The whole is greater than communities, organizations, or societies. A multilevel
the sum of the parts,” he maintained that when analysis of the Red Balloon Challenge Team, for
individuals merged into a group something new example, would not consider just the member’s per-
sonal qualities (a micro-level factor), or just the
B ¼ f(P,E) The law of interactionism that states each group’s outstanding teamwork (a meso-level factor),
person’s behavioral, cognitive, and emotional reactions
(“behavior”), B, are a function of his or her personal multilevel perspective The view that recognizes that a
qualities, P, the social environment, E, and the interac- complete explanation of group processes and phenomena
tion of these personal qualities with factors present in the requires multiple levels of analysis, including individual
social environment (proposed in Lewin, 1951). (micro), group (meso), and organizational or societal
(macro) level.

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

36 C H A P T E R 2

Macro-level
Meso-level

Micro-level

F I G U R E 2.1 A multilevel perspective on groups. Researchers who study groups recognize that individuals (micro-
level) are nested in groups (meso-level), but that these groups are themselves nested in larger social units, such as organiza-
tions, communities, tribes, nations, and societies (the macro-level). Researchers may focus on one level in this multilevel
system, such as the group level, but they must be aware that these groups are embedded in a complex of other relationships.

or the intellectual climate of MIT (a macro-level quality of the performance of the group. However,
factor), but how all these factors (and many more) one critical determinant of the talent of individual
combined to generate a highly effective group. players was the financial health of the orchestra;
better-funded orchestras could afford to hire better
Social psychologist Richard Hackman and his col- performers. Affluent orchestras could also afford
leagues’ studies of performing orchestras illustrate the music directors who worked more closely with
complexity of a multilevel approach (Allmendinger, the performers, and orchestras led by the most
Hackman, & Lehman, 1996; Hackman, 2003). In skilled directors performed better than expected
their quest to understand why some professional given the caliber of their individual players.
orchestras outperformed others, they measured an
array of micro-, meso-, and macro-level variables. At The country where the orchestra was based was
the micro-level, they studied the individual musicians: also an important determinant of the group mem-
Were they well-trained and highly skilled? Were they bers’ satisfaction with their orchestra, but only when
satisfied with their work and highly motivated? Did one also considered the gender composition of the
they like each other and feel that they played well orchestras. Far fewer women were members of
together? At the group-level (meso-level), they con- orchestras in West Germany, but as the proportion
sidered the gender composition of the group (number of women in orchestras increased, members became
of men and women players), the quality of the music increasingly negative about their group. In contrast,
the orchestra produced, and the financial resources in the United States with its directive employment
available to the group. They also took note of one key regulations, more women were included in orches-
macro-level variable: the location of the orchestras tras, and the proportion of women in the groups was
in one of four different countries (the United States, less closely related to attitude toward the group.
England, East Germany, or West Germany). Given their findings, Hackman and his colleagues
concluded that the answer to most of their questions
Their work uncovered complex interrelations about orchestras was “it depends”: on the individuals
among these three sets of variables. As might be in the group, on the nature of the orchestra, and on
expected, one micro-level variable—the skill of the social context where the orchestra is located.
the individual players—substantially influenced 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.

STUDYING GROUPS 37

2-2 MEASUREMENT Overt and Covert Observation Researchers
who use overt observation make no attempt to
Good science requires good measurement. As the nat- hide what they are doing from the people they
ural sciences developed, improved telescopes, micro- are studying. Sociologist William Foote Whyte
scopes, scales, meters, and gauges all contributed to (1943), for example, in his classic ethnography
better data, which in turn led to more precise descrip- Street Corner Society, openly discussed his identity
tions and more comprehensive theory. Similarly, the and interests with the groups in the neighborhood
science of groups could not progress until researchers he studied. When he became interested in the life
developed methods for measuring more precisely the experiences of a group of young men who joined
qualities of individuals who were in groups, but also together regularly at a particular street corner in
the characteristics of groups and the processes that their neighborhood—a street corner gang—he
occurred within them. Early observers spoke of both joined one of the groups: the Nortons. He let the
individual-level qualities, such as attitudes, values, Nortons know that he would be studying their
beliefs, traits, leadership skills, and the like and group- behavior for a book he was researching.
level qualities, such as imitation, contagion, group
beliefs, and solidarity, but only when they devised Other researchers, in contrast, prefer to use
means of measuring these process did the study of covert observation, whereby they record the
groups transform from speculation to science. group’s activities without the group’s knowledge.
Researchers interested in how groups organize them-
2-2a Observation selves by race and sex in schools sit quietly in the
corner of the lunchroom and watch as students
Researchers who study groups often begin with choose their seats. To study gatherings of people in
observation: watching and recording a group’s a public park, a researcher may set up a surveillance
activities and interactions. Groups are complicated, camera and record where people congregate through-
multifaceted, and dynamic, but they are observable. out the day. So long as researchers observe people in
We can watch the members communicating with public places, and the things people are doing in those
one another, performing their tasks, making deci- places do not expose them to “risk of criminal or civil
sions, confronting other groups, seeking new mem- liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial
bers and expelling old ones, accepting direction from standing, employability, or reputation,” then such
their leaders, and so on. When researchers document research is considered ethically permissible (Office
executives’ daily meetings (Morrill, 1980), study for Human Research Protections, 2009).
recordings of a ship’s crew as it copes with a serious
equipment malfunction (Hutchins, 1991), accom- Participant Observation Some researchers
pany members of a gang as they deal with challenges observe groups from a vantage point outside the
from other gangs (Venkatesh, 2008), go online with group, say by studying video recordings of group
a raid group in World of Warcraft (Brainbridge, meetings. But some researchers, like Whyte, use
2010), or infiltrate a doomsday group that predicts participant observation: they watch and record
the end of the world (Festinger, Riecken, & Schach-
ter, 1956), they are using observational methods. overt observation Openly watching and recording
Observation may involve overt observation, covert information with no attempt to conceal one’s research
observation, or participant observation. purposes.
covert observation Watching and recording informa-
observation A measurement method that involves tion on the activities of individuals and groups without
watching and recording the activities of individuals and their knowledge.
groups. participant observation Watching and recording
group activities as a member of the group or participant
in the social process.

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

38 C H A P T E R 2

Who Are the Subjects: Groups or Individuals?

Researchers who study groups must be careful to not responses to the “Are you loyal?” question to get an
study only individuals (trees) or only groups (forests), but index of group loyalty, but only if most of the mem-
both the individuals and the groups (the forests and the bers give similar answers to this question. You may
trees). Imagine, for example, you were curious about the also rephrase the question so that it asks about the
relationship between group members’ loyalty to their group: “Are most members loyal to the group?”
group and how well the group performs. So, you contact
20 of the groups that took part in the DARPA find- Researchers must also exercise special care when
the-balloons contest, ask five members of each group examining their data so that they do not attribute
about their group loyalty, and also record how many effects caused by group-level processes to individual-
balloons their group tracked down. But, when it comes to level processes and vice versa. You might be thrilled, for
analyze the data, you face a basic question. How many example, to find that members’ individual loyalty scores
subjects are in your study: 20 groups or 100 individuals? predict the regularity of their attendance at meetings,
until you realize that people who are in the same
The answer depends on the level of analysis you groups have unusually similar loyalty scores due to
take in your study. If you undertake a micro-level some group-level process. When you explore further,
analysis, you may predict that members who have you discover that members’ loyalty is determined not by
been in a group longer tend to be more loyal to the each member’s commitment to the group, but by the
group or that members with certain personality char- loyalty norms of the groups. As a result, most of the
acteristics will contribute more to the group. But if you variability in loyalty is not between people but between
shift upward to the group, or meso-level, the group groups, so that when you take into account which
will be your unit of analysis. You may decide, for group a person belongs to, the effect of individual-level
example, to average together each member’s loyalty disappears (Kenny & Kashy, 2014).

the group’s activities and interactions while tak- Doc
ing part in the group’s social process (Pratt & Bill
Kim, 2012). Whyte went bowling with the
Nortons, gambled with the Nortons, and even Mike Danny
lent money to some of the members. He worked
so closely with the group that Doc, one of the Long John
key figures in the Nortons, considered himself
to be a collaborator in the research project with Nutsy Angelo
Whyte, rather than one of the individuals being
studied (Whyte, Greenwood, & Lazes, 1991). A Frank Fred
diagram of the Nortons, shown in Figure 2.2,
includes a member named “Bill”; that would be Carl Joe Lou
Bill Whyte himself.
Tommy Alec
When researchers immerse themselves in group
settings like those sampled in Table 2.1, their F I G U R E 2.2 The core members of the Nortons, the
accounts are often detailed, nuanced, and compel- street corner gang described by William Foote Whyte in his
ling, depending on the skill and experience of the book Street Corner Society. Lines between each member
observer. Observation yields a particularly rich type indicate interdependence, and members who are placed
of data: the actual words used by members in their above others in the chart had more influence than those in
discussions and conversations, impressions drawn the lower positions. Doc was the recognized leader of the
from nonverbal expressions, information about the group, and Mike and Danny were second in terms of status.
members’ appearance and location in relationship Whyte (“Bill” in the diagram), the researcher, was con-
to each other, and the sequences of behaviors that nected to the group through Doc (Whyte, 1955).

SOURCE: From Street Corner Society by W. F. Whyte, p. 13. Copyright
© 1943 by University of Chicago Press. Reprinted by permission.

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

STUDYING GROUPS 39

T A B L E 2.1 Examples of Ethnographic Research

Type of Group Summary Key Concepts

Street corner gangs Study of groups in an economically challenged leadership, status and perfor-
(Whyte, 1943) neighborhood in Boston (“Cornerville”), focusing on mance, mutual obligations,
a group of men in their 20s who congregate on a social injustice
Norton street corner

Doomsday group Analysis of a group that formed around a woman cognitive dissonance, communi-
(Festinger, Riecken, & who believed the end of the world was approaching cation following belief
Schachter, 1956) and the group’s response when the prophecy was disconfirmation
disconfirmed

Work teams Describes the rituals used by a group of workers rituals, cohesion, conflict, group
(Roy, 1959) performing highly repetitive tasks that increase socialization
group cohesion and provide entertainment over the
course of the workday

Mushroom collectors Examines the activities and interpersonal dynamics interpersonal trust, social
(Fine, 2003) (trust, keeping secrets, storytelling) of voluntary exchange, cohesion, leisure
communities (mycological societies) who search for organizations
edible mushrooms (morels)

Search and rescue Reports the dynamics of a search and rescue squad, emotion management, edge-
teams (Lois, 2003) including status allocations and group-level work, heroism and altruism,
mechanisms that control individual’s attempts to social support
claim heroic status

Inner city gangs Describes the inner workings of the Black Kings, a negotiation, intergroup conflict,
(Venkatesh, 2008) group of young men living in public housing in Chi- economic factors that sustain
cago, revealing the economy and stability of a com- alternative community practices
munity that nonmembers considered dysfunctional
and unstable

Online groups Reports the complex dynamics of altruism, competi- rituals, trust and deviancy,
(Bainbridge, 2010) tion, and leisure in the online multiplayer game sources of group satisfaction
World of Warcraft

unfold within the group over time. In many cases, Reactivity and the Hawthorne Effect Whyte, as
observers can record the actions and events that a participant observer, gained access to information
transpire in the group more accurately than can that would have been hidden from an external
members caught up with the group’s interaction. observer. His techniques also gave him a very
Given the complexity of groups and their dynam- detailed understanding of the gang. Unfortunately,
ics, researchers who use participant observers are his presence in the group may have changed the
enjoined to improve their records by keeping group itself. Doc remarked, “You’ve slowed me
notes during the course of the observation and down plenty since you’ve been down here. Now,
using these records to develop a more detailed when I do something, I have to think what Bill
account of the latest group episode as soon as Whyte would want to know about it and how I
they can following each period of observation can explain it. Before, I used to do things by
(Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). instinct” (Whyte, 1943, p. 301).

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

40 C H A P T E R 2

Are Researchers Studying Online Groups?

When people think of a group, they tend to think of a “leveled up” his character over time by taking on
gathering of individuals in some specific location, but quests, developing skills and crafts, and by learning
all kinds of groups—from support groups, work teams, tricks and techniques by socializing with other players in
clubs, and gamers—congregate via the Internet. These the taverns, towns, and cities. When he reached the
groups go by various names—cybergroups, e-groups, point where he could attempt more difficult instances,
virtual teams, and online groups—but they all rely on he joined a guild and in time became its leader.
computer-based information technologies to build and
sustain social relationships among the members (see Bainbridge’s experiences, as reported in his book
Amichia-Hamburger, 2013). The Warcraft Civilization, attest to the similarity
between group-level processes in WoW and in offline
Researchers use a variety of methods to study the environments. The groups in WoW displayed a range
dynamics of online groups, including participant obser- of human motivations, from apathy to altruism to
vation (Ducheneaut et al., 2006; Nardi & Harris, 2006). greed. Players established various types of social con-
The sociologist William Sims Bainbridge (2007, 2010), nections with each other, from weak acquaintance ties
for example, studied, via participation, a number of to more robust alliances that eventually created
groups, including the Process Church of the Final friendships in the non-WoW world. Players also
Judgement, Scientology, the John Birch Society, and worked together effectively to achieve their goals but,
Hare Krishna, but for 2 years, he spent 2,300 hours as in some cases, failed miserably despite the best of
Maxrohn (a priest), Catullus (a blood elf), and a number intentions on the part of all players. As one researcher
of other alts in WoW. As a new member (noob, newb, concluded, the groups within WoW are “not that dif-
nubie), he learned the world’s implicit rules pertaining ferent from groups in the physical world like clubs,
to privacy, vulgarity, sharing, and collaboration. He dis- sports teams, or even workgroups in organizations.”
covered, for example, that it is unethical to take loot This comment, ironically, was made by Kartuni, a
(resources, rewards) that one has not earned or does character in WoW, played by social network researcher
not need, and a person who gains a reputation for such Nicolas Ducheneaut during a research conference con-
misbehavior (a loot ninja) will be shunned by others. He vened in WoW itself (Bainbridge, 2010, p. 221).

This tendency for individuals to act differently all the changes led to improved worker output. Dim
when they know they are being observed is often lights, for example, raised efficiency, but so did bright
called the Hawthorne effect, after research con- lights. Mayo’s team concluded that the shift members
ducted by psychologist Elton Mayo and his associates were working harder because they were being
at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric observed and because they felt that the company
Company. These researchers studied productivity by was taking a special interest in them (Mayo, 1945;
measuring how workers reacted to changes in the Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939).
work place. First, they moved one group of women
to a separate room and monitored their performance Reviews of the Hawthorne studies suggested
carefully. Then they manipulated features of the work that other factors besides the scrutiny of the research-
situation, such as the lighting in the room and the ers contributed to the increased productivity of the
duration of rest periods. They were surprised when groups. The Hawthorne groups worked in smaller
teams, members could talk easily among themselves,
online group (or e-group) Two or more individuals and their managers were usually less autocratic than
who interact with each other solely or primarily through those who worked the main floor of the factory, and
computer-based information technologies (e.g., email, all these variables—and not observation alone—
instant messaging, and social networking sites) rather contributed to the performance gains. Nonetheless,
than through face-to-face interactions. the term Hawthorne effect continues to be used to
Hawthorne effect A change in behavior that occurs describe any change in behavior that occurs when
when individuals know they are being observed or studied. people feel they are being observed by others (see
Chiesa & Hobbs, 2008; Olson et al., 2004).

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

STUDYING GROUPS 41

Did They Watch the Same Game?

Social psychologists Albert Hastorf and Hadley Cantril’s (1954) classic “They Saw a Game” study demonstrated just how
easily one’s biases can influence what one “sees” a group doing. They arranged for college students from Dartmouth
and Princeton to watch a film of their two teams playing a football game. The game they showed the students was a
particularly rough one, with a number of penalties and injuries on both sides. But when Hastorf and Cantril asked
Dartmouth and Princeton students to record the number and severity of the infractions that had been committed by
the two teams, Princeton students were not very accurate. Dartmouth students saw Princeton commit about the same
number of infractions as Dartmouth. Princeton students, however, saw the Dartmouth team commit more than twice
as many infractions as the Princeton team. Apparently, the Princeton observers’ preference for their own team slightly
distorted their perceptions (see Jussim et al., 2016).

Structuring Observations Whyte conducted a order or psychologists who classify people as to per-
qualitative study of the Nortons. Like an ethnog- sonality type, researchers who use a structured
rapher, he tried to watch the Nortons without any observational method classify each group behavior
preconceptions so that he would not unwittingly into an objectively definable category. First, they
confirm his prior expectations. Nor did he keep decide which behaviors to track. Then they
track of the frequencies of any of the behaviors he develop unambiguous descriptions of each type of
noted or quantify members’ reactions to the events behavior they will code. Next, using these behav-
that occurred in the group. Instead, he watched, ioral definitions as a guide, they note the occur-
took notes, and reflected on what he saw before rence and frequency of these targeted behaviors as
drawing general conclusions about the group. they watch the group. This type of research would
be a quantitative study, because it yields numeric
Qualitative methods generate data, but the data results (Meyers & Seibold, 2012).
describe general qualities and characteristics rather
than precise quantities and amounts. Such data are Sociologist Robert Freed Bales developed two
often textual rather than numeric and may include of the best-known structured coding systems for
verbal descriptions of group interactions developed studying groups (Bales, 1950, 1970, 1980). As
by multiple observers, notes from conversations noted in Chapter 1, Bales spent many years watch-
with group members, or in-depth case descriptions ing group members interact with each other, and
of one or more groups. Such qualitative observa- he often used the Interaction Process Analysis
tional methods require an impartial researcher who (IPA), to structure his observations. Researchers
is a keen observer of groups and one who is careful who use the IPA classify each behavior performed
to remain objective (Dollar & Merrigan, 2002). by a group member into 1 of the 12 categories
shown in Figure 2.3. Six of these categories (1–3 and
Structured observational methods offer 10–12) pertain to socioemotional, relationship interac-
researchers a way to increase the objectivity of tion. As noted in Chapter 1, these types of actions
their observations. Like biologists who classify liv-
ing organisms under categories such as phylum and

qualitative study A research procedure that collects and quantitative study A research procedure that collects
analyzes nonnumeric, unquantified types of data, such as and analyzes numeric data, such as frequencies, propor-
verbal descriptions, text, images, or objects. tions, or amounts.
structured observational methods Research proce- Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) A structured cod-
dures that create a systematic record of group interaction ing system used to measure group activity by classifying
and activities by classifying (coding) each overt expres- each observed behavior into one of 12 categories, such as
sion or action into a defined category. “shows solidarity” or “asks for orientation” (developed
by Robert F. Bales).

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

42 C H A P T E R 2

1 Shows solidarity, raises other’s status,
gives help, reward

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL

AREA: A 2 Shows tension release, jokes, laughs,
POSITIVE shows satisfaction

REACTIONS Agrees, shows passive acceptance,
understands, concurs, complies
3

4 Gives suggestion, direction,
implying autonomy for other

TASK AREA: B 5 Gives opinion, evaluation, analysis,
ATTEMPTED expresses feeling, wish
ANSWERS

6 Gives orientation, information,
repeats, clarifies, confirms

abcd e f

7 Asks for orientation, information,
repetition, confirmation

TASK AREA: C 8 Asks for opinion, evaluation,
QUESTIONS analysis, expression of feeling

9 Asks for suggestion, direction,
possible ways of action

10 Disagrees, shows passive rejection,
formality, withholds help

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL

AREA: D 11 Shows tension, asks for help,
NEGATIVE withdraws out of field

REACTIONS Shows antagonism, deflates other’s status,
defends or asserts self
12

F I G U R E 2.3 Robert F. Bales’ original Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) coding system for structuring observa-
tions of groups. Areas A (1–3) and D (10–12) are used to code socioemotional, relationship interactions. Areas B (4–6)
and C (7–9) are used to code task interaction. The lines to the right (labeled a through f) indicate problems of orienta-
tion (a), evaluation (b), control (c), decision (d), tension management (e), and integration (f).

SOURCE: Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem-solving. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(4), 485–495.

sustain or weaken interpersonal ties within the smart-ip.net to confirm IP addresses?” and Galen
group. Complimenting another person is an example answers, “Yes,” observers write “Riley–Group”
of a positive relationship behavior, whereas insulting beside Category 8 (Riley asks for opinion from
a group member is a negative relationship behavior. whole group) and “Galen–Riley” beside Category
The other six categories (4–9) pertain to instrumen-
tal, task interaction, such as giving and asking for infor- 5 (Galen gives opinion to Riley). If Manual later
mation, opinions, and suggestions related to the angrily tells the entire group, “We are never going
problem the group faces. When using the IPA, to get this finished in time,” the coders write
observers must listen to the group discussion, break “Manual–Group” beside Category 12 (Manual
the content down into behavioral units, and then shows antagonism toward the entire group).
categorize. If Riley, during a meeting to plan out
the red balloon hunt strategy, asks to no one in Bales (1999, xvi) once wrote, “I have always felt
particular “Should we use the online database at
the compulsion to ground my thinking in empirical
data.” In consequence, he improved his system as he

continued to study groups in a variety of contexts.

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

STUDYING GROUPS 43

His newer version, which generates more global sum- independently, all code the statement similarly,
maries of group behavior, is called the Systematic the rating has interrater reliability.
Multiple Level Observation of Groups (SYM-
LOG). SYMLOG coders use 26 different categories ■ Validity: the extent to which the technique
instead of only 12, with these categories signaling measures what it is supposed to measure. The
members’ dominance–submissiveness, friendliness– IPA, for example, is valid only if observers’
unfriendliness, and accepting–opposing the task ori- ratings actually measure the amount of rela-
entation of established authority (Hare, 2005). tionship and task interaction in the group. If
When a group begins discussing a problem, for the observers are incorrect in their coding, or if
example, most behaviors may be concentrated in the categories are not accurate indicators of
the dominant, friendly, and accepting authority cat- relationship and task interaction, the scores are
egories. But if the group argues, then scores in the not valid (Bakeman, 2000).
unfriendly, opposing authority categories may begin
to climb. Chapter 6 uses SYMLOG to describe Given the greater reliability and validity of struc-
group role relations. tured observations, why did Whyte take a qualitative,
unstructured approach? Whyte was more interested in
Reliability and Validity of Observations Struc- gaining an understanding of the entire community
tured observation systems, because they can be used and its citizenry, so a structured coding system’s
to record the number of times a particular type of focus on specific behaviors would have yielded an
behavior has occurred, make possible comparison unduly narrow analysis. At the time he conducted
across categories, group members, and even different his study, Whyte did not know which behaviors he
groups. Moreover, if observers are carefully trained, a should scrutinize if he wanted to understand the
structured coding system, such as IPA and SYMLOG, group. Whyte was also unfamiliar with the groups
will yield data that are both reliable and valid. he studied, so he chose to immerse himself in field-
work. His research was more exploratory, designed to
■ Reliability: a measure’s consistency across develop theory first and validate hypotheses second, so
time, components, and raters. For example, he used an unstructured observational approach. If he
if a rater, when she hears the statement, had been testing a hypothesis by measuring specific
“This group is a boring waste of time,” always aspects of a group, then the rigor and objectivity of
classifies it as a Category 12 behavior, then a structured approach would have been preferable.
the rating is reliable. Qualitative methods, in general, “provide a richer,
more varied pool of information” than quantitative
■ Interrater reliability: consistency across ones (King, 2004, p. 175).
raters. For example, if different raters, working
2-2b Self-Report
Systematic Multiple Level Observation of Groups
(SYMLOG) A theoretical and structured coding system Whyte often supplemented his observations of Doc,
for recording the activities of a group and the overall Mike, Danny, and the other Nortons by asking
behavioral orientation of members (developed by Robert them questions: “Now and then, when I was con-
F. Bales). cerned with a particular problem and felt I needed
reliability The degree to which a measurement tech- more information from a certain individual … I
nique consistently yields the same conclusion at different would seek an opportunity to get the man alone
times. For measurement techniques with two or more and carry on a more formal interview” (Whyte,
components, reliability is also the degree to which 1955, pp. 303–304).
these components yield similar conclusions.
interrater reliability The degree to which two or more validity The degree to which a measurement method
raters agree. assesses what it was designed to measure.

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

44 C H A P T E R 2

Self-report measures, despite their variations, Long John Danny Fred
are all based on a simple premise: if you want to know Carl Mike
what a group member is thinking, feeling, or planning, Nutsy Angelo Lou
then just ask him or her to report that information to
you directly. In interviews, the researcher records the Tommy
respondent’s answer to various questions, but question-
naires ask respondents to record their answers them- Doc
selves. Some variables, such as members’ beliefs about
their group’s cohesiveness or their perceptions of the Frank
group’s leader, may be so complex that researchers
need to ask a series of interrelated questions. When Joe
the items are selected and pretested for accuracy, a
multi-item measure is usually termed a test or a scale. Alex

Sociometry Psychiatrist Jacob Moreno (1934), a F I G U R E 2.4 A network graph of the Nortons. Doc,
pioneer in the field of group dynamics, used self- the group’s leader, had direct ties to five of the group
report methods to study the social organization of members, but two members—Nutsy and Angelo—linked
groups of young women living in adjacent cottages Doc to the rest of the group’s members.
at an institution. The women were neighbors, but
they were not very neighborly, for disputes continu- Researchers often limit the number of choices that
ally arose among the groups and among members of participants can make. These choices are then orga-
the same group who were sharing a cottage. Moreno nized in a sociogram, which is a diagram of the
believed that the tensions would abate if he could relationships among group members.
regroup the women into more compatible clusters
and put the greatest physical distance between hostile Figure 2.4 is a sociogram, redrawn from Whyte’s
groups. So he asked the women to identify five original chart of the authority relations in the
women whom they liked the most in a confidential Nortons (see Figure 2.2). Each member of the
questionnaire. Moreno then used these responses to Nortons is represented by a circle, and lines are used
construct more harmonious groups, and his efforts to indicate who is most closely connected to whom.
were rewarded when the overall level of antagonism In Figure 2.3, the members have been arranged so
in the community declined (Hare & Hare, 1996). that individuals with more connections to other
members are located near the center of the figure
Moreno called this technique for measuring the and those with fewer ties occupy the perimeter.
relations between group members sociometry.
A researcher begins a sociometric study by asking Social Network Analysis Sociometry was an
group members one or more questions about the early form of social network analysis (SNA), a
other members. To measure attraction, the
researcher might ask, “Whom do you like most in sociogram A graphic representation of the patterns of
this group?” but such questions as “Whom in the intermember relations created through sociometry. In most
group would you like to work with the most?” or cases, each member of the group is depicted by a symbol,
“Whom do you like the least?” can also be used. such as a lettered circle or square, and relations among mem-
bers (e.g., communication links and friendship pairings) are
self-report measures Assessment methods, such as indicated by lines from one member to another.
questionnaires, tests, or interviews, that ask respondents social network analysis (SNA) A set of procedures for
to describe their feelings, attitudes, or beliefs. studying the relational structure of groups and networks
sociometry A method for measuring the relationships mathematically and graphically. Using information about
among members of a group and summarizing those rela- the relationships (ties, edges) linking members (nodes, ver-
tionships graphically (developed by Jacob Moreno). texes), the method yields member-level indexes (e.g., cen-
trality and betweenness), group-level indexes (e.g., density
and cohesiveness), and a graphic representation of the unit.

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

STUDYING GROUPS 45

T A B L E 2.2 Examples of Group Roles from Sociometry

Role Description
Neglected (isolate) Member who is infrequently chosen by any members

Rejected (unpopular) Member who is disliked by many members

Popular (star) Member who is most chosen, well-liked by many

Controversial Member who is liked by many but also disliked by many others

Sociable (amiable) Member who selects many others as their friends

Unsociable (negative) Member who selects few others as their friends

Cliques Members of a subcluster within the group

Couples (pairs) Members linked by reciprocal bonds

Gatekeeper Member located at a hub or subhead of the group’s social network who can control
the flow of information

set of procedures for studying the relational structure dense one. In this group of 13 men, 78 relationships
of groups and networks graphically and mathemati- would be required to link every member to every
cally. SNA yields information about individual other member (see Chapter 1). But Figure 2.4
members, relationships between pairs of members, shows only 20% of the possible ties (16 relation-
and the group’s overall structure. At the level of ships) are in place in the Nortons. Chapter 6 exam-
the individual group member, Figure 2.4 indicates ines, in more detail, the use of social network
which Norton had more connections with others analysis in the study of groups and their structures.
and who had relatively few. Doc, for example,
would be the “star” of the group (see Table 2.2). Reliability and Validity of Self-Report Measures
Not only is he linked to five of the other members, Self-report methods, such as sociometry, have both
but his connections also have more connections as weaknesses and strengths. They depend very much
well. Notice, too, that one group member— on knowing what questions to ask the group mem-
Nutsy—is the bridge between two large subgroups bers. A maze of technical questions also confronts
within the group. In such a position, Nutsy could be researchers designing questionnaires. If respondents
a gatekeeper who determines what information is do not answer the questions consistently—if, for
passed back and forth from the peripheral members, example, Dejun indicates that he likes Gerard the
like Frank and Carl, to the more central members, most on Monday but on Tuesday changes his choice
like Doc and Mike (Carboni & Casciaro, 2016). to Claire—then his responses are unreliable. Also, if
questions are not worded properly, the instrument
Social network analysis also yields information will lack validity, because the respondents may mis-
about cliques, schisms, hierarchies, and other rela- interpret what is being asked. Validity is also a prob-
tional regularities and oddities in the overall orga- lem if group members are unwilling to disclose their
nization of a group (Contractor & Su, 2012). The personal attitudes, feelings, and perceptions or are
Nortons, for example, was a centralized group, for a unaware of these internal processes.
small number of group members (Doc, Nutsy) were
tied to many members, but the majority of the Despite these limitations, self-report methods
members had only one or two links. The group’s provide much information about group phenom-
network of relationships, however, is not a very ena, but from the perspective of the participant

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

46 C H A P T E R 2

rather than the observer. When researchers are pri- decide to observe them directly, but they may also
marily interested in personal processes, such as per- cull facts about the group from interviews with
ceptions, feelings, and beliefs, self-report methods members, descriptions of the group written by
may be the only means of assessing these private journalists, or members’ autobiographical writings.
processes. But if participants are biased, their self- Researchers then relate this information back to the
reports may not be as accurate as we would like. variables that interest them and thereby estimate the
Self-reports may also not be accurate indicators of extent to which the examined case supports their
group-level processes, such as cohesiveness or con- hypotheses (Yin, 2009).
flict, or psychological and physiological processes
that people are either not aware of or not able to Conducting a Case Study Researchers have
accurately assess. conducted case studies of all sorts of groups: adoles-
cent peer groups (Adler & Adler, 1995), artist circles
2-3 RESEARCH METHODS IN (Farrell, 2001), the casts of Bollywood films
(Wilkinson-Weber, 2010), crisis intervention
GROUP DYNAMICS teams in psychiatric hospitals (Murphy & Keating,
1995), cults (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter,
Good measurement alone does not guarantee good 1956), drug-dealing gangs (Venkatesh, 2008), fami-
science. Researchers who watch groups and ask lies coping with an alcoholic member (Carvalho &
group members questions can develop a detailed Brito, 1995), focus groups (Seal, Bogart, & Ehr-
description of a group, but they must go beyond hardt, 1998), government leaders at international
description if they are to explain groups. Once summits (Hare & Naveh, 1986), guilds in online
researchers have collected their data, they must use game worlds (Nardi, 2010), industrialists and inven-
that information to test hypotheses about group phe- tors (Uglow, 2002), Little League baseball teams
nomena. They use many techniques to check the (Fine, 1987), mountain climbers (Kayes, 2006),
adequacy of their suppositions about groups, but naval personnel living in an undersea habitat (Radl-
the three most common approaches are case studies off & Helmreich, 1968), presidential advisors
of one or more groups, correlational studies of the nat- (Goodwin, 2005), religious communes (Stones,
urally occurring relationships between various aspects 1982), rock-and-roll bands (Bennett, 1980), fans of
of groups, and experimental studies that manipulate rock-and-roll bands (Adams, 1998), search-
one or more features of the group situation. and-rescue squads (Lois, 2003), sororities (Robbins,
2004), sports fans (St. John, 2004), social networks
2-3a Case Studies (Pickard et al., 2011), support groups (Turner,
2000), the Supreme Court (Toobin, 2007), and
One of the best ways to understand groups in gen- advisory groups making critically important deci-
eral is to understand one group in particular. This sions pertaining to national policy and defense (Alli-
approach has a long and venerable tradition in all son & Zelikow, 1999; Janis, 1972). Although once
the sciences, with some of the greatest advances in considered to be questionable in terms of scientific
thinking coming from the case study—an in- value, case studies that are carried out with care and
depth examination of one or more groups. If the objectivity are now widely recognized as indispens-
groups have not yet disbanded, the researchers may able tools for understanding group processes
(‘t Hart, 1991; Yin, 2009).
case study A research technique that draws on multiple
sources of information to examine, in depth, the activi- Social psychologist Irving Janis’s (1972) study
ties and dynamics of a group or groups. of decision-making groups illustrates the value of
a case study. Although groups such as the Red Bal-
loon Challenge Team make wise decisions that des-
tine them for success, in other situations, groups

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

STUDYING GROUPS 47

generate more mistakes than insights. Janis investi- are pursuing goals that the group itself has chosen
gated such groups, focusing on groups that made using its own procedures—provides a different kind
famously bad decisions: the presidential advisory of data than studies of groups concocted by research-
team that supported a covert invasion of Cuba in ers in the laboratory. Case methods are also particu-
the 1960s, the military leaders who failed to ade- larly appropriate when the phenomenon of interest
quately plan for the defense of the U.S. naval base has been documented but the processes that produced
at Pearl Harbor, the group that recommended the it and are influenced by it remain unknown. A case
escalation of the Vietnam War, and so on. Relying study, too, may be used when the researcher has no
on historical documents, minutes of meetings, dia- way of imposing methodological controls in the situ-
ries, letters, and group members’ memoirs and pub- ation (Griffin & Bengry-Howell, 2008; Yin, 2009).
lic statements, Janis analyzed the group’s structure,
its communication processes, and its leadership. His These advantages are offset by limitations.
analyses led him to conclude that these groups suf- Researchers who use the case-study method must
fered from the same problem. Over time, they had bear in mind that the group studied may be unique,
become so unified that members felt as though they and, unless they embed their work into a general
could not disagree with the group’s decisions, and so theoretical conceptualization, their findings may say
they failed to examine their assumptions carefully. little about other groups’ dynamics. Also, if the
Janis labeled this loss of rationality caused by strong group being studied is a contemporary one, research-
pressures to conform groupthink. Chapter 12 ers can use quantitative measures to document some
examines Janis’s theory in more detail. key variables, but if the study is primarily qualitative
they must deal with issues of objectivity. In addition,
Advantages and Disadvantages All research the essential records and artifacts may be inaccurate
designs offer both advantages and disadvantages, or unavailable to the researcher. Janis, for example,
and case studies are no exception. By focusing on was forced to “rely mainly on the contemporary and
a limited number of cases, researchers often provide retrospective accounts by the group members them-
richly detailed qualitative descriptions of naturally selves … many of which are likely to have been
occurring groups. If the groups have disbanded written with an eye to the author’s own place in
and researchers are relying on archival data, they history” (1972, p. v). In the case of the Bay of Pigs
need not be concerned that their research will sub- group, when many key documents were eventually
stantially disrupt or alter naturally occurring group declassified, they suggested that the group did not
processes. Case studies also tend to focus on bona experience groupthink but instead was misled delib-
fide groups that are found in everyday, natural erately by some of the group members (Kramer,
contexts. The Red Balloon Challenge Team, for 2008). Finally, case studies imply but cannot confirm
example, was a bona fide group, for it came into causal relationships. Janis believed that groupthink
existence during the course of members’ everyday was causing the poor decisions in the groups he stud-
life experiences (Putnam, Stohl, & Baker, 2012). ied, but actually some other unnoticed factor could
Studying such groups—ones that have history and have been the prime causal agent.

groupthink A set of negative group-level processes, 2-3b Correlational Studies
including illusions of vulnerability, self-censorship, and
pressures to conform, that occur when highly cohesive Researchers who conduct correlational studies (or
groups seek concurrence rather than objective analysis nonexperimental studies) do more than just describe
when making a decision (identified by Irving Janis). groups and their dynamics: they also test the strength
bona fide groups Naturally occurring groups, such as of the relationship between the variables that they
audiences, boards of directors, clubs, or teams, compared measure. Social psychologist Theodore Newcomb
to ad hoc groups created for research purposes. (1943) used this research procedure in his classic
“Bennington Study” of college students’ political

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

48 C H A P T E R 2

attitudes. As a professor at Bennington College, relations with the fellow community members”
Newcomb noticed that when his students first entered (Newcomb, 1943, p. 149), (2) more frequently cho-
school, most of them were conservative, but by the sen by others as friendly, and (3) a more cohesive
time they graduated, they had shifted to become subgroup than the conservative students. Individuals
more liberal. In fact, in 1936, fully 62% of the who did not become more liberal were less involved
first-year class preferred the Republican presidential in the college’s social life, or they were very family-
candidate. But only 15% of the juniors and seniors oriented. These reference groups changed the students
endorsed the Republican candidate; suggestive permanently, for the students who shifted were still
evidence of a profound shift in political beliefs. liberals when Newcomb measured their political
beliefs some 25 years later (Newcomb et al., 1967).
Newcomb believed that the first-year students
were changing their political beliefs to match the pre- Conducting Correlational Studies Correlational
vailing politics of Bennington. The younger students studies are so named because, at least initially,
were, in effect, accepting seniors as their reference researchers indexed the strength and direction of
group, which is a group that provides individuals the relationships among the variables they measured
with guidelines or standards for evaluating themselves, by calculating correlation coefficients. A correla-
their attitudes, and their beliefs (Hyman, 1942). Any tion coefficient, abbreviated as r, can range from -1
group that plays a significant role in one’s life, such as a to +1, with the distance from 0, the neutral point,
family, a friendship clique, colleagues at work, or even indicating the strength of the relationship. If New-
a group one admires but is not a member of, can func- comb had found that the correlation between stu-
tion as a reference group. When students first enrolled dents’ popularity and liberal attitudes was close to 0,
at Bennington, their families served as their reference for example, he would have concluded that the two
group, so their attitudes matched their families’ atti- variables were unrelated to each other. If the corre-
tudes. The longer students remained at Bennington, lation was significantly different from 0—in either a
however, the more their attitudes changed to match positive or a negative direction—his study would
the attitudes of their new reference group—the rest of have shown that these two variables were related
the college population. Their families had conservative to each other. The sign of the correlation (- or +)
attitudes, but the college community supported mainly indicates the direction of the relationship. If, for
liberal attitudes, and Newcomb hypothesized that example, the correlation between popularity and
many Bennington students shifted their attitudes in liberal attitudes was +.68, this positive correlation
response to this reference-group pressure. would indicate that both variables increased or
decreased together: The more popular the student,
Newcomb tested this hypothesis by administering the more liberal his or her attitude. A negative cor-
questionnaires and interviews to an entire class of relation, such as –.57, would indicate that the vari-
Bennington students from their entrance in 1935 to ables were inversely related: More popular students
their graduation in 1939. He found a consistent trend would tend to have less liberal attitudes. Thus, a
toward liberalism in many of the students and rea- correlation is a handy way of summarizing a great
soned that this change resulted from peer-group pres- deal of information about the relationship between
sure, because it was more pronounced among the two variables. Researchers do not always analyze
popular students. Those who endorsed liberal atti- their data by computing correlations, but the term
tudes were (1) “both capable and desirous of cordial

reference group A group or collective that individuals correlation coefficient A standardized statistic that
use as a standard or frame of reference when selecting measures the strength and direction of a relationship
and appraising their abilities, attitudes, or beliefs; includes between two variables. Often symbolized by r, correla-
groups that individuals identify with and admire and cat- tions can range from –1 to +1.
egories of noninteracting individuals.

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

STUDYING GROUPS 49

What Correlates with College Parties?

Most people drink alcohol collectively. College stu- as they entered the party and again when they left
dents, for example, sometimes drink alone in their (Clapp et al., 2007, 2008).
dorms or apartments, but group drinking is more the
norm. In fact, in the course of an evening, students Some 224 parties later, the researchers concluded
often drink in one group after another. Early in the that group-level factors influenced people’s BrACs.
evening they “pregame” in dyads or other small When alcohol consumption was the party’s primary
groups. They then continue drinking in larger activity, participants had higher BrACs, particularly if
groups—in bars, at parties in private homes, or frater- they thought that others were drinking excessively. If
nity and sorority organizations located near campus the party’s primary activity was socializing among the
(Burger et al., 2009). guests, then participants drank less. Parties where the
students played drinking games also yielded more
Parties are difficult to study. Asking people about intoxicated guests, as did parties where people were
the party they attended the night before would likely costumed (e.g., theme parties and Halloween parties).
yield invalid data, as they may not remember the Women, in particular, had higher BrAC levels at theme
details and they may edit their reports to avoid parties compared to men. Students’ intoxication levels
embarrassment. So when psychologist John Clapp dropped as the parties increased in size, disconfirming
decided to study this unique type of group, he assem- the idea that the students become more uninhibited in
bled a team of observers and interviewers and trained large groups. This effect, however, may have been due
them to enter parties and collect data. Every Thursday, to the logistics of gaining access to alcohol rather than
Friday, and Saturday night, the teams would patrol the inhibition. The larger the party, the longer it took
area around campus, looking for parties. Some nights, students to get a drink.
they found only 2 or 3, but on others as many as 20;
the average number of parties was 7. The team then Clapp and his colleagues, by combining various
chose, at random, four parties to study that evening. If types of data, succeeded in shedding light on one of the
the hosts agreed to take part in the study—and most most dynamic of groups—the college party—and their
did—then seven-person crews, carrying notebooks and correlational findings suggest ways to minimize the
clip boards and wearing “College Drinking Survey” health risks of these groups. Curtailing alcohol con-
sweatshirts, entered the party and recorded such sumption can be accomplished through relatively simple
variables as number of guests, rowdiness, loudness of alterations of group goals and norms. To shift the
the music, kind of food available, type of alcohol and group’s goals to focus on socializing rather than drinking
drugs being used (e.g., beer, mixed drinks, shots, per se, hosts should discourage drinking games and
marijuana), and the distribution of people in the avoid theme parties with costumed partygoers. Because
physical location. Clapp’s team did not interfere with people also drink more to keep pace with others’ degree
the natural progression of the party—he was con- of intoxication, hosts should not make it too easy for
ducting a correlational study. But the team did their guests to drink excessively. Banning shots and kegs,
administer short questionnaires to partygoers and providing food, and encouraging social interaction are a
checked their Breath Alcohol Concentration, or BrAC, few ways to increase the social value of the event and
minimize the harm done by drinking too much alcohol.

correlational study continues to be used to Advantages and Disadvantages Researchers use
describe studies that rely on measuring variables correlational designs whenever they wish to know
rather than manipulating them. more about the relationship between variables. Are
group leaders usually older than their followers? Do
correlational study A research design in which the groups become more centralized as they grow
investigator measures (but does not manipulate) at least larger? Do people who are more committed to
two variables and then uses statistical procedures to their group tend to express attitudes that match
examine the strength and direction of the relationship their group’s position? These are all questions
between these variables. that researchers might ask concerning the relation-
ship between variables. When coupled with valid

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

50 C H A P T E R 2

measures, correlational studies clearly describe these democratic leader let the boys themselves make
relationships without disrupting or manipulating their own decisions; and the laissez-faire leader
any aspect of the group. gave the group members very little guidance
(Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939; White, 1990;
Correlational studies, however, yield only lim- White & Lippitt, 1968).
ited information about the causal relationship
between variables because the researcher does not The researchers observed the groups as they
directly manipulate any variables. Newcomb’s data, worked with each type of leader and measured
for example, indicated that the attitude changes he group productivity and aggressiveness. When they
measured were related to reference-group pressures, reviewed their findings, they discovered that the
but he could not rule out other possible causes. Per- autocratic groups spent more time working (74%)
haps, unknown to Newcomb, the most popular stu- than the democratic groups (50%), which in turn
dents on campus all read the same books that spent more time working than the laissez-faire
contained arguments that persuaded them to give up groups (33%). Although these results argued in
their conservative attitudes. Newcomb also could not favor of the efficiency of an autocratic leadership
be certain about the direction of the relationship he style, the observers also noted that in some (but
documented. He believed that individuals who joined not all) groups with an autocratic leader, productiv-
the liberal reference group became more liberal them- ity dropped considerably whenever the leader left
selves, but the causal relationship may have been just the room for any length of time. The boys in some
the opposite: People who expressed more liberal atti- of the autocratically led groups were also more hos-
tudes may have been asked to join more liberal refer- tile, more destructive, and more likely to single out
ence groups. Although these alternative explanations one member to be the target of almost continual
seem less plausible, they cannot be eliminated, given verbal abuse. The researchers believed that this
the methods used by Newcomb. scapegoat provided members with an outlet for
pent-up hostilities that could not be acted out
2-3c Experimental Studies against the powerful group leader.

How did Sandy Pentland, the organizer of the Red Conducting Experiments Lewin, Lippitt, and
Balloon Challenge Team, lead the group? Did he White’s study of leadership styles was an experi-
set out a clear agenda, allocate tasks to each mem- ment. First, they identified a variable that they
ber, and then intervene regularly to reward those believed caused changes in group processes and
who were working hard and sanctioning anyone then systematically manipulated this independent
who was not contributing at a high rate? Or was variable by giving groups different types of leaders
he a more collaborative leader who let the group (autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire). Second, the
plot its own course and make its own decisions as it researchers assessed the effects of the independent var-
worked to identify the one best way to solve DAR- iable by measuring factors such as productivity and
PA’s challenge? aggressiveness. The variables that researchers measure

Psychologists Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, and experiment A research design in which the investigator
Ralph White examined the effectiveness of differ- (1) manipulates at least one variable by randomly assign-
ing styles of leadership in one of the first experi- ing participants to two or more different conditions, (2)
mental studies of groups. They arranged for 10- and measures at least one other variable, and (3) controls the
11-year-old boys to meet after school in five- influence of other variables on the outcome.
member groups to work on hobbies such as wood- independent variable Something that the researcher
working and painting. The adults in charge of the changes in an experimental study while holding other
groups adopted one of three styles of leadership: variables constant and measuring the dependent variable;
autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire. The autocratic the causal mechanism in a cause–effect relationship.
leader made all the decisions for the group; 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.

STUDYING GROUPS 51

are called dependent variables because their mag- change. By conducting an experiment, Lewin and
nitude depends on the strength and nature of the his colleagues could say more than “leadership is
independent variable. Lewin, Lippitt, and White related to group productivity;” they can say “leaders
hypothesized that group leadership style would influ- cause changes in group productivity.”
ence productivity and aggressiveness, so they tested
this hypothesis by manipulating the independent vari- Experiments offer an excellent means of testing
able (leadership style) and measuring the dependent hypotheses about the causes of group behavior, but
variables (productivity and aggressiveness). they are not without their logistical, methodologi-
cal, and ethical problems. Researchers cannot
Third, the experimenters tried to maintain always control the situation sufficiently to manipu-
control over other variables. The researchers never late the independent variable or to keep other vari-
assumed that the only determinant of productivity ables constant. Lewin and his colleagues, for
and aggressiveness was leadership style; they knew example, had considerable difficulty manipulating
that other variables, such as the personality charac- their independent variable in a systematic way (see
teristics and abilities of the group members, could Chapter 9). Moreover, to maintain control over the
influence the dependent variables. In the experi- conditions of an experiment, researchers may end
ment, however, the researchers were not interested up studying closely monitored but artificial group
in these other variables. They therefore made cer- situations. Experimenters often work in laboratories
tain that these other variables were controlled in the with ad hoc groups that are created just for the pur-
experimental situation. For example, they took pose of research, and these groups may differ in
pains to ensure that the groups they created were important ways from bona fide groups. Although
“roughly equated on patterns of interpersonal rela- an experimenter can heighten the impact of the
tionships, intellectual, physical, and socioeconomic situation by withholding information about the
status, and personality characteristics” (White & study, such deception can be challenged on ethical
Lippitt, 1968, p. 318). Because no two groups grounds. Experiments can be conducted in the field
were identical, these variations could have resulted using already-existing groups, but they will almost
in some groups working harder than others. The necessarily involve the sacrifice of some degree of
researchers used random assignment of groups to control and will reduce the strength of the research-
even out these initial inequalities. ers’ conclusions. Hence, the major advantage of
experimentation—the ability to draw causal
Advantages and Disadvantages When research- inferences—can be offset by the major disadvantage
ers conduct experiments, they manipulate one or of experimentation—basing conclusions on con-
more independent variables, assess systematically trived situations that say little about the behavior
one or more dependent variables, and control of groups in more naturalistic settings (these issues
other possible contaminating variables. When the are discussed in more detail by Driskell & Salas,
experiment is properly designed and conducted, 1992; Reis & Gosling, 2010; Wittenbaum, 2012).
researchers can make inferences about the causal
relationships linking variables. If the investigators 2-3d Studying Groups: Issues and
keep all variables constant, except for the indepen-
dent variable, and the dependent variable changes, Implications
then they can cautiously conclude that the inde-
pendent variable caused the dependent variable to Researchers recognize that all conceptual analyses
of groups, no matter how intellectually alluring,
dependent variable The resultant outcomes measured must be tested with procedures that meet the field’s
by the researcher; the effect variable in a cause–effect scientific standards, but those who study groups face
relationship. some unique logistic and statistical problems. Group
processes including leadership, communication, 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.

52 C H A P T E R 2

influence are notoriously difficult to document study groups using multiple methods, for all “meth-
objectively, for many of the traditional tools of ods have inherent flaws—though each has certain
the social scientist fail to provide sufficient detail advantages. These flaws cannot be avoided. But
when the subject of study is a group. Researchers what the researcher can do is to bring more than
who study groups must also deal with a host of one approach, more than one method, to bear on
methodological and statistical problems that the each” (McGrath, 1984, p. 30).
researcher who studies only isolated individuals
can avoid. “The enduring and often indeterminate Ethics of Group Research Group researchers,
time frame of ‘real’ groups, to say nothing of their given their commitment to learning all they can
inherent complexity, makes their systematic study a about people in groups, pry into matters that other
daunting exercise” (Kerr & Tindale, 2014, p. 188). people might consider private, sensitive, or even
controversial. Observers may watch groups—a sports
Selecting a Method Researchers use a variety of team playing a rival, a class of elementary school
empirical procedures to deal with these complexities. children on the playground, a sales team reviewing
Some observe group processes and then perform a ways to improve their productivity—without telling
qualitative analysis of their observations, whereas the groups that they are being observed. Researchers
others insist on quantitative measurement methods may deliberately disguise their identities so that they
and elaborate controlled experiments. Some conduct can join a group that might otherwise exclude them.
their studies in field situations using bona fide groups, Experimenters often manipulate aspects of the
whereas others bring groups into the laboratory or groups they study to determine how these manipu-
even create groups to study. Some undertake explor- lations change the group over time. Do researchers
atory studies with no clear idea of what results to have the moral right to use these types of methods to
expect, whereas other research studies are designed study groups?
to test hypotheses carefully derived from a specific
theory. Some study group phenomena by asking In most cases, the methods that group research-
volunteers to role-play group members, and others ers use in their studies—watching groups, interview-
create elaborate computer-based simulations of ing members, changing an aspect of the situation to
group processes (see Hollingshead & Poole, 2012). see how groups respond to these changes—raise few
Researchers have even begun developing tools that ethical concerns. People are usually only too willing
will allow them to immerse individuals in simulated to take part in studies, and investigators prefer to get
groups that seem to be real but are actually created group members’ consent before proceeding. If they
by virtual environment technologies (Sivunen & do watch a group without the members’ knowledge,
Hakonen, 2011). it is usually a group in a public setting where mem-
bers have no expectation of privacy or where their
This diversity of research methods does not identities are completely unknowable (de-identified).
reflect researchers’ uncertainty about which tech- Group researchers strive to treat the subjects in their
nique is best. Rather, the diversity stems from the research with respect and fairness.
unique advantages and disadvantages offered by
each method. Case studies limit the researcher’s In some cases, however, researchers have used
ability to generalized broadly, but some phenomena methods that raise more complex issues of ethics
are difficult to study by any other method. Corre- and human rights. One investigator, for example,
lational studies are limited in causal power, but they used participant observation methods in a study of
yield precise estimates of the strength of the rela- men having sex with one another in a public rest-
tionships between variables. Experimentation pro- room. He did not reveal that he was a researcher
vides the firmest test of causal hypotheses, but until later, when he tracked them down at their
experiments sometimes require studying groups in homes (many of them were married) and asked
highly contrived settings. The solution, then, is to them follow-up questions (Humphreys, 1975).
Other researchers, with the permission of a U.S.

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

STUDYING GROUPS 53

district judge, made audio recordings of juries’ phenomena. Scientists gather empirical evidence, but
deliberations without the jurors’ knowledge. they also use this evidence to test the strength of
When the tapes were played in public, an angry hypotheses derived from theoretical models and gen-
U.S. Congress passed legislation forbidding eral principles. Theories provide the means of orga-
researchers from eavesdropping on juries (see Hans nizing known facts about groups and so create orderly
& Vidmar, 1991). In other studies, researchers have knowledge out of discrete bits of information. Theo-
placed participants in stressful situations, as when ries also yield suggestions for future research. When
researchers studied obedience in groups by arrang- researchers extend existing theories into new areas,
ing for an authority to order participants to give an they discover new information about groups, while
innocent victim painful electric shocks. The shocks simultaneously testing the strength of their theories.
were not real, but some participants were very
upset by the experience (Milgram, 1963). Researchers have developed hundreds of theo-
ries about groups and their dynamics. Some of these
These studies are exceptional ones, and they theories are relatively narrow, for they focus on some
were conducted before review procedures were specific aspect of groups. Others, in contrast, are
developed to protect participants. Present-day broader in scope, for they offer general explanations
researchers must now submit their research plans for groups across a wide variety of times and con-
to a group known as an Institutional Review texts. These theories, despite their variations, often
Board (IRB). The IRB, using federal guidelines share certain basic assumptions about what processes
that define what types of procedures should be are more important than others, the types of out-
used to minimize risk to participants, reviews each comes they explain, and the variables that are most
study’s procedures before permitting researchers to influential. This section reviews some of these basic
proceed. In most cases, researchers are expected to theoretical perspectives on groups but with the
give participants a brief but accurate description of caveat that these approaches are not mutually exclu-
their duties in the research before gaining their sive. Most theories embrace assumptions from more
agreement to take part. Researchers also use meth- than one of the motivational/emotional, behavioral,
ods that minimize any possibility of harm, and they systems, cognitive, and biological perspectives.
treat participants respectfully and fairly. An investi-
gator might not need to alert people that they are 2-4a Motivational Perspectives
being studied as they go about their ordinary activ-
ities in public places, but it is best to let an impartial Why do some people vie for leadership in their
group—the IRB—make that decision. groups? Why do some people shy away from
groups, whereas others join dozens of them? Why
2-4 THEORETICAL did the Red Balloon Challenge Team throw cau-
tion to the wind and take on the work of finding
PERSPECTIVES the balloons? The answers to these “why” questions
often lie in people’s motivations and emotions.
Researchers do not just develop ingenious methods Motivations are psychological mechanisms that
for measuring and studying group processes. They also give purpose and direction to behavior. These
develop compelling theoretical explanations for group inner mechanisms can be called many things—
habits, beliefs, feelings, wants, instincts, compul-
Institutional Review Board (IRB) A group, usually sions, drives—but no matter what their label, they
located at a university or other research institution, that
reviews research procedures to make certain that they are motivation Wants, needs, and other psychological pro-
consistent with ethical guidelines for protecting human cesses that energize behavior and thereby determine its
participants. form, intensity, and duration.

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

54 C H A P T E R 2

prompt people to take action. Emotions often being linked to others in positive social relationships
accompany these needs and desires; feelings of hap- (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). To be sure, groups, by
piness, sadness, satisfaction, and sorrow are just a rejecting and mistreating members, can be sources
few of the emotions that can influence how people of extremely negative emotions such as loneliness,
act in group situations. The words motivation and despair, sadness, and shame, but groups are also
emotion both come from the Latin word movere, the source of such positive social emotions as con-
meaning “to move.” tentment, pleasure, bliss, joy, love, gratitude, and
admiration (Hareli & Parkinson, 2008).
Motivational approaches offer insight into a
wide range of group phenomena, for they focus 2-4b Behavioral Perspectives
on the “generative aspect of human behavior, on
the forward-moving, internally driven aspect of Many theories about groups draw on the seminal
behavior” (Kelly & Spoor, 2013). Why, for exam- work of psychologist B. F. Skinner (1953, 1971).
ple, do most people seem to desire to join with Skinner’s behaviorism was based on two key
others in groups rather than remain alone? Motiva- assumptions. First, Skinner believed that psychologi-
tional theories suggest that groups are an excellent cal processes, such as motives and drives, may shape
way for members to satisfy some of their most basic people’s reactions in groups, but he also believed that
needs. Psychologist Abraham Maslow’s (1943) such psychological processes are too difficult to index
well-known hierarchy of needs, for example, accurately. He therefore recommended measuring
describes a ranked series of basic human motives, and analyzing how people actually behave in a spe-
including physiological and safety needs, belonging- cific context rather than speculating about the psy-
ness needs, and the need for esteem and respect. chological or interpersonal processes that may have
Applied to groups, his motivational theory suggests instigated their actions. Second, Skinner believed
that groups are the most popular of choices for most that most behavior was consistent with the law of
people because they satisfy these needs. Groups, with effect—that is, behaviors that are followed by positive
their greater resources, offer members food, shelter, consequences, such as rewards, will occur more fre-
and other essentials for survival. Groups offer protec- quently, whereas behaviors that are followed by neg-
tion from harm (“safety in numbers”), and they can ative consequences will become rarer.
care for members who are sick or injured. Groups, by
their very nature, create a sense of belonging for their Social exchange theories use Skinner’s
members and, by accepting and supporting them, are behaviorism to explain how relationships are initi-
a source of prestige and esteem. Groups, from a moti- ated and sustained through the reliable exchange of
vational perspective, are a useful means of satisfying rewards and the imposition of costs by individuals
psychological needs (Kenrick et al., 2010). and groups (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961; Thibaut &
Kelley, 1959). These theories stress the economics
Emotions, too, play a role in prompting indi- of membership by suggesting that members con-
viduals to seek membership in groups rather than tribute their time and personal resources to their
remain alone. Studies of well-being suggest that groups in exchange for direct, concrete rewards,
one of the ways that people maximize their happi- such as pay, goods, and services, as well as indirect,
ness is by joining with other people in groups—
people who are happiest are the ones who report behaviorism A theoretical explanation of the way
organisms acquire new responses to environmental sti-
emotion A subjective state of positive or negative affect muli through conditioning (learning).
often accompanied by a degree of arousal or activation. social exchange theory An economic model of inter-
hierarchy of needs An ordering of needs from the most personal relationships that assumes individuals seek out
basic and biologically necessary to the more social and relationships that offer them many rewards while exact-
psychological needs, such as aesthetic and actualization ing few costs.
needs (developed by Abraham Maslow).

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

STUDYING GROUPS 55

socioemotional rewards, such as status and admira- created for a purpose, with procedures and stan-
tion. These exchanges create relationships among dards designed with the overall goal of the system
members and their group that are strengthened in mind. Groups can, however, be self-creating and
when (a) the rewards are valued ones and any self-organizing systems, for they may develop spon-
costs created by the group are minimized, (b) the taneously as individuals begin to act in coordinated,
members trust each other to fulfill their obligations synchronized ways. Just as a system receives inputs
over the long term, (c) the exchange is judged to be from the environment, processes this information
a fair one with fairness defined primarily by mutual internally, and then outputs its products, groups
adherence to the norm of reciprocity, and (d) mem- gather information, review that information, and
bers develop a commitment to the group as indi- generate products. Groups are also responsive to
cated by increased affective attachment, a sense of information concerning the context in which they
loyalty, and an authentic concern for the other operate and their impact on that context and will
members’ and the group’s well-being. If, however, adapt in response to feedback about their actions.
groups make too many demands on members— Just as the relaying of information between interde-
meetings, time commitment, investment of personal pendent units is a key concept in systems theory, so
resources, and giving up involvement in other the communication of information between members
groups—then members are less likely to maintain plays a central role in group systems. Systems theory
their membership (Cress, McPherson, & Rotolo, suggests that parts are, to an extent, interchangeable—
1997). Social exchange theory suggests that people specific units can be swapped in and out with no
join with others in groups because membership is, in discernable impact on the system—but in some
a sense, a good deal (Cook & Rice, 2006). cases, because groups are built up of closely entwined
parts, they can change to an extraordinary degree
2-4c Systems Perspectives when one of their constituent components changes
(Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000).
Researchers in a variety of fields, including engineer-
ing, biology, and medicine, have repeatedly found that Systems theory provides a model for under-
unique results are obtained when a system is formed by standing a range of group-level processes, including
creating dependency among formerly independent group development, productivity, and interpersonal
components. Systems, whether they are bridges, eco- conflict. Input–process–output (I–P–O) models
logical niches, organisms, or groups, synthesize several of group productivity are systems theories that
parts or subsystems into a unified whole. emphasize inputs that feed into the group setting,
the processes that take place within the group as it
A systems theory approach assumes groups works on the task, and the outputs generated by the
are complex, adaptive, dynamic systems of interact- system (see Figure 2.5). Inputs would include any
ing individuals. The members are the units of the factors that are present in the group setting, including
system who are coupled one to another by relation- members’ individual qualities (e.g., their skills, experi-
ships. Just as systems can be deliberately designed to ence, and training), group-level factors (e.g., group
function in a particular way, groups are sometimes structure, cohesiveness), and macro-level factors

systems theory A general theoretical approach that input–process–output (I–P–O) model Any one of a
assumes that complex phenomena are the result of the number of general conceptual analyses of groups that
constant and dynamic adjustments that occur between assumes raw materials (inputs) are transformed by internal
and among the interdependent parts of the whole. system processes to generate results (output). For exam-
Applied to groups, systems theory assumes that groups ple, an I–P–O model of group performance assumes that
are open systems that maintain dynamic equilibrium group-level processes mediate the relationship between
among members through a complex series of interrelated individual, group, and situational input variables and
adjustments and processes. resulting performance outcomes.

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

56 C H A P T E R 2

Input Process Output first time, they immediately begin to form an
impression of the group. This perceptual work
Feedback prompts them to search for information about the
other group members, rapidly identifying those
F I G U R E 2.5 An input–process–output (I–P–O) model who are outgoing, shy, and intelligent. Group mem-
of group dynamics. A systems theory approach assumes bers also search their memories for stored informa-
that individual and interpersonal processes mediate the tion about the group and the tasks it must face, and
relationship between input factors and outputs. Inputs they must retrieve that information before they can
could include any factors in the situation that feed into the use it. A group member must also take note of the
group’s processes, including aspects of the group members, actions of others and try to understand what caused
the group itself, and the situation where the group is the other member to act in this way. Thus, group
located. Processes include leadership, communication, members are busy perceiving, judging, reasoning,
influence, and so on. Output includes products, decisions, and remembering, and all these mental activities
and other deliverables, but also (a) changes in the group influence their understanding of one another, the
and its members, such as increased cohesion and satisfac- group, and themselves (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath,
tion and (b) feedback providing input to the system. 1997; Hodgkinson & Healey, 2008).

(e.g., organizational norms, cultural context). These Consider, for example, the impact of groups on
input factors all influence the processes that take the human memory system. Cognitive researchers,
place within the group as members interact with in their studies of memory, have discovered that
each other, including communication, planning, con- people have better memories for actions and events
flict, and leadership. These processes transform the that they are personally connected to and that
inputs into outputs, which could include aspects of thinking about themselves when processing infor-
the group’s performance (e.g., products, decisions, mation prompts them to encode the information
errors) but also changes in the factors that serve as more deeply. This self-reference effect can be
inputs to the system (feedback). If the group performs demonstrated, for example, by asking people to
poorly, for example, it may become less cohesive or it answer a question about each word in a long list
may seek out new members. Members of successful of words. If the question is a superficial one, such
groups, in contrast, may become more satisfied with as “Does the word start with a vowel?” then people
their group and take steps to make sure that the group remember very few of the words when their mem-
uses the same procedures to solve the next problem ory is later tested. But, if they were asked “Does the
(Ilgen et al., 2005; Littlepage et al., 1995). word describe you?” their memories are signifi-
cantly improved. The self, however, is not the
2-4d Cognitive Perspectives only source of improved memory. When this
experiment was repeated, but with a question
A group’s dynamics, in many cases, become under- about groups added, a group-reference effect
standable only by studying the cognitive processes occurred. Instead of asking “Does this word
that determine how members gather and make sense describe you?” respondents were asked “Does
of information. When people join a group for the this word describe your group?” (family, univer-
sity, or social category). When their memories
cognitive processes Mental processes that acquire,
organize, and integrate information including memory self-reference effect The tendency for people to have
systems that store data and the psychological mechanisms better memories for actions and events that they are per-
that process this information. sonally connected to in some way.
group-reference effect The tendency for group mem-
bers to have better memories for actions and events that
are related, in some way, to their group.

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

STUDYING GROUPS 57

were later tested, they were able to remember level, including increases in their cardiac output
as many of the words as were subjects in the (CO). Those who doubt their ability and so feel
self-reference condition. These findings suggest threatened rather than challenged, in contrast, exhibit
that “groups have the potential of providing an little or no CO increase. To confirm this relationship
organizational framework to aid memory” (Johnson between challenge/threat response and group perfor-
et al., 2002, p. 270). mance, Blascovich and his colleagues measured how
members of sports teams responded when thinking
2-4e Biological Perspectives about their ability to perform well as part of their
team (baseball). They confirmed that those group
Group members can solve complex problems, members who displayed changes in cardiac function-
communicate with one another using spoken ing that indicated they felt challenged and not threat-
and written language, build and operate massive ened performed better when they were part of their
machines, and plan their group’s future. But team during its regular season (Blascovich et al., 2004).
group members are also living creatures whose These findings suggest the Red Balloon Challenge
responses are often shaped by physiological, Team was particularly well-named.
genetic, and neurological characteristics. When a
group member is experiencing distress, other 2-4f Selecting a Theoretical
group members experience changes in heart rate
and blood pressure as they respond sympatheti- Perspective
cally to their fellow member’s distress (Fusaroli
et al., 2016). Men who seek to gain positions of Group dynamics is rich with theory. Some of these
higher status in the group tend to be those who theories trace group processes back to psychologi-
have elevated levels of the testosterone hormone cal processes—the motivations of the individual
(Dabbs & Dabbs, 2000). The neuropeptide oxyto- members, the mental processes that sustain their
cin, produced in the hypothalamus, increases the conception of their social environment, and even
likelihood that people will treat other members of their instinctive urges and proclivities. Other the-
their group in positive, prosocial ways, although it ories focus more on the group as a social system
also increases rejection of outgroup members that is integrated in the surrounding community
(De Dreu et al., 2010). Specific areas of the brain and society.
associated with receipt of rewards are activated when
individuals conform to a group’s judgments rather These different theoretical perspectives, how-
than disagree with others (Klucharev et al., 2009). ever, are not mutually exclusive paradigms, strug-
gling for the distinction as the explanation of group
Social psychologist James Blascovich’s (2014) behavior. Some researchers test hypotheses derived
biopsychosocial (BPS) threat/challenge model, for from only one theory; others draw on several per-
example, traces differences in group members’ per- spectives as they strive to describe, predict, control,
formance back to their physiological reactions to and explain groups and their members. Just as the
evaluation. His model suggests groups that feel questions “How should I measure this aspect of
their work is challenging respond very differently, the group?” and “How should I test my hypothesis
physiologically, than do groups that feel threatened about groups?” can be answered in more than one
by the complexities of the tasks they are attempting. way, no one solution can be offered in response to
The Red Balloon Challenge Team, for example, the question “What theory explains group behav-
was filled with confidence as it began its work to ior?” Many of the greatest advances in understand-
solve the DARPA problem (“this was the sort of ing groups have occurred not when one theory has
thing we were expert at,” Pentland, 2014). Blasco- been pitted against another, but when two or
vich and his colleagues find that such groups exhibit more theories have been synthesized to form a
performance-enhancing changes at a physiological new, more encompassing theoretical perspective.

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

58 C H A P T E R 2

CHAPTER REVIEW

What assumptions do researchers make while ■ Hackman’s (2003) studies of orchestras
studying groups and their dynamics? illustrate the importance of examining
micro-, meso-, and macro-level factors
1. The field’s basic assumptions and procedures, when investigating group dynamics.
termed a paradigm by Kuhn (1970), were
shaped by such early researchers as: How do researchers measure individual and group
processes?
■ Le Bon (1895), a social theorist best
known for his book on the psychology of 1. Observation involves watching and recording
crowds and mobs, Psychologie des Foules. events transpiring in groups. Varieties include
overt observation, covert observation, and participant
■ Wundt (1916), a psychologist who wrote observation, which Whyte (1943) used in his
Völkerpsychologie. study of corner gangs.

■ Durkheim (1897), a sociologist who ■ Covert observation reduces the biasing
argued that society is made possible by the influences of the Hawthorne effect.
collective representations of individuals.
■ The study of online groups, such as that
■ Allport (1924), a psychologist who avoided conducted by Bainbridge (2007), suggests
holistic approaches to groups. such groups display dynamics that are
similar to those of offline groups.
2. Early researchers adopted varying theories and
methods in their initial studies of groups. 2. Qualitative studies require the collection of
descriptive data about groups, but quantitative
■ Sociological investigators (e.g., Durkheim, studies require the enumeration and quantifi-
1897) tended to adopt a group level of cation of the phenomena of interest.
analysis.
■ Hastorf and Cantril’s (1954) study of stu-
■ Psychologists focused on individuals (e.g., dents’ perceptions of their college football
Allport, 1924) and warned of the group team demonstrate the potential for bias in
fallacy. perceptions of groups.

■ Researchers debated the existence of a ■ Observers, when using structured observa-
group mind, but individuals often attribute tional measures, assign each action to a
mind-like properties to groups (e.g., specific category.
Waytz & Young, 2012) and Sherif (1936)
created a group-level process (norms) ■ Bales’ (1950) Interaction Process Analysis
experimentally. (IPA), a standard group coding system,
classifies behaviors into two categories:
3. Lewin’s (1951) field theory assumes groups are relationship and task interaction.
often greater than the sum of their parts.
■ Bales’ (1999) SYMLOG (Systematic
■ Lewin’s law of interactionism assumes that Multiple Level Observation of Groups)
group processes are a function of both the expands the original relationship-task dis-
person and the environment; B = f(P, E). tinction to dominance–submissiveness,
friendliness–unfriendliness, and accepting–
■ A multilevel perspective recognizes that indi- opposing task orientation/authority.
viduals are nested in groups, and these
groups are usually nested in larger social 3. Reliability and validity are essential qualities of all
aggregations, such as communities and measures, for they must be consistent and they
organizations.

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

STUDYING GROUPS 59

must measure what they are designed to of the relationship between variables is
measure. often expressed as a correlation coefficient.

4. Self-report measures ask group members to 3. In an experiment, researchers examine cause–
describe their own perceptions and effect relationships by manipulating aspects of
experiences. the group situation (independent variables).

■ Moreno’s (1934) sociometry method asks ■ Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) studied
members to report whom they like the the impact of autocratic, democratic, and
most. The nominations are used to gen- laissez-faire leaders on groups by conduct-
erate a sociogram, or visual image of the ing an experiment. They manipulated the
interpersonal relations in the group. independent variable (leadership style),
assessed several dependent variables (aggres-
■ Sociometry was an early form of social net- siveness, productivity, etc.), and limited
work analysis, which can be used to gener- the influence of other possible causal fac-
ate both member-level and group-level tors by controlling the situation and
indexes of the group’s structural features. assigning groups to experimental condi-
tions at random.
What are the key characteristics of and differences
between case, correlational, and experimental studies ■ Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s study indi-
of group processes? cated that productivity was high in both
democratic and autocratic groups, but that
1. A case study is an in-depth analysis of one or the participants were more aggressive in
more groups based on interviews with mem- the autocratic groups.
bers, observation, and so on.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of case,
■ Janis (1972) used a case-study design in his correlational, and experimental methods?
analysis of groupthink in government
decision-making groups. 1. The conclusions drawn from case studies can
be highly subjective, but they stimulate theory
■ By studying naturally occurring, bona fide and provide detailed information about natural,
groups, case-study researchers can be more bona fide groups.
certain that the processes they study are
not artificial ones influenced by the 2. Groups studied in experimental settings may
research process. not display the dynamics of naturally occurring
groups, but experimentation provides the
2. In a correlational study, the investigator, rather clearest test of cause-and-effect hypotheses.
than manipulating aspects of the situation,
gauges the strength of the naturally occurring 3. Correlational studies provide only limited
relationships between such variables. information about causality, but they yield
precise estimates of the strength of the rela-
■ Newcomb (1943) examined the relation- tionship between two variables and raise fewer
ship between members’ political attitudes questions of ethics for researchers.
and their popularity in the group in an
early study of reference groups. Other inves- 4. Researchers also exercise care when selecting
tigators have examined the group-level the level of analysis and when analyzing their
factors that correlate with alcohol con- findings so as to not attribute effects caused by
sumption in festive groups (Clapp et al., group-level processes to individual-level pro-
2008). cesses and vice versa. Researchers who study
multilevel processes must be ever wary of
■ Nonexperimental studies are usually called interdependence in their data.
correlational studies because the magnitude

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

60 C H A P T E R 2

5. Most group research raises few ethics issues, but (I–P–O model) of group performance exem-
researchers are required to have their work plifies the systems approach.
approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).
4. Cognitive theories assume that many group
Which theoretical perspectives guide researchers’ processes are understandable only after consid-
studies of groups? ering the cognitive processes that allow members
to gather information, make sense of it, and
1. Theories that focus on members’ motivations then act on the results of their mental apprai-
and emotions, such as Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy sals. For example, the self-reference effect improves
of needs theory, explain group behavior in terms memory for information that is relevant to the
of members’ wants, needs, drives, and feelings. self-concept, but the group-reference effect
improves memories for group-related
2. Theories based on Skinner’s (1953) behaviorism, information.
such as social exchange theory, assume that indi-
viduals act to maximize their rewards and 5. Biological perspectives, such as Blascovich’s
minimize their costs. (2014) threat/challenge model, study the rela-
tionship between physiological mechanisms
3. A systems theory approach assumes that groups and group behavior.
are systems. An input–process–output model

RESOURCES

Chapter Case: The Red Balloon Challenge Team measures used by investigators in a wide
variety of group research.
■ Social Physics by Alex Pentland (2014) not
only provides an analysis of the Challenge ■ Research Methods for Studying Groups and
Team, but also the assumptions and impli- Teams, edited by Andrea B. Hollingshead and
cations of Pentland’s theory of social physics. Marshall Scott Poole (2012), is an excellent
compendium of methods, techniques, and
Group Dynamics: History and Issues tricks to use when studying groups.

■ A History of Social Psychology: From the Research Methods
Eighteenth-Century Enlightenment to the Sec-
ond World War by Gustav Jahoda (2007) is ■ Applications of Case Study Research by
a fascinating history of the early emergence Robert K. Yin (2009) explains the logic
of social psychology in general and group behind case studies and offers a precise set
dynamics in particular. of procedures to follow to carry out a
study that will yield valid results.
■ “A History of Small Group Research” by
John M. Levine and Richard L. Moreland ■ Street Corner Society by William Foote
(2012) provides a detailed review of the Whyte (1943) remains one of the best
development of the field of group examples of applying the case-study
dynamics, divided into the following eras: method to understanding a group’s
first 50 years, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and dynamics.
1980s and beyond.
■ The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in
Studying Groups Psychology, edited by Carla Willig and
Wendy Stainton-Rogers (2008), draws
■ “Methods of Small Group Research” by together 33 chapters dealing with all aspects
Norbert L. Kerr and R. Scott Tindale of qualitative research procedures, including
(2014) examines the techniques 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.

STUDYING GROUPS 61

ethics, ethnography, observation, inter- ■ Theories of Small Groups: Interdisciplinary
viewing, discussion analysis, and so on. Perspectives, edited by Marshall Scott Poole
and Andrea B. Hollingshead (2005),
Advances in Group Research Methods describes, reviews, and synthesizes the full
range of theoretical perspectives in groups,
■ “The Design and Analysis of Data from including evolutionary approaches,
Dyads and Groups” by David A. Kenny network approaches, and feminist and
and Deborah A. Kashy (2014) reviews the functionalist perspectives.
statistical procedures to use when data are
collected from intact 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.

Inclusion and
Identity

3C H A P T E R

CHAPTER OUTLINE CHAPTER OVERVIEW

3-1 From Isolation to Inclusion Groups transform the me into the we. Even though
3-1a The Need to Belong each group member is capable of surviving indepen-
3-1b Inclusion and Exclusion dently of the group, the need to belong is usually stron-
3-1c Inclusion and Human Nature ger than the desire to remain independent of others’
influences. But if group members act only to maximize
3-2 From Individualism to Collectivism their own interests and not those of the group, then
3-2a Creating Cooperation their membership—and the group itself—would be
3-2b The Social Self short-lived. This chapter examines the processes that
determine this alignment of individual and collective
3-3 From Personal Identity to Social Identity pursuits. Once the members join in a group, they can
3-3a Social Identity Theory: The Basics seek their own goals (individualism), and they must
3-3b Motivation and Social Identity also contribute to the collective (collectivism). This
intermingling of individual and collective motives
Chapter Review blurs the boundary between the self and other, result-
Resources ing in a collective, group-level identity.

■ Do humans, by nature, seek solitude or
inclusion?

■ When do people put the group’s needs before
their own?

■ What processes transform an individual’s sense
of self into a collective, social identity?

62

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 63

Peak Search and Rescue: From Individualism to Collectivism

When Patrick first heard about Peak Search and Rescue members explained, “If you feel like you have to
he knew he wanted to join. Peak (a pseudonym) was belong to a group like this to make yourself look bet-
an all-volunteer emergency response group based in a ter to other people, you know, take it somewhere
mountainous area in the western region of the United else” (Lois, 2003, p. 55).
States. Peak first formed when several local outdoor
enthusiasts recognized the need for better organized Patrick was by nature self-confident, extraverted,
and equipped searches for missing, lost, stranded, and thrill-seeking, and he struggled to reconcile his
trapped, and injured hikers. Over the years, the group natural egoism with Peak’s collective focus. When he
has grown to include 30 active members as well as first joined, he pushed to take part in rescue efforts
many others who supported the group’s activities as long before the group felt that he had earned the right
needed. Patrick wanted to become one of those to full membership. He spoke of personal goals, of
members. wanting to “learn things from these guys” rather than
contributing to the group (Lois, 2003, p. 74). But, in
Patrick, an avid rock climber and hiker, thought time, his individual, personal self grew quieter, and his
that joining this group would be a good way to group-level, collective self flourished. He took part in as
sharpen his wilderness skills, meet people, and perhaps many missions as he could and stepped in and filled any
gain their admiration and respect. Peak’s members role that needed filling. He preferred the excitement of
risked their own lives to save others, and Patrick leading the search teams, and also took on the more
relished the idea of joining the ranks of these heroes. routine tasks such as monitoring communications from
He soon learned, however, that the Peak members the basecamp and maintaining the equipment. He
eschewed the hero label. Members who set themselves learned to never speak of his individual exploits fol-
above others, showed off, or acted in ways that lowing a rescue, and he publicly accepted the blame for
increased the risk of harm to other members or to the risky actions he took during his early years in the
those they were rescuing—any self-glorification—fell group. He learned to act for the good of the group
quickly from the group’s graces. As one of the group rather than for self-gain (see Lois, 1999, 2003).

Patrick and Peak illustrate what has been called outsiders into insiders by joining a group. Through
the “master problem of social life”: The connec- collectivism, members begin to think about the good
tion between the individual and the collective, of the group as a whole rather than what the group
including groups, organizations, communities, and provides them. Through the transformation of iden-
society itself (Allport, 1962). Many people who tity, individuals change their conception of who
were interested in joining Peak attended the they are to include their group’s qualities as well
required orientation and training sessions, but as their own individual qualities.
soon discovered that Peak required too much of
them. They remained on the group’s fringes, for 3-1 FROM ISOLATION TO
they resisted Peak’s mandate that members act for
the good of others rather than for themselves. INCLUSION
Others, like Patrick, learned to put the group’s
interests before their own personal needs. They Some species of animals are solitary. The cheetah,
did not just join Peak; they identified so strongly giant panda, orangutan, and opossum remain apart
with the group that their sense of self came to be from other members of their species and congregate
defined by it (Ellemers, 2012). in some cases only to mate or rear offspring. Other
animals, such as chimps, hyena, deer, and mice, are
This chapter examines three essential processes social creatures, for they usually forage, feed, sleep,
that combine to transform lone individuals into and travel in small groups. What about humans? Do
group members: inclusion, collectivism, and iden-
tity. Through inclusion, individuals change from

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

64 C H A P T E R 3

How Strong Is Your Need to Belong?

The need-to-belong hypothesis assumes all humans desire to be included in groups, but this need is likely stron-
ger in some individuals than in others. Leary and his colleagues developed the Need to Belong Scale (NTB Scale)
to measure these variations.

Instructions: Several items from the NTB Scale are listed below. For each of the statements, indicate the
degree to which you agree or disagree by circling a number where:

1 ¼ Strongly disagree 3 ¼ Neither agree nor disagree 5 ¼ Strongly agree
2 ¼ Moderately disagree 4 ¼ Moderately agree

1. I try hard not to do things that will make other people avoid or reject me. 12345
2. I want other people to accept me. 12345
3. I do not like being alone. 12345
4. My feelings are easily hurt when I feel that others do not accept me. 12345
5. I have a strong need to belong. 12345

Scoring: Only a subset of the full scale is listed here, but you can calculate a tentative estimate of your
belonging score by summing the 5 numbers you circled. A score of 13 or lower indicates a low need to belong, a
score between 14 and 18 is average, and a score of 19 and above is a high score. (For more information see Leary
et al., 2013.)

people tend to keep to themselves, guarding their belong to other basic needs, such as hunger or
privacy from the incursions of others, or are humans thirst. A person who has not eaten will feel hun-
group-oriented animals who prefer the company of gry, but a person who has little contact with other
other people to a life alone? people will feel unhappy and lonely. In this sec-
tion, we review the evidence that backs up their
3-1a The Need to Belong claim that group membership fulfills a generic
need to establish positive, enduring relationships
Healthy adult human beings can survive apart from with other people.
other members of the species, yet across individuals,
societies, and eras, humans consistently seek inclu- Solitude and Social Isolation Aristotle famously
sion over exclusion, membership over isolation, suggested that “Man is by nature a social animal; and
and acceptance over rejection. Social psychologists an unsocial person who is unsocial naturally and not
Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary (1995, p. 497) accidentally is either unsatisfactory or superhuman.”
argued that humans have a need to belong: “a per- Henry David Thoreau disagreed with Aristotle, and,
vasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum to prove his point, spent two years relatively
quantity of lasting, positive, and impactful interper- secluded at Walden Pond. He deliberately kept his
sonal relationships.” They likened the need to social contacts to a minimum, explaining:

need to belong The generalized desire to seek out and Society is commonly too cheap. We meet at very
join with other people, which, when unsatisfied, causes a short intervals, not having had time to acquire
state of tension and want. any new value for each other. We meet at three
meals a day and give each other a taste of that
old musty cheese that we are. Certainly less

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 65

frequency would suffice for all important and relations with others. Loneliness, instead, is an aver-
hearty communication. (Thoreau, 1962, p. 206) sive psychological reaction to a perceived lack of
personal or social relations. Emotional loneliness
Spending time alone, away from others, can be occurs when the problem is a lack of a long-term,
pleasant, even rejuvenating. Patrick, the Peak meaningful, intimate relationship with another per-
member, if asked how he felt about being isolated son; this type of loneliness might be triggered by
from others while he hiked, would likely say he divorce, a breakup with a lover, or repeated roman-
found enjoyment in the self-discovery, contempla- tic failures. Social loneliness, in contrast, occurs when
tion, and increased spirituality that occurs when people feel cut off from their network of friends,
one is physically isolated from others (Coplan & acquaintances, and group members. People who
Bowker, 2014). People say I can “discover who I have moved to a new city, children who are rejected
am,” “determine what I want to be,” “meditate and by their peers, and new employees of large compa-
reflect,” “try out some new behaviors,” “recover nies often experience social loneliness, because they
my self-esteem,” “protect myself from what others are no longer embedded in a network of friends and
say,” and “take refuge from the outside world” acquaintances (Green et al., 2001). Both types of
when alone (Pedersen, 1999, p. 399). Some philo- loneliness create feelings of sadness, depression, emp-
sophers, writers, and inventors reach the apex of tiness, longing, shame, and self-pity.
their creativity during times of isolation, when
they were not distracted by other people (Averill Some groups alleviate loneliness by fostering
& Sundararajan, 2014). both intimate and social relations (Shaver &
Buhrmester, 1983). College students report less
But most people, both young and old, find pro- loneliness when they start college if they belong to
tracted periods of social isolation disturbing. Isolated a cohesive, satisfying group (Asher & Weeks, 2014).
individuals, such as stranded explorers, secluded scien- Members of groups with extensive interconnections
tists, prisoners in solitary confinement, and so on, among all the members were less lonely than members
speak of the psychological costs of their ordeal: fear, of groups with less dense networks (Pressman et al.,
insomnia, memory lapses, depression, fatigue, and 2005). Children with friends—even friends who
general confusion. Prolonged social isolation has were considered odd or unusual by their peers—
been identified as a risk factor for the onset of a num- were less lonely than friendless children (Asher &
ber of psychological disorders, including depression, Paquette, 2003). People who belonged to groups
paranoia, and the disordered thought characteristic (e.g., service organizations, religious or church organi-
of schizophrenia (de Sousa et al., 2015). zations, business or professional organizations, and
social clubs) were healthier and happier than indivi-
Social and Emotional Loneliness Although duals who did not (Harlow & Cantor, 1996)—and
group memberships are not often considered as these effects were stronger still when people contrib-
essential an interpersonal relationship as friendships uted their time to several organizations rather than just
and love relationships, the relationships that groups one (Pilliavin & Siegl, 2007). Those with more con-
create and sustain can become so intimate and nections to others survive environmental disasters,
involving that they serve as a buffer against feelings cope more effectively with traumatic events, and live
of isolation and loneliness. Loneliness is not the longer lives (Charuvastra & Cloitre, 2008).
same as being alone, for in some situations, people
are not troubled by isolation or a relative paucity of All groups are not equally effective in buffering
their members from both forms of loneliness. Transi-
loneliness Cognitive and affective malaise, which can tory, impersonal collectives do little to ease either
include sadness, dejection, self-deprecation, and boredom, social or emotional loneliness. Sitting with other peo-
experienced when one’s personal relationships are perceived ple in a theater or striking up a conversation with a
to be too few or too unsatisfying. stranger on a bus creates a connection momentarily,
but only groups that sustain stable, reliable alliances

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

66 C H A P T E R 3

Is Loneliness Contagious?

A group usually wards off feelings of loneliness, but not network, members are interconnected, but often
if the group is filled with lonely people. Social network through intermediate members. Frank might be friends
researchers, studying the way such physical ailments as with Jill, and Jill might be friends with Ed, but Frank
heart disease and obesity are passed along from one might not even know Ed. So, Frank’s and Ed’s degree of
person to another, discovered that loneliness also separation is two, as it takes two links (Frank to Jill, and
spreads within groups (Cacioppo, Fowler, & Christakis, then Jill to Ed) to link them. People were 52% more
2009). By measuring loneliness at different times, likely to be lonely if connected to a lonely person at one
researchers found that people who were not initially degree of separation, 25% more likely to be lonely at
lonely were more likely to become lonely if they were two degrees of separation (e.g., the friend of a friend
linked to a lonely person. As a result, loneliness occurred was lonely), and 15% more likely to be lonely if linked
in clusters or at the fringes of the network, possibly at three degrees of separation (e.g., a friend of a friend
because lonely individuals were socially isolated. Loneli- of a friend was lonely). Loneliness was no longer conta-
ness also depended on degrees of separation. In a social gious at four degrees of separation.

among members can ward off social loneliness outsider for months, even though she faithfully
(Furman & Buhrmester, 2009). Likewise, only groups attended meeting after meeting: “they didn’t really
that connect people together in an intimate, meaning- care if I was there or not … no one said hello to
ful way reduce feelings of emotional loneliness. Having me, no one said, ‘Welcome, thanks for coming’”
many superficial relationships with others is far (Lois, 2003, p. 80).
less satisfying than having a few high-quality rela-
tionships characterized by high levels of social sup- Ostracism People’s need to belong is slaked
port, mutual caring, and acceptance (Hawkley & when a group accepts them, but they are the
Cacioppo, 2010). In consequence, groups that most satisfied when a group actively seeks them
create connections among their members, such as out. In contrast, people respond negatively when
amateur athletic teams, social clubs, or work groups, a group ignores or avoids them, and this negative
will reduce members’ feelings of social loneliness, but reaction is exacerbated if the group ostracizes, aban-
only more intimate, involving types of groups— dons, or banishes them (Molden et al., 2009). To be
families, romantic couples, or very close friendship isolated from others due to circumstances or acci-
cliques—will meet members’ social and emotional dents is one thing, but to be deliberately ignored
needs (Stroebe et al., 1996). and excluded by others—ostracism—is particu-
larly distressing (see Figure 3.1; Leary, 1990).
3-1b Inclusion and Exclusion
The word ostracism dates to the Greeks, who
The members of Peak did not welcome people to voted to punish members of the community with
their meetings with open arms. The group guarded banishment by inscribing their names on potshards
its solidarity fiercely, and it required newcomers to called ostraca (Williams, 2007). Contemporary forms
prove themselves by withstanding a period of deliber- of ostracism range from formal rejection of a mem-
ate exclusion. One member recalled feeling like an ber from a group—as when a church excommuni-
cates a member or a club permanently bans a

degrees of separation In social network analysis, the ostracism Excluding one or more individuals from a
number of steps or relationships needed to link one person group by reducing or eliminating contact with the person,
in the network to another specific person in the network. usually by ignoring, shunning, or explicitly banishing them.

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 67

Rejection Acceptance

Maximum Active Passive Ambivalence Passive Active Maximum
exclusion exclusion exclusion inclusion inclusion inclusion

Group Group Group Group Group Group Group
rejects or avoids ignores neither allows welcomes actively
ostracizes person person accepts nor member member recruits
rejects to join member
person individual

F I G U R E 3.1 The inclusion–exclusion continuum. When individuals are actively sought out by groups, they expe-
rience maximum inclusion. When groups actively ostracize, people experience maximum exclusion (Leary, 1990).

patron—to more subtle interpersonal tactics such as they are missing is relevant to the group’s social or
the “silent treatment” or the “cold shoulder.” Cli- task activities. Individuals who feel out of the loop
ques of adolescent girls, for example, use the threat experience more negative moods, they feel less
of exclusion and ostracism itself to control the competent, and they do not feel as close interper-
activities of members, with excluded girls finding sonally to the other group members. These conse-
that they are suddenly outcasts instead of trusted quences are more pronounced if they feel that the
friends (Adler & Adler, 1995). Many religious soci- group has deliberately turned against them rather
eties shun members who have broken rules or tra- than mistakenly overlooked them (Jones & Kelly,
ditions. People who work in offices and business 2013).
often report feeling left out and alone because
others avoid them and exclude them from their Conclusions drawn from these studies of every-
conversations and lunches (Robinson & Schabram, day ostracism are supported by experimental studies
2017). In some cases, too, members are not delib- that place people in situations where they feel they
erately excluded, yet they feel as though they are are being excluded in some way. Social psycholo-
out of the loop: that they do not know things that gist Kipling Williams (2007) and his colleagues, for
others in the group do, and that the information example, often use the “ball toss” method. They
arrange for people in a waiting room to begin

Are Humans the Only Ostracizing Species?

Even nonhuman groups practice ostracism. A variety of social species, including wolves, bees, and primates,
sometimes exclude an individual from the group—usually with fatal consequences. A shunned male chimpanzee,
for example, would be forced to live at the periphery of his group, but remain ever vigilant against straying out-
side his home group’s territory—for lone male chimps are usually killed if they are caught by patrolling chimps
from a neighboring troop (Goodall, 1986).

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

68 C H A P T E R 3

Minimal Signal Reflexive Stage Reflective Stage Resignation Stage
Pain Attend, appraise,
Detection of Depleted resources:
ostracism and attribute: Inability to fortify needs
• Motives • Alienation
Negative affect • Meaning • Depression
• Sadness • Relevance • Helplessness
• Anger • Unworthiness
Need fortification
Need threat If ostracism episodes
persist over an
extended time

F I G U R E 3.2 The temporal need-threat model of ostracism.

SOURCE: Adapted from Williams, 2009.

some activity, such as tossing a ball to one another. people respond negatively even when rejected by
Unbeknown to the subject of the study, all the a group whose members they dislike intensely. In
others are part of the research team and they delib- one study, researchers arranged for politically lib-
erately exclude the real subject from the game. eral college students to be rejected by two mem-
Other studies use the “life alone” method, which bers of a socially vilified outgroup—the Ku Klux
involves giving people personality tests that indicate Klan. Even though the students reported that they
their future would be a solitary one. They are told: hated this group, they were still upset when
“You’re the type who will end up alone later in the Klan first excluded them (Gonsalkorale &
life. You may have friends and relationships now, Williams, 2007).
but…. these are likely to be short-lived and not
continue…. Relationships don’t last, and … the Williams’s (2007, 2009) temporal need-threat
odds are you’ll end up being alone more and model of ostracism, summarized in Figure 3.2, calls
more” (Twenge et al., 2007, p. 58). Other studies this initial response to ostracism the reflexive stage. It
have people meet briefly in a “get acquainted” ses- is characterized by a flood of negative feelings—
sion before picking partners or teams. Those tar- pain, disappointment, and distress—that all serve
geted for exclusion are rejected by everyone else to signal that something is wrong. This period of
in the group (Nezlek et al., 1997). negative emotions and confusion is followed by
the deliberative, reflective stage. Patrick, when first
Reactions to Exclusion Most people respond rejected by Peak, probably reviewed the experi-
very negatively to ostracism and exclusion. When ence, searching for an explanation for the way he
asked to describe their feelings, excluded people was treated, and, depending on this analysis, he
report feeling frustrated, anxious, nervous, and likely would have adopted a specific behavioral
lonely, whereas those who are included in strategy to minimize the negative effects of exclu-
the group feel relaxed, friendly, and comfortable sion. If, however, Patrick was never able to gain
(Williams & Nida, 2017). Many feel they have acceptance in this group or another group, then
been betrayed by the other group members, and he would reach the resignation stage: alienation,
they sometimes report frustration, shock, and sur- helplessness, loss of self-worth, and depression.
prise. Whereas people who are included value their
experiences in the group, the excluded sometimes Fight-or-Flight Response Some people, facing
feel as if they are invisible—as if they do not even exclusion, fight their way back into the group (a
exist socially. The desire to belong is so strong that fight response), or they avoid further rejection by
seeking membership elsewhere (a flight response).

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 69

This fight-or-flight response is a common reac- peers (Doll, Murphy, & Song, 2003). In rare cases,
tion of people when they face stressful, threatening withdrawal also triggers a general shutdown in
circumstances, and Williams suggests it is motivated behavioral and emotional reactivity. Such indivi-
by a desire to gain a sense of control in a deleterious duals report little change in mood or emotion
situation. Those who display the fight response may other than numbness and lethargy when rejected;
confront group members directly, attempt to force they freeze up (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006). Emo-
their way into the group, insist that the group tional numbing following exclusion is more likely
exclude someone else, or derogate those who in cases of extreme social injury and insult and, even
have excluded them. They are also more likely to then, occurs only rarely (Bernstein & Claypool,
engage in a number of self-defeating behaviors, 2012; Gerber & Wheeler, 2009).
such as taking unnecessary risks and procrastinating.
They also become less helpful toward others and Tend-and-Befriend Response Patrick, perhaps
more competitive overall. In more extreme cases, because he is a naturally outgoing and very self-
they may lose their temper and try to harm the confident person, did not respond by fighting or
group in some way (DeWall & Twenge, 2013). fleeing from the group (Shaver & Mikulincer,
This type of reaction is more likely when the exclu- 2013). Instead, he coped with his initial rejection
sion is overt, unwarranted, and unexpected. People in socially positive ways. He volunteered to take on
who are blindsided by rejection are more likely to unglamorous but necessary tasks, kept his opinions
fight back (Twenge et al., 2001, 2007). to himself, and tried hard to conform to the group’s
risk management and teamwork norms. He displayed
Those who display a flight response, in contrast, what social psychologist Shelley Taylor (2002, 2006)
attempt to withdraw physically or psychologically calls the tend-and-befriend response. He did not
from the situation. Rather than tolerate the inatten- struggle against the group, but instead supported it by
tion, those who withdraw inhibit their relational backing up others, making sure members’ needs were
tendencies, keep to themselves, or seek acceptance met, reducing risk (tending), and doing what he could
by some other group (Park & Hinsz, 2006). In one to strengthen his connection to others in the group
series of studies, researchers created social exclusion (befriending). Even as the group rejected him, he
in a variety of ways (e.g., reminding people of a continued to express an interest in becoming part of
time they were excluded, giving them feedback the Peak’s team and treated his new acquaintances
suggesting they would end up living their life positively.
alone) and then measured participants’ desire to
socially reconnect. All these manipulations triggered Those who tend-and-befriend rather than
an upswing in the desire to make friends and a fight-and-flee seek social reconnection: They are
willingness to work with others—but with new more sensitive to social cues, more willing to
people and not with those who excluded them work hard for the group, and even tend to uncon-
(Maner et al., 2007). sciously mimic the actions of those around them
(Lakin & Chartrand, 2013). Those who have
Withdrawal, however, can exacerbate social recently been excluded or who feel lonely are far
isolation, for those who too frequently exit more attentive to and more likely to remember
rejection-threatening situations may be viewed as accurately the details of a group’s interaction:
unfriendly, unapproachable, and detached by their

fight-or-flight response A physiological and psycho- tend-and-befriend response A physiological, psycho-
logical response to stressful events characterized by the logical, and interpersonal response to stressful events char-
activation of the sympathetic nervous system (increased acterized by increased nurturing, protective and supportive
heart rate, pupil dilation) that readies the individual to behaviors (tending), and initiating and strengthening
counter the threat (fight) or to escape the threat (flight). relationships with other people (befriending).

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

70 C H A P T E R 3

Does Online Ostracism Hurt as Much as Face-to-Face Rejection?

Groups are now, more than ever, located online. the initial round of tosses). When the game was over,
Such groups, although unique in many respects, are those who had suffered ostracism reported the same
still groups; they develop norms, admit new mem- sorts of negative reactions evidenced by people in
bers, identify goals, and experience conflict. Mem- face-to-face groups. Even though the game was
bers of such groups take the lead, offer suggestions, meaningless and their partners were total strangers,
ask questions, and influence one another. And, in their social self-esteem dropped, their moods turned
some cases, they ostracize one another. Facebook negative, and they admitted that they felt rejected
friends unfriend each other. Players in online gaming (Williams et al., 2000).
communities are never asked to join in a raid. No one
ever retweets some people’s tweets. Online groups Williams reported similar reactions to exclusion in
can be just as cold-hearted as face-to-face (offline) his studies of online discussion forums. He invited par-
ones. ticipants to join others in a group by texting one
another, but some of the participants were excluded
Given that the members of computer-based by the others in the group—their comments prompted
groups communicate at a distance and are, in some no response as the rest of the group members were
cases, completely anonymous, one might think that busily texting each other. Again, the participants
such cyberostracism is relatively inconsequential. But reported a variety of negative reactions to the exclu-
studies of online ostracism suggest otherwise. In one sion, but many of them also tried to break into the
study, Williams and his colleagues invited people on online conversation by increasing the number of mes-
the Internet to play Cyberball: a simulated ball-toss sages they sent. For example, one wrote,
game where players passed a virtual disk from one
group member to another. Players could choose whom U 2 can keep talking btw yourselves and ignore me,
they would throw the disk to, and the game indicated I don’t mind!!! … maybe I should start a conversa-
who had the disk, where it was thrown, and whether tion with myself … hi how are yah … I’m fine how
or not the receiver dropped the throw. In actuality, are you … I’m fine too … come on talk to me…
however, the other two players were simulated, and
the participants were randomly assigned to one of Williams concluded that these provocative actions
four conditions: overinclusion (thrown the disk 50% of provided participants with a way to gain control of the
the time), inclusion (33%), partial ostracism (20%), and situation and may have partially buffered them from
complete ostracism (they never received a throw after the stressful effects of exclusion (Williams et al., 2002,
p. 73; Wesselmann & Williams, 2011).

They are searching for social cues that will help Williams and his colleagues demonstrated the
them find a way to gain acceptance in the group earnestness of the excluded in the ball-toss situation.
(Pickett & Hess, 2017). They become more socially Excluded participants, when later asked how much
perceptive, for they are better able to tell the differ- they liked the other two group members, rated their
ence between a false, forced smile and a genuine partners more negatively when they had been ostra-
(Duchenne) smile (Bernstein et al., 2008), but cized. Women who had been ostracized, however,
they do tend to focus their attention on people worked harder on a subsequent collective task, appar-
who are responding positively rather than nega- ently to regain acceptance by the rest of the group.
tively to them (DeWall, Maner, & Rouby, 2009). Women were also more likely to blame themselves
for their ostracism (e.g., “I have trouble making a
cyberostracism Excluding one or more individuals good impression with others”). Men, in contrast, did
from a technologically mediated group interaction, such not compensate by working harder nor did they take
as a computer-based discussion group, by reducing or the blame for their rejection (Williams & Sommer,
eliminating communication with the person. 1997). These sex differences are consistent with differ-
ences between men and women first identified by

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 71

Taylor when she proposed her tend-and-befriend handgun to school and shot members of Agape, the
response to stress: men are more likely to display a Christian group that began each day with a com-
fight-or-flight response, whereas women are more munal prayer. Three students died, and five were
likely to tend-and-befriend (Taylor et al., 2000). severely injured. In the spring of 1999, two students
at Columbine High School used semiautomatic
Exclusion and Aggression The need to belong is weapons, shotguns, and rifles to kill 13 students
a powerful force in human behavior, so much so and teachers in a carefully planned attack. In
that individuals can respond violently when that 2007, a student at Jokela High School in Finland
need is thwarted (Leary et al., 2003). Some indivi- killed six students, the school principal, the school
duals experience sadness when excluded; they nurse, and then himself after setting fire to the
respond to exclusion passively. But others are school. In that same year, Seung Hui Cho, a 23-
angered when excluded, and these individuals are year-old senior at Virginia Tech, killed 32 people
the ones who are more likely to engage in antisocial and wounded 17 others before committing suicide.
behavior, including aggression. They may interpret
neutral or even accepting actions as negative, with Such horrific actions spring from a complex of
the result that they sometimes feel as if the entire interrelated psychological and interpersonal factors,
group has ostracized them when they have been but when Mark Leary and his colleagues (2003)
rejected by only one or two of the members examined 15 cases of post-1995 shootings in
(DeWall, Enjaian, & Bell, 2017). schools in the United States, they found that these
terrible acts of violence were tied together by a
Social psychologist Lowell Gaertner and his col- common thread: rejection. In most cases, the
leagues (2008) demonstrated this tendency to blame aggressors were individuals who did not belong to
the entire group by recruiting college students to any groups or take part in social activities. They
take a “Noise Tolerance” test. Four participants were often described as loners, as was Seung Hui
were scheduled for each test session, but only one Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman:
of them was an actual subject—the other three were
part of the research team. Before the test started, the For all of his 23 years of life the most frequent
experimenter explained that only three people were observation made by anyone about him was
needed, so one of them should be excluded. In the that Seung Hui Cho had absolutely no social
control condition, it was the experimenter who did life. During all of his school years he had no
the excluding, so the group was not to blame. But in real friends. He had no interest in being with
the exclusion condition, one of the pseudo-group others. In fact, he shied away from other peo-
members glared at the subject and said, “He (or ple and seemed to prefer his own company to
she) should be the one who leaves!” When the ostra- the company of others. (Dupue, 2007, p. N-3)
cized subject later had the chance to increase the
volume of the noise to harm the other subjects, Ostracism was not the sole cause of these inci-
few did in the control condition or if the noise dents. In nearly all cases, aggressors had a history of
would harm both the individual who rejected psychological problems, although the severity of
them and innocent bystanders. Participants did, their troubles was often unrecognized. They were
however, turn up the volume when they felt it also often preoccupied with violence and death and
was the group, and not just a single member of the were interested in guns and weapons in general.
group, who had excluded them. Exclusion, however, was a key social factor in
most cases. Some of the perpetrators, such as Cho,
Gaertner’s findings have implications for were never mistreated by other people, yet they still
understanding cases of extreme violence committed felt rejected and isolated. In most instances, how-
by one or two students against larger groups of stu- ever, they had been ostracized by others at their
dents at their schools (Newman et al., 2004). In a schools and were the targets of malicious teasing,
case in Kentucky, for example, one student took a ridicule, and bullying. These individuals usually

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

72 C H A P T E R 3

chose their targets deliberately, seeking revenge Similarly, humans’ preference for living in groups
against those who had excluded them. They did rather than alone may also be sustained by psycho-
not try to blame their behavior on psychological logical and biological mechanisms that evolved over
problems, their parents, the media, or the influence time to help individuals solve basic problems of sur-
of their friends. Nearly all claimed that they had vival (Kurzban & Leary, 2001).
been pushed into violence by a specific group of
people who excluded them. Exclusion, by itself, is Living in groups yielded both costs and benefits
not associated with behavioral problems in adoles- for early humans. A group of humans foraging prob-
cents, but those who are isolated and report “prob- ably attracted the attention of more predators than
lematic peer encounters” are at risk for a variety of did a single individual. The single individual could
negative outcomes (Kreager, 2004). keep all the food he or she gathered or successfully
hunted, but in groups, the food must be shared.
3-1c Inclusion and Human Nature Mingling with many others left one vulnerable to
communicable diseases, conflict, and violence. But
Why do people usually choose membership over iso- the benefits of sociality were far more substantial
lation? Why do people respond so negatively when than these costs. Those who joined with others in
others exclude them? Why are people so sensitive to an organized band to hunt large animals or forage for
signs that others have overlooked them, even when patches of food were likely more successful than
they are connected only by Internet-based technolo- individuals who remained alone. Individuals in
gies? Evolutionary theory offers an answer: the need groups could maintain superior surveillance against
to belong to groups is part of human nature. predators, they could join forces to ward off preda-
tors’ attacks, and they could rely on other members
The Herd Instinct The idea that humans are of their group to protect them from the aggressive
instinctively drawn to gather with other humans is actions of other humans. Human infants cannot sur-
not a new one. Over a century ago, psychologist vive alone. They must be in a group that cares for
William McDougall (1908) argued that humans are them until they can reach an age when they can fend
inexorably drawn to “the vast human herd,” which for themselves. Groups, too, bring together men and
“exerts a baneful attraction on those outside it” women who can then form the pair-bonds needed
(p. 303). Advances in evolutionary psychology for mating and procreation.
have revitalized this old idea, however, by specifying
both the biological and interpersonal mechanisms Evolutionary theory assumes that these advan-
that sustain the need to belong. tages of group life, over multiple generations, even-
tually sewed sociality into the DNA of the human
Evolutionary psychology uses Charles Darwin’s race. In the modern world, the advantages of group
theory of natural selection to explain why contem- life over solitude are not so clear. People who buy
porary humans act, feel, and think the way they do. their food from grocery stores and live in houses
Darwin dealt primarily with biological and anatom- with deadbolts on the doors do not need to
ical adaptations, but evolutionary psychologists worry much about effective food-gathering strate-
assume that recurring psychological and social ten- gies or protection from predation. These modern
dencies also stem from evolutionary processes that conditions, however, cannot undo 130,000 years
increase adaptive actions and neurological mechan- of natural selection. Because those individuals who
isms. Humans’ capacity to introspect, to read the were genetically predisposed to join groups (“join-
emotion in others’ faces, to understand the meaning ers”) were much more likely to survive and breed
of others’ vocal utterances, and even to consider than people who avoided social contacts (“loners”),
what future event may become more likely if a with each passing generation, the genes that pro-
specific action is undertaken now may all reflect moted solitude-seeking were weeded out of the
adaptations that were shaped by natural selection. gene pool, and the genes that encouraged group
joining prospered (see Figure 3.3). In consequence,

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 73

Persons and Genes Action Environmental Challenges Mating Pool
Joiner
A’s gene type: Affiliation Joins
B’s gene type: Solitary Stays apart Joiner
C’s gene type: Affiliation Loner
D’s gene type: Affiliation Joins Joiner
E’s gene type: Solitary Joins
F’s gene type: Solitary Stays apart
G’s gene type: Solitary Stays apart
H’s gene type: Affiliation Stays apart
I’s gene type: Affiliation Joins
J’s gene type: Solitary Stays apart
Stays apart

F I G U R E 3.3 A schematic representation of the process of natural selection of group-oriented individuals. If
human’s ancestors lived in an environment that favored those who lived in groups, then over time those who affili-
ated would gradually outnumber those who were self-reliant loners. Note, too, that one’s genetic endowment inter-
acts with the environment, and so not all individuals who are genetically predisposed to affiliate or remain alone will
do so (see, for example, person I).

gregariousness flourished as part of the biological Sociometer theory, proposed by Mark Leary
makeup of humans (Kameda & Tindale, 2006). and his colleagues, suggests that feelings of self-
worth function as just such a monitor. Many the-
Sociometer Theory If, as evolutionary theory orists consider the need for self-esteem to be a mas-
suggests, humans who joined in groups were most ter motive, but sociometer theory suggests that
likely to survive and reproduce, then it stands to “self-esteem is a psychological gauge that monitors
reason that natural selection would favor those the degree to which people perceive that they are
humans who were sensitive to signals of others relationally valued by other people” (Leary, 2017a,
that they were at risk for exclusion from the p. 50). Self-esteem, then, is not an index of one’s
group. Evolution would not just favor the joiner, sense of personal value, but instead an indicator of
but a special type of joiner: one who is sensitive to acceptance into groups. Like a gauge that indicates
signs of social exclusion. It would do you little good
to be instinctively drawn to a group, but then to sociometer theory A conceptual analysis of self-evalu-
have no way to tell if the group was about to cast ation processes that theorizes self-esteem functions to
you out. What you would need would be a socio- psychologically monitor of one’s degree of inclusion
meter: a cognitive adaptation that monitors your and exclusion in social groups (proposed by Mark Leary).
degree of acceptance by 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.

74 C H A P T E R 3

how much fuel is left in the tank, self-esteem indicates with friends as more enjoyable and inclusive
the extent to which a person is included in groups. If (Denissen et al., 2008).
the gauge drops, then exclusion is likely. So, when
people experience a dip in their self-esteem, they The Biology of Ostracism and Inclusion The
search for and correct characteristics and qualities intensely negative reaction most people experience
that have put them at risk of social exclusion. The when they feel excluded has a biological basis.
sociometer model concludes that most people have When Patrick first noticed others in the group
high self-esteem not because they think well of them- were ignoring him, his cardiovascular, hormonal,
selves but because they are careful to maintain inclu- and immune systems likely responded to deal with
sion in social groups (Leary, 2007, 2017a). the stress of exclusion (Stroud et al., 2000). Inclu-
sion triggers a different set of physiological events:
Leary and his colleagues (1995) tested the the- lowered heart rate and blood pressure and an
ory experimentally by measuring self-esteem after increase in levels of the neuropeptide and hormone
individuals were excluded from a group. They oxytocin, which is associated with positive forms
explained to the students they recruited for the of social behavior, including trust and social
study that they would be comparing decisions support (Taylor, 2006). In fact, when individuals
made by groups and by people working alone. In who are about to be rejected by others are dosed
half the sessions, the researchers said that the group with oxytocin, some of the negative psychological
versus individual decision was determined by a ran- effects of ostracism are alleviated (Alvares, Hickie, &
dom drawing. In such cases, individuals would have Guastella, 2010).
to leave the group but it was not because the group
rejected them. But in the other half of the groups, Researchers have also explored the close con-
students rated each other after a brief get-acquainted nection between the experience of physical pain
session, and those participants who received the few- and interpersonal pain. People often claim that
est votes would be excluded from the group. As exclusion is a painful experience—that their feelings
predicted, those who were rejected reported feeling are hurt or they feel wounded when someone slights
less competent, adequate, useful, smart, and valuable them—because the pain of exclusion is neurologi-
than did the included group members—provided cally similar to pain caused by physical injury
the rejection was an interpersonal one. Isolation (MacDonald & Leary, 2005). As social neuroscien-
caused by an impersonal force—the experimenter’s tist Naomi Eisenberger (2011, p. 587) explains:
random choices—had no effect on self-esteem. “because of the importance of social connection
Rejection by the group, in contrast, lowered self- for human survival, the social attachment
esteem, and inclusion raised self-esteem slightly. system—which ensures social connection—may
have piggybacked directly onto the physical pain
The theory is also consistent with correlational system, borrowing the pain signal itself to indicate
studies that find self-esteem rises and falls with when social relationships are threatened.”
increases and decreases in inclusion. One study
tracked these two variables with students who met Neuroimaging research confirms the close asso-
four times in small groups during the course of a ciation between social and physical pain. Eisenber-
month. During that period, the self-esteem of those ger and her colleagues, for example, used a
students who were rated more positively by other functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner
group members the week before rose, whereas the (fMRI) to track neural responses to exclusion.
self-esteem of the least liked students declined (Sri- Such scanners indicate what portions of the brain
vastava & Beer, 2005). This relationship was also are more active than others by measuring cranial
confirmed in a cross-cultural study of friendship and temperature and blood flow. When people were
self-esteem. Residents of countries where self- left out of a group activity, two specific areas of the
esteem tended to be high, such as Iceland, Ireland, brain—the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC)
and the United States, also rated their interactions and the anterior insula—were particularly active

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 75

dACC
(dorsal cingulate cortex)

Anterior insula

F I G U R E 3.4 The brain regions involved in the experience of pain during social exclusion.

(see Figure 3.4). These areas of the brain are associ- distressed over negative social experiences. They
ated with the experience of physical pain sensations were not necessarily rejected less often—the rejec-
and other negative social experiences (Eisenberger, tion just did not bother them quite so much
Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). (DeWall et al., 2010).

The close association between social and phys- 3-2 FROM INDIVIDUALISM
ical pain explains why individuals who are particu-
larly sensitive to pain, in general, are also more TO COLLECTIVISM
likely to respond more negatively to social rejec-
tion. The rejection/pain connection also suggests Across individuals, societies, and eras, humans con-
that comforting someone who is in physical pain sistently prefer to be on the inside of groups rather
may do more than merely provide psychological than the outside. But a social life makes demands that
support—it may activate neuronal mechanisms a life of solitude does not. Before Patrick joined
that alleviate the experience of pain (Eisenberger Peak, he could do as he pleased without irritating
& Lieberman, 2004). Also, because the pain of or offending others. He could spend the day work-
exclusion has a neural basis, painkillers that people ing, hiking difficult trails, or skiing unsafe areas. But
take for physical pain relieve the pain caused by once Patrick joined with the other members of Peak,
social exclusion. To test this possibility, volunteers his self-centered world became a group-centered
took acetaminophen (Tylenol) or a placebo daily one. Patrick, the individual, was independent, opin-
for three weeks. They then played a game of ionated, and self-confident, but Peak expected its
Cyberball while monitored by an fMRI. Those members to be interdependent team players, respect-
volunteers who took acetaminophen did not ful of others’ opinions, and unassuming. How did
respond as negatively as those in the placebo con- Patrick, the individual, become Patrick, the dedi-
dition when they were excluded from play in the cated member of Peak Search and Rescue?
Cyberball game. Another set of volunteers who also
took painkillers for three weeks reported feeling less

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

76 C H A P T E R 3

T A B L E 3.1 Core Features of Individualism and Collectivism (Triandis & Gelfand, 2012)

Facet Individualism Collectivism
Social relations
Concern for maintaining relations that yield Concern for nurturing and maintaining har-
personal benefits and few costs (exchange monious relations with others (communal
orientation); memberships are limited to orientation); memberships including family,
family and close personal friendships tribes, villages, organizations, and social clubs

Social obligations Behavior is guided by personal attitudes Behavior is guided by group norms and roles;
and preferences; context is not as important decisions made by leaders and the group
as personal attitudes

Social motives Striving for personal success; satisfaction Concern for group success, cooperation
comes from personal triumphs in competi- among group members, group is protected at
tion with others all costs; strong sense of duty and pride in
group’s successes

Social self The independent self is based on one’s The interdependent self is based on group-
personal, idiosyncratic characteristics; each level relationships, roles, and social identities
self is autonomous and unique rather than individual personal qualities

3-2a Creating Cooperation free to act and think in ways that they prefer
rather than submit to the demands of the group.
Living in groups requires concession and compromise, Collectivism, in contrast, recognizes that human
for the needs and interests of a group do not always groups are not mere aggregations of independent
and completely match the needs and interests of each individuals, but complex sets of interdependent mem-
one of its members. A mother asks her children to bers who must constantly adjust to the actions and
stop playing a game and spend an hour doing house- reactions of others around them. As cross-cultural psy-
hold chores. An employer asks a worker to take a pay chologist Harry C. Triandis explains, “the essence of
cut so the company can avoid bankruptcy. One din- collectivism is concern for the effect of one’s actions
ner guest takes more than her fair share of desert, so on other people” (2009, p. 73).
others must have much smaller portions. A social cli-
que may pressure its members into expressing opi- Individualism and collectivism are complex, mul-
nions that some members do not personally endorse. tifaceted concepts, but Triandis (2009) emphasizes four
core elements in his theory of individualism–
When group and members’ needs, interests, and collectivism: the significance of social relations, accep-
outlooks diverge, whose path should be followed? tance of social obligations, shared goals, and changes in
Should the individuals’ needs come first, or does the group members’ self-conceptions (see Table 3.1). The
group take precedence over the individual? Most following sections review these four elements as well as
answers to this question inevitably make their way cross-cultural variations in individualism–collectivism.
to the distinction between individualism and collec- (For more detailed analyses and very differing opinions
tivism. Individualism is based on the independence on the issue of the core dimensions of individualism and
and uniqueness of each individual. This perspective collectivism, see Chen, Chen, & Meindl, 1998; Oyser-
assumes that people are autonomous; they must be man, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Wagner, 1995.)

individualism A tradition, ideology, or personal out- collectivism A tradition, ideology, or personal orienta-
look that emphasizes the primacy of the individual and tion that emphasizes the primacy of the group or com-
his or her rights, independence, and relationships with munity rather than each individual person.
other individuals.

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 77

Social Relations As Peak Search and Rescue defines relations with others as a “strictly economic
evolved into an organized group of dedicated res- exchange” (Fiske, 1992, p. 702). When faced with a
cue experts, its members came to strongly value common resource pool or a project that requires com-
their relationships with one another. Who people bined effort, individualists favor an evenly balanced,
were, in terms of their personalities or their work one-for-one exchange. They “often mark their rela-
outside of the group, mattered less than their bonds tionship with very concrete operations of balancing,
to one another and to the group. The group did comparing, or counting-out items in one-for-one cor-
not tolerate those who considered themselves to be respondence” (Fiske, 1992, p. 691). Such exchanges
better than anyone else, for in Peak pride derived are also guided by the norm of reciprocity that
not from competitive striving over others but from requires members to pay back in kind what others
self-sacrifice for the good of the group (Sedikides, give to them. The members cooperate with others,
Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). but they do so to pay back past favors and to create
obligations for future favors (Gouldner, 1960).
The relationships linking members to one
another and their group are not only stronger and If collectivistic, in contrast, members are not so
more valued by collectivists but they are also more concerned with matching inputs and outputs. When
likely to be communal rather than exchange-based. sharing a resource, members would be more likely to
Individuals in exchange relationships monitor “take what they need and contribute what they can,
their inputs into the group, strive to maximize the without anyone attending to how much each person
rewards they personally receive through membership, contributes or receives. A person does not need to
and are dissatisfied if their group becomes too costly give something in order to get something in
for them. They expect to receive rewards in exchange return—simple membership in the group is sufficient
for their investment of time, energy, and other per- to entitle one to the use of whatever resources the
sonal resources. If individualists cannot identify any group controls, and long-run imbalance is not a vio-
personal benefit from helping others in the group lation of the relationship” (Fiske, 1992, p. 693).
or community, then they will not offer any
help (Ratner & Miller, 2001). People in commu- Social Obligations As Peak Search and Rescue
nal relationships, in contrast, are more concerned evolved into an organized group of dedicated rescue
with what their group receives than with their own experts, it developed its own unique group culture.
personal outcomes. When individuals work in com- As the psychologist Edgar Schein explains, “any
munal groups, they help fellow members more, pre- definable group with a shared history can have a
fer to think of their work as a joint effort, and feel culture” and “once a group has learned to hold com-
disappointed if other members insist on reciprocating mon assumptions, the resulting automatic patterns of
any help given. They are also more likely to consider perceiving, thinking, feeling, and behaving provide
the consequences of their actions for others and are meaning, stability, and comfort” (1990, p. 111).
more diligent in making sure that others’ needs are
met (Clark & Mills, 2012). Some group’s cultures endorse individualism:
Members are encouraged to realize their unique
This difference between an exchange and com- potential, those who stand out from the group are
munal orientation is particularly clear when the group valued, and competition among members is
must allocate resources to members. Individualism
norm of reciprocity A social standard that enjoins indi-
exchange relationship A reciprocal interdependency viduals to pay back in kind what they receive from
that emphasizes the trading of gratifying experiences others.
and rewards among members. group culture The distinct ways that members of a
communal relationship A reciprocal interdependency group represent their experiences, including consensually
that emphasizes meeting the needs and interests of others accepted knowledge, beliefs, rituals, customs, rules, lan-
rather than maximizing one’s own personal outcomes. guage, norms, and practices.

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

78 C H A P T E R 3

If You Had $20 to Split with a Group Member, How Much Would You Offer?

Imagine that you have been given $20 and told to you the message: “Play fair” (Kameda, Takezawa, &
share it with Patrick, your fellow group member. You Hastie, 2005).
may offer any portion of the $20—from 1¢ to $
19.99—but Patrick knows you have $20 to share and if Enterprising researchers have gathered data on
Patrick rejects your offer, no one gets any money at all. responses to the ultimatum game in dozens of small-
You and Patrick cannot communicate with each other, scale societies located around the world. Only one
and you won’t get a second chance if he turns you group averaged offers of more than 50% of the
down. So, how much will you offer? endowment: the Lamalara of East Indonesia. The lowest
offer (25%) was made by the Quichua of South Amer-
If you are motivated solely by profit, then you ica. This variability, although pronounced, was related
should offer Patrick as little as possible. Economically to each group’s level of collectivism. Some communities
speaking, even if you only offer him $1, he should stressed the importance of individuality and the family,
take it because $1, although much less than the $19 whereas in others “one’s economic well-being depends
you will receive, is better than $0. Yet, when people on cooperation with non-relatives” (Henrich et al.,
strike this bargain—called the ultimatum game— 2004, p. 29). These more cooperative communities
they rarely offer or accept so little. People, on aver- tended to be more generous in their allocations in the
age, offer between 35% and 50% of the total sum, game, as were those societies that created more elabo-
so you would likely offer Patrick between $7 and rate economic and social connections among various
$10. People are also quite willing to reject too low an households. As for the Lamalara: Their high level of
offer, even though it means that they will receive generosity reflects their unique living conditions. The
nothing (Henrich et al., 2004). You and Patrick both Lamalara are whalers, and traditionally the catch is
know that a 50/50 split is a fair distribution. You may divided equally among all members of the
want to keep as much as you can, but realize that community—even those who did not participate in the
Patrick may be willing to reject a low offer to send hunt. The Lamalara are quintessential collectivists.

encouraged, as is independence. But groups like Peak and compromise to conflict. Their operating principle
are more like communities: Loyalty is prized above is “The tall nail gets pounded down.” Members are
all, decisions are often made collectively, members expected to carry out their duties, and the successful
take each other’s views into consideration, and once fulfillment of their roles and responsibilities is the pri-
a person becomes a member, the group takes care of mary source of self-satisfaction (Schwartz, 1994).
them (Robert & Wasti, 2002). But because collectiv-
ism elevates the group’s rights above those of the Members of individualistic groups, in contrast, do
individual, in collectivistic groups members are not display as high a degree of uniformity in their
expected to conform to the group’s norms and heed behavior or even respect for the group’s traditions
the directives of those in positions of authority in the and leadership, for members are expected to act on
group. A collectivistic group “binds and mutually the basis of their attitudes, beliefs, and preferences.
obligates” each member (Oyserman et al., 2002, Since members believe they have the right to speak
p. 5), and so members have no right to create disagree- their minds and to disagree with others, they are more
ment or to disrupt convened group proceedings. Such reserved in their reactions to nonconformity per se;
groups therefore prefer acquiescence to disagreement after all, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Collec-
tivists hold rule-breakers in contempt, but individual-
ultimatum game An experimental bargaining situation in ists tend to display anger toward those who disregard
which one individual, the allocator, must propose a division the group’s emphasis on autonomy by seeking to
of a shared resource to other members; if they reject the impose their will on others (Rozin et al., 1999).
allocator’s proposal, no one receives any of the resource.
Social Goals A collectivist orientation requires a
willingness to cooperate with others, and a degree

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

INCLUSION AND IDENTITY 79

of optimism that these others are also committed T A B L E 3.2 Categories of Information in
more to the common good than to their own per- the Social (Collective) Self
sonal outcomes. But what happens when when the
members of the groups do not share equally in the Component Examples
work, but nonetheless seek an equal share of the Roles
rewards? Whenever groups earn rewards or cover athlete, caregiver, churchgoer, com-
costs, a fair means must be developed to determine munity volunteer, daughter, friend,
how these rewards and costs are distributed across group member, neighbor, parent,
members. Imagine, for example, that your group relative, secretary, son, spouse,
has earned a reward by winning a lottery or must stepparent, student, and worker
pay a fine because one of the group members acci-
dentally broke something. The equity norm Groups book club, class, clique, club, com-
recommends that group members should receive mittee, department, executive
outcomes in proportion to their inputs. If an individ- board, fraternity, gang, neighbor-
ual has invested a good deal of time, energy, money, hood association, research group,
or other types of inputs in the group, then he or she rock band, sorority, sports team,
could expect to receive a good deal of the group squad, and work team
payoff. Similarly, individuals who contribute little
should not be surprised when they receive little. Categories alcoholic, athlete, Christian, deaf
The equality norm, on the other hand, recom- person, Democrat, earthling, femi-
mends that all group members, irrespective of their nist, gardener, gay, Hispanic,
inputs, should be given an equal share of the payoff. Republican, retired person, sales-
In collectivistic settings, members would likely favor person, scientist, smoker, South-
allocating the winnings on an equal-share basis: All erner, and welfare recipient
should benefit, even if just one of the group members
was the one who picked the winning lottery num- Relations friend to others, in love, close to
bers. However, collectivists may also require that the other people, helpful to others in
costs be borne more heavily by the individual mem- need, and involved in social causes
ber who caused a problem, because the group as a
whole must be protected against injury. Individualism, appearance? Would your personality traits, the things
in contrast, would favor an equity norm, because the you believe in, your politics, or your fears and wor-
contributions of each member are recognized and ries make the list? Might you mention your sex, your
rewarded or punished (Utz & Sassenberg, 2002). age, or where you were born? Would you describe
your social roles and memberships, such as daughter,
3-2b The Social Self father, citizen of a country, or student at a university
(Kuhn & McPartland, 1954)?
What would you answer if asked the question “Who
are you?” Would you include your physical qualities, When answering the question “Who am I?”
such as your height, weight, strength, and physical people usually mention their individualistic qualities
and characteristics: their personality traits; prefer-
equity norm A social standard that encourages distrib- ences, interests, likes, and dislikes; aspirations,
uting rewards and resources to members in proportion to hopes, and wishes; habits, activities, and pursuits;
their inputs. abilities, skills, and beliefs; and even their emotional
equality norm A social standard that encourages distrib- tendencies and current mood state. But they also
uting rewards and resources equally among all members. mention qualities that spring from their relation-
ships with other people and groups (see
Table 3.2). Social roles and relationships, such as
spouse, lover, parent, stepparent, caregiver, and
worker, define one’s position in groups and social
networks. The self may also include memberships
in social groups, such as car pools, clubs, or church

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