Human Behavior and the Social Environment II Part IV Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups Review the evidence that suggests humans have a fundamental need to belong to groups . Compare the model of to a more traditional view of . Use theories of social facilitation to predict when a group will perform tasks slowly or quickly ( students eating a meal as a group , workers on an assembly line , or a study group ) Summarize the methods used by , Williams , and to identify the relative impact of social loafing and coordination problems on group performance . Describe how groups change over time . Apply the theory of to a group , such as the group of advisors responsible for planning the Bay of Pigs operation . 596 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

List and discuss the factors that facilitate and impede group performance and decision making . Develop a list of recommendations that , if followed , would minimize the possibility of developing in a group . Introduction to the Psychology of Groups This module assumes that a thorough understanding of people requires a thorough understanding of groups . Each of us is an autonomous individual seeking our own objectives , yet we are also members of that constrain us , guide us , and sustain us . Just as each of us influences the group and the people in the group , so , too , do groups change each one of us . Joining groups satisfies our need to belong , gain information and understanding through social comparison , define our sense of self and social identity , and achieve goals that might elude us if we worked alone . Groups are also practically significant , for much of the worlds work is done by groups rather than by individuals . Success sometimes eludes our groups , but when group members learn to work together as a cohesive team their success becomes more certain . People also turn to groups when important decisions must be made , and this choice is justified as long as groups avoid such problems as group polarization and . Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 597

How many groups are you a part of on a daily basis ?

Whether it family , class , work , social , sports , church or other areas , we typically spend a good deal of our time and attention each day interacting with others in groups . Public Domain , Psychologists study groups because nearly all human , learning , worshiping , relaxing , playing , and even in groups . The lone individual who is cut off from all groups is a rarity . Most of us live out our lives in groups , and these groups have a profound impact on our thoughts , feelings , and actions . Many psychologists focus their attention on single individuals , but social psychologists expand their analysis to include groups , organizations , communities , and even cultures . This module examines the psychology of groups and group membership . It begins with a basic question What is the psychological significance of groups ?

People are , undeniably , more often in groups rather than alone . What accounts for this marked gregariousness and what does it say about our psychological makeup ?

The module then reviews some of the key findings from studies of groups Researchers have asked many questions about 598 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups people and groups Do people work as hard as they can when they are in groups ?

Are groups more cautious than individuals ?

Do groups make wiser decisions than single individuals ?

In many cases the answers are not what common sense and folk wisdom might suggest . The Psychological Significance of Groups Many people loudly proclaim their autonomy and independence . Like Ralph Waldo Emerson , they avow , I must be myself . I will not hide my tastes or . I will seek my own ( 11 , 127 ) Even though people are capable of living separate and apart from others , they join with others because groups meet their psychological and social needs . Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 599

The Need to Belong The need to belong is a strong psychological motivation . Public Domain , Across individuals , societies , and even eras , humans consistently seek inclusion over exclusion , membership over isolation , and acceptance over rejection . As Roy and Mark Leary conclude , humans have a need to belong a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting , positive , and impactful interpersonal relationships ( 497 ) And most of us satisfy this need by joining groups . When surveyed , of Americans reported that they lived with other people , including family members , partners , and roommates ( Davis Smith 2007 ) The majority , ranging from 50 to 80 , reported regularly doing things in groups , such as attending a sports event together , visiting one another for the evening , sharing a meal together , or going out as a group to see a movie ( 2000 ) People respond negatively when their need to belong is unfulfilled . For example , college students often feel homesick and lonely when they first start college , but not if they belong to a 600 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

cohesive , socially satisfying group ( et al , 2007 ) People who are accepted members of a group tend to feel happier and more satisfied . But should they be rejected by a group , they feel unhappy , helpless , and depressed . Studies of deliberate exclusion from this experience is highly stressful and can lead to depression , confused thinking , and even aggression ( Williams 2007 ) When researchers used a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner to track neural responses to exclusion , they found that people who were left out of a group activity displayed heightened cortical activity in two specific areas of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula . These areas of the brain are associated with the experience of physical pain sensations ( Williams 2003 ) It hurts , quite literally , to be left out of a group . Affiliation in Groups Groups not only satisfy the need to belong , they also provide members with information , assistance , and social support . Leon theory of social comparison ( suggested that in many cases people join with others to evaluate the accuracy of their personal beliefs and attitudes . Stanley ( explored this process by putting individuals in ambiguous , stressful situations and asking them if they wished to wait alone or with others . He found that people affiliate in such seek the company of others . Although any kind of companionship is appreciated , we prefer those who provide us with reassurance and support as well as accurate information . In some cases , we also prefer to join with others who are even worse off than we are . Imagine , for example , how you would respond when the teacher hands back the test and yours is marked 85 . Do you want to affiliate with a friend who got a 95 or a friend who got a 78 ?

To maintain a sense of , Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 601 people seek out and compare themselves to the less fortunate . This process is known as downward social comparison . Identity and Membership Groups are not only of information during times of ambiguity , they also help us answer the existentially significant question , Who am ?

Common sense tells us that our sense of self is our private definition of who we are , a kind of archival record of our experiences , qualities , and capabilities . Yet , the self also includes all those qualities that spring from memberships in groups . People are defined not only by their traits , preferences , interests , likes , and dislikes , but also by their friendships , social roles , family connections , and group memberships . The self is notjust a me , but also a Even demographic qualities such as sex or age can influence us if we categorize ourselves based on these qualities . Social identity , for example , assumes that we dont just classify other people into such social categories as man , woman , Anglo , elderly , or college student , but we also categorize ourselves . Moreover , if we strongly identify with these categories , then we will ascribe the characteristics of the typical member of these groups to ourselves , and so stereotype ourselves . If , for example , we believe that college students are intellectual , then we will assume we , too , are intellectual if we identify with that group ( 2001 ) Groups also provide a variety of means for maintaining and enhancing a sense of , as our assessment of the quality of groups we belong to influences our collective ( Crocker 1990 ) If our is shaken by a personal setback , we can focus on our group success and prestige . In addition , by comparing our group to other groups , we frequently discover that we are members of the better group , and so can take pride in our superiority . By denigrating other groups , we elevate 602 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

both our personal and our collective ( Crocker Major 19 ) Mark Leary model goes so far as to suggest that is part of a that monitors peoples relational value in other people eyes , 328 ) He maintains is not just an index of ones sense of personal value , but also an indicator of acceptance into groups . Like a gauge that indicates how much fuel is left in the tank , a dip in indicates exclusion from our group is likely . Disquieting feelings of , then , prompt us to search for and correct characteristics and qualities that put us at risk of social exclusion . is not just high , but the that we feel when included in groups ( Leary 2000 ) Evolutionary Advantages of Group Living Groups may be humans most useful invention , for they provide us with the means to reach goals that would elude us if we remained alone . Individuals in groups can secure advantages and avoid disadvantages that would plague the lone individuals . In his theory of social integration , concludes that groups tend to form whenever people become dependent on one another for the satisfaction of their needs ( 104 ) The advantages of group life may be so great that humans are biologically prepared to seek membership and avoid isolation . From an evolutionary psychology perspective , because groups have increased humans overall fitness for countless generations , individuals who carried genes that promoted were less likely to survive and procreate compared to those with genes that prompted them to join groups ( Darwin 1859 1963 ) This process of natural selection culminated in the creation of a modern human who seeks out membership in groups instinctively , for most of us are descendants of rather than Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 603

Motivation and Performance Groups usually exist for a reason . In groups , we solve problems , create products , create standards , communicate knowledge , have fun , perform arts , create institutions , and even ensure our safety from attacks by other groups . But do groups always outperform individuals ?

Social Facilitation in Groups Do people perform more effectively when alone or when part of a group ?

Norman ( examined this issue in one of the first empirical studies in psychology . While watching bicycle races , noticed that cyclists were faster when they competed against other racers than when they raced alone against the clock . To determine if the presence of others leads to the psychological stimulation that enhances performance , he arranged for 40 children to play a game that involved turning a small reel as quickly as possible ( see Figure ) When he measured how quickly they turned the reel , he confirmed that children performed slightly better when they played the game in pairs compared to when they played alone ( see 2012 2005 ) 604 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

Figure The competition machine used to study the impact of competition on . study was one of the first laboratory studies conducted in the field of social psychology . 1898 ) om mA ( ur succeeded in sparking interest in a phenomenon now known as social facilitation the enhancement of an individual performance when that person works in the presence of other people . However , it remained for Robert ( to specify when social facilitation does and does not occur . After reviewing prior research , noted that the facilitating effects of an audience usually only occur when the task requires the person to perform dominant responses , ones that are or based on instinctive behaviors . If the task requires nondominant responses , novel , complicated , or untried behaviors that the organism has never performed before or has performed only infrequently , then the presence of others inhibits performance . Hence , students write poorer quality essays on complex philosophical questions when they labor in a group rather than alone ( 1924 ) but they make fewer mistakes in solving simple , multiplication problems with an audience or a coactor than when they work in isolation ( 1930 ) Social facilitation , then , depends on the task other people Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 605

facilitate performance when the task is so simple that it requires only dominant responses , but others interfere when the task requires nondominant responses . However , a number of psychological processes combine to influence when social facilitation , not social interference , occurs . Studies of the response and brain imaging , for example , confirm that we respond physiologically and neurologically to the presence of others ( Hunter Salomon 1999 ) Other people also can trigger evaluation apprehension , particularly when we feel that our individual performance will be known to others , and those others might judge it negatively ( Bond 1996 ) The presence of other people can also cause in our capacity to concentrate on and process information ( Distractions due to the presence of other people have been shown to improve performance on certain tasks , such as the task , but undermine performance on more cognitively demanding tasks ( Social Groups usually outperform individuals . A single student , working alone on a paper , will get less done in an hour than will four students working on a group project . One person playing a game against a group will lose . A crew of movers can pack up and transport your household belongings faster than you can by yourself . As the saying goes , Many hands make light the work ( 1991 1972 ) Groups , though , tend to be . Studies of social facilitation confirmed the positive motivational benefits of working with other people on tasks in which each member contribution to the collective enterprise can be identified and evaluated . But what happens when tasks require a truly collective 606 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

effort ?

First , when people work together they must coordinate their individual activities and contributions to reach the maximum level of they rarely do ( 1987 ) Three people in a competition , for example , invariably pull and pause at slightly different times , so their efforts are uncoordinated . The result is coordination loss the group is stronger than a single person , but not three times as strong . Second , people just don exert as much effort when working on a collective endeavor , nor do they expend as much cognitive effort trying to solve problems , as they do when working alone . They display loafing ( 1981 ) Bibb , Kip Williams , and Stephen ( examined both coordination losses and social loafing by arranging for students to cheer or clap either alone or in groups of varying sizes . The students cheered alone or in or groups , or they were lead to believe they were in or groups ( those in the wore blindfolds and headsets that played masking sound ) As Figure indicates , groups generated more noise than solitary subjects , but the productivity dropped as the groups became larger in size . In , each subject worked at only 66 of capacity , and in groups at 36 . Productivity also dropped when subjects merely believed they were in groups . If subjects thought that one other person was shouting with them , they shouted 82 as intensely , and if they thought five other people were shouting , they reached only 74 of their capacity . These loses in productivity were not due to coordination problems this decline in production could be attributed only to a reduction in social loafing ( et , 1979 , Experiment ) Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 607

Figure pressure per person as a function of us group or pseudo group size . 1981 ) Us . Group Size 608 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups Teamwork Social can be problem . One way to overcome it is by that each group member has an important part to play in the success of the group . Marc , BY 20 , Social loafing is no rare phenomenon . When sales personnel work in groups with shared goals , they tend to take it easy if another salesperson is nearby who can do their work ( George 1992 ) People who are trying to generate new , creative ideas in group brainstorming sessions usually put in less effort and are thus less productive than people who are generating new ideas individually ( Brown 2007 ) Students assigned group projects often complain of inequity in the quality and quantity of each contributions Some people just do work as much as they should to help the group reach its learning goals ( 2012 ) People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental tasks expend less effort when working in groups , and the larger the group , the more they loaf ( Williams 1993 ) Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 609

Groups can , however , overcome this impediment to performance through teamwork . A group may include many talented individuals , but they must learn how to pool their individual abilities and energies to maximize the teams performance . Team goals must be set , work patterns structured , and a sense of group identity developed . Individual members must learn how to coordinate their actions , and any strains and stresses in interpersonal relations need to be identified and resolved ( Rosen Burke Goodwin 2009 ) Researchers have identified two key ingredients to effective teamwork a shared mental representation of the task and group unity . Teams improve their performance over time as they develop a shared understanding of the team and the tasks they are attempting . Some semblance of this shared mental model is present nearly from its inception , but as the team practices , differences among the members in terms of their understanding of their situation and their team diminish as a consensus becomes implicitly accepted ( Jacobs 2008 ) Effective teams are also , in most cases , cohesive groups ( Dion my is the integrity , solidarity , social integration , or unity of a group . In most cases , members of cohesive groups like each other and the group and they also are united in their pursuit of collective , goals . Members tend to enjoy their groups more when they are cohesive , and cohesive groups usually outperform ones that lack cohesion . This relationship , however , is a complex one . studies suggest that cohesion improves teamwork among members , but that performance quality influences cohesion more than cohesion influences performance ( Copper 1994 1998 see Figure ) Cohesive groups also can be spectacularly unproductive if the groups norms stress low productivity rather than high productivity ( Seashore 1954 ) 610 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

Time I Cohesiveness Performance Performance Figure The relationship between group cohesion and performance over time . Groups that are cohesive do tend to perform well on tasks now ( and in the future ( Time ) Notice , though , that the relationship between Performance at Time and Cohesiveness at Time is greater ( than the relationship between Cohesion at Time and Performance at Time ( These findings suggest that cohesion improves performance , but that a group that performs well is likely to also become more cohesive . 1998 ) Group Development In most cases , groups do not become teams overnight . As Bruce ( theory of group development suggests , groups usually pass through several stages of development as they change from a newly formed group into an effective team . As noted in Focus Topic , in the forming phase , the members become oriented toward one another . In the storming phase , the group members find themselves in conflict , and some solution is sought to improve the group environment . In the , phase standards for behavior and roles develop that Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 611

regulate behavior . In the performing , phase the group has reached a point where it can work as a unit to achieve desired goals , and the adjourning phase ends the sequence of development the group . Throughout these stages , groups tend to oscillate between the issues and the relationship issues , with members sometimes working hard but at other times strengthening their interpersonal bonds ( Jensen 1977 ) Focus Topic Group Development Stages and Characteristics Stage Forming . Members expose information about themselves in polite but tentative interactions . They explore the purposes of the group and gather information about each others interests , skills , and personal tendencies . Stage Storming . Disagreements about procedures and purposes surface , so criticism and conflict increase . Much of the conflict stems from challenges between members who are seeking to increase their status and control in the group . Stage . Once the group agrees on its goals , procedures , and leadership , norms , roles , and social relationships develop that increase the groups stability and cohesiveness . Stage Performing . The group focuses its energies and attention on its goals , displaying higher rates of , and . Stage Adjourning . The group prepares to disband by completing its tasks , reduces levels of dependency among members , and dealing with any unresolved issues . Sources based on ( 1965 ) and Jensen ( 1977 ) We also experience change as we pass through a group , for we don become members of a group in an instant . Instead , we gradually become a part of the group and remain in the group 612 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

until we leave it . Richard and John Levine ( model of group socialization describes this process , beginning with initial entry into the group and ending when the member exits it . For example , when you are thinking of joining a new social club , a professional society , a fraternity or sorority , or a sports investigate what the group has to offer , but the group also investigates you . During this investigation stage you are still an outsider interested in joining the group , but not yet committed to it in any way . But once the group accepts you and you accept the group , socialization begins you learn the groups norms and take on different responsibilities depending on your role . On a sports team , for example , you may initially hope to be a star who starts every game or plays a particular position , but the team may need something else from you . In time , though , the group will accept you as a member and both sides in the and the group their commitment to one another . When that commitment wanes , however , your membership may come to an end as well . Making Decisions in Groups Groups are particularly useful when it comes to making a decision , for groups can draw on more resources than can a lone individual . A single individual may know a great deal about a problem and possible solutions , but his or her information is far surpassed by the combined knowledge of a group . Groups not only generate more ideas and possible solutions by discussing the problem , but they can also more objectively evaluate the options that they generate during discussion . Before accepting a solution , a group may require that a certain number of people favor it , or that it meets some other standard of acceptability . People generally feel that a decision will be superior to an individual decision . Groups , however , do not always make good decisions . Juries Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 613

sometimes render verdicts that run counter to the evidence presented . Community groups take radical stances on issues before thinking through all the ramifications . Military strategists concoct plans that seem , in retrospect , and . Why do groups sometimes make poor decisions ?

Group Polarization Lets say you are part of a group assigned to make a presentation . One of the group members suggests showing a short video that , although amusing , includes some provocative images . Even though initially you think the clip is inappropriate , you begin to change your mind as the group discusses the idea . The group decides , eventually , to throw caution to the wind and show the your instructor is horrified by your choice . This hypothetical example is consistent with studies of groups making decisions that involve risk . Common sense notions suggest that groups exert a moderating , subduing effect on their members . However , when researchers looked at groups closely , they discovered many groups shift toward more extreme decisions rather than less extreme decisions after group interaction . Discussion , it turns out , does moderate people judgments after all . Instead , it leads to group polarization judgments made after group discussion will be more extreme in the same direction as the average of individual judgments made prior to discussion ( Myers 1976 ) If a majority of members feel that taking risks is more acceptable than exercising caution , then the group will become riskier after a discussion . For example , in France , where people generally like their government but dislike Americans , group discussion improved their attitude toward their government but exacerbated their negative opinions of Americans ( 1969 ) Similarly , prejudiced people who discussed racial issues with other prejudiced individuals became even more 614 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

negative , but those who were relatively unprejudiced exhibited even more acceptance of diversity when in groups ( Myers Bishop 1970 ) Common Knowledge Effect One of the advantages of making decisions in groups is the greater access to information . When seeking a solution to a problem , group members can put their ideas on the table and share their knowledge and judgments with each other through discussions . But all too often groups spend much of their discussion time examining common that two or more group members know in than unshared information . This common knowledge effect will result in a bad outcome if something known by only one or two group members is very important . Researchers have studied this bias using the hidden profile task . On such tasks , information known to many of the group members suggests that one alternative , say Option A , is best . However , Option is definitely the better choice , but all the facts that support Option are only known to individual groups are not common knowledge in the group . As a result , the group will likely spend most of its time reviewing the factors that favor Option A , and never discover any of its drawbacks . In consequence , groups often perform poorly when working on problems with nonobvious solutions that can only be identified by extensive information sharing ( Titus 1987 ) Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 615

helps us blend in and feel accepted and validated but it can also lead to problems . Public Domain , Groups sometimes make spectacularly bad decisions . In 1961 , a special advisory committee to President John Kennedy planned and implemented a covert invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs that ended in total disaster . In 1986 , NASA carefully , and incorrectly , decided to launch the Challenger space shuttle in temperatures that were too cold . Irving Janis ( intrigued by these kinds of blundering groups , carried out a number of case studies of such groups the military experts that planned the defense of Pearl Harbor Kennedy Bay of Pigs planning group the presidential team that escalated the war in Vietnam . Each group , he concluded , fell prey to a distorted style of thinking that rendered the group members incapable of making a rational decision . Janis labeled this syndrome a mode 616 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive , when the members for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action ( Janis identified both the telltale symptoms that signal the group is experiencing and the interpersonal factors that combine to cause . To Janis , is a disease that infects healthy groups , rendering them inefficient and unproductive . And like the physician who searches for symptoms that distinguish one disease from another , Janis identified a number of symptoms that should serve to warn members that they may be falling prey to . These symptoms include overestimating the groups skills and wisdom , biased perceptions and evaluations of other groups and people who are outside of the group , strong conformity pressures within the group , and poor methods . Janis also singled out four factors that combine to cause cohesion , isolation , biased leadership , and decisional stress . Cohesion only occurs in cohesive groups . Such groups have many advantages over groups that lack unity . People enjoy their membership much more in cohesive groups , they are less likely to abandon the group , and they work harder in pursuit of the group goals . But extreme cohesiveness can be dangerous . When cohesiveness intensifies , members become more likely to accept the goals , decisions , and norms of the group without reservation . Conformity pressures also rise as members become reluctant to say or do anything that goes against the grain of the group , and the number of internal for good decision . Isolation . groups too often work behind closed doors , keeping out of the limelight . They isolate themselves from outsiders and refuse to modify their beliefs to bring them Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 617

into line with society beliefs . They avoid leaks by maintaining strict confidentiality and working only with people who are members of their group . Biased leadership . A biased leader who exerts too much authority over group members can increase conformity pressures and railroad decisions . In groups , the leader determines the agenda for each meeting , sets limits on discussion , and can even decide who will be heard . Decisional stress . becomes more likely when the group is stressed , particularly by time pressures . When groups are stressed they minimize their discomfort by quickly choosing a plan of action with little argument or dissension . Then , through collective discussion , the group members can rationalize their choice by exaggerating the positive consequences , minimizing the possibility of negative outcomes , concentrating on minor details , and overlooking larger issues . 618 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

You and Your Groups Even groups that like one another and work well together in most situations can be victims of or the common effect . But that these pitfalls exist is the first step to overcoming them . Public Domain , Most of us belong to at least one group that must make decisions from time to time a community group that needs to choose a project a union or employee group that must ratify a new contract a family that must discuss your college plans or the staff of a high school discussing ways to deal with the potential for violence during football games . Could these kinds of groups experience ?

Yes , they could , if the symptoms of discussed above are present , combined with other contributing causal factors , such as cohesiveness , isolation , biased leadership , and stress . To avoid polarization , the common knowledge effect , and , groups should strive to emphasize open inquiry of all sides of the issue while admitting the Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 619

possibility of failure . The leaders of the group can also do much to limit by requiring full discussion of pros and cons , appointing devil advocates , and breaking the group up into small discussion groups . If these precautions are taken , your group has a much greater chance of making an informed , rational decision . Furthermore , although your group should review its goals , teamwork , and strategies , the human side of strong friendships and bonds that make group activity so be overlooked . Groups have instrumental , practical value , but also emotional , psychological value . In groups , we find others who appreciate and value us . In groups , we gain the support we need in difficult times , but also have the opportunity to influence others . In groups , we find evidence of our , and secure ourselves from the threat of loneliness and despair . For most of us , groups are the secret source of . Outside Resources Audio This American Life . Episode 109 deals with the motivation and excitement of joining with others at summer camp . Audio This American Life . Episode 158 examines how people act when they are immersed in a large crowd . Audio This American Life . Episode 61 deals with , many of which are perpetrated by groups . Audio This American Life . Episode 74 examines how individuals act at conventions when they join with hundreds or thousands of other people who are similar in terms of their or employment . 2011 ) Group Dynamics . In Miller , Burns , Daniel , Woody ( Promoting student 620 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

engagement Volume Activities , exercises , and demonstrations for psychology courses . Washington , Society for the Teaching of Psychology , American Psychological Association . Group Instructional Resources . Journal Article The Factors in Pacemaking and Competition presents Norman original paper on what would eventually be known as social facilitation . Resources for the Teaching of Social Psychology . Social Psychology Network Student Activities Society for Social and Personality Psychology , 2015 ) Teaching social class . Teaching of Psychology , 42 , The article abstract can be viewed online . Visit your campus library to access the version . Video Flash mobs illustrate the capacity of groups to organize quickly and complete complex tasks . One example of a mob is the rendition of Do Re Mi from the Sound of Music in the Central Station of in 2009 . A YouTube element has been excluded from this version Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 621

of the text . You can view it online here . Web Group Development This is a website developed by James that provides detailed information about group development , with application to the lifecycle of a typical college course . Web Group Dynamic A general repository of links , short articles , and discussions examining groups and group processes , including such topics as crowd behavior , leadership , group structure , and influence . Web Stanford Crowd Project This is a rich resource of information about all things related to crowds , with a particular emphasis on crowds and collective behavior in literature and the arts . Working Paper Law of Group Polarization , by Cass , is a application of the concept of polarization to a variety of legal and political decisions . References , 1924 ) Social psychology . Boston . Leary , 1995 ) The need to belong Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation . Psychological Bulletin , 117 , Hunter , Salomon , 1999 ) 622 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

Social facilitation as challenge and threat . of Personality and Social Psychology , 77 , A . 1996 ) Social of complex learning in the wa of public embarrassment . Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 18 , Pratt , Adams , Le , 2007 ) importance of friends Friendship and adjustment among university students . Journal Research , 22 ( Croc er , 1990 ) Collective se and bias . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 58 , Croc er , Major , 1989 ) Social stigma and se The properties of stigma . Psychological Review , 96 , Darwin , The origin of species . New York Washington Square Press . 1930 ) An experimental analysis of some group effects . Journal and Social Psychology , 25 , Davis , Smith , 2007 ) General social surveys ( data file . Chicago National Opinion Research Center , The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research . Retrieved from , 1987 ) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups Toward the solution of a riddle . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 53 , Dion , 2000 ) Group cohesion From field of forces to multidimensional construct . Group Dynamics Theory , Research , and Practice , Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 623

, Williams , 2003 ) Does rejection hurt ?

An fMRI study of social exclusion . Science , 302 , Emerson , 2004 ) Essays and poems by Ralph Waldo Emerson . New York Barnes Noble . originally published 1903 ) 1954 ) A theory of social comparison processes . Human Relations , 1950 ) Informal social Review , 57 , George , 1992 ) Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations . Academy of Management Journal , 2006 ) Mere effort as the mediator of the performance relationship . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 91 ( A . 2001 ) Social categorization , depersonalization , and group behavior . In A . handbook of social psychology Group processes ( MA . 1999 ) Social presence effects in the task Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 77 , Janis , 1982 ) Psychological studies of policy decisions ( Boston . Williams , 1993 ) Social loafing A review and theoretical integration . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65 , 624 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

, 1981 ) The psychology of social Psychologist , 36 , Williams , I ( 1979 ) Many hands make light the work The causes and consequences of social loafing . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37 , Leary , 2007 ) Motivational and emotional aspects of the self . Annual Review of Psychology , 58 , Leary , 2000 ) The nature and function of theory . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 32 , 1991 ) Effects of group size and task characteristics on group performance A test of model . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 17 , 1987 ) The formation of small groups . Review of Personality and Social Psychology , Levine , 1982 ) Socialization in small groups Temporal changes in relations . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 15 , 1969 ) The group as a polarizer of attitudes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 12 , Copper , 1994 ) The relation between group cohesiveness and performance An Bulletin , 115 , 1998 ) and the study of group dynamics . Group Dynamics Theory , Research , and Practice , Myers , Bishop , 1970 ) Discussion effects on racial attitudes . Science , 169 , Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 625

Myers , 1976 ) The group polarization phenomenon . Psychological Bulletin , 83 , A . 2012 ) Unintended cognitive , affective , and behavioral consequences of group of Marketing Education , 34 ( Brown , 2007 ) Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation A perspective of brainstorming . Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 2000 ) Bowling alone The collapse and revival of American community . New York Simon . Rosen , Burke , Goodwin , 2009 ) The wisdom of in organizations An update of the teamwork . In , Goodwin , Burke ( Team effectiveness in complex organizations disciplinary perspectives and approaches ( New York Francis Group . 1959 ) The psychology of affiliation . Stanford , CA Stanford University Press . Seashore , 1954 ) Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group . Ann Arbor , MI Institute for Social Research . Titus , 1987 ) Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 53 , 1972 ) Group process and productivity . New York Academic Press . 2012 ) The truth about ( 1898 ) but nobody seems to care . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 626 Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups

, 2005 ) What did really find ?

A contemporary analysis of the first experiment in social psychology . American Journal of Psychology , 118 , Jacobs , 2008 ) Shared cognition and group learning . In London ( Work group learning Understanding , improving and assessing how groups learn in organizations ( New York Taylor Francis Group . 1898 ) The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition . American Journal of Psychology , 1965 ) Developmental sequences in small groups . Psychological Bulletin , 63 , Jensen , 1977 ) Stages of small group development revisited . Group and Organizational Studies , Williams , 2007 ) Ostracism . Annual Review of Psychology , 58 , 1965 ) Social facilitation . Science , 149 , Attribution Adapted from The Psychology of Groups by under the Creative Commons International License . Chapter 16 The Psychology of Groups 627