Group Dynamics - Wikipedia

4/9/24, 12:07 PM Group dynamics - Wikipedia
Group dynamics
Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group (intragroup dynamics), or between social
groups (intergroup dynamics). The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of
diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies.[1] These
applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership
studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.
History
The history of group dynamics (or group processes)[2] has a consistent, underlying premise: 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.' A
social group is an entity that has qualities which cannot be understood just by studying the individuals that make up the group. In 1924, Gestalt
psychologist Max Wertheimer proposed ‘There are entities where the behaviour of the whole cannot be derived from its individual elements nor
from the way these elements fit together; rather the opposite is true: the properties of any of the parts are determined by the intrinsic structural
laws of the whole’ (Wertheimer 1924, p. 7).[3] (The proposition remains questionable, since modern biologists and game theorists do look to
explain the 'structural laws of the whole' in terms of 'the way the elements fit together'.)
As a field of study, group dynamics has roots in both psychology and sociology. Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920), credited as the founder of
experimental psychology, had a particular interest in the psychology of communities, which he believed possessed phenomena (human language,
customs, and religion) that could not be described through a study of the individual.[2] On the sociological side, Émile Durkheim (1858–1917),
who was influenced by Wundt, also recognized collective phenomena, such as public knowledge. Other key theorists include Gustave Le Bon
(1841–1931) who believed that crowds possessed a 'racial unconscious' with primitive, aggressive, and antisocial instincts, and William
McDougall (psychologist), who believed in a 'group mind,' which had a distinct existence born from the interaction of individuals.[2] (The concept
of a collective consciousness is not essential to group dynamics.)
Eventually, the social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890–1947) coined the term group dynamics to describe the positive and negative forces within
groups of people.[4] In 1945, he established The Group Dynamics Research Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the first institute
devoted explicitly to the study of group dynamics.[5] Throughout his career, Lewin was focused on how the study of group dynamics could be
applied to real-world, social issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 1/20
Increasingly, research has applied evolutionary psychology principles to group dynamics. As human's social environments became more complex,
they acquired adaptations by way of group dynamics that enhance survival. Examples include mechanisms for dealing with status, reciprocity,
identifying cheaters, ostracism, altruism, group decision, leadership, and intergroup relations.[6] Also, a combination of evolution and game
theory has been used to explain the development and maintenance of cooperative behavior between individuals in a group.
Key theorists
Gustave Le Bon
Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist whose seminal study, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1896) led to the development of
group psychology.
William McDougall
The British psychologist William McDougall in his work The Group Mind (1920) researched the dynamics of groups of various sizes and degrees
of organization.
Sigmund Freud
In Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, (1922), Sigmund Freud based his preliminary description of group psychology on Le Bon's
work, but went on to develop his own, original theory, related to what he had begun to elaborate in Totem and Taboo. Theodor Adorno reprised
Freud's essay in 1951 with his Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda, and said that "It is not an overstatement if we say that
Freud, though he was hardly interested in the political phase of the problem, clearly foresaw the rise and nature of fascist mass movements in
purely psychological categories."[7]
Jacob L. Moreno
Jacob L. Moreno was a psychiatrist, dramatist, philosopher and theoretician who coined the term "group psychotherapy" in the early 1930s and
was highly influential at the time.
Kurt Lewin
Kurt Lewin (1943, 1948, 1951) is commonly identified as the founder of the movement to study groups scientifically. He coined the term group
dynamics to describe the way groups and individuals act and react to changing circumstances.[8]
William Schutz
William Schutz (1958, 1966) looked at interpersonal relations as stage-developmental, inclusion (am I included?), control (who is top dog here?),
and affection (do I belong here?). Schutz sees groups resolving each issue in turn in order to be able to progress to the next stage.
Conversely, a struggling group can devolve to an earlier stage, if unable to resolve outstanding issues at its present stage. Schutz referred to these
group dynamics as "the interpersonal underworld," group processes which are largely unseen and un-acknowledged, as opposed to "content"
issues, which are nominally the agenda of group meetings.[9][10]
Wilfred Bion
Wilfred Bion (1961) studied group dynamics from a psychoanalytic perspective, and stated that he was much influenced by Wilfred Trotter for
whom he worked at University College Hospital London, as did another key figure in the Psychoanalytic movement, Ernest Jones. He discovered
several mass group processes which involved the group as a whole adopting an orientation which, in his opinion, interfered with the ability of a
group to accomplish the work it was nominally engaged in.[11] Bion's experiences are reported in his published books, especially Experiences in
Groups. The Tavistock Institute has further developed and applied the theory and practices developed by Bion.
Bruce Tuckman
Bruce Tuckman (1965) proposed the four-stage model called Tuckman's Stages for a group. Tuckman's model states that the ideal group decision-
making process should occur in four stages:
Forming (pretending to get on or get along with others)

Storming (letting down the politeness barrier and trying to get down to the issues even if tempers flare up)
Norming (getting used to each other and developing trust and productivity)
Performing (working in a group to a common goal on a highly efficient and cooperative basis)
Tuckman later added a fifth stage for the dissolution of a group called adjourning. (Adjourning may also be referred to as mourning, i.e.
mourning the adjournment of the group). This model refers to the overall pattern of the group, but of course individuals within a group work in
different ways. If distrust persists, a group may never even get to the norming stage.
M. Scott Peck
M. Scott Peck developed stages for larger-scale groups (i.e., communities) which are similar to Tuckman's stages of group development.[12] Peck
describes the stages of a community as:
Pseudo-community
Chaos
Emptiness
True Community
Communities may be distinguished from other types of groups, in Peck's view, by the need for members to eliminate barriers to communication
in order to be able to form true community. Examples of common barriers are: expectations and preconceptions; prejudices; ideology,
counterproductive norms, theology and solutions; the need to heal, convert, fix or solve and the need to control. A community is born when its
members reach a stage of "emptiness" or peace.
Richard Hackman
Richard Hackman developed a synthetic, research-based model for designing and managing work groups. Hackman suggested that groups are
successful when they satisfy internal and external clients, develop capabilities to perform in the future, and when members find meaning and
satisfaction in the group. Hackman proposed five conditions that increase the chance that groups will be successful.[13] These include:
1. Being a real team: which results from having a shared task, clear boundaries which clarify who is inside or outside of the group, and stability
in group membership.
2. Compelling direction: which results from a clear, challenging, and consequential goal.
3. Enabling structure: which results from having tasks which have variety, a group size that is not too large, talented group members who have
at least moderate social skill, and strong norms that specify appropriate behaviour.
4. Supportive context: which occurs in groups nested in larger groups (e.g. companies). In companies, supportive contexts involves a) reward
systems that reward performance and cooperation (e.g. group based rewards linked to group performance), b) an educational system that
develops member skills, c) an information and materials system that provides the needed information and raw materials (e.g. computers).
5. Expert coaching: which occurs on the rare occasions when group members feel they need help with task or interpersonal issues. Hackman
emphasizes that many team leaders are overbearing and undermine group effectiveness.
Intragroup dynamics
Intragroup dynamics (also referred to as ingroup-, within-group, or commonly just ‘group dynamics’) are the underlying processes that give rise
to a set of norms, roles, relations, and common goals that characterize a particular social group. Examples of groups include religious, political,
military, and environmental groups, sports teams, work groups, and therapy groups. Amongst the members of a group, there is a state of
interdependence, through which the behaviours, attitudes, opinions, and experiences of each member are collectively influenced by the other
group members.[14] In many fields of research, there is an interest in understanding how group dynamics influence individual behaviour,
attitudes, and opinions.
The dynamics of a particular group depend on how one defines the boundaries of the group. Often, there are distinct subgroups within a more
broadly defined group. For example, one could define U.S. residents (‘Americans’) as a group, but could also define a more specific set of U.S.
residents (for example, 'Americans in the South'). For each of these groups, there are distinct dynamics that can be discussed. Notably, on this
very broad level, the study of group dynamics is similar to the study of culture. For example, there are group dynamics in the U.S. South that
sustain a culture of honor, which is associated with norms of toughness, honour-related violence, and self-defence.[15][16]
Group formation
Group formation starts with a psychological bond between individuals. The social cohesion approach suggests that group formation comes out of
bonds of interpersonal attraction.[2] In contrast, the social identity approach suggests that a group starts when a collection of individuals
perceive that they share some social category (‘smokers’, ‘nurses,’ ‘students,’ ‘hockey players’), and that interpersonal attraction only secondarily
enhances the connection between individuals.[2] Additionally, from the social identity approach, group formation involves both identifying with
some individuals and explicitly not identifying with others. So to say, a level of psychological distinctiveness is necessary for group formation.
Through interaction, individuals begin to develop group norms, roles, and attitudes which define the group, and are internalized to influence
behaviour.[17]
Emergent groups arise from a relatively spontaneous process of group formation. For example, in response to a natural disaster, an emergent
response group may form. These groups are characterized as having no preexisting structure (e.g. group membership, allocated roles) or prior
experience working together.[18] Yet, these groups still express high levels of interdependence and coordinate knowledge, resources, and tasks.[18]
Joining groups
Joining a group is determined by a number of different factors, including an individual's personal traits;[19] gender;[20] social motives such as
need for affiliation,[21] need for power,[22] and need for intimacy;[23] attachment style;[24] and prior group experiences.[25] Groups can offer some
advantages to its members that would not be possible if an individual decided to remain alone, including gaining social support in the forms of
emotional support,[26] instrumental support,[27] and informational support.[27] It also offers friendship, potential new interests, learning new
skills, and enhancing self esteem.[28] However, joining a group may also cost an individual time, effort, and personal resources as they may
conform to social pressures and strive to reap the benefits that may be offered by the group.[28]
The Minimax Principle is a part of social exchange theory that states that people will join and remain in a group that can provide them with the
maximum amount of valuable rewards while at the same time, ensuring the minimum amount of costs to themselves.[29] However, this does not
necessarily mean that a person will join a group simply because the reward/cost ratio seems attractive. According to Howard Kelley and John
Thibaut, a group may be attractive to us in terms of costs and benefits, but that attractiveness alone does not determine whether or not we will
join the group. Instead, our decision is based on two factors: our comparison level, and our comparison level for alternatives.[29]
In John Thibaut and Harold Kelley's social exchange theory, comparison level is the standard by which an individual will evaluate the desirability
of becoming a member of the group and forming new social relationships within the group.[29] This comparison level is influenced by previous
relationships and membership in different groups. Those individuals who have experienced positive rewards with few costs in previous
relationships and groups will have a higher comparison level than a person who experienced more negative costs and fewer rewards in previous
relationships and group memberships. According to the social exchange theory, group membership will be more satisfying to a new prospective
member if the group's outcomes, in terms of costs and rewards, are above the individual's comparison level. As well, group membership will be
unsatisfying to a new member if the outcomes are below the individual's comparison level.[29]
Comparison level only predicts how satisfied a new member will be with the social relationships within the group.[30] To determine whether
people will actually join or leave a group, the value of other, alternative groups needs to be taken into account.[30] This is called the comparison
level for alternatives. This comparison level for alternatives is the standard by which an individual will evaluate the quality of the group in
comparison to other groups the individual has the opportunity to join. Thiabaut and Kelley stated that the "comparison level for alternatives can
be defined informally as the lowest level of outcomes a member will accept in the light of available alternative opportunities.”[31]
Joining and leaving groups is ultimately dependent on the comparison level for alternatives, whereas member satisfaction within a group
depends on the comparison level.[30] To summarize, if membership in the group is above the comparison level for alternatives and above the
comparison level, the membership within the group will be satisfying and an individual will be more likely to join the group. If membership in the
group is above the comparison level for alternatives but below the comparison level, membership will be not be satisfactory; however, the
individual will likely join the group since no other desirable options are available. When group membership is below the comparison level for
alternatives but above the comparison level, membership is satisfying but an individual will be unlikely to join. If group membership is below
both the comparison and alternative comparison levels, membership will be dissatisfying and the individual will be less likely to join the group.
Types of groups
Groups can vary drastically from one another. For example, three best friends who interact every day as well as a collection of people watching a
movie in a theater both constitute a group. Past research has identified four basic types of groups which include, but are not limited to: primary
groups, social groups, collective groups, and categories.[30] It is important to define these four types of groups because they are intuitive to most
lay people. For example, in an experiment,[32] participants were asked to sort a number of groups into categories based on their own criteria.
Examples of groups to be sorted were a sports team, a family, people at a bus stop and women. It was found that participants consistently sorted
groups into four categories: intimacy groups, task groups, loose associations, and social categories. These categories are conceptually similar to
the four basic types to be discussed. Therefore, it seems that individuals intuitively define aggregations of individuals in this way.
Primary groups
Primary groups are characterized by relatively small, long-lasting groups of individuals who share personally meaningful relationships. Since the
members of these groups often interact face-to-face, they know each other very well and are unified. Individuals that are a part of primary groups
consider the group to be an important part of their lives. Consequently, members strongly identify with their group, even without regular
meetings.[30] Cooley[33] believed that primary groups were essential for integrating individuals into their society since this is often their first
experience with a group. For example, individuals are born into a primary group, their family, which creates a foundation for them to base their
future relationships. Individuals can be born into a primary group; however, primary groups can also form when individuals interact for extended
periods of time in meaningful ways.[30] Examples of primary groups include family, close friends, and gangs.
Social groups
A social group is characterized by a formally organized group of individuals who are not as emotionally involved with each other as those in a
primary group. These groups tend to be larger, with shorter memberships compared to primary groups.[30] Further, social groups do not have as
stable memberships, since members are able to leave their social group and join new groups. The goals of social groups are often task-oriented as
opposed to relationship-oriented.[30] Examples of social groups include coworkers, clubs, and sports teams.
Collectives
Collectives are characterized by large groups of individuals who display similar actions or outlooks. They are loosely formed, spontaneous, and
brief.[30] Examples of collectives include a flash mob, an audience at a movie, and a crowd watching a building burn.
Categories
Categories are characterized by a collection of individuals who are similar in some way.[30] Categories become groups when their similarities have
social implications. For example, when people treat others differently because of certain aspects of their appearance or heritage, for example, this
creates groups of different races.[30] For this reason, categories can appear to be higher in entitativity and essentialism than primary, social, and
collective groups. Entitativity is defined by Campbell[34] as the extent to which collections of individuals are perceived to be a group. The degree
of entitativity that a group has is influenced by whether a collection of individuals experience the same fate, display similarities, and are close in
proximity. If individuals believe that a group is high in entitativity, then they are likely to believe that the group has unchanging characteristics
that are essential to the group, known as essentialism.[35] Examples of categories are New Yorkers, gamblers, and women.
Group membership and social identity

The social group is a critical source of information about individual identity.[36] We naturally make comparisons between our own group and
other groups, but we do not necessarily make objective comparisons. Instead, we make evaluations that are self-enhancing, emphasizing the
positive qualities of our own group (see ingroup bias).[2] In this way, these comparisons give us a distinct and valued social identity that benefits
our self-esteem. Our social identity and group membership also satisfies a need to belong.[37] Of course, individuals belong to multiple groups.
Therefore, one's social identity can have several, qualitatively distinct parts (for example, one's ethnic identity, religious identity, and political
identity).[38]
Optimal distinctiveness theory suggests that individuals have a desire to be similar to others, but also a desire to differentiate themselves,
ultimately seeking some balance of these two desires (to obtain optimal distinctiveness).[39] For example, one might imagine a young teenager in
the United States who tries to balance these desires, not wanting to be ‘just like everyone else,’ but also wanting to ‘fit in’ and be similar to others.
One's collective self may offer a balance between these two desires.[2] That is, to be similar to others (those who you share group membership
with), but also to be different from others (those who are outside of your group).
Group cohesion
In the social sciences, group cohesion refers to the processes that keep members of a social group connected.[4] Terms such as attraction,
solidarity, and morale are often used to describe group cohesion.[4] It is thought to be one of the most important characteristics of a group, and
has been linked to group performance,[40] intergroup conflict[41] and therapeutic change.[42]
Group cohesion, as a scientifically studied property of groups, is commonly associated with Kurt Lewin and his student, Leon Festinger. Lewin
defined group cohesion as the willingness of individuals to stick together, and believed that without cohesiveness a group could not exist.[4] As an
extension of Lewin's work, Festinger (along with Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back) described cohesion as, “the total field of forces which act on
members to remain in the group” (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950, p. 37).[4] Later, this definition was modified to describe the forces acting
on individual members to remain in the group, termed attraction to the group.[4] Since then, several models for understanding the concept of
group cohesion have been developed, including Albert Carron's hierarchical model[43] and several bi-dimensional models (vertical v. horizontal
cohesion, task v. social cohesion, belongingness and morale, and personal v. social attraction). Before Lewin and Festinger, there were, of course,
descriptions of a very similar group property. For example, Emile Durkheim described two forms of solidarity (mechanical and organic), which
created a sense of collective conscious and an emotion-based sense of community.[44]
Black sheep effect

Beliefs within the ingroup are based on how individuals in the group see their other members. Individuals tend to upgrade likeable in-group
members and deviate from unlikeable group members, making them a separate outgroup. This is called the black sheep effect.[45] The way a
person judges socially desirable and socially undesirable individuals depends upon whether they are part of the ingroup or outgroup.
This phenomenon has been later accounted for by subjective group dynamics theory.[46] According to this theory, people derogate socially
undesirable (deviant) ingroup members relative to outgroup members, because they give a bad image of the ingroup and jeopardize people's
social identity.
In more recent studies, Marques and colleagues[47] have shown that this occurs more strongly with regard to ingroup full members than other
members. Whereas new members of a group must prove themselves to the full members to become accepted, full members have undergone
socialization and are already accepted within the group. They have more privilege than newcomers but more responsibility to help the group
achieve its goals. Marginal members were once full members but lost membership because they failed to live up to the group's expectations. They
can rejoin the group if they go through re-socialization. Therefore, full members' behavior is paramount to define the ingroup's image.
Bogart and Ryan surveyed the development of new members' stereotypes about in-groups and out-groups during socialization. Results showed
that the new members judged themselves as consistent with the stereotypes of their in-groups, even when they had recently committed to join
those groups or existed as marginal members. They also tended to judge the group as a whole in an increasingly less positive manner after they
became full members.[48] However, there is no evidence that this affects the way they are judged by other members. Nevertheless, depending on
the self-esteem of an individual, members of the in-group may experience different private beliefs about the group's activities but will publicly
express the opposite—that they actually share these beliefs. One member may not personally agree with something the group does, but to avoid
the black sheep effect, they will publicly agree with the group and keep the private beliefs to themselves. If the person is privately self-aware, he or
she is more likely to comply with the group even if they possibly have their own beliefs about the situation.[49]
In situations of hazing within fraternities and sororities on college campuses, pledges may encounter this type of situation and may outwardly
comply with the tasks they are forced to do regardless of their personal feelings about the Greek institution they are joining. This is done in an
effort to avoid becoming an outcast of the group.[48] Outcasts who behave in a way that might jeopardize the group tend to be treated more
harshly than the likeable ones in a group, creating a black sheep effect. Full members of a fraternity might treat the incoming new members
harshly, causing the pledges to decide if they approve of the situation and if they will voice their disagreeing opinions about it.
Group influence on individual behaviour

Individual behaviour is influenced by the presence of others.[36] For example, studies have found that individuals work harder and faster when
others are present (see social facilitation), and that an individual's performance is reduced when others in the situation create distraction or
conflict.[36] Groups also influence individual's decision-making processes. These include decisions related to ingroup bias, persuasion (see Asch
conformity experiments), obedience (see Milgram Experiment), and groupthink. There are both positive and negative implications of group
influence on individual behaviour. This type of influence is often useful in the context of work settings, team sports, and political activism.
However, the influence of groups on the individual can also generate extremely negative behaviours, evident in Nazi Germany, the My Lai
Massacre, and in the Abu Ghraib prison (also see Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse).[50]
Group structure
A group's structure is the internal framework that defines members' relations to one another over time.[51] Frequently studied elements of group
structure include roles, norms, values, communication patterns, and status differentials.[52] Group structure has also been defined as the
underlying pattern of roles, norms, and networks of relations among members that define and organize the group.[53]
Roles can be defined as a tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way. Roles may be assigned formally, but
more often are defined through the process of role differentiation.[54] Role differentiation is the degree to which different group members have
specialized functions. A group with a high level of role differentiation would be categorized as having many different roles that are specialized and
narrowly defined.[53] A key role in a group is the leader, but there are other important roles as well, including task roles, relationship roles, and
individual roles.[53] Functional (task) roles are generally defined in relation to the tasks the team is expected to perform.[55] Individuals engaged
in task roles focus on the goals of the group and on enabling the work that members do; examples of task roles include coordinator, recorder,
critic, or technician.[53] A group member engaged in a relationship role (or socioemotional role) is focused on maintaining the interpersonal and
emotional needs of the groups' members; examples of relationship role include encourager, harmonizer, or compromiser.[53]
Norms are the informal rules that groups adopt to regulate members' behaviour. Norms refer to what should be done and represent value
judgments about appropriate behaviour in social situations. Although they are infrequently written down or even discussed, norms have powerful
influence on group behaviour.[56] They are a fundamental aspect of group structure as they provide direction and motivation, and organize the
social interactions of members.[53]

Norms are said to be emergent, as they develop gradually throughout interactions between group
members. [53] While many norms are widespread throughout society, groups may develop their own norms that members must learn when they
join the group. There are various types of norms, including: prescriptive, proscriptive, descriptive, and injunctive.[53]
Prescriptive Norms: the socially appropriate way to respond in a social situation, or what group members are supposed to do (e.g. saying
thank you after someone does a favour for you)
Proscriptive Norms: actions that group members should not do; prohibitive (e.g. not belching in public)
Descriptive Norms: describe what people usually do (e.g. clapping after a speech)
Injunctive Norms: describe behaviours that people ought to do; more evaluative in nature than a descriptive norm
Intermember Relations are the connections among the members of a group, or the social network within a group. Group members are linked
to one another at varying levels. Examining the intermember relations of a group can highlight a group's density (how many members are linked
to one another), or the degree centrality of members (number of ties between members).[53] Analysing the intermember relations aspect of a
group can highlight the degree centrality of each member in the group, which can lead to a better understanding of the roles of certain group (e.g.
an individual who is a 'go-between' in a group will have closer ties to numerous group members which can aid in communication, etc.).[53]
Values are goals or ideas that serve as guiding principles for the group.[57] Like norms, values may be communicated either explicitly or on an ad
hoc basis. Values can serve as a rallying point for the team. However, some values (such as conformity) can also be dysfunction and lead to poor
decisions by the team.
Communication patterns describe the flow of information within the group and they are typically described as either centralized or
decentralized. With a centralized pattern, communications tend to flow from one source to all group members. Centralized communications allow
standardization of information, but may restrict the free flow of information. Decentralized communications make it easy to share information
directly between group members. When decentralized, communications tend to flow more freely, but the delivery of information may not be as
fast or accurate as with centralized communications. Another potential downside of decentralized communications is the sheer volume of
information that can be generated, particularly with electronic media.
Status differentials are the relative differences in status among group members. When a group is first formed the members may all be on an
equal level, but over time certain members may acquire status and authority within the group; this can create what is known as a pecking order
within a group.[53] Status can be determined by a variety of factors and characteristics, including specific status characteristics (e.g. task-specific
behavioural and personal characteristics, such as experience) or diffuse status characteristics (e.g. age, race, ethnicity).[53] It is important that
other group members perceive an individual's status to be warranted and deserved, as otherwise they may not have authority within the
group.[53] Status differentials may affect the relative amount of pay among group members and they may also affect the group's tolerance to
violation of group norms (e.g. people with higher status may be given more freedom to violate group norms).
Group performance
Forsyth suggests that while many daily tasks undertaken by individuals could be performed in isolation, the preference is to perform with other
people.[53]
Social facilitation and performance gains

In a study of dynamogenic stimulation for the purpose of explaining pacemaking and competition in 1898, Norman Triplett theorized that "the
bodily presence of another rider is a stimulus to the racer in arousing the competitive instinct...".[58] This dynamogenic factor is believed to have
laid the groundwork for what is now known as social facilitation—an "improvement in task performance that occurs when people work in the
presence of other people".[53]
Further to Triplett's observation, in 1920, Floyd Allport found that although people in groups were more productive than individuals, the quality
of their product/effort was inferior.[53]
In 1965, Robert Zajonc expanded the study of arousal response (originated by Triplett) with further research in the area of social facilitation. In
his study, Zajonc considered two experimental paradigms. In the first—audience effects—Zajonc observed behaviour in the presence of passive
spectators, and the second—co-action effects—he examined behaviour in the presence of another individual engaged in the same activity.[59]
Zajonc observed two categories of behaviours—dominant responses to tasks that are easier to learn and which dominate other potential
responses and nondominant responses to tasks that are less likely to be performed. In his Theory of Social Facilitation, Zajonc concluded
that in the presence of others, when action is required, depending on the task requirement, either social facilitation or social interference will
impact the outcome of the task. If social facilitation occurs, the task will have required a dominant response from the individual resulting in better
performance in the presence of others, whereas if social interference occurs the task will have elicited a nondominant response from the
individual resulting in subpar performance of the task.[53]
Several theories analysing performance gains in groups via drive, motivational, cognitive and personality processes, explain why social facilitation
occurs.
Zajonc hypothesized that compresence (the state of responding in the presence of others) elevates an individual's drive level which in turn
triggers social facilitation when tasks are simple and easy to execute, but impedes performance when tasks are challenging.[53]
Nickolas Cottrell, 1972, proposed the evaluation apprehension model whereby he suggested people associate social situations with an
evaluative process. Cottrell argued this situation is met with apprehension and it is this motivational response, not arousal/elevated drive, that is
responsible for increased productivity on simple tasks and decreased productivity on complex tasks in the presence of others.[53]
In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Erving Goffman assumes that individuals can control how they are perceived by others.
He suggests that people fear being perceived as having negative, undesirable qualities and characteristics by other people, and that it is this fear
that compels individuals to portray a positive self-presentation/social image of themselves. In relation to performance gains, Goffman's self-
presentation theory predicts, in situations where they may be evaluated, individuals will consequently increase their efforts in order to
project/preserve/maintain a positive image.[53]
Distraction-conflict theory contends that when a person is working in the presence of other people, an interference effect occurs splitting the
individual's attention between the task and the other person. On simple tasks, where the individual is not challenged by the task, the interference
effect is negligible and performance, therefore, is facilitated. On more complex tasks, where drive is not strong enough to effectively compete
against the effects of distraction, there is no performance gain. The Stroop task (Stroop effect) demonstrated that, by narrowing a person's focus
of attention on certain tasks, distractions can improve performance.[53]
Social orientation theory considers the way a person approaches social situations. It predicts that self-confident individuals with a positive
outlook will show performance gains through social facilitation, whereas a self-conscious individual approaching social situations with
apprehension is less likely to perform well due to social interference effects.[53]
Intergroup dynamics
Intergroup dynamics (or intergroup relations) refers to the behavioural and psychological relationship between two or more groups. This
includes perceptions, attitudes, opinions, and behaviours towards one's own group, as well as those towards another group. In some cases,
intergroup dynamics is prosocial, positive, and beneficial (for example, when multiple research teams work together to accomplish a task or goal).
In other cases, intergroup dynamics can create conflict. For example, Fischer & Ferlie found initially positive dynamics between a clinical
institution and its external authorities dramatically changed to a 'hot' and intractable conflict when authorities interfered with its embedded
clinical model.[60] Similarly, underlying the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado, United States, intergroup dynamics
played a significant role in Eric Harris’ and Dylan Klebold’s decision to kill a teacher and 14 students (including themselves).[50]
Intergroup conflict
According to social identity theory, intergroup conflict starts with a process of comparison between individuals in one group (the ingroup) to
those of another group (the outgroup).[61] This comparison process is not unbiased and objective. Instead, it is a mechanism for enhancing one's
self-esteem.[2] In the process of such comparisons, an individual tends to:
favour the ingroup over the outgroup

exaggerate and overgeneralize the differences between the ingroup and the outgroup (to enhance group distinctiveness)
minimize the perception of differences between ingroup members
remember more detailed and positive information about the ingroup, and more negative information about the outgroup[62]
Even without any intergroup interaction (as in the minimal group paradigm), individuals begin to show favouritism towards their own group, and
negative reactions towards the outgroup.[62] This conflict can result in prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. Intergroup conflict can be
highly competitive, especially for social groups with a long history of conflict (for example, the 1994 Rwandan genocide, rooted in group conflict
between the ethnic Hutu and Tutsi).[2] In contrast, intergroup competition can sometimes be relatively harmless, particularly in situations where
there is little history of conflict (for example, between students of different universities) leading to relatively harmless generalizations and mild
competitive behaviours.[2] Intergroup conflict is commonly recognized amidst racial, ethnic, religious, and political groups.
The formation of intergroup conflict was investigated in a popular series of studies by Muzafer Sherif and colleagues in 1961, called the Robbers
Cave Experiment.[63] The Robbers Cave Experiment was later used to support realistic conflict theory.[64] Other prominent theories relating to
intergroup conflict include social dominance theory, and social-/self-categorization theory.
Intergroup conflict reduction

There have been several strategies developed for reducing the tension, bias, prejudice, and conflict between social groups. These include the
contact hypothesis, the jigsaw classroom, and several categorization-based strategies.
Contact hypothesis (intergroup contact theory)

In 1954, Gordon Allport suggested that by promoting contact between groups, prejudice can be reduced.[65] Further, he suggested four optimal
conditions for contact: equal status between the groups in the situation; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and the support of authorities,
law, or customs.[66] Since then, over 500 studies have been done on prejudice reduction under variations of the contact hypothesis, and a meta-
analytic review suggests overall support for its efficacy.[66] In some cases, even without the four optimal conditions outlined by Allport, prejudice
between groups can be reduced.[66]
Superordinate identities
Under the contact hypothesis, several models have been developed. A number of these models utilize a superordinate identity to reduce
prejudice. That is, a more broadly defined, ‘umbrella’ group/identity that includes the groups that are in conflict. By emphasizing this
superordinate identity, individuals in both subgroups can share a common social identity.[67] For example, if there is conflict between White,
Black, and Latino students in a high school, one might try to emphasize the ‘high school’ group/identity that students share to reduce conflict
between the groups. Models utilizing superordinate identities include the common ingroup identity model, the ingroup projection model, the
mutual intergroup differentiation model, and the ingroup identity model.[67] Similarly, "recategorization" is a broader term used by Gaertner et
al. to describe the strategies aforementioned.[62]
Interdependence
There are techniques that utilize interdependence, between two or more groups, with the aim of reducing prejudice. That is, members across
groups have to rely on one another to accomplish some goal or task. In the Robbers Cave Experiment, Sherif used this strategy to reduce conflict
between groups.[62] Elliot Aronson’s Jigsaw Classroom also uses this strategy of interdependence.[68] In 1971, thick racial tensions were
abounding in Austin, Texas. Aronson was brought in to examine the nature of this tension within schools, and to devise a strategy for reducing it
(so to improve the process of school integration, mandated under Brown v. Board of Education in 1954). Despite strong evidence for the
effectiveness of the jigsaw classroom, the strategy was not widely used (arguably because of strong attitudes existing outside of the schools,
which still resisted the notion that racial and ethnic minority groups are equal to Whites and, similarly, should be integrated into schools).
Selected academic journals

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice
Small Group Research
Group Analysis
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy
The Journal for Specialists in Group Work
Social Work With Groups
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights
Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal
Organizational and Social Dynamics
See also
Cog's ladder Group narcissism Out-group homogeneity
Collaboration High-performance teams (HPT) Small-group communication
Collaborative method Intergroup dialogue Social psychology
Decision downloading Intergroup relations Social psychology (sociology)
Entitativity Interpersonal relationships Social tuning
Facilitator Maintenance actions Team effectiveness
Frog pond effect Organization climate Team-based learning
References
1. Backstrom, L.; Huttenlocher, D.; Kleinberg, J.; Lan, X. (2006). 5. Lewin, Kurt (1945). "The Research Center for Group Dynamics at
"Group formation in large social networks". Proceedings of the 12th Massachusetts Institute of Technology". Sociometry. 8 (2): 126–
ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery 136. doi:10.2307/2785233 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2785233).
and data mining – KDD '06. p. 44. doi:10.1145/1150402.1150412 (h JSTOR 2785233 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2785233).
ttps://doi.org/10.1145%2F1150402.1150412). ISBN 978- 6. Van Vugt, M.; Schaller, M. (2008). "Evolutionary approaches to
1595933393. S2CID 7904289 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp group dynamics: An introduction". Group Dynamics: Theory,
usID:7904289). Research, and Practice. 12: 1–6. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.1 (htt
2. Hogg, M. A.; Williams, K. D. (2000). "From I to we: Social identity ps://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2699.12.1.1). S2CID 15306280 (http
and the collective self". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15306280).
Practice. 4: 81–97. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.81 (https://doi.org/1 7. Hammer, Espen Adorno and the political (https://books.google.com/
0.1037%2F1089-2699.4.1.81). books?id=X3L5R3kiOh4C&pg=PA58), pp.58–9
3. Westheimer, G. (1999). "Gestalt theory reconfigured: Max 8. Benne, K. D.; Bradford, L. P.; Gibb, J. R. (1972). "Geschichte der
Wertheimer's anticipation of recent developments in visual Trainingsgruppe im Laboratorium". In K. D. Benne (ed.).
neuroscience". Perception. 28 (1): 5–15. doi:10.1068/p2883 (http Gruppentraining. Stuttgart: Klett Verlag. pp. 95–154.
s://doi.org/10.1068%2Fp2883). PMID 10627849 (https://pubmed.nc 9. Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of
bi.nlm.nih.gov/10627849). S2CID 9800976 (https://api.semanticsch Interpersonal Behavior. New York, NY: Rinehart.
olar.org/CorpusID:9800976).
10. Schutz, W. (1966). The Interpersonal Underworld. (Updated version
4. Dion, K. L. (2000). "Group cohesion: From "field of forces" to based on 1958 work). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
multidimensional construct". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice. 4: 7–26. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.7 (https://doi.org/ 11. Page 194 to 196, Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group
10.1037%2F1089-2699.4.1.7). Psychotherapy, third edition, Basic Books (1985), hardback,
ISBN 0-465-08447-8
12. Peck, M. S. (1987) The Different Drum: Community-Making and 20. Gore, Jonathan S.; Cross, Susan E.; Morris, Michael L. (2006-03-
Peace.p. 95-103. 01). "Let's be friends: Relational self-construal and the development
13. J. Richard Hackman (2002). Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for of intimacy". Personal Relationships. 13 (1): 83–102.
Great Performances. Harvard Business Press. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00106.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.
14. Wageman, R. (1995). "Interdependence and Group Effectiveness". 1475-6811.2006.00106.x). ISSN 1475-6811 (https://www.worldcat.o
Administrative Science Quarterly. 40 (1): 145–180. rg/issn/1475-6811).
doi:10.2307/2393703 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2393703). 21. McAdams, Dan P.; Constantian, Carol A. (1983). "Intimacy and
JSTOR 2393703 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2393703). affiliation motives in daily living: An experience sampling analysis".
15. Cohen, D.; Nisbett, R. E.; Bowdle, B. F.; Schwarz, N. (1996). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 45 (4): 851–861.
"Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.851 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-
"experimental ethnography." ". Journal of Personality and Social 3514.45.4.851).
Psychology. 70 (5): 945–959. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.945 (http 22. Turner, Jonathan (1974-12-01). "THE POWER MOTIVE. By David
s://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.70.5.945). hdl:2027.42/92155 (ht G. Winter. New York: Free Press, 1973. 373 pp. $12.00". Social
tps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42%2F92155). PMID 8656339 (https://pub Forces. 53 (2): 363–364. doi:10.1093/sf/53.2.363 (https://doi.org/10.
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8656339). 1093%2Fsf%2F53.2.363). ISSN 0037-7732 (https://www.worldcat.o
16. Cohen, D. (1998). "Culture, social organization, and patterns of rg/issn/0037-7732).
violence". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75 (2): 23. McAdams, Dan P.; Constantian, Carol A. (1983). "Intimacy and
408–419. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.458.621 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vi affiliation motives in daily living: An experience sampling analysis".
ewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.458.621). doi:10.1037/0022- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 45 (4): 851–861.
3514.75.2.408 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.75.2.408). doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.851 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-
PMID 9731316 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9731316). 3514.45.4.851).
17. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: 24. Rom, Eldad; Mikulincer, Mario (2003). "Attachment theory and
Harper. group processes: The association between attachment style and
group-related representations, goals, memories, and functioning".
18. Majchrzak, A.; Jarvenpaa, S. L.; Hollingshead, A. B. (2007).
"Coordinating Expertise Among Emergent Groups Responding to Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (6): 1220–1235.
Disasters". Organization Science. 18: 147–161. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1220 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022
doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0228 (https://doi.org/10.1287%2Forsc.1060. -3514.84.6.1220). PMID 12793586 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
0228). S2CID 43354804 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: v/12793586).
43354804). 25. Bohrnstedt, George W.; Fisher, Gene A. (1986). "The Effects of
19. Lucas, Richard E.; Diener, Ed (2001). "Understanding extraverts' Recalled Childhood and Adolescent Relationships Compared to
enjoyment of social situations: The importance of pleasantness". Current Role Performances on Young Adults' Affective Functioning".
Social Psychology Quarterly. 49 (1): 19–32. doi:10.2307/2786854
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (2): 343–356.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.343 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022- (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2786854). JSTOR 2786854 (https://ww
w.jstor.org/stable/2786854).
3514.81.2.343). PMID 11519937 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1
1519937).
26. McGuire, Gail M. (2007). "Intimate Work". Work and Occupations. 35. Haslam, N; Rothschild, L; Ernst, D (2002). "Are essentialist beliefs
34 (2): 125–147. doi:10.1177/0730888406297313 (https://doi.org/1 associated with prejudice?". British Journal of Social Psychology.
0.1177%2F0730888406297313). S2CID 145394891 (https://api.se 41 (1): 87–100. doi:10.1348/014466602165072 (https://doi.org/10.1
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:145394891). 348%2F014466602165072). PMID 11970776 (https://pubmed.ncbi.
27. Uchino, Bert N. (2004). Social support and physical health : nlm.nih.gov/11970776).
understanding the health consequences of relationships. New 36. Crano, W. D. (2000). "Milestones in the psychological analysis of
Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300102185. social influence". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice.
OCLC 182530829 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/182530829). 4: 68–80. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.68 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2
28. Hogg, Michael A.; Abrams, Dominic (1993). Group motivation : F1089-2699.4.1.68).
social psychological perspectives. New York: Harvester 37. Spears, R.; Ellemers, N.; Doosje, B. (2005). "Let me count the ways
Wheatsheaf. ISBN 978-0745012391. OCLC 28963933 (https://ww in which I respect thee: Does competence compensate or
w.worldcat.org/oclc/28963933). compromise lack of liking from the group?". European Journal of
29. H., Kelley, Harold (1978). Interpersonal relations : a theory of Social Psychology. 35 (2): 263–279. doi:10.1002/ejsp.248 (https://d
interdependence. Thibaut, John W. New York: Wiley. ISBN 978- oi.org/10.1002%2Fejsp.248).
0471034735. OCLC 3627845 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/36278 38. Deaux, K.; Reid, A.; Mizrahi, K.; Ethier, K. A. (1995). "Parameters of
45). social identity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68
30. Forsyth, Donelson (2006). Group Dynamics. Belmont, CA: (2): 280–291. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.280 (https://doi.org/10.1
Wadsworth. 037%2F0022-3514.68.2.280).
31. W., Thibaut, John (1986). The social psychology of groups. Kelley, 39. Brewer, M. B. (1991). "The Social Self: On Being the Same and
Harold H. New Brunswick, U.S.A.: Transaction Books. p. 21. Different at the Same Time". Personality and Social Psychology
ISBN 9780887386336. OCLC 12662505 (https://www.worldcat.org/ Bulletin. 17 (5): 475–482. doi:10.1177/0146167291175001 (https://d
oclc/12662505). oi.org/10.1177%2F0146167291175001). S2CID 145294289 (https://
32. Lickel, B; Hamilton, D. L.; Wieczorkowska, G; Lewis, A; Sherman, api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145294289).
S. J.; Uhles, A. N. (2000). "Varieties of groups and the perception of 40. Gully, S. M.; Devine, D. J.; Whitney, D. J. (1995). "A Meta-Analysis
group entitativity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 of Cohesion and Performance: Effects of Level of Analysis and Task
(2): 223–246. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223 (https://doi.org/10.1 Interdependence". Small Group Research. 26 (4): 497–520.
037%2F0022-3514.78.2.223). PMID 10707331 (https://pubmed.ncb doi:10.1177/1046496495264003 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10464
i.nlm.nih.gov/10707331). 96495264003). S2CID 145303557 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
33. Cooley, Charles (1909). social organization: a study of the larger CorpusID:145303557).
mind. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 41. Stein, A. A. (1976). "Conflict and Cohesion: A Review of the
34. Campbell, D. T. (1958). "Common fate, similarity, and other indices Literature". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 20: 143–172.
of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities". Systems doi:10.1177/002200277602000106 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002
Research and Behavioral Science. 3 (1): 14–25. 200277602000106). S2CID 145093926 (https://api.semanticschola
doi:10.1002/bs.3830030103 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fbs.383003 r.org/CorpusID:145093926).
0103).
42. Yalom, Irvin (1995). The theory and practice of group 49. Pinto, I. R.; Marques, J. M.; Abrams, D. (2010). "Membership status
psychotherapy (https://archive.org/details/theorypracticeo00yalo). and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep
New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-08448-7. effect?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 99 (1): 107–
43. Carron, A. V.; Brawley, L. R. (2000). "Cohesion: Conceptual and 119. doi:10.1037/a0018187 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0018187).
Measurement Issues". Small Group Research. 31: 89–106. PMID 20565188 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20565188).
doi:10.1177/104649640003100105 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F104 50. Aronson, Elliot (2008). The social animal. New York: Worth
649640003100105). S2CID 220367599 (https://api.semanticschola Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4292-0316-6.
r.org/CorpusID:220367599). 51. Wittenbaum and Moreland. (2008). Small-Group Research in Social
44. Driedger, Leo (1996). Multi-ethnic Canada : identities and Psychology: Topics and Trends over Time.
inequalities. Toronto New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978- 52. Jex, Steve &; Britt, Thomas (2008). Organizational Psychology: A
0-19-541161-4. Scientist-Practitioner Approach (Second ed.). Hoboken, New
45. Marques, J. M.; Yzerbyt, V. Y.; Leyens, J. Ph. (1988). "The black Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 341–365.
sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members as a 53. Forsyth, D.R. (2009). Group Dynamics. New York: Wadsworth.
function of ingroup identification". European Journal of Social 54. Levine. (1998). The Handbook of Social Psychology.
Psychology. 18 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180102 (https://doi.
org/10.1002%2Fejsp.2420180102). 55. Senior. (1991). Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology.
46. Marques, J. M.; Abrams, D.; Paez, D.; Taboada, C. (1998). "The
role of categorization and ingroup norms in judgments of groups 56. Hahn, M. (2010). Group Norms in Organizations.
and their members". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57. Schwarz. (2007). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and
75 (4): 976–988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.976 (https://doi.org/1 Contents of Human Values?
0.1037%2F0022-3514.75.4.976). 58. Triplett, N. (1898). "The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and
47. Pinto, I. R.; Marques, J. M.; Levine, J. M.; Abrams, D. (2016). Competition". The American Journal of Psychology. 9 (4): 507–533.
"Membership role and subjective group dynamics: Impact on doi:10.2307/1412188 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1412188).
evaluative intragroup differentiation and commitment to prescriptive JSTOR 1412188 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1412188).
norms" (http://kar.kent.ac.uk/61201/1/Pinto%2CMarques%2CLevin 59. Robert B. Zajonc (July 16, 1965). "Social Facilitation". Science.
e%26Abrams2016GPIR.pdf) (PDF). Group Processes and New Series. 149 (3681): 269–274. Bibcode:1965Sci...149..269Z (ht
Intergroup Relations, On-Line. 19 (5): 570–590. tps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965Sci...149..269Z).
doi:10.1177/1368430216638531 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F13684 doi:10.1126/science.149.3681.269 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscie
30216638531). S2CID 147836059 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/ nce.149.3681.269). JSTOR 1715944 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1
CorpusID:147836059). 715944). PMID 14300526 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/143005
48. Ryan, Carey S.; Bogart, Laura M. (Oct 1997). "Development of new 26).
group members' in-group and out-group stereotypes: Changes in
perceived variability and ethnocentrism". Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 73 (4): 719–732. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.73.4.719 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.73.4.719).
PMID 9325590 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9325590).
60. Fischer, Michael Daniel; Ferlie, Ewan (1 January 2013). "Resisting 63. Sherif, Muzafer (1988). The Robbers Cave Experiment.
hybridisation between modes of clinical risk management: Middletown: Wesleyan University Press. ISBN 978-0-8195-6194-7.
Contradiction, contest, and the production of intractable conflict" (htt 64. Levine, Robert (1971). Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic
ps://web.archive.org/web/20190705140612/http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac. Attitudes, and Group Behavior. New York: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-
uk/4368/1/Fischer_M_D__Ferlie_E_%28authors%27_post-print_ver 53117-3.
sion%29_Accounting_Organizations_and_Society.pdf) (PDF). 65. Allport, Gordon (1979). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading: Addison-
Accounting, Organizations and Society. 38 (1): 30–49. Wesley Pub. Co. ISBN 978-0-201-00179-2.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2012.11.002 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.aos.20
12.11.002). S2CID 44146410 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp 66. Pettigrew, T. F.; Tropp, L. R. (2006). "A Meta-Analytic Test of
usID:44146410). Archived from the original (http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac. Intergroup Contact Theory". Journal of Personality and Social
uk/4368/1/Fischer_M_D__Ferlie_E_%28authors%27_post-print_ver Psychology. 90 (5): 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 (http
sion%29_Accounting_Organizations_and_Society.pdf) (PDF) on 5 s://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.90.5.751). PMID 16737372 (http
July 2019. Retrieved 29 August 2019. s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16737372). S2CID 14149856 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14149856).
61. Turner, J. C. (1975). "Social comparison and social identity: Some
prospects for intergroup behaviour" (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fejs 67. Hornsey, M. J.; Hogg, M. A. (2000). "Subgroup Relations: A
p.2420050102). European Journal of Social Psychology. 5: 1–34. Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Differentiation and Common
doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420050102 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fejsp.242 Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction". Personality and
0050102). Social Psychology Bulletin. 26 (2): 242–256.
doi:10.1177/0146167200264010 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F01461
62. Gaertner, S. L.; Dovidio, J. F.; Banker, B. S.; Houlette, M.; Johnson, 67200264010). S2CID 145116253 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
K. M.; McGlynn, E. A. (2000). "Reducing intergroup conflict: From CorpusID:145116253).
superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and
mutual differentiation". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and 68. Aronson, Elliot (1997). The Jigsaw Classroom. New York:
Practice. 4: 98–114. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.98 (https://doi.org/1 Longman. ISBN 978-0-673-99383-0.
0.1037%2F1089-2699.4.1.98).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Group_dynamics&oldid=1215452632"

Group Dynamics - Wikipedia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group Dynamics - Wikipedia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/9/24, 12:07 PM Group dynamics - Wikipedia

Forming (pretending to get on or get along with others)

Group membership and social identity

Black sheep effect

Group influence on individual behaviour

social interactions of members.[53]

Social facilitation and performance gains

favour the ingroup over the outgroup

Intergroup conflict reduction

Contact hypothesis (intergroup contact theory)

Selected academic journals

Organizational and Social Dynamics

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Group_dynamics&oldid=1215452632"

You might also like