Group dynamics

Group dynamics is a system of behaviours 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 behavior, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating eective
therapy techniques, and following the emergence and
popularity of new ideas and technologies.[1] Group dynamics are at the core of understanding racism, sexism,
and other forms of social prejudice and discrimination.
These applications of the eld are studied in psychology,
sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology,
education, social work, business, and communication
studies.

Ultimately, it was social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890

1947) who 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 rst 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.

An increasing amount of research has applied

evolutionary psychology principles to group dynamics.
Humans are argued to have evolved in an increasingly
complicated social environment and to have many
adaptations concerned with group dynamics. Examples
There are three main things that can aect a teams co- include mechanisms for dealing with status, reciprocity,
hesion (the act of working together well). They are: en- identifying cheaters, ostracism, altruism, group decision,
vironmental factors, personal factors and leadership fac- leadership, and intergroup relations.[6]
tors.

2 Key theorists

History

2.1 Gustave Le Bon

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,
which has qualities that cannot be understood just by
studying the individuals that make up the group. In 1924,
Gestalt psychologist, Max Wertheimer identied this fact,
stating There are entities where the behavior of the whole
cannot be derived from its individual elements nor from
the way these elements t 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]

Main article: 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.

2.2 William McDougall

Main article: William McDougall (psychologist)

As a eld of study, group dynamics has roots in both psychology and sociology. Wilhelm Wundt (18321920),
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, mile Durkheim (18581917), who was inuenced
by Wundt, also recognized collective phenomena, such
as public knowledge. Other key theorists include Gustave
Le Bon (18411931) 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 British psychologist William McDougall in his work

The Group Mind (1920) researched the dynamics of
groups of various sizes and degrees of organization.

2.3 Sigmund Freud

Main article: Sigmund Freud
In Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, (1922),
Sigmund Freud based his preliminary description of
group psychology on Le Bons work, but went on to develop his own, original theory, related to what he had begun to elaborate in Totem and Taboo. Theodor Adorno
1

reprised Freuds 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]

2.4

Jacob L. Moreno

Main article: Jacob L. Moreno

KEY THEORISTS

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.[10] His
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.

2.8 Bruce Tuckman

Main article: Bruce Tuckman

Jacob L. Moreno was a psychiatrist, dramatist, philosopher and theoretician who coined the term group psychotherapy in the early 1930s and was highly inuential Bruce Tuckman (1965) proposed the four-stage model
called Tuckmans Stages for a group. Tuckmans model
at the time.
states that the ideal group decision-making process should
occur in four stages:

2.5

Kurt Lewin

Main article: Kurt Lewin

Kurt Lewin (1943, 1948, 1951) is commonly identied
as the founder of the movement to study groups scientically. He coined the term group dynamics to describe
the way groups and individuals act and react to changing
circumstances.

2.6

William Schutz

Main article: William Schutz

William Schutz (1958, 1966) looked at interpersonal
relations as stage-developmental, inclusion (am I included?), control (who is top dog here?), and aection
(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.[8][9]

2.7

Wilfred Bion

Main article: Wilfred Bion

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 are up)
Norming (getting used to each other and developing
trust and productivity)
Performing (working in a group to a common goal
on a highly ecient and cooperative basis)
Tuckman later added a fth 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 dierent ways. If distrust persists, a group may never
even get to the norming stage.

2.9 M. Scott Peck

Main article: M. Scott Peck
M. Scott Peck developed stages for larger-scale groups
(i.e., communities) which are similar to Tuckmans stages
of group development.[11] Peck describes the stages of a
community as:
Pseudo-community
Chaos

Emptiness
Wilfred Bion (1961) studied group dynamics from a
True Community
psychoanalytic perspective, and stated that he was much
inuenced by Wilfred Trotter for whom he worked at
University College Hospital London, as did another key Communities may be distinguished from other types of
gure in the Psychoanalytic movement, Ernest Jones. He groups, in Pecks view, by the need for members to

3.1

Group formation

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, x or solve and the need
to control. A community is born when its members reach
a stage of emptiness or peace.

2.10 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 nd meaning
and satisfaction in the group. Hackman proposed ve
conditions that increase the chance that groups will be
successful.[12] These include:

3
work groups, and therapy groups. Amongst the members
of a group, there is a state of interdependence, through
which the behaviors, attitudes, opinions, and experiences
of each member are collectively inuenced by the other
group members.[13] In many elds of research, there is an
interest in understanding how group dynamics inuence
individual behavior, attitudes, and opinions.
The dynamics of a particular group depend on how one
denes the boundaries of the group. Often, there are distinct subgroups within a more broadly dened group. For
example, one could dene U.S. residents (Americans)
as a group, but could also dene a more specic 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, honor-related violence,
and self-defense.[14][15]

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 3.1 Group formation
membership.
Group formation starts with a psychological bond be2. Compelling direction: which results from a clear,
tween individuals. The social cohesion approach suggests
challenging, and consequential goal.
that group formation comes out of bonds of interpersonal
[2]
3. Enabling structure: which results from having tasks attraction. In contrast, the social identity approach suggests
that
a group starts when a collection of individuals
which have variety, a group size that is not too large,
perceive
that
they share some social category (smokers,
talented group members who have at least moderate
nurses,
students,
hockey players), and that interpersocial skill, and strong norms that specify approprisonal
attraction
only
secondarily enhances the connection
ate behavior.
between individuals.[2] Additionally, from the social iden4. Supportive context: that occurs in groups nested in tity approach, group formation involves both identifying
larger groups (e.g. companies). In companies, with some individuals and explicitly not identifying with
supportive contexts involves a) reward systems that others. So to say, a level of psychological distinctiveness is
reward performance and cooperation (e.g. group necessary for group formation. Through interaction, indibased rewards linked to group performance), b) viduals begin to develop group norms, roles, and attitudes
an educational system that develops member skills, which dene the group, and are internalized to inuence
c) an information and materials system that pro- behavior.[16]
vides the needed information and raw materials (e.g.
Emergent groups arise from a relatively spontaneous procomputers).
cess of group formation. For example, in response to a
5. Expert coaching: which occurs on the rare occasions natural disaster, an emergent response group may form.
when group members feel they need help with task These groups are characterized as having no preexistallocated roles) or
or interpersonal issues. Hackman emphasizes that ing structure (e.g. group membership,
[17]
Yet, these groups
many team leaders are overbearing and undermine prior experience working together.
still express high levels of interdependence and coordigroup eectiveness.
nate knowledge, resources, and tasks.[17]

Intragroup dynamics

Intragroup dynamics (also referred to as ingroup-, withingroup, 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,

3.2 Group membership and social identity

The social group is a critical source of information about
individual identity.[18] An individuals identity (or selfconcept) has two components: personal identity and social identity (or collective self). Ones personal identity
is dened by more idiosyncratic, individual qualities and
attributes.[2] In contrast, ones social identity is dened

4
by his or her group membership, and the general characteristics (or prototypes) that dene the group and differentiate it from others.[2] 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 benets our self-esteem.
Our social identity and group membership also satises a
need to belong.[19] Of course, individuals belong to multiple groups. Therefore, ones social identity can have several, qualitatively distinct parts (for example, ones ethnic
identity, religious identity, and political identity).[20]

3 INTRAGROUP DYNAMICS
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.[26]

3.4 Black sheep eect

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 out[27]
Optimal distinctiveness theory suggests that individuals group. This is called the black sheep eect. A persons
have a desire to be similar to others, but also a desire to beliefs about the group may be changed depending upon
dierentiate themselves, ultimately seeking some balance whether they are part of the ingroup or outgroup.
of these two desires (to obtain optimal distinctiveness).[21] New members of a group must prove themselves to the
For example, one might imagine a young teenager in the full members, or old-timers, to become accepted. Full
United States who tries to balance these desires, not want- members have undergone socialization and are already
ing to be just like everyone else, but also wanting to t accepted within the group. They have more privilege
in and be similar to others. Ones collective self may of- than newcomers but more responsibility to help the group
fer a balance between these two desires.[2] That is, to be achieve its goals. Marginal members were once full memsimilar to others (those who you share group membership bers but lost membership because they failed to live up to
with), but also to be dierent from others (those who are the groups expectations. They can rejoin the group if
outside of your group).
they go through re-socialization. In a Bogart and Ryan
study, the development of new members stereotypes
about in-groups and out-groups during socialization was
3.3 Group cohesion
surveyed. Results showed that the new members judged
themselves as consistent with the stereotypes of their ingroups, even when they had recently committed to join
Main article: Group cohesiveness
those groups or existed as marginal members. They also
In the social sciences, group cohesion refers to the pro- tended to judge the group as a whole in an increasingly
[28]
cesses that keep members of a social group connected.[4] less positive manner after they became full members.
Terms such as attraction, solidarity, and morale are of- Depending on the self-esteem of an individual, memten used to describe group cohesion.[4] It is thought to bers of the in-group may experience dierent private bebe one of the most important characteristics of a group, liefs about the groups activities but will publicly express
and has been linked to group performance,[22] intergroup the oppositethat they actually share these beliefs. One
member may not personally agree with something the
conict[23] and therapeutic change.[24]
Group cohesion, as a scientically studied property of group does, but to avoid the black sheep eect, they will
groups, is commonly associated with Kurt Lewin and his publicly agree with the group and keep the private beliefs
student, Leon Festinger. Lewin dened group cohesion to themselves. If the person is privately self-aware, he or
they
as the willingness of individuals to stick together, and be- she is more likely to comply with the group even if
[27]
[4] possibly have their own beliefs about the situation.
lieved that without cohesiveness a group could not exist.
As an extension of Lewins work, Festinger (along with
Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back) described cohesion as,
the total eld of forces which act on members to remain in the group (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950,
p. 37).[4] Later, this denition was modied 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 Carrons
hierarchical model[25] 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

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
eort to avoid becoming an outcast of the group.[28] 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 eect. 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.

3.6

3.5

Group structure

Group inuence on individual behav- erful inuence on group behaviour.[35] They are a fundamental aspect of group structure as they provide direcior

Individual behavior is inuenced by the presence of

others.[18] For example, studies have found that individuals work harder and faster when others are present
(see social facilitation), and that an individuals performance is reduced when others in the situation create distraction or conict.[18] Groups also inuence individuals
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 inuence on individual behavior. This
type of inuence is often useful in the context of work
settings, team sports, and political activism. However,
the inuence of groups on the individual can also generate
extremely negative behaviors, evident in Nazi Germany,
the My Lai Massacre, and in the Abu Ghraib prison (also
see Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse).[29]

3.6

Group structure

A groups structure is the internal framework that denes members relations to one another over time.[30]
Frequently studied elements of group structure include
roles, norms, values, communication patterns, and status dierentials.[31] Group structure has also been dened
as the underlying pattern of roles, norms, and networks
of relations among members that dene and organize the
group.[32]
Roles can be dened as a tendency to behave, contribute
and interrelate with others in a particular way. Roles may
be assigned formally, but more often are dened through
the process of role dierentiation.[33] Role dierentiation is the degree to which dierent group members have
specialized functions. A group with a high level of role
dierentiation would be categorized as having many different roles that are specialized and narrowly dened.[32]
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.[32] Functional (task) roles are
generally dened in relation to the tasks the team is expected to perform.[34] 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.[32] 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.[32]
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 pow-

tion and motivation, and organize the social interactions

of members.[32] Norms are said to be emergent, as they
develop gradually throughout interactions between group
members.[32] 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.[32]
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 groups density (how many members are
linked to one another), or the degree centrality of members (number of ties between members).[32] Analyzing
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.).[32]
Values are goals or ideas that serve as guiding principles
for the group.[36] 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 ow of information within the group and they are typically described as
either centralized or decentralized. With a centralized
pattern, communications tend to ow from one source to
all group members. Centralized communications allow
consistent, standardization information but they may restrict the free ow of information. Decentralized communications make it easy to share information directly
between group members. When decentralized, communications tend to ow more freely, but the delivery of information may not be as fast or accurate as with centralized communications. Another potential downside of de-

3 INTRAGROUP DYNAMICS

centralized communications is the sheer volume of infor- Zajonc concluded that in the presence of others, when
mation that can be generated, particularly with electronic action is required, depending on the task requirement,
media.
either social facilitation or social interference will impact
Status dierentials are the relative dierences in status the outcome of the task. If social facilitation occurs,
among group members. When a group is rst formed the the task will have required a dominant response from
members may all be on an equal level, but over time cer- the individual resulting in better performance in the
tain members may acquire status and authority within the presence of others, whereas if social interference occurs
group; this can create what is known as a pecking order the task will have elicited a nondominant response from
the individual resulting in subpar performance of the
within a group.[32] Status can be determined by a vari[32]
ety of factors and characteristics, including specic sta- task.
tus characteristics (e.g. task-specic behavioural and personal characteristics, such as experience) or diuse status
characteristics (e.g. age, race, ethnicity).[32] It is important that other group members perceive an individuals
status to be warranted and deserved, as otherwise they
may not have authority within the group.[32] Status dierentials may aect the relative amount of pay among group
members and they may also aect the groups tolerance to
violation of group norms (e.g. people with higher status
may be given more freedom to violate group norms).

Several theories analyzing 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 individuals drive level which in turn triggers social facilitation
when tasks are simple and easy to execute, but impedes
performance when tasks are challenging.[32]

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
3.7 Group Performance
motivational response, not arousal/elevated drive, that is
Forsyth suggests that while many daily tasks undertaken responsible for increased productivity on simple tasks and
by individuals could be performed in isolation, the pref- decreased productivity on complex tasks in the presence
of others.[32]
erence is to perform with other people.[32]
3.7.1

Social Facilitation and Performance Gains

In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959),

Erving Goman 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, Gomans self-presentation theory predicts, in situations where they may be evaluated,
individuals will consequently increase their eorts in order to project/preserve/maintain a positive image.[32]

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....[37] This dynamogenic factor is
believed to have laid the groundwork for what is now
known as social facilitationan improvement in task
performance that occurs when people work in the presDistraction-conict theory contends that when a person
ence of other people.[32]
is working in the presence of other people, an interference
Further to Tripletts observation, in 1920, Floyd Allport eect occurs splitting the individuals attention between
found that although people in groups were more produc- the task and the other person. On simple tasks, where
tive than individuals, the quality of their product/eort the individual is not challenged by the task, the interferwas inferior.[32]
ence eect is negligible and performance, therefore, is
In 1965, Robert Zajonc expanded the study of arousal facilitated. On more complex tasks, where drive is not
response (originated by Triplett) with further research in strong enough to eectively compete against the eects
the area of social facilitation. In his study, Zajonc consid- of distraction, there is no performance gain. The Stroop
ered two experimental paradigms. In the rstaudience task (Stroop eect) demonstrated that, by narrowing a
eectsZajonc observed behaviour in the presence of persons focus of attention on certain tasks, distractions
passive spectators, and the secondco-action eects can improve performance.[32]
he examined behaviour in the presence of another indi- Social orientation theory considers the way a person apvidual engaged in the same activity.[38]
proaches social situations. It predicts that self-condent
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,

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 eects.[32]

4.2

Intergroup conict reduction

Intergroup dynamics

Intergroup dynamics refers to the behavioral and psychological relationship between two or more groups. This
includes perceptions, attitudes, opinions, and behaviors
towards ones own group, as well as those towards another group. In some cases, intergroup dynamics is prosocial, positive, and benecial (for example, when multiple research teams work together to accomplish a task
or goal). In other cases, intergroup dynamics can create
conict. For example, Fischer & Ferlie found initially
positive dynamics between a clinical institution and its
external authorities dramatically changed to a 'hot' and intractable conict when authorities interfered with its embedded clinical model.[39] Similarly, underlying the 1999
Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado,
United States, intergroup dynamics played a signicant
role in Eric Harris and Dylan Klebolds decision to kill a
teacher and 14 students (including themselves).[29]

4.1

Intergroup conict

According to social identity theory, intergroup conict

starts with a process of comparison between individuals
in one group (the ingroup) to those of another group (the
outgroup).[40] This comparison process is not unbiased
and objective. Instead, it is a mechanism for enhancing
ones self-esteem.[2] In the process of such comparisons,
an individual tends to:
favor the ingroup over the outgroup

7
The formation of intergroup conict was investigated in
a popular series of studies by Muzafer Sherif and colleagues in 1961, called the Robbers Cave Experiment.[42]
The Robbers Cave Experiment was later used to support
realistic conict theory.[43] Other prominent theories relating to intergroup conict include social dominance theory, and social-/self-categorization theory.

4.2 Intergroup conict reduction

There have been several strategies developed for reducing
the tension, bias, prejudice, and conict between social
groups. These include the contact hypothesis, the jigsaw
classroom, and several categorization-based strategies.
4.2.1 Contact hypothesis (intergroup contact theory)
In 1954, Gordon Allport suggested that by promoting
contact between groups, prejudice can be reduced.[44]
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.[45] 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 ecacy.[45] In some cases, even
without the four optimal conditions outlined by Allport,
prejudice between groups can be reduced.[45]

4.2.2 Superordinate identities

exaggerate and overgeneralize the dierences between the ingroup and the outgroup (to enhance Under the contact hypothesis, several models have been
developed. A number of these models utilize a supergroup distinctiveness)
ordinate identity to reduce prejudice. That is, a more
minimize the perception of dierences between in- broadly dened, umbrella group/identity that includes
group members
the groups that are in conict. By emphasizing this su remember more detailed and positive information perordinate identity, individuals[46]in both subgroups can
about the ingroup, and more negative information share a common social identity. For example, if there
is conict between White, Black, and Latino students in a
about the outgroup[41]
high school, one might try to emphasize the high school
group/identity that students share to reduce conict beEven without any intergroup interaction (as in the tween the groups. Models utilizing superordinate identiminimal group paradigm), individuals begin to show fa- ties include the common ingroup identity model, the invoritism towards their own group, and negative reactions group projection model, the mutual intergroup dierentowards the outgroup.[41] This conict can result in preju- tiation model, and the ingroup identity model.[46]
dice, stereotypes, and discrimination. Intergroup conict
can be highly competitive, especially for social groups
with a long history of conict (for example, the 1994 4.2.3 Interdependence
Rwandan Genocide, rooted in group conict between the
ethnic Hutu and Tutsi).[2] In contrast, intergroup compe- There are also techniques for reducing prejudice that utitition can sometimes be relatively harmless, particularly lize interdependence between two or more groups. That
in situations where there is little history of conict (for ex- is, members across groups have to rely on one another to
ample, between students of dierent universities) leading accomplish some goal or task. In the Robbers Cave Exto relatively harmless generalizations and mild competi- periment, Sherif used this strategy to reduce conict betive behaviors.[2] Intergroup conict is commonly recog- tween groups.[41] Elliot Aronsons Jigsaw Classroom also
nized amidst racial, ethnic, religious, and political groups. uses this strategy of interdependence.[47] 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 eectiveness 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

See also
Cogs Ladder
Collaboration
Collaborative method
Decision downloading
Entitativity
Facilitator
Group behaviour
Group narcissism
Interpersonal relationships
Maintenance actions
Organisation climate
Out-group homogeneity
Small-group communication
Social Tuning
Team-based learning
Team eectiveness

REFERENCES

7 References
[1] Backstrom, L.; Huttenlocher, D.; Kleinberg, J.; Lan, X.
(2006). Group formation in large social networks. Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining - KDD
'06. p. 44. doi:10.1145/1150402.1150412. ISBN
1595933395.
[2] Hogg, M. A.; Williams, K. D. (2000). From I to
we: Social identity and the collective self. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4: 81.
doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.81.
[3] Westheimer, G. (1999). Gestalt theory recongured:
Max Wertheimers anticipation of recent developments
in visual neuroscience. Perception. 28 (1): 515.
doi:10.1068/p2883. PMID 10627849.
[4] Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From eld
of forces to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4: 72.
doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.7.
[5] gupta, niranjan (2013). The Research Center for
tcce pindra garhwa. Sociometry. 8 (2): 126136.
doi:10.2307/2785233. JSTOR 2785233.
[6] Van Vugt, M.; Schaller, M. (2008). Evolutionary approaches to group dynamics: An introduction. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 12: 1.
doi:10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.1.
[7] Hammer, Espen Adorno and the political, pp.58-9
[8] Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory
of Interpersonal Behavior. New York, NY: Rinehart.
[9] Schutz, W. (1966). The Interpersonal Underworld. (Updated version based on 1958 work). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
[10] Page 194 to 196, Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, third edition, Basic Books
(1985), hardback, ISBN 0-465-08447-8
[11] Peck, M. S. (1987) The Dierent Drum: CommunityMaking and Peace.p. 95-103.
[12] J. Richard Hackman (2002). Leading Teams: Setting the
Stage for Great Performances. Harvard Business Press.
[13] Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and Group Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. 40 (1):
145180. doi:10.2307/2393703.
[14] Cohen, D.; Nisbett, R. E.; Bowdle, B. F.; Schwarz, N.
(1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of
honor: An experimental ethnography."". Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 70 (5): 945959.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.945. PMID 8656339.
[15] Cohen, D. (1998). Culture, social organization, and
patterns of violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75 (2): 408419. doi:10.1037/00223514.75.2.408. PMID 9731316.

[16] Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New

York: Harper.
[17] Majchrzak, A.; Jarvenpaa, S. L.; Hollingshead, A.
B. (2007). Coordinating Expertise Among Emergent
Groups Responding to Disasters. Organization Science.
18: 147. doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0228.

[31] Jex, Steve &; Britt, Thomas (2008). Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach (Second ed.).
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 341
365.
[32] Forsyth, D.R. (2009). Group Dynamics. New York:
Wadsworth.

[18] Crano, W. D. (2000). Milestones in the psychological

analysis of social inuence. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice. 4: 6861. doi:10.1037/10892699.4.1.68.

[33] Levine. (1998). The Handbook of Social Psychology.

[19] Spears, R.; Ellemers, N.; Doosje, B. (2005). Let me

count the ways in which I respect thee: Does competence compensate or compromise lack of liking from the
group?". European Journal of Social Psychology. 35 (2):
263. doi:10.1002/ejsp.248.

[35] Hahn, M. (2010). Group Norms in Organizations.

[20] Deaux, K.; Reid, A.; Mizrahi, K.; Ethier, K. A. (1995).

Parameters of social identity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 68 (2): 280. doi:10.1037/00223514.68.2.280.
[21] Brewer, M. B. (1991). The Social Self: On Being the Same and Dierent at the Same Time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 17 (5): 475.
doi:10.1177/0146167291175001.
[22] Gully, S. M.; Devine, D. J.; Whitney, D. J. (1995).
A Meta-Analysis of Cohesion and Performance: Effects of Level of Analysis and Task Interdependence.
Small Group Research.
26 (4): 497.
doi:10.1177/1046496495264003.
[23] Stein, A. A. (1976). Conict and Cohesion: A Review of
the Literature. Journal of Conict Resolution. 20: 143.
doi:10.1177/002200277602000106.
[24] Yalom, Irvin (1995). The theory and practice of group
psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465-08448-7.

[34] Senior. (1991). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.

[36] Schwarz. (2007). Are There Universal Aspects in the

Structure and Contents of Human Values?
[37] Triplett, N. (1898). The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition. The American Journal of Psychology. 9 (4): 507. doi:10.2307/1412188. JSTOR
1412188.
[38] Robert B. Zajonc (July 16, 1965). Social Facilitation. Science. New Series. American Association for
the Advancement of Science. 149 (3681): 269274.
doi:10.2307/1715944 (inactive 2015-03-26). JSTOR
1715944. PMID 14300526.
[39] Fischer, Michael Daniel; Ferlie, Ewan (1 January 2013).
Resisting hybridisation between modes of clinical risk
management: Contradiction, contest, and the production
of intractable conict. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 38 (1): 3049. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2012.11.002.
[40] Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour.
European Journal of Social Psychology.
5: 1.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420050102.

[25] Carron, A. V.; Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and Measurement Issues. Small Group Research.
31: 89. doi:10.1177/104649640003100105.

[41] Gaertner, S. L.; Dovidio, J. F.; Banker, B. S.; Houlette,

M.; Johnson, K. M.; McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing
intergroup conict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual dierentiation.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4: 98.
doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.98.

[26] Driedger, Leo (1996). Multi-ethnic Canada : identities

and inequalities. Toronto New York: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-541161-7.

[42] Sherif, Muzafer (1988). The Robbers Cave Experiment.

Middletown: Wesleyan University Press. ISBN 0-81956194-0.

[27] Pinto, I. R.; Marques, J. M.; Abrams, D. (2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who
triggers the black sheep eect?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 99 (1): 107119.
doi:10.1037/a0018187.

[43] Levine, Robert (1971). Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior. New York:
Wiley. ISBN 0-471-53117-0.

[28] Ryan, Carey S.; Bogart, Laura M. (Oct 1997). Development of new group members in-group and out-group
stereotypes: Changes in perceived variability and ethnocentrism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
73 (4): 719732. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.719.
[29] Aronson, Elliot (2008). The social animal. New York:
Worth Publishers. ISBN 1-4292-0316-1.
[30] Wittenbaum and Moreland. (2008). Small-Group Research in Social Psychology: Topics and Trends over Time.

[44] Allport, Gordon (1979). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. ISBN 0-201-00179-9.
[45] Pettigrew, T. F.; Tropp, L. R. (2006). A MetaAnalytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 90 (5): 751783.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751. PMID 16737372.
[46] Hornsey, M. J.; Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Dierentiation and Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice
Reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
26 (2): 242. doi:10.1177/0146167200264010.

10

[47] Aronson, Elliot (1997). The Jigsaw Classroom. New

York: Longman. ISBN 978-0-673-99383-0.

REFERENCES

11

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

8.1

Text

Group dynamics Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics?oldid=736845718 Contributors: AdamRetchless, R Lowry, Edward, Patrick, Michael Hardy, Fred Bauder, Irmgard, Thseamon, Mydogategodshat, Sunray, Kenny sh, Andycjp, Pgreennch, Discospinster,
Martpol, Bender235, El C, DCEdwards1966, Mdd, Drbreznjev, Galaxiaad, Crosbiesmith, Raven42, Stefanomione, Graham87, Rjwilmsi,
Kyle.Mullaney, Cherubino, Truman Burbank, Frappyjohn, Neilbeach, ENeville, Wiki alf, 5994995, Leontes, M3taphysical, WAS 4.250,
Zzuuzz, Gregzeng, SmackBot, Deborah909, Hydrogen Iodide, Jtneill, Arniep, Gilliam, Phasedice, Shyammurli, Huon, EPM, Gokmop,
Suidafrikaan, ComSpex, SashatoBot, Shadowphoenix88, RichardF, Jcbutler, AndriusKulikauskas, Susko, Pring, Dan1679, Nadyes, Penbat, Eincrat, Scarpy, Al Lemos, Norwaystudent, Seaphoto, JAnDbot, Jimothytrotter, MER-C, The Transhumanist, ArchStanton69, Seductionreport.com~enwiki, R'n'B, LordAnubisBOT, , Memestream, Ja 62, Jarry1250, VolkovBot, Kubajz, Sswonk,
Anna Lincoln, Tapzu, Cremepu222, Andrewaskew, Lova Falk, Nagy, SieBot, Parhamr, Keilana, Penny Theophilou, Thatotherdude,
Cbrickma, ClueBot, SummerWithMorons, The Thing That Should Not Be, Jacob F. Roecker, VQuakr, Mild Bill Hiccup, Xenon54, Arunsingh16, DragonBot, Moose Petrevich, Donnaware, Stypex, Acabashi, DumZiBoT, Jovianeye, Tinyrock, Peter Howie, Hiram357, Addbot,
Fluernutter, Wikid25, Ettrig, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, AnomieBOT, LilHelpa, Rasputinous, FrescoBot, Mistakender, D'ohBot,
Jewlrzeye, Jonesey95, Lotje, Dinamik-bot, Thenetuser, Diannaa, Tbhotch, Venustas 12, Nihola, EmausBot, John of Reading, WikitanvirBot, Dcirovic, Liberty Wakeeld, Erianna, Babuappat, U3964057, ClueBot NG, Mooter123, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Hans100,
AndrewMinko, Joydeep, Begeny, C.T., Brad7777, Acadmica Orientlis, Dexbot, Zeeyanwiki, Healing toolbox, Stephenthorpe, SaraOReilly, Xyzbb1253, ArmbrustBot, JaconaFrere, Monkbot, Forbidden User, 000014019x, R.vik99, Weddly, KasparBot, Lilyynn17 and
Anonymous: 139

8.2

Images

8.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0