Predicting social and personal attraction in task groups
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1921/gpwk.v23i1.758Keywords:
<i>cohesiveness</i>, <i>group cohesion</i>, <i>group performance</i>, <i>personal attraction</i>, <i>social attraction</i>Abstract
Equity and market forces are examined for their influence on the formation of social and personal attraction in groups. It is hypothesized that perceptions of task and maintenance behaviors during group interactions influence individuals’ perceptions of costs and rewards in groups which, in turn, drive assessments of social and personal attraction via either equity or market forces. Results indicate that equity forces are significantly linked with perceptions of social attraction and market forces significantly predict personal attraction. Theoretical implications are discussed regarding equity theory, social exchange theory, and relational framing theory.
References
Bales, R. F. (1950) <i>Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups</i>. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley\nBales, R. F. (1953) The equilibrium problem in small groups. in T. Parsons, R. F. Bales & E. A. Shils (Eds.) <i>Working papers in the theory of action</i> Glencoe, IL: Free Press (pp. 111-161)\nBales, R. F. (1970) <i>Personality and interpersonal behavior</i>. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston\nBenne, K. D. & Sheats, P. (1948) Functional roles of group members. <i>Journal of Social Issues</i>, 4, 41-49\nBurnette, J. L., Pollack, J. M. & Forsyth, D. R. (2011) Leadership in extreme contexts: A Groupthink analysis of the May 1996 Mount Everest disaster. <i>Journal of Leadership Studies</i>, 4, 29-40\nCohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983) <i>Applied multiple regression / correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2</i><sup>nd</sup><i>ed</i>. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum\nCruz, M.G., Henningsen, D.D. & Miller, M.L. (1999) The presence of norms in the absence of groups? The impact of normative influence under hidden profile conditions. <i>Human Communication Research</i>, 26, 1, 104-124\nDeutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. (1955) A study of normative and informational social influences upon social judgment. <i>Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology</i>, 51, 629-636\nDillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H. & Palmer, M. T. (1999) Structuring the concept of relational communication. <i>Communication Monographs</i>, 66, 49-65\nDillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H. & Samp, J. A. (1996) Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments. <i>Communication Research</i>, 23, 703-723\nForsyth, D. R. (2006) <i>Group Dynamics</i>. 4<sup>th</sup> edition. Belmont, CA: Thompson-Wadsworth\nHenningsen, D. D. & Henningsen, M. L. M. (2004) Examining how individual difference variables influence information sharing in decision-making groups. <i>Human Communication Research</i>, 30, 540-555\nHenningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., Eden, J. & Cruz, M. G. (2006) Examining the symptoms of groupthink and retrospective sensemaking. <i>Small Group Research</i>, 37, 36-64\nHenningsen, M. L. M. & Henningsen, D. D. (2006) <i>Perceiving influence in group discussion: Perceptions and statements of normative and informational influence</i>. Paper presented to the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research, Pittsburg, PA, July, 2006\nHenningsen, M. L. M., Henningsen, D. D., Cruz, M. G. & Morrill, J. (2003) Normative influence in decision-making groups: Evaluating information in discussion. <i>Communication Monographs</i>, 70, 175-196\nHirokawa, R. Y. (1980) A comparative analysis of communication patterns within effective and ineffective decision-making groups. <i>Communication Monographs</i>, 47, 312-321\nHogg, M. A., Abrams, D., Otten, S. & Hinkle, S. (2004) The social identity perspective: Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. <i>Small Group Research</i>, 35, 246-276\nHogg, M. A. & Hains, S. C. (1998) Friendship and group identification: A new look at the role of cohesiveness and groupthink. <i>European Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 28, 323-341\nHogg, M. A. & Hardie, E. A. (1991) Social attraction, personal attraction, and self-categorization: A field study. <i>Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</i>, 17, 175-180\nJanis, I. (1972) <i>Victims of groupthink</i>. Boston: Houghton Mifflin\nJanis. I. L. (1983) <i>Groupthink</i> (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton\nJanis, I. & Mann, L. (1977) <i>Decision making</i>. New York: Free Press.\nKamau, C. (2010) In group attraction, coordination and individualism as predictors of student task performance. <i>Group Work: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Working with Groups</i>, 20, 34-62\nKaplan, M. F. (1989) Task, situational, and personal determinants of influence processes in group decision making. in E. J. Lawler (Ed.) <i>Advances in group processes</i> (<i>Vol. 6</i>, Greenwich, CT: JAI. (pp. 87-105)\nKeyton, J. & Springston, J. (1990) Redefining cohesiveness in groups. <i>Small Group Research</i>, 21, 234-254\nMach, M., Dolan, S. & Tzafrir, S. (2010) The differential effect of team members’ trust, on team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion. <i>Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology</i>, 83, 771-794\nMoreland, R. L. & Levine, J. M. (1982) Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. in L. Berkowitz (Ed.) <i>Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 15</i>. New York: Academic Press, (pp. 137-192)\nMudrack, P. E. & Farrell, G. M. (1994) The need for dominance scale of the manifest needs questionnaire and role behavior in groups. <i>Applied Psychology: An International Review</i>, 43, 399-413\nMullen, B. & Copper, C. (1994) The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. <i>Psychological Bulletin</i>, 115, 210-227\nPoole, M. S. (1990) Do We Have Any Theories of Group Communication? <i>Communication Studies</i>, 41, 237-247\nScudder, J. N., Herschel, R. T. & Crossland, M. D. (1994) Test of a model linking cognitive motivation, assessment of alternatives, decision quality, and group process satisfaction. <i>Small Group Research</i>, 25, 57-82\nShin, Y. & Song, K. (2011) Role of face-to-face and computer-mediated communication time in the cohesion and performance of mixed-mode groups. <i>Asian Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 14, 126-139\nThibaut, J. & Kelley, H. H. (1959) <i>The social psychology of groups</i>. New York: Wiley\nWalster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D. & Rottman, I. (1966) Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. <i>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</i>, 4, 508-516\nWalster, E., Berscheid, E. & Walster, G.W. (1973) New directions in equity research. <i>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</i>, 25, 151-176\nWhite, G. (1980) Physical attractiveness and courtship progress. <i>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</i>, 39, 660-668\nWittenbaum, G. M. & Bowman, J. M. (2004) A social validation explanation for mutual enhancement. <i>Journal of Experimental Social Psychology</i>, 40, 169-184\nWittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P. & Zuckerman, C. (1999) Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. <i>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</i>, 77, 967-978\nZaccaro, S. J. & Lowe, C. A. (1988) Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 128, 547-558\n
Downloads
Published
2013-05-22
How to Cite
Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., & Booth, P. (2013). Predicting social and personal attraction in task groups. Groupwork, 23(1), 73-93. https://doi.org/10.1921/gpwk.v23i1.758
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright lies with the journal. Enquiries regarding reproduction should be sent in the first place to enquiries@whitingbirch.net
