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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 1 of 95
:
 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".[3]

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]

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.

Increasingly, research has applied evolutionary psychology principles to

group dynamics. As human's social environments became more complex,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 2 of 95
:
 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]

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 3 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 4 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 5 of 95
:
 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)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 6 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 7 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 8 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 9 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 10 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 11 of 95
:
 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,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 12 of 95
:
 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,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 13 of 95
:
 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]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 14 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 15 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 16 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 17 of 95
:
 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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 18 of 95
:
 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).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 19 of 95
:
 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]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 20 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 21 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 22 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 23 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 24 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 25 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 26 of 95
:
 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]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 27 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 28 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 29 of 95
:
 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]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 30 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 31 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 32 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 33 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 34 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 35 of 95
:
 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 36 of 95
:
 Cog's ladder
Collaboration
Collaborative method
Decision downloading
Entitativity
Facilitator
Frog pond effect
Group narcissism
High-performance teams
(HPT)
Intergroup dialogue
Intergroup relations

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 37 of 95
:
 Intergroup relations
Interpersonal relationships
Maintenance actions
Organization climate
Out-group homogeneity
Small-group communication
Social psychology
Social psychology (sociology)
Social tuning
Team effectiveness
Team-based learning

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 38 of 95
:
 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:10.1145/1150402.1150

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 39 of 95
:
 412 (https://doi.org/10.114
5%2F1150402.1150412) .
ISBN 978-1595933393.
S2CID 7904289 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/Cor
pusID:7904289) .
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:
81–97. doi:10.1037/1089-
2699.4.1.81 (https://doi.or
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 40 of 95
:
 2699.4.1.81 (https://doi.or
g/10.1037%2F1089-2699.
4.1.81) .
3. Westheimer, G. (1999).
"Gestalt theory
reconfigured: Max
Wertheimer's anticipation
of recent developments in
visual neuroscience".
Perception. 28 (1): 5–15.
doi:10.1068/p2883 (http
s://doi.org/10.1068%2Fp2
883) . PMID 10627849 (ht
tps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 41 of 95
:
 tps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/10627849) .
S2CID 9800976 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/Cor
pusID:9800976) .
4. Dion, K. L. (2000). "Group
cohesion: From "field of
forces" to multidimensional
construct". Group
Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice. 4:
7–26. doi:10.1037/1089-
2699.4.1.7 (https://doi.org/
10.1037%2F1089-2699.4.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 42 of 95
:
 10.1037%2F1089-2699.4.
1.7) .
5. Lewin, Kurt (1945). "The
Research Center for Group
Dynamics at
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology". Sociometry. 8
(2): 126–136.
doi:10.2307/2785233 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.2307%2F2
785233) .
JSTOR 2785233 (https://w
ww.jstor.org/stable/27852
33) .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 43 of 95
:
 33) .
6. Van Vugt, M.; Schaller, M.
(2008). "Evolutionary
approaches to group
dynamics: An introduction".
Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice. 12:
1–6. doi:10.1037/1089-
2699.12.1.1 (https://doi.org/
10.1037%2F1089-2699.1
2.1.1) . S2CID 15306280 (h
ttps://api.semanticscholar.o
rg/CorpusID:15306280) .
7. Hammer, Espen Adorno

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 44 of 95
:
 7. Hammer, Espen Adorno
and the political (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=
X3L5R3kiOh4C&pg=PA5
8) , pp.58–9
8. Benne, K. D.; Bradford, L.
P.; Gibb, J. R. (1972).
"Geschichte der
Trainingsgruppe im
Laboratorium". In K. D.
Benne (ed.).
Gruppentraining. Stuttgart:
Klett Verlag. pp. 95–154.
9. Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 45 of 95
:
 9. Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A
Three-Dimensional Theory
of Interpersonal Behavior.
New York, NY: Rinehart.
10. Schutz, W. (1966). The
Interpersonal Underworld.
(Updated version based on
1958 work). Palo Alto, CA:
Science and Behavior
Books.
11. Page 194 to 196, Irvin D.
Yalom, The Theory and
Practice of Group
Psychotherapy, third

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 46 of 95
:
 Psychotherapy, third
edition, Basic Books
(1985), hardback, ISBN 0-
465-08447-8
12. Peck, M. S. (1987) The
Different Drum:
Community-Making and
Peace.p. 95-103.
13. J. Richard Hackman
(2002). Leading Teams:
Setting the Stage for Great
Performances. Harvard
Business Press.
14. Wageman, R. (1995).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 47 of 95
:
 14. Wageman, R. (1995).
"Interdependence and
Group Effectiveness".
Administrative Science
Quarterly. 40 (1): 145–180.
doi:10.2307/2393703 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.2307%2F2
393703) .
JSTOR 2393703 (https://w
ww.jstor.org/stable/23937
03) .
15. Cohen, D.; Nisbett, R. E.;
Bowdle, B. F.; Schwarz, N.
(1996). "Insult, aggression,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 48 of 95
:
 (1996). "Insult, aggression,
and the southern culture of
honor: An "experimental
ethnography." ". Journal of
Personality and Social
Psychology. 70 (5): 945–
959. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.70.5.945 (https://doi.
org/10.1037%2F0022-351
4.70.5.945) .
hdl:2027.42/92155 (http
s://hdl.handle.net/2027.4
2%2F92155) .
PMID 8656339 (https://pu

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 49 of 95
:
 bmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/865
6339) .
16. Cohen, D. (1998). "Culture,
social organization, and
patterns of violence".
Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 75 (2):
408–419.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.458.621 (h
ttps://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/summary?doi=10.
1.1.458.621) .
doi:10.1037/0022-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 50 of 95
:
 3514.75.2.408 (https://doi.
org/10.1037%2F0022-351
4.75.2.408) .
PMID 9731316 (https://pub
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9731
316) .
17. Sherif, M. (1936). The
psychology of social
norms. New York: Harper.
18. Majchrzak, A.; Jarvenpaa,
S. L.; Hollingshead, A. B.
(2007). "Coordinating
Expertise Among Emergent

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 51 of 95
:
 Groups Responding to
Disasters". Organization
Science. 18: 147–161.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.022
8 (https://doi.org/10.1287%
2Forsc.1060.0228) .
S2CID 43354804 (https://
api.semanticscholar.org/Co
rpusID:43354804) .
19. Lucas, Richard E.; Diener,
Ed (2001). "Understanding
extraverts' enjoyment of
social situations: The
importance of

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 52 of 95
:
 importance of
pleasantness". Journal of
Personality and Social
Psychology. 81 (2): 343–
356. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.81.2.343 (https://doi.
org/10.1037%2F0022-351
4.81.2.343) .
PMID 11519937 (https://pu
bmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/115
19937) .
20. Gore, Jonathan S.; Cross,
Susan E.; Morris, Michael
L. (2006-03-01). "Let's be

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 53 of 95
:
 L. (2006-03-01). "Let's be
friends: Relational self-
construal and the
development of intimacy".
Personal Relationships. 13
(1): 83–102.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-
6811.2006.00106.x (http
s://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.147
5-6811.2006.00106.x) .
ISSN 1475-6811 (https://se
arch.worldcat.org/issn/147
5-6811) .
21. McAdams, Dan P.;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 54 of 95
:
 21. McAdams, Dan P.;
Constantian, Carol A.
(1983). "Intimacy and
affiliation motives in daily
living: An experience
sampling analysis". Journal
of Personality and Social
Psychology. 45 (4): 851–
861. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.45.4.851 (https://doi.
org/10.1037%2F0022-351
4.45.4.851) .
22. Turner, Jonathan (1974-
12-01). "THE POWER

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 55 of 95
:
 12-01). "THE POWER
MOTIVE. By David G.
Winter. New York: Free
Press, 1973. 373 pp.
$12.00". Social Forces. 53
(2): 363–364.
doi:10.1093/sf/53.2.363 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1093%2Fs
f%2F53.2.363) .
ISSN 0037-7732 (https://s
earch.worldcat.org/issn/00
37-7732) .
23. McAdams, Dan P.;
Constantian, Carol A.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 56 of 95
:
 (1983). "Intimacy and
affiliation motives in daily
living: An experience
sampling analysis". Journal
of Personality and Social
Psychology. 45 (4): 851–
861. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.45.4.851 (https://doi.
org/10.1037%2F0022-351
4.45.4.851) .
24. Rom, Eldad; Mikulincer,
Mario (2003). "Attachment
theory and group

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 57 of 95
:
 processes: The association
between attachment style
and group-related
representations, goals,
memories, and
functioning". Journal of
Personality and Social
Psychology. 84 (6): 1220–
1235. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.84.6.1220 (https://do
i.org/10.1037%2F0022-35
14.84.6.1220) .
PMID 12793586 (https://p
ubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 58 of 95
:
 ubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12
793586) .
25. Bohrnstedt, George W.;
Fisher, Gene A. (1986).
"The Effects of Recalled
Childhood and Adolescent
Relationships Compared to
Current Role Performances
on Young Adults' Affective
Functioning". Social
Psychology Quarterly. 49
(1): 19–32.
doi:10.2307/2786854 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.2307%2F2

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 59 of 95
:
 ps://doi.org/10.2307%2F2
786854) .
JSTOR 2786854 (https://w
ww.jstor.org/stable/27868
54) .
26. McGuire, Gail M. (2007).
"Intimate Work". Work and
Occupations. 34 (2): 125–
147.
doi:10.1177/07308884062
97313 (https://doi.org/10.1
177%2F0730888406297
313) . S2CID 145394891 (
https://api.semanticschola

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 60 of 95
:
 https://api.semanticschola
r.org/CorpusID:14539489
1) .
27. Uchino, Bert N. (2004).
Social support and physical
health : understanding the
health consequences of
relationships. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
ISBN 9780300102185.
OCLC 182530829 (https://
search.worldcat.org/oclc/1
82530829) .
28. Hogg, Michael A.; Abrams,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 61 of 95
:
 28. Hogg, Michael A.; Abrams,
Dominic (1993). Group
motivation : social
psychological perspectives.
New York: Harvester
Wheatsheaf. ISBN 978-
0745012391.
OCLC 28963933 (https://s
earch.worldcat.org/oclc/28
963933) .
29. H., Kelley, Harold (1978).
Interpersonal relations : a
theory of interdependence.
Thibaut, John W. New York:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 62 of 95
:
 Thibaut, John W. New York:
Wiley. ISBN 978-
0471034735.
OCLC 3627845 (https://se
arch.worldcat.org/oclc/362
7845) .
30. Forsyth, Donelson (2006).
Group Dynamics. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
31. W., Thibaut, John (1986).
The social psychology of
groups. Kelley, Harold H.
New Brunswick, U.S.A.:
Transaction Books. p. 21.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 63 of 95
:
 Transaction Books. p. 21.
ISBN 9780887386336.
OCLC 12662505 (https://s
earch.worldcat.org/oclc/12
662505) .
32. Lickel, B; Hamilton, D. L.;
Wieczorkowska, G; Lewis,
A; Sherman, S. J.; Uhles, A.
N. (2000). "Varieties of
groups and the perception
of group entitativity".
Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 78 (2):
223–246.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 64 of 95
:
 doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.78.2.223 (https://doi.
org/10.1037%2F0022-351
4.78.2.223) .
PMID 10707331 (https://pu
bmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/107
07331) .
33. Cooley, Charles (1909).
social organization: a study
of the larger mind. New
York: Charles Scribner's
Sons.
34. Campbell, D. T. (1958).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 65 of 95
:
 "Common fate, similarity,
and other indices of the
status of aggregates of
persons as social entities".
Systems Research and
Behavioral Science. 3 (1):
14–25.
doi:10.1002/bs.38300301
03 (https://doi.org/10.100
2%2Fbs.3830030103) .
35. Haslam, N; Rothschild, L;
Ernst, D (2002). "Are
essentialist beliefs
associated with
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 66 of 95
:
 associated with
prejudice?". British Journal
of Social Psychology. 41
(1): 87–100.
doi:10.1348/01446660216
5072 (https://doi.org/10.13
48%2F01446660216507
2) . PMID 11970776 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/11970776) .
36. Crano, W. D. (2000).
"Milestones in the
psychological analysis of
social influence". Group

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 67 of 95
:
 social influence". Group
Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice. 4:
68–80. doi:10.1037/1089-
2699.4.1.68 (https://doi.or
g/10.1037%2F1089-2699.
4.1.68) .
37. 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?".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 68 of 95
:
 liking from the group?".
European Journal of Social
Psychology. 35 (2): 263–
279. doi:10.1002/ejsp.248
(https://doi.org/10.1002%2
Fejsp.248) .
38. Deaux, K.; Reid, A.; Mizrahi,
K.; Ethier, K. A. (1995).
"Parameters of social
identity". Journal of
Personality and Social
Psychology. 68 (2): 280–
291. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.68.2.280 (https://doi.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 69 of 95
:
 3514.68.2.280 (https://doi.
org/10.1037%2F0022-351
4.68.2.280) .
39. Brewer, M. B. (1991). "The
Social Self: On Being the
Same and Different at the
Same Time". Personality
and Social Psychology
Bulletin. 17 (5): 475–482.
doi:10.1177/014616729117
5001 (https://doi.org/10.11
77%2F014616729117500
1) . S2CID 145294289 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.or

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 70 of 95
:
 ps://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:145294289) .
40. 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): 497–520.
doi:10.1177/10464964952
64003 (https://doi.org/10.1
177%2F10464964952640
03) . S2CID 145303557 (h

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 71 of 95
:
 ttps://api.semanticscholar.o
rg/CorpusID:145303557) .
41. Stein, A. A. (1976).
"Conflict and Cohesion: A
Review of the Literature".
Journal of Conflict
Resolution. 20: 143–172.
doi:10.1177/00220027760
2000106 (https://doi.org/1
0.1177%2F00220027760
2000106) .
S2CID 145093926 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.or

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 72 of 95
:
 g/CorpusID:145093926) .
42. Yalom, Irvin (1995). The
theory and practice of
group psychotherapy (http
s://archive.org/details/theo
rypracticeo00yalo) . New
York: Basic Books.
ISBN 978-0-465-08448-
7.
43. Carron, A. V.; Brawley, L. R.
(2000). "Cohesion:
Conceptual and
Measurement Issues".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 73 of 95
:
 Small Group Research. 31:
89–106.
doi:10.1177/10464964000
3100105 (https://doi.org/1
0.1177%2F10464964000
3100105) .
S2CID 220367599 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:220367599) .
44. Driedger, Leo (1996).
Multi-ethnic Canada :
identities and inequalities.
Toronto New York: Oxford
University Press.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 74 of 95
:
 University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-541161-4.
45. Marques, J. M.; Yzerbyt, V.
Y.; Leyens, J. Ph. (1988).
"The black sheep effect:
Judgmental extremity
towards ingroup members
as a function of ingroup
identification". European
Journal of Social
Psychology. 18 (1): 1–16.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180
102 (https://doi.org/10.100
2%2Fejsp.2420180102) .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 75 of 95
:
 2%2Fejsp.2420180102) .
46. Marques, J. M.; Abrams,
D.; Paez, D.; Taboada, C.
(1998). "The role of
categorization and ingroup
norms in judgments of
groups and their
members". Journal of
Personality and Social
Psychology. 75 (4): 976–
988. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.75.4.976 (https://doi.
org/10.1037%2F0022-351
4.75.4.976) .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 76 of 95
:
 4.75.4.976) .
47. Pinto, I. R.; Marques, J. M.;
Levine, J. M.; Abrams, D.
(2016). "Membership role
and subjective group
dynamics: Impact on
evaluative intragroup
differentiation and
commitment to prescriptive
norms" (http://kar.kent.ac.u
k/61201/1/Pinto%2CMarqu
es%2CLevine%26Abrams2
016GPIR.pdf) (PDF).
Group Processes and

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 77 of 95
:
 Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, On-
Line. 19 (5): 570–590.
doi:10.1177/13684302166
38531 (https://doi.org/10.1
177%2F13684302166385
31) . S2CID 147836059 (h
ttps://api.semanticscholar.o
rg/CorpusID:147836059) .
48. Ryan, Carey S.; Bogart,
Laura M. (Oct 1997).
"Development of new
group members' in-group
and out-group stereotypes:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 78 of 95
:
 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%2F0022-351
4.73.4.719) .
PMID 9325590 (https://pu
bmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/932
5590) .
49. Pinto, I. R.; Marques, J. M.;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 79 of 95
:
 Abrams, D. (2010).
"Membership status and
subjective group dynamics:
Who triggers the black
sheep effect?". Journal of
Personality and Social
Psychology. 99 (1): 107–
119. doi:10.1037/a0018187
(https://doi.org/10.1037%2
Fa0018187) .
PMID 20565188 (https://p
ubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20
565188) .
50. Aronson, Elliot (2008). The

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 80 of 95
:
 50. Aronson, Elliot (2008). The
social animal. New York:
Worth Publishers.
ISBN 978-1-4292-0316-6.
51. Wittenbaum and Moreland.
(2008). Small-Group
Research in Social
Psychology: Topics and
Trends over Time.
52. Jex, Steve &; Britt, Thomas
(2008). Organizational
Psychology: A Scientist-
Practitioner Approach
(Second ed.). Hoboken,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 81 of 95
:
 (Second ed.). Hoboken,
New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. pp. 341–365.
53. Forsyth, D.R. (2009).
Group Dynamics. New
York: Wadsworth.
54. Levine. (1998). The
Handbook of Social
Psychology.
55. Senior. (1991). Journal of
Occupational and
Organizational Psychology.
56. Hahn, M. (2010). Group

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 82 of 95
:
 Norms in Organizations.
57. Schwarz. (2007). Are
There Universal Aspects in
the Structure and Contents
of Human Values?
58. Triplett, N. (1898). "The
Dynamogenic Factors in
Pacemaking and
Competition". The
American Journal of
Psychology. 9 (4): 507–
533. doi:10.2307/1412188
(https://doi.org/10.2307%2

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 83 of 95
:
 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2
F1412188) .
JSTOR 1412188 (https://w
ww.jstor.org/stable/141218
8) .
59. Robert B. Zajonc (July 16,
1965). "Social Facilitation".
Science. New Series. 149
(3681): 269–274.
Bibcode:1965Sci...149..26
9Z (https://ui.adsabs.harva
rd.edu/abs/1965Sci...149..
269Z) .
doi:10.1126/science.149.36

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 84 of 95
:
 81.269 (https://doi.org/10.1
126%2Fscience.149.3681.
269) . JSTOR 1715944 (htt
ps://www.jstor.org/stable/1
715944) .
PMID 14300526 (https://p
ubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14
300526) .
60. Fischer, Michael Daniel;
Ferlie, Ewan (1 January
2013). "Resisting
hybridisation between
modes of clinical risk
management:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 85 of 95
:
 management:
Contradiction, contest, and
the production of
intractable conflict" (http
s://web.archive.org/web/2
0190705140612/http://eur
eka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/4368/1/Fi
scher_M_D__Ferlie_E_%28
authors%27_post-print_ver
sion%29_Accounting_Orga
nizations_and_Society.pdf)
(PDF). Accounting,
Organizations and Society.
38 (1): 30–49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 86 of 95
:
 38 (1): 30–49.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2012.11.0
02 (https://doi.org/10.101
6%2Fj.aos.2012.11.002) .
S2CID 44146410 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/Cor
pusID:44146410) .
Archived from the original (
http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/
4368/1/Fischer_M_D__Ferl
ie_E_%28authors%27_post
-print_version%29_Accoun
ting_Organizations_and_So
ciety.pdf) (PDF) on 5 July

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 87 of 95
:
 ciety.pdf) (PDF) on 5 July
2019. Retrieved 29 August
2019.
61. Turner, J. C. (1975). "Social
comparison and social
identity: Some prospects
for intergroup behaviour" (
https://doi.org/10.1002%2
Fejsp.2420050102) .
European Journal of Social
Psychology. 5: 1–34.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420050
102 (https://doi.org/10.100
2%2Fejsp.2420050102) .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 88 of 95
:
 62. Gaertner, S. L.; Dovidio, J.
F.; Banker, B. S.; Houlette,
M.; Johnson, K. M.;
McGlynn, E. A. (2000).
"Reducing intergroup
conflict: From
superordinate goals to
decategorization,
recategorization, and
mutual differentiation".
Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice. 4:
98–114. doi:10.1037/1089-
2699.4.1.98 (https://doi.or

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 89 of 95
:
 2699.4.1.98 (https://doi.or
g/10.1037%2F1089-2699.
4.1.98) .
63. Sherif, Muzafer (1988).
The Robbers Cave
Experiment. Middletown:
Wesleyan University Press.
ISBN 978-0-8195-6194-7.
64. Levine, Robert (1971).
Ethnocentrism: Theories of
Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes,
and Group Behavior. New
York: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-
471-53117-3.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 90 of 95
:
 471-53117-3.
65. Allport, Gordon (1979).
The Nature of Prejudice.
Reading: Addison-Wesley
Pub. Co. ISBN 978-0-201-
00179-2.
66. Pettigrew, T. F.; Tropp, L. R.
(2006). "A Meta-Analytic
Test of Intergroup Contact
Theory". Journal of
Personality and Social
Psychology. 90 (5): 751–
783. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.90.5.751 (https://doi.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 91 of 95
:
 3514.90.5.751 (https://doi.
org/10.1037%2F0022-351
4.90.5.751) .
PMID 16737372 (https://pu
bmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/167
37372) . S2CID 14149856
(https://api.semanticschola
r.org/CorpusID:1414985
6) .
67. Hornsey, M. J.; Hogg, M. A.
(2000). "Subgroup
Relations: A Comparison of
Mutual Intergroup
Differentiation and

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 92 of 95
:
 Differentiation and
Common Ingroup Identity
Models of Prejudice
Reduction". Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin.
26 (2): 242–256.
doi:10.1177/01461672002
64010 (https://doi.org/10.1
177%2F01461672002640
10) . S2CID 145116253 (ht
tps://api.semanticscholar.o
rg/CorpusID:145116253) .
68. Aronson, Elliot (1997). The
Jigsaw Classroom. New

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 93 of 95
:
 Jigsaw Classroom. New
York: Longman. ISBN 978-
0-673-99383-0.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Group_dynamics&oldid=1278810
717"

This page was last edited on 4 March

2025, at 19:07 (UTC). •

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 94 of 95
:
 Content is available under CC BY-SA

4.0 unless otherwise noted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics 2/4/25, 15 23
Page 95 of 95
: