Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 149–165 | Cite as

Do friends perform better than acquaintances? the interaction of friendship, conflict, and task

  • Pri Pradhan Shah
  • Karen A. Jehn


This article examines the influence of friendships among group members, intragroup conflict, and task on group performance. Previous research has found that friendships among group members (operationalized as group affinity, comraderie, or cohesion) has both positive and negative effects on performance. The effect of friendship on performance is contingent on many factors. The focus of this article is on the different types of conflict experienced by groups and on the type of task that the group is performing. The results indicate different interaction patterns and degrees of conflict (emotional, task content, and administrative conflict) in friend (strong relationship) groups and acquaintance (weak relationship) groups. Overall, the findings suggest that friend groups perform significantly better than acquaintance groups on both decision-making and motor tasks. Process data from transcripts of group discussions also suggest several mediating factors that may account for these performance differences.

Key words

groups friendship conflict task performance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albrecht, T.L., and V.A. Ropp. (1984). “Communicating about Innovation in Networks of Three U.S. Organizations.”Journal of Communication, Summer.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, G. (1971).Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
  3. Argyle, M., and A. Furnham. (1983). “Sources of Satisfaction and Conflict in Long-term Relationships.”Journal of Marriage and the Family August, 481–490.Google Scholar
  4. Argyle, M., and M. Henderson. (1985). “The Rules of Relationships.” In S. Duck and D. Perlman (eds.),Understanding Personal Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Argyris, C. (1962).Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baron, R.A., and D. Byrne. (1987).Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Berkowitz, L. (1954). “Group Standards, Cohesiveness, and Productivity.”Human Relations 7, 509–519.Google Scholar
  8. Berscheid, E. (1983). “Emotion.” In H. Kelley and Associates (eds.),Close Relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  9. Brehmer, B. (1976). “Social Judgment Theory and the Analysis of Interpersonal Conflict.”Psychological Bulletin 83, 985–1003.Google Scholar
  10. Brennan, R.L., and D.J. Prediger. (1981). “Coefficient Kappa: Some Uses, Misuses and Alternatives.”Journal of Educational Psychology 41, 687–699.Google Scholar
  11. Byrne, D. (1971).The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cosier, R., and C. Schwenk. (1990). “Agreement and Thinking Alike: Ingredients for Poor Decisions.”Academy of Management Executive 4, 81–92.Google Scholar
  13. Davidson, L.R., and L. Duberman. (1982). “Friendship: Communication and Interactional Patterns in Same-Sex Dyads.”Sex Roles 8, 809–822.Google Scholar
  14. Deutsch, M. (1969). “Conflicts: Productive and Destructive.”Journal of Social Issues 25, 7–41.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, C.R., and K.L. Dion. (1991). “Group Cohesion and Performance A Meta-Analysis.”Small Group Research 22, 175–186.Google Scholar
  16. Goodman, P.S., and D.P. Leyden. (1991). “Familiarity and Group Productivity.”Journal of Applied Psychology 76, 578–586.Google Scholar
  17. Guetzkow, H., and J. Gyr. (1954). “An Analysis of Conflict in Decision-Making Groups.”Human Relations 7, 367–381.Google Scholar
  18. Guzzo, R.A. (1986). “Group Decision Making and Group Effectiveness in Organizations” In P.S. Goodman (ed.),Designing Effective Work Groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Guzzo, R.A., and G.P. Shea. (1992). “Group Performance and Intergroup Relations in Organizations.” In M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (eds.),Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, J. (1990). “Social Psychological Perspectives on Group Composition: What Are the Implications for Strategy Research?” Presented at the Annual Conference of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Janis, I.L. (1982).Groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  22. Jehn, K.A. (1992). “The Impact of Intragroup Conflict on Effectiveness: A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Conflict.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  23. Kaplan, R.E. (1979). “The Conspicuous Absence of Evidence That Process Consultation Enhances Task Performance.”The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 15, 346–360.Google Scholar
  24. Kelley, H.H., and J.W. Thibaut. (1979).Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  25. Leavitt, H. (1964).Managerial Psychology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Levine, J.M., and R.L. Moreland. (1990). “Progress in Small Group Research.”Annual Review of Psychology 41, 585–634.Google Scholar
  27. Lincoln, J., and J. Miller. (1979). “Work and Friendship Ties in Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Relational Networks.”Administrative Science Quarterly 24, 181–199.Google Scholar
  28. McGrath, J.F. (1984).Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Mikula, G., and T. Schwinger. (1978). “Intermember Relations and Reward Allocation: Theoretical Considerations of Affects.” In H. Brandstatter, J.H. Davis, and H. Schuler (eds.),Dynamics of Group Decisions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Muringan, K.J., and D.E. Conlon. (1991). “The Dynamics of Intense Work Groups: A Study of British String Quartets.”Administrative Science Quarterly 36, 165–186.Google Scholar
  31. Raven, B., and J. Rubin. (1976).Social Psychology: People in Groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  32. Roloff, M.E. (1987). “Communication and Reciprocity Within Intimate Relationships.” In M.E. Roloff and G.R. Miller (eds.),Interpersonal Processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Roloff, M.E., C.A. Janiszewski, M.A. McGrath, C.S. Burns, and L.A. Manrai. (1988). “Acquiring Resources from Intimates: When Obligation Substitutes for Persuasion.”Human Communication Research 14, 364–396.Google Scholar
  34. Schrieshein, J.F. (1980). “The Social Context of Leader Subordinate Relations: An Investigation of the Effects of Group Cohesiveness.”Journal of Applied Psychology 65, 183–194.Google Scholar
  35. Seashore, S.E. (1954).Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sundstrom, E., K.P. De Meuse, and D. Futrell. (1990). “Work Teams: Applications and Effectiveness.”American Psychologist 45, 120–133.Google Scholar
  37. Thomas, K.W. (1979). “Organizational Conflict.” In S. Kerr (ed.),Organizational Behavior. Columbus, OH: Grid Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Tsui, A.S., and C.A. O'Reilly. (1989). “Beyond Simple Demographic Effects: The Importance of Relational Demography in Superior-Subordinate Dyads.”Academy of Management Journal 32, 402–423.Google Scholar
  39. Weingart, L.R. (1992). “Impact of Group Goals, Task Component Complexity, Effort, and Planning on Group Performance.”Journal of Applied Psychology 77, 682–693.Google Scholar
  40. Weldon, E., K. Jehn, and P. Pradhan. (1991). “Processes That Mediate the Relationship Between a Group Goal and Improved Group Performance.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61, 555–569.Google Scholar
  41. Woodman, R.W., and J.J. Sherwood. (1980). “The Role of Team Development in Organizational Effectiveness: A Critical Review.”Psychological Bulletin 88, 116–186.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pri Pradhan Shah
    • 1
  • Karen A. Jehn
    • 2
  1. 1.Kellogg Graduate School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityEvanston
  2. 2.The Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations