Theories of Group Behavior: Commentary

  • George R. Goethals
Part of the Springer Series in Social Psychology book series (SSSOC)

Abstract

The nine preceding chapters consider a variety of group phenomena and theories about why they occur. The approach to understanding group behavior adopted in these chapters seems to be a rich and productive one in two respects. First, for the most part, the theories represented here consider the relevance to group behavior of concepts that have been applied to individuals. Second, they have been developed to explain a broad range of behaviors, not just particular, isolated individual or group phenomena (see Mullen, Chapter 1, this volume). Because of their applicability to both individuals and groups and their applicability to a broad range of behaviors, each of these theories, individually, has the potential to provide an integrative analysis of not only behavior in groups, but also of social behaivor more broadly. If some integrative analysis and understanding is provided by each of the theories individually, what can we say about the degree of understanding to be derived from the theories collectively, that is, from the volume as a whole? We shall approach this question by addressing two issues in this commentary. First, how do the various theories relate to one another? How do they differ, how do they compete, and how do they cooperatively add to our knowledge? Second, once the theories are placed in comparative perspective, what do we know about group behavior, and what do we still need to know?

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, V.L., & Wilder, D.A. (1977). Social comparison, self-evaluation, and conformity to the group. In J.M. Suls & R.L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 187–208). Washington, DC: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: a current perspective. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4 pp. 2–34). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bern, D. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6 pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bond, C.F. (1982). Social facilitation: A self-presentational view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1042–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brickman, P., & Bulman, R.J. (1977). Pleasure and pain in social comparison. In J.M. Suls & R.L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 149–186). Washington, DC: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
  6. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  7. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Festinger, L., Riecken, H.W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Froming, W.J., & Carver, C.S. (1981). Divergent influences of private and public self-consciousness in a compliance paradigm. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gastorf, J.W., Suls, J.M., & Sanders, G.S. (1980). Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 773–780.Google Scholar
  13. Gergen, K.J. (1971). The self-concept. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  14. Goethals, G.R., Allison, S.J., & Frost, M. (1979). Perceptions of the magnitude and diversity of social support. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 570–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goethals, G.R., & Darley, J.M. (1977). Social comparison theory: an attributional approach. In J.M. Suls & R.L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison theory: theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 259–278). Washington, DC: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  18. Guerin, B. , & Innes, J.M. (1982). Social facilitation and social monitoring: a new look at Zajonc’s mere exposure hypothesis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henchy, T., & Glass, D.C. (1968). Evaluation apprehension and social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 446–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hormuth, S.E. (1982). Self-awareness and drive theory: comparing internal standards and dominant responses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson, J.M. (1986). In defense of social impact theory: A comment on Mullen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 511–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 937–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Janis, I.L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, E.E., & Gerard, H.B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Mettee, D.R., & Smith, G. (1977). Social comparison and interpersonal attraction: the case for dissimilarity. In J.M. Suls & R.L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 69–102). Washington, DC: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, N.E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G.L. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  28. Mullen, B. (1985). Strength and immediacy of sources: A meta-analytic evaluation of the forgotten elements of social impact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1458–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mullen, B. (1986). The effects of strength and immediacy in group contexts: A reply to Jackson. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 514–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quattrone, G. (1986). On the perception of a group’s variability. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1983). Self-directed attention and the comparison of self with standards. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlenker, B.R. (1980). Impression management: The self concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  34. Stevens, S.S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64, 153–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Tedeschi, J.T., Schlenker, B.R., & Bonoma, T.V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: private ratiocination or public spectacle? American psychologist, 26, 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wegner, D.W., & Giuliano, T. (1980) Arousal-induced attention to self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 719–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wicklund, R.W., & Brehm, J.W. (1976) Perspectives on cognitive dissonance. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Zajonc, R.B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Compresence. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 35–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Zanna, M.P., & Cooper, J. (1976). Dissonance and the attribution process. In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes, & R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1 pp. 199–217). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • George R. Goethals

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations