What's Social about Social Cognition? Research on Socially Shared Cognition in Small Groups
Publication Year: 1996
Cognition research and theory has become a major focus of attention within academic psychology over the past 15 years. However, most social cognition research has tended to focus on the social thinker in isolation, neglecting the impact of social interactions on cognition. A cutting-edge collection from integral figures in social cognition and small group fields, What's Social About Social Cognition? fills a lapse in the literature while exploring social phenomena within small groups. Significantly augmented from a special issue of Small Group Research, this volume answers the demand for a greater social emphasis in social cognition research by examining decision making, prejudices, motivations, emotions, and reciprocal influences between and among small group members. And while the entire book provides a springboard for research to come ...
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
Part I: The Group as a Cognitive Unit: Group Beliefs, Decisions, and Products
- Chapter 1: Management of Information in Small Groups
- Chapter 2: Salient Group Memberships and Persuasion: The Role of Social Identity in the Validation of Beliefs
- Chapter 3: Socially Shared Cognition at Work: Transactive Memory and Group Performance
Part II: Impact of the Group on Thinking about the Self and other Group Members
- Chapter 4: Social Behavior and Social Cognition: A Parallel Process Approach
- Chapter 5: Heuristic-Based Biases in Estimations of Personal Contributions to Collective Endeavors
- Chapter 6: Followers' Perceptions of Group Leaders: The Impact of Recognition-Based and Inference-Based Processes
- Chapter 7: Perceptual Sets and Stimulus Values: The Social Relations Model in Group Psychotherapy
- Chapter 8: Social Cognition and Self-Concept: A Socially Contextualized Model of Identity
Part III: Impact of the Group on Member Identification and Group Boundaries
- Chapter 9: The Phenomenology of Being in a Group: Complexity Approaches to Operationalizing Cognitive Representation
- Chapter 10: The Contact Hypothesis: The Role of a Common Ingroup Identity on Reducing Intergroup Bias among Majority and Minority Group Members
- Chapter 11: Emphasizing the Social Nature of Groups in a Developmental Framework
Part IV: A Look to the Future of Social Cognition Research
Part V: Discussion of the Chapters
Copyright © 1996 by Sage Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
For information address:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications Ltd.
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Greater Kailash I
New Delhi 110 048 India
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Main entry under title:
What's social about social cognition?: Research on socially shared cognition in small groups / editors, Judith L. Nye and Aaron M. Brower.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8039-7204-0 (cloth: acid-free paper).—ISBN
0-8039-7205-9 (pbk.: acid-free paper)
1. Social groups. 2. Social perception. 3. Social psychology.
I. Nye, Judith L. II. Brower, Aaron M.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
96 97 98 99 00 01 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Sage Production Editor: Gillian Dickens
Sage Typesetters: Yang-hee Syn Maresca & Andrea D. Swanson
Sage Cover Designer: Candice Harman
This book is based on the premise that an ideal arena for studying the social and interactional aspects of social cognition is the small group. In this volume, we present exemplar research on various aspects of social cognition conducted within a small group context. This book expands on a special issue of Small Group Research (May 1994) that addressed this very topic. We invited prominent researchers in social cognition and groups research to present their research dealing with the more social side of social cognition.
The book is organized into three main parts that describe central topics in the study of what's social about social cognitions. In the part titled “The Group as a Cognitive Unit: Group Beliefs, Decisions, and Products,” the chapters address the delicate and potentially explosive balance between the resources and talents of individual members and the interpersonal dynamics that go on between group members. This part includes chapters that address groups as they set about their tasks: Wittenbaum and Stasser (Chapter 1) discuss their research on how groups manage and use information; Haslam, McGarty, and Turner (Chapter 2) address the bias that group members tend to hold [Page x]toward the credibility and relevance of information provided by their own group members; and Moreland, Argote, and Krishnan (Chapter 3) reveal that groups can be trained to work better than individuals in constructing products.
In Part II, “Impact of the Group on Thinking About the Self and Other Group Members,” the chapters focus on how self-concept and perceptions of others in the group change based on group processes. These chapters address effects on the self and others based on “real” group interactions rather than on those that are analogue or imagined. Patterson (Chapter 4) focuses on the relationship between person perceptions and interactive behavior in groups and how they affect impression formation and management. Forsyth and Kelley (Chapter 5) describe how members shift their initial “egocentric” focus to a “sociocentric” one once their group coalesces. Nye and Simonetta (Chapter 6) describe which aspects of members’ perceptions of leaders change and which remain stable after group successes and failures and how both stability and change are influenced by members’ leadership schemas. Johnson and Neimeyer (Chapter 7) discuss unique interaction effects on member perceptions after perceiver and target effects are teased out. Finally, Oyserman and Packer (Chapter 8) describe how individuals view themselves differently depending on the groups with which they identify, and they note that one's sense of self has an inherent social component.
The last of the three main parts, “Impact of the Group on Member Identification and Group Boundaries,” includes chapters discussing how group members tend to think about their own groups in relation to members of outgroups. All three chapters note that group entitativity (Campbell, 1958) is not rigidly determined—in fact, a group's sense of “we-ness” is constantly open to change. Mullen, Rozell, and Johnson (Chapter 9) demonstrate how factors as simple as group size can affect how ingroups and outgroups are represented in the mind of the social perceiver. Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, and Anastasio (Chapter 10) call on the common ingroup identity model to explain the cognitive mechanisms that can contribute to the reduction of prejudice between groups. Considering the impact of temporal factors, Worchel (Chapter 11) argues that as [Page xi]groups change over time, group members’ perceptions of ingroup and outgroups members and their habits of interacting change in predictable patterns.
These empirical pieces are bracketed by two provocative chapters on the common ground between social cognition and groups research. In the Introduction, Fiske and Goodwin point out that, although the two areas have traditionally overlooked each other's offerings, “small group research and social cognition research need each other.” They suggest a number of research pursuits in which each area could address the shortcomings of the other, thus strengthening both. In the second to last chapter, Ickes and Gonzalez (Chapter 12) offer social (i.e., intersubjective) cognition as an alternative research paradigm. They argue that pursuing research that acknowledges the interdependence of cognitions that occurs in interaction situations may serve to enhance the overall quality and meaningfulness of social psychological research and theory. Finally, we close the book with a discussion of the 11 empirical chapters. We identify a number of the common themes within them that can help point the way to future research and thinking on the uniquely social aspects of social cognition.
One can read this book straight through, or one can use each part as an example of how different authors view similar phenomena. Because this book brings together two major areas of research, we believe it will speak to a wide audience. Within social cognition research, social psychologists have been calling for a more social emphasis on the research for some time now—our book offers research that meets this challenge. Groups researchers, on the other hand, will find that the views provided by social cognitive theories may provide coherence to what Levine and Moreland (1990) call a “badly fragmented” field (p. 586).
The empirical study of true social interactions is both devilishly complex and tantalizingly appealing. And although it may be a quixotic pursuit, it is where we feel true discoveries in academic psychology will be found. It is our sincere hope that this book can move us a step forward in this discussion.
[Page xii]This book was, truly, a rewarding and challenging project on which to work—not exactly heavy labor but a labor of love nonetheless. We wish to acknowledge the contributions of several people in the development of this book. Jack Demarest, Don Forsyth, and Charles Garvin provided the initial encouragement to begin this project. Jim Nageotte and Nancy Hale at Sage Publications were invaluable in bringing it to completion. Karen Carlson, Jack Husted, and Janice Stapley reviewed chapters in rough form and served as sounding boards for the project at various points along the way. Both Monmouth University and the University of Wisconsin provided much needed support at critical stages in the production of the book.
One wonderful outcome of this project has been the development of collaborative relationships among the authors contributing to this book. In addition to writing chapters, they very graciously reviewed the other chapters within their parts, which served to strengthen the overall coherence of the book. We wish to thank all of our authors for their commitment to pursuing good science while retaining their enthusiasm for capturing the complexities of real life.
Finally, we wish to dedicate this book to Richard Su and Nancy, Jacob, and Nathaniel Brower. Their continuing love and support have made all the difference in our personal and professional lives.and
Introduction: Social Cognition Research and Small Group Research, a West Side Story or…?[Page xiii],
Small group research and social cognition research need each other. Neither has dealt adequately with the other's phenomena. Recent reviews of each area bear out this simple observation of neglect, first in social cognition research: “The social perceiver … has been viewed as somewhat of a hermit, isolated from the social environment. Missing from much research on social cognition have been other people in a status other than that of stimulus” (Fiske & [Page xiv]Taylor, 1991, p. 556). And in small group research, social cognition apparently can be utterly ignored. Nowhere in Levine and Moreland's (1990) Annual Review of Psychology chapter, “Progress in Small Group Research,” are social cognitive theories singled out as a fruitful past or future source of stimulation for small group research. Although social cognitive approaches have been accused of being imperialistic, threatening to dominate social psychology, the Annual Review of Psychology chapter might lead one to judge, at the opposite extreme, that social cognition is totally irrelevant to small group research. The situation resembles that of two rival gangs each having staked out their separate turf, crossing boundaries at their peril; this perception is the source of our West Side Story theme.
AUTHORS’ NOTE: The writing of this paper was supported by the first author's NIMH grant 41801, which also supported the second author. Correspondence may be addressed to the first author at Department of Psychology, Tobin Hall, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003.
In contrast to gang warfare, we endorse a more spontaneous and open interplay between research on social cognition and small groups, as equal parties, both with a long history within social psychology as well as a bright future. To that end, as kibitzing outsiders, we commend the research in this volume, and we will offer some additional opportunities that seem to beg for research attention. In doing this, we do not wish to blur the distinction between individual and group phenomena, which we acknowledge differ fundamentally (e.g., Ruscher, Fiske, Miki, & Van Manen, 1991; Schopler & Insko, 1992; Tajfel, 1982). Nevertheless, many intriguing points of contact do emerge.There's a Place for Us
There is a central place for the phenomena of both small groups and social cognition in social psychology, which follows from what we all do and how we all define ourselves as social psychologists. The earliest and most current definitions of the field unanimously endorse the need to study interaction as well as perceptions and interpretations. Allport (1954) defined social psychology as “an attempt to understand and explain how the thought, feeling, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of other human beings” (p. 5). Prominent in this definition are both actual interactions and cognitively mediated interactions (imagined, implied).
[Page xv]E. A. Ross (1908) asserted that,
Social psychology deals only with uniformities due to social causes, i.e., to mental contacts or mental interactions. In each case, we must ask, “Are these human beings aligned … by their interpsychology, i.e., the influences they have received from one another or from a common human source?” … It is social only insofar as it arises out of the interplay of minds. (pp. 2–3)
Again, prominent in the definition is the importance of actual interaction as well as mental interaction.
According to Mead (1909, 1910), a social act is defined by one person serving as a stimulus to a response by another person and vice versa; such “interstimulation links them functionally together in a common social situation” (Karpf, 1932, p. 321), making a “conversation” of social stimulation and response. This conversation is mediated by meaning, images, symbols, and empathy.
Whether social psychology is viewed as social influences, mental interaction, or conversation (interstimulation), each of these implies people together, and each implies that people are interpreting each other. These foundational definitions suggest a central place for face-to-face interaction, as studied, for example, within small groups, research on which has been present since the beginning of American social psychology. For example, the index to Karpf's (1932) American Social Psychology contains numerous references to the “group approach;” Dashiell's (1935) survey of experiments examining the influence of social situations on individuals explicitly defines itself in terms of person-to-person relationships and the effects of the group on the individual. More recently, Levine and Moreland (1990) conclude that small group research is alive and well but living elsewhere (in allied fields). The point is that social psychology, the study of people's impact on each other, requires or should require the study of person-to-person interactions of which small group research is a prominent part.
The study of social influences, mental interaction, and conversationlike interstimulation also requires the study of minds in social settings. The influence of others is filtered through the individual's [Page xvi]cognitive system. As Ross and Nisbett (1991) note, studying the impact of social situations requires studying the impact of social situations as perceived by the individual in question; they trace their idea of construing to Asch (1952), Brunswik (1956), and Lewin (1935). Lewin's (1935) concept of the life space, the situational forces perceived to be operating on the person, emphasizes subjective interpretation. So does the Brunswik (1956) lens model of social perception—the proximal cause of people's responses is their filtered perception, not the distal object. And Asch, along with Helen Block Lewis (Asch, 1940; Asch, Block, & Hertzman, 1938; Lewis, 1941), emphasized how meaning and judgment result from social standards. To honor the equal importance of social cognitions and face-to-face interactions, we will discuss first how social cognition has dealt with face-to-face interaction, and second how small group research has dealt or might deal with social cognitive issues. In doing this, we will suggest that it is not a case of the Jets versus the Sharks (or Montagues versus Capulets) but of more constructive potential interaction.The Rumble
Rumors of discontent, even confrontation, have challenged social cognition research from early on. Over the past 15 years, the primary complaints have been three (e.g., Fiske, 1981; Manis, 1977; Taylor, 1981b; Zajonc, 1980): Social cognition research fails to deal adequately with affect; it fails to deal adequately with motivation; and it fails to deal adequately with actual interaction. The “hermit” criticism, noted in the opening paragraph, is shared by other commentators: “The focus [of cognitive psychology] has remained on the individual as a solitary and, for the most part, purely intellective being” (Levine, Resnick, & Higgins, 1993, p. 586). In a similar vein, Ickes and Gonzales (Chapter 12, this volume) endorse the need for a social cognition, citing the lack of affect, intersubjectivity, and naturalistic interaction.
A more formal analysis of the established paradigm for studying social cognition reveals some cause for complaint along these lines. In an inspired survey of methods in major social and personality [Page xvii]psychology journals of the 1980s, de la Haye (1991) has documented the most common paradigms for studying interpersonal cognition. As might be expected, they are short on actual interaction, affect, and motivation.
Consider first interaction. In social cognition studies, interaction would be potentiated by the mode of presenting the target person. Only 15% of the studies involved the physical presence of the target person, with another 3% allowing audio or video presentation believed to be live, but neither set necessarily allowed interaction. In contrast, in 45% of the studies, the target person was presented in a purely verbal medium, which hardly represents interaction.
Consider next the role of affect in social cognition paradigms. To be fair, the purpose of this subfield has been to push cognitive explanations, not to study affect, but many would argue that social cognition requires affect. In any case, among the independent variables, affect is never mentioned in the de la Haye (1991) analysis. Among the dependent variables, a category called Subject's Involvement, found in 22% of the studies, includes liking, preference, social distance, and judged physical attractiveness; assumed similarity; and assumed familiarity and assumed relationship. A possibly overlapping 25% of the studies include judgments of the target, some of which are at least evaluative if not emotional in nature. And 24% of studies (again, potentially overlapping) include judgments of the target's transitory covert characteristics, such as affective states. Noncognitive dependent variables not included elsewhere are present in 24% of studies. So, at least on the dependent variable side, affect is not wholly absent. Although affect may not be represented often as full-blooded emotion (cf. Dijker & Fiske, 1993), at least some evaluative and affective judgments are clearly present. Admittedly, de la Haye omits a substantial literature on mood, but only some of it deals with mood effects on social perceptions.
The presence of motivational variables is harder to gauge. Characteristics of the situation surrounding the subject, manipulated in a full 34% of the studies, include goals, success or failure, roles, and subject-target relationship. This is not a modest proportion of motivational variables. Moreover, a clear upswing of interest in goals and [Page xviii]motivation has appeared after a decade's hiatus. Researchers have returned to some of the pragmatic themes implicit and explicit in the founding of social psychology, following the pragmatic Jamesian idea that thinking is for doing (Fiske, 1993b). Motivation and goals anchor this enterprise. Numerous social cognition theories address different types of interaction goals with which people approach social perception (for reviews, see Fiske, 1992; Hilton & Darley, 1991; Kruglanski, 1990; Snyder, 1992; Stangor & Ford, 1992). New editions of Social Cognition (Fiske & Taylor, 1991) and the Handbook of Social Cognition (Wyer & Srull, 1994), as well as Ross and Nisbett's (1991) new book, all address goals and motivation to a greater degree than the comparable efforts a decade ago. Three edited volumes (Higgins & Sorrentino, 1990; Sorrentino & Higgins, 1986, 1996) collect a variety of theoretical and empirical advances in motivation and cognition.
In short, social cognition research stands accused of three main types of neglect: interaction, affect, and motivation. Of these, the accusation about affect is least credible: Affect has been a persistent junior partner in the enterprise from the beginning of the most recent two decades’ flurry of activity. One might argue that it should have had a bigger role or that emotion (rather than evaluation and mood) should have been focal, but it is hardly fair to criticize a cognitive approach for focusing first on cognition and only secondarily on affect.
Turning to the status of motivation, it seems that there was indeed a period of neglect but that hiatus is flanked by an early interest in motivational issues, as reflected in the pragmatic origins of the enterprise, and by the current acceleration of interest in goals and motivation, as reflected in a recent upsurge of empirical and theoretical activity.
Finally, we come to the neglect of interaction. The accusation here is completely justified. Social cognition research is guilty on this count: Our subjects sit alone in the lab, like Tolman's rats in the maze, lost in thought. In this limited but important sense, social cognition is insufficiently social. The importance of neglecting social behavior should be evident. To its peril, research on attitudes historically neglected overt behavior, initially assuming that social behavior would follow directly from attitudes. A major upheaval followed [Page xix]reviews arguing that the typically measured attitude-behavior relation was small (e.g., Wicker, 1969). Within social cognition research, so few studies have measured the cognition-behavior relation that one cannot even argue about its size.
Would research on social cognition within small groups potentially answer these criticisms, especially the clear neglect of interaction? Not exactly. But it may help. The research represented in this volume, combining social cognition and small groups, varies on how much it deals with actual interactions. But there is clearly more social behavior reflected herein than in the usual sample of articles in the front section of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. And the odds are, the more we examine social cognition in small groups, the more we will address affect, motivation, and (especially) interaction. As the next section indicates, social cognition research has already developed some of the relevant groundwork. The section after that examines activity within small group research that does or could relate to social cognition processes.Something's Coming
Recent research in social cognition, as noted, is beginning to deal more actively with actual interactions and with issues related to interaction. As argued elsewhere (Fiske, 1992, 1993b), the core issues in thinking-for-doing are good-enough accuracy of perception, constructing meaning, and interaction goals. We will illustrate with special reference to issues likely to concern small group researchers.Accuracy
Just a few years ago, the criticism was leveled that “the social perceiver is often viewed as having a somewhat lunatic disregard for external reality. This fantasizer seems to operate solely on whatever convenient fictions are in his or her own head” (Fiske & Taylor, 1991, p. 556). Some solutions are appearing to counteract this overemphasis on being in the head without reference to the stimulus world. After [Page xx]a considerable hiatus, accuracy has returned to the main agenda, particularly in the context of interaction.
For example, Kenny's innovative social relations model (e.g., Kenny & Albright, 1987), which assesses every person's rating of every other person except perhaps the self, seems ideally suited to small group settings. It then separates components of accuracy, for example, disentangling effects contributed by the perceiver versus the target versus their unique relationship. Small groups provide a natural laboratory for examining accuracy as defined by observer consensus because everyone observes the same behaviors, which is crucial to consensus (Kenny, 1991). As observers see more overlapping behavior, if that behavior is consistent and if they generally agree about the meaning of behavior, then acquaintance can increase consensus accuracy. Small groups also provide a context for what Swann (1984) would call circumscribed accuracy. Fairly good accuracy can be negotiated, within certain interaction contexts and with certain partners, a description that fits many small group contexts. And empathic accuracy is a central issue in any interaction (Ickes, Stinson, Bissonnette, & Garcia, 1990).
Accuracy refers not only to judgments but also to memory, on which judgments can sometimes later be based. The accuracy of memory relies on the constructive tension between prior knowledge, established by experience, and new information that may contradict it. Until recently, research on memory for people had little to say about small group settings and actual interaction. The paradigm indeed may have been the prototype, imagined by researchers outside of social cognition, as that best representing the whole subfield of social cognition. (Many social cognition researchers would take exception to this prototype.) The person memory paradigm isolated subjects reading lists of traits to form an expectancy and then reading standardized behaviors, after which they listed the behaviors they could recall. The most usual effect in this particular paradigm was a recall advantage for expectancy-inconsistent behaviors (Stangor & McMillan, 1992). However, altering the paradigm to make it more emphatically social, using factors that would apply to a small groups context, dramatically eliminates or reverses this effect. A group of [Page xxi]targets, instead of an individual, attenuates or reverses the effect. Expanding the task beyond a single experimental setting alters the effect. Irrelevant tasks interpolated between exposure to the information and its subsequent recall similarly eliminate the inconsistency advantage. Task complications (multiple trait dimensions or task demands) have similar effects (Hamilton, Driscoll, & Worth, 1989; Stangor & Duan, 1991). Finally, receiving the information in a conversational format also eliminates the effect (Wyer, Budesheim, & Lambert, 1990; Wyer, Lambert, Budesheim, & Gruenfeld, 1992). In short, memories for people with whom one actively interacts are determined by both prior knowledge and incoming data, allowing the potential for at least good-enough accuracy. Making the paradigm more social alters the basic effects, and researchers are actively pursuing this insight.
Not only can one complicate the person memory paradigm by making targets multiple, but one can also make the perceivers multiple. Wegner (1987) proposes that groups divide up the memory tasks, enabling individuals to concentrate on smaller domains, thereby presumably remembering more. Moreland, Argote, and Krishnan (Chapter 3, this volume) argue that the development of such transactive memory systems accounts for their research findings that work groups perform better when their members are trained as a unit rather than as separate individuals. Moreover, committing people to a group makes people remember an ingroup message more accurately (Haslam, McGarty, & Turner, Chapter 2, this volume). Groups provide an interesting context for the study of accuracy and consensus about social perceptions. More important, knowing when and how groups are accurate and consensual in their social perceptions is a crucial research agenda for intergroup relations and for decision-making groups, as the next section indicates.Meaning Making
Until recently, the major metaphor of social cognition research was the cognitive miser, beset by an overwhelming stimulus environment and hoarding scarce mental resources. One of the clearest cognitive miserly strategies is to construct or recycle coherent, compact [Page xxii]structures (schemas) that adequately contain the challenge of messy new input. This is one form of meaning making that is actively researched (for reviews, see, e.g., Fiske & Taylor, 1991, ch. 4; Higgins & Bargh, 1987). The renewed pragmatic approach also points out that meaning can be made more elaborate when necessary to achieve particular goals. Individual-level analyses have indicated the role of traits as rich descriptors, stereotypes as associatively complex portraits, and stories as generating meaning (Fiske, 1993b). Each of these readily carries over to small group research.
If anything, shared meaning and its impact on consensus (Kenny, 1991) is even more important in interactions, dyadic or group. People communicate more effectively when they know the other's level and kind of understanding (Fussell & Krauss, 1989a, 1989b; Krauss & Fussell, 1991), and people are often not bad at estimating the other's knowledge (Fussell & Krauss, 1991). But establishing that common ground is clearly a central task of interaction.
One of the intriguing ideas to emerge from this insight is the possibility that small group processes and individual processes are parallel in some respects. For example, Ruscher and Hammer (1994) studied how dyads negotiate joint impressions of a third party. They found that studies of dyadic impression formation can use the same stimuli and parallel forms of the same measures, for example, attention as conversation time, thought content as conversation content, and linguistic structure as an indicator of psychological meaning. Dyads apparently try to achieve common ground or a shared understanding of a joint target of social perception. When that shared impression is disrupted by negative or perhaps inconsistent information, the dyad tries to adjust by spending more time discussing how impression-consistent information fits and generating exemplars of the complex of information.
The negotiation of a shared meaning structure also occurs in decision-making groups. Juries, for example, construct a shared narrative understanding of the events to be explained (Hastie & Pennington, 1991; Pennington & Hastie, 1991). The story must account for the evidence, follow rules of narrative form, and fit world knowledge. The best stories are comprehensive and coherent, thus [Page xxiii]enabling a decision. It would be useful to apply such a model to other types of decision-making groups such as personnel committees. In its extreme, rigid form, such shared meaning would suggest groupthink, research on which is integrated in a paper by Mullen, Anthony, Salas, and Driskell (1994).
Meaning making does not just occur as external social perception, not just as individuals, dyads, and groups dealing with stimuli external to the perceiving body. Patterson (Chapter 4, this volume) discusses meaning making within the group: how individuals within groups interact and form mutual impressions depending on relative attention and effort devoted to self and others. Meaning making within groups depends on expectancies, goals, and incoming information just as it does for individuals. The small group literature has long known this (see Levine & Moreland, 1990) but only borrowed sparingly from social cognition perspectives to enrich its analysis.
Meaning making also occurs between groups. This insight is represented by some chapters in this volume. Mullen, Rozell, and Johnson (Chapter 9, this volume) discuss representations of ingroup and outgroup as a function of relative group size. They suggest that smaller groups may be represented as single abstract prototypes, whereas larger groups may be represented as a series of concrete exemplars. Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, and Anastasio (Chapter 10, this volume) discuss how intergroup contact can create the representation of a common ingroup identity, more inclusive than the previously separate multiple outgroups. All this shows the role of representations as meaning making for intergroup relations.
Implicit in these discussions is the idea that stereotypes (as generic representations) inherently misrepresent individuals, and (as outgroup members) usually in a negative direction. An interesting alternative viewpoint is that stereotypes can serve to provide additional information beyond what is known about the individual, thereby enriching social understanding (Oakes & Turner, 1990). In a related vein, Leyens (1990) suggests that stereotypes can serve the function of smoothing interactions by providing expectancies as mutual frames of reference for interactants. These ideas, which run counter to the traditional ways of viewing stereotypes, deserve some research consideration.
[Page xxiv]In conclusion, meaning making occurs not only within individuals but also within dyads and groups and between groups. This collection of small group research showcases papers that make this point especially clear. A variety of research on meaning making suggests that the cognitive miser metatheory is less relevant than previously thought.Goals and Control
With the reintroduction of motivation into social cognition research, a new metatheory for social perceivers is the motivated tactician (Fiske & Taylor, 1991), who has available a variety of strategies for understanding other people, choosing among them according to current goals. As noted earlier, social cognition researchers have focused more explicitly on a variety of goals, taking a pragmatic perspective that reflects longstanding concerns dating back to the origins of social psychology as a field (Fiske, 1992). The pragmatic perspective fits well with the applicability of much small group research. Studying people in applied (or applicable) settings brings home the importance of people's own goals, precisely because it is not an artificial, isolated, irrelevant, or rarefied atmosphere. Social cognition research has examined two major types of goals, and within each type are many directly relevant to small group interaction (for reviews, see Fiske, 1992; Hilton & Darley, 1991; Kruglanski, 1990; Ruble, 1994; Snyder, 1992; Stangor & Ford, 1992).
One kind of goal tends to motivate people to attempt accurate social perceptions (for a review and references, see Fiske, 1993b, pp. 172–178). Among the more interaction-oriented goals are simple instructions to be accurate, clear social norms to individuate, and personal feedback. Social relationships can encourage accuracy goals: When individuals are interdependent (either cooperatively or competitively), they attempt more accuracy in their understanding of each other. Subordinate status makes having a sense of accuracy more important to social perceivers. Accountability to third parties also makes people try to be more careful. In each case, these variables are natural phenomena within small group contexts; none of them guarantees accuracy, only greater efforts toward a sense of accuracy.
[Page xxv]Another type of goal tends to encourage people to make rapid, good-enough decisions with less effort. Capacity-limiting conditions such as time pressure or noise make people more likely to use prior expectancies over additional information. Such contextual features are relevant to the ecology of small groups, as the next section will review. Being action oriented, preparing to interact, or being in the midst of interaction also makes people more decisive and less thorough.
All of these kinds of motives, reviewed elsewhere, support the view of the social perceiver as situated in interaction contexts, often in small groups. It would seem that the goal-oriented view of social cognition, along with work on meaning making and accuracy, all support the perspective that thinking is for doing, making this view completely consistent with a small group perspective. We turn now to areas of small group research that offer opportunities for contact with social cognition perspectives.One Hand, One Heart?
Much small group research is applied or applicable and investigates how various characteristics and dynamics of the group influence outcomes such as group performance, interaction, and satisfaction. On the one hand, an applied approach broadens interest and distributes investigations across many topics. On the other hand, it can also inhibit the development of more general theories as investigators across domains find it more difficult to share results and to collaborate. Levine and Moreland (1990) suggest that the multidisciplinary approach to small group research has left the field “badly fragmented” (p. 586).
Our intention in this section is to build some conceptual collages, that is, to indicate areas of small group research that may be pieced together using social cognitive views as the glue. In fact, several small groups theorists are already leaning in the cognitive direction, even though much of their language belies their interest in cognitive variables. Levine and Moreland's (1990) review of the field provides a useful structure for addressing social cognition issues within this [Page xxvi]area of research. Our discussion therefore focuses on the major areas of research as presented in their review: ecology, composition, structure, conflicts, and performance.Ecology
How individual group members perceive and think about their physical and social environments should, of course, have some bearing on the group's outcomes. Several cognitive themes emerge when one considers research in this area. First, the environment can affect group members’ abilities to process information. For example, crowded and exotic environments lead group members to experience cognitive overload and to think more rigidly (Argote, Turner, & Fichman, 1988; Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). “Overstimulation” and “cognitive load” may be mediating mechanisms for the deleterious effects of situations on social interaction and performance (Cox, Paulus, & McCain, 1984; Paulus & Nagar, 1989). Social cognition research on cognitive busyness and attribution (e.g., Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull, 1988) would lend some support to these hypotheses, yet researchers in neither field have addressed these issues adequately using both interactional group settings and cognitive measures.
The interaction environment can also influence people by altering the way information is processed (e.g., filtering of information, differential weighting of information). Certain group settings may prime individuals to interpret information in terms of their prior expectations about a particular situation (i.e., their schemas, defined as cognitive structures that organize knowledge about a particular object, person, or event).
Some background on the schema concept is necessary to understand how this construct might play a role in small group research. Schemas are thought to be hierarchical structures that include both identification information (e.g., managers in this company all wear navy suits) as well as other information acquired through direct and indirect experience (e.g., managers make important decisions). When schemas become activated, they guide the way information is attended and processed. For example, people not only prefer information that [Page xxvii]confirms their expectations, they also tend to process this information more quickly than information that does not fit their schemas.
Consider the range of schemas potentially relevant to small group contexts. One may differentiate between those that pertain to events (scripts) and those that pertain to people (person schemas). Scripts contain information about the sequencing of social events and provide templates for social interaction (e.g., what to do at a managerial meeting). Person schemas are further distinguished as (a) schemas about individuals (e.g., one's boss), (b) schemas about groups of people (e.g., bosses in general), (c) overgeneralized schemas about members of a particular group, also called stereotypes (e.g., women, Asians), and (d) schemas about people with certain personality characteristics, also called implicit personality theories (e.g., anxious people). Priming social schemas can influence the way an individual thinks and, consequently, behaves in a particular situation. If a stereotype becomes active (e.g., bosses are unapproachable), it can lead a group member to ignore or reinterpret disconfirming information about a particular target person (e.g., my boss's open door is not an invitation for discussion but an opportunity to eavesdrop on the employees). Whether or not a schema becomes primed is in part contingent on stimuli in the environment. For example, the presence of sexually explicit materials may prime sex-role stereotypes for women (Bargh & Raymond, 1995; Borgida, Rudman, & Manteufel, 1995).
The schema concept may be easily applied to research on small group environments. For example, research in job satisfaction and working conditions could perhaps use analyses of how the physical environment primes particular schemas. For example, if people in a work environment tell jokes about the management, it is likely to prime negative schemas about worker relations, which in turn could influence job satisfaction and productivity.
Similarly, research on crowded and threatening environments might build on understanding people's schemas for these situations. Research indicates that it is not the actual social or spatial density that predicts group performance, but instead, it is the individual group members’ perceptions of crowding that make the difference (Paulus & Nagar, 1989). Apparently, features of the environment [Page xxviii]prime people to interpret their environment in negative or threatening ways. These issues remain to be tested.
We should also bear in mind that the relationship between perceiver and environment is not unidirectional. The environment may influence the perceiver, but the perceiver also may manipulate the environment. Research issues such as territoriality and responses to threats in small groups could be enhanced by considering the group's perceptions of control as well as its social identifications (i.e., schemas about one's own group in relationship to other group identifications).
Schemas, both those held by the individual and those shared by the group, may also play a role in the temporal ecology of the group. For example, scripts may influence group members’ expectations about development of the group (e.g., whether members expect the group to dissolve or to grow over time). Similarly, schemas may influence group expectations about pace within task groups, consequently influencing performance and satisfaction within the group. Finally, research indicating that older groups become more rigid and rely less on outside information may be explained in terms of schemas and cognitive processing (Katz, 1982). As groups age, their shared scripts may be played out automatically, leading to less interaction outside the group and more rigid information processing within the group. Theories of automatic cognitive processing by individuals, such as those in Uleman and Bargh (1990), could be applied to test these ideas in group settings.Group Composition
Given cognitive capacity limitations and the impact of schemas on processing, the composition of a group could clearly influence individual group members’ perceptions, group identifications, and cognitive-processing strategies. Research suggests that as group size increases, production and satisfaction decrease. In cognitive terms, this may be related to issues of cognitive capacity. As the number of group members increases, individuals within the group have fewer resources to manage social interactions, to maintain attention, and so on. In addition, larger groups require individual members to [Page xxix]maintain more relationships, which in turn requires more cognitive resources. Job satisfaction and productivity may suffer as a result of these factors, first, because they reduce group members’ abilities to complete their tasks and fulfill their roles in the group and, second, because they may increase group members’ perceived levels of stress. The context of the group composition (e.g., number of men vs. women) can also have an influence on group members’ satisfaction. Social cognition research suggests that a solo (e.g., the only Asian American in a group of Anglo Americans) is more salient and, as a result, receives more attention from other group members (Taylor & Fiske, 1978). The consequences include being seen as more influential, being evaluated more extremely, and being evaluated in stereotypic terms. In a meta-analysis of studies using solo gender targets, Mullen (cited in Fiske, Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux, & Heilman, 1993) reports that these effects are quite robust. Solo effects could alter the overall interaction of the group and satisfaction levels. Heterogeneous groups may also set the stage for priming stereotypes. To the extent that salient characteristics of group members activate stereotypes, these schemas may then influence social interactions within the group.Group Structure
The small groups literature has explored several characteristics of group structure, including status, norms, roles, and cohesion. All of these factors influence group members’ cognitive processing. Schemas and scripts may define the roles and norms that guide behavior within the group. For example, group expectations or shared schemas about leaders may influence their evaluations of the leaders’ behavior (Lord, 1985).
Small group research suggests that status hierarchies develop very rapidly, oftentimes within the first few minutes of interaction. The two theoretical explanations for this phenomenon, expectation states versus ethological theories, both posit a cognitive comparison process whereby individuals are sized up relative to some personal characteristic. In the case of the expectation states theories, characteristics vital to achieving the group's goals are more important in [Page xxx]the comparison process (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980). For the ethological theorists, physical appearance and demeanor play the crucial role (Mazur, 1985). In either case, the fact that status roles develop so quickly suggests that group members rely on schemas or expectations about what these characteristics imply in order to process the information quickly. This in turn suggests some level of automatic cognitive processing. One could further predict more conflict regarding status roles within a group or more change in status hierarchies over time, to the extent that group members do or do not share the same expectations about status.Conflicts
Several areas of small group research fall under the topic of conflict research, including communication, power, and minority-majority influence. These areas of research reflect stronger trends toward social cognition as compared to other areas of small group research.
In the area of communication, Bodenhausen, Gaelick, and Wyer's (1987) analysis of the communication process begins to address the significance of group members’ cognitions. Their model, originally developed to describe communication in romantic dyads, suggests that a critical component of the communication process is each member's perception of what is being communicated. This acknowledges that people may be differentially interpreting or processing what is communicated based on their individual or shared schemas.
Power research using both social cognition and small groups paradigms is perhaps on the eve of convergence. Recently, theories of power from both views have come to the same conclusion—the nature of interdependent relationships determines who has power over whom (Cook, 1987; Deprét & Fiske, 1993). Research suggests that the nature of power relationships influences evaluations of both the powerful (Kipnis, 1984; Stevens & Fiske, 1995) as well as the powerless (Goodwin & Fiske, 1995). For example, perceivers who have outcome control, the powerful, are motivated to use both effortful and effortless attention strategies to confirm stereotypic expectations about subor-dinates [Page xxxi](Goodwin & Fiske, 1995). Closely related to this issue is Nye and Simonetta's contribution on followers’ perceptions of leaders (Chapter 6, this volume). Future research should extend existing theories into interactional settings to determine if these findings are stable. In addition, the study of how people respond to the exercise of power could benefit from analysis in these terms. For example, job satisfaction and productivity may be related to how group members perceive the nature of asymmetrically interdependent relationships. Group influence research has already adopted one important cognitive theory to explain how minority-majority group members alter group opinion. Chaiken's (1987) heuristic-processing model, which posits several underlying cognitive mechanisms that determine the outcome of an influence attempt, has successfully been applied to group influence situations in laboratory settings (Chaiken & Stangor, 1987). Still, this theory remains to be tested outside the lab and in interactional settings.Performance
The literature on group performance is heavily intertwined with many of the areas of research that have already been discussed. For example, much of the previously mentioned research has been conducted in service of understanding and improving productivity and satisfaction within groups. In addition to that already discussed, the social information processing theory of productivity (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) is clearly cognitive. According to this model, the route to improved productivity lies in changing perceptions of the group's task, not necessarily in changing the task itself.
Unlike some other areas of small group research, cognitive theories of leadership have been well integrated into the literature. For example, Lord's (1985) work on implicit theories of leadership addresses shared beliefs and expectations about leaders and how these factors influence perceptions of the leader. From the perspective of how leaders view others, Green and Mitchell's (1979) theory posits an automatic attributional response that affects how leaders evaluate their subordinates. Although these theories have received [Page xxxii]empirical support in laboratory settings, replication in more interactive settings is still to follow.
Finally, decision-making theorists have ventured further out into cognitive waters, as evidenced by the application of persuasion and social comparison theories as well as computer-simulated models of decision-making processes (e.g., Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington, 1983; Stasser, 1988; Stasser, Kerr, & Davis, 1989). In contrast to these quantitative approaches, qualitative approaches to decision-making research are much less cognitive. This area of research could nevertheless recognize how cognitive factors may affect qualitative features of decision making. For example, group discussions tend to be dominated not by new information but instead by shared information and by information that confirms existing expectations (Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna, 1989; Wittenbaum & Stasser, Chapter 1, this volume). This could be explained in terms of schema-driven processing biases at the group level.Gee, Officer Krupke
We have tried to provide some context for the discussion of links between small group research and social cognition research. After noting that the two domains are both core features of the social psychology enterprise, we also noted that they rarely cite each other and even square off as adversaries to the extent that social cognition research neglects person-to-person interaction and small group research neglects cognitive processes. A change is in the air, as social cognition research becomes more concerned with the pragmatic issues of consensus and accuracy, meaning making, and interaction goals. Similarly, as the collection of chapters in this volume indicates, social cognitive analyses hold much promise for small group phenomena; we have also illustrated some possible openings for social cognition in small group settings. As social cognition researchers addressing small group researchers, we would like to close by saying, with the Jets of West Side Story, “We ain't no delinquents; we're misunderstood; deep down inside us, there is good.”
[Page xxxiii]What we all have in common, social cognition and small group researchers alike, is social psychology. Together, we need to make our shared case to a sometimes skeptical larger society, a case that rests on our common interests. To quote the Jets again: “Gee, Officer Krupke, we're down on our knees, ‘cause no one wants a fella with a social disease…. “What are we to do?”1Note
1. “Gee, Officer Krupke” from West Side Story. Music by Leonard Bernstein, lyrics by Stephen Sondheim. Copyright © 1956, 1957 (renewed) by Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim. The Leonard Bernstein Music Publishing Company LLC, U.S. and Canadian Publisher, G. Schirmer, Inc., worldwide print rights and publisher for the rest of the world. International copyright secured. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.[Page xxxiv]
References[Page 324]1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619–630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.529, , , & (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1991). Group therapy for women sexually abused as children: A controlled study and investigation of individual differences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 219–231., , & (1989). A comparison of group treatments of women sexually abused as children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 479–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.57.4.479, , , , & (1983). The language of ethnic conflict: Social organization and lexical culture. New York: Columbia University Press.(An African American racial belief system and social structural relationships: A test of invariance. National Journal of Sociology., , & (in press).1985). The group attribution error. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 563–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2885%2990025-3, & (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.(1995). Love, sex, and power: Considering women's realities in HIV prevention. American Psychologist, 50, 437–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.6.437(1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0027352([Page 325]1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393475, & (1991). Acculturative stress: A theory of relevance to black Americans. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 685–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358%2891%2990126-F(1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.(1992). Cross-racial facial identification: A social cognitive integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 296–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183005, , & (1993). Group and organizational learning curves: Individual, system, and environmental components. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 31–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00984.x(1995). Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 512–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01765.x, , , & (1988). To centralize or not to centralize: The effects of uncertainty and threat on group structure and performance. Organizational Behavior, 42, 1–17., , & (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786027, & (1989). The heart of social psychology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books., & (1985). Experimentation in social psychology. In G.Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 1 (, , & (3rd ed., pp. 441–486). New York: Random House.1995). From dissonance to disidentification: Selectivity in the self-affirmation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 986–996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2066, , & (1987). The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.(1988). Afrocentricity. Trenton, NJ: African World Press.(1940). Studies in the principles of judgments and attitudes: II. Determination of judgments by group and by ego standards. Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 433–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1940.9921487(1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H.Guetzkov (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburg, PA: Carnegie.(1952). Social psychology ((2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10025-0001955, November). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, pp. 31–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31(1956). Studies of independence and conformity: 1. A minority of one against unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (9, Whole No. 416).(1938). Studies in the principles of judgments and attitudes: I. Two basic principles of judgment. Journal of Psychology, 5, 219–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1938.9917565, , & (1982). Monitoring the future: Questionnaire responses from the nation's high school seniors. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research., , & ([Page 326]1951). Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0059886, & (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press., , & (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition. In J. S.Uleman & J. A.Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 3–51). New York: Guilford.(1995). Nonconscious sources of sexual harassment and the misuse of power. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 85–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01310.x, & (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.(1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 569–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.119, & (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1683, & (1989). Group beliefs. New York: Springer-Verlag.(1976). Sex effects in evaluating leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 446–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.4.446, & (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.(1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.(1972). Self-perception theory. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.(1974). Structural analysis of social behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 392–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0037024(1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York: Elsevier., , , & (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.002403, , & (1990). The perceiver as naive scientist or the scientist as naive perceiver? An ecological view of social knowledge acquisition. Contemporary Social Psychology, 14, 145–153.(1985). Some components and consequences of a babyface. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 312–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1242, & (1983). The emerging science of relationships. In H. H.Kelley, E.Berscheid, A.Christensen, J. H.Harvey, T. L.Huston, G.Levinger, E.McClintock, L. A.Peplau, & D. R.Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 1–19). New York: Freeman., & (1953). Changes in interpersonal perceptions following social interaction. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 61–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062230(1992). Interdependence in dyadic gazing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington.(1975). The effect of relative competence of group members upon interpersonal attraction in cooperating interracial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 519–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0077084, , & ([Page 327]1987). Affective and cognitive factors in intragroup and intergroup communication. In C.Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes and intergroup relations: Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 137–166). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., , & (1995). On the courtroom use and misuse of gender stereotyping research. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 181–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01316.x, , & (1984). Expertise and airtime as bases of actual and perceived influence in problem-solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 214–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.214(1990). The logic of practice (R.Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity. (Original work published 1980)(1977). Some conditions that affect admissions of attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 565–576., , , & (1984). Unintentional egocentric biases in attributions. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 264–278.(1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307(1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K.Srull & R. S.Wyer, Jr. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001(1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, and ingroup homogeneity. Social Cognition, 11, 150–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.19126.96.36.199(In-group favoritism: The subtle side of intergroup discrimination. In D. M.Messick & A. E.Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Behavioral research and business ethics. New York: Russell Sage.(in press).1981). Perceptions of the elderly: Stereotypes as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 656–670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.526, , & (1984). Categorization of the elderly by the elderly: Effects of perceiver's category membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 585–595. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167284104012, & (1993). In-group identification as a function of depersonalization, distinctiveness, and status. Psychological Science, 4, 88–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00466.x, , & (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N.Miller & M. B.Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press., & (1965). Team versus individual training, training task fidelity, and task organization effects on transfer performance by three-man crews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 387–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022804, & (1967). Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counterargument production. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 269–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2867%2990031-5(1987). Peer group affiliation and adolescent self-esteem: Integration of ego-identity and symbolic-interaction theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 47–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206, & ([Page 328]1981). Interpersonal and intergroup behavior. In J. C.Turner & H.Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 33–64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press., & (1979). Male versus female leaders: A comparison of empirical studies. Sex Roles, 5, 595–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00287663(1984). Turning lead into gold: Evaluations of men and women leaders and the alchemy of social consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 811–824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.111, & (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 22, 66–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.66, & (1954). The perception of people. In G.Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 634–654). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley., & (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments ((2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Communicative genes and the evolution of empathy. In W.lckes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy. New York: Guilford., & (in press).1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00603.x(1993). Adaptation in dyadic interaction: Defining and operationalizing patterns of reciprocity and compensation. Communication Theory, 3, 295–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1993.tb00076.x, , & (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2877%2990002-6, & (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.(1977). Evaluators of leader behavior: A missing element in leadership theory. In J. G.Hunt & L. L.Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 167–188). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press., & (1881). The two Foscari. In The poetical works of Lord Byron. London: Frederick Warne.(1981). Social psychology procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought-listing technique. In T.Merluzzi, C.Glass, & M.Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 309–342). New York: Guilford., & (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B. M.Staw & G. R.Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 179–204). Chicago: St. Claire Press.(1918). Social history of the American family. Cleveland, OH: Arthur H. Clark.(1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830030103(1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J.Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1981). A cognitive-social approach to personality. In N.Cantor & J. F.Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.([Page 329]1990). From thought to behavior: “Having” and “doing” in the study of personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735–750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.6.735(1994). Life task problem solving: Situational affordances and personal needs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 235–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167294203001(1987). Life tasks, self-concept ideals, and cognitive strategies in a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1178–1191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1688, , , , & (1990). Personality, cognition, and purposive behavior. In L. A.Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 135–164). New York: Guilford., & (1982). A discrepancy-arousal explanation of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adult and infant-adult interaction. Communication Monographs, 49, 89–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758209376074, & (1976). Methods of research in social psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley., , & (1985). Schooling and work in the democratic state. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press., & (1993). Organization of ingroup and outgroup information: The influence of gender role orientation. Social Cognition, 11, 70–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.1922.214.171.124(1992). School bonding, race and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 261–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01105.x, & (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1992(1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P.Zanna, J. M.Olson, & C. P.Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1987). Attitudes and attitude change. In M. R.Rosenweig & L. W.Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 575–630). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc., & (1988). Conceptions of states and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 541–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.521, , & (1993). Shared meaning and the convergence among observers’ personality descriptions. Journal of Personality, 61, 553–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00782.x, & (1952). Some attitudinal effects of experimentally increased salience of a membership group. In G. E.Swanson, T. M.Newcomb, & E. L.Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 415–420). New York: Holt., & (1989). Indirect tactics of image management. In R. A.Giacalone & P.Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 45–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2066, , , , , & (1985). Language use and language users. In G.Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (([Page 330]3rd ed., pp. 179–231). New York: Random House.1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B.Resnick, J. M.Levine, & S. D.Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10096-006, & (1989). Group remembering. In P.Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (, & (2nd ed., pp. 357–391). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1975). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (, & (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Cook, K. S. (Ed.). (1987). Social exchange theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.1969). Motives in a conceptual analysis of attitude-related behavior. In W. J.Arnold & D.Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 18, pp. 179–236). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.(1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of school desegregation. American Psychologist, 40, 452–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.4.452(1988). Healing the incest wound. New York: Norton.(1984). Prison crowding research: The relevance for prison housing standards and a general approach regarding crowding phenomena. American Psychologist, 39, 1148–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1148, , & (1982). The user's guide to multidimensional scaling. Exeter, NH: Heineman.(1991). Effects of neighborhoods on dropping out of school and teenage childbearing. In C.Jencks & P. E.Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 299–320). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.(1989, June). Judgmental subjectivity/objectivity and minority influence. Paper presented at the third workshop on Minority Influence, Perugia, Italy.(1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.11, & (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 55–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.168, & (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity.”Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0044919(1958). Proposals leading to analytic treatment of social perception scores. In R.Tagiuri & L.Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (pp. 353–379). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.(1994). The effect of life domains on girls’ possible selves. Adolescence, 29(113), 133–150., , , & (1978). Behavioral correlates of social anxiety. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 117–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1978.tb00252.x(1935). Experimental studies of the influence of social situations on the behavior of individual human adults. In C.Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of social psychology (pp. 1097–1158). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.(1992, July). Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion. Paper presented at the symposium on Minority Influence at the Joint EAESP/SESP meeting, Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium., & ([Page 331]Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion: Is being a member of the outgroup an advantage?British Journal of Social Psychology., & (in press).1991). General social surveys, 1972–1991: Cumulative codebook. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center., & (1982). Multidimensional scaling. New York: John Wiley.(1992). The transition to first intercourse among racially and culturally diverse youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 749–762. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353158(1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade's research on gender. American Psychologist, 39, 105–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.105(1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 4–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167293191001(1995). How basic can you be? The evolution of research on gender stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 11–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01305.x(1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369, & (1991). Problems and procedures: A typology of paradigms in interpersonal cognition. European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 11, 279–304.(1993). Social cognition and power: Some cognitive consequences of social structure as a source of control deprivation. In G.Weary, F.Gleicher, & K.Marsh (Eds.), Control motivation and social cognition (pp. 176–202). New York: Springer-Verlag., & (1983). SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring and procedures manual ((2nd ed.). Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.1951). Interracial housing: A psychological evaluation of a social experiment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press., & (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046408, & (1995, May). Organizational learning curves: The effects of turnover and work group structure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago., & (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1247, & (1993). Nonreactive measurement of whites’ emotional responses to blacks. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst., & (1978). Groups and individuals: Explanations in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1995). Why not drop “race” as a term?American Psychologist, 50, 40–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.1.40.a(1995). The effect of comparative context on central tendency and variability judgments and the evaluation of group characteristics. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam., , , , & ([Page 332]1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannelstudy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580–587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1990, , , , & (1986). Prejudice, discrimination and racism: Historical trends and contemporary approaches. In J. F.Dovidio & S. L.Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 1–34). Orlando, FL: Academic Press., & (1995). Group representations and intergroup bias: Positive affect, similarity and group size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 856–865. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167295218009, , , & (1988). Spock's world. New York: Pocket Books.(1977). Inquiry, hypothesis, and the quest for validation. In S.Duck (Ed.), Theory and practice in interpersonal attraction (pp. 379–404). New York: Academic Press.(1994). Meaningful relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(1966). Member reactions to team performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 69, 237–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1966.9919724(1985). Annotated bibliography and state-of-the-art review of the field of team training as it relates to military teams. Fort Benning, GA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.(1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971–981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.9.971(1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.145(1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736–741. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736, & (1995). Why psychologists should study race. American Psychologist, 50, 42–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.1.42(1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766–778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.526, , & (1992, May). Group structure and the sharing of information during decision making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.(1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. New York: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195075809.001.0001, & (1984). Protocol analysis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press., & (1985). The person in social context: The social character of baining “psychology.” In G.White & J.Kirkpatrick (Eds.), Person, self and experience: Exploring pacific ethnopsychologies (pp. 367–397). Berkeley: University of California Press.(1987). Social representations: A French tradition of research. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17, 343–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1987.tb00103.x(1957). The effects of personal and shared threats upon social prejudice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 411–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040958, & ([Page 333]1947). The role of group belongingness in a voting situation. Human Relations, 1, 154–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100202(1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0056932(1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202(1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10030-000, , & (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of a housing community. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press., , & (1979). Small groups and culture creation: The idioculture of Little League baseball teams. American Sociological Review, 44, 733–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094525(1995). Secure times: Constructing white working-class masculinities in the late 20th century. Manuscript submitted for publication.(1981). Social cognition and affect. In J.Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp. 227–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 877–889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2067(1993a). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621(1993b). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 155–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.001103(1993). What constitutes a scientific review? A majority retort to Barrett and Morris. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 217–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01045940, , , , & (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention interpretation. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). New York: Academic Press., & (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley., & (1991). Social cognition (, & (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.1990). Occurrent social cognition in close relationship interaction: The role of proximal and distal variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 464–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.114, & (1983a). The effects of prototypicality and cultural salience on perceptions of people. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 153–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566%2883%2990028-4(1983b). What is social about social cognition?British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 129–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1983.tb00574.x(1981). The effects of self-serving vs. other-serving claims of responsibility on attraction and attribution in groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 59–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3033865, , & (1977). Attributing the causes of group performance: Effects of performance quality, task importance, and future testing. Journal of Personality, 45, 220–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1977.tb00148.x, & (1982). Ethnic identity and perceived distance between ethnic categories. Human Organization, 41, 121–130., & ([Page 334]1990). Marginal and mindful: Deviants in social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 140–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.168, , & (1977). A manual for repertory grid technique. New York: Academic Press., & (1983). The effect of stimulus prototypicality on leadership perceptions and behavioral ratings. Unpublished manuscript, University of Akron., & (1993). Looking forward to adolescence: Mothers’ and fathers’ expectations for effective and behavioral change. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(4), 472–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431693013004007, , , & (1994). Human facial expression: An evolutionary view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.(1982). Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure. Sex Roles, 8, 333–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00287273, , , & (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 75–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.75(1976). The perceived structure of American ethnic groups: The use of multidimensional scaling in stereotype research. Sociometry, 39, 116–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786212, , , & (1989a). The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 203–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2889%2990019-X, & (1989b). Understanding friends and strangers: The effects of audience design on message comprehension. European journal of Social Psychology, 19, 509–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420190603, & (1991). Accuracy and bias in estimates of others’ knowledge. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 445–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420210507, & (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F.Dovidio & S. L.Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press., & (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W.Stroebe & M.Hewstone (Eds.), The European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–25). Chichester, UK: Wiley., , , , & (Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations., , & (in press).1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 692–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1242, , , , & (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.199, , , & (Galambos, J. A., Abelson, R. P., & Black, J. B. (Eds.). (1986). Knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.[Page 335]1993). Stereotypes as consensual beliefs. In M. P.Zanna & J. M.Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 1–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1992). Lessons in organizational dramaturgy: The art of impression management. Organizational Dynamics, 21, 33–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616%2892%2990084-Z(1989). Methods for the analysis of parallel streams of continuously recorded social behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 446–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.446, & (1983, April). Gender schemas and achievement: Performance and recognition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, PA.(1985). Sex of authority role models and achievement by men and women: Leadership performance and recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 636–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.526, , & (1982). Research on seeing and evaluating people. Newark: University of Delaware., , & (1967). Training for coordination within rifle squads. In T. O.Jacobs, J. S.Ward, T. R.Powers, C. E.George, & H. H.McFann (Eds.), Individual and small-unit training for combat operations (pp. 21–67). Alexandria, VA: George Washington University Press.(1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude toward ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 836–842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036204, & (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256496(1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 274–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256363(1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978%2890%2990047-D, & (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.(1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sampling and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959–974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2069, & (1988). Seeing less and knowing more: The benefits of perceptual ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 193–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.11, & (1988). Of thoughts unspoken: Social inference and the self-regulation of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 685–694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1685, , & (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 733–740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1243, , & (1987). Secondhand information and social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 59–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2887%2990025-4(1985). Self-serving bias and actor-observer differences in organizations: An empirical analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 547–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb00919.x, & ([Page 336]1987). Theories of group behavior: A commentary. In B.Mullen & G. R.Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 209–229). New York: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_10(1977). Social comparison theory: An attribution approach. In J.Sulls & R.Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 259–279). Washington, DC: Hemisphere., & (On the statistics of interdependence: Treating dyadic data with respect. In S. W.Duck, R.Dindia, W.Ickes, R. M.Milardo, R.Mills, & B.Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (, & (in press).2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.1988). Absenteeism and accidents in a dangerous environment: Empirical analysis of underground coal mines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 81–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.1.81, (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 578–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.4.578, & (1992). Familiarity and work group outcomes. In S.Worchel, W.Wood, & J. A.Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 276–298). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1995). Power and motivated impression formation: How powerholders stereotype by default and by design. Manuscript submitted for publication, University of Massachusetts at Amherst., & (1981). Time series analysis: A comprehensive introduction for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavioral researchers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529696, & (1989). Discriminatory speech acts: A functional approach. In D.Bar-Tal, C. F.Graumann, A. W.Kruglanski, & W.Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 183–206). New York: Springer-Verlag., & (1988). Development and validation of the school interracial climate scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 241–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00912525, , & (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader-member interactions. Organizational Behavior, 23, 429–458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2879%2990008-4, & (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A. G.Greenwald, T. C.Brock, & T. M.Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147–170). New York: Academic Press.(1984). Animal thinking. American Scientist, 72, 456–464.(1995). Correlational models for dyadic data. Unpublished manuscript., & (1989). The army's new unit personnel replacement system and its relationship to unit cohesion and social support. Military Psychology, 1, 17–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp0101_2(1993). Group productivity over time. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A&M University., , & (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45–99). New York: Academic Press., & ([Page 337]1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.(1971). Decisions, decisions, decisions. Psychology Today, 5, 51–54, 86, 88.(1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.(1989). Cognitive organization of impressions: Effects of incongruency in complex representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 925–939. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1995, , & (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031%2876%2980006-6, & (1989). Illusory correlations: Implications for stereotype theory and research. In D.Bar-Tal, C. F.Graumann, A. W.Kruglanski, & W.Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotypes and prejudices: Changing conceptions (pp. 59–82). New York: Springer-Verlag., & (1980). Common sense attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 996–1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0077723(1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243788, & (1990). Self and identity development. In S.Feldman & G.Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 352–387). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1988). Long-term effects of incestuous child abuse in college women: Social adjustment, social cognition, and family characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 5–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.1.5, , & (1995). Long-term effects of child sexual abuse: Toward a constructivist theory of trauma and its treatment. In R. A.Neimeyer & G. J.Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in personal construct psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 227–267). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (1989). Personal construction of family relationships. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 2, 123–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08936038908406104, , & (1990). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.(Stereotyping and social influence: Foundations of stereotype sharedness. In R.Spears, P. J.Oakes, N.Ellemers, & S. A.Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.(in press).Stereotyping and social influence: The mediation of stereotype applicability and sharedness by the views of ingroup and outgroup members. British Journal of Social Psychology., , , , , & (in press).1995). Social categorization and group homogeneity: Changes in the perceived applicability of stereotype content as a function of comparative context and trait favorableness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 139–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1995.tb01054.x, , , & (1996). Social identity, self-categorization and the perceived homogeneity of ingroups and outgroups: The interaction between social motivation and cognition. In R. M.Sorrentino & E. T.Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and social cognition (Vol. 3). New York: Guilford., , , & ([Page 338]1992). Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping 2: The relationship between frame of reference, self-categorization and accentuation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 251–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220305, & (1986). Experimental evidence on group accuracy. In B.Grofman & G.Owen (Eds.), Information pooling and group decision making (pp. 129–157). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1991). Cognitive and social processes in decision making. In L.Resnick, J.Levine, & S.Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 308–327). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10096-013, & (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press., , & (1988). Statistics ((4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.1958a). Social perception and phenomenal causality. In R.Tagiuri & L.Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (pp. 1–26). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.(1958b). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10628-000(1991). Multidimensional causal models of delinquent behavior and their implications for treatment. In R.Cohen & A.Siegel (Eds.), Context and development (pp. 211–231). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the “contact hypothesis.” In M.Hewstone & R. J.Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1–44). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell., & (1987). Social cognition and social perception. In M. R.Rosenweig & L.Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 369–425). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc., & (Higgins, E. T., & Sorrentino, R. M. (Eds.). (1990). Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2). New York: Guilford.1991). The effects of interaction goals on person perception. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 235–267). New York: Academic Press., & (1990). Cognitive and consensus processes in group recognition memory performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 705–718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.525(1992). Costs and benefits of allegiance: Changes in fans’ self-ascribed competencies after team victory versus defeat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 724–738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2064, , , & (1989). Institutional perspectives on the life course: Challenges and strategies. In D. I.Kertzer & K. W.Schaie (Eds.), Age structuring in comparative perspective (pp. 95–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge., & (1987). Social identity and conformity: A theory of referent informational influence. In W.Doise & S.Moscovici (Eds.), Current issues in European social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 139–182). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press., & ([Page 339]1990). Polarized norms and social frames of reference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 77–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1101_6, , & (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660, & (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042501(1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press.(1985). Leadership and power. In G.Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2,(3rd ed., pp. 485–537). New York: Random House.1993). Information, influence, and technology in group decision making. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(05), 2809B.(1976). Cruelty and kindness: A new look at aggression and altruism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.(1984). Personality, motivation, and performance: A theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing. Psychological Review, 91, 153–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.2.153, & (1993). Social explanations and self-esteem in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 643–650. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9713919, , & (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In L. B.Resnick, J. M.Levine, & S. D.Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 283–307). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10096-012(1982). A basic paradigm for the study of personality, roles, and social behavior. In W.Ickes & E. S.Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 305–341). New York: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9469-3_11(1983). A basic paradigm for the study of unstructured dyadic interaction. In H.Reis (Ed.), New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science (pp. 5–21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.(1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61, 587–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00783.x(1990). Implementing and using the dyadic interaction paradigm. In C.Hendrick & M.Clark (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 11. Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 16–44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., , , & (1986). Naturalistic social cognition: Methodology, assessment, and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 66–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.11, , , & (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730–742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1680, , , & (1988). The observational method: Studying the interaction of minds and bodies. In S.Duck (Ed.), The handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 79–97). Chichester, UK: Wiley., & (1988). Naturalistic social cognition: Intersubjectivity in same-sex dyads. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 58–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00987352, , , , & ([Page 340]1986). A cautionary note of the interpretation of relationship effects in the social relations model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 93–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786861, & (1987). A social relations model test of Sullivan's anxiety hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1212–1218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1242, & (1984). Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition. In R. S.Wyer, Jr. & T. K.Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 179–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived outgroup variability and outgroup attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196005, & (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.(1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes ((2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press., & (1992). Beyond adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527647, , & (1994). Evidence for the accessibility of paired distinctiveness in distinctiveness-based illusory correlation in stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 65–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167294201006, & (1993). A social relations model analysis of structural analysis of social behavior ratings by a non-clinical sample. Unpublished manuscript, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.(1995). Socially contextualized paternal identity: Construction of idealized or possible selves among poor, urban adolescent African-American males. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.(1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: John Wiley., & (1981). Perceived variability of personal characteristics in in-groups and out-groups: The role of knowledge and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 523–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616728173024, , & (1993, October). Perceived variability and ethnocentrism: Moving beyond the laboratory. Paper presented at the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.(1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in evaluation research. Review of Educational Research, 55, 5–54., & (1991). Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 366–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1996, , & (1991). Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model. Psychological Review, 98, 54–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.1.54(1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034747, & (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817(1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575([Page 341]1992). The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 542–571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2892%2990045-L, & (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.521, & (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A system view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000323(1932). American social psychology: Its origins, development, and European background. New York: McGraw-Hill. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11039-000(1992). Levels of analysis of social interaction diaries: Separating the effects of person, partner, dyad, and interaction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(1-B), 608–609.(1933). Racial stereotypes of 100 college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 280–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0074049, & (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2063, & (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392547(1955). Salience of membership and resistance to change of group-anchored attitudes. Human Relations, 8, 275–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675500800303(1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. In E. E.Jones, D. E.Kanouse, H. H.Kelley, R. E.Nisbett, S.Valins, & B.Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 151–174). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.(1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034225(1983). Analyzing close relationships. In H. H.Kelley, E.Berscheid, A.Christensen, J. H.Harvey, T. L.Huston, G.Levinger, E.McClintock, L. A.Peplau, & D. R.Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 20–67). New York: Freeman., , , , , , , , & (1989). Political identity and perceived intragroup homogeneity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 239–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00866.x(1982). Gender and sex role differences in group decision-making social interactions: A behavioral analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 112–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1982.tb00853.x, , & (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/266996(1988). The analysis of data from two-person relationships. In S.Duck (Ed.), The handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 57–77). Chichester, UK: Wiley.(1990a). Design and analysis issues in dyadic research. In C.Hendrick & M. S.Clark (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology: Research methods in personality and social psychology (Vol. II, pp. 164–184). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1990b). SOREMO. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs.([Page 342]1991). A general model of consensus and accuracy in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 98, 155–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.155(1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford.(1994). Measuring similarity in couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 417–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3220.127.116.117, & (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 390–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.390, & (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 145–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.145, & (1993). The analysis of designs in which individuals are in more than one group. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 173–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00994.x, , , & (1992). Consensus at zero acquaintance: Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 88–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.168, , , & (1994). Enhanced coorientation in the perception of friends: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1024–1033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1244, & (1984). The social relations model. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142–182). New York: Academic Press., & (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1999, & (1980). Splitting the reciprocity correlation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 249–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.52, & (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185(1984). The use of power in organizations and interpersonal settings. In S.Oskamp (Ed.), Applied social psychology annual (Vol. 5, pp. 179–210). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.(1986). The influence of member status differences and task type on group consensus and member position change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 83–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206, & (1993). Multicultural task groups: An account of the low contribution level of minorities. Small Group Research, 24, 127–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496493241009(1926). Die psychologischen errungenschaften Nietzsches [The psychological achievements of Nietzsche]. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.(1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor?Journal of Management, 20, 403–437., & (1982). Whites’ beliefs about blacks’ opportunities. American Sociological Review, 47, 518–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095196, & (1990, January). The credibility factor: What followers expect from their leaders. Management Review, pp. 29–33., & (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393394(1979). Statistical analysis of dyadic social behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 217–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.217, & ([Page 343]1993). Use of mental frequency distributions to represent variability among members of social categories. Social Cognition, 11, 22–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.19220.127.116.11, , , , & (1991). Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others’ knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9, 2–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.1918.104.22.168, & (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. In E. T.Higgins & R. M.Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 333–368). New York: Guilford.(1993). Does the grist change the mill? The effect of the perceiver's inferential goal on the process of social inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 340–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167293193011(1995). Inferential hopscotch: How people draw social inferences from behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(2), 35–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770986, & (1995). Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us?Psychological Science, 6(3), 133–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00322.x(1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1979). The life cycle of groups. New York: Human Sciences Press.(1980). The life cycle of groups: Group developmental stage theory. New York: Human Sciences Press.(1988). Cultural capital. Sociological Theory, 6, 153–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/202113, & (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.(1982). Cognitive mechanisms mediating the impact of implicit leadership theories of leader behavior on leader behavior ratings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 129–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2882%2990245-8(1993). Groups as problem-solving units: Toward a new meaning of social cognition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 5–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00983.x, & (1995, June). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. Paper presented at the Nags Head International Conference on Organizations, Groups, and Social Networks, Boca Raton, FL., , , & (1994). Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 446–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1246, , & (1984). The impact of performance cues on leader-behavior ratings: The role of selective information availability and probabilistic response bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 323–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2884%2990027-8, , & (1981). The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychological Review, 88, 438–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.438, & (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In M.Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 127–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1977). Individual-to-group and group-to-individual transfer in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 246–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-73126.96.36.199, & ([Page 344]1987). Attributions of responsibility for collective endeavors. In C.Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Group processes (Vol. 8, pp. 167–188). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 38–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0057189(1896). The crowd. London: T. Fisher Unwin. (Originally published 1895 in French)(1992). Empathy: A physiological substrate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 234–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.52, & (1987). Social comparison and outcome evaluation in group contexts. In J. C.Masters & W. P.Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 105–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.003101, & (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L. B.Resnick, J. M.Levine, & S. D.Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 257–279). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10096-011, & (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 585–612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.003101, , & (1935). Dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.(1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1939.9713366, , & (1941). Studies in the principles of judgments and attitudes: IV The operation of “prestige suggestion.”Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 229–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1941.9921508(1990). Intuitive personality testing: A social approach (The 1989 Jos Jaspars Memorial lecture). In J.Extra, A.van Knippenberg, J.van der Pligt, & M.Poppe (Eds.), Fundamentele sociale psychologie (Vol. 4, pp. 3–20). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.(1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167295214009, , & (1987). Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 81–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.81, , & (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D.Kahneman, P.Slovic, & A.Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 308–334). New York: Cambridge., , & (1982). The complexity-extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 193–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206(1993). Exemplar and abstraction models of perceived group variability and stereotypicality. Social Cognition, 11, 92–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.19220.127.116.11, & (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of ingroup and outgroup members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.168, , & (1980). Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1249, & ([Page 345]1992). Recognition of expertise in decision-making groups: Effects of group size and participation patterns. Small Group Research, 23, 344–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496492233005, & (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. In L. L.Cummings & B. M.Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 87–128). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1978). The effect of performance cues and leader behavior on questionnaire ratings of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 27–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2878%2990036-3, , , & (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2884%2990043-6, , & (1982). A theory of leadership categorization. In H. G.Hunt, U.Sekaran, & C.Schriescheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp. 104–121). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press., , & (1990). Perceptions of leadership and their implications in organizations. In J.Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 129–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman., & (1980). Effects of sex and personality on perceptions of emergent leadership, influence, and social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 176–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.2.176, , & (1962). Group and individual behavior in free-recall verbal learning. In J. H.Criswell, H.Solomon, & P.Suppes (Eds.), Mathematical methods in small group processes (pp. 221–231). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press., & (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183006, & (1982). The effects of differential ascribed category membership and norms on minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 89–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420120107, , & (1987). Minority influence and conversion. In C.Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 8. Group processes (pp. 55–79). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., , & (1993). Symbols, conflict and identity: Essays in political anthropology. Albany: State University of New York Press.(1992). Knowledge of the advocated position and the processing of ingroup and outgroup persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 145–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167292182005, , & (1990). Processing of persuasive ingroup messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812–822. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1992, , & (1990). Interpersonal perception in a social context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 419–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.529, & ([Page 346]1986). The social relations model: An integrative methodology for personality research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 713–719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2063, & (1988). Cognition and personal structure. New York: Praeger., & (1977). Cognitive social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 550–566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616727700300402(1995). Empathic accuracy in a clinically relevant setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 854–869. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.114, , , & (1994). Interpersonal perception in group therapy: A social relations analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 776–782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.4.776, & (1995). The social relations model: A tool for group psychotherapy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 383–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-018.104.22.1683, & (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224, & (1994). The cultural construction off self and emotion: Implications for social behavior. In S.Kitayama & H. R.Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 89–130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10152-003, & (1986). Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 858–866. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1998, & (1987). The dynamic self-concept. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.001503, & (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G.Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1,, & (3rd ed., pp. 137–230). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1985). The helping tradition in the black family and community. Silver Springs, MD: National Association of Social Workers., & (1988a). Ingroup and outgroup minorities: Differential impact upon public and private responses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 39–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180104(1988b). Minority influence and social categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 369–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180407(1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face groups. Social Forces, 64, 377–402.(1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.215, & (1989). The nature of social influence in groupthink: Compliance and internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 250–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.52(1992). The effects of categorization on social judgment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 147–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00961.x, & (1992). Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00952.x, , , , & ([Page 347]1993). The creation of uncertainty in the influence process: The roles of stimulus information and disagreement with similar others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 17–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420230103, , , & (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.(1993). The JEMCO Workshop: Description of a longitudinal study. Small Group Research, 24, 285–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496493243002(1993). Memory of Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants for violent incidents and their explanations for the 1981 hunger strike. Psychological Reports, 73, 463–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.19184.108.40.2063, , & (1909). Social psychology as a counterpart to physiological psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 6, 401–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0072858(1910). Social consciousness and the consciousness of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 7, 397–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0074293(1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44(12), 1469–1481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1469(1984). Given versus induced category representations: Use of prototype and exemplar information in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 333–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-73220.127.116.113, , & (1965). Aspirations of group chosen by central and peripheral members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 224–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0021876, & (1982). The statistical analysis of dyadic social behavior: A multivariate approach. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 532–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.532, & (1945). Phenomenologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.(1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 45–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000401, & (1989). The social psychological effects of group decision rules. In P. B.Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence ((2nd ed., pp. 327–355). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076486, & (1986). Reciprocity of self-disclosure at the individual and dyadic levels: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 713–719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1683, & (1985). Cooperative interaction in desegregated settings: A laboratory analog. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 63–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01129.x, , & (1985). Egotism in group members: Public and private attributions of responsibility for group performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 85–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3033785, & (1995, August). Cognitive affective theory of person-environment psychology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.(1994). Back to the future: Social psychological research on groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 527–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1025, , & ([Page 348]1982). Group socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 137–192). New York: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601%2808%2960297-X, & (1988). Group dynamics over time: Development and socialization in small groups. In J. E.McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time (pp. 151–181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In P. B.Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (, & (2nd ed., pp. 143–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1992a). Problem identification by groups. In S.Worchel, W.Wood, & J. A.Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 17–47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1992b). The composition of small groups. In E. J.Lawler, B.Markovsky, C.Ridgeway, & H. A.Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 9, pp. 237–280). Greenwich, CT: JAI., & (1995, May). Training people to work in groups: The role of transactive memory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago., & (1980). Towards a theory of conversion behavior. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209–239). New York: Academic Press.(1993). Toward a social psychology of science. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 23(4), 343–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1993.tb00540.x(1972). Social influence, conformity bias and the study of active minorities. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 149–202). New York: Academic Press., & (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786541, , & (1983). Minority influence. In P. B.Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 41–64). New York: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5578-9_3, & (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0027568, & (1982). Minority influence and psychosocial identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 379–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420120405, & (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: A self-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 295–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2883%2990025-2(1987). Self-attention theory: The effects of group composition on the individual. In B.Mullen & G. R.Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 125–146). New York: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_7(1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representation: The phenomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2891%2990028-5(1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25, 189–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496494252003, , , & ([Page 349]1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220202, , & (Mullen, B., & Goethals, G. R. (Eds.). (1987). Theories of group behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-31989). Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 233–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1003_3, & (1990). Distinctiveness-based illusory correlations and stereotyping: A meta-analytic integration. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 11–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00883.x, & (1993). Cognitive representation in ethnophaulisms as a function of group size: The phenomenology of being in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 296–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167293193006, & (1995). Cognitive representation in ethnophaulisms and illusory correlation in stereotyping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 420–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167295215001, & (1994). Relative group size and cognitive representations of ingroup and outgroup: The phenomenology of being in a group. Small Group Research, 25, 250–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496494252006, , & (1988). Self-serving attributions for performance in naturalistic settings: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 3–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00001.x, & (1989). The impact of importance of comparison dimension and relative in-group size upon intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00840.x, & (1993). Aversive racism and resistance to affirmative action: Perceptions of justice are not necessarily color blind. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 71–86., , , , & (1982). Polarizing effects of social interaction. In H.Brandstatter, J. H.Davis, & G.Stocker-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Group decision making (pp. 125–161). London: Academic Press.(1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602, & (1975). Responsibility attribution in groups and individuals: A direct test of the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1111–1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1241, & (1981). Functional similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 427–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566%2881%2990039-8, & (1985). Relational trajectories: A personal construct contribution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 325–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407585023006, & (1986). Personal constructs in relationship deterioration: A longitudinal study. Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 253–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.19126.96.36.199, & (1988). Clinical guidelines for conducting interpersonal transaction groups. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 1, 181–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10720538808412775(1993). Constructivist approaches to the measurement of meaning. In G. J.Neimeyer (Ed.), Constructivist assessment (pp. 58–103). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.([Page 350]1996). Personal epistemologies and personal relationships. In D.Kalekin Fishman & M.Walker (Eds.), The construction of group realities (pp. 127–159). Malabar, FL: Krieger., , & (1991). Group perceptions as predictors of outcome in the treatment of incest survivors. Psychotherapy Research, 1, 148–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10503309112331335571, , & (1988). Similarity and attraction: A longitudinal study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 131–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026540758800500201, & (1983). Structural similarity in the acquaintance process. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 146–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.19188.8.131.52, & (1983). Conceptual differentiation, integration, and empathic prediction. Journal of Personality, 51, 185–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00861.x, , & (1980). On “social knowing.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 601–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616728064012(1992, June). Distinct systems for “where” and “what”: Reconciling the ecological and representational views of perception. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology Society, San Diego, CA.(1995). The distinctiveness effect in social categorization: You are what makes you unusual. Psychological Science, 6, 246–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.84.4.327, & (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23(1992). Minority dissent as a stimulant to group performance. In S.Worchel, W.Wood, & J. A.Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 95–111). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3033688, & (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs. minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 65–79., & (1977). Increasing the size of the minority: Some gains and some losses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 15–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420070103, , & (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2061, & (1965). Social psychology: The study of human interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston., , & (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231, & (1984). The impact of inhibiting or facilitating causal factors on group members’ reactions after success and failure. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 293–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3033827, & (1984). Motivation, planning, and action. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.(Nye, J. L., & Brower, A. (Eds.). (1994). Social cognition in small groups [Special issue]. Small Group Research, 25(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10464964942520091991). The effects of prototype-based biases on leadership appraisals: A test of leadership categorization theory. Small Group Research, 22, 360–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496491223005, & ([Page 351]1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C.Turner, M. A.Hogg, P. J.Oakes, S. D.Reicher, & M. S.Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 117–141). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.(1995). Becoming an ingroup: Re-examining the impact of familiarity on perceptions of group homogeneity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 52–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2787143, , , & (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell., , & (1990). Is limited information processing capacity the cause of social stereotyping?European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 112–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14792779108401859, & (1995, May). American gothic. The New Yorker, pp. 35–36.(1990). Teamwork in the cockpit. Training, 27(2), 34–38.(1983). Acquiring conversational competence. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul., & (1987). Rock climbing, rappelling, and sailing: Effective management and organization development tools?Consultation: An International Journal, 6, 145–157.(1991). Minority coping responses and school experience. Journal of Psychohistory, 18, 433–456.(1986). Process and outcome in psychotherapy. In S. L.Garfield & A. E.Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (, & (3rd ed., pp. 311–384). New York: John Wiley.1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: War stories and community memory among service technicians. In D. S.Middleton & D.Edwards (Eds.), Collective remembering: Memory in society (pp. 169–189). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1993). The lens of personhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 993–1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.113(1995). Social identities vs. possible selves in early adolescence: My future vs. our common fate. Manuscript submitted for publication., & (1995). A socially contextualized model of African American identity: School persistence and possible selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1216–1232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1686, , & (1990). Possible selves and delinquency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 112–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124, & (1993). The sociocultural self. In J.Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 4, pp. 187–220). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1993). Competence, delinquency, and attempts to attain possible selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 360–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1990, & (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of ingroup and outgroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051–1068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.521, & (1991). Effects of decision rule and task importance on willingness to share “unique” information. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(07), 3948B.(Makin’ homes: An urban girl thing. In B.Leadbeater & N.Way (Eds.), Urban adolescent female development. New York: New York University Press., , & (in press). [Page 352]1976). An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review, 83, 237–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.83.3.235(1977). Interpersonal distance, affect, and equilibrium theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 205–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1977.9924008(1982). A sequential functional model of nonverbal exchange. Psychological Review, 89, 231–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.3.231(1983). Nonverbal behavior: A functional perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5564-2(1991). A functional approach to nonverbal exchange. In R. S.Feldman & B.Rime (Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior (pp. 458–495). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1994). Strategic functions of nonverbal exchange. In J. A.Daly & J. M.Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 273–293). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1995). A parallel process model of nonverbal communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 3–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02173410(1991/1992). Impression management, cognitive demand, and interpersonal sensitivity. Current Psychology, 10, 263–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02686898, , , & (1989). Environmental influences on groups. In P. B.Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 111–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1901). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution, part IX. On the principle of homotyposis and its relation to heredity, to the variability of the individual, and to that of the race. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 197(Series A), 285–379.(1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206, & (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 5001–5039., & (1981). Lessons from the history of social psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 972–985. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.9.972(1952). Group learning of nonsense syllables. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 762–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0059790, & (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown., & (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press., & (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 12, 104–112.(1984). The accuracy of leadership ratings: A cognitive categorization perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 125–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2884%2990015-1(1981). Causal attributions and perceptions of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 143–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2881%2990020-9, & (1982). Schematic information processing and perceptions of leadership in problem-solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 486–492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.4.486, & ([Page 353]1978). The effects of sex composition of groups on style of social interaction. Sex Roles, 4, 281–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00287507, & (1735). To Mrs. M. Blount. In A select collection of poems. New London, CT: Springers.(1983). Neutralizing sexism in mixed-sex groups: Do women have to be better than men?American Journal of Sociology, 88, 746–762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/227731, & (1986). Information pooling and decentralized decision making. In B.Grofman & G.Owen (Eds.), Information pooling and group decision making (pp. 195–217). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1986, April). The impact of causal attributions on affect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York., , , & (1992). Effects of self-consciousness and social anxiety on self-disclosure among unacquainted individuals: An application of the social relations model. Journal of Personality, 60, 79–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00266.x, & (1990). Climate and culture: Interaction and qualitative differences in organizational meanings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 668–681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.668(Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10096-0001995). Spontaneous self-descriptions and ethnic identities in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 142–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.11, , , & (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367–386.(1992). Are gender differences status differences? In C. L.Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender, interaction, and inequality (pp. 157–180). New York: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2199-7_7, & (1977). Becoming a journeyman electrician: Some implicit indicators in the apprenticeship process. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 4, 87–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009392857741005(Effects of social anxiety and action identification on impressions and thoughts in interaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology., & (in press).1944). A dictionary of slurs. Cambridge: Sci-Art.(1987). Different clinical perspectives of good and poor therapy sessions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 335–342., & (1988). Time diary evidence about the social psychology of everyday life. In J. E.McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1957). The statistical measurement of agreement. American Sociology Review, 22, 17–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2088760(Transitions in children's participation in sociocultural activities. In A.Sameroff & M.Haith (Eds.), Reason and responsibility: The passage through childhood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(in press).1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3418.104.22.168(1978). Principles of categorization. In E.Rosch & B. B.Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.([Page 354]1974). On the social psychology of the self-fulfilling prophecy: Further evidence for pygmalion effects and their mediating mechanisms. New York: M.S.S. Information Corporation Modular Publication.(1908). Social psychology. New York: Macmillan.(1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill., & (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 322–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1242, & (1985). Social categorization and behavioral episodes: A cognitive analysis of the effects of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 81–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01130.x, & (1995, March). Dimensional complexity as an operationalization of prototype-exemplar cognitive representation. Paper presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston., & (1994). A phase model of transitions: Cognitive and motivational consequences. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 163–214). New York: Academic Press.(1991). Individuating processes in competition: Interpersonal versus intergroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 595–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167291176001, , , & (1994). Revising disrupted impressions through conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 530–541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1990, & (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 93–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2877%2990046-0, , & (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420210102, & (1990). Towards a refinement of cognitive therapy in light of interpersonal theory: I. Theory. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 87–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358%2890%2990108-M(1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392563, & (1987). Illusory correlation in the perception of individuals and groups. Social Cognition, 5, 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.19188.8.131.52, , & (1995). Social dating goals in late adolescence: Implications for safer sexual activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1121–1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2061, & (1943). Metre et le neant [Being and nothingness] (H.Barnes, Trans.). Paris: Gallimard.(1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062326(1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 85, 109–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109(1975). Group members’ attributions of responsibility for prior group performance. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 96–108.(1977a). Egocentrism in groups: Self-serving biases or logical information processing?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 755–764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.115, & (1977b). Group cohesiveness as a determinant of egocentric perceptions in cooperative groups. Human Relations, 30, 1039–1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872677703001106, & ([Page 355]1976). Self-esteem and group performance as determinants of egocentric perceptions in cooperative groups. Human Relations, 29, 1163–1176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872677602901205, , & (1990). Self-serving attributions in social context: Effects of self-esteem and social pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 855–863. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1685, , & (1990). A model for academic success: The school and home environment of East Asian students. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 21(4), 358–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1990.21.4.04x0596x, & (1992). The discontinuity effect in interpersonal and intergroup relations: Generality and mediation. European Review of Social Psychology, 3, 121–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14792779243000041, & (1990). Judging the typicality of an instance: Should the category be accessed first?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 964–974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1244, & (1970). On phenomenology and social relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1979). Cognitive structure: Theory and measurement of individual differences. Washington, DC: Winston., , & (1994). The semiotic mediation of identity. Ethos, 22(1), 83–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/eth.1994.22.1.02a00030(1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.67(1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: Saunders., , & (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27, 1–60.(1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper & Row.(1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robber's cove experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma, Institute of Group Relations., , , , & (1969). Social psychology. New York: Harper & Row., & (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127, & (1979). Toward a general model of small group productivity. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 67–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.1.67(1992). The motivational and emotional consequences of considering positive or negative possibilities for an upcoming event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 474–484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1994(1981). The relative accuracy of self-predictions and judgments by others in psychological assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 322–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.322, & (1990). The semiotic subject of cultural psychology. In L. A.Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 399–416). New York: Guilford., & (1990). Active training: A handbook of techniques, designs, case examples, and tips. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.([Page 356]1992). The perception of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity: Reintroducing the social context. In W.Stroebe & M.Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 1–30). Chichester, UK: Wiley.(1987). Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority-majority contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 703–711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.523, & (1990). Exemplar and prototype use in social cognition. Social Cognition, 8, 243–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.19184.108.40.206, & (1992). Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 99, 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.3, & (1994). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon., & (1989). Interruptions in group discussions: The effects of gender and group composition. American Sociological Review, 54, 424–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095614, & (1986). Status and participation in six-person groups: A test of Skvoretz's comparative status model. Social Forces, 64, 992–1005., , & (1992). Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 124–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978%2892%2990048-C(1985). Women's intuition: The effect of subordinate role on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 146–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.11(1992). Motivational foundations of behavioral confirmation. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 67–114). New York: Academic Press.(1978). Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 148–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2878%2990021-5, & (Sorrentino, R. M., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.). (1986). Handbook of motivation and social cognition (Vol. 1). New York: Guilford.Sorrentino, R. M., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.). (1996). Handbook of motivation and social cognition (Vol. 3). New York: Guilford.1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00893.x, , & (1985). Associative storage and retrieval processes in person memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 316–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7318.104.22.1686, , & (1991). Effects of multiple task demands upon memory for information about social groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 357–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2891%2990031-Z, & (1992). Accuracy and expectancy-confirming processing orientations and the development of prejudice and stereotypes. In W.Stroebe & M.Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 57–89). New York: John Wiley., & (1993). Mental representations of social groups: Advances in understanding stereotypes and stereotyping. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 357–416). New York: Academic Press., & ([Page 357]1992). Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social developmental literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 42–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.42, & (1991). Affective and cognitive determinants of prejudice. Social Cognition, 9, 359–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.1922.214.171.1249, , & (1988). Computer simulation as a research tool: The DISCUSS model of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 393–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2888%2990028-5(1992). Pooling of unshared information during group discussion. In S.Worchel, W.Wood, & J.Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 48–57). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1989). Influence processes and consensus models in decision-making groups. In P. B.Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (, , & (2nd ed., pp. 279–326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1996, & (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1012, , & (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 675–684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.525, & (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206, , & (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.117, & (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.168, & (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multi-level analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392337, , & (1995, August). Inhibiting the expression of intelligence: The role of stereotype vulnerability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York., , & (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.(1974). Whatever happened to the group in social psychology?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 94–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2874%2990058-4(1986). Paradigms and groups. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 251–289). New York: Academic Press.(1978). School desegregation: An evaluation of predictions made in Brown v. Board of Education. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 217–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.2.217([Page 358]1985). Intergroup relations. In G.Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 2 ((3rd ed., pp. 599–658). New York: Random House.1984). The role of ignorance in intergroup relations. In N.Miller & M. B.Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 229–257). Orlando, FL: Academic Press., & (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x, & (1995). Forming motivated impressions of a powerholder: Accuracy under task dependency and misperception under evaluation dependency. Manuscript submitted for publication, University of Massachusetts at Amherst., & (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 619–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1249, & (1992). Empathic accuracy in the interactions of male friends versus male strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 787–797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1997, & (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire—Form XII. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.(1974). Brainstorming by individuals, coacting and interacting groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 433–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0037273(1984). Psychotherapy in a new key: A guide to time-limited dynamic psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books., & (1987). Identity theory: Developments and extensions. In K.Yardley & T.Honess (Eds.), Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 89–103). Chichester, UK: Wiley.(1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics. Psychological Review, 91, 457–477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.4.457(1989). Using multivariate statistics (, & (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.1979). Individuals and groups in social psychology. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 183–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00324.x(1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. In M. R.Rosenzweig & L. W.Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 1–39). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.Austin & S.Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–50). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole., & (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.Worchel & W. G.Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (, & (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.1989). Sources of the self: The makings of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1986). Group members’ responses to group-serving attributions for success and failure. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 775–781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1986.9713659, & (1981a). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D. L.Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 83–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.([Page 359]1981b). The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In J.Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp. 189–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top-of-the-head phenomena. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249–288). New York: Academic Press., & (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331–376). New York: Academic Press.(1982). Attribution bias: On the inconclusiveness of the cognition-motivation debate. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 68–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2882%2990082-8, & (1985). Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations in social psychology: A useful dichotomy?Psychological Review, 92, 59–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.1.59, & (1988). Leadership training interventions: A review. Organization Development Journal, 6, 77–83., , & (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley., & (1976). Analyses of parent-infant interaction. Psychological Review, 83, 141–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.141, & (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.506(1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9, 653–669., & (1897). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1412188(1986). Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychological Review, 93, 239–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.239(1972). Carnivals, road shows, and freaks. Trans-Action, 9, 26–34., & (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022100(1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2, 419–427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404, & (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420050102(1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H.Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J.Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1987). The analysis of social influence. In J. C.Turner, M. A.Hogg, P. J.Oakes, S. D.Reicher, & M. S.Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 68–88). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.([Page 360]1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.(Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (Eds.). (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism, and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 237–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x, & (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. In P. B.Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (, & (2nd ed., pp. 233–275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205002, , , & (1989). Referent informational influence and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 135–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00855.x, , & (Uleman, J. S., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (1990). Unintended thought. New York: Guilford.1987). What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.3, & (1992). Prototypicality of arguments and conformity to ingroup norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 141–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220204, & (1980). Incorporation and mechanical solidarity in an underground coal mine. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 7, 159–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/073088848000700202, & (1993). Newlyweds tell their stories: A narrative method for assessing marital experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 437–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407593103010, , , & (1990). Minority influence and social categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 119–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420200204, , , & (1976). Frequency perception of successes as a function of results previously obtained by others and by oneself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 734–743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.524, & (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16, 57–91., & (1979). A new round-robin analysis of variance for social interaction data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1742–1757. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2062, , & (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256593, , & (1991). Member competence, group interaction, and group decision making: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 803–809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.803, , & (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B.Mullen & G. R.Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_9(1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923–929. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.113, , & ([Page 361]1985). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In W. J.Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 253–276). New York: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5044-9_12, , & (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393372, & (1975). The impact of cooperative learning experiences on cross-ethnic relations and attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 219–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00754.x, , & (1991). An introduction to multidimensional scaling. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 24, 12–36.(1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 682–693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.5.682(1982). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5, 441–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00845372(1974). The depressed woman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., & (1987). Social identity and group polarization. In J. C.Turner, M. A.Hogg, P. J.Oakes, S. D.Reicher, & M. S.Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 142–170). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.(1983). Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 943–953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1683, , & (1992). Ethnopsychology. In T.Schwartz, G. M.White, & C. A.Lutz (Eds.), New directions in psychological anthropology (pp. 21–46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1969). Attitudes vs. actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 41–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x(1979). An introduction to ecological psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.(1978). Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the outgroup. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1361–1374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1241(1986). Social categorization: Implications for creation and reduction of intergroup bias. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 291–355). New York: Academic Press.(1990). Some determinants of the persuasive power of ingroups and outgroups: Organization of information and attribution of independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1202–1213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1992(1981). Learning to labor: How working-class kids get working-class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1977)(1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.52, & (1992). Personal construct psychology in clinical practice. London: Routledge.(1996). Information sampling in mixed-sex decision-making groups: The impact of diffuse status and task-relevant cues. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Miami University, Oxford, OH.([Page 362]Tacit coordination in anticipation of small group task completion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology., , & (in press).1984). Family rituals. Family Process, 23, 401–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1984.00401.x, & (1973). Effects of cooperation and competition on responsibility attribution after success and failure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 220–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031%2873%2990011-5, , & (1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2061, & (The seasons of a group's life. In J.Deschamps, J. F.Morales, D.Paez, & H.Paicheler (Eds.), Current perspectives on social identity and social categorization. Barcelona, Spain: Anthropos.(in press).1978). Factors determining the effect of intergroup cooperation on intergroup attraction. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 428–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002200277802200304, , , , & (1994, July). Patterns of individual and group performance. Paper presented at 23 rd International Congress of Applied Psychology, Madrid, Spain., , & (1992). A developmental approach to group dynamics: A model and illustrative research. In S.Worchel, W.Wood, & J. A.Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 181–202). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., , & (1993). Toward a more balanced view of conflict: There is a positive side. In S.Worchel & J. A.Simpson (Eds.), Conflict between people and groups (pp. 76–92). Chicago: Nelson-Hall., , & (Changing the stereotype of stereotypes: Emphasizing the social side of the perceptions of groups. In R.Spears, P.Oakes, N.Ellemers, & S. A.Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell., & (in press).1973). Effects of anticipated performance on the attribution of causality to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 372–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034949, , & (1986). A social relations model test of the interpersonal circle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1285–1290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.115, & (1985). The simultaneous study of individual differences and relationship effects in attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1059–1062. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1689, , & (1988). Social memory and social judgment. In P. R.Solomon, G. R.Goethals, C. M.Kelley, & B. R.Stephens (Eds.), Memory: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 243–270). New York: Springer-Verlag.(1990). Cognitive representations of conversations about persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 218–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124, , & (1992). Theory and research on person impression formation: A look to the future. In L. L.Martin & A.Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgment (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., , , & ([Page 363]1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93, 322–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.322, & (1994). Handbook of social cognition (, & (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1985). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy ((3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.1982). Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 307–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073%2882%2990248-3, & (1987). Self-serving attributions for individual and group performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 257–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786826, , (1980). Cognition and social cognition: A historical perspective. In L.Festinger (Ed.), Retrospections on social psychology (pp. 180–204). New York: Oxford University Press.(1971). Motives and goals in groups. New York: Academic Press.(1985). The purposes of groups and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.(1990). Social perception. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.(
About the Contributors[Page 392]
Phyllis A. Anastasio is a social psychologist interested in changing group stereotypes through intergroup interaction. She is currently Assistant Professor of Psychology at Holy Family College.
Linda Argote received a PhD in Organizational Psychology from the University of Michigan and is currently Professor in the Graduate School of Industrial Administration at Carnegie Mellon University. She has also taught at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University and in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management at Stanford University. Her research and teaching focus on how groups and organizations acquire, retain, and transfer information. She is a Department Editor for Management Science and a Senior Editor for Organization Science. She also serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Organizational Behavior, the Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, and the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Betty A. Bachman is a social psychologist interested in intergroup relations in organizational settings, particularly during mergers and acquisitions. She is currently Assistant Professor of Psychology at Siena College.
[Page 393]Aaron M. Brower received his PhD in 1985 from the University of Michigan and is Associate Professor and Associate Director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Social Work. His current research explores differences between American subcultural groups in their educational attainment and life course decision making and on the roles played by goals and self-appraisals in meeting educational and developmental transitions. He has published widely in professional journals and is the Associate Editor of Small Group Research. In addition to coediting What's Social About Social Cognition?, he coauthored Social Cognition and Individual Change and Advances in Group Work Research.
John F. Dovidio is a social psychologist who does research on intergroup relations, prosocial behavior, and interpersonal dominance. He is currently Professor of Psychology at Colgate University.
Susan T. Fiske, PhD, is Distinguished University Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Her federally funded research focuses on motivation and stereotyping, and she is the coauthor, with Shelley E. Taylor, of Social Cognition (1984; 2nd ed., 1991). She is also the coeditor, with Daniel Gilbert and Gardner Lindzey, of the forthcoming 4th edition of the Handbook of Social Psychology.
Donelson R. Forsyth is Professor of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. He received his PhD in Social Psychology from the University of Florida in 1978. His research interests include individuals’ and groups’ reactions to performance feedback, self-maintenance, and ethical thought.
Samuel L. Gaertner is a social psychologist who does research on racism and intergroup relations. He is currently Professor of Psychology at the University of Delaware.
Richard Gonzalez, PhD, is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Washington. His research interests include decision making, group processes, statistical modeling of data, and psychology and law.
[Page 394]Stephanie A. Goodwin, MS, is finishing the PhD program in personality and social psychology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, after completing her undergraduate training at the University of Texas at Austin. Her graduate work has also included a year at the University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Her research interests lie in social cognition, especially stereotyping and power.
S. Alexander Haslam completed his undergraduate degree at the University of St. Andrews in 1985. After that he spent a year at Emory University as a Jones Scholar before completing his PhD as a Commonwealth Scholar at Macquarie University under the supervision of John Turner. After lecturing in the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Sydney, he took up a post as a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Psychology at the Australian National University. He is now a Lecturer in the same department. His primary interests are in the areas of stereotyping, social categorization, and group processes. He is the coeditor (with Craig McGarty) of the forthcoming book The Message of Social Psychology: Perspectives on Mind in Society and the coauthor (with Penny Oakes and John Turner) of Stereotyping and Social Reality (1994).
William Ickes is completing his PhD as a Commonwealth Scholar at Macquarie University under the supervision of John Turner. After lecturing in the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Sydney, he took up a post as a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Psychology at the Australian National University. He is now a Lecturer in the same department. His primary interests are in the areas of stereotyping, social categorization, and group processes. He is the coeditor (with Craig McGarty) of the forthcoming bookssistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Hofstra University. His research interests include social cognition and (inter)group perceptions.
Craig Johnson, PhD, is Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Hofstra University. His research interests are in the areas of social cognition and (inter)group processes.
Marianne E. Johnson has served on the faculty of the Department of Psychology at the University of Manitoba since completing her PhD [Page 395]in Clinical Psychology at Vanderbilt University in 1988. In collaboration with Hans Strupp, she has investigated recurrent relationship themes and other aspects of the psychotherapy process and has a particular interest in the use of the social relations model to study group process. She has recently completed training as an analyst at the C. G. Jung Institute in Zurich, Switzerland.
Karl N. Kelley graduated in 1987 with a PhD in Psychology from Virginia Commonwealth University. He is currently Assistant Professor at North Central College. His research interests include attributional and affective reactions following performance feedback and social psychology applied to organizational and education settings.
Ranjani Krishnan is a PhD student in the Katz Graduate School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh. Her research interests include group behavior, employment contracts, and incentive systems in managerial accounting.
Craig McGarty was educated at the University of Adelaide and Macquarie University, receiving his PhD from Macquarie University in 1991 (where he was a tutor from 1985 to 1989). His PhD (supervised by John Turner) was on categorization and the social psychology of judgment. He spent 1990 as a Lecturer in Social Psychology/Social Interaction at the University of Western Sydney, Nepean. In 1991, he moved to the Australian National University as a research associate. Since 1993, he has been a Lecturer in Psychology in the Division of Psychology at the Australian National University. He has worked on a wide variety of topics in experimental social psychology, approached from the perspective of self-categorization theory; his recent work has focused on categorization, social stereotyping and the perception of minorities, and social influence and persuasion. He is the coeditor (with Alex Haslam) of the forthcoming book, The Message of Social Psychology: Perspectives on Mind in Society.
Richard L. Moreland received a PhD in Social Psychology at the University of Michigan and is currently Professor of Psychology and Management at the University of Pittsburgh. He is interested in many [Page 396]aspects of small groups, especially the changes that they undergo over time. This interest has led him to study such phenomena as the formation and dissolution of groups, group development, and the socialization of group members. He is an Associate Editor for the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin and serves on the editorial boards of the journal of Experimental Social Psychology and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Brian Mullen, PhD, is Professor in the Department of Psychology at Syracuse University. His research interests include social cognition perspectives on (inter)group phenomena and meta-analysis.
Robert A. Neimeyer, PhD, is Professor in the Department of Psychology, University of Memphis. An active contributor to psychotherapy theory and research, the majority of his work has drawn on concepts and methods in personal construct theory and related constructivist approaches to personality and psychotherapy. He has published 14 books, including Personal Construct Therapy Casebook (1987), Advances in Personal Construct Theory, Vols. 1, 2, & 3 (1990, 1992, 1995), and Constructivism in Psychotherapy (1995). He is the coeditor of the Journal of Constructivist Psychology and serves on the editorial boards of a number of other journals. In recognition of his scholarly contributions, he was granted the Distinguished Research Award by the University of Memphis in 1990.
Judith L. Nye, PhD, is Associate Professor of Psychology at Monmouth University, New Jersey. Her current research focuses on social cognition group processes, specifically impression formation and the interaction between leaders and followers. Of additional and related interest are the effects of sex role stereotypes on impressions of leaders.
Daphna Oyserman received her PhD in Social Work and Social Psychology from the University of Michigan and taught at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem until 1991 when she joined the Merrill-Palmer Institute (Wayne State University), where she is currently a Research Scientist. Her research interests focus on the interplay between sociocultural context, self-concept, and everyday behaviors. Her research, [Page 397]currently funded by NIMH and the W. T. Grant Foundation, focuses on the interplay between social context, gender and ethnic identity, possible selves, and everyday behaviors, with a particular focus on school persistence, social obligation, coping, and well-being.
Martin J. Packer, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Psychology Department of Duquesne University. His research focuses on children's development in social context, employing an interpretive methodology. He is coauthor, with Richard Addison, of Entering the Circle: Hermeneutic Investigation in Psychology (1989).
Miles L. Patterson, PhD, is Professor of Psychology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. He is the author of two books and more than 50 chapters and scholarly articles on nonverbal communication. From 1986 to 1991, he served as the editor of the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.
Drew Rozell is a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Syracuse University. His research interests include intergroup perception phenomena, particularly the effects of skin tone on ethnic perceptions.
Mary C. Rust is a graduate student in the social psychology program at the University of Delaware. She is interested in intergroup relations.
Leo G. Simonetta, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Public Administration and Urban Studies at Georgia State University in Atlanta. He is also the Polling Director at the Applied Research Center at that university. His current research interests include group development and the socialization of new group members.
Garold Stasser received his PhD in Social Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is currently Professor of Psychology at Miami University (Ohio). His major scholarly interests include group decision making, information exchange and idea generation during group discussion, and computer simulation of social interaction. He currently serves as a Consulting Editor of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
[Page 398]John C. Turner is Professor of Psychology at the Australian National University. He did his BA (1971) and PhD (1975) degrees in Social Psychology in England at the Universities of Sussex and Bristol, respectively. He is a past Visiting Member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey (1982–1983), and has also held appointments at the University of Bristol and Macquarie University in Sydney. He is currently (1994–1996) Dean of the Faculty of Science at the ANU. His research interests are in social identity, intergroup relations, group processes, and social cognition, particularly from the perspective of self-categorization theory. He is coauthor of Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (1987) and, more recently, has published Social Influence (1991) and, with Penny Oakes and Alex Haslam, Stereotyping and Social Reality (1994).
Gwen M. Wittenbaum is Assistant Professor of Communication at Michigan State University and received her PhD in social psychology from Miami University (Ohio). Her research interests lie at the interface between social cognition and small group processes. Recent research has examined the impact of group discussion on social judgment, the effect of member status on information use in decision-making groups, and the influence of task and social information on group coordination. Along with Sandra I. Vaughan and Garold Stasser, she recently completed a chapter on group coordination to appear in the book Social Psychological Applications to Social Issues: Applications of Theory and Research on Groups.
Stephen Worchel, PhD, is the McFadden Professor of Liberal Arts at Texas A&M University. His research interests include group dynamics, conflict and conflict resolution, and intergroup behavior. More recently he has become interested in applying research in group dynamics into the areas of ethnic identity and conflict and political processes.