Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:19:04.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Task specificity and the impact on both the individual and group during the formation of groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2016

Eric Kruger ,
Jacob M. Vigil  and
Sarah S. Stith
Eric Kruger
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1161. [email protected]@unm.eduhttp://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/[email protected]
Jacob M. Vigil
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1161. [email protected]@unm.eduhttp://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/[email protected]
Sarah S. Stith
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1161. [email protected]@unm.eduhttp://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree with aspects of Baumeister et al.'s view that shared identities are necessary during initial stages of group formation. In contrast to their analysis, however, we provide evidence that the value of self-differentiation depends more on the task itself than on the stage of group development and challenge the authors to focus on the functions of the group.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e156
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, K. J. (1962) The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies 29(3):155–73.Google Scholar
Benkard, C. L. (2000) Learning and forgetting: The dynamics of commercial aircraft production. American Economic Review 90(4):1034–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandevia, S. C. (2001) Spinal and supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue. Physiological Reviews 81(4):1725–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoenigman, R., Bradley, E. & Lim, A. (2011) Cooperation in bike racing – when to work together and when to go it alone. Complexity 17(2):39–44. http://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20372 Google Scholar
Jetten, J., Hogg, M. A. & Mullin, B.-A. (2000) In-group variability and motivation to reduce subjective uncertainty. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 4(2):184–98. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.2.184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitano, H. (2004) Biological robustness. Nature Reviews Genetics 5(11):826–37. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1471.Google Scholar
Kravitz, D. A. & Martin, B. (1986) Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:936–41. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.936.Google Scholar
Landau, M. (1969) Redundancy, rationality, and the problem of duplication and overlap. Public Administration Review 29(4):346–58. Available at: http://doi.org/10.2307/973247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masumoto, J. & Inui, N. (2013) Two heads are better than one: Both complementary and synchronous strategies facilitate joint action. Journal of Neurophysiology 109(5):1307–14. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00776.2012.Google Scholar
Olds, T. (1998) The mathematics of breaking away and chasing in cycling. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 77(6):492–97. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/s004210050365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, K. H. (1990) Some characteristics of one type of high reliability organization. Organization Science 1(2):160–76.Google Scholar
Vigil, J. M. (2009) A socio-relational framework of sex differences in the expression of emotion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5):375–90; discussion 391–428. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09991075.Google Scholar