The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

68

Current Issue

November 2014 – Vol. 24, No. 3

Welcome

President’s Column

Lee Gillis, Ph.D.

President Gillis is focusing on a functioning group.

President-Elect Column

Dennis M. Kivlighan, Jr., Ph.D.

President-Elect Kivlighan recognizing excellence.

Editors Column

Tom Treadwell, Ed.D., T.E.P, CGP, and Leann Terry Diederich, Ph.D.

It was nice seeing many of you at the APA Annual Convention.

News

Call for Nominations for President-elect and for Member-

at-large Self-nominations will also be considered.

THE GROUP PSYCHOLOGIST

CURRENT PREVIOUS ABOU

1 2 3 4

Group Psychotherapy

Column: Experiential and

Didactic Group Therapy

Program: The Sad

Lady’s Group BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

69

Columns

Group Psychotherapy Column: Experiential and Didactic Group Therapy Program: The Sad Lady’s Group

John Breeskin, Ph.D.

Negativity as a Group Dynamic

Diversity Column: Diversity Committee Activities in 2014

Jeanne Bulgin Steffen, Ph.D.

Awarding of the 2014 Diversity Award, summary of the diversity committee symposium at APA, and recruiting new

members.

Brief Articles

University-Community Group-Centered Prevention Project with At-Risk Students: Four Year Study

Anna Louise Thompson, MA

A Reading Orienteering Club program allowing children who are failing in reading, to learn the basics following a

group modality.

Prevention Corner: Training Groups in Prevention

Elaine Clanton Harpine, Ph.D.

Training programs for prevention groups.

Committee Reports

Treasurer’s Report

Rebecca MacNair-Semands, Ph.D., FAGPA, CGP

Report of the convention costs for 2014.

Secretary’s Report

Jennifer Alonso, Ph.D., CGP

Group Specialty Report

Nina Brown, Ed.D.

APA Council Report

Sally Barlow, Ph.D., ABPP

Summary of action items

Early Career Psychologists

The Early Career Psychologist Update

Leann T. Diederich, Ph.D. and Tracy Thomas, Psy.D.

Recently recognized as the Division with the Best ECP Engagement.

Other Information New Journal for Group Practitioners

Joe Powers, Ph.D.

Group Training Survey: May 2014

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

7

0

Lee Gillis, Ph.D.

2014 Division 49 APA Convention Poster Awards

Rosamond Smith, M.A.

Women in Leadership

Susan H. McDaniel, Ph.D., ABPP and Nadine Kaslow, Ph.D., ABPP

Opportunities and Challenges for Women in Leadership

Book Review

Group Work Leadership: An Introduction for Helpers by Robert K. Conyne

Donald E. Ward Ph.D.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

71

Presidents Column BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

It is so great to be part of a good group. That describes our Society – a functioning group. This year’s convention

demonstrated how well we function from the work of Drs Jill Paquin and Joe Miles in crafting an excellent

program that attracted multiple APA attendees to hear papers, experience skill sessions and observe well- crafted

posters. We ended the convention with one of our signature institution, our annual social event hosted by Kathy

and John Ritter. We are so thankful for their service to the Society and hosting all these years.

Your Board has been a functioning group too. We have not been afraid to debate issues important to members –

to gather data – to make recommendations and to explore ways to invest our resources in ways that will benefit

the Society in the long run.

Below I have highlighted the initiatives of my presidential year with an update on progress. None of these

initiatives could have been accomplished without the involvement of your Board members as well as committee

chairs and their respective members.

Theme Connecting to the group experience

Initiatives for 2014 November 14 Update

Face of society

Embrace and utilize social networking connections to promote our publications, website and increase ourvisibility within APA and beyond

With Board approval and exceptional leadership of Secretary Dr. Jen Alonso, Social networking on Face book, Google+, and Linked In has increasedastronomically

Membership Connect the people who publish in the Journal with those who present

In progress as we consider proposals from two groups on who will publish Group

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

72

at the Convention and Dynamics for the next ten years.

write for the Newsletter – Ongoing discussions on the

be relevant to both need for and the feasibility of a

psychology and second journal focused on group

psychotherapy. practice

Promote Have appointed ECPs to APA

ECPs everywhere committees where possible: Dr.

throughout the Division. Paquin to Committee on Women

Help undergraduates

connect to group

psychology & group

in Psychology and Dr. Diederich

as liaison to the Board of

Professional Affairs

psychotherapy graduate Finding ways to communicate to

programs undergraduate psychology majors and those who teach them on opportunities for

studying and practicing group psychology and group

psychotherapy.

Member

benefits Google+ Hangouts, Face Successes attributed to book Group, Topic based Secretary Dr. Alonso, TGP editor phone discussions, Dr. Treadwell, Membership Newsletter, Journal, APA Director Dr. Diederich, and

Communities – places to Program Chairs Dr. Paquin & Dr.

share idea and connect Miles with like-minded

professionals. Recognition of Board members

for outstanding service

Infrastructure Ensure that Policy

manual is an accurate

representation of what

we do and when we do it;

and that the manual is

connected to the Bylaws.

In progress needing support

from all board members

Liaisons Making more

connections among

Divisions within APA;

Being involved onAPA

committees that matter to our members.

Success attributed to Program

chairs Drs Palquin and Miles as

well as Drs Diederich and Paquin

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

73

In my Presidential address I discussed how APA Undergraduate Guidelines offer learning objectives that focus on

teamwork. I issued a call for all of us to help those who teach undergraduates understand the need for helping

groups establish norms and boundaries of acceptable behavior. We are the experts here and have much to offer

our colleagues who might not understand the power of a small group experience. We know that power can be

very positive in a well-functioning group and destructive when a group falls into negative behaviors. Too often I

hear from my student’s horror stories of group experiences run amuck. Many of these bad experiences could

have been avoided had the professors set up some basic guidelines for operating in a group. Help your

colleagues understand how effective groups can be.

In the discussion following the address, many shared how other majors and programs outside of psychology were

seeking group classes for their students. We heard examples of pharmacy students, information technology

students, engineering students, and medical students all in need of learning what many of us teach – good group

skills. Look for opportunities in your circles of influence to offer group skills where needed.

Graduate training in group psychology and psychotherapy seems to be waning and this is a sad state of affairs.

Many of us know that group is not mentioned in APA’s Guidelines And Principles For Accreditation Of Programs

In Professional Psychology. We know what is not required is often not taught. I urge members to work towards

including group as an area of training for all professional psychologists. We hear too often that doctoral students

graduate with very little group training but are expected to conduct group sessions in their post-doctoral

employment. From the survey of Directors of Training, we know that group training is not emphasized to the

same extent as individual.

We must rally our voices and support group training. To that end, I want to applaud Dr. Nina Brown for her work

on having Group recognized as a specialty. We encourage and support Dr. Brown and the cross- association

team she has engaged to carry on with this important work.

Finally, to the wonderful Board and supporting cast that I have had the pleasure of working with – I am truly

grateful. Drs Maria Riva, Dennis Kivlighan, Rebecca MacNair-Semands, Jennifer Alonso, Leanne Diederich, Rex

Stockton, Joe Powers, and John Dagley – Thank you! To Tom Treadwell, David Marcus, Cheri Marmaroush, Eric

Chen, Jeanne Steffen, Jill Paquin, and Joe Miles – the Society could not have done this without you.

Thank you for a year I will not forget. I pass the gavel in confidence to Dennis Kivlighan who has some grand

plans.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

74

President-Elect Column BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

Dennis M. Kivlighan, Jr., Ph.D.

President-Elect

Recognizing Excellence As I write this column I am reflecting on the APA convention where we again met to conduct the business of our

society. As always it was a productive, fun and thought provoking meeting. Once again Dr. Lee Gillis ran a

wonderful meeting with just the right balance of attention to the task and socio-emotional aspects of our group

process. THANK YOU LEE! When I write my next column I will have assumed the reins from Lee and I hope we

will be able to work as effectively as under his leadership. I am also reflecting on the content of the convention

and the wonderful program put together by Drs. Jill Paquin and Joe Miles. We had a broad diversity of informative

and interesting programs and posters. THANK YOU JILL and JOE! For those of you not at the convention, you

missed a stimulating presentation by Dr. Les Greene, the recipient of the Arthur Teicher Group Psychologist of the

Year award. Les challenged us by giving us his list of group therapy research that he would not like to see any

more (thank goodness I did not make this list) and group therapy research he would like to see more. I found his

second list to be a great blueprint for the next generation of group therapy research. THANK YOU LES! As always,

however, my favorite part of the convention was the reception in the president’s suite. It is always a great time to

catch up with old friends and acquaintances and to get to know new people. For me our social hour always turns

a big, and at time overwhelming professional meeting, into an intimate and connected gathering. As Lee Gillis

likes to say, when he first came to the Division 49 reception at APA, he knew that he had “found his people”.

Most of you know that for a number of years Kathy and John Ritter have coordinated and hosted the reception for

the division. This was Kathy and John’s last year of coordinating our signature event and they will be greatly

missed. An especially big THANK YOU TO KATHY AND JOHN!!!!

In my last column I asked people to consider recording an interviewed modeled after the StoryCorps segment on

National Public Radio, describing their experiences with group, an important group mentor or with the Division. I

know that during the APA convention several people who worked with and were mentored by Jack Corazzini. I

hope that more of you will also decide to record an interview for our archives. In the rest of the column I want to

talk about a second initiative that I hope launch next year.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

75

In developing a new group initiative or advising a student about graduate study we may encounter questions like:

“I am the new group coordinator at my counseling center; which counseling center has an exemplary group

therapy training program that I can look to for a model?” “I am fascinated by how group work and sometimes do

not work, which graduate program will help me learn more about groups?” These and other similar questions

highlight the importance of exemplars. We all benefit when we can point to and model after programs of

acknowledged excellence. A second initiative that I want the board to consider is to a develop recognition that

can highlight exemplars of good training in group psychology and group psychotherapy.

I think that a major role of the Society of Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy is to encourage and

recognize excellence in group psychology and group psychotherapy training and education. Therefore, during our

midwinter meeting I will ask the board to consider creating three Excellence in Group Psychology and Group

Psychotherapy Training and Education Awards: one award to recognize an academic program that provides

exemplary training in group psychology, another to recognize an academic program that provides exemplary

training in group psychotherapy, and a third award to recognize an internship program that provides exemplary

training in group psychotherapy.

The awards that I envision would be modeled after two successful and important programs developed by the

American Psychological Association to promote the use of psychological science by schools and to recognize.

The Golden Psi Award, which comes with a $1,000 prize, recognizes schools that “do an exceptional job of using

psychological science to help students grow and learn.” The Suinn Minority Achievement Program Award is

presented “to a program that has demonstrated excellence in the recruitment, retention and graduation of ethnic

minority students.” Both of these awards recognize excellence AND they also are designed to encourage schools

to make more use of psychological science or to encourage programs to make an “overall commitment to cultural

diversity in all phases of departmental activity.”

In the similar manner the Excellence in Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy Training and Education

Awards would recognize excellence in these areas AND hopefully encourage programs and internships to

increase their attention to training and education in group psychology and group psychotherapy.

Jean Keim had the foresight to establish a foundation fund as her presidential initiative. One of the expressed

purposes of this fund was to be able to fund awards sponsored by the society. When our fund is fully endowed

one possible use of the revenue would be awards like the Excellence in Group Psychology and Group

Psychotherapy Training and Education Awards. The foundation fund is a great way to support our division please

consider contributing to this fund.

I would love to hear your thoughts and reactions about this potential award program that could be sponsored by

the division. You can contact me at dennisk@umd.edu.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

76

From Your Editors BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

Tom Treadwell, Ed.D., T.E.P, CGP Leann Diederich, Ph.D.

Noranne Kocher, MA, LPC Letitia Travaglini, MA

From Your Editors the Group Psychologist –

It was nice seeing many of you at the APA Annual Convention. Generally, we had an extremely successful

gathering and a great deal of work was accomplished.

In this issue, you can read about the following:

President Lee Gillis has focused his presidential term on helping undergraduates connect to both group

psychology and group psychotherapy graduate programs. Lee developed a team of students and Early

Career Psychologists (ECPs) who constructed a survey of graduate programs to ascertain the depth and

breadth of their graduate studies in-group. Preliminary results are reported in this issue.

Lee is also focusing on group specialists to help those who teach undergraduates understand the need

for helping groups establish norms and boundaries of acceptable behavior. He underscores that WE are

the experts and have much to offer our colleagues who might not understand the power of a small group

experience.

President Elect Dennis Kivlighan Jr. plans to focus on connecting and furthering the group experience

asking Society members to video tape conversations about groups and about the Society. He urges

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

77

members to consider participating in the GroupVoices project to record an interview for our archives.

Additionally, He is going to ask Division 49 board to consider creating three Excellence in Group

Psychology and Group Psychotherapy Training and Education Awards: one award to recognize an

academic program that provides exemplary training in group psychology, another to recognize an

academic program that provides exemplary training in group psychotherapy, and a third award to

recognize an internship program that provides exemplary training in group psychotherapy.

This issue of The Group Psychologist is our 3rd newsletter (Vol. 24, No. 3) delivered as an electronic edition

promoting a navigational format allowing members to traverse the pages quickly. We believe this is an excellent

way to offer expanded content in an electronic format to our membership beyond the content on the Division

website we have not heard back from membership. Yet we are curious as to how our members have received the

new version. We are entertaining the idea of sending a quick survey to members to gain feedback to assist us in

developing a reader friendly newsletter.

This issue has links to individual articles, tabs across top of pages (for current issue, past issues, guidelines for

authors, link to website, about TGP/the Division, how to join the division, and a link to Facebook ). If you like one

of the articles you read, be sure to comment, send it via email to a colleague, or “like” it on Facebook.

Articles or brief reports and news items can be e-mailed directly to Tom, Leann, Letitia, and Noranne at

ttreadwe@mail.med.upenn.edu, as can Letters to the Editor. We encourage your feedback regarding this

electronic format and want you to share your thoughts with us.

Tom Treadwell, Ed.D., T.E.P, C.G.P.

Editor

Leann Terry Diederich, Ph.D.

Associate Editor

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

78

Call for Nominations for President-electand for Member-at-Large BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

Self-nominations will be considered.

From the Bylaws:

The Committee on Nominations and Elections will issue a call for nominations to all members by the appropriate

deadline of the year prior to the calendar year. A validating procedure shall be used to assure that nominations are

made by appropriate voting members of the board.

The Nominations and Elections Committee shall seek advice on nominations from the Board of Directors and

other members of the Division currently or recently in leadership. Any eligible member recommended by the

Nominating Committee, a Board Member, or receiving at least 10 or more nominations from the general

membership shall appear on the ballot as a nominee after

ascertaining that the nominee is qualified and willing to serve if elected. At least two names should be placed in

nomination for each office.

President-elect

The President-elect shall be a member of the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors with the right to

vote and shall perform the duties traditionally assigned to a Vice-President. In the event that the

President shall not serve her/his full term for any reason, the President-elect shall succeed to the remainder

thereof and continue to serve through her/his own term.

The President shall be the Member or Fellow who has just completed a term as President-elect. The President

shall succeed to office on January 1 following the completion of her/his President-elect year. The President, or

her/his designee from the Board, shall preside at all meetings, shall be the Chair of the Executive Committee and

the Board of Directors, and shall perform all other usual duties of a

presiding officer. The President shall cast a vote at meetings of the Board of Directors only when the vote would

make or break a tie.

Member-at-large

Members-at-large of the Board of shall represent the interests of the membership at large on the Board of

Directors.

Please send nominations by October 31, 2014 to lee.gillis@gcsu.edu

Both elected members will begin service on January 1, 2016 and serve a 3 year term.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 79

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

80

Group Psychotherapy Column: Experiential and Didactic Group Therapy Program: The Sad Lady’s Group BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

Negativity as a Group Dynamic John Breeskin, Ph.D.

It would be totally naïve for a beginning group therapist to think, for a moment, that a group of people who are

motivated to interact positively with other group members would be free from the effects of negativity toward

other group members. The sources of this negativity, in my theoretical framework, are at least two:

1. The component contributed by the client’s overt behavior such as withdrawal, pressured speech, sporadic

attendance, diva demands for attention, obvious negativity and resistance. These should be addressed as

legitimate group dynamics in terms of the desire to grow counterbalanced by the desire to remain the same and

there are various group therapy techniques to turn the spotlight on such behavior. (Switching roles and being the

other person would be an example of one of these techniques.)

2. The 2nd contributing components to this negativity comes directly from family of origin dynamics where people

are replicating, in living Technicolor, old sibling rivalries, residues of unresolved conflict with parents,

dysfunctional family symptomology or even unresolved issues dealing with pain and loss. This is axiomatic and no

interpersonal interaction can ever be thought of as free from these dynamics and I state this point over and over

again in the ongoing life of the group.

It should be quite obvious that 2 different sets of strategies are appropriate for each of these situations outlined

above.

Regardless of what condition we are addressing, however, there are important communalities for the therapist to

have readily available.

When I am faced with these problematic behaviors, I mark the event in my memory, reject a response from my

reptilian brain and carefully think about how I’m going to reply to the negativity in the session next week. If I am

judicious in my response time I am allowing for a perhaps a wondrous event to occur. The client, himself or

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

81

herself, can come back the next week and actually apologize for his/her behavior and my challenge is to allow

space for this possibility.

If this providential event does not occur, then I will access Plan B. which deals with my individualized response to

the client’s behavior without blaming or shaming the client, but, instead, discussing and owning my feelings as to

the event that just happened. This style of intervention is offered as a role model for the group members to

emulate and some of them pick it up very quickly.

The theoretical model outlined above stems directly from Attachment Theory, called in oldspeak, conflict

resolution, psychoanalytic hydraulic pressure from sexuality, faulty conditioning by the behavioral- cognitive

therapists, genetic predisposition from the biology folks, or the Existential belief in the absurd.

I hope it is clear that I favor the last cited theoretical approach.

My approach in writing this note is to be clearly engaged in creative mischief. Please favor me with your

thoughtful replies in thatspirit.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

82

Psychology and Group Psychotherapy Diversity Column BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

Diversity Committee Activities in 2014

Jeanne Bulgin Steffen, Ph.D.

Awarding of the 2014 Diversity Award, summary of the diversity committee symposium at APA, and recruiting new

members

The Diversity Committee, founded as a subcommittee under the Society of Group Psychology and Group

Psychotherapy in 2007, was created with the overarching goal of promoting the inclusion and visibility of

underrepresented populations in the Division. In this column, I would like to focus on summarizing our major

activities for 2014. I would also like to focus on some of our goals for next year, including recruiting new members

and asking for nominations for the 2015 Diversity Award.

One of the major activities of our committee is to formally honor those individuals who have made significant

contributions to group psychology practice, research, service, and/or mentoring, with a focus on promoting

understanding and respect for diversity. Each year we encourage nominations from the Division for the Group

Psychology and Group Psychotherapy Diversity Award, which is presented at the Annual APA Convention. Dr.

Janice Delucia-Waack was recognized as the 2014 recipient of this award at the business meeting of Division 49

in Washington D.C. in August. Dr. Delucia-Waack has shown an impressive commitment to both group work and

issues related to diversity and multiculturalism. For instance, she has published The practice of multicultural group

work: Visions and perspectives from the field (2004), and has recently co-authored a chapter on diversity in group

work in the Oxford Handbook of Group Counseling (2011). She has also written the introduction to the section on

multicultural group work in the Handbook of Group Counseling and Psychotherapy (2004, 2014), as well as authored

and co-authored book chapters on “cultural biographies” (2009) and multicultural competencies in group work

(1996). Dr. Delucia-Waack has published numerous articles on issues related to diversity, both in group work, and in

other clinical and educational settings. Topics covered in such articles have included research with Latino

adolescents and articles on gender and gender role identity, homophobia, and social justice. Dr.

Delucia-Waak is a Fellow of Division 49 (and ASGW and ACA), and has served on the editorial board of Group

Dynamics and many other important journals in the fields of education and counseling. She has also served as

editor of the Journal for Specialists in Group Work for six years (1995-2001). Taken together, Dr. Delucia-Waak’s

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

83

professional accomplishments in the area of multicultural group work make her clearly deserving of recognition

from the Division 49 Diversity Committee. Congratulations, Dr. Delucia-Waack, and thank you for your

contributions to the field!

At the APA convention this year, the Diversity Committee engaged in providing an educational program to

increase diversity related conversations among our colleagues. This program was a symposium chaired by Dr.

Eric Chen entitled Evidence-Based Practice and Multicultural Competencies in Group Therapy: Multiple

Perspectives. The goal of the symposium was to highlight the complex intersection between evidence-based

practice and multicultural competence perspectives within the group therapy context from the perspectives of

researcher, educator, trainee, and practitioner. The contributors of the symposium presented papers covering four

topics, which included: (a) “Bridging the Gap between Evidence-Based Practice and Multicultural Competencies

Research” presented by Elena E. Kim, co-contributors/co-authors Leia A. Ting and Eric C. Chen; (b) “Teaching

Group Therapy: The Intersection of EBP and Multicultural Competencies” presented by Joseph R. Miles, co-

contributor/co-author Jill D. Paquin; (c) “Trainees’ Perspective on Becoming Local Clinical Scientists in Group

Therapy” presented by Andrea S. Pratt, co-contributors/co-authors Aaron Lauber and Eric C. Chen; and (d)

“Evidence-Based Practice and Multicultural Competencies: Group Therapists’ Perspectives” presented by

Jennifer Alonso. We had a very positive turn out as the number of people attending the symposium presentation

more than doubled at APA this year, with over 60 individuals in attendance.

As the chair of the Diversity Committee, I have a special opportunity to reach out the Division 49 members and

spark interest in diversity related topics through this column. In this issue, I am also hoping to spark interest

regarding recruiting new members to the committee and regarding inviting members to nominate deserving

colleagues for the 2015 Division for the Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy Diversity Award. The first

order of business for the committee each year is recruiting new members. Last March, we welcomed three new

student members to the group, including Brittany White, Joel Miller, and Jennilee Fuertes. As the new year

approaches yet again, we return to recruiting activities and I ask those who are interested in joining us to please

contact me. In addition, I ask you to please notice those colleagues around you who are working to engage

others, who are writing, mentoring, teaching and researching multicultural issues in group work and making

contributions to group psychology practice, with a focus on promoting understanding and respect for diversity.

Their work honors us and we would like to honor them. Please contact me to put forth their names so we can

acknowledge them in 2015.

Along with new members and diversity award nominations, I welcome comments, concerns and requests for

topics for future columns. My contact information is: jsteffen2013@gmail.com.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

84

University-Community Group-Centered Prevention Project with At-Risk Students: Four Year Study BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

Anna Thompson, M.A.

University of South Carolina Aiken

Abstract

The Reading Orienteering Club (ROC) is a university-community collaborative group-centered

prevention after- school project that focuses on the reading ability and comprehension of what

children are reading. This program’s concentration is on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd graders primarily from a

southern small town, population 29,884 with an ever increasing low socio-economic community base.

Reading is a vital skill necessary in order to survive and thrive in all aspects of life including school

and future jobs. The students who participated in this case study experienced academic problems in

reading, spelling, or comprehension. The ROC program, recorded the level of reading, spelling and

sight words using a pretest and post-test. Children were evaluated as to their improvement by age: 5

to 7-years-old, 8-years-old, and 9 to 11-years-old. Participation was open, free, and self-selected by

the parents, teachers, and other community after-school groups who are affiliated with the students.

The 1st hypothesis was: children who begin the program at younger ages will improve more than

children who begin when they are older. The 2nd hypothesis was: children who attend the program

for more than one year will show greater increases from pre to post test. Overall, the three groups of

children showed similar improvements in all literacy areas.

Outcomes of the program were positive and provided evidence of significant improvements from

pretest to post- test. Results showed that there were no significant main effects or interactions with

age group. The 2nd hypothesis was notsupported.

Keywords: group-centered prevention, prevention groups, after-school programs, reading failure

This study describes the outcomes of the ROC, “a year-long group-centered after-school

community-based prevention program that emphasizes phonological awareness, reading and writing,

spelling, and intensive hands- on instruction” (Clanton Harpine, 2013, p. ix). The ROC uses vowel

clustering, the 4-step method, and group- centered prevention interventions to improve the literacy

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

85

scores and behavior of the children, primarily 1st, 2nd, and 3rd graders, of Aiken County in South

Carolina. The 4-step method involves having the children: (a) capture tricky words, words they do

not know, (b) write the word correctly, (c) look up the words in the dictionary to find the definition,

(d) and write sentences using these words (Clanton Harpine, 2013). This lets the children correct

themselves, learn a new word, and get a better comprehension of the word. The main goals of this

program are for the children to practice “reading, writing, spelling, focusing their attention,

comprehension, following step-by- step instruction, learning new words, and practicing a specific

vowel cluster for the day” (Clanton Harpine, 2013, xi).

Torgesen believes “the ultimate goal of reading instruction is to help children acquire the knowledge

and skills necessary to comprehend printed material at a level that is consistent with their general

verbal ability or language comprehension skills” (2002, p. 10). At the ROC, a goal is to bring a child

from reading below the appropriate reading level to reading at or above their reading level (grade).

One study conducted used children from 14 elementary schools (Hatcher et al., 2006). The children

were split into two groups. One group received the small group intervention for 20 weeks and the other

received the intervention for only the second 10 weeks. During the first 10 weeks of the full 20- week

program, students who participated in the intervention improved more than the other children who did

not receive the first half of the program (Hatcher et al., 2006). On the other hand the second group

who only received the small group intervention during the second set of 10 weeks, caught up to the

first group. This may mean it does not matter how long the small group intervention is, but just that

the children participate in the intervention. The current study looks at the amount of time spent in the

program in order to see if more time spent in the program translates into more improvement. It also

looks at whether or not early intervention helps improve test scores. Targeted skills include taking

turns and sharing, building self-efficacy, working together, and motivation (Clanton Harpine, 2013).

A child’s self-efficacy is their belief that they can succeed.

Motivation Component

Motivation is defined as the inner power that makes people do what they do” (Clanton Harpine, 2013).

The key to motivation is that it is something that cannot be forced onto a person, particularly a child.

Motivation comes from different experiences and the affect that each experience has on the internal

mindset of the child. There are both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Extrinsic motivation comes

from quick automatic rewards such as ice cream after completing homework or a particular amount

of money for every A on a report card. The ROC does not reward students by using extrinsic

motivation, but focuses instead on intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is motivation that does not

come from receiving a prize after completion but the motivation to complete the task because of the

enjoyment and interest in the task at hand. “Intrinsic motivation can help children rebuild their self-

efficacy, change their approach to learning, and consequently, change their behavior” (Clanton

Harpine, 2008, p. 20).

The creator of the ROC has discovered several items that help a group-centered program like the

ROC, build children’s motivation, particularly intrinsic motivation. These according to Ryan and Deci,

include: “positive self- efficacy, efficacy expectations, outcome expectations, choice, competence-

affirming feedback, and self- determination” (Clanton Harpine, 2013, p. 56). Children are encouraged

to continue learning when not only the parents see improvement and give praise, but also when the

children themselves see an improvement in the struggling area. The ROC is a program that allows

children of different ages to work together as a team and not be judged based on their lower reading

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

86

skills. Each child has areas that may need improvement. They are able to receive the extra

encouragement, helping to increase their intrinsic motivation.

A study conducted by Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried (1994) discovered, using a longitudinal study

of 9 and 10 year-olds, that the intrinsic motivation practices of the group of 9 year-olds influenced

an increase in academic level when they turned 10. The study looked at verbal and math skills. The

predications of the experimenters were “children’s academic intrinsic motivation … [would be]

positively related to encouragement of task endogeny and negatively related to provision of task-

extrinsic consequences” (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1994, p. 104). The results of this study

supported these predications in showing the importance of internal motivation in academic success.

The current study looked at the impact of the amount of time spent in the ROC program and the

compared literacy scores of 46 children. These 46 children were grouped by age: 5 to 7-year-olds, 8-

year-olds, and 9 to 11- year-olds. The hypothesis was that the longer children continued in the ROC

program, the more their literacy scores would increase. Another hypothesis of this study was, the

early starting ages of children completing the ROC program would result in an increase of later

scores. In this study, Literacy includes reading, spelling, and comprehension. Literacy is important

especially as a child due to the influence it has on later life experiences including jobs, secondary

education, and day to day activities. All of these experiences involve literacy. Spelling is the skill of

putting letter sounds together correctly to form a word and reading is the skill of decoding these letter

sounds to read written or printed material aloud (Clanton Harpine, 2013). Comprehension is the

ability to understand what is being read and use what is read to: elaborate on material, continue

with stories, apply it to today’s world, and complete activities based on reading material (Clanton

Harpine, 2013).

This study tested the hypothesis that the early starting ages of children completing the ROC program

would result in an increase of later scores. This hypothesis was created due to Lyon’s idea that “if

children are not provided early and consistent experiences that are explicitly designed to foster

vocabulary development, background knowledge, the ability to detect and comprehend relationships

among verbal concepts, and the ability to actively employ strategies to ensure understanding and

retention of material, reading failure will occur no matter how robust word recognition skills are”

(1998, p. 10). Keller & Just showed that the white matter of the brain can change over time, even

though it takes more time and is harder with age (Keller & Just, 2009). They tested 62 children with

ages ranging from 8-years-old to 12-years-old. Attitude, motivation, and stigmatization of failure play a

major role in change with these older children which can cause for change to be more difficult. The

second alternative hypothesis of this study was, the longer children continue in the ROC program, the

more their literacy scores would increase.

Method

Participants

The participants of this study included 46 children who received no compensation or coercion in

participating. There were 25 male participants and 21 female participants. Eighteen participants

were ages 5 to 7-years-old. Eleven of the participants were 8-years-old. Seventeen of the

participants’ ages ranged from 9-years-old to 11- years-old. All the participants were enrolled in the

Aiken County school system. Starting ages ranged from 5 years old to 11 years old. Sixteen

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

87

participants were Caucasian, 28 participants were African American and three were of mixed descent.

Materials and Procedure

In order to correctly test the reading level of each child, the children all completed the same test. The

skills were assessed using the Howard Street Tutoring Manual, 2nd ed. (2005) by Darrell Morris. The

test data on reliability and validity of test was also completed by Morris (Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1990;

Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2000). The 46 children were first tested before the program begins in the

fall to get a starting level. Then the children were tested using the same test in the winter as a mid-

point test to see any improvement made and any areas that may need more help. Lastly, the 46

children were tested in the spring at the completion of the program for that year to see how far they

improved. Fourteen of the children who completed the ROC program continued for an additional year

and were tested before the start of the school new year and again for mid-point testing. Two of the

children continued for an additional third year and received the same testing. Testing effects have

been evaluated previously in order that the children are not scoring better on the later tests just

because they have

already completed the test. There was no testing effect discovered.

Each child was given the same test during the beginning, middle, and end of the ROC program. The

test consisted of reading, spelling, comprehension, and sight word sections. Each section was then

split into three more sections, which corresponded to 1st grade, 2nd grade, and 3rd grade levels.

Scores were organized by reading level and the amount missed, spelling level and the amount

missed, sight word level and the amount missed, and the comprehension scores which consisted of

the amount missed by the participants. Levels 1, 2, 3 represents before 1st grade. Level 4 represents

1st grade, 5 represents 2nd grade, 6 represents 3rd grade, and 7 represents 4th grade.

Design

This study is a quasi-experimental study. The dependent variable is the scores for each of the literacy

areas. The two independent variables for hypothesis 1 are ages of the children and the time of

measurement. The independent variable for hypothesis 2 is the amount of time in the program. This

study has a mixed design with the independent variable of, time of measurement, and the age and

gender of the between-subject variable. Three different age groups include: 5 to 7-year-olds, 8-year-

olds, and 9 to 11-year-olds. The 46 children who completed the Reading Orienteering Club (ROC) fall

under one of these categories of ages. Eighteen of these children started at the age of 5 to 7-years-old,

11 of these children were 8-years-old, and 17 of these children started at the ages of 9 to 11-years-

old.

Results

The first hypothesis was tested using a repeated measures ANOVA. It was 3 (Ages) x 3 (pre, mid,

post) using mixed design. Overall, the three groups of children; aged 5 to 7-year-olds, 8-year-olds,

and 9 to 11-year-olds showed similar improvements in all literacy areas. The results showed boys

and girls improved from pretest to midtests, but not much improvement from mid-test to posttest, no

matter their ages, for the level of spelling. Thirty-five percent of the variations in spelling scores were

explained by the ages of the participants. There was a significant main effect for age based on

spelling, F(2, 4) = 6.93, p = .002. There was also a significant main effect for age based on reading,

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

88

F(2, 4) = 19.87, p = .000. Overall from midpoint testing to post testing all participants improved; from

pretest to posttest, the younger age groups improved. This supports the hypothesis for younger

children improving more than the older children, due to a main effect for time based on the age

groups, F(4,4), p =

.033. Looking at the data generally, everyone still improved. A significant main effect was sight

words, F(2, 4) = 9.06, p = .000. From the mid-tests to post-test, the younger children showed

improvement. This also supports the hypothesis: the early starting ages of children completing the

ROC program would result in an increase of later scores. The last significant main effect was found

for comprehension, F(2, 4) = .64, p = .000. From pretest to post- test, all groups improved. The

stigmatization of failure, mentioned earlier, may also be part of the reason for not receiving stronger

change with the older students.

A second aspect of this study also involved the 46 children. These 46 children represent three

years of participation. Thirty children finished the ROC program in one year. Fourteen children took 2

years to complete the program and two of the participants took 3 years to complete. Participants who

took 2 years and 3 years to complete the program were put into one group, which was compared to

the children who were able to complete the program in 1 year. There was a significant main effect for

the amount of time spent in the program based on spelling, F(2, 2) = 5.96, p = .004. Participants

improved as much the second years, as they did the first year.

Unfortunately, there was not a significant main effect for reading, F(2, 2) = 2.07, p = .133. Everyone did

show signs of improvement. A significant main effect was found for comprehension comparing time

and years, F(2, 2) = 0.17, p = .007. The children who completed the ROC program in 1 year improved

more from midpoint test to post-test. Overall, children who completed the program in 1 year did better

than children who took a longer period of time.

Lastly there was not a significant main effect was sight words, F(2, 2) = 1.73, p = .184. Participants

did still improve overall.

Discussion

There was not much support for the hypothesis that staying in the program for a longer length of time,

increased test scores. The only set of scores that showed significance for this hypothesis was the

reading comprehension scores that showed one group improving more from mid-test to post-test. In

this instance the group of children who showed significant improvement above the rest was the

participants who completed the program in one year.

There are many reasons for the hypothesis to not be supported. One reason for the hypothesis to

not be supported involves the nature of the second and third year children. The case may be that the

children who have to continue on for another year or 2 have more serious learning problems, which

would take more work and time, than the children who finished the program in one year. The analysis

itself may also cause for no significance to be reported. Age was reported as a covariate which is a

statistical way to look at a comparison group that is not reported. This compares the current data to

an above and beyond natural group. The data was briefly analyzed without using age as a covariate,

but was not used due to the lack of a real comparison group. Overall, the ROC program has shown

improving scores of participants. The concept behind the ROC program is to help all children learn

how to read in order to better their lives now and in the future.

References

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

89

Clanton Harpine, E. (2008). Group Interventions in Schools: Promoting Mental Health for At-Risk

Children and Youth. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-77317-9

Clanton Harpine, E. (2013). After-School Prevention Programs for At-Risk Students: Promoting

Engagement and Academic Success. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7416-6

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/

Gottfried, A., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices

in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 86(1), 104-113. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.104

Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., Miles, J. V., Carroll, J. M., Hatcher, J., Gibbs, S., & … Snowling, M. J.

(2006). Efficacy of small group reading intervention for beginning readers with reading-delay: A

randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Psychologyand Psychiatry, 47(8), 820-827. doi:

10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01559.x

Keller, T. A., & Just, M. A. (2009). Altering cortical connectivity: Remediation-induced changes in the

white matter of poor readers. Neuron, 64, 624-631. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.10.018

Lyon, G. R. (1998, April 28). Overview of reading and literacy initiatives. Retrieved

July 14, 2014, fromhttp://www.nrrf.org/learning/overview-of-nichd-reading-and-

literacy-initiatives/

Morris, D., Shaw, B., & Perney, J. (1990). Helping low readers in grades 2 and 3: An after-school

volunteer tutoring program. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 133-150. doi:10.1086/461642

Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early Steps: Replicating the effects of a first-grade reading

intervention program. Journalof Educational Psychology, 92(4), 681-693. doi:10.1037/0022-

0663.92.4.681

South Carolina State Department of Education. (2014). Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov

Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 7–26

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

90

Prevention Corner BY PUBLISHER on JUNE 26, 2014

This is our second column on our series on developing training programs in group prevention. In our last column,

two experts in the field of group prevention, Robert K. Conyne, Ph.D. and Arthur M. Horne, Ph. D., presented two

perspectives on training prevention groups: (1) the American Psychological Association Guidelines for Prevention

in Psychology (APA, 2013) and (2) training with an awareness toward social justice. We received a response to

that column and continue the discussion.

EDITORIAL QUESTION POSED:

Dear Prevention Corner:

I read the column each time, and I know that you are talking about training programs at the college level—course

work training. My question though is: what is the best way to train workers for a community or school program? I

attended your APA convention workshop a couple of years ago on developing and designing group prevention

programs. I came home excited and overflowing with ideas. I followed the workbook that you gave us, set up my

program, held a training session, but then I ran into a brick wall. I work in a school where half of our students drop

out before graduation because they cannot read. I want to keep students in school by helping them learn to read.

The other teachers who volunteered to work in the program wouldn’t listen; they went back to teaching reading

using the same way they have for years. My program failed. How can I train people to use these new prevention

ideas?

Signed,

In Need of Help.

RESPONSE:

Dear In Need of Help:

I want to thank you for bringing to the discussion a very important point that we have failed thus far to emphasize:

training in group prevention must include (1) training at the university level for professionals planning to specialize

and work with prevention groups and (2) training in the community or at the prevention group level with volunteers,

health practitioners, teachers, or others who may be leading or working with prevention groups. While

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

91

it is essential that we increase course work and training at the university level, it is just as essential that we provide

effective training programs for volunteers or others who use the group prevention format.

Universities do not always see the necessity for adding new courses in group prevention, and community

and school prevention groups do not always see the need for extensive training in prevention techniques

and interventions. Change is often hard to accept.

Introducing a change or new group prevention approach for solving an old established long-standing problem is

even more difficult. I truly understand your frustration, and trust me, you are not alone. I just spoke this past week

with a nurse working with obesity prevention groups. She was also complaining that her prevention group leaders

would not change and try new prevention techniques. Her nursing staff was accustomed to lecturing to obesity

patients and therefore saw no need to change to a more interactive format.

In reading, change is twice as hard. You are not only trying to train workers to use new group prevention

techniques (such as cohesion and interaction); you are also trying to train workers to use a totally new and

different approach to teaching reading.

According to the Nation’s Report Card, approximately 40% of students across the nation are unable to read at

grade level (Nation’s Report Card, 2013). This is not a new statistic, and the problem did not occur yesterday.

The problem has been compounding without any sign of significant improvement for the past 12 years. With

such a staggering history of failure, you would think that we would be eager to engage in a new approach. Such

is not the case. Even after Congress commissioned the National Reading Panel (2000) to ascertain the most

successful method for teaching reading and the panel stated that phonemic awareness (the teaching of

sounds and decoding of sounds) was the best method for teaching students to read, the whole- language fight

goes on.

The National Reading Panel (2000) stated emphatically that phonemic awareness worked better than “old style”

phonics and better than whole-language—even blended methods. Yet, the majority of schools across the nation

today still handout sight word strips for students to memorize each week (whole-language); even though,

such methods have been proven ineffective (Blaunstein & Lyon, 2006; Fleming et al., 2004; Foorman et al., 2003;

Keller & Just, 2009; McGuinness, 1997; National Reading Panel, 2000; Pullen Paige & Lane, 2014; Vaughn,

Denton, & Fletcher, 2010). Phonemic awareness is not the same as old-style phonics or the new blended

method. Shaywitz and Shaywitz (2007), Co-directors for the Yale Center for the Study of Learning, state it best:

In order for a child to learn to read, the child must learn that (1) each and every word is composed of individual

sounds (phonemes), (2) these sounds are represented by alphabetic letters, (3) some letters represent several

sounds, and that (4) children or any struggling reader (Shaywitz, 2003) must learn how to pull words apart

into their elemental phonemes and then put the letter sounds back together into words that have meaning.

Research has solidly proven that phonemic awareness (sounds) and the phonological understanding of those

sounds and how they work together to form a word is by far the best way to teach children to read. Yet, there are

still universities teaching new prospective teachers the whole-language method for teaching reading. Just this

past week, a parent complained that her Kindergartener was failing because she could not memorize her sight

word list each week (a whole-language technique). A college professor spoke to me recently and explained that

all children need is more exposure to books. “If someone would just read to them, then the children could learn

how to read.” Reading is a skill that must be taught; you cannot simply learn how to read by listening to someone

else. Community groups are organizing to purchase and distribute new books in order to teach children to

read, but simply handing a child a book, even a new book, will not teach the child how to read.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

92

The newest trend is excitement. Pep rallies, costume characters, book collection drives, and free gifts are the

latest fad in teaching children how to read. No, excitement is not the answer. Such an approach would be like

giving someone a book in French. If they had not learned French, the book would be worthless because someone

not schooled in reading French would not be able to read the book. Don’t get me wrong. I think that giving a child

or teenager a book (new or used) is the best gift that you can ever give, but simply handing a child a book will not

teach a child to read (even if the book is distributed through a very exciting program by a costumed character).

You must teach the child to read first, and then give the child a book.

If you want to develop a group prevention program to teach children and teens to read, you must first combat

this age old unwillingness to change from whole-language teaching techniques to phonemic awareness and

phonological teaching techniques. Therefore, in your group prevention training program, you are not only

teaching that prevention groups must be interactive (Conyne & Clanton Harpine, 2010); you must also prove that

there is a need for a change and that prevention groups will offer the best means of change for your students.

No, this will not be easy because you are combating years and years of denial. The challenge will be to change

the ideology of your group leaders in respect to reading. You may not be able to accomplish this within the

schools. If you encounter too much resistance to change, you might try establishing an after-school program

through a community organization. After-school community-based programs can offer you more freedom and

the opportunity to try new prevention ideas.

You may also find that you want to set up skill-building training sessions for your workers or volunteers so that

they can learn how to work in a group setting. A prevention group is more than just a discussion, and it is

certainly not the time for a lecture. Your training sessions may need to incorporate interaction and cohesion so

that your workers can see how to use interaction and how to help group members build a cohesive group

atmosphere. I find the best way to do this is by using group prevention techniques and interventions in my

training sessions.

Instead of the age old tradition of standing in front of your workers and explaining to them what you want them to

do or lecturing to them about how the program will be conducted, set up training sessions that use a group

prevention format. For example, I use group-centered prevention workstations for my program and my training

sessions. In this way, workers and volunteers get to experience prevention techniques during the training program

instead of just listening to me talk about interaction, cohesion, and working together as a group.

My answer to your question, how can you best teach people to use new prevention techniques, is to show your

workers and volunteers how group prevention works during your training program. Let them experience group

prevention in action.

We would like to continue this discussion and invite your comments and responses. Our next column will be

devoted to the responses that we receive. Let us hear from you. We welcome your participation. We invite

psychologists, counselors, prevention programmers, graduate students, teachers, administrators, and other

mental health practitioners working with groups to network together, share ideas, problems, and become more

involved. Please send comments, questions, and group prevention concerns to Elaine Clanton Harpine

atclantonharpine@hotmail.com

References

Blaunstein, P., & Lyon, R. (2006). Why kids can’t read: Challenging the status quo in education. Lanham, Maryland:

Rowman and Littlefield Education.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

93

Conyne, R. K., & Clanton Harpine, E. (2010). Prevention groups: The shape of things to come. Group Dynamics:

Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 193-198. doi:10.1037/a0020446

Fleming, C. B., Harachi, T. W., Cortes, R. C., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2004). Level and change in

reading scores and attention problems during elementary school as predictors of problem behavior in middle

school. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 130-144.

Foorman, B. R., Breier, J. I., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Interventions aimed at improving reading success: An

evidence-based approach. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24, 613-639.

Keller, T., A., & Just, M. A. (2009). Altering cortical connectivity: Remediation-induced changes in the white matter

of poor readers. Neuron, 64, 624-631. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.10.018

McGuinness, D. (1997). Why our children can’t read and what we can do about it: A scientific revolution in

reading. New York: The Free Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: Reading 2013 (NCES 2012-457).

National Center for educational statistics, Institute of education sciences, US Department of Education,

Washington DC.

National Reading Panel, (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific

research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4754).

Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

Pullen Paige, C., & Lane, H. B. (2014). Teacher-directed decoding practice with manipulative letters and word

reading skill development of struggling first grade students. Exceptionality, 22, 1.

Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming Dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at

any level. New York: Knopf.

Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2007). Special topic: What neuroscience really tells us about reading instruction: A

response to Judy Willis. Educational Leadership: Improving instruction for students with learning needs, 64(5), 74-

76.

Vaughn, S., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010). Why intensive interactions are necessary for students with

severe reading difficulties, Psychology in the Schools, 47, 432-444.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

94

Treasurer’s Report BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

As I write my last newsletter update for the Financial Committee, I am happy to report that convention costs for

2014 came in under projected budget this year again by over $1000. Funds for advertising provided attendees the

division’s programming with the hard work of Rosamond Smith (Student Representative Elect), and creative new

buttons (“Keep Calm, I’m a Group Therapist”) for our nametags sparked many conversations about the society.

We decided at the board meeting to increase our funding for the assistant who has been working on our social

media postings with group-related visuals. We also funded the poster awards for a total of $600 and the Richard

Moreland Dissertation Award, with the society contributing $500 toward that honor. We were also able to fund a

reasonable Early Career breakfast and use the suite with snacks provided for other activities such as StoryCorps-

type interviewing about group mentors, initiated by Dennis Kivlighan. So, thanks to Leann Diederich and her ECP

clan! Special thanks also to Kathy and John Ritter, for organizing the food and beverages for the social again for

their final year before the ECP committee takes on this task and potentially expands our socials programs.

As we are considering the funding implications of our potential project of creating a new journal through the

division, we have been engaged in a variety of exploratory conversations. I have also been collecting information

on investment options to pass along to the new Treasurer, Amy Nitza, who begins her term in January 2015.

In closing, I feel so honored to have worked these three years with such a quality group of people. The dedication

and kindness of our board members has been impressive and invaluable. I will miss you all dearly, but plan to stay

in touch!

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

95

Publication Chair Report / Secretary BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

One of my roles as the Secretary includes integrating and updating the information between the Society’s journal,

online newsletter, conference programming, website and social media. Since the last newsletter, we have made

updates to the Society’s APA website to ensure information is accurate and up to date. This is a helpful resource

for those interested in getting in touch with the Society’s leadership and a place to identify volunteer opportunities

for those interested in serving in the Society. A new addition includes the Member of the Month column which

provides you a chance to get to know others in the Society. In addition, if you are interested in getting involved in

the Society, consider viewing the committees offered and contacting the chair to get involved. I hope you will

utilize APA’s MyCommunities site. It is a forum where members can view information related to the running of the

Society. You will find business and board meetings for the recent August 2014 convention, as well as previous

years, the bylaws, policy manual, and more.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

96

Group Specialty Report BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

Group Specialty Council

The Group Specialty Council is the committee charged with developing the petition to the Commission for the

Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology (CRSPPP) to have group psychology

and group psychotherapy designated as a specialty for training programs. The American Board of Professional

Psychology (ABPP) has designated group as a specialty for individuals, but previous petitions to CRSPPP for

recognition of group as a specialty or as proficiency were not successful, and the Society’s Board voted in 2012

to continue the process for developing a new specialty petition for CRSPPP. Much has changed since the initial

petition including the composition of the supporting group such as the Group Specialty Council, a need for by-

laws and documented regular meetings of the Group Specialty Council, and the comprehensiveness of the

petition package.

The Group Specialty Council (GSC) was organized to comply with the CRSPPP requirement that the supporting

group be composed of organizations interested in having group as a specialty, and who will sponsor

representatives to the Council. This is a change from having the group composed of individuals who are so

interested. In the initial effort to organize the GSC, invitations were sent to 20 organizations including 11 APA

divisions; 8 (Social), 12 (Clinical), 14 (Industrial/Organizational), 16 (School), 17 (Counseling), 19 (Military), 29

(Psychotherapy), 39 (Psychoanalysis), 45 (Ethnic Minority), 50 (Addictions) and 53 (child and Adolescent); and

other organizations such as ASGW, the Washington School of Psychiatry, the Adelphi postgraduate training

program, AGPA, Northeastern Group Psychotherapy Society, Eastern Group Psychotherapy Society and Northern

California Group Psychotherapy Society. Two of the 20 replied and declined, and no response was received from

16. Our present GSC is comprised of 12 members: Eleanor Counselman (AGPA President-elect), Kathy Ulman

(CGP and AGPA Past President), Martyn Whittingham (Catholic Health Partners), Joss Gross ( University of

Florida), Andy Eig (Adelphi Post Graduate Training Program) Sally Barlow (ABPP), Joel Frost (ABPP), Loretta

Braxton ( Durham VA), and Cheri Marmarosh (Chair of ERT – The Society), Sam James, Miska Bogomaz, and

Nina Brown (The Society’s representative to CoS).

The GSC held a meeting during the APA convention on August 9th and addressed the following items: election

of officers (President – Nina Brown, Secretary – Eleanor Counselman), review of proposed By-laws, a review of

the history of the petitions presented by Sally Barlow, discussion of the feasibility of submitting a petition for

specialty or for proficiency, and a discussion held with Dave Corey (Police and Public Safety Specialty) who

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

97

agreed to

mentor us through the process. He suggested that we could expedite our petition by applying for specialty at the

post-licensure level and petition for the other levels at a later time.

I consulted with the director of APA Education Directorate about the suggestion that we apply for post-licensure

recognition as a specialty, but it was not clear that we could submit additional petitions for the other levels at a

later date. After consultation with GSC members, we decided to create a petition for designation of group as a

specialty at the Internship, Post-doc, and Post-licensure levels.

Following is an abbreviated list of the materials that need to be developed in all three petition areas.

“Criterion IV. Distinctiveness; A specialty differs from other recognized specialties in its body of specialized

scientific knowledge and professional application”. We have to document how the group specialty differs and

overlaps other specialties “for populations, problems, procedures and techniques for assessment, intervention,

consultation, supervision, research and inquiry, public interest, continuing professional development and any

relevant additional core professional practice domains.”

“Criterion V. Advanced Scientific and Theoretical Preparation” How specialty specific scientific knowledge, skills

and attitudes are acquired.

“Criterion VI. Advanced Preparation in the Parameters of Practice” To encompass the parameters of populations;

psychological, biological, and/or social problems; and procedures and techniques.

“Criterion VII. Structures and Models of Education and Training in the Specialty”

There is a considerable amount of work that will go into developing the petition, and the GSC needs the help of

the members of The Society. I hope that you will volunteer to contribute some of your time and expertise to this

project.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

98

APA Council Meeting Report BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 30, 2014

Council of Representatives August 2014 Report from Sally Barlow, Ph.D.

(Thanks to Rhea Farberman, Monitor Executive Editor for sharing her summary of meeting, portions of which I use

here)

1. Council continued work on Good Governance Project (GGP) and Implementation Work Group (IWG), which

seeks to streamline APA’s governance system and make it more inclusive. As background, Council approved 3-

year trial delegation of duties to Board of Directors (BOD) in 4 areas (finances & budget, oversight of CEO, aligning

budget with strategic planning, internally focused policy development) during February meeting, and changes to

APA’s board of directors to include 6 member-at-large seats to be elected by general membership, as well as a

public member, student and Early Career Psychologist (ECP) and 2 more seats from the newly created Council

Leadership Team (CLT) to liaise better between Council and BOD. These changes to the BOD will require a

bylaws vote by general membership expected to be sent out during next year.

2. Details about these changes were hammered out (mostly hammered on ) during the August 2014 meeting

regarding council’s optimal size and structure (House of Representatives vs senatorial models); that is, an

apportionment vs. 1-seat-each model.

3. Council approved changes in oversight functions of Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice

(CAPP), now be wholly a committee of the APA Practice Organization (APAPO), which will be responsible for day

to day work including c-6 interests in legislative, legal and regulatory areas.

4. Council approved association rules (attending to issues of inclusivity) to ensure ECP representation.

5. Council adopted a resolution to stem false confessions obtained by police officers from women in the midst of

domestic abuse situations as well as mentally disabled adults, both of whom may not understand their right to

remain silent.

6. Council adopted as APA policy s resolution on diversity in children and adolescents to encourage greater

education regarding gender and sexual orientation.

7. Council adopted resolution in support of UN Convention on Right and Dignity of Person with Disabilities.

(See http://www.apa.org/about/policies/guidelines-supervision.pdf).

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

99

8. Council approved creation of a Div. 42 journal titled Practice Innovation

9. Council approved creation of a committee on Associate and Baccalaureate education.

10. Council adopted new policy that supports inclusion of all governance boards and committee members who

have not previously served in governance.

11. Council elected a class of 111 APA Fellows—if you are not already a fellow, please consider being one!!

*As this was an altogether fractious debate, I will spare you the details. Almost all of the 1 and ½ days spent on

this debate appeared to be to be highly managed from the floor by the minority of council reps who wanted to

hang on to apportionment. (This is a large debate—I recommend that you review the attachments on

representation that I included in the last council report if you are interested.) The debate continued several weeks

on list serve exchanges after the DC meeting. I responded on the list serve as a good group person by pointing

out the group dynamics impasse. Many of the minority stakeholders insisted on a council retreat (potentially

costing APA $200,000) in addition to our 2 face-to-face meetings each year. I am copying one of my list serve

responses, and would like you to know that a number of people responded individually to me saying emphatically

that I had exactly captured what was happening. “Trying to figure out if I have read the latest raft of emails

correctly. 1) the majority/minority continue to fight with each other accusing each other of even nastier politicking

including hijacking the parliamentary process and 2) proposing to meet together for even more time in between

now and the February 2015 Council meeting presumably because we cannot come to consensus. Wow. If we

can’t accomplish our work in our 2 yearly face-to-face meetings, given all the committee work that has gone into

council preparations beforehand, all the behind-the-scenes thinking, why would we want/need to meet more?

Madness.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

10

0

The Early Group Psychologist Update BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

ECP Task Force Co-Chairs: Leann Diederich, Ph.D. and Tracy Thomas, Psy.D.

The Society of Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy Recognized as the Division with the Best ECP

Engagement

At the 2014 APA annual convention, our Society entered a poster into a competition hosted by APA’s Committee

on Early Career Psychologists (CECP). Criteria included having an array of ECP activities, leadership

development, and mentoring opportunities. They also evaluated ECP resources, such as social media, and

upcoming plans for ECP engagement. To our delight, we won!

Below are selections of the text from the poster, which is linked in full here. While many of these goals and

initiatives may be familiar to readers, we wanted to share them here so they are all in one location.

ECP Members and the “Leadership Pipeline”

As is true with many divisions of APA and the membership as a whole, most members are over 60 years old. Over

the past 5 years, the Society has taken a number of steps to address this. Since 2011 the numbers of ECPs has

increased (from 19 members in 2011 to 30 members in 2014), both in general membership in the Society and in

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

101

leadership positions (2 ECPS involved in Board or committees in 2011 to 8 involved in Board or committees in

2014).

The Early Career Psychologist Task Force group was created to help introduce ECPs to the Society governance in

a graduated method, with many members then moving onto other leadership positions. For instance, in the past

few years members have moved from this committee into positions such as the Society’s Secretary, Program

Chair, and Member-at-Large.

A secondary component of this pipeline is to have consistent support from the Executive Board. This includes both

a stated commitment to ECP participation in avenues such as Presidential addresses at convention; attention to

ECP needs our newsletter, The Group Psychologist (TGP), but also practical support through financial support for

ECP events at Convention and nomination of ECPs for Board positions.

Preparation for Leadership

New ECPs involved in the Task Force, are encouraged to publish short articles in The Group Psychologist. This

includes articles introducing themselves, talking about their involvement in a committee or liaison to an APA

group, or articles stemming from our Conference Calls (see below). Each newsletter has an ECP Column which

provides an established forum for these publications. Publishing in the newsletter helps promote name

recognition for the ECPs, which is a crucial step towards later election to the Executive Board.

ECP Task Force & Group Dynamics

Our ECP group has been through a number of different identities. We originally were an Ad Hoc committee

appointed by the President. However, our by-laws require yearly reappointment for this, which we found

cumbersome. We then moved to a sub-committee under the Membership Chair (which was co-chaired by an

ECP). However, this did not allow for an optimal group identity. Imagine having to introduce yourself as “a

member of the Early Career Psychologist Sub-Committee of the Membership Committee”. That didn’t allow for a

high group salience (e.g., the “felt significance of a particular social identity” [Gastil, 2010, p. 205]) within the

members, so we brainstormed ways to make additional changes.

Thus, at the mid-winter meeting in 2014, the Board approved our formation of an Early Career Psychologist Task

Force. There are several benefits to this identity; it is a group that does not require yearly approval for its

continuation, it provides a unique group identity, and provides a recognition and status for the ECPs who

volunteer their time for the group.

Focusing on group cohesion is a key role for the co-chairs of the Task Force. Taking the lead from the current

literature on cohesion, we focus on developing:

An understanding of the shared tasks of the Task Force through regular meetings to brainstorm and

create goals

Creating bonds through personal introductions, social hours with fellow members (e.g., happy hour

following the open committee meeting at APA)

Creating channels for feedback to attend to the relationships between members (e.g., one to one

conversations with upcoming leaders taking on more

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

102

ECP Initiatives

The ECP Task Force has several initiatives to aid with ECP engagement. Our goals with these initiatives are to

provide services to members, as well as the public at-large. We choose initiatives that the Task Force members

are interested in, do not take a large amount of time each week, and are relevant to students and ECPs.

Social Media Presence

The first initiative is to create content for our Facebook and Google+ pages. We started a new series of Wisdom

on Wednesdays (#WOW) posts. These are short, educational, and group focused posts which provide resources

for our followers. Each Task Force member also creates 4-5 educational posts, thus providing psychological

content for our followers, but that isn’t necessarily tied directly to

Since we started our Facebook page in January 2013, we have gained 450 followers. We are reaching our target

audience, as 78% of our followers are ages 18 to 44 years old. Our Society Secretary, Dr. Jennifer Alonso (ECP Task

Force member) also works closely with our newly hired Social Media Coordinator, Tanya Dvorak, to have posts

that are inspirational and motivating. Our Coordinator uses HootSuite to push content to multiple platforms, to

capitalize on the work of our small Task Force, without relying on it to manage the content daily. We also are

starting a small Twitter presence which we hope to expand in the future.

Conference Calls

A second initiative is to host regular conference calls that are open to the public. This initiative was approved at

the 2013 mid-winter Board Meeting.

Topics have included:

Diversity in Group Therapy

Referring and Recruiting for Groups in College Counseling Centers

Teaching Group Therapy Course

Groups in Private Practice

Group Psychotherapy Research (with special guests Drs. Gary Burlingame and Dennis Kivlighan)

These calls are moderated by members of the Task Force, but are geared towards providing a forum for dialogue

for participants and to provide resources related to group therapy and group psychology. A summary of the

conference call is sent out to all members, as well as interested parties who couldn’t attend. We then use the

content from the call to create an article for The Group Psychologist, so that all Society members can benefit from

the ideas discussed.

Member of the Month

A new initiative we are starting in August 2014 is to randomly select one of the Society’s Member’s to feature in a

Member of the Month (#MOM) posting on our webpage and pushed to our social media outlets. We hope to

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

103

feature a member monthly, as a way to bring attention to the great work that our members do in the field of group

psychology and group psychotherapy.

Future Initiatives

We are proposing a new initiative of a group based Mentee/ Mentor program at the Executive Meeting during this

year’s APA Convention. Due to the small size of our Society, we wanted to take advantage of our Mid-Career

Psychologist’s expertise, without overburdening them with a 1:1 ratio. We also wanted to utilize their knowledge

in group dynamics to model some of the exact principles they’d be talking about (e.g., creating cohesion in

groups) with their mentees.

We hope that this program will take advantage of Google Hangouts by hosting monthly or bi-monthly group

meetings between the mentees and the Mid-Career Psychologist. Depending on the interest in the program, we

hope to match ECPs with career trajectories that are similar to their Mid-Career Psychologist Mentor.

How to Get Involved

Getting involved in the Society is quite easy. There are several ways to get in contact with us:

Visit our social at APA to meet many of the key leaders within the Society. It’s a small group at the social

(30-40 people) which allows you to socialize and network with psychologists who share similar interests to

you.

Speak to one of our volunteers at any of our Society events at Convention. We have a group of students

and ECPs who are handing out materials and Society information at each event at the convention.

Email us at Div49group@gmail.com.

Special thanks to the ECP Task Force Members: Joe Miles (Div. 49 Program Co-Chair), Jennifer Alonso (Div. 49

Secretary), Rachelle Rene, Jennifer Smith, Misha Bogomaz, and Sasha Mondragon.

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

104

Journal for Group Practitioners BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

Division 49 Proposing New Journal for “Group Practitioners”

A proposal for a second journal for Division 49, Society of Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy, was

presented at the Board’s August meeting in Washington, D.C. Based on survey results conducted earlier in the

year among Division 49 members and the discussion at the Board meeting, there was strong support for a second

journal. Discussion highlighted the preeminence of “Group Dynamics” as the esteemed journal of Division 49 but a

second journal, focused more upon group work practice, would address an important need in our field. The

immediate task at hand, then, is to complete the proposal, present it to the Board in January 2015 and then

submit the proposal to an interested publisher. Due diligence requires processing several important details to

ensure a successful outcome. We welcome questions and suggestions, so please contact the proposal

committee chair or committee members.

Joe Powers, Ad Hoc Committee Chair

Dennis Kivlighan

Rebecca MacNair-Semands

Thomas Treadwell

Nina Brown

Maria Riva

Sally Barlow

David Marcus

Jill Paquin

Craig Parks

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

105

Group Training Survey: May2014 BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 30, 2014

In the last newsletter I shared that working in collaboration with Sean Woodland, current student representative;

Rosamond Smith, student representative designate (2015); and Dr. Leann Diederich, membership chair and

member at large, an email survey was sent in May 2014 to Directors of Training in both clinical and counseling

graduate psychology programs to ascertain the importance their program placed on group training.

We received 54 responses with one respondent declining to participate for a total N of 53. We sent emails to

57Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs (CCPTP) and 21 responded; 31 Directors from National

Council of Schools and Programs of Professional Psychology (NCSPP) were identified from webpages and sent

email invitations and eight responded and due to a website crash at the Council of University Directors of Clinical

Training(CUDCP) an email with the survey link was sent by a member to the listserv and 22 responded (out of

approximately 80 recipients). Three board members of the Division responded to the pilot survey with information

about their programs that was usable. Thus the response rate (54/168) was approximately 32%.

Clinical psychology accounted for 58% (N=26) of the responding programs and 42% (N=19) as counseling

psychology. Question 2 asked “Does your program provide a group-specific class or classes?” There was a

difference in how clinical and counseling programs responded to this question. While 35% of the clinical

psychology programs answered yes to this question, 100% of the counseling psychology programs responded in

the affirmative. In retrospect, we should have asked if the training program “required” a group specific class.

Most readers know that the Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional

Psychology do not include the word “group” in it’s domains and standards and it is difficult to determine if

this lack of a requirement distinguishes the clinical and counseling psychology training programs represented

in the limited sample of programs responding to the survey or if the difference is related to the philosophies of

these

approaches or if such a difference is insignificant. Most of the types of courses offered were introductory

group therapy courses; no one mentioned an advanced group course. There was not a clear indication if

courses were primarily didactic or experiential. Though when asking specifically about courses in a question

where the respondent could check all that apply, with 29/53 responding, 83% checked “Experiential”, 59%

checked “rotating leadership”, 52% chose “peer leadership”, and 31% chose “other”.

There is more qualitative data in the survey results regarding the settings of group therapy practicum’s; types of

group research students are involved in, and ways “experiential” groups are defined. This data will serve as grist

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

106

for a future article in The Group Psychologist. In the meantime, if you desire to see a summary pdf of all the data,

please contactlee.gillis@gcsu.edu.

Thirteen programs granted permission for us to mention the name of the program on the Division 49 website and

those programs with contact emails are listed below:

Clinical and Counseling Psychology (M.S.)

Chestnut Hill College

Cheryll Rothery, Psy.D., ABPP

rotheryc@chc.edu

Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program

Wayne State University

Mark A. Lumley, Ph.D.

mlumley@wayne.edu

Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

David LaPorte laporte@iup.edu

Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program

Seattle Pacific University

David G. Stewart davidste@spi.edu

Counseling and Educational Psychology

Indiana University Rex Stockton stocktor@indiana.edu

Counseling and Student Personnel Psychology

University of Minnesota

Sherri Turner, Ph.D. turne047@umn.edu

Counseling Psychology

New York University Mary B. McRae mm13@nyu.edu

Counseling Psychology

Carlow University Mary Burke mcburke@carlow.edu

Counseling Psychology

Texas Tech Univ Sheila Garos, Ph.D., DCT

sheila.garos@ttu.edu

Counseling Psychology

University of Maryland

Dennis Kivlighan dennisk@umd.edu

Counseling Psychology

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Michael Scheel mscheel2@unl.edu

Counseling Psychology

Iowa State University

Nathaniel Wade nwade@iastate.edu

Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology (PsyD)

University of Hartford

John Mehm mehm@hartford.edu

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

107

Division 49 APA PosterAwards BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 30, 2014

Congratulations to the APA Annual Convention Student Poster Award Winners!

First Place: Xu Li and Dennis Kivlighan, PhD. “The Cognitive Errors of Commission and Omission of Novice Group

Counseling Trainees about Group Situations.” For more information: Misconceptions about Group Counseling

Trainees in Knowledge Structures about Group Situations

Second Place: D. Martin Kivlighan, III, Maleeha Abbas, Nick D. Frost, Arellys Aquinaga, Christina Frank and

Alberta M. Gloria, PhD. “Are Group Therapeutic Factors Associated with Academic Improvement? A Multilevel

Analysis.”

Third Place: Dakota J. Kaiser, MS. “Social Class in Group Research: A Content Analysis.”

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

108

Women in Leadership BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 30, 2014

STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE: Opportunities and Challenges for Women in Leadership

Susan H. McDaniel, Ph.D., ABPP and Nadine Kaslow, Ph.D., ABPP

“As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others.” Bill Gates

The two of us have traveled similar paths, having met in Houston when Susan was a postdoc in family therapy

and Nadine was a practicum student in child psychology. Since then, we’ve both: taken on leadership roles in

academic health centers (Susan as a Division Chief in Psychiatry and an Associate Chair of Family Medicine,

Nadine as Vice Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Chief Psychologist at Grady Hospital). We both

did national leadership training: Nadine following Susan in the HHS Primary Care Policy Fellowship, and Susan

following Nadine in the Executive Leadership program for women in Academic Medicine (ELAM). We have both

been active for years in APA governance: Nadine is now the President of APA, Susan is on the Board of Directors

and running for President. Susan has built a career developing primary care psychology, Nadine has focused on

suicide and family violence research, psychology education and training, and family psychology. Both are

experienced journal editors. Both have much experience with the internal and external barriers to women in

leadership roles of all kinds.

Answering the phone:

“This is Dr. McDaniel.”

“Can I leave a message for Dr. McDaniel?”

“No, this is SHE. How can I help you?”

How many of us have had this experience? When we started working in our respective academic health centers in

the 80s, there were few women, and we were almost always assumed to be secretaries. How do we move from

there to here—an era when many women want to “lean in,” step up to the plate, and provide leadership to their

organizations?

Women often have good interpersonal skills and high emotional intelligence. That’s how we were raised. These

are VERY helpful in leadership roles. However, there are plenty of other skills we must learn to be good leaders.

Many women can come to the work world expecting that, like in their childhood, they will be rewarded for being

good girls and not causing trouble. Unfortunately, at least in academic health centers, this behavior often results

in taking the woman’s skills for granted rather than developing her abilities and maximizing her contributions.

We will address some of these challenges in this article, starting with assessing the alignment of the system with

the woman’s goals, then reviewing issues of power and dependency in leadership, and concluding with conflict

management skills. This treatment is only an appetizer in a very rich meal; we hope you will consider some of the

references for more in-depth treatment of these subjects.

Alignment

Opportunities for leadership can arise in planful or unexpected ways. One key consideration is the alignment of

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

109

the mission, values, and culture of the institution with your own. We find it very useful, as a first task, to write a

personal mission statement. Most of us have participated in writing mission statements for our department or

organization. Spend 20-30 minutes writing one for yourself. Whenever we’re making difficult decisions about

priorities, we return to our personal mission statements and ask what is most important in achieving our personal

goals. Not who will we please, or will we be good for the job, but is it in line with what we care about most? Is it

how we want to spend our energy, our precious time? Personal mission statements are also useful to read just

before going into a difficult meeting. They ground us in our commitments, and help to quell the reactivity so

common to our species. They also evolve over time, and are worthy of rewriting annually.

After writing a personal mission statement, the next step is to assess the psychological health of the organization

for which you may become a leader (McDaniel, Bogdewic, Holloway, & Hepworth, 2008). Does it have a clear

mission and identified goals? How do these match with your own?

More generally, do its leaders communicate clear expectations for its workers? Does it have a mentoring system

and foster career success? Are its resources aligned with its stated priorities? Does it conduct formative

reviews? Does it acknowledge employee value and contributions? Do leaders have strategies to help individuals

having difficulty? Does it afford latitude for employees with changing life events? Does it have fair and

systematic mechanisms for dealing with disruptive behavior?

Power and Dependency

Leadership, by definition, means confronting issues of power and dependency. The American Heritage

Dictionary lists four definitions of power, the first being “the ability or capacity to act or perform effectively.” Not

until the 4th definition do we get to “the ability or official capacity to exercise control or authority.” It is this

definition that implies domination, and can be problematic for clinicians in relation to patients and other team

members. The antidote to power as domination is shared power, or caring. Caring consists of being present,

listening, demonstrating a willingness to help, and an ability to understand–people talking with each other rather

than toeach other, interactions based on a foundation of respect and empowerment (McDaniel &

Hepworth, 2003). Sometimes that means finding out the behaviors that the other person experiences as

respectful or empowering, or reporting on behaviors we appreciate.

The sociology of superordinates tells us that there are predictable feelings and behaviors experienced by those

higher in the hierarchy, as well as by those perceived as lower (Goode, 1980). In particular, those higher tend to

experience their position in terms of feeling burdened and responsible rather than powerful, blessed or lucky.

Those lower can feel that their talents or accomplishments go unrecognized. They can be vulnerable to feeling

invisible, unappreciated, disrespected, and eventually, resentful. Understanding these dynamics can help to

provide appropriate support to leaders or followers, and move the culture towards one of collaborative respect.

Conflict Management

Effectively managed conflict promotes cooperation and builds healthier and more positive relationships

(Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014). Conflict management refers to using strategies that moves the conflict

toward resolution without escalation or destruction of relationships. A strong overall approach to conflict

management includes an appreciation that conflicts are complex and thus require differential tactics of

management based upon the people involved, the situation, and the style of the parties. It entails thoughtful

consideration of the myriad sources of conflict (e.g., misunderstandings and miscommunications, fear, failure to

establish boundaries, negligence, need to be right, mishandling differences in the past, hidden agendas, and

the intention to harm or retaliate). Conflict management efforts must involve a detailed analysis (i.e., scientific

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

11

0

approach) of the facts of the situation and attention to the feelings and perceptions of the parties.

The first step to managing a conflict is identifying the critical issues related to the situation, as well as associated

organizational, personal, and cultural factors. Encourage each party to ask him/herself a series of questions, such

as “how does my behavior contribute to the dynamics? What elements of the situation am I able and willing to

change? What matters most to me/to the other party in the situation?”. If you are a party to the conflict ask

yourself these questions.

Finally, take a clear and direct, but respectful and caring approach to addressing a conflict. It is critical that you

define the situation in terms of a problem that calls for a solution (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011). All parties must

acknowledge their feelings and acknowledge the feelings of the other(s). Then ask for specific behavior change

and hear the behavior change requests of the other party(ies). This involves being clear about the outcome you

want, accepting what you can get, giving up on having to be right, and demonstrating your willingness to hear the

other party’s perspective and to work collaboratively. Following this, share what you are willing to do to improve

the situation and strive to do your best to make these changes.

In conclusion, women bring many talents to leadership. Like other important decisions in life, it takes courage to

“step up to the plate” but it is also a rewarding opportunity to serve. We all need ongoing coaching and feedback

regarding challenges related to defining our personal mission; ensuring its alignment with the institution, agency

or organization; and managing issues of power, dependency, and conflict. We need your talents in this time of

transition!

References

Coleman,P.T., Deutsch, M., & Marcus, E.C. (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd

edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Fisher, R., Ury, W.L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York:

Penguin Books.

Goode W.T. (1980). Why men resist. Dissent. 27(2), 287-310.

McDaniel, S.H., Bogdewic, S., Holloway, R., & Hepworth, J. (2008). Architecture of Alignment: Leadership and the

Psychological Health of Faculty. In: T.R. Cole, T.J. Goodrich, and E.R. Gritz (Eds.) Academic Medicine in Sickness

and in Health: Scientists, Physicians, and the Pressures of Success. Humana Press, pp 55-72.

McDaniel, S.H. & Hepworth, J. (2003). Family psychology in primary care: Managing issues of power and

dependency through collaboration. In: R. Frank, S.H. McDaniel. J. Bray, M. Heldring (Eds.), Primary Care

Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Publications

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

111

Group Work Leadership: An Introduction for Helpers by Robert K. Conyne BY PUBLISHER on OCTOBER 31, 2014

Donald E. Ward’s Book Review of

Group Work Leadership: An Introduction for Helpers by Robert K.

Conyne

On occasion, those of us who practice, teach about, and study groups come across a book that provides a fresh

perspective by presenting a wealth of information that highlights and summarizes existing knowledge in a novel

manner and also introduces newer topics that have not been included in traditional models but hold promise for

future development of the field. One of a number of books in a series published by Sage entitled Counseling and

Professional Identity in the 21st Century, Bob Conyne’s Group Work Leadership: An Introduction for Helpers, is

clearly an example of this somewhat rare phenomenon.

Dr. Conyne’s credentials speak to his ability to assimilate group work theory from a variety of professional

perspectives. Although he has never sought recognition and accolades, his record of scholarship and service

is extraordinary. His active involvement in the Society for Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy of the

American Psychological Association, as well as in other APA divisions, in the Association for Specialists in Group

Work and other divisions of the American Counseling Association, and the American Group Psychotherapy

Association involved service to the profession through serving as president Division 49, president of ASGW, and

Editor of the Journal for Specialists in Group Work. He was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award by the

APA’s Prevention section, the Eminent Career Award by the ASGW, and he was elected fellow of three divisions

in the APA (divisions of group psychology and group psychotherapy, consulting, and counseling psychology),

and a fellow ASGW. These many experiences allow him to undertake the challenge of offering a book that is

comprehensive in its approach to basic counseling theory and practice but practical and very reader

interactive, translating complex theory and ways of understanding and applying group work into meaningful

elements that beginning and experienced trainees can master and internalize. This is consistent with Dr.

Conyne’s admiration for the foundational work of Kurt Lewin and the principles that good theory can be put into

practice and studied and that reflective practice is central to group work learning and practice.

How is the material presented? The book contains three major sections: Section I Group Work Is a

Comprehensive and Unique Approach, Section II: Critical Elements of Group Work, and Section III: Meaning,

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

112

Action, and Professional Identity in Group Work. Chapter One introduces the metaphor of group work as an

umbrella under which the four ASGW group types are introduced: task groups, psychoeducation groups,

counseling groups, and psychotherapy groups. Beginning in this chapter and continuing throughout the book,

the reader is engaged in the content with multiple case illustrations and learning exercises, an interactive

learning model commonly used in modern pedagogy. The fundamental documents that have helped the group

work profession to develop are presented and discussed in Chapter Two: training standards, best-practice

guidelines, ethics, and multicultural principles. Dr. Conyne provides a cogent examination and discussion of

the current adequacy of the CACREP Standards related to group work from drawing upon his experience as a

counselor education chair and program coordinator and a CACREP board member. Chapter Three includes

the core variables of helping groups to develop and to work as coordinated units to maximize outcome, group

dynamics and groupprocesses.

Leadership is introduced, defined, and discussed from a variety of perspectives in Chapter Five. Emphasizing

basing leadership on best practices guidelines, Conyne stresses leadership as collaborating with members,

building and maintaining a group climate, processing with members during group sessions and by leaders

between sessions, and co leadership. He particularly emphasizes Yalom’s eleven therapeutic factors as the core

mechanisms in the interpersonally centered approach to group psychotherapy (Yalom, 1995; Yalom & Leszcz,

2005). Unlike most introductory group work books, Conyne does not present multiple chapters covering the

application of primarily individual theories of counseling and therapy to group work. The sixth chapter is pivotal in

that it summarizes the traditional individual therapy approaches and also gives special attention to six

transtheoretical orientations that he views as compatible with group work. A major emphasis of the author in the

book is that group workers need to move toward developing actual group theoretical models to guide practice

and research. He includes the potential contribution of interpersonal neurobiological theory on the frontier of

future development for group workers. Chapter Seven describes functions, styles, and competencies as the

building blocks of leadership. Yalom’s four leadership functions are presented, described, and represented in a

number of activities to engage the reader in comprehending their meaning. Conyne then presents three

approaches to leadership style: Lewin’s autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire conceptualization; the task versus

interpersonal relationship (social-emotional) model; and the compendium of leadership types created by

combining varying amounts of Yalom’s four leadership functions. Methods, strategies, and techniques are

presented in Chapter Eight. Covering a topic at which Conyne is at his best, he summarizes and describes

clinical wisdom that may be used to guide the selection of facilitative group interventions in a meaningful and

understandable manner.

Reflecting on Group Work Practice is the title of Chapter Nine in which within- and between-session

processing are again described and explored. Particular attention is given to Conyne’s Deep Processing Model

(1999). Group worker self-care is addressed, a critical topic due to the emotional demands of the complex and

intense phenomenon that is group work. Chapter Ten, Selecting Effective Interventions, provides detailed

examples of the appropriate selection of interventions most applicable to sample scenarios in the four types of

group work.

Learning activities are again very useful to help the reader to engage with the process. Finally, a brief Epilogue is

provided in which the author comments about his own perspective on the material presented in the book.

Bob Conyne brings his lifetime of teaching, studying, and practice in a variety of settings and types to this very

rich and engaging description of how to understand and practice the complex and fascinating group work

phenomenon. The modern formatting of cogent presentation of content with frequent and excellent case

examples and learning activities help to involve the reader in the learning process. This parallels the group work

The Group Specialty

Council/SGPGP

Criterion

I

113

process itself in which leaders work to collaborate with members to engage in the work of the group. As well as

an excellent text and resource for those learning and continuing to practice, it comes alive because, as the author

states, he is describing the extensive and exciting result of his having been “bit by the group work bug” nearly

fifty years ago (Conyne, 2014, p.xxvii). This book is an invitation to readers to join him in the “infection” that is

group work.

References

Conyne, R. K. (2014). Group work leadership: An introduction for helpers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Conyne, R. (1997). A developing framework for processing experiences and events in group work. Journal for

Specialists in Group Work, 22, 167-174.

Yalom, I. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (1st ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Yalom, I., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York, NY: Basic

Books.

The Society of Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy is Division 49 of the American

Psychological Association and provides a forum for psychologists interested in research, teaching,

and practice in group psychology and group psychotherapy.

© 2014 Society of Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,

and Practice

Editor: David Marcus, PhD

Journal Information Current issue feed

Set PsycALERT: New issue update by email

2014 Volume 18, Issue 2 (Jun)

Teamwork Competency Test (TWCT): A step forward on measuring teamwork competencies.

Pages 101­121 Aguado, David; Rico, Ramón; Sánchez­Manzanares, Miriam; Salas, Eduardo

Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions |

The effect of different phases of synchrony on pain threshold.

Pages 122­128 Sullivan, Philip J.; Rickers, Kate; Gammage, Kimberley L.

Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions |

Reactions to social inclusion and ostracism as a function of perceived in­group similarity.

Pages 129­137 Sacco, Donald F.; Bernstein, Michael J.; Young, Steven G.; Hugenberg, Kurt

Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions |

Single­case designs in group work: Past applications, future directions.

Pages 138­158 Macgowan, Mark J.; Wong, Stephen E.

Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions |

Team task conflict resolution: An examination of its linkages to team personality composition and team effectiveness

outcomes.

Pages 159­173 O’Neill, Thomas A.; Allen, Natalie J.

Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions |

The impact of group norms and behavioral congruence on the internalization of an illegal downloading behavior.

Pages 174­188 Sansfaçon, Sophie; Amiot, Catherine E.

Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions |

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 114

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 115

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 18, No. 2, 101–121 1089-2699/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0036098

Teamwork Competency Test (TWCT): A Step Forward on Measuring Teamwork Competencies

David Aguado Autonomous University of Madrid and Knowledge

Engineering Institute

Ramón Rico Autonomous University of Madrid

Miriam Sánchez-Manzanares Carlos III University of Madrid

Eduardo Salas University of Central Florida

The Teamwork Knowledge, Skill, Ability Test (TWKSAT), designed to assess team- work competencies, has been widely used in both applied and academic contexts. However, studies have brought to light a number of reliability problems in the test. In this article, we describe 3 studies that (a) examined the functioning of the TWKSAT (N = 135); (b) investigated a new measure, the Teamwork Competency Test, including its metric properties (N = 120); and (c) analyzed the convergent and predictive validity of the Teamwork Competency Test compared with the TWKSAT (N = 91). Based on our results, we conclude that the TWKSAT does not adequately reflect the initial substantive model and has limitations with regard to reliability. The Teamwork Com- petency Test improves the TWKSAT by enhancing reliability, content validity, and substantiating the dimensional structure of the test.

Keywords: teamwork test, teamwork competencies, team performance

Work teams have responded effectively to the global challenges of our times, providing orga- nizations with the benefits of adaptability, pro- ductivity, and creativity above and beyond the contributions individuals can make on their own (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). However, teamwork requires sev- eral competencies to allow its members to ef- fectively integrate their contributions, function as a unified whole, and make an “expert team”

This article was published Online First May 12, 2014. David Aguado, Autonomous University of Madrid, Ma-

drid and Knowledge Engineering Institute; Ramón Rico, Autonomous University of Madrid; Miriam Sánchez- Manzanares, Carlos III University of Madrid; Eduardo Sa- las, University of Central Florida.

This research was partially supported by the Office of Naval Research Collaboration and Knowledge Interoper- ability Program and Office of Naval Research Multidis- ciplinary University Research Initiative Grant N000140610446.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to David Aguado, Autonomous University of Ma- drid, Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, Madrid 28049 Spain. E-mail: david.aguado@uam.es

out of a mere “group of experts” (Lawler & Worley, 2006).

Work teams bring to their mission much more than just the behaviors directly related to the task at hand. Their members need to interact and cooperate if they are to synchronize effec- tively (Salas et al., 2005; Salas, Sims, & Klein, 2004), which requires a specific set of behaviors that further the attainment of team goals. Em- pirical evidence shows that measures of knowl- edge and skills related to both a specific task and teamwork predict individual performance in work contexts (e.g., McClough & Rogelberg, 2003; Schmidt & Hunter, 1983). At the same time, teams formed by people with strong team- work competencies display a specific range of behaviors, including the use of integrative (win–win) as opposed to distributive (win–lose) negotiating strategies. These findings are rele- vant as teams are often affected by interpersonal conflicts and faulty cooperation, which hinder optimum performance (Hackman, 2002). The availability of an appropriate measure of team- work competencies may help minimize these problems (Stevens & Campion, 1994, 1999).

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 116

101

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 117

102 AGUADO, RICO, SÁNCHEZ-MANZANARES, AND SALAS

Over recent decades, scholars increasingly have underlined the importance of teamwork competencies for the effectiveness of groups and work teams (e.g., Cannon-Bowers & Bow- ers, 2011; Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995; Chen, Donahue, & Klimoski, 2004; Leach, Wall, Rogelberg, & Jackson, 2005; Peeters, van Tuijl, Rutte, & Reymen, 2006). In particular, Stevens and Campion (1994, 1999) proposed the Teamwork Knowl- edge, Skill, Ability Test (TWKSAT), which identifies and measures five transportable team- work competencies that are common to differ- ent types of teams (see Figure 1) and have been related to different performance criteria (Mc-

Clough & Rogelberg, 2003; Stevens & Cam- pion, 1999).

However, studies employing the TWKSAT have reported low levels of reliability (Athana- saw, 2003; Chen et al., 2004; McClough & Rogelberg, 2003). Despite the TWKSAT’s ca- pacity to predict individual performance in team tasks, there are no studies addressing the causes of the test’s low reliability or explaining its dimensional structure. To resolve the problems affecting the assessment of teamwork compe- tencies, we (a) examined the metric properties of the TWKSAT items, as well as their content validity and dimensional structure, and (b) pro- pose a new measure based on the Stevens and

1. Conflict Resolution

Recognize team conflict.

Recognize type and source of conflict and implement conflict resolution strategies.

Employ integrative (win-win) negotiation strategies.

2. Collaborative Problem Solving

Identify situations requiring participative group problem solving.

Recognize the obstacles to collaborative group problem solving and implement corrective actions.

3. Communication

Understand communication networks and utilize decentralized networks to enhance communication.

Communicate open and supportively.

Listen in a non-evaluative way and use active listening techniques.

Maximize consonance between non-verbal and verbal messages, and recognize and interpret the non-verbal messages of

others.

Engage in ritual greetings and small talk.

4. Goal Setting and Performance Management

Establish specific, challenging and accepted team goals.

Monitor, evaluate, and provide feedback on both overall team performance and individual performance.

5. Planning and Task Coordination

Coordinate and synchronize activities, information, and task interdependences.

Establish task and role expectations of individual team members, and ensure proper balancing of workload in the team.

Figure 1. The Stevens and Campion model.

I. Interpersonal KSAs

II. Self-management KSAs Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 118

TEAMWORK COMPETENCY TEST 103

Campion (1994, 1999) model, analyzing its re- liability and validity as a measure of teamwork competencies. Although recently some tests have been proposed to capture knowledge on teamwork (e.g., boundary-spanning activities, Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007; team roles, Mumford, Van Iddekinge, Morgeson, & Cam- pion, 2008), it is still necessary to develop tests capable of assessing teamwork competencies to predict employees’ performance in teams and thus design and develop high-performance teams. We aimed to improve the assessment of teamwork-related competencies in work set- tings, beyond the TWKSAT, one of the most popular measures in the field.

The TWKSAT as a Measure of Teamwork

Competency

Competencies are defined as the underlying characteristics integrated with an individual’s knowledge, skills, and abilities that are causally related to a referential criterion of effective and/or superior action in a specific job or situ- ation (Spencer & Spencer, 1993). In particular, researchers have stressed the key role of team- work competencies for the effectiveness of work teams (e.g., Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Chen et al., 2004).

Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995) identified eight central teamwork competencies, namely adapt- ability, shared understanding of the situation, performance monitoring and feedback, leader- ship, interpersonal relations, coordination, com- munication, and decision making. These schol- ars also made a key contribution by defining competencies on the basis of two dimensions: task competencies versus team competencies and specific competencies versus general com- petencies. Given their relationship with perfor- mance in different teamwork situations, general team competencies (i.e., transportable compe- tencies) are of particular interest to organiza- tions. With this in mind, Stevens and Campion (1994, 1999) identified five transportable team- work competencies that are common to differ- ent types of teams: (1) conflict resolution, (2) collaborative problem solving, (3) communica- tion, (4) goal setting and performance manage- ment, and (5) planning and task coordination. These competencies are grouped in two more general dimensions termed interpersonal com- petencies (defined by the first three items in the

list) and self-management competencies (repre- sented by the last two items). This distinction is based on the idea that team effectiveness de- pends on its members’ ability to both manage their relations appropriately and direct their ac- tions to carry out the tasks assigned by the organization.

Perhaps the most important contribution made by Stevens and Campion (1999) is the construction of the TWKSAT, which provides both practitioners and academics with an instru- ment to measure key teamwork competencies. The available evidence suggests that the TWKSAT has considerable predictive validity. Thus, the TWKSAT measure of employees in real work teams correlated with their perfor- mance in the team as evaluated by both super- visors (correlations of between .23 and .52) and colleagues (correlations of between .21 and .34; McClough & Rogelberg, 2003; Stevens & Cam- pion, 1999). Furthermore, Chen et al. (2004) found that the TWKSAT was sensitive to changes in the individual competency of uni- versity students after participation in a training program designed to develop their teamwork competencies.

However, other studies in which the TWKSAT was used have also consistently re- ported low reliability of the measure. Stevens and Campion (1999) originally found reliability of .80 (internal consistency), but this appears to be an overestimate (McClough & Rogelberg, 2003). In fact, the alpha coefficients in studies employing the TWKSAT were consistently lower. For example, McClough and Rogelberg (2003) found an alpha coefficient of .59, and Chen et al. (2004) found a coefficient of .64 before training in teamwork skills and .82 after training. Athanasaw (2003) obtained coeffi- cients of .66 for the complete scale and between .25 and .48 for each of the five competencies, and Leach et al. (2005) found a coefficient of .70. As McClough and Rogelberg point out, however, the TWKSAT was designed from a multidimensional standpoint and other situa- tional judgment tests share the low alpha coef- ficients found to date. In this type of test, inter- nal consistency-based reliability measures should be complemented with test–retest esti- mations (Clevenger, Pereira, Wiechmann, Schmitt, & Harvey, 2001; McDaniel, Morge- son, Finnegan, Campion, & Braverman, 2001). However, Chen et al. reported a test–retest cor-

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 119

104 AGUADO, RICO, SÁNCHEZ-MANZANARES, AND SALAS

relation of .60 in the control group for their study. Overall, the available evidence suggests

that the reliability of the TWKSAT could be improved, despite the test’s predictive capacity.

No studies have been carried out to date to identify the reasons for the TWKSAT’s low

reliability, either by examining the metric char- acteristics of the items or the degree to which

the different contents proposed by Stevens and Campion (1994) are actually present in the

TWKSAT. Nor has any attempt been made to explain the dimensional structure of the

TWKSAT, although this is crucial to identify- ing the scoring obtained from the test.

Overall, our main objective in this study was to present a new measure of the teamwork- related competencies based on Stevens and Campion’s (1994) original model. To this end, we conducted three empirical studies. The first was devoted to analyzing the metric properties of the items and the content validity and dimen- sionality of the TWKSAT. In the second study, we proposed a new measure, testing the im- provements made on reliability and dimension- ality in a sample of university students. Finally, in the third study, we tested the validity of the new measure in a sample of professional em- ployees.

Study 1

The aim of this first study was to analyze the items composing the TWKSAT, examining their content and dimensionality. To begin, we present the results of the descriptive analysis based on the impact of each item on reliability. Following the strategy employed by Rovinelli and Hambleton (1977), we then go on to ana- lyze the test items in terms of content validity. Next, the dimensionality of the test is examined using factor analysis.

Method

TWKSAT translation. The TWKSAT comprises 35 multiple-response items, which

Your team wants to improve the quality and flow of the conversations among its members. Your team should:

(A) use comments that build upon and connect to what others have already said; (B) set up a specific order for everyone to speak and then follow it; (C) let team members with more to say determine the direction and topic of conversation; (D) do all of the above.

The original version of the TWKSAT is writ- ten in English. We therefore applied the back- translation procedure (Brislin, 1970) to use the scale in Spanish and ensure the equivalence of items (Gibson, 1999). Three certified translators and a group of specialists from bilingual teams in the United States and Spain were involved in this process. The materials forming the test were first translated into Spanish by the three translators. The Spanish version of the test was then translated back into English by the bilin- gual specialists. Finally, the back-translation was reviewed by the research team to ensure that the meaning of the items was consistent in the different translations. As a final result, we obtained a scale in Spanish equivalent to the English-language original.

Participants and procedure. The partici- pants in the study were 135 students from dif- ferent disciplines (78% information technology

engineering and 22% psychology) at a public university in Madrid. Men made up 71% of the total sample, and the average age was 23 years (SD = 0.93). All of the participants were from Spain and had Spanish as their mother tongue.

Participation in the study was mandatory for the students, being part of a program of prac- tices in different subjects. Participants signed a consent form regarding their participation in the study. They could voluntarily decline to be en-

rolled in the research by not providing their records without any adverse effect on their class

grades. At the beginning of the academic se- mester, the researchers administered the

TWKSAT to the students as a part of their class requirements. The objectives and reasoning be- hind the study were explained by the professors at the end of the course. Each participant was also given a brief report with the scores ob-

describe different situations that may arise

within a work team.1 Respondents answer the items by indicating how they would act in each situation. The questionnaire evaluates the five teamwork competencies identified by Stevens and Campion (1994). An example item is the following (Stevens & Campion, 1999):

1 The TWKSAT is a commercial test and we therefore do not provide the content of the items included in the test so as to protect the intellectual property rights of its authors. The test can be acquired at http://www.vangent-hcm.com/Solutions/ SelectionAssessments/SkillsAbilitiesAssessments/. We use the original numbering of the items in our presentation of results to facilitate understanding.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 120

TEAMWORK COMPETENCY TEST 105

tained on the test and the meaning of each of the teamwork competencies.

The validity of the TWKSAT content was analyzed by three experts in the field of team- work. All raters had more than 10 years’ expe- rience in conducting team-based research and consulting. The experts analyzed the TWKSAT items as described in the Results section.

Results

Description of items. Table 1 shows the mean (difficulty index), standard deviation,

asymmetry, kurtosis, and discrimination index

for each item on the scale, as well as the Cron-

bach’s alpha estimated for all 35 items together. As shown, the range of difficulty varies between .08 (Item 26) and .93 (Item 6). With regard to

the discrimination index, four items (7, 12, 27,

and 35) are negatively correlated with the scale

and another series of items (2, 4, 10, 11, 15, 17, 24, and 25) display a positive but very low

adjusted correlation (<.15). The total alpha for

the scale is .60. However, if the negatively

correlated items and those with a correlation of

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Study 1 Teamwork Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes Test

Original Items

Item

Mean

SD

Discrimination index (corrected item-total

correlation)

Skewness

Kurtosis

01 0.59 0.49 .22 -0.80 -1.34 02 0.39 0.49 .03 0.68 -1.53 03 0.79 0.41 .18 -1.62 0.63 04 0.68 0.47 .01 -1.44 0.08 05 0.53 0.50 .17 -0.23 -1.94 06 0.93 0.25 .35 -5.39 27.02 07 0.49 0.50 -.07 0.02 -1.99 08 0.91 0.29 .37 -4.08 14.60 09 0.34 0.47 .19 0.25 -1.93 10 0.72 0.45 .13 -1.26 -0.40 11 0.50 0.50 .14 -0.46 -1.78 12 0.29 0.45 -.01 0.70 -1.49 13 0.71 0.46 .15 -1.01 -0.96 14 0.29 0.45 .22 0.69 -1.51 15 0.70 0.46 .10 -0.88 -1.22 16 0.11 0.32 .30 0.60 -1.63 17 0.69 0.46 .02 -0.79 -1.37 18 0.16 0.37 .31 0.15 -1.97 19 0.70 0.46 .30 -0.86 -1.25 20 0.76 0.43 .35 -1.62 0.63 21 0.56 0.50 .21 -1.06 -0.85 22 0.61 0.49 .29 -0.60 -1.63 23 0.50 0.50 .27 -0.33 -1.88 24 0.40 0.49 .01 -0.02 -1.99 25 0.32 0.47 .02 0.43 -1.80 26 0.08 0.28 .24 0.92 -1.14 27 0.38 0.49 -.06 0.01 -1.99 28 0.68 0.47 .36 -1.18 -0.58 29 0.22 0.41 .15 1.15 -0.67 30 0.15 0.36 .41 0.13 -1.98 31 0.64 0.48 .15 -1.00 -0.99 32 0.09 0.29 .34 0.31 -1.89 33 0.61 0.49 .12 -0.40 -1.83 34 0.23 0.42 .10 0.76 -1.41

35 0.50 0.50 -.05 0.02 -1.99

Note. N = 135. a = .60.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 120

106 AGUADO, RICO, SÁNCHEZ-MANZANARES, AND SALAS

less than .15 are discarded, the alpha scale rises to .71.

Content analysis. To examine the validity of the test content, we employed the strategy proposed by Rovinelli and Hambleton (1977) in which a group of experts expresses the degree to which each item measures each of the previ- ously defined evaluation objectives. Accord- ingly, three experts separately analyzed the 35 items composing the test, indicating the extent to which each item was representative of each of the teamwork subcompetencies defined by Stevens and Campion (1994) and relevant to the measurement of the target. A score of 1 was assigned if the item was considered appropriate, -1 if not, and 0 if the expert in question was unsure. The resulting index will be 1 when all of the experts concur that an item is appropriate in view of the target measured. The experts were also asked to make any general comments on the measurement items included.

Table 2 summarizes the results. A number of items display a high level of item–target con- gruence (>.80), other items show a congruence index of less than .50 for all of the measurement targets (27, 29, and 33), and Item 31 falls short of the threshold value of .30 for inclusion in the table (Thorn & Deitz, 1989). Table 2 also pro- vides valuable information related to the degree to which the test items meet the proposed mea- surement objectives. There are no items associ- ated with the subcompetencies A2 (“Recognize the type and source of conflict”), C1 (“Under- stand and use communication networks”), and D2 (“Monitor, assess and provide feedback on individual and group performance”). Moreover, the number of items that are congruent with the different measurement targets varies between a single highly congruent item (23) for A3 (“Use win–win strategies”) and four items (1, 4, 11, and 19) for D1 (“Help set specific, challenging and accepted objectives”).

Finally, all of the experts remarked in their comments that the test items allow assessment of only the respondents’ knowledge, although the original Stevens and Campion (1994) model refers to “teamwork knowledge, skills and abil- ities.”

Dimensionality analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis (N = 135) was carried out on the correlation matrix to examine the dimensional-

was analyzed using Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2006). Following the substantive model pro- posed by Stevens and Campion (1994, 1999), we tested five models: (a) five-factor orthogonal model, (b) two-factor orthogonal model, (c) five-factor correlated model, (d) two-factor cor- related model, and (e) one-factor model.

Table 3 presents the fit indices established for the different estimated models. The orthogonal solutions of the five-factor and two-factor mod- els do not fit the data. Values in each index are substantially below the usual standards. How- ever, when correlation between factors is al- lowed, the model fits the data better. Even so, the only adjustment index for which a good fit is obtained is the root mean square error of ap- proximation (<.05). A similar effect is ob- served with a single-factor model.

In addition, to deeply explore the dimension- ality of the items proposed, we conducted an exhaustive exploratory factor analysis of the different factorial solutions from one to seven factors, including a review of both orthogonal and oblique rotations. The results do not allow us to clearly label the factors according to the Stevens and Campion model (1994).

Criterion validity analysis. To provide further evidence of the criterion-related validity of the TWKSAT, we correlated the scores in the TWKSAT against the criterion for individual performance in a team task. A subsample of the study (n = 30; 56% women; average age = 23 years) formed by the participants in an under- graduate teamwork course was observed during the resolution of a group decision-making task. The participants were randomly assigned to five-member teams. The task required the teams to generate effective measures to resolve traffic problems caused by improper parking on a uni-

versity campus.2

The teams were allowed 30 min to complete the task and were video- recorded for subsequent analysis. Both team tasks and video recording were standard fea- tures of the course, and the participants were therefore familiar with these procedures. An ad hoc code (see Appendix A) was designed for behavioral observation. The code categories de- scribe specific behaviors associated with the five teamwork competencies identified by Ste- vens and Campion (1994, 1999; e.g., “Request

ity of the test. As these are dichotomous (right/ wrong) items, the tetrachoric correlation matrix 2 The task materials are available on request.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 121

TEAMWORK COMPETENCY TEST 107

Table 2 Teamwork Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes Test Congruence Indexes

Item A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D1 D2 E1 E2

06 0.88 0.35

07 0.65 0.47

23 0.92

10 0.55 0.37

12 0.64

26 0.65

22 0.97

27 0.31

28 0.92

29 0.31

15 0.96

32 0.79

33 0.45

34 0.64

09 0.58

16 0.94 0.76

30 0.60

14 0.58 0.94

24 0.40 0.94

35 0.59 0.95

02 0.79

17 0.99

01 0.95

04 0.92

11 0.97

19 1.00

18 0.62

08 0.88 0.71 13 0.62

20 0.78

21 0.95 0.41 25 0.55 0.37 05 0.59

03 0.71 0.88

31

Note. A1 = The knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) to recognize and encourage desirable, but discourage undesirable, team conflict; A2 = The KSA to recognize the type and source of conflict confronting the team and to implement an appropriate conflict resolution strategy; A3 = The KSA to employ an integrative negotiation strategy rather than the traditional distributive strategy; B1 = The KSA to identify situations requiring participative group problem solving and to utilize the proper degree and type of participation; B2 = The KSA to recognize the obstacles to collaborative group problem solving and implement appropriate corrective actions; C1 = The KSA to understand communication networks and to utilize decentralized networks to enhance the communication where possible; C2 = The KSA to communicate openly and supportively; C3 = The KSA to listen nonevalu- atively and appropriately use active listening techniques; C4 = The KSA to maximize consonance between nonverbal and verbal messages, and to recognize and interpret the nonverbal messages of others; C5 = The KSA to engage in ritual greetings and small talk, and a recognition of their importance; D1 = The KSA to help establish specific, challenging, and accepted team goals; D2 = The KSA to monitor, evaluate, and provide feedback on both overall team performance and individual team member perfor- mance; E1 = The KSA to coordinate and synchronize activities, information, and task interdependencies between members; E2 = The KSA to help establish task and role expectations of individual team members and to ensure proper balancing of workload in the team. To facilitate reading the indexes, indexes <.30 have been eliminated; indexes >.80 appear in bold italic type; and the greater index obtained for each item appears in bold type.

additional information from team members”). Two groups of five judges independently ana- lyzed the recordings, noting the frequency of teamwork behaviors associated with a particular

competency displayed by each of the team members. All of the judges were postgraduate students who were blind to the objectives of the study and independent of the research group.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 122

29, 31, and 33). In addition, the format of the

N = 135; RMSEA = root mean square error of approxi- mation; CFI = confirmatory fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis fit index.

They were trained in the use of the code and underwent a trial period to align criteria and discuss inconsistencies. The mean interjudge reliability for the different competencies was acceptable (K = .87); therefore, we computed the mean of their assessments to obtain a single score for each competency. Finally, we com- puted the mean of the scores for each individual and the five competencies, as in the case of the questionnaire, to obtain a total teamwork com- petency score. As expected, the TWKSAT score was positively correlated with the observed measure of teamwork skills (r = .43, p < .05).

Discussion

The first study revealed certain weaknesses in the TWKSAT (Stevens & Campion, 1999) that affect its use in academic and professional con- texts. Specifically, the following deficiencies were observed in three different facets: (a) Some items show very low reliability indices affecting the general reliability of the scale, (b) the contents of the original model proposed by Stevens and Campion (1994) are not fully rep- resented in the test, and (c) the dimensional structure obtained from the factor analysis is not well aligned with the substantive model.

With regard to the first weakness, the results of the study show that certain items should be eliminated from the scale, as their adjusted cor- relations with the total for the scale are less than the generally accepted standards.

Turning to the second weakness, the content analysis indicates that certain teamwork sub- competencies identified in the general model are not picked up by the test items. Thus, no items exist associated with the subcompetencies A2 (“Recognize the type and source of con- flict”), C1 (“Understand and use communica-

Finally, Stevens and Campion (1994) estab- lished 14 teamwork subcompetencies in their model, grouped into five competencies, which are, in turn, integrated in two dimensions. How- ever, our results indicate a structure that tends toward unidimensionality.

To sum up, the results of this study provide an explanation of the low reliability indices reported in previous research and suggest how a more reliable measurement could be obtained from the TWKSAT without affecting its predic- tive capacity. In line with prior studies using the original English version of the TWKSAT (Chen et al., 2004; McClough & Rogelberg, 2003; Stevens & Campion, 1999), the Spanish adap- tation of the test used in our study reveals sim- ilar correlation indices (r = .43, p < .05).

It is necessary to recognize that our results may be influenced by cultural differences be- tween U.S.-based samples used by Stevens and Campion (1999) to develop and validate the TWKSAT and our Spain-based sample. Cross- cultural studies (e.g., Earley & Erez, 1997; Hof- stede, 1980, 1983a, 1983b) show that cultural differences may affect the processes and out- comes of individuals and groups in organiza- tions (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991; Gibson, 1999). Thus, in contrast to North Americans, Spaniards tend to be (a) higher in collectivism, so they tend to put group interests first (Trian- dis, 1995) and look more actively for social acceptance, strong group identity, and the de- velopment of personal relationships (Grimm, Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1999); (b) higher in power distance, leading them to behave more submissively with managers and avoid dis- agreements and feeling more comfortable work- ing in teams with strong directivity (Earley & Erez, 1997); (c) lower in action orientation (Maznevski, DiStefano, Gomez, Noorderhaven, & Wu, 1997), which could make them work less hard (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1993) and be more resistant to work by objectives (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961); and (d) more likely to believe that external forces determine

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

108 AGUADO, RICO, SÁNCHEZ-MANZANARES, AND SALAS

Table 3 tion networks”), and D2 (“Monitor, assess and Model Fit Indexes provide feedback on individual and group per-

Model RMSEA CFI TLI formance”). The content analysis also revealed that certain items are not associated with any of

Five factor (orthogonal) .082 .067 .008 the proposed measurement targets (Items 27, Two factor (orthogonal) .07 .324 .282

Five factor (correlated) .04 .776 .762

Two factor (correlated) .038 .807 .792 items is designed to measure “knowledge,” but One factor .041 .774 .76 not skills or aptitudes.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 123

TEAMWORK COMPETENCY TEST 109

their successes and failures (Trompenaars, 1993). According to these cultural differences between Spanish and North American popula- tions, the way employees approach their profes- sional performance in teams and, therefore, the way employees respond to the TWKSAT may be different. Thus, generalization of our find- ings to the context of teamwork in North Amer- ican cultures should be done with caution.

To conclude, our findings suggest the need to improve the measurement of teamwork compe- tencies. The TWKSAT allows measurement of only the General Teamwork competency, which constricts examination of the conceptual rich- ness expressed in Stevens and Campion’s (1994) original model. Consequently, it is de- sirable to develop new items capable of captur- ing the different subcompetencies, as well as obtaining more reliable scores in the five com- petencies.

Study 2

The second study analyzed a new measure of the teamwork knowledge, skills, and abilities based on Stevens and Campion’s (1994) model, which is called the Teamwork Competency Test (TWCT). For this purpose, we developed and adapted new items in light of the findings from Study 1. The new test comprises 36 items, which were administered to a sample of 120 university students to analyze the functioning of the items and to test the TWCT’s reliability, content validity, and dimensionality.

Method

Item development for TWCT. Based on results from Study 1, we developed new items to represent the 14 subcompetencies established by Stevens and Campion (1994). The items were worded in the observable behavior format. An initial set of 83 items was constructed, which was progressively refined to the final 36 items. Based on interviews with three experts in the fields of teamwork and organizational be- havior, several items were rephrased (seven items) or left out (31 items). The remaining 52 items were applied to different samples and, taking into account the item statistics (corrected item-total correlation and factor loadings), 16 items were deleted. Using the selected 36 items, we conducted a pilot study on 26 members of

four software development programmers’ teams from a small information technology company. All team members responded to the question- naire and provided feedback on the items. Most items were understood and perceived as unam- biguous. Some minor changes were made based on their comments, but all the items were re- tained. As a result, the new measure contains 36 items drafted in Spanish (see the complete scale in Appendix B) and uses a 4-point response scale of frequency (1 = never/almost never and 4 = always/almost always).

Participants and procedure. The sample comprised 120 final-year psychology students at a large Spanish public university, 68.7% of whom were women. The average age was 23 years (SD = 0.96). The procedure was identical to that in Study 1. The assistance of the same experts was used to analyze the validity of the test content as in Study 1.

Results

Description of items and scales. Table 4 summarizes the main descriptive statistics for the questionnaire items. The mean scores for all items were above 2.5 (the theoretical midpoint on the response scale), except those related to the Collaborative Problem Solving dimension, in which the averages were somewhat lower (between 1.94 and 2.28). The reliability indices for both the scales and the full questionnaire (.89) were satisfactory.

Content analysis. Table 4 presents the congruence indices (Rovinelli & Hambleton, 1977) for each item based on the subcompeten- cies proposed by Stevens and Campion (1994). The congruence indices for all of the items were satisfactory (minimum = 0.56, maximum = 1.00). Finally, the whole content domain estab- lished in the model was represented by the items developed.

Dimensionality analysis. We carried out various factor analyses to explore the dimen- sionality of the questionnaire above and beyond the adequacy and relevance of the items. Given the high means for the items and the deviation of distributions away from normal, we used the minimum unweighted least squares method for factor extraction, employing the FACTOR pro- gram (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2006). Bar-

tlett’s sphericity test (x2 = 5557.6, df = 703, p < .001) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin index

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 124

110 AGUADO, RICO, SÁNCHEZ-MANZANARES, AND SALAS

Table 4 Teamwork Competency Test Item Statistics, Congruence Indexes, and Scale Reliabilities

Content

Item M SD A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D1 D2 E1 E2

1 3.34 0.67 1.00

16 3.00 0.75 1.00

19 2.91 0.74 0.56 0.83

21 3.12 0.75 0.77 0.63 0.5

7 3.41 0.60 0.69 0.83

10 2.47 0.89 0.64

3 2.88 0.79 0.94

15 3.27 0.68 0.81 0.81

11 3.00 0.86 0.81

25 3.04 0.84 1.00

14 2.71 0.74 0.70

24 2.51 0.81 0.83

26 2.61 0.76 1.00

5 2.83 0.70 0.95

17 3.27 0.70 0.95

28 3.28 0.69 1.00

29 3.31 0.68 0.69

2 3.43 0.61 0.78

27 3.37 0.63 1.00

8 3.57 0.61 0.89

9 3.13 0.75 0.83

12 3.25 0.79 1.00

30 3.23 0.78 1.00

35 2.70 0.75 1.00

6 2.99 0.76 0.87

20 3.03 0.81 0.95

22 2.91 0.83 0.95

31 3.00 0.77 1.00

32 3.06 0.78 1.00

36 2.86 0.80 0.95

4 3.06 0.72 0.87

23 3.33 0.75 1.00

33 3.11 0.68 0.87

34 3.07 0.68 0.87

13 3.65 0.60 0.89 18 3.05 0.73 1.00

Total 112.9 12.00

Note. A1 = The knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) to recognize and encourage desirable, but discourage undesirable, team conflict; A2 = The KSA to recognize the type and source of conflict confronting the team and to implement an appropriate conflict resolution strategy; A3 = The KSA to employ an integrative negotiation strategy rather than the traditional distributive strategy; B1 = The KSA to identify situations requiring participative group problem solving and to utilize the proper degree and type of participation; B2 = The KSA to recognize the obstacles to collaborative group problem solving and implement appropriate corrective actions; C1 = The KSA to understand communication networks and to utilize decentralized networks to enhance the communication where possible; C2 = The KSA to communicate openly and supportively; C3 = The KSA to listen nonevaluatively and appropriately use active listening techniques; C4 = The KSA to maximize consonance between nonverbal and verbal messages, and to recognize and interpret the nonverbal messages of others; C5 = The KSA to engage in ritual greetings and small talk, and a recognition of their importance; D1 = The KSA to help establish specific, challenging, and accepted team goals; D2 = The KSA to monitor, evaluate, and provide feedback on both overall team performance and individual team member performance; E1 = The KSA to coordinate and synchronize activities, information, and task interdependencies between members; E2 = The KSA to help establish task and role expectations of individual team members and to ensure proper balancing of workload in the team.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 125

TEAMWORK COMPETENCY TEST 111

(.66) confirmed that the item correlation matrix could be factorized. The factorial solution was obliquely rotated. Eleven factors were found to have an eigenvalue of more than 1.00 after extraction. The parallel analysis retained only the first eight factors extracted. In line with this analysis, the eight-factor model was the one that best reflected the initial substantive model, ex- plaining 56% of the total variance, with only 18% residual errors of more than .05. The eight- factor solution was compared with a five-factor solution, as proposed in the substantive model. The percentage variance explained was found to be lower (43%), as was the percentage of resid- ual errors greater than .05 (33%). In addition, the residual mean squares error average showed a marginally acceptable value (.085) in the eight-factor model, but a clearly unacceptable value in the five-factor model (.11). Therefore, it appears that the eight-factor model better re- produces the analyzed data matrix compared with the five-factor model.

Table 5 presents the results obtained in the configuration matrix after oblique rotation. Al- though this matrix does not exactly reproduce the expected structure of 14 subcompetencies, a detailed analysis indicates that it reflects the substantive model—with some variations— on which the development of the items was based. The first factor extracted represents the Conflict Resolution competency. The items developed in relation to this competency (especially those referring to the recognition of conflict: Items 1, 10, 15, 16, 19, and 21) are associated with this factor, as are the Communication competency items related to open communication and sup- port. They are joined by Item 18 (designed for the Planning and Coordination competency). The second factor extracted reflects the Plan- ning and Coordination competency (Items 4, 13, 23, 33, and 34). This factor also includes Item 8 (designed for the Communication com- petency). The items for the Goal Setting and Performance Management competency appear in Factors 3 and 6. Items related to “monitoring, assessing and providing feedback on individual and group performance” (Items 6, 22, 31, and 35) are associated with Factor 3, and those referring to “offering teammates feedback on their results” (Items 20, 32, and 36) are associ- ated with Factor 6. Factors 4 and 5 reflect the Collaborative Problem Solving competency. Factor 4 is associated with items referring to

“recognizing obstacles to participative problem solving” (Items 14, 24, and 26), and Factor 5 is associated with items referring to “identifying situations that require participation in decision making” (Items 11 and 25). Finally, Factors 7 and 8 reflect the Communication competency. The items related to “active listening, nonverbal communication and recognition of communica- tion networks” (Items 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 27) are associated with Factor 7, and those related to “informal communication acts with other team members” (Items 12 and 30) are associated with Factor 8.

Finally, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (N = 120) on the scores obtained for the eight factors to verify whether the eight factors extracted are associated with two gen- eral dimensions, as proposed in the substantive model, or with a single dimension as Study 1 suggests. The following factors were assigned to the Interpersonal competencies dimension in the two-dimensional model (see Figure 2): 1 (Conflict Resolution), 4 (Collaborative Problem Solving: Group), 5 (Collaborative Problem Solving: Individual), 7 (Communication: Active Listening), and 8 (Communication: Informal). The following factors were assigned to the Self- Management dimension: 2 (Planning), 3 (Per- formance Objective Management: Monitoring), and 7 (Performance Objective Management: Feedback).

In view of the weightings assigned to the different variables, all of the parameters esti- mated in the two-factor model are significant (p < .001), except for the relationship between Factor 4 and Factor 5 and the Interpersonal Relations dimension (p = .001 and p = .040, respectively). All of the parameters estimated are again significant (p < .001) for a one-factor model, except for the relationship between Fac- tor 4 and Factor 5 and the General Teamwork factor (p = .002 and p = .042, respectively). None of the standardized residuals attains a value of |res_z| > 2 for the one-factor model. However, a high value, |res_z| > 2, appears in the two-factor model for the relationship be- tween Factor 1 and Factor 7, although this is not an especially large deviation.

The values obtained for the goodness-of-fit estimators for both models indicate a good fit in both models. For the one-factor model and two-

factor model, the values were, respectively, x2

= 0.181 and 0.242, standardized root mean

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 126

112 AGUADO, RICO, SÁNCHEZ-MANZANARES, AND SALAS

Table 5 Exploratory Factor Analysis for Teamwork Competency Test Items Configuration Matrix

Factor

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

28 0.93 -0.09 -0.05 -0.02 -0.10 -0.02 -0.03 0.05 17 0.92 -0.12 -0.02 -0.05 -0.07 -0.02 -0.04 0.08 29 0.90 -0.11 -0.03 -0.05 -0.10 -0.06 -0.06 0.12 15 0.47 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.16 0.07 0.02 -0.04 19 0.35 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.16 0.19 -0.03 18 0.29 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.03 01 0.24 0.07 0.12 0.10 0.24 0.14 0.16 -0.02 10 0.23 -0.02 0.15 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.14 -0.05 21 0.21 -0.05 0.06 0.13 0.04 0.29 -0.03 -0.08 16 0.18 0.13 0.20 -0.01 0.13 0.15 0.09 0.05 34 0.05 -0.94 -0.02 0.01 -0.03 0.10 -0.06 -0.03 33 0.02 -0.91 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 0.06 -0.03 -0.01 04 0.05 -0.84 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.09 -0.07 -0.05 23 0.01 -0.55 0.13 -0.05 0.05 0.06 0.12 -0.02 08 0.04 -0.22 0.01 0.01 0.05 -0.07 0.11 0.08 13 0.00 -0.19 0.13 -0.02 0.05 -0.02 0.18 0.06 31 -0.06 -0.05 0.93 -0.03 -0.02 0.01 -0.06 0.03 06 -0.06 0.01 0.91 0.00 -0.02 0.02 -0.05 0.01 22 0.00 -0.05 0.87 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.07 35 0.12 -0.01 0.11 0.10 0.03 0.05 -0.01 0.08 26 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.95 -0.06 0.03 -0.07 0.00 14 -0.02 0.01 -0.09 0.89 -0.07 -0.02 -0.06 0.01 24 -0.12 0.03 0.08 0.80 0.05 -0.02 0.03 0.01 11 -0.08 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02 0.98 -0.03 -0.08 0.02 25 -0.07 -0.02 -0.03 -0.05 0.93 -0.03 -0.10 0.03 20 -0.06 -0.10 -0.02 -0.01 -0.04 0.89 0.03 0.02 32 -0.09 -0.14 -0.02 -0.05 -0.01 0.85 0.03 0.08 36 0.11 0.06 0.13 0.04 0.00 0.53 0.08 0.09 27 -0.08 -0.06 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 0.09 0.90 -0.08 02 -0.10 -0.05 -0.02 -0.06 -0.10 0.05 0.79 -0.03 03 0.16 0.04 -0.08 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.39 0.03 07 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.10 0.02 0.36 0.15 05 0.09 -0.03 0.14 0.01 -0.07 -0.08 0.25 0.09 09 0.08 -0.16 -0.03 0.17 0.11 -0.11 0.25 0.00 30 -0.02 0.01 -0.05 0.01 0.03 0.03 -0.03 1.00

12 0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.07 -0.06 0.90

Note. N = 120; Extraction = unweighted least squares; Rotation = Oblimin–Kaiser; Convergence = 12 iterations. Items rationally linked with the factor are in bold type. Items not rationally linked with the factor and up to .10 value are in bold italic type.

residual = .048 and .047, root mean square error of approximation = .037 and .031, com- parative fit index = .976 and .983, and Tucker– Lewis index = .966 and .975 (Figure 2).

Discussion

Overall, the results of the second study show that the TWCT reasonably covers the whole content domain proposed by Stevens and Cam- pion (1994), is reliable, and its dimensional structure adequately reflects the original sub-

stantive model (although it does not do so ex-

actly). With regard to the first point, the inter-

judge analysis indicates that the TWCT items

are representative of the 14 subcompetencies

defined by the authors. In terms of reliability, the

five scales present adequate Cronbach’s al- phas

of more than .80, except the Conflict Res-

olution scale, which has an alpha of .71. The

alpha for the total scale is also adequate (.89).

Finally, the dimensionality analysis reveals a

latent structure for the TWCT that is substan-

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 127

2,63

TEAMWORK COMPETENCY TEST 113

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis solutions for the one-factor and two-factor models.

Interpersonal

2,61

2,13

3,48

,50

1,00 1,44

,52

1,28

1,40

2,10

2,02

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 128

114 AGUADO, RICO, SÁNCHEZ-MANZANARES, AND SALAS

tially associated with Stevens and Campion’s

(1994) model. However, the structure observed

does not exactly reproduce either the structure of

the 14 subcompetencies or the structure of the

five competencies.

Our results suggest the need to reconfigure the

originally designed scales. This is particu- larly

important regarding the Conflict Resolu- tion

competency. The analyses of both dimen-

sionality and congruence reveal a strong

association between the Conflict Resolution

items and the Communication items (related to

open communication and support). It seems rea-

sonable to integrate the items in the Communi-

cation subcompetency into the Conflict Resolu-

tion competency, as the factor analysis

indicates. This is also true with regard to Item

18, which both the judges and the factor anal-

ysis associate with that competency. The Con-

flict Resolution scale with an alpha of .84 would

thus be established with the same items as orig-

inally designed. The Collaborative Problem

Solving scale is also maintained intact, integrat-

ing the Factor 4 and Factor 5 items with an alpha

of .83. The Communication scale contains the

Factor 7 and Factor 8 items associated with

communication items, except for open commu-

nication and support, obtaining an alpha of .72.

The Objective Management and Performance

competency would be formed by all of the items

from Factors 3 and 6 with an alpha of .82.

Finally, the Planning and Coordination compe-

tency integrates all of the items associated with

Factor 2 (a = .88), except Item 18, which is

moved to Conflict Resolution.

Study 3

The third study had a dual objective: (1) to

obtain initial evidence for the convergent valid-

ity of the new measure of teamwork compe-

tency developed in Study 2, and (2) to compare

the new measure with the original test proposed

by Stevens and Campion (1999). A sample of

employees was used to analyze the relationship

between the TWCT and (a) the original

TWKSAT, (b) supervisor assessments of em-

ployees’ teamwork competencies, and (c) self-

assessments of competency by employees

themselves.

Method

Sample. A total of 91 employees working in a major Spanish power utility took part in the study. Men made up 81% of the total sample, and the average age was 29.6 years (SD = 3.38). The measurements were made as part of the activities undertaken by the employees within the framework of a mandatory skills development program set up by the company. Participants signed a consent form regarding their participation in the study. They could de- cline to be enrolled in the research by not pro- viding their records without any adverse effect on their participation in the skills development program. We also obtained company consent to use the data in the research.

Measures.

TWKSAT. We administered the original version of the Stevens and Campion (1999) test used in Study 1.

TWCT. The version of the test designed in Study 2 was administered. Six different mea- sures were established for each participant, con- sisting of a total score and a score for each of the five competencies.

Team performance: Supervisor assessment. The assessments of each employee’s immedi- ate superior were obtained specifically for the purposes of the study and did not form part of the company’s usual performance manage- ment process. The information gathered on the employees was strictly training-related. The supervisor questionnaire contained eight items describing different teamwork behav- iors, to which they were asked to respond on a 4-point scale (1 = completely disagree, 4 = completely agree). An example item is “He or she (the employee) participates actively in work meetings (giving his or her opinion, asking questions, etc.).” The items were drawn from a competency model used in the company.

Team performance: Self-assessment. The same eight-item questionnaire expressed in the first person was also answered by each employee to assess his/her usual behavior in work team situations.

Procedure. The supervisors’ assessments (Measure 3) and the self-assessments of the employees (Measure 4) were obtained con- currently at the beginning of the course. The supervisors gave their responses online via a

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 129

TEAMWORK COMPETENCY TEST 115

user/key connection to a web page containing the questionnaire and instructions for comple- tion. The TWKSAT and TWCT measures (re- spectively, Measures 1 and 2) were collected at a first training session 1 week later. Both questionnaires were administered in a paper- and-pencil format, counterbalanced to avoid effects associated with the order of presenta- tion.

Results

Table 6 summarizes the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all of the variables in the study. The reliability of the two criteria measures used was .70 for team performance supervisor evaluation and .54 for team perfor- mance self-evaluation. The two versions of the TWKSAT were positively correlated (r = .47, p < .01), as were the assessments made by the supervisors and the employees (r = .25, p < .05). As in Study 2, the competencies evaluated in the TWCT were positively correlated (except Competency B: Collaborative Problem Solv- ing). Also, the competencies as captured by the TWCT were positively correlated with the orig- inal TWKSAT, except Competency B.

The supervisor assessment correlation with the TWCT was .34 (p < .01) compared with a correlation of .26 (p < .05) with the TWKSAT. These correlations are not statistically different (T = -0.76, p < .05). A similar effect was observed in the employee self-assessments, which showed a correlation of .39 (p < .01) with the TWCT and .21 (p < .05) with the TWKSAT. These correlations are statistically

different (T = -1.78, p < .05). Analysis of the TWCT competencies shows that Competencies A (Conflict Resolution), D (Goal Setting and Performance Management), and E (Planning and Coordination) are positively correlated both with the supervisor’s assessment (r = .24, p < .05; r = .36, p < .01; r = .27, p < .01, respectively) and with employees’ self-assess- ments (r = .30, p < .01; r = .38, p < .01; r = .37, p < .01, respectively).

Finally, we performed a hierarchical regres- sion analysis examining the proportion of the variance in the scores obtained from the super- visors’ assessments due to the TWKSAT and TWCT, respectively. In the first step, the TWKSAT score was introduced, and the TWCT score was introduced in a second step. Table 7 indicates that the percentage of explained vari-

ance increases significantly at 6.3%, 11R2 = .063, p < .05; F(2.88) = 6.60; [3 = .285, p < .05, when the TWCT score is introduced.

Discussion

The results of the third study provide favor- able empirical evidence for the convergent va- lidity of the TWCT. The total score in this new version of the test is positively correlated with the other measures in the study, namely (a) the score in the original Stevens and Campion test (1999), (b) the supervisors’ assessments of the teamwork behavior of employees in their rou- tine work, and (c) the self-assessments made by the employees themselves. Furthermore, the re- sults indicate that the Conflict Resolution, Goal Setting and Performance Management, and

Table 6 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations for Study 3 Measures

Measure M SD a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. TWKSAT 21.9 2.3 .37

2. TWCT Total 109.0 10.9 .84 .47**

3. TWCT KSA_A 30.5 4.6 .84 .36** .81**

4. TWCT KSA_B 13.6 2.6 .26 .10 .42** .07

5. TWCT KSA_C 25.0 2.8 .35 .37** .59**

.39** .00

6. TWCT KSA_D 19.9 3.3 .66 .41** .81**

.59** .24*

.33**

7. TWCT KSA_E 19.9 2.4 .55 .33** .72**

.43** .36**

.29** .51**

8. Team performance supervisor evaluation 16.2 3.3 .70 .26* .34**

.24* .13 .16 .36** .27**

9. Team performance self-evaluation 23.4 2.8 .54 .21* .39**

.30** .08 .19 .38** .37** .25*

Note. TWKSAT = Teamwork Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes Test; TWCT = Teamwork Competency Test; N = 91; KSA_A = Conflict Resolution; KSA_B = Collaborative Problem Solving; KSA_C = Communication; KSA_D = Goal Setting and Performance Management; KSA_E = Planning and Task Coordination. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 130

116 AGUADO, RICO, SÁNCHEZ-MANZANARES, AND SALAS

Table 7

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Over the Team

Performance Supervisor Evaluation

Step df F 11R2 [3

1 1, 89 6.42 .067*

TWKSAT .259*

2 2, 88 6.60 .063*

TWKSAT .125

TWCT .285*

Note. TWKSAT = Teamwork Knowledge, Skills, Atti- tudes Test; TWCT = Teamwork Competency Test. * p < .05.

Planning and Coordination competencies are the only competencies of the five contained in the TWCT that correlate independently with the criterion variables.

Contrary to our expectations, however, the correlations between the different subscales in the test are not all either significant or positive. Specifically, Collaborative Problem Solving is weakly related to the other dimensions except Goal Setting and Performance Management and Planning and Coordination.

Another interesting feature is the significant, positive correlation found between the original TWKSAT and the supervisors’ assessments. This is in line with the original study carried out by Stevens and Campion (1999). Finally, com- parison of the predictive capacity of the two versions of the TWKSAT suggests that the TWCT is a better predictor of the self- assessment of teamwork— but not of the super- visors’ assessments—than the original test.

General Discussion

Overall, the three studies highlight certain significant limitations in the original TWKSAT designed by Stevens and Campion (1999), im- proving the metric characteristics of the test and developing a new version. Available research shows that the TWKSAT offers good predictive validity (McClough & Rogelberg, 2003), but it may be improved in terms of reliability (e.g., Athanasaw, 2003; Chen et al., 2004). Despite the TWKSAT’s relevance as an appropriate measure of essential teamwork competencies, the absence of studies examining the causes of these reliability problems is surprising.

Based on the results of Study 1, (a) the reli- ability problems in the TWKSAT are due to the

poor functioning of certain items, (b) the do- main contents proposed by the authors are not satisfactorily represented by the test items, and (c) the dimensionality of the test does not reflect the original substantive model.

Study 2 presents the TWCT, which is a new development focused on the Stevens and Cam- pion (1999) model. The TWCT includes 36 items in a 4-point frequency scale format and drafted in “observable behaviors” statements. The dimensionality of the TWCT reproduces the original substantive model better than its predecessor, reflecting the assessment contents domain included in the model and offering re- liable scores in both the test total and each of the model’s five dimensions.

Finally, Study 3 provides initial evidence for the criterion validity of the TWCT compared with the original test in a sample of profession- als. The total TWCT score is positively corre- lated with the teamwork assessments made by both supervisors and the employees themselves. Moreover, the TWCT predicts the supervisor assessment better than the TWKSAT.

Overall, our research provides empirical ev- idence concerning the method for valid, reliable teamwork competency assessments. The TWCT offers a more accurate measure of teamwork competency in terms of reliability than the orig- inal measure proposed by Stevens and Campion (1994), as well as greater conceptual richness in terms of independent scores for the five compe- tencies identified by the authors. This impor- tantly allows differential analysis of the effects of specific competencies on the performance of different types of teams. In addition, it makes possible the examination of whether improving the skills associated with a specific teamwork competency benefits the others. Our findings also help both academics and practitioners to better understand the low reliability indicators for the TWKSAT and provide a new test (TWCT) that improves reliability and offers an independent measure for each of the dimensions proposed by Stevens and Campion (1999).

Considering the competencies measured by the TWCT from the standpoint of the five major teamwork dimensions proposed by Salas et al. (2005), the competencies measured at the indi- vidual level are found to be associated with two of the core dimensions these authors describe, namely follow-up and monitoring of team per- formance and team orientation. However, other

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 131

TEAMWORK COMPETENCY TEST 117

core dimensions of the model, such as team leadership, replacement behaviors, and adapt- ability, do not appear in the TWCT. In addition, recent studies have shown the capacity of knowledge tests on team roles related to the task, team, and boundary-spanning activities to accurately predict performance in teams (Mar- rone et al., 2007; Mumford et al., 2008). Future research should consider this issue as the TWCT would gain in both quality and utility if it included the mentioned dimensions.

Despite the above-mentioned contributions, our research is not without limitations. First, the samples analyzed in the first two studies are of a reasonable size but were provided by univer- sity students. If our results are to be generalized, the studies would need to be replicated in larger samples of employees. In particular, the factor analysis conducted on the TWKSAT should be replicated both in larger samples, given that our sample was smaller than the criterion of 10 participants per item, and in American samples to solve the potential effects of cultural differ- ences. As proposed by Ryan, Chan, Ployhart, and Slade (1999), beyond the translation of the TWKSAT, it is necessary to adapt the test con- sidering the equivalence of the measurements obtained in culturally diverse populations. Sec- ond, the factor analyses carried out on the TWCT reveal a dimensional structure that is similar to the substantive model employed but does not reflect it perfectly. Further studies should look into the reasons for this, particu- larly with regard to the functioning of the Col- laborative Problem Solving scale. In line with the underlying theoretical model, it was ex- pected that this competency would correlate with Conflict Management and Communica- tion, but only a weak association was found. Moreover, Collaborative Problem Solving cor- relates more closely with other competencies related to team self-management. Analysis of the content of items (e.g., Item 11, “To address the trivial task-related issues, I do not need to talk first with all team members in order to reach a decision”) indicates that behaviors of this kind are related to effective coordination.

The number and type of competencies se- lected are critical issues. The competencies originally proposed by Stevens and Campion (1994) do not exhaust the set of skills that could be considered to explain what people actually do in effective teamwork. For example, the

skills to develop shared mental models (Can- non-Bowers et al., 1995; Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), mutual trust (Webber, 2002), and team leadership (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001) may also be critical in explaining team performance. As mentioned above, the development of measures that integrate these aspects would improve our ability to diagnose and predict teams’ perfor- mance based on the personal abilities of the individuals who form them. Moreover, the use of advanced psychometric models like those based on item response theory (Hambleton & Swaminathan, 1985) would allow the design of computerized adaptive tests able to optimize the administration of a wide-ranging measure (Lord, 1970; Owen, 1975).

Finally, let us consider the practical implica- tions of this research. The information provided by the new TWCT is of great interest for people management in organizations, as it shows man- agers, team leaders, and human resources pro- fessionals which employees’ competencies are critical to select, train, and develop to improve team performance.

By throwing light on candidates’ skills, the test would facilitate selection and team compo- sition decisions. The access to information on five different competencies means that the con- figuration of teams can be supported by a richer information base than would be possible using only a single general estimate. In addition, the differential diagnosis provided by the TWCT on the stronger and weaker competencies of each employee will allow teams to customize train- ing and development interventions. This is par- ticularly valuable in view of the increasing de- mand for training programs to improve teamwork competencies (Chen et al., 2004). Finally, the behaviors made explicit by the TWCT could be used as a guide to determine the behavioral anchors and sample behaviors used in the design of performance assessment and management tools.

References

Athanasaw, Y. A. (2003). Team characteristics and team member knowledge, skills, and ability rela- tionships to the effectiveness of cross-functional teams in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 26, 1165–1203. doi: 10.1081/PAD-120019926

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 132

118 AGUADO, RICO, SÁNCHEZ-MANZANARES, AND SALAS

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross- cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216. doi:10.1177/ 135910457000100301

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Bowers, C. A. (2011). Team development and functioning. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organiza- tional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 597– 650). Wash- ington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12169-019

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. A.

Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333–380). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning and Ed- ucation, 3, 27– 40. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2004 .12436817

Clevenger, J., Pereira, G. M., Wiechmann, D., Schmitt, N., & Harvey, V. S. (2001). Incremental validity of situational judgment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 410 – 417. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.86.3.410

Cox, T., Lobel, S., & McLeod, P. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative

and competitive behavior on a group task. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 34, 827– 847. doi: 10.2307/256391

Earley, P. C., & Erez, M. (1997). The transplanted executive. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 42, 138 –152. doi:10.2307/257089

Grimm, S. D., Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., & Reyes,

J. A. S. (1999). Self-described traits, values, and moods associated with individualism and collectiv-

ism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 466 –

500. doi:10.1177/0022022199030004005 Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the

stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Har- vard Business School Press.

Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, J. (1985). Item

response theory: Principles and applications. Bos- ton, MA: Kluwer.

Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (1993). The seven cultures of capitalism: Value systems for creating wealth in the United States, Japan, Ger- many, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Gar-

den City, NY: Doubleday. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Inter-

national differences in work-related values. Bev- erly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983a). The cultural relativity of orga- nizational practices and theories. Journal of Inter- national Business Studies, 14, 75– 89. doi:10.1057/

palgrave.jibs.8490867 Hofstede, G. (1983b). Dimensions of national cul-

tures in fifty countries and three regions. In J. B. Deregowksi, S. Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds.),

Expiscations in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 335–355). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Varia- tions in value orientations. Westport, CT: Green-

wood Press.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhanc-

ing the effectiveness of work groups and teams.

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.

Lawler, E. E. III, & Worley, C. G. (2006). Built to change. How to achieve sustained organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., Rogelberg, S. G., & Jack-

son, P. R. (2005). Team autonomy, performance, and member job strain: Uncovering the Teamwork KSA link. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 1–24. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005 .00193.x

Lord, F. M. (1970). Some test theory for tailored testing. In W. H. Holtzman (Ed.), Computer as-

sisted instruction, testing and guidance (pp. 139 – 183). New York: Harper & Row.

Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the explor- atory factor analysis model. Behavioral Research Methods, 38, 88 –91. doi:10.3758/BF03192753

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356 –376.

Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multi-level investigation of antecedents and con-

sequences of team member boundary spanning be- havior. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1423–1439. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.28225967

Maznevski, M. L., DiStefano, J. J., Gomez, C. B., Noorderhaven, N. G., & Wu, P. (1997, October 8 –12). The cultural orientations framework and

international management research. Paper pre- sented at the Academy of International Business annual meeting, Guadalajara, Mexico.

McClough, A. C., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2003). Selec- tion in teams: An exploration of the Teamwork Knowledge, Skills and Ability Test. International

Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 56 – 66. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00226

McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgement tests to predict job per- formance: A clarification of the literature. Journal

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 133

TEAMWORK COMPETENCY TEST 119

of Applied Psychology, 86, 730 –740. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.86.4.730

Mumford, T. V., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2008). The Team Role Test: Development and validation of a team role knowledge situational judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 250 –267. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.93.2.250

Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. K. (2006). Mplus [Com- puter software]. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Owen, R. J. (1975). A Bayesian sequential procedure for quantal response in the context of adaptive mental testing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 351–356. doi:10.1080/01621459 .1975.10479871

Peeters, M. A. G., van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2006). Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20, 377–396. doi:10.1002/ per.588

Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Jour- nal of Educational Research, 2, 49 – 60.

Ryan, A. M., Chan, D., Ployhart, R. E., & Slade, L. A. (1999). Employee attitude surveys in a mul-

tinational organization: Considering language and culture in assessing measurement equivalence. Personnel Psychology, 52, 37–58. doi:10.1111/j .1744-6570.1999.tb01812.x

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555–599. doi:10.1177/1046496405277134

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Klein, C. (2004). Cooper- ation at work. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclo- pedia of applied psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 497–505).

Boston, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B0-12-657410-3/00533-X

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1983). Individual differences in productivity: An empirical test of estimates derived from studies of selection proce- dure utility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 407– 414. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.407

Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Compe- tence at work: Models for superior performance. New York, NY: Wiley.

Stevens, M. A., & Campion, M. J. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource man- agement. Journal of Management, 20, 503–530.

Stevens, M. A., & Campion, M. J. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a se- lection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Man- agement, 25, 207–228. doi:10.1016/S0149- 2063(99)80010-5

Thorn, D. W., & Deitz, J. C. (1989). Examining content validity through the use of content experts. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 9, 334 –346.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectiv- ism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

Webber, S. S. (2002). Leadership and trust facilitat- ing cross-functional team success. Journal of Man- agement Development, 21, 201–214. doi:10.1108/ 02621710210420273

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quar- terly, 12, 451– 483. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01) 00093-5

(Appendices follow)

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 134

120 AGUADO, RICO, SÁNCHEZ-MANZANARES, AND SALAS

Appendix A

Observation Code Categories

Conflict Resolution

• She/he negotiates considering reasons in- stead of positions.

• She/he collects information about the dif- ferent sources of conflict.

• She/he uses an integrative (win–win) nego- tiation strategy when possible.

Collaborative Problem Solving

• She/he describes problems in terms of be- haviors, consequences, and feelings.

• She/he avoids setting conclusions and as- cribing motives to others quickly.

• She/he focused on communalities to gener- ate solutions (e.g., use brainstorming to gener- ate more options).

• She/he requests additional information.

Communication

• She/he produces complete and specific messages.

• She/he asks for feedback about message understanding.

• She/he makes summaries along a commu- nication interaction to demonstrate understand- ing.

• She/he communicates openly and support- ively so that he/she recognizes the others.

Goal Setting and Performance Management

• She/he tries to define clearly the wished results (SMART objectives).

• She/he performs actions that promote oth- ers’ success instead of hindering their progress.

• She/he shows awareness about others’ per- formance (e.g., asking for participation of the most active members).

Planning and Task Coordination

• She/he makes questions for planning (e.g., How are we going to start the project? What resources are necessary? How much time we have to invest?).

• She/he clarifies the procedures of execution (what we make the first, the second, etc.).

• She/he helps to associate tasks with teammates.

Appendix B

TWCT Items

1. When my work team is in conflict, I try to make it explicit to find solution pathways.

2. When I interact with my team mates, I ask questions to better understand what they say.

3. When I disagree with others, I make an effort to focus on what we have in common instead of centering on what separates us.

4. I plan my tasks effectively. 5. I try to use the most appropriate team network

to communicate the different types of infor- mation, avoiding the same formal procedure all the time.

6. I often get involved in monitoring the task performance of other team members.

(Appendices continue)

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 135

TEAMWORK COMPETENCY TEST 121

7. When we face an internal conflict because of

a communication problem or misunderstand- ing, I try to solve it by asking questions and listening to the people involved.

8. I look at people when they talk to me and I modify my body language to show real inter- est in what they tell me.

9. I can easily recognize people’s emotional states by observing their nonverbal messages.

10. If someone in my team acts inappropriately, I talk privately with her/him, encouraging the rest of the team to do the same.

11. To address the trivial task-related issues, I do not need to talk first with all team members so we reach a decision.

12. I make an effort to talk about less important things with my peers for the sake of team spirit and better internal communication.

13. Having knowledge about people’s skills and situation requirements is critical to assign tasks properly.

14. Discussions without directions or guides can lead group members to make decisions that they would not make on their own.

15. When my personal interests are in conflict with others’ interests, I tend to be honest in the negotiation so that others understand my needs.

16. I care and act to make team conflicts explicit in a way that they can be solved.

17. I play an active role in team meetings by offering my opinions, asking questions, and expressing my thoughts and ideas in a sincere and open way.

18. I often help others in my team to make clear the roles and tasks they have to perform.

19. When I am upset about something, I express my discomfort to the group in a constructive way, asking for solution alternatives.

20. I like to provide my peers with feedback about what they do and to assess and value their work.

21. If something upsets me in my team, I do not like to act as if nothing has happened.

22. I try to establish milestones in my work team

so that we can monitor our assigned tasks. 23. When I am involved in a team project, I care

about having clear plans concerning the tasks and the timing to accomplish them.

24. During group meetings, regulation is neces- sary to ensure that all members provide their opinions and to avoid that only a few partic- ipate actively.

25. When performing tasks in which one is an expert, the contributions made by other mem- bers are not that important.

26. In group decision meetings, it is more usual to promote cohesion and reach a majority agree- ment than to pay attention to divergent opin- ions.

27. I try listening to my peers’ opinions without evaluating their positions as good or bad.

28. When working in a group, I say what I think in an open and sincere way.

29. I expect my peers trust enough to tell me the aspects of my work that they most dislike.

30. I sometimes talk with my peers without an objective, just for sharing a while together.

31. It is important for me to monitor the tasks assigned to each team member.

32. I provide my peers with relevant information on how well I think the team tasks are pro- gressing.

33. When doing my job, I prioritize the tasks most necessary for my teammates to com- plete their work.

34. I try to ensure that my outputs match the inputs needed by my peers to perform their tasks.

35. For the sake of team work, I set objectives with moderate difficulty so that effort is needed to accomplish them.

36. I often provide my peers with feedback on their task performance.

Received October 15, 2012

Revision received November 7, 2013 Accepted December 14, 2013 •

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 136

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 18, No. 2, 122–128 1089-2699/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000001

The Effect of Different Phases of Synchrony on Pain Threshold

Philip J. Sullivan, Kate Rickers, and Kimberley L. Gammage

Brock University

Synchronization of behavior between individuals has been found to result in a variety of prosocial outcomes. The role of endorphins in vigorous synchronous activities (Cohen, Ejsmond-Frey, Knight, & Dunbar, 2010) may underlie these effects as endor- phins have been implicated in social bonding (Dunbar & Shultz, 2010). Although research on synchronous behavior has noted that there are 2 dominant phases of synchrony—in-phase and antiphase synchrony (Marsh, Richardson, Baron, & Schmidt, 2006), research on the effect of synchrony on endorphins has only incorporated in-phase synchrony. The current study examined whether both phases of synchrony would generate the synchrony effect. Twenty-two participants rowed under 3 counter- balanced conditions—alone, in-phase synchrony and antiphase synchrony. Endorphin release, as measured by pain threshold, was assessed before and after each session. Change in pain threshold during the in-phase synchrony session was significantly higher than either of the other 2 conditions. These results suggest that the synchrony effect may be specific to just in-phase synchrony, and that social presence is not a viable explanation for the effect of synchrony on pain threshold.

Keywords: behavioral synchrony, endorphins, pain threshold, in-phase synchrony

People tend to be inclined to move syn- chronously, whether to an external stimuli or to partners. For example, children as young as two have been found to impulsively synchro- nize themselves with a drum beat (Kirschner & Tomasello, 2009), and even minimal groups, such as two individuals in rocking chairs, will spontaneously synchronize their motions (Richardson, Marsh, Isenhower, Goodman, & Schmidt, 2007). The relevance of synchronized behavior may be seen in a variety of interpersonal outcomes that have resulted from joint action or mimicry. Whether people spontaneously act in coordi- nation with each other, or one person mimics the actions of someone else, there appears to be a robust effect of such actions on interper- sonal attraction and prosocial behavior.

Acting in synchrony with others has repeat- edly been found to increase perceptions of in- terpersonal attraction between participants. Peo-

ple have been shown to infer greater

cohesiveness on individuals who move in syn-

chrony compared with those who move inde- pendently (Lakens & Stel, 2011). Synchroniza-

tion of individuals’ movements with others has been shown to result in higher ratings of inter-

personal attraction and affiliation (Bernieri,

1988; LaFrance & Broadbent, 1976; Miles, Nind, & Macrae, 2009).

Hove and Risen (2009) conducted a series of

experiments on interpersonal attraction between individuals engaged in synchronized behavior.

In one study, participants engaged in synchro- nized finger tapping with an experimenter for a

2.5 min trial. Degree of synchrony, as measured

by percentage of finger taps occurring within 100 ms, was significantly correlated with higher

ratings of liking for the experimenter. Their

second experiment manipulated interpersonal synchrony and included a baseline measure of

liking. Results showed that individuals ran- domly assigned to a condition in which they

tapped in synchrony with the experimenter re-

Philip J. Sullivan, Kate Rickers, and Kimberley L. Gam- mage, Department of Kinesiology, Brock University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Philip J. Sullivan, Department of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1. E-mail: phil.sullivan@brocku.ca

ported significantly greater liking for the exper-

imenter than those in either the asynchrony or alone conditions. There were no significant

baseline differences in liking for the experi-

menter.

122

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 137

SYNCHRONY EFFECT 123

Synchrony has also been repeatedly linked to

a variety of prosocial behaviors. Individuals who act in synchrony tend to display signifi- cantly greater cooperation (Valdesolo, Ouyang & DeSteno, 2010; Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009), norm compliance (Wiltermuth, 2012), compas- sion (Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2011), and gener- osity (Stel, van Baaren, & Vonk, 2007) than individuals who do not act in synchrony.

Wiltermuth and Heath (2009) investigated the effect of synchronized behavior and coop- eration in small groups. Participants walked around campus in groups of three in one of two conditions. In the synchronized condition, they walked in step; in the nonsynchronized condi- tion, they walked normally. In a postwalk co- operative game, individuals in the synchronized condition behaved significantly more coopera- tively than those in the nonsynchronized condi- tion. A second experiment in the same study replicated this effect, even after controlling for common identity and common fate within the groups.

In a study conducted by Valdesolo, Ouyange, and DeSteno (2010), individuals were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. They rocked in rocking chairs in pairs in either a synchro- nized or unsynchronized fashion for two 90 s trials. After this manipulation, the pairs had to participate in a cooperative joint action task. Subjects also completed ratings of similarity, connectedness, and liking for their partners. Pairs in the synchronized condition completed the cooperative task in significantly less time than those in the unsynchronized condition. Synchrony also resulted in higher perceptions of connectedness and liking.

Recent research may have uncovered a po- tential mechanism for these social effects of synchrony. It appears that synchronous behav- iors, particularly vigorous synchronous behav- iors, elevate participants’ endorphin levels, which have been linked to social bonding in humans and primates (Dunbar, 2010; Dunbar & Shultz, 2010). It has been suggested that endog- enous endorphins may mediate between affiliative stimuli (e.g., shared synchronous movements) and affiliation (DePue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005. Dunbar and Shultz (2010) stated that social grooming in primates builds intense social bonds through the release of endorphins, “which pro- vides a psycho-pharmacological mechanism that enables two individuals to build a bonded

relationship with some kind of deeply emo- tional basis” (p. 782).

Because brain endorphins do not cross the blood– brain barrier, and can only be measured through an invasive lumbar puncture (Boeker et al., 2008; Dearman & Francis, 1983), pain threshold has been commonly used as an indi- cator of endorphin activity. (Dunbar et al., 2012; Jamner & Leigh, 1999; Zillman, Rock- well, Schweitzer, & Sundar, 1993). Pain thresh- old is understood to be a valid indicator of endorphin activity because endogenous opioids are released during pain sensation (DePue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005; Mueller, 1981). Specifically, the use of a blood pressure cuff to induce specific ischemic pain has been found to be a valid and reliable, as well as noninvasive, protocol to assess endorphin levels (Estebe, Le Naoures, Chemaly, & Ecoffey, 2000; Ryan & Kovacic, 1966).

Cohen, Ejsmond-Frey, Knight, and Dunbar (2010) investigated synchronized behaviors in a

team of male collegiate rowers, using the pain threshold test as a noninvasive measure of cen- tral endorphin activity. They found a difference

when teammates rowed in synchronicity in a virtual boat compared with when they per-

formed the same workout alone. Specifically, the synchronized condition produced a signifi- cantly greater increase in pain threshold from pre- to postexercise than the solitary session. This was despite the fact that workload was

standardized between the two conditions. Cohen et al. (2010) concluded that vigorous

synchronized activity results in a “synchrony effect” whereby endorphin activity is increased.

This synchrony effect has been replicated by Sullivan and Rickers (2013) who used the same

protocol as Cohen et al. (2010), with partici- pants who were strangers as well as rowing

teammates. Because of the role of endorphins in social bonding, the study investigated whether

the use of teammates in Cohen’s study may have influenced the results. Sullivan and Rick-

ers found that when individuals rowed for 45 min with either teammates or strangers, they

still displayed significantly higher changes in pain threshold than when they rowed alone.

One aspect of synchrony that may be relevant to the synchrony effect is the phase of syn- chrony. There are two dominant phases of syn- chrony—in-phase and antiphase (Marsh, Rich- ardson, Baron, & Schmidt, 2006). In-phase

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 138

124 SULLIVAN, RICKERS, AND GAMMAGE

synchrony is characterized by movements being in perfect unison whereas antiphase symmetry is characterized by alternating patterns of move- ment between two individuals. For example, if two children were side by side on swings, in- phase movement would be if they both swing forward and then backward together. Antiphase synchrony would be seen when one child swings forward as the other swings back (Miles, Nind, Henderson, & Macrae, 2010). Humans appear to prefer in-phase synchrony (Marsh et al., 2006; Richardson et al., 2007). Furthermore, in-phase synchrony appears to have a more powerful effect on some of the outcomes noted above (Macrae, Duffy, Miles, & Lawrence, 2008).

Although these two different phases may both affect outcomes of synchronized behav- ior, to date the synchrony effect has only been investigated with in-phase synchrony. The current study investigated the role of different phases of behavioral synchrony on the syn- chrony effect. Specifically, rowing under sol- itary, in-phase and antiphase synchrony con- ditions were examined to see if all would produce the same effect on pain threshold that was seen by Cohen et al. (2010) and Sullivan and Rickers (2013). Because previous re- search has noted significantly greater in- creases in endorphin levels after synchronous compared with solitary activity, it was pre- dicted that there would be a significant dif- ference between solitary and in-phase syn- chrony. Because antiphase synchrony has not yet been studied with respect to the synchrony effect, no specific hypotheses were put for- ward regarding this condition.

Method

Participants

Twenty-two (9 male, 13 female) individuals participated in the study. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 55 years (M 31.14, SD 13.13). Men’s average height was 73.11 in. (SD 1.54) and weight was 200.56 pounds (SD 23.91). Women’s average height was

67.62 in. (SD 1.94) and weight was 145.00 (SD 12.75). All participants had rowed for at least 1 year.

Procedures

Before data collection, this study was ap- proved by the IRB of the primary author. Before participation, all participants completed in- formed-consent forms and the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q; Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology, 2002). The PAR-Q is a 7-item measure to assess whether participants can safely partake in physical activity. Every participant was required to answer to ques- tions using either yes or no responses. If they replied with “yes” to any of the questions, they were to obtain permission from their doctors to be physically active. If they answered “no” to all questions, it was safe for them to participate in physical activity. All participants were able to partake in the procedure.

The experiment used a randomized counter- balanced repeated measures design. Participants rowed in all of three conditions—alone, and in two synchronized condition with a partner. In the in-phase synchrony condition, both rowers kept in the same movement pattern (i.e., both rowers would be at the fully extended and full contracted positions of the stroke at the same time). In the antiphase synchrony condition, rowers kept at opposite points of the movement pattern (i.e., when one rower was fully ex- tended, the other rower would be fully con- tracted, and vice versa). These conditions were counterbalanced so that one third of the partic- ipants rowed alone first, one third rowed in the in-phase synchrony condition first, and the re- maining third rowed in the antiphase synchrony condition first.

Intensity of the workout was operationalized by average 500 m split time (i.e., the time taken to row 500 m on the ergometer machine) over the 30 min session. This value was recorded during the first session and participants matched the intensity on subsequent trials. By slight ma- nipulations of the drag factor, the experimenters were able to establish synchrony between par- ticipants while allowing individuals to maintain the same intensity (i.e., stroke rate) in all three conditions.

Participants rowed with the same partner in both synchrony conditions and pairs always consisted of rowers of the same gender. All participants were prohibited from listening to music or consuming sport drinks during their trials. There was a week gap between sessions

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 139

SYNCHRONY EFFECT 125

for all participants. All sessions were held in the afternoon or early evening.

Measures of pain threshold were taken before and after all trials using the blood pressure cuff protocol used by Cohen et al. (2010). All pain measurements were taken by the experimenter and recorded -1 min before the start and con- clusion of each trial. In all conditions, the same experimenter assessed pain threshold for all par- ticipants. This was achieved by staggering the end of workouts of participants by -30 s each. The pain thresholds of all participants were assessed away from all others being tested. The blood pressure cuff was placed above the elbow on the nondominant arm of each participant. Ischemic pain was induced through manual pumping of the cuff to increase pressure. Par- ticipants expressed the point at which pressure became uncomfortable by saying “now,” at which point the pressure was recorded and the cuff was removed. This protocol has been com- monly used in studies on behavioral synchrony (Cohen et al., 2010; Dunbar et al., 2012; Sulli- van & Rickers, 2013), and previous research has supported its validity as a measure of pain threshold. It has been shown to be highly cor- related with other measures of pain threshold, including visual analog scales (Estebe et al., 2000) and gross pressure ischemia (Ryan & Kovacic, 1966). Furthermore, it has been found to have a high test–retest reliability within par- ticipants (r .87; Ryan & Kovacic, 1966).

Materials

Two Concept2 Model D indoor rowing ma- chines (i.e., “ergometers”) were set up in the rowing training center of the university. Pain threshold was measured using an AMG Medical Inc. Professional Series sphygmomanometer (blood pressure cuff). Units of pressure were recorded in millimeters of mercury (mmHg).

Results

Because pain threshold differs by individual

scores (Dimitrov & Rumrill, 2003). Pre- and postpain threshold scores by condition are shown in Table 1. All three conditions dis- played mean increases in pain threshold from pre- to postactivity, which is consistent with the effect of vigorous exercise on endorphin activ- ity (Boecker et al., 2008). Change in pain threshold was normally distributed in all three conditions. Average prescores did not differ be- tween conditions (F (2, 63) 0.89, p .416), and there were significant pre- to postchanges in the solitary (F (1, 21) 24.10, p < 001), in-phase (F (1, 21) 69.69, p < 001) and

antiphase conditions (F (1, 21) 22.04, p < 001). There were no statistically significant dif- ferences between genders in preactivity pain threshold scores or changes scores in any of the three conditions.

Before testing the hypotheses, the data was examined to see if it the assumption of spheric- ity was upheld. Mauchly’s test was nonsignifi- cant (W .929, p > .05), indicating that there was homogeneous variance between the condi- tions, and that the data was appropriate for a repeated measures analysis. A repeated mea- sures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant effect for condition (F (2, 42) 4.12,

p .023, 'll2 .16). Observed power within the

design was .70. Bonferroni adjusted contrast analyses revealed that the in-phase syn- chrony condition was significantly different from both the solitary (F (1, 21) 5.27, p .03, 'll2

.20) and antiphase (F (1, 21) 8.99, p

.007, 'll2 .30) conditions. There was not a

significant difference between the solitary and antiphase conditions (F (1, 21) 0.41, p > .05).

Discussion

The current study was designed to investigate if two different phases of synchrony would both

Table 1 Means and SDs of Raw and Change Pain Threshold Scores by Condition

(Dunbar et al., 2012), change in pain threshold

from pre- to postscore was used as the depen- dent variable in analyses. Although there are

Condition Prescore (M, SD)

Postscore (M, SD)

Change score (M, SD)

measures, it is advisable to use raw change Note. Values are in millimeters of mercury (mmHg).

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

some concerns with using raw change scores in Solitary 178.64 (38.95) 210.00 (51.73) 31.36 (29.96)

such analyses, research has shown that when using reliable scores, particularly physiological

In-phase

Antiphase

196.82 (55.41)

194.55 (51.89)

247.73 (50.89)

224.09 (52.34)

50.91 (28.60)

29.55 (29.52)

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 140

126 SULLIVAN, RICKERS, AND GAMMAGE

show the “synchrony effect” of elevated pain threshold, which has previously only been doc- umented with in-phase synchrony (Cohen et al., 2010; Sullivan & Rickers, 2013). Within the current study, it was found that when individu- als rowed in an in-phase synchronous condition, they reported a significantly greater increase (from pre- to postactivity) in pain threshold than either the solitary or antiphase synchrony con- ditions. There was no significant difference be- tween the antiphase and solitary condition. Therefore, the synchrony effect appears to be only a result of in-phase synchrony.

At this point, it appears that the synchrony effect is a fairly robust phenomenon. It has repeatedly been found that individuals have a significantly higher change in pain threshold after vigorous activity in synchrony with others than after the same vigorous activity performed alone (Cohen et al., 2010; Sullivan & Rickers, 2013). This has been found with different sam- ples, including teammates and strangers, and both males and females. Whereas Cohen et al.’s (2010) original study only included male rowers who were teammates, Sullivan and Rickers (2013) included strangers as well as teammates and males as well as females, and the current study also found the effect using both male and female participants.

As pain threshold has been interpreted as an indication of endorphin activity (Cohen et al., 2010; Dunbar et al., 2012), it appears that vig- orous synchronized activity may produce a sig- nificant “rush” in endorphins compared with the same activity performed alone. Endorphins have been implicated in social bonding, al- though the exact mechanism is not clearly un- derstood. As noted above, it is possible that endorphins mediate affiliative stimuli, such as synchronous movements, and affiliation (DePue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005). If this is the case, it may be that synchronized movements, particularly in-phase synchrony, which appears to be preferred by people (Marsh et al., 2006; Richardson et al., 2007), causes endorphin re- lease. In the case of vigorous synchronized ac- tivities, such as rowing, this endorphin release is above and beyond what is induced by the exer- cise itself (Cohen et al., 2010). Because one of the effects of endorphins, in addition to pain threshold, is feelings of well-being (Dunbar & Shultz, 2010), this shared synchrony would re- sult in stronger social bonds among participants.

Therefore, it is possible that through the syn- chrony effect, vigorous synchronized activity releases endorphins, which in turn increase so- cial bonding. This process would be consistent with speculation that collective activities in- crease cohesion among group members in ac- tivities such as marching in step and rhythmic dancing and singing during religious activities (McNeill, 1995). Through the inducement of endorphins, the synchrony effect may serve as a mechanism for this increased cohesion.

A secondary implication of the finding that in-phase synchrony produces an effect on en- dorphins whereas antiphase synchrony does not is that this synchrony effect now appears to be independent of any social facilitation effect. The designs of Cohen et al., (2010) and Sullivan and Rickers (2013) both included a confound- ing factor—the synchrony condition was also the only group condition. In tasks requiring physical conditioning demands, such as rowing, the presence of others should result in perfor- mance increases (Strauss, 2002). Although per- formance was constant in both conditions in Cohen et al.’s and Sullivan and Ricker’s re- search, it may be that other responses were affected. The presence of others has been known to have an effect on unlearned re- sponses, particularly cardiovascular activity. Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, and Salomon (1999) found that the presence of others during well-learned tasks could produce a “challenge” response (i.e., an increase in cardiovascular ac- tivity). Because exercise stimulates endorphin release (Boeker et al., 2008), such a change could be responsible for the change in endor- phins seen by Cohen and her colleagues. It may have been possible that the endorphin effect that Cohen attributed to synchrony was actually a mere presence effect. However, given the cur- rent results, where a second group condition (i.e., the antiphase synchrony) did not produce this synchrony effect, it appears that the effect on endorphins is because of synchrony, in par- ticular in-phase synchrony, rather than any so- cial facilitation effect.

The present results extend our understanding of the synchrony effect. Consistent with previ- ous research, they have supported the finding that vigorous synchronized activity causes an increase in pain threshold, which appears to be an indication of elevated endorphin activity. This effect now appears to be the result of

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I

141

SYNCHRONY EFFECT 127

synchrony, as opposed to social coaction, and specifically in-phase synchrony. Future research is still required to fully understand this syn- chrony effect. Specifically, the studies to date have only used the synchronized activity of rowing. Would the same synchrony effect be seen with other activities such as running in step, or fitness classes? It would also be inter- esting to see if the effect could be replicated with synchronized nonvigorous activities such as tai chi or walking in step. Furthermore, we would note that the links between synchrony and endorphins and cohesion are currently spec- ulative and research is required to fully opera- tionalize this potential mechanism. To fully un- derstand this phenomenon, we need to know if synchrony directly effects endorphins and if so, does this synchrony-induced endorphin activity affect cohesion. As interesting as the effect ap- pears to be, the time is ripe for more research on the basic mechanics and ramifications of this synchrony effect.

However, there are several limitations to the current design, which are probably not limited to the present study. The current sample, like Cohen at al.’s (2010) and Sullivan and Rickers (2013) comprised experienced rowers. It is pos- sible that experienced rowers may associate synchrony with good teamwork and the resul- tant pain threshold effect may be related to this social effectiveness as opposed to any syn- chrony effect. Furthermore, there are some po- tential demand characteristics is the study. In this protocol, the experimenter is not blind to the condition of the participants, and it is pos- sible that this may have influenced the results. Future research on the effect of behavioral syn- chrony on pain threshold or endorphin activity should use more strict methodologies, including blinded conditions and exit questionnaires to probe participants’ suspicions about research questions.

References

Bernieri, F. (1988). Coordinated movement and rap- port in teacher-student interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 120 –138. doi:10.1007/ BF00986930

Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K. (1999). Social “facilitation” as chal- lenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 68 –77. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77 .1.68

Boeker, H., Sprenger, T., Spilker, M. E., Henriksen,

G., Koppenhoefer, M., Wagner, K. L., . . . Tolle, T. R. (2008). The runner’s high: Opioidergic mechanisms in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex,

18, 2523–2532. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn013 Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology. (2002).

Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). Retrieved from http://www.csep.ca/communities/c574/ files/hidden/pdfs/par-q.pdf

Cohen, E. E., Ejsmond-Frey, R., Knight, N., & Dun-

bar, R. I. (2010). Rowers’ high: Behavioural syn- chrony is correlated with elevated pain thresholds. Biology Letters, 6, 106 –108. doi:10.1098/rsbl .2009.0670

Dearman, J., & Francis, K. T. (1983). Plasma levels of catecholamines, cortisol, and beta- endorphins in male athletes after running 26.2, 6, and 2 miles. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fit- ness,

23, 30 –38. DePue, R. A., & Morrone-Strupinsky, J. V. (2005). A

neurobehavioral model of affiliative bonding: Im- plications for conceptualization a human trait of affiliation. Behavioral Brain Science, 28, 313–385. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05290064

Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, Jr, P. D. (2003). Pretest- posttest designs and measurement of change. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 20, 159 –165.

Dunbar, R. I. M. (2010). The social role of touch in humans and primates: Behavioural function and

neurobiological mechanisms. Neuroscience and Biological Reviews, 34, 260 –268. doi:10.1016/j .neubiorev.2008.07.001

Dunbar, R. I. M., Baron, R., Frangoou, A., Pearce, E.,

van Leeuwen, J. C., Stow, J., . . . van Vugt, M.

(2012). Social laughter is correlated with an ele- vated pain threshold. Proceedings of The Royal Society Biological Sciences, 279, 1161–1167. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1373

Dunbar, R. I., & Shultz, S. (2010). Bondedness and sociality. Behavior, 147, 775– 803. doi.10.1163/

000579510X501151

Estebe, J. P., Le Naoures, A., Chemaly, L., & Ecof- fey, C. (2000). Tourniquet pain in a volunteer study: Effect of changes in cuff width and pres- sure. Anasthesia, 55, 21–26.

Hove, J. M., & Risen, L. J. (2009). It’s all in the

timing: Interpersonal synchrony increases affilia- tion. Social Cognition, 27, 949 –960.

Jamner, L. D., & Leigh, H. (1999). Repressive/ defensive coping, endogenous opioids and health: How a life so perfect can make you sick. Psychi- atry Research, 8, 17–31. doi:10.1016/S0165- 1781(98)00134-6

Kirschner, S., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Joint drum- ming: Social context facilitates synchronization in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I

142

128 SULLIVAN, RICKERS, AND GAMMAGE

Psychology, 102, 299 –314. doi:10.1016/j.jecp

.2008.07.005

LaFrance, M., & Broadbent, M. (1976). Group rap-

port: Posture sharing as a nonverbal indicator.

Group and Organizational Management, 1, 328 –

333. doi:10.1177/105960117600100307

Lakens, D., & Stel, M. (2011). If they move in sync,

they must feel in sync: Movement synchrony leads to

attributions of rapport and entitavitiy. Social

Cognition, 29, 1–14. doi:10.1521/soco.2011.29.1.1

Macrae, C. N., Duffy, O. K., Miles, L. K., & Law-

rence, J. (2008). A case of hand waving: Action

synchrony and person perception. Cognition, 109,

152–156. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.007

Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., Baron, R. M., &

Schmidt, R. C. (2006). Contrasting approaches to

perceiving and acting with others. Ecological Psy-

chology, 18, 1–38. doi:10.1207/s15326969eco

1801_1

McNeill, W. H. (1995). Keeping together in time:

Dance and drill in human history. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Miles, L. K., Nind, L. K., Henderson, Z., & Macrae,

C. N. (2010). Moving memories: Behavioral syn-

chrony and memory for self and others. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 457– 460.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.006

Miles, L. K., Nind, L. K., & Macrae, C. N. (2009).

The rhythm of rapport: Interpersonal synchrony

and social perception. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 45, 585–589. doi:10.1016/j

.jesp.2009.02.002

Mueller, G. P. (1981). Beta-endorphin immunoreac-

tivity in rat plasma: Variations in response to dif-

ferent physical stimuli. Life Sciences, 29, 1669 –

1674. doi.10.1016/0024-3205(81)90069-2

Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., Isenhower, R. W.,

Goodman, J. R., & Schmidt, R. C. (2007). Rocking

together: Dynamics of intentional and uninten-

tional interpersonal coordination. Human Move-

ment Science, 26, 867– 891. doi:10.1016/j.humov .2007.07.002

Ryan, E. D., & Kovacic, C. R. (1966). Pain tolerance and athletic participation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 22, 383–390. doi:10.2466/pms.1966.22.2 .383

Stel, M., van Baaren, R. B., & Vonk, R. (2007). Effects of mimicking: Acting prosocially and be- ing emotionally moved. European Journal of So- cial Psychology, 38, 965–976. doi:10.1002/ejsp .472

Strauss, B. (2002). Social facilitation in motor tasks: A review of theory and research. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 237–256. doi:10.1016/ S1469-0292(01)00019-x

Sullivan, P., & Rickers, K. (2013). The effects of behavioral synchrony in groups of teammates and strangers. International Journal of Sport and Ex- ercise Psychology, 1– 6. doi:10.1080/1612197X .2013.750139

Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2011). Synchrony and the social tuning of compassion. Emotion, 11, 262–266. doi:10.1037/a0021302

Valdesolo, P., Ouyang, J., & DeSteno, D. (2010). The rhythm of joint action: Synchrony promotes coop- erative ability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 693– 695. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010 .03.004

Wiltermuth, S. (2012). Synchrony and destructive obedience. Social Influence, 7, 78 – 89. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2012.658653

Wiltermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20, 1–5. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02253.x

Zillman, D., Rockwell, S., Schweitzer, K., & Sundar, S. (1993). Does humor facilitate coping with phys- ical discomfort? Motivation Emotion, 17, 1–21. doi:10.1007/BF00995204

Received February 17, 2013 Revision received July 18, 2013

Accepted July 22, 2013 •

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 143

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 18, No. 2, 129 –137 1089-2699/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000002

Reactions to Social Inclusion and Ostracism as a Function of Perceived In-Group Similarity

Donald F. Sacco The University of Southern Mississippi

Michael J. Bernstein Pennsylvania State University–Abington

Steven G. Young Baruch College, City University of New York

Kurt Hugenberg Miami University

Although ostracism is a powerfully aversive experience, recent evidence identifies factors capable of moderating the impact of ostracism, such as in-group status and the group’s essential nature. In the current work, 67 Caucasian American participants (47 women) were included or ostracized by either same-race (i.e., Caucasian American) or other-race (i.e., African American) targets on a between-subjects basis while playing the game Cyberball. Participants then indicated the extent to which they felt similar to the other Cyberball players as well as how satisfied their basic needs (e.g., belonging- ness, self-esteem) were during the game. Consistent with past research, we found that in-group and out-group status moderated the magnitude of reactions to social inclusion and ostracism; that is, ostracism hurts more and social inclusion feels better when it is implemented by fellow in-group as opposed to out-group members. Importantly, we extend these previous findings by demonstrating that differential reactions to social inclusion and ostracism are mediated by changes in participants’ self-perceived simi- larity with in-group members. These results identify a potential mechanism responsible for the differential impact of in-group– out-group status on reactions to social inclusion and ostracism.

Keywords: ostracism, intergroup relations, in-group– out-group, threat

Humans are intensely social animals. As such, we place great value on social connections and group memberships, with our self-esteem and emotional states being closely linked to our social interactions and relationships (Baumeis- ter & Leary, 1995). As a result, being socially rejected or ostracized is an intensely aversive social experience, whereas being socially ac- cepted is decidedly positive (MacDonald &

Leary, 2005; Williams, 2007). However, there

has been some debate as to whether all experi-

ences of ostracism and social inclusion are equally impactful. Although initial research in-

dicated that aversive responses to ostracism are

reflexive and unmoderated by situational factors (e.g., Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007; Williams

& Zadro, 2005), more recent research suggests that responses to social ostracism are sensitive to

several factors, including characteristics of the individuals engaging in the act of ostracism.

Donald F. Sacco, Department of Psychology, The Uni- versity of Southern Mississippi; Michael J. Bernstein, De- partment of Psychological and Social Sciences, Pennsylva- nia State University–Abington; Steven G. Young, Department of Psychology, Baruch College, City University of New York; Kurt Hugenberg, Department of Psychology, Miami University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Donald F. Sacco, Department of Psychology, The University of Southern Mississippi, Owings-McQuagge Hall, 118 College Drive 5025, Hattiesburg, MS 39406. E-mail: donald.sacco@usm.edu

For example, Bernstein and colleagues (2010) demonstrated that being included or ostracized by in-group members exacerbates the intensity of the experience (i.e., being ostracized by an in-group hurts more than being ostracized by an out-group).

Whereas these past findings demonstrate that in-group status is an important moderator of reactions to social inclusion and ostracism, re- search has yet to identify the mechanism under-

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 144

129

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 145

130 SACCO, BERNSTEIN, YOUNG, AND HUGENBERG

lying these differential reactions. To address this research lacuna, we tested the hypothesis that inclusion within and ostracism by an in- group can have more powerful influences on the self (e.g., influencing belongingness and self- esteem) precisely because such experiences can change perceptions of self-similarity to the in- group, which serves as a psychological media- tor of the increased intensity of in-group inclu- sion and ostracism. To this end, we first review the literature on the need to belong, in-group– out-group status, and perceptions of similarity, and then provide direct experimental evidence for our proposed mediational hypothesis.

The Need to Belong

Whereas stable social bonds have numerous physical and psychological benefits, unfulfilled belongingness needs have a decidedly negative impact on well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Specifically, acute experiences of ostra- cism induce negative mood and thwart basic social needs satisfaction (e.g., self-esteem, be- longing; Williams & Zadro, 2005). Importantly, these strong reactions to the experience of os- tracism are largely unaffected by various indi- vidual difference measures that seem intuitively relevant (e.g., trait self-esteem and social anxi- ety; Leary, Haupt, Strausser, & Chokel, 1998; Zadro, Boland, & Richardson, 2006).

Indeed, prior work has even found that ostra- cism lowers mood and basic need satisfaction equally, regardless of the characteristics of the ostracizing party. For example, Williams and colleagues (2000) found that responses to ostra- cism did not differ based on in-group– out- group distinctions (e.g., PC vs. Mac users; see also Smith & Williams, 2004). Furthermore, individuals’ basic needs satisfaction is threat- ened regardless of whether participants believe that they were ostracized by fellow participants (i.e., peers), by confederates who were trained to ostracize them, or even by a computer pro- grammed to arbitrarily ostracize them (Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004). Finally, Gon- salkorale and Williams (2007) even found that ostracism perpetrated by a disliked out-group (i.e., KKK members) is experienced as pain- fully as that perpetrated by a valued in-group.

Nonetheless, not all sources of affiliation equally satisfy belonging needs. Specifically, valued social groups are a vital source of social

and material support, offering protection and access to mates (e.g., Correll & Park, 2005). Indeed, in-group bias, or the tendency to favor in-groups over out-groups (Tajfel, 1982), is re- flected in numerous behaviors, ranging from more positive evaluations of in-groups, greater levels of prosocial behavior toward fellow in- group members, and allocation of more re- sources to in-groups (e.g., Ferguson & Kelley, 1964; Hein, Silani, Preuschoff, Batson, & Singer, 2010; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). Consistent with the importance of social in-groups, Bernstein and colleagues (2010) re- cently reported two studies demonstrating that ostracism is more painful and social inclusion more positive when carried out by fellow in- group members (cf. Goodwin, Williams, & Carter-Sowell, 2010). In their first study, partic- ipants were either ostracized or socially in- cluded by racial in-group or out-group mem- bers; participants reported more threatened affiliation needs following racial in-group ostra- cism (relatively to ostracism by racial out-group members), but more satisfied basic affiliation needs following social inclusion by racial in- group as opposed to out-group members. Their second study replicated this basic finding with political group membership; that is, participants reported more social pain when ostracized by individuals who shared their own party affilia- tion (as opposed to ostracism by confederates of a different party affiliation), but greater satisfac- tion when socially included by individuals with the same political party affiliation as their own. Importantly, these authors found that this strengthened experience of in-group inclusion and ostracism occurred most strongly for per- ceivers who were made to see the in-group as highly essentialized (i.e., participants who were led to believe that these groups possessed char- acteristics defined as relatively inborn, immuta- ble, or genetically based; see Prentice & Miller, 2007).

Perceived Self-Similarity and Reactions to

In-Group–Out-Group Inclusion and

Ostracism

In the current work, we tested the hypothesis that the experience of becoming psychologi- cally similar to the including in-group or dis- similar from the ostracizing in-group would me- diate the effect of in-group– out-group status on

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 146

SOCIAL INCLUSION, OSTRACISM, AND SIMILARITY 131

reactions to inclusion and ostracism. Across nu- merous kinds of relationships, individuals pre- fer to interact with others who are similar across a variety of domains, including intelligence and physical attractiveness (e.g., Feingold, 1988; Jensen, 1978). Furthermore, similarity is posi- tively related to relationship satisfaction and longevity in both platonic and romantic rela- tionships (e.g., Acitelli, Kenny, & Weiner, 2001; Gonzaga, Campos, & Bradbury, 2007; Russell & Wells, 1991).

Interestingly, this relation between similarity and liking is bidirectional, such that positive interactions with others lead to increased per- ceptions of similarity. According to Morry’s (2005) attraction-similarity model, attraction leads to perceptions of similarity between the self and others and these perceptions of simi- larity provide numerous benefits, ranging from feeling more understood and validated to in- creased feelings of positive affect and decreased loneliness. Put simply, we are likely to affiliate with similar others (e.g., Acitelli et al., 2001) but also perceive those we affiliate with as more similar to the self, and these feelings of inter- personal similarity are important for prompting both initial liking and securing the stable and long-term relationships that best satisfy belong- ing needs (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

Based on these previous findings, we suggest that inclusion by in-group members creates per- ceptions of enhanced similarity with members of that group, an outcome we propose may be responsible for enhanced need satisfaction fol- lowing inclusion by in-group members. Con- versely, ostracism by in-group members may be interpreted as evidence of dissimilarity between the self and group, which may sharpen the neg- ative experience of social exclusion. Specifi- cally, to the extent that inclusion by in-group members makes the in-group more attractive to an individual, that person should indicate heightened perceived similarity with that in- group, resulting in higher levels of interpersonal satisfaction; conversely, ostracism by in-group members should lead individuals to perceive that group as less attractive, resulting in reduced perceptions of similarity with the in-group and potential interpersonal dissatisfaction (i.e., Morry, 2005). However, because out-groups are

out-group members, and thus may be unrelated to the experiences of ostracism and social in- clusion.

To test our hypothesis, we manipulated the race of supposed confederates in the context of the Cyberball paradigm (Williams & Jarvis, 2006), thereby allowing us to independently manipulate whether participants experienced social inclusion or ostracism and whether that experience was initiated by members of one’s own racial in-group or out-group. Following each of these experiences, we assessed partici- pants’ perceived similarity with the Cyberball “confederates” they played with as well as their basic needs satisfaction following the game. This design allowed us to replicate previous findings that inclusion and ostracism perpe- trated by racial in-groups produce more intense interpersonal reactions (both positive and neg- ative) as well as to test the hypothesis that the effects of in-group inclusion and ostracism on basic affiliation needs (dis)satisfaction are me- diated by changes in perceived similarity with in-group members.

Method

Participants

The sample was composed of 67 (47 women; Mage 18.97 years, SD 1.28) Caucasian American undergraduate students at a large midwestern university in the United States who participated in exchange for partial course cred- it; non-Caucasian Americans did not participate in this study.1 A 2 (inclusionary status: ostra- cism, inclusion) X 2 (agent race: same-race, other-race) between-subjects design was em- ployed.

Materials

Basic Needs Scale. To assess participants’ reactions to social inclusion and ostracism, we administered the Basic Needs Scale, used ex- tensively in prior research (Williams et al., 2000; Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004). This questionnaire assesses four social needs known to fluctuate with experiences of social inclusion and ostracism: belonging, perceived

categorized as essentially dissimilar from the self, simple acts of inclusion and exclusion may lead to little change in perceived similarity to

1 No effects of participant sex were observed; therefore, this variable is not discussed further.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 146

132 SACCO, BERNSTEIN, YOUNG, AND HUGENBERG

control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence (for a review, see Williams, 2007). The ques- tionnaire included 16 items assessing perceived threats to these four needs (e.g., “I felt discon- nected,” “I felt I had control over the situation,” “I felt liked,” “I felt meaningless”); we asked participants to provide their responses based on how they felt during the game (reflexive) rather than based on how they currently felt (reflec- tive). Participants responded to each of the 16 questions using a 7-point Likert scale (1 not at all to 7 extremely), scored such that higher numbers indicated more fulfillment of the re- spective need (i.e., higher numbers indicated a greater experience of belonging, higher self- esteem, etc.).

Perceived similarity. Using the same 7-point Likert scale used to assess basic needs satisfaction, we also asked participants the ex- tent to which they agreed with the statement “The other participants are similar to me.”

Procedure

The procedure was adapted closely from that of Bernstein and colleagues (2010). Upon their

arrival in a university laboratory, participants provided informed consent and were escorted to

individual cubicles. Specifically, they were in- formed that they were participating in a study

involving online communication and mental vi- sualization, and that because the study was oc- curring in multiple departments on the univer- sity campus, they would be playing with other

students located elsewhere on campus. In actu- ality, the other participants were computer-

controlled agents programmed to either socially include or ostracize the participants on a be-

tween-subjects basis. To facilitate our experi- mental design, we told participants that they

would be able to see a photograph of the two participants with whom they would be playing during the game itself, and that the two partic-

ipants would be able to see a picture of them (thus allowing for our manipulation of agent

race). Participants were then instructed to stand against a white wall while the experimenter

took a digital photograph of them, which the experimenter then ostensibly uploaded to the

computer network prior to the start of the game. After having their picture taken and complet-

ing a series of filler questions supposedly mea- suring “mental visualization” capabilities, par-

ticipants were directed to play Cyberball, an Internet ball-tossing game ostensibly designed to help people hone their mental visualization skills. Importantly, our White participants saw either two White faces (i.e., in-group members) or two Black faces (i.e., out-group members) as fellow players (on a between-subjects basis, to manipulate racial in-group and out-group mem- bership). In addition, participants were ran- domly assigned to either receive the ball roughly one third of the time (inclusion condi- tion) or to receive the ball only twice at the beginning and then never again for the remain- ing throws (ostracism condition).

Participants then completed the similarity question and the Basic Needs Scale. Partici- pants were debriefed and thanked for their par- ticipation. We used a funneled debriefing ques- tionnaire to determine whether participants were suspicious about any aspect of our exper- imental procedures, including the Cyberball manipulation. Using an open-ended format, par- ticipants were asked, “Did you find anything odd or suspicious during the study?” and “Did you think anything in the study was fake?” If participants answered affirmatively to either question, they were asked to elaborate on their initial answer.

Results

Manipulation Check Effectiveness

To determine whether our Cyberball manip- ulation was believable to participants, we coded participants’ responses to our funneled debrief- ing questions for suspicion. Specifically, we created a “player suspicion” variable and noted any participants who indicated that they found the two Cyberball players generally or their race to be fake, odd, or suspicious. Anyone mention- ing such a comment in either question was assigned a 1, and all others who did not mention anything were assigned a 0. This coding re- sulted in a total of six of 67 respondents having made comments regarding some aspect of the players being fake, odd, or suspicious. Impor- tantly, only one participant’s suspicion was ac- tually based on the race of the Cyberball play- ers.

We conducted analyses to determine whether these differences varied across experimental conditions. We first conducted a chi-square

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 147

p

p

SOCIAL INCLUSION, OSTRACISM, AND SIMILARITY 133

analysis, using Cyberball target race (Caucasian vs. African American) as the independent vari- able. This analysis yielded a nonsignificant dif-

ference, x2(1) 0.67, p .41, indicating that suspicion about the players did not vary based on whether participants were playing with White or Black agents. We next conducted a similar chi-square analysis using Cyberball con- dition (social inclusion vs. ostracism) as the independent variable; again, this analysis re- vealed no difference between conditions,

x2(1) 0.35, p .56. To determine whether these factors (social experience and agent race) interacted, we conducted a binary logistic re- gression, dummy coding (1) inclusion + Black agents, ostracism + White agents, and ostra- cism + Black agents against the referent group of inclusion + White agents (0). The regression

was nonsignificant, x2(3) 2.82, p .42, for each of the three dummy-coded variables en- tered into the logistic regression.

In a final analysis, we dummy coded both social experience (0 exclusion, 1 inclu- sion) and agent race (0 Black, 1 White) and entered them simultaneously as factors in a binary logistic regression, using our “player suspicion” factor as the dependent variable. This analysis allowed us to examine the effect of each of these factors while also accounting for the variability due to the other factor. This analysis

also yielded a nonsignificant regres- sion, x2(2) 0.98, p .61.

All evidence suggested that suspicion about the Cyberball players, including their race, did not differ between conditions of our experi- ment. Furthermore, this identical experimental procedure has been used in previous work and similarly low levels of suspicion were docu- mented (see Bernstein et al., 2010). As such, the current procedure possessed an adequate level of experimental realism.

Basic Needs

The individual needs were highly related (a. .94); as such, we formed a composite basic needs score for each participant (higher values represent more satisfied basic needs; see Mc- Connell, Brown, Shoda, Stayton, & Martin, 2011, for similar procedures). We then sub- jected these scores to a 2 (inclusionary status: inclusion vs. ostracism) X 2 (agent race: same- race vs. other-race) between-subjects analysis

of variance (ANOVA).2 A main effect of inclu- sionary status emerged, F(1, 63) 105.73, p < .001, T2

.63, such that included participants (M 4.44, SE 0.14) reported substantially more fulfilled basic needs than did ostracized participants (M 2.50, SE 0.13). Impor- tantly, this main effect was qualified by a sig- nificant Inclusionary Status X Agent Race in- teraction, F(1, 63) 5.41, p .023, T2

.079 (see Figure 1). Simple effects analyses revealed that participants ostracized by same-race agents (M 2.22, SD 0.58) had less fulfilled basic needs than did those ostracized by other-race agents (M 2.78, SD 0.88), t(35) 2.20, p .032, d 0.75. Although participants in- cluded by same-race agents were directionally more satisfied (M 4.61, SD 0.83) than were those included by other-race agents (M 4.28, SD .73), this effect did not reach statistical significance, t(28) 1.15, p > .20, d 0.42. This significant interaction between inclusion- ary status and target race, however, is consistent with previous findings indicating that although ostracism always feels worse than social inclu- sion, such effects can be qualified by the in- group– out-group relationship of the rejecter and rejected (Bernstein et al., 2010).

Mediation Analysis

We then investigated whether the stronger responses to in-group inclusion and ostracism

were mediated by changes in the perceived sim-

ilarity of the self to in-group members.3 We

predicted that participants included by same- race participants should see the self as more similar to the agents, relative to participants

experiencing ostracism. We further predicted that increased perceived similarity should be

positively correlated with increased fulfillment of basic affiliation needs. Finally, we predicted

that the relationship between inclusionary status and basic needs would be mediated by the

2 Treating each of the four subscales as separate depen-

dent variables in four separate ANOVAs had no effect on the interaction pattern (ps < .07).

3 Because perceived similarity and belongingness are po- tentially psychologically similar constructs, we conducted a correlational analysis to determine how strongly they were related to one another, r(67) .49, p < .01. Because these two concepts were only moderately correlated, perceived

similarity was an adequate variable to include as a psycho- logical mediator.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 148

134 SACCO, BERNSTEIN, YOUNG, AND HUGENBERG

Figure 1. The effect of inclusion and ostracism on basic needs satisfaction as a function of the in-group– out-group status of the agents.

aforementioned increase in perceived similarity. However, we believe this relationship should only be true for participants playing with same- race agents. We hypothesized that de facto dis- similarity with racial out-groups would be un- affected by the relatively minor inclusionary and exclusionary behaviors used in our task, and as such, we did not expect similarity to mediate the relationship between inclusionary status and basic needs satisfaction.

We therefore conducted a moderated media- tion analysis (i.e., a conditional indirect effect; see Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007) to exam- ine our specific hypothesis, and we used the Preacher et al. (2007) existing SPSS macro to conduct this analysis. Before testing the moder- ated mediation, we began by dummy coding the independent variable of inclusionary status (1 inclusion, 0 ostracism) and entered it as a predictor of the composite basic needs score. We also included our similarity measure as our mediator and target race as the moderating vari- able (0 White, 1 Black). This analysis produced a significant overall model, F(3, 63) 5.82, p

.014, R2 .22, which included our previously

described direct effect on the basic needs, such that inclusion increased basic needs satisfaction relative to ostracism (B 1.94, p < .001). We next examined whether the direct effect was mediated by perceptions of similarity. To test this hypothesis, we employed the bootstrapping method developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2008). This method requires that a relationship between an indepen- dent variable and a dependent variable exist to be mediated, and that the “indirect effect be

statistically significant in the direction predicted by the mediation hypothesis” (Preacher & Hayes, 2004, p. 719). Having already estab- lished these requirements, we next performed the bootstrapping procedures using the macros provided by Preacher and Hayes (2008) to de- termine whether the direct effect of inclusionary status on basic needs was mediated by percep- tions of similarity. This analysis yielded a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (based on 5,000 bootstrap samples) for the indirect effect that did not include zero (95% CI [0.066, 0.70]). This analysis indicated that perceptions of per- ceived similarity mediated the direct effect. Greater social inclusion led to stronger percep- tions of similarity (B 0.92, p .002), and as similarity increased, so too did participants’ ba- sic needs satisfaction (B 0.28, p < .001). The direct effect, however, was mediated when in- cluding similarity (B 1.68, p < .001).

However, we wished to examine whether this was true both when playing with same-race and other-race agents (i.e., did target race moderate the mediated effect?). We conducted a moder- ated meditation analysis using Model 7 with the W moderator being target race (0 White, 1 Black). This yielded two bootstrapping models, each with 5,000 iterations. When participants played with White agents, similarity did indeed mediate the effect of inclusion and ostracism on basic needs satisfaction (95% bias-corrected confidence interval did not include zero; 95% CI [0.079, 0.91]). However, similarity did not mediate the effect when participants played with Black agents (95% bias-corrected confi- dence interval did include zero; 95% CI [-0.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 149

SOCIAL INCLUSION, OSTRACISM, AND SIMILARITY 135

054, 0.39]). Thus, our moderated mediation hy- pothesis was supported.

Discussion

Consistent with past research, we found that the social pain stemming from ostracism is more severe when administered by fellow in- group members (e.g., Bernstein et al., 2010). Conversely, social inclusion is experienced as relatively more positive when administered by in-group relative to out-group members. Impor- tantly, we found that these enhanced effects of social inclusion and ostracism observed in the in-group condition are mediated by perceived similarity with those agents of inclusion or os- tracism. Not only do in-group members seem more similar to the self when they include par- ticipants (and more dissimilar when they ostra- cize participants), but changes in the perception of similarity with agents mediate the relation- ship between inclusionary status and the fulfill- ment of basic affiliation needs. Critically, this relationship was only true when participants played the game with racial in-group members; perceptions of similarity did not change, regard- less of the inclusionary experience, in the racial out-group condition (i.e., moderated media- tion).

Several theoretical positions are congruent with our findings. First, out-group members are naturally constrained with respect to how simi- lar they may be perceived to in-group members. Among racial out-groups, for whom the signals of group differences (i.e., skin tone) are salient (e.g., Ito & Urland, 2003), it may be difficult to ever completely overcome that difference so long as “race” is the primary category that de- fines the targets. This explanation is further supported by evidence showing that out-groups are perceived as being more homogenous as compared with in-groups (Park, Ryan, & Judd, 1992). It may be that when individuals think of in-group members, they are better able to imag- ine a greater degree of variation in how similar they are to themselves; receiving positive feed- back (such as acceptance) may enhance these perceptions of similarity, because positive inter- personal interactions can increase perceived similarity (Morry, 2005). At the same time, receiving negative feedback may result in per- ceiving the agent as less similar to themselves (perhaps the group as well) as a means of dis-

tancing oneself from the aggressor and perhaps also protecting generally positive perceptions of the in-group (e.g., Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995). Alternatively, ostracism from the in- group may threaten one’s perceived standing within the in-group (Williams, 2007), causing the observed dissimilarity and intensified nega- tivity.

Although past theory and research (e.g., Wil- liams, 2007) proposed that early stage reactions to ostracism are essentially reflexive and insen- sitive to situational factors, the current results and other recent work (Bernstein et al., 2010) suggest that responses to ostracism are not sim- ply “all or nothing,” and instead can be more nuanced and contextualized. Furthermore, the current results also mesh nicely with social pain theory (MacDonald & Leary, 2005), which pro- poses that social and psychical pain are phe- nomenologically and physiologically linked ex- periences (e.g., Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). To the extent that reactions to ostracism are similar to responses to physical pain, it is sensible that the most serious social injuries (e.g., being ostracized by in-groups) should result in the most acute experiences of social pain.

Nonetheless, a number of open questions still remain. First, given that the current work used race as the operational definition of in-group and out-group, it may appear unclear whether the current effects are due to an in-group effect or due to status or power differences among the in-group and out-group. Although a sensible alternative explanation, this hypothesis is not easily congruent with previous findings. Indeed, Bernstein and colleagues (2010) found that both Black and White participants showed equiva- lent effects when socially included or ostracized by racial in-group versus out-group members. Clearly, this pattern of data does not align easily with a status or power interpretation of race. Second, in the current work, we did not test whether similar results would be observed for other in-group– out-group distinctions. Here, too, we can point to past research to address this issue. Given that the differential responses to ostracism and social inclusion by in-group and out-group members only appear to occur for highly essentialized groups (e.g., race; see Bernstein et al., 2010), but not for more arbi- trary groups or groups with weak affiliations (e.g., PC vs. Mac users; Smith & Williams,

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 150

136 SACCO, BERNSTEIN, YOUNG, AND HUGENBERG

2004), this indicates that the current mediational pattern for in-groups would likely hold only for subjectively relevant and highly essentialized in-groups.

In conclusion, consistent with past research, we found that reactions to social inclusion and ostracism are exacerbated when perpetrated by fellow racial in-group members (compared with racial out-group members). Importantly, these exacerbated reactions stemming from in-group inclusion and ostracism are explained by fluc- tuations in perceived self-similarity with in- group members. Future research would benefit by understanding additional mechanisms poten- tially responsible for differentiated reactions to inclusion and ostracism by in-group members.

References

Acitelli, L. K., Kenny, D. A., & Weiner, D. (2001). The importance of similarity and understanding of partners’ marital ideals to relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 8, 167–185. doi:10.1111/ j.1475-6811.2001.tb00034.x

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909 .117.3.497

Bernstein, M. J., Sacco, D. F., Young, S. G., Hugen- berg, K., & Cook, E. (2010). Being “in” with the in-crowd: The effects of social exclusion and in- clusion are enhanced by the perceived essentialism of the ingroup and outgroup. Personality and So- cial Psychology Bulletin, 36, 999 –1009. doi: 10.1177/0146167210376059

Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and Social Psy- chology Review, 9, 341–359. doi:10.1207/ s15327957pspr0904_4

Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Per- ceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410 – 436. doi:10.1006/jesp .1995.1018

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003, October 10). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290 –292. doi:10.1126/science.1089134

Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta- analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 226 –235. doi:10.1037/0033-2909 .104.2.226

Ferguson, C. K., & Kelley, H. H. (1964). Significant factors in overevaluation of own-group’s product.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 69, 223–228.

doi:10.1037/h0046572 Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, D. (2007). The KKK

won’t let me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of Social Psy- chology, 37, 1176 –1186. doi:10.1002/ejsp.392

Gonzaga, G. C., Campos, B., & Bradbury, T. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfac- tion in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 34 – 48. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.34

Goodwin, S. A., Williams, K. D., & Carter-Sowell,

A. R. (2010). The psychological sting of stigma: The

costs of attributing ostracism to racism. Jour- nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 612– 618. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.002

Hein, G., Silani, G., Preuschoff, K., Batson, C. D., & Singer, T. (2010). Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members’ suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron, 68, 149 – 160. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.003

Ito, T. A., & Urland, R. (2003). Race and gender on

the brain: Electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable in- dividuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 85, 616 – 626. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85 .4.616

Jensen, A. R. (1978). Genetic and behavioral effects of nonrandom mating. In R. T. Osborne, C. E.

Noble, & N. J. Weyl (Eds.), Human variation: Biopsychology of age, race, and sex (pp. 51–105). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Leary, M. R., Haupt, A. L., Strausser, K. S., & Chokel, J. T. (1998). Calibrating the sociometer: The relationship between interpersonal appraisals and state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74, 1290 –1299. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.74.5.1290

MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between

social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202

McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., & Martin, C. E. (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 101, 1239 –1252. doi:10.1037/a0024506 Morry, M. M. (2005). Relationship satisfaction as a

predictor of similarity ratings: A test of the attrac- tion-similarity hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 561–584. doi:10.1177/ 0265407505054524

Park, B., Ryan, C. S., & Judd, C. M. (1992). Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,

553–567. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.553

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 151

SOCIAL INCLUSION, OSTRACISM, AND SIMILARITY 137

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS

procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and com- paring indirect effects in multiple mediator mod- els. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879 – 891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypoth- eses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multi- variate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Psychologi- cal essentialism of human categories. Current Di- rections in Psychological Science, 16, 202–206. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00504.x

Russell, R. J., & Wells, P. A. (1991). Personality similarity and quality of marriage. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 407– 412. doi:10.1016/ 0191-8869(91)90057-I

Smith, A., & Williams, K. D. (2004). R U there? Effects of ostracism by cell phone messages. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 291–301. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.8.4.291

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup be- haviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149 –178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of

Psychology, 58, 425– 452. doi:10.1146/annurev .psych.58.110405.085641

Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and So- cial Psychology, 79, 748 –762. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.79.5.748

Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on ostracism and in- terpersonal acceptance. Behavior Research Meth- ods, 38, 174 –180. doi:10.3758/BF03192765

Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2005). Ostracism: An indiscriminate early detection system. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 19 –34). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Zadro, L., Boland, C., & Richardson, R. (2006). How long does it last? The persistence of the effects of ostracism in the socially anxious. Journal of Ex- perimental Social Psychology, 42, 692– 697. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.007

Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belong- ing, control, self-esteem, and meaningful exis- tence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560 –567. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006

Received June 22, 2013

Revision received August 27, 2013 Accepted August 27, 2013 •

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be

available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and

you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 152

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 18, No. 2, 138 –158 1089-2699/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/gdn0000003

Single-Case Designs in Group Work: Past Applications, Future Directions

Mark J. Macgowan and Stephen E. Wong

Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work, Florida International University

This paper examined how group work researchers and practitioners have used single- case designs (SCDs) to evaluate interventions for improving group processes and outcomes. Fifty-one group work studies published from 1972 to 2012 using SCDs and addressing a wide range of problems were identified. The 8 types of SCDs applied in these studies are discussed in relation to their methodology, relative strengths and limitations, and applications in group work research and practice evaluation. Selected studies, which varied in quality and rigor, are described to illustrate design features and utility for group work. The review reveals the challenges and opportunities in using SCDs, and it provides recommendations for designs best suited to answer particular questions.

Keywords: group work, single-case designs, single-subject designs, single-system designs,

practice evaluation

Single-case designs (SCDs), also known as single-subject, single-participant, N-of-1, and single-system evaluation designs, can evaluate effects of an intervention with only one subject or group. In most SCDs, repeated measures are taken on a single subject or group under no- treatment (baseline) and treatment conditions, and the subject or group serves as its own con- trol. Controlled SCDs demonstrate experimental control by replicating treatment effects within each single-case study through procedures such as repeatedly introducing and removing the interven- tion; successively introducing the intervention across different targets, settings, or subjects; randomly alternating between various condi- tions; or incrementally changing the level of the intervention. Results of SCDs are typically graphed for visual analysis, but there are also

numerous tests for determining statistically sig- nificant change.

SCDs have been structured to examine spe- cial features of the group modality. The design may focus on functioning of individuals within the group, a subgroup of individuals, or the whole group. SCDs can also include variables that reflect the group experience, such as mem- ber satisfaction, nature of interactions, and lead- ership. There are many potential focal points such as intervention theory, individual group members, group structures, group processes and leadership, all of which relate to group work outcomes (Burlingame, Strauss, & Joyce, 2013).

Benefits of Single-Case Designs for

Group Work

SCDs are considered a useful research design for clinical practice across professions includ-

Mark J. Macgowan and Stephen E. Wong, Robert Stem- pel College of Public Health & Social Work, Florida Inter- national University.

Both authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper and are listed in alphabetical order.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Mark J. Macgowan or Stephen E. Wong, School of Social Work, Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL 33199. E-mail: macgowan@fiu .edu; wongse@fiu.edu

ing psychology, social work, special education, and counselor education (Bloom, Fischer, & Orme, 2009; Heppner, Kivlighan, & Wampold, 2008; Horner et al., 2005; Kazdin, 2003; Lun- dervold & Belwood, 2000; Vonk, Tripodi, & Epstein, 2007). They can be a valid source of data in determining empirically supported inter- ventions (Chambless et al., 1998). In group work it has been recommended as a valuable

138

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 153

SINGLE-CASE DESIGNS GROUP WORK 139

evaluation method (Garrett, 2005; Toseland & Rivas, 2012; Zastrow, 2006).

There are a number of important advantages of SCDs for research and practice. SCDs offer a means of obtaining valuable pilot data before larger between-groups designs are utilized (Petry, Martin, & Finocche, 2001; Petry, Wein- stock, & Alessi, 2011). Between-groups designs require a control group and a sufficient number of subjects to satisfy the power requirements of the statistical test to be used for data analysis. However, SCDs can be conducted with a single person or one group containing as many mem- bers who attend. SCDs are also the most prac- tical technology available for evaluating one’s own practice, which is required by the Ameri- can Group Psychotherapy Association (AGPA, 2007), Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW, 2000, 2007), and the Associa- tion for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups (AASWG, 2006). Another benefit of SCDs is their flexibility, as they can accommo- date a trial-and-error process allowing clini- cians to try out different group interventions in the search for an effective one (Newman & Wong, 2004). This also makes SCDs particularly well suited for practitioners using evidence-based group treatments with diverse populations. Group workers using SCDs can determine whether an evidence-supported intervention or technique, validated with other populations, is effective with the particular cultural groups they are serv- ing (Macgowan, 2008; Macgowan & Hanbidge, 2014).

Previous Reviews

Compared with between-groups designs, SCDs seldom appear in published group work research. Reviews of the history of group work research since the 1950s made no mention of SCDs (Barlow, Burlingame, & Fuhriman, 2000; Barlow, Fuhriman, & Burlingame, 2004; Feld- man, 1987; Frank, 1975; Horne & Rosenthal, 1997; McGrath, 1997). In a review of 54 studies in a decade of group work research up to 1994, only two SCDs were identified (Tolman & Mo- lidor, 1994). As the authors noted, the lack of studies might have been a reflection of “publi- cation biases against such studies, rather than researcher rejection of such designs” (Tolman & Molidor, 1994, p. 152).

Regardless of the reasons, the focus in group

research has been on between-groups designs, with little attention on SCD technology. With respect to clinical practice, relatively few prac- titioners use SCDs, but instead rely on informal methods to determine progress (Foster, Watson, & Young, 2002; Galassi & Gersh, 1993; Ven- timiglia, Marschke, Carmichael, & Loew, 2000). In group work, the findings are similar. A survey of the use of SCDs by 54 school practitioners found that none used SCDs in their groups but rather relied on subjective methods (Garrett, 2005, p. 251).

There have been a number of reviews of SCDs in group work (Fike, 1980; Johnson, Beckerman, & Auerbach, 2001; Patterson & Basham, 2002; Robison, Morran, & Hulse- Killacky, 1989; Rose, 1977), a few of which can be summarized. In his book on behavioral group work, Rose (1977, pp. 66 –72) described seven applications of SCDs, illustrating five simple baseline-treatment designs (AB), one reversal design (ABAB), and one multiple-baseline de- sign (MBD). These examples illustrated how to use SCDs to assess change in variables such as member-to-member interactions, member praise statements, leader-to-member interac- tions, leader suggestion giving, positive affec- tive responses, suggestion-opinion giving re- sponses, information-giving responses, and subjective appraisal of intervention procedures by group members.

Fike (1980) noted how SCDs could be used flexibly to capture the nature of change in groups. He described the possible relationships between multiple formative/process variables and outcome variables in groups. He argued that designs simply recording individual outcomes, “do not give attention to all of the relevant group information” (Fike, 1980, p. 42). Accord- ing to Fike, SCDs should also include other group variables such as member satisfaction with the group, quality of interactions, and group leadership.

Robison and colleagues (Robison et al., 1989) described two SCDs (ABAB and MBD) and statistical procedures (time-series analyses and nonparametric tests) that group workers could use to evaluate the effectiveness of their interven- tions. They cautioned that ABAB designs might not be able to determine causality with some dependent variables, such as cohesion, as the developmental processes may occur irrespec-

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 154

140 MACGOWAN AND WONG

tive of an intervention and might not be revers- ible through withdrawal of treatment. In such cases, a MBD across clients or groups could be used to demonstrate causality. To improve the internal validity of findings from a multiple- baseline across groups design, the authors rec- ommended random assignment of clients into the different groups.

Purpose and Scope of Review

This paper advances previous reviews by in- cluding more recent studies; examining a broader range of SCD designs, their individual methodologies, and relative strengths and weak- nesses; and making recommendations for prac- tice and research with groups. This review is restricted to SCDs involving facilitated small groups whose purpose is to improve the psy- chosocial or socioemotional functioning of its members. The term small group “implies the ability of members to identify themselves as members, to engage in interaction, and to ex- change thoughts and feelings among themselves though verbal, nonverbal, and written commu- nication processes. Members can meet face-to- face, by telephone or video, or through com- puter networks” (Toseland & Rivas, 2012, p. 11).

We used a number of methods to locate and identify SCDs in the literature. We restricted the search to scholarly journals of all years, up to 2012. We searched a number of databases in- cluding social service abstracts, PsycINFO, So- ciofile, Medline, and Social Work Abstracts. The reference lists of other reviews (Garrett, 2005; Johnson et al., 2001; Maughan, Christian- sen, Jenson, Olympia, & Clark, 2005; Smith, 2012) were also examined, in addition to those in recent SCD studies. The following terms related to group work and SCDs were used to locate the literature, searching in the title, key- words, and abstract: single subject, single sys- tem, single case, multiple baseline, withdrawal, reversal, alternating treatments design, AB, ABA, BAB, ABAB, appearing with any of the following terms: group work, group counseling, group treatment, group intervention, group ther- apy, group prevention, group approach, group psychotherapy, group training, and group in- struction. After an iterative process to select studies meeting the above criteria, 51 studies were found.

In Table 1 and the following section we re- view SCDs used in extant group work research, beginning with the simplest and progressing to the more complex designs. We briefly describe the logic behind each design, what the design can accomplish, and how it was properly or less-than optimally applied in previous studies. We also note when these designs were used to investigate particular questions about group processes or outcomes. Discussion and recom- mendations for research and practice follow.

Review of Single-Case Designs in Group

Work Studies

The first SCD in group work appeared in 1972 with an additional five published in that decade (see Table 1). There were 15 published in the 1980s, 11 in the 1990s, and 19 since the year 2000, representing a considerable increase from the previous decade. The discipline with the most publications is Psychology followed by Social Work. Most of the studies have orig- inated in the United States but studies were also conducted in Argentina, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

B Design (Treatment Only)

Four of the publications in Table 1 used a B design, which first appeared in the 1980s. It is the simplest SCD and it is uncontrolled, con- sisting of merely taking repeated measurements during treatment. When outcome measures are collected in this manner, various results are possible: (a) measures might change in the de- sired direction, indicating a clinical improve- ment; (b) measures might not change signifi- cantly, indicating a lack of improvement despite treatment; (c) measures might change in the undesired direction, indicating clinical deterio- ration; or (d) some intermediate result that falls between a and b or between b and c. These results are important for deciding whether to continue treatment and for making future treat- ment recommendations, making the B design valuable for clinicians. However, although the B design is easy to do and it is superior to unsystematic or no collection of outcome data, it has serious limitations. If the client does im- prove during treatment, numerous alternative explanations such as history, maturation, testing (Campbell & Stanley, 1966; Cook & Campbell,

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 155

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1 Single-Case Designs Previously Applied in Group Work Research

Design Brief Description Advantages Disadvantages

Case Study & Uncontrolled Designs

Considerations for

Group Work

Studies Using this

Design

B Monitor outcome measures during treatment. Graphic display can show improvement, no change, or worsening associated with intervention.

Simplest & easiest SCD to conduct. Does not require a no-treatment baseline phase.

Unable to draw causal inferences. Susceptible to confounds from history, maturation, testing, natural healing, & extraneous events.

Previous researchers have used this design to monitor if formative group processes are occurring as expected.

(Cetingok & Hirayama, 1983*; Fontao & Mergenthaler, 2008*; O’Brien et al., 1999*; Patterson & Basham, 2002)

AB & related

designs

ABC, ABCD AB1B2, AB1B2B3, & related designs

After collecting stable

baseline data or data moving in a counter- therapeutic direction, apply the intervention for a period at least equal to the length of baseline.

When initial treatment (B

or B1) proves unsatisfactory, apply a second treatment (C) or the same treatment at a higher intensity (B2). If performance under C or B2 proves unsatisfactory, apply a third treatment (D) or the same treatment at an even higher intensity (B3).

Relatively easy & practical

to conduct.

Accommodates a flexible

trial & error process. A series of interventions can be applied until a satisfactory outcome is attained.

Sometimes not possible

to delay treatment to collect baseline data. Substantial changes evident in a single AB design can only suggest a treatment effect. Should not make causal inferences from this design because it is susceptible to confounds from extraneous events.

Like an AB design, is susceptible to confounds from extraneous events that might coincide with the seemingly effective treatment. Additional threats to this design include carryover effects from prior treatments.

Must consider the

possibility that emergent changes coinciding with treatment are due to developmental or internal group processes.

Developmental &

internal group processes may also confound the internal validity of these designs.

(Hall, 2006; Johnson,

et al., 2001*; Ledgerwood, et al., 2008 [counterbalanced AB]*; Nelson & Kelley, 2001; Rubin, 1991*; Stevens, 2006; Toseland, Krebs, & Vahsen, 1978; Wade, Ortiz,

& Gorman, 2007 [interrupted time- series design])

(Fry, et al., 2009 [ABC]*; Phaneuf & McIntyre, 2011 [ABCD]*)

(table continues)

SIN

GL

E-C

AS

E D

ES

IGN

S G

RO

UP

WO

RK

1

41

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 156

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1 (continued)

Design Brief Description Advantages Disadvantages

Experimental & Controlled Designs

Considerations for Group Work

Studies Using this Design

ABA, BAB, ABAB, ABCBC, AB1B2B1B2, & other reversal designs

Concurrent multiple-baseline design

Remove an apparently effective treatment or return to the condition that preceded the apparently effective treatment to reverse observed improvements, & then reintroduce the treatment to reproduce and replicate its effects.

Simultaneously collect data

on two or more equivalent baselines. After obtaining stable pre-intervention data, apply the intervention to the first baseline. After observing clear gains on the first baseline, apply the intervention to the second baseline. Repeat this process with third & subsequent baselines.

Replication of treatment effects provides a strong demonstration of experimental control over the dependent variable (good internal validity). Design can be conducted with only one participant or one group.

Design does not require a

reversal & therefore is not complicated by possible ethical concerns & irreversibility. As the treatment is replicated across different behaviors, members, or groups, evidence for the generalizability (external validity) of the intervention is obtained.

Ethical concerns about intentionally reversing gains associated with a treatment. Not applicable with some interventions (e.g., psychoeducational) because their effects are not reversible.

Design requires two or

more independent baselines (i.e., similar behaviors, settings, participants, or groups). Intervention is delayed for second & subsequent baselines.

Certain group processes (e.g., cohesion, role differentiation) are unlikely to be reversible making the design unworkable.

MBD across participants within the same group is vulnerable to carry- over across members due to modeling effects & changes in group interaction patterns. Generalization across participants or groups cannot be distinguished from loss of experimental control (i.e., extraneous effects).

(Hauserman, et al., 1972 [ABAB]; Helmus, et al., 2003 [ABA]; Kirby, et al., 2008; Linsk, et al., 1975 [ABAB]*; Marr & Fairchild, 1993 [ABAA]; Martinez & Wong, 2009

[ABAB]*; Mouton & Stanley, 1996 [ABA]; Petry, et al., 2001 [AB1B2CA]; Vaccaro, 1990 [ABAB]; Weber, 1980 [ABAB]*)

(Bates, 1980; Clark, Cunningham, & Cunningham, 1989; Foxx, McMorrow, Bittle, & Ness, 1986; Foxx, et al., 1983; Gronna, Serna, Kennedy, & Prater, 1999; Hall, et al.,

2000*; Hall, Schlesinger, & Dineen, 1997; Hansen, et al.,

1985*; Hansen, St. Lawrence, & Christoff, 1989;

142

MA

CG

OW

AN

AN

D W

ON

G

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 157

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1 (continued)

Design Brief Description Advantages Disadvantages

Considerations for Group Work

Studies Using this Design

Kelly, Laughlin, Claiborne, & Patterson, 1979; Kelly, Wildman, Urey, & Thurman, 1980; Lumpkin, Silverman, Weems, Markham, & Kurtines, 2002 [partial nonconcurrent MBD]; Phaneuf & McIntyre, 2007; Roessler & Lewis, 1984; Serna, Schumaker, Sherman, & Sheldon, 1991; Tracey, et al., 1974; Tymchuk, Andron, & Rahbar, 1988)

Noncurrent multiple-baseline design

The NCMBD resembles a succession of AB designs. In its strictest form the length of the different baselines vary & are randomly assigned to a series of clients or groups.

Design does not require running multiple baselines simultaneously. The NCMBD replicates treatment effects across participants or groups & therefore demonstrates generality with each successive baseline.

Requires multiple participants or groups.

Because they are started at different points in time, there is less likelihood of carryover effects across participants & groups.

(Connors, et al., 1984*; Edleson, et al., 1985*; Kettlewell, et al., 1992*; Lees & Ronan, 2008)

(table continues)

SIN

GL

E-C

AS

E D

ES

IGN

S G

RO

UP

WO

RK

1

43

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 158

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1 (continued)

Design Brief Description Advantages Disadvantages

Considerations for Group Work

Studies Using this Design

Alternating treatments design

Mixed or combined

designs

Baseline sessions & treatment sessions are rapidly alternated according to a random schedule.

Combining SCDs or embedding one SCD within another can increase design manipulations to provide more demonstrations of experimental control & answer complex questions.

Efficient design that allows the comparison of multiple treatments within a short period of time. Can show treatment effects even when baseline data is trending in the desired direction. Brief presentation of treatments may minimize irreversibility & multiple treatment interference.

Can permit more sophisticated inquiry & refinement of interventions (e.g., after demonstrating an effective therapy assessing strategies to promote generalization).

Difficult to use with complex therapy protocols that involve a cumulative building process. Given rapidly alternating treatments, there is the risk of interaction effects with typical group development events.

Mixed & combined designs require higher proficiency in the use of SCD methodology.

Can be used to test effects of interventions on outcomes & for comparing the effects of interventions on within-group conditions (e.g., engagement).

Complex designs could

be structured to produce sequential changes in group processes & group outcomes to test the relationships between those variables.

(Blake, et al., 1990*; Gajar, et al., 1984; Kastner & May, 2009*; Wong, et al., 1988*)

(Kohler & Fowler, 1985*; Wong, et al., 1996*)

* Article is further reviewed in the text of this paper.

144

MA

CG

OW

AN

AN

D W

ON

G

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 159

SINGLE-CASE DESIGNS GROUP WORK 145

1979), and natural healing (Wong, 2010) pre- vent one from concluding that treatment caused those improvements.

Group process measures can also be plotted during a B design, revealing fluctuations in vari- ables such as verbal interaction patterns and group cohesion, which might mediate outcomes for group members. A few group researchers have monitored group process during treatment in this manner (Fontao & Mergenthaler, 2008; O’Brien, Korchynsky, Fabrizio, McGrath, & Swank, 1999; Patterson & Basham, 2002). For example, O’Brien and colleagues (1999) mea- sured positive process, satisfaction, and nega- tive process during stress management groups, and reported the findings to the group. In addi- tion, the intervention included increasing posi- tive interactions (e.g., active helping) during the latter sessions of the group program. The re- searchers found that ratings of positive process and satisfaction increased significantly across sessions. These investigators further reported that satisfaction ratings were inversely corre- lated to cardiovascular reactivity to stress, while negative process ratings were positively corre- lated to this physiological measure. The authors speculated that the planned emphasis on posi- tive interaction may have improved ratings over time. More recently, Fontao and Mergenthaler (2008) examined the verbal content of female patients at four measurement points in a psy- chodynamic group for eating disorders. As pre- dicted by the researchers, group members’ lan- guage patterns (“emotion-abstraction patterns”) significantly related to particular therapeutic factors, which also suggested the presence of a positive therapeutic cycle. The researchers noted that such language patterns may be used to identify the occurrence of therapeutically im- portant points in the process of group work.

Although process measures can serve as proximal indicators of change and are important for assessing whether desired therapeutic pro- cesses unfold as planned, the ultimate test of group therapy is showing improvement in client outcomes. Cetingok and Hirayama (1983) used a B design consisting of four assessments con- ducted at the first, third, fifth, and seventh weeks of their program to assess whether par- ticipation in groups was associated with gains in health care knowledge and mental health status for elderly persons with diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension. The investigators found no

significant gains in any of their dependent mea- sures. Cetingok and Hirayama explained their unexpected findings by noting that their elderly subjects probably entered the program well in- formed about their health care needs and appar- ently became suspicious that the mental health assessment data might be used to expel them from their rent-subsidized, high-rise apart- ments.

AB Design (Baseline; Treatment)

The AB design is a substantial improvement over the B design and unlike the latter could be considered an actual “design” in that it provides a minimal degree of experimental control. Con- trol comes from the baseline data (during which no treatment is administered) to which treat- ment data is compared. If the baseline data are stable or moving in a countertherapeutic direc- tion and this pattern changes shortly after the introduction of the intervention, these results can give evidence that the intervention might be effective. Unlike the B, the AB design elimi- nates maturation (i.e., processes associated with the mere passage of time) and testing (i.e., mea- surement reactivity) as alternative explanations of observed change (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Unfortunately, the AB design is still susceptible to “history” or extraneous events that happen to coincide with treatment (Camp- bell & Stanley, 1966; Hersen & Barlow, 1976), such as the arrival or departure of group members. Eight studies used this design since first appearing in the literature in the 1990s, with most published since the year 2000 (see Table 1).

Rubin (1991) aggregated a set of AB designs to evaluate outreach counseling and support groups for battered women. A formidable chal- lenge to his evaluation effort was that interven- tions used at the agency were “somewhat unsys- tematic,” theoretically eclectic, “idiosyncratic,” and “. . . varied from session to session and across practitioners (group leaders)” (p. 340). With two sets of measures collected on each woman, one scoring desired thoughts, feelings, and behav- iors and the other scoring abusive behavior by the spouse, neither measure showed positive change that could be attributed to agency inter- ventions.

Johnson et al. (2001) obtained more favor- able results when examining whether leader-

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 160

146 MACGOWAN AND WONG

initiated changes influenced group processes in three AB design studies implemented by under- graduate students and practitioners. The three studies included (a) student leaders of an ado- lescent girls’ group encouraging the develop- ment of trusting relationships between members and the effect on subsequent group attendance,

(b) interventions to increase participation by the “silent majority” in a group of veterans and the number of members later speaking up in the group, and (c) encouragement of self-expres- sion through puppetry in children who had ex- perienced loss and emotional trauma and the number of children then using this mode of expression. Changes in dependent measures from the A to B phases were statistically sig- nificant in the first two studies. In the third study, statistical tests were not used, but there was 200% improvement from baseline to inter- vention mean scores.

Ledgerwood, Alessi, Hanson, Godley, and Petry (2008) used counterbalanced AB designs

(A1A2B; A1BA2) across four clinics to gauge the effects of contingency management on attendance at substance abuse therapy groups. Three randomly selected clinics were exposed to

an A1A2B design composed of the following conditions: An 8-week “baseline” of standard

treatment (A1), 16 additional weeks of standard

treatment (A2), and 16 weeks of standard treat- ment plus contingency management (material incentives for attendance) (B). A fourth ran-

domly selected clinic was exposed to an A1BA2

design, which resembled the previous design except that it presented the last two phases in reverse order. Clients who were enrolled in the clinics when contingency management was im- plemented attended a significantly greater per- centage of therapy sessions than clients who were enrolled in treatment without contingency management.

ABC, ABCD, AB1B2, AB1B2B3, and Related

Designs

If the outcome in the B phase of an AB design is unsatisfactory, a second intervention (C) can be tested in an ABC design, or the same intervention at a higher magnitude (B2) can be tested in an AB1B2 design. If the outcome of C or B2 proves unsatisfactory, a third treatment

(D) can be tested in an ABCD design, or the same treatment can be tested at an even higher

magnitude (B3) in an AB1B2B3 design. This highlights one of the advantages of SCDs; namely, their flexibility and ability to incorpo- rate an evidence-based, trial-and-error process within clinical practice. This flexibility is cru- cial for accommodating the variable responses of individuals and groups to particular interven- tions.

Although the ABC, ABCD, AB1B2, AB1B2B3, and related designs permit the mod- ification of interventions until the client or group has improved to a satisfactory level, these designs are unable to determine which of the interventions, if any, actually produced the im- provement. This is because these designs are merely complicated versions of AB designs and are also susceptible to extraneous events that might have coincided with any of the seemingly effective treatment phases. In addition, se- quence and carryover effects are possible in ABC and ABCD designs in that positive changes in C or D phases actually might be due to delayed effects of previous treatment phases. Interpretation of group work data is even trick- ier, because the conduct and affect of group members and the nature of the group experience is expected to change as a group moves through developmental stages.

Two studies have recently utilized these de- signs. Fry, Botterill, and Pring (2009) evaluated two formats of group-based speech-language therapy on the stuttering of an 18-year-old male client (in a group of up to 10 members) using an ABC design with a maintenance phase. After a 5-week baseline (A), 2 weeks of intensive group instruction was provided during one treatment phase (B), followed by 5 weeks of consolida- tion/self-management training in a second treat- ment phase (C). Finally, follow-up measures were taken during a 10-month maintenance phase. Compared to the A phase, there was a significant reduction in the percent of stuttered syllables per session and in the duration of stuttering in the B and C phases, and this im- provement continued or increased in the main- tenance phase. Although introduction of the interventions was associated with decreased stuttering, as intended, it was not known if the interventions were responsible for this improve- ment.

A group intervention has also been added to other therapeutic modalities in a stepwise ABC treatment design. Phaneuf and McIntyre (2011)

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 161

SINGLE-CASE DESIGNS GROUP WORK 147

used such a design in a three-tier parent training program involving parents of preschool chil- dren with developmental disabilities (n 8 parent– child dyads). Each tier included an in- tervention component followed by an evalua- tion to determine who either responded favor- ably to the intervention, or who would need further service in the next intervention tier. The first phase included 3 weeks of individual par- ticipants listening to or reading materials drawn from Webster-Stratton’s Incredible Years pro- gram, followed by an evaluation to determine either who responded and would be scheduled for a 3-month follow up assessment, or who would move on to the second intervention tier. The second tier involved 11 weeks of Webster- Stratton’s group-based Incredible Years Parent Training Program, followed by another evalua- tion. Those who responded were scheduled for the 3-month follow up, and those who needed the final tier received a single session of individualized video feedback training and were scheduled for the last 3-month follow up. All but one child displayed reductions in observed inappropriate behavior or parental ratings of child behavior problems.

ABA, BAB, ABAB, ABCBCB, AB1B

2B

1B

2,

and Other Reversal Designs

Inherent weaknesses of AB, ABC, and ABCD designs can be rectified by removing the seemingly effective treatment and returning to the previous experimental condition to reverse observed improvements, and then reintroducing the treatment to replicate its positive effects. Replication of treatment effects by reapplying an intervention and reproducing its results is a powerful demonstration of causality (Sidman, 1960). The drawbacks of reversal designs in- clude ethical concerns about removing an ap- parently effective treatment merely for the pur- pose of demonstrating its efficacy, irreversible effects of certain interventions (such as psy- choeducational therapies conveying knowledge that cannot be removed), and changes in certain group-based dependent variables (e.g., cohe- sion) attributable to group maturation that also might be irreversible. Ten reversal designs have been used in group work since the early 1970s, representing the second most utilized SCD (see Table 1).

In a landmark study, both for its use of pre-

cise observational measures of group interac- tion and SCD evaluation methodology, Linsk, Howe, and Pinkston (1975) included several ABAB designs to gauge the effect of question- asking on appropriate verbalizations by elderly residents in activity groups in a nursing home. Following a baseline phase in which group ac- tivities were conducted in the agency’s usual manner, a second phase gauged the effects of the group leader asking residents as many ques- tions as possible during the group activity. In a third phase, the group leader returned to the customary manner of directing the group. In the fourth and final treatment phase, the group leader resumed the procedure of increased ques- tion-asking. Linsk and colleagues showed that more frequent questions doubled the number of appropriate verbalizations relative to baseline sessions using the agency’s usual procedure.

Weber (1980) investigated the impact of vid- eotape feedback on adolescents in inpatient group therapy, hypothesizing that it would in- crease verbal expressions of warmth and de- crease expressions of hostility and flight. Dur- ing experimental sessions, the first 45 minutes of each group session was videotaped and then immediately played back to the members. The effects of videotaping and playback were eval- uated within an ABAB design with each phase lasting 2 weeks. There were inconsistent results across the three measures of verbal affect. There was some support for an increase in warmth expressed during videotaping. However, trends within phases were unstable with warmth in- creasing in the initial baseline phase without videotape feedback and decreasing rapidly at the end of the final videotape feedback phase. For flight there was some reduction in the num- ber of responses during videotape feedback; but, here too, flight responses were declining steadily at the end of both baseline phases with- out videotape feedback. Finally, hostility showed no consistent reduction during the pres- ence of videotape feedback. Different statistical tests for change in the SCD data yielded con- flicting results, showing how these analyses can be contradictory. Contributing to the inconsis- tent findings was high variability within the phases and a predetermined length for all phases (2 weeks). Sometimes experimental conditions were altered before data within each phase had stabilized. Had the investigator waited until data

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 162

148 MACGOWAN AND WONG

within phases had stabilized before changing conditions, he might have been able to more clearly identify the levels and trends within phases and then been able to detect changes in subsequent phases.

Martinez and Wong (2009) utilized an ABAB design to evaluate the effects of written and telephone prompts on attendance at group support meetings for women survivors of do- mestic abuse. Participants of this study were residents of a transitional housing program who upon admission to the program were notified of the group support meetings along with other services offered by the agency. After 2 weeks of baseline in which no additional steps were taken to increase attendance at the support meetings, a colorful written invitation to attend the meeting was delivered and a single phone call was made to each resident the morning of the meeting for 2 weeks. Next, the baseline condition of no prompts was reinstituted for 2 weeks, which was followed by a final 3-week phase in which written and telephone prompts were reintro- duced. During baseline phases attendance was limited to the same three residents. During the first prompting phase the number of residents in attendance doubled. However, when prompts were discontinued attendance fell back to the level observed in baseline. In the final prompt- ing phase the number of residents again in- creased, this time to more than triple what was recorded in baseline.

Multiple-Baseline Designs (MBDs)

MBDs have been the most frequently used SCD in group work (k 21), probably because they lack troublesome reversal phases and be- cause group work involves multiple clients whose progress sometimes can be monitored within separate baselines. Also contributing to the common use of this design is the prevalence of social skills training in group work where MBDs have been utilized to assess the effects of sequential training of specific social skills. This section will review several illustrative group work studies using concurrent and nonconcur- rent MBDs.

Concurrent MBD. As noted above, ethical concerns and irreversibility of certain types of change are limitations of ABAB and other re- versal designs. Concurrent MBDs do not con- tain reversal phases and circumvent these prob-

lems by simultaneously collecting data on two or more independent baselines— consisting ei- ther of different behaviors/targets, the same be- haviors/targets in different settings, or the same behaviors/targets in different group members (or groups)—and then sequentially introducing the intervention across these baselines. If im- provements occur when, and only when, an intervention is successively applied to two or more of these baselines, then the intervention’s effectiveness is demonstrated. Because concur- rent MBDs replicate treatment effects across behaviors or across group members, they can demonstrate some treatment impact across those two dimensions. Drawbacks to using con- current MBDs can be the lack of two or more independent but equivalent baselines (which must respond similarly to the same interven- tion) and the requirement to delay the interven- tion for the second and subsequent baselines. The concurrent MBD was used in 17 group work studies.

Hansen, St. Lawrence, and Christoff (1985) delivered a problem-solving skills intervention for challenging situations in community living to seven patients in a partial hospitalization program. Hansen and colleagues utilized in- structions, modeling, behavior rehearsal, and verbal reinforcement during group sessions to successively teach skill components of problem identification, goal definition, solution evalua- tion, evaluation of alternatives, and selection of the best alternative. Group data plotted within a concurrent MBD across skill components showed that the five skills were rarely exhibited during baseline phases, but these same skills showed immediate and significant increases fol- lowing training.

Hall, Dineen, Schlesinger, and Stanton (2000) used a MBD to evaluate the effective- ness of group training in verbal interactive skills for developmentally disabled adults in a voca- tional training program. Six complex verbal skills (e.g., “social conversation”) were succes- sively taught with instructions, modeling, re- hearsal, and feedback over a 7-week period, and the effects of training were evaluated with a concurrent MBD across responses. There were mixed or null effects of the training procedure on clients’ rated skills. Hall and colleagues noted that this poor outcome might have been due to their training schedule that required lead- ers to begin training on additional skills before

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 163

SINGLE-CASE DESIGNS GROUP WORK 149

previously trained skills had been mastered, and the low proficiency of group trainers who were mostly first-year graduate students.

Nonconcurrent MBD (NCMBD). NCMBDs are a variant of the MBD in which the baselines do not all start at the same time or run simultaneously. If implemented strictly ac-

cording to the first published description of this design (Watson & Workman, 1981), the pre-

treatment baseline phases are of different lengths and the assignment of these different baseline

lengths to individual clients is randomized. In the published literature, however, NCMBDs contain-

ing different baseline lengths and random as- signment of these baselines has been inconsis-

tent. Because the separate baselines of a NCMBD are initiated at different times, and can even be started after the completion of other baselines, a NCMBD is essentially a series of AB designs and is relatively easy to carry out. Furthermore, because replication of intervention effects in the separate AB designs of the NCMBD are con-

ducted with different participants, this design demonstrates some generality of intervention

effects across subjects. There were four exam- ples of this design in the literature (see Table 1).

Connors, Johnson, and Stuckey (1984) im- plemented an NCMBD in a study of brief psy- choeducational group therapy for the treatment of bulimia. Treatment consisted of education,

self-monitoring, goal setting, assertion training, relaxation, and cognitive restructuring, which

was applied with two groups of 10 normal- weight bulimic women, one group 3 weeks be-

fore the other. The investigators reported a 70% reduction in binge/purge episodes and signifi- cant improvements in self-esteem, depression,

assertiveness, and attitudes about eating that coincided with the introduction of treatment for each group.

Edleson, Miller, Stone, and Chapman (1985) used a “modified” MBD that resembled a NCMBD to evaluate a 12-week, small-group treatment for men who battered their partners. Groups were guided through topics of analyzing chains of events leading to violent situations, progres- sive relaxation, cognitive restructuring, problem solving, taking the partner’s view of the prob- lem, and negotiation skills. Three groups began treatment at three different points in time. Edle- son and colleagues reported substantial declines in the mean incidence of self-reported spouse abuse in two of the three groups as they began

participating in the program, which they pointed to as evidence of the program’s effectiveness. A couple of features of this study, however, limit its ability to demonstrate treatment efficacy: (a) the baseline data for all three groups were re- constructed retrospectively, which greatly in- creased the possibility of error; and (b) group treatment was preceded by 2 weeks of intake interviews, during which all groups showed im- mediate “decreases” in spouse abuse from base- line levels. The decline during the interview period, before any treatment was administered, suggests that decreases in abuse may have been due to the intake interviews or participants’ admission to the program rather than the treat- ment itself.

Kettlewell, Mizes, and Wasylyshyn (1992) met all of the strict requirements for a NCMBD in a study evaluating group cognitive– behav- ioral treatment for bulimia. Kettlewell and his associates used a comprehensive treatment that included information on medical and psycho- logical consequences of bulimia, goal setting, functional analysis of the binge-purge cycle, selecting an appropriate weight for oneself, cop- ing strategies, combating irrational cognitions about thinness, and ways to maintain progress. This treatment was applied after 2, 6, or 10 weeks of stable baselines with three groups of clients, the length of baseline for each group being randomly determined. The weekly rate of binging and purging markedly declined for all three groups after the onset of treatment and, with the exception of one client, lower rates of eating disorders were mostly maintained during follow-up assessments.

Alternating Treatments Design (ATD)

Group workers may want to know which intervention is most efficacious for their mem- bers, and the ATD (Barlow & Hayes, 1979) is a design specifically for the purpose of comparing two or more interventions. The ATD makes comparisons between interventions by rapidly alternating (e.g., from one group session to the next) between two or more treatment conditions and baseline conditions on a random schedule. Sometimes a sign or cue is used to identify the session (e.g., “Positive Interactions Session”) so that participants can distinguish which condi- tion is currently in effect. The resulting data are graphed and data points from the same condi-

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I

164

150 MACGOWAN AND WONG

tion are connected by lines to form curves rep- resenting group members’ performance during the different conditions. The distance separating the curves represents the differential effects of the various conditions. The ATD is an effi- cient design that can reveal differences between conditions after a small number of sessions. Potential problems of the ATD are contrast ef- fects and multiple-treatment interference, which are experimental artifacts brought on by close juxtaposition of intervention conditions or cross-contamination and interaction of the dif- ferent conditions, respectively. Given that groups develop and mature over time, there is a good likelihood of interdependency between phases, producing such interaction effects. These threats can be reduced by ending the ATD with a final phase in which the interven- tion with the best outcome is presented alone consecutively for several sessions. If perfor- mance within this final phase is similar to that recorded in the earlier alternating treatments phase of the study, then the results were not due to contrast effects or multiple-treatment inter- ference.

As seen in Table 1, the first publications that included the ATD in group work appeared in the 1980s (k 2), with only two more over the next two decades. Wong and colleagues (1988) used an ATD to assess the effects of two types of structured group activities (e.g., team sports, art projects) on bizarre psychotic and appropri- ate behaviors in 10 male chronic psychiatric patients on a hospital ward. On a random sched- ule, the group of patients participated in one of three different types of sessions: (a) structured group activities with positive reinforcement (to- kens earned through active participation), (b) structured group activities with noncontingent reinforcement (tokens given regardless of the level of participation), or (c) baseline sessions (control sessions in which no structured activity was offered). Psychotic behavior was signifi- cantly lower (70%) and appropriate behavior was substantially higher (approximately 500%) in the recreational sessions as opposed to the baseline sessions. Data for the two recreational conditions were roughly equivalent indicating that the beneficial effect was due to the recre- ational activities and not contingent reinforce- ment.

Blake, Owens, and Keane (1990) used an ATD to evaluate the efficacy of a single pack-

age intervention, verbal and written announce- ments of daily activities plus individual feed- back and praise, on patients’ attendance at group activities on a postacute psychiatric tran- sition unit. On a weekly basis for the 20 weeks of the study, these procedures to encourage at- tendance alternated randomly with the unit’s customary procedure of having nursing staff verbally remind patients that they were ex- pected to attend all groups as part of their treat- ment. Attendance steadily increased in both conditions during the length of the study, but attendance was significantly higher in the prompting and feedback condition.

Kastner and May (2009) utilized an ATD to gauge the effects of action-oriented techniques (AO) on group climate (using the Group Cli- mate Questionnaire–Short Version, MacKenzie, 1983) and disruptive out-of-group behavior on a group of seven middle-school students referred for behavioral or emotional difficulties. Group sessions consisted of discussion on topics se- lected by group members and alternated ran- domly between sessions with AO (i.e., the double, the empty chair, role reversal, and psy- chodramatic and behavioral role play) and ses- sions without AO. There were no significant differences between the two conditions in the frequency of disruptive behaviors, ratings of group engagement, or ratings of avoidance. However, ratings of engagement increased and ratings of avoidance decreased significantly over time, whereas ratings of conflict were un- changed.

Mixed and Combined Designs

Although articles and textbooks on SCDs present these formats as relatively fixed struc- tures, the essence of all of these designs is the systematic manipulation of the independent variable to produce a corresponding pattern of changes in the dependent variable that is un- likely to have been due to random fluctuation or extraneous events. Researchers who appreciate the underlying logic of SCDs can fully exploit their flexibility by mixing or combining the manipulations characteristic of the different de- signs (e.g., reversals, successive application of treatment across behaviors) to fit the needs of the particular study or to investigate additional questions of interest (Kazdin, 2011; Kennedy, 2005; Smith, 2012; Wong & Liberman, 1981).

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I

165

SINGLE-CASE DESIGNS GROUP WORK 151

The major drawback to mixed and combined designs is that they are more intricate and re- quire more sophisticated understanding of SCD methodology.

Kohler and Fowler (1985) used a combina- tion of concurrent MBDs and ABA designs in a

study teaching three young children to invite peers to play and to use social amenities (e.g.,

“thank you,” “please”). The study evaluated effects of group training and the termination of training (during the reversal phase) on the chil- dren’s behavior and their peers’ responses out- side of group in a classroom. For two of the three children, the MBD showed that training increased invitations and amenities performed

by the children and those responses were recip- rocated by their peers. Termination of training resulted in a reduction of invitations and ame- nities, but not to the near zero levels observed in the initial baseline. For the third child (who was

only taught invitations), group training in- creased the rate of invitations in the target child but these responses were not reciprocated by her peers, and termination of training resulted in a return to the low levels of invitations observed in baseline. For this child, additional training of the target child and her peers along with group rewards was implemented to raise the number of invitations. This condition increased both the

number of invitations given by the child and made by her peers, and when these procedures

were terminated, the level of invitations re- mained above that recorded in previous baseline phases. The complicated questions about lasting effects of training and the testing of procedures to increase invitations for the third child could not have been answered by using a MBD or an

ABA design alone. Additional experimental manipulations were needed for these purposes.

Wong, Morgan, Crowley and Baker (1996) used a mixed ABC design and a concurrent

MBD across subjects to evaluate minimal in- situ training to promote generalization of social skills taught to three adolescent psychiatric in- patients. After collecting baseline data (A), the “Stacking the Deck” table game (Foxx, McMor- row, & Schloss, 1983) (B) was used to teach

and reinforce appropriate interactive skills to the three adolescents. The game involved re-

sponding to social scenarios described on game playing cards, modeling of correct responses,

giving praise and the opportunity to move one’s game piece after correct responses to the situa-

tion, and positive (monetary) reinforcement. Covert generalization assessments conducted on the hospital ward revealed that despite sub- stantial increases in trained responses in the game setting, these skills were rarely exhibited on the ward where patients resided. To promote generalization of the skills beyond the game situation, minimal in-situ training involving in- termittent verbal prompts and tangible rein- forcement (C) were administered when the skills were used during social interactions on the ward. Minimal in-situ training was success- fully applied with each of the three adolescents immediately producing substantial improve- ment in skill usage on the ward in each patient, thereby replicating treatment effects in the pat- tern of a concurrent MBD across subjects. Thus, this study utilized an ABC design to show that game training (B) failed to produce changes that generalized to the more naturalistic ward set- ting, but that minimal in-situ training (C) did engender those changes, which was proven by replicating those improvements across subjects in the concurrent MBD.

Discussion and Recommendations

Although group work researchers have not used SCDs frequently, they have used a range of designs to evaluate diverse interventions aimed at changing a broad spectrum of depen- dent variables. The number of published reports using SCDs in group work found in this review (k 51) is substantially larger than the two reported in Tolman and Molidor’s paper (1994). After a decrease in publications in the 1990s, there has been growth in the past decade. Per- haps this is an encouraging sign.

SCDs have been used to investigate both processes and outcomes of group therapy using both individual and group levels of measure- ment. Most studies focused on group outcomes, across a broad range of target areas, including social skills, eating disorders, anxiety, self- expression, warmth and hostility, and self- efficacy. The variables focusing on the group itself (e.g., processes) included attendance (Blake et al., 1990; Helmus, Saules, Schoener, & Roll, 2003; Johnson et al., 2001; Kirby, Ker- win, Carpenedo, Rosenwasser, & Gardner, 2008; Martinez & Wong, 2009; Petry et al., 2001), verbal participation (Gajar, Schloss, Schloss, & Thompson, 1984; Hauserman, Zwe-

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I

166

152 MACGOWAN AND WONG

back, & Plotkin, 1972; Johnson et al., 2001; Kohler & Fowler, 1985; Linsk et al., 1975; Tracey, Briddell, & Wilson, 1974), group inter- action (Toseland, et al., 1978), language pat- terns (Fontao & Mergenthaler, 2008), group climate (Kastner & May, 2009), and satisfaction with group (O’Brien, et al., 1999; Patterson & Basham, 2002).

Most studies used the individual as the level of measurement and then derived a group mean score for analytical purposes. This method of analysis, though convenient and appropriate in many cases, obscures individual and subgroup differences. Patterson and Basham (2002) ex- amined satisfaction with group at both the indi- vidual and group levels using an innovative mapping procedure, showing the importance of examining both simultaneously. Rather than us- ing individual scores or the mean score for the group as the unit of analysis, this approach showed variability in both individual and group outcomes. Researchers should be aware of the benefits and limitations of individual and group levels of measurement and analysis, and select the most appropriate method.

The quality and rigor of group work studies using SCD methodology varied to a large de- gree. SCDs are merely evaluation tools and they cannot rise above other key components of the clinical study. For example, in the case of Rubin (1991), SCDs were unable to produce consistent or interpretable results for interventions that the author himself admitted were unsystematic and vacillated from session to session. It is unclear how such a study could yield reliable results, or if such results emerged how they would be understood. This also raises the question about what treatments lend themselves to SCDs. As indicated in Table 1, most interventions incor- porated forms of behavior therapy, but others utilized solution focused (Nelson & Kelley, 2001), experiential (Patterson & Basham, 2002), couples group therapy (Nelson & Kelley, 2001), and other well-defined techniques (John- son et al., 2001). This shows that SCDs can accommodate many different types of therapy. However, whatever theoretical treatment ap- proach is being evaluated, it must be applied systematically and consistently to produce in- terpretable results. This is true of SCDs as well as between-groups designs.

The study by Edleson and colleagues (1985) presented a different set of concerns by using a

reconstructed baseline and interpreting the result- ing data in a questionable manner. The doubtful accuracy of reconstructed baseline data was a weakness in itself, but that combined with desired changes occurring prior to the introduction of ther- apy should have discouraged the authors from drawing conclusions about treatment efficacy. Most of the other studies cited here, however, applied SCDs in a technically sound manner and their results were more definitive.

Recommendations for Research

Use of SCDs in group work appears to be at an intermediate level of development where a number of designs have been used and some fairly often, but there are opportunities for more varied and refined applications. Group work researchers have not always distinguished be- tween uncontrolled case study SCDs (e.g., B, AB, ABC) and controlled experimental SCDs (e.g., ABAB, MBDs), only the latter of which replicate treatment effects and thereby permit logical inference of treatment efficacy. There are efforts underway to raise the standards for SCD research. Guidelines have been developed for rating SCDs based on their level of evidence for demonstrating a causal relationship (Smith, 2012). According to such guidelines (Romeiser Logan, Hickman, Harris, & Heriza, 2008; What Works Clearinghouse, 2013), a MBD with three baselines could provide a convincing demon- stration of treatment efficacy, but a MBD with less than three baselines could not. This is note- worthy, as the proposed standard is more rigor- ous and stringent than that previously presented in published research and textbooks covering SCDs (Bailey & Burch, 2002; Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007).

Future research could apply SCDs not used in previous group work studies. One example is the Changing Criterion Design, which is appli- cable in situations where a dependent variable can be tightly controlled (Hall & Fox, 1977; Hartmann & Hall, 1976). This design requires one group member or group and one indepen- dent variable that produces stepwise changes in the dependent variable. For example, it may be unreasonable to expect that a group member with limited social competence be fully en- gaged in the group within a few sessions as a result of an engagement-building intervention. Instead, incremental engagement objectives

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I

167

SINGLE-CASE DESIGNS GROUP WORK 153

may be set over a number of group sessions (e.g., 25% more engaged per set of sessions), leading to full engagement as the ultimate goal. Other novel designs and experimental manipu- lations that could be used to explore group work questions or to strengthen the internal validity of a SCD study involve randomization. Points in time that interventions are started or the order in which group members or groups are exposed to treatment are randomly determined, and such randomization can be incorporated into almost any SCD (Edgington, 1975; Kratochwill & Levin, 2010). Randomization is likely to require SCDs with longer baseline phases, but this may be acceptable in some group work research (see, for example, Toseland, et al., 1978).

An important question that group workers could explore using SCDs is whether group processes directly impact group outcomes. This research could be conducted with two-stage SCDs where both processes and outcomes are simultaneously monitored, and data are ana- lyzed to see if changes in relevant processes reliably precede changes in desired outcomes. This type of investigation would be difficult to conduct using conventional between-groups re- search designs, but would be manageable using within-groups SCDs. There are many measures of group processes, such as group climate (MacKenzie, 1983, as used in Kastner & May, 2009) and group engagement (Macgowan & Newman, 2005), but the most frequently stud- ied variable has been cohesion, which has been reliably associated with outcomes in many group studies (Burlingame, McClendon, & Alonso, 2011; Burlingame et al., 2006; Strauss, Burlingame, & Bormann, 2008). As Fike (1980) argued, it is important to capture not only indi- vidual outcomes, but also factors that reflect the group experience on individuals and on the group, such as satisfaction and the nature of interactions.

Recommendations for Practice

The goals, resources, and constraints for practice differ substantially from that for re- search, and recommendations for SCDs for practice should reflect those differences (Wong, 2010). Recall that our review of group research from 1972 to 2012 found an average of only slightly more than one SCD study published per year. Guidelines for SCD research calling for

more rigorous designs with stronger evidence for causality could have a suppressive effect on the usage of these designs in evaluating prac- tice. Standards that devalue weaker SCDs might result in even fewer SCDs being applied and less attempts to empirically evaluate group work. Individual evaluation, even if imperfect, is preferable to automatically assuming that a treatment validated in a prior between-groups study will be equally effective with the group of clients one is currently working. It is also clearly superior to practice relying on tradition, popularity of techniques, personal belief, or other approaches not based on client data.

There has been much discussion about the importance of developing and/or adapting exist- ing treatments to maximize efficacy with par- ticular client populations (Benish, Quintana, & Wampold, 2011; Castro, Barrera, & Steiker, 2010; Chen, Kakkad, & Balzano, 2008). La Roche and Christopher (2008) noted that no empirically supported treatment has met all of the criteria set forth by the APA Task Force for treatment efficacy (American Psychological As- sociation, 2006) for any minority group. In adapting existing group treatments, components are added that attend to culture, while retaining the “essential” ingredients of the established group treatment (Macgowan & Hanbidge, 2014). A MBD across different groups or set- tings could be used to test the relative effective- ness of a group intervention that is progres- sively adapted to include important cultural components. If the SCD is done rigorously (Chambless et al., 1998; Kratochwill & Levin, 2010), these data can contribute to the develop- ment of an empirically supported group inter- vention appropriate for that population.

Uncontrolled case study designs such as the B, AB, and ABC designs should be used in clinical practice, but with full awareness of their limited inferential power. Such designs do not provide the controls or replications necessary to allow clinicians to logically conclude that their interventions caused whatever changes might have occurred. Nevertheless, these designs are valuable because “even if the therapist and cli- ents are not certain that the intervention was the sole cause of the changes, it still makes it pos- sible to ascertain the degree to which goals are being achieved” (Rose, 1977, p. 67).

Group work practitioners need not be con- strained by earlier group work evaluative meth-

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I

168

154 MACGOWAN AND WONG

ods. They can apply more refined variants of the B design. Examples include the Periodic Treat- ments Design (Hayes, 1981; Hayes, Barlow, & Nelson-Gray, 1999) and the Repeated Pretest- Posttest Design (Thyer & Curtis, 1983), which are controlled designs that can evaluate an in- tervention during a single intervention phase that is neither preceded nor followed by a base- line phase. These designs can demonstrate ex- perimental control by replicating improvements occurring soon after periodic exposure to inter- vention (e.g., a technique to improve group co- hesion) while showing the absence of such im- provements at other times during the phase. In addition, the internal validity of other case study designs, such as the AB or ABC, can be strengthened with the earlier mentioned proce- dure of randomly selecting the starting point for interventions (Edgington, 1975; Kratochwill & Levin, 2010; Toseland, et al., 1978).

Conclusions

This paper has elucidated how SCDs have been used in group work by reviewing the designs in published studies, discussing their respective strengths and limitations, and examining proce- dural variations producing data that were rela- tively clear or confounded. Most of the group work studies reviewed here successfully used SCDs to accomplish their purpose—to systemat- ically evaluate the effects of their interventions on processes and outcomes. Group researchers can learn from the mistakes and build upon the strengths of these earlier studies to become more facile with this research methodology. Although SCD technology has been used in group work since the early 1970s, there are many important questions that still need to be investigated and group researchers have only begun to tap the po- tential of these evaluative formats.

References

AASWG. (2006). Standards for social work practice with groups (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www .aaswg.org/files/AASWG_Standards_for_Social_ Work_Practice_with_Groups.pdf

AGPA. (2007). Practice guidelines for group psy- chotherapy. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from http://www.agpa.org/guidelines/index.html

American Psychological Association. (2006). Evi- dence-based practice in psychology: APA Presi-

dential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. American Psychologist, 61, 271–285. doi:10.1037/ 0003-066X.61.4.271

ASGW. (2000). Professional standards for the train- ing of group workers. Retrieved September 6, 2013, from http://www.asgw.org/training_ standards.htm

ASGW. (2007). Association for Specialists in Group Work: Best practice guidelines 2007 revisions. Re- trieved August 6, 2013, from http://www.asgw.org/ PDF/Best_Practices.pdf

Bailey, J. S., & Burch, M. R. (2002). Research meth- ods in applied behavior analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barlow, A., Burlingame, G. M., & Fuhriman, A. (2000). Therapeutic application of groups from Pratt’s “thought control classes” to modern group psychotherapy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Re- search, and Practice, 4, 115–134. doi:10.1037/ 1089-2699.4.1.115

Barlow, D. H., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Alternating treat- ments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199 –210. doi:10 .1901/jaba.1979.12-199

Barlow, S. H., Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. M. (2004). The history of group counseling and psy- chotherapy. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack, D. A. Ger- rity, C. R. Kalodner, & M. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 3–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/ 9781452229683.n1

Bates, P. (1980). The effectiveness of interpersonal skills training on the social skill acquisition of moderately and mildly retarded adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 237–248. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1980.13-237

Benish, S. G., Quintana, S., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). Culturally adapted psychotherapy and the legitimacy of myth: A direct-comparison meta- analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 279 –289. doi:10.1037/a0023626

Blake, D. D., Owens, M. D., & Keane, T. M. (1990). Increasing group attendance on a psychiatric unit: An alternating treatments design comparison. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 21, 15–20. doi:10.1016/0005- 7916(90)90044-L

Bloom, M., Fischer, J., & Orme, J. G. (2009). Eval- uating practice: Guidelines for the accountable professional (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Burlingame, G. M., Strauss, B., & Joyce, A. (2013). Change mechanisms and effectiveness of small group treatments. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (6th ed., pp. 640 – 689). New York: Wiley.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I

169

SINGLE-CASE DESIGNS GROUP WORK 155

Burlingame, G. M., McClendon, D. T., & Alonso, J.

(2011). Cohesion in group therapy. Psychother- apy, 48, 34 – 42. doi:10.1037/a0022063

Burlingame, G. M., Strauss, B., Joyce, A., MacNair- Semands, R., MacKenzie, K. R., Ogrodniczuk, J., & Taylor, S. (2006). CORE Battery–Revised: An assessment toolkit for promoting optimal group selection, process, and outcome. New York, NY: American Group Psychotherapy Association.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimen- tal and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Castro, F. G., Barrera, M., & Steiker, L. K. H. (2010). Issues and challenges in the design of culturally adapted evidence-based interventions. Annual Re- view of Clinical Psychology, 6, 213–239. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-033109-132032

Cetingok, M., & Hirayama, H. (1983). Evaluating the effects of group work with the elderly: An experiment using a single-subject design. Small Group Behavior, 14, 327–335. doi:10.1177/ 104649648301400304

Chambless, D. L., Baker, M. J., Baucom, D. H., Beutler, L. E., Calhoun, K. S., Crits-Christoph, P., . . . Woody, S. R. (1998). Update on empirically validated therapies, II. The Clinical Psychologist, 51, 3–16.

Chen, E. C., Kakkad, D., & Balzano, J. (2008). Multicultural competence and evidence-based practice in group therapy. Journal of Clinical Psy- chology, 64, 1261–1278. doi:10.1002/jclp.20533

Clark, M. L., Cunningham, L. J., & Cunningham,

C. E. (1989). Improving the social behavior of siblings of autistic children using a group problem solving approach. Child & Family Behavior Ther- apy, 11, 19 –33. doi:10.1300/J019v11n01_02

Connors, M. E., Johnson, C. L., & Stuckey, M. K. (1984). Treatment of bulimia with brief psychoe- ducational group therapy. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 1512–1516.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi- experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Pub. Co.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Edgington, E. S. (1975). Randomization tests for one-subject operant experiments. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 90, 57– 68. doi:10.1080/00223980.1975.9923926

Edleson, J. L., Miller, D. M., Stone, G. W., & Chap- man, D. G. (1985). Group treatment for men who batter. Social Work Research & Abstracts, 21, 18 –21. doi:10.1093/swra/21.3.18

Feldman, R. A. (1987). Group work knowledge and research: A two-decade comparison. Social Work with Groups, 9, 7–14. doi:10.1300/J009v09n03_03

Fike, D. F. (1980). Evaluating group intervention.

Social Work with Groups, 3, 41–51. doi:10.1300/ J009v03n02_04

Fontao, M. I., & Mergenthaler, E. (2008). Therapeutic factors and language patterns in group therapy appli- cation of computer-assisted text analysis to the ex- amination of microprocesses in group therapy: Pre- liminary findings. Psychotherapy Research, 18, 345– 354. doi:10.1080/10503300701576352

Foster, L. H., Watson, T. S., & Young, J. S. (2002). Single-subject research design for school counsel- ors: Becoming an applied researcher. Professional School Counseling, 6, 146 –154.

Foxx, R. M., McMorrow, M. J., Bittle, R. G., & Ness,

J. (1986). An analysis of social skills generaliza- tion in two natural settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 299 –305. doi:10.1901/jaba .1986.19-299

Foxx, R. M., McMorrow, M. J., & Schloss, C. N. (1983). Stacking the deck: Teaching social skills to retarded adults with a modified table game. Jour- nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 157–170. doi:10.1901/jaba.1983.16-157

Frank, J. D. (1975). Group psychotherapy research 25 years later. International Journal of Group Psy- chotherapy, 25, 159 –162.

Fry, J. P., Botterill, W. M., & Pring, T. R. (2009). The effect of an intensive group therapy pro- gram for young adults who stutter: A single subject study. International Journal of Speech- Language Pathology, 11, 12–19. doi:10.1080/ 17549500802600990

Gajar, A., Schloss, P. J., Schloss, C. N., & Thomp- son, C. K. (1984). Effects of feedback and self- monitoring on head trauma youths’ conversation skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 353–358. doi:10.1901/jaba.1984.17-353

Galassi, J. P., & Gersh, T. L. (1993). Myths, miscon- ceptions, and missed opportunity: Single-case de- signs and counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 525–531. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.40.4.525

Garrett, K. J. (2005). School social workers’ evalu- ation of group work practices. Children & Schools, 27, 247–252. doi:10.1093/cs/27.4.247

Gronna, S. S., Serna, L. A., Kennedy, C. H., & Prater, M. A. (1999). Promoting generalized social inter- actions using puppets and script training in an integrated preschool. A single-case study using multiple baseline design. Behavior Modification, 23, 419 – 440. doi:10.1177/0145445599233005

Hall, J. A., Dineen, J. P., Schlesinger, D. J., & Stan- ton, R. (2000). Advanced group treatment for developmentally disabled adults with social skill deficits. Research on Social Work Practice, 10, 301–326.

Hall, J. A., Schlesinger, D. J., & Dineen, J. P. (1997). Social skills training in groups with developmen-

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 170

156 MACGOWAN AND WONG

tally disabled adults. Research on Social Work Prac- tice, 7, 187–201.

Hall, K. R. (2006). Using problem-based learning with victims of bullying behavior. Professional School Counseling, 9, 231–237.

Hall, R. V., & Fox, R. G. (1977). Changing-criterion designs: An alternate applied behavior analysis procedure. In B. Etzel, J. Leblanc, & D. M. Baer (Eds.), New developments in behavioral research: Theory, method, and application (pp. 151–166). New York, NY: Wiley.

Hansen, D. J., St. Lawrence, J. S., & Christoff, K. A. (1985). Effects of interpersonal problem-solving training with chronic aftercare patients on prob- lem-solving component skills and effectiveness of solutions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- chology, 53, 167–174. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.53 .2.167

Hansen, D. J., St. Lawrence, J. S., & Christoff, K. A. (1989). Group conversational-skills training with in- patient children and adolescents: Social validation, generalization, and maintenance. Behavior Modifica- tion, 13, 4 –31. doi:10.1177/01454455890131001

Hartmann, D. P., & Hall, R. V. (1976). The changing criterion design. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 527–532. doi:10.1901/jaba.1976.9- 527

Hauserman, N., Zweback, S., & Plotkin, A. (1972). Use of concrete reinforcement to facilitate verbal initiations in adolescent group therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 90 –96. doi:10.1037/h0032410

Hayes, S. C. (1981). Single case experimental design and empirical clinical practice. Journal of Consult- ing and Clinical Psychology, 49, 193–211. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.49.2.193

Hayes, S. C., Barlow, D. H., & Nelson-Gray, R. O. (1999). The scientist practitioner: Research and accountability in the age of managed care (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Helmus, T. C., Saules, K. K., Schoener, E. P., & Roll, J. M. (2003). Reinforcement of counseling atten- dance and alcohol abstinence in a community- based dual-diagnosis treatment program: A feasi- bility study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17, 249 –251. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.17.3.249

Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., & Wampold, B. E. (2008). Research design in counseling (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Hersen, M., & Barlow, D. H. (1976). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying be- havior change. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

Horne, A. M., & Rosenthal, R. N. (1997). Research in group work: How did we get where we are?

Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 22, 228 – 240. doi:10.1080/01933929708415527

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-

subject research to identify evidence-based prac- tice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.

Johnson, P., Beckerman, A., & Auerbach, C. (2001). Researching our own practice: Single system de- sign for groupwork. Groupwork, 13, 57–72.

Kastner, J. W., & May, W. (2009). Action-oriented techniques in adolescent group therapy. Group, 33, 315–327.

Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, J. A., Laughlin, C., Claiborne, M., & Patter- son, J. (1979). A group procedure for teaching job interviewing skills to formerly hospitalized psychi- atric patients. Behavior Therapy, 10, 299 –310. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(79)80020-9

Kelly, J. A., Wildman, B. G., Urey, J. R., & Thur- man, C. (1980). Group skills training to increase the conversational repertoire of retarded adoles- cents. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 1, 323– 336. doi:10.1300/J473v01n04_02

Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for edu- cational research. Boston, MA: Pearson/A & B.

Kettlewell, P. W., Mizes, J. S., & Wasylyshyn, N. A. (1992). A cognitive-behavioral group treatment of bulimia. Behavior Therapy, 23, 657– 670. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80227-8

Kirby, K. C., Kerwin, M. E., Carpenedo, C. M., Rosenwasser, B. J., & Gardner, R. S. (2008). In- terdependent group contingency management for cocaine-dependent methadone maintenance pa- tients. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 579 –595. doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-579

Kohler, F. W., & Fowler, S. A. (1985). Training prosocial behaviors to young children: An analysis of reciprocity with untrained peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 187–200. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-187

Kratochwill, T. R., & Levin, J. R. (2010). Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue. Psycholog- ical Methods, 15, 124 –144. doi:10.1037/a0017736

La Roche, M., & Christopher, M. S. (2008). Culture and empirically supported treatments: On the road to

a collision? Culture & Psychology, 14, 333– 356. doi:10.1177/1354067X08092637

Ledgerwood, D. M., Alessi, S. M., Hanson, T., God- ley, M. D., & Petry, N. M. (2008). Contingency management for attendance to group substance abuse treatment administered by clinicians in com- munity clinics. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal- ysis, 41, 517–526. doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-517

Lees, D. G., & Ronan, K. R. (2008). Engagement and effectiveness of parent management training (in- credible years) for solo high-risk mothers: A mul-

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 171

SINGLE-CASE DESIGNS GROUP WORK 157

tiple baseline evaluation. Behaviour Change, 25, 109 –128. doi:10.1375/bech.25.2.109

Linsk, N., Howe, M. W., & Pinkston, E. M. (1975). Behavioral group work in a home for the aged. Social Work, 20, 454 – 463.

Lumpkin, P. W., Silverman, W. K., Weems, C. F., Markham, M. R., & Kurtines, W. M. (2002). Treating a heterogeneous set of anxiety disorders in youths with group cognitive behavioral therapy: A partially nonconcurrent multiple-baseline eval- uation. Behavior Therapy, 33, 163–177. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(02)80011-9

Lundervold, D. A., & Belwood, M. F. (2000). The best kept secret in counseling: Single-case (N 1) experimental designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 92–102. doi:10.1002/j.1556- 6676.2000.tb02565.x

Macgowan, M. J. (2008). A guide to evidence-based group work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183450 .001.0001

Macgowan, M. J., & Hanbidge, A. S. (2014). Ad- vancing evidence-based group work in community settings: Methods, opportunities, and challenges. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack, C. R. Kalodner, & M. Riva (Eds.), The handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy (2nd ed., pp. 303–317). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Macgowan, M. J., & Newman, F. L. (2005). The factor structure of the Group Engagement Mea- sure. Social Work Research, 29, 107–118. doi: 10.1093/swr/29.2.107

MacKenzie, K. R. (1983). The clinical application of a group climate measure. In R. R. Dies & K. R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Advances in group psychother- apy: Integrating research and practice (pp. 159 – 170). New York, NY: International Universities Press.

Marr, D. D., & Fairchild, T. N. (1993). A problem- solving strategy and self-esteem in recovering chemically dependent women. Alcoholism Treat- ment Quarterly, 10, 171–186. doi:10.1300/ J020V10N01_11

Martinez, K. K., & Wong, S. E. (2009). Using prompts to increase attendance at groups for sur- vivors of domestic violence. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 460 – 463. doi:10.1177/ 1049731508329384

Maughan, D. R., Christiansen, E., Jenson, W. R., Olympia, D., & Clark, E. (2005). Behavioral par- ent

training as a treatment for externalizing behav- iors and disruptive behavior disorders: A meta- analysis. School Psychology Review, 34, 267–286. McGrath,

J. E. (1997). Small group research: That once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye to the future. Group Dynamics: The- ory, Research,

and Practice, 1, 7–27. doi:10.1037/ 1089-2699.1.1.7

Mouton, S. G., & Stanley, M. A. (1996). Habit re-

versal training for trichotillomania: A group ap- proach. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 3, 159 –182. doi:10.1016/S1077-7229(96)80036-8

Nelson, T. S., & Kelley, L. (2001). Solution-focused couples group. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 20, 47– 66. doi:10.1521/jsyt.20.4.47.23085

Newman, F. L., & Wong, S. E. (2004). Progress and outcome assessment of individual patient data: Selecting single subject design and statistical pro- cedures. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), Use of psycho- logical testing for treatment planning & outcome assessment (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 273–289). Mah- wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

O’Brien, W. H., Korchynsky, R., Fabrizio, J., McGrath, J., & Swank, A. (1999). Evaluating group process in a stress management intervention: Relationships between perceived process and car- diovascular reactivity to stress. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 608 – 630. doi:10.1177/ 104973159900900506

Patterson, D. A., & Basham, R. E. (2002). A data visualization procedure for the evaluation of group treatment outcomes across units of analysis. Small Group Research, 33, 209 –232. doi:10.1177/ 104649640203300203

Petry, N. M., Martin, B., & Finocche, C. (2001). Contingency management in group treatment: A demonstration project in an HIV drop-in center. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 21, 89 –96. doi:10.1016/S0740-5472(01)00184-2

Petry, N. M., Weinstock, J., & Alessi, S. M. (2011). A randomized trial of contingency management delivered in the context of group counseling. Jour- nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 686 – 696. doi:10.1037/a0024813

Phaneuf, L., & McIntyre, L. L. (2007). Effects of individualized video feedback combined with group parent training on maternal inappropriate behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 737–741.

Phaneuf, L., & McIntyre, L. L. (2011). The appli- cation of a three-tier model of intervention to parent training. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 198 –207. doi:10.1177/ 1098300711405337

Robison, F. F., Morran, D. K., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (1989). Single-subject research designs for group counselors studying their own groups. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 14, 93–97. doi: 10.1080/01933928908411892

Roessler, R. T., & Lewis, F. D. (1984). Conversation skill training with mentally retarded and learning disabled sheltered workshop clients. Rehabilita- tion Counseling Bulletin, 27, 161–171.

Romeiser Logan, L., Hickman, R. R., Harris, S. R., & Heriza, C. B. (2008). Single-subject research de- sign: Recommendations for levels of evidence and

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 172

158 MACGOWAN AND WONG

quality rating. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50, 99 –103. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749 .2007.02005.x

Rose, S. D. (1977). Group therapy: A behavioral approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rubin, A. (1991). The effectiveness of outreach counseling and support groups for battered wom- en: A preliminary evaluation. Research on Social Work Practice, 1, 332–357. doi:10.1177/ 104973159100100401

Serna, L. A., Schumaker, J. B., Sherman, J. A., & Sheldon,

J. B. (1991). In-home generalization of social interac- tions in families of adolescents with behavior prob- lems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 733–

746. doi:10.1901/jaba.1991.24-733 Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research:

Evaluating experimental data in psychology. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Smith, J. D. (2012). Single-case experimental de- signs: A systematic review of published research and current standards. Psychological Methods, 17, 510 –550. doi:10.1037/a0029312

Stevens, R. E. S. (2006). Research ‘Alive’ in the social work classroom: Teaching graduate social work students to evaluate practice effectiveness. Arete, 29, 62– 68.

Strauss, B., Burlingame, G. M., & Bormann, B. (2008). Using the CORE-R battery in group psy- chotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64, 1225–1237. doi:10.1002/jclp.20535

Thyer, B. A., & Curtis, G. C. (1983). The repeated pretest-posttest single-subject experiment: A new design for empirical clinical practice. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 14, 311–315. doi:10.1016/0005-7916(83)90073-3

Tolman, R. M., & Molidor, C. E. (1994). A decade of social group work research: Trends in methodol- ogy, theory, and program development. Research on Social Work Practice, 4, 142–159. doi:10.1177/ 104973159400400202

Toseland, R., Krebs, A., & Vahsen, J. (1978). Chang- ing group interaction patterns. Journal of Social Service Research, 2, 219 –232.

Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. (2012). An introduc- tion to group work practice (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Tracey, D. A., Briddell, D. W., & Wilson, G. T. (1974). Generalization of verbal conditioning to verbal and nonverbal behavior: Group therapy with chronic psychiatric patients. Journal of Ap- plied Behavior Analysis, 7, 391– 402. doi:10.1901/ jaba.1974.7-391

Tymchuk, A. J., Andron, L., & Rahbar, B. (1988). Effec- tive decision-making/problem-solving training with mothers who have mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 92, 510 –516.

Vaccaro, F. J. (1990). Application of social skills training in a group of institutionalized aggressive elderly subjects. Psychology and Aging, 5, 369 – 378. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.5.3.369

Ventimiglia, J. A., Marschke, J., Carmichael, P., & Loew, R. (2000). How do clinicians evaluate their practice effectiveness? A survey of clinical social workers. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 70, 287–306. doi:10.1080/00377310009517593 Vonk, M. E., Tripodi, T., & Epstein, I. (2007). Re- search techniques for clinical social workers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Wade, C. M., Ortiz, C., & Gorman, B. S. (2007).

Two-session group parent training for bedtime noncompliance in Head Start preschoolers. Child &

Family Behavior Therapy, 29, 23–55. doi: 10.1300/J019v29n03_03

Watson, P. J., & Workman, E. A. (1981). The non- concurrent multiple baseline across-individuals design: An extension of the traditional multiple baseline design. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 12, 257–259. doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(81)90055-0

Weber, L. A. (1980). The effect of videotape and playback on an in-patient adolescent group. Inter- national Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 30, 213–227.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2013). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 3.0). Retrieved from http://ies.Ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/ wwc_procedures_v3_0_draft_standards_handbook .pdf

Wong, S. E. (2010). Single-case evaluation designs for practitioners. Journal of Social Service Research, 36, 248 –259. doi:10.1080/01488371003707654

Wong, S. E., & Liberman, R. P. (1981). Mixed single- subject designs in clinical research: Variations of the multiple-baseline. Behavioral Assessment, 3, 297– 306.

Wong, S. E., Morgan, C., Crowley, R., & Baker, J. N. (1996). Using a table game to teach social skills to adolescent psychiatric inpatients: Do the skills generalize? Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 18, 1–17. doi:10.1300/J019v18n04_01

Wong, S. E., Wright, J., Terranova, M. D., Bowen, L., Zarate, R., & Zarate, R. (1988). Effects of structured ward activities on appropriate and psy- chotic behavior of chronic psychiatric patients. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 3, 41–50. doi: 10.1002/bin.2360030104

Zastrow, C. (2006). Social work with groups: A com- prehensive workbook (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.

Received February 15, 2013 Revision received November 4, 2013

Accepted November 5, 2013 •

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 173

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 18, No. 2, 159 –173 1089-2699/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/gdn0000004

Team Task Conflict Resolution: An Examination of Its Linkages to Team Personality Composition and Team Effectiveness Outcomes

Thomas A. O’Neill University of Calgary

Natalie J. Allen Western University

By drawing attention to task conflict resolution and reporting on its empirical relations with key team variables, the present study offers a new perspective on team effective- ness. Specifically, we examined how three “dark” personality traits (Manipulativeness, Narcissism, and Secondary Psychopathy) relate to team conflict resolution, team innovation, and team task performance in student engineering design project teams. Interestingly, results indicate that mean team levels of Secondary Psychopathy is the most important predictor, and task conflict resolution is a mediator linking mean Secondary Psychopathy to team task performance. Furthermore, the prediction of team performance by Secondary Psychopathy is as strong as is any of the “Big 5” personality variables investigated in meta-analyses.

Keywords: team conflict, task conflict, task conflict resolution, team effectiveness, Dark Triad,

personality, psychopathy

Work teams form the essential building blocks of modern organizations (Hackman, 2002). As noted by Kozlowski and Bell (2003), the adoption of teams emerged, in large part, from global competition and an emphasis on innovation, which created a need for organiza- tions to be increasingly flexible and adaptable. Identifying the determinants of work team pro- cesses, innovation, and performance, therefore, is fundamental to our understanding of organi- zational effectiveness (see Sundstrom, McIn- tyre, Halfhill, & Richards, 2000).

Perhaps not surprisingly, team conflict is one of the most researched team processes (see

Korsgaard, Jeong, Mahony, & Pitariu, 2008). Consider the recent meta-analysis by de Wit, Greer, and Jehn (2012); in that research, the

authors report on data from 116 studies involv- ing almost 9,000 teams. Many of the studies

Thomas A. O’Neill, Department of Psychology, Univer-

sity of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Natalie J. Allen, Department of Psychology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Thomas A. O’Neill, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, N.W., Cal- gary, AB Canada T2N 1N4, P: 403-220-5207. E-mail: toneill@ucalgary.ca

place emphasis on task conflict, which is the extent to which team members have different

opinions, perspectives, and views of the task

(Jehn, 1995). Task conflict is of particular in- terest because, unlike most types of conflict, it

has been argued to be conducive to team per-

formance (Amason, 1996). Meta-analyses, however, indicate that task conflict is weakly

related to team performance, on average (e.g., O’Neill, Allen, & Hastings, 2013).

A potential limitation of task conflict re-

search is that it ignores whether resolutions of those conflicts were actually reached. This is an

important issue, because a team with unresolved

conflicts may experience impasses, deadlocks, and barriers to forward movement, whereas a

team with resolved conflicts likely integrates, combines, and synthesizes divergent views and

achieves consensus on how best to proceed (see

Robey, Farrow, & Franz, 1989). Our review of the literature presented below, however, sug-

gests that empirical research examining both

antecedents and consequences of task conflict resolution is lacking. In light of the potential

importance of task conflict resolution, we con- sider both innovation and task performance as

possible team outcomes in a sample of engi-

neering design project teams. We also investi- gate potential antecedents (i.e., input variables)

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 174

159

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 174

160 O’NEILL AND ALLEN

that could be useful for pinpointing the condi- tions in which task conflicts are most likely to be resolved. Specifically, in this research, we focus on team-level Manipulativeness, Narcis- sism, and Secondary Psychopathy. These traits are similar, although not identical, to the “Dark Triad” (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), which in- cludes a common core of selfishness, remorse- lessness, disagreeableness, and aggressiveness (Jonason, Webster, Schmitt, Li, & Crysel, 2012). Although Judge and LePine (2007) called for team research on dark traits, current literature has primarily focused on the Five- Factor Model (Bell, 2007; Driskell, Goodwin, Salas, & O’Shea, 2006).

Given our examination of team inputs (per- sonality composition), processes (task conflict resolution), and outcomes (innovation and task performance), the current research design pres- ents the opportunity to investigate the role of task conflict resolution as a process variable that mediates the effects of team personality com- position on team outcomes. As LePine, Buck- man, Crawford, and Methot (2011) noted in their recent review, the intervening processes and mechanisms linking team personality inputs to team outcomes are understudied and largely unknown. This study aims to address that gap.

Theoretical Development

Task Conflict Resolution

In the current research we draw attention to the issue of task conflict resolution and investi- gate its associations with team inputs and out- comes. As described by Robey et al. (1989), “conflict resolution is apparent when members have fewer objections and indicate more agree- ment with each other . . . it indicates a solution that is acceptable to the entire group” (p. 1174). Wall and Callister (1995) noted that conflict resolutions “may be in the form of explicit or tacit agreement” (p. 525), and Kuhn and Poole (2000) viewed conflict resolution as “coming to a mutually agreeable solution” (p. 570). We define task conflict resolution as the extent to which different opinions, viewpoints, and per- spectives were resolved.

As mentioned, recent meta-analyses summa- rizing the substantial body of research involving task conflict and team performance report small effect sizes (e.g., de Wit et al., 2012; O’Neill et

al., 2013). Resolving task conflicts, on the other hand, could be critical to team outcomes be- cause team members have encountered and ad- equately addressed divergent viewpoints re- garding the direction in which the team ought to proceed. Compared with research on conflict types, there is scant consideration of the extent to which a team actually resolves conflicts, the type of conflicts resolved, and whether resolutions predict team outcomes (e.g., De Dreu, 2011). We also note that there is research on the strat- egies, processes, and styles of negotiating con- flicts, resolving disputes, and allocating scarce resources (e.g., Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994), but there is little empirical research informing our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of task conflict resolution.

Theoretical work on conflict resolution by Robey and colleagues (i.e., Robey & Farrow, 1982; Robey et al., 1989) deals with factors leading to satisfactory conflict resolution (see also Barki & Hartwick, 1994). Notable findings from that research suggest participation leads to power and influence, which in turn is positively associated with satisfactory resolution of con- flict. However, those studies were conducted at the individual level and, therefore, they ignore whether the team, as a collective, was satisfied with resolutions. Furthermore, the studies con- found the different types of conflict (e.g., task, relationship), and conflict resolution is treated as the final outcome rather than as a process affecting team innovation and task perfor- mance. In a notable exception, Jehn, Greer, Levine, and Szulanksi (2008) offer a three-item measure of task conflict resolution efficacy, which was related positively to team viability and emergent states. However, the construct pertains to “the belief that conflict can be easily resolved” (p. 465) rather than actual conflict resolutions. Greer, Jehn, and Mannix (2008) used single-item scales to measure each of task, relationship (i.e., interpersonal incompatibili- ties), and process (e.g., work-structuring incom- patibilities) conflict resolutions. Arguably, mul- tiitem scales might be more reliable and could provide better coverage of the content domains, and consideration of team outcomes (e.g., team task performance) might shed new light on the importance of task conflict resolution.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 175

TEAM TASK CONFLICT RESOLUTION 161

Task Conflict Resolution and

Team Outcomes

Team innovation involves developing a cre- ative or novel solution that is also practical and feasible in its development and application (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001a, 2001b), whereas team task performance refers to the overall quality of the team’s task- related output (e.g., Hackman, 1987). This dis- tinction suited the context of the current study. Specifically, the objective of the engineering project teams involved was to develop a novel and effective approach to demonstrating how an environmentally friendly technology creates re- newable energy (e.g., team innovation), and to deliver an extensive report documenting the team’s design and the prototype’s capabilities (team task performance).

Teams capable of resolving task conflicts are likely to perform well and reach high levels of innovation. Drawing from social interdepen- dence theory, compatible team-member goals appear to facilitate effective conflict handling, which in turn results in identifying novel and high-quality solutions (see Deutsch, 2006). Ad- ditionally, based on information processing the- ory, we suggest unresolved conflicts may arouse the autonomic nervous system, thereby inhibit- ing critical analysis of the task and creative thinking (e.g., Carnevale & Probst, 1998). In- deed, teams with positive interpersonal relation- ships exhibit greater creativity than do teams in conflict (e.g., Craig & Kelly, 1999).

In project teams of the nature studied here, we anticipated this would be particularly impor- tant because meeting milestones and keeping forward momentum was essential to team inno- vation and team task performance (see Chioc- chio, 2007). Behfar et al.’s (2008) qualitative study of project teams found that high- performing teams used pluralistic strategies in- volving either a preemptive focus on addressing potential conflicts, or quickly and efficiently containing conflicts by invoking rules to resolve conflicts (e.g., majority rules). Teams failing to address and to resolve different viewpoints are likely to experience stalls or deadlocks that in- hibit smooth progress. In sum, we predict the following:

H1a: Task conflict resolution will be posi- tively correlated with team innovation.

H1b: Task conflict resolution will be posi-

tively correlated with team task performance.

Input-Process-Output (IPO) Model and

Team Personality Composition

In the current research we applied the well- known IPO model of team effectiveness (see McGrath, 1984). The IPO model is best consid- ered a heuristic that organizes theorizing about how team inputs (e.g., personality) affect team processes (e.g., task conflict resolution) and, in turn, team outcomes (e.g., innovation, task per- formance). In the context of the present re- search, task conflict resolution is theorized to be a mechanism by which personality composition impacts team outcomes.

Variables organized under the IPO frame- work are conceptualized at the team level and, therefore, personality variables must be aggre- gated prior to hypothesis testing. Operationaliz- ing traits using the within-team mean, as we do here, invokes an additive theory of aggregation (see Chan, 1998). Based on the additive theory, the arithmetic mean of team member scores is most relevant because it is the overall “abun- dance” of the trait, within the team, that is expected to be most consequential to the team’s work (e.g., LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hed- lund, 1997; LePine, 2003; O’Neill & Allen, 2011).

Dark Traits as Antecedents of Task

Conflict Resolution

One potential approach is the “Dark Triad,” which encompasses Narcissism, Machiavellian- ism, and Psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Narcissism describes people who hold feelings of superiority, grandiosity, and entitle- ment (e.g., Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006; Raskin & Terry, 1988). Rather than focusing on Machiavellianism, we chose a central dimen- sion of Machiavellianism referred to as Manip- ulativeness (see Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). Manipulativeness involves the willingness to use of flattery, ingratiation, and deception to advance personal agendas (see Paunonen, Had- dock, Forsterling, & Keinonen, 2003). We view the content of the Manipulativeness dimension of Machiavellianism as highly relevant to the teams’ capacities to resolve conflicts. Although

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 176

162 O’NEILL AND ALLEN

individuals high on Manipulativeness use im- pression management techniques to advance their own agenda, they do not necessarily pos- sess the charm, appeal, and magnetism of Ma- chiavellians (cf. Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). Finally, we considered Secondary Psychopathy, which involves impulsivity, lack of goal com- mitment, delinquency, irresponsibility, and dif- ficulties establishing relationships (e.g., Leven- son, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995; McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998). Although the current traits do not overlap perfectly with the Dark Triad, the Dark Triad literature is relevant to formulating our hypotheses.

Affective events theory (AET; Weiss & Cro- panzano, 1996) is a framework for understand- ing how Manipulativenss, Narcissism, and Sec- ondary Psychopathy may interfere with the resolution of task conflict. One proposition that is consistent with AET is that personality affects the occurrence of events at work and how those events translate into affective experiences, which in turn have implications for behavior (see Wegge, van Dick, Fisher, West, & Daw- son, 2006). Common tendencies of individuals high on dark traits similar to those considered in this study include the use of adversarial and disruptive behaviors, and engagement in malev- olent interpersonal dealings (e.g., Jonason & Webster, 2012). As such, these individuals would likely exacerbate the challenge of effec- tively resolving task conflicts by arousing neg- ative emotions. This could occur through their use of “hard tactics” such as threats, punish- ments, and manipulations (e.g., Jonason, Slom- ski, & Partyka, 2012), lack of self-control and understanding of behavioral consequences (e.g., Jonason & Tost, 2010), emotional intelligence deficits (e.g., Jordan & Troth, 2004; Petrides, Vernon, Schermer, & Veselka, 2011), and em- pathy limitations (e.g., Jonason & Krause, 2013; Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012). Negative emo- tions and arousal in teams high on dark traits would interfere with effective information pro- cessing (e.g., Carnevale & Probst, 1998), which is likely to detract from problem-focused dis- cussions aimed at resolving task conflicts. Ac- cordingly, we offer the following predictions:

H2: Mean Manipulativeness, Narcissism, and Secondary Psychopathy will be negatively cor- related with task conflict resolution.

In the current study we measured dark traits, conflict, and outcomes at three distinct

and sequential time periods. Although we do not

use an experimental design and, as a con-

sequence, causality cannot be unequivocally determined, the ordering of measurement co-

incides with the likely temporal ordering of these variables. Specifically, we theorize that

personality would most likely be an anteced- ent

(not a mediator or outcome), and that task conflict resolution would most likely precede

team outcomes.

H3: Task conflict resolution will mediate the

relationships between team personality vari- ables (Manipulativeness, Narcissism, and Sec- ondary Psychopathy) and team outcome vari- ables (innovation and performance).

Dark Traits and Team Outcomes

Although we argued for an indirect linkage

involving the dark traits and team outcomes,

theory also supports direct effects. Manipulative individuals engage in impression management

strategies involving ingratiation and self- promotion (see Paunonen et al., 2003), which,

when viewed as insincere, tend to be associated

with distrust and skepticism (e.g., Baron, 1986). As several team members attempt to manipulate

each another, the team atmosphere would likely

be rife with suspicion, which would not likely promote team collaboration, innovation, or per-

formance. Team members high on Narcissism might have excessively optimistic views about

the quality of their work or their own contribu-

tions even in light of evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, narcissistic individuals are seen

by their group members as domineering, ingen-

uous, and lacking in interpersonal intelligence (e.g., Rauthmann, 2012), and a team of such

individuals would not likely be effective. Fi- nally, teams with members high on Secondary

Psychopathy would likely derail the team’s

progress because of their members’ impulsivity, aggressiveness, and emotional instability (cf.

McHoskey et al., 1998; Paulhus & Williams,

2002). In sum, we propose the following: H4a: Mean Manipulativeness, Narcissism,

and Secondary Psychopathy will be negatively correlated with team innovation.

H4b: Mean Manipulativeness, Narcissism,

and Secondary Psychopathy will be negatively correlated with team task performance.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 177

TEAM TASK CONFLICT RESOLUTION 163

Method

Participants and Teamwork Context

Data were collected from 344 team members working in 81 engineering project design teams for 6.5 months. The participants were students in an engineering design course at a large Ca- nadian university. Teams had four (n = 61) or five (n = 20) members, and 85% of participants were male (M age = 18.6 years, SD = 2.4). Teams were formed pseudorandomly. Specifi- cally, individuals were asked to rank order their proficiency on “skill sets” (i.e., communication, computer, planning, hands on), and then teams were built such that they had one individual with a ranking of “1” on each dimension. The course instructors preferred this method to full random assignment.

Our observations indicate teams took great pride in designing their devices and presenting them at a high-profile design showcase in which the city mayor, university president, engineer- ing dean and faculty, and the public were in attendance. This “major design project” was the focus of team innovation and team task perfor- mance in the current research. The projects were complicated and inherently high on knowledge interdependence because team members tended to become experts in particular design areas critical to the prototype’s innova- tion, functionality, and documentation. Thus, the teams in this sample fit well within the accepted definition of work teams: highly inter- dependent members working on consequential tasks and having a collective purpose (e.g., Al- len & West, 2005; Hackman, 1987).

Procedure and Timeline

Participants were invited to complete person- ality and conflict surveys during weekly design classes. Personality data were collected in the first design class before participants were as- signed to their teams; conflict processes were assessed 6 months later, 2 weeks before com- pleting the major design project. Team innova- tion ratings were based on prototype photos and written descriptions collected a week before final project reports were due. Team task per- formance was assessed after the major design project was submitted at the 6.5-month mark.

Measures

Time 1: Personality. Manipulativeness was measured using Paunonen’s (2002) scale from the Supernumerary Personality Inventory (SPI). The scale contains 15 items with 5-point Likert-type response options (a = .70). Exam- ple items are as follows: By flattering someone I can make him or her more apt to agree with me and I will pretend to be extremely interested in what a person is saying in order to get something. Narcissism was measured using the 16-item forced-choice form of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (a = .67; Ames et al., 2006). Specifically, respondents were asked to choose which of two statements are most like them, such as I really like to be the center of attention and It makes me uncomfortable to be the center of attention. Another item set was People sometimes believe what I tell them and I can make anybody believe anything I want them to. Secondary Psychopathy was measured using 10 items from the Levenson Self-Report Psy- chopathy Scale (a= .63; Levenson et al., 1995) with 5-point Likert-type response options. Ex- ample items are I find myself in the same kinds of trouble, time after time and I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people.

Time 2: Task conflict resolution and task conflict. To measure task conflict resolution, we observed teams in their engineering design laboratories over a 6 month period. Extensive diary notes were taken during the approximate 100 hours we spent, overall, observing various teams receiving instructions, training, and feed- back, and during brainstorming, decision- making exercises, and design work. Specifi- cally, the first author attended 4 of the 8 weekly design labs on a rotating basis during which teams were engaged with various group activi- ties including the focal project. Through this informal team task analysis, we identified four key project milestones: a) problem definition, b) deciding on the team’s design concept, c) de- veloping the team’s prototype, and d) preparing the team presentation. Next, we adopted the following general form across four items: the extent to which different opinions, viewpoints, and perspectives were resolved before settling on the team’s . For each item, the blank contained problem definition, design concept, prototype, and presentation (a = .89), respectively. Jehn’s (1995) four-item measure

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 178

164 O’NEILL AND ALLEN

of task conflict was also administered (a= .89). Scale anchors for both measures ranged from 1 (A very small amount) to 5 (A lot).

Time 3: Team innovation. Team innova- tion was assessed using Amabile’s (1983) con- sensual assessment technique, which involves collecting innovation judgments from domain- relevant experts. Five expert judges who were engineering graduate students rated the innova- tion of each design prototype. The targets of experts’ ratings were short, written descriptions and 4 X 6 in. color photographs of the team prototypes. The relative percentile method (RPM) formed the basis of the rating scale employed to assess team innovation (see Goffin, Gellatly, Paunonen, Jackson, & Meyer, 1996). The current application of the RPM required judges to rate each team’s level of innovation on a scale ranging from zero to 100. Team inno- vation was scored as the average of each judge’s rating of each team prototype. An intraclass correlation (ICC) was computed for assessing the reliability of multiple raters rating team in- novation on a continuous scale [ICC(2) = .71; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979]. We note that the experts were course teaching assistants leading differ- ent design studios, and they were each familiar with a unique set of approximately 10 of the 81 projects. However, all judges rated all projects in a fully crossed design. Therefore, any possi- ble bias introduced by familiarity with the proj- ects would likely be limited after averaging across all five judge ratings, and the strong interrater reliability supports this view.

Time 4: Team task performance. Teams were required to submit reports of approxi- mately 100 pages containing background re- search, documentation of the theoretical and observed capabilities of the team’s design con-

cept, CAD sketches, mathematical modeling,

and implications. The assessment of team task

performance consisted of ratings provided by

experienced course instructors. Because raters

did not rate the same teams, we controlled for

the possibility of raters using different perfor-

mance distributions by z-standardizing within

raters (which is common practice in similar

situations; O’Neill & Allen, 2012; Wageman &

Gordon, 2005).

Results

Aggregation

Task conflict resolution and task conflict are

“shared-unit” constructs; therefore, within-team

agreement and between-team heterogeneity is

required to support construct validity prior to

aggregation (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Ac-

cording to Bliese (2000), ICCs indicate the pro-

portion of variance explained by group mem-

bership [that is, ICC(1)] and the reliability of the

group mean [that is, ICC(2)]. Table 1 con- tains

ICCs for the shared-unit constructs of task

conflict and task conflict resolution, which were

all significantly greater than zero. Furthermore,

Jehn et al. (2008) interpreted ICCs of this mag-

nitude (and lower) as sufficient for justifying

aggregation. The personality variables were ag-

gregated using the mean but were not expected

to demonstrate within-group agreement because

teams were formed pseudorandomly, traits are

configural unit properties (i.e., not shared; Koz-

lowski & Klein, 2000), and their function is

theorized to be additive across team members

(LePine, 2003; O’Neill & Allen, 2011).

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, ICCs, and Correlations Involving Team-Level Study Variables

Variable ICC(1) ICC(2) M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Manipulativeness 2.91 0.21

2. Narcissism 4.95 1.38 .40*

3. Secondary psychopathy 2.34 0.23 .17 .29*

4. Task conflict .24* .54*

2.13 0.51 .17 .21 .26*

5. Task conflict resolution .14* .40*

3.91 0.55 -.02 -.12 -.30* -.39*

6. Team innovation 53.96 17.38 .05 -.06 -.21 -.11 .14

7. Team task performance 0.00 0.96 -.06 .08 -.30* -.18 .30*

.37*

Note. n = 81. * p < .05.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 179

TEAM TASK CONFLICT RESOLUTION 165

Tests of Hypotheses

We predicted task conflict resolution would be positively related to team innovation (H1a). Although in the predicted direction, this relation did not reach significance (see Table 1). Task conflict resolution was expected to positively correlate with team task performance (H1b). As

this was the case, H1b was supported. We anticipated that Manipulativeness, Narcis-

sism, and Secondary Psychopathy would be neg- atively related to task conflict resolution (H2). Although mean Manipulativeness and Narcissism were not related to task conflict resolution, there was a significant negative relation involving Sec- ondary Psychopathy (see Table 1). We also ex- pected that the effect of the dark personality traits on team outcomes would be mediated by task conflict resolution (H3). Preacher and Hayes (2004) recommended the bootstrapping approach for testing the significance of the indirect effect of the predictor on the outcome through the interven- ing variable. Specifically, bias-corrected upper and lower 95% confidence intervals were calcu- lated using 1000 bootstrapped samples. Analyses supported the significance of the indirect effect for one model (see Figure 1): Secondary Psychopathy ¡ task conflict resolution ¡ team task perfor-

mance (unstandardized indirect effect = -.28, CI95% = -.68 to -.06). This indicates a one-unit

increase in mean Secondary Psychopathy was re- lated to a .28 decrease in team task performance through task conflict resolution. Furthermore, the direct effect of Secondary Psychopathy on team task performance remained significant after taking into account the indirect effects, suggesting Sec- ondary Psychopathy has both direct and indirect

paths to team task performance.1

Regarding team outcomes, Manipulativeness, Narcissism, and Secondary Psychopathy should be related negatively to team innovation (H4a). However, none of the relations reached conven- tional levels of significance (see Table 1). Turn- ing to team task performance (H4b), of the three traits examined, a significant negative associa- tion was found only for Secondary Psychopa- thy.

Supplemental Analyses

Given the pattern of results involving person- ality, Secondary Psychopathy appeared to be the most important predictor of the teamwork

variables (see Table 1). One procedure for com- paring the importance of predictors is relative importance analysis (e.g., Johnson, 2000), which overcomes the limitations of both zero- order correlations as well as betas from standard multiple regression (e.g., Johnson & LeBreton, 2004). Table 2 contains the results of the rela- tive importance analysis as well as overall model

R2 values. Model R2 values indicate that the personality traits, as a set, accounted for 12% of the variance in team task performance and 10% of the variance in task conflict resolution. Overall prediction of task conflict and team inno- vation was nonsignificant. In terms of the relative importance of the three personality traits, the results clearly indicate that Secondary Psychop- athy was dominant. Of the proportion of vari- ance explained by the personality variables as a set, Secondary Psychopathy accounted for 57% (task conflict), 78% (team task performance), 82% (team innovation), and 91% (task conflict resolution). Thus, Secondary Psychopathy was the most important predictor of the team process and outcome variables studied.

Discussion

The overarching purpose of this study was to investigate the role of task conflict resolution as a team process linking dark personality traits to team outcomes. This is notable because the ac- tual resolution of task conflict has received much less consideration than has the occurrence of task conflict, yet resolution could be at least as important. Taken together, the set of hypoth- eses we forwarded involving these relations re- ceived partial support. In our view, the contri- bution of the current study is threefold. First, compared with task conflict, findings for the resolution of task conflict appear more intrigu- ing and theoretically informative. Task conflict resolution was significantly related to team task performance, and it was a mediator between Secondary Psychopathy and team task perfor- mance. This is novel given the dearth of past

1 For completeness, we considered task conflict as a me-

diator and as a moderator in moderated mediation analyses. The moderated mediation analyses examined the role of task conflict moderating either the effect of task conflict resolution on team outcomes or personality traits on task conflict resolution (Hayes, 2013). We did not find any significant effects for the function of task conflict in any of these roles.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 180

-.72*

Secondary

Psychopathy

Team Task

Performance

166 O’NEILL AND ALLEN

-.94*

Figure 1. Mediation model with unstandardized path coefficients. All paths in the model are significant including the direct path from Psychopathy to team task performance after controlling for the indirect effect through task conflict resolution. The indirect effect was -.28. * p < .05.

research on task conflict resolution and the ex- isting focus on task conflict levels. Indeed, the authors of recent meta-analyses found 83 (O’Neill et al., 2013) and 116 (de Wit et al., 2012) articles investigating conflict types and team performance. Consistent with information processing theory, results from those meta- analyses suggested, with few exceptions, that task conflict is either unrelated to or harmful for team performance (as it was in the present re- search). Accordingly, a continued focus on task conflict itself may be limiting (see also DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, & Doty, 2013). Our findings are important for theory and prac- tice because they imply that the resolution of task conflict may be a critical factor. This fits well within social interdependence theory, as interdependence often leads to conflict and, therefore, the manner in which the conflict is managed may be most important (see Johnson,

2003; Tjosvold, 1998). It is also consistent with the project management literature (e.g., Chioc- chio & Lafrenière, 2009) given that resolved task conflict is needed to progress smoothly and efficiently through project stages. Thus, it may be advantageous for researchers and practitio- ners to emphasize strategies that help teams work through task conflicts rather than to en- courage teams to engage in task conflict without addressing its resolution.

A second novel contribution of the current research involves the examination of team per- sonality composition from the perspective of dark traits (cf. Judge & LePine, 2007). Relative to Manipulativeness and Narcissism, Secondary Psychopathy dominated the prediction of task conflict resolution, team innovation, and team task performance. Interestingly, Secondary Psy- chopathy exhibited stronger relations with team task performance than did any of the Big Five,

Table 2 Relative Importance Analysis of Team-Level Personality Variables

Criterion and statistic Manipulativeness Narcissism Secondary psychopathy R2

Task conflict resolution

Note. n = 81. * p < .05.

.39*

Task Conflict

Resolution

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Task conflict

.08 .12 .21† .09

Raw relative weight .02 .03 .05

Regression weight as a percentage of R2 16 28 57

.05 -.05 -.30* .10*

Raw relative weight .00 .01 .09

Regression weight as a percentage of R2 1 8 91

Team innovation

.11 -.04 -.22† .06

Raw relative weight .01 .00 .05

Regression weight as a percentage of R2 11 7 82

Team task performance

-.09 .21 -.32* .12*

Raw relative weight .01 .02 .10

Regression weight as a percentage of R2 5 17 78

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 181

TEAM TASK CONFLICT RESOLUTION 167

in terms of uncorrected correlations, reported in past meta-analyses (e.g., Bell, 2007). Character- istic patterns of behavior of individuals high on Secondary Psychopathy include difficulties re- lating to others, emotional outbursts, impulsiv- ity, and lack of goal commitment (Levenson et al., 1995; McHoskey et al., 1998). Consistent with theories such as affective events theory, teams of individuals with high Secondary Psy- chopathy likely experienced frequent and re- peated cycles of negative affective interactions, potentially resulting in reinforcing downward spirals (cf. Peterson & Behfar, 2003). For ex- ample, individuals high on Secondary Psychop- athy often use social influence tactics involving coercion, debasement, and threats (Jonason et al., 2012); tend to be dishonest and lack humil- ity (Lee & Ashton, 2005); exhibit self-control difficulties (Jones & Paulhus, 2011; Jonason & Tost, 2010); appear to engage in various forms of aggression, cheating, and bullying (Boddy, 2010; Coyne & Thomas, 2008); and tend to hold social dominance beliefs (Hodson, Hogg, & MacInnis, 2009).

Given the above, placing a number of indi- viduals high on Secondary Psychopathy in a team will likely lead to numerous negative af- fective interactions, disputes, and arguments. It may be advisable, therefore, to build teams such that overall levels of Secondary Psychopathy are as low as possible. One way to accomplish this involves the “seeding” method outlined by Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, and Ilgen (2007). When a trait is known to combine ad- ditively (such that increasing or decreasing the team mean on that trait is helpful for perfor- mance), they would suggest assessing the trait and distributing the highest scorers across teams rather than concentrating them in any one team. With criterion validity evidence and an analysis of the personality-based work requirements suggesting the trait is job relevant (see Arthur, Edwards, Bell, Villado, & Bennett, 2005), the case for the legal defensibility of using the test to make personnel decisions with seeding meth- ods could be strengthened (cf. Society for In- dustrial-Organizational Psychology Principles, 2003, and local employment law).

A third contribution is that we identify task conflict resolution as a mechanism linking team personality composition, specifically mean lev- els of Secondary Psychopathy, to team task performance. This suggests a team of individu-

als high on Secondary Psychopathy will tend to experience failures in resolving task conflicts, which, in turn, results in difficulties moving the project forward and achieving high task perfor- mance. Thus, although meta-analyses highlight the association between personality and perfor- mance in teams (e.g., Bell, 2007), in the current study we report on one of the few empirical findings supporting a linking mechanism through which team personality composition in- fluences team performance. As mentioned above, teams high on mean Secondary Psychop- athy contain individuals who are likely hostile, aggressive, impulsive, and unable to remain committed to goals. It appears teams of such individuals experience barriers to resolving task conflicts and to finding agreement regarding avenues toward high-quality task work. In turn, this was associated with reductions in team ef- fectiveness. Importantly, both indirect and di- rect connections to team task performance were supported in the model, suggesting mean Sec- ondary Psychopathy has at least two distinct paths through which it impacts team task per- formance. Investigating additional team pro- cesses, such as psychological safety (Edmond- son, 1999), communication quality and quantity (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998), and other potentially relevant processes are promising avenues for future research.

On the Role of Mixed Motives

It is worth considering whether a lack of mixed motives and hierarchical goal structures might explain why Manipulativeness and Nar- cissism were unrelated to team conflict pro- cesses and team outcomes. The underlying ra- tionale for the relevance of Manipulativeness and Narcissism is that they should be related to individuals advancing their own objectives, agendas, and goals at the expense of pursuing the team’s collective purpose. Findings from studies examining social interdependence the- ory indicate that this situation leads to intrateam competition, thereby contributing to selective information sharing, an argumentative approach to differences of opinion, distrust, and a closed- minded interpretation of new information (see reviews by Johnson, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). But whether team members had proself motives is somewhat of an open question.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 182

168 O’NEILL AND ALLEN

Our observations and familiarity with the teamwork context indicate that members quite likely experienced varying degrees of diver- gence in individual- and team-level motives. First, participants had not yet specialized in a particular subfield of engineering, and therefore the team was faced with identifying one or two subfields on which their prototype would be based (e.g., mechanical, electrical, software, ur- ban, robotics). Given that team members often had different interests, this decision likely cre- ated some variance between individual and team preferences. In turn, we expect that this creates the conditions for manipulativeness, conceit, and selfishness to inhibit conflict reso- lution and joint effort toward a collective pur- pose. Second, team members likely had diver- gence on the level of quality and detail they felt was needed, how many hours and meetings to invest, the nature of member roles and time- lines, and so forth. Here again, manipulative and egotistical behaviors would hinder integra- tion, compromise, and consensus, thereby con- tributing to conflict and poor team outcomes. To the extent that team members had different pref- erences and goals such as those described here, it is almost certain that some individuals’ ob- jectives would be at odds with team objectives. As a result, we speculated that teams high on Manipulativeness or Narcissism would suffer. The extent to which individual and group mo- tives and goals were distinct, however, is diffi- cult to pinpoint, and future studies investigating Manipulativeness, Narcissism, and related traits in teams may benefit from considering goal hierarchies and goal incongruences (e.g., De- Shon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Wiech- mann, 2004).

Future Research

In light of the current study, we view team task conflict resolution as a promising avenue for advancing team conflict research. In addi- tion to the positive association with team task performance, team task conflict resolution ex- hibited a negative relation with task conflict. This suggests a number of teams experienced difficulties with persistent and unresolved task conflicts, which may well have reduced their ability to function effectively. Correlations be- tween task conflict resolution and the dark per- sonality traits were in the negative direction,

which supports the construct validity of the task conflict resolution measure. Thus, future re- search on task conflict resolution would seem fruitful.

A second direction for future research in- volves studying how conflict is resolved. There is a voluminous literature on conflict manage- ment approaches (e.g., Deutsch, 1973) and styles (e.g., Rahim, 1983), providing evidence that cooperative goals and integrative styles are associated with resolved conflicts (see Lewicki, Weiss, & Lewin, 1992). But there is a need for research on how to promote effective ap- proaches to conflict management and resolu- tion, and what specific strategies and behaviors lead to effective resolutions. For example, would it matter whether disagreements are re- solved through voting, autocracy, or avoidance? Recently, Behfar et al., (2008) identified spe- cific strategies used by teams to resolve con- flicts. Characteristic of high-performing and highly satisfied teams was equity-focused reso- lution (e.g., work assignments based on skill). Characteristic of low-performing and unsatis- fied teams was adhocracy-focused resolution (e.g., avoidance of conflict and group members in general). Tactics such as voting and majority rules were associated with high performance but, interestingly, low satisfaction. On the other hand, equality rules that promoted cohesiveness were associated with low performance and high satisfaction. What might drive this research for- ward is scale development and empirical exam- ination of how these different resolution strate- gies impact resolution itself, satisfaction with the resolution, and team outcomes. This could deepen our understanding of the specific behav- iors that are needed for effective conflict reso- lution.

In the way of a third avenue for future re- search, it may be valuable to consider relation- ship conflict resolution and process conflict res- olution. The current research focused on task conflict resolution as a first step, as this type of conflict has been studied extensively and has been described as the “productive” form of con- flict (e.g., De Dreu, 1997). It seemed to us that task conflict resolution may be promising, and our research provides cause for optimism in this regard. Greer et al. (2008) found process con- flict resolution moderated the relation between early process conflict and later process, task, and relationship conflict such that resolutions

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 183

TEAM TASK CONFLICT RESOLUTION 169

buffered continuing conflict occurrences. These findings are encouraging despite being based on single-item conflict resolution scales; therefore, development of multiitem scales would likely be advantageous.

Limitations and Conclusion

First, although the dark traits investigated in the current research are similar to the Dark Triad, and we draw from the Dark Triad litera- ture, there are some important differences. We focused on Manipulativeness, which is a feature of Machiavellianism but is not identical. Machi- avellianism is a broader trait including charm, charismatic tendencies (see Christie, Geis, & Berge, 1970), and self-control (see Jones & Paulhus, 2011), and the fact that Manipulative- ness was not predictive of teamwork variables does not rule out the potential predictiveness of Machiavellianism. We also considered Second- ary Psychopathy because we expected that it would have little overlap with Manipulativeness relative to Primary Psychopathy. However, the Dark Triad contains coverage of Primary Psy- chopathy, such as cynicism and callousness (Jo- nason & Webster, 2010), which is strongly cor- related with Machiavellianism (e.g., McHoskey et al., 1998). Therefore, we had a theoretical interest in considering traits that are slightly different from the Dark Triad, and our findings should not be assumed to fully capture the ef- fects of the Dark Triad on team conflict pro- cesses or team outcomes. Second, despite the use of a cross-sectional design with three mea- surement periods that corresponded to our the- oretical causal ordering of the relevant vari- ables, the mediation analyses do not allow definitive “cause-and-effect” conclusions (Judd & Kenny, 2010). Thus, experiments with full randomization to conditions should be con- ducted. Third, replication of the current research is necessary to shed light on the robustness and generalizability of the findings. Fourth, al- though we used a unidimensional measure of Narcissism, this trait consists of subdimensions concerning entitlement, leadership, self-absorp- tion, and superiority (Emmons, 1987). These subdimensions may have differential relations with teamwork variables, and therefore the cur- rent study may not have detected nontrivial facet-level findings (cf. O’Neill & Allen, 2011). On the other hand, Manipulativeness is a unidi-

mensional construct (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000) and Secondary Psychopathy is a narrower measure of a broad Psychopathy construct (Ross, Bye, Wrobel, & Horton, 2008), suggest- ing the issue may not be as relevant for these latter traits.

The current research emphasizes the role of task conflict resolution and provides evidence of a positive relation with team task perfor- mance. Furthermore, task conflict resolution was found to operate as an indirect linking mechanism between mean Secondary Psychop- athy and team task performance. Thus, it seems new research focusing on the resolution of con- flict, rather than its levels, could be useful for enriching our understanding of the role of con- flict processes in organizational work teams. Finally, in addition to influencing both task con- flict resolution and overall task conflict levels, mean Secondary Psychopathy exhibited nega- tive relations with team task performance, and at a marginally significant level, team innova- tion. Thus, further investigations of Secondary Psychopathy may be of considerable value for advancing theory on team personality composi- tion.

References

Allen, N. J., & West, M. A. (2005). Selecting for teamwork. In A. Evers, N. Anderson, & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of per- sonnel selection (pp. 476 – 494). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Press.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-5533-8

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148. doi:10.2307/256633

Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 440 – 450. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002

Arthur, W., Edwards, B. D., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Bennett, W. (2005). Team task analysis: Identifying tasks and jobs that are team based. Human Factors, 47, 654 – 669. doi:10.1518/ 001872005774860087

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1994). User participation, conflict, and conflict resolution: The mediating roles of influence. Information Systems Research, 5, 422– 438. doi:10.1287/isre.5.4.422

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 184

170 O’NEILL AND ALLEN

Baron, R. A. (1986). Self Presentation in Job Inter- views: When there can be “too much of a good thing”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16,

16 –28. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb02275.x Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., &

Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team ef- fectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377

Behfar, K. J., Perterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strat-

egies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 93, 170 –188. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93 .1.170

Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A metaanaly- sis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595– 615. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non- independence, and reliability: Implications for data

aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, exten- sions, and new directions (pp. 349 –381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boddy, C. R. (2010). Corporate psychopaths, bully-

ing and unfair supervision in the workplace. Jour- nal of Business Ethics, 100, 367–379. doi:10.1007/ s10551-010-0689-5

Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solv- ing and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1300 –1309. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.74.5.1300

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among con- structs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition

models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 – 246. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234

Chiocchio, F. (2007). Project team performance: A

study of electronic task and coordination commu- nication. Project Management Journal, 38, 97– 109.

Chiocchio, F., & Lafrenière, A. (2009). A project management perspective on student’s declarative commitments to goals established within asyn- chronous communication. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 25, 294 –305. doi:10.1111/j .1365-2729.2009.00310.x

Christie, R., Geis, F. L., & Berger, D. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism (p. ). New York, NY: Aca- demic Press.

Coyne, S. M., & Thomas, T. J. (2008). Psychopathy, aggression, and cheating behavior: A test of the

cheater-hawk hypothesis. Personality and Individ-

ual Differences, 44, 1105–1115. doi:10.1016/j .paid.2007.11.002

Craig, T. Y., & Kelly, J. R. (1999). Group cohesive- ness and creative performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 243–256. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.3.4.243

DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task con- flict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 559 –578. doi:10.1037/ a0032896

De Dreu, C. K. W. (1997). Productive conflict: The importance of conflict management and conflict issue. In C. K. W. De Dreu & E. Van De Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 10 – 22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/ 9781446217016.n2

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2011). Conflict at work: Basic principles and applied issues. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 461– 493). Washington, DC: APA. doi:10.1037/12171-013

DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A mul- tiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035–1056. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1035

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Con- structive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. doi:10.1177/ 000276427301700206

Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.),

The handbook of conflict resolution: The- ory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 23– 42). San Fran- cisco, CA: Wiley

de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012).

The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360 – 390. doi:10.1037/a0024844

Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001a). Under- standing team innovation: The role of team pro- cesses and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 5, 111–123. doi:10.1037/ 1089-2699.5.2.111

Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001b). Can we win them all? Benefits and costs of structure and flexible innovation implementations. Group Dy- namics: Theory, Research and Practice, 25, 217– 234. doi:10.1002/job.239

Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynam- ics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 249 –271. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.249

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 185

TEAM TASK CONFLICT RESOLUTION 171

Science Quarterly, 44, 350 –383. doi:10.2307/

2666999

Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and mea-

surement. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 52, 11–17. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52

.1.11

Goffin, R. D., Gellatly, I. R., Paunonen, S. V., Jack-

son, D. N., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Criterion vali-

dation of two approaches to performance ap-

praisal: The behavioral observation scale and the

relative percentile method. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 11, 23–33. doi:10.1007/ BF02278252

Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008).

Conflict transformation: A longitudinal investiga-

tion of the relationships between different types of

intragroup conflict and the moderating role of con-

flict resolution. Small Group Research, 39, 278 –

302. doi:10.1177/1046496408317793

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In

J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational

behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the

stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Har-

vard Business School Press.

Hayes, A. R. (2013). Introduction to mediation, mod-

eration, and conditional process analysis: A re-

gression-based approach. New York, NY: Guil-

ford Press.

Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009).

The role of “dark personalities” (Narcissism, Ma-

chiavellianism, Psychopathy), big five personality

factors and ideology in explaining prejudice. Jour-

nal of Research in Personality, 43, 686 – 690. doi:

10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.005

Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., &

Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configurations in self-

managed teams: A conceptual examination of the

use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait

variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psy- chology,

92, 885– 892. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92

.3.885

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the

benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256 –282.

doi:10.2307/2393638

Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G.

(2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and

emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision

and Negotiation, 17, 465– 495. doi:10.1007/s10726-

008-9107-0

Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: Inter-

relationships among theory, research and practice.

American Psychologist, 58, 934 –945. doi:10.1037/

0003-066X.58.11.934

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Coopera-

tion and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimat-

ing the relative weight of predictor variables in mul- tiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1

Johnson, J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238

–257. doi:10.1177/1094428104266510 Jonason, P. K., & Krause, L. (2013). The emotional

deficits associated with the Dark Triad traits: Cog-

nitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithy- mia. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 532–537. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.027

Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The

dark triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449 – 453. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008

Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The dark triad and self-control. Personal- ity and Individual Differences, 49, 611– 615. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.031 Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty

dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psy- chological Assessment, 22, 420 – 432. doi:10.1037/ a0019265

Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2012). A protean

approach to social influence: Dark Triad personal- ities and social influence tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 521–526. doi:10.1016/ j.paid.2011.11.023

Jonason, P. K., Webster, G. D., Schmitt, D. P., Li,

N. P., & Crysel, L. (2012). The antihero in popular culture: Life history theory and the dark personal- ity traits. Review of General Psychology, 16, 192– 199. doi:10.1037/a0027914

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the dark triad of personality. Per- sonality and Individual Differences, 51, 679 – 682. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.011

Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emo- tions during team problem solving: Emotional intel-

ligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17, 195–218. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1702_4

Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (2010). Data analysis in social psychology: Recent and recurring issues. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 115–139). Mahwah, NJ: Wiley.

Judge, T. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). The bright and dark sides of personality: Implications for person- nel selection in individual and team contexts. In J. Langen-Fox, C. L. Cooper, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 186

172 O’NEILL AND ALLEN

(pp. 332–355). London, UK: Edward Elgar Pub- lishing Ltd. doi:10.4337/9781847207081.00028

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychol- ogy of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.

Korsgaard, M. A., Jeong, S. S., Mahony, D. M., & Pitariu, A. H. (2008). A multilevel view of intra- group conflict. Journal of Management, 34, 1222– 1252. doi:10.1177/0149206308325124

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Bor- man, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Hand- book of psychology (Vol. 12): Industrial and orga- nizational psychology (pp. 333–375). New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118133880 .hop212017 Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A mul-

tilevel approach to theory and research in organi- zations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent pro-

cesses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in orga-

nizations: Foundations, extensions, and new direc- tions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. S. (2000). Do conflict manage- ment styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Human Communica-

tion Research, 26, 558 –590. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 2958.2000.tb00769.x

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Ma- chiavellianism, and Narcissism in the five-factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1571–1582. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016

LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team compo- sition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 27–39. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.27

LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., Crawford, E. R., & Methot, J. R. (2011). A review of research on personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 311–330. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.004

LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual differ- ences on the performance of hierarchical decision- making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 82, 803– 811. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.82.5.803

Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a non- institutionalised population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.68.1.151

Lewicki, R. J., Weiss, S. E., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of conflict, negotiation, and third party intervention: A review and synthesis. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 13, 209 –252. doi:

10.1002/job.4030130303

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and per-

formance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998).

Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 192–210.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.192

O’Neill, T. A., & Allen, N. A. (2011). Personality and

the prediction of team performance. European

Journal of Personality, 25, 31– 42. doi:10.1002/per

.769

O’Neill, T. A., & Allen, N. A. (2012). Team meeting

attitudes: Conceptualization and investigation of a

new construct. Small Group Research, 43, 186 –

210. doi:10.1177/1046496411426485

O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. A., & Hastings, S. E. (2013).

Examining the “pros” and “cons” of team conflict:

A team-level meta-analysis of task, rela- tionship,

and process conflict. Human Perfor- mance, 26,

236 –260. doi:10.1080/08959285.2013

.795573

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark

triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellian-

ism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Per-

sonality, 36, 556 –563. doi:10.1016/S0092-

6566(02)00505-6

Paunonen, S. V. (2002). Design and construction of

the Supernumerary Personality Inventory. Re-

search Bulletin (Vol. 763). London, Ontario: Uni-

versity of Western Ontario.

Paunonen, S. V., Haddock, G., Forsterling, F., &

Keinonen, M. (2003). Broad versus narrow per-

sonality measures and the prediction of behavior

across cultures. European Journal of Personality,

17, 413– 433. doi:10.1002/per.496

Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is

beyond the Big Five? Plenty! Journal of Research

in Personality, 68, 821– 835. doi:10.1111/1467-

6494.00117

Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic

relationship between performance feedback, trust,

and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Or-

ganizational Behaviour and Human Decision Pro-

cesses, 92, 102–112. doi:10.1016/S0749-

5978(03)00090-6

Petrides, K. V., Vernon, P. A., Schermer, J. A., &

Veselka, L. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence and

the dark triad traits of personality. Twin Research and

Human Genetics, 14, 35– 41. doi:10.1375/twin.14

.1.35

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS

procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple

mediation models. Behavior Research Methods,

Instruments & Computers, 36, 717–731.

doi:10.3758/BF03206553

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 187

TEAM TASK CONFLICT RESOLUTION 173

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of han-

dling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 26, 368 –376. doi:10.2307/255985

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principle compo-

nents analysis of the narcissistic personality inven-

tory and further evidence of its construct validity.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,

890 –902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890

Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and inter-

personal perception: Similarities and differences in

the social consequences of Narcissism, Machiavel-

lianism, and Psychopathy. Social Psychological

and Personality Science, 3, 487– 496. doi:10.1177/ 1948550611427608

Robey, D., & Farrow, D. L. (1982). User involve-

ment in information system development: A con-

flict model and empirical test. Management Sci-

ence, 28, 73– 85. doi:10.1287/mnsc.28.1.73

Robey, D., Farrow, D. L., & Franz, C. R. (1989). Group

process and conflict in system development. Man-

agement Science, 35, 1172–1191. doi:10.1287/mnsc .35.10.1172

Ross, S. R., Bye, K., Wrobel, T. A., & Horton, R. S.

(2008). Primary and secondary psychopathic char-

acteristics and the schedule for non-adaptive and

adaptive personality (SNAP). Personality and In-

dividual Differences, 45, 249 –254. doi:10.1016/j .paid.2008.04.007

Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social

conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settle- ment

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass cor-

relations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psy-

chological Bulletin, 86, 420 – 428. doi:10.1037/ 0033-2909.86.2.420

Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology.

(2003). Principles for the validation and use of

personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: SIOP.

Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Rich- ards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Haw- thorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 44 – 67. doi:10.1037//1089-2699.4 .1.44

Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology, 47, 285–342. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1998.tb00025.x

Wageman, R., & Gordon, F. M. (2005). As the twig is bent: How group values shape emergent task interdependence in groups. Organization Science, 16, 687–700. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0146

Wai, M., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differ- ences, 52, 794 –799. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01 .008

Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21, 515– 558. doi:10.1177/014920639502100306

Wegge, J., van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). A test of basic assump- tions of affective events theory (AET) in call cen- tre work. British Journal of Management, 17, 237– 254. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00489.x

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.

Received May 7, 2013 Revision received November 14, 2013

Accepted November 20, 2013 •

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 188

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 18, No. 2, 174 –188 1089-2699/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035797

The Impact of Group Norms and Behavioral Congruence on the Internalization of an Illegal Downloading Behavior

Sophie Sansfaçon and Catherine E. Amiot

Université du Québec a Montréal

This experimental study (n 115) investigates how group norms and individuals’ congruence with these norms predicted internalization (i.e., self-determination) of an illegal behavior. We manipulated ingroup norms in favor of versus against illegal downloading of software, and assessed participants’ behavioral intentions, their moti- vations for emitting this specific behavior, and how they subjectively experienced the experimental situation (compartmentalizing their illegal behavior; feeling conflicted). Participants were more likely to endorse the behavior that was normative in their ingroup. Also, participants were more self-determined to engage in the behavior when they intended to behave congruently with a norm against illegal downloading, and when they intended to behave incongruently with a norm in favor of illegal download- ing. Participants who did not intend to engage in illegal downloading felt less com- partmentalized and conflicted than participants who intended to engage in illegal downloading. Results are discussed in light of self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

Keywords: dissent, group norms, illegal behavior, norm and behavior congruence, self-

determination

What drives people to behave illegally, such as by stealing or cheating? One could say that the reasons why people act illegally are instru- mental, and serve to access valued resources (Lee & Allen, 2002) or gain social approval (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). For example, stu- dents may have an external motivation to ille- gally download a computer software from the Internet because they need that program to suc- ceed in their studies. Other students may engage in the illegal behavior in a more internalized manner, because they feel that it is right for students not to pay for computer software be- cause they don’t have a salary yet, and that the

software companies are already making a lot of money. Still, we can wonder about the variables that facilitate the internalization of such illegal behavior within the self. Previous studies have demonstrated that group norms influence not only the emission of negative behaviors (Frone & Brown, 2010; Kura, Shamsudin, & Chauhan, 2013; Robinson & O’leary-Kelly, 1998), but also the internalization of those behaviors (Amiot, Sansfaçon, & Louis, 2013; Amiot, Sansfaçon, Louis & Yelle, 2012). When per- ceiving one’s group norm as encouraging a be- havior, it is possible that those behaviors be- come internalized by individual group members, such that they are part of their self (Haslam & Reicher, 2007) and are engaged in

out of pleasure or because they align with one’s

Sophie Sansfaçon and Catherine E. Amiot, Département de Psychologie, Université du Québec a` Montréal, Mon-

tréal, Québec, Canada. This research was facilitated thanks to grants from the Social

Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and from the Fond pour la recherche en santé– Québec (FRSQ) to Catherine E. Amiot.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Sophie Sansfaçon, Département de psychologie, Université du Québec a Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-

Ville, Montréal, PQ, H3C 3P8. E-mail: cpf.sansfaçon@ gmail.com

values (Amiot, Sansfaçon, & Louis, 2013; in press). In the current research, we aim to test, in an experimental context, whether a situationally salient norm influences the immediate internal- ization of the normative behaviors.

In fact, past studies have showed that when an ingroup is important to the individual, the norms of this group can become internalized and impact significantly on the behaviors of individual group members (e.g., Fielding, Mc-

174

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 189

NORM INTERNALISATION AND COMPARTMENTALISATION 175

Donald, & Louis, 2008; Terry & Hogg, 1996). Relying on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and intergroup theories based on the social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), the first goal of the current study is to investigate the internalization of a particular illegal behavior, namely, the illegal download- ing of computer software. This behavior is pri- vate, anonymous, and relatively common (Bel- gian Anti-Piracy Federation, 2009); it was considered relevant to study in relation to social identification and internalization processes given that social influence and norms operate strongly under conditions of isolation and ano- nymity (Spears, Postmes, Lea, & Wolbert, 2002). We expected this illegal behavior to be internalized when social norms and cues are salient.

Our second goal is to investigate how partic- ipants subjectively feel when they behave in line with group norms or not. To this aim, we assessed how engaging in an illegal behavior is compartmentalized and to what extent it can cause conflict within the self. We also explore how participants subjectively perceive how dif- ferent sources of influence guided their behavior in the experimental setting. Doing so opens the door to a new subjective perspective on group norms that departs from traditional norms re- search, which has typically looked at objective (e.g., manipulated) sources of normative influ- ence that operate outside of individuals’ aware- ness (Vorauer & Miller, 1997).

Social Norms Promote Internalization

Social norms are useful guides for what is considered appropriate behavior in group set- tings. Norms represent what is done and pre- scribed by the other group members (Jacobson, Mortensen, & Cialdini, 2011). Despite being potentially coercive (Turner, 1991), norms can also be internalized by group members and come to be followed freely and out of choice (Amiot, Sansfaçon, & Louis, 2013). Internaliza- tion refers to the process by which an individual is taking in the values and behaviors of a group and integrating them within their sense of self, by making them their own (Kelman, 1961). This process operates beyond acting for per- sonal gain, or to avoid the negative conse- quences that derive from violating the norm (Kerr, Garst, Kiehle, & Harris, 1997). From a

social identity perspective, when an individual identifies with a group, the group identity be- comes a part of the self, and so do the norms of this group (Turner, 1991). Whether norms are followed or not also depends on the social con- text: when a group membership is salient in a social context and this membership is important to the person’s self-definition, group norms will become activated and will guide one’s behavior (Smith & Louis, 2008; Terry & Hogg, 1996). This internalization is also facilitated by intra- group processes, including communication that takes place within the ingroup (Kerr & Kauf- man-Gilliland, 1994) and consensualization processes (Turner, 1991).

For example, at a hockey game, if a hockey fan identifies strongly as a fan of the team and perceives that his or her team group is encour- aging him/her in engaging in a harmful behav- iors against fans of other team, s/he will tend to engage in the normative behavior and internal- ize this behavior to a greater extent (Amiot, Sansfaçon, & Louis, in press). Importantly, the intergroup perspectives propose that the inter- nalization process should take place regardless of whether the normative group behaviors are prosocial or potentially harmful (Turner, 1991) – such as whether behaviors are illegal or not.

Self-Determination Theory

Previous studies from the organizational lit- erature have confirmed that motivations to en- gage in illegal behaviors in the workplace can be diverse, from thrill seeking to role modeling, and to feelings that such behaviors allow to restore justice (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). This suggests that negative behavior can be emitted out of different motives. Herein we focus on motives that range from being driven by external sources, to behaviors that are fol- lowed for more internal reasons (Amiot, Sans- façon, & Louis, 2013). To concretely capture the possible motivations for people’s behaviors and the extent to which these behaviors— including normative behaviors—are internal- ized, the present research relies on self- determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000). SDT is a motivational theory that has been applied mostly to understanding the moti- vations that underlie constructive social behav- iors (e.g., volunteering; Millette & Gagné, 2008). SDT proposes that when psychological

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 190

176 SANSFAÇON AND AMIOT

needs (autonomy, relatedness, competence) are satisfied by the social environment, behaviors tend to be emitted out of self-determined mo- tives (internalized), and individuals report higher well-being (Lynch, La Guardia, & Ryan, 2009). For SDT theorists, motivations vary along a continuum ranging from reasons that are not internalized and are not considered as part of the self (non–self-determined), to reasons that are considered internalized and part of the self (self-determined). More precisely, the non– self-determined motivations include amotiva- tion, external regulation, and introjected regula- tion. Amotivation represents a total absence of motivation. External regulation is present when an individual acts out of external contingencies, such as to obtain rewards or to flee punishment. Introjected regulation occurs when the individ- ual is acting out of internal pressure, so as not to feel bad or guilty.

The more internalized and self-determined motivations include identified regulation, inte- grated regulation, and intrinsic motivation. Identified regulation is present when individuals feel that engaging in the behavior is important for them and allows them to reach valued goals. Integrated regulation is present when individu- als act because the behavior is coherent with their personal objectives and values. Finally, intrinsic motivation occurs when individuals behave out of pleasure and for the satisfaction of engaging in the activity itself.

These motivations have been explored in var- ious contexts (Vallerand, 1997), and are begin- ning to be applied to group settings (e.g., Amiot & Sansfaçon, 2011). In the current research, we employ the SDT framework not only to capture internalization, but also because this framework proposes that socially harmful behaviors will be more difficult to internalize in the self (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Whereas the intergroup ap- proaches do not make distinctions between so- cially harmful and beneficial group norms with respect to their capacity to become internalized in the self (Turner, 1991), SDT clearly puts limits to this capacity for internalization by sug- gesting that potentially harmful social behaviors are fuelled by a lack of autonomy and self- determination, and that such behaviors occur when one’s basic psychological needs have been thwarted (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In fact, SDT is a humanistic theory that assumes that humans strive to act effectively and in a proso-

cial manner (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Empirically, studies have found that abusive supervision in the workplace context is linked to organiza- tional deviance, and that this link is mediated by need satisfaction (Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012). In the current research, we expected, based on SDT, that harmful behaviors—such as illegal behaviors—should hence trigger compartmen- talization and intraindividual conflict and un- ease given that such behaviors clash with the person’s true goals and aims.

Prior studies confirmed that prosocial (rather than harmful) norms are easier to internalize and that group norms and individuals’ behav- ioral congruence with the norms do have an impact on the internalization of a specific nor- mative behavior (Amiot et al., 2012). These studies tested competing hypotheses based on SIT versus SDT about the possibility of group norms to be internalized and endorsed out of self-determination. The findings tended to sup- port SDT’s perspective: When an important in- group was encouraging a pro-social behavior, such as distributing resources equally between groups (prosocial parity norm), and individuals were behaving congruently with this norm, this behavior was more strongly internalized and self-determined (Amiot et al., 2012). The re- verse pattern was observed for harmful norms in favor of discrimination: When one’s ingroup encouraged discrimination, it is individuals who behaved incongruently with this norm (by en- gaging instead in parity) who were more self- determined. These results suggest that ingroup norms do have an impact on the internalization of the behavior, and that engaging in a poten- tially harmful social behavior tends to be more difficult to internalize in the self, even if this behavior is proscribed by ingroup norms. As well, and in line with Packer (2008), partici- pants who went against a socially harmful norm in favor of discrimination by engaging in a pro-social behavior instead may have drawn their motivation from particularly internalized values. Risking to go against the ingroup norms can be costly for the individual with regard of his or her membership within a group, which suggests that deviant behaviors are engaged in out of deeply held values and beliefs.

The current study will test whether the same results are observable when we manip- ulate norms that concern an illegal behavior, namely the illegal downloading and use of

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 191

NORM INTERNALISATION AND COMPARTMENTALISATION 177

computer software. This type of behavior is

considered to be socially harmful from a legal

and a moral point of view. The law considers pirated software downloading as theft (Copy-

right Board of Canada, 2009). Downloading software illegally does not recognize the work

conducted by software designers and com- puter

companies. Moreover, not paying for a product does not encourage software devel- opment and

increases the costs of software for buyers (BAF,

2009). We expected that this type of behavior will be possible to change via the

manipulation of situational norms given that it is an anonymous behavior (Spears et al., 2002)

that is considered quite benign in terms of its

consequences (Aguiar & Martens, 2013). Furthermore, different studies conducted

among university studies report diverging

statistics regarding the fre- quency of illegal downloading behaviors: For example, whereas a

Belgian survey estab- lished that 90% of students engage in the illegal downloading of

software (BAF, 2009), a French survey

revealed that about 40% of students engage in such behavior (JDN, 2004). This divergence

suggests that norms regarding the prevalence of

illegal download- ing are somewhat vague, and that the norms manipulated in this context may

hence be relied on more strongly as a means to resolve this ambiguity and vagueness (Smith,

Hogg, Martin, & Terry, 2007). This allows us to

expect that the norm manipulation used in the current study will have a potent impact on

participants’ downloading behaviors and on

their internalization of these behaviors.

Subjective Processes

The experiment will also explore three new

variables that capture individual group mem- bers’ subjective experiences of the norm inter-

nalization process. More specifically, we inves-

tigate how individual group members compartmentalize their illegal behaviors within

themselves, the level of internal pressure or

conflict they subjectively feel when they intend to engage or not in a normative illegal behavior,

and which specific sources of normative influ- ence they believe are influencing them when

intending to engage (or not) in illegal behaviors.

Compartmentalization

Compartmentalization is a term used when referring to distinct parts of the self that are kept separated from each other (Ryan & Deci, 2003). Compartmentalization of behaviors occurs when individuals behave in a way that fits with the social identity and the social norms that are salient in one specific social context, but with- out linking back this behavior to other life con- texts or to their own personal values. For exam- ple, a prisoner can act in an illegal manner when s/he is in the prison context and his or her prisoner identity is salient, but can follow laws and regulations when s/he is in another group, her/his family for instance (Tripp, 2009). In this case, the illegal behavior does not represent the individual as a whole, but represents the person only in one particular context. Compartmental- ization should be experienced to a greater extent when individuals intend to engage in illegal behaviors, because these kinds of behaviors are generally disapproved of by society, and need to be kept in a distinct and hermetic part of the self so as not to contaminate their entire sense of self (Ryan & Deci, 2003). We expect that individu- als who intend to act illegally (who intend to behave congruently with a downloading norm or incongruently with a no-downloading norm) will report higher compartmentalization than those who intend to act legally.

Intraindividual Conflict

Similarly, conflict arises when an individual feels that there is a discrepancy between differ- ent parts of him or herself, such as between diverging norms or values (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). Conflict may arise when the individual acts in a way that does not represent his or her own personal values and attitudes, or when following group norms that are pro- scribed by another of his or her social groups. Because acting illegally is considered to be a socially harmful behavior and also based on SDT postulates, we hypothesize that intraindi- vidual conflict will be positively related to com- partmentalization. Moreover, we expect that in- dividuals who intend to act illegally (who intend to behave congruently with a download- ing norm or incongruently with a no-download- ing norm) will feel more conflict than those who act legally.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 192

178 SANSFAÇON AND AMIOT

Perceived Influence

According to some researchers, the social influence process is an implicit, unconscious mechanism (Vorauer & Miller, 1997), which also implies that the subjective perception of norms can be biased (Baer, Stacy & Larimer, 1991). Still, we can wonder how individuals perceive what has influenced them in a specific situation, such as group norms or personal val- ues (Van Bavel, Packer, & Cunningham, 2008). This study will hence explore how participants subjectively perceive different possible sources of influence—namely the situation, their own personal values and sense of morality, and in- group norms—and how they consider that these sources guided their behavior in the experimen- tal context. Exploring these subjective percep- tions is important given that multiple sources of influence have the potential to guide people’s behaviors in a specific context (i.e., attitudes and social norm; Ajzen, 2001) and that we wish to capture what influences people’s illegal ac- tions, from their own point of view.

The perception of what influenced one’s own behavior is probably a process that relates to the compartmentalization process: A person who compartmentalizes his or her behavior associ- ates and restricts this behavior to a particular life context. In this sense, the more a person compartmentalizes his or her behavior, the more likely we expect that he or she will perceive that it is a specific group or the situation itself (rather than his or her own morality or personal values) that influenced the behavior. We hence expect that the different sources of influence will relate differently with compartmentalization.

The Present Research

Following past studies (Amiot et al., 2012), the first objective of this research is to test whether a “prodownloading norm” (i.e., a norm in favor of illegal downloading) versus a “no- downloading norm” (i.e., a norm that is not against illegal downloading) influences partici- pants’ behavioral intentions to engage in illegal downloading behaviors. The second objective is to investigate how individuals’ congruence/ incongruence with these norms influences their self-determination (as a proxy for internaliza- tion) for engaging in this behavior. A third objective is to capture participants’ subjective

experiences in the norm internalization process, and more specifically their feelings of compart- mentalization and intraindividual conflict, along with the sources of influence that they perceived as guiding their behavior in the experiment. By doing so, the present study goes a step further in a line of research bridging SDT and intergroup theories. By testing these hypotheses with a potentially malleable illegal behavior, and in- vestigating these additional subjective pro- cesses, this study will allow a broader look at the consequences of engaging in and following socially “harmful” norms. Moreover, whereas other studies have explored the internalization of negative social norms within correlational design in real life contexts (e.g., discrimination among hockey fans: Amiot, Sansfaçon, & Louis, in press), the present study will test whether a situational group norm will influence the immediate internalization of such behav- iors, in an experimental context.

To reach these goals, we present an experi- mental study in which we manipulated group norms and assessed participants’ congruence with these norms. In line with past studies on norm internalization (Amiot et al., 2012), we

decided to manipulate the descriptive norm here (individual’s perception of what other group

members do), instead of injunctive norms (per- ception of what group members encouraged in-

dividual to do; Reno, Cialdini, & Källgren, 1993: Smith & Louis, 2008; Smith et al., 2008).

Based on prior research, the following hy- potheses were made: (H1) Ingroup norms will

influence participants’ behavioral intentions: Participants exposed to a prodownloading in-

group norm will themselves report stronger in- tentions to engage in illegal prodownloading in comparison with participants exposed to a no- downloading ingroup norm. In line with prior studies (Amiot et al., 2012), H2a predicts that participants who act congruently with the no- downloading norm (and hence who do not in-

tend to behave illegally themselves) will be more self-determined than those who behave

incongruently with this norm. Among partici- pants in the prodownloading condition, those who intend to behave incongruently with the norm should report higher self-determination

than those who intend to behave in line with this norm (H2b). H3 and H4 predict that participants

will report higher compartmentalization and more conflict when they intend to act illegally,

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 193

NORM INTERNALISATION AND COMPARTMENTALISATION 179

that is, both when they plan to act congruently with a prodownloading norm or incongruently with a no-downloading norm. Based on a sub- jective approach to group norms, H5 predicts that compartmentalization will be positively re- lated to intraindividual conflict. We also antic- ipate that the more a person compartmentalizes his or her behavior, the more likely we expect that he or she will perceive that it is a specific group or the situation itself (rather than his or her own morality or personal values) that influ- enced his or her behavior (H6). Finally, given the lack of prior studies on how individuals subjectively perceive different sources of influ- ence, we will explore how these sources of influence are perceived across experimental conditions.

Method

Participants and Design

Participants were 123 students enrolled at a French-speaking university in Montréal. The study employed a between-participants design where we manipulated social identity salience (personal vs. student identity; Haslam, Oakes,

Reynolds, & Turner, 1999)1 and ingroup norm- s(prodownloading vs. no-downloading of com- puter software). No participant had suspicions about what the goal of the study was, but 8 participants did not understand the ingroup norm manipulation correctly and were excluded from the sample. The final sample (N 115) included 90 females and 24 males (1 participant did not report their gender), who were on aver- age 22.50 years old (SD 4.74).

Procedure

Participants were presented with information about the general context of illegal software downloading among university students. They were told that studying at University requires buying and downloading costly computer pro- grams, and that some of the students may ille- gally download those programs. In line with past research (Smith & Louis, 2008), partici- pants were then informed that a survey had been conducted among students of their University (UQAM) to gather their opinions and behaviors regarding illegal downloading. Bar graphs were presented and illustrated the results observed

when asking students the following question: Do you personally illegally download and use computer software? For participants in the downloading norm condition, the graphs showed that 76% of students said that they were engaging in illegal downloading while 24% were not. For participants in the no-download- ing norm condition, these percentages were re- versed.

To strengthen the norm manipulation further, participants read a series of five opinion state- ments about the target issue of computer soft- ware downloading, ostensibly from five stu- dents from their program who had participated in the survey before them. The goal with this manipulation was to provide participants with further ideological justifications for endorsing the norm (Amiot & Bourhis, 2003). These state- ments indicated that four of five students from their program either were engaging in the be- havior themselves (or not, depending on the experimental condition), and that one of five was neutral. As a manipulation check, partici- pants were asked whether the graphs and com- ments showed that the majority of the students at their university were engaging in the behavior that involves illegally downloading computer software or not.

1 Identity Salience Manipulation. In line with past re-

search (Haslam et al., 1999) and to test whether identity salience accentuates the internalization of social norms (Smith & Louis, 2008), a social identity manipulation was first presented. This identity salience manipulation was based on Haslam et al. (1999): half of the participants were primed with their personal identity, and the other half with their social identity as a student of their university. Partic- ipants in the social identity condition were asked to answer four questions pertaining to their student identity. The same questions were asked to participants in the personal identity condition, but concerning themselves as individuals. Fol- lowing the manipulation, two manipulation check questions were asked: To what extend it is easy for you to describe yourself as a UQAM student? (high identification condition: M 4.25; ST 1.50; low identification condition: M 4.55; SD 1.35); To what extent your UQAM student identity is important for you? (high identification condition: M 5.09; ST 1.35; low identification: M 5.20; SD 1.26), and answered on a 1 to 7 Likert scale, ranging from Not at all to Extremely. To assess the impact of the identity salience manipulation, ANOVAs were conducted on the two manipulation check questions. No significant difference emerged between the two conditions on the two questions. The identity salience manipulation did not show any main or interactive effects with the norms manipulation on self- determination index, t(112) 1.127, p .262; t(112 .497, p .633).

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 194

180 SANSFAÇON AND AMIOT

Measures

Behavioral intentions. To assess partici- pants’ behavioral intentions, participants were asked whether they would illegally download and use software if their program of study requires it (yes/no). Answers to this question were coded to indicate that partici- pants’ behavior was either congruent or in- congruent with their ingroup norm.

Motivation for emitting the behavior displayed. Participants were then asked to think of the reasons why they intend to en- gage in this behavior. They were then pro- vided with 24 items based on previously val- idated SDT scales (Guay, Mageau, & Vallerand, 2003). These items measured amo- tivation (I am not really sure that this behav- ior is really worth it; a .74), external regulation (because its allows me to do what is expected from me; a .71), introjected regulation (because I would have felt ashamed if I had behave in another way; a .90), identified regulation (because I believe that it is important to behave in that way; a .65), integrated regulation (because this man- ner of behaving is in line with my values; a .92), and intrinsic motivation (because I de- rived satisfaction from behaving this way; a .93). Each of the six motivation types in- cluded four items. An index of self-determined motivation was created by using the following formula: (3X intrinsic motivation + 2X inte- grated regulation + 1X identified regulation) - (1X introjected regulation + 2X external regu- lation + 3X amotivation; see Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). It is common for SDT researchers to compute an overall self- determination index (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Vallerand, 1997; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). Greater scores on this index represent higher self-determination motives relative to non–self-determination motives. For this measure and the following ones, 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) Likert scales were used (the index ranges from -36 up to 36).

Compartmentalization. Based on Ryan and Deci’s (2003) conceptualization of com- partmentalization, a 5-item scale was created to measure the extent to which participants’ illegal downloading behavior in the context of this study was compartmentalized in their sense of self (My downloading behaviors do

not represent who I am as a person; My

downloading behaviors are only emitted in the

current context; My downloading behav- iors

are specific to a particular context of my life; My

downloading behaviors represent only a small

part of who I am as a person; My downloading

behaviors are associated with a particular

situation in my life; a .84).

Intraindividual conflict. To assess the

conflict between the behavior participants in-

tend to emit and their personal values, five

items were adapted from the Benet-Martínez

and Haritatos’ (2005) cultural conflict scale

(e.g., My behaviors pertaining to computer

downloading are in conflict with my personal

values; I feel torn between my downloading

behaviors and my personal values; a .86).

Perceived influence. To assess the per- ceived

influence of different possible sources, we

asked participants to what extent five sources

influenced their downloading behav- ior in the

experiment: The situation, their personal

values, their morality, the software companies, and other UQAM students.

Results

Manipulations Checks: Norm and

Behaviors Displayed

To assess the impact of the ingroup norm manipulation on participants’ behavioral inten-

tions, chi-square analyses were conducted. A

main effect of the ingroup norm emerged, x2(df 1, n 114) 10.10, p .001: Par- ticipants

exposed to the prodownloading norm displayed

more downloading intentions in com- parison with participants exposed to the no-

downloading norm. More specifically, among

participants whose ingroup endorses the norm in favor of illegal downloading, 79% (n 44)

displayed downloading intentions and 21% (n 12) did not display downloading inten- tions.

Among participants whose ingroup en- dorsed a

no-downloading norm, 50% (n 29) displayed downloading intentions and 50% (n 29) did

not display downloading inten- tions. These

results confirm H1: Ingroup norms significantly influenced participants’ behavioral intentions.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 195

NORM INTERNALISATION AND COMPARTMENTALISATION 181

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Among All Variables

Table 1 displays the correlations between the variables for participants in all conditions. As could be expected because self-determina- tion reflects greater internalization and engag- ing in behaviors because they reflect one’s choices and values, the self-determination in- dex correlates positively with perceiving that what influenced one in the experiment are their personal values (r .44, p < .01) and morality (r .41, p < .01), but negatively with perception of situational influence (r -.20, p < .05). Moreover, supporting H5, compartmentalization correlates with intrain- dividual conflict (r .40, p < .01) and with situational influence (r .41, p < .01), which is also coherent with the definition of com- partmentalization as taking place when dis- tinct behaviors are kept separated from each other in the self and associated only with specific situations (Ryan & Deci, 2003). Compartmentalization also correlates nega- tively with the perception that morality influ- enced one’s behavior (r -.22, p < .05), which is also coherent with the concept and with H6. Finally, and in line with social iden- tity theory, perceiving the students as influ- ential is related to identifying with the student ingroup (r .21, p < .05).

Motivation for Emitting the Behavior

To assess the impact of the ingroup norm and the congruence of participants’ intentions relative to this norm on self-determination, a

2 (ingroup norm: prodownloading/no-down- loading norm) X 2 (congruence: participant’s behavioral intentions are congruent/incongru- ent with the ingroup norm) ANOVA was con- ducted on the self-determination index. The main effect of the ingroup norm was signifi-

cant, F(1, 112) 10.67, p < .001, T2 .09:

Participants in the no-downloading norm con- dition were more self-determined (M 12. 04; SD 10.90) than participants in the prodownloading norm condition (M 3.80; SD 9.16). The main effect of congruence was not significant, F(1, 112) 0.01, p .923, T2

.000. A significant interaction was observed between ingroup norm and congru- ence (Figure 1): F(1, 112) 17.295, p < .001, T2

.14; participants whose behavioral intentions were congruent with the no- downloading norm condition (and who did not engage in illegal downloading) reported greater self-determination (M 8.54; SD 7.81) than participants whose behavioral in- tentions were incongruent with this norm (and who engaged in illegal downloading instead; M 1.69; SD 9.32; F(1, 57) 8.86, p .004, T2

.14). In contrast, participants whose behavioral intentions were incongruent with a prodownloading norm (such that they did not engage in illegal downloading) were more self-determined (M 3.13; SD 9.80) than participants whose behavioral intentions were congruent with this norm (and who hence engaged in illegal downloading; M -3.40; SD 4.88, F(1, 55) 10.02, p

.003, T2 .16). These findings support H2a and

H2b.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among All Variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Index 7.71 8.32 2. Compartmentalization 3.49 1.76 -.40**

3. Intraindividual conflict 2.69 1.36 -.50** .40**

4. Influence: Situation 5.15 1.57 -.20* .41**

.17 5. Influence: Personal values 4.85 1.78 .44**

-.15 -.17 -.08 6. Influence: Morality 4.56 2.03 .41**

-.22* -.08 .00 .87***

7. Influence: Software companies 3.23 2.01 .11 -.05 -.12 .23* .12 .12

8. Influence: Students 2.52 1.67 -.04 .07 .11 .16 .14 .42**

9. Student identification 4.78 1.17 -.06 .15 .16 -.02 -.01 .09 .21*

Note. M mean; SD standard deviation. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 196

182 SANSFAÇON AND AMIOT

Figure 1. Self-determination as a function of ingroup norm and congruence.

Compartmentalization

To assess the impact of the ingroup norm and

the congruence of participants’ intentions rela- tive to this norm on their perceptions of com- partmentalization, a 2 (ingroup norm: prodown- loading/no-downloading) X 2 (congruence: congruent/incongruent) ANOVA was con- ducted on the measure of compartmentalization. The main effects of the ingroup norm, F(1, 108)

0.92 p .338, T2 .008, and congru-

ence, F(1, 108) 0.01, p .948, T2 .000,

were not significant. However, a significant in- teraction was observed between ingroup norm

and congruence, F(1, 108) 16,03, p < .001, T2

.129. Interpretation of this interaction (see Figure 2) revealed that when the ingroup norm was a no-downloading one, participants whose behavioral intentions were congruent with this norm (those who did not engage in the illegal behavior) reported lower compartmentalization (M 2.44; SD 1.25) than participants whose behavioral intentions were incongruent with this norm (and who did engage in illegal down-

Figure 2. Compartmentalization as a function of ingroup norm and congruence.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 197

NORM INTERNALISATION AND COMPARTMENTALISATION 183

loading; M 3.81; SD 1.92; F(1, 55) 10,13,

p .002, T2 .156). In contrast, when the ingroup

norm was a prodownloading one, participants whose behavioral intentions were congruent with this norm (and who engaged in the illegal behavior) reported greater compart- mentalization (M 4.16; SD 1.62) than participants whose behavioral intentions were incongruent with this norm (and who did not engage in illegal downloading; M 2.75; SD 1.59,

F(1, 55) 6,72, p .012, T2 .112).

These findings support H3.

Intraindividual Conflict

To assess the impact of the ingroup norm and the congruence of participants’ intentions rela- tive to this norm on their feelings of intraindi- vidual conflict, a 2 (ingroup norm: prodown- loading/no-downloading) X 2 (congruence: congruent/incongruent) ANOVA was con- ducted on the conflict variable. The main effects

of the ingroup norm, F(1, 107) .01 p .942, T2

.000, and congruence, F(1, 107) .31, p .577,

T2 .003, were not significant. However, a

significant interaction was observed between ingroup norm and congruence, F(1, 107)

15.07, p < .001, T2 .12. Interpreta- tion of this

interaction (see Figure 3) revealed that participants whose behavioral intentions were congruent with the no-downloading norm

(those who did not engage in the illegal behav- ior) reported lower conflict (M 1.95; SD 1.04) than participants whose behavioral inten- tions were incongruent with this norm (and who did engage in the illegal behavior; M 3.18; SD

1.68; F(1, 54) 10.66, p .002, T2 .165). In contrast, when the ingroup norm was a prodownloading one, participants whose behav- ioral intentions were congruent with this norm (and who did engage in the illegal behavior) reported greater conflict (M 3.01; SD 1.22) than participants whose behavioral intentions were incongruent with this norm (and who did not engage in illegal behavior; M 2.09; SD 0.67,

F(1, 53) 5.64, p .021, T2 .096),

supporting H4.

Perceived Influence of Different Sources

To assess the impact of group norms and the congruence of participants’ intentions relative to the ingroup norm on their perceptions of the influence of different sources, we conducted a 2 (ingroup norm: prodownloading/no-download- ing) X 2 (congruence: congruent/incongruent) ANOVA with the five sources of normative influence as a repeated-measures factor. A sig- nificant main effect of the ingroup norm

emerged, F(1, 104) 5.02, p .027, T2 .046, showing that participants generally per- ceived these sources of influence to be stronger

Figure 3. Intraindividual conflict as a function of ingroup norm and congruence.

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 198

184 SANSFAÇON AND AMIOT

when the ingroup norm was not supporting il- legal downloading (M 4.26; SD 0.17) than when this norm was supporting illegal down- loading (M 3.77; SD 0.17). A significant main effect for the source of influence emerged, F(5, 100)

48.38, p < .001, T2 .708.

Planned contrasts conducted to locate the dif- ferences among the sources showed that partic- ipants perceived the sources of influence per- taining to the situation (M 5.04; SD 0.16) and to their personal values (M 4.97; SD 0.17) to be stronger than their morality (M 4.77; SD 0.19; F(1, 10) 3.49, p .029, T2

.045). Moreover, morality was seen as a more influential source than software compa- nies (M 3.19; SD 0.22; F(1, 10) 22.16, p .043, T2

.039). Finally, students from participants’ university were perceived as hav- ing the least influence on their own behavior (M 2.41; SD 0.18; F(1, 104) 52.34, p .006, T2

.070).

A three-way interaction emerged between in- group norm, congruence, and source of norma-

tive influence, F(5, 100) 4.36, p .001, T2 .179. Simple effect tests revealed that for the sources of normative influence pertaining to software companies and to students, the norm

by congruence interactions were not significant, Fs .75 to 1.34, ps .25 to .39, T2

.007 to

.01. For the 3 other sources (i.e., personal val- ues, morality, situation), significant norm by congruence interactions emerged (Figure 4; Fs

10.117 to 13.28, ps .000 to .026, T2 .04 to .11). Participants in the prodownloading norm condition who intended to behave congru- ently with this norm perceived that it was the situation (M 5.46; SD 1.50) that guided them more than their personal values (M 3.93; SD 1.79; F(1, 40) 22.98, p < .001, T2

.37), followed by their morality (M 3.66; SD 1.93; F(1, 40) 4.91, p .032,

T2 .10). In contrast, participants who in- tended

to behave congruently with a no- downloading norm perceived that their personal values (M 5.89; SD 1.45) and their moral- ity (M 5.89; SD 1.44; F(1, 27) 00 p 1.00, T2

.00) guided them more in their behavior than the situation (M 4.79; SD 1.55; F(1,

27) 10.45, p .003, T2 .28).

There is no significant difference for partici- pants who intended to behave either incongru- ently with a no-downloading or a prodownload- ing norm (Fs 2.33 to 2.40, ps .10 to .17, T2

.08 to .13).

Influence of Personal Values

Influence of One's Morality

6 Influence of Situation

5

4

3

2

1

0 No- Pro- No- Pro-

downloading downloading downloading downloading

Norm- Norm- Norm- Norm-

Congruence Congruence IncongruenceIncongruence

Figure 4. Perceived influence as a function of ingroup norm, congruence, and three sources

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Perce

ived

In

flu

ence o

f S

ou

rce

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 199

of influence (personal values, morality, situation).

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 200

NORM INTERNALISATION AND COMPARTMENTALISATION 185

Discussion

The first objective of this experiment was to investigate the motives that underlie an illegal normative behavior (i.e., illegally downloading computer software or not) and to measure the extent to which this behavior can be situation- ally internalized in the self and endorsed for self-determined motivations. As a second objec- tive, this experiment tested the impact of a manipulated norm and of participants’ inten- tions to behave in congruence with this norm on variables that captured participants’ subjective perceptions in the internalization process, namely compartmentalization, intraindividual conflict, and perceived sources of influence. This study used an established methodology from the social norms literature (Smith & Louis, 2008). Our findings confirmed the role played by behavioral congruence in the internalization of a potentially socially harmful behavior, while providing new information on participants’ sub- jective perceptions in this process. Investigating these ideas allows a better comprehension of the motivations that drive some illegal behaviors. In addition, identifying the subjective processes that are activated when people plan to act ille- gally allows to capture what the perpetrators of these actions experience when engaging in such behaviors, and to develop more targeted inter- vention programs aimed at reducing illegal be- havior such as theft.

The ingroup norms we manipulated did in- fluence participants’ intentions to engage in prodownloading versus no-downloading be- haviors, confirming H1. Also, participants who intended to behave congruently with their ingroup’s no-downloading norm were more self-determined compared to partici- pants whose behavioral intentions were not congruent with this norm (i.e., and who planned to behave illegally instead), which confirms H2a. In addition, participants whose behavioral intentions were incongruent with the prodownloading norm reported higher self-determination compared to participants whose behavioral intentions were congruent with this prodownloading ingroup norm, sup- porting H2b. Hence, above and beyond the nor- mative pressure, individuals internalize more easily a prolegal than an illegal behavior. These results correspond with SDT and replicate Amiot and colleagues’ findings (2012), by

showing that prosocial behaviors tend to be more self-determined, even if the individual is acting against his or her group norm. Moreover, these prior studies directly measured the behav- ior, whereas the current study assessed behav- ioral intentions. It is reassuring to observe sim- ilar results across the studies.

The current results are also consistent with literature that states that an individual may de- viate from his or her group norms if s/he con- siders that it is better for the group to do so; such as because doing so may improve the group situation (Packer, 2008), or if the ingroup norms go against one’s own moral values (Hornsey, Smith, & Begg, 2007). Still, it would be interesting to further investigate whether the norm that encourage illegally downloading computer software is perceived as being accept- able for the individual and as being hurtful versus good for the group. Even if it is illegal, accessing the latest software can be perceived as good when it help the group to maintain high standards which may then allow its members to gain social recognition and status. The percep- tion of how the norm helps (vs. hurts) the group may influence the internalization process by facilitating the acceptation or rejection of the norm within his or her self. Furthermore, devi- ating from ingroup norms when these norms are perceived as harmful may represent a strategy that group members use to realign their group toward more prosocial actions and norms (Packer, 2008).

Moreover, participants who intended to act illegally— both by behaving incongruently with a no-downloading norm and by failing to follow a no-downloading norm—felt more compart- mentalization and intraindividual conflict than participants who did not intend to engage in the illegal downloading behavior (supporting H3 and H4). These results confirm that compart- mentalization and intraindividual conflict are most strongly activated when participants in- tend to behave illegally, regardless of ingroup norms: Behaving incongruently with the norm of an important ingroup per se did not induce such high levels of compartmentalization or conflict. These variables may help to protect the self from the negative impact of behaving ille- gally. While the current data do not provide exact information about which specific mecha- nisms may be blocking the internalization of illegal norms and also making these norms

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 200

186 SANSFAÇON AND AMIOT

harder to feel comfortable about (e.g., intuitive knowledge about what’s right vs. wrong), this is an exciting direction for future research which align with SDT postulates.

Participants’ perceptions of the five sources of influence also differed as a function of norms and congruence. When participants were in- tending to behave legally, they were more likely to perceive that it was their personal values/ morality that guided their behavior. When they intended to behave illegally, they stated that the situational sources influenced them the most. These findings could be attributable to a classic self-serving bias (Miller & Ross, 1975), whereby people attribute their positive behav- iors to internal causes (their values) and attri- bute their negative behaviors to external causes (the situation). These findings could also relate to the notion of compartmentalization; when participants behave illegally, they may become more prone to perceive the situation as influ- encing them and to dissociate themselves per- sonally from their action by putting a distance between their self (i.e., their own values and morality) and their behavior.

Interestingly, and despite the fact that our ingroup norm manipulation had a strong effect on participants’ intentions in the experiment, participants were less likely to perceive that students from their university had influenced their behavioral intentions. This pattern of find- ings is also congruent with literature suggesting that explicit and implicit processes are not al- ways congruent (Briñol, Petty, & Wheeler, 2006) and that what is really influencing a per- son’s behavior is often different from what the person’s subjectively reported as influencing him/her (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Still, the correlation between identifying with the student ingroup and perceiving the group as a source of influence suggest that the more participants identify with this ingroup, the more they con- sider the student group as influencing them, which is coherent with social identity theory and its approach to group norms (e.g., Terry & Hogg, 1996; Turner, 1991). Future studies should further investigate these subjective per- ceptions, how they shape and predict different types of normative behaviors, and what are the potential effects of this mismatch between per- ceptions and behaviors.

It will also be interesting to further test whether the results obtained herein can be ob-

served in different life contexts and over the longer-term. It is important to note that the current research investigated the immediate im- pact of a situational norm in an experimental context. Still, we can wonder about the process of internalization over time in real life contexts and of how repeating behaviors over time may lead to the internalization of these behaviors. Further studies should investigate these longer- term processes by using longitudinal design. For example, we could follow over a 1-year period a cohort of new university students as they are in the process of endorsing new social norms, including potentially harmful norms (e.g., cheating in exams). By assessing repeat- edly over this period of time variables such as perceived norms, the frequency of the norma- tive behavior and self-determination to engage in this behavior, and degree of social identifi- cation with the group, such research will allow to paint a more complete picture of the inter- nalization process over time. Moreover, the rate of internalization of group norms is possibly linked to changes in identification with the group, such that a normative behavior becomes more congruent and internalized in the person’s self when this person develops a stronger sense of identification with the group (Terry & Hogg, 1996). Understanding the temporal and longer- term processes involved in norm internalization could be useful to eventually create programs or campaigns that aim to reduce illegal behaviors in the workplace or school context. Considering the immediate versus the long-term impact of a group norm on the behaviors and their internal- ization will also provide a more complete ac- count for why individuals engage in those neg- ative behaviors and how such behaviors develop.

References

Aguiar, L., & Martens, B. (2013). Digital music consumption on the Internet: Evidence from Click- stream Data. European Commission: Institute for prospective technological studies. doi:10.2791/ 83798

Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.

Amiot, C. E., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2003). Discrimina- tion and the positive-negative asymmetry effect: Ideological and normative processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 597– 608. doi: 10.1177/0146167203029005005

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 201

NORM INTERNALISATION AND COMPARTMENTALISATION 187

Amiot, C. E., & Sansfaçon, S. (2011). Motivations to

identify with social groups: Positive and negative consequences. Group Dynamics: Theory, Re- search, and Practice, 15, 105–127. doi:10.1037/ a0023158

Amiot, C. E., Sansfaçon, S., & Louis, W. R. (2013). Investigating the motivations underlying harmful social behaviors and the motivational nature of social norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychol- ogy, 43, 2146 –2157. doi:10.1111/jasp.12167

Amiot, C. E., Sansfaçon, S., & Louis, W. R. (in press). How normative and social identification processes predict self-determination to engage in derogatory behaviours against outgroup hockey fans. European Journal of Social Psychology.

Amiot, C. E., Sansfaçon, S., Louis, W. R., & Yelle, M. (2012). Testing the role of group norms and behavioral congruence in the internalization of dis- criminatory and parity behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 63–76. doi: 10.1177/0146167211429804

Baer, J. S., Stacy, A., & Larimer, M. (1991). Biases in the perception of drinking norms among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 580 – 586.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Four roots of evil. In M. G. Arthur (Ed.), The social psychol- ogy of good and evil, (pp. 87–101). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Belgian Anti-Piracy Federation. (2009). Étude sur le téléchargement auprès des jeunes en Belgique (Study on illegal downloading in Belgium Youth). Press Release.

Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos’, J. (2005). Bicul- tural Identity Integration (BII): Components and socio-personality antecedents. Journal of Person- ality, 73, 1015–1050. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494 .2005.00337.x

Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Wheeler, S. C. (2006). Discrepancies between explicit and implicit self concepts: Consequences for information process- ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 154 –170. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.154

Copyright Board of Canada. (2009). Copying for Private Use. Copyright Art of Canada, subsection, 83(8).

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self- determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Theory of planned behavior, identity, and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 318 – 326. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.03.003

Frone, M. R., & Brown, A. L. (2010). Workplace substance-use norms as predictors of employee substance use and impairment: A survey of US

workers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71, 526 –534.

Guay, F., Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). On the hierarchical structure of self determined motivation: A test of top-down, bottom-up, recip- rocal, and horizontal effects. Personality and So- cial Psychology Bulletin, 29, 992–1004. doi: 10.1177/0146167203253297

Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1999). Social identity salience and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Personal- ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 809 – 818. doi:10.1177/0146167299025007004

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an integration- ist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615– 622. doi: 10.1177/0146167206298570

Hornsey, M. J., Smith, J. R., & Begg, D. (2007). Effects of norms among those with moral convic- tion: Counter-conformity emerges on intentions but not behaviors. Social Influence, 2, 244 –268. doi:10.1080/15534510701476500

Jacobson, R. J., Mortensen, C. R., & Cialdini, R. (2011). Bodies obliged and unbound: Differenti- ated response tendencies for injunctive and de- scriptive social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 433– 448.

JDN. (2004). Téléchargement illégal: On continue malgré les risques. (Illegal downloading: We con- tinue regardless of the risks.) Retrieved on Sep- tember 20, 2013, from http://www.journaldunet .com/0405/040514sondage.shtml

Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78. doi:10.1086/ 266996

Kerr, N. L., Garst, J., Kiehle, D., & Harris, S. (1997). That still, small voice: Commitment to cooperate as an internalized vs. a social norm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1300 –1311. doi:10.1177/01461672972312007

Kerr, N. L., & Kaufman-Gilliland, C. M. (1994). Communication, commitment, and cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 513–529. doi:10.1037/0022-3514 .66.3.513

Kura, K. M., Shamsudin, F. M., & Chauhan, A. (2013). Modeling the influence of group norms and self-regulatory efficacy on workplace deviant behaviour. Asian Social Science, 9, 113–122.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citi- zenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142. doi:10.1037/0021-9010 .87.1.131

Lian, H., Ferris, L. D., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervision and leader–member ex-

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 202

188 SANSFAÇON AND AMIOT

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 202

change interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 41–52. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.003

Lynch, M. F., La Guardia, J. G., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). On being yourself in different cultures: Ideal and actual self-concept, autonomy support, and well-being in China, Russia, and the United States. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 290 –304. doi:10.1080/17439760902933765

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Sell-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–225. doi:10.1037/ h0076486

Millette, V., & Gagné, M. (2008). Designing volun- teers’ tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motivation and Emo- tion, 32, 11–22. doi:10.1007/s11031-007-9079-4

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental pro- cesses. Psychological Review, 84, 1–259.

Packer, D. J. (2008). On being both with us and against us: A normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psy- chology Review, 12, 50 –72. doi:10.1177/ 1088868307309606

Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 64, 104 –112. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.1 .104

Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants and di- lemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Wiley.

Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658 – 672. doi:10.2307/256963

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining rea- sons for acting in two domains. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 57, 749 –761. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cultures. In M. R. Ryan & E. L. Deci (Eds.), Handbook on self & identity (pp. 253–272). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Smith, J. R., Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., & Terry, D. J. (2007). Uncertainty and the influence o group norms in the attitude-behaviour relationship. Brit-

Th

is d

ocu

men

t is

cop

yri

ghte

d b

y t

he

Am

eric

an P

sych

olo

gic

al A

ssoci

atio

n o

r one

of

its

alli

ed p

ubli

sher

s.

Th

is a

rtic

le i

s in

tend

ed s

ole

ly f

or

the

per

son

al u

se o

f th

e in

div

idu

al u

ser

and i

s no

t to

be

dis

sem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

The Group Specialty Council/SGPGP Criterion I 202

ish Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 769 –792. doi:10.1348/014466606X164439 Smith, J. R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Do as we say and as we do: The interplay of descriptive and injunctive group

norms in the attitude-behavior relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 647– 666. doi:10.1348/014466607X269748

Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Manstead, A. S. R. Louis, W. R., Kotterman, D., & Wolfs, J. (2008). The attitude-behavior relationship in consumer con- duct: The role of norms, past behavior, and self- identity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 311–333. doi:10.3200/SOCP.148.3.311-334

Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M., & Wolbert, A. (2002). When are net effects of gross products? The power of influence and the influence of power in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 91–107. doi:10.1111/1540- 4560.00250

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group

identification. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 22, 776 –793. doi:10.1177/ 0146167296228002

Tripp, B. (2009). Fathers in jail: Managing dual iden- tities. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 5, 26 –56. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In

M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065- 2601(08)60019-2

Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Person- ality, 60, 599 – 620. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992 .tb00922.x

Van Bavel, J. J., Packer, D. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2008). The neural substrates of in-group bias a functional magnetic resonance imaging investiga- tion. Psychological Science, 19, 1131–1139. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02214.x

Vorauer, J. D., & Miller, D. T. (1997). Failure to recognize the effect of implicit social influence on the presentation of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 281–295. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.73.2.281

Received September 24, 2012 Revision received December 14, 2013

Accepted December 17, 2013 •