Are Groups More Or Less Than the Sum of Their Members? the Moderating Role of Individual Identification
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2016), Page 1 of 56 doi:10.1017/S0140525X15000618, e137 Are groups more or less than the sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification Roy F. Baumeister Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306- 4301 [email protected] Sarah E. Ainsworth Department of Psychology, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224 [email protected] Kathleen D. Vohs Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 [email protected] Abstract: This paper seeks to make a theoretical and empirical case for the importance of differentiated identities for group function. Research on groups has found that groups sometimes perform better and other times perform worse than the sum of their individual members. Differentiation of selves is a crucial moderator. We propose a heuristic framework that divides formation of work or task groups into two steps. One step emphasizes shared common identity and promotes emotional bonds. In the other step, which we emphasize, group members take increasingly differentiated roles that improve performance through specialization, moral responsibility, and efficiency. Pathologies of groups (e.g., social loafing, depletion of shared resources/commons dilemmas, failure to pool information, groupthink) are linked to submerging the individual self in the group. These pathologies are decreased when selves are differentiated, such as by individual rewards, individual competition, accountability, responsibility, and public identification. Differentiating individual selves contributes to many of the best outcomes of groups, such as with social facilitation, wisdom- of-crowds effects, and division of labor. Anonymous confidentiality may hamper differentiation by allowing people to blend into the group (so that selfish or lazy efforts are not punished), but it may also facilitate differentiation by enabling people to think and judge without pressure to conform. Acquiring a unique role within the group can promote belongingness by making oneself irreplaceable. Keywords: accountability; brainstorming; groups; group process; identity; self; social facilitation; social loafing Research and theory about the self developed over many Much of social psychology’s long tradition of research on years, largely independently of research and theory about groups has emphasized that groups are different from groups. When theorists occasionally would seek to merge and more than the mere aggregate of their individual group theory and self theory, the focus was generally on members. Selves thus do not constitute the group but the group self, as in shared group identity. In this manu- rather play roles within the group’s system. And differenti- script, we make a case for the value of differentiated ated roles make more powerful and effective systems. selves: Groups benefit greatly from differentiation of A careful reading of the literature on groups yields not selves. The emergence of human selfhood might have one but two thematic traditions denying that a group is been shaped by selective adaptation for playing an individ- equal to the sum of its parts. Unfortunately, their themes ual role in a group. contradict each other. One line of work, dating back at Allport (1924) wrote, “There is no psychology of groups least to Le Bon’s (1896/1960) depiction of the group that is not essentially and entirely a psychology of individu- mind, depicts groups as generally worse than individuals als” (p. 4). The point of departure for this manuscript is that acting alone. The other, whose exponents include the semi- Allport’s assertion is fundamentally, even outrageously, nally influential economist Adam Smith (1776/1991), extols wrong. In our view, the relationships among individuals how groups produce and achieve far more than collections are not fully reducible to properties of the separate individ- of independent, isolated individuals ever could. uals. On this, we think we are in good company (see Asch The tension between these two traditions was apparent 1952; Lewin 1952; Mead 1934; Sherif 1936). Economic in two of the earliest works in social psychology. Triplett marketplaces cannot be reduced to the acts and choices (1898) observed and then confirmed empirically that of individuals; they comprise complex interactive systems. people performed better in a group than when alone, in © Cambridge University Press 2016 0140-525X/16 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Minnesota Libraries, on 05 Jan 2017 at 17:41:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at 1 https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15001697 Baumeister et al: Are groups more or less than the sum of their members? such domains as racing bicycles and winding fishing rods. seek to make the case for a theoretical position, and we Not much later, Ringelmann (1913b; see also Kravitz & welcome commentaries that provide alternate theories Martin 1986) observed and confirmed empirically that and additional evidence. people performed worse in groups than when alone, such as when pulling a heavy load together. Research in the modern era has continued to yield findings of both sorts, 1. Theory: Why groups differentiate selves namely that being in groups sometimes makes people work harder and perform better but sometimes makes People generally live in interacting groups, and they have them slack off and perform worse than when alone. done so everywhere on earth and throughout history. fi In this manuscript, we propose, first, that both traditions Groups confer bene ts to individuals and can accomplish fi of group research have valid points and important findings. things that loners cannot. Groups also extract sacri ces. It is quite true that sometimes groups are better than the Group systems require individuals to set aside some self-in- sum or average of their parts – and in other cases they are terest, but members are tempted to pursue self-interest at fi far worse. Second, we shall propose the hypothesis that group expense. Hence, group bene t depends on overcom- fi the difference can be explained largely on the basis of dif- ing sel sh desires so that people cooperate and contribute ferentiation of individual selves. That is, groups surpass in- rather than free-ride or cheat. To be sure, the motivations dividuals when members of the group are individually of individual group members may vary from prosocial to fi identified and responsible, and when they contribute as dis- sel sh, as well as from eager for information to indifferent tinct entities. Meanwhile, the worst outcomes of group pro- (De Dreu et al. 2008). Managing the diverse and some- cesses come when individual identities are submerged in times problematic motivations of individual members is ’ the group. By submerged in the group, we mean any of often key to a group s success. the following: People are held neither accountable nor re- Two classes of reasons beyond self-interest will motivate sponsible, they are not in competition or playing a distinct people to contribute to group welfare, even at cost to them- role, and they are not publicly identified or rewarded. It is a selves. First, if they love the group or identify passionately loss of individual or collective awareness of how group with it, they will want to advance its welfare and derive sat- members differ from each other. Submersion of the self isfaction from doing so. Second, they may contribute into the group is thus the opposite of differentiation. because the other group members put pressure on them An exhaustive review of all relevant work may be impos- to do so, such as by material incentives (e.g., rewards, pun- sible – and certainly is impossible within the length con- ishments) and social incentives (e.g., moral reputation, straints of journals such as this. Hence, our review is laws). The second set of reasons thus reverts to appealing ’ admittedly incomplete and selective. We reiterate that we to the individual s self-interest and aligning it with pro- group, prosocial behavior. Some readers may regard the distinction between group goals and individual goals as artificial because groups ROY F. BAUMEISTER holds the Eppes Eminent Scholar consist of individual members and cannot really have moti- Chair in Psychology at Florida State University, and vations except in the minds of its members. Discussion of he has secondary affiliations with King Abdulaziz Uni- group goals is shorthand for saying that individual goals, versity (Saudi Arabia), the VU University Amsterdam right down to survival and reproduction, are facilitated by (Netherlands), and the University of Bamberg participation in groups, but achieving the benefits of (Germany). He has nearly 600 publications, including groups often requires efforts, contributions, and sacrifices ’ 31 books. Baumeister s research spans multiple topics, by individual members. Maximum individual advantage including self and identity, self-regulation, interpersonal can be attained by sharing in group benefits without con- rejection, and the need to belong; sexuality and gender; aggression; self-esteem; meaning; emotion; and self- tributing, but if all members follow that strategy, there presentation. will be nothing to share. Groups therefore confer their ad- vantages (and prevail over rival groups, thus also benefiting SARAH E. AINSWORTH is an Assistant Professor of Social members) insofar as they motivate people to contribute, Psychology at University of North Florida. She received even to the short-term detriment of individual selfish goals. her Ph.D. in social psychology in 2015 from Florida State University. Her research focuses on motivated social processes and the role of self-regulation in con- 1.1. Two complementary steps tributing to prosocial and antisocial behavior. Her The emergence of group activity can be divided heuristical- work has resulted in several publications on topics fi including motivation, self-control, aggression, and ly into two steps. The rst step involves the simple advan- cooperation. tages of being in a group rather than alone. Belonging to the group is sufficient to furnish benefits that include col- KATHLEEN D.