Prospects for Group Processes and Intergroup
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Prospects for Group Processes and Intergroup Relations Research: A Review of 70 Years’ Progress Georgina Randsley de Moura, Tirza Leader, Joseph Pelletier, Dominic Abrams To cite this version: Georgina Randsley de Moura, Tirza Leader, Joseph Pelletier, Dominic Abrams. Prospects for Group Processes and Intergroup Relations Research: A Review of 70 Years’ Progress. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, SAGE Publications, 2008, 11 (4), pp.575-596. 10.1177/1368430208095406. hal-00571705 HAL Id: hal-00571705 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571705 Submitted on 1 Mar 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2008 Vol 11(4) 575–596 Prospects for Group Processes and Intergroup Relations Research: A Review of 70 Years’ Progress Georgina Randsley de Moura, Tirza Leader, Joseph Pelletier and Dominic Abrams1 University of Kent Three archival analyses are presented substantially extending empirical reviews of the progress of group-related research. First, an analysis of social psychological research from 1935 to 2007 (cf. Abrams & Hogg, 1998) showed that group-related research has a steadily increasing proportion of titles in the principal journals and currently accounts for over a sixth of all the research in our list of social psychological journals. Second, analysis of the most cited papers from a set of principal social psychology journals from 1998 to 2007 showed that a third of high-impact articles in social psychology focus on groups. Third, analysis of the content of two major specialist journals in the fi eld, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations and Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, showed that together these journals cover a broad range of group- related research, and that the only keyword common to both journals was social identity. These fi ndings demonstrate the health and major contributions of research into group processes and intergroup relations to social psychology as a whole. keywords empirical review, group dynamics, group processes, group-related research, intergroup relations, research development Research in social psychology covers a wide the contribution of this research area to social range of areas, such as self regulation, pro- and psychology has changed and progressed over the anti- social behavior, attitudes, persuasion, the years. It represents a substantial development and self, interpersonal relationships, language and expansion of the quantitative review conducted communication, attribution, culture, and—last 10 years ago in GPIR’s inaugural issue by Abrams but not least—group processes and intergroup and Hogg (1998), and augments several other relations. What is the contribution and impact of group-related research to social psychology and how has it changed over time? This article Author’s note provides a quantitative basis for evaluating the Correspondence concerning this article progress and impact of group processes and should be addressed to Georgina Randsley de intergroup relations research, within social Moura, Department of Psychology, University psychology, from 1935 into the 21st century. The of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, UK primary goal of this review is to evaluate how [email: [email protected]] Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) 11:4; 575–596; DOI: 10.1177/1368430208095406 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11(4) narrative and discursive reviews by extending what happened when interpersonal processes the time period to over 70 years, analyzing impact were aggregated” (p. 204). Commentators have over the last 10 years, and exploring the themes linked this trend to studying group processes at covered over that period. the individual level to many factors, including There have been several reviews, comments, the cognitive revolution, methodological limit- empirical analyses, and overviews of the nature ations, and problems with analysis of group of group research in social psychology (e.g. data (e.g. Abrams & Hogg, 1998, 2004; Hogg & Abrams & Hogg, 1998; Bettenhausen, 1991; Tindale, 2001; McGrath & Altman, 1966; Sadler Davis, 1996; Jones, 1985; Levine & Moreland, & Judd, 2001; Steiner, 1986; see also Zander, 1990, 1998; Manstead, 1990; McGrath, 1978, 1979). 1997; McGrath & Altman, 1966; McGrath The study of social dilemmas provides an & Kravitz, 1982; Moreland, Hogg, & Hains, example of this trend to focus on the individual 1994; Poole & Hollingshead, 2005; Sanna & within group-related research. Social dilemmas Parks, 1997; Simpson & Wood, 1992; Steiner, are without doubt a group-based phenomenon 1974, 1983, 1986; Tindale & Anderson, 1998; (Kerr & Park, 2001). However, one informative Wheelan, 2005; Wittenbaum & Moreland, 2008; and fruitful avenue for research in the area is Zander, 1979). based on analysis of individual difference meas- Collectively, these reviews provide various ures that categorize people into pro-social or pro- insights into the theory, methodology, analysis, self (Social Value Orientation, McClintock, 1978; and applications of research in group processes see e.g. Au & Kwong, 2004; de Kwaadsteniet, and intergroup relations. According to many of van Dijk, Wit, & de Cremer, 2006). Social di- the reviews mentioned earlier, group processes lemmas research also widely uses methods of and intergroup relations research is central to computer simulation and thought experiments, social psychology. This feeling is characterized often for hypothesis generation or preliminary in many prefaces, editorials, and introduc- exploratory work (e.g. Brewer & Schneider, tory paragraphs. For example, in a recent chapter 1999; Davis, 1973). Although it is generally on individual identity Worchel and Coutant easier to study the individual, it is clear that (2001) comment that: to fully understand social processes, group research is also important (e.g. Hogg & Tindale, groups are not merely entities in the fi le drawer 2001), and there is a necessary interplay of of the mind. Groups are physical realities that dot individual and group-level analysis. In terms the social landscape like trees in a dense forest. Indeed groups often survive long after the original of our example of social dilemmas, knowledge members have turned to dust. (p. 462) would be much more limited if researchers did not continue to also conduct face-to-face However, recent reviews of research into group experiments and consider situational group processes have noted that much of the and/or structural moderators of group pro- research literature focuses on the individual cesses (for example, alcohol: see Hopthrow, (e.g. Abrams & Hogg, 1998, 2004; Wittenbaum Abrams, Frings, & Hulbert, 2007; group dis- & Moreland, 2008). Indeed, the shift in the cussion, e.g. Caldwell, 1976; Hopthrow & Zeitgeist away from small groups and toward Hulbert, 2005; group size, e.g. Messick, 1973; social cognition approaches was probably at and framing, e.g. Kerr & Kaufman-Gilliland, the heart of Steiner’s (1986) concerns, and 1997. See also Kerr & Park, 2001). may to some extent represent a struggle for Research into minority infl uence is another supremacy of different levels of analysis and example whereby the study of group processes methodological approaches in social psychology has veered towards a focus on the individual. (Abrams & Hogg, 2004; McGrath & Altman, Current studies often measure attitude change 1966). In fact, Hornsey (2008) recently noted after exposure to written information regard- that some researchers have considered groups ing minority vs. majority opinions rather than as “something of a label of convenience for actual exposure to groups with a minority 576 Randsley de Moura et al. group processes and intergroup relations research view (see Levine & Kaarbo, 2001). Social di- ‘another study’ or ‘more data’ which may deter lemmas and minority infl uence research are less senior academics from developing research not unique among group research topics in and expertise with small groups. their employment of varied methodologies Group Processes & Intergroup Relations was and approaches. It is this multifaceted nature launched 10 years ago, in 1998. The inaugural of group research that characterizes social issue opened with Abrams and Hogg’s (1998) psychology’s depth and breadth of research analysis and consideration of the progress of, questions, issues, and applications. and prospects for, group processes and inter- A further limitation associated with the group relations research. This empirical review diversity of groups and intergroup research, examined the volume of group processes and is that research outlets are not only confi ned intergroup relations research that was being to social psychology or even to psychology published in social psychology journals between fi elds (see also Sanna & Parks, 1997). Such 1974 and 1996. They found that group-based research appears in various adjacent disciplines research lost favor in the 1970s and 1980s, but such as communications, I/O, politics, and had resurgence