(group communication ) join a professional group

Activity #2:

“Joining A Professional Group”

As an undergraduate you may despise class-assigned small group task forces. Usually you end up doing all the work for the entire group. Or worse yet, others in the group, refuse to meet for scheduled work sessions. Or worse yet, the other members of the group make sub-standard class presentations which causes your grade to suffer…even though you have done all the work.

As sad as this may sound, a future employer will expect that you will be a task force “joiner” in his or her corporation. Joining small groups on the job is the way relationships in professional life are formed. If an employer can’t count on you to be willing to initiate relationships, then he or she can’t count on you to put his or her business first.

Your Assignment:

Given that joining professional and task force teams are vitally important to your professional success, I want you to take on the role of a “Success Coach.” Success coaches are professional advisors who often make presentations to college students and to working professionals who wish to deepen their careers by learning new skills.

In your role as a Success Coach you have often been told by employers that graduates often do not want to work in groups and seem unaware of how to document their past small group experiences for employment interviews.

By coincidence, the Young Professionals Club of the University of Toledo has invited you to speak to one of their monthly meetings. The officers of the club have given you the topic “How To Succeed On Your First Year On The Job.”

You find this opportunity to let your audience members know of the importance of joining task forces and work groups in the staff of their first employment.

For your presentation, select 5 main points (partitions) from the literature below that would prove your point: “If you want success on the job, you need to be willing to work collaboratively with others.” Your presentation should be 3 – 5 pages of text collected from the articles below that when put together, will prove your main point.

Ten Reasons to Join a Professional Organization

Whether you are interested in strengthening your network, furthering your career or maybe just in need of a few more friends, professional networking organizations can be a great option for you. In addition to providing information about your chosen field, professional organizations can enhance your personal and professional development and provide endless networking opportunities. Look around your community—there are bound to be a plethora of organizations (from small local start-ups to national chapters) for you to join. Here are the top 10 reasons for joining a professional networking organization:

1. Broaden your knowledge: Professional organizations sometimes offer courses, seminars and/or lectures to keep themselves and their members up to date on the latest industry innovations, research and trends. Staying informed on your industry’s trends will only help you in the long run and will put you one step ahead of the competition!

2. Take charge of your career: Take advantage of career resources. Associations often have job listings online or in print available only to their members. This is a great way to find targeted job postings for your area of interest.

3. Build a better resume: Many organizations have career resources available such as tips on effective resumes or cover letter writing. Listing your association membership on your resume is impressive to current or future employers as it shows that you are dedicated to staying connected in your profession.

4. Enhance your network: We all know that networking is key for the movers and shakers of the community! Making connections is critical, and joining associations give countless opportunities to connect on a local and sometimes even global level. For most people, creating professional relationships is important, and joining a group allows you to have a sense of security and trust. From this, you are able to support and help one another in reaching your professional goals.

5. Be a Leader: Professional associations give you an opportunity to develop your skills as a leader, and this is important not only for your personal growth, but for your growth in your firm.

6. Become a mentor: Giving back can be the greatest reward and benefit. Participating in forums, chat groups or discussion boards sponsored by an association is also a great way to grow your network. This allows you to use your peers as sounding boards and often make some great friends with the same interests as you.

7. Make a new friend: Once we graduate from school, we all know how hard it is to get out and meet new people and make a new friend! Use professional networking groups as an opportunity to escape the norm and meet new people that may give you a reason to come out of your shell a bit more and have fun.

8. Give back to the community: There are plenty of organizations that coordinate socially conscious initiatives to support community efforts. Whether it is a nearby animal shelter or a food drive for a local charity, there are sure to be plenty of options for you to choose for if you are looking to give back.

9. Strength in Numbers: We live in a day and age where establishing a presence in any given career field often demands working long hours in the office and bringing work home when the doors close. At the end of the day, you may have ideas for cultivating partnerships, yet not feel up to shouldering all the responsibility to organize them. In a community organization, you have access to an established support system of experienced people who are motivated to get things done. The battle is half-won!

10. Stay Inspired and Stay Motivated: Learn to love what you do! You may not even know that you love something, but it’s important to be proactive about things you discover on the journey. Join a professional organization and discover something new TODAY!

The Psychological Significance of Groups

Many people loudly proclaim their autonomy and independence. Like Ralph Waldo Emerson, they avow, “I must be myself. I will not hide my tastes or aversions . . . . I will seek my own” ( 1903/2004 , p. 127). Even though people are capable of living separate and apart from others, they join with others because groups meet their psychological and social needs.

The Need to Belong

The need to belong is a strong psychological motivation. [Image: Keith DeBetham]

Across individuals, societies, and even eras, humans consistently seek inclusion over exclusion, membership over isolation, and acceptance over rejection. As Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary conclude, humans have a need to belong: “a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and impactful interpersonal relationships” ( 1995 , p. 497). And most of us satisfy this need by joining groups. When surveyed, 87.3% of Americans reported that they lived with other people, including family members, partners, and roommates ( Davis & Smith, 2007 ). The majority, ranging from 50% to 80%, reported regularly doing things in groups, such as attending a sports event together, visiting one another for the evening, sharing a meal together, or going out as a group to see a movie ( Putnam, 2000 ).

People respond negatively when their need to belong is unfulfilled. For example, college students often feel homesick and lonely when they first start college, but not if they belong to a cohesive, socially satisfying group ( Buote et al., 2007 ). People who are accepted members of a group tend to feel happier and more satisfied. But should they be rejected by a group, they feel unhappy, helpless, and depressed. Studies of  ostracism —the deliberate exclusion from groups—indicate this experience is highly stressful and can lead to depression, confused thinking, and even aggression ( Williams, 2007 ). When researchers used a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner to track neural responses to exclusion, they found that people who were left out of a group activity displayed heightened cortical activity in two specific areas of the brain—the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula. These areas of the brain are associated with the experience of physical pain sensations ( Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003 ). It hurts, quite literally, to be left out of a group.

Affiliation in Groups

Groups not only satisfy the need to belong, they also provide members with information, assistance, and social support. Leon Festinger’s theory of  social comparison  ( 1950 ,  1954 ) suggested that in many cases people join with others to evaluate the accuracy of their personal beliefs and attitudes. Stanley Schachter ( 1959 ) explored this process by putting individuals in ambiguous, stressful situations and asking them if they wished to wait alone or with others. He found that people affiliate in such situations—they seek the company of others.

Although any kind of companionship is appreciated, we prefer those who provide us with reassurance and support as well as accurate information. In some cases, we also prefer to join with others who are even worse off than we are. Imagine, for example, how you would respond when the teacher hands back the test and yours is marked 85%. Do you want to affiliate with a friend who got a 95% or a friend who got a 78%? To maintain a sense of self-worth, people seek out and compare themselves to the less fortunate. This process is known as downward social comparison.

Identity and Membership

Groups are not only founts of information during times of ambiguity, they also help us answer the existentially significant question, “Who am I?” Common sense tells us that our sense of self is our private definition of who we are, a kind of archival record of our experiences, qualities, and capabilities. Yet, the self also includes all those qualities that spring from memberships in groups. People are defined not only by their traits, preferences, interests, likes, and dislikes, but also by their friendships, social roles, family connections, and group memberships. The self is not just a “me,” but also a “we.”

Even demographic qualities such as sex or age can influence us if we categorize ourselves based on these qualities.  Social identity theory , for example, assumes that we don’t just classify other people into such social categories as man, woman, Anglo, elderly, or college student, but we also categorize ourselves. Moreover, if we strongly identify with these categories, then we will ascribe the characteristics of the typical member of these groups to ourselves, and so stereotype ourselves. If, for example, we believe that college students are intellectual, then we will assume we, too, are intellectual if we identify with that group ( Hogg, 2001 ).

Groups also provide a variety of means for maintaining and enhancing a sense of self-worth, as our assessment of the quality of groups we belong to influences our  collective self-esteem  ( Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990 ). If our self-esteem is shaken by a personal setback, we can focus on our group’s success and prestige. In addition, by comparing our group to other groups, we frequently discover that we are members of the better group, and so can take pride in our superiority. By denigrating other groups, we elevate both our personal and our collective self-esteem ( Crocker & Major, 1989 ).

Mark Leary’s  sociometer model  goes so far as to suggest that “self-esteem is part of a sociometer that monitors peoples’ relational value in other people’s eyes” ( 2007 , p. 328). He maintains self-esteem is not just an index of one’s sense of personal value, but also an indicator of acceptance into groups. Like a gauge that indicates how much fuel is left in the tank, a dip in self-esteem indicates exclusion from our group is likely. Disquieting feelings of self-worth, then, prompt us to search for and correct characteristics and qualities that put us at risk of social exclusion. Self-esteem is not just high self-regard, but the self-approbation that we feel when included in groups ( Leary & Baumeister, 2000 ).

Evolutionary Advantages of Group Living

Groups may be humans’ most useful invention, for they provide us with the means to reach goals that would elude us if we remained alone. Individuals in groups can secure advantages and avoid disadvantages that would plague the lone individuals. In his theory of social integration, Moreland concludes that groups tend to form whenever “people become dependent on one another for the satisfaction of their needs” ( 1987 , p. 104). The advantages of group life may be so great that humans are biologically prepared to seek membership and avoid isolation. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, because groups have increased humans’ overall fitness for countless generations, individuals who carried genes that promoted solitude-seeking were less likely to survive and procreate compared to those with genes that prompted them to join groups ( Darwin, 1859/1963 ). This process of natural selection culminated in the creation of a modern human who seeks out membership in groups instinctively, for most of us are descendants of “joiners” rather than “loners.”

Motivation and Performance

Groups usually exist for a reason. In groups, we solve problems, create products, create standards, communicate knowledge, have fun, perform arts, create institutions, and even ensure our safety from attacks by other groups. But do groups always outperform individuals?

Social Facilitation in Groups

Do people perform more effectively when alone or when part of a group? Norman Triplett ( 1898 ) examined this issue in one of the first empirical studies in psychology. While watching bicycle races, Triplett noticed that cyclists were faster when they competed against other racers than when they raced alone against the clock. To determine if the presence of others leads to the psychological stimulation that enhances performance, he arranged for 40 children to play a game that involved turning a small reel as quickly as possible (see Figure 1). When he measured how quickly they turned the reel, he confirmed that children performed slightly better when they played the game in pairs compared to when they played alone (see  Stroebe, 2012 ;  Strube, 2005 ).

Social Loafing

Groups usually outperform individuals. A single student, working alone on a paper, will get less done in an hour than will four students working on a group project. One person playing a tug-of-war game against a group will lose. A crew of movers can pack up and transport your household belongings faster than you can by yourself. As the saying goes, “Many hands make light the work” ( Littlepage, 1991 ;  Steiner, 1972 ).

Groups, though, tend to be underachievers. Studies of social facilitation confirmed the positive motivational benefits of working with other people on well-practiced tasks in which each member’s contribution to the collective enterprise can be identified and evaluated. But what happens when tasks require a truly collective effort? First, when people work together they must coordinate their individual activities and contributions to reach the maximum level of efficiency—but they rarely do ( Diehl & Stroebe, 1987 ). Three people in a tug-of-war competition, for example, invariably pull and pause at slightly different times, so their efforts are uncoordinated. The result is coordination loss: the three-person group is stronger than a single person, but not three times as strong. Second, people just don’t exert as much effort when working on a collective endeavor, nor do they expend as much cognitive effort trying to solve problems, as they do when working alone. They display  social loafing  ( Latané, 1981 ).

Bibb Latané, Kip Williams, and Stephen Harkins ( 1979 ) examined both coordination losses and social loafing by arranging for students to cheer or clap either alone or in groups of varying sizes. The students cheered alone or in 2- or 6-person groups, or they were lead to believe they were in 2- or 6-person groups (those in the “pseudo-groups” wore blindfolds and headsets that played masking sound). As Figure 2 indicates, groups generated more noise than solitary subjects, but the productivity dropped as the groups became larger in size. In dyads, each subject worked at only 66% of capacity, and in 6-person groups at 36%. Productivity also dropped when subjects merely believed they were in groups. If subjects thought that one other person was shouting with them, they shouted 82% as intensely, and if they thought five other people were shouting, they reached only 74% of their capacity. These loses in productivity were not due to coordination problems; this decline in production could be attributed only to a reduction in effort—to social loafing (Latané et al., 1979, Experiment 2).

Teamwork

Social loafing can be a problem. One way to overcome it is by recognizing that each group member has an important part to play in the success of the group.

Social loafing is no rare phenomenon. When sales personnel work in groups with shared goals, they tend to “take it easy” if another salesperson is nearby who can do their work ( George, 1992 ). People who are trying to generate new, creative ideas in group brainstorming sessions usually put in less effort and are thus less productive than people who are generating new ideas individually ( Paulus & Brown, 2007 ). Students assigned group projects often complain of inequity in the quality and quantity of each member’s contributions: Some people just don’t work as much as they should to help the group reach its learning goals ( Neu, 2012 ). People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental tasks expend less effort when working in groups, and the larger the group, the more they loaf ( Karau & Williams, 1993 ).

Groups can, however, overcome this impediment to performance through teamwork . A group may include many talented individuals, but they must learn how to pool their individual abilities and energies to maximize the team’s performance. Team goals must be set, work patterns structured, and a sense of group identity developed. Individual members must learn how to coordinate their actions, and any strains and stresses in interpersonal relations need to be identified and resolved ( Salas, Rosen, Burke, & Goodwin, 2009 ).

Researchers have identified two key ingredients to effective teamwork: a shared mental representation of the task and group unity. Teams improve their performance over time as they develop a shared understanding of the team and the tasks they are attempting. Some semblance of this  shared mental model  is present nearly from its inception, but as the team practices, differences among the members in terms of their understanding of their situation and their team diminish as a consensus becomes implicitly accepted ( Tindale, Stawiski, & Jacobs, 2008 ).

Effective teams are also, in most cases, cohesive groups ( Dion, 2000 ).  Group cohesion  is the integrity, solidarity, social integration, or unity of a group. In most cases, members of cohesive groups like each other and the group and they also are united in their pursuit of collective, group-level goals. Members tend to enjoy their groups more when they are cohesive, and cohesive groups usually outperform ones that lack cohesion.

This cohesion-performance relationship, however, is a complex one. Meta-analytic studies suggest that cohesion improves teamwork among members, but that performance quality influences cohesion more than cohesion influences performance ( Mullen & Copper, 1994 ;  Mullen, Driskell, & Salas, 1998 ; see Figure 3). Cohesive groups also can be spectacularly unproductive if the group’s norms stress low productivity rather than high productivity ( Seashore, 1954 ).

Figure 3: The relationship between group cohesion and performance over time. Groups that are cohesive do tend to perform well on tasks now (Time1) and in the future (Time 2). Notice, though, that the relationship between Performance at Time 1 and Cohesiveness at Time 2 is greater (r=.51) than the relationship between Cohesion at Time 1 and Performance at Time 2 (r=.25). These findings suggest that cohesion improves performance, but that a group that performs well is likely to also become more cohesive. Mullen, Driskell, & Salas (1998)

Group Development

In most cases groups do not become smooth-functioning teams overnight. As Bruce Tuckman’s ( 1965 ) theory of group development suggests, groups usually pass through several stages of development as they change from a newly formed group into an effective team. As noted in Table 1, in the forming phase, the members become oriented toward one another. In the storming phase, the group members find themselves in conflict, and some solution is sought to improve the group environment. In the norming, phase standards for behavior and roles develop that regulate behavior. In the performing, phase the group has reached a point where it can work as a unit to achieve desired goals, and the adjourning phase ends the sequence of development; the group disbands. Throughout these stages groups tend to oscillate between the task-oriented issues and the relationship issues, with members sometimes working hard but at other times strengthening their interpersonal bonds ( Tuckman & Jensen, 1977 ).

Making Decisions in Groups

Groups are particularly useful when it comes to making a decision, for groups can draw on more resources than can a lone individual. A single individual may know a great deal about a problem and possible solutions, but his or her information is far surpassed by the combined knowledge of a group. Groups not only generate more ideas and possible solutions by discussing the problem, but they can also more objectively evaluate the options that they generate during discussion. Before accepting a solution, a group may require that a certain number of people favor it, or that it meets some other standard of acceptability. People generally feel that a group’s decision will be superior to an individual’s decision.

Groups, however, do not always make good decisions. Juries sometimes render verdicts that run counter to the evidence presented. Community groups take radical stances on issues before thinking through all the ramifications. Military strategists concoct plans that seem, in retrospect, ill-conceived and short-sighted. Why do groups sometimes make poor decisions?

Group Polarization

Let’s say you are part of a group assigned to make a presentation. One of the group members suggests showing a short video that, although amusing, includes some provocative images. Even though initially you think the clip is inappropriate, you begin to change your mind as the group discusses the idea. The group decides, eventually, to throw caution to the wind and show the clip—and your instructor is horrified by your choice.

This hypothetical example is consistent with studies of groups making decisions that involve risk. Common sense notions suggest that groups exert a moderating, subduing effect on their members. However, when researchers looked at groups closely, they discovered many groups shift toward more extreme decisions rather than less extreme decisions after group interaction. Discussion, it turns out, doesn’t moderate people’s judgments after all. Instead, it leads to  group polarization : judgments made after group discussion will be more extreme in the same direction as the average of individual judgments made prior to discussion ( Myers & Lamm, 1976 ). If a majority of members feel that taking risks is more acceptable than exercising caution, then the group will become riskier after a discussion. For example, in France, where people generally like their government but dislike Americans, group discussion improved their attitude toward their government but exacerbated their negative opinions of Americans ( Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969 ). Similarly, prejudiced people who discussed racial issues with other prejudiced individuals became even more negative, but those who were relatively unprejudiced exhibited even more acceptance of diversity when in groups ( Myers & Bishop, 1970 ).

Common Knowledge Effect

One of the advantages of making decisions in groups is the group’s greater access to information. When seeking a solution to a problem, group members can put their ideas on the table and share their knowledge and judgments with each other through discussions. But all too often groups spend much of their discussion time examining common knowledge—information that two or more group members know in common—rather than unshared information. This  common knowledge effect  will result in a bad outcome if something known by only one or two group members is very important.

Researchers have studied this bias using the hidden profile task. On such tasks, information known to many of the group members suggests that one alternative, say Option A, is best. However, Option B is definitely the better choice, but all the facts that support Option B are only known to individual groups members—they are not common knowledge in the group. As a result, the group will likely spend most of its time reviewing the factors that favor Option A, and never discover any of its drawbacks. In consequence, groups often perform poorly when working on problems with nonobvious solutions that can only be identified by extensive information sharing ( Stasser & Titus, 1987 ).

Groupthink

Groupthink helps us blend in and feel accepted and validated but it can also lead to problems. [Image: Anne Santos]

Groups sometimes make spectacularly bad decisions. In 1961, a special advisory committee to President John F. Kennedy planned and implemented a covert invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs that ended in total disaster. In 1986, NASA carefully, and incorrectly, decided to launch the Challenger space shuttle in temperatures that were too cold.

Irving Janis ( 1982 ), intrigued by these kinds of blundering groups, carried out a number of case studies of such groups: the military experts that planned the defense of Pearl Harbor; Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs planning group; the presidential team that escalated the war in Vietnam. Each group, he concluded, fell prey to a distorted style of thinking that rendered the group members incapable of making a rational decision. Janis labeled this syndrome  groupthink : “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (p. 9).

Janis identified both the telltale symptoms that signal the group is experiencing groupthink and the interpersonal factors that combine to cause groupthink. To Janis, groupthink is a disease that infects healthy groups, rendering them inefficient and unproductive. And like the physician who searches for symptoms that distinguish one disease from another, Janis identified a number of symptoms that should serve to warn members that they may be falling prey to groupthink. These symptoms include overestimating the group’s skills and wisdom, biased perceptions and evaluations of other groups and people who are outside of the group, strong conformity pressures within the group, and poor decision-making methods.

Janis also singled out four group-level factors that combine to cause groupthink: cohesion, isolation, biased leadership, and decisional stress.

· Cohesion: Groupthink only occurs in cohesive groups. Such groups have many advantages over groups that lack unity. People enjoy their membership much more in cohesive groups, they are less likely to abandon the group, and they work harder in pursuit of the group’s goals. But extreme cohesiveness can be dangerous. When cohesiveness intensifies, members become more likely to accept the goals, decisions, and norms of the group without reservation. Conformity pressures also rise as members become reluctant to say or do anything that goes against the grain of the group, and the number of internal disagreements—necessary for good decision making—decreases.

· Isolation. Groupthink groups too often work behind closed doors, keeping out of the limelight. They isolate themselves from outsiders and refuse to modify their beliefs to bring them into line with society’s beliefs. They avoid leaks by maintaining strict confidentiality and working only with people who are members of their group.

· Biased leadership. A biased leader who exerts too much authority over group members can increase conformity pressures and railroad decisions. In groupthink groups, the leader determines the agenda for each meeting, sets limits on discussion, and can even decide who will be heard.

· Decisional stress. Groupthink becomes more likely when the group is stressed, particularly by time pressures. When groups are stressed they minimize their discomfort by quickly choosing a plan of action with little argument or dissension. Then, through collective discussion, the group members can rationalize their choice by exaggerating the positive consequences, minimizing the possibility of negative outcomes, concentrating on minor details, and overlooking larger issues.

Roles and Small Group Communication

A role is a pattern of behavior expected of a group member.

Formal or designated roles — positions or titles given to a person by the group or larger organization.

Informal or emergent roles— a person in the group begins to assume behaviors expected of the group without being given a specific title.

Three types of roles: 1. Task

2. Maintenance roles

3. Disruptive or individual agenda roles

Examples of Task Roles

1. Leader – helps the group define and achieve goals.

2. Initiator – contributor: Offers ideas and suggestions.

3. Opinion seeker — requests info

4. Information giver

5. Secretary – recorder

6. Devil’s advocate – prevents “group think”

Examples of Maintenance roles

1. Supporter – encourager — provides emotional warmth, praise and acceptance

2. Harmonizer – tension reliever — promotes group peace, uses humor, reconciles conflict

3. Gatekeeper — controls channels of communication and flow of information using openness and supportiveness

4. Feeling expresser — monitors feelings and moods of the group and gives feedback.

Examples of Disruptive Roles

1. Stagehog — recognition seeker

2. Isolate –– withdraws from the group

3. Clown (Playboy/playgirl) — horseplay, practical jokes, comic routines that goes beyond tension reliever.

4. Blocker – opposes everything new.

5. Fighter — starts arguments, bullying.

6. Cynic — displays sour outlook, destroys morale.

The Role of Gender in Small Group Communication

Male speech and communication patterns

Female speech and communication patterns

Men seldom make apologies

“I’m sorry” is the way for the other person to save face

No praise if a job is done correctly. Men will frequently miss indirect criticism that women imply with a complement: “Well the idea was good.” “Everything is so organized.” “What a consistent pattern you followed all the way through.”

Use praise and complements. Feel ignored if they don’t get compliments.

Don’t complain about problems in a relationship

Complain about relational problems to show they are equal.

Listen by moving about and making sporadic eye contact with the speaker. Men think that women are manipulative if they nod in agreement all the time.

Listen by standing still, making eye contact, giving positive feedback. Women think of men as rude if men don’t give full attention to them.

Men will usually interrupt when there is a pause in the conversation. Women tend to interrupt anytime. Men think this is pushy

Women interrupt without a pause as a signal of cohesiveness. They think of men as trying to control the conversation.

Men use anecdotes and banter as humor

Women mock themselves and use self-deprecating humor

Men tend to disclose impersonal topics

Women tend to disclose personal topics.

Men take up more space in sitting and standing.

Women take up less space.

Men have a narrower peripheral vision

Women have a wider peripheral vision

Men plagiarize ideas of others in meetings. They think of this as being part of a team. In a meeting, men may mouth the ideas of others as their own.

Women must always give credit to the originator of the idea. If this does not happen, women will tend to think of the speaker as unfair, and an idea stealer.

Men see themselves as actors

Women see themselves as spectators

Men are evaluated less negatively if they compete

Women are evaluated more negatively if they compete

Men are more accommodating when they conflict with women.

Women are more flexible ion strategies in solving a conflict regardless of whom they are talking to.

The less androgynous the man, the less pressure he has to conform.

The more androgynous, the woman, the more she is pressured to conform.

Solution strategies are based on the ‘rules’ of the context.

Solution strategies are based on personal relationships.

Self-servers of both genders

Exaggerate their own cooperativeness

Exaggerate the competitiveness of others