This research examined the ways in which superior teammate performance in recently formed teams affects an individual’s motivation. It was hypoth- esized that members of recently formed teams for whom social identity was not yet salient would experience threat, a maladaptive physiological pattern that indicates low perceptions of coping resources relative to situational demands. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that this effect would be the greatest for individuals on recently formed teams who had briefly interacted with teammates but still lacked a strong social identity, relative to those who have not interacted with teammates at all. Fifty-three participants were each paired with 2 confederates to form 53 triads. Depending on the condition, participants and confederates either competed as a team on a mental task (minimal team condition), completed a team-building exercise prior to com- peting as a team on a mental task (team condition), or competed as individu- als against each other (individual/coaction baseline condition) on a mental task. The results revealed that participants who worked on a team with superior performers were threatened. Interestingly, participants who had

Articles

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

4 Small Group Research 42(1)

the opportunity to bond with their teammates prior to working together were even more threatened by superior performers. Results are discussed in terms of psychological closeness and social comparison theory.

Keywords

minimal group, social comparison, team, motivation, challenge, threat, cardiovascular reactivity, psychological closeness

I’ll never forget the night that Elgin Baylor and I combined for 73 points in the Garden. Elgin had 71 and I had 2.

Hot Rod Hundley, former professional basketball player

Superior teammate performance rarely goes unnoticed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that individual team members are attentive to superior performing teammates relative to their own performance, and also prefer competing with teammates who are better performers than they are. Indeed, a large body of social identity research suggests that individuals prefer to be associated with winners and high status groups because self-esteem is closely tied to group memberships (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Cialdini & DeNicholas, 1989; Cialdini, et al., 1976; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Given this evidence, it would seem that having a superior teammate is a good thing. However, this is not invariably the case. This research presents evidence of negative conse- quences of superior teammates on recently formed teams, particularly as they relate to individual perceptions of coping resources and situational demands during a competitive situation. The authors use two theoretical frame- works—social comparison and psychological closeness—to understand how being on a recently formed team with superior performers can lead to negative consequences.

Teams Since teams comprise a special type of group, it is useful to distinguish the two concepts. Salas, Dickinson, Converse, and Tannenbaum (1992) state that a team is a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact dynami- cally, interdependently, and adaptively toward a common and valued goal, who have each been assigned specific roles or functions to perform, and who have a limited lifespan of membership. Adair (2004) adds that characteristics of teams include definable membership, which is sometimes given a name,

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 5

members who consciously identify with each other, members who share a sense of purpose within the team to achieve a common task, members who rely on each other to be able to complete the common task, members who communicate, influence, and interact with one another in the process of working toward the common task, and members who act in unity, almost like a single organism. Reilly and Jones (1974) specify the four essential elements that differentiate a team from a group. One, group members must have shared goals or a reason for working together. Two, group members must be inter- dependent; that is, they must perceive that they need one another’s experience, ability, and commitment to arrive at mutual goals. Three, group members must be committed to the idea that working together leads to more effective decisions/performance than working in isolation. Four, the group must be accountable as a functioning unit within a larger organizational context.

The predictions made in the present research are informed by group theory (e.g., Levine & Moreland, 1998). This seems appropriate as teams fall within the broader category of groups. However, since a team is a particular type of group, the methodology presented in this research seeks to incorporate the aforementioned definitional distinctions that differentiate groups and teams.

Social Identity Versus Social Comparison When teams have a strong, salient social identity, superior teammates should enhance perceptions of personal resources (e.g., knowledge, skills, and abili- ties; Blascovich, 2008) and decrease perceptions of situational demands (e.g., danger, uncertainty, task difficulty, and required effort; Blascovich, 2008) during a competitive situation. When social identity processes are engaged (when one’s identity as a group member is more salient than one’s identity as an individual), superior teammate performance can lead to higher self- evaluations because one is including group resources in his or her calculation of perceived personal resources (Gardner, Gabriel, & Hochschild, 2002, gender groups of two to six on a social perceptiveness task; Brown, Novick, Lord, & Richards, 1992, psychologically close dyads on a self-evaluation task; Brewer & Weber, 1994, in-group dyads on a self-evaluation task).

However, not all teams involve even moderate levels of social identity. In particular, members of recently formed teams may not have experienced the depersonalization processes that necessarily precede social identity salience. Recently formed teams are common in society; examples of such teams are pickup sports teams and work/school project teams involving individuals who have had little or no contact with each other prior to the start of team performance situation. In addition, team performance contexts that lack

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

6 Small Group Research 42(1)

strong intergroup competition cues (e.g., immediate presence of competitors, competition goals, team differentiation, etc.) may also elicit low or nonexis- tent levels of social identity (Brewer, 1979; Turner, 1985). Members of recently formed teams who have not yet had the opportunity to acquire a strong sense of social identity will experience salient individual identity rather than social identity. As such, it is unlikely that social identity pro- cesses will significantly affect individual perceptions of personal resources. Rather, it is likely that social comparison processes, as opposed to social identity processes, will prevail and that superior teammate performance will lead to decreased, rather than increased perceptions of coping resources dur- ing a competitive situation.

Research concerning social comparison suggests that, on recently formed teams, superior teammate performance can affect perceptions of individual coping resources and situational demands via social comparison processes. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954; Stapel & Blanton, 2004; Suls & Wheeler, 2000) states that humans are motivated to evaluate their own abili- ties and that they often do this by comparing themselves to relevant others. This most often occurs when another’s performance is relevant to one’s self- definition and is not so superior or inferior that comparisons are rendered difficult or meaningless. As a common illustration, a female amateur tennis player is unlikely to compare herself to a male professional tennis player, whose game is vastly superior, because the comparison would be relatively uninformative (Stapel & Blanton, 2004). Rather, she would compare herself to a more comparable target, such as a slightly superior female amateur tennis player. Indeed research on social comparison theory shows that individuals avoid comparing themselves with dissimilar others (e.g., Festinger, 1954). However, individuals tend to compare themselves to similar others. To this end, individuals can engage in downward social comparisons (comparisons with an inferior target) or upward social comparisons (comparisons with a superior target). Social comparison theory postulates that downward social comparisons elicit higher self-evaluations and upward social comparisons elicit lower self-evaluations. Indeed, the contrast and assimilation effects lit- erature has demonstrated that individuals tend to contrast their evaluations away from superior targets, resulting in lower self-evaluations (e.g., Moskowitz & Skurnik, 1999; Pelham & Wachsmuth, 1995). Within the context of group processes, the frog pond effect (Davis, 1966; Marsh, Kong, & Hau, 2000; Marsh & Parker, 1984, large groups of students from same school on academic achievement tasks) proposes that the relative success of members of an indi- vidual’s group causes the individual to compare herself to other members in the group. This comparison process leads to lower or higher self-evaluation

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 7

and negative and positive affect, respectively, as a function of other members’ outperformance or underperformance of the individual (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993; Brown et al., 1992; Gardner et al., 2002; Morse & Gergen, 1970.

In addition, research on upward social comparisons and physiological responses indicates that individuals who were paired with a superior performer on a cooperative task experience a maladaptive physiological response (Mendes, Blascovich, Major, & Seery, 2001) associated with low perceptions of coping resources relative to situational demands. The authors reasoned that upward social comparisons led to a maladaptive physiological response because they increased individuals’ perceptions of danger and required effort while highlighting individuals’ lack of knowledge, skills, and abilities. Mendes et al. (2001) argued that danger is more likely to be present during upward social comparison situations, thus eliciting threat. This is said to occur because one is forced to compare oneself to a superior other and this poses a threat to self-esteem. Furthermore, upward social comparisons explicitly con- vey that higher performance levels can be met, and that one is not achieving those levels. As a result, the task is likely to be evaluated as requiring more effort. This effectively increases perceptions of situational demands. Indeed, research on the Køhler motivation gain effect (Hertel, Kerr, & Messé, 2000; Kerr et al., 2007), the finding that individuals perform demanding physical tasks better when working in a group, relative to working alone, has shown that upward social comparisons often lead to increased effort. Mendes et al. (2001) also posited that upward social comparisons led to decreased evalua- tions of skills, knowledge, and abilities because these comparisons highlighted participant’s relative lack of skills, knowledge, and abilities. As the result of upward social comparison, increases in perceived danger and uncertainty and decreases in perceived skills, knowledge, and abilities led to higher demand evaluations, lower resource evaluations, and ultimately, a maladaptive pattern of less efficient cardiovascular performance (Mendes, Major, McCoy, & Blascovich, 2008).

Furthermore, social comparison processes among group members appear to be pervasive. Gilbert, Giesler, and Morris (1995) found social comparison processes to be so instinctive that individuals disregarded diagnostic infor- mation when engaging in comparison processes. Not until after the compari- son had been made did individuals consider whether the person with whom they had compared themselves was an appropriate target. In addition, Zell and Alicke (2009) have shown that social comparisons are often contextual- ized. Even when intergroup comparison information is available, individuals often rely on intragroup comparison information because it is local and immediate. This research, when applied to group processes on recently formed

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

8 Small Group Research 42(1)

teams, suggests that superior teammate performance should negatively affect perceptions of coping resources and situational demands, particularly when intragroup, rather than intergroup, processes are dominant.

Psychological Closeness The self-evaluation maintenance model (SEM; Tesser, 1988, 2000) builds on social comparison theory by adding that psychological closeness (i.e., the extent to which individuals are similar in origin, age, background, looks, physical proximity, attitudes), performance, and relevance of another’s per- formance to one’s self-definition are factors that determine whether an individual will engage in social comparison processes. The same three fac- tors also determine the result of those social comparison processes. If all three factors are high, one will engage in a comparison process that results in lower self-evaluation. In support of this idea, Pickett and colleagues have demonstrated that spontaneous social comparisons, those that are automatic and implicit, occur most frequently among members of cohesive and psy- chologically close groups (Pickett, 2001; Pickett & Perrott, 2004). In this manner, superior teammate performance may lead to lower perceptions of personal resources, particularly if teammates are psychologically close but social identity processes are not yet engaged.

There are several reasons why psychological closeness can enhance the effect of upward social comparisons on perceptions of coping resources and situational demands during competitive situations. One is that competing on a team with closer others leads to greater evaluation concerns. This may espe- cially be true when a measure of psychological closeness has been achieved but social identity is not yet salient. This idea is consistent with research con- cerning performance situations and social support. For example, Allen, Blascovich, and Mendes (2002) found that those who performed tasks in the presence of a supportive friend or spouse showed increases in heart rate and blood pressure levels relative to those who performed tasks in the presence of a pet. The authors suggest that this is due to the fact that human social sup- port, no matter how positive, contains an evaluative element. In addition, the paradoxical performance effects literature (Baumeister, 1984, Baumeister & Steinhilber, 1984; Lewis & Linder, 1997) posits that social support can lead to more situational demands and performance deficits. In particular, Baumeister’s self-focus theory (1984) argues that factors that are associated with receiving social support (e.g., audience pressure, ego relevance, compe- tition, punishment, and reward contingency) often increase performance

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 9

pressure, self-attention, and self-presentational concerns. These factors can lead to decreased resource evaluations and increased demand evaluations.

Another reason why upward social comparisons among psychologically close teammates might lead to threat is because interpersonal comparisons with close others are more meaningful and therefore more threatening when they turn out to be negative. Gerrard, Gibbons, Lane, and Stock (2005) found that group members who reported higher levels of psychological closeness to other group members were more affected by intragroup social comparisons. Taken together, this research suggests that social comparison processes will exert more influence within teams that have had ample opportunity for social interaction and have achieved a measure of psychological closeness.

Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat In the current research, we used physiological measures to investigate the impact of superior teammate performance on perceived coping resources and situational demands in a recently formed team situation (Blascovich, 2008; Blascovich & Mendes, 2000; Blascovich, Mendes, Tomaka, Salomon, & Seery, 2003; Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996). In this investigation, physiologi- cal measures have several advantages over self-report measures. Specifically, they are continuous, covert, and online (Blascovich, 2008). These qualities allow researchers to monitor changes indexed by physiological responses during behavioral episodes such as team performance situations. Furthermore, the use of measures that are less likely to be consciously controlled reduces investigators’ concerns for demand characteristics and self-presentational issues that can be evoked when one’s skills and abilities are in question. In this manner, physiological measures can provide less contaminated assess- ments of the impact of superior teammate performance on perceived ability to succeed (Blascovich, 2008). In addition, these measures can provide assessments during a team performance situation, thus reducing effects of reappraisal and discounting (Blascovich, 2008). Of course, one must use a biopsychosocial model that has established a valid relationship between the physiological measures used and the construct of interest. We believe that the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat and its associated cardio- vascular markers provide a valid context to investigate the impact of superior teammate performance on perceived resources.

The biopsychosocial model of challenge/threat posits that challenge and threat represent anchors on a bipolar motivational dimension that involves affective and cognitive, conscious and nonconscious processes. Challenge and threat have typically been investigated in motivated performance

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

10 Small Group Research 42(1)

situations—situations that are goal-relevant, require active coping, and require that one act instrumentally to achieve a self-relevant objective. Taking an exam, playing a game, and giving a speech are examples of motivated performance situations.

Blascovich and colleagues (e.g., Blascovich, 2008; Blascovich & Mendes, 2000; Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996) maintain that challenge/threat motivation arises when a task is self- or goal-relevant and, hence, engaging or task involv- ing. An individual who lacks a goal or does not care much about the task is not motivated and, hence, is neither challenged nor threatened. Goals can be self- relevant for a variety of reasons and individuals can experience both tangible and intangible consequences for reaching or failing to reach the goal.

Given task engagement, the extent to which an individual experiences challenge or threat is determined by the relative balance of the individual’s evaluation of his or her coping resources and the evaluation of situational demands. Factors that influence these evaluations include the following: skills, knowledge, and abilities; dispositions; external support; danger; uncer- tainty; required effort. Evaluations of resources and demands can be influ- enced by factors outside of conscious awareness. Individuals are challenged when their evaluated resources outweigh their evaluated demands of the situ- ation. Individuals are threatened when their evaluation of the demands of the situation outweigh their evaluation of the resources. Essentially, individuals are challenged when they are subjectively prepared to cope with the situation and perceive that they can succeed and threatened when they are subjectively ill prepared to cope with the situation and perceive that they cannot succeed. Challenge and threat represent opposite ends of a continuum, such that rela- tive differences in challenge and threat (e.g., greater vs. lesser challenge) are meaningful.

Blascovich and his colleagues have demonstrated that distinctive patterns of cardiovascular responses that are sensitive to sympathetic adrenal medul- lary (SAM) and pituitary adrenal cortical (PAC) axes activation index chal- lenge and threat. Three physiological recording techniques are used in their assessment: electrocardiography, which measures electrical signals associ- ated with the actions of the heart muscle; impedance cardiography, which measures blood flow in the thoracic cavity; and blood pressure measure- ment. By utilizing these techniques, one can measure or calculate four cardio- vascular measures that identify task engagement and differentiate challenge from threat: heart rate (HR), expressed in beats per minute; ventricular con- tractility (VC), a chronotropic index of the left ventricle’s contractile force; cardiac output (CO), the amount of blood pumped by the heart in liters per minute; and total peripheral resistance (TPR), an index of net constriction

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 11

versus dilation in the vascular system. Ventricular contractility is calculated by multiplying changes in the duration of preejection period by –1; preejec- tion period denotes the time in milliseconds in the cardiac cycle from the beginning of the ventricular depolarization to the opening of the aortic valve and initial ejection of blood. A larger VC value indicates greater contractil- ity. TPR is derived by multiplying mean arterial pressure by cardiac output and multiplying the total by 80 (Sherwood et al., 1990). It is expressed in dyne/s/cm-5. For all four measures, reactivity scores are calculated by sub- tracting baseline resting levels from levels exhibited during a motivated per- formance situation.

Task engagement is indexed by increases in HR and VC from baseline to task such that larger increases indicate greater task engagement. Individuals who are challenged exhibit increases in CO and decreases in TPR, whereas individuals who are threatened exhibit little change in CO and little change or even increases in TPR. As such, relatively higher CO and lower TPR indicate relatively greater challenge or lesser threat.

These cardiovascular changes are the result of differential activation of the SAM and PAC axes. Both challenged and threatened individuals exhibit heightened SAM activation and experience an increase in HR and VC. However, threatened individuals also exhibit heightened PAC activation which inhibits vasodilation and, hence, the CO increase and TPR decrease— mediated by the release of epinephrine—that would otherwise occur.

Following Dienstbier (1989), the SAM activation that occurs during challenge is adaptive for a situation in which coping resources meet or exceed demands. This is evidenced by the fact that the relatively short half- life of epinephrine (approximately 2 min) released by the adrenal medulla results in relatively short-lived bursts of energy. These short-lived bursts of energy are fueled by energy reserves and are well suited for expectations of successful and presumably short-lived coping. The challenge response functions to increase blood flow (greater CO), to skeletal muscles and dilate arteries to accommodate the increased blood flow (lower TPR), which pre- pares the body for potential activity. The accompanying PAC activation that occurs during threat is appropriate for a situation in which demands exceed coping resources. This is evidenced by the fact that the relatively long half- life of cortisol (approximately 1 hr) results in relatively long-lived bursts of energy. These long-lived bursts of energy are fueled by energy reserves and are well suited for expectations of an extended struggle. The threat response results in constriction of arteries (higher TPR), which is characteristic of a vigilance response (Hunter, 2001) and is also well suited for an extended struggle.

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

12 Small Group Research 42(1)

The cardiovascular indexes of challenge and threat have been used to examine the role of challenge and/or threat motivational processes in many studies (for reviews, see Blascovich, 2008; Blascovich & Mendes, 2000; Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996). Recently, for example, individuals who have stable high self-esteem have shown an increase in perceived ability to succeed (e.g., challenge) after receiving negative feedback. However, individuals with unstable high self-esteem have shown a decrease in perceived ability to succeed (e.g., threat) after receiving negative feedback (Seery, Blascovich, Weisbuch, & Vick, 2004).

The BPS model has not been used in the context of social comparison in groups, but it has been applied to social comparison among dyads. As men- tioned earlier, Mendes et al. (2001) reported that individuals who were paired with a superior performer on a cooperative task experienced physio- logical threat.

Superior Teammate Performance, Social Comparison, and Threat on Recently Formed Teams

Taken together, the BPS model and social comparison theory suggest that individuals who work with superior teammates on recently formed teams for whom social identity is not salient will engage in upward social comparison processes that lead to decreased perceived ability to succeed as indexed physiological threat. However, research on the SEM model suggests that psychological closeness may intensify the experience of threat. As such, it is logical to infer that individuals who work with superior teammates after com- pleting a team-building exercise will experience significantly greater threat.

As mentioned earlier, Mendes et al. (2001) reported that individuals who were paired with a superior performer on a cooperative task were threatened. Like the current research, this study measured the effect of superior perfor- mance on resource and demand evaluations when intragroup, rather than intergroup, processes were most salient. However, this study does not address the effects of superior teammate performance on resource and demands eval- uations during group performance situations. Furthermore, it does not inves- tigate the possible effect of psychological closeness on resource and demand evaluations in social comparison situations. Scheepers (2009) has applied the BPS model to group situations and has shown that group processes can elicit the threat response. This research provides evidence that, given social identity salience, high status group members are threatened when they fear that they

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 13

will lose their status and low status group members are threatened when they fear that they cannot increase their status. This study demonstrates the utility of the BPS model during group situations, but does not address whether such threat responses can occur among members of recently formed teams for whom social identity is not salient. As such, whether superior teammate per- formance affects perceptions of coping resources and situational demands on recently formed teams that have not yet formed a strong social identity remains an empirical question. The current research seeks to answer this question.

Method Study Overview and Hypotheses

The goal of the research paradigm was to create a team situation that emulated competitive situations that are typical of recently formed teams. To that end, the paradigm was designed to achieve two things: (a) to create a team situa- tion that lacked social identity salience and (b) to create a team situation that included the critical factors that distinguish teams from groups. To create a team situation that lacked social identity salience, we used one-time, lab- based teams that were composed of 1 participant and 2 confederates. The participant met the confederates for the first time at the start of the 45-min study. This process was designed to emulate pickup sports teams and other recently formed teams who have had little or no interaction prior to the com- petitive situation. In addition, we decreased the likelihood of social identity salience by minimizing intergroup competition. Teams did not engage in face-to-face intergroup competitions and they did not receive performance information about competing teams. As mentioned earlier, research shows that team performance contexts that lack strong intergroup competition cues may also elicit low or nonexistent levels of social identity (Brewer, 1979; Turner, 1985). To create a team situation that included the critical factors that distinguish teams from groups, we used an interdependent team task, offered teams a monetary incentive for achieving performance goals, and reminded teams that they existed within a larger organizational framework of teams. By creating this unique team situation, we were able to test our hypotheses.

Three group conditions were examined in a between-subjects factorial design: An individual (coaction baseline) condition, in which 3 individuals (1 participant and 2 same-gender confederates) competed against each other; a minimal team condition, in which 3 individuals (1 participant and 2 same- gender confederates) competed as a team against other teams; and a team condition in which 3 individuals (1 participant and 2 same-gender

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

14 Small Group Research 42(1)

confederates) completed a noncompetitive team-building activity prior to competing as a team against other teams. Participants in all three conditions were paired with 2 superior confederates who posed as teammates or com- petitors, depending on the condition. The confederates performed twice as well as the participant.

It was hypothesized that participants in both the individual and minimal team conditions would be moderately threatened (i.e., low perceived coping resources relative to situational demands). This prediction stems from the fact that social identity processes will not be salient for those who are recently paired with superior teammates or competitors with whom they have had little or no interaction. As such, participants in these two conditions will engage in upward social comparison processes that result in lower perceived resources and higher perceived demands. However, it was hypothesized that those in the team condition would be significantly more threatened (i.e., even lower perceived coping resources relative to situational demands) because even though they compose a recently formed team and have not yet experi- enced social identity, they will have experienced the social interaction neces- sary to achieve sufficient psychological closeness, thus raising the stakes. In this case, the participants’ upward social comparisons should have a greater negative effect on perceived individual resources resulting in greater threat. All predictions assume that social identity will not be a significant factor, given that these are recently formed teams and the intragroup, rather than intergroup context, is most salient.

Participants Fifty-three (32 women, 21 men) undergraduates at a large public university participated in the study for course credit.1 All participants were European American and the mean age was 19.8 years (SD = 0.9 years). Ten confeder- ates (6 women, 4 men) posed as real participants, taking part in all aspects of the study. All confederates were European American and the mean age was 20.7 years (SD = 0.6 years). Participants and confederates were matched on gender and approximate age to reduce variability that was not germane to the hypotheses.

Laboratory Setting The study took place in a social psychophysiology laboratory that consists of a control room and a recording suite. The control room contained physiolog- ical equipment, video monitors, and recorders connected to two cameras in

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 15

each experimental room, and an audio tape player and intercom system connected to speakers in the experimental rooms. The recording suite is divided into a preparation room and a recording room. In the preparation room, participants completed forms and an experimenter applied sensors to participants. The data collection occurred in the acoustically and environmen- tally controlled recording room that measured approximately 3.0 × 3.5 m and contained physiological, audiovisual, and computer equipment. Participants received additional instructions and interacted with the experimenter through an intercom. Participants sat upright in a comfortable chair throughout the experiment.

Measures Physiological measures. Cardiovascular measures were recorded noninva-

sively, following commonly accepted guidelines (Sherwood et al., 1990) and utilizing a Minnesota Impedance Cardiograph (Model 304B) and a Cortronics (Model 7000) continuously inflated blood pressure monitor. Signals were conditioned using Coulbourn amplifiers (Models S75-11 and S79-02, Coul- bourn Instruments, Allentown, PA) and were stored on a desktop computer.

Impedance cardiograph (ZKG) and electrocardiograph (EKG) recording provided continuous measures of cardiac performance. The ZKG utilized a tetrapolar aluminum/mylar tape electrode system to record basal transthoracic impedance (Z0) and the first derivative of basal impedance (dZ/dt). Two pairs of band electrodes completely encircled the participants’ bodies. Two inner electrodes were placed at the base of the neck and at the xiphisternal junction (approximately midchest); the two outer electrodes were placed on the upper neck and abdomen, separated from the respective inner electrodes by a dis- tance of at least 3 cm. EKG signals were detected through the band electrodes. The Cortronics blood pressure monitor collected continuous noninvasive recordings of blood pressure from the brachial artery of participants’ non- dominant arm. In combination, ZKG and EKG recordings allow computation of HR, VC, and CO; the addition of blood pressure monitoring allows compu- tation of TPR. The recorded data were scored using an interactive MS-DOS software program (Kelsey & Guethlein, 1990); scoring was performed blind to condition.

Behavioral measures. An additive task (i.e., a group task in which perfor- mance depends on the sum of each individual’s effort) was chosen because it requires a high amount of team member interdependence, an important ele- ment that distinguishes teams from groups. During the experiment, the par- ticipant and the 2 confederates engaged in an anagram task in which scrambled

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

16 Small Group Research 42(1)

5-letter words were presented in succession on a computer monitor. The goal of the additive task was to solve the anagram with speed and accuracy. The participant and the confederates were seated in the same room and alternated solving the anagrams and saying them aloud such that the participant would solve one anagram and say it aloud, a confederate would solve the next and say it aloud, and another confederate would solve the next and say it aloud. All three individuals in the group continued alternating in this manner through- out the experimental task. During this task, we recorded participant responses, tracking the speed and accuracy of these responses.

Self-Report Ratings Participants completed two posttask questionnaires; the Twenty Statement Test (TST; Hartley, 1970) and the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985). The TST was administered as a method of generating spontaneous self-descriptions to determine whether team/group identity was salient. This questionnaire asked participants to com- plete the statement “I am . . . ” 20 times. The results of a Brewer and Gardner (1996) study suggests that the TST is an effective way of measuring the extent to which individual identity shifts to collective identity during the course of an experiment. We used the TST as a manipulation check, to collect evidence that individuals were not engaging in collective/social identity processes during the experiment. Previous researchers have used the GEQ to measure perceptions of psychological closeness (e.g., Carron et al., 1985). In the cur- rent research, the GEQ was modified to apply to all three group conditions in this study to measure psychological closeness.

Procedure Each participant and 2 confederates arrived and waited in the hallway outside the laboratory. The confederates ensured that no interaction took place in the hallway. An experimenter greeted the participant and the confederates, asked the participant to follow him or her into the preparation room and told the confederates that other experimenters would come and escort them to separate preparation rooms. Once inside the preparation room, the participant was given an information sheet to read describing the cardiovascular measurement procedures that they would experience during the study. The experimenter applied the physiological sensors to the participant and asked the participant to sit in one of the three chairs in the recording room. Next, the experimenter went to get the other 2 participants (the confederates) from their respective

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 17

preparation rooms. (The confederates had applied counterfeit sensors to themselves in the control room.) Once both confederates were seated in their chairs and ostensibly connected to the physiological recording monitors, all three individuals heard taped audio instructions that welcomed them to the lab and asked them to sit quietly for the next few minutes. During this time, 5 min of baseline cardiovascular data were recorded.

Individual condition. Next, the participant and the confederates heard audio- taped instructions that informed them that the purpose of the study was to examine people’s physiological responses during a lexical decision-making task. The participant and the confederates were told that they would be com- peting against each other in an anagram contest, that they must each take turns solving the anagrams, and that they would have up to 12 s to solve the anagram on the computer screen before they lost their turn and the screen automatically advanced to the next word. They were also told that each con- testant would have the opportunity to solve 15 anagrams and that individual scores would be based on accuracy and speed. Finally, to increase task engagement they were told that at the end of the academic term, all contes- tants’ scores (from the entire study) would be tallied and that US$100 would be ostensibly awarded to the individual who had the highest score.

Minimal team condition. Next, the participant and the confederates heard audio-taped instructions that informed them that the purpose of the study was to examine people’s physiological responses during a lexical decision- making task. The participant and the confederates were told that they would be competing as a team in an anagram contest against all other teams who participated in the study over the course of the academic term. They were told that they must each take turns solving the anagrams, and that they would have up to 12 s to solve the anagram on the computer screen before they lost their turn and the screen automatically advanced to the next word. They were also told that each member of the team would have the opportunity to solve 15 anagrams and that team scores would be based on accuracy and speed. Finally, to increase task engagement they were told that at the end of the aca- demic term, each team’s score would be tallied and that US$300 (to be distrib- uted equally to all three team members) would be ostensibly awarded to the team that had the highest score.

Team condition. Next, the participant and the confederates were told that they would be participating in two separate experiments during their time in the laboratory. During the first experiment, they received instructions inform- ing them that the researchers were interested in the interaction processes in which groups of individuals engage when they are asked to make important decisions in a relatively unfamiliar situation. Team-building interventions that

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

18 Small Group Research 42(1)

involve group problem solving enable the team to communicate and work together, thus fostering team cohesion (Levine & Moreland, 1998; Miller, 2004). To this end, teams were asked to imagine that they had survived a crash landing on the moon and needed to travel 200 km by foot to reach the other spaceship. Then they were given a list of 15 items and were asked to rank the items of importance, with 1 being the most crucial for their survival on the moon and 15 being least crucial for their survival on the moon. This task was designed to be nonevaluative and to provide an opportunity for the group members to interact with each other. The experimenter stressed to the partici- pants that the task was not a performance task and that their answers would not be evaluated or scored. Rather, the researchers were simply interested in seeing how the groups interact while working on a novel task. In addition, the confederates were instructed to interact and perform at the same level as the participant. For example, if the participant appeared to be adept and knowl- edgeable, they were to appear the same. If the participant appeared to be cautious and halting, they were to appear the same. Furthermore, the confed- erates made sure that each of the team members contributed equally to the task. The experimenter listened to the conversation via intercom to ensure that the confederates followed these instructions.

Once this 8-min task was completed, the participant and the confederates heard audio-taped instructions that informed them that the purpose of the sec- ond experiment was to examine people’s physiological responses during a lexical decision-making task. The participant and the confederates were told that they would be competing as a team in an anagram contest against all other teams who participated in the study over the course of the academic term. They were told that they must each take turns solving the anagrams, and that they would have up to 12 s to solve the anagram on the computer screen before they lost their turn and the screen automatically advanced to the next word. They were also told that each member of the team would have the opportunity to solve 15 anagrams and that team scores would be based on accuracy and speed. Finally, to increase task engagement they were told that at the end of the academic term, all teams’ scores would be tallied and that US$300 (to be distributed equally to all three team members) would be osten- sibly awarded to the team that had the highest score.

All conditions. After receiving instructions for the anagram task, the partici- pant and the confederates in each condition completed the contest. To manip- ulate superior teammate performance, the confederates solved each of their anagrams in half the time it took for the participant to solve his or her ana- grams. For example, if the participant solved the anagram in 4 s, then each confederate solved the following anagram in 2 s. Due to the fact that each

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 19

person was only given 12 s to complete each anagram, confederates were instructed to solve their anagrams in 6 s if the participant failed to solve his or her anagram at all. In this manner, confederate performance was moder- ately superior, rather than extremely superior to that of the participant, thus fulfilling the similarity requirement for social comparison that was men- tioned earlier in this article. On completion of the contest, the participant and the confederates were instructed to complete the posttask question- naires. However, to ensure privacy while completing the questionnaires, the confederates were ostensibly escorted into their respective preparation rooms. Once the participant completed the questionnaires, the experimenter removed all sensors from the participant and fully debriefed the participant.

Results Analytical Strategy

Initial analyses included manipulation checks of task engagement (HR and VC reactivity) during the anagram task. Next, multivariate analysis of vari- ance was used to test the effects of conditions and competitor/teammate per- formance and their interaction on the dependent variables.

Cardiovascular reactivity values were calculated by subtracting the base- line value—the last minute of the initial rest period—from the value obtained during the first minute of the anagram task. Values that were more than 3.3 SDs from the mean (p = .001 in a normal distribution) were classified as extreme and were winsorized by assigning them a value 1% higher than the closest nonextreme value (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). As a result, the influ- ence of the extreme values was minimized while the rank order of participants in the distribution remained. In this study, between zero and two values were winsorized for each dependent variable. When using change scores to predict reactivity, there is a possibility that artifactual effects will emerge because of the correlations between the baseline levels and magnitude of change. Consequently, baseline levels were controlled as covariates when predicting reactivity.

In all analyses of challenge and threat using TPR and CO reactivity, we controlled for task engagement (HR and VC reactivity). The reason for doing this is twofold: One, task engagement reflects SAM activation, which is com- mon to both challenge and threat, so controlling for SAM activation increases power to detect differences in PAC activation, which differentiates challenge and threat; two, challenge and threat effects do not reflect differences in task engagement.

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

20 Small Group Research 42(1)

Preliminary Analyses

Manipulation check: Perceptions of teammate/competitor performance. Recall that confederates were instructed to perform in a manner that was superior to that of the participant. A t test assessed whether participants perceived that their performance was inferior to that of their competitors/teammates. Con- firming the superior performance manipulation, participants perceived that their performance was inferior to that of their competitors/teammates (M = –1.43, SD = .115), t(50) = –9.39, p < .0001.

Manipulation check: TST. Responses to the “I am” completions were coded by two independent raters who were blind to condition. Self-definitions were coded, on the basis of Brewer and Gardner’s (1996) modification of Hartley’s (1970) coding scheme, into four categories. A personal self-description was one that contained references to individual physical qualities, traits, attitudes, or activities (e.g., “I am very smart”). Interpersonal self-descriptions were those that referred to a specific relationship (e.g. “I am a sister”). Collective self-descriptions were those that implied membership in a social category (e.g., “I am an Asian woman”). Relational self-descriptions were those that contained references to qualities that are conducive to relationships (e.g., “I am trustworthy”). Coding interrater reliability was .88. The dependent mea- sure was the sum of the number of interpersonal, collective, and relational self-descriptions in each person’s list and was used to assess social identity salience. Recall that the TST was used to measure the extent to which partici- pants were engaging in collective/social identity processes. Confirming the intent of the manipulation and providing evidence that collective identity was not salient during the experiment, there were no significant effects of competi- tive situation on the number of interpersonal, collective, and relational self- descriptions in each person’s list (M = 2.53, SD = 0.54).

Performance. There were no significant effects of competitive situation on the number of anagrams solved correctly during the anagram task (M = 12.1, SD = 0.67).

Psychological closeness. An ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of competitive situation on the participant’s ratings of psychological closeness. The means and standard deviations for psychological closeness ratings as a function of competitive situation are presented in Table 1. The ANOVA indi- cated a significant effect for competitive situation, F(1, 50) = 15.28, p < .001.

Post hoc analyses to the univariate ANOVA for psychological closeness also consisted of conducting pairwise comparisons to determine how the groups differed from each other. Participants in the individual (control) and minimal team conditions had significantly lower psychological closeness rat- ings relative to those in the team condition. It is worth noting that participants

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 21

in the minimal team condition and participants who competed as individuals reported similarly low psychological closeness ratings. Taken together, these findings illustrate that the experiences of being the worst performer in a mini- mal team setting and competing as an individual can produce the same rat- ings of psychological closeness. In terms of perceptions of psychological closeness, being the inferior performer on the minimal team feels the same as competing as an individual.

Task engagement in the anagram task. Testing sample means with t tests revealed that increases in HR reactivity (M = 5.83, SD = 7.74) were signifi- cantly greater than zero, t(49) = 7.71, p < .01 as were increases in VC reactiv- ity (M = 7.32, SD = 7.56), t(49) = 9.93, p <.01, consistent with task engagement. There were no VC reactivity differences among conditions, F(1, 50) = 1.55, p = .22. In addition, there were no HR reactivity differences among condi- tions, F(1, 50) = 1.90, p = .15. This means that on average participants in all three conditions were engaged in the task but that task engagement did not differ by condition.

Primary Analyses: Challenge and Threat in the Anagram Task One-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) on each dependent variable were conducted. Using the Bonferroni method, each ANOVA was tested at the .025 level. The means and standard deviations for TPR and CO as a function of performance situation are presented in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the participants of the team condition exhibited a significant increase in TPR from baseline and a significant decrease in CO from baseline, consistent with relative threat. Participants in the individual and minimal conditions exhib- ited a lesser pattern of threat. The ANCOVA revealed a significant effect, F(1, 49) = 3.16, p < .05. Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that par- ticipants in the team condition exhibited a significantly greater increase in

Table 1. Evaluations of Posttask Psychological Closeness

Condition M SD

Individual −1.83** 0.76 Minimal team −1.64** 0.94 Team 0.83* 0.78

Note: All condition means were tested against zero to determine significant differences from the midpoint of the scale. The questionnaire scale ranged from –2 to 2. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

22 Small Group Research 42(1)

TPR relative to participants in the minimal team, t(50) = 2.03, p = .049, and Individual, t(50) = 2.15, p = .04, conditions.

The results for the ANCOVA conducted to evaluate the effects of perfor- mance situation on CO revealed a marginal effect, F(1, 50) = 2.79, p = .067. Post hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that participants in the team condi- tion exhibited a greater decrease in CO relative to those in the minimal team t(50) = 2.61, p = .039, and Individual, t(50) = 4.11, p = .02, conditions. Together these findings suggest that the participants in the team condition experienced more threat than participants in the minimal team and individual conditions.

Discussion Although it seems that being on a team with superior performers would be a positive experience, the present study finds evidence that it leads to a maladap- tive physiological response, particularly when the team is recently formed. Confirming the hypotheses, analyses of TPR and CO during the anagram task revealed that participants in the individual and minimal team conditions were moderately threatened. Essentially, perceptions of individual resources in the minimal group condition did not differ from those in the individual condition. Moreover, participants in the team group condition were more threatened than those in the other two conditions. We believe that this is due to the fact that participants in the team condition were given the oppor- tunity to interact with teammates, thus increasing psychological closeness. Participants in the team condition were given the opportunity to converse with and form relationships with their teammates on the first task, thus experiencing an increase in closeness relative to participants in the other conditions who did not have the opportunity to interact before the performance

Table 2. Means and Univariate Tests From Zero (Baseline) of Cardiovascular Reactivity During the Anagram Task

Cardiovascular reactivity Individual Minimal team Team

CO −0.38 −0.08 −0.88* TPR 69.25 38.39 126.89*** VC 7.23*** 7.18*** 7.48***

Note: All condition means were tested against zero to determine significant increases or decreases from baseline. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 23

task. Manipulation checks that show that participants in the team condition reported higher levels of psychological closeness, relative to participants in the individual and minimal team conditions, support this interpretation. These results replicate the findings of Mendes et al. (2001) by demonstrating that upward social comparisons lead to threat. They also extend the findings by showing that these processes occur not only in dyads, but also in groups, and that psychological closeness can intensify the effect of upward social com- parisons on perceived coping resources and situational demands.

The results of the study appear to support theories related to social com- parison theory, namely the SEM model. Recall that the SEM model posits that performance, the self-relevance of the task, and the closeness of the other are factors that enhance or diminish self-evaluation. In a competitive situation such as the anagram task used in this study, task performance is highly self- relevant in all conditions because task performance is an indication of one’s standing relative to competitors/teammates. Furthermore, teammate/competitor performance was high in all three conditions. As such, among the three vari- ables listed by the SEM, the only variable that was manipulated between the team condition and the other conditions was psychological closeness. Participants in the team condition were given the opportunity to converse with and form relationships with their teammates, thus experiencing an increase in closeness relative to participants in the other conditions. The SEM model pos- its that being outperformed by a close other leads to more arousal, relative to a distant other. This is consistent with the findings that those in the team con- dition were more threatened relative to those in the other conditions. In terms of individual resources, participants in the team condition perceived that they possessed lower resources relative to demands (as indexed by a greater threat response) than those in the individual and minimal team conditions. These results suggest that competing with superior teammates on a recently formed team can lead to physiological threat. Furthermore, these results imply that a small amount of interaction (as opposed to no interaction) with superior team- mates prior to completing a team contest can have a significantly greater adverse effect on team members’ perception of individual resources. As dis- cussed in the introduction, this could be due to greater evaluation concerns or more powerful and meaningful social comparisons that are simply more threatening when they turn out to be negative.

However, it is worth noting that extremely close relationships are not likely to replicate this effect. Gardner et al. (2002) found that an individual in a close group is less likely to be threatened when other members in the group outper- form her. Research by Aron and colleagues (Aron & Aron, 1986; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991) supports this notion by

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

24 Small Group Research 42(1)

demonstrating that in close relationships, the self often includes overlapping connections with those close to the individual. As such, the other individuals are treated as similar to the self. Smith, Coats, and Watling (1999) add that these processes of self-other overlap extend to important group memberships. When the self is expanded to include others as part of the self, the outcomes of social comparison processes are altered. Rather than being threatened by a close other who outperforms one in a relevant domain, as the SEM model would posit, one can essentially bask in reflected glory.

The current study demonstrates that individuals who work on recently formed teams with superior performers after a brief interaction are more threatened than those who compete as individuals or on recently formed teams without interaction. Furthermore, it provides self-report data to suggest that an amount of psychological closeness leads to greater threat when working on recently formed teams with superior performers. However, the exact mecha- nism through which this occurs remains unclear. Future research would con- tinue to uncover the underlying causes and factors, such as greater evaluation concerns and the extent to which social comparisons are perceived as mean- ingful, as well as address the limitations of the current study.

Limitations Although providing strong evidence for one way in which superior teammate performance affects resource and demand evaluations, we acknowledge that the present study has limitations. The fact that there was no control manipula- tion for the team-building manipulation limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the data in this study. Although the individual (coaction) and minimal team conditions provide control for the superior performance manip- ulation, they do not control for the extra interaction time that those in the team condition enjoyed. Participants in the team condition spent eight more min- utes with their teammates than those in the individual and minimal team conditions. Consequently, these additional minutes might account for the greater amounts of threat experienced in the team condition.

One plausible alternative explanation to the findings is that participants in the team condition are threatened because they are experiencing threats to prototypicality. Social categorization theory (Turner, 1985) suggests that when social identity is engaged people come to perceive themselves more as interchangeable exemplars of a social category than as unique individuals defined by their differences from others. To this end, they strive to be per- ceived as prototypical members of their in-group; a threat to prototypicality

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 25

is distressing. It is possible that participants are experiencing physiological threat because they fear that their poor performance undermines their status as prototypical group members. Although this idea is possible, we believe that it is unlikely because participants’ spontaneous self-descriptions are over- whelmingly individualistic. It is difficult to make the case that social identity/ categorization processes, such as threats to prototypicality, are a significant factor in this situation when participants are not reporting social identity cues in their self-descriptions. Participants in the team condition, while psycho- logically close to their teammates, do not seem to be engaged in social iden- tity processes.

Another plausible alternative explanation is that participants who com- pleted the collaborative team-building task had the opportunity to socially compare abilities (during the team-building task) and that this knowledge made the subsequent anagram performance situation more threatening. However, this alternative explanation seems unlikely given that the team- building task was presented as completely collaborative and nonperformance related. Furthermore, the confederates ensured that each teammate contrib- uted equally to the task and performed at approximately the same level. As such, the participants in the team condition would have entered the anagram performance situation on equal footing with his or her teammates. Given this, it is unlikely that the participants in this condition would have experienced greater threat due to comparing abilities during the collaborative and none- valuative team-building task.

Conclusion Over the past decades, a great deal of time and effort has been devoted to examining the ways in which group processes such as strong social identity affect individual perceptions. Although much research has been devoted to investigating the ways in which the superior performance of another affects individual performance and self-evaluation, little research has taken a biological approach to studying these effects. The present research has attempted to reveal the social comparison and psychological closeness pro- cesses that drive the relationship between superior teammate performance and perceptions of resources and demands, particularly on recently formed teams. We believe that utilizing theory-driven physiological measures to assess implicit perceptions of resources and demands within the group con- text can continue to shed valuable insight on the social processes that operate among groups.

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

26 Small Group Research 42(1)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed that they received the following support for their research and/ or authorship of this article: This research was partially supported by a Ford Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship to the first author.

Note

1. Sixty-two participants completed all elements of the study but 9 were excluded from analyses: Three participants yielded cardiovascular data that were impossible to score reliably due to poor impedance cardiograph signal quality (i.e., ambigu- ous aortic valve opening); 2 participants were excluded due to experimenter error in conducting the study; 1 participant was excluded due to confederate error in conducting the study; 1 participant was excluded because we have reason to believe that he or she was cheating during the experimental task; 1 participant was excluded because he or she was aware of the use of confederates in the study; and 1 participant was unable to perform the task due to difficulty with the English lan- guage. The 53 remaining participants are the only participants used in the analyses and tables.

References

Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self- esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317-334. doi: 10.1002/ ejsp.2420180403.

Adair, J. (2004). The concise Adair on teambuilding and motivation. London: Thorogood.

Allen, K., Blascovich, B., & Mendes, W. B. (2002). Cardiovascular reactivity in the presence of pets, friends, and spouses: The truth about cats and dogs. Psychoso- matic Medicine, 64, 727-739. doi:10.1097/01.PSY.0000024236.11538.41

Aron, A., & Aron, E. A. (1986). Love and expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Washington, DC: Harper & Row.

Aron, A., Aron, E. A., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

Aron, A., Aron, E. A., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 27

Aspinwall, L. & Taylor, S. (1993). Effects of social comparison direction, threat, and self-esteem on affect, self-evaluation, and expected success. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 64, 708-722. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.708.

Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and para- doxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610-620. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.610

Baumeister, R. F. & Steinhilber, A. (1984). Paradoxical effects of supportive audiences on performance under pressure: The home field disadvantage in sports champion- ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 85-93. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.47.1.85

Blascovich, J. (2008). Challenge and threat. In A. J. Elliott (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 431-445). New York: Psychology Press.

Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. (2000). Challenge and threat appraisals: The role of affective cues. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 59-82). Paris: Cambridge University Press.

Blascovich, J., Mendes, W.B., Tomaka, J., Salomon, K., & Seery, M. (2003). The robust nature of the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat: A reply to Wright and Kirby. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 234-243. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0703_03.

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regula- tion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 1-51. doi:10.1016/S0065- 2601(08)60235-X

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.86.2.307.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83

Brewer, M. B., & Weber, J. G. (1994). Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 268-275. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.268

Brown, J. D., Novick, N. J., Lord, K. A., & Richards, J. M. (1992). When Gulliver travels: Social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 717-727. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.5.717

Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sports teams: The Group Environment Question- naire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

28 Small Group Research 42(1)

Cialdini, R. B., & DeNicholas, M. E. (1989). Self-presentation by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 626-631. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.57.4.626

Davis, J. A. (1966). The campus as a frog-pond: An application of the theory of relative deprivation to career decisions of college men. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 17-31. doi:10.1086/224257

Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for men- tal and physical health. Psychological Review, 96, 84-100. doi:10.1037/0033- 295X.96.1.84

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202

Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are “we,” you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 239-251. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.239

Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F., Lane, D., & Stock, M. (2005). Smoking cessation: Social comparison level predicts success for adult smokers. Health Psychology, 24, 623-629. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.24.6.623

Gilbert, D., Giesler, R., & Morris, K. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 69, 227-236. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.227

Hartley, W.S. (1970). Manual for the twenty statements problem. Kansas City, MO: Department of Research, Greater Kansas City Mental Health Foundation.

Hertel, G., Kerr, N., & Messé, L. (2000). Motivation gains in performance groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler effect. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 79, 580-601. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.580

Hunter, S. B. (2001). Performance under pressure: The impact of challenge and threat states on information processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Kelsey, R. M., & Guethlein, W. (1990). An evaluation of the ensemble averaged imped- ance cardiogram. Psychophysiology, 28, 24-33. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1990. tb02173.x

Kerr, N., Messé, L., Seok, D., Sambolec, E., Lount, R., & Park, E. (2007). Psycholog- ical mechanisms underlying the Köhler motivation gain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 828-841. doi:10.1177/0146167207301020

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small Groups. In D. T. Gilbert, & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The Handbook of social psychology (pp. 415-449). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lewis, B. P., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937-944. doi:10.1177/0146167297239003

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 29

Marsh, H., Kong, C., & Hau, K. (2000). Longitudinal multilevel models of the big- fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: Counterbalancing contrast and reflected-glory effects in Hong Kong schools. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 337-349. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.337

Marsh, H., & Parker, J. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 213-231. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.47.1.213

Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Major, B., & Seery, M. (2001). Challenge and threat responses during downward and upward social comparisons. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 477-497. doi:10.1002/ejsp.80

Mendes, W. B., Major, B., McCoy, S., & Blascovich, J. (2008). How attribu- tional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional responses to social rejec- tion and acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 278-291. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.278

Miller, B. C. (2004). Quick team-building activities for busy managers. New York: Amacom.

Morse, S. & Gergen, K. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16,148-156. doi: 10.1037/ h0029862.

Moskowitz, G., & Skurnik, I. (1999). Contrast effects as determined by the type of prime: Trait versus exemplar primes initiate processing strategies that differ in how accessible constructs are used. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 911-927. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.911

Pelham, B., & Wachsmuth, J. (1995). The waxing and waning of the social self: Assimilation and contrast in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 825-838. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.825

Pickett, C. L. (2001). The effects of entitativity beliefs on implicit comparisons between group members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 515- 525. doi:10.1177/0146167201275001

Pickett, C. L., & Perrott, D. A. (2004). Shall I compare thee? Perceived entitativity and ease of comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 283- 289. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00121-5

Reilly, A. J., & Jones, J. E. (1974). Team building. In J. W. Pfeiffer & J. E. Jones (Eds.), The 1974 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.

Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3-29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

30 Small Group Research 42(1)

Scheepers, D. (2009). Turning social identity threat into challenge: Status stability and cardiovascular reactivity during inter-group competition. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 45, 228-233. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.011

Seery, M. D., Blascovich, J., Weisbuch, M., Vick, S. B. (2004). The relationship between self-esteem level, self-esteem stability, and cardiovascular reactions to performance feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 133-145. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.1.133

Sherwood, A., Allen, M. T., Fahrenburg, J., Kelsey, R. M., Lovallo, W. R., & van Dooren, L. J. P. (1990). Methodological guidelines for impedance cardiography. Psychophysiology, 27, 1-23. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1990.tb02171.x

Smith, E. R., Coats, S., & Watling, D. (1999). Overlapping mental representa- tions of self, in-group, and partner: Further response-time evidence and a con- nectionist model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 873-882. doi:10.1177/0146167299025007009

Stapel, D., & Blanton, H. (2004). From seeing to being: Subliminal social compari- sons affect implicit and explicit evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 468-481. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.468

Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2000). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181-222). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tesser, A. (2000). On the confluence of self-esteem maintenance mecha- nisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 290-299. doi:10.1207/ S15327957PSPR0404_1

Turner, J. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (pp. 77-117). London: JAI Press.

Zell, E., & Alicke, M. (2009). Contextual neglect, self-evaluation, and the frog-pond effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 467-482. doi:10.1037/ a0015453

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

Cleveland et al. 31

Bios

Christena Cleveland is an assistant professor of psychology at Westmont College. Her research interests include group performance processes and cardiovascular reac- tivity as well as cultural differences in theology.

Jim Blascovich is a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His research interests include challenge and threat motivation, and social influence within digital immersive virtual environments. He takes a biopsychosocial approach to understanding the influence of intrapersonal and interpersonal factors on motivation and performance.

Cynthia Gangi recently received her PhD in social psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her research interests include health persuasion, the role of the self in health behavior, embodiment theory, and the role of autobiographical memory in self-perception.

Lucie Finez is a teaching and research associate in the Sport Department at the University of Amiens (France). She teaches sport psychology (motivation, self-esteem, groups dynamics, imagery). Her research interests include examining ego-threat, social comparison, self-handicapping strategies, self-affirmation and intragroup interactions.

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/