Chapter Review
What is the ecology of a group?
Researchers who study group ecology explore how individuals and groups interact
with and adapt to the group’s habitat.
A physical setting’s ambience, or atmosphere, creates a distinctive cognitive and
emotional impression.
Russell’s (2003) studies indicate that people’s affective reactions range from
positive–negative (pleasant) and activating–relaxed (arousing). People prefer
positive, stimulating environments, but excessive stimulation can lead to overload.
Kaplan’s (1995) attention restoration theory assumes situations that require
directed attention deplete cognitive resources that can be replenished by certain
types of places, such as the natural environment.
Features of the environment, such as extremes in temperature and noise and
dangerousness, can engender stress in groups and undermine performance.
People associate warm temperatures with social warmth.
High temperatures are linked to loss of attention as well as a number of other
unpleasant consequences, including discomfort, reduced productivity, conflict, and
aggression.
Van de Vliert’s (2013) climato-economic theory assumes that cultures that exist in
places with harsh climates cope by developing economically if wealthy and by
becoming more collectivistic if not wealthy.
Group members can cope with exposure to noise for a short duration, but
prolonged exposure is associated with psychological and physical difficulties.
Groups that must live or work in extreme and unusual environments (EUEs) adapt
by improving communication and teamwork. Groups that do not emphasize a team
approach in such environments, such as the 1996 expeditions to Mount Everest, are
less likely to escape such situations unharmed.
What are the determinants of spatial relations in a group?
Studies of personal space suggest that group members prefer to keep a certain
distance between themselves and others.
Closer distances are associated with greater intimacy, so space requirements tend
to increase as the situation becomes less intimate. The four zones described by Hall
(1966) are the intimate, personal, social, and public. Online groups meet in the
remote zone.
Spacing in groups is influenced by the sex, status, and cultural background of the
group members.
Both the equilibrium model of communication and Burgoon’s (1978) expectancy
violations model predict that individuals will moderate their distances to achieve
the desired level of intimacy.
Density describes the number of people per unit of space, whereas crowding is a
psychological reaction to high physical density.
Crowding is exacerbated by the following factors:
cognitive processes that prompt individuals to make attributions about the causes
of their arousal;
group members’ overall evaluation of the high-density setting (the density–
intensity hypothesis);
perceptions of control;
the degree to which others interfere with task performance.
Sommer (1969) suggests sociopetal spaces encourage interaction, whereas
sociofugal patterns discourage interaction. People generally prefer interaction-
promoting, sociopetal patterns, but these preferences vary with the type of task
being attempted and the sex of the group members.
Seating arrangements significantly influence patterns of attraction, communication,
and leadership. For example, in many groups, individuals tend to speak
immediately after the person seated opposite them (the Steinzor effect), and
leadership is closely associated with sitting at the end of the table (the head-of-the-
table effect).
What are the causes and consequences of a group’s tendency to establish
territories?
Like many other animals, humans establish territories—geographical locations that
an individual or group defends against intrusion by others.
Altman (1975) distinguished between primary territories, secondary territories, and
public territories.
Oldenburg (1999) suggests that some secondary territories can serve as third places
where individuals can gather to socialize and build community. Some third places
are located in online communities.
Various groups, including gangs, territorialize areas; they prevent nongroup
members from entering them, and they mark them in various ways.
Studies of group space suggest that groups are surrounded by an interaction
boundary that prevents nongroup members from approaching too closely.
Individuals feel more comfortable when their groups can territorialize their living
areas. Territories promote adjustment and reduce stress, but they also promote
intergroup conflict, as in the case of gang-related territoriality.
Groups with a home advantage tend to outperform groups that are outside their
territories.
Individual members establish personal territories within the group’s territory.
Personal territories fulfill privacy, organizing, and identity functions for individual
members. Territorial markings, for example, are associated with membership
stability.
Higher-status individuals generally control larger and more desirable territories;
Sundstrom and Altman’s (1974) work suggests changes in status hierarchies can
disrupt the allocation of territory.
Brown’s (2009) studies suggest that territorial intrusions are common in the
workplace, and they generally generate strong, negative emotional reactions
(anger).
A group’s capacity to adapt and even thrive in extreme and unusual environments
(EUEs) depends on its members’ judicious management of the environment,
including territories (Altman, 1973).
How can group places, spaces, and locations be improved?
Barker (1968), after studying many groups in their natural locations, concluded
that most behavior is determined by the behavior setting in which it occurs.
The boundaries, components, and programs of such settings define the functions of
the situation and the type of behaviors performed in it.
Behavior settings that lack synomorphy are inefficient and distressing.
Staffing theory, developed by Wicker (2002), describes the causes and
consequences of understaffing and overstaffing.
Some groups work and interact in spaces that need to be redesigned to maximize
the fit between the people and the place.
Duffy (1992), differentiating between group tasks that call for more or less
interaction and autonomy, identified four types of group workplaces; hives, cells,
dens, and clubs.
Workplaces are currently being reconfigured to create spaces that will facilitate
group productivity rather than individual productivity.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
