The FFM explanation: People who vary on the five fundamental traits of
personality—extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism,
and openness to experience—exhibit consistent differences across diverse
times and situations.
Extraversion: engagement and interest in social interactions, including
friendliness, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and
cheerfulness.
Agreeableness: cooperative orientation to others, including acceptance,
frankness, compassion, congeniality, modesty, and sympathy.
Conscientiousness: persistence in the pursuit of tasks, including self-
confidence, orderliness, meeting of obligations, achievement striving, self-
regulation, and measured responding.
Neuroticism: strong emotional proclivities, including anxiety, hostility,
negative affect, shyness, lack of impulse control, and reactivity to stressors.
Openness to Experience: active pursuit of intellectually and aesthetically
stimulating experiences, including imagination, fantasy, appreciation of art,
openness to emotions and experiences, curiosity, and cognitive flexibility.
The theory assumes that people differ from one another in many ways, but
much of this variability is the observable manifestation of these five basic
dimensions (which, when reordered, spell OCEAN; McCrae & Costa, 2013).
All five of the factors in the FFM of personality predict people’s interest in
joining groups and their actions once they are included in those groups, but
one trait is a particularly influential determinant of one’s groupishness:
extraversion (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). Extraversion is the tendency to
move toward people rather than away from people.
The TIPI is a valid measure of personality, but care should nonetheless be
exercised in interpreting your scores. These five traits are complex and
multifaceted, but the TIPI does not measure the specific components of each
trait.
Extraverts, compared to people who are more introverted, belong to more
groups, they like working with other people rather than alone, they talk
spontaneously to strangers, and during vacations they want to do things with
other people rather than alone. They even say that “thinking about meetings
with others is very pleasant for me” (Foschi & Lauriola, 2014, p. 341).
Extraverts are more sensitive to rewards than introverts, and so their
positivity may be due to their more positive reaction to pleasant
experiences. Alternatively, their happiness may also be due to the fact that
they join more frequently with other people, and strong social relationships
are a fundamental determinant of well-being.
The dispositional tendency to feel uneasy, uncomfortable, and awkward in
response to actual or anticipated social interaction is called shyness. Shy
people do not join groups as readily as others, and they do not find group
activities to be as enjoyable. As early as age 2, some children begin to
display fear or inhibition when they encounter a person they do not
recognize
Shy individuals are also more comfortable in activity-focused groups, such as
sports teams and academic groups, and, through positive interactions within
such groups, they gain more social confidence (Rose-Krasnor, 2009).
Social anxiety sets in when people want to make a good impression, but they
do not think that their attempts to establish relationships will succeed.
Because of these pessimistic expectations, when these individuals interact
with other people, they suffer disabling emotional, physiological, and
behavioral side effects. Ex. Pulse, blush, trembling voices and hands
When people in different countries and cultures evaluated the personality
profiles of a shy person and an outgoing person, people from western
countries (e.g., United States and Canada) judged outgoing people more
positively and the career prospects of the shy more negatively than did
individuals from East Asian countries, such as China and Korea
If these feelings of anxiety are paired with a pronounced fear of
embarrassment or humiliation, the individual may be experiencing social
anxiety disorder (SAD). This clinical disorder, which affects approximately 5%
of adults
attachment theory (e.g., Bowlby, 1980). This theory suggests that, from an
early age, children differ in the way they relate to others, with some children
developing very secure and comfortable relationships with their caregivers
but others exhibiting dependence and uncertainty. The theory suggests that
these childhood differences emerge in adulthood as variations in attachment
style—one’s basic cognitive, emotional, and behavioral orientation when in a
relationship with others (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2014).
Individuals who are high in the need for affiliation express a stronger desire
to be with other people, they seem happier when they are with people, and
they are more disturbed by unpleasant interactions with others. In
consequence, they tend to join groups more frequently
individuals who are high in the need for affiliation are drawn to groups, but
some research suggests that they are also more anxious when they confront
social situations, perhaps because they fear rejection.
Individuals who are high in the need for power (or power motive) exhibit an
elevated desire to maintain and enhance their capacity to influence other
people (Fodor, 2009). They report, for example, an interest in supervising,
leading, and managing people, for they would prefer to be in positions of
authority where they can make decisions that impact other people.
- individuals who are high in the need for power (or power motive)
exhibit an elevated desire to maintain and enhance their capacity to
influence other people (Fodor, 2009). They report, for example, an
interest in supervising, leading, and managing people, for they would
prefer to be in positions of authority where they can make decisions
that impact other people.
collaborative circles
A relatively small group of peers who work together for an extended period
of time, exchanging ideas for commentary and critique and developing a
shared conception of what their methods and goals should be.
social movement
A deliberate, sustained, and organized group of individuals seeking change
or resisting a change in a social system. Movements are sustained by
individuals who may share a common outlook on issues or by members of
identifiable social groups or categories, but not by businesses, political
organizations, or governments.
social movement
A deliberate, sustained, and organized group of individuals seeking change
or resisting a change in a social system. Movements are sustained by
individuals who may share a common outlook on issues or by members of
identifiable social groups or categories, but not by businesses, political
organizations, or governments.
social comparison
The process of contrasting one’s personal qualities and outcomes, including
beliefs, attitudes, values, abilities, accomplishments, and experiences, to
those of other people.
- Even when people need information about a situation, they sometimes
refrain from joining others because they do not wish to embarrass
themselves. When alone, people might feel foolish if they do
something silly, but when they are in a group, foolishness turns into
embarrassment. In some cases, this fear of embarrassment can be
stronger than the need to understand what is happening, resulting in
social inhibition instead of affiliation (McCarty & Karau, 2016).
- people usually choose to wait with those who are calm rather than
anxious (Rabbie, 1963) and caring rather than unsupportive (Li et al.,
2008).
- People also react to large-scale traumatic events by joining with
others. When U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, 60% of
adult Americans reported seeking solace by talking to others
(Sheatsley & Feldman, 1964).
social support
A sense of belonging, emotional support, advice, guidance, tangible
assistance, and perspective provided by groups when members experience
stress, daily hassles, and more significant life crises.
Instrumental support: Groups offer tangible assistance to their members,
as when they help each other with assigned tasks, loan money and materials
to one another, or work collaboratively on shared tasks.
- People who enjoy strong social bonds tend to experience less stress in
their lives, are less likely to suffer from depression and other
psychological problems, and are physically healthier (Stinson et al.,
2008). Stressful life circumstances leave people at risk for
psychological and physical illness, but groups can serve as protective
buffers against these negative consequences.
-
-buffering effect in studies of stressors, including health crises,
personal tragedies, terrorist attacks, and intergroup conflict. For
example, individuals trying to recover from a devastating crisis (e.g.,
the death of a spouse or child) who were more firmly embedded in a
social network of friends, relatives, and neighbors were less depressed
than people who were not integrated into groups (Norris & Murrell,
1990).
- when self-esteem is on the line, people engage in downward social
comparison by selecting targets who are worse off than they are.
- upward social comparison
- Selecting people who are superior to oneself or whose outcomes
surpass one’s own as targets for social comparison.
-
-social support are associated with healthy changes in a body’s
immune, hormonal, and neurological systems. Depleted levels of the
peptides oxytocin and vasopressin not only trigger an increased desire
to affiliate, but these neurochemical control systems also damp down
the body’s tendency to overreact physiologically to irritating events. In
consequence, genetic variants that influence the production of
oxytocin and enhance its physiological effects predict both reactions to
stressful circumstances and the likelihood of responding positively to
others who need help and support (Poulin, Holman, & Buffone, 2012).
Affiliation-related experiences may also recruit areas of the brain that
are part of the opioid and dopaminergic systems; these systems have
been implicated in reward-based learning and positive emotional
reactions, including happiness (Panksepp, Nelson, & Bekkedal, 1996).
These social neuroscience studies all suggest that there is health, as
well as safety, in numbers.
some of the happiest people are those who join groups, but don’t spend too
much time comparing themselves to the other people in their group (Buunk,
Nauta, & Molleman, 2005).
self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) model
A theoretical analysis of social comparison processes that assumes that
individuals maintain and enhance their self-esteem by associating with high-
achieving individuals who excel in areas that are not relevant to the
individual’s own sense of self-esteem and avoiding association with high-
achieving individuals who excel in areas that are important to the
individual’s sense of self-esteem (developed by Abraham Tesser).
social comparison orientation
The dispositional tendency to compare oneself to others.
Group members, to avoid the pain of social comparison, can turn against the
highest performing members—the “tall poppies” of their group—ostracizing
them or criticizing them unfairly (Feather, 1994). Given the negative
consequences of outperforming others, people who perform well often keep
their success to themselves—particularly when they do well on tasks that are
very important to the other group members (Tal-Or, 2008).
Individuals were willing to recommend a colleague for promotion who
excelled in an area that was unrelated to their expertise, but not one who
was proficient in an area where their own accomplishments had earned them
high status (Garcia, Song, & Tesser, 2010).
- Affiliation may set the stage for a group to form, but attraction
transforms acquaintances into friends.
people are more likely to associate with certain people—those who are
nearby, those who express similar attitudes and values, and those who
respond positively to them. Such associations often culminate in the creation
of a group (see Clark & LeMay, 2010, Friedkin, 2004, for reviews).
proximity principle
- The tendency for individuals to form interpersonal relations with those
who are close by; also known as the “principle of propinquity.”
-familiarity principle (or “mere exposure effect”) suggests that
people show a preference for the familiar rather than the unknown.
interaction causes attraction rather than attraction causing interaction—and
it matters not if that interaction occurs online or in face-to-face settings.
- elaboration principle
- The tendency for groups to expand in size as nonmembers become
linked to a group member and thus become part of the group itself;
this process is termed percolation in network theory.
-
- Groups form when otherwise unrelated individuals are drawn to a
single individual who becomes the hub for gradually developing bonds
among the various members (Redl, 1942). The Impressionists
developed into a group through such a self-organizing process. Each
member of the core group drew in others, until in time the group
included artists, sculptors, and writers (Farrell, 2001, p. 44; see Figure
4.5).
-
similarity principle
- The tendency for individuals to seek out, affiliate with, or be attracted
to an individual who is similar to them in some way; this tendency
causes groups and other interpersonal aggregates to be homogenous
rather than diverse. similar religious, economic, and political values.
homophily
“Love of the same”; the tendency for the members of groups and other
collectives to be similar to one another in some way, such as demographic
background, attitudes, and values; generally expressed informally as “birds
of a feather flock together.”
- Similarity’s opposite, dissimilarity, also works to push people away
from each other—the dissimilarity–repulsion effect is as influential as
the similarity–attraction effect (Drigotas, 1993). Similarity may also
increase a sense of connectedness to the other person
complementarity principle
- A tendency for opposites to attract when the ways in which people are
dissimilar are congruent (complementary) in some way.
Interchange compatibility
Compatibility between group members based on their similar needs for
inclusion, control, and affection (defined by William
Originator compatibility
Compatibility between group members that occurs when individuals who
wish to express inclusion, control, or affection within the group are matched
with individuals who wish to receive inclusion, control, or affection from
others (defined by William Schutz).
- originator compatibility would be high if a person with a high need to
control the group joined a group whose members wanted a strong
leader.
-
- A set of incompatible groups was also created by including group
members who varied significantly in their need for affection, ranging
from high to low. As Schutz predicted,
-
- (1)
- cohesiveness was higher in the compatible groups than in the
incompatible groups, and
-
- (2)
- the compatible groups worked on problems far more efficiently than
the incompatible groups.
reciprocity principle
The tendency for liking to be met with liking in return; when A likes B, then B
will tend to like A.
- Negative reciprocity also occurs in groups, for disliking someone is a
sure way to earn that person’s contempt
minimax principle
A general preference for relationships and memberships that provide the
maximum number of valued rewards and incur the fewest number of
possible costs.
- People prefer to associate with people who are generous, enthusiastic,
punctual, dependable, helpful, strong, truthful, and intelligent (Clark &
Lemay, 2010). People tend to dislike and reject as potential group
members those individuals who possess socially unattractive personal
qualities—people who seem pushy, rude, self-centered, boring, or
negative (Kowalski, 1996; Leary et al., 1986)
-
- Impressionists gained a sounding board for ideas, social support, help
with tasks they could not accomplish alone, and friends. But the group
also created costs for members, who had to spend time and personal
resources before they could enjoy the benefits the group offered. The
minimax principle argues that those who joined the group must have
felt that the benefits outweighed the costs
-
- When members were asked why they joined the gang, most stressed
practical outcomes, such as safety and financial gain
-
- John Thibaut and Harold Kelley (1959), the decision to join is based on
two factors: the comparison level and the comparison level for
alternatives
-
- Comparison level (CL)
- In social exchange theory, the standard by which the individual
evaluates the quality of any social relationship. In most cases,
individuals whose prior relationships yielded positive rewards with few
costs will have higher CLs than those who experienced fewer rewards
and more costs in prior relationships (described by John Thibaut and
Harold Kelly).
-
- Thibaut and Kelley argued that “ CL altERNATIVES
- can be defined informally as the lowest level of outcomes a member
will accept in the light of available alternative opportunities” (1959, p.
21).
-
- comparison level for alternatives
- In social exchange theory, the standard by which individuals evaluate
the quality of other groups that they may join (described by John
Thibaut and Harold Kelly).
Chapter Review
Who joins groups and who stays apart?
The Impressionists formed in Paris in the 1860s as a result of three basic sets
of influences: personal qualities of the members, the nature of the situation, and
their liking for one another.
People differ in personality, motivations, past experiences, and expectations,
and these individual differences influence their degree of interest in joining
groups.
The FFM of personality identifies five traits that influence group formation
and members’ behavior: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism, and openness. Extraversion is associated with increased happiness
and sociality. Openness, influence the type of group individuals seek to join.
Personal qualities that reduce the likelihood that a person will join a
group, as indicated by both self-report and studies that have made use of
experience sampling, include shyness, social anxiety, social anxiety disorders,
and certain attachment styles (Smith et al., 1999).
The strength of social motives, such as the need for affiliation, the need for
intimacy, and the need for power also predict one’s group-joining proclivities, as
demonstrated by the following:
Byrne’s (1961) studies of the relationship between need for affiliation and
rejection sensitivity.
Schutz’s (1958) work on his Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orientation theory that explains how people use groups to satisfy their need to
receive and express inclusion, control, and affection.
Women higher than men in relationality.
Women seek membership in smaller, informal, intimate groups, whereas
men seek membership in larger, more formal, task-focused groups.
These differences are likely due, partLY, to sex roles and sexism.
People’s attitudes, experiences, and expectations are all factors that
influence their decision to join group.
The Beliefs about Groups inventory assesses individuals’ general
orientation toward working in a group (Karau & Elsaid, 2009).
Individuals who had prior positive experiences in groups tended to seek
out further group memberships (Pavelchak et al., 1986).
Two key factors that influence participation in a social movement are sense
of injustice and angry emotions. The collaborative circle that became the
Impressionists was, in part, a social movement group (Farrell, 2001).
When people affiliate with other people
Festinger’s (1950) theory of social comparison assumes that affiliation is
more likely when individuals find themselves in ambiguous, frightening, and
difficult circumstances.
Schachter (1959) found that people prefer to affiliate (“misery loves
company”) when fearful, but they prefer to join individuals who have useful
information about a situation and others who are in a similar situation (“misery
loves miserable company”). Fear of embarrassment reduces affiliation.
Groups provide their members with social support during times of stress and
tension.
Groups facilitate both “fight-or-flight” and “tend-and-befriend” responses
to stress.
Basic types of support from groups include belonging, emotional,
informational, and instrumental support, and meaning.
Group support buffers the negative health consequences of stress,
possibly by triggering improved autoimmune and reward system functioning.
By choosing comparison targets who are performing poorly compared to
themselves (downward social comparison), individuals bolster their own sense of
competence; by choosing superior targets (upward social comparison), individuals
refine their expectations of themselves.
As the big-fish-little-pond effect suggests, upward social comparison
generally lowers self-esteem. Other negative effects include sabotaging other’s
performances.
Tesser’s self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) model argues that people
prefer to associate with individuals who do not outperform them in areas that are
very relevant to their self-esteem.
Individuals who are low in social comparison orientation (Gibbons &
Buunk, 1999) and higher in affiliation respond more positively in groups
Processes generating bonds of interpersonal attraction between members of
groups
Newcomb (1960), in his studies of the acquaintance process, found that
people who like one another often join together to form groups. Attraction
patterns are generally consistent with the following principles:
Proximity principle: Festinger and his colleagues (1950), drawing on their
studies of Westgate and Westgate West, concluded people tend to like those who
are situated nearby due to increased familiarity and interaction. Although
members of online are not near each other physically, such groups generate a
sense of presence through frequent interaction (Reis et al., 2011).
Elaboration principle: From a systems perspective, groups often emerge
when additional elements (people) become linked to the original members.
Similarity principle: People like others who are similar to them in some
way. In consequence, most groups tend toward increasing levels of homophily.
Complementarity principle: People like others whose qualities
complement their own qualities. Schutz (1958) identified two key forms of
compatibility: interchange compatibility (based on similarity) and originator
compatibility (based on complementarity).
Reciprocity principle: Liking tends to be mutual.
Minimax principle: Individuals are attracted to groups that offer them
maximum rewards and minimal costs.
Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959) social exchange theory maintains that
satisfaction with group membership is primarily determined by comparison level
(CL), whereas the comparison level for alternatives
