dr j kenworthy
spring 2007 – mondays 1.00 pm until 3.50 pm
class located in LS 420
office 525 LS
office hours 11 am – 12 pm mondays, or by appointment
one) develop up-to-date knowledge of major principles, findings, and theories of group
two) develop critical thinking, evaluation, and application skills in relation to group dynamics
three) develop ability to present and express ideas in a group setting
* required readings for class & exams (and, when applicable, groups qualifying exam)
# presentation papers
Baron, R. S., & Kerr, N. L. (2003). ndGroup process, group decision, group action (2 Ed.).
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.) (2003).
Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration.
New York: Oxford University Press.
NOTE: the readings and topics listed below are subject to change.
schedule of sessions
jan 22 – introduction to groups; group cohesion and entitativity
*B & K, Ch. 1, Introduction
*Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
*Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. GD:TR&P, 4, 7-26.
*Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 223-246.
Highhouse, S. (2002). A history of the T-group and its early applications in management development. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, &Practice, 6, 277-290.
McGrath, J.E., Arrow, H. & Berdahl, J.L. (2000). The study of groups: past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 95-105.
jan 29 – group structure and group socialization
*P & N Ch 10. Newcomer innovation ； Levine, J. M., et al. (2003). Newcomer innovation in work
teams. In P. Paulus & B. Nijstad (Eds.) Group creativity. New York: Oxford
*Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., & Cini, M. A. (1993). Group socialization: The role of commitment. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.) Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives. (pp. 105-
129). Hertfordshire, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
#Kampmeier, C.K., & Simon, B. (2001). Individuality and group formation: the role of independence and differentiation. JPSP, 81, 448-462.
*Wood, W. (1987). Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological
Bulletin, 102, 53-71.
Moreland, R. J., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.). Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Moreland, R.L., Levine, J.M., & Wingert, M.L. (1996). Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work. In E. Witte and J.H. Davis (Eds.) Understanding group behavior: Small group processes
and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 11-35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
feb 05 – social facilitation and social loafing
*B & K Ch.2, Social facilitation
*B & K Ch. 4, Task motivation in groups
*Douthitt, E.A., & Aiello, J.R. (2001). The role of participation and control in the effects of computer monitoring on fairness perceptions, task satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 867-874.
#Karau, S. J., & Williams, K.D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic and theoretical integration, JPSP, 65, 681-706.
Geen, R. (1989). Alternative conceptions of social facilitation. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of
group influence. Hillsdale, NJ; Erlbaum.
Paulus, P. B. (1983). Group influence on individual task performance. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.) Basic
group processes. New York: Springer-Verlag.
feb 12 – social influence, conformity
*B & K, Ch 5, Social influence and conformity
*P & N, Ch 4, Dissent and creativity ; Nemeth, C. J. & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than
individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P. Paulus & B. Nijstad (Eds.) Group creativity. New York: Oxford.
*De Dreu, C.K.W., & West, M.A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. JAP, 86, 1191-1201.
#Prislin, R., & Christensen, P.N. (2002). Group conversion versus group expansion as modes of change in majority and minority positions: all losses hurt but only some gains gratify. JPSP, 83,
*Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323-345.
Yee NG, K., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Individualism-collectivism as a boundary condition for effectiveness of minority influence in decision making. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 84, 198-225.
Marques, J.M., Serodio, R.G., & Abrams, D. (2001). Being better by being right: subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. JPSP, 81, 436-
Gordijn, E.H., De Vries, N.K., & De Dreu, C.K. (2002). Minority influence on focal and related attitudes: change in size, attributions, and information processing. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1315-1326.
feb 19 – group polarization and extremity
*B & K, Ch. 6, Extremity in groups
*Baron, R. S. (2000). Arousal, capacity, and intense indoctrination. PSPR, 4, 238-254.
*Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: a meta-analysis. PB, 123, 238-259.
*Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25(2),
#Knippenberg, D.V., Knippenberg, B.V., & Dijk, E.V. (2000). Who takes the lead in risky decision making? Effects of group members’ risk preferences and prototypicality.
OBHDP, 83, 213-234.
Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years. A review of groupthink research. OB&HDP, 73,
Paulus, P. B. (1998). Developing consensus about groupthink after all these years. OBHDP, 73,
feb 26 – group performance
*B & K, Ch. 3 Individual versus group performance
*Laughlin, P.R., Zander, M.L., Knieval, E.M., & Tan, T.K. (2003). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: informative equations and effective strategies. JPSP, 85, 684-694.
*Hecht, T.D., Allen, N.J., & Klammer, J.D. (2002). Groups beliefs, ability, and performance: the potency of group potency. GD:TR&P, 6, 143-152.
#Martell, R.F., & Leavitt, K.N. (2002). Reducing the performance-cue bias in work behavior ratings: can groups help? JAP, 87, 1032-1041.
mar 05 – exam 1
mar 12 – spring break
mar 19 - information processing / transactive memory
*Tindale, R. S. et al. (2001). Shared cognition in small groups. In M.A. Hogg and S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
#Austin, J.R. (2003). Transactive memory in organizational groups: the effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. JAP, 88, 866-878.
*Hollingshead, A.B., & Fraidin, S.N. (2001). Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 355-363.
*Hollingshead, A.B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. JPSP, 81, 1080-1089.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64.
Moreland, R. L., et al. (1998). Training people to work in groups. In S. Tindale et al. (Eds.) Theory
and research on small groups. New York: Plenum.
Franz, T.M., & Larson, J.R. (2002). The impact of experts on information sharing during group discussion. SGR, 33, 383-411.
mar 26 – group decision-making, problem solving, and judgment
*B & K Ch. 7, Decision making
*P & N Ch. 5, Collective choice
#Postmes, T., Spears, R. & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. JPSP,
*Mohammed, S. & Ringseis, E. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: the role of inputs, processes and out comes. OBHDP, 85, 310-335.
*Bonner, B. L., Baumann, M. R., & Dalal, R.S. (2002). The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and performance. OBHDP, 88, 719-736.
Kerr, N. L., McCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 678-719.
apr 02 – group creativity
*P & N, Ch. 6. Brainstorming
*P & N, Ch. 7. Idea generation
#Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality, JAP, 88, 413-422.
*Paulus, P. B., et al. (2002). Social and cognitive influences in group brainstorming: Predicting production gains and losses. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds). European Review of Social
Psychology, 12, 299-325.
Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors on creative performance: The role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experience. OBHDP, 84, 1-22.
Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 237-262.
apr 09 – teamwork
* P & N Ch 12. Innovation in teams
*Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
#Ellis, A. P., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O. L. H., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: collectively connecting the dots. JAP, 88, 821-835.
*Devine, D.J., & Philips, J.L. (2001). Do smarter teams do better a meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. SGR, 32, 507-532.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: the role of team processes and structures. GD:TR&P, 5, 111-123.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.
Lepine, J.A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: effects of team composition in teams of members’ cognitive ability and personality. JAP, 88, 27-39.
Paulus, P. B. et al. (2001). Creativity in groups and teams. In M. E. Turner (Ed.). Groups at work:
Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Locke, E. A. et al. (2001). The importance of the individual in an age of groupism. In M. E. Turner (Ed.). Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
apr 16 – electronic groups
*B & K, Ch. 11, Electronic groups
*P & N, Ch. 8, Electronic Brainstorming
*McKenna, K.Y.A., & Green, A.S. (2002). Virtual group dynamics. GD:TR&P, 6, 116-127.
*Bargh, J., & McKenna, K. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,
*Williams, K.D., Govan, C.L., Croker, V., Tynan, D., Cruickshank, M., & Lam, A. (2002). Investigations into differences between social- and cyberostracism. GD:TR&P, 6, 65-77.
#Bailenson, J.N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A.C., & Loomis, J.M. (2003). Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. PSPB, 29, 819-833.
Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H., & Salas, E. (2003) Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on team performance. GD:TR&P, 297-303.
apr 23 – leadership
*Chemers, M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Hogg and S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell
*Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. JAP, 87, 765-780.
*Chan, K.Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: understanding the motivation to lead. JAP, 86, 481-498.
*Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration. GD:TR&P, 4,
Kark, R., Chen, G., & Shamir, B. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. JAP, 88, 246-255.
apr 30 – intergroup processes and conflict
*Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
*Brewer, M.B. & Brown, R.J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.; Vol. 2, pp. 554-594). New York: McGraw-Hill.
#Gaertner, S. L., et al. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. GD:TR&P, 4, 98-114.
Fiske, S.T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.; Vol. 2, pp. 357-411). NewYork:
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2001). Collective identity: Group membership and self-conception. In M. A. Hogg and S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Kramer, R. M. et al. (2001). Collective identity, collective trust, and social capital: Linking group identification and group cooperation. In M. E. Turner (Ed.). Groups at work: Theory and research.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2000). Social identity, organizations, and leadership. In M. E. Turner (Ed.). Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hogg, M. A., & Williams, K., D. (2000). From I to we: Social identity and the collective self. GD:TR&P, 4, 81-97.
may 07, monday, time TBA ; exam 2
2 exams (30% each) + 3 proposal papers (10% each) + presentation and class participation (10%)
15 – 20 minute oral presentation of an original research article. Include a theoretical background, hypothesis(es) justification and critique, methodology and results. Summarize findings and offer theoretical, methodological, analytical critique (or all of the above).
each paper is a proposed research project on a topic chosen from among those of this course. It consists of (1) a brief theoretical introduction leading to a well-justified hypothesis (or hypotheses), (2) a method section describing the study design and procedures, (3) a hypothesized results section, and (4) a discussion in which theoretical contributions and methodological limitations are discussed. Graded on clarity of exposition and theoretical innovation. These may be turned in at any time during the semester, and may be turned in separately or all at once.
final review week
A period of five class days prior to the first day of final examinations in the long sessions shall be designated as Final Review Week. The purpose of this week is to allow students sufficient time to prepare for final examinations. During this week, there shall be no scheduled activities such as required field trips or performances; and no instructor shall assign any themes, research problems or exercises of similar scope that have a completion date during or following this week unless
specified in the class syllabus. During Final Review Week, an instructor shall not give any examinations constituting 10% or more of the final grade, except makeup tests and laboratory examinations. In addition, no instructor shall give any portion of the final examination during Final Review Week.
americans with disabilities act
The University of Texas at Arlington is on record as being committed to both the spirit and letter of federal equal opportunity legislation; reference to Public Law 93112---The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended. With the passage of new federal legislation entitled Americans with Disabilities Act - (ADA), pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, there is renewed focus on providing this population with the same opportunities enjoyed by all citizens.
As a faculty member, I am required by law to provide “reasonable accommodation” to students
with disabilities, so as not to discriminate on the basis of that disability. Student responsibility primarily rests with informing faculty at the beginning of the semester and in providing
authorized documentation through designated administrative channels.
It is the philosophy of The University of Texas at Arlington that academic dishonesty is a completely unacceptable mode of conduct and will not be tolerated in any form. All persons involved in academic dishonesty will be disciplined in accordance with University regulations and procedures. Discipline may include suspension or expulsion from the University
“Scholastic dishonesty includes but is not limited to cheating, plagiarism, collusion, the submission for credit of any work or material that are attributable in whole or in part to another person, taking an examination for another person, any act designed to give unfair advantage to a student or the attempt to commit such acts.” (Regents’ Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter VI, Section 3, Subsection 3.2 Subdivision 3.22)
student success programs
The University of Texas at Arlington supports a variety of student success programs to help you connect with the University and achieve academic success. They include learning assistance, developmental education, advising and mentoring, admissions and transition, and federally funded programs. Students requiring assistance academically, personally, or socially should contact the Office of Student Success Programs at 817-272-6107 for more information and appropriate referrals.
If anyone is tempted to call in a bomb threat, be aware that UTA will attempt to trace the phone call and prosecute all responsible parties. Every effort will be made to avoid cancellation of presentations/tests caused by bomb threats. Unannounced alternate sites will be available for these classes. Your instructor will make you aware of alternate class sites in the event that your classroom is not available.
Helen Hough is the Psychology Librarian. She can be reached at (817) 272-7429, and by email at firstname.lastname@example.org. You will find useful research information for psychology at
University add/drop policies have changed as of summer 2006. Please refer to those policies, or see the psychology department’s graduate advisor for help.