No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Task specificity and the impact on both the individual and group during the formation of groups
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2016
Abstract
We agree with aspects of Baumeister et al.'s view that shared identities are necessary during initial stages of group formation. In contrast to their analysis, however, we provide evidence that the value of self-differentiation depends more on the task itself than on the stage of group development and challenge the authors to focus on the functions of the group.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
References
Arrow, K. J. (1962) The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies
29(3):155–73.Google Scholar
Benkard, C. L. (2000) Learning and forgetting: The dynamics of commercial aircraft production. American Economic Review
90(4):1034–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandevia, S. C. (2001) Spinal and supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue. Physiological Reviews
81(4):1725–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoenigman, R., Bradley, E. & Lim, A. (2011) Cooperation in bike racing – when to work together and when to go it alone. Complexity
17(2):39–44. http://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20372
Google Scholar
Jetten, J., Hogg, M. A. & Mullin, B.-A. (2000) In-group variability and motivation to reduce subjective uncertainty. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice
4(2):184–98. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.2.184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitano, H. (2004) Biological robustness. Nature Reviews Genetics
5(11):826–37. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1471.Google Scholar
Kravitz, D. A. & Martin, B. (1986) Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
50:936–41. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.936.Google Scholar
Landau, M. (1969) Redundancy, rationality, and the problem of duplication and overlap. Public Administration Review
29(4):346–58. Available at: http://doi.org/10.2307/973247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masumoto, J. & Inui, N. (2013) Two heads are better than one: Both complementary and synchronous strategies facilitate joint action. Journal of Neurophysiology
109(5):1307–14. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00776.2012.Google Scholar
Olds, T. (1998) The mathematics of breaking away and chasing in cycling. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology
77(6):492–97. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/s004210050365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, K. H. (1990) Some characteristics of one type of high reliability organization. Organization Science
1(2):160–76.Google Scholar
Vigil, J. M. (2009) A socio-relational framework of sex differences in the expression of emotion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences
32(5):375–90; discussion 391–428. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09991075.Google Scholar
Target article
Are groups more or less than the sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification
Related commentaries (29)
Beyond old dichotomies: Individual differentiation can occur through group commitment, not despite it
But is it social? How to tell when groups are more than the sum of their members
Considering the role of ecology on individual differentiation
Differentiated selves can surely be good for the group, but let's get clear about why
Differentiated selves help only when identification is strong and tasks are complex
Differentiation of selves: Differentiating a fuzzy concept
Disputing deindividuation: Why negative group behaviours derive from group norms, not group immersion
Group and individual as complementary conceptual categories
Group behavior in the military may provide a unique case
Group effort in resuscitation teams
Group members differ in relative prototypicality: Effects on the individual and the group
Group membership: Who gets to decide?
Groups need selves, but which selves? Dual selves in groups and the downsides of individuation
How group members contribute to group performance: Evidence from agent-based simulations
Humans are not the Borg: Personal and social selves function as components in a unified self-system
Identity matters to individuals: Group assessment cannot be reduced to collective performance
Member differentiation and group tasks: More than meets the eye
Not even wrong: Imprecision perpetuates the illusion of understanding at the cost of actual understanding
Reputational concerns as a general determinant of group functioning
Roles and ranks: The importance of hierarchy for group functioning
Social identification is generally a prerequisite for group success and does not preclude intragroup differentiation
Social, not individual, identification is the key to understanding group phenomena
Solved paradoxes and old hats? The research needed on differentiated selves
Task specificity and the impact on both the individual and group during the formation of groups
The hows and whys of “we” (and “I”) in groups
The subtle effects of incentives and competition on group performance
The unique role of the agent within the romantic group
Vicarious contagion decreases differentiation – and comes with costs
We agree and we disagree, which is exactly what most people do most of the time
Author response
Differentiating selves facilitates group outcomes