Testing the boundaries of the model of pro-group intent: Does group interaction influence reaction to poor performers?

IF 4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Group Processes & Intergroup Relations Pub Date : 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1177/13684302241226924
J. Lukas Thürmer
{"title":"Testing the boundaries of the model of pro-group intent: Does group interaction influence reaction to poor performers?","authors":"J. Lukas Thürmer","doi":"10.1177/13684302241226924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective:When task groups depend on all members’ contributions, one poor performer can threaten the entire group’s goal attainment. The model of pro-group intent (M-PGI) stipulates that group responses to such poor performers are primarily determined by the group’s assessment of that person’s willingness to help the group ( attributed pro-group intent). Despite supportive evidence, past research has neglected whether model predictions hold under conditions more representative of group life. The current study thus tests the M-PGI in (a) personal interaction, (b) settings beyond the work context, and (c) repeated decisions.Method:The current paper reports two experiments using repeated decision scenarios across a range of group situations (i.e., within-participant designs). The main experiment, moreover, manipulated whether two group members discussed their response to a described poor performer (interacting dyads) or decided individually (nominal dyads; between-participant factor).Results:Results provide consistent evidence for the M-PGI across contexts. Process analyses provide some evidence that model effects were stronger in interacting (vs. nominal) dyads.Conclusions:Interacting groups focus on poor performers’ intent when determining their responses. I discuss the implications of the M-PGI for group dynamics theory and research, as well as a range of applied fields.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"2017 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241226924","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective:When task groups depend on all members’ contributions, one poor performer can threaten the entire group’s goal attainment. The model of pro-group intent (M-PGI) stipulates that group responses to such poor performers are primarily determined by the group’s assessment of that person’s willingness to help the group ( attributed pro-group intent). Despite supportive evidence, past research has neglected whether model predictions hold under conditions more representative of group life. The current study thus tests the M-PGI in (a) personal interaction, (b) settings beyond the work context, and (c) repeated decisions.Method:The current paper reports two experiments using repeated decision scenarios across a range of group situations (i.e., within-participant designs). The main experiment, moreover, manipulated whether two group members discussed their response to a described poor performer (interacting dyads) or decided individually (nominal dyads; between-participant factor).Results:Results provide consistent evidence for the M-PGI across contexts. Process analyses provide some evidence that model effects were stronger in interacting (vs. nominal) dyads.Conclusions:Interacting groups focus on poor performers’ intent when determining their responses. I discuss the implications of the M-PGI for group dynamics theory and research, as well as a range of applied fields.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测试亲群体意图模型的界限:群体互动会影响对表现不佳者的反应吗?
目标:当任务小组依赖于所有成员的贡献时,一个表现不佳的人可能会威胁到整个小组目标的实现。支持团体意图模型(M-PGI)认为,团体对表现不佳者的反应主要取决于团体对该人帮助团体意愿的评估(归因于支持团体意图)。尽管有支持性证据,但过去的研究忽视了模型预测在更能代表群体生活的条件下是否成立。因此,本研究在以下情况下对 M-PGI 进行了测试:(a)个人互动;(b)工作环境以外的环境;以及(c)重复决策。此外,主要实验还操纵了两名小组成员是讨论他们对所描述的表现不佳者的反应(交互式二人组),还是单独做出决定(名义二人组;参与者间因素)。结果:实验结果为跨情境的 M-PGI 提供了一致的证据。过程分析提供了一些证据,表明模型效应在互动(相对于名义)二元组中更强。我讨论了 M-PGI 对群体动力学理论和研究以及一系列应用领域的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Group Processes & Intergroup Relations is a scientific social psychology journal dedicated to research on social psychological processes within and between groups. It provides a forum for and is aimed at researchers and students in social psychology and related disciples (e.g., organizational and management sciences, political science, sociology, language and communication, cross cultural psychology, international relations) that have a scientific interest in the social psychology of human groups. The journal has an extensive editorial team that includes many if not most of the leading scholars in social psychology of group processes and intergroup relations from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Judgments toward displays of national (dis)loyalty in members of nations other than one’s own: Universalistic and parochial perspectives Two Paths to Violence: Individual versus Group Emotions during Conflict Escalation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories “Ins and outs”: Ethnic identity, the need to belong, and responses to inclusion and exclusion in inclusive common ingroups Divergent views of party positions: How ideology and own issue position shape party perception through convergence and divergence processes Corrigendum to “Tackling loneliness together: A three-tier social identity framework for social prescribing”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1