Group dynamics are the influential actions, processes, and changes that take place within and between groups. Groups come in all shapes and sizes, their functions are many and varied, and their influence universal. The tendency to join with others in groups is perhaps the single most important characteristic of humans, and the processes that unfold within these groups leave an indelible imprint on their members and on society. To understand people, one must understand groups and their dynamics.
My interest in groups stems from graduate school days, when I had the good fortune to work with such experts on groups as Bob Ziller, Marvin Shaw, and Barry Schlenker. Also, as an undergraduate, I also worked with Russ Clark, who studies diffusion of responsibility in groups and risky shifts in groups.
Teaching Group Dynamics: When I teach group dynamics I use both experiential activities as well as more traditional lectures/presentations. The powerpoints for the presentations are online at this site.
Revising Group Dynamics: I am (nearly always) working on revising my book dealing with group dynamics. To motivate myself I keep some notes and ideas in the form of a blog at this website.
My interest in morality dates all the way back to my dissertation, which examined individual differences in moral philosophy. I have also conducted a number of studies personality and ethics, looking at values, traits, and situational factors as causes of both moral judgment and moral behavior.
You can access descriptions of that work by using the menu tab Ethics at the top of this page. Some of the work that is linked to that page includes
The Ethics Position Theory. I developed a personality measure that assumes people differ in the personal moral philosophies. This measure of these differences is called the Ethics Position Questionnaire (or EPQ). If you are interested in using the Ethics Position Questionnaire in your research, please visit THIS PAGE for background information and a copy of the items.
Personality and Productivity. In work conducted with Ernest O’Boyle, we have explored the literature on the relationship between the so-called Dark Triad–Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy–and other variables, such as productivity and personality.
The Greater Good. I continue to be intrigued by individuals decision to contribute their personal resources, whether time, energy, or money, to a common, shared cause. For background on this topic, please visit the website For the Greater Good of All, a book I edited with Crystal Hoyt dealing with this topic.
In 1779 Benjamin Franklin, when serving as the U.S. envoy to France, fell in love with Anne Catherine Helvétius, the widow of the Swiss-French philosopher, Claude-Adrien Helvétius. In an attempt to win her affections, Franklin sent her many letters expressing his love, admiration, and passion for her. In one he claimed that in a dream he was transported to the Elysian Fields, where he discovered that his late wife and Madam Helvétius’s late husband had married one another. It would, he suggested, only be fair if they avenged this union by themselves marrying. In another, more passionate plea, he wrote “If that Lady likes to pass her Days with him, he in turn would like to pass his Nights with her; and as he has already given her many of his days…she appears ungrateful never to have given him a single one of her nights.”
The lover’s mind, as Alfred Lord Tennyson explained, “lightly turns to thoughts of love” with the arrival of Spring and its harbinger: St. Valentine’s Day. But this holiday brings a responsibility: the crafting of a “written missive that defines and describes the current and/or desired nature of an amative relationship between the sender and recipient”–in other words, a love letter. This burden is lightened, to some degree, by the availability of pre-built greeting cards, red roses, candy hearts, and the Love You! app for your smart phone, but the traditional love letter makes it possible to convey one’s love for another in a more coherent and influential way (and, as Marcus Cicero pointed out, “a letter does not blush”).
But what should you say in your love letter to your Valentine? Should lovers craft sentimental love poems, confess their undying commitment in flowery prose, or pen flirtatious notes that hint at the sexual pleasures found in each other’s arms? Did Ben Franklin’s sly request for a night together endear him to the widow, or would a letter like Kahlil Gibran’s to Mary Haskill be more likely to curry favor in the recipient’s heart: “You are like the Great Spirit, who befriends man not only to share his life, but to add to it. My knowing you is the greatest thing in my days and nights, a miracle quite outside the natural order of things.”
Fortunately, theory and research offer some suggestions to the love-besotted crafter of persuasive prose. Yale psychologist Robert Sternberg’s theory of love, for example, suggests that the ideal love letter should include content relevant to love’s three basic components—intimacy, passion, and commitment.Intimacy is the emotional component: the “close, connected, and bonded” feelings lovers experience. Passion is the motivational component. Like passionate love, it includes physical attraction, sexual desire, sexuality. Sternberg’s third component, decision/commitment, speaks of one’s hope that the relationship will be long-lasting. Words like loyalty, responsibility, faithfulness, and devotion characterize commitment. The consummate love letter would, in theory, combine all three elements.
To test Sternberg’s theory we developed a dozen different love letters and asked men and women to read and evaluate each one’s success in expressing love. Some of the letters were filled with expressions of tender intimacy: “You are my best friend,” “I can share any secret with you,” and “I feel so close and connected to you.” Others confessed ardor and passion: “You are a wonderful lover,” and “Our nights are pure, physical pleasure.” Still others spoke of commitment—a desire for a long-term relationship—or a worry about what the future might bring. And some letters included two of these elements, and one—the super-love-letter—combined all three.
We discovered that, when it comes to love letters, commitment conquered all. The letter that proclaimed “I know we will be happy together for the rest of our lives” and “I couldn’t imagine a world without you in it” was rated much higher, in terms of expressing love, than one that made no mention of commitment or, even worse, explained: “I am really happy being with you, but who knows what’s going to happen.” Adding language that spoke of closeness and caring increased the letter’s good impression with readers, but it was commitment that left readers feeling loved and in love. One woman said “I think he is really comfortable and at ease with me, it gives me a sense of being absolutely secure and comfortable.” A 20-year old man explained “This woman is in love with me and shows total commitment and loyalty to me.”
And what about expressing passion in a letter? Frisky letters, which went on for too long about the sender’s sexual passions, were viewed negatively; they seemed like lust letters instead of love letters. One 20 year-old woman concluded the “relationship appears to be purely physical, with no sentiments or emotional commitment.” Another complained “I don’t want my love letter talking about how crazy sex makes my partner feel.” But what about men? Did they prefer a letter with sensual details to one that spoke of closeness and commitment? No. Men were not as embarrassed by the provocative letters as were women, but they too gave them low ratings.
We also discovered that a message of commitment need not be delivered in a traditional love letter or a card: email will do. In a second study volunteers were told that at some point in the next week they would be receiving a love letter by email. All they needed to do was read it and imagine how they would react if they got such an email from someone they were dating. Once again, it was the message that spoke of the relationship, a future together, and years of happiness ahead that turned the email into a love email.
Unexpectedly, the super-love-letter that combined all three of the Sternberg model elements was not judged as uniquely loving. In the language of statistics, rather than amplifying each element of love, we obtained only main effects, without a hint of an interaction.
To summarize our findings in the language of candy conversation hearts, all the letters said, at some point, “I love you,” but the strongest letters added “Be mine forever” and “Best friends.” The “Hot lover” letter was more likely to backfire than win a heart.
This research, in its small way, is a reminder of the value of the scientific study of interpersonal relationships. There are those who consider the study of liking and love to be a frivolous pursuit. For example, some years back Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin discovered that the National Science Foundation was funding studies of attraction and love. Outraged by what he felt was useless research, Proxmire insisted that “Americans want to leave some things in life a mystery, and right at the top of the things we don’t want to know about is why a man falls in love with a woman and vice versa.” But the study of relationships yields the knowledge needed to strengthen those relationships and enrich people’s lives. People, when asked about sources of lasting happiness and satisfaction, put their relationships with others at the top the list, far higher in importance than career accomplishments, financial security, and material possessions. Health and well-being are linked to physical factors, but also to the quality and reliability of one’s relationships with others (Reis, 2011). Researchers, by studying relationships, find solutions to many of the most basic problems people face as individuals and as a species: divorce, violence, prejudice, conflict, and loneliness. Certainly many questions are worth studying scientifically–it would be good to know, for example, more about the moons around Saturn, the penguin’s top swimming speed, or DNA of the drosophilae–but is there really anything more important than understanding the whys and wherefores of our relationships with others?
Reis, H. T. (2011). “It’s Not a Matter of Life and Death.” Personality and Social Psychology Connections. Retrieved from http://spsptalks.wordpress.com.
Another leader—no, an entire cadre of leaders—has been found to be a moral failure. Legal authorities have charged Jerry Sandusky, who retired as the defensive coordinator for the Penn State football team in 1999, with the sexual abuse of children who he targeted through his involvement in the charitable organization The Second Mile. Additionally, a number of other administrators and leaders at Penn State University—the university’s president Graham Spanier, vice-president Gary Schultz, athletic director Tim Curley and long-time football coach Joe Paterno—face charges or have been fired from the university because of their failure to take action when Sandusky’s crimes were brought to their attention. Time, research, and investigation will inform fully our judgment of who is guilty and who is innocent, but the indictment states many at the university were aware of Sandusky’s crimes but did not intervene as required by law and by moral standards.
Sandusky and the…
View original post 1,289 more words
When I worked for a construction company in the 1970s I spent many a lunch hour talking with the veterans about their experiences working all kinds of jobs. They had clear opinions about which jobs to avoid and which ones to seek. Avoid, they recommended, road crewing during the summer months in Florida. Keep away from “call backs,” where the boss sends you out to correct problems cause by other employees. Seek, instead, jobs that are done in the shop or ones that required the use of heavy equipment. Such jobs were always described with the catch phrase “good work, if you can get it.”
When I migrated from the world of construction and took a position as a college professor and social psychologist, I found myself on the right side of the “good work if you can get it” divide. Granted, professoring is still work. There are politics of the office, bosses who make demands, paychecks to cash, and duties that must be fulfilled. Nor is it a glamorous occupation, as Hollywood’s depictions of Indiana Jones-like professorial types would suggest. But depending on one’s goals and perspectives, it is a personally fulfilling pursuit. It is an elite profession that requires special training and skill, and for much of the time if feels more like a “calling” than “work,” for it involves (a) learning and practicing the skills valued by the profession; (b) seeking immersion in a community whose members are similarly dedicated to these goals; (c) sacrificing time, effort, and pleasures so that the demands of the discipline are met, and (d) striving for goals that go beyond personal desires and needs and instead benefit other people and society as a whole.
This sense of satisfaction with the “good work” stems, almost entirely, from my reverence for social psychology. As an undergraduate displayed a dilettante’s interest in many topics before I strayed—by accident—into a course in social psychology. As the professor (Dr. Russell D. Clark, III) moved through the material I was thrilled that my own ruminations were shared by a vibrant, expressive community of scholars. Their view contrasted so sharply with convention wisdom, for many people seem to return time and again to explanations of human behavior that stress personality and predilections as causes of behavior. My 6th grade teacher, for example, was certain that each one of her pupil’s destiny was already determined at the age of 12, with our aptitudes and temperaments had already set us on our life’s course. My mother and grandmother, both astrologists, similarly believed that one’s outcomes depended little on the actions of others, but rather on the predetermined course set by the planets. Yet, here was a field that confirmed that other interpersonal and not intrapsychic events shape people’s outcomes. I became a professor because that is what social psychologists become. I am a social psychologist, first, and a professor, second.
But this detached fascination is complemented by a belief that social psychology offers important insights into many of the problems of living in the modern world: collective violence, cults, destructive obedience, intergroup conflict, mental illness, overcrowding, pollution, and prejudice are all examples. In my studies of prosocial behavior (actions that benefit others rather than the self), my students and I find that morality is as much a quality of social groups as a characteristic of isolated individuals. Studies of our social identify model explain how individualistic qualities–traits, beliefs, skills, and so on–are melded in the self-concept with qualities that spring from membership in groups, including families, cliques, work groups, neighborhoods, tribes, cities, countries, and regions. And my studies of the functions of groups–the rewards that people gain by joining with others in a group–explain why sociality is so common, particularly in times of challenge and stress. This general approach to understanding how individualistic needs are coordinated with, and in many ways, met by, membership in groups, forms the theoretical basis for my analyses of how group psychotherapy can be improved.
As part of the duties of the Harry Kirke Wolfe Lecturer for 2008, I will be attending the Southwestern Psychological Association meetings and delivering a presentation on Teaching and Learning with the Self in Mind. The mini-version of the talk is available in this 5 minute powerpoint-to-movie file.