Advertisement

Prozesse in Kleingruppen – Intragruppenprozesse

Chapter
  • 11k Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Wenn wir davon ausgehen, dass „zwei Köpfe mehr wissen als einer“, dann sollten Gruppen auch bessere Entscheidungen fällen als eine einzelne Person. Wie aber kommt es dann immer wieder zu so katastrophalen Entscheidungen wie beispielsweise der Entscheidung der Beratergruppe um Kennedy für die Invasion der Schweinebucht auf Kuba im Jahre 1961? Dieses Beispiel zeigt schon, dass es im Falle von Gruppen um eine besondere Art von sozialer Situation geht. So weisen Gruppen Merkmale auf, die zusätzliche Arten sozialen Einflusses bedingen oder die Stärke des sozialen Einflusses moderieren. Um diese aufzuzeigen, wird zunächst dargestellt, was mit der Bezeichnung „Gruppe“ genau gemeint ist. Weiterhin beschäftigt sich dieses Kapitel damit, wie sich die soziale Situation Gruppe auf das Leistungsverhalten auswirkt, und schließlich wird es um Besonderheiten des Entscheidungsprozesses in Gruppen gehen.

Literatur

  1. Aad, G., Abbott, B., Abdallah, J., Abdinov, O., Aben, R., Abolins, M., et al. (2015). Combined measurement of the higgs boson mass in pp collisions at s = 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments. Physical Review Letters, 114(19), 191803.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity, and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97–119.Google Scholar
  3. Albanese, R., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1985). Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding tendency. Academy of Management Review, 10, 244–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. (1993). Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allport, G. W. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Hrsg.), The handbook of social psychology (3. Aufl., Bd. 1, S. 1–46). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  6. Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team Size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 203–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arisholm, E., Gallis, H., Dyba, T., & Sjoberg, D. I. K. (2007). Evaluating pair programming with respect to system complexity and programmer expertise. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33, 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Armstrong, B., Johnson, D. W., & Balow, B. (1981). Effects of cooperative versus individualistic learning experiences on interpersonal attraction between learning disabled and normal progress elementary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ashfort, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., Murry, W., & Sivasbramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and performance. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Hrsg.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership (Bd. 3, S. 173–209). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.Google Scholar
  12. Balijepally, V., Mahapatra, R., Nerur, S. P., & Price, K. (2009). Are two heads better than one for software development? The productivity paradox of pair programming. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 33, 91–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison: A methodological analysis. American Psychologist, 30, 152–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting From left to right. Psychological Science, 26, 1531–1542.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Bastardi, A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Ross, L. (2011). Wishful thinking: Belief, desire, and the motivated evaluation of scientific evidence. Psychological Science, 22, 731–732.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Baumann, M. R., & Bonner, B. L. (2004). The effects of variability and expectations on utilization of member expertise and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Becker, M. (7. Januar 2016). Volkswagen-Abgasskandal: EU-Kommission wusste früh Bescheid. http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/volkswagen-abgasskandal-eu-kommission-wusste-frueh-bescheid-a-1102967.html.
  20. Benabou, R. (2013). Groupthink: Collective delusions in organizations and markets. The Review of Economic Studies, 80, 429–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Berger, J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1993). Theoretical research programs: Studies in the growth of theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Bergiel, B. J., Bergiel, E. B., & Balsmeier, P. W. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: A summary of their advantages and disadvantages. Management Research News, 31, 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Berkowitz, L. (1954). Group standards, cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 7, 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bessi, A., Coletto, M., Davidescu, G. A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Quattrociocchi, W., et al. (2015). Science vs conspiracy: Collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PLOS ONE, 10, e0118093.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Boehnke, K., Pelkner, A. K., & Kurman, J. (2004). On the interrelation of peer climate and school performance in mathematics: A German-Canadian-Israeli comparison of 14-year-old school students. In B. N. Setiadi, A. Supratiknya, W. Lonner, & Y. P. Poortinga (Hrsg.), Ongoing Themes in Psychology and Culture (S. 415–432). Yogyakarta: IACCP.Google Scholar
  27. Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bond, C. F., Jr., & Van Leeuwen, M. D. (1991). Can a part be greater than a whole? On the relationship between primary and meta-analytic evidence. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Bonner, B. L. (2004). Expertise in group problem solving: Recognition, social combination, and performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Bonner, B. L., Baumann, M. R., & Dalal, R. S. (2002). The effects of member expertise on group decisionmaking and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 719–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2017). Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 201706588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Gliner, M. D. (1995). The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1014–1029.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G., & Ostrom, T. M. (1986). Effects of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 763–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Brock, T. C., & Balloun, J. L. (1967). Behavioral receptivity to dissonant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 413–428.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Brodbeck, F. C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2000). A dynamic model of group performance: Considering the group members’ capacity to learn. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2002). The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: The effects of prediscussion dissent. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2007). Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model. Academy of Management Review, 32, 459–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Brown, R. J. (2000). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2. Aufl.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 366–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Burnstein, E., & Sentis, K. (1981). Attitude polarization in groups. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Hrsg.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (S. 197–216). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Carlson, J. A., & Davis, C. M. (1971). Cultural values and risky shift: A cross-cultural test in Uganda and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 392–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Carmichael, J. T., Brulle, R. J., & Huxster, J. K. (2017). The great divide: understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014. Climatic Change, 141, 599–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  48. Chapman, J. (2006). Anxiety and defective decision making: An elaboration of the groupthink model. Management Decision, 44, 1391–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42, 1872–1888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Codol, J. P. (1975). On the so-called “superior conformity of the self” behavior: Twenty experimental investigations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 457–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 159–163.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Cosier, R. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Agreement and thinking alike: Ingredients for poor decisions. Academy of Management Executive, 4, 69–74.Google Scholar
  54. Davis, D. D., & Harless, D. W. (1996). Group versus individual performance in a price-searching experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. De Gilder, D., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1994). Expectation states theory and the motivational determinants of social influence. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Hrsg.), European review of social psychology (Bd. 5, S. 243–269). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., et al. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 554–559.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In P. B. Paulus (Hrsg.), The psychology of group influence (S. 209–242). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics, 4, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Doherty, C., Kiley, J., & Jameson, B. (22. Juni 2016). Partisanship and political animosity in 2016. Pew Research Center. http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/. Zugegriffen: 20. Okt. 2017.
  63. Downing, J. W., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (1992). Effects of repeated expressions on attitude extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2016). Do online social media cut through the constraints that limit the size of offline social networks? Royal Society Open Science, 3, 150292.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Dunning, D. (2015). Motivated cognition in self and social thought. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Hrsg.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology (Bd. 1, S. 777–803). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  67. Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mid East: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319–348.Google Scholar
  68. Eisenstat, R. A. (1990). Compressor team start-up. In J. R. Hackman (Hrsg.), Groups that work (and those that don’t) (S. 411–426). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  69. Erikson, R. S., & Wlezien, C. (2008). Are political markets really superior to polls as election predictors? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 190–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Eshelman, D. (August 2011). The menace within. Stanford Magazine. https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-menace-within.
  71. Faulmüller, N., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Beyond group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles: The individual preference effect revisited. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 653–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Fielding, K. S., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Working hard to achieve self-defining group goals: A social identity analysis. Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie, 31, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Flowers, M. L. (1977). A laboratory test of some implications of Janis’s groupthink hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 888–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From nobel prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfittest: Why the worst infrastructure gets built–and what we can do about it. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25, 344–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Fodor, E. M., & Smith, T. (1982). The power motive as an influence on group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 178–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Franz, T. M., & Larson, R., Jr. (2002). The impact of experts on information sharing during group discussion. Small Group Research, 33, 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Frey, D., Schulz-Hardt, S., & Stahlberg, D. (1996). Information seeking among individuals and groups and possible consequences for decision making in business and politics. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Hrsg.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Bd. 2, S. 211–225). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  82. Fuller, S. R., & Aldag, R. J. (1998). Organizational Tonypandy: Lessons from a quarter century of the groupthink phenomenon. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 163–184.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi (the wisdom of crowds). Nature, 75, 450–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191–202.Google Scholar
  85. Gerard, H. B., & Mathewson, G. C. (1966). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group: A replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 278–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Gersick, C. J. G. (1990). The students. In J. R. Hackman (Hrsg.), Groups that work (and those that don’t) (S. 89–111). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  87. Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). The cimpact of information on small group choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41, 1313–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Gockel, C., & Werth, L. (2010). Measuring and modeling shared leadership. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 172–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Gologor, E. (1977). Group polarization in a non-risktaking culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Grabowicz, P. A., Ramasco, J. J., Moro, E., Pujol, J. M., & Eguiluz, V. M. (2012). Social features of online networks: The strength of intermediary ties in online social media. PLoS ONE, 7, e29358.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources and conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Greenstein, T. N., & Knottnerus, J. D. (1980). The effects of differential evaluations on status generalization. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Greitemeyer, T., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2003). Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 322–339.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. Greitemeyer, T., Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., & Frey, D. (2006). Information sampling and group decision making: The effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 31–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Hackman, J. R., et al. (1998). Why teams don’t work. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, & J. Myers (Hrsg.), Theory and research on small groups (S. 245). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  99. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Hrsg.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Bd. 8, S. 45–99). New York: Academy Press.Google Scholar
  100. Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973a). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews, 30, 4–17.Google Scholar
  101. Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973b). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69–97.Google Scholar
  102. Hannay, J. E., Dybå, T., Arisholm, E., & Sjøberg, D. I. K. (2009). The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis. Information and Software Technology, 51, 1110–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 934–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  107. Haslam, S. A., McGarty, C., & Turner, J. C. (1996). Salient group memberships and persuasion: The role of social identity in the validation of beliefs. In J. Nye & A. Brower (Hrsg.), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (S. 29–56). Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. C. (2000). Social identity, self-categorization, and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organisational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Hautz, W. E., Kämmer, J. E., Schauber, S. K., Spies, C. D., & Gaissmaier, W. (2015). Diagnostic performance by medical students working individually or in teams. Journal of the American Medical Association, 313, 303–304.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  110. Hertel, G. (2002). Motivation in Gruppen: Kann Teamarbeit die Arbeitsmotivation zusätzlich steigern? Wirtschaftspsychologie, 9, 15–21.Google Scholar
  111. Hertel, G., Aarts, H., & Zeelenberg, M. (2002). What do you think is “fair”? Effects of ingroup norms and outcome control on fairness judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Hertel, G., Deter, C., & Konradt, U. (2003a). Motivation gains in computer-supported groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2080–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Messé, L. A. (2000). Motivation gains in performance groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 580–601.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  114. Hertel, G., Niedner, S., & Herrmann, S. (2003b). Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Research Policy, 32, 1159–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Hoeksema-van Orden, C. Y. D., Gaillard, A. W. K., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Social loafing under fatigue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1179–1190.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  116. Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  117. Hogg, M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Hogg, M. A., & Sunderland, J. (1991). Self-esteem and intergroup descrimination in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 51–62.Google Scholar
  119. Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). The rank-order effect in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Hong, L. K. (1978). Risky shift and cautious shift: Some direct evidence on the culture-value theory. Social Psychology, 41, 342–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Humphrey, R. (1985). How work roles influence perception: Structure-cognitive processes and organizational behavior. American Sociological Review, 50, 242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Ingrams, A. (2017). Connective action and the echo chamber of ideology: Testing a model of social media use and attitudes toward the role of government. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Jackson, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 937–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Humen Decision Processes, 36, 16–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  129. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2. Aufl.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  130. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Jasny, L., Waggle, J., & Fisher, D. R. (2015). An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks. Nature Climate Change, 5, 782–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Jellison, J. M., & Riskind, J. A. (1970). A social comparison of abilities interpretation of risk-taking behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Johnson, R. D., & Downing, L. L. (1979). Deindividuation and valence of cues: Effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1532–1538.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  134. Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Jordan, M. (15. Januar 1996). In Japan, reading, writing, bullying. Washington Post, S. A1.Google Scholar
  136. Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science, 39, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 50–60.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  138. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1977). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. Decision Research Technical Report PTR-1042-77-6. Arlington: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.Google Scholar
  139. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1995). Social loafing: Research findings, implications, and future directions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 134–140.Google Scholar
  141. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., Wollebæk, D., & Enjolras, B. (2017). Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. European Journal of Communication, 32, 257–273.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Kelley, H. H. (1955). The two functions of reference groups. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Hrsg.), Readings in social psychology (S. 410–414). New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  144. Kelly, J. R., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Group decision making: The effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1342–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Freerider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  147. Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2011). Group-based forecasting?: A social psychological analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 27, 14–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., Mccarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009a). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009b). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011a). Superiority of collaborative learning with complex tasks: A research note on an alternative affective explanation. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011b). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: The collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 615–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P. A., & Janssen, J. (2011c). Differential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Köhler, O. (1926). Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenarbeit. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 3, 274–282.Google Scholar
  155. Köhler, O. (1927). Über den Gruppenwirkungsgrad der menschlichen Körperarbeit und die Bedingung optimaler Kollektivkraftreaktion. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 4, 209–226.Google Scholar
  156. Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. (2002). Management virtueller Teams : von der Telearbeit zum virtuellen Unternehmen. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  157. Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The orignial article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 936–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Kurvers, R. H., Herzog, S. M., Hertwig, R., Krause, J., Carney, P. A., Bogart, A., et al. (2016). Boosting medical diagnostics by pooling independent judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 8777–8782.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Lamm, H., Schaude, E., & Trommsdorff, G. (1971). Risky shift as a function of group members’ value of risk and need for approval. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 430–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Larson, J. R., Jr., Christensen, C., Franz, T. M., & Abbott, A. S. (1998a). Diagnosing groups: The pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 93–108.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  161. Larson, J. R., Jr., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Franz, T. M. (1998b). Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 482–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Larson, J. R., Jr., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making grous. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 446–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Larson, J. R., Christensen, C., Abbott, A. S., & Franz, T. M. (1996). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 315–330.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  164. Latané, B. (1986). Responsibility and effort in organizations. In P. S. Goodmann & Associates (Hrsg.), Designing effective work groups (S. 277–304). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  165. Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1980). Social impact theory and group influence: A social engineering perspective. In P. B. Paulus (Hrsg.), Psychology of group influence (S. 3–34). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  166. Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Group problem solving. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Altermatt, T. W. (1998). Collective versus individual induction with single versus multiple hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1481–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Miner, A. G. (2002). Groups perform better than the best individuals on Letters-to-Numbers problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 605–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Laughlin, P. R., Carey, H. R., & Kerr, N. L. (2008). Group-to-individual problem-solving transfer. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 644–651.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  173. Laughlin, P. R., Vander-Stoep, S. W., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1991). Collective versus individual induction: recognition of truth, rejection of error, and collective information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Laughlin, P. R., Zander, M. L., Knievel, E. M., & Tan, T. K. (2003). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Informative equations and effective strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 684–694.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  175. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Lee, E.-J. (2007). Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer-mediated communication: The role of group identification, public-self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. Journal of Communication, 57, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Lelkes, Y., Sood, G., & Iyengar, S. (2017). The hostile audience: The effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science, 61, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. In W. Stroebe & W. Hewstone (Hrsg.), European review of social Psychology (S. 305–336). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  179. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small groups. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Hrsg.), The handbook of social psychology (Bd. 2, S. 415–469). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  180. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2002). Group reactions to loyalty and disloyalty. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Hrsg.), Group cohesion, trust and solidarity. Advances in group processes (Bd. 19, S. 203–228). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  182. Lewis-Kraus, G. (14. Dezember 2016). The great A.I. awakening. The New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/magazine/the-great-ai-awakening.html.
  183. Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Long, S. (1984). Early integration in groups: “A group to join and a group to create”. Human Relations, 37, 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of succes. How optimism undermines executives’ decision. Harvard Business Review, 81, 56–63.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  186. Mackie, D. M. (1986). Social identification effects in group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 720–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Mackie, D. M., & Cooper, J. (1984). Attitude polarization: Effects of group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 575–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Madaras, G. R., & Bem, D. J. (1968). Risk and conservatism in group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 350–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Mark, J. (August 2011). The menace within. The Stanford Magazine. https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-menace-within.
  191. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  192. McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535–546.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  194. Messé, L. A., Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., Lount, R. B., Jr., & Park, E. S. (2002). Knowledge of partner’s ability as a moderator of group motivation gains: An exploration of the Köhler discrepancy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 935–946.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  195. Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1996). The construction of social norms and standards. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Hrsg.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (S. 799–829). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  196. Mojzisch, A., & Häuser, J. A. (2013). Fehlentscheidungen in politischen Gremien: Wie sie entstehen und wie sie sich verhindern lassen. The Inquisitive Mind, 3. http://de.in-mind.org/article/fehlentscheidungen-in-politischen-gremien-wie-sie-entstehen-und-wie-sie-sich-verhindern.
  197. Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Knowing others’ preferences degrades the quality of group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 794–808.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  198. Moreland, R. L. (1985). Social categorization and the assimilation of “new” group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1173–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Moreland, R. L. (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In L. L. Thompson & J. M. Levine (Hrsg.), Shared cognition in organization: The management of knowledge (S. 3–31). Mahwah: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Hrsg.), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (S. 57–84). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1988). Group dynamics over time: Development and socialization in small groups. In J. E. McGrath (Hrsg.), The social psychology of time: New perspectives (S. 151–181). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  202. Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making. An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Myers, D. G. (1978). Polarizing effects of social comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 554–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Nagata, Y. (1980). Status as a determinant of conformity to and deviation from the group norm. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 51, 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth, B. B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus (Hrsg.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (S. 63–84). London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Nevicka, B., Ten Velden, F. S., De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2011). Reality at odds with perceptions: Narcissistic leaders and group performance. Psychological Science, 22, 1259–1264.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  211. Niedenthal, P. M., Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1985). Prototype matching: A strategy for social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 575–584.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  212. Nordstrom, R. R., Lorenzi, P., & Hall, R. V. (1990). A review of public performance posting of performance feedback in work settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11, 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied Imagination. New York: Charles Scribner’s.Google Scholar
  214. Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Hrsg.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  216. Pavelchak, M. A., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1986). Effects of prior group memberships on subsequent reconnaissance activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 271–282.Google Scholar
  217. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Hrsg.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (S. 1–18). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  218. Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1107–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. Peterson, R. S., Owens, P. D., Tetlock, P. E., Fan, E., & Martorana, P. (1998). Group dynamics in top management team decision making: Groupthink, vigilance and alternative models of organizational failure and success. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 272–305.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  221. Petty, R. E., Harkins, S., & Williams, K. (1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes. An information processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81–92.Google Scholar
  222. Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). Reactions to ethnic deviance: The role of backlash in racial stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 265–281.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  223. Piecha, A., Wegge, J., Werth, L., & Richter, P. (2012). Geteilte Führung in Arbeitsgruppen – Ein Modell für die Zukunft? In S. In Zukunft der Führung (Hrsg.), Grote (S. 557–572). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  224. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918–930.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  226. Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale, J. R. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  227. Prescott, C. (28. April 2005). The lie of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The Stanford Daily, S. 4. http://stanforddailyarchive.com/cgi-bin/stanford?a=d&d=stanford20050428-01.2.24&e=——en-20–1–txt-txIN.
  228. Rehm, J., Steinleitner, M., & Lilli, W. (1987). Wearing uniforms and aggression: A field experiment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 850–856.Google Scholar
  229. Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. Reimer, T., Reimer, A., & Hinsz, V. B. (2010). Naïve groups can solve the hidden-profile problem. Human Communication Research, 36, 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. Ridgeway, C. L. (1978). Conformity, group-oriented motivation, and status attainment in small groups. Social Psychology, 41, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  232. Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs anim{é}s. Travail de l’homme. Annales de l’Institut National Argonomique, Series 2, 12, 1–40.Google Scholar
  233. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1975). Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  234. Rogelberg, S. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Lowe, C. A. (1992). The stepladder technique. An alternative group structure facilitating effective group decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 730–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. Ross, L., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  237. Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to Counterstereotypic Behavior: The Role of Backlash in Cultural Stereotype Maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  238. Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues, 69, 322–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  239. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. Salleh, N., Mendes, E., & Grundy, J. (2011). Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37, 509–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  241. Sanna, L. J., Parks, C. D., Chang, E. C., & Carter, S. E. (2005). The hourglass is half full or half empty: Temporal framing and the group planning fallacy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. Sargis, E. G., & Larson, R., Jr. (2002). Informational centrality and member participatiuon during group decision making. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  243. Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 46, 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  244. Schachter, S., Ellertson, N., McBride, D., & Gregory, D. (1951). An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 4, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  245. Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1080–1093.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  246. Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision-making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 563–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  247. Schulz-Hardt, S., & Mojzisch, A. (2012). How to achieve synergy in group decision making: Lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 305–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  248. Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision-making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 51–71.Google Scholar
  249. Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. L. (1989). Experiental effects of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745–772.Google Scholar
  250. Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  251. Shepperd, J. A. (1995). Remedying motivation and productivity loss in collective settings. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  252. Shepperd, J. A., & Taylor, K. M. (1999). Social loafing and expectancy-value theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1147–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  253. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1964). Reference groups: Exploration into conformity and deviation of adolescents. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  254. Shiue, Y.-C., Chiu, C.-M., & Chang, C.-C. (2010). Exploring and mitigating social loafing in online communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 768–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  255. Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2000). Social Psychology (2. Aufl.). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  256. Solomon, M. (2006). Groupthink versus the wisdom of crowds: The social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44, 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  257. Spiegel Online. (16. September 2016). Infografik der Woche – Massiv unterschätzt. Spiegel Online. http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/stuttgart-21-grafik-zur-kostenentwicklung-bei-grossprojekten-a-1112521.html.
  258. Spink, K. S., & Carron, A. V. (1994). Group cohesion effects in exercise classes. Small Group Research, 25, 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  259. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1239–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  260. Staats, B. R., Milkman, K. L., & Fox, C. R. (2012). The team scaling fallacy: Underestimating the declining efficiency of larger teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  261. Stasser, G. (1992). Information salience and the discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: A “thought experiment”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 156–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  262. Stasser, G. (2000). Information distribution, participation, and group decision: Explorations with the discuss and speak models. In D. R. Ilgen & C. L. Hulin (Hrsg.), Computational modeling of behavior in organizations: The third scientific discipline (S. 135–161). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  263. Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  264. Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  265. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  266. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  267. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  268. Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I., & Stewart, D. D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how accesss to information is distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  269. Steiger, T. (2013). Das Rollenkonzept der Führung. Handbuch Angewandte Psychologie für Führungskräfte (S. 35–61). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  270. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  271. Stewart, D. D., Billings, R. S., & Stasser, G. (1998). Accountability and the discussion of unshared, critical information in decision-making groups. Group Dynamics, 2, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  272. Stewart, D. D., & Stasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 619–628.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  273. Stewart, D. D., & Stasser, G. (1998). The sampling of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: The role of an informed minority. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  274. Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Insitute of Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/11330.
  275. Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members. On productivity loss in idea-generating groups. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Hrsg.), European review of social psychology (Bd. 5, S. 271–304). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  276. Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effextivity. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 18, 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  277. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo chambers: Bush v. Gore, impeachment, and beyond. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  278. Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2015). Wiser: Getting beyond groupthink to make groups smarter. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  279. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  280. Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and self-evaluation with a social standard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 891–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  281. Teger, A. I., & Pruitt, D. G. (1967). Components of group risk taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  282. Thürmer, J. L., Wieber, F., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2014). A self-regulation perspective on hidden-profile problems: If-then planning to review information improves group decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(2), 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  283. Tindale, R. S., Smith, C. M., Thomas, L. S., Filkins, J., & Sheffey, S. (1996). Shared representations and asymmetric social influence processes in small groups. In E. Witte & J. H. Davis (Hrsg.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (S. 81–104). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  284. Torrance, E. P. (1954). The behavior of small groups under the stress conditions of “survival”. American Sociological Review, 19, 751–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  285. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in different cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  286. Tubré, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of Management, 26, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  287. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  288. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2, 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  289. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Hrsg.), Social identity and intergroup relations (S. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  290. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  291. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  292. Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink research: Lessons in the development of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 105–115.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  293. Tziner, A., & Eden, D. (1985). Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  294. van Dick, R., Tissington, P. A., & Hertel, G. (2009). Do many hands make light work? European Business Review, 21, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  295. van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  296. van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  297. van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 337–349.Google Scholar
  298. van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity as social glue: The origins of group loyalty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 585–598.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  299. Vaught, C., & Smith, D. L. (1980). Incorporation and mechanical solidarity in an underground coal mine. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 7, 159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  300. Watson, W. E., Johnson, L., Kumar, K., & Critelli, J. (1998). Process gain and process loss: Comparing interpersonal processes and performance of culturally diverse and non-diverse teams across time. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 409–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  301. Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13, 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  302. Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close realtionships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923–929.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  303. Weinert, A. B. (1998). Organisationspsychologie. Ein Lehrbuch (4. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  304. Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246, 1232–1234.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  305. Weldon, E., & Mustari, E. L. (1988). Felt dispensability in groups of co-actors: The effects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity on cognitive effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 330–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  306. Werth, L. (2009). Psychologie für die Wirtschaft. Grundlagen und Anwendungen (2. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  307. West, M. (1994). Effective teamwork. Leicester: BPS Books.Google Scholar
  308. Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  309. Whyte, G. (1989). Groupthink reconsidered. Academy of Management Review, 14, 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  310. Wikipedia. (16. Juli 2017). Elbphilharmonie. Wikipedia, Die Freie Enzyklopädie. https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elbphilharmonie&oldid=167308979.
  311. Williams, K. D., Harkins, S., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  312. Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570–581.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  313. Winquist, J. R., & Larson, J. R. (1998). Information pooling: When it impacts group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  314. Wittenbaum, G. M. (2000). The bias toward discussing shared information: Why are high-status group members immune? Communication Research, 27, 379–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  315. Wittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P., & Zuckerman, C. (1999). Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding fo the collective preference for shared information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 967–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  316. Wittenbaum, G. M., & Park, E. S. (2001). The collective preference for shared information. Current Directions in Psycholgical Science, 10, 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  317. Wittenbaum, G. M., & Stasser, G. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Hrsg.), What’s social about social cognition? (S. 967–978). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  318. Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E. A., Hart, D., & Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social identity and individual productivity wihtin groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 389–413.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  319. Zaccaro, S. J. (1984). Social loafing: The role of task attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  320. Zaccaro, S. J., & McCoy, M. C. (1988). The effects of task and interpersonal cohesiveness on performance of a disjunctive group task. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 837–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  321. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  322. Zhu, D. H. (2013). Group polarization on corporate boards: Theory and evidence on board decisions about acquisition premiums. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 800–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  323. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In D. Levine & W. J. Arnold (Hrsg.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (S. 237–307). Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  324. Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  325. Zollo, F., Bessi, A., Del Vicario, M., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Shekhtman, L., et al. (2017). Debunking in a world of tribes. PLOS ONE, 12, e0181821.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  326. Zysno, P. (1998). Von Seilzug bis Brainstorming: Die Effizienz der Gruppe. In E. H. Witte (Hrsg.), Sozialpsychologie der Gruppenleistung. Beiträge des 12. Hamburger Symposions zur Methodologie der Sozialpsychologie (S. 184–210). Lengerich: Pabst Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachgebiet Wirtschafts- und OrganisationspsychologieUniversität HohenheimStuttgartDeutschland
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OsloOsloNorwegen
  3. 3.Zentrum für Soziales und Ökonomisches Verhalten (C-SEB)Universität zu KölnKölnDeutschland

Personalised recommendations