Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Sozialpsychologie – Der Mensch in sozialen Beziehungen pp 157–226Cite as

Prozesse in Kleingruppen – Intragruppenprozesse

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 32k Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

eBook
USD   24.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Welche Kriterien erfüllt sein müssen, damit man von einer Gruppe sprechen kann, wird sehr unterschiedlich gesehen. Turner (1982) beispielsweise fordert nur, dass es sich um zwei oder mehr Personen handelt, die sich selbst als Mitglieder der gleichen sozialen Kategorie wahrnehmen. Als Gruppen gelten demnach auch das Geschlecht, dem man angehört, und die eigene ethnische Gruppe. Für die nachfolgend beschriebenen Phänomene wird jedoch eine engere Definition des Gruppenbegriffs verwendet.

  2. 2.

    Gemäß soziologischer Theorien und Befunde sind unsere sozialen Netzwerke hierarchisch aufgebaut, mit typischerweise drei bis fünf verlässlichen Unterstützern, neun bis 15 engen Freunden und ca. 150 Freunden in unterschiedlichen Gruppen oder Cliquen (Dunbar 1993). Diese Zahlen ergeben sich zum einen aus kognitiven Grenzen in der Verarbeitungskapazität sozialer Informationen und zum anderen aus Beschränkungen hinsichtlich der zur Beziehungspflege verfügbaren Zeit. Obwohl Online-Kommunikation in sozialen Medien effizienter ist, scheinen diese Zahlen auch für Online-Netzwerke zu gelten (Dunbar 2016; Grabowicz et al. 2012; Kietzmann et al. 2011). Unabhängig vom Medium haben Frauen und Jugendliche größere Netzwerke als Männer und ältere Erwachsene.

  3. 3.

    Forschungsbefunden zufolge durchlaufen Gruppen, die neu zusammengestellt werden, typischerweise verschiedene Entwicklungsphasen, in deren Verlauf aus einer Ansammlung von Personen eine arbeitsfähige Gruppe werden kann (Tuckman 1965; vgl. auch Eisenstat 1990; Gersick 1990; Long 1984; Moreland und Levine 1988; Tuckman und Jensen 1977; Wheelan 1994; für einen Überblick vgl. Werth 2009, Kap. 6).

  4. 4.

    Für die soziale Identität spielen dabei auch Gruppen im weiteren Sinne, wie beispielsweise das Geschlecht, die Rasse oder die ethnische Zugehörigkeit, eine wichtige Rolle (Abschn. 4.3.1).

  5. 5.

    Salienz bedeutet Auffälligkeit eines Reizes in Bezug auf seinen Hintergrund (vgl. ▶ Sozialpsychologie I, Kap. 2). Als salient bezeichnet man daher eine Gruppenzugehörigkeit, die durch den Kontext in den Fokus der Aufmerksamkeit rückt. So wird im Fußballstadion die soziale Identität Fußballfan salient.

  6. 6.

    Zur Zeit des zweiten Golfkriegs im Jahre 2004 gelangten Fotos von folternden US-Soldatinnen und -Soldaten an die Presse und lösten weltweit Bestürzung aus.

  7. 7.

    Rätsel können allerdings auch von der Gruppe gemeinsam gelöst werden, was dann als komplementäre Aufgabe bezeichnet wird (Abschn. 3.2.1.5).

  8. 8.

    Darin unterscheidet sich die Situation grundlegend von solchen, in denen soziale Erleichterung und soziale Hemmung (Abschn. 2.1) beobachtet werden: Die letzteren beiden Phänomene treten dann auf, wenn der Einzelne mit seiner Leistung sozusagen nicht im Rampenlicht steht.

  9. 9.

    Die Aufgabenschwierigkeit wirkt sich beim sozialen Faulenzen genau umgekehrt auf die Leistung aus wie bei der sozialen Erleichterung bzw. Hemmung (Abschn. 2.1).

  10. 10.

    Im Zusammenhang mit dem Confirmation Bias (Abschn. 4.4.1) konnten Schulz-Hardt et al. (2002) zeigen, dass sowohl das Ernennen eines Advocatus Diaboli als auch eine natürliche Meinungsheterogenität der Mitglieder der Tendenz entgegenwirken, vor allem nach bestätigender Information zu suchen, wobei die natürliche Heterogenität einen größeren Effekt hat.

  11. 11.

    Der interessierte Leser sei für eine ausführliche Diskussion der Theorie des Gruppendenkens und deren Kritik verwiesen auf das Special Issue zum Thema Gruppendenken in der Zeitschrift Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 73, 1998.

  12. 12.

    Der Vollständigkeit halber werden hier auch Quellen von Entscheidungsfehlern und vorbeugende Maßnahmen genannt, die sich aus individuellen Urteilsverzerrungen ergeben und deshalb in ▶ Sozialpsychologie I behandelt wurden. Diese gelten aber ebenso für Gruppen, aufgrund von Polarisierungseffekten sogar häufig noch stärker als bei Entscheidungen von Einzelpersonen (Whyte 1989)

Literatur

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Albanese, R., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1985). Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding tendency. Academy of Management Review, 10, 244–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashfort, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison: A methodological analysis. American Psychologist, 30, 152–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting From left to right. Psychological Science, 26, 1531–1542.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bastardi, A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Ross, L. (2011). Wishful thinking: Belief, desire, and the motivated evaluation of scientific evidence. Psychological Science, 22, 731–732.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Benabou, R. (2013). Groupthink: Collective delusions in organizations and markets. The Review of Economic Studies, 80, 429–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1993). Theoretical research programs: Studies in the growth of theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, L. (1954). Group standards, cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 7, 509–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 251–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, B. L. (2004). Expertise in group problem solving: Recognition, social combination, and performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock, T. C., & Balloun, J. L. (1967). Behavioral receptivity to dissonant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 413–428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. J. (2000). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2. Aufl.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, J. (2006). Anxiety and defective decision making: An elaboration of the groupthink model. Management Decision, 44, 1391–1404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosier, R. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Agreement and thinking alike: Ingredients for poor decisions. Academy of Management Executive, 4, 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics, 4, 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Erikson, R. S., & Wlezien, C. (2008). Are political markets really superior to polls as election predictors? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 190–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eshelman, D. (August 2011). The menace within. Stanford Magazine. https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-menace-within.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowers, M. L. (1977). A laboratory test of some implications of Janis’s groupthink hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 888–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From nobel prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37, 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franz, T. M., & Larson, R., Jr. (2002). The impact of experts on information sharing during group discussion. Small Group Research, 33, 383–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi (the wisdom of crowds). Nature, 75, 450–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). The cimpact of information on small group choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gockel, C., & Werth, L. (2010). Measuring and modeling shared leadership. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 172–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gologor, E. (1977). Group polarization in a non-risktaking culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources and conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, T. N., & Knottnerus, J. D. (1980). The effects of differential evaluations on status generalization. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 147–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 934–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel, G. (2002). Motivation in Gruppen: Kann Teamarbeit die Arbeitsmotivation zusätzlich steigern? Wirtschaftspsychologie, 9, 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel, G., Deter, C., & Konradt, U. (2003a). Motivation gains in computer-supported groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2080–2105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). The rank-order effect in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 181–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, L. K. (1978). Risky shift and cautious shift: Some direct evidence on the culture-value theory. Social Psychology, 41, 342–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, R. (1985). How work roles influence perception: Structure-cognitive processes and organizational behavior. American Sociological Review, 50, 242–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2. Aufl.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, M. (15. Januar 1996). In Japan, reading, writing, bullying. Washington Post, S. A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science, 39, 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 50–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2011). Group-based forecasting?: A social psychological analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 27, 14–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köhler, O. (1926). Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenarbeit. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 3, 274–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhler, O. (1927). Über den Gruppenwirkungsgrad der menschlichen Körperarbeit und die Bedingung optimaler Kollektivkraftreaktion. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 4, 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. (2002). Management virtueller Teams : von der Telearbeit zum virtuellen Unternehmen. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The orignial article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 936–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Group problem solving. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R., Carey, H. R., & Kerr, N. L. (2008). Group-to-individual problem-solving transfer. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, S. (1984). Early integration in groups: “A group to join and a group to create”. Human Relations, 37, 311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of succes. How optimism undermines executives’ decision. Harvard Business Review, 81, 56–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, D. M. (1986). Social identification effects in group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 720–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, D. M., & Cooper, J. (1984). Attitude polarization: Effects of group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 575–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madaras, G. R., & Bem, D. J. (1968). Risk and conservatism in group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 350–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mark, J. (August 2011). The menace within. The Stanford Magazine. https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-menace-within.

  • McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Knowing others’ preferences degrades the quality of group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 794–808.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L. (1985). Social categorization and the assimilation of “new” group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1173–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G. (1978). Polarizing effects of social comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 554–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagata, Y. (1980). Status as a determinant of conformity to and deviation from the group norm. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 51, 152–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied Imagination. New York: Charles Scribner’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 575–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Hrsg.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918–930.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Rehm, J., Steinleitner, M., & Lilli, W. (1987). Wearing uniforms and aggression: A field experiment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 850–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, T., Reimer, A., & Hinsz, V. B. (2010). Naïve groups can solve the hidden-profile problem. Human Communication Research, 36, 443–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (1978). Conformity, group-oriented motivation, and status attainment in small groups. Social Psychology, 41, 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1975). Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargis, E. G., & Larson, R., Jr. (2002). Informational centrality and member participatiuon during group decision making. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 333–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 46, 190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schachter, S., Ellertson, N., McBride, D., & Gregory, D. (1951). An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 4, 229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepperd, J. A. (1995). Remedying motivation and productivity loss in collective settings. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 131–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepperd, J. A., & Taylor, K. M. (1999). Social loafing and expectancy-value theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1147–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1964). Reference groups: Exploration into conformity and deviation of adolescents. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2000). Social Psychology (2. Aufl.). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. (2006). Groupthink versus the wisdom of crowds: The social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44, 28–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Spink, K. S., & Carron, A. V. (1994). Group cohesion effects in exercise classes. Small Group Research, 25, 26–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, T. (2013). Das Rollenkonzept der Führung. Handbuch Angewandte Psychologie für Führungskräfte (S. 35–61). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effextivity. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 18, 643–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo chambers: Bush v. Gore, impeachment, and beyond. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2015). Wiser: Getting beyond groupthink to make groups smarter. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and self-evaluation with a social standard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 891–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teger, A. I., & Pruitt, D. G. (1967). Components of group risk taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1954). The behavior of small groups under the stress conditions of “survival”. American Sociological Review, 19, 751–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in different cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2, 419–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dick, R., Tissington, P. A., & Hertel, G. (2009). Do many hands make light work? European Business Review, 21, 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vaught, C., & Smith, D. L. (1980). Incorporation and mechanical solidarity in an underground coal mine. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 7, 159–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13, 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close realtionships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923–929.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weinert, A. B. (1998). Organisationspsychologie. Ein Lehrbuch (4. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246, 1232–1234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werth, L. (2009). Psychologie für die Wirtschaft. Grundlagen und Anwendungen (2. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. (1994). Effective teamwork. Leicester: BPS Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, G. (1989). Groupthink reconsidered. Academy of Management Review, 14, 40–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikipedia. (16. Juli 2017). Elbphilharmonie. Wikipedia, Die Freie Enzyklopädie. https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elbphilharmonie&oldid=167308979.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winquist, J. R., & Larson, J. R. (1998). Information pooling: When it impacts group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 371–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum, G. M. (2000). The bias toward discussing shared information: Why are high-status group members immune? Communication Research, 27, 379–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum, G. M., & Park, E. S. (2001). The collective preference for shared information. Current Directions in Psycholgical Science, 10, 70–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaccaro, S. J. (1984). Social loafing: The role of task attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, D. H. (2013). Group polarization on corporate boards: Theory and evidence on board decisions about acquisition premiums. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 800–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fachgebiet Wirtschafts- und Organisationspsychologie, Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Deutschland

    Lioba Werth

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norwegen

    Beate Seibt

  3. Zentrum für Soziales und Ökonomisches Verhalten (C-SEB), Universität zu Köln, Köln, Deutschland

    Jennifer Mayer

Authors
  1. Lioba Werth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beate Seibt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lioba Werth .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Werth, L., Seibt, B., Mayer, J. (2020). Prozesse in Kleingruppen – Intragruppenprozesse. In: Sozialpsychologie – Der Mensch in sozialen Beziehungen. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53899-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53899-9_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-53898-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-53899-9

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation