Getting Even or Being at Odds? Cohesion in Even- and Odd-Sized Small Groups

References

• Asch S. E., Guetzkow H. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. Groups, Leadership and Men (1951) (Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh) 177–190Google Scholar
• Baer M., Oldham G. R., Hollingshead A. B., Jacobsohn G. C. Revisiting the birth order–creativity connection: The role of sibling constellation. Creativity Res. J. (2005) 17(1):67–77Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bales R. F., Borgatta E. F., Hare P. A., Borgatta E. F., Bales R. F. Size of group as a factor in the interaction profile. Small Group Studies in Social Interaction (1955) (Alfred A. Knopf, New York) 396–413Google Scholar
• Beal D. J., Cohen R. R., Burke M. J., McLendon C. L. Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. J. Appl. Psych. (2003) 88(8):989–1004Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brittain J., Sitkin S. Carter racing case and teaching notes. (1988) . Stanford Case System (S-OB-24), Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
• Caplow T.Two Against One: Coalitions in Triads (1968) (Prentice-Hall, Oxford, UK) Google Scholar
• Cartwright D., Cartwright D., Zander A. The nature of group cohesiveness. Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (1968) 3rd ed.(Harper & Row, New York) 91–109Google Scholar
• Cialdini R. B.Influence (2001) (Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA) Google Scholar
• Clark R. D., Maass A. The effects of majority size on minority influence. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. (1990) 20(2):99–117Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cummings L. L., Huber G. P., Arendt E. Effects of size and spatial arrangements on group decision-making. Acad. Management J. (1974) 17(3):460–475Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis J. H. Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psych. Rev. (1973) 80(4):97–125Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis J. H., Kerr N. L., Atkin R. S., Holt R., Meek D. The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1975) 32(1):1–14Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Even, n.d.; odd, n.d. Retrieved January 26 2008, http://dictionary.reference.comGoogle Scholar
• Duverger M. Factors in a two-party and multiparty system. Party Politics and Pressure Groups (1972) (Thomas Y. Crowell, New York) 23–32Google Scholar
• Festinger L. lnformal social communication. Psych. Rev. (1950) 57(5):271–282Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frank F., Anderson L. R. Effects of task and group size upon group productivity and member satisfaction. Sociometry (1971) 34(1):135–149Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaertner S. L., Dovidio J. F.Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model (2000) (Psychology Press, Philadelphia) Google Scholar
• Galton F.English Men of Science (1874) (Macmillan, London) Google Scholar
• Gruenfeld D. H., Martorana P., Fan E. T. What do groups learn from their worldliest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2000) 82(1):45–59Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grusky O., Bonacich P., Webster C. The coalition structure of the four-person family. Curr. Res. Soc. Psych. (1995) 1(3):16–29Google Scholar
• Guarnaschelli S., McKelvey R. D., Palfrey T. R. An experimental study of jury decision rules. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. (2000) 94(2):407–423Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gully S. M., Devine D. J., Whitney D. J. A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Res. (1995) 26(4):497–520Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackman J. R.Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances (2002) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackman J. R., Vidmar N. Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions. Sociometry (1970) 33(1):37–54Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick D. C. Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the “team” label. Res. Organ. Behav. (1994) 16:171–213Google Scholar
• Hastie R., Kameda T. The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psych. Rev. (2005) 112(2):494–508Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hastie R., Penrod S. D., Pennington N.Inside the Jury (1983) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heath C., Larrick R. P., Klayman J. Cognitive repairs: How organizations compensate for the shortcomings of individual learners. Res. Organ. Behav. (1998) 20:1–37Google Scholar
• Heider F.The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (1958) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hines T. M. An odd effect: Lengthened reaction times for judgments about odd digits. Memory Cognition (1990) 18(1):40–46Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoffman L. R., Stein R. T., Hoffman L. R., Stein R. T. The hierarchical model of problem-solving groups. Small Groups (1983) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Hogg M. A., Abrams D.Group Motivation: Social Psychological Perspectives (1993) (Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, UK) Google Scholar
• Janis I. L.Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (1982) 2nd ed.(Houghton Mifflin, New York) Google Scholar
• Karau S. J., Williams K. D. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1993) 65(4):681–706Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerr N. L., Stasser G., Davis J. H. Model testing, model fitting, and social decision schemes. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1979) 23(3):399–410Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kreft I., DeLeeuw J.Introducing Multilevel Modeling (1998) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Latané B., Wolf S. The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psych. Rev (1981) 88(5):438–453Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lau D. C., Murnighan J. K. Interactions within groups and subgroups: The dynamic effects of demographic faultlines. Acad. Management J. (2005) 48(4):645–660Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine J. M., Moreland R. L. Progress in small group research. Annual Rev. Soc. Psych. (1990) 41:585–634Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine J. M., Moreland R. L., Resnick L. B., Levine J. M., Teasdale S. D. Culture and socialization in work groups. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (1991) (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC) 257–279Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine J. M., Moreland R. L., Gilbert D., Fiske S., Lindzey G. Small groups. Handbook of Social Psychology (1998) 24th ed.(McGraw-Hill, Boston) 415–469Google Scholar
• Levine J. M., Thompson L., Higgins E. T., Kruglanski A. W. Conflict in groups. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (1996) (Guilford Press, New York) 745–776Google Scholar
• Loyd D. L., White J., Kern M., Phillips K. W., Mannix E., Neale M. A. Duo status: Disentangling the complex interactions within a minority of two. Research on Managing Groups and Teams (2008) (JAI Press, Amsterdam) 75–92Google Scholar
• Maier N. R. Decision-making in three- vs. four-person groups. Personnel Psych. (1972) 25(3):531–534Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mannix E. A. Organizations as resource dilemmas: The effects of power balance on group decision making. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1993) 55(1):1–22Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marmaros D., Sacerdote B. How to friendships form? Quart. J. Econom. (2006) 121(1):79–119Google Scholar
• Moreland R. L., Hogg M. A., Hains S. Back to the future: Social psychological research on groups. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1994) 30(6):527–555Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreland R. L., Levine J. M., Wingert M. L., Davis J., Witte E. Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work. Understanding Group Behavior (1996) 2(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ) 11–35Google Scholar
• Morris M. W., Larrick R. P., Su S. K. Misperceiving negotiation counterparts: When situationally-determined bargaining behaviors are attributed to personality traits. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1999) 77(1):52–67Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moscovici S., Lindzey G., Aronson E. Social influence and conformity. Handbook of Social Psychology (1985) 2(McGraw-Hill, New York) 347–412Google Scholar
• Mullen B., Copper C. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psych. Bull. (1994) 115(2):210–227Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murnighan J. K. Models of coalition behavior: Game theoretic, social psychological and political perspectives. Psych. Bull. (1978) 85(5):1130–1153Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murnighan J. K., Roth A. E. Large group bargaining in a characteristic function game. J. Conflict Resolution (1978) 22(2):299–317Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murnighan J. K., Roth A. E. Effects of group size and communication availability on coalition bargaining in a veto game. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1980) 39(1):92–103Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nemeth C. J. Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psych. Rev. (1986) 93(1):23–32Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nishiyama Y. A study of odd- and even-number cultures. Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc. (2006) 26(6):479–484Crossref, Google Scholar
• O'Dell J. W. Group size and emotional interaction. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1968) 8(1):75–78Crossref, Google Scholar
• O'Leary M. B., Mortensen M. Go (con)figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organ. Sci (2010) 21(1):115–131Link, Google Scholar
• O'Reilly C. A., Williams K. Y., Barsade S., Gruenfeld D., Neale M. A. Group demography and innovation: Does diversity help? Research on Managing in Groups and Teams (1998) 1(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 183–207Google Scholar
• Peterson R. S., Nemeth C. J. Focus versus flexibility: Majority and minority influence can both improve performance. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (1996) 22(1):14–23Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peterson R. S., Owens P. D., Tetlock P. E., Fan E., Martorana P. Group dynamics in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance and alternative models of organizational failure and success. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1998) 73(2/3):272–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips K. W. The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (2003) 29(1):3–13Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips K. W., Liljenquist K. A., Neale M. A. Is the pain worth the gain? The advantages and liabilities of agreeing with socially distinct newcomers. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (2009) 35(3):336–350Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips K. W., Mannix E. A., Neale M. A., Gruenfeld D. H. Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (2004) 40(4):497–510Crossref, Google Scholar
• Polzer J. T., Crisp B., Jarvenpaa S. L., Kim J. W. Extending the faultline concept to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Acad. Management J. (2006) 49(4):679–692Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prislin R., Christensen P. N. Social change in the aftermath of successful minority influence. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psych. (2005) 16:75–111Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prislin R., Limbert W. M., Bauer E. From majority to minority and vice versa: The asymmetrical effects of losing and gaining majority position within a group. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2000) 79(3):385–397Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rico R., Sánchez-Manzanares M., Gil F., Gibson C. Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Acad. Management Rev. (2008) 33(1):163–184Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway C. The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Soc. Forces (1991) 70(2):367–386Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riker W. H.The Theory of Political Coalitions (1962) (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT) Google Scholar
• Saks M. J.Jury Verdicts: The Role of Group Size and Social Decision Rule (1977) (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA) Google Scholar
• Schachter S. Deviation, rejection and communication. J. Abnormal Soc. Psych. (1951) 46(2):190–207Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schopler J., Insko C. A., Stroebe W., Hewstone M. The discontinuity effect in interpersonal and intergroup relations: Generality and mediation. European Review of Social Psychology (1992) 3(John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK) 121–151Google Scholar
• Shears L. M. Patterns of coalition formation in two games played by male tetrads. Behav. Sci. (1967) 12(2):130–137Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simmel G.The Sociology of Georg Simmel (1950) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Stasser G., Kerr N. L., Davis J. H., Paulus P. B. Influence processes and consensus models in decision making groups. Psychology of Group Influence (1989) 2nd ed.(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ) 279–326Google Scholar
• Sulloway F. J.Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives (1996) (Pantheon, New York) Google Scholar
• Sunstein C. R., Schkade D. A., Ellman L. M., Sawicki A.Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary (2006) (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• Sutton R. I., Hargadon A. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1996) 41(4):685–718Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tajfel H., Turner J. C., Worchel S., Austin W. G. The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations (1986) (Nelson-Hall, Chicago) 7–24Google Scholar
• Thomas-Hunt M. C., Phillips K., Peterson R. S., Mannix E. A. Managing teams in the dynamic organization: The effects of revolving membership and changing task demands on expertise and status in groups. Leading and Managing People in the Dynamic Organization (2003) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ) 115–133Google Scholar
• Thomas E. J., Fink C. F. Effects of group size. Psych. Bull. (1963) 60(4):371–384Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson L.Making the Team (2008) 3rd ed.(Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• van Laar C., Levin S., Sinclair S., Sidanius J. The effect of university roommate contact on ethnic attitudes and behavior. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (2005) 41(4):329–345Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walt S. M.The Origins of Alliances (1987) (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY) Google Scholar
• White J. B., Langer E. J. Horizontal hostility: Relations between similar minority groups. J. Soc. Issues (1999) 55(3):537–559Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams J. M., Hacker C. M. Causal relationships among cohesion, satisfaction, and performance in women's intercollegiate field hockey teams. J. Sport Psych. (1982) 4(4):324–337Crossref, Google Scholar
• Willis R. H. Coalitions in the tetrad. Sociometry (1962) 25(4):358–376Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wittenbaum G. M., Stasser G. S. The role of prior expectancy and group discussion in the attribution of attitudes. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1995) 31(1):82–105Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wittenbaum G. M., Merry C. J., Stasser G. S. Tacit coordination in anticipation of small group task completion. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1996) 32(2):129–152Crossref, Google Scholar