Using the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model to Study the Effects of Group Composition

We extend the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM), a model originally proposed for the analysis of dyadic data, to the study of groups. We call this extended model the group actor–partner interdependence model or GAPIM. For individual outcomes (e.g., satisfaction with the group), we propose a group composition model with four effects; for group-level outcomes (e.g., group productivity), we propose a model with two effects; and for dyad-level outcomes (e.g., liking of each of the other members of the group), a model with seven effects. For instance, for an individual outcome with gender as the group composition variable the effects are gender of the actor, gender of the other group members, actor similarity in gender to the others in the group, and the others’ similarity in gender. For each of these models, we discuss the ways in which different submodels map onto social-psychological processes. We illustrate the GAPIM with two data sets.

[1]  R. Moreland.  Are Dyads Really Groups? , 2010 .

[2]  Stefano Livi,et al.  A componential analysis of leadership using the social relations model , 2009 .

[3]  F. Yammarino,et al.  Multi Level Issues In Organizational Behavior And Leadership , 2009 .

[4]  Bertjan Doosje,et al.  Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  Richard Gonzalez.  A Statistical Framework for Modeling Homogeneity and Interdependence in Groups , 2007 .

[6]  D. Harrison,et al.  What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. , 2007 .

[7]  Charles A. O'Reilly,et al.  Fitting In: The Effects of Relational Demography and Person-Culture Fit on Group Process and Performance , 2007 .

[8]  Samuel R. Sommers,et al.  On racial diversity and group decision making: identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  S. Ng,et al.  The Dynamics of Intragroup Differentiation in an Intergroup Social Context , 2006 .

[10]  M. Hewstone,et al.  Tokens in the Tower: Perceptual Processes and Interaction Dynamics in Academic Settings with ‘Skewed’, ‘Tilted’ and ‘Balanced’ Sex Ratios , 2006 .

[11]  J. Benenson,et al.  Boys withdraw more in one-on-one interactions, whereas girls withdraw more in groups. , 2006, Developmental psychology.

[12]  J. K. Murnighan,et al.  Interactions Within Groups and Subgroups: The Effects of Demographic Faultlines , 2005 .

[13]  L. Schmidt,et al.  Gender differences in leader and follower perceptions of social support in Antarctica. , 2005, Acta astronautica.

[14]  Scott E. Culhane,et al.  Crime Victims Serving as Jurors: Is There Bias Present? , 2004, Law and human behavior.

[15]  Kenji Hakuta,et al.  Effects of Racial Diversity on Complex Thinking in College Students , 2004, Psychological science.

[16]  H. Tajfel,et al.  The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. , 2004 .

[17]  Steven L. Blader,et al.  The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior , 2003, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[18]  J. G. Holmes,et al.  An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations , 2003 .

[19]  John M. Levine,et al.  Newcomer innovation in work teams. , 2003 .

[20]  B. Nijstad,et al.  Group creativity : An introduction , 2003 .

[21]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  Technical‐administrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: considering the influence of team‐ and task‐related composition variables , 2002 .

[22]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The triangle of interpersonal models. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  Denise Sekaquaptewa,et al.  The Differential Effects of Solo Status on Members of High- and Low-Status Groups , 2002 .

[24]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The statistical analysis of data from small groups. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[25]  Tom A. B. Snijders,et al.  The social relations model for family data: A multilevel approach , 1999 .

[26]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations , 1999 .

[27]  Barbara A. Gutek,et al.  Demographic Differences in Organizations: Current Research and Future Directions , 1999 .

[28]  J. K. Murnighan,et al.  Demographic Diversity and Faultlines: The Compositional DYnamics of Organizational Groups , 1998 .

[29]  D. Harrison,et al.  Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion , 1998 .

[30]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  An In-Group Becomes Part of the Self: Response Time Evidence , 1996 .

[31]  K. Dodge,et al.  Individual-group behavioral similarity and peer status in experimental play groups of boys: the social misfit revisited. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  Delia S. Saenz,et al.  Token Status and Problem-Solving Deficits: Detrimental Effects of Distinctiveness and Performance Monitoring , 1994 .

[33]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[34]  S. Jackson,et al.  Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. , 1991 .

[35]  A. Tsui,et al.  Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. , 1991 .

[36]  A. Aron,et al.  Close Relationships as Including Other in the Self , 1991 .

[37]  R. Lennox,et al.  Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. , 1991 .

[38]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Levels of Analysis and Effects: Clarifying Group Influence and Climate by Separating Individual and Group Effects , 1990 .

[39]  A. Tsui,et al.  Beyond Simple Demographic Effects: The Importance of Relational Demography in Superior-Subordinate Dyads , 1989 .

[40]  Jack C. Wright,et al.  Social status in small groups: Individual–group similarity and the social "misfit." , 1986 .

[41]  D. Eden,et al.  Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts? , 1985 .

[42]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The Social Relations Model , 1984 .

[43]  S. Fiske,et al.  Social Psychology , 2019, Definitions.

[44]  A. Eagly,et al.  Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies , 1981 .

[45]  G. O'Connor.  Small Groups , 1980 .

[46]  P. Blau.  Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure , 1978 .

[47]  R. Kanter.  Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[48]  J. Shaffer.  Reorganization of variables in analysis of variance and multidimensional contingency tables. , 1977 .

[49]  D. T. Regan,et al.  Ability evaluation through social comparison , 1974 .

[50]  I. Steiner.  Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[51]  W. Haythorn.  The composition of groups: a review of the literature. , 1968, Acta psychologica.

[52]  James A. Davis,et al.  The Campus as a Frog Pond: An Application of the Theory of Relative Deprivation to Career Decisions of College Men , 1966, American Journal of Sociology.

[53]  H. Kelley,et al.  The social psychology of groups , 1960 .

[54]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .