Familiarity in groups: Exploring the relationship between inter-member familiarity and group behavior

This paper reviews the effects of familiarity on the group process. Previously, familiarity has been defined as interpersonal knowledge of another individual. Familiarity is a dyadic construct, based on the relationship between two individuals. We consider familiarity from a phenomenological perspective, exploring how the experience of the individual affects the group and how the group affects the individuals experience. We believe that part of this experience is based on knowledge, but we propose that the experience of familiarity is also made up of affective and behavioral components. In order to gain a better understanding of familiarity, we gathered data from groups that worked on a semester long project. It was found that individuals rely on affect as well as cognition when determining familiarity. Positive, negative, and neutral affect all had interesting implications for the group. Individuals who know and like one another are more likely to engage in positive, team-building behaviors than those who do not know or like one another. It was also found that dyadic relationships can directly impact the group. Dyadic relationships that are positive create an open, friendly environment for other group members while dyadic relationships that are negative create tension and conflict in the group.

[1]  I. Janis Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes , 1982 .

[2]  Karen A. Jehn,et al.  Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediation processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. , 1997 .

[3]  D. Krackhardt,et al.  Friendship Patterns and Culture: The Control of Organizational Diversity , 1990 .

[4]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[5]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Attitudes and attitude change. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[6]  R. Zajonc,et al.  Affect, cognition, and awareness: affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and Performance , 1996 .

[8]  R. Stablein Using existential-phenomenology to study a work team , 2002 .

[9]  D. P. Leyden,et al.  Familiarity and Group Productivity , 1991 .

[10]  R. Zajonc Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[11]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Conflict and Strategic Choice: How Top Management Teams Disagree , 1997 .

[12]  Kathleen L. McGinn,et al.  Friends, Lovers, Colleagues, Strangers: The Effects of Relationships on the Process and Outcome of Dyadic Negotiations , 1995 .

[13]  D. Schweiger,et al.  The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic decision‐making , 1989 .

[14]  A. Waters It's all in the mix. , 2003, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[15]  K. Jehn,et al.  INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND TASK PERFORMANCE: AN EXAMINATION OF MEDIATING PROCESSES IN FRIENDSHIP AND ACQUAINTANCE GROUPS. , 1996 .

[16]  M. Snyder On the Self-Fulfilling Nature of Social Stereotypes. , 1977 .

[17]  Gerardo A. Okhuysen Structuring Change: Familiarity and Formal Interventions in Problem-Solving Groups , 2001 .

[18]  A. Edmondson Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams , 1999 .

[19]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. , 1978, Administrative science quarterly.

[20]  Karen A. Jehn,et al.  Do friends perform better than acquaintances? the interaction of friendship, conflict, and task , 1993 .

[21]  P. Shah,et al.  Who Are Employees' Social Referents? Using a Network Perspective to Determine Referent Others , 1998 .