Sociology of Groups Bibliography. A number of studies highlight the basic utility of groups: in groups individuals can secure advantages and avoid disadvantages that would plague the lone individual. Groups are supremely useful for their members, for they fulfill our most basic needs.

Sociology of Groups - Bibliography

French, J.R. and B. Raven (1968), "The Bases of Social Power," in Cartwright and Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics, New York: Harper and Row, pp 259-269.- French and Raven delineate five types of power (referent, expert, reward, coercive and legitimate) and explore their dynamics.

Katz, D. and R.L. Kahn (1978), "On the Taking of Organizational Roles," in Katz and Kahn (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York: Wiley, pp. 186-221.
This is the most widely-accepted conception of roles and role-relationships in organizations.

Feldman, D.C. (1984), "The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms," Academy of Management Review, 9:47-53. Discusses how norms develop and why they are enforced.

Turner, R. (1990), "Role Taking: Process Versus Conformity," in D. Brissett and C. Edgley (Eds.), Life as Theater: A Dramaturgical Sourcebook. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Looks at the relationship between the self and the role through a the "dramaturgical" perspective, in which all social life is regarded as performance.

Goffman, Erving (1990), "Role Distance, " in D. Brissett and C. Edgley (Eds.), Life as Theater: A Dramaturgical Sourcebook. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. This essay shows how individuals negotiate the transitions between "being themselves" and playing roles.

Deaux, Kay (1984), "From Individual Differences to Social Categories: Analysis of A Decade’s Research on Gender," American Psychologist, 39:105-116. Deaux argues that gender, rather than being an innate characteristic of human beings, is actually a kind of role or performance. As Gloria Steinem once said, "all women are female impersonators."

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books, pp. 206-242. This case-study of the sales force in a major U.S. corporation shows how women in male-dominated professions get slotted into stereotyped roles: mother, seductress, pet, and iron maiden.

Berger, Joseph, Susan Rosenholtz, and Morris Zelditch (1980), "Status Organizing Processes," Annual Review of Sociology, 6: 479-508. This article lays out the basic concepts of expectation states theory, which claims that individuals are assigned status in task groups (i.e., the right to participate in discussion and influence decisions) based not on competence but on their status in the outside world. Thus, members of relatively low-status groups in society at large are expected to maintain that low status in a task group.

West, Candace and Angela Garcia (1988), "Conversational Shift Work: A Study of Topical Transitions Between Women and Men," Social Problems, 35: 551-575.
This empirical study shows how status processes play out between men and women in conversation.

Bray, R.M., D. Johnson and J.T. Chilstrom Jr. (1982), "Social Influence By Group Members with Minority Opinions: A Comparison of Hollander and Moscovici," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 78-88.
This study compares the two dominant models of minority influence in groups, and finds that they apply differently for men and women.

Dentler, R.A. and Erikson, Kai (1959), "The Functions of Deviance in Groups," Social Problems, 7: 98-107. Drawing on examples from Quaker work groups and army squads, the authors show that groups actually need deviant behavior, and that it is often sustained rather than stamped out.

Nemeth, Charlan (1986), "Differential Contribution of Majority and Minority Influence," Psychological Review, 93: 23-32. Classic study showing that deviance in groups makes for better-quality decisions compared to conformist groups.

Mullen, Brian and Carolyn Copper (1994), "The Relation Between Group Cohesiveness and Performance: An Integration," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115: 210-227. This article shows that social cohesion and conformity are not necessary to group performance; in fact, groups can tolerate a great deal of difference, as long as members are all committed to the task.

Emerson, Richard (1962), "Power-Dependence Relations," American Sociological Review, 27:31-41.An old gem which defines power as based on dependency relations.

Salancik, Gerald and Jeffrey Pfeffer (1977), "Who Gets Power—And How They Hold Onto It: A Strategic-Contingency Model of Power," Organizational Dynamics, 2-21.
Pfeffer and Salancik argue that power accrues to those who control key resources for the organization. This takes the key ideas of Emerson and putting them in a specifically organizational context.

Decision-Making in Groups
Cialdini, Robert (1984), Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things, New York: Quill. This is a very accessible book on the social psychology of decision-making; Cialdini uses numerous real-world examples (like door-to-door sales) to illustrate theories.

Janis, Irving (1980 [1971]), "Groupthink," in Harold Leavitt, Louis Pondy and David Boje (Eds.), Readings in Managerial Psychology 3rd Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. A famous article on the way that group settings distort decision-making.

Burnstein, E. (1982), "Persuasion as Argument Processing," in H. Brandstetter, J.H. Davis, and G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Group Decision Making, London: Academic Press, pp. 103-124. A refinement and extension of the groupthink hypothesis, showing that groups do more than conform; they can also polarize (shift individual opinions in a more extreme direction) and depolarize decisions.

Beach, Lee Roy (1997), The Psychology of Decision Making in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997. A more thorough (but less accessible) review of the decision-making literature.

Williams, Katherine and Charles O’Reilly III (1998), "Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research," Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 77-140. This review summarizes the big, big picture in organizational demography, and the overall conclusion is not too optimistic: the downsides of diversity seem to overwhelm its positives. The other articles in this section can be read as modifications to or arguments against this summation.

Watson, W., K. Kumar and L. Michaelson (1993), "Cultural Diversity’s Impact on Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogenous and Diverse Task Groups," Academy of Management Journal, 36: 590-602. In contrast to the conclusions of Williams and O'Reilly, this article indicates that, given enough time, demographically diverse groups can actually outperform homogenous ones.

Jackson, Susan, Karen May and Kristina Whitney (1995), "Understanding the Dynamics of Diversity in Decision Making Teams," in R. Guzzo and E. Salas (Eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
This review article looks generally at the diversity dynamic in teams.

Ancona, Deborah and David Caldwell (1992a), "Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams," Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665. With the article below, this piece summarizes research on task teams in a high-technology firm, looking at how the mix of functional specialties, as well as other demographic traits, affected the group's final product.

"Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance," Organization Science, 3: 321-341.

Elsass, Priscilla and Laura Graves (1997), "Demographic Diversity in Decision-Making Groups: The Experiences of Women and People of Color," Academy of Management Review, 22: 946-973. This article links gender and race diversity in task groups to the expectation status literature we read September 25.

Izraeli, Dafna (1983), "Sex Effects or Structural Effects?: An Empirical Test of Kanter’s Theory of Proportions," Social Forces, 62: 153-165. Izraeli looks more closely at the hypotheses put forward by Kanter (see September 25) concerning gender diversity in
organizations; Izraeli argues that these effects aren't symmetrical (i.e., they don't affect men and women equally).

Pugh, M.D. and Ralph Wahrman (1983), "Neutralizing Sexism in Mixed-Sex Groups: Do Women Have to Be Better Than Men?," American Journal of Sociology, 88: 746-762.
Like Izraeli, Pugh and Wahrman examine the asymmetry in men's in women's experiences in task groups, this time in terms of competency expectations.

Megargee, Edwin (1969), "Influence of Sex Roles on the Manifestation of Leadership," Journal of Applied Psychology, 53:377-382. This article tests the relationship between gender roles and leadership, with clear implications for organizations' leadership
composition.

Martin, Karin (1998), "Becoming A Gendered Body: Practices of Preschools," American Sociological Review, 63: 494-511. This study of pre-schools examines how the power of the situation affects the expression of masculine and feminine traits in schoolchildren, consider how these same processes may affect adults in other organizations.

Ridgeway, Cecilia (1997), "Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment," American Sociological Review 62: 218-235. A theoretical piece on a subject that is usually treated from a macro-structural point of view: gender discrimination in employment. Like Martin, Ridgeway looks at the construction of gender at the micro-interactional level. Both articles have implications for diversity in organizations, as they indicate that context is more significant in shaping behavior than individual traits.

Wharton, Amy (1992), "The Social Construction of Gender and Race in Organizations: A Social Identity and Group Mobilization Perspective," in Pamela Tolbert and Samuel Bachrach (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 10: 55-84.
This article looks at the micro-level processes that make gender and race salient in diverse organizations.

Olson, Mancur (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapters 1-2, 5-6. This book explains why people join groups and stay in them, despite the demands imposed on them by those groups.

Hechter, Michael (1987), Principles of Group Solidarity, Berkeley: University of California Press. This is a slightly different take on the same issues reviewed by Olson, with a stronger cognitive focus; Hechter looks at how groups maintain and control membership through a series of rational incentives and punishments.

Granovetter, Mark (1985), "The Strength of Weak Ties," American Journal of Sociology, 78:1360-1380. In one of the most famous articles in sociology, Granovetter shows how distant network ties (friends-of-friends, etc.) act as the "glue" of everyday life.

Useem, Michael (1984), The Inner Circle, New York: Oxford University Press, Chapters 1-5. This study of British and American corporate elites shows how overlapping networks (through boards of directors, social clubs, and schools) among executives create a powerful basis for collective action by corporations.

Kadushin, Charles (1995), "Friendship Among the French Financial Elite," American Sociological Review, 60: 202-21. This is another study of elites—in this case the leaders of French finance—who represent a powerful united front, based on having attended the same university.

Hirsch, Eric, (1990),"Sacrifice for the Cause: Group Processes, Recruitment and Commitment in a Student Social Movement," American Sociological Review, 55: 243-254. Hirsch is interested in why people risk their safety for a cause, not just one time, but over and over again.

Chong, Dennis (1991), Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Chapters 1-7, 9 and 10. Chong takes theoretical ideas from Olson and Hechter, and applies them to the civil rights movement, to understand why people put their lives on the line for the cause.

Morris, Aldon (1981), "Black Southern Sit-In Movement: An Analysis of Internal Organization," American Sociological Review 46: 744-767. Morris argues that the civil rights movement was based not on spontaneous collective action but on prior networks established through the black church and college organizations. How does his argument compare to Chong's?

Durkheim, Emile (1915), The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, New York: Free Press. In this sociological classic, Durkheim looks at religious culture among the Maori of Australia, and famously argues that in worshipping gods, society is really worshipping itself.

Fine, Gary Alan (1979), "Small Groups and Culture Creation," American Sociological Review, 44: 733-45. This is a more detailed look at the ways in which groups create culture.

Schwartz, Barry (1967), "The Social Psychology of the Gift," American Journal of Sociology, 73:1-11. Schwartz's subject is the creation of gift culture, as in holidays or special occasions, and the implications of gift-giving for defining group boundaries.

Swidler, Ann (1986), "Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies," American Sociological Review, 51: 273-286. This theoretical article defines culture and how we use it.

Kunda, Gideon (1991), Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Kunda's study of a high-technology firm proves that "geeks" do have a culture, and that it is very important in defining and motivating work groups.

Snow, David, E. Burke Rochford Jr., Steven Worden, and Robert Benford (1986), "Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Participation," American Sociological Review, 51:464-481. This article examines the cultural processes by which collective action is engaged. How does this perspective compare with those found in Olson and Hechter?

Beach, Lee Roy (1997), The Psychology of Decision Making in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cialdini, Robert (1984), Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things, New York: Quill.

Chong, Dennis (1991), Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Durkheim, Emile (1915), The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, New York: Free Press.

Hechter, Michael (1987), Principles of Group Solidarity, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kunda, Gideon (1991), Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Olson, Mancur (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Useem, Michael (1984), The Inner Circle, New York: Oxford University Press.

Lindenberg, S. (1997) 'Grounding groups in theory: functional, cognitive, and structural interdepedencies', in: Advances in Group Processes, 14, Greenwich CT: JAI Press, pp. 281-331.

Forsyth, D. R., & Kelley, K. N. (1996). Heuristic-based biases in estimations of personal contributions to collective endeavors. In J. L. Nye and A. Brower (Eds.), What's social about social cognition: Social cognition research in small groups. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Forsyth, D. R., & Kelley, K. N. (1994). Attribution in groups: Estimations of personal contributions to collective endeavors. Small Group Research, 25, 367-383.

Leary, M. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (1987). Attributions of responsibility for collective endeavors. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 167-188.

Forsyth, D. R., Berger, R., & Mitchell, T. (1981). The effects of self- serving vs. other-serving claims of responsibility on attraction and attribution in groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 59-64.

Forsyth, D. R., & Mitchell, T. (1979). Reactions to other's egocentric claims of responsibility. Journal of Psychology, 103, 281-285.

Forsyth, D. R. (1980). The function of attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 184-189.

Forsyth, D. R., & Schlenker, B. R. (1977). Attributing the causes of group performance: Effects of performance quality, task importance, and future testing. Journal of Personality, 45, 220-236.

Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Forsyth, D. R. (1991). Change in therapeutic groups. In C. R. Snyder and D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 664-680). New York: Pergamon.

Forsyth, D. R., Elliott, T. R., & Welsh, J. A. (1991). Multidimensional model of the functions of groups. Paper presented at the Third Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.

Wright, S. S., & Forsyth, D. R. (in press). Group Membership and Collective Identity: Consequences for Self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.

Diekmann, A. and Lindenberg, S. (2001) 'Cooperation: Sociological aspects', International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.4:2751-56. Oxford: Pergamon-Elsevier.

Lindenberg, S. (2001) 'Sociology of groups', International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 9:6434-39. Oxford: Pergamon –Elsevier.

Diekmann, A. and Lindenberg, S. (2001) 'Cooperation: Sociological aspects', International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.4:2751-56. Oxford: Pergamon-Elsevier.

Wielers, R. en Lindenberg, S. (1991) 'Beloning en Allocatie op een informele arbeids-markt' (The structure of wages and allocation on an informal labor market), Mens en Maatsch-appij 66: 5-24.

Westert, G.P., Groenewegen, P.P., Lindenberg, S. (1991) 'De invloed van ziekenhuispatienten op de duur van hospitalisatie', Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg 69: 1-11

Lindenberg, S. (1986) 'The paradox of privatization in consumption', in: Diekmann A. and Mitter P. (eds) Paradoxial Effects of Social Behavior. Essays in Honor of Anatol Rapoport, Heidelberg/Wien: PhysicaVerlag, pp. 297-310.

Lindenberg, S. (1985) 'Die Verteilung gemeinsamer G�ter: wer bekommt welchen Anteil?', in: B�schges, G. und Raub, W. (Hrsg.) Soziale Bedingungen, Individuelles Handeln, Soziale Konsequenzen, Frankfurt/Bern/New York: Peter Lang, pp. 83-114.

Lindenberg, S. (1984) 'Normen und die Allokation sozialer Wertsch�tzung', in: Todt, H. (Hrsg.) Normengeleitetes Verhalten in den Sozialwissenschaften, (Schriften des Vereins f�r Socialpolitik, Neue Folge Bd.141), Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp.169-191.

Lindenberg, S. (1982) 'Sharing groups: theory and suggested applications', Journal of Mathematical Sociology 9: 33-62.

Lindenberg, S. (1982) 'A Theory of Sharing Groups', in: Sodeur, W. (Hrsg.) Mathematische Analyse von Organisationsstrukturen und - Prozessen, Duisburg: Verlag der Sozialwiss. Kooperative, pp. 79-116.

Lindenberg, S. (1975) 'Three psychological theories of a classical sociologist', Mens en Maatschappij 50, 2: 133-153.

Lindenberg, S. (1971) 'Aspects of the Cognitive Representation of Small Scale Social Structures', unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard, Cambridge, Mass.

Shotola, Robert (1991), "Small Groups," in E. Borgatta and M. Borgatta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sociology, New York: MacMillan.
This entry in the Encyclopedia of Sociology gives a quick introduction to the history of small groups research and an introduction to basic themes.

Blumer, Herbert (1962), "Society as Symbolic Interaction," in A.M. Rose (Ed.), Human Behavior and Social Processes: An Interactionist Approach, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
This essay lays out the basic theoretical substructure of sociological small group research: symbolic interaction.

Maines, David (1982), "In Search of Mesostructure: Studies in the Negotiated Order," Urban Life, 11: 267-79. This article posits another fundamental principle of small group research: that groups are the linking mechanism between the macro-level of social structure and the micro-level of individual action.

Katz, Jack (1996), "Families and Funny Mirrors: A Study of the Social Construction and Personal Embodiment of Humor, " American Journal of Sociology 101: 1194-1237.
A classic example of small group research in the symbolic interactionist tradition.

Haney, Craig, Curtis Banks and Philip Zimbardo, "Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison, " International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1: 69-97.
This is one of the most famous empirical tudies in social science. By turning ordinary college students into brutal prison guards, it shows dramatically how most individual behavior is a matter of context rather than character.

Milgram, Stanley (1963), "Behavioral Study of Obedience, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 371-378. Another of the most famous empirical studies in social science, with a similar theme: behavior is largely a matter of context rather than character.

Sherif, Muzafer (1958), "Superordinate Goals in the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict,"American Journal of Sociology, 63: 349-358.
Finally, another classic, this time showing how conflict and cohesion between groups—rather than individuals—can be controlled by social structural context.

Sociology Index
Sociology Books 2013	Books, E-Books
Sociology Topical Subject Index