Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- Coordination and Coherence
- Cognition and Metacognition
- Personality and Team Behavior
- 39 The Behavior Analysis Coding System
- 40 Groupness/Entitativity Observational Coding (GEOC)
- 41 Assessing Group Interactions in Personality Psychology
- Roles and Relationships
- Appendix
- Index
- References
40 - Groupness/Entitativity Observational Coding (GEOC)
A Coding System to Assess Groupness or Entitativity in Groups
from Personality and Team Behavior
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- Coordination and Coherence
- Cognition and Metacognition
- Personality and Team Behavior
- 39 The Behavior Analysis Coding System
- 40 Groupness/Entitativity Observational Coding (GEOC)
- 41 Assessing Group Interactions in Personality Psychology
- Roles and Relationships
- Appendix
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 594 - 601Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Primary Sources
Meneses, R., Ortega, R., Navarro, J., & de Quijano, S. D. (2008). Criteria for assessing the level of group development (LGD) of work groups: Groupness, entitativity, and groupality as theoretical perspectives. Small Group Research, 39, 492–514. doi:10.1177/1046496408319787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navarro, J., Meneses, R., Miralles, C., Moreno, D. I., & Loureiro, V. (2015). What distinguish teams from social aggregates? A tool to assess the group development. Anales de Psicología, 31, 921–929. doi:10.6018/analesps.31.3.183831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secondary Sources
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems. Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25. doi:10.1002/bs.3830030103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2002). The relation between allocentrism and perceptions of ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1528–1537. doi:10.1177/014616702237580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In Sedikides, C. & Schopler, J. (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–43. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2008). Teamdiagnose und Teamentwicklung [Team diagnosis and team development]. In Jöns, I. (Eds.), Erfolgreiche Gruppenarbeit. Konzepte, Instrumente, Erfahrungen [Successful group work. Concepts, instruments, experiences] (pp. 30–41). Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
Kozlowsky, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lickel, D., Hamilton, D., Lewis, A., Sherman, S., Wieczorkowska, G., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Meneses, R., & Navarro, J. (2015). ¿Cómo mejorar la eficacia de los equipos a través de los procesos grupales? Un ejemplo en la industria automotriz. [How to improve the effectiveness of teams through group processes? An example in the automotive industry]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 36, 224–229.Google Scholar
Moreland, R. L., & McMinn, J. G. (2004). Entitativity and social integration: Managing beliefs about the reality of groups. In Yzerbyt, V., Judd, C., & Corneille, O. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 311–325). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Navarro, J., Meneses, R., Nadal, M., & Landsberger, E. (2016). Desarrollo y desempeño en equipos de proyecto: Validez incremental de la escala de desarrollo grupal [Team development and team performance: Incremental validity of the group development scale]. Anuario de Psicología, 46, 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.anpsic.2016.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, M. (1967). Social interaction. Process and products. Selected papers by Muzafer Sherif. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team Diagnostic Survey. Development of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 373–398. doi:10.1177/0021886305281984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M., & Lyubovnikova, J. (2012). Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 25–28. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01397.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheelan, S., Davidson, B., & Tilin, F. (2003). Group development across time: Reality or illusion?. Small Group Research, 34, 223–245. doi:10.1177/1046496403251608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheelan, S., & Hochberger, J. (1996). Validation studies of the group development questionnaire. Small Group Research, 27, 143–170. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.55.3.179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A development perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Wheelan, S. A., Verdi, A. F., & McKeage, R. (1994). The group development observation system: Origins and application. Philadelphia, PA: PEP Press.Google Scholar