Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8v9h9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T18:03:50.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reputational concerns as a general determinant of group functioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2016

Nadira S. Faber ,
Julian Savulescu  and
Paul A. M. Van Lange
Nadira S. Faber
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3UD, United Kingdom nadira.faber@psy.ox.ac.uk nadirafaber.com Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3BD, United Kingdom julian.savulescu@philosophy.ox.ac.uk Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 1PT, United Kingdom www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk
Julian Savulescu
Affiliation:
Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3BD, United Kingdom julian.savulescu@philosophy.ox.ac.uk Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 1PT, United Kingdom www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk
Paul A. M. Van Lange
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, 1081 BT Amsterdam, Netherlands. pam.van.lange@psy.vu.nl www.paulvanlange.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To understand a group's (dys)functionality, we propose focusing on its members' concerns for their reputation. The examples of prosocial behavior and information exchange in decision-making groups illustrate that empirical evidence directly or indirectly suggests that reputational concerns play a central role in groups. We argue that our conceptualization fulfills criteria for a good theory: enhancing understanding, abstraction, testability, and applicability.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allport, F. H. (1962) A structuronomic conception of behavior: Individual and collective. I. Structural theory and the master problem of social psychology. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64:3–30. doi: 10.1037/h0043563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ariely, D., Bracha, A. & Meier, S. (2009) Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. The American Economic Review 99:544–55. doi: : 10.1257/aer.99.1.544.Google Scholar
Batson, C. D., Kobrynowicz, D., Dinnerstein, J. L., Kampf, H. C. & Wilson, A. D. (1997) In a very different voice: Unmasking moral hypocrisy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:1335–48. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. (1982) A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin 91:3–26. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.3.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A. & van Knippenberg, D. (2008) Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12(1):22–49. doi: 10.1177/1088868307304092.Google Scholar
Faber, N. S., Häusser, J. A. & Kerr, N. L. (2015) Sleep deprivation impairs and caffeine enhances my performance, but not always our performance: How acting in a group can change the effects of impairments and enhancements. Personality and Social Psychology Review. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/1088868315609487.Google Scholar
Faulmüller, N., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R. & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2012) Do you want to convince me or to be understood? Preference-consistent information sharing and its motivational determinants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38:1684–96. doi: 10.1177/0146167212458707.Google Scholar
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y. & Neale, M. A. (1996) Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67:1–15. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, E. (1958) Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review 65:117–27. doi: 10.1037/h0042501.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. M., Park, E. S. & Sambolec, E. (2005) Identifiability, performance feedback and the Köhler effect. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 8:375–90. doi: 10.1177/1368430205056466.Google Scholar
Linton, R. (1945) The cultural background of personality. Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., Faulmüller, N., Vogelgesang, F. & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2014) The consistency principle in interpersonal communication: Consequences of preference confirmation and disconfirmation in collective decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106:961–77. doi: 10.1037/a0036338.Google ScholarPubMed
Nowak, M. A. & Sigmund, K. (2005) Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 437:1291–98. doi: 10.1038/nature04131.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008) Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013) What we should expect from theories in social psychology: Truth, abstraction, progress, and applicability as standards (TAPAS). Personality and Social Psychology Review 17:40–55. doi: 10.1177/1088868312453088.Google Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D. & Van Dijk, E. (2013) The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 120:125–41. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003.Google Scholar
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B. & Botero, I. C. (2004) From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs 71:286–310. doi: 10.1080/0363452042000299894.Google Scholar