Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T10:45:33.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Personality and Team Behavior

from Part V - Coding Schemes for Interaction Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

Edited by
Elisabeth Brauner ,
Margarete Boos  and
Michaela Kolbe
Elisabeth Brauner
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Margarete Boos
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen
Michaela Kolbe
Affiliation:
ETH Zürich
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 583 - 611
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

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.)

References

Primary Sources

Rackham, N., Honey, P., & Colbert, M. (1971). Developing interactive skills. Guilsborough, Northants: Wellens Publishing.Google Scholar
Rackham, N., & Morgan, T. (1977). Behaviour analysis in training. Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Book Co Ltd.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1035–1056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1035CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evison, R., & Ronaldson, J. B. (1975). A behaviour category instrument for analysing counselling interactions. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 3(1), 82–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069887508256301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, S., Nicolson, R., Rackham, N., Evison, R., & Dawson, J. (2016). The Behaviour in Teams (BIT) approach to providing team process feedback in meetings: A pilot study and research proposal. The Institute of Work Psychology International Conference, June, 23–21, 2016. Sheffield, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Futoran, G. C., Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(3), 211–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1003_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., De Maeyer, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). The effect of team feedback and guided reflexivity on team performance change. Learning and Instruction, 34, 86–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 11–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, A. H., Pietruschka, S., Bungard, W., & Joens, I. (2000). Feedback as a supporting system for work groups. In Vartiainen, M., Avallone, F., & Anderson, N. (Eds.), 67 Innovative theories, tools, and practices in work and organizational psychology (pp. 125–140). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.Google Scholar
Heyns, R. W., & Zander, A. F. (1953). Observation of group behavior. In Festinger, L. & Katz, D. (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences (pp. 381–417). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hughes, A. M., Gregory, M. E., Joseph, D. L., Sonesh, S. C., Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Benishek, L.E., King, H.B., & Salas, E. (2016). Saving lives: A meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1266–1304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Scott DeRue, D., Barnes, C. M., & Jundt, D. (2013). Functional versus dysfunctional team change: Problem diagnosis and structural feedback for self-managed teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2006). Self‐directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317905X53237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43(2), 130–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konradt, U., Schippers, M. C., Garbers, Y., & Steenfatt, C. (2015). Effects of guided reflexivity and team feedback on team performance improvement: The role of team regulatory processes and cognitive emergent states. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 777–795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1005608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leshed, G., Perez, D., Hancock, J. T., Cosley, D., Birnholtz, J., Lee, S., McLeod, P. L., & Gay, G. (2009). Visualizing real-time language-based feedback on teamwork behavior in computer-mediated groups. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 537–546). ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
London, M., & Sessa, V. I. (2006). Group feedback for continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review, 5(3), 303–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484306290226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T., Rackham, N., & Hudson, H. (1974). DIS: Three years on. Industrial and Commercial Training, 6(6), 248–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb003406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, N. (1988). SPIN Selling. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rackham, N., & Carlisle, J. (1978a). The effective negotiator-Part I: The Behaviour of Successful Negotiators. Journal of European Industrial Training, 2(6), 6–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb002297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, N., & Carlisle, J. (1978b). The effective negotiator-Part 2: Planning for negotiations. Journal of European Industrial Training, 2(7), 2–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb002302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, N., Honey, P., & Colbert, M. (1971). Developing interactive skills. Guilsborough, Northants: Wellens Publishing.Google Scholar
Rackham, N., & Morgan, T. (1977). Behaviour analysis in training. Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Book Co Ltd.Google Scholar
Vik, G. N. (2001). Doing more to teach teamwork than telling students to sink or swim. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 112–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/108056990106400413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. (2016). PILS – Personality Interaction Laboratory Study. Retrieved January 1, 2018, from osf.io/q5zwp.Google Scholar
Back, M. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2010). The Social Relations Model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 855–870. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00303.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Back, M. D., & Nestler, S. (2016). Accuracy of judging personality. In Hall, J. A., Mast, M. Schmid, & West, T. V. (Eds.). The social psychology of perceiving others accurately (pp. 98–124). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 533–548. doi:10.1037/a0016229CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 138–159). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996481Google Scholar
Bettencourt, B. A., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J., & Valentine, J. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 751–777. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.751CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 599–614. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.599CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cairns, R. B., & Green, J. A. (1979). How to assess personality and social patterns: Observations or ratings. In Cairns, R. B. (Ed.), The analysis of social interactions: Methods, issues, and illustrations (pp. 209–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. (2009). Big Five predictors of behavior and perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts “disagreeables.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (4), 667. doi:10.1037/a0015741CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1977). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Funder, D. C., Furr, R. M., & Colvin, C. R. (2000). The Riverside Behavioral Q-sort: A tool for the description of social behavior. Journal of Personality, 68, 451–489. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (2009). Behavioral observation. In Robins, R. W., Fraley, C., & Krueger, R. F. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 273–291). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Geukes, K., Breil, S. M., Hutteman, R., Nestler, S., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. D. (2017). Explaining the longitudinal interplay of personality and social relationships in the laboratory and in the field: The PILS and CONNECT study. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Geukes, K., Hutteman, R., Nestler, S., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. (2016, August 24). CONNECT. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from osf.io/2pmcrGoogle Scholar
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Dufner, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Egloff, B., Denissen, J. J. A., & Back, M. D. (2017). Puffed up but shaky selves: State self-esteem level and variability in narcissists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 769–786. doi:10.1037/pspp0000093CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. D. (2017). Trait personality and state variability: Predicting individual differences in within- and cross-context fluctuations in affect, self-evaluations, and behavior in everyday life. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. (2016, July 1). PILS – Personality Interaction Laboratory Study. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from osf.io/q5zwpGoogle Scholar
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K. M., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The ‘Trier Social Stress Test’—a tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28, 76–81. doi:10.1159/000119004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leckelt, M., Küfner, A. C., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Behavioral processes underlying the decline of narcissists’ popularity over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109 (5), 856–871. doi:10.1037/pspp0000057CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leising, D., & Bleidorn, W. (2011). Which are the basic meaning dimensions of observable interpersonal behavior? Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 986–990. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestler, S., Grimm, K. J., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2015). The social consequences and mechanisms of personality: How to analyse longitudinal data from individual, dyadic, round-robin, and network designs. European Journal of Personality, 29, 272–295. doi:10.1002/per.1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In Grove, W. M. & Ciccetti, D. (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Vol. 2. Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89–113). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×