Think back to your first day at work: new people, a new environment, a fresh beginning… After this fresh start, when you look back at the relationships that you’ve built at the end of the year, you’ll see that some groups bonded from day one, while others were still getting used to each other. So, what determines the strength or weakness of these bonds between group members who are pursuing the same goal? The following article will explore how harmony and closeness among group members develop.
When we examine the relationships between team members, we encounter some fundamental psychological processes. These processes explain why some teams are more cohesive, have closer bonds within the group, or have stronger interpersonal attraction than others.
We are presented with two processes that foster interpersonal attraction among group members:
-
Principles of attraction
-
The economics of membership
Principles of Attraction – The 6 Core Principles of Attraction
There are principles that create closeness within the group, and this closeness prepares the stages for the formation of the group. What attracts us to each other? Psychology exposes crucial factors that spark and maintain our connections.
-
Proximity: People are more likely to have positive attitudes toward those they see most often. As a result, they become more familiar and friendly (Festinger et al., 1950).
-
Elaboration: The elaboration principle demonstrates that groups extend as members establish associations with individuals outside of the group, so it leads to those outsiders entering the group (Psychology-lexicon.com, n.d.).
-
Similarity: Individuals like others who share similar attitudes, values, and interests (Byrne, 1971; Newcomb, 1956).
-
Reciprocity: It is mutual shared respect and appreciation. We like people who like us (Cialdini, 2007; Gouldner, 1960).
-
Complementarity: Individuals are attracted to those who have qualities that enrich or balance out their own individual characteristics (Schutz, 1958).
-
The Minimax Principle: People seek connections that present the greatest benefits and the least drawbacks (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).
Harrison et al. (2002) found that while initial demographic similarities among group members play a role, shared values and attitudes become the primary determinants of closeness over time. They argued that groups with shared values tend to be more cohesive and successful in the long run. Montoya et al. (2008) explored the relationship between perceived similarity and actual similarity. Their findings suggest that perceived similarity among team members fosters stronger interpersonal attraction than actual similarity. In other words, team members view each other as similar, and this perception is considered adequate for building trust and cooperation among them.
When examining the six basic principles of attraction, one key conclusion is that “we tend to prefer individuals with similar attitudes and values” (Byrne, 1971). This preference positively influences team performance and group cohesion (Harrison et al., 2002). Shared values strengthen team harmony, which helps to reduce conflicts and allows the team to focus on performance.
The Economics of Membership
Another process that fosters interpersonal attraction among group members is known as the “economy of membership.” This concept demonstrates how group members are drawn to one another through an economic lens. In the 1959 book, The Social Psychology of Groups, John Thibaut and Harold Kelley argue that the economics of membership are directly linked to social exchange theory. In this context, a cost-benefit analysis is used.
The key idea here is that when the benefits an individual receives from a group exceed their contributions to that group, it makes the group more attractive to the individual. In other words, if the overall gain from this relationship is positive, the interpersonal bonds of attraction become stronger. As referenced in the principle of reciprocity—one of the six fundamental principles that foster in-group closeness—the balance of give and take in relationships enhances trust and commitment (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).
To summarize, when a clearly profitable relationship is established within a group member’s team, that group becomes more attractive, positively influencing the interpersonal bonds among its members. As highlighted in Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment (1961), the emotional and social rewards—such as appreciation, support, and a sense of belonging—that group members provide each other help strengthen both intragroup and interpersonal connections.
Strategies to Enhance Interpersonal Attraction and Cohesion
From the perspective of industrial and organizational psychology, strategies to enhance group cohesion include:
-
Providing space for collaboration and social interaction: Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) emphasized that individuals interact more frequently and develop stronger bonds when they are physically close to one another. Consequently, establishing in-group interactions, such as social activities, can facilitate the formation of relationships.
-
Emphasizing common values and identity: Highlighting shared values within a team and recognizing similarities among its members can enhance interpersonal attraction, as expressed in Byrne’s (1971) Similarity-Attraction Paradigm. Consequently, it is essential to regularly highlight the team’s shared identity to promote harmony and strengthen relationships among team members.
Conclusion
What connects groups goes beyond the identities of their members; it largely depends on how the group interacts and fosters closeness. The principles of attraction and the economics of membership offer valuable insights into in-group dynamics and relationships that can greatly benefit organizations. This article highlights ways organizations can discover common goals and values, foster harmonious interaction among group members, and complement each other.
References
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. Stanford University Press.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700
Newcomb, T. M. (1956). The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 11(11), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046141
Psychology-lexicon.com (n.d.). Elaboration principle. https://www.psychology-lexicon.com/cms/glossary/38-glossary-e/8223-elaboration-principle.html
Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley & Sons, New York.