Leadership and Regressive Small Group Processes: A Case Study

The psychoanalytic literature of regressive group and intergroup processes is reviewed briefly and selectively to derive principles of effective, working group leadership. These principles are applied to a case study of the leadership provided by Terje Larsen to the unique work group of Palestinians, Israelis, and Norwegians who produced the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords.     

The concept of the death drive: A clinical perspective

This paper discusses Freud 's theory of the death drive in the light of clinical experience with severely self-destructive personality disorders, and contemporary object relations theory. Repetition compulsion, sadism and masochism, negative therapeutic reaction, suicide in depressed and in non-depressed patients, and destructive group processes are explored from this perspective. The paper concludes that the concept of the death drive is clinically relevant, but that this condition needs to be traced to the general dominance of aggressive affects as the primary etiological factor; only under severely pathological circumstances does this dominance lead to a focused drive to self-destruct.     

小组治疗对2型糖尿病患者生活质量和临床指标的影响

观察小组治疗对2型糖尿病患者生活质量及糖代谢的影响。将67名2型糖尿病患者随机分为实验组和对照组。两组均给以降糖药物治疗,实验组并给予小组干预。每位患者均于治疗前、治疗后3个月末和5个月末检测糖代谢指标,治疗前和治疗后5个月末测查健康调查简表（SF-36）。结果为实验组临床指标改善优于对照组（P〈0．05）,实验组与对照组相比生活质量明显提高（P〈0．01）。结论认为小组治疗对改善糖尿病患者生活质量和糖代谢情况有着积极作用。     

群体关系与问责对信息共享意愿及谈判行为的影响研究

本研究就国人的群体关系与问责对谈判者行为及信息共享意愿进行考察,试图探讨文化对谈判者的影响。通过对128名在校大学生的模拟谈判实验,发现谈判者在群内谈判比在群际谈判时有更高的信息共享意愿和更少的强硬行为,群体关系和问责对信息共享意愿及主观利益冲突有交互效应。具体而言,高度问责时,谈判者在群内谈判比群际谈判时有更多的信息共享意愿;低度问责时,谈判者在群内谈判比群际谈判时有更少的主观利益冲突。     

The relationships between contact,status and prejudice: An integrated threat theory analysis of Hindu–Muslim relations in India

In the context of Hindu–Muslim relations in India, the present study (N = 87) utilized Integrated Threat Theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000 ) to examine the mediating roles of intergroup anxiety, realistic and symbolic threats and the moderating role of group membership (Hindu vs. Muslim) in the relationships between cross‐community contact, relative in‐group status and prejudice. Overall, intergroup anxiety and realistic, but not symbolic, threat emerged as proximal predictors of prejudice and partial mediators between the predictor and criterion variables. But these findings were qualified by majority (Hindu) versus minority (Muslim) group membership. As predicted, while symbolic threat was a predictor of prejudice for Hindus, realistic threat was a paramount predictor for Muslims. In‐group status was as a significant predictor for low‐status minority group only. The results are discussed with reference to their potential implications for future research and interventions aimed at improving intergroup relations. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cultural similarities and differences in social identification in Japan and Australia

A comparison of social identification processes in Australia and Japan found some similarities and differences. In both countries, identification with smaller face-to-face groups was found to be stronger than identification with larger social categories; however, Australians scored higher on the affective dimension of social identification, whereas Japanese scored higher on the cognitive dimension. Moreover, positive situations from Australia and negative situations from Japan were estimated by respondents from both cultures to be more influential in determining how much they identify with their ingroups, showing a cultural situation-bias effect. Situational affordances of social identification across cultures are discussed.     

团队多样性与组织支持对团队创造力的影响

采用实验法在专业异质性与群体断层两个水平上操纵团队多样性, 通过两个实验考察团队多样性与组织支持的交互作用对团队创造力的影响。研究结果表明：(1)在独创性维度上, 专业异质团队在工具支持条件下的独创性显著高于专业同质团队, 情感和物质支持条件下二者差异不显著。当团队出现群体断层时, 情感支持与工具支持具有同样的促进作用, 即在这两种组织支持下, 强断层团队的独创性显著高于弱断层团队; 物质支持条件下二者差异不显著。(2)在适宜性维度上, 组织支持的主效应显著, 两个实验一致地发现物质支持条件下的适宜性显著高于情感支持和工具支持。本研究从团队多样性与组织支持交互作用的角度考察不同复杂程度、不同组织目标的多样性团队所需要的组织支持条件, 对促进团队创造力具有一定的理论与实践价值。     

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE ON SCIENCE AND FAITH BY CHRISTIAN STUDENTS FROM ABIDJAN

The science and faith debate is dominated by Western voices. In order to enrich this debate, the authors study the discourses of different groups of Christian academics and master's students in francophone Africa. This article describes the process of reconstructing and analyzing the discourse of a group of master's students from Abidjan (Ivory Coast) with the help of group model building and focus groups. Three characteristic features that emerge from this discourse include the foundational position of faith, the central role of truth, and the ambiguous connotations of the term “science” in this context. The reconstructed discourse is then brought into conversation with the North Atlantic debate, with a special focus on the concept of scientism.     

Confidence in Dyadic Decision Making: The Role of Individual Differences

Groups typically express more confidence than individuals, yet how individual‐level confidence combines during collaborative decision tasks is not well understood. We prescreened 686 community members using a novel confidence measure (a true/false trivia test) intentionally designed to be difficult (accuracy rates were not significantly better than chance) and randomly assigned 72 individuals to collaborate on a matched version of the same test in dyads composed of two low‐confidence individuals, two high‐confidence individuals, or one of each (“mixed”). Consistent with past research, we found that the confidence expressed by dyads was higher than the confidence expressed by individuals; importantly, however, this pattern varied markedly by dyad type, with low‐confidence dyads showing the largest increase, mixed dyads showing a moderate increase, and high‐confidence dyads showing no increase—despite the fact that all dyads showed similarly low accuracy (about 55%). These results highlight the conditions under which groups express greater confidence than individuals and offer insights for the composition of collaborative decision‐making teams. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.