Research-Technology Management • January—February 2012 51.docx

Research-Technology Management • January—February 2012 |
51
The physical design of high-tech workplaces is a key chal-
lenge facing senior management today. In a world in which
collaboration is increasingly seen as the engine of innova-
tion, the physical layout of high-tech workplaces must
facilitate the face-to-face (F2F) communication among R&D
team members that breeds productive collaboration. Al-
though the physical design of the workplace is but one vari-
able in a complex constellation of factors that affect team F2F
communication, it is an important one for, as Elsbach and
Pratt (2008) recently noted, “everything from the effi cient
manufacture of computer chips to the research and develop-
ment of new fl avors of potato chips is affected by the design
and arrangement of machinery, work spaces, environmental
controls, and equipment” (182). Further, despite the increas-
ing use of distributed teams connected through electronically
mediated communication such as email, texting, instant
messaging, videoconferencing, phone, and fax, recent studies
have underlined the importance of F2F communication for
successfully accomplishing complex team tasks ( Elsbach and
Pratt 2008 ; Allen and Henn 2007 ).
F2F communication is important to all team tasks, but es-
pecially to the high-tech work of R&D teams. R&D projects
involve non-routine tasks with a high degree of uncertainty;
past studies have shown that F2F communication is more
effective than other types of communication media for trans-
ferring the complex, context-specifi c information required
to accomplish tasks related to advancing knowledge and de-

veloping new technologies ( Tushman 1979 ; Santoro and
Saparito 2003 ).
James Stryker earned his PhD in management from Rutgers
University and is
an assistant professor of management in the department of
business at Holy
Names University, Oakland, California. He is also a licensed
architect and holds
a Master of Architecture degree from Yale University. Professor
Stryker’s princi-
pal research interests are in the areas of team communication
and the design
of the physical workplace, organizational leadership, team
decision making,
and group dynamics. In addition to his academic career, he has
over 20 years
experience in the programming, design, and construction of
high-tech R&D
facilities. His work experience includes serving as director of
facilities for a
Fortune 100 pharmaceutical company and senior project
manager for two
nationally ranked architectural and engineering design fi rms.
[email protected]
Michael Santoro earned his PhD in management from Rutgers
University
and is an associate professor of management in the College of
Business and
Economics at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Professor Santo-
ro’s principal research interests are in the areas of strategic
alliances and the
external sourcing of knowledge and technological innovation.
He has nearly
30 publications in edited volumes and leading peer-reviewed

journals and
serves on the editorial review board of IEEE Transactions on
Engineering
Management. He is a recipient of the prestigious Carl R. and
Ingeborg
Beidleman Research Award, the Class of 1961 Professorship,
and the James
T. Kane Faculty Fellowship. Prior to his academic career, he
spent 21 years
with Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP), holding a number
of middle
and senior management positions. [email protected]
DOI: 10.5437/08956308X5501013
FEATURE ARTICLE
Facilitating Face-to-Face Communication in
High-Tech Teams
Face-to-face communication is a necessary component of team
collaboration; the physical design of the space, including the
visibility of workstations and the availability of community
spaces, can affect the level of face-to-face communication.
James B. Stryker and Michael D. Santoro
OVERVIEW: Despite the increasing use of electronically
mediated methods for team communications, research continues
to
underline the importance of face-to-face (F2F) communication
for the successful accomplishment of complex, high-tech
team tasks. Although a crucial aspect of F2F communication is
the physical proximity of team members, studies that have
explored the relationship between the design of the physical
workplace and F2F communication have produced confl icting
fi ndings. This paper reports the results of a fi eld study
conducted at two R&D sites of a large U.S. high technology and

life
sciences company; the results suggest that the typical space
planning solution of simply moving people from closed offi ces
to open cubicles does not in and of itself increase F2F
communication. Rather, the level of F2F communication
depends on
the location of team members’ workstations within the overall
confi guration of the space and the amount of space provided
to support collaboration opportunities, including both formal
and informal spaces. Based on the results of the study, we
offer suggestions for the layout and design of R&D
workstations to foster productive F2F encounters.
KEYWORDS: R&D teams , Collaboration , Workplace
design , Face-to-face communication
52 | Research-Technology Management Facilitating Face-to-
Face Communication
However, unlike electronic mediums of communication,
F2F communication requires an actual physical place for peo-
ple to meet to exchange information. In this context, it is clear
that careful consideration must be given to the physical design
of R&D facilities in order to facilitate productive F2F interac-
tions and to ensure that capital investments in new and up-
graded facilities deliver their full value. This is a signifi cant
consideration for senior management. On average, the value of
facilities and real estate accounts for 25 percent of all Fortune
500 company assets, and organizational occupancy costs rank
second in fi rm costs, behind only worker compensation and
benefi ts ( Berry 1996 ). A facility designed to encourage
interac-
tions among colleagues can help deliver on that investment.

With that in mind, we set out to study how the layout
and design of physical workspaces, including such factors
as worker proximity (usually referred to as “headcount den-
sity” in the literature), workstation openness and visibility,
and proximity to shared spaces (referred to in the literature
as “collaboration opportunity”) may shape patterns of F2F
communication.
Background: Physical Structure Research
Early physical structure research focused on two issues: the
proximity of organizational members and the dynamics and
consequences of relocating organizational members from the
traditional closed offi ce to open workstations. Concerning
proximity of communication partners, the fi ndings have
been clear: the probability of F2F communication between
two people is inversely related to the distance separating
them. Specifi cally, Allen (1977) has shown that the probabil-
ity of F2F communication between two people is greatest
when they are located within 10 meters of each other and
declines to an asymptotic level after about 25 meters of sepa-
ration. However, although the probability of F2F communi-
cation declines with distance from communication partner,
proximity does not guarantee that F2F communication will
actually take place. Moenaert and Caeldries (1996) found no
reported increase in the quantity of F2F communication with
colleagues after a relocation and consolidation of R&D per-
sonnel, while Hatch (1985) found a negative correlation be-
tween the proximity of organizational members and the
quantity of time spent in F2F work activities.
Concerning open versus closed offi ces and workstations,
architects and interior designers predicted that more open
workstation designs would promote communication ( Davis
1984 ), but actual fi eld studies provided confl icting fi nd-
ings. Allen (1977) found that “among the members of the

The probability of F2F communication
between two people is inversely related
to the distance separating them.
experimental department [for engineers who spoke with one
another at a frequency of once a week or more] communica-
tion increased signifi cantly both in terms of the number of
communications per person and in number of individuals
with whom the average engineer communicated” when an
open workstation format was implemented (279). However,
Sundstrom, Burt, and Kamp (1980) found that after a move
from closed offi ce to open workstations “practically no rela-
tionship was found at all between architectural accessibility
and social interaction among co-workers” (113).
More recent studies have looked at the overall layout and
design of the workplace. For example, studies by Spiliopoulou
and Penn (1999) and Boutellier et. al. (2008) found that
people occupying workstations adjacent to highly traveled
corridors or public spaces reported signifi cantly more F2F
communication compared to workers occupying worksta-
tions more distant from main routes of circulation.
Key Variables in Workplace Design
To address the mixed results and confl icting fi ndings of
previ-
ous research, this study addresses the research question of
how physical workplace design can facilitate F2F communi-
cation, focusing on the two variables that are most often
considered when designing the workplace to facilitate com-
munication—open versus closed workstations and head-
count density, where headcount density refers to the number
of organizational members within a given proximity to each
other.

To examine the impact of physical design, usually concep-
tualized as an opposition between closed offi ces and open
workspaces, we adopted a slightly different perspective, dis-
tinguishing between high-visibility and low-visibility work-
stations. This variable was introduced to allow exploration of
the notion that visibility within the overall layout of the
workspace drives team F2F communication, rather than the
physical characteristics of closed offi ces versus open, low-
walled workstations. Further, when considering the impor-
tance of headcount density to foster F2F communication, it
was not clear that previous research always distinguished be-
tween team and non-team communication. We therefore
examined the relationship between the numbers of workers
located in close proximity to one another while carefully
controlling for team membership.
Finally, this study introduces and explores a new variable
not previously considered within the context of physical
structure research: the effect of collaboration opportunity on
F2F communication, where collaboration opportunity is de-
fi ned as the number of formal and informal meeting places
for F2F communication available within the workplace
( Stryker 2004 ).
Headcount Density. Headcount density, or the number
of organizational members located within close proximity to
one another, is among the most studied variables in work-
place design. Based on Allen’s (1977) research, close proxim-
ity is defi ned as members located within 10 meters. Similar to
research fi ndings with regard to workstation barriers and en-
closures, the fi ndings concerning the relationship between
Facilitating Face-to-Face Communication January—February

2012 | 53
headcount density and F2F communication have been con-
tradictory ( Hatch 1985 ; Moenaert and Caeldries 1996 ).
In reviewing the research literature on headcount density,
we noted that previous studies did not always distinguish be-
tween team and non-team F2F communication. Previous re-
search (e.g., Tushman 1979 ) has shown that R&D team
members have a high need to communicate F2F due to the
complexity and non-routine nature of their research tasks.
Therefore, in this study, we specifi cally focused on the rela-
tionship between team membership and headcount density
to further tease out this issue and ascertain its possible effect
on F2F communication.
Workstation Visibility. Elsbach and Pratt’s recent re-
view (2008) of the literature on workplace design notes that
the relationship between barriers and enclosures and F2F
communication is one of the most studied workplace design
features. The traditional argument has been that the in-
creased visibility afforded workers by open workstation de-
sign promotes serendipitous meetings and therefore
encourages F2F communication. However, as noted above,
research examining these variables has produced confl icting
fi ndings.
This inconsistency may stem from a key variable in the
physical design of the workspace that has been overlooked:
the visibility of the offi ce or workstation within the overall
layout of the facility’s design. In preparing for this study, we
visited two research sites to observe the interactions of R&D
team members. Over time, it became evident that the type of
workstation—open cubicle workstation versus closed of-
fi ce—was only one factor affecting F2F communication. An-
other key element was the location of the workstation and its

position in relation to main routes of circulation. For exam-
ple, at one of the research sites, some closed offi ces with glass
walls were located directly along the main building corridor,
providing high visibility to their occupants and to those pass-
ing by, thereby facilitating F2F communication. Other offi ces
were located away from this main corridor, behind the indi-
vidual research laboratory; these locations provided their oc-
cupants a relatively low level of visibility and therefore less
opportunity to interact. Similarly, at the other research site,
some workstations were clearly visible from the main corri-
dor and the open public atrium, while others were across a
hallway and much less visible from public spaces, providing
less opportunity for F2F interaction and communication.
From these preliminary fi eld observations we surmised
that it was not just the openness of the workstation that may
affect team member visibility and provide more opportunity
for F2F communication, but rather the combination of work-
station openness and the overall layout of the building that
creates opportunities for F2F communication. This combina-
tion of openness and location, therefore, became a key focus
of this study.
Collaboration Opportunity. Finally, in this study we
explore a new physical design variable, collaboration oppor-
tunity ( Stryker 2004 ). In a classic study of residents of an
apartment complex, Festinger, Schacter, and Back (1950)
found that the design of an apartment complex promoted
We surmised that it was not just the
openness of the workstation that may
provide more opportunity for F2F
communication but the combination of

workstation openness and the overall
layout of the building.
social interaction through the placement of common use fa-
cilities such as stairways, elevators, and laundry rooms along
corridors and public paths of circulation. These common use
facilities acted as “centers of gravity” ( Allen and Henn 2007 ),
attracting people and thereby increasing the opportunity for
and likelihood of interaction.
Applying this concept to the R&D work environment, we
explored the idea that the design of the workplace could fa-
cilitate communication by providing specifi c shared space
destinations that act as centers of gravity, drawing organiza-
tional team members and thus increasing the likelihood of
F2F interaction and communication and thereby presenting
increased opportunities for collaboration. Collaboration op-
portunity is defi ned as specifi c places within the physical lay-
out that encourage people to gather and includes formal
spaces such as conference rooms and meeting rooms as well
as informal meeting places such as coffee areas, copy rooms,
stairways, elevator lobbies, and bathrooms.
Research Setting and Study Participants
To explore our research question, “How can the physical
workplace be designed to facilitate F2F communication?”,
this study considered the design and layout of R&D laborato-
ries at two different sites of a major life sciences company.
The research director at Site 1 had recently been the lead
scientist in the design of a new R&D laboratory at that site,
and he was interested in fi nding out if the design of the facil-
ity actually promoted team communication. He recom-
mended that the research director at Site 2 and his team join
the study in order to add participants, since the two locations

have substantially similar populations. Statistical analyses
found no signifi cant differences in demographic data be-
tween sites 1 and 2 with respect to participant age, tenure
with the fi rm, level of education, gender, sociability index, or
managerial level.
Moreover, although both sites are new-product R&D sites
that engage in similar types of activities, the physical layout
of the facilities at these two campuses are very different and
offer strongly contrasting physical designs. Site 1 is a recently
completed R&D laboratory at the company’s corporate head-
quarters; it is a three-story facility housing state-of-the-art
laboratories, offi ces, and open workstations oriented around
an open, sky-lit atrium. Open workstations and four
Face Communication
glass-walled offi ces surround the atrium on each fl oor. Other
features of the design include a coffee bar, three glass-walled
meeting rooms, and an informal break area located at the
end of the atrium.
The research laboratories at Site 2 are housed on the sec-
ond fl oor of a combined offi ce, laboratory, and warehouse
facility constructed in the 1920s. The laboratory fl oor has a
series of labs and offi ces in the center of the fl oor surrounded
by a loop corridor. The offi ces are separated from the labs by
a glass wall. On the other side of the main loop corridor are
another series of laboratories with the lab offi ces located
along the exterior wall of the building. The break area for lab
employees is located on the third fl oor, as are the toilets; a
large cafeteria and common meeting rooms are located on
the eighth fl oor of the building.

In summary, the two research sites were selected because,
although they are both R&D sites within the same company
and the researchers employed at these sites have similar
backgrounds, experiences, and tasks to accomplish, the two
sites provide contrasting physical workspace designs and
very different headcount density and collaboration opportu-
nity factors.
Data Collection
Observational data was gathered during numerous trips to
both sites, during which the researchers walked the facilities,
observed researcher interactions at various times of the day,
and in general became familiar with the facility operations.
To gather data regarding F2F interactions, volunteers from
among the staff at each site were asked to complete a 43-item
questionnaire that asked for information about both demo-
graphic and social structure control variables. Items on the
questionnaire were designed to assess such factors as leader-
ship styles, individual sociability, and team rewards, as well
as to gather data regarding position (managerial vs. non-
managerial) and such demographic factors as age, education,
and tenure with the fi rm.
Participants also identifi ed the location of their worksta-
tions on an architectural fl oor plan of the site; this allowed
the research team to gather additional information about
headcount density, workstation visibility, and collaboration
opportunity.
• Headcount Density. For the purposes of this study,
headcount density was defi ned as the number of persons
who occupy a workstation within a 10-meter radius of
the target individual’s primary workstation. A 10-meter

radius was selected since prior research ( Allen 1977 ) has
shown that the highest probability for F2F communica-
tion occurs within 10 meters of a person’s workstation.
• Workstation Visibility . At Site 1, open workstations
and closed offi ces located adjacent to the atrium are
highly visible to all occupants of all three laboratory
fl oors, whether from the open stair in the center of the
atrium, the atrium corridor, or the break areas at the end
of the atrium. These were therefore identifi ed as high-
visibility workstations. Workstations located across the
inner corridor, adjacent to the laboratories, are less visi-
ble, especially from the break areas and the bridges cross-
ing the atrium; these were therefore identifi ed as
low-visibility workstations.
At Site 2, offi ces located in the center of the fl oor directly
along the main circulation corridor were identifi ed as
high-visibility workstations. Other offi ces located along
the exterior walls of the building and separated from the
main corridor by the laboratory were identifi ed as low-
visibility workstations.
• Collaboration Opportunity. Collaboration opportu-
nity was defi ned as the number of formal or informal
contact places located within a 25-meter radius of the
target individual’s workstation. That radius was chosen
because, as noted above, Allen (1977) has shown that
the probability of F2F communication diminishes to an
asymptotic level after approximately 25 meters. Contact
places counted included formally designated meeting
spaces such as conference rooms and meeting rooms as
well as informal gathering places such as coffee bars, re-
strooms, copy rooms, mailboxes, supply closets, vending
machines, elevators, and stairways.

After completing the initial questionnaire, participants
were sent a web-based questionnaire 2–3 times each week
on randomly selected days for 8 weeks. The web-based ques-
tionnaire asked participants to a) identify whom they had
met in F2F communication that day, b) indicate whether that
person was a team member or non-team member, and c)
identify where that communication took place (their work-
station, the other person’s workstation, formal conference
room or meeting room, informal meeting room or break
area, passing in the corridor, or other).
Although the quality of F2F communication is at least as
important as its quantity, we counted all F2F communica-
tions in this study. This decision was motivated by two key
considerations. First, early research in this area ( Zajonc 1968 )
has shown that all types of workplace F2F communication
promote personal attraction and team cohesion by encourag-
ing feelings of familiarity, similarity, and shared affect, and
recent research on R&D teams ( Beal et al. 2003 ) has demon-
strated that cohesive teams performed team tasks more
effi ciently—especially the team tasks that require close coor-
dination and communication, like R&D tasks. Second, senior
R&D managers at the research sites were interested in deter-
mining the extent to which the physical design of the labo-
ratory work place facilitated all types of F2F communication.
Results
Results revealed signifi cant differences in levels of F2F com-
munications based on location and headcount density;
whether employees worked in open workstations versus
closed offi ces seemed to have less effect ( Table 1 ). Occupants
of high-visibility workstations and occupants in high
headcount-density layouts reported signifi cantly more team

F2F communication than low-visibility, low headcount-
density workstation layouts. Further, occupants with high
Facilitating Face-to-Face Communication January—February
2012 | 55
collaboration opportunity reported signifi cantly more team
F2F communication than those in low collaboration-oppor-
tunity workstations. We found no signifi cant difference in
the level of F2F communication between high-visibility open
workstations and high-visibility closed offi ces, suggesting
that visibility was the overriding factor that infl uenced team
communication, rather than the type of workstation. How-
ever, for low-visibility workstations, we found signifi cantly
more team F2F communication in open workstations com-
pared to closed offi ces.
Specifi cally, respondents occupying high-visibility work-
stations reported 59 percent more F2F team communication
than those in low-visibility workstations (Table 1). In high-
visibility work locations, there was no signifi cant difference in
F2F communication between open, low-walled workstations
and closed offi ces. In low-visibility situations, respondents in
open, low-walled workstations reported 51 percent more
team F2F communication than occupants of closed offi ces.
Respondents in high headcount-density workstation lay-
outs (average 16 persons within a 10-meter radius) reported
84 percent more F2F team communication than workers in
low headcount-density layouts (average 4 persons within 10
meters).
Respondents occupying workstations with high collabora-
tion opportunity (average 22 formal or informal meeting

places within 25 meters) reported 102 percent more F2F
team communication than those located in workstations
with low collaboration opportunity (average 4 formal or in-
formal meeting places).
Discussion
Many studies (e.g., Tushman 1979 ; Santoro and Saparito
2003 ) have shown that facilitating team F2F communica-
tions, particularly among knowledge workers such as high-
tech R&D staff, plays a critical role in accomplishing complex
team tasks such as advancing knowledge and new technolo-
gies. The results of this study highlight some key factors that
bring much-needed clarity to the question of just how to ac-
complish that goal.
Previous studies did not consider workstation location and
visibility in the overall context of the layout of the facility.
This study found that workstation visibility—not whether a
person was in a closed offi ce or an open cubicle—was a key
factor in facilitating F2F communication; in high-visibility
locations, there was no signifi cant difference in F2F
communication for open versus closed workspaces. In lower-
visibility work locations, however, the question of open ver-
sus closed workspaces becomes more signifi cant; R&D
workers in low-visibility locations reported signifi cantly
more team F2F communication when they worked in
open, low walled workstations compared with closed offi ces.
This study also found that team F2F communication was
signifi cantly greater when team members were located in
high-density work areas (average 16 persons within 10 me-
ters) with a large number of informal meeting places located
nearby (average 22 formal and informal meeting places
within 25 meters). These fi ndings suggest that common-use
features in the workplace may have a similar “center of grav-

ity” effect as was observed in common-use facilities in a resi-
dential apartment complex ( Festinger, Schacter, and Back
1950 ). Just as common-use areas in residential apartment
complexes draw residents together, common-use areas in
the workplace appear to attract and encourage team F2F
interaction.
What these fi ndings suggest is that to facilitate team F2F
communication, workstations should be designed to be as
highly visible as possible, placed adjacent to main routes of
circulation, open atria, or other similar centers of gravity.
Clearly, not all workstations can be located along main cor-
ridors or in other high-visibility locations. Our data suggest
that open workstations with low partitions and no doors can
help offset the disadvantages of lower-visibility areas, since
they help facilitate increased team F2F communication in
these areas. This fi nding may be of particular interest to R&D
managers located in older facilities in need of renovation. In
considering facility renovations, converting some of the tra-
ditional, closed offi ces to open, low-walled workstations and
providing increased informal meeting places offer one way to
increase team F2F communication and collaboration.
TABLE 1 . F2F Team Communication Results
Differences in F2F Communication
N=2095 F2F communication events over eight-week test period
1 High-visibility workstations compared to low-visibility
workstations a +59% a
2 Open workstations compared to closed offi ces in high-
visibility locations No signifi cant difference
3 Open workstations compared to closed offi ces in low-
visibility locations +51% a

4 High headcount density compared to low headcount
density(16 persons within 10 meters versus 4 persons) +84% a
5 High collaboration opportunity compared to low
collaboration opportunity(22 places for formal or informal
meetings within 25 meters versus 4)
+102% a
Results signifi cant @ p< 0.05
a To test for a potential self-selection bias for workstation
visibility, we looked at age, level of education, gender, level of
managerial responsibility, level of sociability,
and tenure with the company and found no signifi cant
differences between occupants of high-visibility workstations
compared with low-visibility workstations.
In high-visibility locations, there
was no signifi cant difference in F2F
communication for open versus closed
workspaces.
Face Communication
We acknowledge that the generalizability of these results
may be somewhat limited by the small scope of the study.
These fi ndings may nevertheless have important implica-
tions for R&D organizations in a variety of industries, since
studies have shown that the need for high-tech workers to

discuss complex issues via F2F communication spans both
industry ( Santoro and Saparito 2003 ) and national borders
( Bertodo 1990 ).
Conclusion
This fi eld study addresses a key workplace challenge: How do
you design the physical workplace to promote team F2F
communication? Companies spend signifi cant amounts of
capital designing and building new facilities and renovating
older facilities, but previous research has offered confl icting
fi ndings and little guidance for designing these spaces. The
results of this study offer some insight, including the impor-
tance of visibility, the possibility of using open workstations
where increased visibility is not an option, and the impor-
tance of headcount density for promoting team F2F commu-
nication. Further, our study suggests that providing spaces
for informal and formal collaboration opportunity also has
the potential to facilitate increased F2F communication.
As Elsbach and Pratt (2008) note, “As organizations con-
tinue to extend the boundaries of physical environments
(e.g., virtual organizations, hoteling, and teleworking), the
importance of understanding the role that the physical envi-
ronment plays on how we think, feel, and work is only be-
coming more critical” (217). Our study attempts to provide
senior managers with some clarity to this issue as we high-
light areas that have practical applicability in the critical, yet
understudied role of the physical workspace in the competi-
tive high-tech work environment.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the feedback and in-
sights provided by the managing editor and eight anonymous
reviewers.
References
Allen , T. J. 1977 . Managing the Flow of

Technology . Cambridge,
MA : MIT Press .
Allen , T. J. , and Henn , G. W. 2007 . The
Organization and Archi-
tecture of Innovation: Managing the Flow of Technology .
Burling-
ton, MA : Elsevier .
Beal , D. J. , Cohen , R. R. , Burke , M. J. ,
and McLendon , C. L.
2003 . Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-
analytic clarifi cation of construct relations . Journal of
Applied
Psychology 88 ( 6 ): 989 – 1004 .
Berry , K. 1996 . Space: The fi nal frontier in the
race to down-
size . Investor’s Business Daily . February 20: reprint
S3463 .
Bertodo , R. G. 1990 . Evolution of an engineering
organiza-
tion . International Journal of Technology Management 3 (
6 ):
693 – 710 .
Boutellier , R. , Ullman , F. , Schreiber , J. ,
and Naef , R. 2008 . Im-
pact of offi ce layout on communication in a science-driven
business . R&D Magazine 38 ( 4 ): 372 – 391 .
Davis , T. 1984 . The infl uence of the physical
environment in
offi ces . Academy of Management Review 9 : 271 –

283 .
Elsbach , K. D. , and Pratt , M. G. 2008 . The
physical environment
in organizations . Academy of Management Annals 1 :
181 – 224 .
Festinger , L. , Schacter , S. , and Back , K.
1950 . Social Pressure in
Informal Groups . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press
.
Hatch , M. J. 1985 . The organization as a physical
environment
of work: Physical structure determinants of task attention
and interaction . PhD dissertation . Stanford University,
Palo
Alto, CA .
Moenaert , R. K. , and Caeldries , F. 1996 .
Architectural redesign,
interpersonal communication, and learning in R&D . Journal
of Product Innovative Management 13 : 296 – 310 .
Santoro , M. D. , and Saparito , P. 2003 . The
fi rm’s trust in its
university partner as a key mediator in advancing knowl-
edge and new technologies . IEEE Transactions on
Engineering
Management 50 ( 3 ): 362 – 373 .
Spiliopoulou , G. , and Penn , A. 1999 .
Organizations as multi-
layered networks. Proceedings of the Second International
Space Syntax Conference, 13.1-13.24. Brasilia, Brazil,
March-April .

Stryker , J. 2004 . Designing the workplace to
promote commu-
nication: The effect of collaboration opportunity on face-
to-face communication in R&D project teams . Ph.D.
dissertation Rutgers University , Newark, NJ .
Sundstrom , E. , Burt , R. E. , and Kamp , D.
1980 . Privacy at
work: Architectural correlates of job satisfaction and job
performance . Academy of Management Journal 23 ( 1 ):
101 –
117 .
Tushman , M. L. 1979 . Work characteristics and
subunit com-
munication structure: A contingency analysis . Administrative
Science Quarterly 24 : 82 – 97 .
Zajonc , R. B. 1968 . Attitudinal effects of mere
exposure . Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 : 1 – 29 .
Providing spaces for informal and formal
collaboration opportunity also has the
potential to facilitate increased F2F
communication.
Subscribers Read RTM Online . . .
… as soon as the issue is printed, at http://www.iriweb.org/rtm.
Full-text electronic version is searchable
within text and across other IRI resources.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
http://sgr.sagepub.com/
Small Group Research
http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/42/1/3
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1046496410386245
2011 42: 3 originally published online 1 December 2010Small
Group Research
Christena Cleveland, Jim Blascovich, Cynthia Gangi and Lucie
Finez
Formed Teams
When Good Teammates Are Bad: Physiological Threat on
Recently
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Small Group ResearchAdditional services and
information for

http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/42/1/3.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Dec 1, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Dec 29, 2010Version of Record >>
at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17,
2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/42/1/3
http://www.sagepublications.com
http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/42/1/3.refs.html
http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/42/1/3.full.pdf
http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/24/104649641038
6245.full.pdf
http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml
Small Group Research
42(1) 3 –31
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1046496410386245
http://sgr.sagepub.com
386245 SGR42110.1177/1046496410386
245Cleveland et al.Small Group Research
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1Westmont College, Santa Barbara, CA
2University of California, Santa Barbara
3University of Reims, Champagne-Ardenne, France
Corresponding Author:
Christena Cleveland, Department of Psychology, Westmont
College,
Santa Barbara, CA 93108
Email: [email protected]
When Good

Teammates Are
Bad: Physiological
Threat on Recently
Formed Teams
Christena Cleveland1, Jim Blascovich2,
Cynthia Gangi2, and Lucie Finez3
Abstract
This research examined the ways in which superior teammate
performance
in recently formed teams affects an individual’s motivation. It
was hypoth-
esized that members of recently formed teams for whom social
identity was
not yet salient would experience threat, a maladaptive
physiological pattern
that indicates low perceptions of coping resources relative to
situational
demands. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that this effect
would be the
greatest for individuals on recently formed teams who had
briefly interacted
with teammates but still lacked a strong social identity, relative
to those who
have not interacted with teammates at all. Fifty-three
participants were each
paired with 2 confederates to form 53 triads. Depending on the
condition,
participants and confederates either competed as a team on a
mental task
(minimal team condition), completed a team-building exercise
prior to com-
peting as a team on a mental task (team condition), or competed
as individu-

als against each other (individual/coaction baseline condition)
on a mental
task. The results revealed that participants who worked on a
team with
superior performers were threatened. Interestingly, participants
who had
Articles
4 Small Group Research 42(1)
the opportunity to bond with their teammates prior to working
together
were even more threatened by superior performers. Results are
discussed
in terms of psychological closeness and social comparison
theory.
Keywords
minimal group, social comparison, team, motivation, challenge,
threat,
cardiovascular reactivity, psychological closeness
I’ll never forget the night that Elgin Baylor and I combined for
73 points in the
Garden. Elgin had 71 and I had 2.
Hot Rod Hundley, former professional basketball player

Superior teammate performance rarely goes unnoticed.
Anecdotal evidence
suggests that individual team members are attentive to superior
performing
teammates relative to their own performance, and also prefer
competing
with teammates who are better performers than they are. Indeed,
a large body
of social identity research suggests that individuals prefer to be
associated
with winners and high status groups because self-esteem is
closely tied to
group memberships (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Cialdini &
DeNicholas,
1989; Cialdini, et al., 1976; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Given this
evidence, it
would seem that having a superior teammate is a good thing.
However, this
is not invariably the case. This research presents evidence of
negative conse-
quences of superior teammates on recently formed teams,
particularly as they
relate to individual perceptions of coping resources and
situational demands
during a competitive situation. The authors use two theoretical
frame-
works—social comparison and psychological closeness—to
understand
how being on a recently formed team with superior performers
can lead to
negative consequences.
Teams
Since teams comprise a special type of group, it is useful to
distinguish the
two concepts. Salas, Dickinson, Converse, and Tannenbaum

(1992) state that
a team is a distinguishable set of two or more people who
interact dynami-
cally, interdependently, and adaptively toward a common and
valued goal,
who have each been assigned specific roles or functions to
perform, and who
have a limited lifespan of membership. Adair (2004) adds that
characteristics
of teams include definable membership, which is sometimes
given a name,
Cleveland et al. 5
members who consciously identify with each other, members
who share a
sense of purpose within the team to achieve a common task,
members who
rely on each other to be able to complete the common task,
members who
communicate, influence, and interact with one another in the
process of
working toward the common task, and members who act in
unity, almost like
a single organism. Reilly and Jones (1974) specify the four
essential elements
that differentiate a team from a group. One, group members
must have shared
goals or a reason for working together. Two, group members
must be inter-

dependent; that is, they must perceive that they need one
another’s experience,
ability, and commitment to arrive at mutual goals. Three, group
members
must be committed to the idea that working together leads to
more effective
decisions/performance than working in isolation. Four, the
group must be
accountable as a functioning unit within a larger organizational
context.
The predictions made in the present research are informed by
group theory
(e.g., Levine & Moreland, 1998). This seems appropriate as
teams fall within
the broader category of groups. However, since a team is a
particular type of
group, the methodology presented in this research seeks to
incorporate the
aforementioned definitional distinctions that differentiate
groups and teams.
Social Identity Versus Social Comparison
When teams have a strong, salient social identity, superior
teammates should
enhance perceptions of personal resources (e.g., knowledge,
skills, and abili-
ties; Blascovich, 2008) and decrease perceptions of situational
demands (e.g.,
danger, uncertainty, task difficulty, and required effort;
Blascovich, 2008)
during a competitive situation. When social identity processes
are engaged
(when one’s identity as a group member is more salient than
one’s identity
as an individual), superior teammate performance can lead to

higher self-
evaluations because one is including group resources in his or
her calculation
of perceived personal resources (Gardner, Gabriel, &
Hochschild, 2002,
gender groups of two to six on a social perceptiveness task;
Brown, Novick,
Lord, & Richards, 1992, psychologically close dyads on a self-
evaluation
task; Brewer & Weber, 1994, in-group dyads on a self-
evaluation task).
However, not all teams involve even moderate levels of social
identity. In
particular, members of recently formed teams may not have
experienced the
depersonalization processes that necessarily precede social
identity salience.
Recently formed teams are common in society; examples of
such teams are
pickup sports teams and work/school project teams involving
individuals
who have had little or no contact with each other prior to the
start of team
performance situation. In addition, team performance contexts
that lack
strong intergroup competition cues (e.g., immediate presence of

competitors,
competition goals, team differentiation, etc.) may also elicit low
or nonexis-
tent levels of social identity (Brewer, 1979; Turner, 1985).
Members of
recently formed teams who have not yet had the opportunity to
acquire a
strong sense of social identity will experience salient individual
identity
rather than social identity. As such, it is unlikely that social
identity pro-
cesses will significantly affect individual perceptions of
personal resources.
Rather, it is likely that social comparison processes, as opposed
to social
identity processes, will prevail and that superior teammate
performance will
lead to decreased, rather than increased perceptions of coping
resources dur-
ing a competitive situation.
Research concerning social comparison suggests that, on
recently formed
teams, superior teammate performance can affect perceptions of
individual
coping resources and situational demands via social comparison
processes.
Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954; Stapel & Blanton,
2004; Suls &
Wheeler, 2000) states that humans are motivated to evaluate
their own abili-
ties and that they often do this by comparing themselves to
relevant others.
This most often occurs when another’s performance is relevant
to one’s self-
definition and is not so superior or inferior that comparisons are

rendered
difficult or meaningless. As a common illustration, a female
amateur tennis
player is unlikely to compare herself to a male professional
tennis player,
whose game is vastly superior, because the comparison would
be relatively
uninformative (Stapel & Blanton, 2004). Rather, she would
compare herself
to a more comparable target, such as a slightly superior female
amateur tennis
player. Indeed research on social comparison theory shows that
individuals
avoid comparing themselves with dissimilar others (e.g.,
Festinger, 1954).
However, individuals tend to compare themselves to similar
others. To this
end, individuals can engage in downward social comparisons
(comparisons
with an inferior target) or upward social comparisons
(comparisons with a
superior target). Social comparison theory postulates that
downward social
comparisons elicit higher self-evaluations and upward social
comparisons
elicit lower self-evaluations. Indeed, the contrast and
assimilation effects lit-
erature has demonstrated that individuals tend to contrast their
evaluations
away from superior targets, resulting in lower self-evaluations
(e.g., Moskowitz
& Skurnik, 1999; Pelham & Wachsmuth, 1995). Within the
context of group
processes, the frog pond effect (Davis, 1966; Marsh, Kong, &
Hau, 2000;
Marsh & Parker, 1984, large groups of students from same

school on academic
achievement tasks) proposes that the relative success of
members of an indi-
vidual’s group causes the individual to compare herself to other
members in
the group. This comparison process leads to lower or higher
self-evaluation
Cleveland et al. 7
and negative and positive affect, respectively, as a function of
other members’
outperformance or underperformance of the individual
(Aspinwall & Taylor,
1993; Brown et al., 1992; Gardner et al., 2002; Morse &
Gergen, 1970.
In addition, research on upward social comparisons and
physiological
responses indicates that individuals who were paired with a
superior performer
on a cooperative task experience a maladaptive physiological
response
(Mendes, Blascovich, Major, & Seery, 2001) associated with
low perceptions
of coping resources relative to situational demands. The authors
reasoned
that upward social comparisons led to a maladaptive
physiological response
because they increased individuals’ perceptions of danger and

required effort
while highlighting individuals’ lack of knowledge, skills, and
abilities.
Mendes et al. (2001) argued that danger is more likely to be
present during
upward social comparison situations, thus eliciting threat. This
is said to occur
because one is forced to compare oneself to a superior other and
this poses a
threat to self-esteem. Furthermore, upward social comparisons
explicitly con-
vey that higher performance levels can be met, and that one is
not achieving
those levels. As a result, the task is likely to be evaluated as
requiring more
effort. This effectively increases perceptions of situational
demands. Indeed,
research on the Køhler motivation gain effect (Hertel, Kerr, &
Messé, 2000;
Kerr et al., 2007), the finding that individuals perform
demanding physical
tasks better when working in a group, relative to working alone,
has shown
that upward social comparisons often lead to increased effort.
Mendes et al.
(2001) also posited that upward social comparisons led to
decreased evalua-
tions of skills, knowledge, and abilities because these
comparisons highlighted
participant’s relative lack of skills, knowledge, and abilities. As
the result of
upward social comparison, increases in perceived danger and
uncertainty and
decreases in perceived skills, knowledge, and abilities led to
higher demand
evaluations, lower resource evaluations, and ultimately, a

maladaptive pattern
of less efficient cardiovascular performance (Mendes, Major,
McCoy, &
Blascovich, 2008).
Furthermore, social comparison processes among group
members appear
to be pervasive. Gilbert, Giesler, and Morris (1995) found
social comparison
processes to be so instinctive that individuals disregarded
diagnostic infor-
mation when engaging in comparison processes. Not until after
the compari-
son had been made did individuals consider whether the person
with whom
they had compared themselves was an appropriate target. In
addition, Zell
and Alicke (2009) have shown that social comparisons are often
contextual-
ized. Even when intergroup comparison information is
available, individuals
often rely on intragroup comparison information because it is
local and
immediate. This research, when applied to group processes on
recently formed
teams, suggests that superior teammate performance should
negatively affect

perceptions of coping resources and situational demands,
particularly when
intragroup, rather than intergroup, processes are dominant.
Psychological Closeness
The self-evaluation maintenance model (SEM; Tesser, 1988,
2000) builds
on social comparison theory by adding that psychological
closeness (i.e., the
extent to which individuals are similar in origin, age,
background, looks,
physical proximity, attitudes), performance, and relevance of
another’s per-
formance to one’s self-definition are factors that determine
whether an
individual will engage in social comparison processes. The
same three fac-
tors also determine the result of those social comparison
processes. If all
three factors are high, one will engage in a comparison process
that results
in lower self-evaluation. In support of this idea, Pickett and
colleagues have
demonstrated that spontaneous social comparisons, those that
are automatic
and implicit, occur most frequently among members of cohesive
and psy-
chologically close groups (Pickett, 2001; Pickett & Perrott,
2004). In this
manner, superior teammate performance may lead to lower
perceptions of
personal resources, particularly if teammates are
psychologically close but
social identity processes are not yet engaged.
There are several reasons why psychological closeness can

enhance the
effect of upward social comparisons on perceptions of coping
resources and
situational demands during competitive situations. One is that
competing on
a team with closer others leads to greater evaluation concerns.
This may espe-
cially be true when a measure of psychological closeness has
been achieved
but social identity is not yet salient. This idea is consistent with
research con-
cerning performance situations and social support. For example,
Allen,
Blascovich, and Mendes (2002) found that those who performed
tasks in the
presence of a supportive friend or spouse showed increases in
heart rate and
blood pressure levels relative to those who performed tasks in
the presence of
a pet. The authors suggest that this is due to the fact that human
social sup-
port, no matter how positive, contains an evaluative element. In
addition, the
paradoxical performance effects literature (Baumeister, 1984,
Baumeister &
Steinhilber, 1984; Lewis & Linder, 1997) posits that social
support can
lead to more situational demands and performance deficits. In
particular,
Baumeister’s self-focus theory (1984) argues that factors that
are associated
with receiving social support (e.g., audience pressure, ego
relevance, compe-
tition, punishment, and reward contingency) often increase
performance

Cleveland et al. 9
pressure, self-attention, and self-presentational concerns. These
factors can
lead to decreased resource evaluations and increased demand
evaluations.
Another reason why upward social comparisons among
psychologically
close teammates might lead to threat is because interpersonal
comparisons
with close others are more meaningful and therefore more
threatening when
they turn out to be negative. Gerrard, Gibbons, Lane, and Stock
(2005) found
that group members who reported higher levels of psychological
closeness to
other group members were more affected by intragroup social
comparisons.
Taken together, this research suggests that social comparison
processes will
exert more influence within teams that have had ample
opportunity for social
interaction and have achieved a measure of psychological
closeness.
Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat
In the current research, we used physiological measures to
investigate the
impact of superior teammate performance on perceived coping

resources and
situational demands in a recently formed team situation
(Blascovich, 2008;
Blascovich & Mendes, 2000; Blascovich, Mendes, Tomaka,
Salomon, &
Seery, 2003; Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996). In this investigation,
physiologi-
cal measures have several advantages over self-report measures.
Specifically,
they are continuous, covert, and online (Blascovich, 2008).
These qualities
allow researchers to monitor changes indexed by physiological
responses
during behavioral episodes such as team performance situations.
Furthermore,
the use of measures that are less likely to be consciously
controlled reduces
investigators’ concerns for demand characteristics and self-
presentational
issues that can be evoked when one’s skills and abilities are in
question. In
this manner, physiological measures can provide less
contaminated assess-
ments of the impact of superior teammate performance on
perceived ability
to succeed (Blascovich, 2008). In addition, these measures can
provide
assessments during a team performance situation, thus reducing
effects of
reappraisal and discounting (Blascovich, 2008). Of course, one
must use a
biopsychosocial model that has established a valid relationship
between the
physiological measures used and the construct of interest. We
believe that
the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat and its

associated cardio-
vascular markers provide a valid context to investigate the
impact of superior
teammate performance on perceived resources.
The biopsychosocial model of challenge/threat posits that
challenge and
threat represent anchors on a bipolar motivational dimension
that involves
affective and cognitive, conscious and nonconscious processes.
Challenge
and threat have typically been investigated in motivated
performance
situations—situations that are goal-relevant, require active
coping, and
require that one act instrumentally to achieve a self-relevant
objective. Taking
an exam, playing a game, and giving a speech are examples of
motivated
performance situations.
Blascovich and colleagues (e.g., Blascovich, 2008; Blascovich
& Mendes,
2000; Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996) maintain that
challenge/threat motivation
arises when a task is self- or goal-relevant and, hence, engaging
or task involv-

ing. An individual who lacks a goal or does not care much about
the task is not
motivated and, hence, is neither challenged nor threatened.
Goals can be self-
relevant for a variety of reasons and individuals can experience
both tangible
and intangible consequences for reaching or failing to reach the
goal.
Given task engagement, the extent to which an individual
experiences
challenge or threat is determined by the relative balance of the
individual’s
evaluation of his or her coping resources and the evaluation of
situational
demands. Factors that influence these evaluations include the
following:
skills, knowledge, and abilities; dispositions; external support;
danger; uncer-
tainty; required effort. Evaluations of resources and demands
can be influ-
enced by factors outside of conscious awareness. Individuals are
challenged
when their evaluated resources outweigh their evaluated
demands of the situ-
ation. Individuals are threatened when their evaluation of the
demands of the
situation outweigh their evaluation of the resources. Essentially,
individuals
are challenged when they are subjectively prepared to cope with
the situation
and perceive that they can succeed and threatened when they are
subjectively
ill prepared to cope with the situation and perceive that they
cannot succeed.
Challenge and threat represent opposite ends of a continuum,

such that rela-
tive differences in challenge and threat (e.g., greater vs. lesser
challenge) are
meaningful.
Blascovich and his colleagues have demonstrated that
distinctive patterns
of cardiovascular responses that are sensitive to sympathetic
adrenal medul-
lary (SAM) and pituitary adrenal cortical (PAC) axes activation
index chal-
lenge and threat. Three physiological recording techniques are
used in their
assessment: electrocardiography, which measures electrical
signals associ-
ated with the actions of the heart muscle; impedance
cardiography, which
measures blood flow in the thoracic cavity; and blood pressure
measure-
ment. By utilizing these techniques, one can measure or
calculate four cardio-
vascular measures that identify task engagement and
differentiate challenge
from threat: heart rate (HR), expressed in beats per minute;
ventricular con-
tractility (VC), a chronotropic index of the left ventricle’s
contractile force;
cardiac output (CO), the amount of blood pumped by the heart
in liters per
minute; and total peripheral resistance (TPR), an index of net
constriction

Cleveland et al. 11
versus dilation in the vascular system. Ventricular contractility
is calculated
by multiplying changes in the duration of preejection period by
–1; preejec-
tion period denotes the time in milliseconds in the cardiac cycle
from the
beginning of the ventricular depolarization to the opening of the
aortic valve
and initial ejection of blood. A larger VC value indicates
greater contractil-
ity. TPR is derived by multiplying mean arterial pressure by
cardiac output
and multiplying the total by 80 (Sherwood et al., 1990). It is
expressed in
dyne/s/cm-5. For all four measures, reactivity scores are
calculated by sub-
tracting baseline resting levels from levels exhibited during a
motivated per-
formance situation.
Task engagement is indexed by increases in HR and VC from
baseline to
task such that larger increases indicate greater task engagement.
Individuals
who are challenged exhibit increases in CO and decreases in
TPR, whereas
individuals who are threatened exhibit little change in CO and
little change or
even increases in TPR. As such, relatively higher CO and lower
TPR indicate
relatively greater challenge or lesser threat.

These cardiovascular changes are the result of differential
activation of
the SAM and PAC axes. Both challenged and threatened
individuals exhibit
heightened SAM activation and experience an increase in HR
and VC.
However, threatened individuals also exhibit heightened PAC
activation
which inhibits vasodilation and, hence, the CO increase and
TPR decrease—
mediated by the release of epinephrine—that would otherwise
occur.
Following Dienstbier (1989), the SAM activation that occurs
during
challenge is adaptive for a situation in which coping resources
meet or
exceed demands. This is evidenced by the fact that the
relatively short half-
life of epinephrine (approximately 2 min) released by the
adrenal medulla
results in relatively short-lived bursts of energy. These short-
lived bursts of
energy are fueled by energy reserves and are well suited for
expectations of
successful and presumably short-lived coping. The challenge
response
functions to increase blood flow (greater CO), to skeletal
muscles and dilate
arteries to accommodate the increased blood flow (lower TPR),
which pre-
pares the body for potential activity. The accompanying PAC
activation that
occurs during threat is appropriate for a situation in which
demands exceed
coping resources. This is evidenced by the fact that the

relatively long half-
life of cortisol (approximately 1 hr) results in relatively long-
lived bursts of
energy. These long-lived bursts of energy are fueled by energy
reserves and
are well suited for expectations of an extended struggle. The
threat response
results in constriction of arteries (higher TPR), which is
characteristic of a
vigilance response (Hunter, 2001) and is also well suited for an
extended
struggle.
The cardiovascular indexes of challenge and threat have been
used to
examine the role of challenge and/or threat motivational
processes in many
studies (for reviews, see Blascovich, 2008; Blascovich &
Mendes, 2000;
Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996). Recently, for example,
individuals who have
stable high self-esteem have shown an increase in perceived
ability to succeed
(e.g., challenge) after receiving negative feedback. However,
individuals
with unstable high self-esteem have shown a decrease in
perceived ability to
succeed (e.g., threat) after receiving negative feedback (Seery,

Blascovich,
Weisbuch, & Vick, 2004).
The BPS model has not been used in the context of social
comparison in
groups, but it has been applied to social comparison among
dyads. As men-
tioned earlier, Mendes et al. (2001) reported that individuals
who were
paired with a superior performer on a cooperative task
experienced physio-
logical threat.
Superior Teammate Performance,
Social Comparison, and Threat
on Recently Formed Teams
Taken together, the BPS model and social comparison theory
suggest that
individuals who work with superior teammates on recently
formed teams for
whom social identity is not salient will engage in upward social
comparison
processes that lead to decreased perceived ability to succeed as
indexed
physiological threat. However, research on the SEM model
suggests that
psychological closeness may intensify the experience of threat.
As such, it is
logical to infer that individuals who work with superior
teammates after com-
pleting a team-building exercise will experience significantly
greater threat.
As mentioned earlier, Mendes et al. (2001) reported that
individuals who

were paired with a superior performer on a cooperative task
were threatened.
Like the current research, this study measured the effect of
superior perfor-
mance on resource and demand evaluations when intragroup,
rather than
intergroup, processes were most salient. However, this study
does not address
the effects of superior teammate performance on resource and
demands eval-
uations during group performance situations. Furthermore, it
does not inves-
tigate the possible effect of psychological closeness on resource
and demand
evaluations in social comparison situations. Scheepers (2009)
has applied the
BPS model to group situations and has shown that group
processes can elicit
the threat response. This research provides evidence that, given
social identity
salience, high status group members are threatened when they
fear that they
Cleveland et al. 13
will lose their status and low status group members are
threatened when they
fear that they cannot increase their status. This study
demonstrates the utility
of the BPS model during group situations, but does not address

whether such
threat responses can occur among members of recently formed
teams for
whom social identity is not salient. As such, whether superior
teammate per-
formance affects perceptions of coping resources and situational
demands on
recently formed teams that have not yet formed a strong social
identity remains
an empirical question. The current research seeks to answer this
question.
Method
Study Overview and Hypotheses
The goal of the research paradigm was to create a team situation
that emulated
competitive situations that are typical of recently formed teams.
To that end,
the paradigm was designed to achieve two things: (a) to create a
team situa-
tion that lacked social identity salience and (b) to create a team
situation that
included the critical factors that distinguish teams from groups.
To create a
team situation that lacked social identity salience, we used one-
time, lab-
based teams that were composed of 1 participant and 2
confederates. The
participant met the confederates for the first time at the start of
the 45-min
study. This process was designed to emulate pickup sports
teams and other
recently formed teams who have had little or no interaction
prior to the com-
petitive situation. In addition, we decreased the likelihood of

social identity
salience by minimizing intergroup competition. Teams did not
engage in
face-to-face intergroup competitions and they did not receive
performance
information about competing teams. As mentioned earlier,
research shows
that team performance contexts that lack strong intergroup
competition cues
may also elicit low or nonexistent levels of social identity
(Brewer, 1979;
Turner, 1985). To create a team situation that included the
critical factors that
distinguish teams from groups, we used an interdependent team
task, offered
teams a monetary incentive for achieving performance goals,
and reminded
teams that they existed within a larger organizational
framework of teams. By
creating this unique team situation, we were able to test our
hypotheses.
Three group conditions were examined in a between-subjects
factorial
design: An individual (coaction baseline) condition, in which 3
individuals
(1 participant and 2 same-gender confederates) competed
against each other;
a minimal team condition, in which 3 individuals (1 participant
and 2 same-
gender confederates) competed as a team against other teams;
and a
team condition in which 3 individuals (1 participant and 2
same-gender

confederates) completed a noncompetitive team-building
activity prior to
competing as a team against other teams. Participants in all
three conditions
were paired with 2 superior confederates who posed as
teammates or com-
petitors, depending on the condition. The confederates
performed twice as
well as the participant.
It was hypothesized that participants in both the individual and
minimal
team conditions would be moderately threatened (i.e., low
perceived coping
resources relative to situational demands). This prediction stems
from the
fact that social identity processes will not be salient for those
who are recently
paired with superior teammates or competitors with whom they
have had
little or no interaction. As such, participants in these two
conditions will
engage in upward social comparison processes that result in
lower perceived
resources and higher perceived demands. However, it was
hypothesized that
those in the team condition would be significantly more
threatened (i.e., even
lower perceived coping resources relative to situational

demands) because
even though they compose a recently formed team and have not
yet experi-
enced social identity, they will have experienced the social
interaction neces-
sary to achieve sufficient psychological closeness, thus raising
the stakes. In
this case, the participants’ upward social comparisons should
have a greater
negative effect on perceived individual resources resulting in
greater threat.
All predictions assume that social identity will not be a
significant factor,
given that these are recently formed teams and the intragroup,
rather than
intergroup context, is most salient.
Participants
Fifty-three (32 women, 21 men) undergraduates at a large public
university
participated in the study for course credit.1 All participants
were European
American and the mean age was 19.8 years (SD = 0.9 years).
Ten confeder-
ates (6 women, 4 men) posed as real participants, taking part in
all aspects of
the study. All confederates were European American and the
mean age was
20.7 years (SD = 0.6 years). Participants and confederates were
matched on
gender and approximate age to reduce variability that was not
germane to the
hypotheses.
Laboratory Setting
The study took place in a social psychophysiology laboratory

that consists of
a control room and a recording suite. The control room
contained physiolog-
ical equipment, video monitors, and recorders connected to two
cameras in
Cleveland et al. 15
each experimental room, and an audio tape player and intercom
system
connected to speakers in the experimental rooms. The recording
suite is
divided into a preparation room and a recording room. In the
preparation
room, participants completed forms and an experimenter applied
sensors to
participants. The data collection occurred in the acoustically
and environmen-
tally controlled recording room that measured approximately 3.0
× 3.5 m and
contained physiological, audiovisual, and computer equipment.
Participants
received additional instructions and interacted with the
experimenter through
an intercom. Participants sat upright in a comfortable chair
throughout the
experiment.
Measures
Physiological measures. Cardiovascular measures were recorded

noninva-
sively, following commonly accepted guidelines (Sherwood et
al., 1990) and
utilizing a Minnesota Impedance Cardiograph (Model 304B) and
a Cortronics
(Model 7000) continuously inflated blood pressure monitor.
Signals were
conditioned using Coulbourn amplifiers (Models S75-11 and
S79-02, Coul-
bourn Instruments, Allentown, PA) and were stored on a
desktop computer.
Impedance cardiograph (ZKG) and electrocardiograph (EKG)
recording
provided continuous measures of cardiac performance. The ZKG
utilized a
tetrapolar aluminum/mylar tape electrode system to record basal
transthoracic
impedance (Z0) and the first derivative of basal impedance
(dZ/dt). Two pairs
of band electrodes completely encircled the participants’
bodies. Two inner
electrodes were placed at the base of the neck and at the
xiphisternal junction
(approximately midchest); the two outer electrodes were placed
on the upper
neck and abdomen, separated from the respective inner
electrodes by a dis-
tance of at least 3 cm. EKG signals were detected through the
band electrodes.
The Cortronics blood pressure monitor collected continuous
noninvasive
recordings of blood pressure from the brachial artery of
participants’ non-
dominant arm. In combination, ZKG and EKG recordings allow

computation
of HR, VC, and CO; the addition of blood pressure monitoring
allows compu-
tation of TPR. The recorded data were scored using an
interactive MS-DOS
software program (Kelsey & Guethlein, 1990); scoring was
performed blind
to condition.
Behavioral measures. An additive task (i.e., a group task in
which perfor-
mance depends on the sum of each individual’s effort) was
chosen because it
requires a high amount of team member interdependence, an
important ele-
ment that distinguishes teams from groups. During the
experiment, the par-
ticipant and the 2 confederates engaged in an anagram task in
which scrambled
5-letter words were presented in succession on a computer
monitor. The goal
of the additive task was to solve the anagram with speed and
accuracy. The
participant and the confederates were seated in the same room
and alternated
solving the anagrams and saying them aloud such that the
participant would

solve one anagram and say it aloud, a confederate would solve
the next and say
it aloud, and another confederate would solve the next and say
it aloud. All
three individuals in the group continued alternating in this
manner through-
out the experimental task. During this task, we recorded
participant responses,
tracking the speed and accuracy of these responses.
Self-Report Ratings
Participants completed two posttask questionnaires; the Twenty
Statement
Test (TST; Hartley, 1970) and the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ;
Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985). The TST was
administered as a
method of generating spontaneous self-descriptions to determine
whether
team/group identity was salient. This questionnaire asked
participants to com-
plete the statement “I am . . . ” 20 times. The results of a
Brewer and Gardner
(1996) study suggests that the TST is an effective way of
measuring the extent
to which individual identity shifts to collective identity during
the course of
an experiment. We used the TST as a manipulation check, to
collect evidence
that individuals were not engaging in collective/social identity
processes
during the experiment. Previous researchers have used the GEQ
to measure
perceptions of psychological closeness (e.g., Carron et al.,
1985). In the cur-
rent research, the GEQ was modified to apply to all three group

conditions in
this study to measure psychological closeness.
Procedure
Each participant and 2 confederates arrived and waited in the
hallway outside
the laboratory. The confederates ensured that no interaction
took place in the
hallway. An experimenter greeted the participant and the
confederates, asked
the participant to follow him or her into the preparation room
and told the
confederates that other experimenters would come and escort
them to separate
preparation rooms. Once inside the preparation room, the
participant was
given an information sheet to read describing the cardiovascular
measurement
procedures that they would experience during the study. The
experimenter
applied the physiological sensors to the participant and asked
the participant
to sit in one of the three chairs in the recording room. Next, the
experimenter
went to get the other 2 participants (the confederates) from their
respective
Cleveland et al. 17
preparation rooms. (The confederates had applied counterfeit

sensors to
themselves in the control room.) Once both confederates were
seated in their
chairs and ostensibly connected to the physiological recording
monitors, all
three individuals heard taped audio instructions that welcomed
them to the lab
and asked them to sit quietly for the next few minutes. During
this time, 5 min
of baseline cardiovascular data were recorded.
Individual condition. Next, the participant and the confederates
heard audio-
taped instructions that informed them that the purpose of the
study was to
examine people’s physiological responses during a lexical
decision-making
task. The participant and the confederates were told that they
would be com-
peting against each other in an anagram contest, that they must
each take
turns solving the anagrams, and that they would have up to 12 s
to solve the
anagram on the computer screen before they lost their turn and
the screen
automatically advanced to the next word. They were also told
that each con-
testant would have the opportunity to solve 15 anagrams and
that individual
scores would be based on accuracy and speed. Finally, to
increase task
engagement they were told that at the end of the academic term,
all contes-
tants’ scores (from the entire study) would be tallied and that
US$100 would
be ostensibly awarded to the individual who had the highest

score.
Minimal team condition. Next, the participant and the
confederates heard
audio-taped instructions that informed them that the purpose of
the study was
to examine people’s physiological responses during a lexical
decision-
making task. The participant and the confederates were told that
they would
be competing as a team in an anagram contest against all other
teams who
participated in the study over the course of the academic term.
They were told
that they must each take turns solving the anagrams, and that
they would have
up to 12 s to solve the anagram on the computer screen before
they lost their
turn and the screen automatically advanced to the next word.
They were also
told that each member of the team would have the opportunity
to solve 15
anagrams and that team scores would be based on accuracy and
speed.
Finally, to increase task engagement they were told that at the
end of the aca-
demic term, each team’s score would be tallied and that US$300
(to be distrib-
uted equally to all three team members) would be ostensibly
awarded to the
team that had the highest score.
Team condition. Next, the participant and the confederates were
told that
they would be participating in two separate experiments during
their time in

the laboratory. During the first experiment, they received
instructions inform-
ing them that the researchers were interested in the interaction
processes in
which groups of individuals engage when they are asked to
make important
decisions in a relatively unfamiliar situation. Team-building
interventions that
involve group problem solving enable the team to communicate
and work
together, thus fostering team cohesion (Levine & Moreland,
1998; Miller,
2004). To this end, teams were asked to imagine that they had
survived a crash
landing on the moon and needed to travel 200 km by foot to
reach the other
spaceship. Then they were given a list of 15 items and were
asked to rank the
items of importance, with 1 being the most crucial for their
survival on the
moon and 15 being least crucial for their survival on the moon.
This task was
designed to be nonevaluative and to provide an opportunity for
the group
members to interact with each other. The experimenter stressed
to the partici-
pants that the task was not a performance task and that their

answers would
not be evaluated or scored. Rather, the researchers were simply
interested in
seeing how the groups interact while working on a novel task.
In addition, the
confederates were instructed to interact and perform at the same
level as the
participant. For example, if the participant appeared to be adept
and knowl-
edgeable, they were to appear the same. If the participant
appeared to be
cautious and halting, they were to appear the same.
Furthermore, the confed-
erates made sure that each of the team members contributed
equally to the
task. The experimenter listened to the conversation via intercom
to ensure
that the confederates followed these instructions.
Once this 8-min task was completed, the participant and the
confederates
heard audio-taped instructions that informed them that the
purpose of the sec-
ond experiment was to examine people’s physiological
responses during a
lexical decision-making task. The participant and the
confederates were told
that they would be competing as a team in an anagram contest
against all other
teams who participated in the study over the course of the
academic term.
They were told that they must each take turns solving the
anagrams, and that
they would have up to 12 s to solve the anagram on the
computer screen
before they lost their turn and the screen automatically

advanced to the next
word. They were also told that each member of the team would
have the
opportunity to solve 15 anagrams and that team scores would be
based on
accuracy and speed. Finally, to increase task engagement they
were told that
at the end of the academic term, all teams’ scores would be
tallied and that
US$300 (to be distributed equally to all three team members)
would be osten-
sibly awarded to the team that had the highest score.
All conditions. After receiving instructions for the anagram
task, the partici-
pant and the confederates in each condition completed the
contest. To manip-
ulate superior teammate performance, the confederates solved
each of their
anagrams in half the time it took for the participant to solve his
or her ana-
grams. For example, if the participant solved the anagram in 4
s, then each
confederate solved the following anagram in 2 s. Due to the fact
that each
Cleveland et al. 19
person was only given 12 s to complete each anagram,
confederates were

instructed to solve their anagrams in 6 s if the participant failed
to solve his
or her anagram at all. In this manner, confederate performance
was moder-
ately superior, rather than extremely superior to that of the
participant, thus
fulfilling the similarity requirement for social comparison that
was men-
tioned earlier in this article. On completion of the contest, the
participant
and the confederates were instructed to complete the posttask
question-
naires. However, to ensure privacy while completing the
questionnaires, the
confederates were ostensibly escorted into their respective
preparation rooms.
Once the participant completed the questionnaires, the
experimenter removed
all sensors from the participant and fully debriefed the
participant.
Results
Analytical Strategy
Initial analyses included manipulation checks of task
engagement (HR and
VC reactivity) during the anagram task. Next, multivariate
analysis of vari-
ance was used to test the effects of conditions and
competitor/teammate per-
formance and their interaction on the dependent variables.
Cardiovascular reactivity values were calculated by subtracting
the base-
line value—the last minute of the initial rest period—from the
value obtained

during the first minute of the anagram task. Values that were
more than 3.3
SDs from the mean (p = .001 in a normal distribution) were
classified as
extreme and were winsorized by assigning them a value 1%
higher than the
closest nonextreme value (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). As a
result, the influ-
ence of the extreme values was minimized while the rank order
of participants
in the distribution remained. In this study, between zero and
two values were
winsorized for each dependent variable. When using change
scores to predict
reactivity, there is a possibility that artifactual effects will
emerge because
of the correlations between the baseline levels and magnitude of
change.
Consequently, baseline levels were controlled as covariates
when predicting
reactivity.
In all analyses of challenge and threat using TPR and CO
reactivity, we
controlled for task engagement (HR and VC reactivity). The
reason for doing
this is twofold: One, task engagement reflects SAM activation,
which is com-
mon to both challenge and threat, so controlling for SAM
activation increases
power to detect differences in PAC activation, which
differentiates challenge
and threat; two, challenge and threat effects do not reflect
differences in task
engagement.

Preliminary Analyses
Manipulation check: Perceptions of teammate/competitor
performance. Recall
that confederates were instructed to perform in a manner that
was superior to
that of the participant. A t test assessed whether participants
perceived that
their performance was inferior to that of their
competitors/teammates. Con-
firming the superior performance manipulation, participants
perceived that their
performance was inferior to that of their competitors/teammates
(M = –1.43,
SD = .115), t(50) = –9.39, p < .0001.
Manipulation check: TST. Responses to the “I am” completions
were coded
by two independent raters who were blind to condition. Self-
definitions were
coded, on the basis of Brewer and Gardner’s (1996)
modification of Hartley’s
(1970) coding scheme, into four categories. A personal self-
description was
one that contained references to individual physical qualities,
traits, attitudes,
or activities (e.g., “I am very smart”). Interpersonal self-
descriptions were

those that referred to a specific relationship (e.g. “I am a
sister”). Collective
self-descriptions were those that implied membership in a social
category
(e.g., “I am an Asian woman”). Relational self-descriptions
were those that
contained references to qualities that are conducive to
relationships (e.g.,
“I am trustworthy”). Coding interrater reliability was .88. The
dependent mea-
sure was the sum of the number of interpersonal, collective, and
relational
self-descriptions in each person’s list and was used to assess
social identity
salience. Recall that the TST was used to measure the extent to
which partici-
pants were engaging in collective/social identity processes.
Confirming the
intent of the manipulation and providing evidence that
collective identity was
not salient during the experiment, there were no significant
effects of competi-
tive situation on the number of interpersonal, collective, and
relational self-
descriptions in each person’s list (M = 2.53, SD = 0.54).
Performance. There were no significant effects of competitive
situation on
the number of anagrams solved correctly during the anagram
task (M = 12.1,
SD = 0.67).
Psychological closeness. An ANOVA was conducted to evaluate
the effect of
competitive situation on the participant’s ratings of
psychological closeness.

The means and standard deviations for psychological closeness
ratings as a
function of competitive situation are presented in Table 1. The
ANOVA indi-
cated a significant effect for competitive situation, F(1, 50) =
15.28, p < .001.
Post hoc analyses to the univariate ANOVA for psychological
closeness
also consisted of conducting pairwise comparisons to determine
how the
groups differed from each other. Participants in the individual
(control) and
minimal team conditions had significantly lower psychological
closeness rat-
ings relative to those in the team condition. It is worth noting
that participants
Cleveland et al. 21
in the minimal team condition and participants who competed as
individuals
reported similarly low psychological closeness ratings. Taken
together, these
findings illustrate that the experiences of being the worst
performer in a mini-
mal team setting and competing as an individual can produce
the same rat-
ings of psychological closeness. In terms of perceptions of
psychological

closeness, being the inferior performer on the minimal team
feels the same as
competing as an individual.
Task engagement in the anagram task. Testing sample means
with t tests
revealed that increases in HR reactivity (M = 5.83, SD = 7.74)
were signifi-
cantly greater than zero, t(49) = 7.71, p < .01 as were increases
in VC reactiv-
ity (M = 7.32, SD = 7.56), t(49) = 9.93, p <.01, consistent with
task engagement.
There were no VC reactivity differences among conditions, F(1,
50) = 1.55,
p = .22. In addition, there were no HR reactivity differences
among condi-
tions, F(1, 50) = 1.90, p = .15. This means that on average
participants in all
three conditions were engaged in the task but that task
engagement did not
differ by condition.
Primary Analyses: Challenge
and Threat in the Anagram Task
One-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) on each dependent
variable
were conducted. Using the Bonferroni method, each ANOVA
was tested at
the .025 level. The means and standard deviations for TPR and
CO as a function
of performance situation are presented in Table 2. As shown in
Table 2, the
participants of the team condition exhibited a significant
increase in TPR
from baseline and a significant decrease in CO from baseline,
consistent with

relative threat. Participants in the individual and minimal
conditions exhib-
ited a lesser pattern of threat. The ANCOVA revealed a
significant effect,
F(1, 49) = 3.16, p < .05. Post hoc pairwise comparisons
revealed that par-
ticipants in the team condition exhibited a significantly greater
increase in
Table 1. Evaluations of Posttask Psychological Closeness
Condition M SD
Individual −1.83** 0.76
Minimal team −1.64** 0.94
Team 0.83* 0.78
Note: All condition means were tested against zero to determine
significant differences from
the midpoint of the scale. The questionnaire scale ranged from –
2 to 2.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
TPR relative to participants in the minimal team, t(50) = 2.03, p
= .049, and
Individual, t(50) = 2.15, p = .04, conditions.
The results for the ANCOVA conducted to evaluate the effects

of perfor-
mance situation on CO revealed a marginal effect, F(1, 50) =
2.79, p = .067.
Post hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that participants in the
team condi-
tion exhibited a greater decrease in CO relative to those in the
minimal team
t(50) = 2.61, p = .039, and Individual, t(50) = 4.11, p = .02,
conditions.
Together these findings suggest that the participants in the team
condition
experienced more threat than participants in the minimal team
and individual
conditions.
Discussion
Although it seems that being on a team with superior performers
would be a
positive experience, the present study finds evidence that it
leads to a maladap-
tive physiological response, particularly when the team is
recently formed.
Confirming the hypotheses, analyses of TPR and CO during the
anagram
task revealed that participants in the individual and minimal
team conditions
were moderately threatened. Essentially, perceptions of
individual resources
in the minimal group condition did not differ from those in the
individual
condition. Moreover, participants in the team group condition
were more
threatened than those in the other two conditions. We believe
that this is
due to the fact that participants in the team condition were
given the oppor-

tunity to interact with teammates, thus increasing psychological
closeness.
Participants in the team condition were given the opportunity to
converse
with and form relationships with their teammates on the first
task, thus
experiencing an increase in closeness relative to participants in
the other
conditions who did not have the opportunity to interact before
the performance
Table 2. Means and Univariate Tests From Zero (Baseline) of
Cardiovascular
Reactivity During the Anagram Task
Cardiovascular
reactivity Individual Minimal team Team
CO −0.38 −0.08 −0.88*
TPR 69.25 38.39 126.89***
VC 7.23*** 7.18*** 7.48***
Note: All condition means were tested against zero to determine
significant increases or
decreases from baseline.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Cleveland et al. 23
task. Manipulation checks that show that participants in the

team condition
reported higher levels of psychological closeness, relative to
participants in
the individual and minimal team conditions, support this
interpretation. These
results replicate the findings of Mendes et al. (2001) by
demonstrating that
upward social comparisons lead to threat. They also extend the
findings by
showing that these processes occur not only in dyads, but also
in groups, and
that psychological closeness can intensify the effect of upward
social com-
parisons on perceived coping resources and situational demands.
The results of the study appear to support theories related to
social com-
parison theory, namely the SEM model. Recall that the SEM
model posits that
performance, the self-relevance of the task, and the closeness of
the other are
factors that enhance or diminish self-evaluation. In a
competitive situation
such as the anagram task used in this study, task performance is
highly self-
relevant in all conditions because task performance is an
indication of one’s
standing relative to competitors/teammates. Furthermore,
teammate/competitor
performance was high in all three conditions. As such, among
the three vari-
ables listed by the SEM, the only variable that was manipulated
between
the team condition and the other conditions was psychological
closeness.
Participants in the team condition were given the opportunity to

converse with
and form relationships with their teammates, thus experiencing
an increase in
closeness relative to participants in the other conditions. The
SEM model pos-
its that being outperformed by a close other leads to more
arousal, relative to
a distant other. This is consistent with the findings that those in
the team con-
dition were more threatened relative to those in the other
conditions. In terms
of individual resources, participants in the team condition
perceived that they
possessed lower resources relative to demands (as indexed by a
greater threat
response) than those in the individual and minimal team
conditions. These
results suggest that competing with superior teammates on a
recently formed
team can lead to physiological threat. Furthermore, these results
imply that a
small amount of interaction (as opposed to no interaction) with
superior team-
mates prior to completing a team contest can have a
significantly greater
adverse effect on team members’ perception of individual
resources. As dis-
cussed in the introduction, this could be due to greater
evaluation concerns
or more powerful and meaningful social comparisons that are
simply more
threatening when they turn out to be negative.
However, it is worth noting that extremely close relationships
are not likely
to replicate this effect. Gardner et al. (2002) found that an

individual in a close
group is less likely to be threatened when other members in the
group outper-
form her. Research by Aron and colleagues (Aron & Aron,
1986; Aron, Aron,
& Smollan, 1992; Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991) supports
this notion by
demonstrating that in close relationships, the self often includes
overlapping
connections with those close to the individual. As such, the
other individuals
are treated as similar to the self. Smith, Coats, and Watling
(1999) add that
these processes of self-other overlap extend to important group
memberships.
When the self is expanded to include others as part of the self,
the outcomes of
social comparison processes are altered. Rather than being
threatened by a
close other who outperforms one in a relevant domain, as the
SEM model
would posit, one can essentially bask in reflected glory.
The current study demonstrates that individuals who work on
recently
formed teams with superior performers after a brief interaction
are more

threatened than those who compete as individuals or on recently
formed teams
without interaction. Furthermore, it provides self-report data to
suggest that an
amount of psychological closeness leads to greater threat when
working on
recently formed teams with superior performers. However, the
exact mecha-
nism through which this occurs remains unclear. Future research
would con-
tinue to uncover the underlying causes and factors, such as
greater evaluation
concerns and the extent to which social comparisons are
perceived as mean-
ingful, as well as address the limitations of the current study.
Limitations
Although providing strong evidence for one way in which
superior teammate
performance affects resource and demand evaluations, we
acknowledge that
the present study has limitations. The fact that there was no
control manipula-
tion for the team-building manipulation limits the conclusions
that can be
drawn from the data in this study. Although the individual
(coaction) and
minimal team conditions provide control for the superior
performance manip-
ulation, they do not control for the extra interaction time that
those in the team
condition enjoyed. Participants in the team condition spent eight
more min-
utes with their teammates than those in the individual and
minimal team
conditions. Consequently, these additional minutes might

account for the
greater amounts of threat experienced in the team condition.
One plausible alternative explanation to the findings is that
participants in
the team condition are threatened because they are experiencing
threats to
prototypicality. Social categorization theory (Turner, 1985)
suggests that
when social identity is engaged people come to perceive
themselves more as
interchangeable exemplars of a social category than as unique
individuals
defined by their differences from others. To this end, they strive
to be per-
ceived as prototypical members of their in-group; a threat to
prototypicality
Cleveland et al. 25
is distressing. It is possible that participants are experiencing
physiological
threat because they fear that their poor performance undermines
their status
as prototypical group members. Although this idea is possible,
we believe that
it is unlikely because participants’ spontaneous self-
descriptions are over-
whelmingly individualistic. It is difficult to make the case that
social identity/

categorization processes, such as threats to prototypicality, are
a significant
factor in this situation when participants are not reporting social
identity cues
in their self-descriptions. Participants in the team condition,
while psycho-
logically close to their teammates, do not seem to be engaged in
social iden-
tity processes.
Another plausible alternative explanation is that participants
who com-
pleted the collaborative team-building task had the opportunity
to socially
compare abilities (during the team-building task) and that this
knowledge
made the subsequent anagram performance situation more
threatening.
However, this alternative explanation seems unlikely given that
the team-
building task was presented as completely collaborative and
nonperformance
related. Furthermore, the confederates ensured that each
teammate contrib-
uted equally to the task and performed at approximately the
same level. As
such, the participants in the team condition would have entered
the anagram
performance situation on equal footing with his or her
teammates. Given this,
it is unlikely that the participants in this condition would have
experienced
greater threat due to comparing abilities during the
collaborative and none-
valuative team-building task.

Research-Technology Management • January—February 2012 51.docx

Research-Technology Management • January—February 2012 51.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Research-Technology Management • January—February 2012 51.docx

Similar to Research-Technology Management • January—February 2012 51.docx (20)

More from brittneyj3

More from brittneyj3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Research-Technology Management • January—February 2012 51.docx