This paper proposes Hierarchical Linear Models as a procedure for investigating reciprocal interaction between individuals and their group context. This interaction is an important component of many theories of organizational behavior. A study of task-performing laboratory groups examined the relationship between individual affect and group cohesion over seven measurement occasions. A series of three HLM analyses was used to estimate the relationship between group cohesion and individual affect over time. The first analysis estimated a cross-level model of the impact of group cohesion of levels of individual affect in groups. The second analysis used the residual from the cross-level analysis as a predictor of subsequent levels of group cohesion for each of the seven time periods. The third analysis used HLM procedures to pool the results of the previous analyses over the seven measurement periods. Results of the HLM procedure provide a method for linking within-group measures to subsequent group level outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allison, P. D. (1994). Using panel data to estimate the effects of events. Sociological Methods and Research, 23: 174-199.
2.
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33: 344-358.
3.
Brechner, K. C. (1977). An experimental analysis of social traps. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13: 552-564.
4.
Bryk, A. S. & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
Bryk, A. S. & Raudenbush, S. W. (1989). Methodology for cross-level organizational research. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 7: 233-273.
6.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14: 333-349.
7.
George, J. M. & Brief, A. (1992). Feeling good—doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112: 310-329.
8.
George, J. M. & James, L. R. (1993). Aggregation, levels of analysis, and WABA. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 798-804.
9.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 9-41.
10.
Hofmann, D. A., Jacobs, R. & Baratta. J. E. (1993). Dynamic criteria and the measurement of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 194-204.
11.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G. & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98.
12.
James, L. R., Hater, J. J., Gent, M. J. & Bruni, J. R. (1978). Psychological climate: Implications from cognitive social learning theory and interactional psychology. Personnel Psychology, 31: 783-813.
13.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A. & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills: Sage.
14.
Knapp, A. & Clark, M. S. (1991). Some detrimental effects of negative mood on individual’s ability to solve resource dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 678-688.
15.
Kozlowski & Doherty (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 546-553.
16.
Ostrom, C. W. (1990). Time Series Analysis: Regression Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Pervin, L. A. (1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. Academy of Management Review, 14: 350-360.
18.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 1-37.
19.
Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5: 1-31.
20.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 14: 437-453.
21.
Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6: 569-576.
22.
Watson, D., Clark, L. E. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measure of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070.
23.
Williams, L. J. & Podsakoff, P. M. (1989). Longitudinal field methods for studying reciprocal relationships in organizational behavior research: Toward improved causal analysis. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11: 247-292.
24.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E. & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 293-321.
25.
Yammarino, F.J. & Markham, S.E. (1992). On the application of within and between analysis: Are absence and affect really group based phenomena?Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 168-176.
26.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131: 387-399.
