Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study attempted to find support for the controversial complementarity hypothesis by using more specialized measures than have been used in previous research. One hundred seventy-six musicians from 40 bar bands were interviewed in the venue where they were performing. A significant inverted-U relationship was found between interpersonal dominance and group integration, indicating support for personality complementarity. However, there were no significant effects for desire for control over the band's activities or for individual attraction to the group. These findings confirm the importance of distinguishing between different forms of power motivation in groups and between different forms of group cohesion. Complementarity research shouldfocus on interpersonal relationships rather than on control over activities and individual attraction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 1-63.

Berscheid, E. , & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Campbell, J. (1980). Complementarity and attraction: A reconceptualization in terms of dyadic behavior. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 11, 74-95.

Carron, A. V. , Widmeyer, W. N. , & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.

Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics research and theory. Evanston, IL: Row & Peterson.

Drescher, S. , Burlingame, G. , & Fuhriman, A. (1985). Cohesion: An odyssey in empirical understanding. Small Group Behavior, 16, 3-30.

Evans, N. J. , & Jarvis, P. A. (1980). Group cohesion: A review and reevaluation. Small Group Behavior, 11, 359-370.

Fishbein, M. D. , & Thelen, M. H. (1981). Psychological factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction: A review. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 11, 84-84.

Jackson, D. (1983). Personality research form. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.

10.

Keppel, G. , & Zedeck, S. (1989). Data analysis for research designs. New York: Freeman.

11.

Lapidus, J. , Green, S. K. , & Baruh, E. (1985). Factors related to roommate compatibility in the residence hall: A review. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 420-434.

12.

Levinger, G. (1964). Note on need complementarity in marriage. PsychologicalBulletin, 61, 153-157.

13.

Manning, F. J. , & Fullerton, T. D. (1988). Health and well-being in highly cohesive units of the U.S. Army. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 18, 503-519.

14.

Meyer, J. P. , & Pepper, S. (1977). Need compatibility and marital adjustment in young married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 331-342.

15.

Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Group cohesion and productivity: A closer look. Human Relations, 42, 771-785.

16.

Rychlak, J. F. (1965). The similarity, compatibility, or incompatibility of needs in interpersonal selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 334-340.

17.

Schutz, W. C. (1958). A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

18.

Schutz, W. (1977). FIRO-B. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

19.

Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

20.

Smelser, W. T. (1961). Dominance as a factor in achievement and perception in cooperative problem-solving interactions. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 535-542.

21.

Tziner, A. (1982). Differential effects of group cohesiveness types: A clarifying overview. Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 227-239.

22.

White, S. G. , & Hatcher, C. (1984). Couple complementarity and similarity: A review of the literature. American Journal of Family Therapy, 12, 15-25.

23.

Winch, R. F. (1958). Mate-selection: A study of complementary needs. New York: Harper.

24.

Yalom, I. D. , Houts, P. S. , Zimerberg, S. M. , & Rand, K. H. (1967). Prediction of improvement in group therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 17, 159-168.

25.

Zaccaro, S. J. , & McCoy, M. C. (1988). The effects of task and interpersonal cohesiveness on performance of a disjunctive group task. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 18, 837-851.

Personality Complementarity as a Determinant of Group Cohesion in Bar Bands

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References