Review of Literature for Group Dynamics and Faith
Based Physical Activity Programs
Group Dynamics Literature Review:
Across time, culture, and societies humans have always joined with others to
create social living communities. As demonstrated in other species the human is a social
animal. However living in groups requires concession and compromise. The needs and
interests of a group do not always completely match the needs and individual interests of
its members. This leads to influential interpersonal processes that take place in groups,
which can be summed up using the common word group dynamics.
According to Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), group dynamics also includes the
field of study within the social sciences that focuses on the nature of groups. Kurt Lewin
is commonly identified as the founder of the movement to scientifically study groups. He
coined the term group dynamics to describe the way groups and individuals act and react
to changing circumstances. William Schutz (1958) looked at interpersonal relations from
the perspective of three dimensions: Inclusion, control, and affection. This became the
basis for a theory of group behavior that claims groups resolve issues in each of these
stages to develop on to the next stage. Conversely, a group may also devolve to an earlier
stage if unable to resolve outstanding issues in a particular stage.
Wilfred Bion studied group dynamics from a psychoanalytic perspective. Many of
his findings were reported in his published book, Experiences in Groups (1961). Bruce
Tuckman (1965) proposed a 4-stage model, aptly named the Tuckman's Stages for a
Group. Tuckman states that the ideal group decision making process should occur in the
following four stages: Forming (pretending to get on or get along with others); Storming
(letting down the politeness barrier and trying to get down to the issues even if tempers
flare up); Norming (getting used to each other and developing trust and productivity); and
Performing (working in a group to a common goal on a highly efficient and cooperative
basis).
This model refers to the overall pattern of the group, but of course individuals
within a group work in different ways. If distrust persists, a group may never even get to
the Norming stage. Looked at for larger-scale groups, Tuckman's stages of group
development are similar to those developed by Scott Peck and set out in his book, The
Different Drum: Community-Making and Peace (1987). Peck describes the stages of a
community as: Pseudo-community, Chaos, Emptiness, and True Community.
Recent Studies
The sixty years of research and literature on group dynamics has grown rapidly.
Recent studies concentrate on many specific aspects of group dynamics within the four
stages of group development demonstrated by Peck.
One of the aspects is group goal decision making. The use of work groups and
teams has become common during the past decades, with approximately 80% of large
organizations using work groups (Forsyth, 1999). Working in groups is believed to have
1
a number of potential benefits. Organizations that use work groups and teams are
expected to have more involved members (Cohen, 1994; Lawler 1996), establish more
challenging goals (Likert, 1961), produce more satisfaction for their members (Forsyth,
1999), and achieve higher levels of performance (Likert, 1961) than organizations that
favor individual production. However, research regarding these potential benefits of
groups has not always been positive (Hackman, 1990; Robbins & Finley, 1995).
Researchers have consistently found that groups rarely establish challenging goals for
their own performance (Hinsz, 1991, 1992, 1995).
Setting clear and challenging goals is one of the motivational techniques often
used to increase task performance (Locke & Latham, 1990; Mento, Steel & Karren,
1987). Group goal-setting research has emphasized assigned goals, which are specific
performance expectations given to task performers by some external agent (e.g. managers
and supervisors) to improve their performance. Assigned goals can significantly differ
from the goals that groups themselves establish for their own performance (Wegge,
2000). Vast differences also exist between group goals and goals that individuals choose
for their own performance based on their personal motivation.
Hinsz (1991, 1992, 1995) suggested three explanations of these group and
individual goal choices differences: social comparison, anticipated evaluation, and group
decision processes. According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), people on
average see others as less capable than themselves (Matz & Hinsz, 2000). Therefore,
group members select slightly less difficult goals for the other members of their own
group than they would set for themselves, if they were acting alone (Hinsz, 1991, 1992).
Members of a group evaluate themselves and anticipate being evaluated by other group
members. As a consequence, they may become more self-critical of their capabilities
(Wicklund, 1975) and less certain of their abilities (Hinsz, 1992). To avoid this
discomfort they set slightly less difficult group goals. Some group decision research has
found that groups reach decisions that are more cautious than those of individuals
(Stoner, 1968; Zaleska & Kogan, 1971). In goal-setting situation it means choosing a less
challenging goal (Hinsz, 1992). Surprising is the fact that although groups choose less
difficult goals than individuals, they achieve relatively the same level of performance
(Hinsz, 1991, 1995).
Another aspect of group dynamics is positive reactions to group activities. Group
members tend to be more satisfied with their performance than individuals. One of the
reasons is that groups fulfill their members’ social and emotional needs (Levine &
Moreland, 1998). Forming a group of participants can serve as a positive mood induction
(Hinsz, Park & Sjomeling, 2004), individuals generally expect pleasant experiences from
participating in a group. Social identity theory (Abrams & Hogg, 2001) supports the
expectation that performing in a group will be a positive experience, provided that a
group member feels an attachment to the group. Group members are also more
committed to goals (Lewin, 1958), and have more positive attitudes to attaining those
goals (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) than individuals, because of the visibility and volition
that come with discussing and deciding on a group goal with other group members.
Affective experiences is a third aspect studied in group dynamics and plays a
prominent role in group functioning. Effective progress toward desired positive outcomes
leads to experience of positive affects, such as elation or excitement, whereas the
opposite leads to negative affects, like anxiety or tension (Carver, Lawrence & Scheier,
2
1999). More important experiences in the group lead to more intense affects (e.g.
achieving difficult goals leads to intense positive affect). More intense affective
experiences then have stronger effect on the group by increasing cohesion for positive
experiences and by increasing conflict and bitterness for more negative experiences
(Grawitch, Block & Ratner, 2005). The intensity of an affect is influenced by the speed of
the outcome and the degree to which the individual values or fears the outcome (Carver
et al., 1999).
Attributing credit or blame for different experiences to oneself, those within the
group or others outside the group influences the responses of group members to different
events as well. If a positive event occurs within the group and the group members
internalize and externalize credit for the positive experience, it may help to foster
cohesion among group members (Zander, 1994). Conversely, if blame for negative
situations is both externalized and internalized (i.e., everyone is at fault), then the group
may be motivated to handle the underlying problems (Sherman & Kim, 2005). Effective
group dynamics involves sharing both credit for positive experiences and blame for
negative experiences (Marks et al., 2001). But what happens when group members
contribute to group productivity at different levels? Research has been done to determine
the effects social loafing has on group dynamics
Studies discussing the analysis of effort in group collaboration discovered that
group members working on uninvolving tasks tend to loaf. Conversely, when a tasks’
interdependence is high and the goals are meaningful individuals in groups often expend
more rather than less effort (P. Huguet, E. Charbonnier, & J. Monteil, 1999). Researchers
have also found that, in some instances, individuals who preliminary were not excited
about working collectively in a group, changed their views. For example, individuals who
prefer to work alone changed to prefer working in groups after experiencing the benefits
of working collectively (Huguet et al., 1999). Social loafing was a key term described in
this study, as well as in many others, and the research suggested that work teams
composed of people with strong motives who view themselves as distinctly more talented
than others are likely to express a lack of effort in contributing to the whole group,
especially when the task is seen as beneath their abilities or is unchallenging.
Conclusions in Huguet et al.’s findings is that work teams of individualists should
not be given collective tasks, unless those tasks demonstrate a high degree of difficulty or
are particularly interesting to the group members. An alternative reading on Huguet et
al.’s findings, expressed by Ruth Wageman, argues that work teams should not be
comprised of individualists. If teams must be comprised of such individuals, it would be
better for the group and its function if individual performance feedback is given to team
members, rather than collective. Three questions are posed by Wageman on the design of
teams: (a) How should tasks be designed for world teams in real organizational settings?,
(b) how should performance feedback and other outcomes be provided to such teams?,
and (c) how might individual differences play out over time for teams with different task
and performance outcome designs (Wageman, 1999)?
Wageman finds Huguet et al.’s findings to be non-relevant in association with her
first point on real world organizational settings. She discovered a low level of
interdependency in the evidence used by the researchers. All the teams in Huguet’s study
acted as individuals, bringing their individual work to the group at the end, and there was
no collaboration necessary for task completion. Wageman states that “no conclusion can
3
be drawn from this research about the effects of collective tasks on group members’
effort levels.”
On the second point, Wageman finds Huguet et al.’s findings consistent with
other literature, in that effort levels can suffer when tasks are independent but outcomes
are collective (Earley & Northcraft, 1987; Miller & Hamblin, 1963; Williams, Harkins, &
Latane, 1981). Group-level outcomes have been shown to have strong positive effects on
the effort levels of individuals doing independent tasks (Mesch, Lew, Johnson &
Johnson, 1988; Roseenbaum et al., 1980; Shea & Guzzo, 1987; Wageman, 1995;
Wageman & Baker, 1996). Thus it was concluded that individual effort will be higher
when the collaborative effort is critiqued, demonstrating group effectiveness, but the
work is done individually, and that individualists usually perform better when the tasks
are assigned individually. Social loafing is minimized when task are assigned
individually, collaborated, and presented as a whole.
Wageman’s third question, sought to discover if Huguet et al.’s findings
demonstrated that individual differences and group performance were correlated. In her
study of 150 customer service teams Wageman found that individuals who were engaged
in collective tasks and group outcomes changed their autonomy needs over time and
exhibited high levels of cooperative behavior, regardless of their initial personal
dispositions toward group work. Giving that it is difficult to determine how individual
dispositions toward team or group tasks changed over time, Wageman suggests that over
time the display of uniqueness among group members will equalize, and a balance of
personalities will result within the group.
The multilevel influence on group dynamics and social loafing is clearly
illustrated in Huguet et al.’s findings and in Wageman’s analysis. Other research
substantiates that attention must be paid when designing operative teams or groups to the
immediate context they will operate in, the tasks they perform, the outcomes they
experience, and how individuals are shaped by their team experience overtime.
The effects of social loafing on group cohesiveness can be reduced through social
compensation (the antithesis of loafing). It has been shown that social compensation is a
potential fix for the instances of social loafing if individual or group inputs can be
evaluated (Harkins & Szymanski, 1989; Szymanski & Harkins, 1987; Williams, Harkin,
& Latane, 1981), the uniqueness of individual contributions is elevated (Harkins & Petty,
1982), and personal involvement with the task is enhanced (Bricker, Harkins, & Ostrom,
1986). Two experiments tested the hypothesis that social loafing can be reduced or
eliminated when individuals work in cohesive rather than non-cohesive groups. Karau &
Williams found that group cohesiveness may moderate social loafing, as compared to
non-cohesive groups, who tended to reduce their collective efforts and socially loaf
(1997). This research found when individuals worked with respected colleagues or
friends they may work just as hard collectively as they would individually to maintain a
favorable self-evaluation. This evidence substantiates the concern raised above in regards
to an individualist who thinks themselves above the given task or superior to other
contributing group members. Thus, group-level outcomes may have special relevance to
members of cohesive groups because of their immediate implications for self-evaluation
(Karau & Williams, 1997).
Group work amongst collegiate individuals from diverse experiences and
backgrounds are sometimes asked to come together to achieve a common goal. As
4
shown, working in groups has long been used as a pedagogical tool in both academic and
corporate environments. Further benefits cited for this type of active learning include
versatility (Payne, Turner, Smith, & Sumter, 2006), improvements in communication
(Dudley, Davis, & Mc Grady, 2001), and the development of social skills (Andrusyk &
Andrusyk, 2003).
Payne, Turner, Smith & Sumter (2006) found when studying undergraduates
participating in group work, these subjects defined individual goals in three stages. First,
they begin with the hopes of achieving a good grade. This stage is replaced with the
desire to complete the project successfully. Ultimately, the goal of getting a good grade
resurfaces to complete the last stage. Finding commonalities regarding goal commitment
is essential for the successful implementation and completion a particular project. This
can be accomplished through using the strategy of active participation. Active
participation has been linked to satisfaction (Locke & Schweiger, 1979) and goal
commitment (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Active participation can include practices such as attending meeting sessions,
delegating group member responsibilities, and speaking to the group to give opinions,
suggestions, and critiques. This is known as voice behavior. Voice behavior is a verbal
activity used to promote constructive change in the status quo (Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers,
& Mainous, 1988). Voice behavior is distinguishable from complaining behavior, in that
complaining behavior, no change is promoted (LePine & Van Dyne, 1988). Islam &
Zyphur (2005) proposed that individuals with a high sense of power use voice behavior to
a greater extent that individuals with a lower sense of power, and that this effect would
increase with higher levels of social dominance orientation. Social dominance
orientation is the degree in which social hierarchies are justified. This hypothesis is
relevant to the Kinesiology 494 graduate students for several reasons.
Faith Based Physical Activity Initiatives Literature Review
The literature on physical activity and health promotion in a church setting is
relatively small, but it is increasingly being recognized as a good research site for a
variety of reasons, outlined below.
Physical exercise relates directly to decreasing disease and premature death and
preserving a high quality of life. However, despite the proven benefits of exercise, many
Americans continue an inactive lifestyle. Little is known about the relationship between
religious preference, church attendance, and physical exercise. Understanding such
relationships may help us better identify whether religious preference has a protective
effect against physical inactivity and whether this effect is similar between religiously
active and less-active members. Before delving into the limited research on church
attendance and physical activity, we will briefly look at the research on the benefits of
exercise in general.
Even though the benefits of exercise are becoming more widely known, people
often find it difficult to incorporate structured exercise into their previously sedentary
lives. Although structured exercise programs have been shown to be effective at
improving health and fitness, it is clear from the Surgeon General’s Report on Physical
Activity and Health that a small number of Americans engage in this type of regimented
5
exercise (USDHHS, 1996). Consequently, the American College of Sports Medicine
(ACSM) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a lifestyle
recommendation urging all Americans to accumulate at least 30 min of moderate
intensity physical activity (PA) on most, preferably all, days of the week (Pate et
al.1995). Walking is the most convenient mode of moderate-intensity exercise and is
therefore an obvious choice to accomplish this recommendation. One way to achieve the
recommendation proposed by the ACSM–CDC would be to walk briskly for
approximately 2 miles on most days (Basset and Strath, 2002). Because the average
person walks about 2000 steps in a mile (Basset et al, 1996; Welk et al, 2000) and most
sedentary individuals walk 4000–6000 steps/day, increasing daily walking by 2 miles or
4000 steps would total approximately 10,000 steps and therefore be consistent with the
ACSM–CDC recommendation. Furthermore, the 10,000 steps/day recommendation has a
valuable degree of simplicity and provides immediate, quantitative feedback. However,
there remains a need to establish the efficacy of this recommendation on various health
outcomes.
Public health evaluation funding is limited, and hence optimal evaluation
principles and methods should be applied to the assessment of communitywide programs.
Since sedentary lifestyles and insufficient physical activity contribute to the overall
burden of disease, efforts to encourage more walking at the whole population level are an
important prevention strategy. Approximately 60% of the population of the United States
is insufficiently active. That is, they do not regularly attain the recommended standard of
30 min of moderate intensity physical activity 5 days per week or 20 min of vigorous
activity 3 days per week (CDC, 2001). Among all the behavioral risk factors, poor diet
and physical inactivity pose the greatest health threats (Mokdad, Marks, Stroup, &
Gerberding, 2004). Both have high prevalence and strong association with a range of
adverse health outcomes. Community interventions require multiple intervention
components, including mass media, media relations, and community-based activities,
which enhance social networks and social support. Engagement with community
members, participatory planning, and the development of community partnerships are
optimal health promotion strategies (Brenes, Strube, & Storandt, 1998). Walking remains
accessible, affordable and achievable as the physical activity behavior of choice among
the inactive. Effecting small changes across a large number of people in a community is
more effective than making larger changes in a few high-risk people. Individual change
programs, in net sum, have not contributed to overall population-level changes in
physical activity and walking (Reger-Nash et al. 2006)
Thus, our goal was to find a community-based physical activity intervention that
incorporated moderate walking with the idea that this could lead to longer-term
adherence to the program. Community-based health promotion programs ideally should
reach an entire population. Places of worship may be particularly important for health
promotion initiatives because they can reach underserved populations (USDHHS, 1999).
This important consideration can also occur in other settings, such as recreation centers
and schools. However, from a research perspective, the opportunity to use adults makes
churches a useful locale, including the use of a population that is easily traceable. Related
to the research advantages of churches is the opportunity to apply research. Establishing
partnerships with health professionals allows interventions to reach targeted populations.
In one early study, churches were chosen as the organizational context for this project
6
because of the supportive influence they have on health promotion for individuals,
groups, organizations, and entire communities. All churches in Rhode Island were
contacted, and 65% were willing to participate in the study. All 20 churches that were
ultimately selected remained in the study for at least 2 _ years (Lasater, Wells, Carleton,
& Elder, 1986). Such interest can give research groups like ours, as well as allied health
professionals, great hope that a health promotion initiative can “stick”.
Beyond the pragmatic value of churches, there are three main reasons why
church-going populations generate interest in an area such as health promotion where
motivation and social support are so vital to success: These populations represent
presumably spiritual-minded people and/or people that engage in healthy lifestyles, plus
these populations have built-in social networks.
There is a select number of research studies using health promotion in a research
setting in the early 1990s (Resnicow et al., 2002). The research has grown in the past five
years or so, but still much of the literature focuses on target groups such as African
American women. An advantage that researchers have found with black churches is
access to middle and upper socioeconomic African Americans, a group that generally is
underrepresented in health promotion studies (Resnicow et al., 2002). Black churches
have built-in social support networks, which is a predictor of physical activity for African
American women (Levin, 1986).
Since churches represent a major social link to the African-American community
(Resnicow, et al, 2002.) and have been involved in social and community projects with a
mission of caring and service to others (Eng, Hatch and Callan, 1985), they are good
settings to conduct research on physical activity. Resnicow’s intervention was based on
social cognitive theory, which includes increasing self-efficacy, learning selfmanagement skills, goal-setting, and modeling experiences. Supportive networks are
integral to church-based settings, and may foster behavior change unrelated to the
primary mission of the church (Anderson et al., 2006). The same authors states that
fostering social support in culturally appropriate ways, through prayer chains and buddy
systems, was a focus of the Aerobic Exercise intervention, and is implied in any churchbased health behavior intervention.
A good overview of why church-based health promotion programs is an idea with
great potential is the seven key elements outlined by Peterson and colleagues (2002):
successful partnerships, positive health values, availability of services, access to facilities,
community-focused intervention, health behavior change emphasis, and supportive
relationships. Still, there is not a consensus on how effective church participation is to a
healthy lifestyle. The influence of religious affiliation on self-reported health is not well
understood. Although few scholars would suggest that religious (particularly
conservative) affiliation has adverse effects on health, (Jarvis and Northcott, 1987) a few
studies have found the impact of religious involvement to be generally inconsequential on
subjective health. (Levin and Markides, 1986). Most studies show a positive relation
between religious attendance and self-reported psychological and physical health
(Ellison, Gay, Glass, 1989).
7
Recent Studies
As explained above, churches represent promising sites for the implementation of
health promotion programs. Although there are good reasons to believe church-going
populations might be receptive to physical activity (i.e., they are interested in spirituality
and often have external forces that motivate them to pursue healthy behaviors), the
studies generally don’t ask the question of whether church-goers are more physically
active or healthier than non-church-going populations. Rather, the research focuses in on
a target population represented by the particular church institution. Our study doesn’t
address the church-going/non-church-going distinction either. It attempts to provide voice
to a particular Protestant congregation’s reception to a simple physical
activity/educational program that we devised. In this way, our study is valuable because it
helps articulate why a church-going group might respond as it does to physical activity
intervention.
Looking at health as a holistic endeavor, spirituality is an integral part of a
person’s well-being. It provides a motivational factor when trying to change health
behavior and meet goals (Chapman, 1986). Over 90 percent of Americans believe in God
or a higher power, 90 percent pray, 69 percent are members of a church or a synagogue,
60 percent consider religion to be a very important part of their life. Studies also show
that patients are interested in integrating religion with their health care (Lee, 2005).
The Ferraro study discussed in the Sun-Times notwithstanding, some evidence
suggests that a religious life results in a healthy life. Religion brings many things
including social and emotional support motivation, and health care resources, and it
promotes healthy lifestyles (Lee, 2005). In a particular study among Utah residents,
Merrill and Thygerson found that persons who attend church weekly were more likely to
exercise regularly (Lee, 2005). A study by McLane and colleagues suggested that
incorporating faith based practices in exercise programs may be attractive to certain
people and improve participation in physical activity (Lee, 2005).
One reason given for the religious link with positive health outcomes is that
religious denominations encourage eating healthier diets and abstaining from or
moderating the use of harmful substances such as alcohol or tobacco. Another benefit that
churchgoers likely derive from attending church services is social support, a correlate of
subjective health. (Ellison, Gay, Glass, 1989). Attending church facilitates integration
into social networks and, in turn, enhances emotional, cognitive, mind instrumental
support. According to Levin and Markides (1986), individuals who attend church are
characteristically different from those who do not attend church, and controlling for these
factors eliminates the relation between religious attendance and health status by selfreport.
Religion can also influence diet and physical activity by providing social support,
social networks and social control (Hye-cheon, 2004). Social support can influence a
physical activity in many ways including models for lifestyle change, and resources to
help individuals develop and maintain healthy behaviors. In previous studies that have
taken place, it has been shown that social support is linked to increased physical activity
in certain populations. The studies suggest that increased levels of general support from
religion may facilitate increased physical activity (Hye-cheon, 2004).
8
Literature References for Group Dynamics
Abrams, D., Hogg, M.A. 2001. Collective identity: Group membership and social
conception In M.A. Hogg and S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social
psychology: Group processes (pp. 425-460). Malden MA: Blackwell.
Andrusyk, D., & Andrusyk, S. (2003). Improving student social skills through the use of
cooperative learning strategies. M.A. research project, Saint Xavier University.
Abstract accessed from ERIC, July, 2004.
Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G., & Ostrom, T. M. (1986). Effects of personal
involvement: Thought provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 763-769.
Carver, C.S., Lawrence, J.W., Scheier, M.F. 1999. Self-discrepancies and affect:
Incorporating the role of feared selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,
783-792.
Cohen S.G. 1994. Designing effective self-managing work teams. Advances in
Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 1, 67-102.
Dudley, L., Davis, H., & Mc Grady, D. (2001). Using an investment project to develop
professional competencies in introduction to financial accounting. Journal of Education
for Business, 76(3), 125-131.
Earley, P. C., & Northcraft, G. B. (1987). Goal-setting, resource interdependence, and
conflict management. In M. A. Rahim (Ed.), Managing conflict (pp. 161-170). New
York: Praeger.
Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117140.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Forsyth, D.R. 1999. Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Grawitch, M.J., Block, E.E., Ratner, J.F. 2005. How are evaluations of positive and
negative experiences related to the intensity of affect in workgroups? Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 261-274.
Hackman, J.R. 1990. Groups that work (and those that don’t) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on
social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214-1230.
9
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 939-941.
Hinsz, V.B. 1991. Individual versus group goal decision making: Social comparison in
goals for individual task performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 2871003.
Hinsz, V.B. 1992. Social influences and the goal choices of group members. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1296-1317.
Hinsz, V.B. 1995. Group and individual decision making for task performance goals:
Processes in the establishment of goals in groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
25, 253-370.
Hinsz, V.B., Park, E.S., Sjomeling, M. 2004. Group interaction sustains positive moods
and diminishes negative moods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern
Psychological Association, Chicago.
Huguet, P., Charbonnier, E., & Monteil, J.-M. (1999). Productivity loss in performance
groups: People who see themselves as average do not engage in social loafing. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 118-131.
Islam, G., & Zyphur, M.J. (2005). Power, voice, and hierarchy: Exploring the antecedents
of speaking up in groups. Group Dynamics, 9(2), 93-103.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The Effects of Group Cohesiveness on Social
Loafing and Social Compensation. Educational Publishing Foundation, 1(2), 156-168.
Lawler, E.E. 1996. From the ground up: Six principles for building the new logic
corporation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
LePine, J.A. & Van Dyne, L. (1988). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83, 853-868.
Levine, J.M., Moreland, R.L. 1998. Small groups. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 4 (2), 415-469. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. 1958. Group decision and social change. In E.E. Macoby, T.M. Newcomb,
E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology, 3, 197-211. New York: Holt.
Likert, R. 1961. New patterns in management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E.A., & Schweiger, D.M. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more
look. Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.
10
Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.N., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P.1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewod Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., Zaccaro, S.J. 2001. A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
Matz, D.C., Hinsz, V.B. 2000. Social comparison in the setting of goals for own and
others’ performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 563-572.
Mento, A.J., Steel, R.P., Karren, R.J. 1998. A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal
setting on task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
39, 52-83.
Mesch, D., Lew, M., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Impact of positive
interdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement. Journal of Social
Psychology, 128, 345-352.
Miller, L., & Hamblin, R. (1963). Interdependence, differential rewarding, and
productivity. American Sociological Review, 28, 768-778.
Payne, B.K., Turner, E.M., Smith, D., & Sumter, M. (2006) Improving group work:
Voices of students. Education, 126, 441-448.
Peck, M.S. 1987. The Different Drum: Community-Making and Peace. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Robbins, H., Finley, M. 1995. Why teams don’t work: What went wrong and how to
make it right. Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s/Pacesetter Books.
Rosenbaum, M. E., Moore, D. L., Cotton, J. L., Cook, M. S., Hieser, R. A., Shovar, M.
N., & Gray, M. J. (1980). Group productivity and process: Pure and mixed reward
structures and task interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
626-642.
Rusbult, C.E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A.G. (1988). Impact of exchange
variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to
declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599-627.
Schutz, W. 1958. FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
11
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Groups as human resources. In G. R. Ferris & K. M.
Rowlands (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 5, 323356. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Sherman, D.K., Kim, H.S. 2005. Is there an “I” in “team”? The role of the self in groupserving judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 108-120.
Stoner, J.A.F. 1968. Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely
held values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 442-459.
Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and self-evaluation with a social
standard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 891-897.
Tuckman, B. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin, 63,
384-399.
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 145-180.
Wageman, R., & Baker, G. P. (1996). Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of
task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 18, 139-158.
Wageman, R. (1999). Task Design, Outcome Interdependence, and Individual
Differences: Their Joint Effect on Effort in Task-Performing Teams (Comments on
Huguet et al., 1999). Educational Publishing Foundation, 3(2), 132-137.
Wegge, J. 2000. Participation and group goal setting: Some novel findings and
comprehensive models as new ending to an old story. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 49, 498-516.
Wicklund, R.A. 1975. Objective self-awareness. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 8, 233-275.
Williams, K. D., Harkins, S. G., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to
social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
40, 303-311.
Zaleska, M., Kogan, N. 1971. Level of risk selected by individuals and groups when
deciding for self and for others. Sociometry, 34, 198-213.
Zander, A. 1994. Making groups effective (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12
Literature References for Faith Based Physical Activity Initiatives:
Anderson, E.S.; Wojcik, J.R.; Winett, R.A.; Williams, D.M. (2006) Social-Cognitive
Determinants of Physical Activity: The influence of social support, self-efficacy,
outcome expectations, and self-regulation among participants in a church-based health
promotion study. Health Psychology, 25(4), p. 510-520.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bassett D Jr., Strath S. Use of pedometers in assessing physical activity. In: Welk G, Dale
D, editors. Physical activity assessments for health-related research. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2002, p.163–77.
Bassett D Jr, Ainsworth B, Leggett S, Mathien C, Main J, Hunter D, et al. Accuracy of
five electronic pedometers for measuring distance walked. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996;
28:1071–7.
Brenes, G., Strube, M., & Storandt, M. (1998). An application of the theory of planned
behavior to exercise among older adults. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(24),
2274–2290.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2001). Physical activity
trends—United States, 1990–1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 50(9),
166–9.
Available
at
URL:
http://www.cdc.gov/
mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5009a3.htm.
Chapman, L. 1986. Spiritual health: A component missing from health promotion.
American Journal of Health Promotion, 1, 38-41.
Ellison CG, Gay DA, Glass TA. Does religious commitment contribute to individual life
satisfaction? Social Forces. 1989;68(l):100-123.
Eng E, Hatch J, Callan A. Institutionalizing social support through the church and into
the community. Health Education Quarterly. 1985;12:81-92.
Hye-cheon, K.K., & J. Sobal. (2004). Religion, social support, fat intake, and physical
activity. Public Health Nutrition, 7(6), 773-781.
Jarvis GK, Northcott HC. Religion and differences in morbidity and mortality. Social
Science & Medicine. 1987;25(7):813-824.
13
Lasater, T.M., Wells, B.L., Carleton, R.A., & Elder, J.P. 1986. The role of churches in
disease prevention research studies. Public Health Reports. 101(2), 125-131.
Lee, B.Y., & A.B. Newberg. (2005). Religion and Health: A review and critical analysis.
Zygon, 40(2), 443-466.
Levin, JS. The role of the black church in community medicine. Journal of National
Medical Association, 1986; 76: 477-483.
Levin JS & Markides KS. Religious attendance and subjective health. Journal of Social
Study Religion.1986;25:31,40.
Mokdad, A. H., Marks, J. S., Stroup, D. F., & Gerberding, J. L. (2004). Actual causes of
death in the United States, 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(10),
1238–1245.
Pate R, Pratt M, Blair S, Haskell W, Macera C, Bouchard C, et al. Physical activity and
public health. A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and the American College of Sports Medicine. JAMA 1995;273:402–7.
Peterson, J, J.R. Atwood, & B. Yates (2002). Key elements for church-based health
promotion programs: Outcome-based literature review. Public Health Nursing, 19(6),
401-411.
Reger-Nash, B.; Bauman, A.; Cooper,L.; Chey,T.;Simon, K.J. (2006) Evaluating
communitywide walking interventions. Evaluation and Program Planning , 29, 251–259
Resnicow K., & A. Jackson, R. Braithwaite, C. DiIorio, D. Blisset, S. Rahotep, and S.
Periasamy. (2002). Healthy body/healthy spirit: a church-based nutrition and physical
activity intervention. Health Education Research, 17(5), 562-573.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: a
Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1996.
United States Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Healthy People 2010:
National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Washington, DC: Author.
Welk GJ, Differding JA, Thompson RW, Blair SN, Dziura J, Hart P. The utility of the
Digi-walker step counter to assess daily physical activity patterns. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2000;32:S481–8.
14
Theoretical Framework – For Group Dynamic & Faith Based
Physical Activity Initiatives
Social cognitive theory offers the best theoretical framework for studying group
dynamic processes. This theory subscribes to a model of emergent interactive agency,
which gives group dynamic research structure (Bandura, 1986). This theory claims that
persons are neither autonomous agents nor wholly influenced by the social environment
in which they exist. Individuals make casual contributions to their own motivation and
action within a given system. According to Albert Bandura, individual agency operates in
three different ways, as relative to group dynamic research: autonomous, mechanical, and
emergent interactive agency.
A sub theory to Social cognitive theory is the Social identity theory.
Organizational identification has been long recognized as a critical construct in the
literature on organizational behavior, affecting both the satisfaction of the individual and
the effectiveness of an organization (Brown, 1969; Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970;
Lee, 1971; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Patchen, 1970; Rotondi, 1975). By observing the
individuals and their social environment, an environment that determines the way they
view the world, group dynamic processes can be systematically studied and conclusions
can be ascribed, regarding group dynamics.
The theoretical framework for the group dynamics portion of our paper is carried
through to the framework of the project portion of our study. In social cognitive theory,
individuals are viewed as proactive agents in the regulation of their cognition, motivation,
actions, and emotions rather than passive reactors of their environment.
The framework for studying church participation and physical activity needed to
be directly tied to the literature on health promotion and motivational factors on physical
activity. Social cognitive theory is the most appropriate framework from which to devise
a program such as we have done. Bandura refers to this view as an “agentic perspective”
of social-cognitive functioning, meaning that as agents, people use forethought, selfreflection, and self-regulation to influence their own functioning (Bandura, 2001). Social
cognitive theory also hypothesizes a three-pronged network of causal structures that
constantly interact with one another to determine motivation and behavior: Individual
behaviors (e.g., persistence); Personal factors (e.g., knowledge and beliefs); and
Environmental conditions (e.g., interactions with others) (Bandura, 1997). In short, social
cognitive theory represents the makeup of an individual, influential people around
him/her, and the environment in which they operate. It is well established in the physical
activity and health promotion literature, and it is a logical fit in a health
promotion/education program set with a group of church-goers.
15
Methodology
The main objective for our research is intended to better understand the group dynamics
involved in developing a community walking program, including how to organize
division of labor, how to process decisions, and how and success or failure of the
implementation of this project. In this research project knowledge, previously acquired
from a number of different universities, will be use to establish a walking program
utilizing organizational team dynamics and qualitative research methods.
Recruitment Procedures
Flyers will be posted in the lobby of a church facility. There will also be an advertisement
on the projector in between the different church services and an advertisement in the
church bulletin. In the church lobby there will be a sign-up sheet for potential participants
as a means to have an estimate of people who will be participating. If possible, we will
ask for an announcement to be made during church services. The goal of the project is to
have at least 15 participants, but no more than 100 people.
Subject Selection Process
Six graduate students participating from Class KIN 494 Qualitative Research Methods
(group dynamics) and a group of up to 100 participants in a walking program at a church.
The graduate students were assigned to a group by the Professor from the Kinesiology
494 class.
The participants from the church are volunteers. No participants will be turned away as
long as the project does not exceed the capacity of 100 people. Three participants from
the walking group will be interviewed at the conclusion of this project, with their consent,
based on the criteria of having participated in all four walking sessions. The age range
will be from 18 to 65. There will be no restrictions regarding sex, race, and ethnicity. No
measures or protocols will be used to screen applicants. The graduate students will
discuss developing themes. No further training or experience is necessary for the
participants of the walking program. One of the goals of the project is to motivate the
participants to attend all four walking sessions. Anyone who does not want to be
interviewed will not have to answer any questions presented by the researcher.
Research Procedures
Phase I: Graduate students will meet regularly for approximately 90 minutes once a week
through the duration of the project (September-December) to design and organize a
fitness walking program. Topics discussed will include getting consent from the church,
developing an advertisement strategy, designing the actual walking program, and
delegating the responsibilities of each graduate student. Each session will be observed
and later transcribed into iLabs, the graduate students’ inquiry group page. Each member
will have a chance to take notes during the meetings and write a reflection into the iLabs
inquiry page.
16
Phase II: A walking project will be started at the church and each member of the
organizing team will have their own responsibilities. Four events will occur at
Meadowbrook Park, with a time to be determined. Information sessions of 10 minutes
will occur before each session, and snacks and water may be provided. After the fourth
session 3 people from the walking group will be interviewed. One graduate student will
be conducting the interview while the other will be writing down the exact conversation.
The members of the organizing team will also write a reflection after each walking
session which will be used as a study material afterwards.
Phase III: The graduate students will interview each other in taped interviews one time
for 30-60 minutes to focus on what they learned about the project, providing service to
the community, group dynamics, and the University. The graduate students will also
compile field notes and informational documents given to participants as part of the
project. Interviews with each member of the organizing team will be conducted prior to
the actual project implementation. Each group member will interview at least one other
group member. The interviews will be recorded and then transcribed.
Phase IV: All notes, interview transcripts and reflections will be gathered, analyzed,
categorized and used for creating a final report to present to the Kines 494 class.
Data Collection
Informed consent will be obtained from all graduate students and will be the only
identifying information. Graduate students will be given ficticious names and a
participant ID number for interviews and observations. All data will be kept in a
computer with a secure password or a locked file cabinet. Data will be kept for five (5)
years, at which point it will be destroyed. Audio-tapes will be destroyed after they are
transcribed and the transcriptions will be kept on a computer with a password, in a locked
office.
Consent Process
Participants will be read and given an informed consent form prior to beginning the
study. The forms will be handed out to the participants the first time they come to
participate in a session and will be handed in before they are allowed to participate.
Voluntary consent will be obtained for participants in Part II (only three walking program
participants) in advance of their interviews. This may not be before the community event
takes place, but will occur before they are interviewed at its conclusion. After all
questions and concerns have been addressed, those who still wish to participate will be
asked to sign the informed consent document.
Interview Questions
The following questions were designed by the graduate students based on the proposed
objectives from the research project.
Church Group Interview
17
1. What type of exercise/physical activity do you engage in during the average
week?
2. How often do you walk during the week?
3. Will you please describe the importance of exercising programs in a church.
4. In your opinion how do you feel health and wellness are promoted in your church
5. What have you heard about this program? Is there any feedback that you could
give us?
6. How many steps do you think you should take Daily?
7. What types of setting are you motivated to exercise or partake in physical activity
in?
8. What other physical activity have you been involved in within the church
congregation?
9. What do you think the benefits are of exercising in a group?
10. What are the benefits of physical activity on your health?
11. How do you feel before the start of this program?
12. How did you feel after the program ended?
13. Is there anything else that you would like to add that we did not discuss?
Interview Questions for the group
1. How did you feel meeting with your group every Wednesday?
2. DO you think that these meetings influenced the group dynamics?
3. How would you describe or interpret group dynamics?
4. How is it different being a grad student in this class and how does it effect the
group dynamics?
5. How did you feel, as a grad student, about the assignment as a whole?
6. Have you had any prior experiences working with qualitative research?
18
7. How do you view Qualitative research as a method of gathering data?
8. What do you think the expectations of graduate students are in an intermixed
(graduate/undergraduate) class?
9. If you were a pastor of a church, what would be some of the things you would do
to promote physical activity?
10. How does the structure of this class add to the ethnography of the University?
11. How does working on iLab’s affect this class?
12. After experiencing this project, how do you feel the church influences physical
activity?
13. What influence does religion have on levels of Physical Activity that people
partake in?
14. If you had a chance to change something in this project, what would you do
differently?
Credibility, Dependability, and Trustworthiness
To establish credibility of the proposed research, the group will use triangulation, and
member checks methods.
19