The Modules We Live By in Groups: Individual Differences in Orientations toward Coordinating Action in Groups

Abstract

A growing body of literature is beginning to examine how individuals engage and interact with others within group contexts. However, no research has examined how individuals’ orientations toward coordinating action in groups, their relational orientations, alter their behaviour within group interactions. This thesis asserts that this gap has potentially been driven by the absence of a framework that captures all facets of the relational modules individuals use to coordinate action in groups. In turn, existing measures of relational orientations cannot necessarily be applied within the intragroup domain. This thesis represents an attempt to bridge this gap. First, a description of individual differences in orientations towards coordinating action in groups informed by Durkheim (1893/2014) is presented. The description outlines that two distinct collections of relational orientations exist, mechanical and organic. Second, across five studies this thesis presents the development and preliminary evidence of a measure that may capture individual variation in people’s orientations toward coordinating action in groups according to a mechanical or organic relational module, the Mechanical and Organic Orientations Scales or MOOS for short. In an initial pilot study (Chapter 2) preliminary items created to capture mechanical and organic orientations are submitted to factor analytic methods to examine the underlying structure of the items. While the results of this pilot study were promising, a number of issues suggested that further refinement of the items was needed. A series of studies were then conducted using a revised set of items (Chapter 3). In Study 1, an exploratory factor analysis using the revised set of items was conducted. Although the item factor loadings were moderate, the results provided some support for a two factor model of relational group orientations reflecting the two predicted mechanical and organic orientations, with nine items in each factor. Study 2 then sought to confirm the factor structure observed in Study 1. The results demonstrated good indices of fit. The factor structure and loading of items were also shown to be consistent through a series of multigroup measurement invariance models. Study 2 also sought to establish the convergent and divergent validity of the MOOS from measures that capture people’s life-guiding principles. The results provided support for the validity of the MOOS, with associations demonstrating that the MOOS captures a dimension of sociality that is different to but nonetheless related to broad socially organising principles. Study 3 was then conducted to further establish the construct validity of the MOOS from existing measures of people’s relational orientations. Only tentative support for the MOOS was obtained in this study. While the patterns of convergence and divergence found in Study 3 suggested that the MOOS are related to existing relational orientation measures, the patterns of results were paradoxical to what theory outlined in Chapter 1 would suggest. A considerable discussion is also provided to discuss why these paradoxical patterns may have emerged. In Study 4, associations between the MOOS and the ties people seek to form with others in their own social networks were examined. Again, only weak support for the validity of the MOOS was obtained. Although the MOOS do appear to be associated with group level phenomena (i.e., how people form their interdependencies with others), some of these associations were non-significant. The results of Study 4 were taken to provide only preliminary support to the validity of the MOOS. Study 4 also noted that further research is needed before the MOOS can be fully utilised in contemporary research. The general discussion (Chapter 4) then draws upon the findings of the five studies to propose that while there is some evidence to suggest that people’s relational group orientations may be relevant to the way people coordinate action in groups, further research is necessary to establish the validity of the MOOS. With the recognition that further improvements are necessary, the theoretical and practical implications of an improved MOOS are then discussed. Specifically, this discussion draws attention to the relevance of these findings for research in relationship science and group dynamics, and provides examples of how an improved MOOS may be used to inform theory and practice within these domains. Limitations of the research program are discussed and suggestions for future research exploring mechanical and organic orientations are also outlined.