1. From Therapy Groups to Juries: Round-robins Outside of the Laboratory David K. Marcus University of Southern Mississippi

2. Natural Groups Numerous instances of groups that are natural round-robins. Situations in which members influence and are influenced by one another Therapy groups Juries Classrooms Sports teams

3. Intergroup Relations within Groups Natural groups are often heterogeneous for a variety of member characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, status. Might be interesting to see whether group members spontaneously identify themselves as members of subgroups based on gender, ethnicity, etc.

4. Gender Differences as an Exemplar Mixed-gender groups can provide a setting for studying gender differences in interpersonal perception However, the varying gender composition of each group can limit the possible analyses

5. Therapy Groups (Marcus & Holahan, 1994) Participants: 45 students drawn from 9 therapy groups 27 women 18 men The dyadic measure was the Impact Message Inventory, completed after the 2 nd session. Men were perceived to be more hostile than women (r =.41)

6. Juries (Marcus, Lyons, & Guyton, 2000) Assessed perceptions of influence Eight 12-member juries 86 total participants (10 refused to participate) 49 women 37 men

7. Juries (Marcus, Lyons, & Guyton, 2000) Small, but significant, consensus about who was influential 11% target variance for ratings of who was influential on the deliberations 6% target variance for ratings of who was personally influential on the rater Men were perceived to be more influential than women r =.21 (deliberations) r =.29 (personal influence)

8. Limitations of These Natural Round- robins However there are lots of questions that this design cannot answer such as: Does the level of consensus differ depending on the gender of the target? Does the level of consensus differ depending on the gender of the perceiver? Are there interactions?

9. Block Round-robins In a perfect world (at least for SRM research) juries would consist of 6 men and 6 women and therapy groups would be 4 men and 4 women (and they all would provide usable data). Can create block round-robins in the laboratory (e.g., Marcus & Miller, 2003) Can also divide large natural groups (e.g., classrooms) into block round-robins.

10. Gender Differences in Childrens Interpersonal Perceptions (Balentine & Marcus, 1998) Participants: 80 4 th graders (40 boys & 40 girls) and 80 9 th graders (40 boys & 40 girls) Formed 10 4 th grade & 10 9 th grade groups (4 boys & 4 girls/group) Group members were acquainted, but not best friends

11. Balentine & Marcus (1998) Dyadic ratings of Attractiveness Intelligence Popularity Happiness Friendliness

12. Consensus for Intelligence & Friendliness Target FemaleMale _________________________________________ Intelligence 4 th grade: Female Perceivers.53*.33* Male Perceivers.35*.44* 9 th grade: Female Perceivers.52*.27* Male Perceivers.51*.24* Friendliness 4th grade: Female Perceivers.44*.24* Male Perceivers.06.25* 9th grade: Female Perceivers.26.24* Male Perceivers.05.14* _______________________________________ *p <.05.

13. Consensus for Popularity & Attractiveness Target FemaleMale _________________________________________ Popularity 4 th grade: Female Perceivers.57*.37* Male Perceivers.25*.05 9 th grade: Female Perceivers.32.45* Male Perceivers.18.36* Attractiveness 4th grade: Female Perceivers.47*.24* Male Perceivers.13.03 9th grade: Female Perceivers.25*.41* Male Perceivers.45*.43 _______________________________________ *p <.05.

14. Were There any Gender or Age Differences? Not many None for Intelligence, Happiness, or Friendliness 4 th graders had higher levels of consensus when rating the popularity of girls compared to boys 4 th grade girls agreed more about who was attractive than did 4 th grade boys. 9 th grade boys had more consensus when rating the attractiveness of peers than did 4 th grade boys.

15. Self-other Agreement for Intelligence Female MalePerceivers __________________________________________________ 4 th grade: Female Targets.50*.53* Male Targets.58**.23* 9 th grade: Female Targets.88**.69** Male Perceivers.80**.84** _______________________________________ *p <.05; **p <.01.

16. Too Much of a Good Thing? A block round-robin with 5 dyadic variables and 2 separate age groups yields an overwhelming number of potential analyses Some results I havent discussed Perceiver variances Reciprocity correlations Self-other agreement for the other variables Mean ratings across groups

17. Conclusions/Questions Return to internal vs. external validity issues Some of the most interesting questions require researchers to construct the groups, perhaps at the expense of external validity Can mock juries or training groups simulate the group dynamics of juries or therapy groups? What are the consequences of creating round-robins from larger groups?