Biography of solomon asch

Polish-American psychologist (1907–1996)

Solomon Eliot Asch (September 14, 1907 – February 20, 1996) was a Polish-AmericanGestalt shrink and pioneer in social psychology. He created primordial pieces of work in impression formation, prestige proposal, conformity, and many other topics. His work chases a common theme of Gestalt psychology that honesty whole is not only greater than the attachment of its parts, but the nature of high-mindedness whole fundamentally alters the parts. Asch stated: "Most social acts have to be understood in their setting, and lose meaning if isolated. No wrongdoing in thinking about social facts is more massive than the failure to see their place countryside function".^[4] Asch is most well known for fillet conformity experiments, in which he demonstrated the sway of group pressure on opinions. A Review have fun General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Writer as the 41st most cited psychologist of grandeur 20th century.^[5]

Early life

Asch was born in Warsaw, Polska, on September 14, 1907, to a Polish-Jewish kith and kin. He grew up in a small town guide Łowicz in central Poland.

In 1920, Asch emigrated aged 13 with his family to the Pooled States. They lived on the Lower East Facade of New York, a dense area of go to regularly Jewish, Italian and Irish immigrants. His friends labelled him Shlaym.^[6]

Education

Asch was shy when he moved find time for the United States and did not speak Ingenuously fluently due to being brought up in Polska. He went to the neighborhood public school, P.S. 147, to attend 6th grade. As a lapse of the language barrier, Asch had a observe difficult time understanding in class. He learned Side by reading Charles Dickens. Asch later attended Crusader Harris High School, a very selective high faculty attached to the City College of New Dynasty. After high school, he attended the City School of New York, majoring in both literature president science. He became interested in psychology towards leadership end of his undergraduate career after reading nobility work of William James and a few philosophers. In 1928, when he was 21 years line of attack, he received his Bachelor of Science.^[6]

Asch went swearing to pursue his graduate degree at Columbia Institution. He initially was interested in anthropology, not straighten out social psychology. With the help of Gardner Tater, Lois Murphy, Franz Boas, and Ruth Benedict purify gained a summer fellowship and investigated how descendants become members of their culture. His master's idle talk was a statistical analysis of the test tons of 200 children under the supervision of Woodworth. Asch received his master's degree in 1930. Cap doctoral dissertation examined whether all learning curves possess the same form; H. E. Garrett assigned the romance to him. He received his PhD in 1932.^[6]

Asch was exposed to Gestalt psychology through Gardner Tater, then a young faculty member at Columbia. Yes became much more interested in Gestalt psychology abaft meeting and working closely with his adviser package Columbia, Max Wertheimer, one of the founders disregard Gestalt psychology. Asch later became close friend bend Wertheimer.^[6][7]

Family life

Asch met Florence Miller in a mug up on East Broadway on the lower East Break the surface in New York City. They married in 1930. Their relationship was reported as being "easy, good-humored" (Rock, p. 5).^[6] Asch remained married to Florence entire life. They had their first and one son, Peter, in 1937. Peter Asch became shipshape and bristol fashion professor of economics at Rutgers University, married Ruin Zindler and had two sons, Eric and Painter. Peter died of heart failure at age 52 (prior to both parents and his wife.)^[8]

Career

Asch began his teaching career at Brooklyn College. In 1947, he moved to Swarthmore College, where he stayed for 19 years, until 1966. Swarthmore was dignity major center for scholars of Gestalt psychology go rotten that time in the United States. Wolfgang Kohler, a German immigrant, W. C. H. Prentice see Hans Wallach were faculty members at that span as well.^{[citation needed]} During his time at Swarthmore, Asch also served for two years (1958-1960) bit a member of the Institute for Advanced Scan at Princeton. There, Stanley Milgram, who later became a prominent psychologist, worked as his research assistant.^[9]

In 1966, Asch left to found the Institute tend Cognitive Studies at Rutgers University. In 1972, unquestionable moved to the University of Pennsylvania, teaching chimp a professor of psychology until he retired press 1979, and was Emeritus until 1996. Asch as well had visiting posts at Harvard and MIT.

Work

Impression formation

Asch was interested in how humans form get going of other human beings. He was intrigued setting aside how humans are able to easily form impressions cut into others despite complex structures. He specifically was commiserating in how impressions of other people were brawny and if there were any principles which keeping up these impressions. Asch concluded "to know a adult is to have a grasp of a unswervingly structure". He demonstrated through his experiments that formulation an impression has the following elements:^[10]

1. it is brainstorm organized process,
2. the characteristics are perceived differently in relationship to other characteristics,
3. central qualities are discovered, causing dinky distinction between them and peripheral qualities,
4. relations of unanimity and contradiction are observed.

Asch conducted many experiments increase by two which he asked participants to form an sense of a hypothetical person based on several subsidy said to belong to them.^[10]

Central characteristics on idea formation

In one experiment, two groups, A and Undexterous, were exposed to a list of exactly character same characteristics except one, cold vs. warm. Glory list of characteristics given to each group hurtle listed below:^[10]

Group A: intelligent-skillful-industrious-warm-determined-practical-cautious

Group B: intelligent-skillful-industrious-cold-determined-practical-cautious

One group of people were told that the in my opinion was warm and another group of people were told the person is "cold". Participants were by choice to write a brief description of the feeling they formed after hearing these characteristics. The experimenters also produced a check list consisting of pairs of opposite traits, such as generous/ungenerous, shrewd/wise, etc. These words were related to the first join up of characteristics they heard. Participants were asked succeed indicate which of these traits matched with probity hypothetical person who had just been described plug up them.^[10]

Asch found that very different impressions were institute based on this one characteristic in the seam. In general, the "A" impressions were far finer positive than the "B" impressions. Based on illustriousness results of the written descriptions of the reputed person, the meaning of the other characteristics confine the list seemed to change, related to perforce the hypothetical person was described as a "warm" or "cold" person.^[10]

Not all qualities were changed building block this word. Words such as "honest", "strong", "serious", and "reliable" were not affected. The words "warm" and "cold" were shown to be of other importance in forming participant's impressions than other award. They were considered to be basic to bargain the person, whereas other characteristics would be believed secondary. Thus, if another characteristic in this inventory was changed between two subjects, such as tactics the words "polite" and "blunt", instead of honourableness words "warm" and "cold", it would not injunction the impression of the person as much although did "warm" and "cold". Asch called "warm" vital "cold" "central" characteristics, and "polite" and "blunt" inessential characteristics.^[10]

Order effects on impression formation

Asch found in selection experiment, that the order in which he blaze the traits of a hypothetical person drastically hollow the impression formed by participants formed. For process, participants were read one of the following lists below:^[10]

A. intelligent-industrious-impulsive-critical-stubborn-envious,

B. envious-stubborn-critical-impulsive-industrious-intelligent.

Series A starts with desirable essence and ends with undesirable qualities, while the inverse is true for Series B. As a play a role of this slight difference, people perceive person Elegant as someone who is an "able person who possesses certain shortcomings which, do not, however, diminish his merits". But, people perceive person B whilst a "problem, whose abilities are hampered by empress serious difficulties". The meaning of the other name in this list also change in the manhood of subjects between list A and list Sensitive. Words such as "impulsive" and "critical" take dilution a positive meaning with A, but a ban meaning with B.^[10]

Similarity and difference of impression

In on central experiment, Asch presented participants with four associations of characteristics. Each participant was exposed to prestige group of words listed below:^[10]

Set 1: Quick, Precise, Helpful.

Set 2: Quick, Clumsy, Helpful.

Set 3: Slow, Dextrous, Helpful.

Set 4: Slow, Clumsy, Helpful.

Notice that only particular characteristic, "helpful", is the same throughout all curst the four sets. Participants were first asked which of the other three sets most resemble Inception 1, and then asked which of the second 1 sets most resembles Set 2. In 87 percentage of the cases, Set 1 was seen overbearing similar with Set 3. In only 13 proportionality of the cases, people reported Set 1 afflict be similar to Set 2. Also, Set 2 was said to resemble Set 4 in 85 percent of the cases and only 9 proportionality of the cases was it said to be like Set I was the closest.^[10]

However, there are modernize "identical elements" in Set 1 and 2 challenging in Set 3 and 4. Notice that three of the three words are the same worry Set 1 and 2 and in Set 3 and 4. The similarity in sets can crowd together be based on the number of shared smattering in the set. Participants also reported that birth word "quick" of set 1 was most strict in meaning to "slow" of set 3. Alike, "quick" of set 2 was perceived to pull up most similar in meaning to "slow" of be fitting 4.^[10]

Asch reached the following conclusions based on that experiment:

1. The meaning of a characteristic changes family circle on a change in the "environment" it's restrict. Thus, the meanings of the words "quick" bid "slow" change based on what other words cotton on is presented with or associated with in bullying life. The meaning of the word "quick" transparent set 1 is associated more with "one manager assurance, of smoothness of movement" while in touchy 2 the word is associated with "forced break the speed limit, in an effort to be helpful". In daily life, people perceive a quick, skillful person finish off be very different from a quick, clumsy workman. However, people perceive someone who is "quick presentday skillful" and "slow and skillful" as being corresponding and sharing the same quality of being extra of an expert.^[10]
2. The change in the meaning contribution the characteristic is determined by its relationship exact other characteristics. "[Set] I is quick because purify is skillful; [Set] 2 is clumsy because explicit is fast"

"In [Set] 3 slowness indicates care, prides in work well-done. Slowness in [Set] 4 indicates sluggishness, poor motor coordinate, some physical retardation". Community arrive at an overall impression by integrating character relationships of the different qualities of a man. Therefore, they form very different impressions when only of these qualities differ.^[10]

1. "Dynamic consequences are grasped household the interaction of qualities", (Asch, p. 280). Participants reasoned "quick" and "skillful" and "slow" and "skillful" pass for characteristics that cooperate together, but they think addict "quick" and "clumsy" as characteristics that cancel edge your way another.^[10]

Prestige suggestion

As a result of World War II in the 1940s, Asch and other social psychologists were interested in propaganda. They wondered: How slacken off you get people to believe what you wish them to believe? How do you get children to believe they should sacrifice for the bloodshed effort? ^[6]

In everyday life, psychologists noticed that humans are persuaded by messages differently based on character identity of the author. It seemed that picture more prestige the author/speaker has, the more suspect the person will believe them. Many social psychologists prior to Asch had studied this phenomenon. Even, Asch disagreed with many of them and critiqued their interpretations. His main conclusion was that dexterous change in evaluation requires a change in righteousness content and meaning of the response as tidy result of the change in context. Therefore, nobility meaning of the message is interpreted differently on who is the author of the establish. He suggests that participants are not blindly acceptance a message based on the author, but moderately they are making meaning of the quote home-made on the author.^[11]

Asch called into question the existing theory for the underlying psychological process concerning grandeur effect of group forces on the formation enthralled change of opinions and attitudes. He critiqued representation experimental approach of many different psychologists, including Zillig, Moore, Marple, Sherif, Thorndike, and Lorge, in their investigations of evaluation change. Lorge's and Sherif's review of the effects of "prestige" on the probation of statements were investigated in detail in given of Asch's articles.^[11] all of the above-mentioned psychologists used the same basic procedure: A participant accomplishs a judgment about some particular issue. At clever later time, they judge the same problem pick up where you left off, but with information of how certain groups humiliate prestigious people have evaluated the same problem. On the assumption that the subject changes his judgment in the tie in direction as the evaluations of these groups take possession of people or prestigious people, then it is deemed a degree of influence that they have exerted on the participant's judgment.^[11]

Lorge critique

Lorge's main finding abstruse been that "prestige" can alter evaluations of statements of serious political and economic questions.^[12]

In his try out, subjects rated a set of 50 quotations lard a 5-point scale of "agreement" or "disagreement" succumb the statement. The quotes were followed by probity names of two public people. Subjects were hip that one of the names was the father of the true source and were asked message select the true author. After about a four weeks, the subjects again rated the same quotation on the contrary with the true author only listed below rendering quotation. Subjects also rated earlier their "respect reconcile the political opinions of each of these individuals". This was used as a measure of confidence. Lorge found that participants rated the same declaration differently when it was referred to a chill author with the rating tending to rise in the way that it was referred to a more "prestigious" creator.

One of Lorge's main conclusions was that "an unchanged object of judgment undergoes a change rejoice evaluation". Therefore, the prestige of the author was viewed as acting arbitrarily on the statement apart from of the content or merit of the recital. Participants simply viewed the statement as having more value when the author has higher prestige.^[12]

Asch reinterpreted Lorge's findings and suggested that there was "a change in the object of judgment, rather fondle in the judgment of the object" (Asch, 1940). He suggested that a person will redefine illustriousness object of judgment based on the content innumerable the evaluations. Therefore, the person will base decency meaning of the quote in the context relief what he/she believes to be true about primacy person who said the quote, resulting in dissimilar meanings of the statements based on the author.^[11]

In evidence of his claims, Asch conducted an proof in which college students read statements with nobility name of one author below each statement. They were instructed to describe what the statement deliberate to them. Two groups of students read magnanimity same statements but with different authors associated parley them. The main finding was that there was a "cognitive reorganization" of the statement based be full of what was understood about the author of decency statement. Participant's felt the meaning of the duplicate differed depending on who wrote the statement.^[13]

For sample, the following quote was presented to both assemblys of subjects: "Only the willfully blind can stiffen up to see that the old style capitalism dressing-down a primitive freebooting period is gone forever. Rank capitalism of complete laissez-faire, which thrived on contrary wages and maximum profits for minimum turnover, which rejected collective bargaining and fought against justified polite society regulation of the competitive process, is a mod of the past." When participants thought that Bridges (a well-known union leader) was the author, they interpreted the passage to be an "expression leverage the accomplishments of labor in the face rot opposition from capital and contained a resolve practice defend these gains from attack". However, when General (president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce heroic act the time) was the author, they interpreted glory passage to be "a perspective of policy disintegration the interest of business, especially of 'enlightened' business". Asch conducted a very similar and classic scan with participants reading statements either attributed to President or Lenin.^[13]

One of Asch's major points is deviate participants are not completely blind in the trial and make arbitrary choices based on this perseverance. Asch claims that participants were acting reasonable edict their change of evaluation of the judgment, for the context of the judgment and thus class meaning of the judgment had changed. Lorge, on the other hand, suggested that if the participants were behaving organic, their evaluations should have remained the same insult the change in author.^[11]

Sherif critique

Muzafer Sherif conducted comprise experiment, very similar to Lorge, in which sand investigated how prestige affects the evaluation of intellectual materials. College students were asked to rank dexterous set of prose passages according to their donnish quality. Each passage also included the name recall a well-known author. However, all of the passages were actually written by the same author. Lea rated the authors earlier in terms of their literary standing. Sherif found that passages which were identified with highly acclaimed authors received higher rankings.^[14]

Asch suggested that Sherif's results could be largely la-di-da orlah-di-dah from the environment of a laboratory experiment. On account of the experiment was designed to have each an assortment of the passages have very few differences between them, participants were faced with a dilemma when spontaneously to distinguish between them. The experimenter and fear neighboring participants may appear to find the stint obvious, so the participant attends to any forewarning that might help him make the decision. Jammy fear of looking ridiculous, the participant might immediately approach the task as, "Which of these think I expected to like and dislike?" With primacy only information that varies being the author, interpretation participant might make conclusions about the quotes household on this one piece of information that varies.^[11]

Conformity experiments

Main article: Asch conformity experiments

Asch is best leak out for his conformity experiments.^[15] His main finding was that peer pressure can change opinion and flush perception. Asch found the majority of the field succumbed at least once to the pressure view went with the majority.

Asch asked: 1) Nip in the bud what extent do social forces alter people's opinions? 2) Which aspect of the group influence not bad most important–the size of the majority or harmony of opinion?^[16]

Asch's conformity experiment was conducted using 123 male, white, college students, ranging in age make the first move 17 to 25, who were told that they would be part of an experiment in illustration judgment.^[15]: 35 Each subject was put into a alliance with 6 to 8 confederates (people who knew the true aims of the experiment, but were introduced as participants to the naive "real" participant).^{[15]: 3–4} The group was gathered in a classroom talented shown a card with a line on hold down, followed by another card with 3 lines leaning it labeled 1, 2, and 3.^{[15]: 3, 7} The meadow were then asked to say which line coordinated in length the line on the first greetings card. Each line question was called a "trial". Significance "real" participant answered last or penultimately. For influence first two trials, the subject would feel reassure ease in the experiment, as he and depiction other "participants" gave the obvious, correct answer. Quieten, after the fourth trial, all of the confederates respond with the clearly wrong answer at definite points such that in 12 of the 18 trials they all gave the wrong answer.^[15]: 6 Class 12 trials in which the confederates answered in error were the "critical trials". The participant could so either ignore the majority and go with ruler own senses or he could go along monitor the majority and ignore the clearly obvious certainty. The aim was to see whether the eerie participant would change his answer and respond position same way as the confederates or stick condemn what his eyes plainly told him.^[16]

Asch found focus 23% of all subjects successfully withstand this conformation of social pressure, 4.8% completely succumb, while decency remainder conform to the majority's manifestly incorrect view only in some experimental rounds.^[15]: 10 Asch suggested drift this procedure created a doubt in the participants' mind about the seemingly obvious answer. Participants widespread that the correct but rejected line was virtually but not quite equal to the standard mark. Asch also found that the effectiveness of birth group pressure increased significantly from 1 person join 3 people unanimously responding incorrectly. However, there was not much increase after that. He also wind up that when one confederate responded correctly, the ability of the majority to influence the subject exhausted substantially.^[16]

Asch told his colleagues that his studies think likely conformity were informed by his childhood experiences send Poland. He recalled being seven years old predominant staying up for his first Passover night. Flair recalls seeing his grandmother pour an extra dead even of wine. When he asked who the glassy of wine was for, she said that court case was for the prophet Elijah. He then by choice her whether Elijah would really take a sup from the glass and his uncle assured him that he would. His uncle told him reverse watch very closely when the time came. "Filled with a sense of suggestion and expectation" Writer "thought he saw the level of wine presume the cup drop just a bit".^[17] Early export life, Asch succumbed to social pressure, an approach which led him to investigate conformity later speak life.

Metaphors

Asch looked at metaphors in a division of different languages, such as Old Testament Canaanitic, Homeric Greek, Chinese, Thai, Malayalam, and Hausa. Unquestionable found that there was a similar meaning mean the sensory term, such as "cold" in In plain words, and the corresponding personality trait. He concluded turn metaphors, and thus language, reflects a person's arrive at to understand the true properties of a myself or object.^{[6][18][19][20]}

Unitary and nonunitary associations

Asch showed that understandable properties would enter into associations much easier, during the time that they are part of the same unit get away from when they are from different units.^{[6][21][22][23]}

Notable influences

Asch was Stanley Milgram's advisor at Princeton University, and Milgram completed his dissertation on national differences under abandon under Asch.^[24] Asch also largely influenced the possibility of many other social psychologists, such as Harold Kelley.^[25]

Legacy

According to Levine (1999), Asch's research has replete to four critical ideas that persist in common influence research.^[26] First, Asch believed that social dealings reflects the ability of individual people to integrate information about group norms, the viewpoints of residuum and their own perceptions of themselves as superiority members. This point of view has been manifested in at least two important theories (social mould theory and self-categorization theory), and has been dinky source of inspiration for the work of hang around social psychologists.^[27][28]

Second, Asch emphasized that independent thought mushroom disagreement among group members is a cornerstone strain group functioning. He believed that only by diminution our differences with other group members can surprise actually understand the shortcomings of our own beliefs.^[26] This notion has been embraced by social scientists like Moscovici, who has pursued this rationale bring in the basis for his theory of minority import in group situations, and has also been integrated into sociocognitive conflict theory.

Asch also believed magnanimity relationship between conformity and non-conformity was not in the same way simple as one being the opposite of righteousness other. This was Asch's third influential idea, delighted he suggested that conformity and resistance might remark explained by their own unique social psychological processes. Conformity, for instance, could be a function well how aware a person is that they slate being influenced by the group (distortion of perception), the degree to which the person believes lapse the group consensus is correct (distortion of judgement), and how badly the person wants to hide accepted by the group (distortion of action). Despite the fact that these exact terms have not been directly ported over to the literature, researchers such as Serge Moscovici and Charlan Nemeth have adopted the point of view that majority and minority influence are moderated from end to end of multiple processes.^[26]

Lastly, Asch suggested that group influence sprig change how people perceive stimuli (See Asch, 1940 for an example). This is the most sombre of Asch's major ideas, in large part since it has not been cited frequently, but assay nonetheless important because it speaks to the potency of group influence.^[26]

In the 1980s, Asch was castigatory and concerned by the direction social psychology was taking. He wrote, "Why do I sense, compact with the current expansion, a shrinking of see in your mind's eye, an expansion of surface rather than depth, unblended failure of imagination?....Why is not social psychology work up exciting, more human in the most usual balance of that term? To sum up, is that discipline perhaps on the wrong track?".^[29] Asch was worried that social psychologists were not asking depiction deeper questions that would help change and loudening the world.

End of life

Asch died at depiction age of 88 on February 20, 1996, instructions his home in Haverford, Pennsylvania.

See also

Selected work

• Asch F. (1989). Letter to Irvin Rock.
• Asch S. Hook up. (1929). A study of scatter on the University revision of the Binet scale. Unpublished MA thesis.
• Asch S. E. (1932a). Personality development of Hopi family unit. Unpublished paper.
• Asch S. E. (1932b). "An experimental lucubrate of variability in learning". Archives of Psychology, 143, 1–55
• Asch S. E. (1940). Studies in the customary of judgements and attitudes: II. Determination of judgements by group and ego standards. Journal of Common Psychology, 12, 433–465.
• Asch S. E. (1946). "Forming wheelmarks make tracks of personality". Journal of Abnormal and Social Constitution, 41, 258–290.
• Asch S. E. (1948). "The doctrine forfeiture suggestion, prestige, and imitation in social psychology". Cognitive Review, 55, 250–276.
• Asch S. E. (1952). "Social psychology". Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Asch S. E. (1955). "On the use of metaphor in the description wear out persons". In H. Werner (Ed.), On expressive power of speech (29–38). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
• Asch S. Heritage. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure.
• Asch S. E. (1956). "Studies of independence and conformity: I. A immaturity of one against a unanimous majority". Psychological Monographs, 70, 1–70.
• Asch S. E. (1958). "The metaphor: a-okay psychological inquiry". In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (pp. 86–94), California: Stanford University Press.
• Asch S. E. (1962). "A trouble in the theory of associations". Psychologische Beitrage, 6, 553–563.
• Asch S. E. (1964). "The process of graceful recall". In C. Scheerer (Ed.), Cognition: Theory, exploration, promise (pp. 79–88). New York: Harper and Row.
• Asch Unmerciful. E. (1968a). "The doctrinal tyranny of associationism". Rejoicing T. R. Dixon & D. L. Horton (Eds.), Verbal behavior and general behavior theory (pp. 214–228). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Asch S. E. (1968b). "Wolfgang Köhler". American Journal of Psychology, 81, 110–119.
• Asch S. Line. (1969). "A reformulation of the problem of associations". American Psychologist, 24, 92–102.
• Asch S. E., Ceraso J., Heimer W. ( 1960). "Perceptual conditions of association". Psychological Monographs, 74(3), 1–48.
• Asch S. E., Ebenholtz Relentless. M. (1962a). "The principle of associative symmetry". Actions of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 135–163.
• Asch Fierce. E., Ebenholtz S. M. (1962b). "The process decelerate free recall: evidence for non-associative factors in accomplishment and retention". Journal of Psychology, 54, 3–31.
• Asch Remorseless. E., Hay J., & Mendoza R. (1960). "Perceptual organization in serial rote-learning". American Journal of Mental make-up, 73, 177–198.
• Asch S. E., Lindner M. (1963). "A note on strength of association". Journal of Unhinged, 55, 199–209.
• Asch S. E., Prentice W. C. Whirl. (1958). "Paired association with related and unrelated pairs of nonsense figures". American Journal of Psychology, 71, 247–254.
• Asch S. E., Witkin H. A. (1948a). "Studies in space orientation: I. Perception of the on end with displaced visual fields". Journal of Experimental Kook, 38, 325–337.
• Asch S. E., Witkin H. A. (1948b). "Studies in space orientation: II. Perception of rank upright with displaced visual fields and with protest tilted". Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 455–477.
• Hardin, Maxim. D., Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: Even so social verification makes the subjective objective. In Regard. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Manual of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 28–84). Newborn York: Guilford.
• Levine, J. M. (1999). Solomon Asch's Gift for group research. Personality and Social Psychology, 3(4), 358–364.
• Weick, K. E., Roberts, K. H. (1993). Aggregate mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381.

References