733069

research-article2017
PSPXXX10.1177/0146167217733069Personality and Social Psychology BulletinChung et al.

Empirical Research Paper

Personality and Social

Friends With Performance Benefits:

Psychology Bulletin
1­–17
© 2017 by the Society for Personality
A Meta-Analysis on the Relationship and Social Psychology, Inc
Reprints and permissions:

Between Friendship and Group sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0146167217733069
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217733069

Performance
pspb.sagepub.com

Seunghoo Chung1, Robert B. Lount, Jr.1, Hee Man Park2,

and Ernest S. Park3

Abstract
The current article examines if, and under which conditions, there exists a positive relationship between working with friends
and group performance. To do so, using data from 1,016 groups obtained from 26 studies, we meta-analyzed comparisons
of the performance of friendship groups versus acquaintance groups. Results show that friendship has a significant positive
effect on group task performance (Cohen’s d = 0.31). Furthermore, this relationship was moderated by group size (i.e., the
positive effect of friendship on performance increased with group size) and task focus (i.e., friendship groups performed
better than acquaintance groups on tasks requiring a high quantity of output, whereas there was no performance benefit on
tasks requiring a single or high-quality output). These results help to reconcile mixed findings and illustrate when friendship
groups are more likely to perform better than acquaintance groups.

Keywords
friendship, group performance, meta-analysis, relationships

Received June 21, 2016; revision accepted August 28, 2017

People prefer the company of friends over that of strangers
or acquaintances. This should not be surprising as friend-
ships, by nature, are volitional relationships between two or
more people characterized by mutual liking and positive
regard. Importantly, this preference for spending time with
friends applies not only to the social realm but also often
extends to choices regarding with whom we choose to work.
In the workplace, the benefits of working with friends are
often touted (Riordan, 2013), with managers having favor-
able attitudes about friendships among employees in the
workplace (Berman, West, & Richter, 2002). In both educa-
tion and employment settings, people report greater satisfac-
tion when they work closely with their friends (Baldwin,
Bedell, & Johnson, 1997; Morrison, 2002; Winstead,
Derlega, Montgomery, & Pilkington, 1995).
Despite the acknowledgment that friendships are impor-
tant, and the recognition that people generally like working
with friends more than strangers or acquaintances, it remains
unclear whether working with a friend(s) will be necessarily
beneficial for group performance. That is, simply because
employees and students may enjoy working with their
friends, these positive feelings may not translate to actual
performance gains. One can imagine that there may be pros
and cons to working with friends when it comes
to performance. On one hand, there may be clear benefits
associated with working with people who we know and like.
On the other hand, a close affinity may detract from the
required work to be successful at the task (e.g., coworkers
who spend their time discussing their weekend activities/
plans together instead of doing their assigned task). A review
of literature shows mixed findings with regard to the ques-
tion of whether groups of friends perform better or worse
than groups of acquaintances. Whereas some studies have
documented a positive effect of friendship on group perfor-
mance (e.g., Harrison, Mohammed, McGrath, Florey, &
Vanderstoep, 2003; Jehn & Shah, 1997; Shah & Jehn, 1993),
other studies have not documented performance benefits of
friendship groups (e.g., Andersson & Rönnberg, 1996;
Nibler & Harris, 2003; Peker & Tekcan, 2009; Swenson &
Strough, 2008).
1
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
2
Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA
3
Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Corresponding Author:
Seunghoo Chung, The Ohio State University, 700 Fisher Hall, 2100 Neil
Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Email: chung.598@osu.edu
2 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
In the current article, we seek to reconcile mixed findings
and to better understand the relationship between friendship
and group performance. Considering the mixed findings in
the literature, and the potentially high degrees of variability
that can arise when studying groups, a meta-analytic review
can offer a more conclusive depiction of the effect of friend-
ships on group performance. Conducting a meta-analysis
helps move beyond a narrative review approach, which
focuses on the number and the direction of significant find-
ings and does not provide insight into the overall size of the
relationship. Moreover, given the logistic challenges associ-
ated with recruiting existing friendship groups to the labora-
tory, and then comparing their performance with ad hoc
acquaintance groups, it is feasible that some studies that
show null findings are simply underpowered. By meta-ana-
lytically integrating studies we are able to base our conclu-
sions upon a large number of groups, offering more reliable
insight into the relationship between friendship and group
performance, and the existence of potential moderators.
After introducing the construct of friendship, we describe
how and why friendship may affect two processes which
underlie effective group task performance: coordination and
motivation. We examined coordination and motivation as
two primary processes, which scholars have regularly linked
to the success/failure of groups (Hackman, 2002; Steiner,
1972). Following this, we systemically integrate existing
empirical findings to meta-analytically (Hedges & Olkin,
1985; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) estimate the overall effect of
friendship on group performance. We also identify task and
group characteristics which we hypothesize will moderate
the effect of friendship on group performance. Namely, we
first test the hypothesized moderating effects of group size,
task independence (i.e., high vs. low interdependence), and
task focus (i.e., maximizing vs. optimizing tasks). We also
conducted exploratory moderator analyses for task type (i.e.,
physical vs. cognitive tasks) and participant population (i.e.,
children vs. adults). Ultimately, by testing our theoretically
derived hypotheses and exploratory analyses through meta-
analytic techniques, we hope to pave the way for a clearer
and deeper understanding of when and why friendships
affect group performance.
Literature Review and Theoretical
Background
Acquaintance and Friendship Groups
Much of the research on group performance has utilized ad
hoc or acquaintance groups. A group is defined as two or
more interdependent individuals who influence one another
through social interaction (Forsyth, 1999). Acquaintance
groups are defined as groups with limited familiarity and con-
tact among members (Jehn & Shah, 1997). Acquaintances
often do not have personally meaningful shared pasts, and do
not possess deep, intimate knowledge of one another. Based
on this conceptualization, participants who have just met and
were introduced shortly before being assigned to work on a
task together are an example of an acquaintance group. With
a brief exchange that provides a minimal foundation of famil-
iarity and ability to at least recognize one another, these indi-
viduals would no longer be complete strangers. Instead, they
would qualify as acquaintances, particularly when they still
have neutral rather than strong positive or negative feelings
about their relationship (Schnall, Harber, Stefanucci, &
Proffitt, 2008). The interpersonal aspects that distinguish
acquaintances and friends are worth noting, because they can
presumably create important differences in how acquaintance
versus friendship groups operate and, ultimately, perform.
In contrast to acquaintances, friendships are marked by
their interpersonal closeness, warmth, and mutual regard
(Hartup & Stevens, 1997). Friendship groups are defined as
groups with close, interpersonal ties and positive, amiable
preexisting relationships (Jehn & Shah, 1997). These are
voluntary relationships that require reciprocity and mutual-
ity in the sense that two individuals must affirm their rela-
tionship to each other, and their affection must be
bidirectional (Ross, Cheyne, & Lollis, 1988). Friendships
often involve individuals of equal status, who, because they
have chosen to care about each other, are particularly moti-
vated to learn about each other, consider each other’s wants
and desires, navigate conflicts effectively, and acknowledge
the potential impact that their behaviors have on each other
(Dunn, 2004). Accordingly, a defining feature of friendship
is the strong proclivity for attempts of empathy, understand-
ing, and validation.
What Makes Friendship Unique?
While much research on social relationships often examines
interpersonal interaction based on economic or social
exchange theories (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), friendship does
not begin with a planned agreement, statement, or announce-
ment. For example, in business, producers rarely give prod-
ucts to customers without any monetary benefits in return.
Therefore, people should not desire to build relationships
when there are high explicit and implicit costs as compared
with the potential benefits that they may earn. However,
many suggest that friendships do not operate on a pure eco-
nomic model of costs and benefits, but instead often utilize
more complex social exchange rules that consider more than
a reciprocation of benefits (Clark & Mills, 1979; Lin &
Rusbult, 1995). As such, friendship is primarily based on the
positive experiences of interacting and working with others.
Friendship is also distinct from other constructs associ-
ated with liking between individuals, such as cohesion,
familiarity, network density, closeness, and intimacy. For
example, on the surface, cohesion may seem to be similar
conceptually to friendship. While both cohesion and friend-
ship share interpersonal intimacy among group members
(Evans & Dion, 1991; Shah & Jehn, 1993), not all cohesive
Chung et al. 3
groups include friendships between team members.
Moreover, while friendship may be considered a type of
“strong tie” (Krackhardt, 1992), not all strong ties are con-
sidered friendships. A tie may be considered strong if it ful-
fills one or two of the elements of friendship, but friendship
only exists when the relationship encompasses all three com-
ponents such as liking behaviors, shared experiences, and
reciprocity. As such, for the current study, we exclusively
focus on examining friendships within groups, excluding
groups that may be conceptualized or measured as cohesive
or contain social network ties, but do not fulfill all of the
required elements of friendship.
Group Processes: Friends Versus Nonfriends
It is well recognized that group processes, or the behaviors or
interactions among group members, often underlie how and
why some groups perform better or worse than other groups
(Hackman, 2002; Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005;
Larson, 2010; Steiner, 1972). Steiner’s (1972) model of group
performance suggests that groups often incur motivational or
coordination process losses (i.e., where actual performance of
the group is less than the anticipated performance given the
individuals within the group). Building on Steiner’s frame-
work, scholars have noted that people working together in
groups may experience motivational or coordination process
gains (i.e., where actual performance of the group is greater
than the anticipated performance given the individuals within
the group; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Kerr & Tindale,
2004; Larson, 2010; Nijstad, 2009). Specifically, motiva-
tional process losses (or gains) may occur when individuals in
a group work less (or work more) than they would if they
were working alone. Likewise, coordination process losses
(or gains) may occur when groups of individuals perform
worse (or better) than the best individual member in the
group, due to the combined effective mixture of their
resources and efforts (i.e., coordination).
Below, we describe the underlying reasons for why one
may anticipate an overall positive effect for motivation and
coordination to occur when friends work together. Namely,
we propose below that, relative to acquaintance groups,
when friends work together, coordination will be improved
through increased collaboration, communication, and con-
flict management; motivation will be increased via increased
commitment, goal-setting, and goal pursuit.
Motivation.  A potential difference between acquaintance and
friendship groups that could have implications for group per-
formance involves the motivation levels of members.
Decades of research have documented that social loafing
(Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979) and free-riding (Kerr,
1983) underlie reductions in motivation and harm group per-
formance. Whereas research has identified structural factors,
such as reducing anonymity or adding an incentive for good
performance, to help reduce loafing, “social” factors have
been documented to also affect motivation on group tasks.
Consistent with the predictions of the Collective Effort
Model (Karau & Williams, 1993), individuals work harder
on group tasks when they identify and care about the welfare
of the group (Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam, 2004). When
individuals identify and care about the welfare of the group,
they are more inclined to work particularly hard for the group
in an effort to help the group accomplish its goal (Karau &
Williams, 1997).
As people interact and close interpersonal ties strengthen,
individuals begin to espouse aspects of each other into their
senses of self (i.e., self-expansion theory; Aron & Aron,
1997). Shared goals become synonymous with own goals,
and personal concern and accountability for the fate of
friends rises as the concepts of self and other increasingly
merge. Presuming the emotional attachments that accom-
pany friendships carry over and apply to their task groups
when friends work together, heightened commitment to the
group is expected in such work settings. This is not trivial
because identification with and commitment to the group
elevate personal accountability and task effort (Newcomb &
Brady, 1982; Tesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988), which often
stimulate efforts toward helping the group perform well
(Klein & Mulvey, 1995). Furthermore, work by Jehn and
Shah (1997) supports this possibility, documenting that the
increased commitment to friendship groups, relative to
acquaintance groups, helped account for the greater perfor-
mance of friendship groups.
In addition to increased commitment, friendships may
facilitate goal-setting and increase persistence during goal
pursuit. Because friends derive a sense of understanding, car-
ing, and acceptance from their relationships, these positive
ties inherently satisfy the need to belong (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). When confronted with challenging tasks that
involve strain and possible ego-threats, the satisfaction of
needs (e.g., relatedness, autonomy, competence) has been
found to be an important predictor of performance because
need satisfaction often fosters intrinsic motivation (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). Intrinsically motivated individuals engage in
work from a source of genuine interest rather than pursuit of
external rewards and are energized workers who are less sus-
ceptible to exhaustion during goal pursuit (Kammeyer-
Mueller, Simon, & Judge, 2016). Past work demonstrates
that social cues that signal acceptance can fuel intrinsic moti-
vation when people work together (Carr & Walton, 2014),
which suggests that intrinsic motivation should be especially
high when tasks are assigned to friendship groups.
The psychosocial resources that friendships offer can be
energizing, as well as confidence boosting. In a psychologi-
cal landscape filled with subjectivity, uncertainty, and per-
ceptual ambiguity, the interpersonal similarity evidenced
within friendships can serve as a vital source of validation
and affirmation. Combined with the acceptance that accom-
panies friendships, these close relationships exist as a natural
well-spring of self-efficacy. In fact, merely reminding
4 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
participants of existing friendships decreases the perceived
intensity of challenges (i.e., increases efficacy; Schnall et al.,
2008). This work incorporated an established paradigm
where participants were escorted to the bottom of a hill,
asked to put on a backpack loaded with weights, and then
provided steepness estimates of the incline in front of them.
Prior research (Proffitt, Stefanucci, Banton, & Epstein, 2003)
has shown that the visual perception of the physical world is
systematically influenced by self-efficacy when confronting
challenging tasks and threats. Specifically, to the degree self-
efficacy is low (e.g., burdened with a heavy backpack while
looking up at a hill), the intensity of challenges (e.g., steep-
ness of a hill they anticipate climbing) becomes perceptually
exaggerated (e.g., hills subjectively appear steeper than they
objectively are).
Adopting these principles, Schnall et al. (2008) recruited
pairs of friends who were walking together by the experi-
mental location (Study 1), or primed participants to think
about and visualize a friend who is important to them (Study
2), and then asked these physically burdened participants to
provide steepness estimates of the hill they were facing.
These judgments were compared with those of participants
who were recruited while walking alone (Study 1) or primed
to image an acquaintance relationship (Study 2). Results
showed that the presence of friends and reminders of friend-
ships led people to see the same hill as less steep in compari-
son with control participants. Importantly, from both studies,
relationship closeness ratings from those in the friendship
conditions were negatively related to hill steepness percep-
tions, indicating a positive link between efficacy and friend-
ship ties. In a conceptual replication of this effect of
friendship on efficacy, others found that the mere presence of
friends (vs. being alone) led to reductions in the perceived
physical formidability of a dangerous target (e.g., Fessler &
Holbrook, 2013).
Supporting the possibility that friendship will be benefi-
cial for motivation, Karau and Williams (1997) documented
across two studies that groups of friends were less likely to
engage in social loafing as compared with acquaintance
groups. Moreover, Kerr and Seok (2011) showed that under
certain circumstances (i.e., when individuals’ contributions
were instrumental for the team to perform well), participants
displayed motivation gains (i.e., working harder in a group
than when working alone) when working with a friend as
compared with an acquaintance.
Coordination. Effective coordination of group members
depends on group members being able to share and integrate
relevant information with one another, along with the aware-
ness of what others know (Thomas, DeScioli, Haque, &
Pinker, 2014). Inefficiencies and coordination losses com-
monly documented show that group members’ lack of infor-
mation exchange often underlies coordination problems (Kerr
& Tindale, 2004; Steiner, 1972). Importantly, when individu-
als communicate more effectively, and are better at
understanding one another’s preferences, groups are less
likely to experience problems with coordination (Deutsch,
1973).
The defining features of friendship help explain why
interpersonal similarity promotes affiliation and why rela-
tionship processes often function to strengthen commonali-
ties (Byrne, 1971; Pilialoha & Brewer, 2006). Friendships
often form between individuals who share interests, atti-
tudes, core values, backgrounds, and traits (Berscheid &
Reis, 1998), making communication between parties easier
and also preferred (vs. discourse with those who are not like-
minded). Friends’ heightened ability and willingness to com-
municate with each other provide an initial basis for the
expectation that performance from friendship groups will be
superior to that of acquaintance groups. This is founded on
the notion that group performance is in part a function of the
ability of members to coordinate their resources and actions
effectively (Steiner, 1972). So, group performance increases
to the extent that members are willing and able to communi-
cate and share task-relevant information, provide critical
evaluations, integrate knowledge and ideas into tangible
plans, and monitor and adjust ongoing actions accordingly
(Larson, 2010). In addition, as compared with acquaintances,
friends may have a greater awareness as to what each mem-
ber already knows (i.e., sharing common knowledge).
Thomas et al. (2014) have highlighted that effective coordi-
nation between teammates can be dependent on knowing
what your partner already knows. As alluded to, these pro-
cesses are expected to occur more frequently in friendship
versus acquaintance groups for a variety of reasons.
Group members who hold similar values or beliefs, and
who understand, accept, and validate one another (e.g.,
friends), should communicate more efficiently, effectively,
and openly. As a result of the cognitive consistency and
social acceptance that have been established, coordination
losses should be relatively mild when friends work together.
Conversely, when members are unaware of or hold different
values (e.g., nonfriends) and struggle to establish common
ground and consensus, the incongruity of perspectives is
likely to undermine coordination and performance. These
outcomes may also suffer when members who endorse con-
flicting views are not willing to take perspectives nor be con-
ciliatory, or when aversion to conflict or criticism generates
reluctance in members to share ideas and useful information.
To be clear, this is not to say that conflict will necessarily be
less frequent in friendship versus acquaintance groups, or
even that conflict is something that should always be avoided.
Rather, given the contrasts between acquaintances and
friends, the types of conflict and extent to which they inter-
fere with group performance are presumed to differ across
group types. For example, when group members hold com-
peting viewpoints that pertain to the task (i.e., task conflict),
disagreement can lead to mounting tensions. When members
feel a lack of voice and respect from their group, this per-
ceived violation of social contracts may negate the desire to
Chung et al. 5
engage in self-restraint (Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw,
2006). In such cases, task conflict can spill over into the rela-
tionship domain and heighten interpersonal friction and
incongruities (i.e., relationship conflict). When relationship
ties are fragile, and interpersonal differences versus similari-
ties are salient, decreases in the ability and willingness to
work collectively are then likely to hinder group perfor-
mance (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Yang & Mossholder, 2004).
In contrast, when arousal from conflict is situated within
a psychologically safe environment, divergent and critical
forms of thinking can be adopted (Nemeth, 1986). So friend-
ship groups with established interpersonal foundations of
trust and acceptance (vs. acquaintance groups) may, in par-
ticular, have the ability to garner the positive aspects of task
conflict (e.g., divergent thinking, consideration of diverse
perspectives) while effectively containing any sources of
spillover that could accentuate relationship conflict (Simons
& Peterson, 2000; Tidd, McIntyre, & Friedman, 2004).
Thus, task conflict may be less likely to negatively affect the
performance of friendship groups because friends (vs.
acquaintances) can more tactfully challenge each other, and
the resultant sharing and consideration of varied perspec-
tives could benefit downstream performance (Peterson &
Behfar, 2003).
Despite the strong rationale underlying why friendship
should aid in both coordination and motivation processes, we
suspect that, at times, friendship groups may be prone to
coordination losses which can detract from optimal perfor-
mance. Namely, although we have proposed that friendship
groups should be better coordinated than acquaintance
groups, the positive aspects of a friendship group (i.e.,
increased trust and positivity toward one another) can poten-
tially harm their potential to effectively coordinate informa-
tion and differing perspectives. When teammates need to
identify and discuss conflicting opinions to identify a correct
solution, group members need to put aside relationship con-
cerns in favor of focusing on the task. As such, in part of their
desire to have a positive relationship, it is conceivable that
friendship groups may be more susceptible to conformity
pressures that prompt unwanted confirmation biases, ulti-
mately creating narrow and overconfident mind-sets. These
qualities could prematurely limit the searching for and shar-
ing of information, and reduce the drive to think critically
and carefully. For instance, Loyd, Wang, Phillips, and Lount
(2013) found that people working with similar teammates
(i.e., shared political affiliation) were more concerned about
getting along with their partner and less willing to engage in
constructive task conflict, as compared with those working
with dissimilar teammates. When performance depends on
the integration of diverse perspectives, increased concerns
over having a harmonious relationship ultimately can reduce
performance of groups of like-minded people (Loyd et al.,
2013). Despite this possibility being a clear threat to friend-
ship groups, Hogg and Hains (1998) found that friendship in
groups was associated with reduced symptoms of groupthink
as compared with acquaintance groups. Examinations of
group discussions showed that friendship was associated
with reduced consensus seeking and deference to the leader,
along with an increase in a discussion of facts and request for
information from other group members.
Although concerns over maintaining a positive relation-
ship may possibly hinder effective communication and infor-
mation exchange, we ultimately see the motivational benefits
along with other communication benefits detailed above to
outweigh the potential negatives when predicting whether or
not friendship will be beneficial for performance. Given that
past work shows a positive relationship between efficacy and
performance (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003), the combined
ability of friendships to increase efficacy, motivation, and
coordination provides a theoretical foundation for the fol-
lowing prediction:
Hypothesis 1: Groups composed of friends will perform
better than groups composed of nonfriends.
Moderating Variables on the Effect of Friendship
on Group Performance
Consistent with contingency-based models of behavior (e.g.,
Galbraith, 1973; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967), we anticipate
there to be contextual factors that will moderate the hypoth-
esized positive relationship between friendship and group
performance. Namely, whereas we have proposed that
friends’ abilities to minimize coordination and motivation
losses help foster the proposed differences in performance
between friendship and acquaintance groups, contextual fea-
tures that involve either the task or group can make the reli-
ance on these processes more or less important in predicting
performance. Specifically, we focus on variables commonly
used to categorize tasks and groups as potential moderators:
task interdependence, group size, and task focus (i.e., maxi-
mizing vs. optimizing).
Task interdependence. Task interdependence describes the
extent to which group members need to interact and depend
on one another for tasks to be performed effectively (Van de
Ven & Ferry, 1980). For example, group tasks that are low in
interdependence allow members to perform separate func-
tions individually and later pool their efforts into an aggregate
response. Tasks which require low levels of interdependence
are common in workplace settings (e.g., Lount & Wilk, 2014)
whereby a team needs to reach a certain goal but the work is
largely conducted by independent actors (e.g., team members
working toward reaching a team-level sales quota). Other
group tasks involve increasing amounts of interdependence
and may require group members to engage in more sequential
(i.e., contribution of one member needs to be shared for other
members to complete their responsibilities) or reciprocal (i.e.,
contributions are shared and further developed jointly in an
ongoing, back-and-forth fashion) interactions (Thompson,
6 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
1967). Highly interdependent tasks often occur when a dis-
cussion and information sharing is required for group mem-
bers to reach a decision (e.g., a selection committee making a
hiring decision).
Of importance, task interdependence determines the
degree to which members need to collaborate and coordinate
to produce desirable task outcomes (Kelly & McGrath, 1985;
Steiner, 1972), with higher interdependence necessitating
more frequent and effective communication and coordina-
tion attempts. Under such settings, the coordination benefits
associated with friendship groups should help provide an
advantage over acquaintance groups. As such, friends (vs.
nonfriends) should be predisposed to work more effectively
with one another, so the impact of friendship on group per-
formance should be pronounced when task interdependence
is high. However, for tasks requiring low levels of interde-
pendence, the benefits of friendship groups should be less
pronounced. When there are minimum requirements for
coordination to help facilitate performance, acquaintance
groups should be just as equipped to effectively communi-
cate and coordinate actions as friendship groups. Thus, we
predict the following:
Hypothesis 2: Task interdependence moderates the posi-
tive relationship between friendship and group perfor-
mance, such that the positive relationship will be stronger
when task interdependence is high compared with low.
Task focus.  A common way to distinguish group tasks is on a
basis of the criteria that are used to evaluate performance.
Steiner (1972) has argued that the task focus is one such
important dimension. Maximizing tasks require a focus on
production, distance, or time (Baron & Kerr, 2003; Laughlin,
2011), and criteria for evaluating performance are often
quantity-based (with higher amounts representing superior
performance). For instance, a group tasked with generating
as many ideas as possible to help solve a problem would be
performing under a maximizing task focus. Optimizing tasks
require a focus on the quality of output (Baron & Kerr, 2003;
Laughlin, 2011), and criteria for evaluating performance are
often based on the generation of a correct or optimal answer
(or degree of closeness to these standards). For instance, a
group tasked with generating a single correct solution to
solve a problem would be performing under an optimizing
task focus.
Performance on maximizing (relative to optimizing) tasks
is likely to improve to the extent that group members are
willing to exert effort and sustain their drive and task focus
over time. As previously mentioned, the willingness to
expend energy on behalf of the group should be positively
related to members’ commitment to the group (Klein &
Mulvey, 1995), and the willingness to sustain high levels of
effort over time should be positively related to intrinsic inter-
est (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and self-efficacy (Vroom, 1964)
levels. Similarly, on maximizing tasks, as compared with
optimizing tasks, group members are able to typically see
how their efforts are translating into greater performance.
This awareness that greater persistence is being associated
with greater performance should be particularly rewarding to
friendship groups where greater value is placed upon the
benefit of a successful outcome (Karau & Williams, 1993).
On optimizing tasks, where people are often tasked with
working toward a single correct solution, there is often less
feedback directly linking efforts to performance along the
way. Thus, we anticipate that the proposed benefits of friend-
ship on group performance will be especially pronounced on
maximizing tasks (i.e., ones that focus on quantity-based
outcome) because group members should be motivated to
promote and pursue the collective welfare (Karau &
Williams, 1997; Kerr & Seok, 2011), and intrinsically moti-
vated to perform for the sake of enjoyment and derived satis-
faction. Thus, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 3: Task focus will moderate the relationship
between friendship and group performance, such that the
positive relationship will be stronger on tasks that are
maximizing versus optimizing.
Group size. As group size increases, so do the challenges
groups face in avoiding threats to performance (Steiner,
1972). Across a variety of tasks, group size has been found to
affect performance (Bray, Kerr, & Atkin, 1978; Hackman &
Vidmar, 1970; Wheelan, 2009). Namely, an inherent chal-
lenge of larger groups is the threats to individual member
motivation and the ability of group members to effectively
communicate and coordinate information. Larger sized
groups display greater motivation losses (e.g., Ingham, Lev-
inger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974; Karau & Williams, 1993;
Latané et al., 1979) and poorer group decision making (e.g.,
Lu, Yuan, & McLeod, 2012; Mullen, 1983) than smaller
sized groups. With that said, the literature on the negative
effect of group size on coordination and motivation has
largely been based on ad hoc acquaintance groups. In line
with our central assumptions that groups of friends are antic-
ipated to communicate and coordinate more effectively and
to be more motivated than nonfriends, increased group size
may not hamper their performance to the same degree as
groups of nonfriends. For instance, with regard to motivation
losses, whereas feelings of anonymity often increase as
group size increases, such negative effects should be less
pronounced in a setting where everyone knows one another.
Moreover, the value associated with performing well, a cen-
tral ingredient to working hard on group tasks, may suffer
much more as group size increases with acquaintances, but
may be less affected (or even increased), as a group of friends
grows larger in size. With regard to coordination and com-
munication problems associated with larger groups, the
added comfort and acceptance provided by friendships
within a group may make people more willing to speak up
and contribute their unique inputs, despite the group size.
Chung et al. 7
Moreover, the lack of familiarity among group members may
only serve to exacerbate threats to group performance (e.g.,
conformity pressure) which occur as group size increases
(Asch, 1951; Bond, 2005). Accordingly, it is possible that the
positive effects of friendships may be even exacerbated in
larger groups where members are all friends with one another.
Taken together, we anticipated that the difference in perfor-
mance between friendship and acquaintance groups will be
more pronounced among larger (vs. smaller) groups. Specifi-
cally, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 4: Group size will moderate the effect of
friendship on group task performance, such that the posi-
tive relationship will be stronger for larger groups as com-
pared with smaller groups.
Exploratory Moderators of Group Performance
In addition to task interdependence, task focus, and group
size, we also sought to explore whether other characteristics
(e.g., cognitive vs. physical tasks) and population (e.g., chil-
dren vs. adults) may moderate the relationship between
friendship and group performance. Group tasks can differ in
the degree to which they require members to utilize more
cognitive versus physical skills. Cognitive tasks (e.g., deci-
sion making, brainstorming tasks) often involve memory
retrieval, problem solving, idea generation, and/or judgment
and decision making. Arguably, positive performance out-
comes on cognitive tasks are associated with members’ abili-
ties to know what and when to communicate, the development
of insights and ideas through the coordinated integration of
information and resources, and deliberate and divergent
forms of thinking. In contrast, tasks that are primarily physi-
cal in nature (e.g., lifting/moving heavy objects, sports and
exercise activities) can also contain coordination demands
but are not typically centered on verbal communication. On
one hand, one may anticipate that friendship groups should
perform better than acquaintance groups on cognitive tasks
given such tasks often involve extensive verbal communica-
tion. On the other hand, on physical tasks one may anticipate
that friendship groups may feel more comfortable operating
within a close interpersonal space with their fellow group
members, and thus, members may be less preoccupied and
concerned about violating norms of physical contact and dis-
tance while executing a task.
Furthermore, the participant population (i.e., children vs.
adults) is another potential moderator that warrants examina-
tion. It is possible that children derive more comfort from
friendship groups compared with adults. Past work shows
that children find the experience of working with friends
more positive than do adults, partly due to the fact that chil-
dren tend to engage in such collaborations more frequently
(Miell & MacDonald, 2000; Newcomb & Brady, 1982).
Moreover, children may have an increased aversion toward
working with strangers or nonfriends as compared with
adults (Greenberg & Marvin, 1982). However, children may
make friends much quicker than adults and may experience a
sense of closeness to another similar aged group member as
compared with two adults meeting one another for the first
time (Ladd, 1990). As such, it is an open question for what,
if any, impact participant population (i.e., children vs. adults)
might have on the relationship between friendship and group
performance.
Method
Literature Search and Sample of Studies
To acquire articles for possible inclusion, we searched for
empirical studies examining the effect of friends (vs. acquain-
tances) on group performance. Specifically, studies across
multiple disciplines were searched using various online data-
bases (ABI/Inform, Business Source Complete, ERIC,
JSTOR, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Web of
Science, Wiley Online Library). We searched for a combina-
tion of various keywords, such as friends*, friendship*, team
task performance, group task performance, team perfor-
mance*, friend/acquaintance, and friend/stranger. We also
searched for articles that relate to structural ties (e.g., cohe-
sion, affective ties, density, intimacy, familiarity) or group
size (e.g., “dyads” and “group/team”).
To be thorough in our ability to identify studies applicable
to analyses, we also examined journals and conference pro-
ceedings across the fields of social psychology and organiza-
tional behavior (e.g., Academy of Management Journal,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Group Dynamics, Group
Processes and Intergroup Relations, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Organization
Science, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Personnel Psychology, Small Group Research, and Social
Psychology and Personality Science). Moreover, given the
interdisciplinary relevance of our research questions, a
search of articles published from outlets pertaining to educa-
tion was also conducted (e.g., Child Development and
Psychology in the Schools).
Inclusion Criteria for Studies
There were several criteria to warrant inclusion in analyses.
First, we focused only on empirical research that employed
participants from established friendships, and also included
nonfriends/acquaintances as a comparison group. We
excluded studies that employed partners in a cohesive group
(Zaccaro & Lowe, 1988; Zaccaro & McCoy, 2006),1 and
romantic couples (Wegner, Erber, & Raymond, 1991), and
studies where friendship was manipulated via a scenario
methodology (Perry-Smith, 2014).
8 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

Table 1.  Summary of All Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis.

Work
Sample characteristicsa featuresb

Author(s) Effect size (d) SE n Population Group size (TI; TF; TT) Task type
Andersson (2001) 0.75 0.30 48 1 2 2; 1; 2 Picture recall
Andersson and Rönnberg (1995), −0.03 0.45 20 2 2 1; 1; 2 Word recall
Experiment 1
Andersson and Rönnberg (1995), 0.24 0.32 40 2 2 1; 1; 2 Detail recall
Experiment 2
Andersson and Rönnberg (1996) 0.02 0.32 40 2 2 1; 1; 2 Semantic and
episodic recall
Andersson and Rönnberg (1997) 0.65 0.30 48 2 2 2; 1; 2 Word recall
Azmitia and Montgomery (1993) 0.31 0.34 36 1 2 1; 2; 2 Problem solving
Bos, Buyuktur, Olson, Olson, and 1.26 0.49 20 2 9 1; 1; 2 Shape-building
Voida (2010) computer task
Brennan and Enns (2015) −0.12 0.33 37 2 2 1; 2; 2 Target recognition
Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams, and −0.20 0.30 46 2 3 1; 2; 2 Hidden profile
Neale (1996)
Harrison, Mohammed, McGrath, 1.04 0.32 43 2 3 1; 1; 2 Problem solving
Florey, and Vanderstoep (2003)
Hope, Ost, Gabbert, Healey, and −0.26 0.41 24 2 2 1; 1; 2 Word recall
Lenton (2008)
Jehn and Shah (1997) 0.66 0.28 53 2 3 2; 1; 1 Model building
Karau and Williams (1997), 0.34 0.52 15 2 2 2; 1; 1 Typing
Experiment 1
Karau and Williams (1997), 0.20 0.33 38 2 2 2; 1; 2 Idea generation
Experiment 2
Kerr and Seok (2011) 0.44 0.31 44 2 2 2; 1; 1 Physical persistence
Krylow (2008) 0.14 0.30 46 2 3 1; 2; 2 Hidden profile
Kutnick and Kington (2005) −0.07 0.33 36 1 2 1; 2; 2 Scientific reasoning
Miell and MacDonald (2000) 0.65 0.46 20 1 2 1; 2; 2 Music composition
Newcomb and Brady (1982) 0.68 0.27 60 1 2 1; 1; 2 Problem solving
Nibler and Harris (2003) 0.14 0.20 100 2 5 1; 2; 2 Problem solving
Peker and Tekcan (2009) −0.40 0.38 29 2 3 2; 1; 2 Word recall
Shah and Jehn (1993) 0.56 0.46 20 2 3 2; 1; 1 Model building
Swenson and Strough (2008) −0.20 0.25 66 1 2 1; 2; 2 Problem solving
Thompson (2016) 0.73 0.38 30 2 2 2; 1; 1 Physical persistence
Van Dick, Stellmacher, Wagner, 0.18 0.32 39 2 3 2; 1; 2 Idea generation
Lemmer, and Tissington (2009)
Voida, Bos, Olson, Olson, and 1.44 0.53 18 2 8 1; 1; 2 Shape-building
Dunning (2012) computer task

Note. Positive effect sizes indicate that subjects who worked with friends perform better than strangers. Effect size d = Cohen’s d effect size (unbiased/
standardized).
a
n = Number of groups in a study; Population: Sample’s age (1 = children, 2 = adults); Group size: Number of subjects in a group.
b
TI = Task Interdependence: High (1) vs. Low (2); TF: Task Focus: Maximizing (1) vs. Optimizing (2); TT = Task Type: Physical (1) vs. Cognitive (2); Task:
Description of Task.

Second, to maintain a clear focus on group performance,
studies were only included if task performance was reported.
Studies that only reported outcomes tangentially related to
task performance were excluded (i.e., satisfaction: Mendelson
& Kay, 2003; Riordan & Griffeth, 1995; job involvement:
Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Birch & Billman, 1986; engagement:
Sharabany & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1981; cooperation: Hanham
& McCormick, 2008; and fairness: Austin, 1980; Pataki,
Shapiro, & Clark, 1994).
These criteria yielded 24 papers, which presented the
findings from 26 unique studies, thereby resulting in our
ability to code 26 statistically independent effect sizes (Table
1). Outlier analysis was conducted with Huffcutt and Arthur’s
(1995) sample-adjusted meta-analytic deviance approach.
No outliers were identified, and thus, all 26 independent
effect sizes were included in our analyses.
Given our focus on group task performance, all analyses
were conducted at the group level. Altogether, the final
Chung et al. 9
sample included 1,016 groups (3,467 individuals), yielding
26 independent effect sizes.
Coding of Study Characteristics
Following steps detailed by Lipsey and Wilson (2001), a
coding scheme was developed for relevant study features and
moderators. For each study, we coded (a) study characteris-
tics (i.e., date of publication, number of subjects in the study,
participant population, that is, children or adults), and (b)
group features and task characteristics (i.e., level of task
interdependence, task focus, task type, group size,2 and
description of the task).
To maintain statistical independence of data, when more
than one performance variable was reported from a study, a
single effect size was selected and coded. In cases where
multiple measures of performance on a single task were
available from a study, we selected the most objective perfor-
mance measure to reduce rater bias (De Jong, Dirks, &
Gillespie, 2016; Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009).
When the multiple performance measures of differing tasks
were reported, when there was no difference in the level of
objectivity for performance outcomes, we randomly selected
a single performance measure (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Two
graduate student coders read the papers and independently
provided ratings of the described characteristics for each of
the studies. In the instances of disagreement between coders,
resolution was attempted via discussion (e.g., Kong, Dirks,
& Ferrin, 2014). If consensus was still not reached, the sec-
ond author joined the discussion until agreement was
achieved. Cohen’s (1968) Kappa was calculated to assess
interrater reliability of coding variables. A Cohen’s Kappa of
90.6% was obtained, indicating a high degree of interrater
agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977).
Computation of Effect Sizes
For each study, the unstandardized mean difference approach
(Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) was used to calculate effect sizes
by comparing the means of outcome measures for experi-
mental (e.g., friendship group performance) and control
(e.g., acquaintance group performance) groups. Because
effect sizes using the unstandardized mean differences
approach can be biased due to small sample sizes, we com-
puted Cohen’s d as an overall effect size from each study and
then converted it to a standardized mean difference (Cohen,
2013). Cohen’s d = 0.20 is considered to be a small effect
size, d = 0.50 to be medium effect size, and d = 0.80 to be
large effect size (Cohen, 2013). The standardized mean dif-
ferences were derived by the pooled standard deviation to
adjust sample size bias (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). This proce-
dure helps to minimize the upward biases of effect sizes
when sample sizes from individual studies are small. Thus,
we used unbiased (i.e., standardized) mean differences effect
sizes and derived weighted mean effect sizes from the inverse
variance weight calculation (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). The
inverse variance weight gives more weight to the overall
analysis to effect sizes that are more reliably estimated
(Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).
Analysis of Effect Sizes
To test an overall relationship between friendships on group
performance among the coded studies, we conducted a ran-
dom-effects analysis. The analyses were conducted in SPSS
with a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) approach
using syntax provided by Lipsey and Wilson (2001). The
random-effects approach attempts to make unconditional
inferences that go beyond the studies that are analyzed and
are an increasingly advocated approach for studies where the
goal is to generalize the results beyond the studies included
in the analysis (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Raudenbush, 2009;
Vevea & Coburn, 2015).
To conduct moderator analysis on categorical variables
(i.e., task interdependence, task focus, task type, and popula-
tion), we used a random-effects categorical model, analo-
gous to an ANOVA. Following Hedges and Olkin (1985), a
homogeneity Q statistic was computed to test the homoge-
neous distribution of the effect sizes. The significant
between-group variance statistic (Qb), which identifies the
possible existence of a moderator(s), indicates that the mean
effect size across groups differs by coded variables. A sig-
nificant Qw statistic indicates within-group homogeneity of
effect sizes in ANOVA and also indicates the appropriateness
of the categorical variable to explain the heterogeneity across
the effect sizes (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). We also calculated
the variance (τ2) and the standard deviation between the stud-
ies in true effects (τ) in a random-effects model to estimate
the heterogeneity variance within each subgroup (Borenstein,
Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). Furthermore, we also
computed and report the I2 statistic (Higgins & Thompson,
2002), which is used to help quantify the degree of heteroge-
neity. The I2 statistic indicates the percentage of variation in
point estimates derived from between-study heterogeneity
rather than sampling error, where .25 = low heterogeneity,
.50 = moderate heterogeneity, and .75 = high heterogeneity.
To conduct moderator analysis on continuous variables
(i.e., group size), using SPSS syntax provided by Lipsey and
Wilson (2001), we used a random-effects meta-regression
approach. The meta-regression approach is analogous to an
ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. However, the meta-
regression approach is adapted for meta-analysis by incorpo-
rating study-specific weighting into the analysis (Lipsey &
Wilson, 2001).
Last, we also conducted several analyses to examine the
potential impact of publication bias (i.e., the file-drawer
problem). To assess publication bias, we utilized a number
of different techniques using Comprehensive Meta-
Analysis software (Version 3.0; Borenstein, Hedges,
Higgins, & Rothstein, 2014). This software evaluated the
10 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)

Table 2.  Effects of Friendship on Group Performance With Between- and Within-Homogeneity Tests Across Hypothesized/
Exploratory Categorical Variables (Random-Effects Model).

Homogeneity tests

Variables k Effect size (d) 95% CI Q(b) Q(w) I2

Overall effect of friendship (H1) 26 0.31 [0.15, 0.48] 40.97* 38.98
Theory-relevant moderators
  Task interdependence (H2) 1.50  
  High 16 0.24 [0.05, 0.43] 21.67 30.78
  Low 10 0.43 [0.18, 0.67] 6.71 0.00
  Task focus (H3) 10.54**  
  Maximizing 18 0.46 [0.30, 0.62] 25.70 33.85
  Optimizing 8 0.04 [−0.16, 0.24] 4.73 0.00
Exploratory variables
  Task type 2.22  
  Physical 5 0.57 [0.19, 0.94] 0.49 0.00
  Cognitive 21 0.26 [0.09, 0.42] 27.14 26.31
 Population 0.01  
  Children 6 0.32 [0.01, 0.64] 5.71 12.43
  Adults 20 0.31 [0.12, 0.49] 21.20 10.38

Note. Positive effect size indicates that friendship groups performed better than acquaintance groups; k indicates the number of independent samples.
CI = confidence interval.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

publication bias by funnel plots (i.e., a scatterplot of each
effect size against its standard error), Egger’s test of
regression (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997), and
Begg’s rank correlation test (Begg & Mazumdar, 1994).
We also conducted Duval and Tweedie’s (2000) “Trim and
Fill” analysis, which is based on the assumption that a
complete set of possible studies will be normally distrib-
uted around a true mean. The method seeks to trim outly-
ing studies, fill in estimated studies, and then recalculate a
newly estimated overall effect size if publication bias is
detected.
Results
Main Effect: Friendship and Group Task
Performance
The overall effect of friendship on group performance was
significant and positive: Cohen’s d = 0.31; k = 26; 95% con-
fidence interval (CI) = [0.15, 0.48], indicating that friendship
groups performed better than acquaintance groups, support-
ing Hypothesis 1. Table 2 presents results for both the overall
main effect and the categorical moderator analyses.
Moreover, as shown in Table 2, there was significant het-
erogeneity among effect sizes (τ2 = 0.13; τ = 0.36; Q(w) =
40.97; p = .02), suggesting that it is likely that there are
moderators of the main effect (Hedges & Olkin, 1985;
Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Further supporting evidence of
heterogeneity, I2 statistic indicated a low-to-moderate
degree of heterogeneity, 38.98% (Higgins, Thompson,
Deeks, & Altman, 2003).
Hypothesized Moderator Analyses
To examine whether the benefit of friendship on group per-
formance would be more pronounced for highly interde-
pendent tasks (Hypothesis 2), we conducted a categorical
moderator analysis. Results did not support Hypothesis 2,
as the level of task interdependence did not significantly
moderate the effect of friendship on group task perfor-
mance (Qb = 1.50, p= .22). In other words, the benefit of
friendship on group performance did not differ between
levels of task interdependence. Friendship groups were
documented to perform better than acquaintance groups on
both high interdependent tasks (d = 0.24; k = 16; 95% CI =
[0.05, 0.43]) and low interdependence tasks (d = 0.43; k =
= 10; 95% CI = [0.18, 0.67]).
We next tested whether the benefit of friendship on group
performance would be more pronounced on maximizing
than optimizing tasks (Hypothesis 3). When comparing the
two different types of task focus, moderator analyses yielded
a significant difference, Qb = 10.54, p = .001, supporting
Hypothesis 3. Namely, task focus was a boundary condition
for the positive effects of friendship on group performance,
with a significant positive relationship occurring for perfor-
mance on maximizing tasks (d = 0.46, k = 18, 95% CI =
[0.30, 0.62]) but not for performance on optimizing tasks (d
= 0.04, k = 8, 95% CI = [−0.16, 0.24]). Put another way, these
results indicate that friends perform better when working on
maximizing tasks as compared with optimizing tasks.
To test our prediction that the benefit of friendship would
be more pronounced as group size increased (Hypothesis 4),
we conducted a continuous moderator analysis (Table 3).
Chung et al. 11
Table 3.  Continuous Model for Effect Sizes (Random-Effects
Model).
Linear regression
Predictor b SE 95% CI
Group size (H4) 0.11 0.05 [0.003, 0.216]
R2 .15
Note. b = unstandardized regression coefficient;
CI = confidence interval.
Supporting Hypothesis 4, the meta-regression analysis
yielded a positive and significant effect of group size on
group performance (b = 0.11, SE = 0.05, k = 26, 95% CI =
[0.003, 0.216], R2 = .15). This positive relationship indicates
that the benefits of friendship on group performance became
larger as group size increased.
Exploratory Moderator Analyses
We next examined what impact, if any, task type would have
on the relationship between friendship and group perfor-
mance. A categorical moderator analysis did not show a dif-
ference in how friends versus nonfriends groups perform
across physical and cognitive tasks (Qb = 2.22, p = .14).
Friends performed significantly better than nonfriends
groups when working on a physical task (d = 0.57; k = 5;
95% CI = [0.19, 0.94]) and on a cognitive task (d = 0.26; k =
21; 95% CI = [0.09, 0.42]).
Last, we also conducted an exploratory moderator analy-
sis for participant population (children vs. adults). The rela-
tionship between friendship and group performance did not
differ between populations (Qb = 0.01, p = .93). Friends per-
formed better than nonfriends in both groups of children (d =
0.32, k = 6, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.64]) and groups of adults (d =
0.31, k = 20, 95% CI = [0.12, 0.49]).3
Publication Bias Analyses
In addition to the overall main effect analysis and moderator
analysis, we used multiple techniques to examine the poten-
tial impact of publication bias. First, we conducted Egger’s
regression analysis (Egger et al., 1997) and Begg’s rank cor-
relation test (Begg & Mazumdar, 1994) to statistically test for
publication bias. Neither Egger’s regression test, p = .10, nor
Begg’s rank correlation approach, p = .19, yielded evidence
that publication bias affected the results. We next conducted
Duval and Tweedie’s (2000) Trim and Fill analysis and found
no adjustment for missing studies. That is, the Trim and Fill
method imputed no “missing studies,” and yielded an
observed point estimate of d = 0.31 (95% CI = [0.15, 0.48]),
which was identical to the value from our random-effects
analysis. Taken together, these results suggest that publication
bias is unlikely to account for our findings.
Discussion
The current findings offer a generalizable view of the link
between friendship and group performance, and provide
additional evidence that reliably depicts conditions that
moderate this effect in substantive ways. Overall, the pro-
posed main effect describing the benefits of friendship on
group performance was supported, and despite the mixed
nature of the prior literature, our results indicate that there
are performance benefits associated with friendship, which
are generalizable across a variety of task characteristics and
populations.
The relative performance superiority of friendship groups
can be interpreted through a variety of explanations, none of
which are mutually exclusive. Integrating theory and past
research, we speculated that the benefits of friendship groups
may stem from their members’ heightened abilities to coordi-
nate resources and actions through shared knowledge and
effective communication, and elevated levels of motivation.
Some of these presumed characteristics of friendship groups
have been documented in individual research studies (e.g.,
Harrison et al., 2003; Jehn & Shah, 1997), and the robust
nature of main effect that we report is consistent with the
notion that friendships allow members to bring to the table
many of the group dynamics and processes that underlie pro-
ductivity and effective performance.
Interestingly, while the relative performance advantage of
friendship groups was found to be stable, the magnitude of
benefits from this type of group composition effect did not
occur uniformly. As hypothesized, we found support for the
expectation that task focus (i.e., maximizing vs. optimizing
tasks) and group size moderated the positive effect of friend-
ship on performance. Our general depiction of friendship
groups as social contexts that intensify commitment, self-
efficacy, and intrinsic motivation also provides bases for
understanding the relative performance superiority of friend-
ship groups when tasks are maximizing versus optimizing.
Maximizing tasks often require effortful persistence under
conditions of strain, where workers have to continuously
combat unwanted conditions like fatigue and potential bore-
dom from behavioral redundancy. Because performance on
maximizing tasks are largely a function of members’ abilities
to self-regulate, our research suggests that friendship groups
offer psychosocial resources that can ameliorate these aver-
sive forces, namely, those that we used to describe friendship
groups. Moreover, it is worth noting that friendship groups
were not found to outperform acquaintance groups on opti-
mizing tasks. This highlights an important boundary condi-
tion for the purported benefits of friendship for group
performance, and one that has important practical implica-
tions for managers and practitioners alike. As such, on opti-
mizing tasks, where success is based on a group’s ability to
effectively coordinate, share information, and figure out a
correct solution, friendship groups do not appear to have an
advantage over ad hoc groups. In addition, on optimizing
12 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
tasks, it may also be the case that motivation is a much less
critical component for success as compared with its impact
on maximizing tasks. Although our meta-analysis does not
provide evidence on why friendship groups do not outper-
form nonfriends groups on optimizing tasks, we suspect that
optimizing tasks may increase relational concerns which can
accompany certain types of relationships between team
members (Loyd et al., 2013) and ultimately limit the benefits
of working with friends.
With regard to the greater benefit of friendship on perfor-
mance as group size increased, we propose that these benefits
stem from friendship groups’ ability, relative to acquaintance
groups, to limit the threats to motivation and coordination
which increase with group size. Studies have regularly docu-
mented that motivation and coordination problems decrease
the effectiveness of larger groups, often leading practitioners
and group scholars to conclude that group size needs to be
limited. Our findings suggest that friendships between group
members may be an important caveat to consider as group size
increases. Namely, larger groups of friends may not succumb
to the same motivation and coordination threats which limit
the performance of larger ad hoc groups. It is important to rec-
ognize that our findings only focused on the performance of
these groups, and we cannot show which process(es) underlies
these differences.
Taken together, the results from our meta-analysis con-
firm the relative performance superiority of friendship
groups and provide informative details about the conditions
under which this effect is especially likely to occur. The cur-
rent findings add to the large literature on the array of bene-
fits that surround close relationships, but help to extend this
area by emphasizing the benefit of friendships on task per-
formance, rather than the ways in which friendships promote
the psychological or physical well-being of a given individ-
ual. In this way, the current findings have implications rele-
vant to work settings. For example, our results suggest that it
may be advisable to facilitate friendship development during
team building or corporate training, to encourage employees
socialize with teams, and to perhaps explicitly recognize the
value of socioemotional leaders.
Last, this work helps inform possible reasons for mixed
findings in the literature. In addition to identifying that opti-
mizing tasks are a boundary condition, we identified other
moderators which affected the positive relationship on per-
formance. Considering that our significant effects ranged
from “small” to “medium” in size, it may be the case that
some of the null effects in the prior literature are attributable
to underpowered studies. Given the logistic challenges asso-
ciated with bringing groups of friends to the lab and then
comparing them with the performance of acquaintance ad
hoc groups, the average sample size of groups that were
included in the typical study in this meta-analysis was not
large (M = 39.08). We suspect that the number of groups
being studied in the typical study may have made it difficult
to detect significant effects given the variability and overall
small to medium effect sizes observed. As such, future work
examining the impact of friendship on group performance
may require larger samples than those typically examined in
prior studies to be best equipped to detect significant effects.
Limitations and Future Directions
We believe the results of this meta-analysis are important for
a number of reasons. In recent years, concern about the valid-
ity and reliability of individual research publications has
been intensifying, along with a growing appreciation for the
value of replication research. The numerous advantages that
meta-analyses offer over single publications and replication
studies for documenting the robustness of effects are particu-
larly salient in the present climate, and calls for increased use
of such analyses have been raised (Fabrigar & Wegener,
2016; Stroebe, 2016). We believe that this work provides an
exemplary and timely response to such calls in part given
that prior research on friendship and group performance has
commonly relied upon small sample sizes and, as a literature,
has yielded mixed findings.
As with any work though, the current study is not without
limitations. For our meta-analysis, some of these are particu-
larly reflective of the construct we chose to study. For
instance, one possible limitation concerns the relatively low
number of aggregated independent studies (i.e., independent
effect sizes). The current analysis included effect sizes from
26 independent studies, which may seem low in comparison
with other published meta-analyses. However, we suspect
that the logistical challenges that are involved in recruiting
groups of intact friends, and the need to form appropriate ad
hoc groups for purposes of comparison, fostered the modest
number of existing studies.
Although the study of friendships and group performance
is important to advance, research that involves either, and
nonetheless research that incorporates both, is challenging to
conduct because of the need to access and obtain sets of par-
ticipants who meet the necessary criteria. For these reasons,
the sample sizes of studies that involve group-level outcomes
can be relatively small, as a multitude of applicable partici-
pants are required to produce a single datum point. To address
these obstacles, some researchers may simply accept the use
of small sample sizes, choose to rely on scenario-based
methods, or create imagined friendships and groups through
the use of priming. As mentioned in the “Method” section,
we chose not to include the latter two cases in our meta-anal-
ysis. Thus, within the empirical research that utilized intact
friendship groups and interacting group members who per-
formed a collective task, the average sample sizes per study
were small. This can raise concerns that the overall effect
size of a meta-analysis may be upwardly biased (Hedges,
1981; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001), but given the methodological
obstacles that researchers of friendship groups face, we
strongly believe in the merits of a meta-analysis to character-
ize more reliable and replicable depictions of group
Chung et al. 13
phenomena over a single study, and believe this is consistent
with the current call for such publications.
Given the potential for friendship ties to produce a range of
interesting and applicable effects, the directions for future
research are many. For instance, with the presumed ability of
friendship ties to induce numerous types of commitment and
motivation, outcomes such as satisfaction (Winstead et al.,
1995), intentions to leave the group (Riordan & Griffeth, 1995),
and prosocial behaviors could be measured and compared
across group types. Although we expect that communication
processes are enhanced within friendship groups, friends
clearly enjoy socializing. Therefore, it is conceivable that
friendship groups display performance superiority when they
are granted ample time for task completion, yet perform rather
poorly when faced with challenging time constraints that
require a strict task focus. The social exchange rules that gov-
ern friendships can also differ, and it is conceivable that these
and other norms exert interesting and informative effects on
how friends think, feel, and behave when they work together.
Last, we believe this work has implications for managers
and practitioners interested in how to compose workgroups. A
common concern among those who are responsible for form-
ing groups (e.g., teachers and managers) may be that having
people work with their friends will lead to lower performance
as group members may be more interested in enjoying their
time together rather than focusing on performing the task at
hand. Although we suspect there are likely individuals who
may be inclined to encourage one another to take it easy when
working with friends, our results show there are clear perfor-
mance benefits associated with working with friends. In addi-
tion, for teams composed of acquaintances as compared with
teams composed of friends, there may need to be more atten-
tion given to rules that help teams overcome the potential
limitations associated with motivation and coordination
threats. We have suggested that these threats are more pro-
nounced in acquaintance groups than friendship groups. As
such, acquaintance groups may benefit greater from actions
aimed at reducing threats to motivation (e.g., making indi-
vidual performance contributions visible) and those that can
improve coordination/communication (e.g., assigning a dev-
il’s advocate). Moreover, consistent with the oft-stated phrase,
“The more the merrier,” composing larger groups of friends
seems to only enhance this benefit. With that said, a remain-
ing question is how many group members or what proportion
of the group needs to be friends with one another for such
benefits to occur? Future work will be needed to answer these
questions, and we see unpacking the dynamics of larger
friendship groups, and their possible compositions, as being
an important and worthwhile area for future work which will
have basic and applied contributions.
Conclusion
Given the ubiquitous employment of groups and teams
across domains in life, it is important to acknowledge the
relative performance advantages of friendship groups so that
groups can be composed more effectively through consider-
ation of such relevant variables. The current findings con-
tribute to the group composition literature by featuring
effects from variables that are interpersonal (e.g., friendship
ties) rather than intrapersonal (e.g., individual differences,
expertise level) in nature. To advance the literature on group
performance, it is critical to integrate interpersonal concepts
because close ties often develop from group work, and these
meaningful relationships are likely to produce a cascading
range of effects on how group members think, feel, and
behave. In the current article, we hoped to stimulate increased
interest in variables with an interpersonal nature by summa-
rizing ways in which the close and unifying bonds that exist
between persons can positively affect the performance of a
collective.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Fabrizio Butera, Sarah Doyle, Howard Klein,
Ray Noe, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback
on earlier versions of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. Whereas we included studies which recruited friends and
referred to them as “cohesive groups,” we excluded studies
which manipulated cohesion, as a group can be cohesive without
being composed of friends.
2. Although there have been debates about the minimum number
of people for a unit to be called a “group” (see Moreland, 2010;
Williams, 2010), two people (i.e., a dyad) is often considered
the smallest sized group (Forsyth, 1999). There are important
effects that emerge in both larger groups and dyads, and some
of the fundamental work on motivation and communication in
groups has been documented to reliably occur in both dyads and
larger groups (Williams, 2010).
3. We additionally conducted an exploratory moderator analy-
sis for publication year. There was no significant association
between year of publication and the performance of friendship
groups (b = −0.007, SE = 0.010, 95% confidence interval [CI] =
[−0.03, 0.01]).
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
*Andersson, J. (2001). Net effect of memory collaboration: How is
collaboration affected by factors such as friendship, gender and
age? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 367-375.
14 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
*Andersson, J., & Rönnberg, J. (1995). Recall suffers from collabo-
ration: Joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 199-211.
*Andersson, J., & Rönnberg, J. (1996). Collaboration and memory:
Effects of dyadic retrieval on different memory tasks. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 10, 171-181.
*Andersson, J., & Rönnberg, J. (1997). Cued memory collabora-
tion: Effects of friendship and type of retrieval cue. European
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 273-287.
Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity
and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 345-368.
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification
and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, lead-
ership, and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
Austin, W. (1980). Friendship and fairness effects of type of rela-
tionship and task performance on choice of distribution rules.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 402-408.
*Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive
dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social
Development, 2, 202-221.
Baldwin, T. T., Bedell, M. D., & Johnson, J. L. (1997). The social
fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects on
student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 1369-1397.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal
effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99.
Baron, R. S., & Kerr, N. L. (2003). Group process, group decision,
group action. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics
of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50,
1088-1101.
Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, M. N., Jr. (2002). Workplace
relations: Friendship patterns and consequences (according to
managers). Public Administration Review, 62, 217-230.
Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’
adjustment to school. Child Development, 66, 1312-1329.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Interpersonal attraction and
close relationships. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, G. Lindzey, & E.
Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., 193-
281). New York, NY: Random House.
Birch, L. L., & Billman, J. (1986). Preschool children’s food shar-
ing with friends and acquaintances. Child Development, 57,
387-395.
Bond, R. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 8, 331-354.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R.
(2009). Publication bias. In Introduction to meta-analysis (pp.
277-292). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R.
(2014). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 3). Englewood,
NJ: Biostat.
*Bos, N. D., Buyuktur, A., Olson, J. S., Olson, G. M., & Voida,
A. (2010, November). Shared identity helps partially distrib-
uted teams, but distance still matters. In Proceedings of the
16th ACM International Conference on Supporting Group
Work (pp. 89-96). New York, NY: Association for Computing
Machinery.
Bray, R. M., Kerr, N. L., & Atkin, R. S. (1978). Effects of group size,
problem difficulty, and sex on group performance and member
reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,
1224-1240.
*Brennan, A. A., & Enns, J. T. (2015). What’s in a friendship?
Partner visibility supports cognitive collaboration between
friends. PLoS ONE, 10, e0143469.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm (Vol. 11). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Carr, P. B., & Walton, G. M. (2014). Cues of working together
fuel intrinsic motivation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 53, 169-184.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange
and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 12-24.
Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement pro-
vision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological
Bulletin, 70, 213-220.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006).
Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive
moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 100, 110-127.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and
team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, mod-
erators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101,
1134-1150.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and
destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dunn, J. (2004). Children’s friendships: The beginning of intimacy.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and Fill: A simple funnel-
plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias
in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455-463.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias
in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British
Medical Journal, 315, 629-634.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating
individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on
leadership and group performance. Academy of Management
Review, 29, 459-478.
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and perfor-
mance a meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186.
Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2016). Conceptualizing and
evaluating the replication of research results. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 68-80.
Fessler, D. M. T., & Holbrook, C. (2013). Friends shrink foes: The
presence of comrades decreases the envisioned physical formi-
dability of an opponent. Psychological Science, 24, 797-802.
Forsyth, D. R. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Chung et al. 15
Greenberg, M. T., & Marvin, R. S. (1982). Reactions of preschool
children to an adult stranger: A behavioral systems approach.
Child Development, 53, 481-490.
*Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A.
(1996). Group composition and decision making: How mem-
ber familiarity and information distribution affect process and
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 67(1), 1-15.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great
performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Vidmar, N. (1970). Effects of size and task type
on group performance and member reactions. Sociometry,
33(1), 37-54.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management:
Empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 40, 309-342.
Hanham, J., & McCormick, J. M. (2008). Relationships between
self-processes and group processes with friends and acquain-
tances. Issues in Educational Research, 18, 118-137.
*Harrison, D. A., Mohammed, S., McGrath, J. E., Florey, A. T.,
& Vanderstoep, S. W. (2003). Time matters in team perfor-
mance: Effects of member familiarity, entrainment, and task
discontinuity on speed and quality. Personnel Psychology, 56,
633-669.
Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in
the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355-370.
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of
effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational and
Behavioral Statistics, 6, 107-128.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical method for meta-anal-
ysis. Princeton, NJ: Academic Press.
Higgins, J. P., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogene-
ity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539-1558.
Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G.
(2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British
Medical Journal, 327, 557-560.
Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1998). Friendship and group identi-
fication: A new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 323-341.
*Hope, L., Ost, J., Gabbert, F., Healey, S., & Lenton, E. (2008).
“With a little help from my friends . . .”: The role of co-wit-
ness relationship in susceptibility to misinformation. Acta
Psychologica, 127, 476-484.
Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1995). Development of a new outlier
statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology,
80, 327-334.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005).
Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to
IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543.
Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974).
The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group per-
formance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10,
371-384.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of con-
flict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group per-
formance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238-251.
*Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and
task performance: An examination of mediation processes in
friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72, 775-790.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Simon, L. S., & Judge, T. A. (2016). A
head start or a step behind? Understanding how dispositional
and motivational resources influence emotional exhaustion.
Journal of Management, 42, 561-581.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-ana-
lytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706.
*Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The effects of group cohe-
siveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 156-168.
Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Effects of time limits and
task types on task performance and interaction of four-person
groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 395-
407.
Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social
dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 819-828.
*Kerr, N. L., & Seok, D. H. (2011). “. . . with a little help from my
friends”: Friendship, effort norms, and group motivation gain.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 205-218.
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and deci-
sion making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623-655.
Klein, H. J., & Mulvey, P. W. (1995). Two investigations of the
relationships among group goals, goal commitment, cohe-
sion, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 61, 44-53.
Kong, D. T., Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2014). Interpersonal
trust within negotiations: Meta-analytic evidence, critical
contingencies, and directions for future research. Academy of
Management Journal, 57, 1235-1255.
Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance
of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.),
Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp.
216-239). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
*Krylow, M. R. (2008). One step beyond being “familiar”: Comparing
the engagement of friends and strangers in a hidden profile study
(Master’s thesis). The University of Delaware, Newark.
*Kutnick, P., & Kington, A. (2005). Children’s friendships and
learning in school: Cognitive enhancement through social
interaction? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75,
521-538.
Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making
friends, and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors
of children’s early school adjustment? Child Development, 61,
1081-1100.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer
agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
Larson, J. R., Jr. (2010). In search of synergy in small group perfor-
mance. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make
light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Group problem solving. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environ-
ment. Boston, MA: Division of Research, Harvard Business
School.
Lin, Y. H. W., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). Commitment to dating
relationships and cross-sex friendships in America and China.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 7-26.
16 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0)
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lount, R. B., Jr., & Wilk, S. L. (2014). Working harder or hardly
working? Posting performance eliminates social loafing and
promotes social laboring in workgroups. Management Science,
60, 1098-1106.
Loyd, D. L., Wang, C. S., Phillips, K. W., & Lount, R. B., Jr.
(2013). Social category diversity promotes premeeting elabo-
ration: The role of relationship focus. Organization Science,
24, 757-772.
Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years
of hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta-analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 54-75.
Mendelson, M. J., & Kay, A. C. (2003). Positive feelings in friend-
ship: Does imbalance in the relationship matter? Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 101-116.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information
sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 535-546.
*Miell, D., & MacDonald, R. (2000). Children’s creative collabora-
tions: The importance of friendship when working together on
a musical composition. Social Development, 9, 348-369.
Moreland, R. L. (2010). Are dyads really groups? Small Group
Research, 41, 251-267.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role
of social network ties during socialization. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 1149-1160.
Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group
on the individual: A self-attention perspective. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 295-322.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and
minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
*Newcomb, A. F., & Brady, J. E. (1982). Mutuality in boys’ friend-
ship relations. Child Development, 53, 392-395.
*Nibler, R., & Harris, K. L. (2003). The effects of culture and cohe-
siveness on intragroup conflict and effectiveness. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 143, 613-631.
Nijstad, B. A. (2009). Group performance. New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Pataki, S. P., Shapiro, C., & Clark, M. S. (1994). Children’s acqui-
sition of appropriate norms for friendships and acquaintances.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 427-442.
*Peker, M., & Tekcan, A. İ. (2009). The role of familiarity among
group members in collaborative inhibition and social conta-
gion. Social Psychology, 40, 111-118.
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2014). Social network ties beyond nonredun-
dancy: An experimental investigation of the effect of knowl-
edge content and tie strength on creativity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99, 831-846.
Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship
between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups:
A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 92, 102-112.
Pilialoha, B. R., & Brewer, M. B. (2006). Motivated entitativity:
Applying balance theory to group perception. Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 9, 235-247.
Proffitt, D. R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003).
The role of effort in perceived distance. Psychological Science,
14, 106-112.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects
models. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.),
The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp.
295-315). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Riordan, C. M. (2013). We all need friends at work. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/07/we-
all-need-friends-at-work
Riordan, C. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). The opportunity for
friendship in the workplace: An underexplored construct.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 141-154.
Ross, H. S., Cheyne, J. A., & Lollis, S. P. (1988). Defining and
studying reciprocity in young children. In S. Duck, D. F.
Hale, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.),
Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and
interventions (pp. 143-160). Oxford, UK: John Wiley.
Schnall, S., Harber, K. D., Stefanucci, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R.
(2008). Social support and the perception of geographical slant.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1246-1255.
*Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than
acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task.
Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 149-165.
Sharabany, R., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1981). Do friends share and
communicate more than non-friends? International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 41, 45-59.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and rela-
tionship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of
intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Stroebe, W. (2016). Are most published social psychological find-
ings false? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66,
134-144.
*Swenson, L. M., & Strough, J. (2008). Adolescents’ collabora-
tion in the classroom: Do peer relationships or gender matter?
Psychology in the Schools, 45, 715-728.
Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective con-
sequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The
pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 49-61.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of
groups. Oxford, UK: John Wiley.
Thomas, K. A., DeScioli, P., Haque, O. S., & Pinker, S. (2014). The
psychology of coordination and common knowledge. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 657-676.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science
bases of administration. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
*Thompson, N. S. (2016). “The Friend Zone”—Friendship moder-
ates the impact of a web-based group dynamics application on
group cohesion: A randomized trail (Master’s thesis). Kansas
State University, Manhattan.
Tidd, S. T., McIntyre, H. H., & Friedman, R. A. (2004). The
importance of role ambiguity and trust in conflict perception:
Unpacking the task conflict to relationship conflict linkage.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 364-380.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing
organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
*Van Dick, R., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Lemmer, G., &
Tissington, P. A. (2009). Group membership salience and task
performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 609-626.
Chung et al. 17
Vevea, J. L., & Coburn, K. M. (2015). Maximum-likelihood meth-
ods for meta-analysis: A tutorial using R. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 18, 329-347.
*Voida, A., Bos, N., Olson, J., Olson, G., & Dunning, L. (2012,
May). Cross-cutting faultlines of location and shared identity
in the intergroup cooperation of partially distributed groups.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (pp. 3101-3110). Association for
Computing Machinery.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: John
Wiley.
Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive
memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61, 923-929.
Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group
productivity. Small Group Research, 40, 247-262.
Williams, K. D. (2010). Dyads can be groups (and often are). Small
Group Research, 41, 268-274.
Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., Montgomery, M. J., & Pilkington,
C. (1995). The quality of friendships at work and job satis-
faction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,
199-215.
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and rela-
tionship conflict: The role of intragroup emotional processing.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 589-605.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Lowe, C. A. (1988). Cohesiveness and perfor-
mance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 547-558.
Zaccaro, S. J., & McCoy, M. C. (2006). The effects of task and
interpersonal cohesiveness on performance of a disjunc-
tive group task. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18,
837-851.