Submit to Social Sciences Review for Social Sciences Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser

Group Processes Using Quantitative Research Methods

Print Special Issue Flyer
Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue
Published Papers

A special issue of Social Sciences (ISSN 2076-0760).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (21 December 2025) | Viewed by 3285

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Alison J. Bianchi

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Department of Sociology and Criminology, University of Iowa, 416B North Hall, Iowa City, IA, USA
Interests: gender and family; social psychology

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

We are pleased to invite submissions for a Special Issue, entitled “Group Processes Using Quantitative Research Methods”, edited by Dr. Alison Bianchi, Associate Professor and Director for The Center for the Study of Group Processes, Department of Sociology and Criminology, The University of Iowa.

Topics of Interest

Group processes are ways in which individuals interact, influence, and relate to one another within what has traditionally been called a “small group”. These processes shape social structures, group dynamics, and individual behaviors. Theories of group processes are central to understanding how social roles, group identity, cohesion, emotions, and status, power, and justice structures emerge and operate within dyads, triads, and other small groups. Social scientists study group processes to uncover how macro-level social structures contribute to micro-level organizations, and vice versa, in order to reveal how cooperation and conflict shape group encounters and to comprehend how groups contribute to social order.

We welcome original research and theoretical papers including, but not limited to, the following:

Expectations, status, and behavior theories;
Power, dependence, and social exchange theories;
Identity theories and group dynamics;
Affect control theories of social interaction and the self;
Justice theories;
Legitimation theories;
Theories of emotions and group interactions;
Research on teams, work groups, and other group configurations—that is, theory-driven by other social psychological frameworks not mentioned above.

While manuscripts for Social Sciences typically require a publication fee, if you need a discount, please do contact the Editorial office. This call for papers also includes research that is theory-driven and quantitative in methodology.

We look forward to receiving your contributions and in engaging in meaningful discussions on group processes.

Dr. Alison J. Bianchi
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Social Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

group processes
quantitative research methods
theories of group interactions

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (7 papers)

Download All Papers

Order results

Result details

Show export options Show export options

Select all

Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

23 pages, 544 KB

Open AccessArticle

Status Hoarding: How Higher Status Actors Steal Credit for Others’ Work

by Joseph Dippong, Zara Jillani and Isaac Jamerson

Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(5), 333; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15050333 - 19 May 2026

Abstract

We examine factors that allow higher status people to steal credit from lower status people. Drawing on opportunity hoarding research and status characteristics and expectation states theory, we develop the concept of status hoarding: the use of one’s status position to accumulate more status through illegitimate means. Compared to similar concepts such as the Matthew Effect, which do not offer a mechanism by which benefits disproportionately accumulate, status hoarding explains how group structures give rise to perceptions of competence and reward deservingness among group members, which facilitate higher status actors’ ability to steal credit and thus increase their status. We use two survey experiments to test our arguments on the role of expectations and referential structures in both assigning credit to higher status actors and inhibiting lower status actors from reporting theft of their ideas. In study one, we find that participants were more likely to assign credit for a valued task contribution to a higher status actor, and these effects were mediated by expectations for reward and competence. In study two, we find that people perceive higher status actors as more likely to report credit stealing to their supervisors, but these effects were not mediated by expectations in the way that we predicted. We conclude with a general discussion of the broader implications of status hoarding and directions for future research. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Group Processes Using Quantitative Research Methods)

19 pages, 514 KB

Open AccessArticle

Identity Investment as a Pathway for Modifying Self-Sentiments and Well-Being

by Kimberly B. Rogers, Nina Bouche, Jaein Chung, Ellison Huang and Alexa Kalish

Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(5), 310; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15050310 - 11 May 2026

Viewed by 266

Abstract

Mental health issues among U.S. college students are reaching critical levels. Sociological theories explain how self and identity processes shape mental health, but few studies assess theoretically grounded interventions designed to improve it. Drawing on the affect control theory of self (ACT-Self), we examine whether students’ sustained investment in a positive, powerful, active identity across an academic term is associated with positive changes in their self-sentiments and mental health. Twenty-nine students invested in such an identity as part of a term-length project in a sociology course. We gathered three waves of survey data to track students’ self-sentiments and mental health immediately before (Wave 1) and after (Wave 2) the project and one month later (Wave 3). Students’ self-sentiments drew significantly closer to their goal at Wave 2 and remained closer at Wave 3. Depression, anxiety, and stress decreased across waves but were not significantly lower than baseline until Wave 3. Thriving and flourishing were significantly higher at Wave 2 but did not significantly differ from baseline at Wave 3. Students with self-sentiments closer to their goal reported lower depression and anxiety at Wave 2 and lower depression at Wave 3. Our findings provide preliminary evidence that identity-based interventions may be associated with improvements in some dimensions of college student mental health, depression in particular. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Group Processes Using Quantitative Research Methods)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 414 KB

Open AccessArticle

Winning or Losing? Intergroup Competition and Racially Diverse Groups

by Chantrey Joelle Murphy and Jane Sell

Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(4), 269; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15040269 - 20 Apr 2026

Viewed by 302

Abstract

Status characteristics and expectation states theory (SC-EST) describes how general beliefs about capability contribute to disproportionate rates of power, prestige, and resource outcomes between group members. Similarly, endorsements for competition stem from a general belief that it is useful for identifying which people are more capable and therefore more deserving of limited or highly valued resources. This paper investigates the relationship between both contexts simultaneously by considering whether introducing intergroup competition into an otherwise collectively oriented task situation essentially promotes inequality between diverse group members. Using a two-condition experiment, we demonstrate how interaction dynamics change in racially diverse task groups when their task involves intergroup competition compared to no competition. The findings support our predictions that intergroup competition promotes inequality by reproducing and exacerbating macro-level inequalities in micro-level interpersonal interactions. Specifically, white group members were significantly less likely to defer (i.e., accept others’ suggestions) when the group task involved intergroup competition. Overall, these results offer insight into the diverging effects of unequal group processes in group settings and the detrimental effects of competition. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Group Processes Using Quantitative Research Methods)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

28 pages, 1640 KB

Open AccessArticle

Constructing Stability: The Emergence and Persistence of a Newly Formed Status Characteristic

by Alison J. Bianchi and Lisa S. Walker

Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(3), 184; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15030184 - 13 Mar 2026

Viewed by 376

Abstract

This study examines whether a newly constructed status characteristic stabilizes across interaction contexts and over time, a question central to the diffusion of status value theory. Using a laboratory experiment, undergraduate women from a large public university (valid N = 100) were randomly assigned to high- or low-status positions on a novel status characteristic and then interacted within dyads consisting of participants and confederate partners across two distinct problem-solving tasks. A Latin square design was employed to counterbalance task order and assess whether initial task context moderated subsequent status processes. Influence behaviors were measured across repeated interactions. Results show that the constructed status characteristic reliably shaped influence in early interactions and remained stable across tasks. However, a significant interaction between status and task order indicates that the magnitude of status effects depended on which task participants encountered first. These findings demonstrate that newly created status characteristics can stabilize rapidly within interactional settings while remaining sensitive to task context. By identifying how task order may affect the persistence of novel status distinctions, the study advances research on status construction and clarifies the micro-level processes through which new status beliefs become durable features of social interaction. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Group Processes Using Quantitative Research Methods)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

21 pages, 775 KB

Open AccessArticle

When Does Information Affect Power? Evidence from Strong and Semi-Strong Exchange Networks

by Pamela Emanuelson

Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(2), 142; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15020142 - 21 Feb 2026

Viewed by 467

Abstract

Does the completeness of actors’ knowledge affect the exercise of power in social structures? Exchange theories and the experiments used to test them vary in the level of information availability—ranging from fully transparent to sharply restricted. These paradigms implicitly assume that actors’ knowledge corresponds directly to the information provided. While previous experiments have compared exchange payoffs under complete and restricted information, no theory explains why differences in power outcomes should or should not emerge across exchange structures under differing informational conditions. This paper investigates how knowledge shapes the exercise of power in exchange networks, where power is operationalized as payoff differences between actors. Knowledge is defined as what an actor can infer from experimental information and within-structure interactions, rather than as information alone. The study first examines whether restricting information effectively limits actors’ knowledge and finds that it does. It then uses new and previously published experimental data to analyze how information conditions (complete versus restricted) and structure type (strong versus semi-strong) jointly affect actors’ ability to secure advantageous payoffs in exchange relations. The results resolve previously contradictory findings on the relationship between information availability and power exercise in exchange networks by demonstrating that the effects of knowledge depend on both network structure and the form of rationality actors can plausibly employ under given informational constraints. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Group Processes Using Quantitative Research Methods)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 589 KB

Open AccessArticle

Leadership Status, Sexual Harassment Training, and Women’s Expectations About Working with Men

by Justine E. Tinkler and Jody Clay-Warner

Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(2), 123; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15020123 - 14 Feb 2026

Viewed by 623

Abstract

Background: Occupational gender segregation is a key driver of labor market inequality and is prominent across occupations, within occupations, and within workplace task groups. This paper explores how structural arrangements and cultural messages shape women’s preferences for working with men vs. women. With respect to structural arrangements, we analyze how women’s relative power on a team influences their partner preference. With respect to cultural messages, we examine how one common source of information that has the potential to either challenge or reify notions of gender difference—sexual harassment policy training—affects partner preference. Methods: We conducted a laboratory experiment in which we placed 100 college-aged women in positions they may commonly find themselves in at the start of a new job—identifying coworkers to partner with on group tasks—and varied (1) their relative power on the team (leader or helper) and (2) exposure to workplace training (sexual harassment or ergonomic computer setup). We then assessed their attitudinal and behavioral preference for working with a female vs. a male partner on a decision-making task. Results: Women, particularly women assigned to a leadership position, more often chose to work with a female partner. Sexual harassment training did not affect women leaders’ attitudes about working with a male partner but those in a helper role expressed more positive attitudes about working with a man after sexual harassment training. These findings document how macro-level processes can shape workplace gender segregation, thus identifying mechanisms underlying the reproduction of gender inequality. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Group Processes Using Quantitative Research Methods)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 687 KB

Open AccessArticle

Comparing Sources of Instrumental and Relational Support: Motivating Workers for the Job and Beyond

by Ryan Gibson, Karen A. Hegtvedt, Cathryn Johnson and Kate Hawks

Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(2), 118; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15020118 - 13 Feb 2026

Viewed by 557

Abstract

Workplace productivity fundamentally involves group processes where vertical authorities interact with lateral peer relationships, involving various types of resources. Leveraging theoretical arguments from self-determination, social exchange, and justice perspectives, we argue that different types of support matter for cultivating workers’ job motivation and their engagement in extra-role behaviors in the workplace. We investigate how workers’ perceptions of managers and coworkers, regarding their instrumental support (aid for job tasks) and relational support (fairness in decision-making and treatment) contribute to increased motivation, which in turn leads to more reciprocal behaviors like making suggestions, helping coworkers, and volunteering for extra work. Our distinctive approach, involving both types of support from both sources, extends work that concentrates on just one type or source. We draw on survey data from 2062 workers across various occupations. Path analytic results largely confirm the hypothesized positive effects of support from authorities and coworkers on job motivation and extra-role behaviors, and show the extent to which job motivation mediates the effects of the types and sources of support. Nuanced results regard which type and source of support influence which type of extra-role behavior. We conclude by noting that our dual-process approach to workplace group processes may be useful for fostering overall productivity. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Group Processes Using Quantitative Research Methods)

► Show Figures

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Group Processes Using Quantitative Research Methods

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editor

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Published Papers (7 papers)

Research

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI