Conceptualizing Dyadic and Group Interaction

Currently, a controversy is dividing physicists: Do the basic laws of nature operate only at the level of elementary particles (the reductionist position) or also (and differently) at higher levels of matter? If proponents of the former position are correct, then a complete explanation of physics can be achieved by studying the most basic particles in isolation. A similar controversy has long divided researchers in personality and social psychology: Do the basic laws of behavior operate only at the level of the individual person or also (and differently) at higher levels of social interaction? Are dyads and groups somehow more than the sum of their individual constituents? Do they have a level of existence that cannot be defined in individualistic terms? Can we understand human psychology by studying one human at a time? Let us be candid about what this chapter will accomplish: We do not offer answers to the thorny questions we posed above. Instead, we offer some methodological pointers for thinking about dyadic and group data in ways that help clarify what these questions mean. We explore, through several graphical examples, the interpretational complexities that are part and parcel of any dyadic or group design. Our approach has both a negative agenda—to point out common pitfalls of dyadic analysis—and a positive agenda— to explore the conceptual benefits of marrying theory and methodology in the study of dyads and groups. In particular, we encourage researchers to “think outside the box” C H A P T E R