I took notes (below) on a journal article about depictions of sexual harassment on sitcoms. I think it will be very relevant to my thesis; I’m glad I took very thorough notes. In terms of the note-taking, I don’t feel as though I did anything very different from how I usually take notes. I usually try to include page numbers and citations. I usually include the content of the article as well as my own thoughts and questions. However, I don’t always type up my notes so thoroughly. I’m worried that I will be too thorough with every source I read. What I need to work on is reading more aggressively, only focusing on the relevant information, or else I will never finish this project.

“Not a Laughing Matter: Sexual Harassment as ‘Material’ on Workplace-Based Situation Comedies”

Montemurro, Beth. “Not a Laughing Matter: Sexual Harassment as “Material” on Workplace-Based Situation Comedies.” Sex Roles 48, no. 9/10 (2003): 433-445.

Abstract: “In her book Sexual Harassment of Working Women Catherine MacKinnon (1979) suggested that ‘Trivialization of sexual harassment has been a major means through which its invisibility has been enforced. Humor, which may reflect unconscious hostility, has been a major form of that trivialization’ (p. 52). In other words, making jokes at women’s expense and treating sexual harassment as not serious have contributed to its persistence. Situation comedies can be seen as gauges for what is considered humorous in American culture. To explore the tone of and mood toward sexual harassment in contemporary American society, themes and content of ‘humorous’ material on 56 episodes of five workplace-based situation comedies were examined. Results showed that although sexual harassment is rarely discussed on situation comedies, gender harassment is frequently used as ‘material,’ which leads to further trivialization of a serious social problem.”

• Main idea: Sexual harassment as “humorous material” on situation comedies contributes to the trivialization of sexual harassment in American society.
• Questions:
  • What is the difference between “gender harassment” and “sexual harassment”? (Montemurro, 433)
  • What does MacKinnon mean when she says that humor “‘may reflect unconscious hostility’”? (MacKinnon, 52, cited in Montemurro, 433)

Reading Notes

Introduction

• Television has a profound impact on Americans’ “perceptions of gender roles and other social issues” (Montemurro, 433).
  • She cites several studies that have shown this
  • Justifying the study of television (its profound sociological impact is undeniable, p. 433)
• In making jokes about social issues, sitcoms trivialize the problems (Montemurro, 433 (citing Grauerholtz and King))
• Sitcoms also reinforce “stereotypes and negative images/perceptions of serious topics” (Montemurro, 434 (citing Fouts and Burggraf)
• Problems with making jokes about sexual harassment:
  • Definition of sexual harassment becomes “clouded” (434)
  • Sexual harassment not seen as a serious issue (434)
• Why does it matter?
  • Sexual harassment in the workplace perpetuates women’s status as “subordinate workers and second class citizens” (434)
  • Women not employees, but “objects/bodies” (434, citing Acker)
  • When we see sitcoms portray instances of sexual harassment in a humorous way time and time again, this maintains women’s “subordinate status” (434, citing Grauerholz and King, hooks, and Jhally)
    • QUESTION: Does this have to do with the content specifically, or the repeated viewing of that content and subsequent internalization of the message?
  • Also, “portrayals of women and work on prime-time programs depict women as less serious workers” (434, citing Vande Berg and Streckfuss)
  • The effect on children
    • Young boys less likely to interpret material of sexual harassment as negative (434, citing Murnen and Smolak)
    • Children learn this behavior, contributing to the maintenance of the issue
      • QUESTION: How much do I want to focus on the child/early socialization aspect? I feel as though it might be a rabbit hole I could easily fall down.
    • Ford’s study (cited on page 436)
  • Montemurro’s Purpose and Methods of Inquiry:
    • Wants to determine “whether sexual harassment is present, prevalent, and/or trivialized” (434)
    • Wants to question “whether sexual harassment is being used as humorous material on situation comedies”
      • Hypothesis: it is. (based on previous studies: Dow, Fouts and Burggraf, Grauerholz and King, Signorielli)
    • Addresses the following issues
      • Frequency of sexual harassment as material in sitcoms
      • In what form is sexual harassment depicted? Is it explicit or implicit?
      • Does the “gender composition of the televised workplace” affect how sexual harassment is treated on the show?
        • My question is similar, but focuses on female leadership in particular
      • How does the workplace environment affect the frequency of sexual harassment?
        • This is a question I could ask as well. There is more “opportunity” for sexual harassment on the set of a TV show (a la 30 Rock) than there is in a paper company office (The Office) (Although plenty of sexual harassment seems to happen on both shows)

“Defining Sexual Harassment”

• Sexual harassment is prevalent; women experience more sexual harassment than men
  • She cites several studies here. I could refer to those as well, but most of them were published in the 90s. I think I can definitely find more recent studies that also state that sexual harassment is still prevalent (obviously).
  • I can also use more “popular” sources here, referring to highly publicized instances of sexual harassment (Weinstein, Fox News, etc.)
• QUESTION: She states why sexual harassment is problematic – is this something I need to do? Can I just assume that in 2018, my audience will know that sexual harassment is problematic?
• Different types of sexual harassment (feminist scholars)
  • “Sexual harassment” – “Quid pro quo” – “clear demand of sexual favors in return for work related benefits” (435), “’turning a professional relationship into a sexual relationship that is not wanted by one of the people involved that is coercive because the initiator has some power over the other person’” (435, quoting Lorber, p. 250)
  • “Gender harassment” – “condition of work/hostile environment” (435), “’inappropriately calling attention to women’s or men’s bodies, sexuality or marital status” (435, quoting Lorber, p. 250)
    • Using person’s gender to point out “the individual’s capabilities or career commitment” (434, quoting Lorber, p. 250)
  • Important to know the difference between the two in order to properly discuss the issue
    • It is a complex and often ambiguous issue; using it as humorous material perpetuatues this ambiguity (435)
    • QUESTION: what do I want to focus on?

“Women on Television”

• Important to study audience reactions because “television… often functions to connect individuals to the larger social world” (435, citing Press)
  • QUESTION: How much do I want to focus on audience reactions/perceptions? I think I might want to focus more on the content of the shows… but I also think it is important to analyze the effect of the content on the viewers.
• Correlation between acceptance of “feminist” TV characters and “general societal attitudes toward feminism and the women’s movement” (435, citing Dow)
  • QUESTION: Can some shows be ahead of their time (i.e. too “progressive” for mainstream societal standards) and still succeed?
• Montemurro cites a 2000 study that analyzed images of women in sitcoms in terms of their weight. The study found that heavier women were treated more negatively than thinner women (and that the laugh tracks used reinforced these “stereotypic values” (436, quoting Fouts and Burggraf)
  • Interesting idea, but I’m not sure it’s relevant because of its outdated-ness. Perhaps I can find a more recent study that touches on this idea? I can certainly think of a lot of instances in my TV shows that portray heavier women in a negative way for laughs.
• Montemurro looking in depth at five different programs, watching them first to gain an understanding of the characters’ relationship and context
  • Context is crucial – two characters might already have “an established flirting pattern” that makes what could be interpreted as sexual harassment tolerable in context (436)
• Looking at both sexual harassment (SH) and gender harassment (GH), making the distinction between the two
  • Montemurro points out that Grauerholz and King did not distinguish between the two, resulting in misleading data
• Why no dramas?
  • Montemurro interested in how “images of sexual harassment are trivialized.” Dramas provide much more context, often dealing with the issue far more seriously than comedies (436).
  • Comedies are “focused on making the viewer laugh and on the simple restoration of order” (436, citing Marc)
    • We talked about the same thing in Shakespeare class – interesting that the basic formula of the comedy has not changed
  • Montemurro talks a lot about the effects of the laugh tracks. The shows I’m interested in do not have a laugh track. From what I know about television in general, it seems that laugh tracks were once more popular than they are now. Perhaps this is relevant to my thesis in terms of how television is evolving?
    • QUESTION: Additionally, in terms of form, although all three shows are workplace-based, The Office and Parks and Recreation are “mockumentaries.” What impact could this have on the content, if any?
  • Claims that comedies have “specific motivations, one of which is to assert superiority” (436, citing Giles, Bourhis, Gadfield, Davies, and Davies).
    • Humor used to “maintain boundaries between men and women in the workplace” (Kanter)

“METHOD”

“Operational Definitions”

• Definition of sexual harassment, combined from two sources:
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): legal definition of workplace sexual harassment, defining “who can and can’t be harassed”
    • “Harasser can be of either sex” 438
    • “Harasser can be a coworker, a supervisor, a client, or other person not employed by the organization” 438
    • “Victims not only include those who are directly harassed but also those who are adversely affected by sexual harassment” 438
    • “Harasser’s conduct must be unwelcome” 438
  • United States Merit System Protection Board (USMSPB): measured sexual harassment using following categories:
    • “Jokes: uninviting sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions”
    • “Looks: uninvited sexually suggestive looks or gestures”
    • “Dates: uninvited pressure for dates”
    • “Calls: uninvited letters, phone calls, or material of a sexual nature”
    • “Touches: uninvited and deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering or pinching”
    • “Favors: Uninvited pressure for sexual favors”
    • (Horan and Semora, p. 12)
  • Montemurro uses these definitions as guidelines for her study.
    • “Jokes, looks, calls” “classified as hostile environment/gender harassment” 438
    • “Touches, favors, dates” “quid pro quo sexual harassment” 438
  • Every incident of harassment – sexual and gender – recorded
    • Any “relevant verbal, nonverbal, or physical exchange” 438
    • Incidents not mutually exclusive: one incident could be both a “look” and a “joke” for example 438
  • Incidents also coded by two research assistants

“RESULTS AND DISCUSSION”

“The Presence and Frequency of Harassment”

• I don’t think it’s necessary to closely analyze her findings here. I am not interested in the shows she discusses. However, it could be helpful to use her methods as a basis for my own study.
  • This is the part I’m bad at. Data. I have no idea what her tables really mean. I understand what she’s doing here, but once she turns it into numbers, I’m lost.
• Gender Harassment
  • She presents the data in paragraph form. Then she gives a few examples.
  • Finds that “jokes” were most prevalent. Provides explanation for this:
    • “Humor has specific motivations and goals in interaction. One of these goals is to establish in-group and out-group boundaries (Francis, 1994; Giles et al., 1976/1996). Humor or joke-telling can be used as a way for members of an in-group to acknowledge and strengthen bonds while at the same time excluding the out-group, those who are the subjects or objects of the joke” 441 (also citing Francis, 1994)
    • In this case, the in-group is men and the out-group is women.
  • Sexual Harassment
    • Again, presents data, gives examples
    • Sexual harassment occurred a lot less than gender harassment
  • “Gender Composition of the Workplace”
    • In “real life,” harassment “is initiated by someone in a position of power, and more often by a man than a woman” (citing Matchen and DeSouza, Renzetti and Curran)
    • Statistics from Montemurro’s study show that “jokes” occurred far more often in workplaces where men were in positions of authority (443)
    • Men in positions of authority tolerated harassment (443)
      • Reflecting societal attitudes toward gender and harassment
    • “Workplace Atmosphere”
      • Discussing the fact that some workplaces are more “sexualized” than others
      • Not sure this is relevant to me

Further reading (cited in article):

• MacKinnon, Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination
• Dow, Prime-time feminism: Television, media culture, and the women’s movement since 1970
• Fouts and Burggraf, “Television situation comedies: Female weight, male negative comments, and audience reactions”
• Press, Women watching television: Class, gender, and generation in the American television experience
• Grauerholz and King, “Prime time sexual harassment”
• Acker, “Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations”
• Hooks, Cultural criticism and transformation
• Vande Berg and Streckfuss, “Prime-time television’s portrayal of women and the world of work”
• Murnen and Smolak, “The experience of sexual harassment among grade school students: Early socialization of female subordination?”
• Signorielli, “Television and consequences about sex roles: Maintaining conventionality and the status quo”
• Lorber, Paradoxes of gender
• Ford, “Effects of sexist humor on tolerance of sexist events”
• Kanter, Men and women of the corporation
• Horan and Semora, Sexual harassment in the workplace: What can sociological research contribute?
• Giles et al., “Cognitive aspects of humor in social interaction”
• Francis, Laughter, the best medication

1. Mercea, Dan, and Brian Loader. 2012. Social Media and Democracy: Innovations in Participatory Politics. London: Routledge, 2012. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost(accessed February 5, 2018).

I took notes on the thirty-two-page preview of the ebook Social Media and Democracy: Innovations in Participatory Politics. After last week’s Lipson reading, I made a conscious effort to clearly distinguish the author’s language from my own. It is very easy to copy phrases when taking notes on literature, but I worked hard to think for myself about everything that I was noting. I also made a greater effort to be more concise with regard to my note taking, and I think I did a good job of avoiding copying unnecessary information. One thing that I found was that this style of note-taking took much longer than I had expected. Although time-consuming, Lipson’s advice forced me to think critically about what I was reading, which is definitely something that will benefit my research process. My note taking process is similar to Lipson’s in that we both emphasize focusing on the main points and paying close attention to detail. Although I do not have access to the entire book, this exercise showed me that it will be a useful resource when writing my thesis. (The format changed when I copied it into this post)

• Preface
  • Various authors perspectives on digital democracy
    • Optimistic- some say that it is improving participatory democracy
    • Pessimistic- disengagement of young citizens, lack of formal (voting) participation
  • 1
    • Initial Hope: new technologiesà improve open and equal deliberation between citizens and politicians
      • Fresh wave happening today, “second generation of internet democracy”
        • Existence of twitter, facebook, youtube, etc.–> more platforms than ever before
        • Moving away from traditional/restricted forms of rational deliberation
      • Citizens are at the heart of democratic innovation
        • Lifestyle and identity politics
      • Social Media Democracy
        • Mass media vs social media
        • Lack of need for professional journalist
        • Most active political users= social movement activists, politicians, party workers and those committed to political causes
        • What determines democratic activity?
          • More fluid definition now
            • Changing perceptions of citizens who are less politically inclined
            • Multitasking
          • Social media= disruptive for traditional practices and institutions
        • Social movements put democratic institutions at center of debate through networked communication
          • Social movements= social media in politics
        • Latest generation of communications technologies has inherent democratic capacities
        • Citizens challenge the monopoly control of media production
        • Vaccari
          • Media organizations promote own political agenda
            • Fake news
            • More important is the fact that mediaàpolitical participation
          • Charles Leadbeater
            • Idea of “mass collaboration” associated w the openness of social media
          • Anstead O’Loughlin and Ampofo
            • UK Twitter debates
            • Viewertariat: “growing constituency of citizen-users who actively engage in an often critical conversation about political content and its expert interpretation furnished to them by the media”
              • Interesting term, may be useful to reference in terms of the U.S. during 2016 presidential election
            • Tamara A. Small
              • Hashtags further divisions between parties, create unnecessary animosity
            • Internet= area for political participation for those who are otherwise unengaged
• Chapter 2
  • Government control= complex and dispersed
  • Social pressure
  • Political issues are related to popular social movements
  • Growing individualization
  • Personalized politics
• • Acknowledge negative campaigning and the encouragement of populist rhetoric and extremismà fosters celebrity politics
  • Democracy is in constant state of transformation
    • The emphasis on Social Media is a social movement-, social movements actively shape the structural conditions in which they operate
    • So if this is the case, then the increasing use of social media in the political sphere is constantly redefining democracy
  • Digital communication

Birthisel, Jessica, and Jason A. Martin. ““That’s What She Said”: Gender, Satire, and the American Workplace on the Sitcom The Office.” Journal of Communication Inquiry 37, no. 1 (2013): 64-80.

Carroll, Noël. Humour: a very short introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Dickinson, Peter, Anne Higgins, St Pierre Paul Matthew, Diana Solomon, and Sean Zwagerman, eds. Women and comedy: history, theory, practice. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2017.

Finney, Gail, ed. Look Who’s Laughing: Gender and Comedy. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach, 1994.

Gillon, Josh. “Why 30 Rock Is Not Funny (Its Metafunny).” Philosophy and Literature 35, no. 2 (2011): 320-37.

Hurley, Matthew M. Inside jokes: using humor to reverse-engineer the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013.

Justin, Neal. “In Hollywood, women are increasingly calling the shots on television.” The Seattle Times. December 13, 2017. Accessed February 19, 2018.

Lauzen, Martha. “The Funny Business of Being Tina Fey: Constructing a (feminist) comedy icon.” Feminist Media Studies 14, no. 1 (2012): 106-17.

Lauzen, Martha. “What we know for sure about women in television.” Women’s Media Center. September 28, 2017. Accessed February 19, 2018. http://www.womensmediacenter.com/news-features/what-we-know-for-sure-about-women-in-television.

Martin, Jason. “Emotionally Intelligent Leadership at30 Rock: What Librarians Can Learn from a Case Study of Comedy Writers.” Journal of Library Administration 56, no. 4 (2015): 345-58.

McRobbie, Angela. “Post-feminism and popular culture.” Feminist Media Studies 4, no. 3 (2004): 255-64.

Merrill, Lisa. “Feminist humor: Rebellious and self‐affirming.” Womens Studies15, no. 1-3 (1988): 271-80.

Mizejewski, Linda. “Feminism, Postfeminism, Liz Lemonism: Comedy and Gender Politics on 30 Rock.” Genders, no. 55 (2012).

Montemurro, Beth. “Not a Laughing Matter: Sexual Harassment as “Material” on Workplace-Based Situation Comedies.” Sex Roles 48, no. 9/10 (2003): 433-445.

Morreall, John. The philosophy of laughter and humor. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987.

Owen, Rob. “Sexual harassment has a long history as a comedic punchline on TV.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 30, 2017. Accessed February 19, 2018.

Robinson, Joanna. “The Nasty Women of TV Comedy Have Arrived Just in Time.” Vanity Fair. November 01, 2016. Accessed February 19, 2018.

Sills, Liz. “The phenomenology of The Funny: a diagrammatic proposal.” Comedy Studies8, no. 1 (April 02, 2017): 2-12.

Sims, David. “Louis C.K. and Abuse of Power in the Comedy World.” The Atlantic, November 9, 2017. Accessed February 19, 2018.

Sink, Alexander, and Dana Mastro. “Depictions of Gender on Primetime Television: A Quantitative Content Analysis.” Mass Communication and Society 20, no. 1 (2016): 3-22.

Swink, Robyn Stacia. “Lemony Liz and likable Leslie: audience understandings of feminism, comedy, and gender in women-led television comedies.” Feminist Media Studies 17, no. 1 (2017): 14-28.

“That’s What She Said: Depictions of Sexual Harassment on TV.” Slate, December 18, 2017. Accessed February 19, 2018.

Tiffany, Kaitlyn. “TV shows created by women have more speaking parts for women, study finds.” The Verge. September 12, 2017. Accessed February 19, 2018.

“TV Statistics.” Womenandhollywood.com. Accessed February 19, 2018. https://womenandhollywood.com/resources/statistics/tv-statistics/.

My sources are going to be a big mix of articles, books, videos, and of course, movies! Here are 24 potential sources, but I do need to still find some solid resources (probably articles) on American Exceptionalism and Individualism-Collectivism in Leadership:

Although I have not actually read any of the sources that I have found, I think most are promising. I am finding that a lot of the more recent literature on my topic are books, which will be a little more difficult when actually reviewing the sources.

1. Accetti, Carlo Invernizzi, Alessandro Mulieri, Husbertus Buchstein, Dario Castiglione, Lisa Disch, Jason Frank, Yves Sintomer, and Nadia Urbinati. “Debating Representative Democracy.” Contemporary Political Theory; Basingstoke 15, no. 2 (May 2016): 205–42. http://dx.doi.org.newman.richmond.edu:2048/10.1057/cpt.2015.57.
2. Alonso, Sonia, John Keane, and Wolfgang Merkel. The Future of Representative Democracy. Cambridge University Press, 2011. https://books.google.com/books?id=9iWxeJ9knnwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false.
3. Auger, Giselle A. “Fostering Democracy through Social Media: Evaluating Diametrically Opposed Nonprofit Advocacy Organizations’ Use of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.” Public Relations Review, Public Relations and Democracy, 39, no. 4 (November 1, 2013): 369–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.013.
4. Ceron, Andrea, and Vincenzo Memoli. “Flames and Debates: Do Social Media Affect Satisfaction with Democracy?” Social Indicators Research; Dordrecht 126, no. 1 (March 2016): 225–40. http://dx.doi.org.newman.richmond.edu:2048/10.1007/s11205-015-0893-x.
5. Gerbaudo, Paolo. Tweets and the Streets : Social Media and Contemporary Activism. Pluto Press, 2018. http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=642730.
6. Iosifidis, Petros, and Mark Wheeler. “Modern Political Communication and Web 2.0 in Representative Democracies.” Javnost – The Public 0, no. 0 (January 29, 2018): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1418962.
7. Kahne, Cathy J. Cohen and Joseph. “Participatory Politics. New Media and Youth Political Action,” 2011. http://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=2180&lang=es.
8. Keane, John. Democracy and Media Decadence. Cambridge University Press, 2013. https://books.google.com/books/about/Democracy_and_Media_Decadence.html?id=ia5ZAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false.
9. “Learning From the 2016 U.S. General Election Presidential Debates – Kenneth Winneg, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, 2017.” Accessed February 18, 2018. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0002764217702770.
10. “Learning Political News From Social Media: Network Media Logic and Current Affairs News Learning in a High-Choice Media Environment – Adam Shehata, Jesper Strömbäck, 2018.” Accessed February 18, 2018. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093650217749354.
11. Loader, Brian D., and Dan Mercea. Social Media and Democracy: Innovations in Participatory Politics. Routledge, 2012. https://www.routledge.com/Social-Media-and-Democracy-Innovations-in-Participatory-Politics/Loader-Mercea/p/book/9780415683708.
12. Markham, Tim. “Review Essay: Social Media, Politics and Protest.” Media, Culture & Society 38, no. 6 (September 1, 2016): 946–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716665101.
13. “Online News, Civic Awareness, and Engagement in Civic and Political Life – Shelley Boulianne, 2016.” Accessed February 18, 2018. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1461444815616222.
14. Ott, Brian L. “The Age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the Politics of Debasement: Critical Studies in Media Communication: Vol 34, No 1.” Accessed February 18, 2018. http://www.tandfonline.com.newman.richmond.edu:2048/doi/full/10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686?scroll=top&needAccess=true.
15. Parmelee, John H., and Shannon L. Bichard. Politics and the Twitter Revolution: How Tweets Influence the Relationship between Political Leaders and the Public. Lexington Books, 2011.
16. “Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age – Oxford Scholarship,” January 30, 2014. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199731930.001.0001/acprof-9780199731930.
17. Rishel, Nicole M. “Digitizing Deliberation: Normative Concerns for the Use of Social Media in Deliberative Democracy.” Administrative Theory & Praxis; Armonk 33, no. 3 (September 2011): 411–32.
18. Shafer, Jessica Gantt. “Donald Trump’s ‘Political Incorrectness’: Neoliberalism as Frontstage Racism on Social Media.” Social Media + Society 3, no. 3 (July 1, 2017): 2056305117733226. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117733226.
19. Tucker, Joshua A., Yannis Theocharis, Margaret E. Roberts, and Pablo Barberá. “From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media And Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 28, no. 4 (October 7, 2017): 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0064.
20. “Twitter as Arena for the Authentic Outsider: Exploring the Social Media Campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US Presidential Election – Gunn Enli, 2017.” Accessed February 18, 2018. http://journals.sagepub.com.newman.richmond.edu:2048/doi/10.1177/0267323116682802.

391c2317d60fcde56fb3968146fc7e2efb68.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c338/391c2317d60fcde56fb3968146fc7e2efb68.pdf

2014-33757-001.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-33757-001.pdf

2017-05271-001.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2017-05271-001.pdf

2017-37794-001.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2017-37794-001.pdf

0956797612438731.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797612438731

Awe May Promote Altruistic Behavior. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/05/altruistic-behavior.aspx

Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Wilson, A. L., LoTempio, E., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2011). Exploring the atheist personality: well-being, awe, and magical thinking in atheists, Buddhists, and Christians. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14(7), 659–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2010.509847

Cavanaugh, J. C., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2018). Adult Development and Aging (8th ed.). Wadsworth.

cns-cns0000086.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/cns-cns0000086.pdf

Craft, S., & Zubatsky, M. (2013). Support Groups. In R. Emery, Cultural Sociology of Divorce: An Encyclopedia. 2455 Teller Road,  Thousand Oaks  California  91320  United States: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452274447.n423

emo-emo0000387.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/emo-emo0000387.pdf

Forsyth, D. (n.d.). Group Dynamics (7th ed.). Wadsworth.

Gender Clinics. (2016). In A. E. Goldberg, The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, California 91320: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483371283.n166

Harrell, A., & Simpson, B. (2016). The Dynamics of Prosocial Leadership: Power and Influence in Collective Action Groups. Social Forces, 94(3), 1283–1308.

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 17(2), 297.

Lichtenberg, J. (2015). Awe: Its Bidirectional Power—Veneration and Inspiration or Dread and Inhibition. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 35(1), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2014.957138

Piff, P., & Keltner, D. (2015, May 22). Opinion | Why Do We Experience Awe? The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/opinion/sunday/why-do-we-experience-awe.html

psp-pspi0000018.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-pspi0000018.pdf

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rel/index.aspx

PsycNET. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://psycnet.apa.org/search/display?id=c6a1bde1-00a3-a95e-c4d3-d2b71ae63d6e&recordId=2&tab=all&page=1&display=25&sort=PublicationYearMSSort%20desc,AuthorSort%20asc&sr=1

PsycNET Record Display – PsycNET. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-01915-002

Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self-concept. Cognition & Emotion, 21(5), 944–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600923668

Spirituality in Clinical Practice. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/scp/index.aspx

The Muse | Psychoanalytic Explorations of Creative Inspiration | Taylor & Francis Group. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781317510857

What Role Do Religion and Spirituality Play In Mental Health? (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/03/religion-spirituality.aspx

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2017). Twenty years of group processes and intergroup relations research: A review of past progress and future prospects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 561–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217709536
Balliet, D., & Ferris, D. L. (2013). Ostracism and prosocial behavior: A social dilemma perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.04.004
Banki, S. (2012). How much or how many? Partial ostracism and its consequences (Ph.D.). University of Toronto (Canada), Canada. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1350644002/abstract/C5A5C066A9949A8PQ/1
Berger, C. R. (2005). Interpersonal Communication: Theoretical Perspectives, Future Prospects. Journal of Communication, 55(3), 415–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02680.x
Berman, A. (2017). Relational Group Analysis. A Response to R. Billow: Relational Group Psychotherapy: An Overview: Part II: Relational Models of Group Process, June 2017. Group Analysis, 50(2), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0533316417703627
Brewer, M. B., & Yūki, M. (Eds.). (2014). Culture and group processes. New York: Oxford University Press.
Butner, J. E. (2002). Social influence and group dynamics: Self -organization in and among groups (Ph.D.). Arizona State University, United States — Arizona. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/304805114/abstract/AA8193B245694FD7PQ/1
Derlega, V. J. (Ed.). (1984). Communication, intimacy, and close relationships. Orlando, Flo.: Academic Press.
Dlugokinski, E. L., & Allen, S. F. (2001). Managing your dynamics to communicate effectively with others. Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall Press.
Ellemers, N. (Ed.). (2000). Social identity: context, commitment, content (Reprint). Oxford: Blackwell.
Galliher, R. V., McLean, K. C., & Syed, M. (2017). An integrated developmental model for studying identity content in context. Developmental Psychology, 53(11), 2011–2022. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000299
Garner, J. T., & Iba, D. L. (2015). Changes in Eye Contact and Attraction Scores Relative to Ostracism and Dissent. Small Group Research, 46(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414550880
Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.). (2005). Theorizing about intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ.
Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., & Brewer, M. B. (2017). Social identity: The role of self in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217690909
Keblusek, L., Giles, H., & Maass, A. (2017). Communication and group life: How language and symbols shape intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 632–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217708864
Montgomery, B. M., & Baxter, L. A. (Eds.). (1998). Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Rochira, A. (2014). “We are in the same boat”. The dialogue between identification and dis-identification underlying individual and group positioning. Culture & Psychology, 20(3), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X14542530
Swol, L. M. V., & Carlson, C. L. (2017). Language Use and Influence Among Minority, Majority, and Homogeneous Group Members. Communication Research, 44(4), 512–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215570658
Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Accuracy in Categorizing Perceptually Ambiguous Groups: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312461308
Vorauer, J. D., Cameron, J. J., Holmes, J. G., & Pearce, D. G. (2003). Invisible overtures: Fears of rejection and the signal amplification bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 793–812. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.793
Williams, K. D. (1997). Social Ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive Interpersonal Behaviors (pp. 133–170). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9354-3_7

Keywords: cultural revolution, group dynamics, group psychology, group process, loneliness, self-identity, interpersonal communication

Resources: