5.2: The Psychology of Groups
16.1 Introduction to the Psychology of Groups
This module assumes that a thorough understanding of people requires a thorough understanding of groups. Each of us is an autonomous individual seeking our own objectives, yet we are also members of groups—groups that constrain us, guide us, and sustain us. Just as each of us influences the group and the people in the group, so, too, do groups change each one of us. Joining groups satisfies our need to belong, gain information and understanding through social comparison, define our sense of self and social identity, and achieve goals that might elude us if we worked alone. Groups are also practically significant, for much of the world’s work is done by groups rather than by individuals. Success sometimes eludes our groups, but when group members learn to work together as a cohesive team their success becomes more certain. People also turn to groups when important decisions must be made, and this choice is justified as long as groups avoid such problems as group polarization and groupthink.
Psychologists study groups because nearly all human activities—working, learning, worshiping, relaxing, playing, and even sleeping—occur in groups. The lone individual who is cut off from all groups is a rarity. Most of us live out our lives in groups, and these groups have a profound impact on our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Many psychologists focus their attention on single individuals, but social psychologists expand their analysis to include groups, organizations, communities, and even cultures.
This module examines the psychology of groups and group membership. It begins with a basic question: What is the psychological significance of groups? People are, undeniably, more often in groups rather than alone. What accounts for this marked gregariousness and what does it say about our psychological makeup? The module then reviews some of the key findings from studies of groups. Researchers have asked many questions about people and groups: Do people work as hard as they can when they are in groups? Are groups more cautious than individuals? Do groups make wiser decisions than single individuals? In many cases the answers are not what common sense and folk wisdom might suggest.
16.2 The Psychological Significance of Groups
Many people loudly proclaim their autonomy and independence. Like Ralph Waldo Emerson, they avow, “I must be myself. I will not hide my tastes or aversions . . . . I will seek my own” ( 1903/2004 , p. 127). Even though people are capable of living separate and apart from others, they join with others because groups meet their psychological and social needs.
The Need to Belong
Across individuals, societies, and even eras, humans consistently seek inclusion over exclusion, membership over isolation, and acceptance over rejection. As Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary conclude, humans have a need to belong : “a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and impactful interpersonal relationships” ( 1995 , p. 497). And most of us satisfy this need by joining groups. When surveyed, 87.3% of Americans reported that they lived with other people, including family members, partners, and roommates ( Davis & Smith, 2007 ). The majority, ranging from 50% to 80%, reported regularly doing things in groups, such as attending a sports event together, visiting one another for the evening, sharing a meal together, or going out as a group to see a movie ( Putnam, 2000 ).
People respond negatively when their need to belong is unfulfilled. For example, college students often feel homesick and lonely when they first start college, but not if they belong to a cohesive, socially satisfying group ( Buote et al., 2007 ). People who are accepted members of a group tend to feel happier and more satisfied. But should they be rejected by a group, they feel unhappy, helpless, and depressed. Studies of ostracism —the deliberate exclusion from groups—indicate this experience is highly stressful and can lead to depression, confused thinking, and even aggression ( Williams, 2007 ). When researchers used a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner to track neural responses to exclusion, they found that people who were left out of a group activity displayed heightened cortical activity in two specific areas of the brain—the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula. These areas of the brain are associated with the experience of physical pain sensations ( Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003 ). It hurts, quite literally, to be left out of a group.
Affiliation in Groups
Groups not only satisfy the need to belong, they also provide members with information, assistance, and social support. Leon Festinger’s theory of social comparison ( 1950 , 1954 ) suggested that in many cases people join with others to evaluate the accuracy of their personal beliefs and attitudes. Stanley Schachter ( 1959 ) explored this process by putting individuals in ambiguous, stressful situations and asking them if they wished to wait alone or with others. He found that people affiliate in such situations—they seek the company of others.
Although any kind of companionship is appreciated, we prefer those who provide us with reassurance and support as well as accurate information. In some cases, we also prefer to join with others who are even worse off than we are. Imagine, for example, how you would respond when the teacher hands back the test and yours is marked 85%. Do you want to affiliate with a friend who got a 95% or a friend who got a 78%? To maintain a sense of self-worth, people seek out and compare themselves to the less fortunate. This process is known as downward social comparison .
Identity and Membership
Groups are not only founts of information during times of ambiguity, they also help us answer the existentially significant question, “Who am I?” Common sense tells us that our sense of self is our private definition of who we are, a kind of archival record of our experiences, qualities, and capabilities. Yet, the self also includes all those qualities that spring from memberships in groups. People are defined not only by their traits, preferences, interests, likes, and dislikes, but also by their friendships, social roles, family connections, and group memberships. The self is not just a “me,” but also a “we.”
Even demographic qualities such as sex or age can influence us if we categorize ourselves based on these qualities. Social identity theory , for example, assumes that we don’t just classify other people into such social categories as man, woman, Anglo, elderly, or college student, but we also categorize ourselves. Moreover, if we strongly identify with these categories, then we will ascribe the characteristics of the typical member of these groups to ourselves, and so stereotype ourselves. If, for example, we believe that college students are intellectual, then we will assume we, too, are intellectual if we identify with that group ( Hogg, 2001 ).
Groups also provide a variety of means for maintaining and enhancing a sense of self-worth, as our assessment of the quality of groups we belong to influences our collective self-esteem ( Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990 ). If our self-esteem is shaken by a personal setback, we can focus on our group’s success and prestige. In addition, by comparing our group to other groups, we frequently discover that we are members of the better group, and so can take pride in our superiority. By denigrating other groups, we elevate both our personal and our collective self-esteem ( Crocker & Major, 1989 ).
Mark Leary’s sociometer model goes so far as to suggest that “self-esteem is part of a sociometer that monitors peoples’ relational value in other people’s eyes” ( 2007 , p. 328). He maintains self-esteem is not just an index of one’s sense of personal value, but also an indicator of acceptance into groups. Like a gauge that indicates how much fuel is left in the tank, a dip in self-esteem indicates exclusion from our group is likely. Disquieting feelings of self-worth, then, prompt us to search for and correct characteristics and qualities that put us at risk of social exclusion. Self-esteem is not just high self-regard, but the self-approbation that we feel when included in groups ( Leary & Baumeister, 2000 ).
Evolutionary Advantages of Group Living
Groups may be humans’ most useful invention, for they provide us with the means to reach goals that would elude us if we remained alone. Individuals in groups can secure advantages and avoid disadvantages that would plague the lone individuals. In his theory of social integration, Moreland concludes that groups tend to form whenever “people become dependent on one another for the satisfaction of their needs” ( 1987 , p. 104). The advantages of group life may be so great that humans are biologically prepared to seek membership and avoid isolation. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, because groups have increased humans’ overall fitness for countless generations, individuals who carried genes that promoted solitude-seeking were less likely to survive and procreate compared to those with genes that prompted them to join groups ( Darwin, 1859/1963 ). This process of natural selection culminated in the creation of a modern human who seeks out membership in groups instinctively, for most of us are descendants of “joiners” rather than “loners.”
16.3 Motivation and Performance
Groups usually exist for a reason. In groups, we solve problems, create products, create standards, communicate knowledge, have fun, perform arts, create institutions, and even ensure our safety from attacks by other groups. But do groups always outperform individuals?
Social Facilitation in Groups
Do people perform more effectively when alone or when part of a group? Norman Triplett ( 1898 ) examined this issue in one of the first empirical studies in psychology. While watching bicycle races, Triplett noticed that cyclists were faster when they competed against other racers than when they raced alone against the clock. To determine if the presence of others leads to the psychological stimulation that enhances performance, he arranged for 40 children to play a game that involved turning a small reel as quickly as possible (see Figure 1). When he measured how quickly they turned the reel, he confirmed that children performed slightly better when they played the game in pairs compared to when they played alone (see Stroebe, 2012 ; Strube, 2005 ).
Triplett succeeded in sparking interest in a phenomenon now known as social facilitation : the enhancement of an individual’s performance when that person works in the presence of other people. However, it remained for Robert Zajonc ( 1965 ) to specify when social facilitation does and does not occur. After reviewing prior research, Zajonc noted that the facilitating effects of an audience usually only occur when the task requires the person to perform dominant responses, i.e., ones that are well-learned or based on instinctive behaviors. If the task requires nondominant responses, i.e., novel, complicated, or untried behaviors that the organism has never performed before or has performed only infrequently, then the presence of others inhibits performance. Hence, students write poorer quality essays on complex philosophical questions when they labor in a group rather than alone ( Allport, 1924 ), but they make fewer mistakes in solving simple, low-level multiplication problems with an audience or a coactor than when they work in isolation ( Dashiell, 1930 ).
Social facilitation, then, depends on the task: other people facilitate performance when the task is so simple that it requires only dominant responses, but others interfere when the task requires nondominant responses. However, a number of psychological processes combine to influence when social facilitation, not social interference, occurs. Studies of the challenge-threat response and brain imaging, for example, confirm that we respond physiologically and neurologically to the presence of others ( Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Salomon, 1999 ). Other people also can trigger evaluation apprehension, particularly when we feel that our individual performance will be known to others, and those others might judge it negatively ( Bond, Atoum, & VanLeeuwen, 1996 ). The presence of other people can also cause perturbations in our capacity to concentrate on and process information ( Harkins, 2006 ). Distractions due to the presence of other people have been shown to improve performance on certain tasks, such as the Stroop task , but undermine performance on more cognitively demanding tasks( Huguet, Galvaing, Monteil, & Dumas, 1999 ).
Social Loafing
Groups usually outperform individuals. A single student, working alone on a paper, will get less done in an hour than will four students working on a group project. One person playing a tug-of-war game against a group will lose. A crew of movers can pack up and transport your household belongings faster than you can by yourself. As the saying goes, “Many hands make light the work” ( Littlepage, 1991 ; Steiner, 1972 ).
Groups, though, tend to be underachievers. Studies of social facilitation confirmed the positive motivational benefits of working with other people on well-practiced tasks in which each member’s contribution to the collective enterprise can be identified and evaluated.  First, when people work together they must coordinate their individual activities and contributions to reach the maximum level of efficiency—but they rarely do ( Diehl & Stroebe, 1987 ). Three people in a tug-of-war competition, for example, invariably pull and pause at slightly different times, so their efforts are uncoordinated. The result is coordination loss : the three-person group is stronger than a single person, but not three times as strong. Second, people just don’t exert as much effort when working on a collective endeavor, nor do they expend as much cognitive effort trying to solve problems, as they do when working alone. They display social loafing ( Latané, 1981 ).
Bibb Latané, Kip Williams, and Stephen Harkins ( 1979 ) examined both coordination losses and social loafing by arranging for students to cheer or clap either alone or in groups of varying sizes. The students cheered alone or in 2- or 6-person groups, or they were lead to believe they were in 2- or 6-person groups (those in the “pseudo-groups” wore blindfolds and headsets that played masking sound). As Figure 2 indicates, groups generated more noise than solitary subjects, but the productivity dropped as the groups became larger in size. In dyads, each subject worked at only 66% of capacity, and in 6-person groups at 36%. Productivity also dropped when subjects merely believed they were in groups. If subjects thought that one other person was shouting with them, they shouted 82% as intensely, and if they thought five other people were shouting, they reached only 74% of their capacity. These loses in productivity were not due to coordination problems; this decline in production could be attributed only to a reduction in effort—to social loafing (Latané et al., 1979, Experiment 2).
Teamwork
Social loafing is no rare phenomenon. When sales personnel work in groups with shared goals, they tend to “take it easy” if another salesperson is nearby who can do their work ( George, 1992 ). People who are trying to generate new, creative ideas in group brainstorming sessions usually put in less effort and are thus less productive than people who are generating new ideas individually ( Paulus & Brown, 2007 ). Students assigned group projects often complain of inequity in the quality and quantity of each member’s contributions: Some people just don’t work as much as they should to help the group reach its learning goals ( Neu, 2012 ). People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental tasks expend less effort when working in groups, and the larger the group, the more they loaf ( Karau & Williams, 1993 ).
Groups can, however, overcome this impediment to performance through teamwork . A group may include many talented individuals, but they must learn how to pool their individual abilities and energies to maximize the team’s performance. Team goals must be set, work patterns structured, and a sense of group identity developed. Individual members must learn how to coordinate their actions, and any strains and stresses in interpersonal relations need to be identified and resolved ( Salas, Rosen, Burke, & Goodwin, 2009 ).
Researchers have identified two key ingredients to effective teamwork: a shared mental representation of the task and group unity. Teams improve their performance over time as they develop a shared understanding of the team and the tasks they are attempting. Some semblance of this shared mental model is present nearly from its inception, but as the team practices, differences among the members in terms of their understanding of their situation and their team diminish as a consensus becomes implicitly accepted ( Tindale, Stawiski, & Jacobs, 2008 ).
Effective teams are also, in most cases, cohesive groups ( Dion, 2000 ). Group cohesion is the integrity, solidarity, social integration, or unity of a group. In most cases, members of cohesive groups like each other and the group and they also are united in their pursuit of collective, group-level goals. Members tend to enjoy their groups more when they are cohesive, and cohesive groups usually outperform ones that lack cohesion.
This cohesion-performance relationship, however, is a complex one. Meta-analytic studies suggest that cohesion improves teamwork among members, but that performance quality influences cohesion more than cohesion influences performance ( Mullen & Copper, 1994 ; Mullen, Driskell, & Salas, 1998 ; see Figure 3). Cohesive groups also can be spectacularly unproductive if the group’s norms stress low productivity rather than high productivity ( Seashore, 1954 ).
Group Development
In most cases, groups do not become smooth-functioning teams overnight. As Bruce Tuckman’s ( 1965 ) theory of group development suggests, groups usually pass through several stages of development as they change from a newly formed group into an effective team. As noted in Focus Topic 1, in the forming phase, the members become oriented toward one another. In the storming phase, the group members find themselves in conflict, and some solution is sought to improve the group environment. In the norming, phase standards for behavior and roles develop that regulate behavior. In the performing, phase the group has reached a point where it can work as a unit to achieve desired goals, and the adjourning phase ends the sequence of development; the group disbands. Throughout these stages, groups tend to oscillate between the task-oriented issues and the relationship issues, with members sometimes working hard but at other times strengthening their interpersonal bonds ( Tuckman & Jensen, 1977 ).
Focus Topic 1: Group Development Stages and Characteristics
Stage 1 – “Forming”. Members expose information about themselves in polite but tentative interactions. They explore the purposes of the group and gather information about each other’s interests, skills, and personal tendencies.
Stage 2 – “Storming”. Disagreements about procedures and purposes surface, so criticism and conflict increase. Much of the conflict stems from challenges between members who are seeking to increase their status and control in the group.
Stage 3 – “Norming”. Once the group agrees on its goals, procedures, and leadership, norms, roles, and social relationships develop that increase the group’s stability and cohesiveness.
Stage 4 – “Performing”. The group focuses its energies and attention on its goals, displaying higher rates of task-orientation, decision-making, and problem-solving.
Stage 5 – “Adjourning”. The group prepares to disband by completing its tasks, reduces levels of dependency among members, and dealing with any unresolved issues.
Sources based on Tuckman (1965) and Tuckman & Jensen (1977)
We also experience change as we pass through a group, for we don’t become full-fledged members of a group in an instant. Instead, we gradually become a part of the group and remain in the group until we leave it. Richard Moreland and John Levine’s ( 1982 ) model of group socialization describes this process, beginning with initial entry into the group and ending when the member exits it. For example, when you are thinking of joining a new group—a social club, a professional society, a fraternity or sorority, or a sports team—you investigate what the group has to offer, but the group also investigates you. During this investigation stage you are still an outsider: interested in joining the group, but not yet committed to it in any way. But once the group accepts you and you accept the group, socialization begins: you learn the group’s norms and take on different responsibilities depending on your role. On a sports team, for example, you may initially hope to be a star who starts every game or plays a particular position, but the team may need something else from you. In time, though, the group will accept you as a full-fledged member and both sides in the process—you and the group itself—increase their commitment to one another. When that commitment wanes, however, your membership may come to an end as well.
16.4 Making Decisions in Groups
Groups are particularly useful when it comes to making a decision, for groups can draw on more resources than can a lone individual. A single individual may know a great deal about a problem and possible solutions, but his or her information is far surpassed by the combined knowledge of a group. Groups not only generate more ideas and possible solutions by discussing the problem, but they can also more objectively evaluate the options that they generate during discussion. Before accepting a solution, a group may require that a certain number of people favor it, or that it meets some other standard of acceptability. People generally feel that a group’s decision will be superior to an individual’s decision.
Groups, however, do not always make good decisions. Juries sometimes render verdicts that run counter to the evidence presented. Community groups take radical stances on issues before thinking through all the ramifications. Military strategists concoct plans that seem, in retrospect, ill-conceived and short-sighted. Why do groups sometimes make poor decisions?
Group Polarization
Let’s say you are part of a group assigned to make a presentation. One of the group members suggests showing a short video that, although amusing, includes some provocative images. Even though initially you think the clip is inappropriate, you begin to change your mind as the group discusses the idea. The group decides, eventually, to throw caution to the wind and show the clip—and your instructor is horrified by your choice.
This hypothetical example is consistent with studies of groups making decisions that involve risk. Common sense notions suggest that groups exert a moderating, subduing effect on their members. However, when researchers looked at groups closely, they discovered many groups shift toward more extreme decisions rather than less extreme decisions after group interaction. Discussion, it turns out, doesn’t moderate people’s judgments after all. Instead, it leads to group polarization : judgments made after group discussion will be more extreme in the same direction as the average of individual judgments made prior to discussion ( Myers & Lamm, 1976 ). If a majority of members feel that taking risks is more acceptable than exercising caution, then the group will become riskier after a discussion. For example, in France, where people generally like their government but dislike Americans, group discussion improved their attitude toward their government but exacerbated their negative opinions of Americans ( Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969 ). Similarly, prejudiced people who discussed racial issues with other prejudiced individuals became even more negative, but those who were relatively unprejudiced exhibited even more acceptance of diversity when in groups ( Myers & Bishop, 1970 ).
Common Knowledge Effect
One of the advantages of making decisions in groups is the group’s greater access to information. When seeking a solution to a problem, group members can put their ideas on the table and share their knowledge and judgments with each other through discussions. But all too often groups spend much of their discussion time examining common knowledge—information that two or more group members know in common—rather than unshared information. This common knowledge effect will result in a bad outcome if something known by only one or two group members is very important.
Researchers have studied this bias using the hidden profile task . On such tasks, information known to many of the group members suggests that one alternative, say Option A, is best. However, Option B is definitely the better choice, but all the facts that support Option B are only known to individual groups members—they are not common knowledge in the group. As a result, the group will likely spend most of its time reviewing the factors that favor Option A, and never discover any of its drawbacks. In consequence, groups often perform poorly when working on problems with nonobvious solutions that can only be identified by extensive information sharing ( Stasser & Titus, 1987 ).
Groupthink
Groups sometimes make spectacularly bad decisions. In 1961, a special advisory committee to President John F. Kennedy planned and implemented a covert invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs that ended in total disaster. In 1986, NASA carefully, and incorrectly, decided to launch the Challenger space shuttle in temperatures that were too cold.
Irving Janis ( 1982 ), intrigued by these kinds of blundering groups, carried out a number of case studies of such groups: the military experts that planned the defense of Pearl Harbor; Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs planning group; the presidential team that escalated the war in Vietnam. Each group, he concluded, fell prey to a distorted style of thinking that rendered the group members incapable of making a rational decision. Janis labeled this syndrome groupthink : “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (p. 9).
Janis identified both the telltale symptoms that signal the group is experiencing groupthink and the interpersonal factors that combine to cause groupthink. To Janis, groupthink is a disease that infects healthy groups, rendering them inefficient and unproductive. And like the physician who searches for symptoms that distinguish one disease from another, Janis identified a number of symptoms that should serve to warn members that they may be falling prey to groupthink. These symptoms include overestimating the group’s skills and wisdom, biased perceptions and evaluations of other groups and people who are outside of the group, strong conformity pressures within the group, and poor decision-making methods.
Janis also singled out four group-level factors that combine to cause groupthink: cohesion, isolation, biased leadership, and decisional stress.
- Cohesion : Groupthink only occurs in cohesive groups. Such groups have many advantages over groups that lack unity. People enjoy their membership much more in cohesive groups, they are less likely to abandon the group, and they work harder in pursuit of the group’s goals. But extreme cohesiveness can be dangerous. When cohesiveness intensifies, members become more likely to accept the goals, decisions, and norms of the group without reservation. Conformity pressures also rise as members become reluctant to say or do anything that goes against the grain of the group, and the number of internal disagreements—necessary for good decision making—decreases.
- Isolation. Groupthink groups too often work behind closed doors, keeping out of the limelight. They isolate themselves from outsiders and refuse to modify their beliefs to bring them into line with society’s beliefs. They avoid leaks by maintaining strict confidentiality and working only with people who are members of their group.
- Biased leadership . A biased leader who exerts too much authority over group members can increase conformity pressures and railroad decisions. In groupthink groups, the leader determines the agenda for each meeting, sets limits on discussion, and can even decide who will be heard.
- Decisional stress. Groupthink becomes more likely when the group is stressed, particularly by time pressures. When groups are stressed they minimize their discomfort by quickly choosing a plan of action with little argument or dissension. Then, through collective discussion, the group members can rationalize their choice by exaggerating the positive consequences, minimizing the possibility of negative outcomes, concentrating on minor details, and overlooking larger issues.
16.5 You and Your Groups
Most of us belong to at least one group that must make decisions from time to time: a community group that needs to choose a fund-raising project; a union or employee group that must ratify a new contract; a family that must discuss your college plans; or the staff of a high school discussing ways to deal with the potential for violence during football games. Could these kinds of groups experience groupthink? Yes, they could, if the symptoms of groupthink discussed above are present, combined with other contributing causal factors, such as cohesiveness, isolation, biased leadership, and stress. To avoid polarization, the common knowledge effect, and groupthink, groups should strive to emphasize open inquiry of all sides of the issue while admitting the possibility of failure. The leaders of the group can also do much to limit groupthink by requiring full discussion of pros and cons, appointing devil’s advocates, and breaking the group up into small discussion groups.
If these precautions are taken, your group has a much greater chance of making an informed, rational decision. Furthermore, although your group should review its goals, teamwork, and decision-making strategies, the human side of groups—the strong friendships and bonds that make group activity so enjoyable—shouldn’t be overlooked. Groups have instrumental, practical value, but also emotional, psychological value. In groups, we find others who appreciate and value us. In groups, we gain the support we need in difficult times, but also have the opportunity to influence others. In groups, we find evidence of our self-worth, and secure ourselves from the threat of loneliness and despair. For most of us, groups are the secret source of well-being.
16.6 Outside Resources
- Audio: This American Life. Episode 109 deals with the motivation and excitement of joining with others at summer camp.
- Audio: This American Life. Episode 158 examines how people act when they are immersed in a large crowd.
- Audio: This American Life. Episode 61 deals with fiascos, many of which are perpetrated by groups.
- Audio: This American Life. Episode 74 examines how individuals act at conventions when they join with hundreds or thousands of other people who are similar in terms of their avocations or employment.
- Forsyth, D. (2011). Group Dynamics . In R. Miller, E. Balcetis, S. Burns, D. Daniel, B. Saville, & W. Woody (Eds.), Promoting student engagement: Volume 2: Activities, exercises, and demonstrations for psychology courses. (pp. 28-32) Washington, DC: Society for the Teaching of Psychology, American Psychological Association.
- Forsyth, D.R. (n.d.) Group Dynamics: Instructional Resources.
- Journal Article: The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition presents Norman Triplett’s original paper on what would eventually be known as social facilitation.
- Resources for the Teaching of Social Psychology .
- Social Psychology Network Student Activities
- Society for Social and Personality Psychology
- Tablante, C. B., & Fiske, S. T. (2015). Teaching social class. Teaching of Psychology , 42, 184-190. doi:10.1177/0098628315573148 The article abstract can be viewed online. Visit your campus library to access the full-text version.
- Video: Flash mobs illustrate the capacity of groups to organize quickly and complete complex tasks. One well-known example of a pseudo-flash mob is the rendition of “Do Re Mi” from the Sound of Music in the Central Station of Antwerp in 2009.
-
- Web: Group Development – This is a website developed by James Atherton that provides detailed information about group development, with application to the lifecycle of a typical college course.
- Web: Group Dynamics – A general repository of links, short articles, and discussions examining groups and group processes, including such topics as crowd behavior, leadership, group structure, and influence.
- Web: Stanford Crowd Project – This is a rich resource of information about all things related to crowds, with a particular emphasis on crowds and collective behavior in literature and the arts.
- Working Paper: Law of Group Polarization , by Cass Sunstein, is a wide-ranging application of the concept of polarization to a variety of legal and political decisions.
16.7 References
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
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.
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K. (1999). Social “facilitation” as challenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 , 68–77.
Bond, C. F., Atoum, A. O., & VanLeeuwen, M. D. (1996). Social impairment of complex learning in the wake of public embarrassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18 , 31–44.
Buote, V. M., Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. W., Adams, G., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., Polivy, J., & Wintre, M. G. (2007). The importance of friends: Friendship and adjustment among 1st-year university students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(6) , 665–689.
Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 , 60–67.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96 , 608–630.
Darwin, C. (1859/1963). The origin of species . New York: Washington Square Press.
Dashiell, J. F. (1930). An experimental analysis of some group effects. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25 , 190–199.
Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. (2007). General social surveys (1972–2006) . [machine-readable data file]. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center & Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Retrieved from http://www.norc.uchicago.edu
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 , 497–509.
Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4 , 7–26.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302 , 290–292.
Emerson, R. W. (2004). Essays and poems by Ralph Waldo Emerson . New York: Barnes & Noble. (originally published 1903).
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7 , 117–140.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57 , 271–282.
George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35 , 191–202.
Harkins, S. G. (2006). Mere effort as the mediator of the evaluation-performance relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3) , 436–455.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 56–85). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 , 1011–1025.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 , 681–706.
Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36 , 343–356.
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.
Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 58 , 317–344.
Leary, M. R. & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32 , 1–62.
Littlepage, G. E. (1991). Effects of group size and task characteristics on group performance: A test of Steiner’s model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 , 449–456.
Moreland, R. L. (1987). The formation of small groups. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 8 , 80–110.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15 , 137–192.
Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12 , 125–135.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115 , 210–227.
Mullen, B., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1998). Meta-analysis and the study of group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2 , 213–229.
Myers, D. G., & Bishop, G. D. (1970). Discussion effects on racial attitudes. Science, 169 , 778–789.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83 , 602–627.
Neu, W. A. (2012). Unintended cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences of group assignments. Journal of Marketing Education, 34 (1), 67–81.
Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1 , 248–265.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community . New York: Simon & Schuster.
Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). The wisdom of collectives in organizations: An update of the teamwork competencies. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 39–79). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group . Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 , 81–93.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity . New York: Academic Press.
Stroebe, W. (2012). The truth about Triplett (1898), but nobody seems to care. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (1), 54–57.
Strube, M. J. (2005). What did Triplett really find? A contemporary analysis of the first experiment in social psychology. American Journal of Psychology, 118 , 271–286.
Tindale, R. S., Stawiski, S., & Jacobs, E. (2008). Shared cognition and group learning. In V. I. Sessa & M. London (Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding, improving and assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 73–90). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9 , 507–533.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63 , 384–399.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2 , 419–427.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58 , 425–452.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149 , 269–274.
Attribution
Adapted from The Psychology of Groups by Donelson R. Forsyth under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .


2.5: Levels of Prevention
By the end of this section, you should be able to:
- Identify and differentiate between the five levels of prevention in public health.
- Differentiate public health efforts according to one of the three levels of prevention.
Much of public health focuses on prevention—preventing injuries, preventing acute illnesses, preventing chronic conditions, even preventing unexpected death. The five levels of prevention in public health are primordial, primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary (Figure 2.6). Not all public health professionals or nurses may consider primordial and quaternary prevention in their work; the concepts of primordial and quaternary prevention entered the health care lexicon in 1978 and 1986, respectively, while the other three levels of prevention are familiar to generations of clinicians (Kisling & Das, 2023; Martins et al., 2018).
-
Primordial prevention
focuses on risk factor reduction for an entire population and is usually carried out through large social changes and national policy (Falkner & Lurbe, 2020).
- The American Heart Association has emphasized following the DASH diet (dietary approaches to stop hypertension), participating in physical activity, keeping a healthy body mass index, avoiding smoking, and consuming low or no alcohol as primordial prevention strategies to avoid risk factors for poor cardiac health (Lloyd-Jones et al., 2021).
-
Primary prevention
involves interventions to prevent an adverse health outcome from occurring. Primary prevention interventions may target the population, groups, and communities at high risk of a particular condition. Immunizations and education on healthy lifestyle factors are two examples of primary prevention strategies.
- Medication overuse headache occurs when those who experience headaches take medications to address their pain but then have rebound headaches from using medications too often. A group of researchers designed and implemented an education campaign and guidance for primary care providers and clients on stopping overused medications to prevent this type of headache (Diener et al., 2019).
-
Secondary prevention
focuses on early disease detection to diagnose conditions early and promptly treat them to stop or slow progression and minimize impact. Screening is the primary activity in secondary prevention, but other activities may be conducted.
 Following identification of an ischemic stroke, a secondary prevention strategy includes surgical placement of a stent to help restore blood flow (Diener & Hankey, 2020).
-
Tertiary prevention
strategies aim to lessen the negative impact of a health condition and prevent complications. Treatment through medications, surgical procedures, complementary modalities, therapies, and rehabilitation approaches are tertiary prevention activities.
- Researchers studied an intervention to help individuals who are unhoused during the transition to becoming housed. Over six months, youth who were unhoused received outreach-based case-management services, individual and group mental health support, and peer support. Following program participation, the youth displayed gains in employment, education, and connection to mental health services (Kidd et al., 2019).
-
Quaternary prevention
aims to protect clients from health interventions that might cause more harm than good (Martins et al., 2018). To carry out quaternary prevention, clinicians attempt to avoid conducting tests and exams that are not essential to the client’s plan of care or well-being. For social problems, public health professionals address the risks and harm associated with excessive intervention.
- For example, if a client presented to the urgent care clinic with a runny nose, cough, and no fever for three days with clear lung sounds, the clinician may reason that the client has a viral upper respiratory infection instead of a bacterial upper respiratory infection. Antibiotics would not be needed given the likely viral cause. Additionally, a viral panel to determine the causative agent would yield interesting results but would not change the client’s plan of care. Regardless of the virus, the client would be asked to avoid other people and public spaces, possibly wear a surgical mask when around others, hydrate, get rest, and use over-the-counter medications as needed.
Table 2.2 provides some examples of the levels of prevention applied to different health conditions. Of note, quaternary prevention is not included in the table, as the quaternary activities are generally focused on what clinicians should not do.
| Condition | Primordial | Primary | Secondary | Tertiary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cervical cancer | Mandating health plan coverage of cervical cancer screening tests | HPV vaccine administration | Cervical cancer screening tests | Electrosurgical excision to remove diseased tissue from the cervix |
| Preeclampsia | Mandating health plan coverage of prenatal visits | Blood pressure monitoring and urine testing during pregnancy | Medications to control blood pressure | Immediate delivery of the baby on conversion to eclampsia |
| Migraine | Promoting migraine-friendly schools and offices | Educating individuals about migraine triggers | Medications for symptom relief and prevention | Specialized infusions for chronic pain management |
| Influenza | Use of masks, handwashing, and cough courtesy | Annual vaccine administration | Rapid influenza testing | Antiviral treatments |
| Food insecurity | Funding of social safety nets to reduce poverty and food inaccessibility | Food assistance programs and community gardens | Referrals to food banks and government assistance programs | Employment assistance, financial literacy, and budget training |
| Gun violence | Comprehensive gun control policies | Safe firearm storage education | Early identification of perpetrators and deployment of crisis response | Emergency care and support for victims |
| Youth social media and mental health | Positive digital citizenship and online behavior guidelines for students | Cyberbullying , privacy, safety, and screen time education | Twice-yearly mental health screenings in schools | Therapy programs to address mental health and promote coping strategies |
Read the scenario, and then respond to the questions that follow.
You are working with the Lee family and focusing on the health of the children, Sunshine and Woody.
- Sunshine, life-threatening allergy: Sunshine just started kindergarten and has an epi-pen for a life-threatening nut allergy. She attended an after-school arts and crafts program twice a week but stopped going when Christopher lost his job. Her parents are considering home-schooling due to the increased incidence of school-based gun violence in America.
- Woody, toddler who is generally healthy and attends the daycare where Alexandra works.
- Sunshine and Woody love going to the park near their home with their parents. Both are excited to see their paternal grandparents, who will soon visit from South Korea.
- What adverse health outcomes may occur but have not yet affected Sunshine and Woody? What are some related primary prevention interventions?
- Based on their ages, what secondary prevention activities should be completed?
- How may tertiary prevention activities be implemented for Sunshine’s life-threatening allergy?
- What primordial prevention efforts in the Lee family’s city, state, or nation could positively impact their health?


7.8: Review Questions
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
1.
During middle childhood, in a single year children grow an average of
-
2–3 inches in height and 5–7 pounds
-
1–2 inches in height and 3–5 pounds
-
2–3 inches in height and 7–10 pounds
-
1–2 inches in height and 5–7 pounds
2 .
How many hours of sleep should school-aged children between six and twelve years of age get every night?
-
6–7
-
7–8
-
9–12
-
12–15
3.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), how much moderate to vigorous physical activity should school-aged children get each day?
-
15–30 minutes
-
30–45 minutes
-
1 hour
-
2 hours
4 .
Improvements in writing skills are the result of development of ________.
-
fine motor skills
-
gross motor skills
-
neural pruning
-
prefrontal cortex growth
5.
Henry understands that if he drops the model he has been building, the pieces will likely break apart. He is demonstrating his understanding of ________.
-
conservation tasks
-
seriation skills
-
symbolic thought
-
cause and effect relationships
6 .
According to Piaget, children in the concrete operational stage of cognitive development are capable of ________.
-
thinking abstractly
-
using logic to solve real, tangible problems
-
solving a false-belief task
-
dividing their attention between multiple tasks simultaneously
7.
Piaget called mental actions that use logic and are reversible ________.
-
operations
-
executive functions
-
metacognitions
-
working memory
8 .
Cognitive skills tied to the maturation of the prefrontal cortex and used to regulate behavior are ________.
-
operations
-
executive functions
-
metacognitions
-
working memory
9.
The knowledge about how we think and learn is ________.
-
metacognition
-
abstract reasoning
-
concrete operational thinking
-
working memory
10 .
One component of the general definition of intelligence is an individual's ability to
-
adapt to their world
-
succeed in school
-
have a successful career
-
use logic to solve problems
11.
Which trend in intelligence scores is described by the Flynn effect?
-
IQ scores fluctuate across childhood.
-
Average IQ scores have steadily increased over time.
-
IQ scores can predict future happiness.
-
IQ scores are no longer useful predictors of academic achievement.
12 .
On a standardized intelligence test, the average IQ score for a population is
-
around 50
-
around 70
-
around 100
-
around 130
13.
What is a key criticism of intelligence tests?
-
The assessments may be culturally biased.
-
The assessments are not standardized.
-
The assessments demonstrate poor reliability.
-
The assessments demonstrate poor validity.
14 .
Teaching is based on direct instruction by the instructor, and that individual has full focus and control of the room in ________ classrooms.
-
teacher-centered
-
student-centered
-
informal education
-
hidden curriculum
15.
Mr. Sahib is a teacher who believes that students should be encouraged to actively explore their environments because this exploration provides the best opportunities for learning. This is an example of ________.
-
constructivism
-
reinforcement
-
behaviorism
-
informal education
16 .
Extracurricular activities and the skills that children learn from parents in the home are examples of
-
constructivism
-
informal schooling
-
formal schooling
-
behaviorism
17.
Because it emerges in childhood when the brain is still maturing, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is a type of a(n)
-
neurodevelopmental disorder
-
intellectual disability
-
emotional disorder
-
learning disability
18 .
Dontae understands that
bat
has two different meanings. He also understands that recognizing which meaning is being used by a speaker depends on the context in which the word occurs in a sentence and situation. This is an example of
-
metalinguistic awareness
-
pragmatics
-
phonics
-
whole language
19.
Ajah is learning how to sound out the word “car” by making the “k” sound and the “ar” sound. This is an example of the ________ approach to learning to read.
-
phonics-based
-
whole language
-
pragmatics
-
immersion
20 .
Emma is rapidly switching between English and Spanish when she talks to her friends and her father. She is demonstrating
-
code-switching
-
metalinguistic awareness
-
immersion
-
pragmatics


10.9: Ruffin v. Commmonwealth – 62 Va 790 (1871)
Rights of Prisoners
Rights of Prisoners .—Until relatively recently the view prevailed that a prisoner “has, as a consequence of his crime, not only forfeited his liberty, but all his personal rights except those which the law in its humanity accords to him. He is for the time being the slave of the state.” 1122 This view is not now the law, and may never have been wholly correct. 1123 In 1948 the Court declared that “[l]awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights”; 1124 “many,” indicated less than “all,” and it was clear that the due process and equal protection clauses to some extent do apply to prisoners. 1125 More direct acknowledgment of constitutional protection came in 1972: “[f]ederal courts sit not to supervise prisons but to enforce the constitutional rights of all ‘persons,’ which include prisoners. We are not unmindful that prison officials must be accorded latitude in the administration of prison affairs, and that prisoners necessarily are subject to appropriate rules and regulations. But persons in prison, like other individuals, have the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances …” 1126 However, while the Court affirmed that federal courts have the responsibility to scrutinize prison practices alleged to violate the Constitution, at the same time concerns of federalism and of judicial restraint caused the Court to emphasize the necessity of deference to the judgments of prison officials and others with responsibility for administering such systems. 1127
1122 Ruffin v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. 790, 796 (1871).
1123 Cf. In re Bonner, 151 U.S. 242 (1894).
1124 Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266 , 285 (1948).
1125 “There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 555 -56 (1974).
Save for challenges to conditions of confinement of pretrial detainees, 1128 the Court has generally treated challenges to prison conditions as a whole under the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment, 1129 while challenges to particular incidents and practices are pursued under the due process clause 1130 or more specific provisions, such as the First Amendment speech and religion clauses. 1131 Prior to formulating its current approach, the Court recognized several rights of prisoners. Prisoners have a right to be free of racial segregation in prisons, except for the necessities of prison security and discipline. 1132 They have the right to petition for redress of grievances, which includes access to the courts for purposes of presenting their complaints, 1133 and to bring actions in federal courts to recover for damages wrongfully done them by prison administrators. 1134 And they have a right, circumscribed by legitimate prison administration considerations, to fair and regular treatment during their incarceration.
1126 Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 , 321 (1972). See also Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 , 404 -05 (1974) (invalidating state prison mail censorship regulations).
1127 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 , 545 -548, 551, 555, 562 (1979) (federal prison); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 , 347 , 351-352 (1981).
1128 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). Persons not yet convicted of a crime may be detained by government upon the appropriate determination of probable cause and the detention may be effectuated through subjection of the prisoner to the restrictions and conditions of the detention facility. But a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law. Therefore, unconvicted detainees may not be subjected to conditions and restrictions that amount to punishment. However, the Court limited its concept of punishment to practices intentionally inflicted by prison authorities and to practices which were arbitrary or purposeless and unrelated to legitimate institutional objectives.
1129 See “ Prisons and Punishment ,” supra.
1130 E.g. , Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974); Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980); Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (prison inmate has liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs).
1131 E.g. , Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974); Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977). On religious practices and ceremonies, see Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972).
1132 Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968). There was some question as to the standard to be applied to racial discrimination in prisons after Turner v. Safley , 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations upheld if “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”). In Johnson v. California , 543 U.S. 499 (2005), however, the Court held that discriminatory prison regulations would continue to be evaluated under a “strict scrutiny” standard, which requires that regulations be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. Id. at 509-13 (striking down a requirement that new or transferred prisoners at the reception area of a correctional facility be assigned a cellmate of the same race for up to 60 days before they are given a regular housing assignment).
1133 Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941); White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760 (1945). Prisoners must have reasonable access to a law library or to persons trained in the law. Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 (1971); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1978). Establishing a right of access to law materials, however, requires an individualized demonstration of an inmate having been hindered in efforts to pursue a legal claim.
1134 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (no requirement that the State “enable [a] prisoner to discover grievances, and to litigate effectively”).
In Turner v. Safley , 1135 the Court announced a general standard for measuring prisoners’ claims of deprivation of constitutional rights. “[W]hen a regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” 1136 Several considerations, the Court indicated, are appropriate in determining reasonableness of a prison regulation. First, there must be a rational relation to a legitimate, content-neutral objective, such as prison security, broadly defined. Availability of other avenues for exercise of the inmate right suggests reasonableness. * A further indicium of reasonableness is present if accommodation would have a negative effect on liberty or safety of guards or other inmates. On the other hand, an alternative to regulation “that fully accommodated the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests” suggests unreasonableness. 1137
Fourth Amendment protection is incompatible with “the concept of incarceration and the needs and objectives of penal institutions,” hence a prisoner has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell protecting him from “shakedown” searches designed to root out weapons, drugs, and other contraband. 1138 Avenues of redress “for calculated harassment unrelated to prison needs” are not totally blocked, the Court indicated; inmates may still seek protection in the Eighth Amendment or in state tort law. 1139 Existence of “a meaningful postdeprivation remedy” for unauthorized, intentional deprivation of an inmate’s property by prison personnel protects the inmate’s due process rights. 1140 Due process is not implicated at all by negligent deprivation of life, liberty, or property by prison officials. 1141
1135 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (upholding a Missouri rule barring inmate-to-inmate correspondence, but striking down a prohibition on inmate marriages absent compelling reason such as pregnancy or birth of a child).
1136 482 U.S. at 89. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (upholding restrictions on prison visitation by unrelated children or children over whom a prisoner’s parental rights have been terminated, and all regular visitation for a period following a prisoner’s violation of substance abuse rules).
* For instance, limiting who may visit prisoners is ameliorated by the ability of prisoners to communicate through other visitors, by letter, or by phone. 539 U.S. at 135.
1137 482 U.S. at 91.
1138 Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 , 526 (1984); Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984) (holding also that prison security needs support a rule prohibiting pre-trial detainees contact visits with spouses, children, relatives, and friends).
1139 Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 , 530 (1984).
1140 Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 , 533 (1984) (holding that state tort law provided adequate postdeprivation remedies). But see Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (availability of postdeprivation remedy is inadequate when deprivation is foreseeable, predeprivation process was possible, and official conduct was not “unauthorized”).
1141 Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986).
In Wolff v. McDonnell , 1142 the Court promulgated due process standards to govern the imposition of discipline upon prisoners. Due process applies, but since prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution the full panoply of rights of a defendant is not available. Rather, the analysis must proceed on a basis of identifying the interest in “liberty” which the clause protects.
Thus, where the state provides for good-time credit or other privileges and further provides for forfeiture of these privileges only for serious misconduct, the interest of the prisoner in this degree of “liberty” entitles him to those minimum procedures appropriate under the circumstances. 1143 What the minimum procedures consist of is to be determined by balancing the prisoner’s interest against the valid interest of the prison in maintaining security and order in the institution, in protecting guards and prisoners against retaliation by other prisoners, and in reducing prison tensions. The Court held in Wolff that the prison must afford the subject of a disciplinary proceeding advance written notice of the claimed violation and a written statement of the fact findings as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the action taken; also, the inmate should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in defense when permitting him to do so will not hazard the institution’s interests. 1144 Confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses is not required inasmuch as these would no doubt hazard valid institutional interests. Ordinarily, an inmate has no right to representation by retained or appointed counsel. Finally, only a partial right to an impartial tribunal was recognized, the Court ruling that limitations imposed on the discretion of a committee of prison officials sufficed for this purpose. 1145 Revocation of good time credits, the Court later ruled, must be supported by “some evidence in the record,” but an amount that “might be characterized as meager” is constitutionally sufficient. 1146
1142 418 U.S. 539 (1974).
1143 418 U.S. at 557. This analysis, of course tracks the interest analysis discussed under “ The Interests Protected: “Life, Liberty and Property” ,” supra.
1144 However, the Court later ruled, reasons for denying an inmate’s request to call witnesses need not be disclosed until the issue is raised in court. Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 (1985).
1145 418 U.S. at 561-72. The Court continues to adhere to its refusal to require appointment of counsel. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 , 496 -97 (1980), and id. at 497- 500 (Justice Powell concurring); Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976).
1146 Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 , 454 , 457 (1985).
Determination whether due process requires a hearing before a prisoner is transferred from one institution to another requires a close analysis of the applicable statutes and regulations as well as a consideration of the particular harm suffered by the transferee. On the one hand, the Court found that no hearing need be held prior to the transfer from one prison to another prison in which the conditions were substantially less favorable. Since the State had not conferred any right to remain in the facility to which the prisoner was first assigned, defeasible upon the commission of acts for which transfer is a punishment, prison officials had unfettered discretion to transfer any prisoner for any reason or for no reason at all; consequently, there was nothing to hold a hearing about. 1147 The same principles govern interstate prison transfers. 1148
Transfer of a prisoner to a high security facility, with an attendant loss of the right to parole, gave rise to a liberty interest, although the due process requirements to protect this interest are limited. 61 On the other hand, transfer of a prisoner to a mental hospital pursuant to a statute authorizing transfer if the inmate suffers from a “mental disease or defect” must be preceded by a hearing for two alternative reasons. First, the statute gave the inmate a liberty interest since it presumed he would not be moved absent a finding he was suffering from a mental disease or defect. Second, unlike transfers from one prison to another, transfer to a mental institution was not within the range of confinement covered by the prisoner’s sentence, and, moreover, imposed a stigma constituting a deprivation of a liberty interest. 1149
What kind of a hearing is required before a state may force a mentally ill prisoner to take antipsychotic drugs against his will was at issue in Washington v. Harper . 1150 There the Court held that a judicial hearing was not required. Instead, the inmate’s substantive liberty interest (derived from the Due Process Clause as well as from state law) was adequately protected by an administrative hearing before independent medical professionals, at which hearing the inmate has the right to a lay advisor but not an attorney.
1147 Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976); Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976).
1148 Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983).
61 Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 224 (2005) (assignment to Ohio SuperMax prison, with attendant loss of parole eligibility and with only annual status review, constitutes an “atypical and significant hardship”). In Wilkinson , the Court upheld Ohio’s multi-level review process, despite the fact that a prisoner was provided only summary notice as to the allegations against him, a limited record was created, the prisoner could not call witnesses, and reevaluation of the assignment only occurred at one 30-day review and then annually. Id. at 219-20.
1149 Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980).
1150 494 U.S. 210 (1990).
Pages: 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Contributors and Attributions
- Authored by : US Government. Located at : http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/64-rights-of-prisoners.html . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright


11: Stealing
You shall not steal. 1
The Bible reference above is absolutist in nature. It does not say that you should not steal so long as you have enough resources available to you, or that you should not steal if your neighbor has been good to you. Rather, it simply says that you should not steal full stop. Partly as a result of this particular commandment and the impact of Christianity upon social custom in many parts of the world, the message that stealing is a moral wrong is pervasive and fairly uncontroversial, at least prima facie . For example, if you hear that someone has been sent to prison for stealing, it would likely take something atypical for you to question whether or not the person deserved punishment for his or her crime. In this chapter, we apply the key normative theories of Kantian Ethics, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics to the issue of stealing.


19.1: Introduction to Phylogenies
This bee and Echinacea flower could not look more different, yet they are related, as are all living organisms on Earth. By following pathways of similarities and changes—both visible and genetic—scientists seek to map the evolutionary past of how life developed from single-celled organisms to the tremendous collection of creatures that have germinated, crawled, floated, swam, flown, and walked on this planet.
Contributors and Attributions
-
Connie Rye (East Mississippi Community College), Robert Wise (University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh), Vladimir Jurukovski (Suffolk County Community College), Jean DeSaix (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Jung Choi (Georgia Institute of Technology), Yael Avissar (Rhode Island College) among other contributing authors. Original content by OpenStax (CC BY 4.0; Download for free at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>).


12.2: Finding Composite and Inverse Functions
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Find and evaluate composite functions
- Determine whether a function is one-to-one
- Find the inverse of a function
Before you get started, take this readiness quiz.
-
If \(f(x)=2 x-3\) and \(g(x)=x^{2}+2 x-3\), find \(f(4)\).
If you missed this problem, review Example 3.48. -
Solve for \(x\), \(3x+2y=12\).
If you missed this problem, review Example 2.31. -
Simplify: \(5 \frac{(x+4)}{5}-4\).
If you missed this problem, review Example 1.25.
In this chapter, we will introduce two new types of functions, exponential functions and logarithmic functions. These functions are used extensively in business and the sciences as we will see.
Find and Evaluate Composite Functions
Before we introduce the functions, we need to look at another operation on functions called composition. In composition, the output of one function is the input of a second function. For functions \(f\) and \(g\), the composition is written \(f∘g\) and is defined by \((f∘g)(x)=f(g(x))\).
We read \(f(g(x))\) as “\(f\) of \(g\) of \(x\).”
To do a composition, the output of the first function, \(g(x)\), becomes the input of the second function, \(f\), and so we must be sure that it is part of the domain of \(f\) .
Definition \(\PageIndex{1}\)
The composition of functions \(f\) and \(g\) is written \(f \cdot g\) and is defined by
\((f \circ g)(x)=f(g(x))\)
We read \(f(g(x))\) as \(f\) of \(g\) of \(x\).
We have actually used composition without using the notation many times before. When we graphed quadratic functions using translations, we were composing functions. For example, if we first graphed \(g(x)=x^{2}\) as a parabola and then shifted it down vertically four units, we were using the composition defined by \((f∘g)(x)=f(g(x))\) where \(f(x)=x−4\).
Example \(\PageIndex{1}\)
For functions \(f(x)=4x-5\) and \(g(x)=2x+3\), find
- \((f \circ g)(x)\)
- \((g \circ f)(x)\)
- \((f \cdot g)(x)\)
Solution :
-
Use the definition of \((f \circ g)(x)\). Distribute. Simplify. Table 10.1.1 -
Use the definition of \((f \circ g)(x)\). Distribute. Simplify. Table 10.1.2
Notice the difference in the result in part a. and part b.
c. Notice that \((f \cdot g)(x)\) is different than \((f \circ g)(x)\). In part a. we did the composition of the functions. Now in part c. we are not composing them, we are multiplying them.
Use the definition of \((f \cdot g)(x)\).
\((f \cdot g)(x)=f(x) \cdot g(x)\)
Substitute \(f(x)=4 x-5\) and \(g(x)=2 x+3\).
\((f \cdot g)(x)=(4 x-5) \cdot(2 x+3)\)
Multiply.
\((f \cdot g)(x)=8 x^{2}+2 x-15\)
Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)
For functions \(f(x)=3x-2\) and \(g(x)=5x+1\), find
- \((f \circ g)(x)\)
- \((g \circ f)(x)\)
- \((f \cdot g)(x)\)
- Answer
-
- \(15x+1\)
- \(15x-9\)
- \(15 x^{2}-7 x-2\)
Exercise \(\PageIndex{2}\)
For functions \(f(x)=4 x-3\), and \(g(x)=6x-5\), find
- \((f \circ g)(x)\)
- \((g \circ f)(x)\)
- \((f \cdot g)(x)\)
- Answer
-
- \(24 x-23\)
- \(24 x-23\)
- \(24 x^{2}-38 x+15\)
In the next example we will evaluate a composition for a specific value.
Example \(\PageIndex{2}\)
For functions \(f(x)=x^{2}-4\), and \(g(x)=3 x+2\), find:
- \((f \circ g)(-3)\)
- \((g \circ f)(-1)\)
- \((f \circ f)(2)\)
Solution :
-
Use the definition of \((f \circ g)(-3)\). Simplify. Simplify. Table 10.1.3 -
Use the definition of \((g \circ f)(-1)\). Simplify. Simplify. Table 10.1.4 -
Use the definition of \((f \circ f)(2)\). Simplify. Simplify. Table 10.1.5
Exercise \(\PageIndex{3}\)
For functions \(f(x)=x^{2}-9\), and \(g(x)=2x+5\), find
- \((f \circ g)(-2)\)
- \((g \circ f)(-3)\)
- \((f \circ f)(4)\)
- Answer
-
- \(-8\)
- \(5\)
- \(40\)
Exercise \(\PageIndex{4}\)
For functions \(f(x)=x^{2}+1\), and \(g(x)=3x-5\), find
- \((f \circ g)(-1)\)
- \((g \circ f)(2)\)
- \((f \circ f)(-1)\)
- Answer
-
- \(65\)
- \(10\)
- \(5\)
Determine Whether a Function is One-to-One
When we first introduced functions, we said a function is a relation that assigns to each element in its domain exactly one element in the range. For each ordered pair in the relation, each \(x\)-value is matched with only one \(y\)-value.
We used the birthday example to help us understand the definition. Every person has a birthday, but no one has two birthdays and it is okay for two people to share a birthday. Since each person has exactly one birthday, that relation is a function.
A function is one-to-one if each value in the range has exactly one element in the domain. For each ordered pair in the function, each y -value is matched with only one \(x\)-value.
Our example of the birthday relation is not a one-to-one function. Two people can share the same birthday. The range value August 2 is the birthday of Liz and June, and so one range value has two domain values. Therefore, the function is not one-to-one.
Definition \(\PageIndex{2}\)
A function is one-to-one if each value in the range corresponds to one element in the domain. For each ordered pair in the function, each \(y\)-value is matched with only one \(x\)-value. There are no repeated \(y\)-values.
Example \(\PageIndex{3}\)
For each set of ordered pairs, determine if it represents a function and, if so, if the function is one-to-one.
- \(\{(-3,27),(-2,8),(-1,1),(0,0),(1,1),(2,8),(3,27)\}\)
- \(\{(0,0),(1,1),(4,2),(9,3),(16,4)\}\)
Solution :
-
\(\{(-3,27),(-2,8),(-1,1),(0,0),(1,1),(2,8),(3,27)\}\)
Each \(x\)-value is matched with only one \(y\)-value. So this relation is a function.
But each \(y\)-value is not paired with only one \(x\)-value, \((−3,27)\) and \((3,27)\), for example. So this function is not one-to-one.
-
\(\{(0,0),(1,1),(4,2),(9,3),(16,4)\}\)
Each \(x\)-value is matched with only one \(y\)-value. So this relation is a function.
Since each \(y\)-value is paired with only one \(x\)-value, this function is one-to-one.
Exercise \(\PageIndex{5}\)
For each set of ordered pairs, determine if it represents a function and if so, is the function one-to-one.
- \(\{(-3,-6),(-2,-4),(-1,-2),(0,0),(1,2),(2,4),(3,6)\}\)
- \(\{(-4,8),(-2,4),(-1,2),(0,0),(1,2),(2,4),(4,8)\}\)
- Answer
-
- One-to-one function
- Function; not one-to-one
Exercise \(\PageIndex{6}\)
For each set of ordered pairs, determine if it represents a function and if so, is the function one-to-one.
- \(\{(27,-3),(8,-2),(1,-1),(0,0),(1,1),(8,2),(27,3)\}\)
- \(\{(7,-3),(-5,-4),(8,0),(0,0),(-6,4),(-2,2),(-1,3)\}\)
- Answer
-
- Not a function
- Function; not one-to-one
To help us determine whether a relation is a function, we use the vertical line test . A set of points in a rectangular coordinate system is the graph of a function if every vertical line intersects the graph in at most one point. Also, if any vertical line intersects the graph in more than one point, the graph does not represent a function.
The vertical line is representing an \(x\)-value and we check that it intersects the graph in only one \(y\)-value. Then it is a function.
To check if a function is one-to-one, we use a similar process. We use a horizontal line and check that each horizontal line intersects the graph in only one point. The horizontal line is representing a \(y\)-value and we check that it intersects the graph in only one \(x\)-value. If every horizontal line intersects the graph of a function in at most one point, it is a one-to-one function. This is the horizontal line test .
Definition \(\PageIndex{3}\)
Horizontal Line Test
If every horizontal line intersects the graph of a function in at most one point, it is a one-to-one function.
We can test whether a graph of a relation is a function by using the vertical line test. We can then tell if the function is one-to-one by applying the horizontal line test.
Example \(\PageIndex{4}\)
Determine
- whether each graph is the graph of a function and, if so,
- whether it is one-to-one
Solution :
-
Figure 10.1.40
Since any vertical line intersects the graph in at most one point, the graph is the graph of a function. Since any horizontal line intersects the graph in at most one point, the graph is the graph of a one-to-one function.
b.
Since any vertical line intersects the graph in at most one point, the graph is the graph of a function. The horizontal line shown on the graph intersects it in two points. This graph does not represent a one-to-one function.
Exercise \(\PageIndex{7}\)
Determine
- whether each graph is the graph of a function and, if so,
- whether it is one-to-one
- Answer
-
- Not a function
- One-to-one function
Exercise \(\PageIndex{8}\)
Determine
- whether each graph is the graph of a function and, if so,
- whether it is one-to-one
- Answer
-
- Function; not one-to-one
- One-to-one function
Find the Inverse of a Function
Let’s look at a one-to one function, \(f\), represented by the ordered pairs \(\{(0,5),(1,6),(2,7),(3,8)\}\). For each \(x\)-value, \(f\) adds \(5\) to get the \(y\)-value. To ‘undo’ the addition of \(5\), we subtract \(5\) from each \(y\)-value and get back to the original \(x\)-value. We can call this “taking the inverse of \(f\)” and name the function \(f^{−1}\).
Notice that that the ordered pairs of \(f\) and \(f^{−1}\) have their \(x\)-values and \(y\)-values reversed. The domain of \(f\) is the range of \(f^{−1}\) and the domain of \(f^{−1}\) is the range of \(f\).
Definition \(\PageIndex{4}\)
Inverse of a Function Defined by Ordered Pairs
If \(f(x)\) is a one-to-one function whose ordered pairs are of the form \((x,y)\), then its inverse function \(f^{−1}(x)\) is the set of ordered pairs \((y,x)\).
In the next example we will find the inverse of a function defined by ordered pairs.
Example \(\PageIndex{5}\)
Find the inverse of the function \(\{(0,3),(1,5),(2,7),(3,9)\}\). Determine the domain and range of the inverse function.
Solution :
This function is one-to-one since every \(x\)-value is paired with exactly one \(y\)-value.
To find the inverse we reverse the \(x\)-values and \(y\)-values in the ordered pairs of the function.
\(\begin{array}{ll} {\text{Function}}&{\{(0,3),(1,5),(2,7),(3,9)\}} \\ {\text{Inverse Function}}& {\{(3,0), (5,1), (7,2), (9,3)\}} \\ {\text{Domain of Inverse Function}}&{\{3, 5, 7, 9\}} \\ {\text{Range of Inverse Function}}&{\{0, 1, 2, 3\}} \end{array}\)
Exercise \(\PageIndex{9}\)
Find the inverse of \(\{(0,4),(1,7),(2,10),(3,13)\}\). Determine the domain and range of the inverse function.
- Answer
-
Inverse function: \(\{(4,0),(7,1),(10,2),(13,3)\}\). Domain: \(\{4,7,10,13\}\). Range: \(\{0,1,2,3\}\).
Exercise \(\PageIndex{10}\)
Find the inverse of \(\{(-1,4),(-2,1),(-3,0),(-4,2)\}\). Determine the domain and range of the inverse function.
- Answer
-
Inverse function: \(\{(4,-1),(1,-2),(0,-3),(2,-4)\}\). Domain: \(\{0,1,2,4\}\). Range: \(\{-4,-3,-2,-1\}\).
We just noted that if \(f(x)\) is a one-to-one function whose ordered pairs are of the form \((x,y)\), then its inverse function \(f^{−1}(x)\) is the set of ordered pairs \((y,x)\).
So if a point \((a,b)\) is on the graph of a function \(f(x)\), then the ordered pair \((b,a)\) is on the graph of \(f^{−1}(x)\). See Figure 10.1.43.
The distance between any two pairs \((a,b)\) and \((b,a)\) is cut in half by the line \(y=x\). So we say the points are mirror images of each other through the line \(y=x\).
Since every point on the graph of a function \(f(x)\) is a mirror image of a point on the graph of \(f^{−1}(x)\), we say the graphs are mirror images of each other through the line \(y=x\). We will use this concept to graph the inverse of a function in the next example.
Example \(\PageIndex{6}\)
Graph, on the same coordinate system, the inverse of the one-to one function shown.
Solution :
We can use points on the graph to find points on the inverse graph. Some points on the graph are: \((−5,−3),(−3,−1),(−1,0),(0,2),(3,4)\).
So, the inverse function will contain the points: \((−3,−5),(−1,−3),(0,−1),(2,0),(4,3)\).
Notice how the graph of the original function and the graph of the inverse functions are mirror images through the line \(y=x\).
Exercise \(\PageIndex{11}\)
Graph, on the same coordinate system, the inverse of the one-to one function.
- Answer
Exercise \(\PageIndex{12}\)
Graph, on the same coordinate system, the inverse of the one-to one function.
- Answer
When we began our discussion of an inverse function, we talked about how the inverse function ‘undoes’ what the original function did to a value in its domain in order to get back to the original \(x\)-value.
Definition \(\PageIndex{5}\)
Inverse Functions
\(f^{-1}(f(x))=x\), for all \(x\) in the domain of \(f\)
\(f\left(f^{-1}(x)\right)=x\), for all \(x\) in the domain of \(f^{-1}\)
We can use this property to verify that two functions are inverses of each other.
Example \(\PageIndex{7}\)
Verify that \(f(x)=5x−1\) and \(g(x)=\frac{x+1}{5}\) are inverse functions.
Solution :
The functions are inverses of each other if \(g(f(x))=x\) and \(f(g(x))=x\).
| Substitue \(5x-1\) for \(f(x)\). | |
| Simplify. | |
| Simplify. | |
| Substitute \(\frac{x+1}{5}\) for \(g(x)\). | |
| Simplify. | |
| Simplify. |
Since both \(g(f(x))=x\) and \(f(g(x))=x\) are true, the functions \(f(x)=5x−1\) and \(g(x)=\frac{x+1}{5}\) are inverse functions. That is, they are inverses of each other.
Exercise \(\PageIndex{13}\)
Verify that the functions are inverse functions. \(f(x)=4 x-3\) and \(g(x)=\frac{x+3}{4}\).
- Answer
-
\(g(f(x))=x\), and \(f(g(x))=x\), so they are inverses.
Exercise \(\PageIndex{14}\)
Verify that the functions are inverse functions. \(f(x)=2 x+6\) and \(g(x)=\frac{x-6}{2}\)
- Answer
-
\(g(f(x))=x,\) and \(f(g(x))=x,\) so they are inverses.
We have found inverses of function defined by ordered pairs and from a graph. We will now look at how to find an inverse using an algebraic equation. The method uses the idea that if \(f(x)\) is a one-to-one function with ordered pairs \((x,y)\), then its inverse function \(f^{−1}(x)\) is the set of ordered pairs \((y,x)\).
If we reverse the \(x\) and \(y\) in the function and then solve for \(y\), we get our inverse function .
Example \(\PageIndex{8}\) How to Find the Inverse of a One-to-One Function
Find the inverse of \(f(x)=4 x+7\).
Solution :
| Step 1 . Substitute \(y\) for \(f(x)\). | Replace \(f(x)\) with \(y\). | \(\begin{aligned} f(x) &=4 x+7 \\ y &=4 x+7 \end{aligned}\) |
| Step 2 : Interchange the variables \(x\) and \(y\). | Replace \(x\) with \(y\) and then \(y\) with \(x\). | \(x=4y+7\) |
| Step 3 : Solve for \(y\). |
Subtract \(7\) from each side. Divide by \(4\). |
\(x-7=4 y\)
\(\frac{x-7}{4}=y\) |
| Step 4 : Substitute \(f^{-1}(x)\) for \(y\). | Replace \(y\) with \(f^{-1}(x)\). | \(\frac{x-7}{4}=f^{-1}(x)\) |
| Step 5 : Verify that the functions are inverses. |
Show \(f^{-1}(f(x))=x\) and \(f\left(f^{-1}(x)\right)=x\) |
\(\begin{aligned} f^{-1}(f(x)) & \stackrel{?}{=} x \\f^{-1}(4x+7)&\stackrel{?}{=}x\\ \frac{(4x+7)-7}{4}&\stackrel{?}{=}x \\ \frac{4x}{4}&\stackrel{?}{=}x\\x&=x \\ \\f(f^{-1}(x))&\stackrel{?}{=}x \\f \left(\frac{x-7}{4} \right)&\stackrel{?}{=}x \\ 4\left(\frac{x-7}{4} \right) + 7 &\stackrel{?}{=}x \\ x-7+7&\stackrel{?}{=}x \\x&=x \end{aligned}\) |
Exercise \(\PageIndex{15}\)
Find the inverse of the function \(f(x)=5x-3\).
- Answer
-
\(f^{-1}(x)=\frac{x+3}{5}\)
Exercise \(\PageIndex{16}\)
Find the inverse of the function \(f(x)=8 x+5\).
- Answer
-
\(f^{-1}(x)=\frac{x-5}{8}\)
We summarize the steps below.
How to Find the Inverse of a One-to-One Function
- Substitute \(y\) for \(f(x)\).
- Interchange the variables \(x\) and \(y\).
- Solve for \(y\).
- Substitute \(f^{−1}(x)\) for \(y\).
- Verify that the functions are inverses.
Example \(\PageIndex{9}\) How to Find the Inverse of a One-to-One Function
Find the inverse of \(f(x)=\sqrt[5]{2 x-3}\).
Solution :
\(f(x)=\sqrt[5]{2 x-3}\)
Substitute \(y\) for \(f(x)\).
\(y=\sqrt[5]{2 x-3}\)
Interchange the variables \(x\) and \(y\).
\(x=\sqrt[5]{2 y-3}\)
Solve for \(y\).
\(\begin{aligned}(x)^{5} &=(\sqrt[5]{2 y-3})^{5} \\ x^{5} &=2 y-3 \\ x^{5}+3 &=2 y \\ \frac{x^{5}+3}{2} &=y \end{aligned}\)
Substitute \(f^{-1}(x)\) for \(y\).
\(f^{-1}(x)=\frac{x^{5}+3}{2}\)
Verify that the functions are inverses.
\(\begin{array}{rr} {f^{-1}(f(x)) \stackrel{?}{=} x} & {f\left(f^{-1}(x)\right) \stackrel{?}{=} x} \\ {f^{-1}(\sqrt[5]{2x-3})\stackrel{?}{=}x}&{f\left(\frac{x^{5}+3}{2} \right)}\stackrel{?}{=}x \\ {\frac{(\sqrt[5]{2x-3})^{5}+3}{2}\stackrel{?}{=}x}&{\sqrt[5]{2\left(\frac{x^{5}+3}{2} \right)-3}\stackrel{?}{=}x} \\ {\frac{2x-3+3}{2}\stackrel{?}{=}x}&{\sqrt[5]{x^{5}+3-3}\stackrel{?}{=}x}\\ {\frac{2x}{2}\stackrel{?}{=}x}&{\sqrt[5]{x^{5}}\stackrel{?}{=}x} \\ {x=x}&{x=x} \end{array}\)
Exercise \(\PageIndex{17}\)
Find the inverse of the function \(f(x)=\sqrt[5]{3 x-2}\).
- Answer
-
\(f^{-1}(x)=\frac{x^{5}+2}{3}\)
Exercise \(\PageIndex{18}\)
Find the inverse of the function \(f(x)=\sqrt[4]{6 x-7}\).
- Answer
-
\(f^{-1}(x)=\frac{x^{4}+7}{6}\)
Key Concepts
-
Composition of Functions:
The composition of functions \(f\) and \(g\), is written \(f∘g\) and is defined by
\((f \circ g)(x)=f(g(x))\)
We read \(f(g(x))\) as \(f\) of \(g\) of \(x\). - Horizontal Line Test: If every horizontal line, intersects the graph of a function in at most one point, it is a one-to-one function.
- Inverse of a Function Defined by Ordered Pairs: If \(f(x)\) is a one-to-one function whose ordered pairs are of the form \((x,y)\), then its inverse function \(f^{−1}(x)\) is the set of ordered pairs \((y,x)\).
-
Inverse Functions:
For every \(x\) in the domain of one-to-one function \(f\) and \(f^{−1}\),
\(f^{-1}(f(x))=x\)
\(f\left(f^{-1}(x)\right)=x\) -
How to Find the Inverse of a One-to-One Function:
- Substitute \(y\) for \(f(x)\).
- Interchange the variables \(x\) and \(y\).
- Solve for \(y\).
- Substitute \(f^{−1}(x)\) for \(y\).
- Verify that the functions are inverses.
Glossary
- one-to-one function
- A function is one-to-one if each value in the range has exactly one element in the domain. For each ordered pair in the function, each \(y\)-value is matched with only one \(x\)-value.


2.1: Lesson 2.1: World View and Self Efficacy
World View
Most textbook chapters on management tasks involved in effective learning start with the famous (and infamous) topic of procrastination. The term comes from Middle French and Latin and, of course, means putting something off until later.
It is hardly necessary to define this common problem at school–and everywhere else–in any language, however. We all know what it is. We all do it, and we’ve all suffered to some extent because of it (missed deadlines tend to make instructors–and bosses–crabby).
But here is a problem: some people procrastinate more than others. And NOT just because they are lazy, disorganized, unmotivated, or confused about what to do. Those might be the surface assumptions and sometimes true, but at other times, or perhaps beneath what appear to be the behaviors listed above, defeating habits like procrastination have to do with deeper issues, maybe beliefs and thought patterns such as:
- “What’s the use if I get this done, or not?”
- “I do better under stress, so leaving things until the last minute actually helps me.”
- “I’m just naturally disorganized.”
- “I never manage to do anything on time. I’ve always been that way!”
This is why Unit 2 begins with “foundational issues,” perspectives and beliefs about ourselves such as our world view that operates at the bottom of our pile of motivations, and our sense of self-efficacy (or lack thereof) that generates thoughts that either work for or against us when it comes to successfully managing time, tools, and environments of learning. Lesson 2.2 deals with procrastination itself, often a by-product of a negative or unexamined world view and a low sense of self-efficacy, but with an emphasis on how to overcome it.
First, here is a look at world view, a concept some experts put at the foundational level of how we think and perceive the world. On top of our world view, so to speak, and as a result of it, are our beliefs. And on top of beliefs lay our conscious-level feelings and thoughts.
Our world view, as researcher F. Heylighen defines it, is “a framework that ties everything together, that allows us to understand society, the world, and our place in it, and that could help us to make the critical decisions which will shape our future.” In his article What is a world view? Heylighen, citing the work of Belgian philosopher Leo Apostel, lists seven basic components of a person’s world view:
- A model of the world (how the world functions/how it is structured)
- Explanation (of the model)
- Futurology (where are we going?)
- Values (good/evil)
- Action (plans of action based on our values)
- Knowledge (true and false)
- Building Blocks (what fragments of others’ world views helped us shape ours)
These components cover the fundamental questions about existence human beings find themselves mulling over in time, questions that ultimately guide beliefs, thoughts, and feelings.
Exercise 2.1 is based on Heylighen’s article. Whereas this exercise is not a “personal inventory” per se, it has value in guiding the learner to discovering, perhaps, some foundational issues that can hinder a successful approach to overcoming non-productive actions and habits such as procrastination.
For example, if a person has a world view that is post modern, he/she views the world with a heavy dose of skepticism and distrust of ideologies, rationality, and absolute truth. Therefore, it might be easy to subscribe to a “What’s the use?” thought and feeling when it comes to academic and work-world norms such as being on time and getting one’s work done.
Note : it is not necessary, however, to know precisely which world view one has been influenced by to complete the exercise. Indeed, most people more or less absorb their world views from parents, institutions, and the culture in which they grew up. The value in knowing such information about oneself is in understanding how to deal with certain attitudes and beliefs that work against successful learning, and success in life in general. It is also valuable to know what has contributed to successful attitudes and beliefs so that these can be affirmed and reinforced for future success.
UNIT 2, EXERCISE 2.1
- Read the article by Heylighen, linked above, for a more detailed explanation of world view and the seven components he cites.
- Briefly respond to your thoughts on each of the seven components. If you have not given much thought to some of them as of yet, take time to consider them now. Three to five sentences will likely be sufficient for each component , for a total of approximately 21-35 sentences. It would be helpful to number the components. This does not have to be completed as an essay.
Self Efficacy
Self efficacy, or one’s sense of being able to achieve goals, is an essential ingredient in a learner’s ability to succeed. Thoughts and feelings on this topic, which stem from one’s beliefs (remember the pyramid illustration) contribute to more, or less, success.
A key element of self efficacy is the concept of locus of control. As the definition indicates, the locus, or place, of control is usually either internal or external, but sometimes it is both.
Obviously if a person believes that he/she is in control of situations and outcomes (an internal locus) achieving goals is more likely. If a person believes he/she is controlled by external forces, achieving goals is less likely. But everyone experiences both internal and external forces for various reasons. For example, choosing to do the right thing on the job is based on the external control of workplace rules. Yet, one might apply for the job based on one’s internal belief that he/she can succeed. And both internal and external loci of control are in operation when one chooses to do the right thing at any time based on one’s beliefs about God.

UNIT 2, EXERCISE 2.2
After reading the definition of this concept in the article cited above, answer the following questions:
- List three attitudes and/or perspectives that a person with a primarily internal locus of control might have that will help him/her succeed in life, and why.
- List three attitudes and/or perspectives that a person with a primarily external locus of control might have that might hinder his/her success, and why.
- List three instances where both internal and external loci of control help a person, and why.
A chart might help you organize your response.
INTERNAL EXTERNAL BOTH
UNIT 2, EXERCISE 2.3
Write about FIVE ways the information in this lesson can help you to create and achieve more success in your life-long learning career, whether in a classroom or in any of your other learning arenas. While you are gathering your thoughts about this topic, consider learning situations at school, work, home, and in relationships. 200-300 words (about one page, typed, double-spaced).


3.8: Bold, Italics, Underline
Learning Outcomes
- Make text italic, bold, or underlined.
When formatting a document, you may need to emphasize or distinguish words. You can do this with bold , italics , underline , or all three .
To bold, italicize, or underline, select the text you want to change. Then, select the Bold, Italics, or Underline button in the Home tab as shown below.
You can also select the text, then use a shortcut:
| Bold | Ctrl+B (Command+B for Macs) |
| Italics | Ctrl+I (Command+I for Macs) |
| Underline | Ctrl+U (Command+U for Macs) |
Applying the formatting twice removes the formatting. For example, selecting bolded text and then clicking the Bold button will remove the bold formatting.
Contributors and Attributions
- Bold, Italics, Underline. Authored by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution


9.9: Case Questions
Crowdfunding platforms, such as Kickstarter or GoFundMe, allow startups to access many different investors who may be able to contribute only small amounts in return for relatively small rewards. In the case of the iBackPack, those providing funds through Kickstarter were largely unaware of the company’s postfunding operations.
- How did the lack of oversight harm investors?
- How might this situation have been different if a single angel investor had been involved?
Put yourself in the shoes of the manager of a nonprofit organization, such as a homeless shelter. The ultimate goal is to help people who have suffered misfortune get back on their feet. They likely cannot afford to pay or otherwise contribute to the costs of running the shelter. Thus, you must look to other sources to help pay the bills. Visit the website https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/e...undations-list . What are some ways you might be able to attract donors for the shelter?
3 .While thinking about or visiting the coffee shop in your area, look around (or visualize) and identify items or activities that are the expenses of the coffee shop. Remember, expenses for the coffee shop are related to resources consumed while generating revenue from selling coffee and related items. Do not forget about any expenses that might not be so obvious—as a general rule, every activity in a business has an associated cost.