Search

Three experiments were designed to test the efficacy of ideation procedures that involved alternation of individual and group idea generation sessions (hybrid brainstorming) as compared to traditional individual and group ideation. The hybrid condition led to the best performance in terms of number of ideas generated. This effect was strongest in comparison to the group condition. A meta-analytic comparison involving all three experiments indicated that the hybrid condition outperformed both the alone and the group conditions. Since after each group idea exchange session there was an enhancement in the number of ideas generated in the alone session, the pattern of performance in the hybrid condition supported the cognitive perspective of group creativity (Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006; Paulus & Brown, 2007). Social cues in the form of the co-presence of other participants in the alone condition, the addition of practice sessions to all conditions, and an additional phase did not change the pattern of results. The results of the experiments support the original suggestion by Osborn (1953) that the most effective brainstorming process is one that involves a variation in individual and group ideation.

Team creativity involves a number of phases. In this chapter, we focus on three that have received the most research attention – problem identification and construction, idea generation, and idea evaluation and choice. We examine in detail the key social and cognitive processes that influence the outcomes of these three phases. We discuss how the basic principles we have outlined provide a solid basis for leading teams to greater success in the creative collaboration process in work settings. We also suggest how the research and principles we have highlighted can be applied to design thinking and propose a number of directions for future research.

The issue of prison confinement has been a volatile one for a long time. This chapter aims to evaluate the various perspectives on prison confinement, and examines the major justifications for incarceration and the related empirical evidence. It deals with the psychological effects of long-term prison confinement and examine the variables that influence reactions to prison confinement, such as the characteristics of inmates, the physical environment, and the type of institution. Clinical programs could be designed for sex offenders and those suffering from various psychological problems. Programs designed to deal with the educational and job-skill deficiencies of many inmates might increase their chances of successful adjustment to society upon release from prison. The elevated indications of stress in the beginning of the prison term may reflect emotional reactions to the disruption of a prior lifestyle, family separation, and the uncertainties involved in being a resident in a new environment.

This study tested creativity of small electronic brainstorming (EBS) groups as a function of the homogeneity and heterogeneity of assigned sub-topics (categories) of a broader problem over time. A total of 168 participants were exposed to categories of high or low degree of relatedness, and their performance was tracked over time in group and e-nominal paradigm. Findings revealed that the EBS groups became more creative and exhibited slower productivity loss compared with the e-nominal groups over time. The assignment of homogeneous categories enhanced the average originality of ideas, over time especially for the EBS groups. The findings have implications for theoretical as well as practical perspectives for creative processes in small virtual brainstorming groups.

Past research examining group creativity has focused almost exclusively on the divergent process of ideation. However, we recognize that group innovation is also dependent upon convergent processes such as idea selection and implementation. In the present chapter we review the existing theory and research relevant to both the divergent and convergent processes of effective group innovation. We place particular focus on the ways in which facilitating conditions may impact each innovation phase (divergent and convergent), whether similarly or uniquely. Finally, we present a theoretical model in which we propose various intervening factors that may link productive group ideation to optimal idea selection and implementation.

Teamwork has been a growing feature of modern organizations, and much of today’s innovation occurs in the context of collaborative teams. In this chapter we discuss the various factors that may influence group creativity and offer suggestions to achieve creative synergy in organizational teams. We review the literature on individual differences in creativity and the research on group composition for collaborative creativity. We discuss the factors that will influence the degree of impact individual differences and the personality factors and cognitive orientations that influence group processes and group creativity. We highlight a number of ways in which the effects of individual differences may not be simply additive within groups and that ideal group composition may vary for different phases of the creative process. We propose a contingence/configural model to predict the effects of group composition on creativity.

In this chapter, we explore a variety of issues related to creativity and innovation in group and intergroup contexts. We draw a distinction between creativity in individuals versus groups and discuss some of the major theories of group creativity. We describe the search for creative synergy in group creativity and the paradigms designed to enhance collaborative creativity. We evaluate the research that has examined the role of different types of diversity on group creativity, and we consider the role of various constraints to the creative process. We discuss how certain intergroup and interteam contexts and factors can impact innovation in groups. Finally, we point out some limitations of the research in these areas and suggest potential areas of future research.

Three studies examined the role of prior consideration of categories on a brainstorming task. Participants were asked to generate abstract categories before they brainstormed either in groups or individually in Experiment 1. It was expected that generating categories before ideation would be beneficial. However, it was found that category generation harmed the group ideation process. Prior category generation reduced clustering of ideas within categories for groups, which might have led to a decrease in productivity. The last two experiments examined whether groups would benefi tb y brainstorming one category at a time because this might increase clustering. It was found that sequential category brainstorming helped increase productivity during the ideation process and increased clustering. These studies demonstrate that a prior categorization phase can facilitate subsequent brainstorming because it enhances subsequent clustering of ideas within categories.

A number of studies on electronic brainstorming have found that large electronic groups can facilitate the number of ideas generated relative to control groups of similar numbers of solitary performers (nominal groups). Thus far there is no clear evidence for the basis of this facilitative effect. The most likely explanation is that group members benefit from exposure to the wide range of ideas in large groups. Since most electronic brainstorming studies appear to divide the presented ideas into subfolders to avoid overloading participants with too many ideas, this practice may be important for demonstration of a benefit of exposure to a large number of ideas. The present study was designed to assess the role of number of ideas and number of folders on individual idea generation and to eliminate some alternative interpretations for the group size effect. Participants performed an idea generation task on computers while being exposed to either no ideas, 28 ideas, or 112 ideas. The 28 and 112 ideas were presented in either one, four, or eight folders. The results indicated that only the number of ideas factor was important for facilitating idea generation.

When groups gather to generate creative ideas on a particular topic, they can consider many aspects or components of the problem. Because such a multitude of alternatives can be overwhelming, groups may find it helpful to focus on specific aspects or categories of the problem. However, it is not clear whether it is best for group members to focus on the same components of the problem at the same time or whether it is better for group members to focus on different components of the problem. Furthermore, the impact of this type of focus may depend on the extent to which the different components of the problem are closely related semantically. It may be easier to generate ideas in semantically related areas but semantically unrelated areas may stimulate generation of more creative ideas. The present study provided a comprehensive test of the effects of task components or category assignment and the degree of relatedness of the assigned categories on the creativity of groups. Groups that were jointly assigned a small set of categories to focus on at the beginning of their session generated more ideas, explored more categories and exhibited higher clustering of similar ideas than the groups whose members were assigned their own unique category. The groups assigned with low related categories surveyed more categories than those assigned with categories of high relatedness. This study suggests that interdisciplinary or diverse groups or teams should have some common focus in the initial phase of their creative sessions and focus on unrelated aspects of the problem in this phase.

The present study examined attitudes toward diversity as a moderator of outcomes of diversity in workgroups. Two studies were conducted that focused on the development of the Attitudes Toward Diverse Workgroups Scale (ADWS) and on the impact of diversity attitudes on task performance and psychological reactions in actual face-to-face diverse brainstorming groups. The first study supported the internal consistency and stability of the ADWS and revealed that it was related, in the predicted way, to the Big Five and general prejudice. The second study revealed that high scores on the productive and affective dimensions of the ADWS enhanced brainstorming performance (quality of ideas) in actual diverse groups and positive psychological reactions to the group experiences, respectively.

Conceptual combination has been advocated as an important component of creativity, but relatively little research has investigated its importance. Two experiments were designed to extend previous research on the relationship between performance on conceptual combination tasks and subsequent performance on creativity tasks. Both experiments involved the generation of category exemplars and manipulated the type of conceptual combination experience and whether the items presented were related or unrelated to one another. In the first experiment, this was followed by a brainstorming task (divergent thinking) and in the second experiment by a creative problem solving task (convergent thinking). Contrary to expectations, the condition that required conceptual combinations did not enhance the generation of the number and originality of exemplars. As predicted, exposure to unrelated items led to more original products than related ones. The conceptual combination task with related items was predictive of performa...

Two experiments were conducted to explore the process of building on ideas in brainstorming. Although this is presumed to be an important role of brainstorming, this has never been explored experimentally. In one experiment individual and group brainstormers generated ideas which were subsequently presented to these same individuals and groups to combine and build on for additional ideas, either as groups or individuals. The combination process was influenced by whether the participants had previously brainstormed alone or in groups and the phase of the combination period (early vs. late). In a second study participants were presented lists of rare or common ideas to combine and build on either as individuals or groups. Although groups generated fewer combinations than nominal groups, they generated more novel and feasible combinations when combining rare ideas. These findings indicate that groups are able to benefit from the exchange process in building on each other's ideas and are interpreted in the context of past research on idea generation and evaluation in groups.

Many creative activities take place in a group context, whether in short-term meetings, work teams, or by means of electronic interaction. The group creative process necessarily involves the exchange of ideas or information. Recent models of group creativity have focused on the cognitive underpinnings of this type of group creative process, primarily based on the group brainstorming literature. The authors describe an elaborated computational version of their cognitive model of group creativity and related computational models, and highlight some plausible neural bases for various involved processes. The major findings and theoretical perspectives in this literature are summarized and some potentially fruitful empirical and theoretical directions are highlighted. It is hoped that this comprehensive treatment can be a basis for integrating the present literature and providing useful predictions for further research on this topic.

In two studies, students evaluated group pictures of workgroups of varying ethnic and gender composition with respect to anticipated affective and productive outcomes. The impact of level of diversity, faultlines and individual differences in diversity attitudes on anticipated outcomes were examined. Favorable level effects of diversity were particularly found for groups with weak faultlines and for productive outcomes of diversity. In general, outcomes of cross-categorized groups were anticipated as more favorable than outcomes of groups with strong faultlines. Also in line with expectations, attitudes towards diversity moderated the impact of diversity on anticipated group outcomes. Interestingly, attitudes towards diversity buffered against increasing levels of diversity and not so much against the presence of faultlines.

We review research on the social influences on creativity. The main focus is on recent research on group and team creativity and the implications of this research for organizational creativity. We propose a broad model of the role of the cognitive, motivational, and social processes involved in creativity and innovation. Using this model as a framework, we highlight the influence of diversity, conflict, emotionally supportive environments, and social comparison processes on group creativity. Future directions for research on group creativity are suggested.

This study examined the effects of training and sequence of nominal and interactive groups on idea generation. Participants in groups of three or four were either trained in idea generation skills or were simply engaged in an equivalent amount of practice. They subsequently were asked to brainstorm in either an alone-to-group or a group-to-alone sequence. Training had a significant positive effect on the total number of ideas generated and average originality of ideas generated. The participants in the alone-to-group sequence generated a larger number of ideas than those in the group-to-alone sequence. These results indicate that training can increase both the quality and quantity of ideas generated in groups and that solitary idea generation prior to group brainstorming can be beneficial. These findings may be helpful to practitioners in enhancing the creativity of individuals in group work.

Culturally diverse teams have the potential for enhanced creativity relative to culturally homogeneous teams. We provide evidence that this can indeed occur, especially for tasks that are relevant to the cultural diversity represented in the team. To achieve a high level of creativity, culturally diverse groups need to employ effective cognitive processes and be highly motivated. Team experience, a positive team climate, effective handling of cognitive conflict, and multicultural experiences are related to enhanced performance in creative teams. Inter-team interactions provide a further opportunity to tap the creative potential of cultural diversity.

In many meetings and work sessions, group members exchange ideas in order to come up with novel, creative solutions for problems and to generate ideas for future innovations. This type of group idea generation or brainstorming process has been studied in detail, and we have discovered much about the cognitive and social processes that underlie group idea generation. It appears that the brainstorming performance of groups is often hindered by various social and cognitive influences, but under the appropriate conditions, group idea exchange can be quite effective. In this article, we summarize the present state of knowledge, point out some significant gaps in our knowledge, and suggest a cognitive-social-motivational perspective to integrate the major findings and to guide future research in the area of group creativity and group idea generation.

Originally published in 1989, this title showcased new developments, providing a systematic and in-depth overview of some of the basic issues in the field of group psychology. Subject areas range from basic group processes to complex interactive phenomena. There are international contributions, with chapters covering the latest developments in the field at the time. The volume provided students and professionals with a comprehensive, coherent, and interrelated picture of the broad scope of group influence processes. The volume was motivated by the belief that group psychology is a central and important activity for social psychology.

Experiment 1 examined the effects of additional brainstorming rules for groups and looked at whether the presence of a facilitator who actively enforced the rules of brainstorming was beneficial. Experiments 2 and 3 examined whether the additional rules and brief breaks were beneficial to individual brainwriters and electronic brainstormers working alone. Clear benefits of the additional rules were found under a variety of conditions. The presence of a facilitator to enforce the rules enhanced the efficiency of idea generation (number of words used to express ideas) but not the number of ideas generated. There appears to be a small benefit to taking breaks in brainwriting sessions, but the benefit of breaks is reduced or eliminated in electronic brainstorming sessions.

This brainstorming experiment assessed the extent to which idea exposure produced cognitive stimulation and social comparison effects. One hundred and sixty participants were exposed to either a high or low number of common or unique ideas. The participants’ likelihood of engaging in social comparison processes (high or low) was also manipulated through instructional sets. The results indicated both cognitive stimulation and social comparison effects. Exposure to a high number of ideas and to common ideas enhanced the generation of additional ideas. The effects of exposure to a high number of ideas was greater under high than under low social comparison conditions. Finally, recall of exposed ideas was related to enhanced idea generation. These results are consistent with the social/cognitive influence model of group brainstorming ( Paulus, Dugosh, Dzindolet, Putman, & Coskun, 2002 ).

The paper on romance of teams provides a useful and coherent overview of the dilemma presently facing team researchers and practitioners. Teams are popular in organizations and are positively perceived by their members and ‘outsiders’, but objective evidence does not support such a positive bias. The authors take a clear stance against the invulnerable image of superiority that teams seem to have. To make us all feel a bit better about the apparent societal stupidity of this state of affairs, Allen and Hecht (2004) come up with a list of justifications for keeping teams around. These all seem very reasonable and are consistent with others who have made similar points about the use of groups or teams in organizations (e.g., Furnham, 2000; Hackman, 1998). We find ourselves in general agreement with their perception of the field—the lack of strong evidence for the effectiveness of teams, the pitfalls of using teams, the potential non-performance benefits of teams, and the need for more research. A parallel perspective comes from the work on group brainstorming (Paulus, Dugosh, Dzindolet, Coskun, & Putman, 2002). In this area of group research, the common finding is that groups do not perform better—they even do worse—than comparison groups of individual brainstormers. Even though face-to-face brainstorming has been shown to be an ineffective procedure in comparison with individual ideation baselines, it continues to be a very common practice in organizations. Some scholars have justified this by pointing out all of the other benefits of group ideation compared with individual ideation, such as commitment to the decision, collective memory, impressing clients, and enjoyment (Furnham, 2000; Sutton & Hargadon, 1996). We think such a broad approach to evaluating the benefits of teams or groups in organizations as suggested by these scholars and by Allen and Hecht makes sense. However, for the sake of inducing a more elaborate perspective about this topic, we

The functional perspective is a normative approach to describing and predicting group performance that focuses on the functions of inputs and/or processes. The aim of theory and research from this perspective is to understand why some groups are successful and others are not. This article investigates theory and, to a lesser extent, research of small groups based on the functional perspective. The authors present the underlying theoretical assumptions and review theories that fit into the functional perspective from several representative areas of research. They conclude by outlining notable strengths and weaknesses associated with viewing groups from this perspective and propose some directions for future theory development.

Much literature on group brainstorming has found it to be less effective than individual brainstorming. However, a cognitive perspective suggests that group brainstorming could be an effective technique for generating creative ideas. Computer simulations of an associative memory model of idea generation in groups suggest that groups have the potential to generate ideas that individuals brainstorming alone are less likely to generate. Exchanging ideas by means of writing or computers, alternating solitary and group brainstorming, and using heterogeneous groups appear to be useful approaches for enhancing group brainstorming.

The creation of novel ideas often takes place in social contexts. Past research on brainstorming and other types of group tasks have shown that groups often perform poorly in comparison to conditions in which tasks are done individually. Past reviews have evaluated various factors that may be responsible for the production losses in group brainstorming (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991; Stroebe & Diehl, 1994). We re-evaluate these factors in light of subsequent research in our laboratory and demonstrate conditions under which groups can perform quite well in comparison to similar groups of individuals (nominal groups). We present a comprehensive model for predicting production gains and losses. Research on cognitive and social factors that may enhance brainstorming in groups is summarized.

Objective: The goal of this study was to examine the effectiveness of brainwriting in an industrial setting. Background: Research has demonstrated that group interaction can inhibit idea generation. Written exchanges of ideas in groups have been found to be an effective way to increase idea generation. To our knowledge, no study has examined the potential of brainwriting for group idea generation in work settings or the impact of different sequences of group and individual idea generation. Method: Participants in a high-technology company participated in two brainwriting studies. In one study, participants generated ideas either first alone and then in a group or in the reverse order. In a second study, participants either generated as a group during the entire session or alternated individual ideation with a periodic review of the group’s ideas. Results: In the first study, participants who generated ideas first as a group and then as individuals performed best. In the first session, group writing also tended to lead to more ideas than did individual writing. In the second study, participants with periodic reviews performed best. Conclusion: The results suggest that alternation in individual and group brainwriting can enhance the number of ideas generated. The group-to-alone sequence is also beneficial since it allows group members to build on shared ideas. Application: This research indicates that collaborative idea sessions can be beneficial in work sessions if the brainwriting paradigm is used with an appropriate alternation of group ideation or review sessions with individual idea generation sessions.

This study examined the impact of preference for working in groups on interaction during a brainstorming session. Groups of 4 people were composed based on their individual group preference scores (i.e., high or low preference for working in groups). These groups worked as 4 independent individuals (nominal participants) or as an interactive group of 4. It was hypothesized that convergent tendencies promoted in interactive settings would hinder group brainstorming performance and that high group preference would enhance these convergent tendencies. These predictions were generally supported by the findings.

Despite laboratory evidence that group brainstormers produce fewer ideas than individual brainstormers, brainstorming groups remain popular in business and industry. Here the authors present a model of the cognitive factors involved in group idea generation. Simulations suggest that group interaction should be beneficial when one group member primes another into thinking of ideas they would not have considered alone, at least not in the context of the task at hand. Many concepts relevant to group cognition can be defined within the model framework (stochastic transition matrices) including fluency, flexibility, category accessibility, convergent/divergent thinking, attention to partners, and the relationship between the knowledge structures of the brainstorming participants. Attention plays a crucial role in the model, linking together individuals in a brainstorming group. Simulations also suggest that convergent group behavior may be the result ofcognitivefactors in addition to the socialfactors outlined by a number of researchers.

The present study was designed to construct and revalidate the Crowding Experience Scale and to investigate its predictive validity. Factor analysis results suggest that perceived crowding is comprised of four components, labelled as spaciousness, positive relationships, negative relationships, and uncontrolled disturbance. The factor-derived perceived crowding subscales showed unique relationships with the outcome variables related to health, well-being, and residential satisfaction. The results provide some indication that perceived crowding mediates the relationship between objective crowding and the dependent measures. The implications of the project are discussed. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Group brainstorming is a popular technique in organizations and educational programs. Advocates for this technique suggest that it will increase productivity, learning, and creativity. Educators often promote brainstorming as a useful technique in gifted education. Although individual brainstorming may be an effective technique, research on group brainstorming indicates that it is often detrimental to the production of creative ideas. We evaluate the implications of this research for gifted education and suggest ways to enhance the effectiveness of group brainstorming.

Army families living in apartments and mobile homes near a large Army base were assessed for feelings about their housing, morale, marital harmony, health, and well-being. Reactions to mobile homes and apartments were similar. Higher quality housing was associated with positive housing ratings but not with more favorable morale, harmony, health, or well-being. The experience of housing problems is related to negative housing evaluation, while the experience of Army lifestyle problems is related to lowered morale, harmony, health, and well-being. Results were generally similar for enlisted men and their spouses.

Groups of 4 brainstormed on computers for 20 min. In some groups information about the number of ideas generated was exchanged every 5 min. Some groups verbalized their ideas as they were typed, and others only typed their ideas. Exchange of information about number of ideas increased group performance, but verbalization decreased performance. Both information exchange and verbalization increased the favorability of performance perception. These results are consistent with the Paulus and Dzindolet (1993) social influence model of group brainstorming.

The interactions between individuals in a group setting are a natural areafor the application of dynamic systems modeling. Groups gathered togetherfor the purpose of generating ideas are particularly suitable for a dynamic systems approach because each individual 's rate of idea production provides a natural time-varying measure of performnce. This article presents a dynamic model (differential equations) of group idea production designed to describe the effects that group members exert on each other's rates ofprocessing. Two of the most important factors influencing group idea-generation performance, the processes of production blocking and performance matching, are explicitly included in the model. The model is related to the existing literature on the "productivity gap" observed in brainstorning groups. One version of the model explicitly includes the cognitive processes of idea generation, working memory, and output. These types of models should aid theoretical development and the assessment of the role of social and cognitive factors in both conventional and electronic brainstorming.

Kasof s (this issue) feature article deals in large part with illusions. Kasof argues that the dispositional inferences often made about creativity may ignore the importance of social or contextual contributions. This illusion may exist at the level of the casual observer as well as the scientific analysis of the causes of creativity. The article documents nicely the role of various factors such as consensus and salience in influencing the attribution of creativity and demonstrates that it may have significant implications for the behavior of those who want to achieve creative esteem. The general approach seems plausible, and a reasonable amount of scientific and anecdotal documentation is provided. The article may stimulate investigators to take a broader perspective in their study of creativity. However, before we attribute too much credibility to this perspective because of its size, salience, and singleauthor status, some significant limitations of this outlined perspective should be noted. We analyze briefly the overall adequacy of the attributional perspective. Then we contrast some of the attributional assumptions with current perspectives on group creativity. Finally, we consider the overall utility of the attributional perspective from a societal and scientific point of view.

Two studies were conducted to examine the influence of individual and group goal setting on brainstorming performance. Results from the studies indicated that the individual goals of nominal participants were higher than the individual goals of interactive participants. Group goal setting by consensus led to the lowest goals. There was no influence of goal setting on group brainstorming performance. However, participants who set goals rated their individual performance more favorably than did participants who did not set goals. The low group goals set by interactive groups are discussed in terms of assumptions made regarding the ability of other group members and the detrimental effects of group interaction.

Employees of a corporation who had undergone considerable training for effective teamwork were asked to brainstorm about a job-relevant issue in groups of four or alone. One half of the groups brainstormed alone first, and the other half brainstormed as a group before brainstorming alone. Participants were also asked to rate their performance and indicate whether they would perform better in groups or alone on a brainstorming task. Consistent with past laboratory research, groups generated only about half as many ideas as a similar number of individuals (nominal group), and group brainstorming led to more favorable perceptions of individual performance. Participants also believed that they would brainstorm more effectively in a group than alone. These results indicate that productivity losses in brainstorming groups are not restricted to laboratory groups. Such losses occur even in groups who work together on a daily basis, have considerable training in group dynamics, and are dealing with a job-relevant issue. The sequence of alone to group brainstorming did not influence overall productivity. The relation of this research to that of facilitated and electronic brainstorming is discussed.

The authors predicted that individuals high in dispositional anxiousness would perform poorly when brainstorming in groups but not during solitary brainstorming. Experiment 1 demonstrated this result in a comparison of groups of 4 that were all high or all low in interaction anxiousness. In groups with 2 low-anxious and 2 high-anxious individuals, the low-anxious individuals lowered their performance in the direction of the high-anxious individuals. These results suggest that part of the productivity loss observed in interactive brainstorming groups may be due to the inhibited performance of individuals who are uncomfortable with group interaction. Moreover, these individuals may influence others in the group to lower their performance in line with that inhibited performance level. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the poor performance in line with that inhibited performance level. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the poor performance of socially anxious groups in interactive brainstorming is not dependent on whether group members have individual microphones or share 1 common microphone

Most research is conducted by teams rather than individuals, and due to a variety of technological advances many research teams do not work face-to-face; they work virtually. The creativity literature that explores how working as a member of a virtual team differs from working as a member of a face-to-face team or as an individual is reviewed in this chapter, with a focus on the idea generation phase of the research process. The chapter offers practical techniques to help researchers effectively and efficiently brainstorm in virtual teams. Specific techniques to guide researchers are offered based on laboratory and field research in electronic, face-to-face, and virtual brainstorming.

The goal of the study was to address the limitations of previous studies on the TwoComponent Model of inmates’ reaction to prison confinement, and present the analysis of the impact of confinement on both male and female inmates in a federal co-correctional facility. The Two-Component Model proposes that the effects of prison confinement differ in response to two different types of prison conditions: (1) those that remain constant, and (2) those that vary over time. Violence, loss of freedom, limited facilities and competition for limited resources, among others, represent some of the constant conditions. Gradual increase in familiarity with procedures, norms and staff, among others, represent the changing conditions. Based on findings of previous studies, the authors hypothesized that: 1) Reactions to the prison environment would not change or become more negative over time. 2) Health and emotional outcomes would improve over time. 3) Self-reported social support within and outside the prison would decrease over time, and 4) No change would occur over time in coping behavior and tolerance for prison conditions.