Ch. 9 Group Processes

Question 1

Social Facilitation and Social Loafing

Answer 1

SOCIAL FACILITATION – When people are in the presence of others and their individual performance IS EVALUATED, they perform better on SIMPLE tasks and worse on complex tasks.

• EVALUATION APPREHENSION – Concern about being judged that leads to SOCIAL FACILITATION.

SOCIAL LOAFING – When people are in the presence of others and their individual performance is NOT EVALUATED, they tend to perform worse on simple or unimportant tasks but better on COMPLEX or important tasks.

• There are two things that you have to look at in order to determine whether members of a group will take part in social loafing. These include:
  
  1. whether or not they are being EVALUATED on the task
  2. whether the task they are completing is SIMPLE or COMPLEX.
     
     • If the members of the group are being EVALUATED, then that leads to SOCIAL FACILITATION** effects where people do **better on simple tasks but worse on complex tasks.
     • If the members of the group are NOT BEING EVALUATED, sometimes the ability for the unevaluated member to blend in allows them to put less effort into the project. That leads to SOCIAL LOAFING** effects where people relax and tend to do **worse on simple tasks, but better on complex tasks.

How might group assignments be structured to decrease social loafing?

• The best STRUCTURE for a GROUP, itself, to avoid social loafing would be to:
  
  • have the group made up completely of women (who take part less in social loafing than men)
  • who all have an ‘INTERDEPENDENT VIEW OF SELF’ – perhaps from a collectivist cultural background (people with this mindset take part in social loafing less than those with a western, or individualistic mindset).
  • Who are all from similar backgrounds and cultures.
    
    • People are MORE likely to loaf when they expect to work together with team members from a DIFFERENT culture This seems to occur because we more easily develop bonds and a sense of accountability to similar others, and also come to expect less cooperation from dissimilar others.
• As for the group assignment, it depends on how complex the tasks are for each person.
  
  • If the tasks are SIMPLE, then the assignment should be structured with evaluations of each member. Evaluations create EVALUATION APPREHENSION, which causes members to do better on simple tasks but worse on complex tasks.
  • If the tasks are COMPLEX, then the assignment should be structured without evaluations. This way, there will be no Evaluation Apprehension, which causes members to relax and do better on complex tasks but worse on simple tasks.

What instructions could be given to reduce social loafing?

• Again, the instructions depend on the complexity of the task.
  
  • If the tasks are SIMPLE, then instruct the members to break up the project into specific parts, each to be completed by one of the members of the group. Being 100% responsible for that section means that it’s successful completion is completely up to that member and transparent to the other members. Also, instruct the team to meet periodically to present to the other members of the group the work that they’ve done so far. Both of these things create peer evaluation, which creates Evaluation Apprehension, which causes members to do better on simple tasks.
  • If the tasks are COMPLEX, then instruct the members to give each other plenty of space to do what they need to do and put it all together in the end. Perhaps also have more than one group member working together on each section. These things eliminate evaluation, which eliminates Evaluation Apprehension, which causes members to relax and do better on complex tasks.

How should grades or rewards be determined?

• It depends on the complexity of the assignment.
  
  • If the tasks are SIMPLE, then the grade should have a strong individual component to it. Members of the group should be assessed by a survey of the other team members and the section that the member worked on would also be graded separately. This would create a strong evaluation of the group member, creating Evaluation Apprehension, which causes members to do better on simple tasks.
  • If the tasks are COMPLEX, then the grade should only be graded based upon the overall group output. This would remove individual evaluation, removing Evaluation Apprehension, which causes members to relax and do better on complex tasks.

SUMMARY:

• People do Better on Simple Tasks when Observed/Evaluated
  
  • When observed, physiological arousal increases making it easier to do things we know
• People do Better on Complex Tasks when Not Being Observed/Evaluated
  
  • When observed while trying to figure out something complex, arousal makes us flustered.
• It is not the mere presence of others but rather the presence of others who are evaluating us that causes arousal and subsequent social facilitation.

Question 2

Group (Norms and Roles)

Answer 2

GROUP – Two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other. You influence them, and they influence you.

• Benefits:
  
  • important part of our identity (Help us resolve ambiguity)
  • source of social norms
  • accomplish goals that we could not complete on our own.
• People have a strong need to belong to social groups:
  
  • Also have a need to feel distinctive from those who do not belong to the same groups.
  • SMALL GROUPS – Groups that are relatively small can fulfill both functions by giving us a sense of belonging with our fellow group members and also making us feel special and distinctive.
    
    • Most groups have three to six members. If groups become too large, you cannot interact with all the members

Composition and Functions of Groups

• SOCIAL NORMS – The power of norms to shape behavior becomes clear when we violate them too often: We are shunned by other group members and, in extreme cases, pressured to leave the group
• SOCIAL ROLES – Shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave.
  • When members of a group follow a set of clearly defined roles, they tend to be satisfied and perform well.
  • But being too deeply immersed in a role can threaten your personal identities.

Question 3

Stanford University Prison Experiment

Answer 3

• But being too deeply immersed in a role can threaten your personal identities.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRISON EXPERIMENT (Philip Zimbardo) – They built a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University and paid students to play the role of guard or prisoner.

• People got so far into their roles that their personal identities and sense of decency somehow got lost.
• In particular, some of the student guards clearly and quickly took things much too far. Does this sound familiar?
• Zimbardo argued that the participants weren’t bad people, they were simply set in a bad environment. “What’s bad is the barrel,” Zimbardo argued. “The barrel is the barrel I created by my prison—and we put good boys in, just as in this Iraqi prison. And the barrel corrupts. It’s the barrel of the evil of prisons—with secrecy, with no accountability—which gives people permission to do things they ordinarily would not”

Question 4

Group Cohesiveness

Answer 4

GROUP COHESIVENESS – Qualities of a group that bind members together and promote liking between them.

• The more cohesive a group is, the more its members are likely to stay in the group, take part in group activities, and try to recruit new like-minded members
• GROUP DECISIONS – The more COHESIVE a group is, the WORSE the decision-making ability because they all try to please each other.
  
  • Doing well on a task causes a group to become more cohesive.
  • But being cohesive only results in good performance IF the task REQUIRES CLOSE COOPERATION (which most decisions don’t).
    
    • Ex: Football team executing a complex play or a military undergoing a coordinated mission.

GROUP DIVERSITY – voluntary groups are usually NOT diverse. Members of a group tend to be alike in age, sex, beliefs, and opinions.

• Many groups tend to attract people who are already similar before they join.
• Second, groups tend to operate in ways that encourage similarity in the members.
• People tend to gravitate toward groups with similar others, and such similarity predicts group cohesiveness.
• Group performance is typically strongest when the group is DIVERSE.

INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR IN A GROUP SETTING – presence of other people can mean one of two things:

1. performing a task with coworkers who are doing the same thing you are (not evaluating).
2. performing a task in front of an audience that is not doing anything but observing you (evaluating).

• So the question is about the effects of the mere presence of others, even if they are not part of a group that is interacting.

Question 5

Deindividuation

Answer 5

DEINDIVIDUATION – the loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people can’t be identified. – “MOB MENTALITY”

• People feel less accountable for their actions when they recognize there is a reduced likelihood that they can be singled out and blamed for their behavior
• People becoming deindividuated also increases the extent to which people obey the group’s norms.
  
  • Can result in groups of people committing horrendous acts that few individuals would do on their own, such as military atrocities; acts of looting, arson, and violence.
• DEINDIVIDUATION ONLINE – The anonymity of the internet makes it ideal terrain for the emergence of deindividuation.
  
  • This online deindividuation creates an apparent reduction in common civility.
  • When individuals are reminded of their unique personal identity (Ex: told their parents might read their offensive comments online), they dramatically reduce their sense of deindividuation and thus reduce the destructive characteristics that surround deindividuation.
    
    • This also reminded them of other influential norms, those related to family.

Question 6

Group Decision Making

Answer 6

GROUP DECISION MAKING – Several factors can cause groups to make worse decisions than individuals would.

• PROCESS LOSS – When Group Interactions Inhibit Good Problem Solving
  
  • A group can perform well only if the most expert or talented members can convince the others that they are right.
    
    • Unfortunately, people tend to instead listen to people as a result of a popularity contest unless documented credentials can be produced.
• FAILURE TO SHARE UNIQUE INFORMATION – you will make the best decision if you each group member shares EVERYTHING they know about the issue.
  
  • Unfortunately, groups tend to focus on the information they already collectively share, talking less about facts known to only some members of the group
  • Unique information is more likely to be brought up later in the discussion, suggesting that group discussions should last long enough to get beyond what everyone already knows.
  • Helps to AVOID SHARING INITIAL PREFERENCES at the outset of the discussion so they will focus more on unique, unshared information.
  • Assign different group members to specific areas of expertise so that they know that they alone are responsible for certain types of information.
• TRANSACTIVE MEMORY – The combined memory of a group that is more efficient than the memory of the individual members.
  
  • This works if the group develop a system whereby different people are responsible for remembering different parts of a task.
• GROUPTHINK: MANY HEADS, ONE MIND– A kind of decision process in whichmaintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner.
  
  • Most likely to occur when:
    
    • group is highly cohesive
    • isolated from contrary opinions
    • ruled by a directive leader
  • Possible even when there are very few present.
  • Characteristics that tell you groupthink is unfolding:
    
    • The group begins to feel that it is invulnerable and can do no wrong.
    • People exercise self-censorship.
      
      • Members fail to voice contrary views because they are afraid of dampening the group’s morale or because they fear being criticized by others.
    • If anyone does voice a contrary viewpoint, the rest of the group is quick to criticize, pressuring the person to conform to the majority view.
    • An illusion of unanimity is created.
    • maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity becomes more important to a group than considering the facts in a realistic manner.
  • Steps to make groupthink less likely:
    
    • Remain impartial.
    • Seek outside opinions.
    • Create subgroups.
    • Seek anonymous opinions.
• GROUP POLARIZATION – The tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members:
  
  • Toward greater risk if people’s initial tendency is to be risky.
  • Toward greater caution if people’s initial tendency is to be cautious
• Individuals said that chess players should make risky gambits only if there were at least a 30% chance of success. But after discussing the problem in a group, they said that the chess player should go for it even if there were only a 10% chance of success.
• Group polarization occurs for two main reasons:
  
  • PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS INTERPRETATION – all individuals bring to the group a set of arguments supporting their initial recommendation. One aspect of being in a group is that you might be exposed to persuasive arguments you hadn’t thought of before. So you usually end up with MORE arguments supporting your initial leaning, thus moving you further in that direction.
    
    • Each member presents arguments that other members have not considered.
  • SOCIAL COMPARISON INTERPRETATION – when people discuss an issue in a group, they first check out how everyone else feels. In an effort to fit in and be liked, many people then take a position that is similar to everyone else’s but even just a little bit more extreme to present themselves in a positive light – as “good” group members.

Question 7

Leadership in Groups

Answer 7

LEADERSHIP IN GROUPS

• GREAT PERSON THEORY – The idea that certain key personality traits make a person a good leader, regardless of the situation.
  
  • However, few personality characteristics correlate strongly with leadership effectiveness.
• LEADERSHIP STYLES – Although great leaders may not have specific kinds of personalities, they do appear to adopt specific kinds of leadership styles.
  
  • TRANSACTIONAL LEADERS – set clear, short-term goals and reward people who meet them.
  • TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS – inspire followers to focus on common, long-term goals.
    
    • Although transactional leaders do a good job of making things run smoothly, it is transformational leaders who think outside the box and inspire their followers to exert themselves to meet big-picture goals.
    • Leadership styles are NOT closely linked with personality traits.
    • The most effective leader is one who adopts both styles.

THE RIGHT PERSON IN THE RIGHT SITUATION

• CONTINGENCY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP – the idea that leadership effectiveness depends both on how task-oriented or relationship-oriented the leader is and on the amount of control and influence the leader has over the group.
  
  • TASK-ORIENTED LEADERS – concerned more with getting the job done than with workers’ feelings and relationships.
    
    • Perform best when situational control is high or low.
    • Task-oriented leaders do well in high-control work situations, when the leader’s position in the company is clearly perceived as powerful and the work needing to be done by the group is structured and well defined.
    • They also do well in low-control work situations, when the leader is not perceived as powerful and the work needing to be done is not clearly defined
  • RELATIONSHIP-ORIENTED LEADERS – concerned more with workers’ feelings and relationships.
    
    • Perform best when situational control is moderate.
    • Under these conditions, the wheels are turning fairly smoothly, but important work still needs to be done; the leader who can promote strong relations between individual employees will be the most successful.

GENDER AND LEADERSHIP

AGENTIC TRAITS – “Good Leader” traits traditionally associated with men (e.g., assertive, controlling, dominant, independent).

• This is a challenge for women because when women display AGENTIC TRAITS, everyone thinks she’s a bitch.
• Women are expected to be more COMMUNAL, having the traits more stereotypically associated with women (e.g., concerned with the welfare of others, warm, helpful, affectionate).
  
  • Thus, if women behave in the way they are “supposed” to behave, they are often viewed as having less leadership potential. But if women succeed in attaining a leadership position and act in ways that leaders are expected to act—namely, in agentic, forceful fashion—they are criticized for being a bitch.
• GLASS CLIFF – women are more likely to be put in precarious, high-risk positions where it is difficult to succeed.
  
  • Ex: Participants were more likely to recommend a woman when an organizational unit was in crisis and a man when the unit was running smoothly

CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP – different cultures valued different traits in leaders. But there was universal agreement about the value of two leadership qualities: CHARISMA and being TEAM-ORIENTED.

Question 8

Conflict and Cooperation

Answer 8

CONFLICT AND COOPERATION

• SOCIAL DILEMMA – a conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will be harmful to everyone else.
  
  • One of the reasons why we have conflicts in the first place is because very often, what is best for an individual is not always best for the group as a whole.
• PRISONER’S DILEMMA – two (literal) partners in crime have been captured by police and are being held separately. Both criminals are offered the same deal: betray your partner and confess to the crime, and you’ll receive a lighter sentence.
  
  • The dilemma is that the precise sentence that both criminals receive depends on what their partner chooses to do. If they both decide to keep quiet, remaining loyal to each other, the police only have enough evidence to send them to prison for a short time. If they both betray each other, their sentence will be a bit longer. Easy choice, right? It seems like they should both keep quiet.
    
    • But if one keeps quiet and the other confesses, the confessor goes free while the other serves the maximum sentence.
  • To find a solution desirable to both parties, people must trust each other. Often they do not, and this lack of trust leads to an escalating series of competitive moves so that in the end no one wins.
• INCREASING COOPERATION IN THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA – if people are playing the game with a friend or a partner with whom they expect to interact in the future, they are more likely to adopt a cooperative strategy that maximizes everyone’s profits.
• NORMS AND COOPERATION – Subtle changing the norms about what kind of behavior is expected can also have large effects on how cooperative people are.
• COMMUNITY GAME – One study found that simply changing the name of a game from the “Wall Street Game” to the “Community Game” increased the percentage of people who played cooperatively from 33% to 71%.
• SYMBOLS of CULTURE – Conducted with Chinese college students in Hong Kong, found that showing people:
  
  • Symbols of Chinese culture before the game (e.g., a Chinese dragon) made people more cooperative.
  • Symbols of American culture (e.g., an American flag) made them more competitive.
• TIT FOR TAT STRATEGY – A way of encouraging cooperation by at first acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did (cooperatively or competitively) in the previous trial.
• INDIVIDUALS ARE MORE COOPERATIVE THAN GROUPS – Two individuals who play the prisoner’s dilemma are more likely to cooperate with each other than two groups who play the same game – being in a group can be deindividuating. Groups can also produce more extreme and polarized attitudes.
  
  • So allow individuals rather than opposing groups to resolve a conflict.
• THREATS – threats are not an effective means of reducing conflict.
  
  • In a trucking game, both sides lost even more money in the bilateral threat condition. Here, the owners of both trucking companies threatened to use their gates and did so with great frequency.
  • Communication must foster trust for anyone to benefit.

Question 9

Negotiating and Bargaining

Answer 9

NEGOTIATING AND BARGAINING

• NEGOTIATION – form of communication between opposing sides in a conflict in which offers and counteroffers are made and a solution occurs only when both parties agree.
  
  • One limit to successful negotiation is that people often assume that they are locked in a conflict in which only one party can come out ahead. They don’t realize that a solution favorable to both parties is available.
• INTEGRATIVE SOLUTION – is an outcome to a conflict whereby the parties make trade-offs on issues according to their different interests; each side concedes the most on issues that are unimportant to it but are important to the other side.
• FACE to FACE Vs. ONLINE – trust is more easily established in old-fashioned face-to-face negotiations than in electronic communications such as e-mail, texting, and videoconferencing.
  
  • Negotiations conducted over electronic media were more hostile and resulted in lower profits than face-to-face negotiations
• MEDIATORS – Neutral mediators often help solve conflict.
  
  • Mediators can be in a better position to recognize that there are mutually agreeable solutions to a conflict.
  • Not as involved emotionally.