Chapter 12 - Groups Flashcards
- Explain why group living is important for survival
??????? see textbook
- Define social facilitation and explain how that term has evolved over time (using
supporting research evidence)
a. Describe Zajonc’s theory of mere presence
b. Be prepared to identify situations where presence of an audience is likely to
help or hinder performance
c. Distinguish between mere presence and evaluation apprehension as
competing explanations for the state of arousal that leads to social
facilitation
- Original definition: the enhancing effect of co-actors on performance
- Updated definition: the effect, positive or negative, of
the presence of others on performance
a. * Zajonc’s model of social facilitation:
* 1) The presence of others increases arousal
* 2) Arousal makes us more inclined to do what we’re already inclined to
do (dominant response)
* 3) Performance will depend on what the dominant response is in a given
situation
-Dominant Response
* For an easy or wellpracticed task, the dominant response is often correct
* For a difficult or novel
task, the dominant response is often incorrect
* Thus, the presence of others is predicted to facilitate performance of easy tasks but may impair performance of difficult tasks
-test: cockroaches (easy task=better as a group, difficult task=worse as a group), humans playing pool (skilled=better when audience, unskilled=worse when audience)
c. ???
- Define social loafing and explain how it differs from social facilitation
Social Loafing:
Tendency to exert less
effort when performing as
part of a group than when
performing as an individual
?? how it differs from social facilitation?? see textbook??
- Define groupthink and explain how it can lead to poor decision making
a. Describe the symptoms of groupthink that we discussed in class
b. Describe the factors that make groupthink more likely and explain how it
can be prevented
Groupthink
* Groups that are highly cohesive can produce poor group decisions because striving for unanimity may override motivation to evaluate alternative courses of action and make an accurate judgment
* Solidarity as “superglue”—holds the group together, but
can cause group members’ thinking to get “stuck”
a. Symptoms:
-Illusion of Invulnerability
* “Everything is going to work out all right because we are
a special group”
* When warned by engineers of potential seal failure,
NASA manager dismissed this concern by saying that
risk is “true of every other flight we have had”
-Belief in Inherent Morality of the Group
* Members automatically assume the rightness of their
cause
* Engineer Brian Russell: “I had the distinct feeling that we were in the position of having to prove that it was unsafe instead of the other way around”
-Self-Censorship
* Withholding information or opinions in group
discussions
* One of the engineers wanted to postpone the flight— but instead of stating that unequivocally, he would say things like “lower temperatures are in the direction of badness for both O-rings…”
-Self-Appointed Mindguards
* Members of the group appoint themselves to protect a leader from assault by troublesome ideas that might threaten group complacency
* NASA managers insulated the leader in charge of
making final call from the debate over the seals
b. * High cohesiveness (necessary but not sufficient
condition)
* Homogeneity in group members’ social backgrounds &
ideology
* Directive leadership
* Lack of procedures for information search & appraisal
* Insularity of the group
* High stress from external threats combined with low
hope of finding a better solution than the leader’s
Preventing Groupthink
* Group leaders should refrain from making their opinions known at first & periodically leave the group so group members can discuss their views without constraint
* Bring in outside opinions
* Assign people to play “devil’s advocate”
- Define group polarization
a. Describe research evidence supporting both the persuasive arguments
and social comparison explanations
Group Polarization
* The tendency for people to become more extreme in
their positions after discussion with like-minded others
a.
-The “Persuasive Arguments” Explanation
* Exposure to additional arguments in favor of one’s
preexisting opinion strengthens that opinion
* Supporting evidence: simply reading others’ arguments is sufficient to produce group polarization (e.g., Burnstein et al., 1973)
-The “Social Comparison”
Interpretation
* Compare self to others, with the drive to “outdo” others
* If others express similar opinions, we may take a more extreme position to differentiate ourselves
* Supporting evidence: being told about others’ positions
(without being exposed to their actual arguments)
produces the group polarization effect (Teger & Pruitt, 1967)
* Effect not as strong—exposure to persuasive arguments and social comparison likely interact to produce group polarization
- Identify the personal characteristics that make people more likely to become leaders
- Expertise, knowledge, & technical skill
- Social skills
- Those who share resources with others more likely to
rise to a leadership role
- Distinguish between power, authority, and dominance
- Power: the ability to control one’s own outcomes and those of others; the freedom to act
Power is distinct from: - Status: refers to respect & prominence
- Authority: power that derives from institutional roles
- Dominance: behaviour that has acquisition of power as its aim
- Describe how the approach/inhibition theory of power explains the negative effects of power on behaviour
Approach/Inhibition Theory of Power Keltner et al., 2003
* One influential theory suggests that we possess two
behavioural systems that help us navigate our world
* The behavioural approach system moves us toward desired outcomes (green light: “go, go, go!”)
* Triggered by the presence of rewards & opportunities
* The behavioural inhibition (or avoidance) system moves us away from threats (yellow light: “slow down, be vigilant”)
* Triggered by punishment, threat, & uncertainty (“yellow” signal)
- Power influences balance of the tendencies to approach
and inhibit - Elevated power activates approach-related tendencies
- Lack of power is associated with increased inhibition
-Model predicts that power should make people behave
in less constrained and at times more inappropriate
ways - Piff et al., 2012: are drivers of fancy cars more likely to
commit traffic infractions? (Yes)
Read the other slides
- Define deindividuation and describe its antecedents, corresponding internal states, and behavioural effects
Deindividuation (Zimbardo, 1970)
* A reduced sense of individual identity accompanied by
diminished self-regulation that can come over people when they are in a large group
Characterized by:
* Decreased self-observation & self-evaluation
* Decreased concern with social evaluation
Consequences:
* Impulsivity
* Irrationality
* Emotionality
* Antisocial behaviour
Antecedent Conditions
* Energizing effect of others
* Sensory overload
* Diffusion of responsibility (“everyone is doing it”)
* Anonymity (Crowds are thought to offer
anonymity, which leads to
deindividuation, Correlation between anonymity
& brutality) -halloween example
- Describe self-awareness theory and the spotlight effect
Self-Consciousness & the
Spotlight Effect
* Normally, we are acutely aware of, and focused on, the self
* Spotlight effect: the conviction that others are paying more attention to oneself than they actually are
Self-Awareness Theory
* When people focus their attention on themselves, they engage in more self-evaluation and become more
concerned about whether their current behaviour
conforms to their standards and values (Duval &
Wicklund, 1972)
* For example: increasing self-awareness by seating Ps in front of a mirror as they work makes them less likely to cheat (Diener & Wallbom, 1976)
