CHAPTER 8: PEOPLE IN GROUPS Flashcards
Two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition.
Group
The property of a group that makes it seem like a coherent, distinct and unitary entity.
entitativity
Although there are almost as many definitions of the social group as there are social psychologists who research social groups, David Johnson and Frank Johnson (1987) have identif ied seven major emphases. The group is:
1 a collection of individuals who are interacting with one another;
2 a social unit of two or more individuals who perceive themselves as belonging to a group;
3 a collection of individuals who are interdependent;
4 a collection of individuals who join together to achieve a goal;
5 a collection of individuals who are trying to satisfy a need through their joint association;
6 a collection of individuals whose interactions are structured by a set of roles and norms;
7 a collection of individuals who influence each other.
An improvement in the performance of well-learnt/ easy tasks and a deterioration in the performance of poorly learnt/difficult tasks in the mere presence of members of the same species.
Social facilitation
Refers to an entirely passive and unresponsive audience that is only physically present.
Mere presence
Impact of the presence of others on individual task performance
audience effects
Zajonc’s theory that the physical presence of members of the same species instinctively causes arousal that motivates performance of habitual behaviour patterns.
Drive theory
The argument that the physical presence of members of the same species causes drive because people have learnt to be apprehensive about being evaluated.
evaluation apprehension model
The physical presence of members of the same species is distracting and produces conflict between attending to the task and attending to the audience.
Distraction–conflict theory
Statistical procedure that combines data from different studies to measure the overall reliability and strength of specific effects.
Meta-analysis
Group tasks can be classified according to whether a division of labour is possible; whether there is a predetermined standard to be met; and how an individual’s inputs can contribute.
task taxonomy
one that benefits from a division of labour, where different people perform different subtasks.
divisible task
cannot sensibly be broken into subtasks. Building a house is a divisible task and pulling a rope a unitary task.
unitary task
an open-ended task that stresses quantity: the objective is to do as much as possible.
maximising task
one that has a set standard: the objective is to meet the standard, neither to exceed nor fall short of it.
optimising task
one where the group’s product is the sum of all the individual inputs (e.g. a group of people planting trees).
additive task
one where the group’s product is the average of the individuals’ inputs (e.g. a group of people estimating the number of bars in Amsterdam).
compensatory task
one where the group selects as its adopted product one individual’s input (e.g. a group of people proposing different things to do over the weekend will adopt one person’s suggestion).
disjunctive task
one where the group’s product is determined by the rate or level of performance of the slowest or least able member (e.g. a group working on an assembly line).
conjunctive task
one where the relationship between individual inputs and the group’s product is not directly dictated by task features or social conventions; instead, the group is free to decide on its preferred course of action (e.g. a group that decides to shovel snow together).
discretionary task
Deterioration in group performance in comparison to individual performance due to the whole range of possible interferences among members.
process loss
Deterioration in group performance compared with individual performance, due to problems in coordinating behaviour.
Coordination loss
Individual effort on a task diminishes as group size increases.
ringelmann effect
A reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task (one in which our outputs are pooled with those of other group members) compared with working either alone or coactively (our outputs are not pooled).
Social loafing
Gaining the benefits of group membership by avoiding costly obligations of membership and by allowing other members to incur those costs.
Free-rider effect
The effect that other people have on our attitudes and behaviour, usually as a consequence of factors such as group size, and temporal and physical immediacy.
Social impact
Increased effort on a collective task to compensate for other group members’ actual, perceived or anticipated lack of effort or ability.
Social compensation
The property of a group that affectively binds people, as group members, to one another and to the group as a whole, giving the group a sense of solidarity and oneness.
Cohesiveness
Liking for someone based on idiosyncratic preferences and interpersonal relationships.
personal attraction
Liking for someone based on common group membership and determined by the person’s prototypicality of the group.
Social attraction
Dynamic relationship between the group and its members that describes the passage of members through a group in terms of commitment and of changing roles.
Group socialisation
Focusing on small interactive groups, Bruce Tuckman (1965) described a now famous fivestage developmental sequence that such groups go through, namely?
Forming,Storming, Norming performing and adjourning
an orientation and familiarisation stage;
forming
a conflict stage, where members know each other well enough to start working through disagreements about goals and practices
storming