Group Processes

Question 1

define what a ‘group’ is

Answer 1

• two or more individuals in face-to-face interaction
• each member = aware of membership to the group
• each member = aware of other who belongs to group

Question 2

identify types of groups

Answer 2

• interpersonal relationships (e.g.: families, small groups of close friends)
• groups formed to fulfil tasks (e.g.: committees, work groups, goal lead)
• groups based on large social categories (e.g.: women, Americans)
• groups based on weak social relationships (e.g.: idea you are connected to people with similar interests to you, living in same community, liking Taylor Swift)
• transitionary groups (e.g.: people waiting in line of bus stop, queuing in line at the bank)

Question 3

Outline the study and findings of Tajfel, Billig, Bundy & Flament (1971, replicated by Allen & Wilder, 1975) into minimal groups

Answer 3

STUDY
- looked at minimal group paradigm

• had ppts split into 2 random, arbitrary groups (A and B)
• groups were totally random, group of strangers with no pre-existing friendships

FINDINGS
- found ppts allocated more money to their own assigned group than other group
- cannot be explained by self-interest as ppts allocating money did not get a share
- not based on existing friendships as group = strangers

Question 4

what can you conclude from Tajfel, Billig, Bundy & Flament (1971, replicated by Allen & Wilder, 1975) study into minimal groups?

Answer 4

• demonstrates how easily bias (and groups) can form
• shows how groups in such minimal situations can breed prejudice

Question 5

define social facilitation (Allport, 1920)

Answer 5

a phenomenon where people show increased levels of efforts and performance when in presence of others

this presence can be implied, virtual or real

Question 6

outline Triplett (1898) study into social facilitation

Answer 6

noticed cyclists performed faster when they were:
- timed alone
- timed and racing alongside other cyclists

suggested that presence of audience, especially in competition, ‘energised’ performance on motor tasks

• tested hypothesis using a ‘fishing line’ apparatus
• found children performed better when racing against each other compared to alone

shows how presence of other impacts how we behave

Question 7

what is the ‘mere presence effect’ (Allport, 1920)

Answer 7

defined as an entirely passive and unresponsive audience that is only physically present

argues that performance is improved due to mere presence of others

Question 8

define ‘social inhibition’

Answer 8

the idea that the presence of others can impair performance

occurs in both humans and animals

Question 9

give examples of social inhibition

Answer 9

Schmitt et al. (1986) - complex task done slower in presence of others

Middlemist et al. (1976) - men take longer to urinate when someone is standing immediately next to them

Question 10

outline Zajonc’s (1965) drive theory

Answer 10

• argued mere presence of others creates increase in arousal and energises ‘dominant response’
• dominant response = behaviour that is typically done in that situation
• when people are anxious they tend to perform better on easier tasks and worse on harder tasks
• if dominant response is correct (easy) –> performance is facilitated
• if dominant response is incorrect (hard) –> performance is inhibited

Question 11

outline the evaluation apprehension theory (Cottrell, 1972)

Answer 11

• social reward/punishment, approval/disapproval based on others’ evaluation
• perception of ‘evaluating’ audience creates the arousal rather than mere presence
• meaning social facilitation is an brought on effect based on perceived evaluations of others

Question 12

outline the study supporting the evaluation apprehension theory (Cottrell, 1968)

Answer 12

• has ppts personal a well-learnt, easy task

performed this to an audience of 3 conditions
1/ blindfolded
2/ merely present (passive and uninterested)
3/ attentive audience

found social facilitation (enhanced performance) was perceived when audience were perceived to be attentive

Question 13

outline evidence that fails to support the evaluation apprehension theory (Markus, 1978)

Answer 13

• measured time taken for ppts to get dressed
• dress in either familiar clothes (easy task, own clothes) or unfamiliar clothes (difficult task, unfamiliar shoes and lab coat)
• timed in 3 different conditions
  1/ alone
  2/ in presence of inattentive audience
  3/ in presence of attentive audience

FINDINGS:

• attentive audience sped up performance in easy task (evidence for social facilitation and drive theory)
• inattentive and attentive not much difference in difficult task
  (evidence for mere presence of other making us perform worse)

Question 14

outline Schmitt et al., (1986) study

Answer 14

• asked ppts to type their name or a code backwards on a computer

FINDINGS

• found mere presence of others made people perform easier task quicker and harder task slower
• however adding evaluation apprehension condition made little difference to typing speed

suggesting evaluation apprehension = sometimes unnecessary for social facilitation

Question 15

outline the distraction-conflict theory

Answer 15

• idea that people become distracted and therefore perform worse

Question 16

outline Sander et al. (1978) study into distraction-conflict theory

Answer 16

had ppts complete easy or difficult digital task:
- alone
- someone doing the same task
- someone doing different task

• people performed worse on digital task when someone was doing the same digital task

Question 17

Explain the Ringelmann Effect

Answer 17

the idea that groups become less productive in terms of output per member as they increase in size

(as group gets bigger, productivity decreases)

Question 18

Explain social loafing

Answer 18

this is the idea that individual puts in less effort when being judged as part of a group

Question 19

what did Ringlemann (1913, 1927) find in support of social loafing?

Answer 19

• found men pulling on a rope attached to dynamometer exerted less force than the number of people in group

Question 20

identify 2 reasons for the social loafing effect in Ringlemanns findings

Answer 20

1/ coordination loss
as group size inhibits movement, distraction, and jostling

2/ motivation loss
ppts did not try as hard due to being less motivated

Question 21

outline Ingham et al. (1974) study into social loafing

Answer 21

• looked at ‘real groups’ and ‘pseudo-groups’ pulling on a rope
• in ‘real group’ varying group sizes of real ppts pulled rope
• in pseudo-group, rope was pulled by researcher’s assistants (pretending to pull rope) and ppt (blindfolded)
• found that as group size increased, individual effort decreased (arguably explained by coordination loss)
• found that when there is 3 people in group, individual still pulled less (arguably explained by motivation loss)

Question 22

outline Latané et al. (1979) study into social loafing

Answer 22

• supported social loafing through clapping, shouting and cheering tasks
• recorded amount of cheering/clapping noise made per person reduced by:
• 29% in 2 person group
• 49% in 4 personal group
• 60% in 6 person group

shows individuals putting in less effort as group size increases

Question 23

why do people socially loaf according to Green (1991)

Answer 23

1/ output equality
people learn that others are not pulling their weight, they lose motivation and therefore put less effort in

2/ evaluation apprehension
individuals only believe efforts are being judged when performing alone
when in groups, people are not accountable for their efforts

Question 24

identify two way of reducing social loafing

Answer 24

1/ identifiability

2/ individual responsibility

Question 25

explain how identifiability can reduce social loafing

Answer 25

this is where people’s individual contributions to a task can be identified

e.g.: Williams et al., 1981 found that people shout louder in a group shouting task when they think every individual’s volume can be recorded

Question 26

explain how individual responsibility can reduce social loafing

Answer 26

this is when people know they can make unique contribution to a task

e.g.: Harkins and Petty, 1982 found that when giving groups task to watch dots on screen, if individual thought they were solely responsible for watching particular segment, they worked harder

Question 27

identify two situations where people will put effort into group task

Answer 27

1/ when they believe their input will have impact

2/ when completing task is likely to bring them something they value (including: money, grades, satisfaction, enjoyment)

Question 28

what is group polarisation?

Answer 28

tendency for group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial thoughts of its members

Question 29

what is McGlynn et al. (1995) take on group problem solving?

Answer 29

when groups get together and critique each other’s ideas, found that better-quality ideas

Question 30

what is Mullen et al. (1991) take on group problem solving?

Answer 30

group solving is more effective when small rather than large groups AND if experimenter is not present to monitor process

Question 31

what is Diehl & Stroebe (1987) take on group problem solving?

Answer 31

if only simple group decisions occur with no break out from individuals, individuals efforts are typically better than the groups

Question 32

what is groupthink? (Janis, 1982)

Answer 32

proposed this concept where objections to poor group decisions are suppressed to maintain group harmony

Question 33

identify conditions for groupthink (Janis, 1972, 1982)

Answer 33

groupthink happens under particular conditions:

• stressful situations, without a clear correct solution
• cohesive group of like-minded people
• cut off from external influences
• strong vocal leader

Question 34

identify the consequences of groupthink

Answer 34

• group does not carry out adequate research
• alternative options are not considered
• risks are not adequately assessed