group processes Flashcards
define group
set of individuals with at least one characteristic:
- direct interaction over period of time
- joint membership in social category
- shared, common fate, identity or set of goals
define collective
- assembly of people engaging in a common activity, little interaction with each other.
why join a group?
- human life requires groups
- social brain hypothesis
- protect from physical health, and gain personal, social identity
social brain hypothesis
human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social group
group roles
- ways to define
- two fundamental types of roles
- match characteristic to?
- defined as formal (title) or informal
- instrumental role - help group achieve tasks
- expressive roles to provide emotional support and maintain morale.
- match characteristic to skill set = beneficial.
Power of roles - Stanford prison experiment
randomly assigned roles. prisoners were abused by guards. prisoners had mental breakdowns.
- controversial: Zimbardo mixed roles. experimenter and prison guard. Z wouldnt let ppl out, tried to encourage them to stay.
group norms
- defined?
- weak or strong conformity?
formal - explicit rules
informal - what to wear to party
strong conformity pressures, deviation can have consequences.
norm can be free-thinking = more heterogenous
group cohesiveness - define
- relationship btw cohesive & group performance
the forces exerted on a group that push its members close together
- causal relationship: more cohesive = better performance & vice versa. But, stronger evidence for better performance = better cohesiveness.
social facilitation - define
- two researchers, their findings
what impact does the presence of others have on our performance
- triplett: enhance performance when biking with ppl.
- competitive instinct; nervous energy increases performance.
- zajonc = arousal is key. arousal affects performance depending on type of task.
the zajonc solution
- 3 steps
- presence of others
- arousal
- strengthen dominant response = quality of performance varies by difficulty of task
dominant response
- difficult vs easy
=> easy: correct response, performance enhancement
=> difficult: incorrect response, performance impairment
is social facilitation merely a human thing?
-study?
no. cockroaches show better performance in an easy task with presence of others.
worse performance on difficult task in presence of others
3 theories for social facilitation
zajonc mere presence theory
evaluation apprehension theory
distraction conflict theory
what is zajonc mere presence theory
presence enough to facilitate social facilitation
evaluation apprehension theory
others mut be in position to evaluate one’s performance to effect performance.
*concern for judgement => increased arousal => increase dominant response
distracttion conflict theory
attentional conflict between focusin on task and inspecting the distracting stimulus creates arousal.
- nothing uniquely social about “social” facilitation
which theoyr is correct
- what are they again?
mere presence, evaluation apprehension, distraction conflict.
- one study: blind-fold vs non blind fold = blind-folded = did better. evaluation is key.
- certain explanations work better under certain circumstances.
what is social loafing
group produced reduction i individual output on easy tasks in which contributions are pooled
when does social loafing occur
when - task is easy, individual efforts cannot be ID’d.
social loafing conditions
- when will it not occur
- people believe their own performance can be Id’d
- task is important
- efforts necessary for success
- group punished for poor performance
- group is small
- group is cohesive
3 factors to reduce social loafing
- limit scope of project.
- keep group small
- peer evaluations
social loafing vs social facilitation
- depends on 2 things
type of evaluation
- individual Id-able.
- easy task = social facil = enhance
- difficult task = social facil = impair
- group eval-
- easy = social load = impair
- difficult = social security = enhance
type of task : easy vs difficult
when does social security come into play?
when the type of evaluation if group & it is a difficult task.
deindividuation -define
- caused by?
loss of person’s sense of individuality and reduction of normal constraints against deviant behaviour
- caused by:
- arousal (pressence of others)
- anonymity
- lack of individual responsibility
2 types of environmental cues in deindividuation
accountability:
affect cost-reward calculations. less likely to get caught/punished.
attentional cues:
focus away from self, less attention to self/morals. less sensitive to consequences.
trick or treat study
* nurse/KKK study
halloween - arousaed: wearing masks high on sugar. some ID’d, some not.
anonymous in group more likley to take more pieces.
nurse/KKK. some ID’d some anon.
- KKK increase shock when ID’d or anon.
- nurse decreased shock MORE when anon. = more responsive to group norm - helping.
Social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE)
characteristics/norms affect whether deindividuation occurs
-personal ID decrease, group ID increase.
if group ID negative - deindividuation = violence
group ID positive = deindividuation = more good.
groups are good when?
advantage of group?
good when motivated to search for answer that is best for entire group.
advantage = group can divide up tasks
group polarization -define
exaggeration through group discussion of group member’s initial tendencies.
risky shift?
tendency for group to be riskier than individual decisions
group polarization factors (3)
- persuasive arguments theory
- social comparison
- social categorizaiton
group polarization factor - persuasive argument theory
greater number and persuasiveness of argument - more extreme attitude.
group polarization factor - social comparison
new extreme norms are established. compare self to others extreme attitudes
group polarization factor
- social categorization
overestimate group’s position to distinguish from outgroup
- ?-?-?- occurs when commitment to failing course of action is increased to justify prior to investments
- individual or group more likely?
escalation effect
AKA sunk cost fallacy
AKA entrapment
groups more likely.
social dilemma
situation in which what is good for one is bad for all if everyone pursues self-interest.
prisoner’s dilemma
- discuss
- what’s key?
one-time, two-person dilemma
cooperate or compete with other player
both compete = both get 10 years.
you compete, he doesnt = you go off free, he gets 30 years.
you cooperate, he competes = you get 30 years, he gets 0.
you both cooperate = 3 years.
- key = trust. high trust, cooperate, low trust, compete
iterative mixed-motive problem
- social dilemma repeated many times
- develop tit-for-tat strategy.
cooperate, if other competes, you compete back.
4 reasons tit-for-tat elicits cooperation
- Nice - choose cooperative first
- not exploitable - respond with same action to ensure partner doesnt abuse or defect from cooperation
- forgiving - cooperate when they cooperate - not trying to compete continually
- transparent: other perosn realized what you’re doing
2 types of resource dilemmas
- commons dilemma
2. public goods dilemma
commons dilemma
limited, non-replenished resource
- tragedy of commons. if everyone takes a little bit extra = resources depleted = harmful for everyone
public good dilemma
resource that public contributes to. service continues if everyone continually contributes.
social dilemma influenced by psych and structural arrangements
psych: trusting is key, easier to trust individual than small or big group.
- good mood = more likely to cooperate
structure: payoff that rewards cooperative, private resources, establish authority to control resources
groups can differ from?
the sum of their parts.
shared common fate = more constructive solutions
process loss
any aspect of group interation that inhibits good problem solving.
ie. communication issue, leader wasn’t good.
what is groupthink
kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts. in a realistic manner
most informed decision by pooling all information together.
- funny thing about groups
groups tend to focus on shared inffo, forget about unique info
avoid: long discussion, assign members to areas of expertise.
when is groupthink most likely to occur?
high cohesive isolated ruled by direct learder high stress poor decision-making procedures.
how to avoid groupthink trap
- remain impartial
seek outside opinions
create subgroups
seek anonymous opinions
2 theories of leadership
great person theory: key personality traits made a good leader. weak only dominance was found
integrative compelxity - indicator of ability to recognize more than 1 perspective on an ssue to be able to integrate these various perspectives
2 leadership styles
transactional leaders: clear short term goals, reward those who meet.
transformational leaders - focus common, long-term goals. - high job satisfaction, positive attitude.
contingency theory of leadership. 2 oriented leaders
task-oriented leader
- good in high control situations. focus on task.
- good in low control situations: take charge and impose disorder
relationship-oriented leader: feelings & relationships among workers.
- good in moderate control situations.
gender and leadership
- stereotypical good leader “traits”
agentic - assertive, dominant. usually assoc w male. not female.
- often women get placed in failing position.
