Group Processes and belonging Flashcards
because humans primarily live in groups what do we need to study
effects of groups and behavior in groups
explain evolution and group living
- living in groups and being social is our survival strategy (hunting, growing food, finding mates, etc)
- our way to evolve from Africa and the chimps was to get smarter when the physical environment changed
- we got bigger brains
what is the implication of bigger brains in humans
- require a lot of metabolic energy
- explains why infants are helpless compared to other animals because we dont have bodies to survive in nature without tools
- requires a lot to raise humans: why being social is a survival strategy
what is necessary for cooperative living to be beneficial
we must be cautious of cheaters
-so monitoring ones social status and inclusion is essential, important to us so we are not rejected we are social creatures so rejection affects our survival
give an example of rejection of strikes in the United Airlines
- “do not pick up flights if part of union in order to put pressure on airline”
- the pilots who took flights were called scabs and rejected (made fun of, taunted, excluded) called a cheater and told they were hurting goal of social group
- this was true even though some people needed the flights, like a single mother
explain interdependence vs. independence
interdependence: collectivistic cultures
independence: individualistic cultures
what makes a culture individualistic or collectivistic?
- primary form of existence is group effort (ex. growing rice in China) tend to be collectivistic
- primary form of existence is herding (western cultures) tend to be individualistic because it is independent activity
environmental factors play role
what is the belongingness hypothesis
humans have a pervasive drive to form and maintain social relationships
-lack of this is a characteristic of many disorders (ex. Autism)
what happens if the need of belonging isnt met
social rejection and social rejection is bad because it can threaten survival
-emotional pain still hurts after time passes, physical pain does not
what are some bad things rejected people can do
1) become aggressive sometimes
2) show less self control
3) feel pain
4) have distorted time and temperature perception
what are examples of rejected people becoming aggressive sometimes
ex. school or mass shootings show that those individuals were rejected
ex. in experiments (rejected someone in ball toss game) while “waiting” for experiment to start. control group was included in ball toss and experimental group was not, this led to more hostility towards the people excluding them
- food preparation experiment, making food for person who rejected or included them (person didnt like hot sauce). rejected group put more hot sauce in
what are some examples of rejected people showing less self control
ex. eat more cookies or give up faster on a task, rejected people do not have motivation for self-control
how do rejected people have distorted time and temperature perception
think time is moving slower and feel physically colder and want warm food and beverages
how can rejected people feel pain
area of the brain involved in perception, similar reaction to physical and emotional pain, medicine can help physical and emotional pain
-pain is a sign to stop, when we feel emotional pain we think about what we’re doing and stop
what does rejection show us
we must stay included
what are the benefits of being rejected
- have better memory for social information (not what did i have for lunch but likes/dislikes and behavior)
- mimic other peoples behavior which make us feel closer to people, we tend to mimic the people we like and like those who mimic us
- quick to attend to smiles and accurately distinguish real and fake smiles (smiles = potential friendship)
what are social norms
the way people act in a situation or community (people conform to them)
- help us predict one another, know what’s predictable and accepted
- when someone violates them it attracts attention, isn’t predictable and might get rejected
explain the bicyclist study and what it shows us about the effects of being around other people
cyclists beat own previous records set alone when they were in groups (go faster in groups)
-shows performance is different in presence of other people, better in terms of cyclists, but not always better you can do worse (studying in groups, performing on stage)
explain the cockroach study and what it shows us about social facilitation
put cockroaches in maze with light and dark area and see how fast they get to dark area.
easy (straight line to dark): alone they went slower than they did with another cockroach (conspecific) placed in the same maze as them
hypothesized maybe people do better in groups in easy tasks
difficult (had to make turn to dark): cockroaches got slower when other cockroaches were watching them
results: seems as though complexity of the task is the moderator
what does the moderator mean
if one variable moderates another, that means it changes the effect the other variable has (same thing as interaction)
what is the interaction in the cockroach study
2x2 (two levels)
others present, alone) x (easy, difficult
what is social facilitation as seen in the cyclist and cockroach study
tendency for people to do better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when they are in presence of other people (dominant response gets facilitated)
-to get good at something -> practice, when you are already good at something you’ll do better in front of other people
why does social facilitation occur?
presence of others -> increases arousal -> strengthens tendency to perform dominant or well-learned response -> if dominant response is correct performance is improved and if dominant response is wrong performance is impaired
anxiety and performance?
a little anxiety can improve performance and too much is a detriment
what are the three theories that explain why social facilitation occurs
1) mere presence theory
2) evaluation apprehension
3) distraction conflict theory
what is the difference between mere presence theory and evaluation apprehension
reason arousal exists in the first place differs, but effect of arousal is the same
what is the mere presence theory
the mere presence of others increases arousal and strengthens dominant response
what is evaluation apprehension
the concern that being judged creates arousal
-adds another step in social facilitation (concern of being evaluated adds more arousal)
presence of others -> concern about being evaluated -> increased arousal
which theory (mere presence or evaluation apprehension) is correct
mere presence is correct- enough to add arousal, dont need evaluation apprehension
what experiments prove mere presence theory is correct
interaction 2x3 study
( easy, difficult) x (others and can evaluate, others and cant evaluate, alone)
- take on an everyday behavior (suit up in booties and lab coat) and told to change into normal clothes
- easy task: seconds to change in and out of clothes
- difficult task: put on lab coat and booties and take off
- within subjects everyone did both
- one group was alone, one group was with another participant, one group had someone fixing ceiling
results: slower on difficult task with others present, faster on easy task with other present, shows presence increases arousal on its own and evaluation apprehension adds to it
what is another study about writing names that explains mere presence theory as true
- type full name forward (easy) and backwards (hard) on computer
- others can evaluate=person sitting there, others cant evaluate= blindfolded person, alone
same results as first study
what is the distraction conflict theory
the presence of others is distracting and the conflict between attending to others and to the task creates arousal
-helps a task you’re good at and hinders one you’re not
what are free-riders
people not putting in effort but reaping benefits of group
what is social loafing
people exert less effort when working with others than when working alone
-occurs because diffusion of responsibility, not fully responsible for outcome so only do % of work
study of social loafing with box?
- participants asked to come up with as many uses of a box as possible
- group 1: experimenter took home and looked at individual names and responses (individual group)
- group 2: experimenter looking at pooled contributions with no name (loafing group)
results: individual group came up with 30 and loafing group came up with 20, loafing group gave less effort
what can happen in groups with identity of individuals
identity can get lost and can cause people to behave in a way they wouldn’t by themselves, this can be extreme
what is deindividuation
when people lose their sense of individual identity (ex. being in large group) causing them to behave impulsively and deviantly -asked in class what you'd do if you were invisible and people answered deviant things (in groups we are like an invisible person)
explain social loafing and relaxation
social loafing can make you feel relaxed because people relax with other and when individual performance cannot be evaluated
what can deindividuation do
make people feel less accountable for their actions and increases obedience to group norms
how is deindividuation usually studied
usually studied in groups and has been occurring since the beginning of time
- but you do not have to be in a group to lose sense of identity
ex. role playing, Halloween costumes, driving a car can cause people to lose sense of identity , wearing a uniform
what are some real life examples of deindividuation
- more brutal actions were committed by soldiers in combat when hiding identity (paint, masks, uniform), they raped and killed people
- KKK wears asks to conceal identity
- police brutality: when wearing uniform people are more likely to hurt others
what is the soccer study about deindividuation
experimenters asked soccer players to play in uniforms and street clothes
-kids were more aggressive in uniforms and committed more fouls
explain the Halloween study on deindividuation
going around in costumes on Halloween can cause deindividuation
- house where kids came to door, experimenter had bowl of candy and told them to take one when she went to get something
- manipulation: “great costume! what’s your name” in one group, this makes them less anonymous
results: anonymous groups took more candy than anonymous alone people, both anonymous groups and alone took more than individuated groups and alone, individuated alone person took less candy than group
analysis: those in groups and deindividuated still showed evidence of deindividuation
- shows that being in groups and being anonymous increases deindividuation, both do on their own as well
explain being anonymous on internet
allows deindividuation
-people moving towards comments requiring full name
explain the mirror Halloween individuation study
same Halloween study with bowl and sign that said “please take one”, one group had a mirror behind bowl
results: less % of those with mirror took more than one piece of candy
what is the self awareness theory
predicts that when people focus their attention inward, they become concerned with self-evaluation and how current behavior conforms to internal standards and values
explain the mirror self awareness theory study
those with mirror at desk completed more work
-can be a distraction, only use mirror when you need a boost
do groups make better decisions than individuals?
depends on the nature of the decision and the characteristics of the group
explain the challenger explosion
challenger exploded and killed everyone on board, someone recognized problem with vehicle and brought it to supervisors attention, but space race was exciting and a big deal so the people in charge ignored the concern and launched it anyways
what is groupthink
the desire for group harmony can interfere with making good decisions
- its uncomfortable to disagree or debate
- people may be ignored or belittled if they disagree, especially with an abrasive leader
real life examples of group think?
invasion of Iraq and Bay of Pigs invasion
when might groups make better decisions?
- when there is an objective problem (problem with a right solution that is based on fact)
- combining knowledge to work together
ex. trivia nights, solving math problems
what happens when there is a subjective decision
groups tend to make bad decisions
-want to keep getting along and agree with each other
what happens when someone in a group disagrees and they are ostracized
they are less likely to express disagreements in the future
**have to make an atmosphere where it is okay to disagree (better for group harmony than the feeling you have to be in consensus)
what did the discovery of group think lead people to believe
that all group decisions are bad
-but groups allow for different expertise and perspectives
what is pluralistic ignorance
people assume other people’s behavior reflects the appropriate social norm, when in reality everyone is unsure how to act
ex. “everyone is quiet so everyone agrees”, not true, people just assume this
what happens when people get in a group and they all think the same way
-reinforce ideas, after meeting the group feels even stronger about their ideas
group polarization
what is group polarization
tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than initial inclinations of its members
- people’s initial opinions become more extreme when they are in a group of people who agree
- people tend to consume the news and media that already agrees with initial opinion
why does group polarization occur
1) social comparison (we compare to other people)
2) number of persuasive arguments
explain the group polarization study
one group where everyone has some opinion, other group where attitudes are split 50/50
-both groups take same attitude test after and both groups shift their arguments toward the group opinion
in the consistent group opinions get stronger and in the 50/50 group opinions get more neutral
what is stronger social comparison or persuasive arguments
people change scores on something even just after reading someone else’s attitude scores (didn’t even hear their arguments)
-shows that social comparison is stronger in changing opinion
explain the Sieber and Ziegler study “can cognitive resources affect how much someone is polarized by other’s attitudes”?
-argument to construct a tunnel in major city
-participants filled out a questionnaire on opinions, then debated and did other activities and filled out another questionnaire
2 (social comparison: high opinion vs. low opinion) x 2 (arguments: high (actual facts) vs. low) x 2 (cognitive capacity: low (had to multitask while reading arguments) vs. high)
results: those with high cognitive capacity and low opinion were more polarized than those with high opinion, those with low cognitive capacity and high opinion were more polarized than low opinion
those with high cognitive capacity and high persuasive arguments were more polarized than those with low persuasive arguments, those with low cognitive capacity and high persuasive arguments were less polarized than those with low persuasive arguments
explain the addition to Sieber and Ziegler’s study
x 2 (motivation: low (don’t know when tunnel will be constructed) vs. high)
those with high motivation were equally polarized with low and high opinions, those with low motivation and high opinion were more polarized than those with low opinion
those with high motivation were equally polarized with low and high persuasive arguments, those with low motivation and high persuasive arguments were more polarized than those with low persuasive arguments
polarization was stronger when that members initial attitude is further from group average
what are the major takeaways from Sieber and Ziegler’s study
when either motivation or cognitive capacity is low, polarization occurs due to social comparison
otherwise, polarization occurs due to exposure to more persuasive arguments
when are groups better
1) members freely contribute independent opinions from variety of viewpoints
2) if people are motivated to search for answer that is best for group
3) rely on person with expertise
when do group interactions inhibit good problem solving
1) failure to share unique info
2) groupthink
when is group think common
in groups without contrary opinions, with a strict leader and poor decision skills and high stress
what are the problems with group think
people think they can do no wrong, people do not voice other opinions, pressure to conform
how to avoid groupthink
avoid by impartial leaders, seek outside opinions and create subgroups
what is social dilemma and example done in class
when an option that benefits an individual becomes harmful to the group if all individuals select that option
ex. candy bowl everyone takes one piece but there is not enough for the people at the end of the class
what is the “tragedy of the commons” or “common dilemma”
cattle graze too much in one area so there’s no grass left and it can’t grow back fast enough
what is public goods dilemma and an example
people build a shared resource together that everyone benefit from
-people want to benefit from the dilemma but not actually give to it
ex. tax money -> turned into resources everyone can benefit from, but no one likes them kind of like individual social loafing
give an example of public goods study
- participants have 50 cents
- things in shared pot would get doubled and split evenly
ex. 5 people -> 2.50 in pot -> $5 -> leave with one dollar each
-people dont have to put money in, could still collect from pot if other people put money in
what is the walking synchrony increases cooperation (in the public good scenario) study
-have people do synchronous or non-synchronous activity, then have them do public goals dilemma activity
- one group asked to walk in step together, other group walks naturally, control group (no walking)
- synchronous group more cooperative in group activity
what is the singing study that shows how synchrony increases cooperation
- have Americans sing Canadian anthem, 3 groups: hold cup up and sing together, sing in sync without cup, and sing and hold cup not in sync
- singing in sync increased cooperation even without holding the cup
what is the children study that shows how synchrony increases cooperation
children who sing a song together running around a pond are more likely to help another kid when they spill something
what is the “intentional synchrony increases conformity only among those acting - not observing” study
- had people make choices about products and choose between 3 brands, show % of people who chose that brand
- conformity is how often people picked the brand that most other people picked
-4 groups: participants did stretches at same time purposefully, participants told to follow tape of exercises (still in sync but following video not other people), stretches not in sync, also a group of people watching the other groups
results: those watching video were not increased conformity (in sync has to be intentional for it to influence conformity)
- those watching outside were less conforming when they watched the “in sync” group - maybe because “I don’t want to be someone like everyone else”
discussion: observing others in sync has reverse effect, those in sync purposefully want to conform to others.
