Group Processes: Influence in Social Groups Flashcards
Defining a Group:
Two or more people who interact and are
interdependent in the sense that their needs
and goals cause them to influence each other
Why Do People Join Groups?
Groups have a number of other benefits
–Important source of information
▪Help us resolve ambiguity in the social world
–Important aspect of identity
▪Help us define who we are
▪Help us feel distinct from other groups
–Establishment of social norms
*Social roles:
Shared expectations in a group about how
particular people are supposed to behave in
that group
–Potential costs to social roles
▪If enmeshed in a role, individual identities and
personalities can get lost.
Zimbardo and colleagues (1973) randomly
assigned male volunteers to play roles for
two weeks as
–Prisoners
–Guards
Students quickly assumed these roles.
*Researchers had to end the experiment
after only six days.
When Stanford Became a Prison
Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues randomly assigned students to play the role of
prisoner or guard in a mock prison. The students assumed these roles all too well.
The Guard Role
One of the guards from Zimbardo’s prison experiment at Stanford.
The Stanford Prison Study
*Guards
–Abusive
–Verbally harassed, humiliated prisoners
The Stanford Prison Study
*Prisoners
–Passive
–Helpless
–Withdrawn
Prison Abuse at Abu Ghraib
In 2004, American military guards routinely
abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib, a prison in
Iraq.
–Physical beatings, sexual abuse, and
psychological humiliation
*The American public was shocked by
pictures of
these abuses
A few “bad apples” happen to end up in the
unit guarding the prisoners?
–“What’s bad is the barrel.” (Zimbardo)
Group cohesiveness:
–Qualities of a group that bind members
together and promote liking between
members
The more cohesive a group is, the more its
members are likely to:
–Stay in the group
–Take part in group activities
–Try to recruit new like-minded members
If task requires close cooperation
–Cohesiveness helps performance
If maintaining good relationships most
important
Cohesiveness can interfere with optimal
performance
Group Diversity
Group members tend to be alike in age,
sex, beliefs and opinions.
*Why are they similar?
–Attracted to and likely to recruit similar others
–Groups operate in ways that encourage
similarity in the members.
Group Diversity
*Homogenous groups are more cohesive
*Diverse groups perform better
Social facilitation
People do better on simple tasks and worse
on complex tasks when they are in the
presence of others and their individual
performance can be evaluated.
Social Facilitation
The presence of others can mean one of
two things
1. Performing a task with coworkers doing the
same thing you are
2. Performing a task in front of an audience that
only observes you
Social Facilitation
If task is simple, well-learned
–The mere presence of others improves
performance.
–This phenomenon is found in humans as well
as other species!
Simple vs. Difficult Tasks
When working on a more difficult task
–Opposite results
▪A task can take longer to solve when others are
present than when performing alone.
▪People and animals do worse in the presence of
others when the task is difficult.
Arousal and the Dominant Response
(Zajonc, 1965)
The presence of others increases
physiological arousal
▪i.e., our bodies become more energized
*When such arousal exists
–It is easier to do something that is simple.
–It is harder to do something complex or learn
something new.
Why the Presence of Others
Causes Arousal
Three theories to explain the arousal and
social facilitation
1. Other people cause us to become
particularly alert and vigilant.
2. Other people make us apprehensive about
how we’re being evaluated.
3. Other people distract us from the task at
hand
Why the Presence of Others
Causes Arousal
Other people cause us to become
particularly alert and vigilant.
–Because other people can be unpredictable,
we are in a state of greater alertness in their
presence.
▪Causes mild arousal
Why the Presence of Others
Causes Arousal
They make us apprehensive about how
we’re being evaluated.
–When other people can see how you are
doing, you feel like they are evaluating you.
▪Evaluation apprehension can cause mild arousal.
They distract us from the task at hand.
–Divided attention produces arousal.
–Consistent with this interpretation, nonsocial
sources of distraction, such as a flashing light,
cause the same kinds of social facilitation
effects as the presence of other people.
They distract us from the task at hand.
–Divided attention produces arousal.
–Consistent with this interpretation, nonsocial
sources of distraction, such as a flashing light,
cause the same kinds of social facilitation
effects as the presence of other people.
Social Loafing
When in the presence of others, individual
efforts often cannot be distinguished from
efforts of those around them.
*If being with other people means merging
into a group and becoming less noticeable
than when alone
–Increase relaxation
Social Loafing
Ringelmann (1913)
–When a group pulled on a rope, each
individual exerted less effort than when doing
it alone.
Social Loafing
People do worse on simple tasks but better
on complex tasks when they are in the
presence of others and their individual
performance cannot be evaluated.
Slacking Off in Class
Sometimes being surrounded by others allows us to slack off (or “loaf”),
demonstrating that there’s not a single, simple answer to the question of how the
presence of other people affects individual performance.
Social Facilitation and Social Loafing
Arousal enhances performance on simple
tasks but impairs performance on complex
tasks.
*Becoming relaxed impairs performance on
simple tasks but improves performance on
complex tasks.
Gender and Social Loafing
In a review of more than 150 studies
–Social loafing is more likely among men.
–Women tend to be higher than men in
relational interdependence.
▪Focus on and care about personal relationships
with other individuals
▪May make women less likely to engage in social
loafing when in groups
Culture and Social Loafing
Tendency to loaf stronger in Western
cultures than in Asian cultures
*Why?
–Self-definitions
▪Asian cultures: Interdependent self
–Reduces social loafing tendencies
Predicting If Presence of Others
Will Help or Hurt Performance
Need to know two things
1. Can individual efforts be evaluated?
2. Is the task simple or complex?
Deindividuation: Getting Lost in
the Crowd
Deindividuation:
–The loosening of normal constraints on
behavior when people cannot be
differentiated (such as when they are in a
crowd), leading to an increase in impulsive
and deviant acts
Deindividuation: Getting Lost in
the Crowd
Examples
–Massacre at My Lai during the Vietnam War
–Mobs of soccer fans sometimes attacking
each other
–Hysterical fans at rock concerts who trampled
each other to death
–Lynching of African Americans by people
cloaked in the anonymity of white robes
The KKK: Hiding Under Robes and
Hoods
The robes and hoods of the Ku Klux Klan cloak its members in anonymity; their
violent behavior is consistent with research on deindividuation.
Deindividuation Makes People Feel Less
Accountable
Why does deindividuation lead to impulsive
and sometimes violent acts?
–Makes people feel less accountable
–Increases obedience to group norm
Deindividuation Increases Obedience to
Group Norms
Deindividuation does not always lead to
aggressive or antisocial behavior.
–Depends on what the norm of the group is
Deindividuation Online
Deindividuation does not require face-to-
face contact.
–Example: Feeling less inhibited on social
media that’s anonymous
*Cyberspace also provides advantages for
the free and open discussion of difficult
topics.
Deindividuation Online
Cost seems to be a reduction in common
civility.
*The phenomenon of the internet “troll” is a
modern example of deindividuation, made
possible by the feelings of anonymity that
often go along with being online.
Group Decisions: Are Two (or More) Heads
Better Than One?
A group will do well only if the most
talented member can convince the others
that he or she is right!
Process Loss
Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits
good problem solving
Failure to Share Unique Information
(1 of 2)
Groups tend to focus on the information
they share and ignore facts known to only
some members of the group.
Failure to Share Unique Information
Subsequent research has focused on ways
to get groups to focus more on unshared
information
–Group discussions should last long enough to
get beyond what everyone already knows.
–Assign different group members to specific
areas of expertise so that they know that they
alone are responsible for certain types of
information.
Transactive Memory
The combined memory of two people that
is more efficient than the memory of either
individual
Groupthink: Many Heads, One Mind
A kind of thinking in which maintaining
group cohesiveness and solidarity is more
important than considering the facts in a
realistic manner
Groupthink: Many Heads, One Mind
A kind of thinking in which maintaining
group cohesiveness and solidarity is more
important than considering the facts in a
realistic manner
Groupthink: Many Heads, One Mind
Groupthink is most likely to occur when
group is
–Highly cohesive
–Isolated from contrary opinions
–Ruled by a directive leader who makes his or
her wishes known
Avoiding the Groupthink Trap
A wise leader can take several steps to
avoid groupthink
–Remain impartial
–Seek outside opinions
–Create subgroups
–Seek anonymous opinions
Group Polarization: Going to Extremes
The tendency for groups to make decisions
that are more extreme than the initial
inclinations of its members
*Joining a group is likely to lead an
individual’s attitudes to become more
extreme through processes of group
polarization.
Group Polarization: Going to Extremes
Persuasive arguments interpretation
–Individuals bring to the group a set of
arguments, some of which other individuals
have not considered.
2. Social comparison interpretation
–When people discuss an issue in a group,
they first explore how everyone else feels.
Great person theory:
The idea that certain key personality traits
make a person a good leader, regardless of
the situation
Leadership and Personality
Personality and leadership abilities weakly
related
*Compared to nonleaders, leaders tend to
be slightly more
–Intelligent
–Extroverted
–Confident
–Charismatic
Leadership and Personality
Surprisingly few personality characteristics
correlate strongly with leadership
effectiveness.
Leadership Styles
Transactional leaders:
–Leaders who set clear, short-term goals and
reward people who meet them
*Transformational leaders:
–Leaders who inspire followers to focus on
common, long-term goals
The Right Person in the Right Situation
A leader can be highly successful in some
situations but not in others
*Comprehensive theory of leadership must
focus on the leader, followers, and
situation.
The Right Person in the Right Situation
Contingency theory of leadership:
–The idea that leadership effectiveness
depends both on how task-oriented or
relationship-oriented the leader is and on the
amount of control and influence the leader
has over the group
Contingency theory of leadership:
The idea that leadership effectiveness
depends both on how task-oriented or
relationship-oriented the leader is and on the
amount of control and influence the leader
has over the group
Two basic types of leaders
- Task-oriented leader
▪A leader concerned more with getting the job done
than with workers’ feelings and relationships - Relationship-oriented leader
▪A leader who is concerned primarily with workers’
feelings and relationships
Contingency Theory of Leadership
Task-oriented leaders most effective
–High-control work situations
▪Leader-subordinate relationships are excellent
▪The work is structured and well-defined
–Low-control work situations
▪Leader-subordinate relationships are poor
▪The work needing to be done is not clearly defined
Contingency Theory of Leadership
Relationship-oriented leaders are most
effective
–Moderate-control work situations
▪Fairly smooth
▪But some attention to poor relationships and hurt
feelings is needed
Gender and Leadership
Difficult for women to achieve leadership
positions
–Why?
▪Belief that good leaders have agentic traits
–Women stereotyped as having communal traits
Double bind for women leaders
If warm and communal
Perceived as having low leadership potential
If agentic and forceful
Often perceived negatively for not “acting like a woman should”
Glass cliff
Women are thought to be better at managing crises (especially interpersonal ones)
Puts them in precarious positions where difficult to succeed
Good news: Prejudice against women leaders lessening over time
GM’s First Female CEO Inherits a Recall
In 2014, Mary Barra became the first female CEO of a major global automaker, in this case General Motors. Within months, she had to announce plans for GM to recall over 11 million cars due to defective design components that the company had known about for nearly 10 years. Could Barra become another example of a woman who broke through a “glass ceiling” only to find herself on a “glass cliff”?
Culture and Leadership
Cultural differences
Autonomous leaders valued more in Eastern European than Latin American
Cultural similarities in valued leadership qualities
Charisma
Team-orientation
Conflict and Cooperation
When goals collide
Often people have incompatible goals.
These incompatibilities place them in conflict with each other.
This can be true of individuals, groups, companies, and nations.
Counseling for Conflicts
Sometimes people are able to resolve conflicts peacefully, such as a couple that has an amicable divorce. At other times conflicts escalate into rancor and violence. Social psychologists have performed experiments to test ways in which conflict resolution is most likely to occur.
Social Dilemmas
A conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual, if chosen by most people, will have harmful effects on everyone
Prisoner’s Dilemma (1 of 2)
Two people must choose one of two options without knowing what the other person will choose.
Prisoner’s Dilemma (2 of 2)
Payoff depends on the choices of both
Example
If you and your friend both choose option X
You both win $3
If, however, you choose option Y and your friend chooses option X
You win $6
You friend loses $6
Increasing Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma (1 of 3)
People are more likely to adopt a cooperative strategy if
Playing the game with a friend
Expecting to interact with their partner in the future
Increasing Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma (2 of 3)
Change norms about expected behavior
Changing name from “Wall Street Game” to “Community Game”
Increased the percentage of people who cooperated from 33% to 71% in one study
Tit-for-tat strategy:
A means of encouraging cooperation by at first acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did (cooperatively or competitively) on the previous trial
Threats not an effective means of reducing conflict
Trucking game studies
Retaliate against threats
Effects of Communication (1 of 2)
Deutsch and Krauss trucking game does not approximate real life
Two sides could not communicate with each other
Ran another version of the study where participants were required to communicate
Effects of Communication (2 of 2)
Results?
Reduced losses somewhat in the unilateral threat condition
Failed to increase cooperation in the other two conditions
Communication in the trucking studies did not foster trust
Negotiation and Bargaining (1 of 3)
Negotiation:
A form of communication between opposing sides in a conflict in which offers and counteroffers are made and a solution occurs only when both parties agree
Integrative solution:
A solution to conflict whereby parties make trade-offs on issues according to their different interests; each side concedes the most on issues that are unimportant to it but important to the other side
When negotiating, integrative solutions are often available
Work on gaining trust and communicating.
Remember people often construe situation differently.
Neutral mediators often help solve labor disputes, legal battles, and divorce proceedings by recognizing that there are mutually agreeable solutions to a conflict.
