groups 1: intragroup processes

Question 1

what is a group?

Answer 1

two + individuals who define themselves as members of a group

Question 2

what are the different scales and kinds of groups?

Answer 2

intimacy group: friends and family
task group: goal
social category: demographic
loose association: common place in time

Question 3

what motivates people to join groups?

Answer 3

the need to belong

we have an intrinsic motivation to affiliate with others and be socially accepted

Question 4

what are the characteristics of an intimacy group

Answer 4

high:
interaction
importance
common goals 
common outcomes
similarity 
entitativity (perception of group as single entity)

low permeability
long duration
small size

Question 5

what are the characteristics of a task group

Answer 5

high entitativity

moderate/high
interaction
importantce
common goals 
common outocomes 

moderate
similairtiy
duration
permeability

small size

Question 6

what are the characteristics of a social category

Answer 6

low
interaction
importance
common goals
common outcoes
similairty 
permeability 

moderate entitatitvity
long duratino
large size

Question 7

what are the characteristics of a loose association

Answer 7

low
interaction
importance
common goals 
common outcomes
similairity 
entitativity 

short duration
high permeability
moderate size

Question 8

how did children define groups

Answer 8

children were asked to point to different types of pictures that would categorise groups along different dimensions

key distinct features included:
sharing, loyalty and liking for intimacy groups

helping and interdependence for task groups

familiarity, similarity, shared preference, common knowledge for social category

no continuance and low permeability for loose associations

Question 9

how does task type affect group potential

Answer 9

additive tasks like pulling a rope - sum of member’s indiviudal perfromance

disjunctive like decison making best member’s individual performance

conjunctive like moutntain climbing - weakest memver’s indivudal performance

Question 10

what is group cohesion

Answer 10

the force that binds members to the group and induces them to stay with the group

Question 11

what is task cohesion

Answer 11

the shared commitment to the groups task

Question 12

what is interpersonal cohesion

Answer 12

the attraction to the group

Question 13

what is group potential

Answer 13

the peformance that would occur if the members of a group work independently of each other, not as a group - a benchmark to evaluate actual group performance

Question 14

what is social facilitation

Answer 14

an improvement in the performance of well-learned, easy tasks and a worsening of performance of poorly learned, difficult tasks due to the presence of members of the same species
can be facilitative or inhibitory
e.g cyclists faster in presence of others

Question 15

how did Enigman et al. test whether social facilitation was species specific

Answer 15

Engaged chimpanzees and children in a task where they could retrieve food items from apparatus
Varied whether the individual was working on the task with another individual present, observing or competing.
Results
For chimps the act of being observed did not make a big difference and the competitive context made a strong difference
For children the pattern was different, the presence of another individual was enough to increase performance.
Authors argue that this may point to an evolutionary shift with additional sensitivity to being watched, ties into reputation and what others think of you.
BUT: this is comparing adult chimpanzees to preschool children

Question 16

how did Sniezek & Henry (1989) investigate collective intelligence

Answer 16

putting individuals in a group made responses 23% more accurate when
MBA students were asked to rate the likelihood of dying form each of a list of potential causes
group discussion facilitates the process of arriving at the correct answer
BUT is this task specific

Question 17

what is Zajonc’s drive theory of social faciliation

Answer 17

presence of others –> arousal –> increase in performaing dominant responses –> if correct, social faciliation, if incorrect social inhibition

Question 18

what is group think?

Answer 18

a syndrome of poor group decision making where members of a cohesive ingroup strive for unanimity at the expense of a realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action
agree to conform despite disagreement

Question 19

what are the antecedents of group think

Answer 19

high cohesiveness
homogeneous members, isolation, directeive leadership, unsystematic procedures,
stressful situations

Question 20

what are the symptoms of group think

Answer 20

overestimation of the group
close-mindedness
increased pressure towards uniformity
defective decision making

illusions of invulnerability: excpessive optimism, encouraging extreme risks

collective rationalisation: discount warnrings, do not reconsider bad assumption, no motivation to adapt course of action

belief in inherent morality: believe in the rightness of their cause so ignore ethical consequences of their deicsions

stereotyped views of outgroups: negative views of enemy make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary - inoculation effect

direct pressure on dissenteres: members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the groups view

self censorship: doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed

illusins of unanimity: the majority of view and judements are assumed to be unanamous

self appointed mindguards: members protect the group and leader form infroamtion that is problematic or contradictory to the group cohesiveness, view and decisions

Question 21

what are the consequences of group think

Answer 21

incomplete consideration of alternatives
incomplete considertaon of objectiv es
littel to no risk determination of the preferred decisioin
no reevaluaiotn of laready rejected ideas
bias in infomratoin percpetion
rediced probaility of success

Question 22

what motivaitonal gains are there from being in a group

Answer 22

social competition: members want to outperform each other during group tasks where the indivudal contributions are identifiable

social compensation: motivation gain in groups if stronger group members increase their effort to compensate for weaker member’s suboptimal performance

kohler effect: weaker group members work harder to avoid responsibility of poor performance

Question 23

what motivational losses are there from being in a group

Answer 23

social loafing: group members reduce their effort because indivudal contributiosn are not identifiable

Question 24

what did Latante et al., 1979 find about social loafing

Answer 24

Measured individual contribution of clapping in a group context
Recorded sound pressure produced by individual members
Plotted against group size

as size of group increases, the contributions of individual members decreases
BUT efficiency motive, fear of evaluatoin, or imitaiotn

Question 25

what did Bartis et al., 1988 find about social loafing

Answer 25

Average performance varied depending on whether participants performance was evaluated or not

the effect of social loafing is task dependent

need to separate loss of motivation from loss in coordination

Question 26

what are the effects of a drop in motivation in groups

Answer 26

coordination loss: diminished performance if a group fails to coordinate individual contributions optimally

production blocking: only one member can speak at a time

dispensability effect: reduction in group member’s task-related effort because individual contribution seems to have little impact on group performance

sucker effect: anticipation that other members will lower effort, reduce personal effort to avoid exploitation

Question 27

what countermeasures can we employ to avoid these losses in motivation

Answer 27

consciously ask for critical comments
leaders should not state their own preference at the beginning of a meeting
evaluate between groups
form subgroups
seek independent expert opinion and follow it
embrace the role of the devil’s advocate

Question 28

what factors reduce the effectiveness of group brainstorming

Answer 28

production blocking
free riding
evaluation apprehension
performance matching

Question 29

what are Wageman et al’s conditions for team effectiveness

Answer 29

should be interdependent for some common pupuse
have stability of membership
clear challenging, consequetial overall purpose
small team, clear norms
reward system
technical assistance and training

Question 30

what does the stanford prison study show about group polarisation

Answer 30

Uniform and authority props for guards
Became so polarised that they treated the ‘prisoners’ in very dehumanising ways
Being part of a group can have detrimental polarising effects

Question 31

what is the minimal group paradigm

Answer 31

A set of experimental procedures designed to create groups based on essentially arbitrary criteria whose members show intergroup discrimination
No interaction between participants within or between them and with no knowledge of who else belongs to each group
Random assignment results to ingroup/outgroup bias, even among preschoolers (Dunham et al. 2014, Tajfel 1971)

Question 32

how do groups shape individual identities

Answer 32

social identity: how we feel about our important and shared group membership

social identity theory: we derive self-esteem from positively valued group membership

difficult to undo the social identity

positive ingroup identifaction against negative outgroup attitude build social identity
Explanation for outgroup hostility, ingroup favouritism and intergroup conflict

Question 33

what are the stages of group formation

Answer 33

lower hurdle to join/ feel part of a group
but commitment curve

entry criterion (prospective member) 
acceptance criterion (new/full members)
divergence criteria (marginal members)
exit criterion (ex-member)

Question 34

what is ingroup bias

Answer 34

Behaviours or evaluations that favour the ingroup over the outgroup
Ingroup favouritism treats the ingroup more positively, outgroup derogation rates the outgroup less positively (e.g in giving fewer rewards) or negatively (e.g in giving punishments)

Question 35

what is the outgroup homogeneity effect

Answer 35

A tendency to see the outgroup as more homogenous than the ingroup

Question 36

what are moderating variables

Answer 36

Smaller ingroups result in greater in-group favouritism (Mullen et al. 1992)
Threat even if merely perceived results in greater in group favouritism (Brewer, 1999)

Question 37

what is social accentuation theory (Tajfel)

Answer 37

when social categories are correalted with a continuous dimension there is a judgemental tendency to overestimate the similiarities within and differences between the categories of this dimension

Question 38

what is deindividualisaiton

Answer 38

A state in which individuals are deprived of their sense of individual identity and are more likely to behave in an extreme manner, often anti-socially and violating norms

Question 39

what factors did Judd & Park (1988) find contribute to the outgroup homogeneity effect

Answer 39

judege ingroup and outgroup on various traits in contexts where they were competing or cooperating with the other group

measured the deviation of estimates for homo/heterogeneity

found that outgroup homogeneity dpends on context of interaction while ingroup seen as homogeneous regardless of context

competition increased perceived outgroup homogeneity and ingroup heterogeneity

Question 40

what did Diener et al.’s (1976) study find about how anonymity in groups leads to deindividualisation

Answer 40

children who were trick or treating in a group were either asked about where they lived or not to manipulate anonimity

more chidren took extra candy when they were in a group and anonymous

deindividualisaiton results in more stealing already at a young age

Question 41

what is group polarisation

Answer 41

tendency to make decisions that are more extreme than the average of group member;s initial position in the direction already favoured by the group

Question 42

does social media facilitate group polarisation

Answer 42

Step 1: private response 
Pre consensus
Step 2: discussion 
Unanimous, consensus
Step 3: private response
Post consensus
Record change in judgements 
Acute phenomenon 
Social media is viewed as facilitating group polarisation including like buttons and algorithms

Question 43

what did myers & Bishop find about group polarisation

Answer 43

Groups who were high or low in prejudice
Individual attitudes of high school kids before the discussion
Engage in conversations with other high prejudice individuals and other low prejudice individuals
The effect is facilitative showing a further divergence of prejudice
The more persuasive arguments are the more extreme group attitudes become

Question 44

what is persuasive arguments theory (Lamm & Myeres, 1978)

Answer 44

The more persuasive the presented arguments are, the more extreme the group members attitudes becomes

informational influence

Question 45

what is social comparison theory

Answer 45

we compare to others to evaluate our own opinions
as we want to be liked by others and appear better than others we express stronger opinions after discovering that others share out views

polarisaiton from exposure to others without hearing arguments

normative influence

Question 46

what is self-categorisation theory

Answer 46

the process of categorising oneself as a group member forms a social identity and brings about forms of group and intergroup behaviours

referent influence

Question 47

how do indiviudals react to information from ingroups and outgroups

Answer 47

Only arguments from ingroups influence attitudes
Social comparison only takes place in regard to ingroup opinions
For example conservatives should be persuaded only by other conservatives

Question 48

what did graham et al., 2009 find about group polarisation, specifically whether liberals or conservatives use more liberal and conservative principles in their decision making

Answer 48

moral foundation theory - our views about morality can be grouped into harm, relevant context, fairness, group concerns, authority and purity

Individuals were asked to rate themselves in terms of being conservative or liberal
They were then asked to rate how different statements reflected different foundations of morality
Different types of moral concerns become relevant which is amplified depending on how liberal or conservative you are
Is this a cohort effect?
good replicability

Question 49

how do ingroups become more persuasive

Answer 49

ingroup members seen as similar on attributes relevant to judgement but different in other ways, outgroup members seen as all alike

ingroup listeners can keep track of indivudals and their arguments, but can’t remeber what outgroup members said what

ingroup members arguments seem distinct and independent, outgroup member’s arguments seem the same and listeners suspect contamination

ingroup members arguments are persuasive while outgroup members arguments are not persuasive

ingroup has an influence, outgroup has little influence