groups 1: intragroup processes Flashcards
what is a group?
two + individuals who define themselves as members of a group
what are the different scales and kinds of groups?
intimacy group: friends and family
task group: goal
social category: demographic
loose association: common place in time
what motivates people to join groups?
the need to belong
we have an intrinsic motivation to affiliate with others and be socially accepted
what are the characteristics of an intimacy group
high: interaction importance common goals common outcomes similarity entitativity (perception of group as single entity)
low permeability
long duration
small size
what are the characteristics of a task group
high entitativity
moderate/high interaction importantce common goals common outocomes
moderate
similairtiy
duration
permeability
small size
what are the characteristics of a social category
low interaction importance common goals common outcoes similairty permeability
moderate entitatitvity
long duratino
large size
what are the characteristics of a loose association
low interaction importance common goals common outcomes similairity entitativity
short duration
high permeability
moderate size
how did children define groups
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
how does task type affect group potential
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
what is group cohesion
the force that binds members to the group and induces them to stay with the group
what is task cohesion
the shared commitment to the groups task
what is interpersonal cohesion
the attraction to the group
what is group potential
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
what is social facilitation
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
how did Enigman et al. test whether social facilitation was species specific
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
how did Sniezek & Henry (1989) investigate collective intelligence
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
what is Zajonc’s drive theory of social faciliation
presence of others –> arousal –> increase in performaing dominant responses –> if correct, social faciliation, if incorrect social inhibition
what is group think?
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
what are the antecedents of group think
high cohesiveness
homogeneous members, isolation, directeive leadership, unsystematic procedures,
stressful situations
what are the symptoms of group think
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
what are the consequences of group think
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
what motivaitonal gains are there from being in a group
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
what motivational losses are there from being in a group
social loafing: group members reduce their effort because indivudal contributiosn are not identifiable
what did Latante et al., 1979 find about social loafing
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
what did Bartis et al., 1988 find about social loafing
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
what are the effects of a drop in motivation in groups
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
what countermeasures can we employ to avoid these losses in motivation
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
what factors reduce the effectiveness of group brainstorming
production blocking
free riding
evaluation apprehension
performance matching
what are Wageman et al’s conditions for team effectiveness
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
what does the stanford prison study show about group polarisation
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
what is the minimal group paradigm
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)
how do groups shape individual identities
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
what are the stages of group formation
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)
what is ingroup bias
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)
what is the outgroup homogeneity effect
A tendency to see the outgroup as more homogenous than the ingroup
what are moderating variables
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)
what is social accentuation theory (Tajfel)
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
what is deindividualisaiton
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
what factors did Judd & Park (1988) find contribute to the outgroup homogeneity effect
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
what did Diener et al.’s (1976) study find about how anonymity in groups leads to deindividualisation
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
what is group polarisation
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
does social media facilitate group polarisation
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
what did myers & Bishop find about group polarisation
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
what is persuasive arguments theory (Lamm & Myeres, 1978)
The more persuasive the presented arguments are, the more extreme the group members attitudes becomes
informational influence
what is social comparison theory
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
what is self-categorisation theory
the process of categorising oneself as a group member forms a social identity and brings about forms of group and intergroup behaviours
referent influence
how do indiviudals react to information from ingroups and outgroups
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
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
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
how do ingroups become more persuasive
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
