Groups Flashcards
What is a ‘group’?
2 or more people who share characteristic/s that is/are socially meaningful for themselves/others
Members are connected by social relationships & boundaries that define who is/isn’t in the group
What type of categories are groups using defined by?
Social categories
What are the components of the Five Factor Model of Personality?
- extraversion
- agreeableness
- conscientiousness
- neuroticism (stable)
- openness
If a person is high on extraversion, what characteristics might they have?
- enthusiastic
- bold
- energetic
If a person is high on agreeableness, what characteristics might they have?
- sympathetic
- kind
- cooperative
If a person is high on conscientiousness, what characteristics might they have?
- organised
- efficient
- practical
If a person is high on neuroticism (but is stable), what characteristics might they have?
- content
- calm
- emotionally stable
If a person is high on openness, what characteristics might they have?
- creative
- imaginative
- intelligent
What are the characteristics of people who tend to join large groups?
High extraversion + high openness
What type of groups do women tend to seek membership in?
Smaller, informal, intimate groups
What type of groups do men tend to seek membership in?
Larger, more formal, task-focused groups
Who proposed Social Comparison theory?
Festinger (1954)
What is the basis of Social Comparison theory?
We determine our social & personal worth by comparing ourselves to others
We have a drive to gain accurate self-evaluations
Why do we compare our opinions & abilities to others?
To reduce uncertainty in these domains & learn how to define the self
When we are frightened about a situation, what must we do?
We must meet our emotional & cognitive needs
When we are frightened about a situation, what must we get?
We must meet our emotional & cognitive needs –> we need info to reduce our uncertainty
We use others to fulfil our need to gain knowledge about ourselves
When we enter an ambiguous situation, what type of psychological reactions might we have & what do they result in?
Enter an ambiguous situation → experience psychological reactions (negative emotions, uncertainty, a need for info) → social comparison & affiliate with others → results in cognitive clarity
Social comparison is linked to self-esteem. What are the two types of social comparison?
DOWNWARD SOCIAL COMPARISON - we choose comparison targets that are performing poorly compared to oneself → feel better about ourselves → boosts our self-esteem
UPWARD SOCIAL COMPARISON - we choose comparison targets performing better than oneself → we feel motivated to achieve the same goal/reach the same standard as them → increases our optimism & goals
Buunk & Gibbons (2007) found that when our self-esteem is at risk, we use ______ social comparison.
Buunk & Gibbons (2007) found that when our self-esteem is at risk, we use DOWNWARD SOCIAL COMPARISON.
Wheeler & Miyake (1992) found that students felt ______ & ______ when they associated with more competent people (used upward social comparison).
Wheeler & Miyake (1992) found that students felt DEPRESSED & DISCOURAGED when they associated with more competent people (used UPWARD social comparison).
Who found that even if pps performed better than average, they still felt discouraged if they compared themselves to someone who had far outperformed them?
Seta, Seta & McElroy (2007)
Who proposed the model of ‘self-evaluation maintenance’?
Tesser (1998)
What is the basis of ‘self-evaluation maintenance’?
Describes the process of how we determine our personal growth & progress - it is raised/lowered by the behaviour of those close to us
What does the ‘self-evaluation maintenance’ model assume?
It assumes that a person will try to maintain/increase their own self-evaluation
What is influences our self-evaluation?
Self-evaluation is influenced by our relationships with others
Who do we prefer to associate ourselves with?
People who don’t outperform us in domains that are relevant to our self-esteem
What type of social comparison do we use with superior people whom we are ‘psychologically close’ to?
Upward social comparison
People who maintain their self-evaluation celebrate others’ accomplishments only when they are beaten in a domain that they don’t value. What emotions might they feel if they are beaten in a domain that they do value?
- resentment
- envy
- shame
If students thought that a task was important, they judged their performance to be superior to that of their close friend.
If students thought that a task wasn’t important, they felt that they had performed worse than their close friend.
Who did this study?
What does this behaviour reflect?
Tesser, Campbell & Smith (1984)
This reflects maintenance of their self-esteem
Newcombe (1960, 1963) proposed 3 principles of attraction. What are they?
- Proximity
- Elaboration
- Similarity
How does proximity affect attraction to others?
We tend to like those who are situated nearby –> increases our familiarity & interaction
What did Newcombe (1960) do that supports the idea that proximity improves attraction?
Newcombe (1960) assigned pps roommates & found that by the end of the study, they had become close friends
What did Segal (1974) find in his study that supports the idea that proximity improves attraction?
Segal (1974) found that when teachers assigned students seats in classes, pupils in adjacent seats formed cliques
Students living in the same dorms sent more emails to each other than to people in more distant dorms.
Who did this study?
Sacerdote & Marmaros (2005)
How can proximity increase our sense of group-ness?
Familiarity breeds contentment
Repeated exposure increases interactions
Frequent online interactions (chats) increased attraction.
Who found this?
Reis et al. (2011)
How does elaboration affect attraction to others?
Groups often form when extra people are linked to the original members
Non-group members form relationships with an in-group member & are later incorporated into the group
Tobin (2008) claims that gangs form when…
…3 friends refer to themselves with a shared name & recruit others to join their group
How does similarity affect attraction to others?
We like people who are similar to us
Most groups try to increase levels of homophily (= the tendency of individuals to associate & bond with similar others)
We tend to associate with people who share similar beliefs, interests & politics
Why do people join groups?
- in stressful situations
- the need for belonging
- support (emotional, spiritual, informational)
- the need for power (to influence others, make them obedient/compliant)
What is Forsyth’s (1990) definition of ‘group development’?
The pattern of growth & change that occurs in groups
Johnson & Johnson (2003) claims there are 3 functions to maintain & develop groups. What are they?
- The group must achieve its goals
- The group must maintain positive working relationships among its members
- The group must adapt to environmental changes
What are the 3 models of group development?
- Sequential model
- Non-sequential models
- Integrative model
Who proposed the Sequential Model?
Tuckman & Jensen (1977)
What is the format of the Sequential Model?
- has unitary stages (proceed from one stage to the next; there is a beginning & an end)
- can be linear (gradual & logical progress from one stage to the next, can’t return to previous stages)
- can be cyclic (can return to previous stages)
What are the 5 stages of the Sequential Model?
- Forming
- Storming
- Norming
- Performing
- Adjourning
What happens in the Forming stage (1st stage) of the Sequential Model?
- the team acquaints & establishes rules
- formalities are preserved
- members are treated as strangers
What happens in the Storming stage (2nd stage) of the Sequential Model?
- members start communicating their feelings but still view them selves as individuals rather than part of a team
- resist control by leaders & show hostility
- test boundaries
- conflict arises
What happens in the Norming stage (3rd stage) of the Sequential Model?
- members feel part of the team & realise they can achieve the most work if they accept other people’s views
- rules & standards are established → conformity
- after conflict, norms/goals are set that everyone agrees with so they can proceed to the next stage
What happens in the Performing stage (4th stage) of the Sequential Model?
- the team works in an open & trusting atmosphere where flexibility is key & hierarchy isn’t important
- shared leadership & responsibility
- members have their own important roles
- this is the stage where the team performs their best
What happens in the Adjourning stage (5th stage) of the Sequential Model?
- the team does an assessment & implements a plan for transitioning roles & recognising members’ contributions
- might reminisce about their accomplishments
- might plan what to do next
There is evidence from real-life teams that these stages in the Sequential Model do occur.
Give examples of studies.
McGrew, Bilotta & Deeney (1999) - studied 10 software development teams & verified the model
Hingst (2006) - the model was effective in Australian call centres; added 2 more stages (task articulation & interpersonal relationships)
What are the limitations of the Sequential Model?
X studies investigating the model are mainly conducted in small therapy groups, then generalised to larger groups
X assumes no prior group history
X ignores the broader organisational context, work roles & prescribed interactions
X overemphasises interpersonal challenges (e.g. conflict)
X therapy groups don’t have a performance stage (mainly norming)
What is the format of Non-sequential models? What do they claim/predict?
- no determined sequence
- focus on the underlying mechanisms that affect group development/change group dynamics
- don’t predict when the group will show the highest level of performance
Who proposed the Social Entrainment model?
McGrath (1991)
What is the Social Entrainment model?
Is a Sequential or Non-sequential model?
The Social Entrainment model is a time-based model that uses synchronisation behaviour
- the group performs best when behaviour is synchronised & when tasks are aligned to lead to the goal
Poole (1983) found evidence that supported a multiple sequence model (i.e. non-sequential model). What did he do/find?
- studied the decision-making processes of small groups
- observed breaking points & indicators of change in group activities
- identified when group decision- making breaks
Supports multiple sequence models (i.e. different groups may have different sequences of phases, there isn’t a rigid set of processes that all groups go through in order)
–> developed the Multiple Sequence Descriptive System
Who proposed the Integrative Model?
Wheelan (1994)
What types of models/theories does the Integrative model combine?
The Integrative Model combines sequential & non-sequential models
What are the 4 stages of the Integrative Model?
- Dependency & inclusion
- Counterdependency & fight
- Trust & structure
- Work & productivity
What happens in the Dependency & Inclusion stage (1st stage) of the Integrative Model?
- concerns about safety are raised
- inclusion issues
- members rely on the lead to provide direction
- some members may engage in ‘pseudo-work’
What happens in the Counterdependency & Fight stage (2nd stage) of the Integrative Model?
- members disagree about goals & structures → causes conflict
- conflict is necessary to establish trust & a climate in which members feel able to disagree
- productivity is lowest at this stage
What happens in the Trust & Structure stage (3rd stage) of the Integrative Model?
- members negotiate about roles, organisation & procedures
- members solidify positive working relationships
- members set unified values → solidifies relationships → the group works better
What happens in the Work & Productivity stage (4th stage) of the Integrative Model?
- intense productivity & effectiveness
- having resolved issues of previous stages, members can focus their energy on achieving their goals
Groups with a distinct ending point can experience a 5th stage. What happens?
- impending termination may cause disruption & conflict
- separation issues may be addressed
- members’ appreciation of each other & the group experience may be expressed
What is ‘social facilitation’?
The tendency for people to perform differently in the presence of others than when alone
Tend to perform better on simple/well-rehearsed tasks & worse on complex/novel tasks when in the presence of others
Who proposed Drive Theory?
Zajonc (1965)
What is the basis of Drive Theory?
People are unpredictable & always in a state of alertness & readiness
This arousal functions as a ‘drive’ that energises our dominant behaviours responses (best learnt, most habitual)
If the dominant response is correct (i.e. we think that the task is easy/simple), social presence ______ our performance.
If the dominant response is correct (i.e. we think that the task is easy/simple), social presence IMPROVES our performance.
If the dominant response is incorrect, social presence ______ our performance.
If the dominant response is incorrect, social presence IMPAIRS our performance.
Expert pool players performed better when the audience was close by compared to when they thought no one was watching them play.
Amateur pool players performed worse when people were watching compared to when they thought no one was watching them play.
Who did this study?
Michael et al. (1982)
Who proposed the Evaluation-Apprehension theory?
Rosenberg (1965)
What is the basis of Evaluation-Apprehension theory?
We are concerned about being judged by others & it impacts our task performance
According to Evaluation-Apprehension theory, social rewards & punishments that we receive are based on…
…others’ evaluations of us.
According to Evaluation-Apprehension theory, the presence of others who are in a position to judge produces…
…arousal based on evaluation apprehension.
Guerin & Innes (1982) found that social facilitation effects might only occur when…
…we can’t monitor the audience & are therefore uncertain about their evaluative reactions to our performance.
Describe a study that supports the social facilitation effect.
Sanna & Shotland (1990) - pps listed functions of a knife
Their performance was evaluated OR not evaluated
- -> when the task was to list potential uses of a knife, the evaluated group performed better than non-evaluated
- -> when the task was to list creative uses of a knife, the evaluated group performed worse than non-evaluated
Simple tasks are enhanced when pps are judged/evaluated when performing them
Describe another study that supports the social facilitation effect.
Guerin (1989) found the social facilitation effect on a letter-copying task when pps were watched by a confederate that they couldn’t see (i.e. if the task was difficult, performed worse when they were evaluated by a confederate they couldn’t see)
There was no social facilitation effect when they could see the confederate
Markus (1978) had male pps undress, dress in unfamiliar clothing, then re-dress in their own clothing. How did their performance differ when they performed the tasks…
a) alone
b) in the presence of an incidental audience (the confederate was facing away & doing another task –> low evaluation-apprehension)
c) in the presence of an attentive audience (confederate watched them dress –> high evaluation-apprehension)?
Only the attentive audience decreased the time it took for pps to dress in their own clothing (evaluation-apprehension occurred)
Mere presence was enough to slow their performance when dressing in unfamiliar clothing
–> an attentive audience had no added effect on the complex task
What theory/model does Markus’ (1978) study support?
Drive theory
–> both incidental & attentive audiences affected pps performance on a complex task (mere presence was enough)
Schmitt et al. (1986) had pps type their name on a computer (simple task), then type it backwards interspersed with digits (complex task). How did their performance differ when they performed the tasks…
a) alone
b) in the presence of a blindfolded confederate (low evaluation-apprehension)
c) in the presence of an attentive audience (experimenter watched them –> high evaluation-apprehension)?
Mere presence of an audience accelerated pps performance on the easy task but slowed their performance on the complex task
–> evaluation-apprehension had little effect (didn’t matter whether the audience were attentive or not)
What is social loafing?
The tendency for a person to exert less effort on a task when their individual efforts are an unidentifiable part of a group effort than when the task is performed alone
Students were told to clap as loud as possible
The amount of sound generated by each person decreased as the group size increased
Who did this study?
Latane, Williams & Harkins (1979)
Harkins (1987) found evidence that is consistent with the social loafing effect. What did he find?
- pps whose outputs were evaluated outperformed pps whose outputs weren’t evaluated
- pairs outperformed singles
How/when can social loafing be reduced?
Weldon & Mustari (1988) - if a person’s contribution is essential (e.g. in small groups when they have a vital role)
Williams, Harkins & Latane (1981) - when their contribution is monitored
Hogg, Abrams, Otten & Hinkle (2004) - when the individual strongly identifies with their group
How/when can social loafing be increased?
Barsade (2002) - the negative mood of one member can be transferred to other members
- trained confederates were in a good OR bad mood during a group activity
–> an emotional contagion occurred with group members exposed to the negative mood - conflict, decreased cooperation, decreased perceived task performance
To actively reduce social loafing…
- encourage performance
- reduce the size of the group
- reward good performance
- punish bad performance
What is ‘leadership’?
When 1 or more members are permitted to influence & motivate others in the group to help attain the group’s goals
Who is more likely to become a leader, according to the 5-factor Model of Personality & Transformational Leadership?
Judge & Bono (2000) - high on agreeableness, extraverted, open
Neuroticism & conscientiousness did not correlate
What is a ‘social identity’?
A person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s)
If a person feels a sense of depersonalisation, does it mean that they focus more on the group or on the individual self?
Intragroup → sense of depersonalisation → more about the group than the individual self
The more that members identify with their group, leadership perceptions & evaluations, the more they are influenced by…
…prototypicality (= a more prototypical leader –> more efficient & motivated by the group’s needs)
Leaders that match the characteristics of their group are usually more effective
Hogg & van Knippenberg (2003) states that we are more likely to trust the motives of a ______ person.
Hogg & van Knippenberg (2003) states that we are more likely to trust the motives of a PROTOTYPICAL person.
A prototypical leader’s suggestions/initiatives are…
…attempts to fulfil traditional values/rules that the group believes in rather than as means to challenge these traditions.
In Duck & Fielding’s (1999) study there were two groups - one with a leader from pps’ sub-group OR a leader from another sub-group.
How did pps rate each leader?
In-group leaders were more supported & more highly evaluated
This effect was more pronounced if pps identified highly with the group
In Hais, Hogg & Duck’s (1997) study, group membership was salient OR not salient, the leader was a prototypical leader OR non-prototypical leader & pps had a congruent OR non-congruent leadership schema.
What did they find?
When group membership was salient (= aware that they had similar attributes, had a stronger connection to each other), pps identified more with their own group & thought their leader was more effective
When group membership was not salient (= unaware of how similar they were), there was no difference whether their leader was from their own group or another group
If pps had a congruent leadership schema, they rated their leader as more effective
If pps had greater liking for their leader, they gave higher ratings of leadership effectiveness
Which researcher/s found that group identification & attraction increases over time?
Fielding & Hoggs (1997)
Fielding & Hoggs (1997) found that perceived leadership effectiveness was a positive function of…
…social attraction & group prototypicality of the leader
This effect was amplified among high-identifying members of the group
What makes a leader effective?
- being an in-group member
- social attraction
- the longer a leader is in their leadership position, the more they are liked
- centralise themselves
How can social attraction make a leader more effective?
If a leader is socially attractive, it may lead to increased compliance
Social attraction may be enhanced by prototypical leaders - their behaviour will be more loyal & ethnocentric
What did Hove (2009) call this mechanism of social attraction?
Behavioural synchrony –> increases liking & compliance to in-group members
How does centralising themselves make leaders more effective?
They can highlight existing in-group prototypes/values that the group stands for
They may demonise the out-group & use this to draw people who are also against this out-group in
