Groups and Leadership Flashcards
Problem 7
group
two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition
entitativity
the property of a group that makes it seem like a coherent, distinct and unitary entity
common-bond groups
groups based upon attachment among members, personal goals
common-identity groups
groups based on direct attachment to the group, group goals
social aggregates
collections of unrelated individuals –> not groups at all
intergroup behavior
behavior among individuals that is regulated by those individuals’ awareness of and identification with different social groups
social facilitation
GROUP EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
an improvement in the performance of well-learnt, easy tasks and a deterioration in the performance of poorly learnt, difficult tasks in the mere presence of members of the same species
mere presence
GROUP EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
refers to an entirely passive and unresponsive audience that is only physically present
audience effects
GROUP EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
impact of the presence of others on individual task performance
drive theory
GROUP EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
Zajonc’s theory that the physical presence of members of the same species instinctively causes arousal that motivates performance of habitual behavior patterns
evaluation apprehension model
GROUP EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
the argument that the physical presence of members of the same species causes drive because people have learnt to be apprehensive about being evaluated
distraction-conflict theory
GROUP EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
physical presence of members of the same species is distracting and produces conflict between attending to the task and attending to the audience
self-awareness theory
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
when people focus their attention on themselves as an object, they make comparisons between their actual self (their actual task performance) and their ideal self (how they would like to perform)
self-discrepancy theory
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
discrepancy between actual and ideal self increases motivation and effort to bring actual into line with ideal, on easy tasks, performance improves
self-presentation
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
make the best possible impression of themselves to others
attentional consequences
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
people narrow the focus of their attention when they experience attentional overload
task taxonomy
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
group tasks can be classified according to whether a division of labour is possible; whether there is a predetermined standard to be met; and how an individual’s inputs can contribute
process loss
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
deterioration of group performance in comparison to individual performance due to the whole range of possible interferences among members
coordination loss
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
deterioration in group performance compared with individual performance due to problems in coordinating behavior
Ringelmann effect
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
individual effort on a task diminishes as group size increases
–> Coordination loss (tendency for people to pull slightly against one another, participants were prevented from attaining their full potential)
–> Motivation loss (participants were less motivated; they simply did not try so hard)
free-rider effect
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
gaining the benefits of group membership by avoiding costly obligations of membership and by allowing other members to incur those costs
social loafing
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task (in which our outputs are pooled with those of other group members) compared with working either alone or coactively (our outputs are not pooled)
- -> Output equity: we believe that others loaf; to maintain equity and to avoid being a “sucker” we loaf
- -> Evaluation apprehension: we worry about bing evaluated by others; when we are anonymous and can’t be identified, we hang back and loaf
- -> Matching to standard: we don’t have a clear sense of the group’s standards to norms, so we hang back and loaf; presence of a clear personal, social or group performance standard should reduce loafing
social impact
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
effect that other people have on our attitudes and behavior, usually as a consequence of factors such as group size, and temporal and physical immediacy
social compensation
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL FACILITATION
increased effort on a collective task to compensate for other group members’ actual, perceived or anticipated lack of effort or ability
–> when members believe and expect that the group will be effective in achieving important goals
–> when people place greater value on groups than on individuals
–> when group is highly salient
cohesiveness
GROUP COHESIVENESS
the property of a group that affectively binds people, as groups members, to one another and to the group as a whole, giving the group a sense of solidarity and oneness
–> groups with extremely low levels of cohesiveness are hardly groups at all
personal attraction
GROUP COHESIVENESS
liking for someone based on idiosyncratic preferences and interpersonal relationships
social attraction
GROUP COHESIVENESS
liking for someone based on common group membership and determined by the person’s prototypicality of the group
group socialization
GROUP SOCIALIZATION
dynamic relationship between the group and its members with changing roles; evaluation –> commitment –> role transition
initiation rites
GROUP COHESIVENESS
often painful or embarrassing public procedure to mark group members’ movements from one role to another; maybe cognitive dissonance –> I underwent painful experience to join this group BUT some aspects of this group are not that great
