Human Relationships Flashcards
Group Dynamics
What is cooperation
A form of pro-social behaviour - people work together with commonly agreed upon goals
Is ideal for solving global issues, however most people behave in their own self-interest.
Dawes et al (1986)
Aim: To investigate whether an individual’s decision to cooperate (or not) was due to greed or the fear of loss.
Procedure:
1. Participants grouped into seven-member teams. Each member given $5.
2. Participants were told that if at least three members of the group donated his five dollars to the experimenter, everyone in the group would receive ten dollars.
3. If you kept your five dollars and there were at least three members of the group that gave their five dollars to the experimenter, then you would end up with 15 dollars.
4. If one kept $5 and at least three others donated, total becomes $15.
5. If fewer than three donated, no reward, and donations not returned.
Results
- 51% donated their money
- In a condition where participants were assured they would get back their donation if not enough people contributed, the donation rate remained low.
- In another condition where participants were told that even without donating, they would receive a bonus if there were three anonymous donors, and no one would have more than $10, the number of donors increased significantly to 87%.
Conclusion
Greed, rather than fear of loss, may have motivated those who would not contribute, and eliminating the incentive for greed increased liklihood of contribution -> GREED IS A FACTOR OF A LACK OF COOPERATION
Evaluation of Dawes et al (1986)
Strengths
- replicable
Limitations
- low ecological validity
What influences willingness to cooperate
- Greed
- Behaviour of others
- thinking that others will act competitively causes more problems than just not knowing. (Good idea -> match our responses to theirs) (INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE) - Culture
Kerr (1983)
Aim : Investigate how the behaviour of others influence cooperation
Sample : 75 undergrad students
Method : Independent samples
Procedure:
1. Participants asked to pump air by pressing small rubber bulb for 30s
2. Air was collected and measured by a spirometer
3. 4 conditions:
- alone (control)
- with a capable partner who worked hard
- with a capable partner who didn’t work hard
-alone but with another person doing the test at the same time
Results
- Those working with a partner that worked hard pumped less air than when pumping by themselves (FREE-RIDING EFFECT)
- Those working with a partner who didn’t pull their weight also pumped less air (SUCKER EFFECT/SOCIAL LOAFING - reduce injustice by reducing own level of work)
- Control and last one showed same results
Conclusion
Willingness to cooperate is not simply an imitation of a model’s behavior, but rather a desire not to be a “sucker” and do more work than everyone else
Gabrenya et al (1985)
Aim: To investigate the differences in social loafing between students in individualist and collectivist cultures
Sample:
- Schoolchildren from America (Individualistic) and Taiwan (Collectivist)
Procedure:
1. Auditory task that required counting tone patterns either alone or in pairs
2. The Taiwanese students took part in the experiment shortly after participating in another experiment into social loafing.
3. Directly following completion of the counting task, participants filled in a questionnaire that measured their group-orientedness. (This was in order to confirm the assumptions based on their culture)
4. Success in the task was chosen as an indicator of how much effort a participant put in.
Results:
- Americans showed social loafing (lack of cooperation) when in pairs, but strong effort when alone
- Taiwanese showed cooperation when working in peers, performed better working together than alone
Conclusion:
Participants in Individualist cultures are more likely to social loaf than collectivist cultures when working in a group/pair.
Gabrenya et al (1985) Evaluation
Strength:
1. Cross cultural design - the materials used limited any cultural bias because the task was non-linguistic and objectively scored so is not effected by language or translation.
2. Avoided culturally bias assumptions - a questionnaire was used to measure their group orientation in order to confirm whether they were individualist or collectivist.
Weakness:
Order effects - Taiwanese students had completed another study prior to this, therefore they may have had practice and therefore the study will be effected by demand characteristics.
What is stereotyping
Stereotyping is a cognitive process whereby people categorize themselves and others based on membership in a group. It’s a simplified mental representation of a person, group of people, or institution that is shared by a larger number of people.
What is prejudice
Prejudice is a favourable or unfavourable predisposition toward any member of the category in question - an attitude.
An attitude can be defined as the combination of emotion and cognition.
Contact results in an emotional response.
What is discrimination
A behaviour. Discrimination is when a person treats someone differently based on his or her membership of a group, rather than on individual merit.
Fein and Spencer (1997)
AIM: Investigate if stereotyping and prejudice would increase if threatened
Sample: Psychology Students (ALL MEN)
Method: Independent Samples
Procedure:
1. Participants cam individually to the lab and randomly allocated to control condition of negative feedback condition
2. Asked to take an online test with made up questions not always possible to answer
- Control: told test was a fake intelligence test
- Negative feedback condition: believed test was true test of intelligence
3. “Negative feedback group” received low scores, and this was seen as very disappointing by students as they had high SAT scores to enter the uni
4. Participants then took a “social judgement task” where they were given one of two scenarios about a struggling artist named Greg who finally receives a large part in a play
- Scenario 1: Greg is living with his girlfriend Anne
- Scenario 2: “partner” with no name is used to suggest Greg may be gay
5. Participants were then asked to fill out a questionnaire on his personality, rating traits on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely). Seven traits were stereotypical of gay men (e.g. femininity).
6. Also asked if they would like Greg as a friend and the extent they thought they were similar to Greg
Results
- Negative feedback condition rated the “gay implied” man more stereotypically than other condition
- Also rated themselves less likely to “like” Gregg or than those in other condition (didn’t matter if he was straight or gay implied - dislike was strongest in gay implied)
Conclusion
Both stereotyping and prejudice did increase after experiencing “The Theory of threatened egotism”
Fein and Spencer (1997) Evaluation
Strengths
- highly standardised -> reliable -> good internal validity
Limitations
- artificial -> low ecological validity
What is The Theory of threatened egotism
Argues that intergroup discrimination occurs when our own perception of self is threatened.
By acting out against an out-group, we are able to feel better ourselves, boosting or restoring self-esteem.
Tajfel et al (1971)
Aim: To investigate how social categorisation affects intergroup behaviour
Participants :
- teen boys from same school in UK
Procedure
1. Randomly assigned of a group and shown slides of paintings by two artists (told that their preference would form the basis of their assignment to a group)
2. They were not told who was in their group and wasn’t allowed face-to-face contact (isolated in a cubicle)
3. Had to assign virtual money to either ingroup or outgroup
4. No one’s identity was known
5. 3 outcomes: max joint profit, max ingroup profit, max difference
Results
- preference for ingroup and discrimination for the outgroup
- maximised the difference between ingroup and outgroup
Conclusion
Ingroup favourtisim can be manipulated via minimal groups paradigm in which participants use social categorisation to make decisions
Tajfel et al (1971) Evaluation
Strengths
- Replicable
- no access to others : eliminated bias
Limitations
- highly artificial: low ecological validity
- low generalisability
