L2 : Group Processes and Social Influence Flashcards
How are groups multilevel systems?
Groups are composed of members, but the group member and the group whole can be perceived as a distinct entity. They are also hierarchically organized as the group member (lower level) is part of the group (higher level). The context is also important to consider
What are roles?
Set of behaviours associated with a certain position in a group, usually multiple roles are held simultaneously. These can be formal or informal, evolve over time, can be task-oriented or socio-emotional oriented
Social influence
group members exert influence on one another to gain individual goals like power/status and group goals like reaching a good group decision
Why does group polarization occur?
- socially comparison theory- you want to stay true to yourself but do not want to appear to extreme, but when they see that everyone has similar views then their group response shifts from being toned-down to more extreme
- persuasive arguments theory is when you hear new and convincing arguments in favour of your initial position so your view becomes more extreme
Summary of how minority influence works
- Minorities can impact the majority because they make the majority doubt their initial position. BUT the minority needs to be consistent.
- Minority influence is more likely to create private acceptance (while majority influence is more likely to create public compliance).
- Minority influence will be larger for private opinions than public statements (reluctance to disclose having agreed with the minority
opinion). - Minority opinion may create indirect influence and create change of opinions in related areas.
What are the different types of group polarization?
When groups get together, their average views become more extreme, either becoming more cautious or more risky. Cautious shift is resulting in the group choice having less risk, while risky shift is the group choice being more risky than the individual choice
Why is it important to acknowledge that different levels are important?
- to specify which level someone is talking about
- it allows you to look at the relationship between the levels
Top- down effects
When characteristics at the group level influence group members’ behaviour, thoughts and feelings. It can also influence the relations between variables at the individual level
Bottom-up effects
When characteristics at the individual level determine outcomes at the group level. Difficult to determine how individual inputs are transformed into group outcomes, becomes more complicated with nonlinear combinations. The group influencing context is bottom up by influencing resources, members, environment, culture of organization
What is a theoretical framework for group performance?
- Group members bring knowledge, skills abilities, motives, emotions and personalities, which could be influenced by people or things outside of the group, but people are influenced by the environment
- Group members contribute to the group, which can influence others in contributing more
- Group interaction is how contributions of individual group members need to be combined to result in group output, so results from bottom-up processes
Potential performance principle
The performance of a group is determined by the resources of the group members in combination with the requirements of the group task. If they have the necessary resources then performance is high. There is a difference between potential performance (what a group could achieve) and the actual performance (what the group actually does achieve) as groups could still fail at the task
How did Steiner distinguish between types of group tasks?
- distinction between divisible (tasks can be divided) and unitary tasks
- distinction between optimizing (generating the best or a correct response) and maximizing (about making many responses or doing it fast)
What are the 4 different task types based on these principles?
- additive tasks which is when potential performance of the group is determined by the sum or average of performances
- disjunctive tasks is when potential performance of the group is determined by the best member (decision-making, problem solving)
- conjunctive tasks is when potential performance depend on the least capable member
- discretionary tasks is when there is no fixed way for contributions to be transformed into outcomes
How can potential and actual performance be expressed in equations?
potential performance= f (group member resources and task demands)
actual performance = potential performance - process loss
What are different types of losses?
- motivation loss is when members are not optimally motivated and exert less effort than needed for optimal performance
- coordination loss is when group members do not combine contributions in an optimal way
Can groups perform above their potential?
It depends on the definition, as is PP seen as maximum performance that a group can achieve then no. But if PP is the group’s potential given individual member resources and the demands of the group task. Process gains can occur when the combination of individual resources allows the group to perform better than the best member
What are the different types of outcomes?
Performance outcomes can be judged in terms of success with regard to task completion. Affective outcomes are reactions of entities (people, groups) toward other entities or toward the task. Cohesion is an example. Learning is related to potential future task performance. Leads to a transactive memory system (knowing which group members have certain knowledge or skills) Can look at the individual level of these responses.
What are the different types of comparison standards?
- absolute or normative standards such as filling 500 envelopes in an hour
- relative standards so judging the performance of groups relative to each other
- compare the group’s performance with individual performance but individual baseline is needed
What are some ways of comparing performance?
- compare performance of a group with an individual who worked alone but is not a fair comparison due to less resources
- compare performance of a single group member with single individual performance which is more fair and interesting
- compare across may groups and individuals, then take the sum or average to compare with group performance, the best individual performance and the worst individual’s performance. This is a statistical aggregate which should present potential performance
Group context
It is a broad term, and consists of the physical and social environment of the group. The context is important for two reasons. First, the context will influence the group. Second, groups have to manage their contacts with the environment
Audience paradigm
Participants work on a task while others observe them
Co-action paradigm
participants work on a task in the
presence of others who are working on the same task
Social facilitation
Findings from Triplett suggested that adolescents could spin fishing reels more quickly when working in co-acting pairs than working alone. So people could perform better in the presence of others
What is Zajonc’s puzzle?
That the presence of others can lead to imporved performance or deteriorated performance (social inhibition). The effects were inconsistent.
Dominant response
the response that is most likely to be emitted in a particular situation, because it is well-learned, based on habits or routines, or just innately likely to occur.
Zajonc’s drive theory
He proposed a solution, by arguing that the presence of other increases drive or arousal to make people harder. This enhanced drive increases the speed, strength and probability of the dominant response (response most likely to be emitted based on learning). Can lead to improvement on simple tasks or deterioration on complex tasksbased on the dominant response. So learning new tasks may lead to deterioration compared to easy or well-learned tasks
What is some empirical evidence supporting this theory?
Participants were given nonsense words, which they had to repeat. But some words were presented more often. They had to name which word they saw when it was shown very briefly. Words that were presented more often during learning were given more often with the presence of an audience. So presentation frequency was more important for those in an audience
What are the main issues with Zajonc’s theory?
- the presence of others does not always lead to arousal, only happens for difficult tasks
- arousal is too broad and instead challenge (when they have enough resources to meet demands) and threat patterns (when resources are lacking) should be specified
- evaluation apprehension and not watching the participant can create uncertainty and unpredictability which increases arousal but when predictable no arousal emerges
How do the physiological responses of threat and challenge differ?
Threat: increase in cardiac reactivity and increase in blood pressure
Challenge: increase in cardiac reactivity and blood pressure stays the same
What is distraction conflict theory
Suggests that social facilitation and inhibition result from attentional conflict as audience members attract attention which is needed for the task which distracts participants. When this is hard to ignore, this leads to attentional conflict and can deplete cognitive resources. This increases arousal, drive and effort, resulting in enhancement of the dominant response
What is the difference between distraction conflict theory and drive theory?
Others create arousal only if they are distracting rather than mere presence of others
Evidence supporting that others can be distracting?
Participants performed a paired associates recall task, where they first learned word pairs—either related for an easier task or unrelated for a harder task—and then attempted to recall the second word when shown the first. This was done either alone or in front of others. Results showed the typical social facilitation effect: performance improved on the easier task but worsened on the harder one in the presence of an audience. Participants also reported paying less attention to the task
What else can distract people?
Loud noises, flashing lights can produce facilitation and inhibition. When copying numbers, a simple or complex task, participants were distracted by a signal, and those in the difficult task performed worse
How was attentional conflict investigated?
Participants watched a face and had to rate how positive and negative it was, while squeezing a soft bottle (which was the measure of social facilitation). Conditions were: no audience, participants had to look away from the TV to see the audience, or faced the TV to see the audience. Participants squeezed the bottle with more vigour and faster in the high conflict condition.
Self-efficacy theory
It distinguishes between efficacy expectancy (reflects beliefs that they are capable of performing the behaviour) and outcome expectancy (reflects the belief that behaviour will result in certain outcomes). If people are motivated to perform a task that they believe they can do it and will result in positive outcomes that there will be facilitation. This also improves the likelihood of the dominant response. So the valence of the expected evaluation drives facilitation and inhibition. Self-efficacy moderates this relationship
Findings supporting self-efficacy?
Some studies found that false success feedback increased self-efficacy and improved recall performance under evaluation, while failure feedback lowered self-efficacy and worsened performance. Further studies demonstrated that easy tasks foster positive outcome expectations and improved performance with an audience, while difficult tasks lead to negative expectations and impaired performance.
What is important to conclude from these theories?
- presence of others linked with distraction and often depends on the nature of the task
- audiences have the capacity to evaluate performance
How can co-action affects result in social comparison processes?
People working in co-action have information about how well others are performing, which can be used to compare their performance with others, through social comparison theory. Social comparisons can be distracting by monitoring the performance of others to see how well they are doing. Other assumptions include: people are motivated to compare performance of similar others as this is more informative, people are motivated to perform upward social comparisons which can improve performance when others are slightly better than you (stimulates competition)
How has research investigated this?
Seta (1982) found that participants performing a repetitive button-pressing task were most motivated when they believed their co-actor was slightly superior, completing the most sequences in this condition. Participants assumed their co-actor received feedback at the same rate as themselves, leading them to perceive slight superiority when feedback was more frequent (FR4 condition) and significant superiority when it was much more frequent (FR2 condition). Competition improved performance primarily when the co-actor was only slightly better, but this effect was observed in simple effort-based tasks and may not apply to more complex tasks where effort is less critical.
The Ringelmann effect
The inverse relation between group size and individual performance/effort. It is an example of process loss (coordination and motivation losses), as the actual performance of a group is below its potential performance
Why does the Ringelmann effect occur?
- due to motivation and coordination losses
- as thinking that others are also contributing to pulling to rope results in less effort individually and so less weight is pulled
- there are motivation losses but process loss was larger in the real group condition
- process loss increases with group size at a decelerating rate
- motivation losses do not increase beyond a group size of 3
Social loafing
The reduction of effort when one is working in a group compared to when working alone. Can occur due to lack of identifiability and evaluating individual contributions is important for this motivation loss, as this effect disappeared when everyone was given individual microphones. But it is the fact that individual contributions cannot be evaluated rather than identifiability
How did experiments assess this?
- participants had to generate uses for a common object, some of these were individually collected while others put their lists in a box
- some had to come up with uses for the same object while others had different uses (higher evaluation potential)
- large social loafing effect for identifiable participants, but performance was low for different uses of the object
- but social loafing might not occur due to internal reasons to work hard or valuing the performance of the group
Why does social loafing occur when there is social facilitation?
Due to differences in evaluation potential. In studies on loafing, people work less hard when they are in a group where their individual effort cannot be judged, compared to when they are working alone or alongside others where they can be evaluated. In studies on social facilitation, people tend to work harder and perform better on simple tasks when they know they are being watched or judged, compared to when they are working alone with no one evaluating them. Additionally, self-efficacy theory plays a role by expecting certain outcomes.
When would there be a reverse social loafing effect?
When tasks are difficulted, group members who cannot be evaluated perform better than those who can be evaluated
What is free-riding?
Group members work less
hard because they perceive that their contribution is dispensable. Related to common good dilemmas which is that members of a social collective contribute resources to establish a common good which will be provided whether they contributed or not
How could task type impact social loafing?
When a task is disjunctive, members who perceive themselves to be low on ability will believe that their contribution is not needed, because the group’s performance depends only on the best group member. So, they will work less hard. But, when the task is conjunctive, members who are high on ability might believe that their performance is dispensable
How was this tested?
Kerr and Bruun (1983) examined how perceived ability affects effort in group tasks. Participants blew air into a mouthpiece, with the amount of air measuring effort and performance. After receiving false feedback, they completed a group trial where a $10 bonus was offered. In some groups, only the best member’s performance mattered (disjunctive task), while in others, only the worst member’s performance counted (conjunctive task). Results showed that participants who believed they were less able reduced effort in disjunctive tasks, while those who believed they were more able reduced effort in conjunctive tasks. This occurred despite individual contributions being identifiable, so usefulness of the member is more important
What is the sucker effect?
When group members feel that the free-riders are taking advantage of them, which can result in anger and dislike so they reduce effort to avoid being exploited. So people can withdraw effort when others free-ride. This should only occur when a group member fails to contribute even though they are capable to do so
What are process gains?
Coordination gain- Members very effectively combining their contribution, producing better performance than their best members.
Motivation gain- Members contributing more when working in a team context (e.g., on a conjunctive
task, worst member is motivated to perform better by presence of others)
What is social compensation?
When people work hard on a task when they expect that other group members will perform poorly to compensate the lack of ability or motivation by others. This can happen when expecting others to perform insufficiently, when performing well is important, resulting in group members working harder in groups than alone
How was social compensation investigated?
Coworker ability, work condition and task meaningfulness was varied across participants. Participants worked in pairs but one was a confederate, performance was measured individually or through the groups. Some participants were told they were good or poor in the task. There was a social loafing effect except in high meaningfulness/low coworker ability condition.
When would the social compensation effect not be as important?
- in larger groups
- with longer durations in the group due to refusal to compensating for others, so the effect will disappear after some time
- the group could fall apart, by joining a more able group
What is the Kohler effect?
Group members work harder because they fear that the group would otherwise fail because of them
What did Kohler’s findings suggest?
He varied the ability levels within each dyad, comparing similar, moderately different, and highly different pairings. Results showed that dyads with very similar or very dissimilar members performed as expected based on individual abilities, but moderately different dyads exceeded expectations by about 15%. This suggests that motivation gains—rather than better coordination—were responsible for the improved performance, as working with a slightly stronger partner may have pushed the weaker member to exert more effort.
Why did Kohler use the wrong comparison?
The average performance was compared which is better for additive tasks, but the set up was for a conjunctive task, so instead performance should be compared to the weakest performing member
Why does the Kohler effect occur?
- a co-action situation leads to upward social comparisons and competition (more relevant for additive tasks and more pronounced for men-> individualistic motives)
- fear of their partner performing poorly because of them, making their contribution indispensable (so more relevant for conjunctive tasks and more pronounced for women-> social motives)
How was this investigated?
Hertel et al. (2000) conducted an experiment where female participants had to hold a heavy bar in front of them. Participants performed the task both alone and in dyads under two conditions: additive and conjunctive. In the additive condition, the dyad members’ performances were combined, while in the conjunctive condition, they had to hold a heavier bar together. The study found motivation gains only in the conjunctive condition, supporting the idea that group members feel more motivated when their effort is essential for the group’s success. Differences in ability did not result in motivation gains refuting Kohler.
Expectancy value theory
Assumes that motivation is the result of expectancy (the belief that effort results in performance, closely related to self-efficacy), instrumentality (performance will result in certain outcomes) and value (worth attached to these outcomes on a positive-negative dimension). Theory assumes that motivation is high with high expectancy, high instrumentality and positive values
How does expectancy value theory work for groups?
There are relations between your own and group performance, and between group and own outcomes. With dispensability there is no or weak relation between individual and group performance, but very strong when indispensable. Social comparison effects can be enhanced as the consequences become more important also due to evaluation
How can expectancy value theory be applied to groups?
Individual effort results in individual performance due to expectancy. This influences group performance based on dispensability (should be low for good performance). The relationship between performance and outcome is informed by instrumentality. The group outcome influences individual outcomes based on evaluability (being evaluated on this basis)
When is the expectancy-value model not relevant?
When people perform a task because they enjoy it, but most of the research has focussed on tasks of low intrinsic interest, so does not fully generalize. The theory only looks at valued individual outcomes rather than the value of the outcome of their group (more important for women, highly cohesive groups and non-Western cultures)
Interpersonal harming
Involves behaviour that goes against the legitimate interests of another individual in the organization. Examples include interfering with the work of others, arguments, gossiping. This has significant negative impacts on the effectiveness of work teams and organizations
What has previous research looked at in this area?
- focus on individual or situational determinants like negative affectivity, agreeableness, attitudes etc
- theoretical implications like a dyadic relationship between perpetrator and victim
What did this research argue?
- harming of team members depends on the difference in performance
- the importance of context and having cooperative goals
- cooperative tea goals influence the expected future performance similarity, which influences social comparison and interpersonal harming
How is harming behaviour related to social comparison?
Upward comparison is related to identity threats, so harming behaviour more likely to occur also with low expectations of future performance similarity-> this reduces self-other performance discrepancy. Harming behaviour less likely to occur with high expectations of future performance similarity. Only downward comparisons with high future performance similarity can pose a threat but harming will not resolve this.
What is the role of cooperative team goals?
In teams with highly cooperative goals, upward performance comparison is not perceived as a threat as the satisfaction is dependent on how others perform. This can trigger positive evaluations of the target. But this is not likely to occur with less cooperative goals
How can the direction of comparison and performance similarity to the target influence comparison?
If there is performance similarity and a downward comparison, then there is downward assimilation, downward contrast with less similarity and downward comparison. Only interpersonal harm when there is upward contrast (so little performance similarity and upward comparison
Hypotheses of the study?
Cooperative team goals and expectations of future performance similarity moderate the relationship between social comparison and interpersonal harming
Method of the study?
- Control variables, social comparison and cooperative team goals were measured after students had worked together for 1.5 months, then measured interpersonal harming and performance similarity
- A similar procedure was used for a sales team, questionnaires were used to measured all constructs, with harming behaviour and cooperative team goals being filled out by peers
What did the results find?
In teams with less cooperative goals, an actor’s upward comparison with a target was related to harming with low expected future performance. Social comparison was unrelated to harming when expected similarity was high. A negative relationship was found between interpersonally harmful team behaviour and performance. A large proportion of variance in harming behaviour is in relations.
Limitations?
- Some variables were measured using single-item scales to reduce participant fatigue
- future research should use multi-item measures for improved robustness.
- Causality cannot be definitively established due to potential unmeasured third variables and time-lag effects.
- the study was conducted in China, where cultural factors (e.g., high collectivism) may limit generalizability
- replication in different teams, industries, and cultures is needed to confirm the findings. more research looking at the interactions between social comparison and harming needed
Implications?
- convincing lower performing team members that they can improve their performance-> offer training opportunities
- managers should promote cooperative goals through specific leadership behaviours to have a common purpose and identification
What has research found about members’ expertise in a group?
- groups perform better and make better decisions when members have an accurate understanding of each other’s expertise
- expertise cannot be directly observed so many can be unaware or inaccurate of their expertise
Status characteristics theory
The theory argues that power and prestige orders are given by performance expectations (expectations about ability to contribute to accomplishing group tasks). Members with high expectations are given more opportunities to participate and influence group decisions. Performance expectations are indicated by status that individuals assign to personal characteristics of group members
How can expectation states theory be shown more simply?
Task success, specific status characteristics, diffuse status characteristics-> high expectations of task contribution -> high status -> more influence
Status characteristics
Any personal characteristic associated with task competence
Diffuse characteristics
Visible physical characteristics and social differences like gender, ethnicity and age which are not related to tasks but can be used to make judgments
What are the hypotheses of this research?
1 The probability that member A is seen as an expert is positively associated with the value of A’s specific status cues
2. The probability that Member A is seen as an expert is positively associated with diffuse status cues
3. attributions of expertise will be more strongly associated with specific status cues than with diffuse status cues
4. specific status cues will be more strongly associated with attributions of expertise in longer-tenured groups
5. Diffuse status cues will be more strongly associated with attributions of expertise in shorter-tenured groups.
6. Specific status cues are strongly associated with attributions of expertise in decentralized power
7. Diffuse status cues are more strongly associated with centralized power
8. Specific status cues are associated with intragroup influence through their effect on attributions of expertise
9. Diffuse status cues will be associated through intragroup influence
10. The alignment of intragroup influence with specific status cues in task groups will be positively associated with group performance
When do status cues vary in salience?
a status cue becomes more salient when individuals differ on the characteristic and mindful of their differences on the characteristic
How does average group tenure influence salience?
When a group comes together, the most salient status cues are the visible physical differences, so group members rely on these diffuse status cues in forming relative expertise. But the more time a group spends together, the more opportunities group members have to learn about task experience and background
How does centralization of power influence salience of status cues?
Power centralization is the degree of inequality in given opportunities to influence team processes and decisions. Decentralization: more influence over decisions and more personal responsibility, more careful in perceptions of another person. So decentralization should lead to greater reliance on specific status cues as this is more reliable
Basic expectation assumption
That performance expectations are directly associated with opportunities with involvement and influence in a task group
How can aligning status cues and influence affect performance?
Relying on specific status cues results in more accuracy in drawing inferences about expertise, which should lead to better decisions and outcomes
What is the method of the study?
The study examined production teams in a high-tech Fortune 100 manufacturing facility. Data was collected through surveys distributed at shift meetings, with incentives provided to encourage participation. Observations and interviews revealed differences in expertise and interdependence among team members, emphasizing the importance of communication and coordination. Performance ratings were obtained from shift supervisors and engineering managers, who had comparative knowledge of team performance.
What did results find?
- status cues were significantly correlated with perceived expertise and intragroup influence, diffuse cues only related to expertise but not influence
- alignment of specific status cues with intragroup influence was highly correlated to performance
- the relationship between specific status cues and perceived expertise was stronger in higher-tenured teams and weaker in more centralized teams
- specific statues cues were positively associated with intragroup influence
- specific status cues strongly predicted perceptions of expertise in decentralized longer-tenured groups, while diffuse statues cues strongly predicted expertise in centralized, short-tenured groups
What is the established model in the end?
Specific status characteristics and diffuse status characteristics are positively related to perceived expertise. Tenure is average time together, with longer tenure then more likely to rely on specific characteristics, but shorter tenure more likely to rely on diffuse status characteristics. Group power centralization means that power is given to one person. When power is decentralised, then group members try harder to find out who knows what, so specific status characteristics become more important. Alignment of specific status characteristics with intragroup influence will result in higher group performance (specific characteristics determine leadership which results in better performance).
What is important about this model?
- research on demography and diversity must be explicit
- more research on expertise recognition in field contexts to assess meaningful contextual factors
- more research on additional group context factors
- no evidence that status cues have any effect on intragroup influence except through perceived expertise
- study supports the influence through recognized expertise and influence through legitimate authority
What is the group socialization model?
- Investigation (Prospective Member) → Entry
Individuals explore and evaluate groups to find one that meets their needs. The group also assesses potential members. If mutual acceptance occurs, the individual enters the group. - Socialization (New Member) → Acceptance
New members learn group norms, values, and expectations.
The group shapes the newcomer’s behaviour to align with its goals. Commitment increases as members integrate and become accepted as full members. - Maintenance (Full Member) → Divergence
Members contribute to the group while negotiating their roles. If alignment between individual and group needs remains, commitment stays high. If misalignment occurs, commitment starts declining, leading to potential marginalization. - Resocialization (Marginal Member) → Exit
If divergence occurs, the group may attempt to reintegrate the member. The individual decides whether to adjust or leave. If reintegration fails, the member exits the group. - Remembrance (Ex-Member)
After leaving, former members and the group reflect on their past relationship. Memories and influences of group membership persist, affecting future interactions.
