L2: Group Processes & Social Influence Flashcards
define expertise recognition
process by which work groups identify & utilize the most knowledgeable members
define intragroup influence
ability of a gropu member to affect team decisions and processes
what was the main purpose of Bunderson (2003)’s study?
explores how expertise is recognized & used in work groups, emphasizing how status characteristics (both specific & diffuse) influence attributions of expertise and intragroup influence
what are specific vs diffuse status cues
specific: directly related to task expertise (education, training, experience etc)
diffuse: social category characteritsics (gender, race, age etc) that may influence perceived expertise even if not directly relevant
what were Bunderson (2003)’s main findings?
- specific status cues (job experience, certification etc) were strong predictors of expertise attributions
- diffuse status cues (gender race etc) were weaker predictors of expertise attribtuions
- group context mattered: long tenured gropus relied more on specific status cues, shorter tenured gorups relied more on diffuse cues, decentralized groups focused on specific while centralized groups relied on diffuse
- expertise attribtuions (mediator) were necessary for individuals to gain influence
- expertise based decision making led to higher effectiveness
what are the practical implications of Bunderson (2003)
- organisations should train teams to recognize expterise based on relevant skills & experience rather than social categories
- decentralized decision making encourages fair recognition of expertise, while centralized structures may allow biases to persist
- longer team tenure helps refine expertise recognition making stable teams more effective
what is centralized vs decentralized decision making
centralized: power is concentrated in one or few individuals who dominate group decisions
decentralized:power is more evenly distributed across members
how are groups multilevel systems?
- groups are composed of members
- both the group member & the group as a whole can be perceived a distinct entity, meaning that both have characteristics
- group & members are hierarchically organized: the group member (lower level) is part of the group (higher level)
- often theres a 3rd level to take into account: “context” (the organisation the group exists in)
why is it important to acknowledge the different levels in a group (group member, group level, context)?
- its important to specifiy the level one is talking about (if u describe a group as “knowledgeable” does that mean the individual group members are this? or the group as a whole?)
- realizing there are different levels makes one sensitive to the fact that there are relations between the levels (top down or bottom up)
what is a top down effect?
occurs when characteristics at the group level influence group members’ behaviour, thoughts, and feelings (ex: group norm of being late starts influencing the individuals behaviour)
what is a bottom up effect
occurs when characteristics at the individual level determine outcomes at the group level (ex: the groups performance depends on the individual performances)
What are the 5 elements to a general framework of group performance?
- group members
- group tasks
- group interaction processes
- group output
- group context
how do group members influence group performance?
- they provide the necessary resources for task performance
- they also have individual motives, personalities and moods which affect group performance
what is the potential performance principle ?
the potential performance of a group is a function of group member resources & task demands
- if group members possess the necessary resources to complete the task, potential performance is high
- if group members do not possess the necessary resources, potential performanc is low:
what is the difference between potential performance and actual performance
potential: what a group could potentially achieve given group member resources & task demands
actual: what the group actually does achieve
what are the 3 dimensions to classify group tasks?
- divisible tasks vs unitary tasks
- nature of performance criterion: optimizing tasks vs maximizing tasks
-how individual gropu member input is converted into potential group performance additive tasks, disjunctive tasks, conjunctive tasks, discretionary tasks
what are divisible vs unitary tasks?
- divisible tasks: can be divided into subtasks
- unitary tasks: cant be divided into subtasks
what are maximizing vs optimizing tasks?
optimizing tasks: is the nature of the performance criterion about generating the best or a correct response (ex:making the best possible decision)
- maximizng tasks: or is the nature of the performance criterion about generating many responses or doing it fast (ex: filling as many envelopes as possible)
what are additive tasks?
potential performance of the group is determined by the sum/average of individual performances (ex: filling envelopes; mkaing an estimate of costs/risks (u average the ind estimates of the group to get the group estimate); pulling a rope; brainstorming)
what are disjunctive tasks?
potential performance of the group is determined by the best member (ex: solving a math problem; decision making; problem solving)
what are conjunctive tasks?
potential performance of the group is given by performance of the worst member (ex: mountain climbing (progress depends on slowest member attached to the rope); assembly line)
what are discretionary tasks?
potential performance is given by any combination of individual performances, up to the discretion of the group (ex: making music (since u can choose the way u want to combine ur individual contributions); designing a car)
what did steiner propose that actual performance depends on?
potential performance - process loss
what are 2 types of process loss?
motivation loss
coordination loss
when does coordination loss occur?
when group members do not combine their (poetnial) contributions in an optimal way
when does motivation loss occur?
Members contributing less
when working in a group
context
what are 3 forms of process loss?
- social loafing
- free riding
- sucker effect
what is social loafing?
reduced individual effort when one is working in a team
rather than alone due to lower evaluability of one’s contribution.
what is free riding?
reduced individual effort because people perceive that their
contribution is dispensable
what is sucker effect
reduced individual effort by others in the team who don’t
want to be exploited by free-riding team members.
when might process gains be possible?
when the combination of individual resources allows the gropu to perform even better than the best member (might be seen as coordination gains)
- motivation gains also possible when group members work harder in a group than they would have done when working alone
what are 2 forms of process gain?
- social compensation
- kohler effect
define social compensation
increased individual effort when one is working in a team rather than alone.
define kohler effect
Increased individual effort because people fear their
team would otherwise fail because of them (low ability people working harder)
what form can a group output take on?
- task related performance
- affective outcomes
- learning
all at both individual & group levels
what are performance outcomes?
success w regard to task completion
what are affective outcomes?
reactions of entities (ppl, groups) towards other entities or toward the task
what is learning as an outcome?
potential future task performance
what are some examples of performance outcomes?
at individual & group level
individual: amount of influence, personal production, speed of performance
group: quality of decision, correctness of solution, group producitivty, time required
what are some examples of affective outcomes?
at individual & group level
individual: satisfaction, respect & status, mood, motivation
group: group cohesion, group affective tone
what are some examples of learning outcomes?
at individual & group level
individual: task proficiency, interpersonal skills, knowledge
group: transactive memory
against what standards can group performance be judged?
- objective standards
- relative standards
- relative to individual performance
what should the choice for output dimesnion & performance standard be based?
- research objectives
- characteristics of the group task
what does group context consist of?
the physical & social environment of the group
why is the context for group processes so important?
- context will influence the group (op down effects)
- groups have to manage their contacts w the environment
how does context influence the group?
- by influencing group members (context determines group membership)
- by influencing the group task (organisation often assigns the task)
- the context will influence group processes
- other ppl or groups (so context) evaluate group outputs
what are absolute aka normative standards?
to evalute performance against an absolute or normative standard (ex: when group has reached explicit performance goal of 500 envelopes in 1h, we can say they did good)
what are relative standards?
- used when theres no absolute standard
- judge the performance of groups relative to each other
what are standards where u compare the groups performance w individual performance?
- question here is: who is better, individuals or groups?
- need to establish an individual baseline here
what did Lam (2011) try to study?
- why do team members sometimes harm high performing colleagues?
- how do social comparison processes influence interpersonal harming in work teams?
- what role do cooperative team goals play in moderting this behaviour?
define interpersonal harming
behaviours that go against hte legitimate interest of others such as gossiping, disrespect, and work interference
what does social comparison theory posit?
ppl evaluate themselves by comparing to others, especially in performance-based team settings
what is the dyadic perspective on interpersonal harming?
the relationship between 2 individuals (actor & target) influences harming behaviour
how does identity threat relate to interpersonal harming?
when an employee feels threatened by a high performer, they may react negatively
what were Lam (2011)’s 2 hypotheses?
- when team goals are less cooperative, upward comparison (comparing to a higher performing teammate) leads to hearming behaviour, especially when the focal employee does not expect to match the high performer in the future
- teams w more interpersonal harming have lower overall team performance
what were Lam (2011)’s findings?
less cooperative teams showed more harmful behaviours towards high performers
in cooperative teams, this negative behaviour was reduced
what are the practical implications of Lam (2011)? On interpersonal harming
- managers should foster cooperative goals to reduce harmful behaviours
- providing growth opportunities for lower performers can help reduce envy & identity threats
- encouraging positive team culture can limit harmful social comparison effects
define expected future performance similarity
the belief that one will (or wont) match another’s performanc ein the future
define cooperative team goals
shared goals that promote teamwork & mutual success
how does the presence of an audience impact performance?
can lead to:
- performance improvements (social faciliation)
- performance decrements (social inhibition)
what does Zajonc’s drive theory assume?
presence increases generalized drive or arousal and makes ppl work harder, which in turn leads to a higher tendency to give a dominant response
leads to
- improvement on simple tasks (social facilitation)
- decrements on complex tasks (social inhibition)
what are the issues w Zajonc’s theory?
- The presence of others does not always lead to arousal and “arousal” as such is too abstract/not specific enough (alternative terms like challenge & threat response could resolve this)
- mere presence of audience does not always produce social faciliation: social faciliation only occurs when theres distraction (distraction conflict theory kinda addresses this)
what is an alternative term to “arousal’ in Zajoncs theory?
arousal is too broad & unspecific
instead use 2 patterns of physiological responding: challenge & threat patterns
- challenge response occurs when ppl perceive that they have sufficient resources to meet situational demands. presence of audience should lead to this response on a well learned task.
- threat response occurs when ppl perceive they lack the necessary resources. presence of audience should lead to a threat response on a task that was not well learned
define dominant response
the response that is most likely to be emitted in a particular situation
ex: cause its well learned, based on habits/routines, or innately likely to be emitted
what does distraction conflict theory argue?
explains why presence of others does not always produce social faciliation
the presence of others is a distraction that leads to an attentional conflict that increases generalized drive which increases the emission of the dominant response
which leads to improvement on simple tasks (social faciiliation) and decrements on complex tasks (social inhibition)
- in support of this theory, it has been found that the presence of others is distracting and that it leads to social faciliation/inhibition only when there is an attentional conflict
what is the main difference between Zajonc’s drive theory & Distraction conflict theory?
in DCT, the presence of others has effects ONLY when its distracting & leads to an attentional conflict (ie mere presence is not enough)
what have been 3 types of evidence for the Distraction Conflict Theory?
- the presence of others has been found to be distracting
- non social distractions produce facililation & inhibition effects (so its not just w the presenc eof an audience)
- when no attentional conflict is present (even if theres still an audience), there should be no social faciliation
what is the main conclusion from the distraciton conflict theory?
social faciliation & inhibition ONLY occurs when there is a distraction & attentional conflict
what does self efficacy theory posit?
high self efficacy improves likelihood of dominant response leading to social facilitation
low self efficacy improves likeilhood of dominant response leading to social inhibition
- high self efficacy -> social faciliation
- low self efficacy -> social inhibition
define self efficacy expectancy
a persons belief that s/he is capable of performing a required behaviour
define outcome expectancy
the belief of a person that behaviour will result in certain (positive or negative) outcomes
what does the co-action paradigm posit?
in this paradigm ohter ppl being present allows social comparison which can serve as a source of distraction but can also stimulate competition
- might lead to improved performance especially in situations in which co-actors are slightly superior (much superior is threatening so interpersonal harm might happen)
how do cooperative team goals affect interpersonal harming?
lots of cooperative team goals act as a buffer for the relationship between expected future performance similarity & interpersonal harming
what is the audience paradigm vs co action paradigm?
audience: ppl perform while others (may) observe
co action: ppl work on a task in the presence of others also working on the same task
define social faciliation
others being present helps u to perform better
define social inhibition
others being present leads you to perform worse
what is the input-process-output model of Delizone (2007)?
inputs: the 5 leadership qualities
process: psychological safety
output: team performance
define role
the set of behaviours associated w a certain position in a group
- can be formal/informal
- can be task oriented or socio-emotional oriented
- evolve over time
- can have multiple one simulataneously
what is expectation states theory aka status characteristics theory?
- performance expectations drive status & influence (expectating that a member will perform well -> that member is granted more expert status)
2 types of characteristics - diffuse characteristics are not related to tasks but can be used to make judgments (gender, age etc)
- specific characteristics are related to the tasks (like intelligence when the task involves problem solving)
how does social influence work in groups (and teams)?
In groups, members exert influence on one another – to gain individual goals, like power or status, but also to accomplish group goals, like reaching a good group decision
What is minority influence?
when smaller subgroups produce change in larger subgroups
- they need to be consistent
- more likely to create private acceptance while majority more likely to create public compliance
- minority influence larger for private opinions than public statements
- may create indirect influence
What is majority influence?
when a larger subgroup produces conformity in a smaller subgroup
what are the 2 reasons why people conform?
- normative social influence
- information social influence
what is normative social influence? what does it lead to?
We accept others’ influence
because we expect positive
evaluations. leads ot public compliance
what is information socia influence? what does it lead to?
We accept others’ influence
because we accept their
input as evidence about
reality.
leads to private acceptance
define public compliance
People change their behavior, but
they don’t necessarily believe the
majority is actually right.
define private acceptance
people change their behavior and believe that the majority is
right.
What is group polarization?
a shift in the extremity of private opinions toward the local norm after group discussion
what is the social comparison explanation of group polarization?
Individually one tries to stay true to oneself but also not appear too extreme.
Initially toned-down response →
sees other are also in agreement/more extreme → group response shifts.
what is persuasive arguments theory explanation of group polarization?
When one is in a group with similar others, they will hear new and convincing arguments in favor of their initial position.
Initial response → more (and different) convincing arguments → group response shifts.
what is the ringelmann effect?
group size & individual effort are negatively associated
example of a process loss
what are the 2 coordination & motivation dynamics in teams?
- process losses & gains
- integrative theory = expectancy value theory
what is integrative theory? aka expectancy value theory
motivation is a function of
- expectancy
- instrumentality
- value
Emre is a salesperson in a team of four. Emre has just finished high school and has been doing this job for 3 months. The other three people in his team have all been doing this job for 15 or more years. When a potential
new customer comes in, Emre stays in the background and lets his team members handle it because he thinks he won’t be able to tell the customer what they need as well as the other three would. Emre’s behavior is an example of…
a. Köhler effect
b. Social loafing
c. Free riding
Free riding
reduced individual effort because people perceive that their contribution is dispensable
Liza is a construction worker. She works really hard at work. At some point she realizes that other people in her team aren’t doing much at all and she decides she won’t work as hard. Liza’s behavior is an example of…
a. Köhler effect
b. Sucker effect
c. Social loafing
Sucker effect
reduced individual effort individuals in the team who don’t want to be exploited by freeriding team members
Deborah is a psych student at the university. She is an honors student and hopes to graduate at the top of her class. For one of the courses, she is placed in a group project with two other students, who haven’t been doing a good job in their studies. Deborah takes on more tasks in the project because she thinks she can’t count on others in her team doing a good job. Deborah’s behavior is an example of…
a. Social compensation
b. Sucker effect
c. Köhler effect
Social compensation
increased individual effort when one is working in a group rather than alone, occurs especially if we think others in the team are
poor performers
what are 2 reasons why Nijstad (2009) criticzes the expectancy value theory?
- this theory emphasizes externally valued outcomes & its not applicable to when individuals actually, internally enjoy tasks
- this theory assumes that only individual outcomes are valued, while sometimes we value group outcomes more (for ex women do that & ppl who live in collectivistic cultures)
