Lecture 3 - The individual in the group

Question 1

Why study groups?

Answer 1

Studying individuals is reductive. Individuals behaviour may be different in a group, need to take into account the whole picture.

Question 2

Loren carpenter

Answer 2

pong game. people with paddles show red and green to move the platform.

Question 3

Campbell 1958

Answer 3

how to classify a group

• common fate
• proximity
• similarity

Question 4

How do we classify a group?

Answer 4

• similarity
• proximity
• common fate

e. g. football - team wears the same kit
- so do fans but not on the pitch
- all trying to score in the same goal

Question 5

Entitativity

Answer 5

what makes a thing a thing. an object and object. a group a group. measure of the closeness.

Question 6

Hamilton and Sherman 1996

Answer 6

Can get groups that come and go, very transitory, not very cohesive.
Some groups can be very cohesive
Our opinions of members in a group can be effected by the entitativity of that group. a cohesive group we will tend to associate all the members as similar because its easier.

Question 7

How can being in a group influence individual performance?

Answer 7

negatively - lead to loafing

positively - be competitive, cause better performance

Question 8

Variables investigated in the social loafing experiments

Answer 8

group size

group cohesiveness

Question 9

How do we investigate the impact of group size on loafing?

Answer 9

investigated using pseudo groups. participant is in tug of war team but the rest of the team only pretend.

Question 10

results for group size and social loafing

Answer 10

as group size increases - contribution of the individual decreases – Latane, Williams and Harkins 1979

Question 11

Latane, Williams and Harkins 1979

Answer 11

group size and social loafing - clapping

Question 12

Cohesiveness and loafing

Answer 12

Karau and Williams 1997
measured speed typing of students on a secretarial course. could be friends or a group of strangers. performance was said to be measured individually against collectively.

Question 13

Karau and Williams 1997

Answer 13

speed typing social cohesiveness versus loafing

Question 14

speed typing social cohesiveness versus loafing

Answer 14

Karau and Williams 1997

Question 15

Mean words typed per minute was

Answer 15

higher in the cohesive groups

much lower in the non cohesive groups

Question 16

Group output can be seen as either

Answer 16

non-optimal - less than the sum of all the individuals performance (due to loafing)
more than optimal - more than a sum of its parts
but it is more than strength of connections and size of the group which influences its impact on the individual.

Question 17

Bystander intervention

Answer 17

Latane and darley 1968
filled a room with smoke and measured how long it took people to decide to leave, found ppl tended to look around for others reactions.
Did it in a naive group and a deliberately passive group.

Question 18

Latane and darley 1968

Answer 18

Bystander intervention
filled a room with smoke and measured how long it took people to decide to leave, found ppl tended to look around for others reactions.
Did it in a naive group and a deliberately passive group.

Question 19

Smoke experiment results

Answer 19

Alone: 75% reported it
naive group: 40%
passive group: 10%
larger groups decrease these numbers.

Question 20

Levine and Crowther 2008

Answer 20

Large group doesn’t guarantee bystander effect because empathy with the victim has an effect on whether you get involved or not. women gets yelled at, if there are a large number of women in the group she gets help. if mainly men and one women she doesn’t.

Question 21

Large group doesn’t guarantee bystander effect because empathy with the victim has an effect on whether you get involved or not.

Answer 21

Levine and Crowther 2008