Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social > Lecture 7 - Group Behaviour and Decision Making > Flashcards

Lecture 7 - Group Behaviour and Decision Making Flashcards

1
Q

Define a group according to Hagger and Chatzisarantis 2005

A

Group comprises 2 or more people
Involves interaction between people
Awareness some form of common fate or goals
Specific structure such as role and status of individuals within group and group norms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How many characteristics of a group do Johnson and Johnson 1987 identify

A

7

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Outline the 7 major characteristics of a group that Johnson and Johnson 1987 identify

A
  1. Social unit 2 more individuals perceived belonging to group
  2. Collection individuals influence each other
  3. Interaction between individuals
  4. Interdependence among group members
  5. Seek achieve group goals
  6. Satisfy need through association
  7. Governed by group roles and norms
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What have many models of groups forgotten about

A

Forgotten about passing time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Are groups static entities?

A

No static entities

New members join
Existing members leave

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Define group socialisation

A

Dynamic relationship between group and its members in terms changes in roles and commitment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What was the first model to map out socialisation process that occurs small interactive groups

A

Tuckmans 1965

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Outline Tuckmans 1965 5 factors of the model of group socialisation

A 
Forming 
Storming 
Norming 
Performing 
Adjourning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Outline forming according to Tuckmans 1965 model of group socialisation

A

Orientation and familiarisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Outline storming according to Tuckmans 1965 model of group socialisation

A

Working through disagreements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Outline Norming according to Tuckmans 1965 model of group socialisation

A

Group cohesion and common identity

Group roles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Outline Performing according to Tuckmans 1965 model of group socialisation

A

Group performs optimally and smoothly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Outline Adjourning according to Tuckmans 1965 model of group socialisation

A

Group dissolves because goals been achieved or members lose interest or motivation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What does Morelands and Levines 1982-4 model explain about groups

A

Group dynamics across life span of group

Individual and group change and adapt result membership

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are the 3 factors considered by Moreland and Levines 1982-4 model of group dynamics

A

Evaluation

Commitment

Role transitions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Outline Evaluation factor according to Moreland and Levines 1982-4 model of groups

A

Group members and potential members evaluate rewards of group membership

Individuals evaluated terms contribution to group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Outline Commitment factor according to Moreland and Levines 1982-4 model of groups

A

Evaluation affects investment in group or individual

Highest when individuals and groups agree on goals and values

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Outline Role Transitions factor according to Moreland and Levines 1982-4 model of groups

A

Change in role of group member

Central to Moreland and Levines model

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Which factor is central to Moreland and Levines model

A

Role transitions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Outline the prospective member according to Moreland and Levine

A

Investigative
Recruitment
Reconnaissance
Entry level - constant evaluation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Outline the new member according to Moreland and Levine

A

Socialisation
Accommodation
Assimilation
Increase acceptance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Outline the full member according to Moreland and Levine

A

Maintenance
Role negotiation
Accepted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Outline the marginal member according to Moreland and Levine

A 
Re-socialisation 
Accommodation 
Assimilation 
Membership drops 
Divergence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Outline the ex member according to Moreland and Levine

A

Remembrance
Tradition reminiscence
Expected dynamics
Exit from group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Define group cohesiveness according to Hogg and Vaughan 2014

A

Property of group affectively binds people as group meme era to one another and group as a whole giving group sense solidarity and oneness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What can group cohesiveness also be referred to

A

Solidarity
Team spirit
Group morale

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Is Group Cohesiveness hard to define and measure

A

YES

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Outline group cohesiveness according to Festinger, Schacter and Back 1950

A

Field of forces: attractiveness and mediation goals

Leads Cohesiveness

Leads to behaviour

How well group help them achieve goal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What are the fields of forces identified by Festinger, Schacter and Back 1950

A

Attractiveness

Mediation goals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Outline field of forces: Attractiveness according to Festinger, Schacter and Back 1950

A

Attractiveness of group and members

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Outline field of forces: Mediation Goals according to Festinger, Schacter and Back 1950

A

Social interaction

Individual goals requiring interdependence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

How is cohesiveness measured according to Festinger, Schacter and Back 1950

A

Averaging interpersonal attraction across whole group

Summation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What are the factors influencing interpersonal attraction determining cohesiveness

A

Similarity

Cooperation

Perceived acceptance

Shared threat

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What does cohesiveness predict

A

Conformity to group norms

Accentuated similarity - stereotyping

Improvised intragroup communication

Enhanced liking group members

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

How does Hogg 1993 define cohesiveness

A

Elusive concept

Based on idiosyncratic characteristics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What does Hogg 1993 state needs distinguishing in cohesiveness

A

Personal attraction

Social attraction

Shows how can like someone as a group member but not as a person and vice Versa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Outline Personal Attraction according to Hogg 1993

A

Based close relationships

Idiosyncratic preferences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Outline Social Attraction according to Hogg 1993

A

Inter individual liking based perceptions of self and others not terms individuality but group norms and prototypes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Define what a norm is according to Cialdini and Trost 1998

A

Rules and standards behaviour understood by group members and guide or constrain social behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What do norms inform us of

A

Define what is acceptable
Reduce uncertainty promoting socially appropriate actions
Enforced laws/legitimacy, or implied and taken for granted
Lead vilification and degrogation if violates
Strong effect people’s behaviours

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Outline Seigel and Seigel 1957 study on dormitory political norms on students levels conservatism

A

1st year American female students randomly assigned accommodation

Dormitory known for being liberal and sorority known being conservatism
Start year 100% students conservative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Outline Seigel and Seigel 1957 study on dormitory political norms on students levels conservatism RESULTS

A

Conservative views decreased after liberal dorm exposure by end of year

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Outline group structure

A

Division of group into different roles often differ with respect to status and prestige

44
Q

Define roles

A

Patterns behaviour distinguish between different activities within group
People adopt for greater good of group

Facilitate group functioning and effectiveness

45
Q

What are the 3 reasons why roles tend to emerge in groups

A

Division of labour

Provide clear cut social expectations

Members self definition and place within group

46
Q

Define status

A

Prestige of particular role in group

Prestige of group and members as a whole

Not all roles equal status

47
Q

Outline the Expectation States Theory of Status by Berger et al 1977

A

Roles groups assigned based expectations people’s performance

48
Q

Outline the specific status characteristics of status

A

Abilities of person directly relevant to group task

E.g. good athlete in sports team

49
Q

Outline diffuse status characteristics

A

Positive or negatively valued characteristics in society

Age or education

Put drs views and opinions above our own

50
Q

Outline Knottnerus and Greenstein 1981 study on status in groups

A

Female ppt and female confederate
Work together 2 separate tasks
Told ppt end task 1 either did better or worse than confederate
Told if confederate younger or older

51
Q

What is the purpose of telling ppt if confederate is younger or older than them Knottnerus and Greenstein 1981

A

Implicit reference if confederate older you are more knowledgeable and have more experience

52
Q

What is the DV in Knottnerus and Greenstein 1981 study on status in groups

A

% times 2nd task ppt referred to the confederates suggestions

53
Q

Outline Knottnerus and Greenstein 1981 study on status in groups results

A

Referred confederate more when status low

Referred significantly higher extent when confederate higher diffused status = older 100% deferral

Referral depends status ppts relative to confederate

54
Q

What is common reason for groups to form

A

Make decisions

55
Q

What are situations where groups make decisions

A

Juries
Selection committees
Decision making organisations and politics
Decisions with life or death consequences

56
Q

When do groups function better

A

Solving factual problems

Those with one correct answer

57
Q

When do groups struggle to function

A

Less well defined real world problems present unique social changes
Concerns social judgement and offending others
Unwillingness take responsibility
Lack confidence abilities/solutions

58
Q

Outline group memory and remembering

A

Groups remember more info
Different people recall different info
Whole group better recognising true info

59
Q

How does memory act as a constructive process

A

Real life events memory constructive process - story helps aid recall relevant info

60
Q

Outline Clark and Stephenson 1989-95 research on group vs individual memory

A

Students or police officers watched police interrogation
Alone vs in group 4 people
Answered questions and free recalled info

61
Q

Outline Clark and Stephenson 1989-95 research on group vs individual memory RESULTS

A

Groups out performed individuals

Recalled more correct info
Fewer meta statements (over interpretations)
No difference number errors made

62
Q

Define brainstorming according to Osborn 1957

A

Uninhibited generations many ideas as possible in group

In order enhance group creativity

63
Q

Where are brainstorming decisions used

A

Extensively in business

Advertising agencies

64
Q

Are brainstorm methods effective

A

Individuals 2x more creative when brainstorming alone

More ideas in group but creative value of lower quality

65
Q

What are the 4 reasons according to Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho 1993 why brain storming is ineffective

A

Evaluation apprehension

Social loading and free riding

Production matching

Production blocking

66
Q

Outline Evaluation Apprehension by Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho 1993 for why the brain storming is ineffective

A

Despite inhibited instruction individuals still worried about evaluation

67
Q

Outline Social Loafing and Free Riding by Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho 1993 for why the brain storming is ineffective

A

Motivation loss

Especially when lack definition group roles

68
Q

Outline Production Matching by Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho 1993 for why the brain storming is ineffective

A

Average group performance used norm because task is novel

Loss quality ideas

69
Q

Outline Production Blocking by Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho 1993 for why the brain storming is ineffective

A

Then taking interrupts flow idea generation

70
Q

Outline illusion of groups working effectively by Diehl and Stroebe 1991

A

Mere volume of production ideas

Enjoyment and satisfaction of process

Individuals only share some their ideas - assume everyone has more and novel ideas to share

71
Q

When is brainstorming best

A

Initially working alone then sharing with group

72
Q

Define Group think according to Janis 1972

A

Mode thinking in highly cohesive groups which desire reach unanimous agreement overrides motivation adopt rational decision making procedures

73
Q

How are decisions characterised

A

Little scrutiny and social pressure reach consensus

Members stick chosen course action and refuse seriously consider alternatives

74
Q

What did Janus 1972 develop his theory based upon

A

4 US foreign policy decisions with unfavourable outcomes

Archival methods (retrospective and content analysis)

75
Q

What are the 4 US foreign policy decisions with unfavourable outcomes influencing Janis 1972

A

Pearl Harbor - focus training rather than defends

Escalation Korean War - crossing 38th parallel into North Korea

Bag of Pigs Invasion

Escalation of Vietnam War during 1964-67

76
Q

Outline the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba 1961 as an example of Group Think

A

Relied too heavily opinions Cuban refugees not reflective national support of Castro

Kennedy’s committees comprised politicians supported invasion = those did not were ignored

77
Q

Similar examples to the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba 1961

A

Challenge disaster 1986

Decision to invade Iraq Bush administration 2003

78
Q

Outline Antecedents identified by Janis and Mann 1977 of Group Think

A

Excessive group cohesiveness

insulation of group from external info and influence

Lack impartial leadership and norms encouraging proper procedures

Ideological homogeneity - all same beliefs

High stress from external threat and task complexity

79
Q

Outline Symptoms identified by Janis and Mann 1977 of Group Think

A

Feelings invulnerability and unanimity

Unquestioning Belief Group must be right

Ignore or discredit info on contrary

Pressure on dissidents being them into line

Stereotyping outgroup members

80
Q

Outline a Cult example of group think

A

Heavens Gate

81
Q

Outline Case Studies as evidence of Group Think

A

Coding and analysing real world examples for antecedents and symptoms Group Think

82
Q

Outline Experimental Studies as evidence of Group Think

A

Lab or quasi-natural
Cohesiveness manipulates
Directive leadership manipulated
Procedural directions for effective decision making manipulated

83
Q

Outline McCauley 1989 Group Think case study

A

Re analysed 6 historical cases Janis and Marshall Plan and Cuban Missile Crisis

Each case coded separately for presence or absence Group Think antecedents

84
Q

Outline McCauley 1989 Group Think case study results and identified relationships

A

Group isolation, leadership and group homogeneity not involved in non group think cases

Cohesion time pressure and perception external threat all present in non group think cases

85
Q

Outline Tetlock et al 1992 experiment case study on group think

A

Q-sort card task with 100 bipolar statements 6 historical cases groupthink and 2 non groupthink cases

Pots sorted cards 3 piles and rated each card

Compared similarity ppts Q sort profiles ideal Q sorts generated each case based Janis 1982 Theory

86
Q

Outline Tetlock et al 1992 experiment case study on group think results

A

Positive correlation for 6 Group think cases
Negative correlations 2 non group think cases

Ppts characterisations similar Janis 1982

87
Q

Outline Tetlock et al 1992 experiment case study on group think results that not all theorised paths were significant predictors Group think

A

Defective decision making, symptoms, concurrence seeking, procedural faults, significant paths

Group cohesion (despite being in definition and supposed key part) high stress situation non significant paths

88
Q

Outline Group Think lab experiment by Flowers 1977

A

College students crisis problem solve

Leadership manipulated - closed vs open
Cohesiveness manipulated - strangers vs friends of leader

89
Q

Outline Group Think lab experiment by Flowers 1977 DV

A

Number of solutions and number facts discussed

90
Q

Outline Group Think lab experiment by Flowers 1977 results

A

Significantly more solutions facts discussed with open leader

Ppts closed leader condition rated leader more influential in decision making process

Cohesiveness not significant

91
Q

What are the possible reasons for cohesiveness not being significant in Group Think lab experiment by Flowers 1977

A

May not be good predictor for Group Think

Difficult measure

92
Q

Outline Group Think lab experiment by Leana 1985

A

College students hypothetical business problem

Cohesiveness manipulated - low and high
Leadership - directive vs non directive

93
Q

Outline Group Think lab experiment by Leana 1985 DV

A

Number facts and solutions discussed

94
Q

Outline Group Think lab experiment by Leana 1985 results

A

Significantly fewer facts discussed low cohesive groups

Fewer solutions proposed and discussed in groups directive leader

95
Q

Outline Essers 1998 review

A

Inconsistent and mixed reviews Group Think

Labs and case studies both support role directive leadership groupthink

Evidence cohesiveness unsupported

96
Q

Outline future of Group Think according to Essers 1998

A

Consider what types situations trigger Group Think - collective avoid vs collective avoidance

Criteria decision tasks need refining

Difficult measure symptoms groupthink

Questionnaires unique challenges

97
Q

Define collective avoidance

A

Stress induced defence response - Hart 1990

98
Q

Define collective optimism

A

Over confidence in solution - Hart 1990

99
Q

How to avoid Group Think according to Janis and Mann 1977

A

Awareness causes and consequences Group Think

Leader neutral assigning decision making task encourage open inquiry

Leader high priority airing objections and doubts - accepting criticism

Groups consider unpopular alternatives

Potential solutions discussed expert non-group members

100
Q

Define group polarisation

A

Group discussion encourage people more extreme in decisions

Make decisions riskier only groups value risk taking

Real like implications - less tolerance opposing views

101
Q

What are the reasons group polarisation occurs

A 
Persuasive arguments theory 
Social comparison theory 
Bandwagon effect 
Pluralistic ignorance 
Social identity theory 
Processing effort
102
Q

Outline Persuasive Arguments Theory as a reason for why group polarisation occurs

A

Greater exposure more novel arguments supporting ones opinions

103
Q

Outline Social Comparison Theory as a reason for why group polarisation occurs

A

Gain social approval avoid sanctions

104
Q

Outline Bandwagon Effect as a reason for why group polarisation occurs

A

Take more extreme view differentiate ourselves from others

105
Q

Outline Pluralistic Ignorance as a reason for why group polarisation occurs

A

Group discussion liberate people be true to their beliefs

106
Q

Outline Social Identity Theory as a reason for why group polarisation occurs

A

Group memberships leads conformity to group norms which minimises variability within group

Turner and Oakes 1989

107
Q

Outline Processing Effort as a reason for why group polarisation occurs

A

Impact others opinions higher under conditions low ability and motivation

Sieber and Ziegler 2019

Social (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions