PSY1001 SEMESTER 2 - WEEK 6 Flashcards
define group categorisation
2 or more individuals who perceive themselves to be members of same social category
define group communication
2 or more people who think of themselves as a group, are interdependent and communicate with one another
define group influence
2 or more persons who are interacting with one another in such manner that person influences and is influenced by each other person
define shared identity
2 or more people possessing a common social identification
define shared tasks and goals
3 or more people who work together interdependently on an agreed upon activity or goal
define interdependence
a dynamic whole based on interdependence rather than similarity
what is not a group
those working on same problem but seperate, sharing superficial similarity, need meaningful social connection between group members
what are Forsyths main characterstics of groups
interaction (task/relationship), goals, interdependence, structure, cohesiveness
group characteristics - what is interaction (include task, relationship)
create, organising, sustain relaitonship and task interaction among member
task = focused on group work (advancement by goal achievements and facilitation, hindrance by social loafing)
relationship = socioemotional interactions (sustained by social support, compliment, undermined by criticism)
explain how structure is key in group
connected in orgaised, predictable pattern with distinct roles, and norms
why do we form groups
providing protection
comfort, self validation
reduce anxiety
confirm validity of individual perceptions
reduce uncertainty for self, place in world
how can groups influence their members, and society
attitude, value, perceptions, performances and behaviour
groups determine society culture, norm
explain group dark sides
showing preference for in-group members, discriminates out-group
antisocial/violent behaviour
misguided and disastrous decision
explain black sheep effect
more willingly derogate deviant member of in than of out group
due to subjective group dynamics, try psychogically sustaining validity of in-group norm
if deviant express extreme position exaggerating group norms then seen more neg/pos, to ensure maintenence of differences of in/out group
explain cognitive baskets
stored info on individual, collective selfs in separate basket so can test if indivudal and collective self has primary in individuals motovation
define social loafing
a reduction in individual effort when working on collective tasks, compared to when working either alone or coactively
explain Ringlemans tug of war
total force exerted from group only 50% sum of predicted individual effort
explain collective effort model as explanation for social loafing
willing to exert efforts on collective task only to degree that expect outcome to be instrumental in achieving goal
name factors encouraging soail loafing
evaluation potential (identifiability)
low task meaningfulness, personal involvement
high expectation of coworkers
redundancy of individual input/responsibility
low group cohesiveness
larger group size
explain coordinational and motivational loss for social loafing
coordination loss = others distract and interfere result in less involvement
motivation loss = individual tries less hard, result in less involvement
name 3 variables influencing social loafing
identifiability, individual responsibility, commitment to task
give a research study on shouting on social loafing identifiability (Williams et al, 1981)
shouting alone, in group
manipulated identifiability (equipment measured total group effort, or individual effort)
found social loafing in non-identifiable individual contributions
explain research studying into individual responsibility into social loafing (Harkins & Petty, 1982)
work in group of 4, report when dot appears in sections of screen
manipulated individual responsibility (all focus on same section or different)
social loafing when little individual repsnsible
give research into intragroup process of group interactions, and commitment to task (Zaccaro, 1984)
stronger commitment meant bigger consequence when not contributing, lower commitment had less fear of consequences
do groups average out individual variability in decision making (Sherif, autokinetic)
ppts converged on group mean and gave sim estiamtes
even when ppts alone after
but other studies suggest that if given situation dilema, group makes riskier decisions (risky shift)
define social faciliation
presence of other increases arousal level, produces ‘drive’ increasing probability for dominant response, correct in easy task and incorrect if difficult
what is the view that social facilitation is due to others being distracting
concentration is difficult due to increased arousal, drive and presence of others taxes attention = so narrow attentional field onto task
increase self-awareness, motivates to be inline with ideal self, improving performance
explain social decision schemas
explicit/implicit decision making rules which groups adopt
1. unanimity (discussion pressures deviants to conform)
2. majority wind (discussion confirm majorities position, and adopted as group position)
3. truth wins (discussion reveals demonstrated correct positions)
4. 2/3 majority (only reaches decision when majorities)
5. first shift (group adopts decision consistent with direction of initial opinional shift)
explain group remembering theory
group better than individaul recall of simple info as can pool share info but complex task is more creative and reconstructional. not factual
group has transactive memory structure with different people specialising in different things
define group polarisation
general tendency for group decision to be more extreme than mean of its members position, in direction favoured by mean
give examples of group polarisation study
discussions among those favouring restrictive immigration policies end up in group decision strongly favoring them
enhances dominant group value
when will group convergence occur
uncertain situ, relying on others opinion and judgements
explain how informational influence can account for group polarisation
persuasive arugement theory
group discussion bring to light previous unknown info, supporting individuals position
position becomes more entrenched, extreme
explain how normative influence explains group polarisation
desire for social approval, wishing to avoid social censure
discussion reveal social desirab posit, and want to adhere to them
explain how social identity process explain group polarisation
group create group norm to define membership in decision-making group, we conform to polarise in-group away from out-group
define groupthink
group decision making process that produces poor decisions, a mode of thinking in which desire to reach unanimous agreement overrides motivation to adopt proper rational decision making procedure
what conditions will foster groupthink
high group cohesiveness
insulation of group from external influences, info
lack of impartial leadership
absence of systematic decision making procedures
high stress from external threats
state symptoms of groupthink
illusion of invulnerability from dangers that can arise from risky action
illusion of unanimity - believe group consensus, no oppositions
suppression of personal doubts
self-appointed midguards - suppressing deviation by applications of direct social pressure
explain stages of groupthink
1.antecendent conditions (high group cohesiveness, lacking impartial leader)
2.symptoms of group think (invulnerable illusion, suppress personal doubts)
3.poor decision making (failing to exaine other actions, failure to consider risk)
how to prevent groupthink
- leader encourage critical evaluation of decision
- leader state issues in impartial ways
3, group break into subgroup, review different option - discuss group decision with non group
- consult qualified individual
- assign member to devils advocate
- alternative action course from opponent reviewed
- after initial consensus still voice concerns
as review into groupthink research, explain effectivenes of group cohesiveness, lack of impartial leadership, other conditions
group cohesiveness has waek support
lack of impartial leadership has consistent support = biased leader, more self censorship, midguarding and fewer solutions considered
evaluate groupthink idea
- case study support
- lack evidence from lab study
- didnt have single experimental paradigm adopted
- identify importance of leadership
