Week 2 Flashcards
Expectation states theory
Expectation States Theory assumes that several inequalities within a group, such as inequalities in participation and influence, are all derived from performance expectations
Basically, we think some people in our team will do a better job in tasks than others, so we attach more status to them
and thus more influence.
Diffuse vs specific characteristics
Diffuse: are not related to tasks but can be used to make judgments, e.g., gender, age
Specific: are related to the tasks, think about intelligence when the task involves problem solving.
how does tenure (how long team members have been working together) affect the relationship between
a. specific status characteristics and perceive expertise
b. diffuse status characteristics and perceive expertise
a. Specific status characteristics will predict perceived expertise more strongly in groups with longer tenure.
b. Diffuse status characteristics will predict perceived expertise more strongly ingroups with shorter tenure.
how does group power centralization affect the relationship between
a. specific status characteristics and perceive expertise
b. diffuse status characteristics and perceive expertise
Specific status characteristics will predict perceived expertise more strongly in groups with decentralized power.
Diffuse status characteristics will predict perceived expertise more strongly in groups with centralized power.
Normative social influence
We accept others’ influence because
we want to follow the group and to get positive evaluations
Informational social influence
We accept others’ influence because
we accept their input as evidence
about reality
Does normative social influence lead to private acceptance?
no, people change their behavior but
they don’t necessarily believe the
majority is actually right.
informational social influence is more likely to lead to private acceptance
group polarization
Original attitudes of group members can become more
extreme after group discussion.
why does group polarization occur
- social comparison: When one sees that others sort of agree with them, they can become more open about their true selves, and/or want to be a bit different to
favorably distinguish themselves
from the rest but not too much. - Persuasive arguments theory: When one is in a group with
similar others, they will hear new
and convincing arguments in favor
of their initial position. They become more and more convinced
minority influence
Smaller groups cause change in larger groups.
-need to be consistent
- is more likely to create private acceptance (while majority influence is more likely to create public compliance)
- may create indirect influence (make opinions related to the subjects change)
Audience Paradigm
People perform while others (may) observe
Co-Action Paradigm
People work on a task in the presence of others also
working on the same task
Social Facilitation
Others being present helps you to perform better
Social inhibition
Others being present leads you to perform worse
Explain Zajonc’s drive theory
Mere presence = arousal = enhances dominant response = social faciliation on easy tasks = social inhibition on complex tasks
Baron’s distraction conflict theory
Distraction –) attentional conflict –) drive/arousal –) enhancement of dominant response
Conclusion: Social facilitation and inhibition ONLY occur when there is a distraction and
attentional conflict!
Main difference between Zajonc’s and Baron’s theories
In Baron’s: The presence of others ONLY has effects when it is distracting and leads to attentional conflict!
What does Sanna (1992) add to Baron’s (1986) distraction theory
the insight that self-efficacy moderates the relationship between enhancement of dominant responses and social facilitation/inhibition.
Self-efficacy improves the likelihood of the dominant response leading to social facilitation! (People perform best in front of audience when they believe they can do the task and do worst when
they don’t believe they can do it!)
SOCIAL COMPARISON AND INTERPERSONAL
HARMING
a. in teams with less coop. goals
b. teams with more cooperative goals
a. upward comparison increases
harming behavior when Lu thinks he can’t
become like Ren.
b. social comparison doesn’t impact harming behavior whether Lu thinks he can or can’t become like Ren.
RINGELMANN EFFECT
The inverse relationship group size and individual
performance
2 categories of process losses
Coordination loss: Members do not combine their contributions in
the best way to produce the group output
Motivation loss: Members contributing less when working in a
group context
3 motivation losses
- social loafing: they don’t know how much i put in the group. My work won’t be related to me = not necessary for me to participate.
- Free riding: person think their contribution is dipensable so reduced effort ( a physically less strong person in a team of bodybuilders for rope
pulling) - sucker effect: reduced individual effort by others in the team who
don’t want to be exploited by free-riding team members
2 categories of 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)
2 motivation gains
Social compensation: increased individual effort when one is working in a team rather than alone
Köhler effect: increased individual effort because people fear their
team would otherwise fail because of them (low ability people
working harder)
