Week 2

Question 1

Expectation states theory

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Diffuse vs specific characteristics

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

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

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

how does group power centralization affect the relationship between
a. specific status characteristics and perceive expertise
b. diffuse status characteristics and perceive expertise

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Normative social influence

Answer 5

We accept others’ influence because
we want to follow the group and to get positive evaluations

Question 6

Informational social influence

Answer 6

We accept others’ influence because
we accept their input as evidence
about reality

Question 7

Does normative social influence lead to private acceptance?

Answer 7

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

Question 8

group polarization

Answer 8

Original attitudes of group members can become more
extreme after group discussion.

Question 9

why does group polarization occur

Answer 9

1. 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.
2. 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

Question 10

minority influence

Answer 10

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)

Question 11

Audience Paradigm

Answer 11

People perform while others (may) observe

Question 12

Co-Action Paradigm

Answer 12

People work on a task in the presence of others also
working on the same task

Question 13

Social Facilitation

Answer 13

Others being present helps you to perform better

Question 14

Social inhibition

Answer 14

Others being present leads you to perform worse

Question 15

Explain Zajonc’s drive theory

Answer 15

Mere presence = arousal = enhances dominant response = social faciliation on easy tasks = social inhibition on complex tasks

Question 16

Baron’s distraction conflict theory

Answer 16

Distraction –) attentional conflict –) drive/arousal –) enhancement of dominant response

Conclusion: Social facilitation and inhibition ONLY occur when there is a distraction and
attentional conflict!

Question 17

Main difference between Zajonc’s and Baron’s theories

Answer 17

In Baron’s: The presence of others ONLY has effects when it is distracting and leads to attentional conflict!

Question 18

What does Sanna (1992) add to Baron’s (1986) distraction theory

Answer 18

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!)

Question 19

SOCIAL COMPARISON AND INTERPERSONAL
HARMING
a. in teams with less coop. goals
b. teams with more cooperative goals

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

RINGELMANN EFFECT

Answer 20

The inverse relationship group size and individual
performance

Question 21

2 categories of process losses

Answer 21

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

Question 22

3 motivation losses

Answer 22

1. 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.
2. Free riding: person think their contribution is dipensable so reduced effort ( a physically less strong person in a team of bodybuilders for rope
   pulling)
3. sucker effect: reduced individual effort by others in the team who
   don’t want to be exploited by free-riding team members

Question 23

2 categories of process gains

Answer 23

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)

Question 24

2 motivation gains

Answer 24

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)

Question 25

according to EXPECTANCY
VALUE THEORY (VROOM, 1964), motivation is a function of which 3 variables

Answer 25

1. Expectancy (beliefs that
   putting effort will result in
   good performance)
2. Instrumentality (How strong is the link
   between performance and
   certain outcomes-like praise, bonus)
3. Value (How much do I actually
   care about those
   outcomes-like praise, bonus)

Question 26

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…

Answer 26

Free riding

Question 27

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…

Answer 27

Sucker effect

Question 28

Deborah is a psychology 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…

Answer 28

Social compensation