Group Dynamics

Question 1

How do we go about ensuring groups are as effective as possible?

Answer 1

Social facilitation
Social loafing
Interpersonal synchrony

Question 2

What differentiates groups?

Answer 2

Entitativity

Question 3

What is Entitativity?

Answer 3

The property of a group that makes it appear to be distinct, coherent and bounded entity

The degree to which collection of persons are perceived as being bonded together in a coherent unit .

Question 4

3 criteria of Entitativity

Answer 4

1. Common fate: extent to which individuals experience inter-related outcomes
2. Similarity: extent to which individuals resemble (behaviour/appearance)
3. Proximity: the ‘distance’ between individuals

Question 5

Who studied Entitativity?

Answer 5

Lickel et al (2000)

Question 6

Who proposed Entitativity?

Answer 6

Campbell (1958) - he proposed that groups could be considered meaningful entities if their members were similar and in close proximity and if they shared common goals and common outcomes. At an intuitive level, it seems obvious that individuals who are similar in some respect (e.g., skin colour or nationality), in close proximity (e.g., neighbours), and who share a common fate (e.g., members of a basketball team) would be more likely to be perceived as a meaningful group.

Question 7

Lickel et al (2000)

Answer 7

Study 1: participants rated entitativity of various groups

Study 2: Participants sorted groups in terms of ‘similarity’
4 categories emerged that varied in entitativity

Study 3: Participants rated their own group memberships more importantly for high entitativity groups
- strongest “perceived entitative” were sports teams, rock bands, friends who do things together

Question 8

4 categories from high to low entitativity

Answer 8

Intimacy groups - family & friends
Task groups -interest groups
Social categories - gender, ethnicity, nationality
Loose connections

Question 9

Outcome of Lickel et al (2000)

Answer 9

Participants most strongly valued membership in groups that were perceived as high in entitativity

Question 10

Study 1 of Lickel et al (2000)

Answer 10

Entitativity is an important dimension on how groups can be compared and perceptions of entitativity can strongly influence how people think of social groups

Question 11

How can entitativity influence one’s perception of groups?

Answer 11

Two important ways:
1. It influences processes engaged when one is developing a cognitive representation/impression of the group

2. It influences the degree to which the group, as a unit, is perceived as having potency as a causal agent - the effect group has on the world

Entitativity is an important variable underlying the perception of groups

Question 12

What did Lickel et al (2000) want to study?

Answer 12

They wanted to examine the degree to which groups vary in perceived entitativity and describe the properties that underlie perceptions of entitativity

Question 13

Studies 1 and 2 (Lickel et al, 2000)

Answer 13

Provided consistent and important evidence of

1. Variation among groups in the degree to which they are perceived as coherent entities
2. identify properties that are strongly associated with entitativity

Question 14

Study 3 (Lickel et al, 2000)

Answer 14

For perceptions of in vs. out-groups - does perceived entitativity of groups differ if you belong in them or not?

Conclusion of Lickel - consistent correlation between perception of interaction and . entitativity

Question 15

Social facilitation

Answer 15

Social facilitation can be defined as ‘an improvement in performance produced by the mere presence of others’. There are two types of social facilitation: co-action effects and audience effect.

Question 16

Triplett (1898) and dynamogenic theory

Answer 16

In his research on the speed records of cyclists, he noticed that racing against each other rather than against the clock alone increased the cyclists’ speeds. He attempted to duplicate this under laboratory conditions using children and fishing reels.

There were two conditions: the child alone and children in pairs but working alone. Their task was to wind in a given amount of fishing line and Triplett reports that many children worked faster in the presence of a partner doing the same task.

Triplett’s experiments demonstrate the co-action effect, a phenomenon whereby increased task performance comes about by the mere presence of others doing the same task.

Question 17

Co-action effect in social facilitation

Answer 17

Increased task performance comes about when other people are present doing the task
e.g. cycled faster racing against each other, wound fishing reels faster when in presence of partner

Question 18

What did Allport find? (1920)

Answer 18

Social facilitation occurs not only in the presence of a co-actor but also in the presence of a passive spectator/audience. This is known as the audience effect, surprisingly.

Social facilitation is mere presence effect
e.g. cockroaches run faster, chickens and fish eat more

Question 19

What did Cottrell find? (1972)

Answer 19

Evaluation apprehension - mere presence of others leads to evaluation concern

According to Cottrell (1968), it’s not the presence of other people that is important for social facilitation to occur but the apprehension about being evaluated by them. We know that approval and disapproval are often dependent on others’ evaluations and so the presence of others triggers an acquired arousal drive based on evaluation anxiety.

Question 20

Sanders (1981) view on social facilitation

Answer 20

Mere presence of others is distracting.

Co-worker performing different task = less social comparison = reduced effect

Question 21

Zanjonc’s “Drive” theory of social facilitation (1965)

Answer 21

Presence of others increases arousal and increases ‘dominant’ response - consequences of the arousal can split - performance increases (facilitates) for things we are good at. Performance decrease/is inhibited for incorrect responses/things we’re not so good at

Question 22

What is social loafing?

Answer 22

The concept that people are prone to exert less effort on a task if they are in a group vs when they work alone

Individual productivity decreases with group size

“many hands make light work”

The idea of working in groups is typically seen as a way to improve the accomplishment of a task by pooling the skills of individuals together in a group

Question 23

Ringelmann effect (1913)

Answer 23

Engineer interested in efficiency of farm labour.
Had workers pull on rope attached to a dynamometer alone and in groups of 2, 4 & 8

Individual productivity decreased with group size

Question 24

What is process loss?

Answer 24

Process loss = something changes in an individual’s behaviour as group size increases

Question 25

Steiner (1972) created a model of group productivity

Answer 25

Actual performance = potential performance - process loss = obtained output

Question 26

Potential performance definition

Answer 26

Sum of individual members' abilities

Question 27

Process loss is made up of

Answer 27

Co-ordination loss + motivation loss

Question 28

What is co-ordination loss?

Answer 28

Suboptimal between-member execution (not doing the exact thing at the same time e.g. pulling rope thus the mechanical stress coming at different times)

Question 29

What is motivation loss?

Answer 29

Exerting less effort

Question 30

Ingham et al (1974) how did they replicated Ringelmann?

Answer 30

Study 1: Rope pull | Study 2: pseudo-groups (confeds as team mates) thereby eliminating potential for co-ordination loss

Question 31

Who replicated Ringelmann?

Answer 31

Ingham et al (1974) - Rope pull and pseudo-groups Latane et al (1979) - cheer and clap Karau & Williams (1993) - factors that impact social loafing

Question 32

Ingham et al (1974)

Answer 32

They used a rope pulling machine, same as Ringelmann, to gage how hard the rope is being pulled. In study 2, the confederates in the pseudo group pretended to pull on the rope. There was no potential for coordination loss as only one person was pulling on the rope, thinking they were part of a group. There would be a 0% reduction in individual pull if everyone performed as well as they could in all conditions. Real groups (affected by both motivation loss and coordination loss) saw a productivity loss. Pseudo group condition (affected by just motivation loss) saw individuals exerted more individual force than in the real groups yet there was still a big gap between actual performance and potential performance, as the individual still thinks they were in a group, so motivation loss occurs.

Question 33

Latane et al (1979) summary

Answer 33

Study 1 - asked participants to cheer or clap in groups (1-6) & measured sound intensity Replicated Ringelmann effect Study 2 – isolated participants in booths, led to believe they were shouting in groups Replicated motivation loss effect More people in a group = less loudly they cheered or clapped

Question 34

Reasons why phrase 'many hands make light the work'

Answer 34

1. With social organisation, people can fulfil their individual goals more easily through collective action 2. Also seems that when many hands are available, people actually work less hard than they ought to

Question 35

Latane et al (1979) findings

Answer 35

When asked to perform the physically exerting tasks of clapping and shouting, people exhibit a sizeable decrease in individual effort when performing in groups as compared to when performing alone

Question 36

Type of task classification used in studies of social loafing

Answer 36

Maximising - success depends on how much or how rapidly something is accomplished (based on how much effort. Opposite is optimising task that relies on accuracy) Unitary - cannot be divided into subtasks, no division of labour possible Additive - group success depends on sum of individual efforts

Question 37

Ringelmann effect disagrees with social psychological theory

Answer 37

Sense of team participation leads to increased effort, group morale and cohesiveness spur individual enthusiasm Presence of co-workers/other people should facilitate performance - especially for simple, well-learned tasks If it represents a general phenomenon and is not restricted to pulling on a rope - it poses question of when and why collective efforts are less efficient than individual ones

Question 38

Experiment 1 - Latane et al (1979)

Answer 38

Asked participants to make noise by cheering and clapping - more people clapping/cheering together, the more intense noise was and more the sound pressure produced It did NOT grow in proportion to number of people: 2-person performed at 71% of sum of individual capacity 4-person groups 51% 6-person groups 40% Supports Ringelmann finding Bigger effect as group increases

Question 39

How does Latane disagree with Zajonc (1965) theory of social facilitation?

Answer 39

Social faciliation theory doesn't seem to predict any effect due to group size - as number of people present stayed constant -always 6 ppts and 2 experimenters

Question 40

How can evaluation effect (Cottrell, 1972) not predict Latane's effects?

Answer 40

Wouldn't predict any effect as long as it was assumed that co-actors and audience members are equally effective in arousing performance anxiety

Question 41

Steiner (1972) identified one source of process loss as inadequate social co-ordination - explain

Answer 41

As group size increases, the number of "co-ordination links", and thus the possibility of faulty coordination - pulling at different directions at different times Ingham study 2 removed coordination loss as a reason for actual performance to reduce (no loss due to faulty synchronisation)

Question 42

Experiment 2 of Latane et al (1979)

Answer 42

To work out whether it is coordination loss or reduced effect To do this, ppts wore headphones with constant 90dB recording of 6 people shouting - reduce auditory feedback and blindfolded Made size of audience constant, even while varying number of people working together

Question 43

Results of ex 2 (Latane et al, 1979)

Answer 43

Shouted with more intensity due to 90 dB background noise (Lombard reflex) and also eliminating possibility of hearing each other so no longer influenced by output of others (no social conform pressure) groups of 2: 66% capacity groups of 6: 36% capacity Therefore even though people can't hear or see each other - still feel they are part of a group so same amount of social loafing pseudogroups - no co-ordination loss just social loafing (motivation loss) Half performance loss is due to incoordination and half is social loafing

Question 44

Discussion for ex 1 vs ex 2 (Latane et al, 1979)

Answer 44

Despite differences in task characteristics and supposed purpose, the 2 experiments produced similar results --> ROBUST NATURE OF LOAFING PHENOMENON

Question 45

Problems with Latane et al (1979)

Answer 45

1. Clapped/cheered when experimenters told them so - not similar to real life when cheer/clap in a spontaneous outburst of exuberant expressiveness 2. effortful and fatiguing

Question 46

Causes of social loafing

Answer 46

1. Attribution and equity - led people to believe that the other persons in their group were not working (making as much noise) as them - -> believe that the other people are less motivated or less skillful than themselves - lack of trust - they attempt to maintain equitable division of labour - if they think people aren't pulling their weight, they also reduce sound 2. Submaximal goal setting - clearly expect it to be easier to achieve a pre-formed goal when others are helping and work less hard as a consequence 3. Lessened contingency between input and outcome - "hide in the crowd" or "lost in the crowd" - not able to obtain fair share of positive consequences for working hard - less enthusiastic to make noise - individual scores are unidentifiable - only when performing alone can individual outputs be exactly evaluated and rewarded also for this, smart move could be save their voice strength in groups and shout as much as possible when scores were individual and identifiable

Question 47

Latane's (1973) theory of social impact

Answer 47

if person is the target of social forces, increasing the number of other persons also in the . target group should diminish pressures on each individual because impact is divided up among group members Pressures come from outside the group, individual outputs not identifiable --> division of impact should lead each individual to work less hard Seems that social impact theory provides a good account of both existence and magnitude of social loafing .

Question 48

Social loafing consequences

Answer 48

Negative consequences for individuals, social institutions and societies - it is a reduction in human efficiency

Question 49

How do we stop social loafing?

Answer 49

Find ways of channelling social forces so that the group can serve as a means of intensifying individual responsibility rather than diffusing it

Question 50

Karu & Williams (1993) did a meta-analysis of 78 studies and identified factors that impact social loafing

Answer 50

1. Group size (e.g. Latane, 1981) - diffusion of responsibility, group size effect plateaus around 8 2. Identifiability (e.g. William et al, 1993) - change in potential for evaluation - e.g. no one knows how hard you are pulling the rope, tend to not try as hard. If identifiable like in 4x1 relay - you have to pull your weight 3. Expectations of co-workers (e.g. Kerr, 1983) - dispensability of efforts - tend to be less motivated if co-workers are known to be really good (works opposite way too as mentioned above - equity of work - if you think your co-workers are not pulling their weight, you don't either 4. Task importance (e.g. Williams & Karau, 1991) - increased motivation, outcomes that you value, more motivation

Question 51

Task taxonomy (Steiner, 1972)

Answer 51

When people will and won't loaf - different task structures present different opportunities for process loss: 1. Component 2. Focus 3. Interdependence

Question 52

Task taxonomy - Component

Answer 52

Divisible (building a house - divided into subtasks) vs. Unitary (clapping)

Question 53

Task taxonomy - Focus

Answer 53

Quantity or quality Maximising - rope pulling - greater quantity = better vs. Optimising - accuracy

Question 54

Task taxonomy - Interdependence

Answer 54

Additive (all together - planting trees) vs. Conjunctive (conjunctive (least productive member will dictate your progress – mountain climbing) vs. Disjunctive (most productive member – maths problems).

Question 55

Process gain

Answer 55

When groups exceed sum of individual capacities

Question 56

Steiner (1972) also discusses group performance & synchrony

Answer 56

Group performance falls below optimal because of faulty 'process' - Motivation loss (loafing, free-riding) - Co-ordination loss - Can co-ordination dynamics give better insight?

Question 57

Dynamical Systems Theory

Answer 57

A collection of tools and concepts for study behavioural change (in complex systems)

Question 58

Co-ordination dynamics: things will spontaneously fall into synchrony to the extent they a re:

Answer 58

Matched in frequency | Coupled

Question 59

Examples of co-ordination dynamics

Answer 59

Clocks on the wall, pacemakers, fireflies, fingers (either move in-phase or anti-phase) Walking next to someone, fall into synchronised step - footsteps, arm swings

Question 60

Lickel et al (2000)

Answer 60

Ppts consistently sorted the various groups into four specific categories; intimacy, task groups, social categories, loose associations

Question 61

How might personal experience in their social world influence how a person perceives groups? (Entitativity)

Answer 61

Later research/study 3 of Lickel et al (2000) Perceivers spontaneously categorise people into these group type and are more likely to confuse members of a task group with another task group - within-group error

Question 62

How might personal experience in their social world influence how a person perceives groups? (Entitativity)

Answer 62

Later research/study 3 of Lickel et al (2000) Perceivers spontaneously categorise people into these group type and are more likely to confuse members of a task group with another task group - within-group error Other research has shown entitativity being manipulated in individual or group targets and found that ppts engage in more integrative processing for . entitative individual and group targets . and less integrative processing for groups and individuals described as low in entitativity

Question 63

Consequences of engaging in more integrative processing of highly entitative groups

Answer 63

Perceivers will spend more time thinking about the information presented by groups More likely to be persuaded by highly entitative groups - increase in elaboration of strong messages Perceivers are more likely to see individual group members as similar/interchangeable - assumed attributes

Question 64

Conclusion of entitativity

Answer 64

Regardless of group type and diversity, perceptions of entitavity allow people to categorise aggregates of individuals into meaningful units. They are able to process information more effectively and to better manoeuvre through the complex social world in which they live

Question 65

Interpersonal synchrony definition

Answer 65

It represents the harmonious rhythmic co-ordination of actions between individuals the temporal co-ordination of actions between individuals It is a fundamental component of a wide range of social behaviours from conversational speech, walking with a friend, dancing

Question 66

Findings suggesting someone's endogenous rhythm could predict compatibility with many types of partners and teammates

Answer 66

Zamm et al (2016) found direct causal link between endogenous rhythms and interpersonal synchrony, looking at MUSICIANS. Partners performing melodies (piano duets) together - if they were matched by rate, they showed greater interpersonal synchrony. Endogenous rhythms offer potential to predict optimal group membership in joint behaviours that require temporal co-ordination

Question 67

Causal link between endogenous rhythms and interpersonal synchrony

Answer 67

Success on group tasks is linked to how well pair members match up e.g. rowers in a boat - if both people are matched in the force with which they row - it doesn't matter strength, more the match in force This research creates an interesting new framework for analysing compatibility in sports, music, dance and many other potential arenas

Question 68

Interpersonal synchrony (Hove & Risen, 2009) shows that interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation - study 1 overview

Answer 68

Study 1: participants & experimenter tapped a drum machine in time with a visual metronome – every time they say metronome, they tapped the drum Relationship between synchrony of tapping between ppt and experimenter and ppt’s likening of the experimenter (r = .39, p = .012) Directionality? (tapping  liking or liking  tapping) Relationship but NO CAUSALITY – does the participant like the experimenter before task making them tap in a synchronised manner or does the synchronised tapping make the participant like the experimenter more?

Question 69

Study 2 of Hove & Risen (2009) -designed to test causal direction of relationship between interpersonal synchrony and likening Included manipulation the experience of synchrony and included baseline measure of likeability

Answer 69

Study 2: experimenter intentionally tapped either synchronously, asynchronously, or not at all Replicated study 1 (r = .40, p = .007) Between condition differences in liking (0-9): sync = 6.87; async = 5.91; control = 5.92 – shows that when experimenter is tapping asynchronously or not tapping at all, participants rates them lower.

Question 70

Synchronised behaviours

Answer 70

Those that are matched in time e.g. co-ordinated movements of an athletic team or an orchestra Requires anticipating behaviours to co-ordinate movement timing Associated with close, communal relationships/promotes closeness

Question 71

Dynamic systems approach

Answer 71

Often examine the unintentional tendency for two or more people to entrain their periodic movements

Question 72

Results of experiment 2 in Hove & Risen

Answer 72

The degree of interpersonal synchrony between the ppt and examiner predicted how much participants liked the examiner - sig diff from asynchrony and alone (examiner didn't tap at all) conditions Affiliation increases after experiencing interpersonal co-ordination

Question 73

Results of experiment 3 in Hove & Risen (2009)

Answer 73

Tested claim that synchrony promotes feelings of affiliation because of the interpersonal nature of the co-ordination It is possible that participants in ex 1 and 2 liked the experimenter more simply because they were experiencing synchrony Identical to ex 2 but instead of experimenter tapping, there was an auditory metronome - no differences between conditions for experimenter likeability ratings

Question 74

Hove & Risen (2009) Discussion

Answer 74

Why does interpersonal synchrony increase affiliation? Associated with communal relationships? infer closeness when they notice synchrony? touch, physical proximity, shared resources and synchronised movements Synchronous movements are an affiliative bonding activity - bandmates, music, dancing, couples (sex) Links to Ringelmann effect - potential performance can be limited by motivation loss but also co-ordination loss when people aren't in sync in their movements

Question 75

Allsop, Vaitkus, Marie & Miles (2016) - Co-ordination impacts group performance

Answer 75

Ensuring peak group performance is a primary goal during collective activities Group often suffer from productivity loss leading to sub-optimal performance - one source is inefficient coordination effort

Question 76

What do Allsop et al (2016) study?

Answer 76

Whether performance on a simple object movement is shaped the spontaneous emergence of interpersonally coordinated behaviour (IP synchrony)

Question 77

Experiment - Allsop et al (2016)

Answer 77

Pairs were instructed to compete or co-operate in order to empty of a container of approx 100 small plastic balls - Estimate between-person coordination

Question 78

Results (Allsop et al, 2016)

Answer 78

Cooperative pairs pairs coordinated to a greater extent than the competitive pairs - also co-ordination, as well as movement regularity were positively related to accuracy

Question 79

Group vs individual

Answer 79

If good teamwork - can exceed the capacity of individual members but also can underperform by failing to optimally realise their collective potential - MAIN ISSUE IS CO-ORDINATION

Question 80

Specific aspects characterising group productivity

Answer 80

Social loafing Social facilitation Kohler effect

Question 81

Kohler effect

Answer 81

Köhler effect, phenomenon that occurs when a person works harder as a member of a group than when working alone. There are many tasks in which a bad performance by a single member can ensure a bad group performance; social psychologists refer to them as conjunctive group tasks. For example, a mountain-climbing team that is tethered together cannot climb any faster than the slowest climber in the group. In the Köhler effect, less-capable members, the “weak links,” tend to exert extra effort, especially at such conjunctive tasks. For example, a slow climber should climb harder and faster when tethered to faster climbers than when climbing alone.

Question 82

Efficiency of links (dependencies) of team members

Answer 82

Extent to which each member's actions are functionally co-ordinated Determines effectiveness of group

Question 83

Group productivity cannot be an a aggregation of each member's individual level attributes (similar to Lickel)

Answer 83

Team performance emerges from the quality of functionally specific interactions between team members - the degree to which task relevant dependencies are co-ordinated.

Question 84

What does co-ordination involve?

Answer 84

Integration of distinct actions in a manner that is temporally aligned with other contributions

Question 85

Allsop et al (2016) results in detail

Answer 85

Examined linear relationship between level of co-ordination, movement variability and productivity levels (hits and misses) Both variables (co-ordination and movement variability) were independent significant predictors of accuracy

Question 86

Allsop et al (2016)

Answer 86

Demonstrated simple object movement task with presence of co-actor led to facilitated productivity (more hits) Supports Triplett and Zajonc (social facilitation)