Group Processes Flashcards
(34 cards)
define what a ‘group’ is
- two or more individuals in face-to-face interaction
- each member = aware of membership to the group
- each member = aware of other who belongs to group
identify types of groups
- interpersonal relationships (e.g.: families, small groups of close friends)
- groups formed to fulfil tasks (e.g.: committees, work groups, goal lead)
- groups based on large social categories (e.g.: women, Americans)
- groups based on weak social relationships (e.g.: idea you are connected to people with similar interests to you, living in same community, liking Taylor Swift)
- transitionary groups (e.g.: people waiting in line of bus stop, queuing in line at the bank)
Outline the study and findings of Tajfel, Billig, Bundy & Flament (1971, replicated by Allen & Wilder, 1975) into minimal groups
STUDY
- looked at minimal group paradigm
- had ppts split into 2 random, arbitrary groups (A and B)
- groups were totally random, group of strangers with no pre-existing friendships
FINDINGS
- found ppts allocated more money to their own assigned group than other group
- cannot be explained by self-interest as ppts allocating money did not get a share
- not based on existing friendships as group = strangers
what can you conclude from Tajfel, Billig, Bundy & Flament (1971, replicated by Allen & Wilder, 1975) study into minimal groups?
- demonstrates how easily bias (and groups) can form
- shows how groups in such minimal situations can breed prejudice
define social facilitation (Allport, 1920)
a phenomenon where people show increased levels of efforts and performance when in presence of others
this presence can be implied, virtual or real
outline Triplett (1898) study into social facilitation
noticed cyclists performed faster when they were:
- timed alone
- timed and racing alongside other cyclists
suggested that presence of audience, especially in competition, ‘energised’ performance on motor tasks
- tested hypothesis using a ‘fishing line’ apparatus
- found children performed better when racing against each other compared to alone
shows how presence of other impacts how we behave
what is the ‘mere presence effect’ (Allport, 1920)
defined as an entirely passive and unresponsive audience that is only physically present
argues that performance is improved due to mere presence of others
define ‘social inhibition’
the idea that the presence of others can impair performance
occurs in both humans and animals
give examples of social inhibition
Schmitt et al. (1986) - complex task done slower in presence of others
Middlemist et al. (1976) - men take longer to urinate when someone is standing immediately next to them
outline Zajonc’s (1965) drive theory
- argued mere presence of others creates increase in arousal and energises ‘dominant response’
- dominant response = behaviour that is typically done in that situation
- when people are anxious they tend to perform better on easier tasks and worse on harder tasks
- if dominant response is correct (easy) –> performance is facilitated
- if dominant response is incorrect (hard) –> performance is inhibited
outline the evaluation apprehension theory (Cottrell, 1972)
- social reward/punishment, approval/disapproval based on others’ evaluation
- perception of ‘evaluating’ audience creates the arousal rather than mere presence
- meaning social facilitation is an brought on effect based on perceived evaluations of others
outline the study supporting the evaluation apprehension theory (Cottrell, 1968)
- has ppts personal a well-learnt, easy task
performed this to an audience of 3 conditions
1/ blindfolded
2/ merely present (passive and uninterested)
3/ attentive audience
found social facilitation (enhanced performance) was perceived when audience were perceived to be attentive
outline evidence that fails to support the evaluation apprehension theory (Markus, 1978)
- measured time taken for ppts to get dressed
- dress in either familiar clothes (easy task, own clothes) or unfamiliar clothes (difficult task, unfamiliar shoes and lab coat)
- timed in 3 different conditions
1/ alone
2/ in presence of inattentive audience
3/ in presence of attentive audience
FINDINGS:
- attentive audience sped up performance in easy task (evidence for social facilitation and drive theory)
- inattentive and attentive not much difference in difficult task
(evidence for mere presence of other making us perform worse)
outline Schmitt et al., (1986) study
- asked ppts to type their name or a code backwards on a computer
FINDINGS
- found mere presence of others made people perform easier task quicker and harder task slower
- however adding evaluation apprehension condition made little difference to typing speed
suggesting evaluation apprehension = sometimes unnecessary for social facilitation
outline the distraction-conflict theory
- idea that people become distracted and therefore perform worse
outline Sander et al. (1978) study into distraction-conflict theory
had ppts complete easy or difficult digital task:
- alone
- someone doing the same task
- someone doing different task
- people performed worse on digital task when someone was doing the same digital task
Explain the Ringelmann Effect
the idea that groups become less productive in terms of output per member as they increase in size
(as group gets bigger, productivity decreases)
Explain social loafing
this is the idea that individual puts in less effort when being judged as part of a group
what did Ringlemann (1913, 1927) find in support of social loafing?
- found men pulling on a rope attached to dynamometer exerted less force than the number of people in group
identify 2 reasons for the social loafing effect in Ringlemanns findings
1/ coordination loss
as group size inhibits movement, distraction, and jostling
2/ motivation loss
ppts did not try as hard due to being less motivated
outline Ingham et al. (1974) study into social loafing
- looked at ‘real groups’ and ‘pseudo-groups’ pulling on a rope
- in ‘real group’ varying group sizes of real ppts pulled rope
- in pseudo-group, rope was pulled by researcher’s assistants (pretending to pull rope) and ppt (blindfolded)
- found that as group size increased, individual effort decreased (arguably explained by coordination loss)
- found that when there is 3 people in group, individual still pulled less (arguably explained by motivation loss)
outline Latané et al. (1979) study into social loafing
- supported social loafing through clapping, shouting and cheering tasks
- recorded amount of cheering/clapping noise made per person reduced by:
- 29% in 2 person group
- 49% in 4 personal group
- 60% in 6 person group
shows individuals putting in less effort as group size increases
why do people socially loaf according to Green (1991)
1/ output equality
people learn that others are not pulling their weight, they lose motivation and therefore put less effort in
2/ evaluation apprehension
individuals only believe efforts are being judged when performing alone
when in groups, people are not accountable for their efforts
identify two way of reducing social loafing
1/ identifiability
2/ individual responsibility
