groups 1: intragroup processes Flashcards

Question

what did Bartis et al., 1988 find about social loafing

Answer 1

Average performance varied depending on whether participants performance was evaluated or not the effect of social loafing is task dependent need to separate loss of motivation from loss in coordination

Answer 2

coordination loss: diminished performance if a group fails to coordinate individual contributions optimally production blocking: only one member can speak at a time dispensability effect: reduction in group member's task-related effort because individual contribution seems to have little impact on group performance sucker effect: anticipation that other members will lower effort, reduce personal effort to avoid exploitation

Answer 3

consciously ask for critical comments leaders should not state their own preference at the beginning of a meeting evaluate between groups form subgroups seek independent expert opinion and follow it embrace the role of the devil's advocate

Answer 4

production blocking free riding evaluation apprehension performance matching

Answer 5

should be interdependent for some common pupuse have stability of membership clear challenging, consequetial overall purpose small team, clear norms reward system technical assistance and training

Answer 6

Uniform and authority props for guards Became so polarised that they treated the ‘prisoners’ in very dehumanising ways Being part of a group can have detrimental polarising effects

Answer 7

A set of experimental procedures designed to create groups based on essentially arbitrary criteria whose members show intergroup discrimination No interaction between participants within or between them and with no knowledge of who else belongs to each group Random assignment results to ingroup/outgroup bias, even among preschoolers (Dunham et al. 2014, Tajfel 1971)

Answer 8

social identity: how we feel about our important and shared group membership social identity theory: we derive self-esteem from positively valued group membership difficult to undo the social identity positive ingroup identifaction against negative outgroup attitude build social identity Explanation for outgroup hostility, ingroup favouritism and intergroup conflict

Answer 9

lower hurdle to join/ feel part of a group but commitment curve ``` entry criterion (prospective member) acceptance criterion (new/full members) divergence criteria (marginal members) exit criterion (ex-member) ```

Answer 10

Behaviours or evaluations that favour the ingroup over the outgroup Ingroup favouritism treats the ingroup more positively, outgroup derogation rates the outgroup less positively (e.g in giving fewer rewards) or negatively (e.g in giving punishments)

Answer 11

A tendency to see the outgroup as more homogenous than the ingroup

Answer 12

Smaller ingroups result in greater in-group favouritism (Mullen et al. 1992) Threat even if merely perceived results in greater in group favouritism (Brewer, 1999)

Answer 13

when social categories are correalted with a continuous dimension there is a judgemental tendency to overestimate the similiarities within and differences between the categories of this dimension

Answer 14

A state in which individuals are deprived of their sense of individual identity and are more likely to behave in an extreme manner, often anti-socially and violating norms

Answer 15

judege ingroup and outgroup on various traits in contexts where they were competing or cooperating with the other group measured the deviation of estimates for homo/heterogeneity found that outgroup homogeneity dpends on context of interaction while ingroup seen as homogeneous regardless of context competition increased perceived outgroup homogeneity and ingroup heterogeneity

Answer 16

children who were trick or treating in a group were either asked about where they lived or not to manipulate anonimity more chidren took extra candy when they were in a group and anonymous deindividualisaiton results in more stealing already at a young age

Answer 17

tendency to make decisions that are more extreme than the average of group member;s initial position in the direction already favoured by the group

Answer 18

``` Step 1: private response Pre consensus Step 2: discussion Unanimous, consensus Step 3: private response Post consensus Record change in judgements Acute phenomenon Social media is viewed as facilitating group polarisation including like buttons and algorithms ```

Answer 19

Groups who were high or low in prejudice Individual attitudes of high school kids before the discussion Engage in conversations with other high prejudice individuals and other low prejudice individuals The effect is facilitative showing a further divergence of prejudice The more persuasive arguments are the more extreme group attitudes become

Answer 20

The more persuasive the presented arguments are, the more extreme the group members attitudes becomes informational influence

Answer 21

we compare to others to evaluate our own opinions as we want to be liked by others and appear better than others we express stronger opinions after discovering that others share out views polarisaiton from exposure to others without hearing arguments normative influence

Answer 22

the process of categorising oneself as a group member forms a social identity and brings about forms of group and intergroup behaviours referent influence

Answer 23

Only arguments from ingroups influence attitudes Social comparison only takes place in regard to ingroup opinions For example conservatives should be persuaded only by other conservatives

Answer 24

moral foundation theory - our views about morality can be grouped into harm, relevant context, fairness, group concerns, authority and purity Individuals were asked to rate themselves in terms of being conservative or liberal They were then asked to rate how different statements reflected different foundations of morality Different types of moral concerns become relevant which is amplified depending on how liberal or conservative you are Is this a cohort effect? good replicability

Answer 25

ingroup members seen as similar on attributes relevant to judgement but different in other ways, outgroup members seen as all alike ingroup listeners can keep track of indivudals and their arguments, but can't remeber what outgroup members said what ingroup members arguments seem distinct and independent, outgroup member's arguments seem the same and listeners suspect contamination ingroup members arguments are persuasive while outgroup members arguments are not persuasive ingroup has an influence, outgroup has little influence

groups 1: intragroup processes Flashcards

(49 cards)