Lecture 3 - The individual in the group Flashcards
Why study groups?
Studying individuals is reductive. Individuals behaviour may be different in a group, need to take into account the whole picture.
Loren carpenter
pong game. people with paddles show red and green to move the platform.
Campbell 1958
how to classify a group
- common fate
- proximity
- similarity
How do we classify a group?
- similarity
- proximity
- common fate
e. g. football - team wears the same kit
- so do fans but not on the pitch
- all trying to score in the same goal
Entitativity
what makes a thing a thing. an object and object. a group a group. measure of the closeness.
Hamilton and Sherman 1996
Can get groups that come and go, very transitory, not very cohesive.
Some groups can be very cohesive
Our opinions of members in a group can be effected by the entitativity of that group. a cohesive group we will tend to associate all the members as similar because its easier.
How can being in a group influence individual performance?
negatively - lead to loafing
positively - be competitive, cause better performance
Variables investigated in the social loafing experiments
group size
group cohesiveness
How do we investigate the impact of group size on loafing?
investigated using pseudo groups. participant is in tug of war team but the rest of the team only pretend.
results for group size and social loafing
as group size increases - contribution of the individual decreases – Latane, Williams and Harkins 1979
Latane, Williams and Harkins 1979
group size and social loafing - clapping
Cohesiveness and loafing
Karau and Williams 1997
measured speed typing of students on a secretarial course. could be friends or a group of strangers. performance was said to be measured individually against collectively.
Karau and Williams 1997
speed typing social cohesiveness versus loafing
speed typing social cohesiveness versus loafing
Karau and Williams 1997
Mean words typed per minute was
higher in the cohesive groups
much lower in the non cohesive groups
Group output can be seen as either
non-optimal - less than the sum of all the individuals performance (due to loafing)
more than optimal - more than a sum of its parts
but it is more than strength of connections and size of the group which influences its impact on the individual.
Bystander intervention
Latane and darley 1968
filled a room with smoke and measured how long it took people to decide to leave, found ppl tended to look around for others reactions.
Did it in a naive group and a deliberately passive group.
Latane and darley 1968
Bystander intervention
filled a room with smoke and measured how long it took people to decide to leave, found ppl tended to look around for others reactions.
Did it in a naive group and a deliberately passive group.
Smoke experiment results
Alone: 75% reported it
naive group: 40%
passive group: 10%
larger groups decrease these numbers.
Levine and Crowther 2008
Large group doesn’t guarantee bystander effect because empathy with the victim has an effect on whether you get involved or not. women gets yelled at, if there are a large number of women in the group she gets help. if mainly men and one women she doesn’t.
Large group doesn’t guarantee bystander effect because empathy with the victim has an effect on whether you get involved or not.
Levine and Crowther 2008
