Lecture 4 - Group Processes Flashcards
1
Q
What is a group?
A
- “A group is two or more individuals in face-to-face interaction, each aware of his or her membership in the group, each aware of the others who belong to the group, and each aware of their positive interdependence as they strive to achieve mutual goals”.
(Johnson & Johnson, 1987, p.8)
2
Q
Why do we study groups?
A
- “If we take care of the individual, psychologically speaking, the groups will take care of themselves” (Allport, 1924, p.9)
- If we study individuals, we will know about groups, because a group is just a collection of individuals?
3
Q
What are the types of groups?
A
Lickel et al. (2000)
Groups can be lots of different things
4
Q
Strong interpersonal relationships
A
- Families
- Small groups of close friends
5
Q
Formed to fulfil task(s)
A
- Committees
- Work groups
- Together for a particular purpose
6
Q
Groups based on large social categories
A
E.g. women, Americans
7
Q
Groups based on weak social relationships
A
- E.g. people who enjoy Taylor Swift’s music, people from the same local area
8
Q
Transitory groups
A
- E.g. people waiting at the bus stop; people in the queue at the bank
9
Q
Minimal groups
A
- Tajel, Billig, Bundy and Flament (1971, replicated by Allen & Wilder, 1975)
- ‘Minimal groups’; split randomly into two-groups
- People allocated more money to their ‘own’ group than the other group, and the effect could not be explained by:
- Self-interest (as they didn’t get a share)
- Existing friendships (as allocation was random)
- Demonstrates how easily bias (and groups), i.e. in-group favouritism, can develop
10
Q
What did early work show about social facilitation?
A
- Triplett (1898) was the first to ask these sorts of questions
- Observed track cyclists and found performances were faster when:
- Timed alone
- Timed and racing alongside other cyclists
- Hypothesised that the presence of the audience, particularly in a competition, ‘energised’ performance on motor tasks (made them do better)
- Triplett tested his hypothesis using a ‘fishing line’ apparatus and found that children performed better when racing against each other than when alone
11
Q
What has other work shown about social facilitation?
A
- Allport (1920) termed this phenomenon ‘Social Facilitation’
- He suggested a more generalised effect: ‘Mere Presence’
- Mere presence is defined as an “entirely passive and unresponsive audience that is only physically present” (Hogg & Vaughan, 2014, p.275)
- Improvement in performance due to the mere presence of others as co-actors or passive audience
- Not just humans: Kangaroos, monkeys and horses eat more and run faster when other members of their species are doing the same thing (e.g., Dindo, et al., 2009; Pays, et al., 2009)
12
Q
Social facilitation vs inhibition
A
- However, shortly after the discovery, some studies showed how the presence of others can impaired performance for both humans and animals (see review by Bond & Titus, 1983), known as social inhibition
- For example:
- Complex task (e.g. typing name backwards), done more slowly in the presence of other people than alone (Schmitt, et al., 1986)
- Men take longer to urinate when someone is standing immediately beside them at a urinal than alone (Middlemist et al., 1976)
13
Q
What does Zajonc’s (1965) drive theory suggest?
A
- Argued mere presence of others creates an increase in arousal and energises ‘dominant response’:
- ‘Dominant response’ is that what is typically done in that situation i.e., a well-learnt/habitual response
- When people are anxious, they tend to do better on easy tasks (already good at) and worse on difficult ones (that they normally struggle at)
- If the dominant response is correct (easy), then performance will be facilitated
- If the dominant response is incorrect (difficult), then performance will be inhibited
14
Q
Social facilitation/inhibition
A
- “An improvement in the performance of well-learnt/easy tasks and a deterioration in the performance of poorly-learnt/difficult tasks in the mere presence of members of the same species” (Hogg & Vaughan, 2014, p. 275)
- It does seem plausible in some ways – joggers appear to run faster with others
- However, some situations with others come in competitive contexts e.g., a race with other runners, where there is an audience watching/judging their every move. What happens?
15
Q
What does Cottrell’s (1972) evaluation apprehension theory suggest?
A
- We learn about social reward/punishment contingencies (e.g., approval and disapproval) based on others’ evaluation
- Perception of an ‘evaluating’ audience creates arousal, not mere presence
- Social facilitation is an acquired effect based on perceived evaluations of others
16
Q
How does the study by Cottrell et al. (1968) support the evaluation apprehension hypothesis?
A
- Cottrell et al. (1968) supported this hypothesis in an experiment with 3 audience conditions:
- (1) Blindfolded (cannot see participant)
- (2) Merely present (passive and uninterested)
- (3) Attentive audience
- Tasks were well learned (i.e. easy)
- Social facilitation was found when the audience was perceived to be evaluative (attentive); wanting to perform well for their audience worked in their favour (2 vs 3 should not differ if ‘mere presence’)
17
Q
How does the research by Markus (1978) contradict Cottrell?
A
Time taken to dress in familiar clothes (easy task, own clothes)/unfamiliar clothes (difficult task, lab coat and unfamiliar shoes) as a function of social presence
- 3 conditions:
- (1) alone
- (2) in the presence of an inattentive audience
- (3) in the presence of an attentive audience
- Attentive audience speeded up performance in easy task
- Inattentive and attentive not much different in difficult task (performed more slowly)
18
Q
What did Schmitt et al. (1986) find about evaluation apprehension?
A
- Schmitt et al. (1986) asked participants to type either their name or a code backwards on a computer
- Mere presence of others made people perform the simple task quicker and the difficult task slower
- However, adding in an evaluation apprehension condition made little difference to the typing speed
- Found no difference in typing speed
- It seems that evaluation apprehension is sometimes helpful but sometimes unnecessary for social facilitation
19
Q
What does the distraction-conflict theory suggest?
A
- People become distracted, focusing (“drive”) on what others are doing (i.e., evaluating them), and perform worse
- E.g. Sanders et al. (1978) had participants’ complete an easy or difficult digit task, but:
- (1) Alone
- (2) Someone doing the same task or someone doing a different task
- People performed worse when someone did the same thing as them (i.e. more distraction)
- Not just others – Sanders (1981) showed that bursts of light could similarly affect social facilitation
20
Q
Does it matter what is evaluating you?
A
- Siemon (2023) examined whether using AI-based idea evaluation led to evaluation apprehension
- Finnish participant presented an idea to either Alan or Phillip
- Participants express less evaluation apprehension when presenting their idea to Alan (AI) than Phillip
- The results show that when humans are involved in evaluating an idea, people tend to feel concerned
21
Q
What is social loafing?
A
Social loafing (loss of motivation termed ‘social loafing’ (Latane et al., 1979) “Reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task compared with working either alone”)
22
Q
What did Ringelmann (1913, 1927) find about social loafing?
A
- Ringelmann (1913, 1927) found that men pulling on a rope attached to a dynamometer exerted less force than the number of people in the group
- Reasons for the effect:
- Coordination loss: as group size inhibits movement, distraction, and jostling
- Motivation loss: participants did not try as hard; less motivated
23
Q
What did Ingham et al. (1974) find about social loafing?
A
- Ingham et al. (1974) = investigated this with ‘real groups’ and ‘pseudo groups’ pulling on a rope; participant blind-folded
- Real group = groups of varying size
- Pseudo-group = only one true participant, rest were confederates who did not pull at all
- Pseudo-groups put in more effort
24
Q
What did Latané et al. (1979) find about social loafing?
A
- Latané et al. (1979) supported this through clapping, shouting, and cheering tasks
- Recorded amount of cheering/clapping noise made per person [blind folded] reduced by:
- 29% in 2-person groups
- 49% in 4-person groups
- 60% in 6-person groups
25
Why do people loaf?
- Geen (1991)
- Output equity = when people learn others are not pulling their weight, they too can lose motivation and put less effort in
- Evaluation apprehension = individuals only believe their efforts are being judged when they perform alone; in groups, people are not accountable
26
How can we reduce social loafing?
- Identifiability= i.e. when people’s individual contributions to a task can be identified
- E.g. people shout louder in a group shouting task when they think every individual’s volume can be recorded (Williams et al., 1981)
- Individual responsibility = i.e. when people know they can make a unique contribution to a task
- E.g. in a group task, watching for dots on a screen:
- People worked harder if they thought they were solely responsible for watching a particular segment vs
- If they thought others were watching too, even when no one would know how many dots they personally had spotted (Harkins & Petty, 1982)
27
Does social loafing replicate across groups?
- Social loafing appears to be robust across gender, culture and task, although the effect is smaller for subjects from Eastern cultures (Karau & Williams, 1993)
- The authors suggest that:
- “Individuals from Western cultures may attach greater importance to outcomes such […] other’s evaluation of one’s individual performance.”
- In contrast, “individuals from Eastern cultures may be more likely to attach at least moderate importance to outcomes such as group harmony, group success, and the satisfaction of other group members.”
28
What is the collective effort model?
- People will put effort into a group task when:
- (1) They believe their input will have an impact
- (2) Completing the task is likely to bring them something they value (e.g. concrete things like money, grades etc., and abstract things such as satisfaction and enjoyment)
29
Group decision-making
- Group behaviour can differ from the behaviour of solitary individuals
- Also, how groups arrive at decisions and deal with problems is no exception
- Does interaction with people in groups intensify our decisions?
- Do groups generally make ‘good’ or ‘bad’ decisions?
30
What is group polarisation?
- People often discuss topics with those who are similarly minded, which can strengthen the attitudes:
- For example, Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969) found that group discussions enhanced French students (already) positive towards their president and enhanced their (already) negative attitudes towards Americans
- As people come together to share their grievances, they are often in isolation from others – likely becoming more extreme over time, leading to actions (such as violence) that might not have happened on their own (McCauley & Segal, 1987)
31
In which contexts is group problem-solving useful?
- When groups get together and critique each other’s ideas, they have been found to come up with better-quality ideas (McGlynn, et al., 1995)
- Also, more effective when small rather than large groups and if the experimenter is not present to monitor the process (Mullen, et al. 1991)
- However, if only simple group decisions occur, with no break-out from individuals, solitary efforts are typically better than the group’s (e.g., Diehl & Stroebe, 1987)
- Key: ensure a combination of group and individual brainstorming – pitch ideas to a relatively small group (Brown & Paulus, 2002)
32
What is groupthink?
- A disastrous political decision by U.S President JFK and a small group of advisors in 1961 (the Invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs) prompted theories of flawed group decision making
- Janis (1982) proposed the concept of ‘groupthink’:
- Where objections to poor group decisions are suppressed to maintain group harmony
33
What are the conditions for groupthink to occur?
- Groupthink is a very specific phenomenon, thought to occur under particular conditions:
- (1) Stressful situation without a clear, correct solution
- (2) Cohesive group of like-minded people, cut off from external (moderating) influences.
- (3) Strong, vocal leader
- Janis (1971, 1982)
- Turner & Pratkanis (1998)
34
What are the consequences of groupthink?
- When groupthink is occurring, it is more likely that:
- The group does not carry out adequate research
- Alternative options are not considered; group members cascade around the same opinion (Glebovskiy, 2018)
- Risks are not adequately assessed
- Janis (1971, 1982)
