Lecture 7 - Group Behaviour and Decision Making Flashcards
1
Q
Define a group according to Hagger and Chatzisarantis 2005
A
Group comprises 2 or more people
Involves interaction between people
Awareness some form of common fate or goals
Specific structure such as role and status of individuals within group and group norms
2
Q
How many characteristics of a group do Johnson and Johnson 1987 identify
A
7
3
Q
Outline the 7 major characteristics of a group that Johnson and Johnson 1987 identify
A
- Social unit 2 more individuals perceived belonging to group
- Collection individuals influence each other
- Interaction between individuals
- Interdependence among group members
- Seek achieve group goals
- Satisfy need through association
- Governed by group roles and norms
4
Q
What have many models of groups forgotten about
A
Forgotten about passing time
5
Q
Are groups static entities?
A
No static entities
New members join
Existing members leave
6
Q
Define group socialisation
A
Dynamic relationship between group and its members in terms changes in roles and commitment
7
Q
What was the first model to map out socialisation process that occurs small interactive groups
A
Tuckmans 1965
8
Q
Outline Tuckmans 1965 5 factors of the model of group socialisation
A
Forming Storming Norming Performing Adjourning
9
Q
Outline forming according to Tuckmans 1965 model of group socialisation
A
Orientation and familiarisation
10
Q
Outline storming according to Tuckmans 1965 model of group socialisation
A
Working through disagreements
11
Q
Outline Norming according to Tuckmans 1965 model of group socialisation
A
Group cohesion and common identity
Group roles
12
Q
Outline Performing according to Tuckmans 1965 model of group socialisation
A
Group performs optimally and smoothly
13
Q
Outline Adjourning according to Tuckmans 1965 model of group socialisation
A
Group dissolves because goals been achieved or members lose interest or motivation
14
Q
What does Morelands and Levines 1982-4 model explain about groups
A
Group dynamics across life span of group
Individual and group change and adapt result membership
15
Q
What are the 3 factors considered by Moreland and Levines 1982-4 model of group dynamics
A
Evaluation
Commitment
Role transitions
16
Q
Outline Evaluation factor according to Moreland and Levines 1982-4 model of groups
A
Group members and potential members evaluate rewards of group membership
Individuals evaluated terms contribution to group
17
Q
Outline Commitment factor according to Moreland and Levines 1982-4 model of groups
A
Evaluation affects investment in group or individual
Highest when individuals and groups agree on goals and values
18
Q
Outline Role Transitions factor according to Moreland and Levines 1982-4 model of groups
A
Change in role of group member
Central to Moreland and Levines model
19
Q
Which factor is central to Moreland and Levines model
A
Role transitions
20
Q
Outline the prospective member according to Moreland and Levine
A
Investigative
Recruitment
Reconnaissance
Entry level - constant evaluation
21
Q
Outline the new member according to Moreland and Levine
A
Socialisation
Accommodation
Assimilation
Increase acceptance
22
Q
Outline the full member according to Moreland and Levine
A
Maintenance
Role negotiation
Accepted
23
Q
Outline the marginal member according to Moreland and Levine
A
Re-socialisation Accommodation Assimilation Membership drops Divergence
24
Q
Outline the ex member according to Moreland and Levine
A
Remembrance
Tradition reminiscence
Expected dynamics
Exit from group
25
Define group cohesiveness according to Hogg and Vaughan 2014
Property of group affectively binds people as group meme era to one another and group as a whole giving group sense solidarity and oneness
26
What can group cohesiveness also be referred to
Solidarity
Team spirit
Group morale
27
Is Group Cohesiveness hard to define and measure
YES
28
Outline group cohesiveness according to Festinger, Schacter and Back 1950
Field of forces: attractiveness and mediation goals
Leads Cohesiveness
Leads to behaviour
How well group help them achieve goal
29
What are the fields of forces identified by Festinger, Schacter and Back 1950
Attractiveness
Mediation goals
30
Outline field of forces: Attractiveness according to Festinger, Schacter and Back 1950
Attractiveness of group and members
31
Outline field of forces: Mediation Goals according to Festinger, Schacter and Back 1950
Social interaction
Individual goals requiring interdependence
32
How is cohesiveness measured according to Festinger, Schacter and Back 1950
Averaging interpersonal attraction across whole group
Summation
33
What are the factors influencing interpersonal attraction determining cohesiveness
Similarity
Cooperation
Perceived acceptance
Shared threat
34
What does cohesiveness predict
Conformity to group norms
Accentuated similarity - stereotyping
Improvised intragroup communication
Enhanced liking group members
35
How does Hogg 1993 define cohesiveness
Elusive concept
Based on idiosyncratic characteristics
36
What does Hogg 1993 state needs distinguishing in cohesiveness
Personal attraction
Social attraction
Shows how can like someone as a group member but not as a person and vice Versa
37
Outline Personal Attraction according to Hogg 1993
Based close relationships
Idiosyncratic preferences
38
Outline Social Attraction according to Hogg 1993
Inter individual liking based perceptions of self and others not terms individuality but group norms and prototypes
39
Define what a norm is according to Cialdini and Trost 1998
Rules and standards behaviour understood by group members and guide or constrain social behaviour
40
What do norms inform us of
Define what is acceptable
Reduce uncertainty promoting socially appropriate actions
Enforced laws/legitimacy, or implied and taken for granted
Lead vilification and degrogation if violates
Strong effect people’s behaviours
41
Outline Seigel and Seigel 1957 study on dormitory political norms on students levels conservatism
1st year American female students randomly assigned accommodation
Dormitory known for being liberal and sorority known being conservatism
Start year 100% students conservative
42
Outline Seigel and Seigel 1957 study on dormitory political norms on students levels conservatism RESULTS
Conservative views decreased after liberal dorm exposure by end of year
43
Outline group structure
Division of group into different roles often differ with respect to status and prestige
44
Define roles
Patterns behaviour distinguish between different activities within group
People adopt for greater good of group
Facilitate group functioning and effectiveness
45
What are the 3 reasons why roles tend to emerge in groups
Division of labour
Provide clear cut social expectations
Members self definition and place within group
46
Define status
Prestige of particular role in group
Prestige of group and members as a whole
Not all roles equal status
47
Outline the Expectation States Theory of Status by Berger et al 1977
Roles groups assigned based expectations people’s performance
48
Outline the specific status characteristics of status
Abilities of person directly relevant to group task
E.g. good athlete in sports team
49
Outline diffuse status characteristics
Positive or negatively valued characteristics in society
Age or education
Put drs views and opinions above our own
50
Outline Knottnerus and Greenstein 1981 study on status in groups
Female ppt and female confederate
Work together 2 separate tasks
Told ppt end task 1 either did better or worse than confederate
Told if confederate younger or older
51
What is the purpose of telling ppt if confederate is younger or older than them Knottnerus and Greenstein 1981
Implicit reference if confederate older you are more knowledgeable and have more experience
52
What is the DV in Knottnerus and Greenstein 1981 study on status in groups
% times 2nd task ppt referred to the confederates suggestions
53
Outline Knottnerus and Greenstein 1981 study on status in groups results
Referred confederate more when status low
Referred significantly higher extent when confederate higher diffused status = older 100% deferral
Referral depends status ppts relative to confederate
54
What is common reason for groups to form
Make decisions
55
What are situations where groups make decisions
Juries
Selection committees
Decision making organisations and politics
Decisions with life or death consequences
56
When do groups function better
Solving factual problems
| Those with one correct answer
57
When do groups struggle to function
Less well defined real world problems present unique social changes
Concerns social judgement and offending others
Unwillingness take responsibility
Lack confidence abilities/solutions
58
Outline group memory and remembering
Groups remember more info
Different people recall different info
Whole group better recognising true info
59
How does memory act as a constructive process
Real life events memory constructive process - story helps aid recall relevant info
60
Outline Clark and Stephenson 1989-95 research on group vs individual memory
Students or police officers watched police interrogation
Alone vs in group 4 people
Answered questions and free recalled info
61
Outline Clark and Stephenson 1989-95 research on group vs individual memory RESULTS
Groups out performed individuals
Recalled more correct info
Fewer meta statements (over interpretations)
No difference number errors made
62
Define brainstorming according to Osborn 1957
Uninhibited generations many ideas as possible in group
In order enhance group creativity
63
Where are brainstorming decisions used
Extensively in business
Advertising agencies
64
Are brainstorm methods effective
Individuals 2x more creative when brainstorming alone
More ideas in group but creative value of lower quality
65
What are the 4 reasons according to Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho 1993 why brain storming is ineffective
Evaluation apprehension
Social loading and free riding
Production matching
Production blocking
66
Outline Evaluation Apprehension by Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho 1993 for why the brain storming is ineffective
Despite inhibited instruction individuals still worried about evaluation
67
Outline Social Loafing and Free Riding by Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho 1993 for why the brain storming is ineffective
Motivation loss
Especially when lack definition group roles
68
Outline Production Matching by Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho 1993 for why the brain storming is ineffective
Average group performance used norm because task is novel
Loss quality ideas
69
Outline Production Blocking by Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho 1993 for why the brain storming is ineffective
Then taking interrupts flow idea generation
70
Outline illusion of groups working effectively by Diehl and Stroebe 1991
Mere volume of production ideas
Enjoyment and satisfaction of process
Individuals only share some their ideas - assume everyone has more and novel ideas to share
71
When is brainstorming best
Initially working alone then sharing with group
72
Define Group think according to Janis 1972
Mode thinking in highly cohesive groups which desire reach unanimous agreement overrides motivation adopt rational decision making procedures
73
How are decisions characterised
Little scrutiny and social pressure reach consensus
Members stick chosen course action and refuse seriously consider alternatives
74
What did Janus 1972 develop his theory based upon
4 US foreign policy decisions with unfavourable outcomes
Archival methods (retrospective and content analysis)
75
What are the 4 US foreign policy decisions with unfavourable outcomes influencing Janis 1972
Pearl Harbor - focus training rather than defends
Escalation Korean War - crossing 38th parallel into North Korea
Bag of Pigs Invasion
Escalation of Vietnam War during 1964-67
76
Outline the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba 1961 as an example of Group Think
Relied too heavily opinions Cuban refugees not reflective national support of Castro
Kennedy’s committees comprised politicians supported invasion = those did not were ignored
77
Similar examples to the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba 1961
Challenge disaster 1986
Decision to invade Iraq Bush administration 2003
78
Outline Antecedents identified by Janis and Mann 1977 of Group Think
Excessive group cohesiveness
insulation of group from external info and influence
Lack impartial leadership and norms encouraging proper procedures
Ideological homogeneity - all same beliefs
High stress from external threat and task complexity
79
Outline Symptoms identified by Janis and Mann 1977 of Group Think
Feelings invulnerability and unanimity
Unquestioning Belief Group must be right
Ignore or discredit info on contrary
Pressure on dissidents being them into line
Stereotyping outgroup members
80
Outline a Cult example of group think
Heavens Gate
81
Outline Case Studies as evidence of Group Think
Coding and analysing real world examples for antecedents and symptoms Group Think
82
Outline Experimental Studies as evidence of Group Think
Lab or quasi-natural
Cohesiveness manipulates
Directive leadership manipulated
Procedural directions for effective decision making manipulated
83
Outline McCauley 1989 Group Think case study
Re analysed 6 historical cases Janis and Marshall Plan and Cuban Missile Crisis
Each case coded separately for presence or absence Group Think antecedents
84
Outline McCauley 1989 Group Think case study results and identified relationships
Group isolation, leadership and group homogeneity not involved in non group think cases
Cohesion time pressure and perception external threat all present in non group think cases
85
Outline Tetlock et al 1992 experiment case study on group think
Q-sort card task with 100 bipolar statements 6 historical cases groupthink and 2 non groupthink cases
Pots sorted cards 3 piles and rated each card
Compared similarity ppts Q sort profiles ideal Q sorts generated each case based Janis 1982 Theory
86
Outline Tetlock et al 1992 experiment case study on group think results
Positive correlation for 6 Group think cases
Negative correlations 2 non group think cases
Ppts characterisations similar Janis 1982
87
Outline Tetlock et al 1992 experiment case study on group think results that not all theorised paths were significant predictors Group think
Defective decision making, symptoms, concurrence seeking, procedural faults, significant paths
Group cohesion (despite being in definition and supposed key part) high stress situation non significant paths
88
Outline Group Think lab experiment by Flowers 1977
College students crisis problem solve
Leadership manipulated - closed vs open
Cohesiveness manipulated - strangers vs friends of leader
89
Outline Group Think lab experiment by Flowers 1977 DV
Number of solutions and number facts discussed
90
Outline Group Think lab experiment by Flowers 1977 results
Significantly more solutions facts discussed with open leader
Ppts closed leader condition rated leader more influential in decision making process
Cohesiveness not significant
91
What are the possible reasons for cohesiveness not being significant in Group Think lab experiment by Flowers 1977
May not be good predictor for Group Think
Difficult measure
92
Outline Group Think lab experiment by Leana 1985
College students hypothetical business problem
Cohesiveness manipulated - low and high
Leadership - directive vs non directive
93
Outline Group Think lab experiment by Leana 1985 DV
Number facts and solutions discussed
94
Outline Group Think lab experiment by Leana 1985 results
Significantly fewer facts discussed low cohesive groups
Fewer solutions proposed and discussed in groups directive leader
95
Outline Essers 1998 review
Inconsistent and mixed reviews Group Think
Labs and case studies both support role directive leadership groupthink
Evidence cohesiveness unsupported
96
Outline future of Group Think according to Essers 1998
Consider what types situations trigger Group Think - collective avoid vs collective avoidance
Criteria decision tasks need refining
Difficult measure symptoms groupthink
Questionnaires unique challenges
97
Define collective avoidance
Stress induced defence response - Hart 1990
98
Define collective optimism
Over confidence in solution - Hart 1990
99
How to avoid Group Think according to Janis and Mann 1977
Awareness causes and consequences Group Think
Leader neutral assigning decision making task encourage open inquiry
Leader high priority airing objections and doubts - accepting criticism
Groups consider unpopular alternatives
Potential solutions discussed expert non-group members
100
Define group polarisation
Group discussion encourage people more extreme in decisions
Make decisions riskier only groups value risk taking
Real like implications - less tolerance opposing views
101
What are the reasons group polarisation occurs
```
Persuasive arguments theory
Social comparison theory
Bandwagon effect
Pluralistic ignorance
Social identity theory
Processing effort
```
102
Outline Persuasive Arguments Theory as a reason for why group polarisation occurs
Greater exposure more novel arguments supporting ones opinions
103
Outline Social Comparison Theory as a reason for why group polarisation occurs
Gain social approval avoid sanctions
104
Outline Bandwagon Effect as a reason for why group polarisation occurs
Take more extreme view differentiate ourselves from others
105
Outline Pluralistic Ignorance as a reason for why group polarisation occurs
Group discussion liberate people be true to their beliefs
106
Outline Social Identity Theory as a reason for why group polarisation occurs
Group memberships leads conformity to group norms which minimises variability within group
Turner and Oakes 1989
107
Outline Processing Effort as a reason for why group polarisation occurs
Impact others opinions higher under conditions low ability and motivation
Sieber and Ziegler 2019
