PSY1001 SEMESTER 2 - WEEK 6 Flashcards
(42 cards)
define group categorisation
2 or more individuals who perceive themselves to be members of same social category
define group communication
2 or more people who think of themselves as a group, are interdependent and communicate with one another
define group influence
2 or more persons who are interacting with one another in such manner that person influences and is influenced by each other person
define shared identity
2 or more people possessing a common social identification
define shared tasks and goals
3 or more people who work together interdependently on an agreed upon activity or goal
define interdependence
a dynamic whole based on interdependence rather than similarity
what is not a group
those working on same problem but seperate, sharing superficial similarity, need meaningful social connection between group members
what are Forsyths main characterstics of groups
interaction (task/relationship), goals, interdependence, structure, cohesiveness
group characteristics - what is interaction (include task, relationship)
create, organising, sustain relaitonship and task interaction among member
task = focused on group work (advancement by goal achievements and facilitation, hindrance by social loafing)
relationship = socioemotional interactions (sustained by social support, compliment, undermined by criticism)
explain how structure is key in group
connected in orgaised, predictable pattern with distinct roles, and norms
why do we form groups
providing protection
comfort, self validation
reduce anxiety
confirm validity of individual perceptions
reduce uncertainty for self, place in world
how can groups influence their members, and society
attitude, value, perceptions, performances and behaviour
groups determine society culture, norm
explain group dark sides
showing preference for in-group members, discriminates out-group
antisocial/violent behaviour
misguided and disastrous decision
explain black sheep effect
more willingly derogate deviant member of in than of out group
due to subjective group dynamics, try psychogically sustaining validity of in-group norm
if deviant express extreme position exaggerating group norms then seen more neg/pos, to ensure maintenence of differences of in/out group
explain cognitive baskets
stored info on individual, collective selfs in separate basket so can test if indivudal and collective self has primary in individuals motovation
define social loafing
a reduction in individual effort when working on collective tasks, compared to when working either alone or coactively
explain Ringlemans tug of war
total force exerted from group only 50% sum of predicted individual effort
explain collective effort model as explanation for social loafing
willing to exert efforts on collective task only to degree that expect outcome to be instrumental in achieving goal
name factors encouraging soail loafing
evaluation potential (identifiability)
low task meaningfulness, personal involvement
high expectation of coworkers
redundancy of individual input/responsibility
low group cohesiveness
larger group size
explain coordinational and motivational loss for social loafing
coordination loss = others distract and interfere result in less involvement
motivation loss = individual tries less hard, result in less involvement
name 3 variables influencing social loafing
identifiability, individual responsibility, commitment to task
give a research study on shouting on social loafing identifiability (Williams et al, 1981)
shouting alone, in group
manipulated identifiability (equipment measured total group effort, or individual effort)
found social loafing in non-identifiable individual contributions
explain research studying into individual responsibility into social loafing (Harkins & Petty, 1982)
work in group of 4, report when dot appears in sections of screen
manipulated individual responsibility (all focus on same section or different)
social loafing when little individual repsnsible
give research into intragroup process of group interactions, and commitment to task (Zaccaro, 1984)
stronger commitment meant bigger consequence when not contributing, lower commitment had less fear of consequences