SOCIAL Group Processes Flashcards
(26 cards)
What are the 6 definitions of groups according to Forsyth (2014)?
-Categorisation: ‘two or more individuals perceiving themselves members of same social category’
-Communication: ‘two or more people think they are interdependent + communicate with one another’.
-Influences: ‘two or more persons interacting with one another in a manner the person influences and is influenced by each other person’.
-Shared identity: ‘two or more people possessing common social identification’ (Brown, 2000).
-Shared tasks and goals: ‘3 or more people work together interdependently on agreed upon activity or goal’ (Keyton, 2022).
-Interdependence:’ a dynamic whole based on interdependence rather than similarity’.
=agree groups come into existence when people link together by some type of relationship.
What are 4 main characteristics of groups: Forsyth, 2014.
- Interaction: create, organise + sustain relationship and task interactions among members.
a) task interaction: focused on group’s work, projects, plans and goals. ->Advancement or Hinderance.
b) relationship interaction: socioemotional interaction. ->sustaining or undermining. - Goals: groups have instrumental purposes (common goals).
- Interdependence: members of group depend on each other.
- Structure: group members are connected to each other in organised and predictable patterns.
a) roles: members distinct roles within groups.
b) norms: standard that describes what behaviours should/ should’nt be performed. - Cohesiveness: closeness and solidarity of a group as a result of development of strong and mutual interpersonal bonds among members.
Why are groups important to investigate?
Groups influence members + society:
-groups influence members’ attitudes, values, perception, performance and behaviour.
-groups that belong to society determine societies culture + norms.
-groups also means by which individuals can transform society.
What is the downside to groups?
People show preference for people in own groups + may discriminate towards people outside own group.
Large groups such as crowds may result in antisocial or violent behaviours most wouldn’t engage in on own.
Groups lead to misguided and disastrous decisions.
What is social loafing/
-presence of others can result in reduced effort of individual members.
Ringelmann (1913) measured tug of war contest.
-> total force exerted by group only 50% sum of predicted individual efforts.
-social loafing extended to behaviours e.g. clapping, shouting, cheering, brainstorming.
=reduction in individual effort when working on collective task compared to when working along or coactively.
What variables influence tendency to loaf?
-identifiability
-individual responsibility
-commitment to task
What is identifiability? (according to Williams et al, 1981).
Shout as load as can individually or groups.
Manipulated ppt by telling them equipment measured differently, equipment only measures total group effort or individual efforts.
-> social loafing when individual contribution could not be identified.
=identification of individual efforts-> lack of appropriate rewards.
Detail individual responsibility; Harkins & Petty 1982?
Work in groups of 4 report when dot appeared in section of the screen.
Individual responsibility manipulated: all focus on same section of screen as each given a different section.
Social loafing happens when little individual responsibility.
How did Zaccaro measure commitment to task performance?
Zaccaro 1984: intragroup processes.
-> group interaction internal pressures to conform to group performance norms.
-> members who deviated from group norms may be punished.
-> identifiability defers social loafing due to consequences for lack of effort: group ostracism.
how does strength of intragroup pressure vary as function commitment to group task?
-Stronger commitment- greater consequences for members who do not do fair share of work.
-Lower commitment- individuals should not fear group sanctions if slack.
-> Social loafing shouldn’t occur in groups with high commitment to task performance.
What is the methods and results surrounding social loafing?
-158 ppt invited to work in groups + fold pieces of paper into ‘moon tent’.
-commitment to task performance-> high commitment groups; highest scoring group will receive extra experimental credit.
-group members interact whilst working on group task.
-individual effects can be identified.
RESULTS:
-social loafing reduced with higher commitment to task performance.
-social loafing occurs when individual efforts identifiable- due to low commitment to task.
-in low commitment group, lacks pressure on individual, people don’t monitor each others effort despite identifiability.
-greater group size, greater disinterest in monitoring performance.
Why do people loaf?
Collective effort model: ‘individuals will be willing to exert effort on collective task only to degree they expect effort to be instrumental in obtaining valued outcomes’.
Happens when:
=people don’t believe individual efforts can result in achieving valued outcomes.
=outcome of group performance viewed as trivial, not valued.
Detail Karau + Williams, 1993; Meta-analytical review of social loafing.
Based on collective effort model:
-evaluation potential (identifiability).
-low task meaningfulness, personal involvement (commitment to task).
-high expectations of co-worker performance.
-redundancy to individual inputs.
-low group cohesiveness.
-larger group size.
Do groups average out individual variability in decision making?
Recap Sherif’s study (1936) on group norms:
-autokinetic illusion: asked to rate how much light has moved.
Sherif, 1936:
-ppt converged on group mean and gave very similar estimates.
-effect as maintained even when participants were alone again.
=group judgement= average of prior individual judgement.
Detail Stoner study into Risky shift in groups: however, subsequent research challenged this position?
Stoner, 1961: ppt tasked with giving advice to people presented with dilemmas.
Asked to make individual recommendations.
Subsequently met in small groups to discuss and reach unanimous decision.
Stoner (1961) found groups made riskier decisions than individuals.
-e.g. advising person to board plane when more than 50% probability their abdominal pain will become more severe in the holiday.
-initially termed risky shift.
-however effect not limited to risky positions (Stoner, 1968).
What is group polarisation?
General tendency for group decision to be more extreme than mean of members’ position, in direction favoured by mean’.
=e.g. discussion among people who slightly favour restrictive immigration policies.
-Myers & Bishop, 1970: group discussion about racial attitudes enhanced dominant group values in homogenous groups of high, medium and low prejudiced students.
How can the fact that groups converge on mean of individual’s responses reconcile group polarisation?
- one key difference that Sherif’s study did not involve discussion among group members.
Wallach & Kogan, 1965: just sharing info on judgement of others is not sufficient to produce group polarisation- discussion among group members is key.
-> uncertain situations- ppt may rely on others’ opinion and judgements.
What is the informational influence theory that group discussion leads to polarisation?
Informational influence:
-persuasive arguments theory- persuasiveness of novel arguments.
-group discussions bring to light previously unknown information that supports individuals position.
-opinions become more entrenched and extreme.
What is the normative influence theory that group discussion leads to polarisation?
-Desire for social approval + wish to avoid social censure.
-Discussion reveals socially desirable position + members of group want to be seen to be adhere to this position.
-> seeking social approval-> become more extreme in support for capital punishment.
What is the social identity processes meaning that group discussion leads to polarisation?
Individuals in group create group norm to define membership in decision- making group and then conform to that norm.
Ingroup position is polarised away from outgroups.
Self-categorisation produces conformity to polarised ingroup norm + polarised group decision.
Groupthink: prompted by Bag of Pigs fiasco occurred on April 1961 during J. F. Kennedy administration.
What conditions foster groupthink?
-group cohesiveness + insulation of group from external information and influences.
-lack of impartial leadership
-absence of systematic decision
-high stress of external threat
-suppression of personal doubts
-self-appointed ‘mindguards’
What are stages of groupthink theory?
Antecedent conditions (e.g. high group cohesiveness, lack of impartial leadership).
Symptoms of group think (e.g. illusion of invulnerability, suppression of personal doubt).
Poor decision making (e.g. failure to examine an alternative course of action, failure to consider risk involved) and groupthink.
How do you prevent groupthink?
-leaders should encourage critical evaluation of decisions and be open to criticism of own judgements.
-leaders should state issues in impartial way.
-groups break into subgroups with separate leaders in reviewing alternative options.
-discuss group decisions with non-group members.
-consult qualified individuals outside group regularly.
-group member assigned to role of devil’s advocate.
-alternative courses of action that opponents could take should be reviewed.
-following initial consensus, group should allow any remaining concerns to be voiced and re-evaluation of plan.
Detail laboratory studies on groupthink?
Review of groupthink research (Esser, 1998).
-Group cohesiveness: weak or no support for effects of cohesiveness on groupthink.
-Lack of impartial leadership: consistent support for role of biased leadership on symptoms of groupthink: more self-censorship and mind guarding, fewer solutions considered.
-Other conditions: examined fewer studies, with less consistent support.
