Chapter 11: Groups
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
11:49 AM
Groups, Nature, and Function
o
Group
2 or more interacting people who share common
goals, have a stable relationship, are somehow
interdependent, and perceive that they are part of a group
o
Entitativity (Cohesiveness)
The extent to which a group is perceived as being a
coherent entitity
This can vary from low when the group is just a bunch
of people who happen to be waiting for the same bus, to
high as in the case of a family that shares a name, a
history, and an identity for life or even for generations
o
Why join a group?
Sense of belonging
Achieve common goals with the group
Provide knowledge
Security
Positive social identity/self concept
o
Key Components of groups
Groups confer roles, which define responsibilites and
even self-concept
People identify their roles in a group with their
self identity
Stanford Prison Study
Participants were assigned to be either
prisoners or guards
The guards began identifying with their own
group and began abusing prisoners
The prisoners lost their sense of identity
and stopped rebelling
Status can very within a group
Height, seniority
Groups provide norms for behavior
Implicit rules that inform people about what is
expected of them
Collectivism vs. Individualism
Collectivism
Cultural schema in which the norm is
to maintian harmony among group members,
even if doing so might entail some personal
costs
Individualism
Cultural schema in which the norm is
to value standing out from the group and be
different from others
Violating a groups norms can have
consequences in the eyes of people who highly
value a group
o
The Benefits (and Costs) of Joining a Group
Benefits
Acquiring knowledge of oneself
Group membership tells us about the kind
of person we are or would like to be
Increase one's status
Increases our self esteem if we are selected
to join a prestigious group
Accomplish social change
Groups that experience discrimination
would be unable to induce social change without
joining together as a group to work together
Accomplish goals that are not attainable
otherwise
Drawbacks
Membership often limits personal freedom
Members are expected to behave in a
certain way
Groups make demands on members that must
be met
Example: some churches demand that
people donate 10% of their income
Members may disapprove of group's policies
Task Performance & Behavior in Crowds
o
Social Facilitation
Effects upon performance resulting from the presence
of others
The presence of others causes physiological arousal,
and this facilitates any dominant responses and creates
problems for any new or complex responses
Drive Theory of Social Facilitation
Increased physiological response allows us to
focus on something we know/have practiced
Cockroach experiment
Evaluation Apprehension
Performace is affected because the performer
believes that they are being evaluated
Performance does not necessarily improved if the
crowd has no interest in it
Distraction Conflict Theory
Distracting audience causes the performer's
attention to be divided
This theory applies better to humans (as
opposed to cockroaches)
Social Loafing
The more people who are working together, the less
work each individual person will do
Ingram (1974) Rope Pull
People in a tug of war competition pull less if
they think people behind them are also pulling
Latane, Williams, Harkins (1979)
People were told that they would be put in
groups of 2, 4, or 6 and were asked to clap
They were given noise canceling headphones
that played a clapping noise at constant volume
Those that were told they were put in a larger
group clapped less loudly
Kinds of Tasks
Additive
Contributions of each individual are
combined
Selling of girl scout cookies
Compensatory
Contributions are averaged as in a group of
investors managing a fund
Disjunctive
The
Final product determined by most
competent person
Team solving a puzzle
Conjunctive
Final product determined by weakest link
Mountain climbing (pace is set by the
slowest person)
Elimination of Loafing
Each output is identifiable
If each person knows what their
contribution is, then they cant afford to slack off
and not do anything
People have to believe their contribution
matters and will be for the good of the group
Members' commitment is increased
High pressure to ensure success causes
people to step up
Increase Importance
If believe believe their end goal is
important, they won't slack off in a group
Contribution is seen as unique
Compare own input to others
Increase cohesiveness of the group
The more you identify with the group and
the more common goals you share, the less social
loafing that will occur
effects of being in a crowd
Deindividuation
A loss of self awareness caused by situational
factors such as being in a large group
Caused by situations that foster anonymity and
draw attention away from the self
Can also happen when an individual wears a
mask, disguise, or uniform, or when a stranger is far
from home
Deindividuated people may engage in behavior
they would not otherwise engage in
An example is a spectator at a football game that
hurls insults and expresses violent behavior because
they are a part of a group
Zimbardo (1970)
Participants were either dressed as KKK
members or as themseleves
They were told to "shock" other people
Those who were dressed as KKK
(anonymous) shocked for longer because they
were anonymous and didnt risk being judged by
the other members of the group
Anonymity allows people to be less
responsible for their actions, which encourages
unrestrained, antisocial actions
Postomes & Spears (1998)
Suggests that being a large group leads to
more normative behavior, not less
This is because people in a group are more
likely to abide by the group norms
Group Coordination
o
Cooperation
Research Techniques
Prisoner's Dilmemma
Two prisoners are being interrogated in a
room and whether or not they choose to confess
determines both of their prison sentences
Choosing to cooperate with each other
(stay silent) would allow them to experience large
gains
Competing with each other would give
them huge losses (longer prison sentences)
Madsen Board
o
Conflict & Its Causes
Faulty Attribution
Errors concerning others' behavior
Faulty Communication
Social Categorization Problems
Status Quo Bias
Type A Personality
o
Resolving Conflict
Bargaining
Opposing sides exchange offers, counteroffers,
and concessions, either directly or through
representatives
Outcome of the bargaining depends on the
tactics used to get what each side wants, and the
overall orientation of the bargainers to the process
Win - win vs win - lose
Tactics
Beginning with an extreme initial offer
The big-lie technique, in which one
side convinces the other that one's breakeven point is much higher than it is so they
offer more than they would otherwise
Convincing the other side that it can
go elsewhere to get better terms
Superordinate Goals
Goals that both sides would seek, and that tie
interests together rather than driving them apart
When opposing sides can be made to see that
they share overarching goals, conflict is often sharply
reduced and may be replaced by overt cooperation
Decision Making By Groups
o
Decision Schemes
Majority Wins
The group agrees to a decision that was initially
supported by a majority of the group members
Truth Wins
After learning about different options, a group
comes to realize that one option is better than the
others
Two Thirds Majority Rule
When a group makes a decision after two-thirds
of their members come to an agreement
First Shift Rule
Applies to groups that are deadlocked. When just
one person changes their mind, others may follow suit
of that first person
Unanimity
Group discusses the issue until it reaches a
unanimous agreement
The Nature of Group Decisions
Risky Shift
The idea that a group will lean towards a riskier
decision after having a discussion
This is FALSE, because research shows that the
group will just lean more strongly towards the
direction it was initially at
If the group was conservative before, it
would be more conservative after a discussion
Group Polarization
Discussion within a group leads the group to
make a more extreme decision
Why does this occur?
Social Comparison
We all want to be above average
when it comes to our opinion, so we adjust our
opinion based on whatever the group already
thinks
If the group is liberal, a "better"
opinion would be a more liberal opinion,
making the group more extreme
Persuasive arguments
Desire to be (the most) correct
Groupthink
The tendency of the members of highly cohesive
groups to assume that their decision cant be wrong, that
all members must support the group's decision strongly
and that the information contrary to it should be ignored
Causes
High group cohesiveness
Isolation from outside information
Directive leadership
High stress from external threat
Lack of methodical search and appraisal
Symptoms
Illusion of invulnerability
Members ignore obvious danger, take
extreme risks, and are overly optimistic
Certainty of group's morality
Members believe their decision are morally
correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their
decisions
Collective rationalization
Members discredit and explain away
warnings contrary to group thinking
Stereotyped view of opponents
The group constructs negative stereotypes
of rivals outside the group
Intense pressure to conform
Members pressure any in the group who
express arguments against the group's
stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing
such opposition as disloyalty
Self-censorship
Members withhold their dissenting views
and counterarguments
Illusion of unanimity
Members perceive falsely that everyone
agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen
as consent
Presence of mind-guards
Some members appoint themselves to the
role of protecting the group from adverse
information that might threaten group
complacency
How to eliminate groupthink
Every member is required to list potential
problems
Encourage careful questioning of each
alternative
Someone play's devil's advocate
Finding an argument against the majority
opinion
Break into subgroups
"Second Chance" meeting
One last chance to choose an alternative
option before moving forward with a decision
Normal Group Technique
Ideas are thought about individually and
then presented to the group. The group then votes
and ranks the opinions