group processes: lecture #7 topics welcome to our special guests! (enjoy the class) a few words…

Group processes:Lecture #7 topics

Welcome to our special guests! (enjoy the class)

A few words about Test #2 (don’t worry – it’s ALL good)

A few words about conformity

The presence of other people

Interacting with other people

Competing with other people

Collective processes:Social facilitation

Space shuttle Columbia crew

Collective processes:Social facilitation

Space shuttle Challenger crew

Collective processes:Social facilitation

Collective processes:Social facilitation

group:

a set of individuals having at least one of the followingcharacteristics:

direct interactions with each other over a period of time joint membership in a social category shared common fate, identity, or goals

Triplett (1897):

noticed that cyclists racing against each other performed better than cyclists racing alone led to hypothesis: “presence of another person releases

competitive instinct, which increases nervous energy and enhances performance”

found that kids wound fishing reels quicker working side by side than working alone

follow-up findings were mixed, until…

Collective processes:Social facilitation

Zajonc’s solution:

Collective processes:Social facilitation

Other people’s presence increases arousal

Increased arousal increases tendency to perform dominant

response

EASY TASK:Dominant response =

Successful performance

HARD TASK:Dominant response =

Unsuccessful performance

“social facilitation”

Collective processes:Social facilitation

Derek Jeter Annika Sorenstam

Collective processes:Social facilitation

Possible alternative explanations:

evaluation apprehension theory performance will be enhanced / impaired, but only when you’re in

presence of people who will evaluate your performance

distraction conflict theory distraction while performing creates attentional conflict, which

increases arousal

Ringelmann (1880s):

compared to their productivity when they worked alone, people’s individual productivity decreased when they worked together

was it due to lack of effort or lack of coordination? lack of effort Ingham (1974): people pulled a rope 20% harder when alone

than when they thought they were part of a group

Collective processes:Social loafing

Latané et al. (1979):

High

Low

Collective processes:Social loafing

1 2 4 6

Group Size

Soun

d Pr

essu

re p

er P

erso

n

CheeringClapping

social loafing:

group-produced reduction in individual output on tasks where individual contributions are pooled

occurs in relay races, collective farms, classroom projects

loafing can be reduced if:people think personal performance is identifiablethe task is meaningful to peoplepeople expect punishment for poor performancethe group is smallthe group is cohesive

Collective processes:Social loafing

Collective processes:Deindividuation

deindividuation: loss of individuality and normal constraints against deviant behaviour

environmental factors: low accountability

people might deliberately choose to engage in behaviour that is usually inhibited (e.g., robbing a bank)

decreased self-awarenessdecreased attention to personal standards of behaviour and

to long-term consequences of behavioure.g., Hallowe’en trick-or-treaters

social identity model of deindividuation:

in deindividuating situations, personal identity is submerged, social identity emerges, and conformity to group increases

effects of deindividuation can be positive / negative, depending on norms of the group

if group norms are negative, then deindividuation can lead to violence

if group norms are positive, then deindividuation can lead to prosocial behaviour

Collective processes:Deindividuation

Johnson and Downing (1979):

High

Low

Collective processes:Social loafing

KKK Robe Nurse's Uniform

Shoc

k In

tens

ity

IdentifiableAnonymous

Group processes:Why we belong to groups

increased chances of survival and reproduction

we accomplish things in groups that we can’t accomplish by ourselves you can’t play football by yourself

groups offer social status and identity, even if the group is low in status it’s nice to be a big fish in a little pond

Group processes:Group polarization

Are groups more likely to push for risk or caution?

Group decision will reflect the group average

Group decision will be more cautious than risky

Group processes:Group polarization

group discussion exaggerates initial leanings of group members if group members initially favour risk, discussion will lead to a

riskier group decision if group members initially favour caution, discussion will lead to a

more cautious group decision e.g., prejudice in high school students

group polarization:

Group processes:Groupthink

Group processes:Groupthink

Group processes:Groupthink

Group processes:Groupthink

groupthink (Janis, 1982):

excessive tendency to see agreement among group members

emerges when need for agreement takes priority over getting accurate information

Group processes:Groupthink

SYMPTOMS: overestimation of group close-mindedness pressure toward uniformity

ANTECEDENTS: high cohesiveness group structure stress

GROUPTHINK

CONSEQUENCES: defective decision making high probability of a bad decision

preventing groupthink:

avoid insulation consult often with people outside of group

reduce conformity pressures leaders should encourage criticism

establish a norm of critical review have a devil’s advocate hold a “second chance” meeting prior to taking action

Group processes:Groupthink

an actor wants to steal a scene from her co-star

a basketball player wants to hog the ball from the other players

a CEO wants to keep more of her company’s profits

a person wants to use more than his fair share of non-renewable natural resources, like coal

Competition:Mixed motives and social dilemmas

social dilemmas: situation where making self-interested choices creates the

worst outcome for everyone

the prisoner’s dilemma:

Competition:Social dilemmas

A gets 5 yrs

B gets 5 yrs

Confession(competes with

Prisoner A)

A gets 10 yrs

B gets 0 yrs

A gets 0 yrs

B gets 10 yrs

A gets 1 yr

B gets 1 yr

No confession(cooperates with

Prisoner A)PRISONER B

Confession(competes with Prisoner B)

No confession(cooperates with Prisoner B)

PRISONER A

tit-for-tat: reciprocal strategy—cooperation elicits cooperation,

competition elicits competition leads to higher levels of cooperation than other strategies

win-stay, lose-shift: based on basic learning principles

people continue to compete / cooperate as long as the payoff is high (win-stay)

shift to opposite action when payoff is low (lose-shift)

Competition:Social dilemmas

factors leading to conflict escalation:

group polarization process increases extremity of group members’ attitudes

group cohesiveness and groupthink pressures to conform make it hard for individuals to oppose

increasing aggressiveness of their group

Competition:Conflict escalation

Competition:Conflict escalation

threat capacity punishment is used to deter conflict escalation, but when people

have access to coercive means, they use them Deutsch and Krauss (1960): participants blocked each other’s

access to a common road because they could

negative perceptions of “the other” opposing group members are seen as alien and characterized in

simplistic ways when negative views are taken to extremes, “the other” can

become dehumanized, which justifies aggression