group processes: lecture #7 topics welcome to our special guests! (enjoy the class) a few words…
DESCRIPTION
Collective processes: Social facilitation Space shuttle Challenger crewTRANSCRIPT
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