Group Processes—chapter 9

What What isis a group? a group?

Which of these are Which of these are meaningfulmeaningful groups? groups? Members of your

fraternity/sorority Your family Members of the St. Louis

Cardinals Fans watching a Cardinals

game Males Social psychologists A group of people occupying

the same elevator

People who like watching The Sopranos

People who own sexy red sports cars

People who wear glasses People who wear funny-

looking glasses People who notice other

people’s funny-looking glasses People who are sick of my

“funny glasses” example

An index of “groupiness”: An index of “groupiness”: entitativity (Campbell, 1958)entitativity (Campbell, 1958)

what specific factors lead to perceptions of high entitativity?

At least three:– Similarity, interaction, common goals

Which of these are Which of these are meaningfulmeaningful groups? groups? Members of your

fraternity/sorority Your family Members of the St. Louis

Cardinals Fans watching a Cardinals

game Males Social psychologists A group of people occupying

the same elevator

People who like watching The Sopranos

People who own sexy red sports cars

People who wear glasses People who wear funny-

looking glasses People who notice other

people’s funny-looking glasses People who are sick of my

“funny glasses” example

Social facilitation Social facilitation

Classic paradigms in social Classic paradigms in social facilitation facilitation

Perform task in Private, versus:“co-actor”“audience” (you plus others

watching)Public

First known study: Triplett (1898)

Brief overview of Brief overview of social facilitation literaturesocial facilitation literature

Is performance improved or impaired in “public” (audience or co-actor) conditions ?

Decades of confusing resultsResolution: Zajonc (1965)

– Dominant (habitual, well-learned) responses more likely in public

If dominant response yields correct answer: helps performance

If dominant response yields incorrect answer: hurts performance

Zajonc studyZajonc study

Pronounce words between 1 and 16 times – Creates “dominant” response:

Words pronounced most frequently = dominant

Words flashed very quickly: 1/100 second – Participants guess word

If others are present, more likely to guess “dominant” words

Findings replicated across dozens of studies

Is social facilitation peculiar to Is social facilitation peculiar to human beings?human beings?

Zajonc believed that his theory applied not just to humans, but other species as well (!)

If so, this would be one of the very few, if not the only, social psychological theories to show such generalization

The cockroach studyThe cockroach study (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969) (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969)

Cockroaches placed in runway Bright light shown Run to other end of runway to escape

light Cockroach “spectators” or not Perform faster with spectators But only if maze is simple

Social LoafingSocial Loafing

Output of individual is diminished when working in a group

Ringelmann--rope pulling – Clapping, cheering

Why no social facilitation?

Presence of others

Individual efforts can be evaluated

Individual efforts cannot be evaluated

Arousal/ distraction

Enhanced performance on simple tasks

Impaired performance on complex tasks

Little arousal/evaluation apprehension

relaxation

Impaired performance on simple tasks

Enhanced performance on complex tasks

SOCIAL FACILITATION

SOCIAL LOAFING

Jackson and Williams (1986)Jackson and Williams (1986)

Simple vs. complex mazes on computer Another participant worked on identical task

in other room Researcher:

– Each performance would be evaluated separately,

or– Computer would average scores (no

accountability)

Difficulty of mazeseasy difficult

Time to complete maze

(long)

(fast)

evaluation

No evaluation Arousal impedes performance here

Arousal facilitates performance here

Typically produces arousal

Individual differences in social Individual differences in social loafingloafing

Men, more than women Individualistic societiesSuggests that key factor is interdependent

view of the self

DeindividuationDeindividuation

If you could be totally invisible for 24 hours and were completely assured that you would not be detected or held responsible for your actions, what would you do?

exercise

Theories of DeindividuationTheories of Deindividuation

Original view: loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people are in a crowd

Leading to…“mob behavior”

Robert Watson (1973) study

Newer view of DeindividuationNewer view of Deindividuation

Two factors– Lower accountability– Increases obedience to “local” norms

Groups: Groups: Decision MakingDecision Making

Initial issuesInitial issues Most major decisions in the world are made by groups

– United Nations, Courts (e.g. U.S. Supreme Court)– Elected bodies (e.g. Parliament, Congress)– Presidents rarely make decisions completely alone

WHY? Are groups always better than single individuals?

– Huge scientific literature on exactly this question!

Process lossProcess loss General term covering many group processes

– Hamper extent to which groups can solve problems efficiently, effectively

“Social” losses– Conversation/interactions irrelevant to task– Distractions

Failure to share unique information– Stasser & Titus (1985)

GroupthinkGroupthink Probably most famous process loss Definition: people begin to value group

cohesiveness and solidarity more than the need to consider the facts in a realistic manner.

Can lead to disastrous decisions– JFK’s decision to invade Cuba– Challenger disaster (1986)– Possibly, Columbia accident (2003)

The road to groupthinkThe road to groupthinkAntecedents

– Group is (already) cohesive

– Isolated– Directive leader– Stress– Poor decision-making

rules

Symptoms– Illusion of invulnerability – Moral certainty– Stereotyped view of outgroup– Self-censorship– Direct pressure to conform– Illusion of unanimity– Mindguards

Defective decision making– Incomplete survey of alternatives– Failure to examine risks of favored alternative– Poor information search– Few contingency plans

Specific steps to avoid groupthinkSpecific steps to avoid groupthink

Leader—remain impartial (if possible)Seek outside opinionsCreate subgroupsSeek anonymous opinions

Group polarizationGroup polarizationOriginal finding (Stone, 1962) seemed to

suggest “risky shift” (!!)Newer view: group polarization, not

riskiness per se– Whatever way the group is leaning initially,

members tend to polarize further in that direction

Who (and what) makes a great Who (and what) makes a great leader?leader?

The “holy grail” of social psychology! Two general views

– 1. The “great person” theory Leadership and personality

– Fascinating study by Dean Simonton on U.S. presidents– General picture—no such thing as “leadership personality”

– 2. “Right person in right situation” view Contingency theory of leadership Received good support

Gender and leadership

Social dilemmasSocial dilemmas

What’s best for the individual is not always best for the group, and vice-versa.

Examples of social dilemmasExamples of social dilemmasCommon goods dilemma

– Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin, 1968)

Contribution to public television/radioThe Matzo ball soup dilemma

Stephen King’s on-line novel--The PlantKing issued the installments under an honor-system payment model, asking readers to pay for $l for each chapter downloaded and promising to keep writing only if at least 75% of the readers complied. "If you pay, the story rolls. If you don't, the story folds," he wrote on his Web site. But King staffers said that only 46% of the downloads of the first few chapter were paid for, and the experiment was suspended.

Why social dilemmas are Why social dilemmas are commoncommon

Dilemmas could be avoided if people put their total trust in others and if they weren’t so selfish– Yeah, right….

Not to say that social dilemmas are inevitable But they are hard to resist