chapter 11- Group

Characteristics of strong groups

-Communicate: Members interact often -Social identity: The group is important to members -Interdependent: Members share common goals -Similarity: Members are similar to one another in important ways

Presence, Arousal, & Social Facilitation (& Inhibition)

-In the presence of others, people tend to do better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when their performance can be evaluated -Inhibition is the opposite of facilitation and refers to a mental state in which there is a hesitation or blockage of action. There are different types of inhibition across disciplines such as social inhibition (social psychology) and inhibition (learning and conditioning), but they all refer to this hesitation of blockage of action.

Social facilitation

-the tendency of people to perform simple or well-learned tasks better when others are present -Norman Triplett, way back in 1898, noticed that people in bicycle races went faster when they were competing against each other directly than when they were racing individually (e.g., an individual time trial). This observation was the basis for social facilitation, which states that people perform certain tasks better when they are in the presence of other people. This is true for simple tasks, tasks people are good at already, or already learned tasks, but not for difficult or novel tasks. Presence of others doesn't ALWAYS facilitate (Zajonc, 1965): In 1965, psychologist Robert Zajonc suggested a potential way of resolving the discrepancy in social facilitation research. Zajonc reviewed prior research and noticed that social facilitation tended to occur for relatively well-practiced behaviors. However, for tasks that people were less experienced with, they tended to do better when they were alone. Why does this happen? According to Zajonc, the presence of other people makes people more likely to engage in what psychologists call the dominant response (essentially, our "default" response: the type of action that comes most naturally to us in that situation). For simple tasks, the dominant response is likely to be effective, so social facilitation will occur. However, for complex or unfamiliar tasks, the dominant response is less likely to lead to a correct answer, so the presence of others will inhibit our performance on the task. Essentially, when you're doing something you're already good at, social facilitation will occur and the presence of other people will make you even better. However, for new or difficult tasks, you're less likely to do well if others are around. - Common in other species - Home court advantage

Factors reducing/preventing groupthink

1) Be outwardly impartial 2) Assign a devil's advocate Devil's advocate: a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments. 3) Subdivide the group 4) Welcome critiques from outside experts 5) Call a "second chance" meeting to air any lingering doubts

Factors contributing to groupthink

1) Group cohesiveness 2) Relative isolation 3) Directive leader 4) High stress 5) Lack of adequate decision making procedures

Reducing Social Loafing

1) Make individual performance identifiable 2) Cultivate friendships between coworkers 3) Make the task more interesting/challenging/appealing Free-riders: refer to the possibility that some individuals or groups that traditionally contribute to various causes, may cut their contributions if they feel that other individuals or organizations are benefiting more than they are contributing

Symptoms of groupthink

1) Overestimation of the group 2) Become closed minded 3) Pressure to be uniform

Reasons to join groups

1) To affiliate: need to belong 2) To achieve: assist in progress toward important goals 3) To form a social identity: helps us define who we are

An example of Inhibition with people

1. Experimenter categorized pool players as experts or novices (based on actual skill level) 2. Experimenter sent confederate to observe game 3. Experimenter kept record of number of shots made and missed DV: % of pool shots made Results: a. experts unwatched = 71% b. experts watched = 80% c. novices unwatched = 36% d. novices watched = 25% Results: Experts did better than normal when watched by others. Novices did worse when watched by others ***In a research experiment confederates are individuals who seem to be participants but in reality are part of the research team. They essentially trick real participants into thinking they are fellow participants

Social Facilitation & Inhibition

Although people sometimes perform better when they are in groups than they do alone, the situation is not that simple. Perhaps you can remember a time when you found that a task you could perform well alone (e.g., giving a public presentation, playing the piano, shooting basketball free throws) was not performed as well when you tried it with, or in front of, others. Thus it seems that the conclusion that being with others increases performance cannot be entirely true and that sometimes the presence of others can worsen our performance. The tendency to perform tasks more poorly or slower in the presence of others is known as social inhibition. To study social facilitation and social inhibition, Hazel Markus (1978) gave research participants both an easy task (putting on and tying their shoes) and an unfamiliar and thus more difficult task (putting on and tying a lab coat that tied in the back). The research participants were asked to perform both tasks in one of three social situations—alone, with a confederate present who was watching them, or with a confederate present who sat in the corner of the room repairing a piece of equipment without watching. As you can see in Figure 11.2 "Group Task Performance", Markus found first that the difficult task was performed more slowly overall. But she also found an interaction effect, such that the participants performed the easy task faster but the more difficult task slower when a confederate was present in the room. Furthermore, it did not matter whether the other person was paying attention to their performance or whether the other person just happened to be in the room working on another task—the mere presence of another person nearby influenced performance.

What fosters deindividuation?

Anonymity •Group size •Internet •Physical enclosures •Uniforms

Why is arousal increased by presence of others?

Arousal is basically being alert, physically and mentally 2 Theories: 1) Evaluation apprehension: arousal from others evaluating you Evaluation apprehension describes the anxiety felt by an individual who is performing a task in front of others or being judged by others. The anxiousness arises from the thought of being negatively rated or not receiving positive feedback. 2) Distraction-conflict theory: arousal from divided attention The distraction-conflict model states, "in the presence of others there is a conflict between attending to the person and attending to the task". The distraction-conflict model calls this attentional conflict, and says that it is responsible for the arousal of the subject. An attentional conflict occurs between multiple stimuli when the subject is interested in paying attention to each stimulus. The task that is unrelated to the subject's primary goal is referred to as the distraction.

Groupthink

Essentially, people within a group become so consumed with the group, maintaining group cohesiveness, and doing what is important for the group that they themselves lose their ability to think independently and make good, sound judgments. There are quite a few symptoms and causes of groupthink, but it is important to know what groupthink is and that it has been used to explain a variety of tragic events throughout history such as, mass suicides (like the Heaven's Gate suicides), poor political decisions (like the Bay of Pigs invasion), riots, and more.

Deindividuation

Have you ever been in a group and acted in a manner that was completely out of character for you? How about when you hear on the news that some group of people did something so violent or stupid that you just couldn't believe it? One reason this happens is that people in groups tend to lose some of their own self-awareness and self-restraint when in groups. They become less of an individual and more anonymous. In a sense, people will do things in groups they otherwise would not because they feel less responsible for their actions and less like an individual. This process of deindividuation can have powerful effects. For example, how can soldiers kill innocent children? They often answer this question by saying that they are not monsters, but that they were going along with the group and that they were just following orders, and that they were not the only ones doing it....all engaged in heinous acts of violence because, in part, they had become deindividuated. __________________________________________________________ Loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension; occurs in group situations that foster responsiveness to group norms, good or bad •loosening or abandoning normal restraints when one can't be identified •becoming less self- conscious and less restrained when placed in a group setting

Deindividuation & Social Roles

Purpose of the study Zimbardo and his colleagues (1973) were interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (i.e., dispositional) or had more to do with the prison environment (i.e., situational). Conclusion: Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment revealed how people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards.

risky-shift

The risky-shift effect is a social psychological term. It refers to the observed tendency of people to make more daring decisions when they are in groups than when they are alone. This phenomenon explains how riots and gang violence start; from choices and actions that a person would probably never take on their own but are willing to take as part of a group. This is related to the concept of deindividuation which is when individuals in groups lose their self - identity which can lead to a loss of restraint and self-awareness.

What is a group?

Two or more people who, for longer than a few moments, interact with and influence one another and perceive one another as "us"

Social Loafing

When more people are involved in a task, the task is done faster, more easily, and better...right? Not necessarily! Social loafing is the tendency for people in a group to put less effort into the task when the effort is pooled (when they are all supposed to work on the task) compared to when they are all responsible for their own contributions. By having more people involved in the group task, each person can put in a little less effort, thinking that others will make up for their lack of effort. You may have seen this type of situation with, for example, road crews...sometimes there are 10 on the crew, 3 are working hard, 2 are sort of working, and the other 5 are sitting around talking. Are they all putting in as much effort as they would if each worked alone? Probably not.

Group Polarization

When people are placed into a group and these people have to deal with some situation, the group as a whole typically has some overriding attitude toward the situation. Over time and with group discussion, the group's attitude toward that situation may change. It changes in such a way that the group attitude is enhanced and strengthened, then group polarization has occurred. For example, let's say a group of Republicans gather to discuss welfare reform and some new policy proposed by a democratic politician. The welfare policy calls for more money to be taken from private sector businesses and given to welfare centers. In the beginning of the discussion, the group as a whole may be somewhat against the welfare reform policy (thus having an initial group attitude). After discussing the policy, the group indicates that they are now more against the policy than ever. What has happened is that the initial attitude has been bolstered and the group is more polarized against the policy. ____________________________________________________________ •Group's prevailing tendencies enhanced over time •Common in everyday life How does it occur? 1) social comparison: Social comparison bias is a product of human insecurity. It refers to feeling dislike, or competitiveness with people that you see as someone superior to yourself; physically or mentally. If you remember high school you probably remember how it was normal to feel jealous, or competitive, or to completely dislike the kids who were top athletes, or that got the best grades, or seemed more attractive or popular, etc. 2) mutual persuasion ____________________________________________________________ 1) Risky shift 2) Role of normative & informational influence on group polarization