LECTURE # 7: BEHAVIOUR IN GROUPS AND HELPING BEHAVIOUR
EXAM: June 21, 9am-11am CLH-D
Poor Decision Making in Groups:
Groupthink  conflict, people disagree but don’t speak up
The Abilene Paradox  nobody disagrees, no conflict
Groupthink
 Groupthinking phenomenon  a situation that was born out of a specific event; John F
Kennedy invaded Cuba and it was a big disaster; he assumed that a few American troops
would result in Cuban people overthrowing Fidel Castro
Groupthinking symptoms
Illusion of invulnerability  the team feels confortable with risky decisions because possible
weaknesses are suppressed or glossed over
Assumption of morality  there is such an unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the team’s
objections that members do not feel the need to debate whether their actions are ethical
Rationalization  Underlying assumptions, new information, and previous actions that seem
inconsistent with the team’s decision are discounted or explained away
Stereotyping of outgroups  the team stereotypes or oversimplifies the external threats on which the
decision is based; “enemies” are viewed as purely evil or moronic
Self-censorship  team members suppress their doubts to maintain harmony
Illusion of unanimity  self-censorship results in harmonious behaviour, so individual members
believe that they alone have doubts; silence is automatically perceived as evidence of consensus
Mindguarding  some members become self-appointed guardians to prevent negative or
inconsistent information from reaching the team
Pressuring of dissenters  members who happen to raise their concerns about the decision pressured
to fall into line and be more loyal to the team
ABILENE PARADOX (Jerry Harvey)
What is Abilene Paradox?
 Occurs when participants in a group acquiesce without communicating their reservations to
the others. (i.e. When the members of a group or organization agree to a plan of action none
of them really want to take. All members agree to the nature of the situation but fail to
communicate agreement and desires and so do the opposite).
 E.g. Did you ever order a pizza with a topping no one wanted?
Group members:
 Fail to communicate real feelings
 Create faulty information leading to a decision that is contrary to the desires its members.
 Give message they think others want to hear and go along with their perception of group’s
wishes.
 Try to avoid conflict even when there is nothing that would create conflict.
Why?




Fear of ostracism and separation from the group
Time pressures
Insufficient preparation prior to making a decision
Reluctance to create controversy
Principles:
Action anxiety
Elaborate negative fantasies are conjured up which are
 Dire predictions that become excuses for inaction
 Used as justification for not taking a risk
 More real than the certain consequences of a hopeless course of action.
We fear
 The unknown
 More likely: ostracism - separation from the group--being branded a non-team player
Must read the signs:
 Searching for a scapegoat (e.g. blaming on the boss
 Looking at conflict (when “the problem” is agreement--All are conspiring with each other so
all are equally responsible.)
Towards Team Decision Making
Synergy and Consensus-Seeking
Problems:
 Task groups put together without discussing:
o How the work will get done
o How the members of the group feel about what is happening
o Exploring what each member is willing to contribute
Presumed:
 Members know how to act effectively in groups
 That democracy simply means majority rules
 That competition gets better results
What is Synergy? (Conflict used as a resource)
 Breaking out of “either-or thinking” that is often bred by competition
 Searching for commonalities between apparent opposites to move to a higher order of
thinking
 Collaboration within groups such that conflict is viewed as an asset
 The mechanics of democratic decision-making get redefined to achieve consensus as a goal
 “Horse trading” and even compromise are viewed as failing to find a better perspective
A method of developing synergy in the workplace.
 Practice Team building via having groups make team decisions.

Later team members provide each other feedback on their performance using for example
the following chart.
CHAPTER #7: GROUP INFLUENCE
WHAT IS A GROUP?
 All groups have one thing in common: their members interact
 Three examples of collective influence: social facilitation, social loafing, and deindividuation
 Four examples of social influence in interacting groups: group polarization, groupthink,
leadership, and minority influence
SOCIAL FACILITATION: HOW ARE WE AFFECTED BY THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS?
THE MERE PRESENCE OF OTHERS
 The presence of others improves the speed with which people do simple multiplication
problems and cross out designated letters




Other studies revealed that on some tasks the presence of others hinders performance
(complex multiplication, a maze, nonsense syllables)
Arousal enhances whatever response tendency is dominant
Social arousal facilitates dominant responses, whether right or wrong
Others’ presence  arousal  strengthens dominant responses  enhancing easy
behaviour or impairing difficult behaviour
CROWDING: THE PRESENCE OF MANY OTHERS
 The effects of others’ presence increases with their number
 A “good house” is a full house
 Crowding enhances arousal, which facilitates dominant responses
WHY ARE WE AROUSED IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS?
 Three possible factors about what creates arousal: evaluation apprehension, distraction, and
mere presence
Evaluation apprehension
 Observers make us apprehensive because we wonder how they are evaluating us
 The enhancement of dominant responses is strongest when people think they are being
evaluated
Driven by distraction
 When people wonder how co-actors are doing or how an audience is reaction, they get
distracted
 The arousal comes not from the presence of another person but from a non-human
distraction, such as bursts of light
 We are “driven by distraction”
Mere presence
 The mere presence of others produces some arousal even without evaluation apprehension
or arousing distraction
 Social facilitation theory generated the first two types of prediction: (1) the basics of the
theory (presence of others is arousing and this social arousal enhances dominant responses)
have been confirmed (2) the theory has brought new life to a long dormant field of research
SOCIAL LOAFING: DO INDIVIDUALS EXERT LESS EFFORT IN A GROUP?
 Social facilitation usually occurs when people work toward individual goals and when their
efforts can be individually evaluated
MANY HANDS MAKE LIGHT WORK
 Suggested group members may actually be les motivated when performing additive tasks
 When being observed increases evaluation, social facilitation occurs
 When being lost in a crowd decreases evaluation concerns, social loafing occurs
SOCIAL LOAFING IN EVERYDAY LIFE
 Research on social loafing suggests “making individual production identifiable, and raises
the question: ‘How many pickles could a pickle packer pack if pickle packers were only paid
for properly packed pickles?’”
 Social loafing varies by culture
 People in collectivist cultures do exhibit less social loafing than people in individualistic
cultures
 Group members will work hard when convinced that high effort will bring rewards
 Groups load less when their members are friends on identified with their group
DEINVIDIDUATION: WHEN DO PEOPLE LOSE THEIR SENSE OF SELF IN GROUPS
DOING TOGETHER WHAT WE WOULD NOT DO ALONE

When arousal and diffused responsibility combine and normal inhibitors diminish, the
results may be startling
 These behaviours are somehow provoked by the power of a group
Group size
 A group has the power not only to arouse its members but also to render them unidentifiable
Physical anonymity
 Being anonymous makes one less self-conscious, and more responsive to cues present in the
situation, whether negative or positive
 Anonymity can lead to affection as well as violence
Arousing and distracting activities
 Aggressive outburst by large crowds are often preceded by minor actions that arouse and
divert people’s attention
DIMINISHED SELF-AWARENESS
 Group experiences that diminish self-consciousness tend to disconnect behaviour from
attitudes
 Unself-conscious, deindividuated people are less restrained, less self-regulated, more likely
to act without thinking about their own values, more responsive to the situation
 People who are self-aware, or who are temporarily made so, exhibit greater consistency
between their words outside a situation and their deeds in it
GROUP POLARIZATION: DO GROUPS INTENSITY OUR OPINIONS?
 Group discussion often strengthens members’ initial inclinations
THE CASE OF THE “RISKY SHIFT”
 Group decisions were usually riskier (“risky shift phenomenon”)
IMPACT OF GROUP DISCUSSION ON INDIVIDUALS’ OPINIONS
 Discussion typically strengthens the average inclination of group members
Group polarization experiments
 Discussions among like-minded students did increase the initial gap between the two groups
Group polarization in everyday life
 People associate mostly with others whose attitudes are similar to their own
Group polarization in schools
 “Accentuation phenomenon”  over time, initial differences among groups of university
students become accentuated
 This results partly from group members reinforcing shared inclinations
Group polarization in communities
 Like-minded people associate increasingly with one another, amplifying their shared
tendencies
 Increased rate of problem behaviour in groups
Group polarization on the Internet
 Chat rooms “make it much easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallize
diffuse hatreds, and mobilize lethal force”
EXPLAINING POLARIZATION
 Informational influence and normative influence
Informational influence and group polarization
 Group discussion elicits a pooling of ideas, most of which favour the dominant viewpoint
 The more group members repeat one another’s ideas, the more they rehearse and validate
them
Normative influence and group polarization
 Comparison with others
 We are most persuaded by groups we identify with

When people have made no prior commitment to a particular response, seeing others’
responses does stimulate a small polarization
GROUPTHINK: DO GROUPS HINDER OR ASSIST GOOD DECISION?
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK
Overestimate their group’s might and right
 An illusion of invulnerability
 Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality
Closed-minded
 Rationalization
 Stereotyped view of opponent
Pressures toward uniformity
 Conformity pressure
 Self-censorship
 Illusion of unanimity
 Mindguards
CRITIQUING THE CONCEPT OF GROUPTHINK
 Friendships do not breed groupthink
PREVENTING GROUPTHINK
 Be impartial – do not endorse any position
 Encourage critical evaluation
 Occasionally subdivide the group, and then reunite to air differences
 Welcome critiques from outside experts and associates
 Before implementing, call a “second-chance” meeting to air any lingering doubts
GROUP PROBLEM-SOLVING
 When given tricky logic problems, three four, or five heads are better than two
 Large brainstorming groups cause others to feel apprehensive about stating their ideas and
cause “production blocking” which is losing ideas while waiting for a turn to speak
Three ways to enhance group brainstorming
 Combine group and solitary brainstorming  using group brainstorming followed by solo
brainstorming
 Have group members interact by writing  write and read rather than speak and listen
 Incorporate electronic brainstorming  let individuals produce and read ideas on networked
computers
LEADERSHIP: HOW DO LEASERS SHAPE THE GROUP’S ACTIONS?
TASK LEADERSHIP AND SOCIAL LEADERSHIP
 Good leadership depends on the situation
 Task leaders often have a directive style – give orders – keep poorly functioning groups
under control
 Social leaders often have a democratic style – delegates authority, welcomes input from team
members, and helps prevent groupthink
 Good for morale
TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
 Transactional leaders focus on getting to know their subordinates and listening carefully
 Social and task leadership combined
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP




Exhibit behaviours that help make a minority persuasive
Consistently stick to their goals
Self-confident charisma
Articulate high standards and offer personal attention
THE INFLUENCE OF THE MINORITY: HOW DO INDIVIDUALS INFLUENCE THE GROUP?
 Several determinants of minority influence: consistency, self-confidence, and defection
CONSISTENCY
 Sticks to its position
 Nonconformity is often painful
 Minority slowness effect  a tendency for people with minority views to express them less
quickly than people in the majority
 A minority may stimulate creative thinking
 Talkative group members are usually influential
SELF-CONFIDENCE
 Consistency and persistence convey self-confidence
 Confidence tends to raise self-doubts among the majority
 Minorities are less persuasive regarding fact than regarding attitude
DEFECTIONS FROM THE MAJORITY
 When a minority consistently doubts the majority wisdom, majority members become freer
to express their own doubts and may switch positions
 A minority person who had defected from the majority was more persuasive than a
consistent minority voice