Groups and Individuals
Groups
Two or more people
3 important qualities:
1. Collective Identity
2. Norm Sharing
3. Similar in action & interdependent with one another
Why Join Groups?
Accomplish tasks
Emotional and social relationships
Risky Shift
James Stoner (1961) “Choice dilemmas”
Groups make more risky decisions
Occurs when group discussion leads to a more polarized position
Kalven & Zeisel (1966)
Used real juries
In 209 of 215 cases, the outcome favored the initial position of the majority.
Social Comparison & Persuasive Arguments Explanations
Social Comparison
•
•
•
•
Dilemmas evoke desire to be cautious or risky
Relatively cautious or risky (people think)
When positions are revealed, some people find that they are NOT as risky or cautious
as others, and shift in the desired direction
“One upmanship”
Persuasive Arguments
•
•
•
•
Desire to be right
For some choices, there are better arguments for risk; for other choices there are better
arguments for caution
Each individual thinks only of a subset of these arguments
More and better arguments come out on one side or the other, so people shift
Consensus at Its Worst
Groupthink: When groups are more concerned with consensus
Many reasons:
1. Highly cohesive group
2. Unanimous decision pressures
3. Isolation
4. Simplistic thinking
5. Alternative solutions suppressed
6. Dissent suppressed
Archival Research:
- Bay of Pigs Invasion
- Challenger Disaster
Avoiding Groupthink
Avoid Isolation
Complete Issue Investigation
Leader Goes Last
Devil’s Advocate
Other Opinions/Solutions Encouraged
Social Facilitation
Triplett (1898)
Occurs when the presence of others enhances performance on dominant tasks.
– Has a high likelihood of occurring
– Decreases perf. on non-dominant tasks
Mere Presence Explanation
Zajonc (1965) - psychological arousal helps dominant tasks, but hurts nondominant tasks.
Zajonc and Sales (1966) “nonsense syllable” study
– Pts. asked to pronounce nonsense syllables
Nonsense Syllables
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nog
Vab
Nog
Cag
Nog
Baz
Dominant
Buv
Baz
Cag
Nog
Vab
Civ
Non-Dominant
Zajonc & Sales (1966)
Pts. Alone or with 3 people present
Performance enhanced when others were present for dominant tasks.
Michaels et al. (1982) “pool player” study
Cockroach Study
Evaluation Apprehension
Cottrell (1968)
Used same procedures as Zajonc and Sales (1966)
Added a non-evaluative condition
Performance only facilitated when confederates could observe participants
Distraction-Conflict
Sanders and Baron (1975)
– Attentional conflicts of conspecifics
Baron, Moore, & Sanders (1978)
Paired associate learning task
– simple or hard / alone or others
Loud noises & flashing lights have similar effects
Why?
Just by being there
As evaluators
Distracting us
Social Loafing
Ringelmann (1880)
Performance decreases in a group
Two explanations
1. Less force exerted
2. Co-ordination losses
Ingham et al. (1974) “rope” study
Reconciliation of the Two
Harkins and Szymanski (1989)
As evaluation increases, performance on easy tasks is enhanced because we try harder
As evaluation increases, performance on difficult tasks suffer
As evaluation decreases, performance on easy tasks encourage social loafing
As evaluation decreases, performance on difficult tasks is enhanced because the fear of
negative evaluation is alleviated
Minority Influence
Most powerful when they agree amongst themselves & are consistent
Moscovici et al. (1969) “blue vs. green study”
4 pts and two confeds rated the color of 36 slides
– bright blue or dim blue
Confeds said slide was green on all 36 trials or on 24/36 trials.
More participants said the blue slides were green when minority was consistent
A rigid minority loses its influence
Minorities have to be flexible
Dual-Process of Minority Influence
1. Induce conflict in majority
2. Provide consistent and stable alternative
Within Kelley’s Model
Consensus: Few others taking the minority position
Consistency: Minority maintains position over time
Distinctiveness: Voice it in many different situations
Double vs. Single Minorities
Mass & Clark (1982):
“Homosexual vs. Heterosexual” study
Gay minority less effective in changing majority’s views than a heterosexual minority
Mass & Clark (1983)
•
•
•
400 UF undergrads read a discussion on gay rights by 5 women.
Majority (4/5 women) in favor of gay rights or against it. Control condition did not
ready essays
Students expressed attitudes toward gay rights either privately or publicly