Lecture 16
Groups
1
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Outline
The Nature of Groups
Goals of Belonging to Groups
Getting Things Done
Making Accurate Decisions
Gaining Positions of Leadership
2
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
The Nature of Groups
Group –
two or more people who influence each
other
Collections of individuals become
increasingly “group like” when they:
Are interdependent
Share a common identity
Have a group structure.
3
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Mere Presence of Others and
Social Facilitation
In 1897, Norman Triplett noticed that
bicycle racers always turned in better
times in competition than alone.
Same result when he asked children to
wind fishing reels as quickly as possible.
Why might the mere presence of others
improve our performances?
4
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
The Presence of Others Influences
Individual Performance
5
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Social facilitation
Describes the general topic of
audience effects.
Sometimes the presence of an
audience enhances performance,
but sometimes it produced a decline
in performance.
6
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Enhanced
Performance
Presence
of Others
Decrement in
Performance
Why the divergent results?
7
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
In 1965, Zajonc suggested a possible
solution: the type of task that is performed
in front of the audience.
Zajonc reasoned that simple tasks might
benefit from the presence of an audience
but that complex tasks might be better
performed alone.
8
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Presence of Others
Physiological Arousal
On wellmastered or
simple tasks
dominant
response is
right
Dominant
Responses
(well
-masteredtask)
task)
(unmastered
Improved
Performance
On difficult or
complex tasks
dominant
response is
wrong
Impaired
Performance
9
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Test:
Participants were asked to examine
photographs of ten different words
supposedly taken from the Turkish
language (e.g., zabulon). In fact, the
“words” were constructed for the
experiment so that none of the participants
would have had any prior exposure.
10
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Manipulation: Some words were seen quite
often and others were seen quite rarely, thus
creating a difference in the availability of the
words in memory
Participants were next asked to view the
words presented through a device for
presenting stimuli very rapidly.
11
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
In fact, no words were shown at all--just
wavy black lines. At the chosen speed of
presentation, the wavy lines could not be
distinguished as such and participants
believed that words were being presented.
What words would they report?
Some of the participants made their
judgments alone. Others performed the
judgment task in the presence of two other
people.
12
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
14
Words Chosen
12
Alone
Audience
10
8
6
4
2
0
Frequently Presented Infrequently Presented
Words
Words
13
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Mere Presence?
A key assumption in Zajonc’s theory is
that the mere presence of others is
sufficient to produce the effects.
This assumption was challenged by
Cottrell, who argued that audiences
produce arousal because they are a
source of evaluation.
14
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Cottrell et al. (1968) study, with one key
modification:some of the audiences were
evaluative and some were not.
16
Words Chosen
14
Alone
12
Nonevaluative Audience
Evaluative Audience
10
8
6
4
2
0
Frequently Presented
Words
15
Infrequently Presented
Words
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Evaluation apprehension produces greater
effects, but one appeal of the mere
presence view is that it could apply to
other species too.
Does social facilitation occur in other
animals? And how could evaluation
apprehension be ruled out as an
alternative explanation?
16
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman (1969)
conducted a study using a species for
which they assumed it would be very
difficult to claim that anything like concern
over evaluation would occur: the lowly
cockroach.
17
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Seconds to Complete
350
300
250
Alone
Audience
200
150
100
50
0
Simple Maze
18
Complex Maze
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Social facilitation in the real world-performance by good and poor pool players.
19
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
The results of over 40 studies on social
loafing . . .
20
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Crowds and Deindividuation
Deindividuation –
the process of losing one’s sense of
personal identity, which makes it easier
to behave in ways inconsistent with
one’s normal values
Example: Anonymous children in Halloween
costumes stole more from a candy jar
(Beaman et al., 1979).
21
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Research indicates that when individuals
are not easily identified, they are more
likely to act in deviant and destructive
ways. (e.g., giving “shocks” to others,
punishing prisoners)
22
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
If cues suggest a positive norm, deindividuation
may produce positive behavior . . .
23
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
24
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Getting Things Done
25
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Lightening The Load, Dividing
the Labor
In groups, we can do things that would be
very difficult if we were alone.
Example: Move a couch, build a skyscraper.
In groups, people can divide the labor and
thereby finish a task more quickly and
efficiently.
Example: Roommate A can shop while B
cleans the breakfast dishes and C cooks.
26
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Focus on Social Dysfunction:
The Social Disease of Social
Loafing
Social loafing –
reducing one’s efforts when in a
group
27
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Focus on Social Dysfunction:
The Social Disease of Social
Loafing
Social loafing can be limited by:
Making personal efforts identifiable
Making the task meaningful and important
Making it clear that personal efforts will lead
to a better group performance
Increasing the interpersonal cohesiveness of
the group
Recruiting group members with collectivist
orientations.
28
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
29
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Ringelmann measured the effort put out by
individuals versus groups when asked to
pull on a rope as hard as they could.
30
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Pounds of Force
1200
1000
Actual
Expected
800
600
400
200
0
Alone
Three
Eight
Group Size
31
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
32
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Making Accurate
Decisions
33
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Uncertain Circumstances
Uncertainty increases the desire to be
with others in similar circumstances
(Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1988).
34
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Discussion and
Decision Making
Group polarization –
when group discussion leads
members to make decisions that are
more extremely on the side of the
issue that the group initially favored
à
35
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Group Polarization
Imagine you were considering the pros
and cons of going to grad school,
and you talked it over with two
groups:
Your family: Who was initially slightly
opposed to the idea
Your fellow students: Who were
initially slightly favorable.
à
36
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Attitude Towards Grad School
After discussion, the
group that initially
favored grad school
would be even more
strongly in favor.
Definite GO
Conversely, the group that
initially disfavored grad
school would be even more
opposed.
Unsure
Definite NO
(Get A Job!)
Before
Group
Discussion
After
Group
Discussion
37
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Group Polarization
Why do groups polarize after discussion?
Persuasive arguments: With even a slight
bias in one direction, you’ll hear more
favorable arguments on that side.
Social comparison: When members realize
the group is leaning in one direction,
they may seek acceptance by moving
further in that direction.
38
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Groupthink
Groupthink –
a style of group decision making
characterized by a greater desire
among group members to get along
and agree with one another than to
generate and critically evaluate
alternative viewpoints and positions
Groupthink can cause groups to lose the
benefits of group discussion.
39
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Group characteristics
Directive Leadership
Interpersonal Cohesiveness
Isolation from Outside Influences
Groupthink
Desire to Seek Agreement and Group Collegiality
Psychological State of Group Members
Perceived Pressure to Conform to Leader’s Perspective and Censor Own Views
Perceived Need to Protect Leader from Contrary Views
Illusions of Invulnerability and Of Outsiders as Inferior
Defective Discussion Processes
Incomplete Survey of Objectives and Alternatives
Failure to Consider Negative Features of Chosen Alternative
Failure To Design Contingency Plans if Chosen Alternative Fails
Increased Likelihood of Poor Decision
40
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
41
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005
Was the
Challenger
disaster an
example of
groupthink?
42
Copyright © Allyn and Bacon 2005