Group Processes
October 14th, 2009 : Lecture 10
Group Processes
Groups
Destructive Groups (“cults”)
Deindividuation
Social Facilitation and Social Loafing
Group Decision Making
Decision Making in Juries
Leadership
Types of Groups
Differentiating
elements of
Nonsocial vs Social
Groups:
Interaction
Interdependence
Social Groups
Groups have social norms to guide behavior
Groups have well-defined social roles
Vary in level of group cohesiveness
Social Norms
➔
The implicit or explicit
rules of a group about the
acceptable behaviours,
values, and beliefs of its
members
Group members are
expected to conform to
these norms
Members who deviate
from norms are
punished or rejected
UC Berkeley’s “Naked Guy”
Social Roles
➔
Shared expectations
about how particular
group members should
behave
Potential costs:
Individual personality
may be taken over by
power of role
Violation of social roles
meets with censure
from other group
members
Group Cohesiveness
➔ The
degree to which a
group IS or IS
PERCEIVED TO BE
close knit and similar
Promotes liking and
ingroup favouritism
Affects stereotyping
of the group by
outsiders
Destructive Cults
➔A
group of great devotion
to a person/idea/thing that
employs unethical
techniques of manipulation
or control
Jim Jones and
“The People’s Temple”
November 18th, 1978
Rep. Ryan and party are
gunned down
Jones orchestrates mass
suicide
Fruit punch is laced with
potassium-cyanide
913 people drink punch
276 children
Destructive Cults
Defining characteristics:
1. Charismatic leader(s)
2. Leaders are self-appointed
3. The leader is the focus of veneration
4. Group culture tends toward totalitarianism
5. Group usually has 2 or more sets of ethics
6. Group presents itself as innovative and exclusive
7. Main goals: Recruitment & Fundraising
Deindividuation
➔
The state in which a
person loses the sense
of him or herself as an
individual
Occurs:
In crowds
When physically
anonymous
Group chanting or
stomping
Effects of Deindividuation
Brandon Vedas, a 21 year-old man in a chatroom
Took a fatal overdose of pills while others egged
him on
Social Facilitation and Social
Loafing
Effects of groups on individual performance
Created by an interaction of three factors:
Individual Evaluation
Arousal
Task complexity
Social Facilitation
➔ Tendency
for
performance to be:
➔
improved when
doing well-learned or
dominant behaviours
in the presence of
others
➔ inhibited
when doing
less practised or
difficult tasks in the
presence of others
Social Loafing
➔ Tendency
for people
to perform worse on
simple tasks and
better on complex
tasks if they are in a
group and not being
individually
evaluated
Social Loafing
➔ Tendency
for people
to perform worse on
simple tasks and
better on complex
tasks if they are in a
group and not being
individually
evaluated
Evaluation
Evaluation Apprehension
➔ Concern
about being judged/evaluated
Socio-evaluative Threat
➔ Extreme
Evaluation Apprehension
Body responds with the stress hormone, cortisol
Cortisol constricts blood vessels in hippocampus,
inhibiting memory and linguistic complexity
Putting it All Together
Evaluation, Arousal, and Task Complexity ...
How do they contribute to Social Facilitation
and Social Loafing?
Putting it all Together
Evaluation
Evaluation
Apprehensio
n
Arousal
Enhanced Performance
on Simple Tasks
Arousal
Presenc
e of
Others
No
Evaluation
Apprehensio
n
Task Complexity
Impaired Performance
on Complex Tasks
Impaired Performance
on Simple Tasks
Relaxation
Enhanced Performance
on Complex Tasks
Group Decision Making
Group Polarization
Group Think
Jury Decision Making
Group polarization
➔ Tendency
for groups to make decisions that are
more extreme than the initial inclinations of their
members
Can be a shift to either greater risk or greater
caution
Has both informational and normative
explanations
Group Think
➔ “A
mode of thinking that people engage in when
they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group,
when the members' strivings for unanimity
override their motivation to realistically appraise
alternative courses of action”
Extreme form of Group Polarization
Challenger Disaster
January 28, 1986,
11:39am
Christa McAuliffe,
the first civilian to go
into space
Many children
watched the lift off in
schools
Rogers Commission
“A launch should be canceled if there is any doubts of its
safety” -NASA policy
Day before launch, engineers warn
about O-rings
Never tested below 53ºF
Launch would be around 40ºF
Engineers’ warnings suppressed
O-ring warning never mentioned to
higher-ups
Characteristics of Group Think
Antecedents
Highly
cohesive
Isolation
Directive
leader
High stress
Non-structured
decisionmaking
procedures
Illusion of
Symptoms Consequences
invulnerability
Incomplete
Group is
survey of
morally
alternativesFa
correctOutilure to look at
group is
risks of
stereotypedS
favored
elfalternativesPo
censorshipPre
or information
ssure for
searchNo
conformityIllus
contingency
ion of
plans
unanimityMin
QuickTime™ and a
mpeg4 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Exploding Whale
Group Think at its Viral Video Best
preventing Group Think
Apriori assign someone to play “Devil’s Advocate”
Everyone must know that this person was assigned
this role
Leader remains impartial
Seek feedback from people outside the group
Begin by creating subgroups which suggest ideas to the
group as a whole
Anonymous opinions from group members (e.g., ballots)
Jury Decision Making
Group Decision
Making and Juries
Value of Unanimity
12 person versus 6
person juries
Jury Decision Making
Group Polarization and Group Think
Across 200 jury trials, 97% of juries ended with
the decision favoured by majority on the initial
vote
Called “Predeliberation Errors”
Cascade Effect
➔ Judgements
of initial speakers shape
successors, who do not disclose what they
know or think
Unanimous Decisions
Requirement of Unanimity forces group to be extra
cohesive
Group Think is amplified
HOWEVER, lack of unanimity requirement increases
rates of guilty verdicts
Just World Hypothesis applied to a defendent
Predeliberation errors are biased toward belief of
defendant's guilt
Jury Composition
How many people are ideal?
6-person vs. 12-person juries
6 person juries convict more often
12-person juries acquit or are “hung” more
often
12-person juries are more likely to have a
dissenter
Leadership
Who Should Lead?
Who Does Lead?
Who Should Lead?
Anyone, really
“Great Person Theory” … big bust
Effective leadership uncorrelated with personality
One trait stands out:
Integrative Complexity
➔ The
ability to simultaneously hold, consider,
and integrate multiple perspectives on an issue
Who Does Lead?
All the same, (relative to nonleaders) leaders tend to be:
More intelligent
Socially skilled, charismatic
Driven by power
Adaptive and flexible
Confident in their leadership abilities
Trait dominance
Next Lecture (10/16):
Emotions
Project on mind and Law at Harvard Law School:
www.thesituationist.com