Groups & Group Dynamics



Satisfy survival, psychological,
informational, & identity needs
Structure of small groups – norms; roles,
status systems
How individual’s thoughts, feelings &
actions are influenced by being part of a
group; how individuals can affect groups
What are groups?
Groups differ in their degree of commitment & social cohesiveness.



Incidental groups - minimal group paradigm (workshop at a
conference)
Membership groups - defined by being a member
(committee, club)
Identity-reference groups – affiliation acts as a reference
frame for social identity (religious community, political
affiliation)
People in individual interaction with each other - - - People
acting as a group
Social Influence in groups
Social loafing (idling) - where people have little or no
involvement or commitment to group, individualistic norms,
no investment in what happens – impact of group on
individual behaviour is negative/minimal
Social facilitation (energizing) - working harder as a member of
group than alone, task important/interesting, strong
commitment to goal
(Collectivist cultures)

Social loafing = experimental artefact of creating
incidental groups (low commitment, meaningless
tasks), not a universal quality of task performance
in a group

Groups that have (collectivist), or are motivated to
develop, cohesiveness, commitment, & work on
worthwhile task, social energising more likely
Identity-reference groups
 Shift from personal to social identity
 Becomes in-group, encourages
cooperation & conflict with outgroups

Summer Camp experiments (Sherif et al.
1961).
White middle class 11-12 year old boys at
summer camp
4 phases:
 Spontaneous friendship formation
 Ingroup formation (2 groups formed, kept separate)
 Intergroup competition (placed in competitive
situations)
 Intergroup cooperation (create superordinate goals
achieved only through intergroup cooperation)
Conformity



Allport 1924 groups tend to give more
conservative judgments than individuals
Sherif 1936 autokinetic effect
Asch’s studies (1951)
Group norms – shared standard of conduct
expected of group members
Garfinkel 1967 students behave as lodgers
Festinger 1954 Social Comparison theory
Minority Influence
Asch: majority influence – many factors but
most important = being only dissenter in
group. Effect extinguished where subject
has even one supporter.
So easier to resist if not ‘odd one out’;
But can you persuade others to move to your
position?
Moscovici et al. 1969 study of colour
perception
(groups of 6, incl. 2 stooges, blue/green
slides)
Some members of majority can be
persuaded by small minority IF their
judgments are consistent
Also important how behaviour of minority is
interpreted.
Two main processes


What kind of decision is it? (e.g., intellectual vs.
judgmental)
How will the decision be made?


Normative vs. informational social influence
Heuristic vs. systematic processing
Majority influence on group decisions.



majorities can exert greater normative and informational
social influence than minorities.
majority influence (Asch’s 1950's classic studies) compliance
minority influence (Moscovici 60's/70's) – conversion
Explanations for Social Influence
Processes in groups
Same Process Models
 Dual Process dependency model (Turner 1987) :
Normative & Informational influence contribute
differentially in different situations


Where confident of own judgment, + majority perceived as
powerful, then Normative influence predominates
Where lack confidence, so conflicting info from minority can
have greater impact, majority less powerful, then normative
influence reduced
Different Process Models
Moscovici’s Innovation Model – based on social
representations (how new ideas of original thinkers
come to influence the images, thinking, vocabulary &
beliefs of ordinary people)
Majority influence operates through conformity &
normalization, passive heuristic processing
Minority, through a discrete process of innovation, direct
processing effort – consistency is key – sustained
attempt to exert information influence (real-life pressure
groups - Amnesty Int, Greenpeace)
Turner's Referent Information Influence model 1991
(based on social identity theory)
3rd form: referent information influence operates
through people’s self-categorization
Identify oneself with a group, then use that group’s
norms as standards for own decision making
Group discussion enhances the initial attitudes of
people who already agree.

Are group decisions more cautious? Research has
shown shifts both toward caution and toward risk.
Group enhancement of initial tendencies: groupproduced enhancement or exaggeration of
members' initial attitudes through discussion =
group polarization.
‘Brainstorming’
•

What produces group polarization? A special case of the
‘risky shift’ (Stoner 1961)



Social comparison explanation: individual members discover that they
are not nearly as extreme in the socially valued direction as they
initially thought. Because they want others to evaluate them positively
(normative influence), begin to shift toward even more extreme
positions.
Persuasive arguments explanation: hearing more arguments in favour
of their own position rather than against it, and hearing new supportive
arguments that they had not initially considered, members gradually
come to adopt even more extreme positions.
Both explanations play a role.
C. Groupthink (Janis 1971, 1982) when
consensus-seeking overrides critical analysis.

Symptoms of groupthink




overestimation of in-group
close-mindedness
increased conformity pressures
Research on groupthink - does not always occur in
the way Janis proposed. NOT found in groups
outside lab – why?

Key = different norms.
IV. Leadership
•
•
•
•
•

A leader is an influence agent.
Transformational leaders take heroic and unconventional actions.
The contingency model Fiedler (1967, 1978) highlights personal
and situational factors in leader effectiveness.
Gender and culture can influence leadership style.
Importance of task (group effectiveness combination of leadership
style & group task)
E.g., jury foreperson–perceived as leader, it is usually men of
higher SES (socio-economic status), might influence the verdict,
although evidence is mixed here.
VI. Applications: How Do Juries Make Decisions?
Minority influence upon others’ verdicts –
a small minority may influence the majority vote by conversion, if they are consistent, committed in their opinions and
arguments, seem to be acting on principle rather than out of self-gain and incur some cost, as well as are not overly
rigid and unreasonable in their opinions and arguments.
Social / majority influences on jury decision-making –
jurors have usually decided on a verdict before they retire to deliberate and jury deliberation consists merely of trying to
persuade others to the same opinion. Social group pressure may thus lead to illogical decisions for a number of
reasons:

group polarisation – a group tends to make more extreme decisions (either riskier or more cautious) through a
process of social comparison and increasing conformity to the group’s initial majority decision;

conformity – group pressure to agree with majority verdicts may result in a lack of consideration for alternative,
minority opinions. This can be both informational (uncertainty over the verdict) and normative (need to be socially
approved). The pressure may increase with the severity of the crime, the need for a majority rather than unanimous
verdict (whoever cares about one or two dissidents then...), and the size of the jury (1 against 5 people resists less
than 2 against 10 people – see Asch);

Groupthink – esp. in a cohesive and isolated group, dominated by a directive leader – e.g. confirmatory bias – not
equally considering evidence against their joint beliefs;

Social loafing – individuals in the jury may be inclined to deliberate less that they would alone and let others think
for them.
Reading
General:
Ch. 8 & 9 Hogg & Vaughan
Critical evaluation:
Pheonix, A. (2007) Chapter 5 Intragroup processes: Entitativity. In D.
Langdridge & S. Taylor (Eds.). Critical Readings in Social
Psychology. OUP.
Wekselberg, V. 1996 Groupthink: A triple fiasco in social psychology. In C.W.
Tolman, F. Cherry, R. van Hezewijk & I. Lubek. (Eds.). Problems of Theoretical
Psychology. Ontario: Captus Press.
Fraser & Burchell Ch. 8 (esp. discussion of normative vs. informational influence)