6th edition
Social Psychology
Elliot Aronson
University of California, Santa Cruz
Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert
Wellesley College
slides by Travis Langley
Henderson State University
Chapter 9
Group Processes:
Influence in Social
Groups
“The only sin which we never
forgive in each other is
difference of opinion.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson
Society and Solitude, 1870
Image ID: 38625, Published in The New Yorker April 23, 1979
What Is a Group?
Group
Two or more people
who interact and
are interdependent
in the sense that
their needs and
goals cause them
to influence each
other.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Why Do People Join Groups?
Groups have a number of other benefits:
• Other people can be an important source of
information, helping us resolve ambiguity
about the nature of the social world.
• Groups become an important part of our
identity, helping us define who we are.
• Groups also help establish social norms.
The Composition and
Functions of Groups
• Most groups have 2 to 6 members.
• This is due in part to our definition of
groups as involving interaction between
members.
• If groups become too large, you cannot
interact with all the members.
• Group members tend to be alike in age,
sex, beliefs, and opinions.
The Composition and
Functions of Groups
There are two reasons for the homogeneity
of groups:
1. Many groups tend to attract people who
are already similar before they join.
2. Groups tend to operate in ways that
encourage similarity in the members.
Social Norms
Social Roles
Shared expectations in a group
about how particular people
are supposed to behave.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Social Norms
Social Roles
Shared expectations in a group
about how particular people
are supposed to behave.
There are potential costs to social roles.
For one thing, people can get so far into a
role that their personal identities and
personalities get lost.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Zimbardo’s Prison
Simulation
Zimbardo and colleagues randomly assigned male
volunteers to play the roles or either guards or
prisoners in a 2-week prison simulation
experiment.
The students quickly assumed
these roles—to such an extent
that the researchers ended the
experiment after only 6 days.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Zimbardo’s Prison
Simulation
Zimbardo and colleagues randomly assigned male
volunteers to play the roles or either guards or
prisoners in a 2-week prison simulation
experiment.
The students quickly assumed
these roles—to such an extent
that the researchers ended the
experiment after only 6 days.
Many of the guards became quite abusive, thinking
of creative ways of verbally harassing and
humiliating the prisoners.
The prisoners became passive, helpless, and
withdrawn.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Prison Abuse at Abu Ghraib
In 2004, it came to light that American military
guards had been abusing prisoners in Abu
Ghraib, a prison in Iraq.
A report written by U. S. Major General Taguba,
who investigated the claims of abuse,
documented numerous cases of physical
beatings, sexual abuse, and psychological
humiliation.
The American public was shocked by pictures of
U. S. soldiers smiling as they stood in front of
naked Iraqi prisoners, as if they were posing in
front of local landmarks for the folks back home.
Prison Abuse at Abu Ghraib
Did a few bad apples happen to end up in the unit
guarding the prisoners?
“What's bad is the barrel,” Zimbardo argued.
The military guards at Abu Ghraib
were under tremendous stress,
had received little supervision,
and were asked to set their own
rules for interrogation.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Prison Abuse at Abu Ghraib
Did a few bad apples happen to end up in the unit
guarding the prisoners?
This isZimbardo
not to sayargued.
that the
“What's bad is the barrel,”
soldiers should be
The military guards atcompletely
Abu Ghraibexcused for their
actions.
were under tremendous
stress,
had received littleThe
supervision,
abuse came to light when
onetheir
of the
guards reported
and were asked to set
own
what was happening, and as
rules for interrogation.
in Zimbardo’s study, there
were some guards who
treated the prisoners well.
Gender Roles
All societies have expectations about how
people who occupy the roles of women
and men should behave.
Source of images: Microsoft Office Online.
Gender Roles
Changing roles cause conflict.
They can even affect our personalities.
Source of images: Microsoft Office Online.
Women’s ratings of assertiveness have mirrored societal
trends:
• As women’s role in the United States changed from
independent to dependent, their ratings of assertiveness
dropped.
• Then, as they became more independent, their ratings
of assertiveness increased.
Group Cohesiveness
Group Cohesiveness
Qualities of a group that bind members
together and promote liking between
members.
Group Cohesiveness
Group Cohesiveness
Qualities of a group that bind members
together and promote liking between
members.
The more cohesive a group is, the more its
members are likely to:
– Stay in the group,
– Take part in group activities, and
– Try to recruit new like-minded members.
Group Cohesiveness
• If a task requires close cooperation
between the group members, such as a
football team executing a difficult play,
cohesiveness helps performance.
• If maintaining good relations among
group members seems more important
than finding good solutions to a problem,
however, cohesiveness can get in the
way of optimal performance.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Groups and Individuals’ Behavior
Do you act differently when other people are
around?
Simply being in the presence of other people can
have a variety of interesting effects on our
behavior.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Social Facilitation:
When the Presence of Others Energizes Us
Social Facilitation
The tendency for people to do better on simple
tasks and worse on complex tasks when they
are in the presence of others and their
individual performance can be evaluated.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Social Facilitation:
When the Presence of Others Energizes Us
The presence of others can mean one of
two things:
(1) Performing a task with co-workers who
are doing the same thing you are, or
(2) Performing a task in front of an
audience that is not doing anything but
observing you.
Social Facilitation:
When the Presence of Others Energizes Us
Dozens of studies have been done on the
effects of the mere presence of other
people, involving human beings as well
as other species, such as ants and birds.
The findings of these studies are
remarkably consistent:
As long as the task is a relatively simple,
well-learned one—as escaping a light is
for cockroaches—the mere presence of
others improves performance.
Social Facilitation:
When the Presence of Others Energizes Us
In one of the first social psychology
experiments ever done, Norman Triplett
(1898) asked children to wind up fishing
line on a reel, either by themselves or in
the presence of other children.
They did so faster when in the presence of
other children than when by themselves.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Simple versus Difficult Tasks
When working on a more difficult task,
however, the opposite pattern of results
often occurs:
A task can take longer to solve or perform
when others are present than when
performing alone.
Many studies have found that people and
animals do worse in the presence of
others when the task is difficult.
Arousal and the Dominant
Response
In an influential article, Robert Zajonc (1965)
offered an elegant theoretical explanation for
why the presence of others facilitates a welllearned response but inhibits a less practiced
or new response.
1. The presence of others increases
physiological arousal (i.e., our bodies become
more energized).
2. When such arousal exists, it is easier to do
something that is simple but harder to do
something complex or learn something new.
Arousal and the Dominant
Response
In an influential article, Robert Zajonc (1965)
offered
an elegant theoretical
explanation
This
phenomenon
became known
as for
why the presence of others facilitates a wellsocial facilitation:
learned response but inhibits a less practiced
or
newtendency
response.to do better on simple
The
1. The
presence
of others
increases tasks
tasks
and worse
on complex
physiological
(i.e., our of
bodies
become
when are inarousal
the presence
others
more energized).
and when individual performance
2. When such arousal exists, it is easier to do
can be evaluated.
something
that is simple but harder to do
something complex or learn something new.
Why the Presence of Others
Causes Arousal
Researchers have developed three theories to
explain the role of arousal in social facilitation:
1. Other people cause us to become particularly
alert and vigilant.
2. They make us apprehensive about how we’re
being evaluated.
3. They distract us from the task at hand.
Why the Presence of Others
Causes Arousal
1. Other people cause us to become particularly
alert and vigilant.
Because other people can be unpredictable, we
are in a state of greater alertness in their
presence.
This alertness, or vigilance, causes mild arousal.
Why the Presence of Others
Causes Arousal
2. They make us apprehensive about how we’re
being evaluated.
When other people can see how you are doing,
you feel like they are evaluating you.
Evaluation apprehension can cause mild arousal.
Why the Presence of Others
Causes Arousal
3. They distract us from the task at hand.
Divided attention produces arousal, as any parent knows
who has ever tried to read the newspaper while his or
her 2-year-old clamors for attention.
Consistent with this interpretation, nonsocial sources of
distraction, such as a flashing light, cause the same
kinds of social facilitation effects as the presence of
other people.
Social Loafing:
When the Presence of Others Relaxes Us
When people are in the presence of others,
however, their individual efforts often cannot be
distinguished from those of the people around
them.
These situations are just the opposite of the kinds
of social facilitation settings we have just
considered.
In social facilitation, the presence of others puts the
spotlight on you, making you aroused. But if
being with other people means we can merge
into a group, becoming less noticeable than when
we are alone, then we should become relaxed.
Social Loafing:
When the Presence of Others Relaxes Us
The question
Social
Loafingof how working with others would
influence performance on such a task was first
The
tendency
people
studied
in thefor
1880s
by a French agricultural
to
do worse
onRingelmann
simple
engineer,
Max
(1913).
tasks
but
better
He
found
that
whenon
a group pulled on a rope,
complex
tasks when
each individual
exerted less effort than when
doingare
it alone.
they
in the
presence of others and
their individual
performance cannot be
evaluated.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Arousal enhances performance on simple tasks but
impairs performance on complex tasks.
By the same reasoning, becoming relaxed impairs
performance on simple tasks—as we have just seen—
but improves performance on complex tasks.
In a review of more than 150 studies of social
loafing, the tendency to loaf was found to be
stronger in men than in women.
Women tend to be higher than men in
relational interdependence, which is the
tendency to focus on and care about
personal relationships with other individuals.
Perhaps it is this focus that makes women less
likely to engage in social loafing when in
groups.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
The tendency to loaf is stronger in Western
cultures than Asian cultures, which may be due
to the different self-definitions prevalent in
these cultures.
Asians are more likely to have an interdependent
view of the self, which is a way of defining
oneself in terms of relationships to other
people.
This self-definition may reduce the tendency
toward social loafing when in groups.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
We should not, however, exaggerate these
gender and cultural differences.
• Women and members of Asian cultures
do engage in social loafing when in
groups.
• They are just less likely to do so than
men or members of Western cultures.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Deindividuation:
Getting Lost in the Crowd
Deindividuation
The loosening of normal constraints on
behavior when people can’t be identified
(such as when they are in a crowd),
leading to an increase in impulsive and
deviant acts.
Deindividuation:
Getting Lost in the Crowd
Throughout history, there have been many
examples of groups of people committing
horrendous acts that no individual would do on
his or her own:
• Massacre at My Lai during the Vietnam War.
• Mobs of soccer fans sometimes attacking each
other.
• Hysterical fans at rock concerts who trampled
each other to death.
• Lynching of African Americans by people
cloaked in the anonymity of white robes.
Reason #1: Deindividuation Makes
People Feel Less Accountable
Deindividuation makes people feel less
accountable for their actions because it
reduces the likelihood that any individual
will be singled out and blamed.
Reason #2: Deindividuation Increases
Obedience to Group Norms
Meta-analysis of more than 60 studies
found that becoming deindividuated
increases the extent to which people
obey the group’s norms.
Meta-analysis of more than 60 studies
found that becoming deindividuated
increases the extent to which people
obey the group’s norms.
Deindividuation
Deindividuation does not always lead
to aggressive or antisocial behavior.
It depends on what the norm of the
group is.
Deindividuation in Cyberspace
Before blogs and internet chat rooms became
popular, angry readers could have written
letters to the editor or vented feelings to
coworkers at the water cooler.
Their discourse would have likely been more civil
than that of people who now post comments on
blogs, in no small part because people are not
anonymous in these settings.
(Most newspapers require people to sign letters
to the editor.)
Deindividuation in Cyberspace
The internet has provided new ways in which
people can communicate with each other
anonymously.
Just as research on deindividuation predicts, in
these settings people often feel free to say
things they would never dream of saying if they
could be identified.
There are advantages to free and open
discussion of difficult topics, but the cost seems
to be a reduction in common civility.
Group Decisions:
Are Two (or More) Heads Better Than One?
Most important decisions in the world today
are made by groups because it is assumed
that groups make better decisions than
individuals.
In general, groups will do
better than individuals if
they rely on the person
with the most expertise
and are stimulated by
each other’s comments.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Group Decisions:
Are Two (or More) Heads Better Than One?
Most important decisions in the world today
are made by groups because it is assumed
that groups make better decisions than
individuals.
In general, groups will do
better than individuals if Several factors can
cause groups to
they rely on the person
make worse
with the most expertise
and are stimulated by
decisions than
each other’s comments.
individuals.
Process Loss:
When Group Interactions Inhibit
Good Problem Solving
One problem is that a group will do well
only if the most talented member can
convince the others that he or she is right.
You undoubtedly know what it’s like to try to
convince a group to follow your idea, be
faced with opposition and disbelief, and
then have to sit there and watch the
group make the wrong decision.
Process Loss:
When Group Interactions Inhibit
Good Problem Solving
Process Loss
Any aspect of group interaction that
inhibits good problem solving.
Process loss can occur for a number of reasons:
• Groups might not try hard enough to find out who the
most competent member is.
• The most competent member might find it difficult to
disagree with everyone else.
• Communication problems can arise.
Failure to Share Unique Information
Groups tend to focus on the information
they share and ignore facts known to only
some members of the group.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Failure to Share Unique Information
Subsequent research has focused on ways to get
groups to focus more on unshared information:
• Group discussions should last long enough to
get beyond what everyone already knows.
• Another approach is to assign different group
members to specific areas of expertise so that
they know that they alone are responsible for
certain types of information.
Transactive Memory
Transactive Memory
The combined memory of two people
that is more efficient than the memory
of either individual.
In sum, the tendency for groups to fail to share
important information known to only some of the
members can be overcome if people learn who
is responsible for what kinds of information and
take the time to discuss these unshared data.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Groupthink:
Many Heads, One Mind
Groupthink
A kind of thinking in which maintaining
group cohesiveness and solidarity is
more important than considering the facts
in a realistic manner.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Groupthink:
Many Heads, One Mind
According to Irving Janis's (1972, 1982)
theory, groupthink is most likely to occur
when certain preconditions are met, such
as when the group is:
– Highly cohesive,
– Isolated from contrary opinions, and
– Ruled by a directive leader who makes his or
her wishes known.
Avoiding the Groupthink Trap
A wise leader can take several steps to
avoid groupthink:
• Remain impartial,
• Seek outside opinions,
• Create subgroups,
• Seek anonymous opinions.
Group Polarization:
Going to Extremes
Group Polarization
The tendency for groups to make decisions
that are more extreme than the initial
inclinations of its members.
1.
2.
According to the persuasive arguments interpretation,
all individuals bring to the group a set of arguments,
some of which other individuals have not considered,
supporting their initial recommendation.
According to the social comparison interpretation, when
people discuss an issue in a group, they first check out
how everyone else feels.
Leadership in Groups
Great Person Theory
The idea that certain key personality traits
make a person a good leader, regardless
of the situation.
Leadership and Personality
Numerous studies have found weak
relationships between personality and
leadership abilities.
Compared to nonleaders, leaders tend to be
slightly more:
–
–
–
–
intelligent
extraverted
confident
charismatic
–
–
–
–
socially skilled
driven by desire for power
open to new experiences
less neurotic
Leadership and Personality
What is most telling, however, is the absence
of strong relationships.
• Surprisingly few personality characteristics
correlate strongly with leadership
effectiveness.
• The relationships that have been found
tend to be modest.
Leadership Styles
Transactional Leaders
Leaders who set clear, short-term goals
and reward people who meet them.
Transformational Leaders
Leaders who inspire followers to focus
on common, long-term goals.
The Right Person in the Right Situation
A leader can be highly successful in some
situations but not in others.
A comprehensive theory of leadership thus
needs to focus on characteristics of the
leader, the followers, and the situation.
Contingency Theory of Leadership
The idea that leadership effectiveness depends both on
how task-oriented or relationship-oriented the leader is
and on the amount of control and influence the leader
has over the group.
The Right Person in the Right Situation
The contingency theory of leadership
argues there are two basic leader types:
Task-Oriented Leader
A leader who is concerned more with getting the job
done than with workers’ feelings and relationships.
Relationship-Oriented
A leader who is concerned primarily with workers’
feelings and relationships.
The Right Person in the Right Situation
Task-oriented leaders do well in:
High-control work situations: Leader-subordinate
relationship are excellent; the work is structured
and well defined.
Low-control work situations: Leader-subordinate
relationships are poor; the work needing to be
done is not clearly defined.
Relationship-oriented leaders are most effective in:
Moderate-control work situations: The wheels are
turning fairly smoothly, but some attention to the
squeakiness caused by poor relationships and
hurt feelings is needed.
Gender and Leadership
There is a double bind for women leaders:
• If they conform to societal expectations about
how they ought to behave, by being warm and
communal, they are often perceived as having
low leadership potential.
• If they succeed in attaining a leadership
position and act in ways that leaders are
expected to act—namely, in agentic, forceful
ways—they are often perceived negatively for
not “acting like a woman should.”
CONFLICT & COOPERATION
• Often, however, people have
incompatible goals, placing them in
conflict with each other.
• This can be true of individuals, groups,
companies, nations.
Social Dilemmas
Social Dilemma
A conflict in which the most beneficial
action for an individual will, if chosen by
most people, have harmful effects on
everyone.
Social Dilemmas
Prisoner’s dilemma: In this game, two people
have to choose one of two options without
knowing what the other person will choose.
Your payoff—the amount of money you win or
lose—depends on the choices of both you and
your friend.
For instance, if both you and your friend choose
option X, you both win $3. If, however, you
choose option Y and your friend chooses option
X, you win $6 and your friend loses $6.
Increasing Cooperation in
the Prisoner’s Dilemma
People are more likely to adopt a
cooperative strategy that maximizes both
their profits and their partner’s if:
• Playing the game with a friend, or
• They expect to interact with their partner
in the future.
Increasing Cooperation in
the Prisoner’s Dilemma
• Growing up in some societies, such as
Asian cultures, seems to foster a more
cooperative orientation.
• Changing the name of the game from the
“Wall Street Game” to the “Community
Game” increased the percentage of
people who cooperated from 33% to 71%
in one study.
Increasing Cooperation in
the Prisoner’s Dilemma
Tit-for-Tat Strategy
A means of encouraging cooperation by at
first acting cooperatively but then always
responding the way your opponent did
(cooperatively or competitively) on the
previous trial.
Other Kinds of Social Dilemmas
Public Goods Dilemma
A social dilemma in which individuals must
contribute to a common pool in order to
maintain the public good.
Commons Dilemma
A social dilemma in which everyone takes from a
common pool of goods that will replenish itself if
used in moderation but will disappear if
overused.
Using Threats to Resolve Conflict
A classic series of studies by Morton
Deutsch and Robert Krauss (1960, 1962)
indicates that threats are not an effective
means of reducing conflict.
They had two participants at a time imagine
they each controlled a truck company,
with each company slowed down by the
other’s use of the same one-lane road.
(See illustration on next page.)
After a while, most of them worked out a solution that
allowed both trucks to make a modest amount of
money. They took turns crossing the one-lane road.
In another version of the study, the researchers gave Acme a gate
that could be lowered over the one-lane road, thereby blocking Bolt
from using that route. You might think that using force—the gate—
would increase Acme’s profits, because all Acme had to do was to
threaten Bolt to “stay off the one-lane road or else.” In fact, quite
the opposite happened. When one side had the gate, both
participants lost more than when neither side had the gate.
Negotiation and Bargaining
Negotiation
A form of communication between opposing sides
in a conflict in which offers and counteroffers
are made and a solution occurs only when both
parties agree.
Integrative Solution
A solution to conflict whereby parties make trade-offs
on issues according to their different interests; each
side concedes the most on issues that are
unimportant to it but important to the other side.
The bottom line?
When negotiating with someone, keep in mind
that integrative solutions are often available.
Try to gain the other side’s trust, and
communicate your own interests in an open
manner.
Remember that the way you construe the
situation is not necessarily the same as the way
the other party construes the situation.
You may well discover the other side
communicates its interests more freely as a
result, increasing the likelihood that you will find
a solution beneficial to both parties.
6th edition
Social Psychology
Elliot Aronson
University of California, Santa Cruz
Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert
Wellesley College
slides by Travis Langley
Henderson State University