Chapter 2: Groups
Social Psychology by
Tom Gilovich, Dacher
Keltner, and Richard
Nisbett
What is a Group?
two or more people who:
 interact with each other directly or indirectly
 share common goals/share norms
 have a stable relationship
 are interdependent
 perceive they are part of a group
not a collection of people in a lobby, street
corner, or elevator
Group Formation and Function

People join groups to:
–
–
–

satisfy important needs (e.g., belonging, safety)
reach goals they cannot achieve alone
boost their self-identity
Groups function through:
–
–
–
–
roles- expected behavior for different positions
status- social standing within group
norms- rules for behaving within group
cohesiveness- forces that cause members to stay
in group (attraction, desire for status)
Decision-Making in Groups
Social Decision Schemes- rules comparing
initial group views to final group decisions
 majority-wins rule- group opts for whatever
decision majority agreed with initially
 truth-wins rule- group eventually accepts
correct decision
 first-shift rule- groups adopt decision
consistent with direction of first shift in opinion
these simple rules predict final outcome 80% of time
Consequences of Group Decision Making

Conventional wisdom suggests groups would
make better decisions than individual
–
–

Greater informational resources
More likely to identify and correct errors
Not clear if groups make better decisions
than individuals
–
–
–
Group polarization
Groupthink
Mixed research support
Group Polarization
Group Polarization- tendency to shift toward more
extreme positions after group discussion
Risky
Neutral
Cautious
Groupthink
Mixed Research Support
Most group decision research
takes place in lab
0.3
Groups are not “real” groups
0.2
–

Group development theories
suggest groups need time to
develop effective interaction
patterns
–
(e.g., Tuckman and Jensen)





Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing
Lab groups don’t have time to
develop so effectiveness could
hinge on personality of most
competent member
0.1
Group Added Value

0
Forming Activity No Forming Activity
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
Best Member Higher SE
Worst Member Higher SE
Social Facilitation
Definition: The effect,
positive or negative,
of the presence of
others on
performance.
1. Initial Research
a. Triplett (1898)
Social Facilitation
2. Resolving the
Contradictions
a. Zajonc’s theory
•mere presence.
Dominant response
Sources of Arousal

Evaluation
Apprehension
–
A concern about looking
bad in front of others

Cottrell, et, al. 1968
Sources of Arousal

Mere presence
–
–
–
Presence of others is
arousing
Cockroaches probably
not worried about looking
bad
Markus (1978)
Social Facilitation
Distraction-Conflict Theory
Tendency to pay
attention to
audience or coactors
Organism
performing
some task
Presence of
audience
or coactors
Conflict
Tendency to pay
attention to task
Increased
arousal
Social
facilitation
effects
Tendency to slack off
when individual effort
cannot be monitored
Social Loafing
Latane’, Williams, and Harkins (1979)
Sound Pressure per Person
10
Potential
productivity
8
Pseudogroup
productivity
6
4
Actual group
productivity
2
0
1
2
3
4
Group Size
5
6
Conflict in Groups
Conflict—perceived incompatible interests

Other causes of conflict besides incompatibility
– Faulty attributions—erroneous blame
– Poor communication—misinterpreted criticism,
grudges
– Tendency to see own views as objective, while
others have biased views

–
Status quo bias—powerful groups often inaccurate
Type A personality—highly competitive and hostile
Strategies for Dealing With Conflict
Concern for Achieving Goals
Competing
Collaborating
High
Distributive
Dimension
Integrative
Dimension
Compromising
Low
Accommodating
Avoiding
Low
High
Concern for Relationships
Perceived Fairness in Groups

The presence of others affects our judgments
of fairness
–

Judgments typically made by social comparison
Fairness can be judged in terms of:
–
outcomes (distributive justice)



–
Equity distribution
Equality distribution
Need distribution
procedures (procedural justice)
Equity Theory
Perceived inequity creates a state of “unpleasant”
tension that we are motivated to reduce
How do we perceive inequity (unfairness)?
According to Adams, inequity is perceived when our
perception of the ratio of our Inputs to Outputs is
different from that of a comparison other .
Equity Theory
Larry
Moe
Curly
Perceived inequity creates a state of “unpleasant” z z
z
tension that we are motivated to reduce
How do we perceive inequity (unfairness)?
According to Adams, inequity is perceived when our
our
perception
perception
of the ratio of our Inputs to Outputs is
different from that of a comparison other .
– amount of
AnInputs
example:
work, KSAs, experience
Outputs – pay,
promotions, perqs
Study Smarter:
Student Website

http://www.wwnorton.com/socialpsych
Chapter Reviews
Diagnostic Quizzes
Vocabulary Flashcards
Apply It! Exercises