Small group processes keele 1k8


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Directive leader – if you say “my group doesn’t” – it’s you!
  • [Ask audience – EITHER: Please everyone stand up and shout “psychology!”Ask individual – stand up and shout “psychology”. Too embarrassing, can be singled outORAsk individual to stand up and give favourite football chant]
  • Small group processes keele 1k8

    1. 1. Small Group Processes<br />Chris Stiff<br />DH1.89<br /><br />
    2. 2. Overview<br />Basic group concepts<br />Definition, composition etc<br />Working in groups<br />Social facilitation/loafing<br />Social dilemmas<br />Group malfunctions<br />Groupthink, deindividuation, group polarization<br />
    3. 3. Basic Concepts in Groups<br />What is a group?<br />Two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other (Cartwright & Zander, 1968)<br />Most groups have between two and six members (Levine & Moreland, 1998)<br />
    4. 4. Composition of Groups<br />Social norms  appropriate behaviours for all group members<br />Deviance from these norms leads to marginalisation/rejection<br />Social roles  appropriate behaviours for those in a specific position<br />Status systems  pattern of influence members have over one another<br />Group cohesion  qualities that bind the group together and make it attractive<br />
    5. 5. Social Facilitation<br />When the presence of others improves your performance<br />Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman (1969)  Cockroaches in a tube<br />
    6. 6. FINISH<br />Audience<br />START<br />Flashlight<br />
    7. 7. Social Facilitation<br />When the presence of others improves your performance<br />Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman (1969)  Cockroaches in a tube<br /><ul><li>Ran through faster when there was an audience than when alone
    8. 8. Many other researchers support effect (e.g. Bond, 1982)</li></li></ul><li>Explanations for Social Facilitation<br />Zajonc: “Mere presence” of others causes arousal, leads to elicitation of dominant response<br />Others may do something we have to respond to <br />May cause a distraction which creates conflict (Baron, 1986)<br />Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Salomon (1999) Evaluation apprehension causes arousal<br />
    9. 9. Simple vs. Complex Tasks<br />Zanjonc et al. (1969) Also looked at cockroaches in a more complex maze<br />
    10. 10. Audience<br />FINISH<br />START<br />Flashlight<br />
    11. 11. Simple vs. Complex Tasks<br /><ul><li>Zanjonc et al. (1969) Also looked at cockroaches in a more complex maze</li></ul>Roaches to longer with others present when the maze was more complex<br />Dominant response inappropriate in such situations<br />Again, this has been shown in many other studies (e.g. Bond & Titus, 1983)<br />The presence of others increases performance on simples tasks, and decreases performance on complex tasks<br />
    12. 12. Social Loafing<br />When the presence of others decreases performance<br />Lack of evaluation apprehension key aspect<br />“Arousal” explanation: lack of evaluation relaxes actors, inhibiting performance (Karau & Williams, 2001)<br />This enhances performance on complex tasks! (Jackson & Williams, 1985)<br />
    13. 13. Other Social Loafing Explanations<br />Perceived dispensability of contributions:<br />“My contribution isn’t needed”<br />Perceived efficacy of the group:<br />“The group won’t succeed; why should I try?”<br />Others are failing to contribute:<br />“I don’t want to be exploited”<br />Comer (1995)<br />Contributions may be strategically withheld<br />
    14. 14. Social facilitation<br />Social loafing<br />Presence of others<br />Efforts can be evaluated<br />Efforts cannot be evaluated<br />Alertness<br />Evaluation apprehension<br />Distraction<br />No evaluation apprehension<br />Arousal<br />Relaxation<br />Simple tasks:<br />Enhanced performance<br />Complex tasks:<br />Impaired performance<br />Simple tasks:<br />Impaired performance<br />Complex tasks:<br />Enhanced performance<br />
    15. 15. Cooperation in Groups<br />When interacting with others, some conflict of interest is inevitable<br />Often, there is a conflict between what is best for the individual, and best for the group<br />These situations are known as mixed-motive situations or social dilemmas (Dawes, 1980)<br />Basic concept: what’s good for the individual is bad for the group<br />Leaving the washing up for others<br />Jumping the queue at nightclubs/cloakrooms<br />
    16. 16. Forms of Social Dilemmas<br />Commons Dilemma: <br />“Take some” dilemma<br />harvesting from a common pool (e.g. using communal milk)<br />Public Goods Dilemma: <br />“Give some” dilemma”<br />contributing to a common pool with equal dividends for all members (e.g. doing rounds in the pub)<br />
    17. 17. Increasing cooperation in Social Dilemmas<br />Social identity: A common identity leads to pro in-group behaviour<br />Can be genuine, trivial, or artificial (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)<br />Communication: <br />Clarifies rules of game (Dawes, McTavish, and Shaklee, 1977)<br />Allows formation of pledges or commitments (Chen and Komorita, 1994) <br />“Humanises” fellow group members<br />
    18. 18. Concern for reputation: <br />Future interactions with observing individuals increases concerns of appearing as a “good” member (Milinski, Semmann, & Krambeck, 2002) <br />Sanctioning systems: <br />Penalising defectors deters theirs and others’ future defection (but may be costly! – Yamagishi, 1986, 1988)<br />
    19. 19. Groupthink<br />Group thinking and decision making where maintaining cohesion more important than correct solution<br />Can lead to maladaptive decisions and aversive consequences<br />(Janis, 1972)<br />Real life example: Bay of Pigs <br />
    20. 20. Groupthink characteristics<br />Groupthink example – choosing a DVD<br />Highly cohesive group:<br />Group isolation:<br />Directive leader:<br />High stress:<br />Poor decision making procedures:<br />all friends, group is attractive<br />don’t ask anyone in the shop for their opinion<br />every group has one; orders everyone about<br />pizza getting cold, beer getting warm<br />majority? Who chose last time? What do reviews say? What’s in the charts?<br />
    21. 21. Results of Groupthink<br /><ul><li>Incomplete survey of alternatives: Don’t properly look at what other films you can get
    22. 22. Failure to examine risks of favoured alternative: It might turn out to be rubbish – not considered
    23. 23. Poor information search: Fail to look at reviews, attend to advice
    24. 24. Failure to develop contingency plan: What if it is rubbish? – not considered</li></li></ul><li>Deindividuation<br />A loosening of normal behavioural constraints, leading to an increase in deviant behaviour (Lea, Spears, & de Groot, 2001)<br />
    25. 25.
    26. 26. Deindividuation<br />A loosening of normal behavioural constraints, leading to an increase in deviant behaviour (Lea, Spears, & de Groot, 2001)<br /><ul><li>Makes us less accountable
    27. 27. Reduces likelihood of being singled out (Zimbardo, 1970)
    28. 28. Increase conformity to group norms (Postmes & Spears, 1998)
    29. 29. May not always be anti-social (Johnson & Downing, 1979</li></li></ul><li>
    30. 30. Group Polarization<br />Wallach, Kogan, & Bem (1962)  Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire<br />Groups took riskier decisions compared with individuals – a risky shift<br />Groups tend to make more extreme decisions (rather than more risky) (Rodrigo & Ato, 2002)<br />Conservative decisions become more conservative<br />Risky decisions become more risky<br />
    31. 31. Why Do Group Polarize?<br />Burnstein & Sentis (1981) Each member brings arguments the others hadn’t considered; pushes the argument to extremes<br />Brown (1986) social comparisons; people act like everyone else plus a bit extra to seem like a positive group member<br />
    32. 32. Summary <br />People join groups because they allow fulfilment of material and emotional goals<br />Groups contain norms, roles, and status systems<br />Groups tend to go to extremes in opinions and behaviours<br />Group polarization<br />Deindividuation<br />Working in groups can both enhance and impair performance <br />Social facilitation<br />Social loafing<br />Groupthink<br />
    33. 33. Conflicts of interest may cause disruptions in group performance<br />Social dilemmas<br />
    34. 34. References<br />Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. & Salomon, K. (1999). Social facilitation as challenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 68-77.  <br />Cartwright, D. & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: research and theory. New York: Harper & Row.<br />Comer D.R. (1995). A model of social loafing in real work groups. Human Relations, 48, 647-667.<br />Dawes R.M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169-193.<br />Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Understanding individual motivation in groups: The Collective Effort Model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 113-141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum <br />
    35. 35. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford, England , Houghton Mifflin. <br />Lea, M., Spears, R. & de Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,27, 526-537.<br />Wallach, M., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. (1962). Group influence on individual risk taking. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 65, 75-86<br />Yamagishi T. (1988). Seriousness of social dilemmas and the provision of a sanctioning system. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 32-42.<br />Zajonc, R.B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E.M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 83-92.<br />Zimbardo, P. G. (1970). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), 1969 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 237-307). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. <br />