Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Small group processes   keele 1k8
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Small group processes keele 1k8

887
views

Published on

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
887
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
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]
  • Transcript

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