Groups & Leadership

Slide 1: Social Psychology Groups & Leadership 2008 Lecturer: James Neill

Slide 2: Overview: Pt 1 (Groups)  Questions about groups  What is a group?   Groups, roles, and selves Group action Reading  How groups think Baumeister &  Group decision making  Effects of groups on individuals Bushman  Social facilitation (2008):  Hawthorne effect  Social loafing  Ch14: Groups  Intergroup conflict  Co-operation between groups  Self-categorisation theory  Social categorisation theory

Slide 3: Questions about groups Isgroup behaviour different to the behaviour of individuals? Do groups make better or worse decisions than individuals? Why do groups conflict? 3

Slide 4: What is a group? How would you define a (social) group? What are the minimal criteria for a group? 4

Slide 5: What is a group? 2 or more people  “doing or being something together”  Group members: – Feel similar – Share a common identity – Work towards a common goal – Are distinguished from outgroup(s) – Depend on each other 5

Slide 6: What is a group? “A collection of people, usually people who are doing or being something together.” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 480) 6

Slide 7: What is a group? “two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition” (Vaughan & Hogg, 2002, p. 200) 7

Slide 8: What is a group? A collection of people who:  interact with one another  accept rights & obligations  share a common identity. 8

Slide 9: What is a group? Criteria:  2 or more persons  formal social structure  common fate  common goals  interdependence  self-define as group members  recognition by others 9

Slide 10: Why groups? Groups are favoured by evolution: •If individuals compete against groups… •Humans always live in small groups •Groups are essential to culture 10

Slide 11: Advantages of animal groups  Safety in numbers  Vigilance: even if just one spots the danger, or opportunity  Sharing resources  Working together, s power 11

Slide 12: Advantages of human groups  Role differentiation & division of labour –Everything is done by experts e.g., assembly lines  Accumulation of knowledge – Transmit to next generation  Economic exchange 12

Slide 13: Advantages of human groups In human evolution:  Safety in numbers  Help others find food  Accomplish tasks that are too difficult for the individual 13

Slide 14: Studying groups  The whole (group) can be more than the sum of its parts  But sometimes it is much less  Hence one challenge for social psychologists: Understand the advantages and disadvantages of group process 14

Slide 15: Social facilitation  The tendency to perform well when others are present  Classic study by Triplett (1897): – Noticed that bicycle racers usually made better times in group competition than alone. – Children wind string on a fishing reel faster when working with others present 15

Slide 16: Social facilitation  But sometimes the presence of others makes performance worse (social inhibition)  Zajonc noticed that the presence of others is arousing – Arousal has been known to enhance the dominant response 16

Slide 17: Facilitation vs. loafing  Social facilitation is found in many animals  Social loafing is uniquely human – If people are not held responsible, they will not contribute to the group – People are naturally inclined to notice and punish social loafers and cheaters 17

Slide 18: Social Facilitation Theory  Merepresence of others is arousing, which facilitates the “dominant response”. Hence, for: – Familiar tasks: dominant response is success, so this s when others are present – Unfamiliar tasks: dominant response is failure, so this too s when others are present  Same for other kinds of dominant response e.g., talkers talk more, silent types clam up more 18

Slide 19: Yerkes-Dodson Law Optimal arousal: Optimal arousal: Difficult task Easy task Performance Arousal

Slide 20: Zajonc’s Drive Theory of Social Facilitation (1965) Mere physical presence of others leads to arousal, motivating performance of dominant response (best learned, most habitual). If Social correct facilitation  in Presence Arousal performing of others dominant responses If Social incorrect inhibition 20

Slide 21: Social Facilitation In a social situation, would a violinist perform a:  well-rehearsed piece well?  difficult piece poorly? 21

Slide 22: Fig. 14-2, p. 487 22

Slide 23: Social Facilitation Theory Zajonc et al. (1969) got cockroaches to run down a clear tube towards a light:  They ran faster when watched by other cockroaches.  When put in a simple maze, it took them longer when they were being watched. 23

Slide 24: Pool Hall Study (Michaels et al., 1982): 100 90 80 % of shots made 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Others Present 0 Alone Expert Novice 70% 30% 24

Slide 25: Why does this happen? Evaluation apprehension – concern about being judged  Apprehension about evaluation  arousal  d drive & social facilitation  e.g., Schmitt et al. (1986) 25

Slide 26: Evaluation Apprehension Model (Cottrell, 1972) 75 Difficult task Time taken (seconds) 65 55 45 35 25 Easy task 15 5 Alone Mere presence Evaluation apprehension Experimental Condition 26

Slide 27: Distraction-conflict theory (Baron, 1986; Sanders, 1983)  Conflict occurs when person simultaneously pays attention to task & others  Conflict  arousal  d drive & social facilitation  e.g., Sanders, Baron & Moore (1978) 27

Slide 28: Distraction-conflict theory Tendency to pay attention to audience or coactors Individual d Social Presence of performing Attentional arousal/drive facilitation audience or a task conflict effects coactors Tendency to pay attention to task 28

Slide 29: Distraction: Drive/Conflict Theory of Social Facilitation  The act of showing people you are interested in them usually spurs them to better job performance.  Also known as the ‘Somebody upstairs cares’ syndrome.  This was a tremendous break from the idea that industrial man was motivated by economic means only. 29

Slide 30: The Hawthorne Effect People who know that they are being observed modify their behavior not only consciously but also unconsciously. 30

Slide 31: Social loafing People often  effort when working in a group.  Ringlemann (1913) - less effort per person exerted when rope pulling in a group vs. alone.  Latane, Williams & Harkins (1979) - performance d as group size d. 31

Slide 32: “Tug of War” Study (Ringelmann) Alone - pulled ~ 85 kg / person  In groups – pulled ~ 61-65 kg / person 32

Slide 33: Social loafing A reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task compared to working alone.  Coordination loss - losses of productivity due to problems of coordinating individual members  Motivation loss - losses due to s in individual members’ motivation 33

Slide 34: Reduction in volume of individual shout in 2-person & 6-person real & pseudo-groups ………………………………….. Potential performance Motivation loss,  Pseudo groups d effort, social loafing Percentage reduction in 100 Coordination individual shout loss 80 Real groups 60 40 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 Group size (persons) 34 0

Slide 35: Social loafing  Factors: – Not individually identifiable or accountable – Not wanting to be a ‘sucker’ – Bad apple effect  Countering: – When one’s cooperation is unique to the group, less likely to loaf. – Identifying people in groups & holding them accountable produces better results. 35

Slide 36: Why does social loafing occur? Output equity Evaluation apprehension Matching to standard Diffusion of individual responsibility as group size  s (Latane, 1981). 36

Slide 37: Collective Effort Model (CEM) (Karau & Williams, 1993)  Linksbetween individual’s efforts & their outcomes weaker when working with others in a group. Individuals Working Alone Effort Performance Outcome Individuals Working with Others in Groups Effort Group Share of Performance available rewards 37

Slide 38: Collective Effort Model (CEM) Individuals work hard on a task when: 1. Believe working hard will lead to a better performance 2. Believe better performance will be recognised & rewarded 3. Rewards are ones they value & desire 38

Slide 39: Ways to  social loafing Increase:  identifiability  value of task  uniqueness of contributions  group cohesiveness  identification with the group (e.g., Holt, 1987) 39

Slide 40: Diverse Groups Can be more creative & flexible. Better chance of bringing in different information. Can be harder to cooperate & work together. 40

Slide 41: Roles  Complementary roles produce better results than having each member do the same thing.  Human roles work in the context of large systems where most people do different things. 41

Slide 42: Roles  In fascist movements individual self- interest is subordinated to the interests of the group.  Roles are defined by the system; exist independent of the person in that role.  People need to be flexible to take on & drop roles. 42

Slide 43: Optimal Distinctiveness Theory Tension between the need to be:  similar to, and  distinctive from other group members. 43

Slide 44: Altruistic Punishment  People will sometimes sacrifice their own gain, to benefit all, by punishing cheaters & free riders  May be considered guarding the culture – Culture depends on a system; cheat the system, ruin it for all 44

Slide 45: Deindividuation  Lossof self-awareness & evaluation apprehension – Occurs more in situations which favour expression of group norms  Can lead to antisocial behavior: – being anonymous makes people more willing to violate norms – Stop worrying about what others think  Accountability is best predictor of aggression 45

Slide 46: Trick or Treat Study 60 % Who took extra 50 Identified 40 Anonymous 30 20 10 0 Alone In Groups 46

Slide 47: Zimbardo “hood” study (1970) Two conditions: 1. Hoods & white coats 2. Wore large name tags Asked them to deliver shocks Gave longer shocks when anonymous 47

Slide 48: Social cooperation dilemmas  Social Dilemmas - situation in which most rewarding short-term choice for individual causes negative consequences for group as a whole  Commons Dilemma - if all cooperate, all gain; if all compete, all lose 48

Slide 49: Social dilemmas & inter-group cooperation Private Communal Inequality Lack of care Ambition & greed Squandering shared resources 49

Slide 50: Problems with private vs. communal ownership Dilemmas:  Social conscience vs. selfish impulse  Time (Now vs. tomorrow) Factors influencing outcome:  Communication  Behaviour of others 50

Slide 51: The traged