GROUPS (Psych 201 - Chapter 12 - Spring 2014)

Uploaded on


More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    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

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. + This Week’s Playlist Artist Song/Psych Concept 1. Joe Cocker With A Little Help From My Friends (The Nature of Groups) 2. Kanye West Power (Power) 3. Elvis Presley A Little Less Conversation (Approach/Inhibition Theory of Power) 4. Muse Uprising (Groups ! Less Inhibition) 5. Dropkick Murphys Mob Mentality (Deindividuation) 6. 2Pac All Eyez On Me (Spotlight Effect)
  • 2. + Groups Melanie B. Tannenbaum, M.A. Psych 201 Spring 2014
  • 3. + Chapter Overview ■ The Nature and Purpose of Group Living ! ■ Social Facilitation ! ■ Group Decision Making ! ■ Leadership and Power ! ■ Deindividuation and the Psychology of Mobs
  • 4. + What is a group? ■ “A collection of individuals who have relations to one another that make them interdependent to some significant degree.” ■ Members of a group... ■ Must be connected to each other in some way ■ Must depend on each other to some extent ■ Not Groups ■ People in an elevator ■ People in a classroom ■ Groups ■ People in a broken-down elevator who must figure out how to escape ■ People in a class who must work together to share a common grade
  • 5. + Test Your Knowledge ■ Which of the following is a group? ! ■ A. People waiting on line together at the grocery store ! ■ B. People waiting together in the same room for an interview ! ■ C. People who must decide together how to help a stranded motorist ! ■ D. People who watch a motorist get stabbed while they are sitting on the same bus
  • 6. + Chapter Overview ■ The Nature and Purpose of Group Living ! ■ Social Facilitation ! ■ Group Decision Making ! ■ Leadership and Power ! ■ Deindividuation and the Psychology of Mobs
  • 7. + Social Facilitation ■ What effect does the presence of other people have on performance? ! ■ When other people are around, do you... ■ Perform better? ■ Perform worse? ! ■ The answer: It depends on what you’re doing!
  • 8. + Social Facilitation Which of these behaviors would you rather do in front of a group of peers? A B
  • 9. + Social Facilitation ■ Norman Triplett (1898) ■ Noticed that the fastest times were recorded when cyclists competed directly against each other on the same track at the same time. Cyclists pedaled faster when they were around other people than when they were alone.
  • 10. + Social Facilitation ■ In the first-ever social psychology experiment, Triplett brought 40 kids into his lab and had them turn fishing reels as fast as they could ! ■ Children turned the reels faster when they were around other kids doing the same thing!
  • 11. + Social Facilitation ■ The same basic effect is found when the others are not doing the same task, but are simply there. ■ In animal species: Ants dig more earth, fruit flies preen more, centipedes run faster, and dogs eat more when others around!
  • 12. + Social Facilitation ■ This effect is known as social facilitation. ! ■ However, there’s a little more to it...
  • 13. + Social Facilitation ■ In the 1920s, Allport asked Harvard and Radcliffe students to refute philosophical arguments as best as they could in a 5-minute period ! ■ The students did better at this task when they worked alone than when they worked in the presence of other students. ! ■ The presence of others can also inhibit performance on arithmetic, memory tasks, and maze learning. ! ■ How does this make any sense?
  • 14. + Social Facilitation ■ Social Facilitation ! ■ Enhanced performance in the presence of others... ■ ...when performing a simple or well-learned task. ! ! ! ! ! ■ Impaired performance in the presence of others... ■ ...when performing a difficult or novel task.
  • 15. + Social Facilitation: Zajonc (1965)
  • 16. + Social Facilitation ■ Michaels et al., 1982 ! ■ Researchers secretly watched pool players who were playing alone at a student union; rated as “skilled” or “unskilled.” ■ The researchers then walked up to the pool table and watched them. ■ Skilled players started playing better ■ Unskilled players started playing worse
  • 17. + Social Facilitation: Why? ■ Three main reasons that have been proposed ! ■ 1. Mere Presence ■ Simply having others around makes us really alert/vigilant ■ Other agents can be unpredictable; we need to be able to act fast ! ■ 2. Evaluation Apprehension ■ If others can evaluate us, we have increased arousal ■ We don’t want to look bad, so we get amped up/nervous ! ■ 3. Distraction-Conflict Theory ■ Being aware of another person’s presence creates a conflict between attending to the person and the task (attention is limited; it must be split) ■ Decreased attention to the task increases the probability that we will execute a dominant (well-learned) response automatically ■ If it’s a well-learned task, the dominant response is good; if it’s a novel or difficult task, the dominant response is poor.
  • 18. + Social Facilitation: Role of Arousal ■ I’m a nerd. ■ I have a BodyBugg ■ . ! ! Evaluation Apprehension " Arousal
  • 19. + Test Your Knowledge ■ Tamara finds solving math problems easy. When Tamara solves math problems in class (as opposed to when she solves them alone in her dorm room), ! ■ A. Her self-esteem should increase ■ B. Her inhibitions should decrease ■ C. Her performance should improve ■ D. Her fear of evaluation should decrease
  • 20. + Test Your Knowledge ■ Imagine that you are playing a video game when 5 strangers arrive and start watching you. According to social facilitation, the _____ created by the presence of these strangers would impair your performance if you _____ this game. ! ■ A. Dissonance; Are unfamiliar with ■ B. Dissonance; Dislike ■ C. Arousal; Dislike ■ D. Arousal; Are unfamiliar with
  • 21. + Social Facilitation: 
 Mere Presence ■ Markus (1978) ■ Participants told to go into an adjacent room to wait for other participants to arrive ■ While they were in there, had to put on “special experiment gear” ■ Take off shoes ■ Put oversized socks on top of own socks ■ Put oversized lab shoes on ■ Put oversized lab coat on ■ While changing, participants were either... ■ Alone ■ With another person who was watching attentively ■ With a repairman who was working with his back to the participant
  • 22. + Social Facilitation: Mere Presence
  • 23. + Social Facilitation: Mere Presence ■ The mere presence of others is enough for social facilitation ■ Evaluation apprehension enhances this even further > >
  • 24. + Social Facilitation: Mere Presence ■ The mere presence of others is enough for social facilitation ■ Evaluation apprehension enhances this even further < <
  • 25. + Social Facilitation: 
 Evaluation Apprehension ■ Cottrell et al. (1968) ■ Participants given a list of 10 nonsense words ■ “Nansoma,” “Paritaf,” etc. ■ Participants asked to pronounce two of the words 1, 2, 5, 10, or 25 times (making some more familiar than others) ■ Given a pseudorecognition task ■ Words flashed on screen too fast to recognize ■ Told to identify the words (or guess if they had to) ■ None of the presented words were in the study list ■ Completed this task alone, in the presence of 2 students who watched attentively, or 2 blindfolded observers
  • 26. + Social Facilitation: 
 Evaluation Apprehension ■ Note: The “alone” condition wasn’t psychologically alone, because participants knew the researchers would be aware of their responses.
  • 27. + Social Facilitation: 
 Distraction-Conflict Theory ■ Sanders & Baron (1975); Baron et al. (1978) ! ■ Participants in dual-task experiments show social facilitation effects ! ■ Participants are less attentive to additional tasks when others are present – their attention is divided.
  • 28. + Social Loafing ■ Exerting less effort when working on a group task in which individual contributions cannot be monitored. ! ■ This is similar to diffusion of responsibility. ! ■ Reduced in participants who are more interdependent ■ Women social loaf less than men ■ East Asians social loaf less than Westerners
  • 29. + Practical Applications! ■ Is it better to study for an exam... ! ■ A. By yourself ■ B. In a group
  • 30. + Practical Applications! ■ Is it better to take an exam... ! ■ A. By yourself ■ B. In a group
  • 31. + Practical Applications ■ Study alone! ■ Learning new material is a complex task and the material is unfamiliar...the presence of others will decrease performance. ! ■ Review together! ■ Once you already know the information, the presence of others should facilitate recall...but review sessions will only be helpful if you’ve already studied (or at least started studying). ! ■ Test together! ■ Unless you didn’t study in the first place...
  • 32. + Chapter Overview ■ The Nature and Purpose of Group Living ! ■ Social Facilitation ! ■ Group Decision Making ! ■ Leadership and Power ! ■ Deindividuation and the Psychology of Mobs
  • 33. + Group Decision Making ■ Groups make better decisions than individuals. ! ■ A. I agree ! ■ B. I disagree
  • 34. + Group Decision Making ■ Do groups make better decisions than individuals? ! ■ If the problem has a precise, factual answer, then yes. ■ Pooling unique knowledge = Best chance of hitting the right answer
  • 35. + Group Decision Making ■ However, even if a group’s most important goal is a correct decision, individual members may be more concerned with... ■ Being judged by others ■ Pleasing the leader ■ Not hurting people’s feelings ■ Avoiding responsibility if things go wrong
  • 36. + Groupthink A style of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner. ! Examples Johnson administration’s surge in Vietnam troops US Naval High Command’s decision not to fortify Pearl Harbor before 12/07/41 Bush administration’s conclusion that Iraq had WMDs – the US Senate Intelligence Committee’s official report actually cites groupthink!
  • 37. + JFK: Bay of Pigs • In 1961, the CIA wanted to use Cuban exiles to overthrow Fidel Castro • Kennedy and his top advisors approved a covert invasion at the Bay of Pigs • They lacked air support, ammo, and an escape route • Most surrendered, and many died • There were many serious flaws, and many CIA analysts later wondered how they could have been so blindly stupid • Now described by many historians as a “perfect failure.” • Janis: Kennedy’s top advisors were unwilling to challenge bad ideas because it might disturb perceived/desired group agreement.
  • 38. + Groupthink: 
 When will it occur? ■ The group is ruled by a directive leader who makes his/her wishes known ! ■ Is highly cohesive ! ■ Isolates itself from contrary opinions ■ The group ignores/rejects alternate viewpoints ■ Members are discouraged from coming forward with other ideas and assessments ! ■
  • 39. + Groupthink: 
 What are the symptoms? ■ Group members feel that their group is invulnerable, morally correct, and can do no harm ! ■ Group members urge each other to conform to the group’s decisions to reach consensus (uphold solidarity) ! ■ Self-Censorship ■ People withhold information/opinions that would go against the popular views of the group ■ People don’t want to bring down group morale ■ People don’t want to be criticized or kicked out of the group
  • 40. + Groupthink: 
 What are the outcomes? ■ Groups tend to make better decisions to the extent that group members share divergent opinions and unique/unshared info ! ■ When groupthink occurs, diverse opinions are not shared ! ■ Groups that fall victim to groupthink make horrible decisions
  • 41. Arises if group is cohesive, protected from outsiders, and has strong directive leadership
  • 42. Arises if the group has a strong goal to agree/ come to a final consensus
  • 43. If suffering from groupthink, groups feel like they can’t do wrong, they rationalize their decisions, insult outgroups, pressure dissenters to stay quiet, harbor illusions of solidarity, believe they are “truly right,” and any dissenting members stay quiet.
  • 44. This results in not considering all possible goals or options, not doing a complete analysis, not really examining the risks, biases in processing, and overall bad decision-making.
  • 45. + Groupthink: 
 How can it be prevented? ■ 1. Group leaders need to remain impartial ■ If they make their opinions known, members try to please them ■ 2. Group members must seek divergent opinions ■ Designate someone to play the devil’s advocate ■ Solicit feedback from outsiders (non-members) ■ 3. Create subgroups that meet separately beforehand ■ 4. Seek anonymous opinions (e.g. use secret ballots) ■ 5. Do anything else that could promote being correct over maintaining solidarity
  • 46. + Groupthink vs. Conformity ■ Is groupthink the same thing as conformity? ! ■ A. Yes ■ B. No
  • 47. + Groupthink vs. Conformity ■ Is groupthink the same thing as conformity? ! ■ A. Yes ■ B. No ! ■ Why or why not?
  • 48. + Group Decision Making ■ We know now that due to groupthink, groups tend to make suboptimal decisions (decisions that are worse than individual decisions) ! ■ Do we know if group decisions are different in any other way? ! ■ Are group decisions more moderate or more extreme?
  • 49. + Risky Shift ■ The tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than individuals would make ■ Stoner (1961) ■ Gave participants 12 scenarios where they could make a “cautious” or “risky” decision (e.g. hiring someone with strong pros and cons) ■ Participants first responded individually, then met with other participants to discuss each dilemma and arrive at a consensus ■ Results: On 10/12 scenarios, the group recommended riskier options than the average of the individual recommendations. ■ Not only did this happen, but when participants were given a chance to re-evaluate each of the scenarios at the end and change their recommendations, they became even more extreme! ■ Think about informational social influence.
  • 50. + Group Polarization ■ The tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than those made by individuals ■ This can make people more risky or more cautious, depending on which way the people were leaning beforehand ■ If people originally preferred a risky option, the group’s decision will be even riskier ■ If people originally preferred a conservative option, the group’s decision will be even more conservative
  • 51. + Group Polarization or Risky Shift? ■ If group decision making effects are really about extremity (not riskiness), they should occur even for non-risk-assessment topics (like opinions) ■ Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969) ! ■ French participants expressed opinions about (a) General Charles DeGaulle and (b) Americans ■ First, individually ■ Then, as a group ! ■ The group opinion of CDG was even more positive as a group ! ■ The group opinion of Americans was even more negative as a group
  • 52. + Group Polarization: Explanations ■ 1. The Persuasive Arguments Account ■ When people share their ideas, everyone gets exposed to new arguments – you probably didn’t think of all possible arguments in favor of your opinion, so you get exposed to new ideas, which pushes you further in that direction. ■ 2. The Social Comparison Account ■ When you make a decision, you’re motivated to think it’s good; if the decision calls for a risky choice, you want to think you were slightly riskier than the average person (if it calls for a safe choice, you want to be slightly safer) ■ 3. Risk as a Valued Trait ■ Americans value risk-seeking (it’s an inherent part of capitalism); risk elicits a halo effect. Participants from other cultures don’t show risky shift.
  • 53. + Group Polarization: 
 Modern Issues Modern technology provides opportunities for people to be exposed to ideas from all side of an argument – what happens in the real world?
  • 54. + Group Polarization: 
 Modern Issues ■ Most people insulate themselves from different opinions (by watching only shows that confirm existing views) ! ! ■ When people want to discuss important issues, they seek out forums that they already agree with, and leave with stronger, more polarized attitudes ! ! ■ Because it allows people to easily find others who agree with them, modern social networking & technology may actually increase political polarization
  • 55. + Test Your Knowledge ■ Jason and his roommates are having a conversation about whether or not Kam’s should be open to students under 21. They all come into the conversation generally feeling like it should be open. After the discussion is over, what will most likely be true? ■ A. Jason and his roommates all feel less certain about their attitudes after realizing that they don’t know about any other POVs. ■ B. Jason and his roommates all feel more strongly than before. ■ C. Jason and his roommates get so tired of talking about it that they no longer care as much about the issue. ■ D. Jason and his roommates really want to go to Kam’s now.
  • 56. + Chapter Overview ■ The Nature and Purpose of Group Living ! ■ Social Facilitation ! ■ Group Decision Making ! ■ Leadership and Power ! ■ Deindividuation and the Psychology of Mobs
  • 57. + Who becomes a leader? ■ Popular Western idea: Coercion, cunning, trickery ■ However...this isn’t really the case. ■ Aggressive, sneaky, selfish people get kicked out of groups.
  • 58. + Who becomes a leader?
 People who... ■ 1. Have useful, group-oriented skills ■ Talents that help the group achieve goals ■ Knowledge/skills relevant to important group tasks ! ■ 2. Can provide rewards to the group ■ Selflessly share resources ! ■ 3. Show concern for other group members ■ Extraverts ■ People with high emotional IQ ! ■ These same traits are also associated with leadership in primates!
  • 59. + Power ■ Fundamental aspect of social relations ■ Humans arrange themselves into social hierarchies based on power starting at the age of 2! ! ■ Within 1 week, college dormmates automatically form power hierarchies ! ■ Why? ■ Power hierarchies make group interactions run smoothly ■ Determines how resources will be divided
  • 60. + What is power? ■ The ability to control one’s own and others’ resources ! ■ Related (but not identical) constructs: ! ■ Status: Respect and prominence from others (e.g. celebrity) ! ■ Authority: Control over others that comes from institutionalized roles (e.g. a boss) ! ■ Dominance: Behavior with goal of acquiring/showing control over others (e.g. a bully)
  • 61. + Status vs. Power Power Status
  • 62. + Power and Behavior ■ Approach-Inhibition Theory of Power ■ Power comes with a sense of control and freedom ■ High power ! Action, approach, touching, doing stuff ■ Low power ! Inaction, inhibition, retreating
  • 63. + Power and Behavior Power Inaction Action High Low
  • 64. + Power and Behavior ■ Galinsky et al. (2003) ! ■ Participants primed to feel powerful or powerless ! ■ Placed in a room with an annoying fan ! ■ Powerful participants more likely to get up and turn the fan off.
  • 65. + Power and Behavior ■ Stereotyping & Prejudice ■ Power is associated with using stereotypes ■ Powerful people more likely to ignore individuating information ■ Can “get away” with more, so use quick & cheap judgments
  • 66. + Power and Behavior ■ Perspective-Taking ■ High-power individuals are less likely to be able to take other people’s perspectives ■ Magee et al. (2006) ■ Participants primed with power or powerlessness ■ “Draw an E on your forehead” ! ■ High-Power participants more likely to draw the E backwards; Low-Power participants more likely to draw it so others could read it
  • 67. + Power and Behavior ■ Compensatory Control ! ■ When people feel like they lack power, they engage in behaviors that help them feel like they can regain that power ■ That sense of power can even come from a domain unrelated to the domain in which the person feels powerless ! ■
  • 68. + Test Your Knowledge ■ Chris is the CEO of a huge company, and is very powerful as a result. Which of the following would not be something you would expect? ! ■ A. Chris gambles more than he should every time he’s in Vegas ■ B. Chris enjoys exercising, and regularly runs marathons. ■ C. Chris knows all of his employees’ names, and makes a point of sending them flowers on their birthdays. ■ D. Chris tends to be “touchy-feely” – he regularly touches people’s arms or shoulders while he’s talking to them.
  • 69. + Chapter Overview ■ The Nature and Purpose of Group Living ! ■ Social Facilitation ! ■ Group Decision Making ! ■ Leadership and Power ! ■ Deindividuation and the Psychology of Mobs
  • 70. + Deindividuation ■ A reduced sense of individual identity accompanied by increased impulsive behavior that occurs when people are in a large group ! ■ Large Group ! Lower chance of any one person being singled out ! People feel less accountable for actions ! More compliance to group norms ! ■ Deindividuation effects are enhanced by any features that decrease identifiability (masks, uniforms, darkness)
  • 71. + Deindividuation:
 Zimbardo, 1970
  • 72. + Deindividuation:
 Zimbardo, 1970 Deindividuation occurs if people feel anonymous, aroused, and generally “pumped up” by the environment.
  • 73. + Deindividuation:
 Zimbardo, 1970 During deindividuation, people feel like others aren’t watching or judging them, so they stop caring about what others think and lessen self- control
  • 74. + Deindividuation:
 Zimbardo, 1970 This results in people acting on impulse, behaving irrationally, being strongly emotional, and possibly acting dangerously
  • 75. + Deindividuation Evidence:
 Suicide Baiting
  • 76. + Deindividuation Evidence:
 War Practices 80% of cultures that deindividuated before battle (using war paint, masks, etc.) were labeled as “high ferocity,” meaning they engaged in head- hunting, torture, or killing civilians. ! Only 13% of cultures that did not deindividuate were high ferocity.
  • 77. + Deindividuation Evidence:
 Halloween Mayhem! ■ Diener et al., 1976 ■ Recorded the behavior of 1,000 trick-or-treaters ■ Noted if they were (a) alone or (b) in a group ■ Asked ½ of the children their names ! ! ■ On a table in the entryway, there was a bowl of candy & a bowl of coins ■ Children were told they could take 1 piece of candy ■ Researcher “had to go do something” and left; said kids could take candy and leave. Would they take more than their share?
  • 78. + Deindividuation Evidence:
 Halloween Mayhem! ■ Diener et al., 1976 ■ Deindividuation led to stealing.
  • 79. + Deindividuation Evidence:
 Halloween Mayhem! ■ Diener et al., 1976 ■ Deindividuation led to stealing.
  • 80. + Deindividuation Evidence:
 Halloween Mayhem! ■ Diener et al., 1976 ■ Deindividuation led to stealing.
  • 81. + Self-Awareness and Individuation ! ■ Self-Awareness Theory ■ When people focus attention on themselves, they become concerned with self-evaluation and how their current behavior conforms to internal standards and values ! ■ Individuation ■ Opposite of deindividuation (duh!) ■ Enhanced sense of individual identity produced by focusing attention on the self ■ Generally causes people to act carefully, deliberately, and in accordance with their values
  • 82. + Self-Awareness and Individuation ■ The easiest way to increase self-awareness is to put someone in front of a mirror! ■ Diener & Wallbom (1976) ■ Participants solved a series of anagrams ■ Asked to stop when they heard a bell ■ Payment depended on how many they solved ! ■ Either working at ■ (a) A typical desk ■ (b) A desk with a mirror ! ! ■ 75% of those at the typical desk kept working past the bell ■ 10% of those by the mirror kept working past the bell
  • 83. + Poll ■ Do you think others would notice if you wore the same outfit to our next class that you are wearing today? ! ■ A. Yes ■ B. No
  • 84. + Poll ■ Do you remember what I was wearing during our last class? ! ■ A. Yes ■ B. No
  • 85. + Spotlight Effect ■ The assumption that our own appearance and behaviors are being carefully scrutinized by others at all times, when in fact they typically are not
  • 86. + Spotlight Effect:
 Gilovich et al., 2000 ■ Participants arrived individually; asked to put on an unflattering T-Shirt with a large image of Barry Manilow on it ■ No one was happy about this. ! ■ They then had to enter another room with a group of students filling out questionnaires; left the room shortly after ! ■ What percent of those other students would remember what was on your shirt?
  • 87. + Spotlight Effect:
 Gilovich et al., 2000 ! ! ■ What They Thought: 50% ! ! ■ How Many Really Remembered: 25%
  • 88. + Test Your Knowledge ■ During deindividuation, you are... ! ■ A. More Self-Aware ■ B. Less Self-Aware
  • 89. + Test Your Knowledge ■ During deindividuation, you are... ! ■ A. More Inhibited ■ B. Less Inhibited
  • 90. + Test Your Knowledge ■ During deindividuation, you are... ! ■ A. More Focused On Others ■ B. Less Focused On Others
  • 91. + Deindividuation Example ■ The Game Show ■ Full video: v=jBbNtmYJKFk&feature=related ■ End clip: v=7c8UGkf9hVY&feature=relmfu
  • 92. + Must Know! ■ Social Facilitation ■ Mere Presence ■ Well-Learned vs. Novel Tasks ■ Group Polarization ■ Persuasive Arguments Account ■ When will groups make better decisions? ■ Effects of social networks on group polarization ■ Groupthink ■ How to prevent it ■ Self-Censorship ■ Approach-Inhibition Theory of Power ■ Behavior ■ Stereotyping ■ Deindividuation ■ Where is the focus? ■ Are you more or less inhibited? ■ What are the antecedent conditions? ■ Studies ■ Halloween Mayhem