The document discusses the nature and dynamics of groups, defining a group as two or more people who interact, share common goals, and perceive themselves as a unit. It covers aspects like group decision-making, social facilitation, social loafing, conflict resolution, and perceptions of fairness or inequity within groups. Theoretical frameworks such as Tuckman's stages of group development and equity theory are also addressed, emphasizing the complexities and variables affecting group interactions and decisions.

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. Group Polarization
Risky Cautious
Neutral
Group Polarization- tendency to shift toward more
extreme positions after group discussion

7. Groupthink

8. Mixed Research Support
 Most group decision research
takes place in lab
– Groups are not “real” groups
 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 -0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Forming Activity No Forming Activity
Group
Added
Value
Best Member Higher SE
Worst Member Higher SE

9. Social Facilitation
Definition: The effect,
positive or negative,
of the presence of
others on
performance.
1. Initial Research
a. Triplett (1898)

10. Social Facilitation
2. Resolving the
Contradictions
a. Zajonc’s theory
•mere presence.
Dominant response

13. Sources of Arousal
 Evaluation
Apprehension
– A concern about looking
bad in front of others
 Cottrell, et, al. 1968

14. Sources of Arousal
 Mere presence
– Presence of others is
arousing
– Cockroaches probably
not worried about looking
bad
– Markus (1978)

15. Social Facilitation
Organism
performing
some task
Presence of
audience
or coactors
Social
facilitation
effects
Increased
arousal
Conflict
Tendency to pay
attention to
audience or coactors
Tendency to pay
attention to task
Distraction-Conflict Theory

16. Social Loafing
1 2 3 4 5 6
0
2
4
6
8
10
Sound
Pressure
per
Person
Group Size
Actual group
productivity
Pseudogroup
productivity
Potential
productivity
Tendency to slack off
when individual effort
cannot be monitored
Latane’, Williams, and Harkins (1979)

17. Conflict in Groups
 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
Conflict—perceived incompatible interests

18. Competing Collaborating
Avoiding
Accommodating
Compromising
Concern for Relationships
Low High
Concern
for
Achieving
Goals
High
Low
Distributive
Dimension Integrative
Dimension
Strategies for Dealing With Conflict

19. 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)

20. 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

21. Equity Theory
z
z
z
Inputs – amount of
work, KSAs, experience
Outputs – pay,
promotions, perqs
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 .
An example:
our perception
Larry Moe Curly

22. Study Smarter:
Student Website
 http://www.wwnorton.com/socialpsych
Chapter Reviews
Diagnostic Quizzes
Vocabulary Flashcards
Apply It! Exercises