Small groups are composed of 2-6 people who interact and influence each other. Groups develop social norms, roles, and status hierarchies. Working in groups can both enhance and impair performance depending on whether the task is simple or complex. Social dilemmas arise when individual and group interests conflict, threatening cooperation. Groups may develop problems like groupthink, where maintaining cohesion takes priority over solutions, or deindividuation, where normal constraints are loosened. Groups tend towards polarization, making more extreme decisions than individuals.

1. Small Group ProcessesChris StiffDH1.89c.stiff@psy.keele.ac.uk

2. OverviewBasic group conceptsDefinition, composition etcWorking in groupsSocial facilitation/loafingSocial dilemmasGroup malfunctionsGroupthink, deindividuation, group polarization

3. Basic Concepts in GroupsWhat 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 GroupsSocial norms  appropriate behaviours for all group membersDeviance from these norms leads to marginalisation/rejectionSocial roles  appropriate behaviours for those in a specific positionStatus systems  pattern of influence members have over one anotherGroup cohesion  qualities that bind the group together and make it attractive

5. Social FacilitationWhen the presence of others improves your performanceZajonc, Heingartner, & Herman (1969)  Cockroaches in a tube

6. FINISHAudienceSTARTFlashlight

7. Social FacilitationWhen the presence of others improves your performanceZajonc, Heingartner, & Herman (1969)  Cockroaches in a tubeRan through faster when there was an audience than when alone

8. Many other researchers support effect (e.g. Bond, 1982)Explanations for Social FacilitationZajonc: “Mere presence” of others causes arousal, leads to elicitation of dominant responseOthers 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 TasksZanjonc et al. (1969) Also looked at cockroaches in a more complex maze

10. AudienceFINISHSTARTFlashlight

11. Simple vs. Complex TasksZanjonc et al. (1969) Also looked at cockroaches in a more complex mazeRoaches to longer with others present when the maze was more complexDominant response inappropriate in such situationsAgain, 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 LoafingWhen the presence of others decreases performanceLack 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 ExplanationsPerceived 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 facilitationSocial loafingPresence of othersEfforts can be evaluatedEfforts cannot be evaluatedAlertnessEvaluation apprehensionDistractionNo evaluation apprehensionArousalRelaxationSimple tasks:Enhanced performanceComplex tasks:Impaired performanceSimple tasks:Impaired performanceComplex tasks:Enhanced performance

15. Cooperation in GroupsWhen interacting with others, some conflict of interest is inevitableOften, there is a conflict between what is best for the individual, and best for the groupThese situations are known as mixed-motive situations or social dilemmas (Dawes, 1980)Basic concept: what’s good for the individual is bad for the groupLeaving the washing up for othersJumping the queue at nightclubs/cloakrooms

16. Forms of Social DilemmasCommons Dilemma: “Take some” dilemmaharvesting 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 DilemmasSocial identity: A common identity leads to pro in-group behaviourCan 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. GroupthinkGroup thinking and decision making where maintaining cohesion more important than correct solutionCan lead to maladaptive decisions and aversive consequences(Janis, 1972)Real life example: Bay of Pigs

20. Groupthink characteristicsGroupthink example – choosing a DVDHighly cohesive group:Group isolation:Directive leader:High stress:Poor decision making procedures:all friends, group is attractivedon’t ask anyone in the shop for their opinionevery group has one; orders everyone aboutpizza getting cold, beer getting warmmajority? Who chose last time? What do reviews say? What’s in the charts?

21. Results of GroupthinkIncomplete 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 consideredDeindividuationA loosening of normal behavioural constraints, leading to an increase in deviant behaviour (Lea, Spears, & de Groot, 2001)

26. DeindividuationA 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 PolarizationWallach, Kogan, & Bem (1962)  Choice Dilemmas QuestionnaireGroups took riskier decisions compared with individuals – a risky shiftGroups tend to make more extreme decisions (rather than more risky) (Rodrigo & Ato, 2002)Conservative decisions become more conservativeRisky 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 extremesBrown (1986) social comparisons; people act like everyone else plus a bit extra to seem like a positive group member