(NOTE: I may be posting additional notes on Cooperation and Competition.
are interacting with each other
are, to some extent, dependent on one another
exist in more or less stable form
possess/identify with common goals
label selves as being a group
Class of students?
Social facilitation: How does presence of others (= audience or co-actors) affect one's performance?
Norman Triplett (1898): cycling observation; cycling expt.; fishing reel expt.
Inconsistent results: Sometimes others' presence facilitated performance; sometimes others' presence interfered
Zajonc: Obtaining inhibition vs. facilitation depends on task complexity for the person
Piano playing example
More recent research: Butler & Baumeister
Competing explanations (all attempt to explain why presence of co-actors/audience increases arousal and how arousal affects performance)
Zajonc's Drive Theory (Mere presence notion)
Arousal increases dominant/most likely response
Dominant/most likely on easy = correct response
Dominant/most likely on hard = incorrect response
Occurs even in cockroaches and other organisms without self-consciousness
Argues from evolutionary perspective
Cottrell et al. and evaluation apprehension
Arousal sometimes due to concerns about making good impression on others. Blindfold study. This illustrates the unique effect of evaluation apprehension, but..............
Schmitt et al.: Showed that mere presence added to influence of evaluation apprehension in a variant on Cottrell et al. study. Depends on task complexity relative to your abilities. Mere presence will additionally undermine performance if you are not well-practiced at the task.
Distraction-conflict theory (Baron)
When acting in front of audience, need to pay attention to task and to audience. Attention conflict produces arousal. Arousal and distraction add up to poor performance if you are not well-practiced at the task.
Note what they are saying here: ANYTHING that is distracting (including other people, but not limited to them) can interfere with performance on poorly practiced tasks. Moreover, other people are not necessarily distracting (they can, in fact comfort you). SO, to them, it is whether distraction is present, that produces arousal, that can enhance performance on well-practiced tasks and interfere with performance on poorly practiced ones.
Individuals less motivated and exert reduced effort when working in group than individually.
Occurs primarily on additive tasks (tug-of-war example; Ingelman et al.; pulled 20% more when "alone").We'll return to definition of "additive" later
Explanations (lots of controversy about which is most valid)
Social impact theory (Latane) -- revisit Chapter 7 & think of why this theory explains social loafing (you will be asked about this on exam)
Diffusion of responsibility -- when you visit Chapter 10, I also want you to think of how this principle can explain social loafing (you will be asked about this on exam)
Collective effort model (Karau & Williams)
People exert effort only when they expect effort will result in better performance outcome and when they expect that improved outcome will be recognized and rewarded.
This model predicts most social loafing
in large (rather than small) groups
on nonintrinsically motivating tasks
on tasks where work completed with "nonrespected" members
when others are expected not to exert effort
when person perceives own contribution as "redundant" (versus unique)
in cultures emphasizing collectivity (versus individual efforts)
These are very conditions under which most people work!Your presentations in class on Nov. 2nd and 4th will take advantage of these principles, so please be prepared to act accordingly! (No pressure here!)
How to reduce social loafing?
make each participant's inputs identifiable
make each participant's input a uniquely valuable one
increase each person's commitment to task outcome
promote group cohesiveness
Presence of others plus identifiability of one's efforts can increase arousal.
Arousal will enhance performance when well-practiced; interfere when poorly practiced
Presence of others when your efforts cannot be individually identified will generally decrease arousal (under certain conditions). You will contribute less to group effort under these conditions when the task is easy.
Yet, you may perform even better on difficult tasks under latter conditions, because you don't feel so aroused.
See Figure 8.3 in your textbook
Collectives often turn into angry, unruly mobs.
Think of certain people's behaviors during soccer matches, hockey or football games (e.g., consider USU students' behavior at times when competing with UNLV basketball team)
Sometimes, being in a collective representing a large collective of individuals can lead to what is known as deindividuation
Deindividuation (de-individualizing): Person has lost their sense of individuality. This loss reduces constraints against "deviant" behavior.
Conditions promoting deindividuation:
When you feel anonymous; unlikely to be caught (when "accountability" cues are absent). Crowds increase feelings of anonymity; they are relatively devoid of accountability cues
When environment focuses your attention away from the self (you are not privately self-aware). Crowds do this, too. Your attention is focused outwardly
Zimbardo's car experiment
Diener et al.'s Halloween experiments
Johnson & Downing KKK vs. nurses study: Why did the "nurses" in the anonymous condition actually deliver lesser intensity shock than those in identified conditions? (remember obnoxiousness of the confederate)
Overall conclusion from a recent meta-analysis of this literature is that: Losing your personal identity + arousal can increase the salience of deviant behavior (antisocial or prosocial) within the situation in which you're operating. Under conditions of anonymity and arousal, you pay attention to what the "collective norm" seems to be requiring in the situation than to your own personal desires/values/norms.More research is clearly needed. But, the basic point is that deindividuation primes you to behave in accordance with the role you've adopted or situational norms rather than your own personal desires/values. These roles/norms can prescribe pro- or anti-social behavior.
need fulfillment (social and psychological, e.g., security, identity)
goal attainment (that we wouldn't otherwise attain as individuals)
sources of information and knowledge
Groups require roles of individuals in them
Roles: formal or informal expectations regarding an individual's behavior & responsibilities in the group
Examples: leader, manager, arbitrator, yes-man
Robert Bales was one of first to distinguish different types of roles in groups.
Instrumental roles: person's task is to help group achieve its goals (e.g., a dept. head's instrumental role is to help dept. flourish academically and financially)
Expressive roles: person's primary responsibility is to maintain group's level of morale and to offer emotional support (e.g., a dept. head's role is to help promote group cohesion, amicability, peace!)
Used to be thought that men adopted/assigned instrumental roles, whereas women assigned/adopted mainly expressive roles
To what extent is this still true?
In mixed-sex groups, this gender-based dichotomy often still holds (any personal examples?)
Yet, if men and women feel they are equally proficient in terms of the group's assignment (e.g., scheduling the UG curriculum; fixing dinner for the family as instrumental roles OR comforting children, boosting group's spirit), men AND women will rise to the occasion of being problem-solvers (instrumental) or expressors (emotion-focused problem solving)
(Think about the above in terms of what I said in the conformity lecture: Women will conform more than men (take a "nondisruptive," almost an emotionally soothing approach to task at hand) when they do not feel confident on the task at hand. Give them a task about which they feel confident and they are less likely to conform to group demands.)
Role conflict occurs when person in group "assigned" contradictory behaviors/responsibilities
Examples: think of woman's role in the family (caretaker, provider, entertainer, disciplinarian) or woman's role in a formal organization/business (leader, caretaker, etc.)
Status refers to person's rank or standing in the group; often determined by roles assigned.
Think of our class as a group: Are there status differences? Think of psychology faculty as a group: Status differences there?
Status in group is highly valued commodity. Groups wield power over individuals by withholding status or conferring status.
Norms are implicit or explicit rules that group prescribes and proscribes regarding behavior of each member.
What are norms of behavior in this class? In your ward?
Norms also are source of power, since people can be excluded from group for not following them.
Just as there are descriptive and injunctive norms that operate to produce conformity or attitude change, these norms also operate in groups. We will change behavior to "suit" group because "many members of group behave that way" or because group itself has demanded/prescribed/proscribed certain behaviors.
Cohesiveness refers to the liking within the group that holds it together.
Cohesiveness involves the rewards that the group offers and the costs for leaving the group.
The higher the rewards AND costs, greater the cohesiveness
Cohesiveness not simply or only equal to attraction (as in a simple liking rating)
Rather, the attractiveness or liking is induced by the group members' characteristics.
Cohesiveness is largely a function of liking induced by how well the group members "represent" the features of the group.
Think of it this way: Groups will be more cohesive, the more the members have features that typify the group (church example). Typification can occur in terms of
interest people show in group goals or relationships in group
commitment people show to the group or members of the group
amount of effort needed to become a group member
extent of competition or threats to group from outside
Individuals expected to contribute to group in many ways (supporting group and goals; adhering to group norms; work). Individuals expect returns from group (e.g., identity, satisfy needs).
Unfairness can be perceived from both perspectives. Unfairness most often perceived when we are getting less than our fair share (rather than more)
When unfairness perceived, people react by
changing contributions or changing their outcomes
withdrawing from the group
rationalizing (others really do deserve more; actually I've really benefited)
Different types of "fairness" rules
Equity: social exchange fairness. Are my contributions and outcomes equitable to those of other group members?
Distributive justice (fairness): Am I receiving share of rewards proportionate to my contributions?
Procedural justice (fairness): Are the rules for distributing rewards fair? (think of income tax laws)
Interpersonal justice (fairness): Do the powers that be show me respect in distributing rewards?
Different rules used (depending on type of task)
Judgmental/evaluative tasks: the majority wins
Tasks having a correct answer: the truth wins
Decision making phenomena
After discussing important decision in a group, people are more likely to adopt extreme positions than before. Shift to a stronger position in the direction they were already headed. Think of O.J. Simpson jury.
Two processes involved:
Social comparison (have an opinion that is better than average opinion). Normative influence.
Informational influence: Arguments raised in group discussion often favor group's initial tendency. People are persuaded by these arguments and shift even more strongly in that direction.
Effects can be horrendous
tendency for concurrence seeking in a group to be so strong that it outweighs a rational look at all of the evidence needed to make a good decision.
We'll see movie Groupthink on this (well explains principle and factors involved; be prepared to take notes on movie)
© Copyright 2004 Tamara J Ferguson (with many thanks and kudos to Heidi Eyre)
Send e-mail comments regarding this site to: firstname.lastname@example.org