chapter 2: groups social psychology by tom gilovich, dacher keltner, and richard nisbett
Post on 22-Dec-2015
258 views
TRANSCRIPT
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
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)
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
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
Group Polarization
Risky CautiousNeutral
Group Polarization- tendency to shift toward more extreme positions after group discussion
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
Gro
up
Ad
de
d V
alu
e
Best Member Higher SE
Worst Member Higher SE
Social Facilitation
Definition: The effect, positive or negative, of the presence of others on performance.
1. Initial Research
a. Triplett (1898)
Social Facilitation
2. Resolving the Contradictions
a. Zajonc’s theory
•mere presence. Dominant response
Sources of Arousal
Evaluation Apprehension
– A concern about looking bad in front of others
Cottrell, et, al. 1968
Sources of Arousal
Mere presence– Presence of others is
arousing– Cockroaches probably
not worried about looking bad
– Markus (1978)
Social Facilitation
Organismperformingsome task
Presence ofaudience
or coactors
Socialfacilitation
effects
Increasedarousal
Conflict
Tendency to payattention to
audience or coactors
Tendency to payattention to task
Distraction-Conflict TheoryDistraction-Conflict Theory
Social Loafing
1 2 3 4 5 60
2
4
6
8
10
Sou
nd
Pre
ssu
re p
er P
erso
n
Group Size
Actual groupproductivity
Pseudogroupproductivity
Potentialproductivity
Tendency to slack off when individual effort cannot be monitored
Latane’, Williams, and Harkins (1979)
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
Competing Collaborating
Avoiding Accommodating
Compromising
Concern for Relationships
Low High
Con
cern
for
Ach
ievi
ng
Goa
ls
High
Low
DistributiveDimension Integrative
Dimension
Strategies for Dealing With Conflict
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)
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
Equity Theory
zz
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