Group ProcessesRaymond A. Mar

What is a Group?Non-groupsNonsocial groupse.g. Strangers in a grocery storeIndependentNo common identityNo structured relations to one another

What is a Group?Social groupse.g. A team of grocery-store security guardsAre interdependentShare a common identityExist in structured relations to one another

Nonsocial Group InfluenceNorman TriplettCyclistsChildrenCompetitive Explanation?Robert ZajoncCockroaches and more cockroaches

Nonsocial Group Influence

Nonsocial Group Influence

Nonsocial Group InfluenceRobert ZajoncSimple versus difficult taskArousal explanationDominant behavioursFamiliar well-learned tasks = Good!Non-Dominant behavioursDifficult, complex tasks = bad.

Nonsocial Group InfluenceSocial facilitation:The process through which the presence of others increases the likelihood of dominant responses, leading to better performance on well-known tasks, and worse performance on poorly-known tasks.

Social FacilitationMichaels et al. (1982)Pool PlayersIn the presence of others:Good players improve from making 71% of shots, to making 80%Poor players get worse, were making 36% of shots but now make only 25%.

Social FacilitationWhy does the mere presence of others cause arousal?Alertness, VigilanceEvaluation ApprehensionDistraction

But . . .Max RingelmannMen pulling carts.

But . . .Max RingelmannMen pulling carts.20 Kg

But . . .Max RingelmannMen pulling carts.20 Kg30 Kg

But . . .Max RingelmannMen pulling carts.20 Kg30 Kg

But . . .Max RingelmannMen pulling carts.20 Kg30 Kg

But . . .Max RingelmannMen pulling carts.20 Kg25 Kg

But . . .Max RingelmannMen pulling carts.In 2 person teams, each man was 93% as productive as on his own.In 4 person teams, each man was 77% as productive as on his own.In 8 person teams, each man was 49% as productive as on his own.

But . . .Max RingelmannMen pulling carts.

Social LoafingAs people get into larger groups, they tend to decrease their own individual effort.When is this OK?When is this bad?School assignment, Group presentationWhy does this occur?Lack of individual evaluationDecrease in pressure = relaxation

Social LoafingSocial Loafing:Social loafing is the tendency for people to do worse on simple tasks, but better on complex tasks, when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated.

Social LoafingWhen is Social Loafing reduced?Individual contributions identifiedTask is meaningful, challenging or importantRisk of total failureGroup is valuedGroup is small

Loafing or Facilitation?Contributions identified = Arousal = Social FacilitationContributions anonymous = Relaxation = Social Loafing

Loafing or Facilitation?Contributions Identified = Arousal = Social Facilitation (easy better, harder worse)See I as F = C. I. A. S. F.

Loafing or Facilitation?Contributions Anonymous = Relaxation = Social Loafing (easy worse, harder better)CARS L = C. A. R. S. L.

Group Size and PerformanceType of taskDivisible tasksUnitary tasksAdditive tasksEveryone does the same thingThe outcome is a sum of all contributionsSweatshop

Group Size and PerformanceDisjunctive tasksPerformance depends on the strongest memberAdvertising AgencyConjunctive tasksPerformance depends on the weakest memberHuman Pyramid

Decision-making in GroupsWhy are decisions often made in groups?More diversity of opinionPooled resourcesAvoid biasesTherefore, groups should make more moderate, less extreme decisions.

Decision-making in GroupsBut, groups tend to make more extreme decisions than the those favoured by the individuals that compose the group initiallyExample: The amateur operaArt Moderately pro-operaElla UndecidedJuanita Moderately pro-opera

Decision-making in GroupsBut, groups tend to make more extreme decisions than the those favoured by the individuals that compose the group initiallyExample: The amateur operaArt Very pro-operaElla Moderately pro-operaJuanita Very pro-opera

Decision-making in GroupsGroup Polarization:When group discussion leads members to make decisions that are more extremely on the side of the issue that the group initially favoured.

Decision-making in GroupsGroup Polarization and . . . RiskCautionPrejudiceFeminism

Decision-making in GroupsWhy does Group Polarization occur?Persuasive Arguments explanationHear more unique arguments for one sideSocial Comparison explanationKnowledge of group normsPressure to conformPressure toward extremes

Decision-making in GroupsThe decisions made by groups are not only sometimes more extreme, sometimes they are also just stupid.Political decisionsKennedy and CubaMulroney and Meech Lack accordWhy didnt anyone point out that it was a bad idea?

Decision-making in GroupsLeaders and sycophantsClear hierarchyLeaders position is made clearGroup members want to evaluated positivelyGroup members want to get along, rather than truly analyze the issue (risks, contingencies).Opposing views are stifledGroup members are overconfident, semblance of agreement, no discussion

Decision-making in GroupsGroup-Think:A style of group decision-making characterized by a greater desire among members to get along and agree with one another than to generate and critically evaluate alternative viewpoints.

Decision-making in GroupsWhen is Group-Think most likely to occur?Cohesiveness (but see text for caveats)Structure and compositionHierarchyIsolationToadiesProcedures of decision-makingStress

Decision-making in GroupsCombating Group-ThinkHumbleOpen-mindedTolerance of dissentEncourage consideration of other optionsGet outside inputTask-focusedCritical Examination

Behaviour in GroupsBehaviour when alone compared to behaviour when in a groupMob mentalityRwandaL.A. riotsSoccer hooligansCan any good come from this?Social protest

Behaviour in GroupsWhy does this occur?AccountabilityAnonymityDodd (1985)Attentional cuesSelf-awareness

Behaviour in GroupsDeindividuation:The loss of a persons sense of individuality and the reduction of normal constraints against behaviour that occurs when in a group.

Emotion and NegotiationThompson, Medvec, Seiden, & Kopelman (2001)Is it a good idea to use emotions during negotiations?How could you use emotions to get what you want during a negotiation?Thompson et al. (2001) identify 3 possible types of negotiating

Emotion and NegotiationThe Rational Negotiator

Emotion and NegotiationThe Rational NegotiatorDo not express or feel emotionsFeeling emotions means that you can no longer rationally analyze the situation.Expressing emotions shows your negotiating partner that you have lack of control.

Emotion and NegotiationThe Positive Negotiator

Emotion and NegotiationThe Positive NegotiatorExpressing positive emotions can be to your advantage during negotiationsPeople who are in a good mood may use more cooperative strategies.Positive moods are associated with creativity

Emotion and NegotiationThe Irrational Negotiator

Emotion and NegotiationThe Irrational NegotiatorNot actually irrational, but merely appears to be extreme, reckless and out of controlStrategy involves displaying negative emotions like rage, anger, indignation and impatience.Chicken.

Emotion and NegotiationThe Irrational NegotiatorAnyone can be angry that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way this is not easy-Aristotle

Emotion and NegotiationWhich strategy is best?Evaluating the Rational NegotiatorThought suppression, ironic monitoringEntrainmentEmotional contagion

Emotion and NegotiationWhich strategy is best?Evaluating the Positive NegotiatorCompared to neutral or negative moodsCreativity Cartoon-sortingBut . . .Rapport and entrainmentEnd of the negotiation

Emotion and NegotiationWhich strategy is best?Evaluating the Irrational NegotiatorLittle direct empirical evidencePerceptual contrastNegative ReinforcementSelf-regulation

Emotion and NegotiationWhich strategy is best?It DependsIntegrative solution possibleZero-sum situations

Emotion and NegotiationConclusion:In cooperative bargaining situations, positive, and at times rational, strategies can be highly effective. In non-cooperative bargaining games, aggressive and rational strategies can be effective.

Emotion and Negotiation

Emotion and Negotiation

Emotion and Negotiation

Emotion and Negotiation

Emotion and Negotiation

Emotion and Negotiation

Emotion and Negotiation

Emotion and Negotiation

Emotion and Negotiation

Group Processes

Norman Triplett A cycling enthusiast. Noticed that performance was better in competition than during time-trials (pace-car or alone). Examined it empirically using one of the first experiments.Negotiation in general. Integrative solution, a solution to a conflict whereby the parties make trade-offs on issues according ot their different interests; each side concedes the most on issues that are unimportant to it but important to the other side.