© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter 9 Group Processes: Influence in Social Groups.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Chapter 9Chapter 9Chapter 9Chapter 9

Group Processes: Group Processes:

Influence in Social GroupsInfluence in Social Groups


Chapter OutlineChapter Outline

I. Definitions: What is a Group?


Definitions: What is a Group?Definitions: What is a Group?

What is a group?

A group is a collection of two or more people are interacting with each other and are interdependent, in the sense that to fulfill their needs and goals, they must rely on each other.



Because forming relationships with other people fulfills a number of basic human needs. Indeed, so basic that there may be an innate need to belong to social groups.

Baumeister and Leary argue that people join groups because in our evolutionary past there was a substantial survival advantage to establishing bonds with other people.

Why do People join Groups?



Because groups become an important part of our identity, helping us to define who we are, and who we expect to be in the future.

Group membership also plays an important role in motivating people to become involved in social change (see O’Neill, 2000).



DefinitionsDefinitions: What is a Group?: What is a Group?

Groups help to establish social norms.

Social norms are an integral part of group membership. They are powerful determinants of our behaviour.

Social norms, specify how all group members should behave (eg, participating in protest marches).




Groups establish well-defined social roles.

Social roles are shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave (eg, boss, employees).

Whereas norms specify how all group members should behave, roles specify how people who occupy certain positions in the group should behave.




There are two potential costs to social roles:

1)People can get so into a role that their personal identities and personalities are lost, with negative consequences (see Zimbardo et al, 1973 prisoner_guard study);

2) There is a cost to acting inconsistently with role expectations (see man holding female handbag example).

Gender Roles are especially problematic when they are arbitrary or unfair, (eg, societal expectations based on people’s gender).




The Composition of Groups

What do groups to which we belong have in common?

i) They tend to range in size from 2 to 6 members.

ii) They tend to be alike in terms of age, sex, beliefs, and opinions.

The reason for this is that groups tend to attract people who are similar to one another, and

group members become more similar to one another over time.




What do groups have in common?

iii) Group cohesiveness

Group cohesiveness refers to qualities of the group that bind members together and promote liking between members.

The more cohesive a group is, the more its members are likely to stay in the group, take part in group activities, and try to recruit like-minded members.




Group cohesiveness (cont’d)

One drawback of group cohesiveness is that group members’ concern with maintaining good relations can get in the way of finding good solutions to problems.



II. How Groups Influence the behaviour of Individuals


How Groups Influence the behaviour of Individuals

Social Facilitation: When the Presence of Others Energizes Us

People behave differently in the presence of other people than when alone. One example is the social facilitation effect.

Social facilitation is the tendency for people to do better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks, when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance can be evaluated.




The question is whether the mere presence of others will affect performance.

The presence of others can take two forms: i)performing a task with others who are doing the same thing; or

ii) performing a task in front of an audience that is not doing anything except observing.




Does the presence of others affect performance?

Yes (Zajonc et al (1969)

Zajonc et al (1969) conducted a study using cockroaches (see Fig. 9.1) and found that they indeed exhibited the social facilitation effect, i.e., the roaches ran a simple maze faster when they were in the presence of an audience of other roaches than when they were alone.



Social Facilitation: Simple Versus Difficult Tasks

In the Zajonc et al roach experiment, the roaches ran a complex maze more slowly in the presence of others than alone.

Many other studies (with ants, birds, people) show that simple tasks are performed more quickly in the presence of others but complex tasks are performed more slowly.



Social Facilitation: Arousal & the Dominant Response

Zajonc (1965) offered a theoretical explanation for why the presence of others facilitates a well-learned response but inhibits a less practiced, or new response.

Zajonc hypothesized that the presence of others increases physiological arousal which facilitates dominant, well-learned responses, but inhibits performance on more difficult tasks.



Social Facilitation: Why the Presence of Others causes Arousal

Why does the presence of others produce arousal? There are three theories (see Fig. 9.2):

• The presence of others makes us more alert

• It makes us concerned for what others think of us (apprehension evaluation)

• The presence of others distracts us (distraction/ conflict).



Social Loafing: When the Presence of Others Relaxes Us

In social facilitation research, the activities studied are ones in which people are performing individually in the presence of others. These individual efforts are easily observed.

In other social situations, people perform as part of a group. Thus, their individual efforts are less easily observed. It is in these situations that social loafing often occurs.




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.

Rationale: being observed by others where performance cannot be evaluated is relaxing.

Relaxation impairs performance on simple tasks, but enhances performance on complex ones (see Jackson & Williams, 1985; Fig. 9.3).




Recent research shows that the use of computers to simulate group discussion reduces evaluation anxiety and increases the production of ideas (see Cooper et al, 1998).

However, there was one unexpected finding which was rather disturbing.




Unexpected finding (cont’d)

Some of the ideas generated by the anonymous electronic groups were highly offensive.

These authors concluded that although the use of computers can have beneficial effects, it may be necessary to institute safeguards to ensure that the generation of offensive ideas does not get out of control.



Social Loafing: Gender and Cultural Differences

There are gender and cultural differences in the tendency to loaf.

Karau and Williams found that the tendency to loaf is stronger in men than in women.

Similarly, the tendency to loaf is stronger in Western than in Asian cultures.



Deindividuation: Getting Lost in the Crowd

Being in a group not only affects how hard we work, but it can also lead to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts. This seems to be related to deindividuation.

Deindividuation is the loosening of normal constraints on behaviour when people are in a crowd, leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts.




Why is it deindividuation leads to impulsive (often violent) acts? Two factors are involved:

i) The presence of others, or the wearing of uniforms and disguises makes people feel less accountable for their actions, because it reduces the likelihood that any individual will be singled out and blamed.

ii) The presence of others lowers self-awareness, thereby shifting people’s attention away from their moral standards.




Throughout history, there have been many examples of groups of people committing horrendous acts that no individual would do on his/her own (e.g., the 16-yr-old Somalian boy killed by Canadian peacekeepers).

And the savagery of the act is related to the size of the group (Mullen, 1986). Mullen content analyzed news reports of lynchings in the U.S. from 1899-1946 and found that the larger the mob, the greater the savagery with which they killed their victims.




Even the color of a uniform can make a difference in the amount of aggression expressed by the group.

Black is associated with evil and death, and with greater aggressiveness by teams in the NHL and NFL (Frank & Gilovich, 1988).



III. Group Decisions: Are Two (or More) Heads Better than One?


Group Decisions: Are Two Heads Better Than One?

One of the main functions of groups is to solve problems and make decisions.

Is it true that two (or more) heads is better than one in this respect? Most of us assume that the answer is yes.

But research suggests that it is Not always true that two heads are better than one.

Groups sometimes perform better than individuals but sometimes perform worse. It depends on a number of factors.



Process Loss: When Group Interactions Inhibit Good Problem Solving

One of the problems is that a group will do well only if the most talented member can convince the others that he/she is right__which is not always easy. Failure to do this has been termed process loss.

Process loss is any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving.


Group Decisions: Are Two Heads Better Than One?Process Loss: When Group Interactions Inhibit Good Problem SolvingProcess loss occurs for a number of reasons:

i) because groups do not try hard enough to find out who the most competent member is, instead relying on someone who doesn’t really know what they’re talking about,

ii) because the most competent member finds it difficult to break free from normative conformity pressures that discourage disagreement with the whole group, or

iii) because of poor communication within the group



Failure to share unique information: Another reason groups can fail to outperform individuals is that group members sometimes fail to share unique information (information that only they know) with each other.

Groups tend to discuss information that is shared by all the group members, instead of focusing on unique, or unshared information (see Stasser & Titus, 1985; Fig. 9.4).




Failure to share unique information: (cont’d)

Recent research has focused on ways to get groups to concentrate more on unshared information.

Unshared information is also more likely to be brought up later, over time, suggesting that group discussions should last long enough to get beyond what everybody already knows.





Another approach is to assign different group members to specific areas of expertise so they know that they alone are responsible for certain types of information.

-eg, many couples rely on each other’s memories for different kinds of information, such as social engagements, and paying the bills.

Wegner et al, (1991) call this transactive memory.





Transactive memory is the combined memory of two people that is more efficient than the memory of either individual.

In sum, the tendency for groups to fail to share important information can be overcome if people learn who is responsible for what kinds of information and take the time to discuss these unshared data (Strasser, 2000).




Another reason groups don’t always make decisions as good as those made by individuals on integrative tasks is groupthink.

Groupthink is a kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner (Janis 1972,1982).




Groupthink is most likely to occur when certain preconditions are met, such as when the group is

• highly cohesive

•isolated from contrary opinions

•ruled by a directive leader who makes his or her wishes known.

When these conditions are met several symptoms appear (see Fig. 9.5).




Janis’s theory has been tested by a number of researchers.

Some studies have found that group cohesiveness by itself does not increase groupthink, but

when it is accompanied by the other risk factors (eg, directive leader, high stress) group cohesiveness does increase groupthink.




Janis’s theory (cont’d)

Other research suggests that group cohesion and group leadership may operate differently depending on the personalities of the group members.




How can groupthink can be avoided?

Ensure that leaders,

i)do not take a directive role,

ii)do invite outside opinion from people who are not members of the group,




(Avoiding groupthink )

iii)divide the group into subgroups that first meet separately and then meet together in the larger group, and

iv)use secret ballots to ensure anonymity




We know that groups sometimes make poorer decisions than individuals alone, but we might expect (hope) that at the same time they would make less risky decisions. Is this true? No and yes.

Many of the initial studies found that groups make more risky decisions than individuals do (see Wallach et al, 1962). This became known as the risky shift.

Group Polarization: Going to Extremes



Later research found that groups could be made to shift in the less risky (more cautious) direction given a more cautious (conservative) choice dilemma where the initial inclinations are cautious.

This phenomenon, the finding that groups make more extreme decisions in the direction of people’s initial inclinations, became known as group polarization.




Group polarization is the tendency for groups to make more extreme decisions than the initial inclinations of their members.

Group polarization occurs for two main reasons:

i) Persuasive argumentsii) Social comparison




Persuasive arguments. All people bring to the group a set of arguments—some of which other group members have not considered—to support their initial recommendation.

The result is that group members end up with more arguments in support of their position than they had initially, and so they shift their decision more in the direction of the relevant arguments.




Social comparison. When people discuss an issue in a group they first check out how everyone else feels (i.e., what they value, risk or caution).

In order to be liked, many people then take a position that is similar to everyone else’s but a little more extreme, thus shifting their decision in the extreme direction.

Both the persuasive arguments and the social comparison interpretations of group polarization have received empirical support.




Leadership in Groups

What makes a good group leader? One answer is described by the great person theory.

The great person theory states that certain key personality traits make a person a good leader, regardless of the situation facing the leader.


Group Decisions: Are Two Heads Better Than One?Leadership in Groups: Personality

Research indicates that personality traits are surprisingly unrelated to leadership.

However, certain attributes do display a modest association with leader ship success. Leaders tend to be:

• slightly more intelligent than non-leaders• more driven by the desire for power • more charismatic, more socially skilled, • more adaptive and flexible, and• more confident in their leadership abilities



Leadership in Groups: Personality

A study of Canadian Forces officer candidates over a 5-yr period found little relation between personality variables and leadership ability (Bradley et al, 2002).

The one trait the emerged was dominance, ie, dominant people made good leaders.


Group Decisions: Are Two Heads

Better Than One?


A study of Canadian Forces officer candidates over a 5-yr period found little relation between personality variables and leadership ability (Bradley et al, 2002).

The one trait the emerged was dominance, ie, dominant people made good leaders.




Another study found substantial correlation between integrative complexity and greatness among Canadian prime ministers and other prominent leaders (Suedfeld et al, 2001)

Integrative complexity is the ability to recognize more than one perspective on an issue and to be able to integrate these various perspectives.



A study of the personal attributes of U.S. presidents found that only three variables—height, family size, and the number of books a president published before taking office—correlated with how effective the presidents were in office (as rated by historians).

Presidents who were tall, came from small families, and had published many books were more likely to be great leaders (Simonton, 1987; 1992).



A reanalysis of Simonton’s data showed that intelligence, height, attractiveness, tidiness, and achievement drive were significantly related to greatness.

Great presidents tended to be smart, tall, not good-looking, messy, and achievement-oriented ( McCann, 1992).



Leadership: The Right Person in the Right Situation

But having the right personality traits is not enough, good leadership is determined by a person having the right personality characteristics for the situation .

In other words, to be judged a good leader you have to be the right person at the right time in the right situation.




Timing is important.

-eg, Canadian prime ministers are more likely to be considered great if the country faced particularly difficult times, such as a war, while they were in power.




Extreme crisis situations can be problematic, however. Generally, when people are under stress, their level of integrative complexity decreases.

But, with truly great leaders, integrative complexity increases during times of stress, and then returns to its usual level of complexity afterwards (see Lester B. Pearson Nobel Peace prize example)




Several theories have focused on the characteristics of the leader, the followers and the situation. These are known as contingency theories. Fiedler’s is one of the best known of these.

Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership states that leadership effectiveness depends both on how task-oriented or relationship-oriented the leader is and on the amount of control and influence the leader has over the group.




Task-oriented leader: a leader who is concerned more with getting the job done than with the feelings of and relationships between workers.

Relationship-oriented leader: a leader who is concerned primarily with the feelings of and relationships between the workers.




The crux of Fiedler’s contingency theory is that neither type of leader is always more effective than the other; it depends on the situation—on the amount of control and influence a leader has over the group.

High control work situations: the leader has excellent interpersonal relationships with subordinates, his/her position in the company is perceived as powerful, and the work needing to be done by the group is structured and well-defined.




Low control work situations: the leader has poor interpersonal relationships with subordinates, and the work needing to be done is not clearly defined.

Task-oriented leaders are most effective in situations that are either very high or very low in control (see Fig. 9.6).

Relationship-oriented leaders are most effective in situations that are moderate in control.





Fiedler’s contingency theory has been tested with numerous groups of leaders, including business managers, college administrators, military commanders, and postmasters.

These studies have generally supported contingency theory, providing results consistent with the pattern shown in Fig. 9.6.



Leadership and Gender

Eagly and her colleagues found that, consistent with the stereotype, women do tend to lead more democratically than men.

Possibly because women tend to have better interpersonal skills.

Does this mean that women make better leaders than men?

No. It depends on the nature of the situation


Group Decisions: Are Two Heads Better Than One?Leadership and Gender

Are women better leaders than men? (cont’d)

Women tend to be better leaders in jobs that require interpersonal skills (eg, jobs in educational settings)

Men are better leaders in jobs that require the ability to direct and control people (eg, military)

Still, there is much overlap. And the gender differences reported are small.

-ie, There are many men with good interpersonal skills, and plenty of women who are able to adopt the ‘masculine’ leadership style.


Group Decisions: Are Two Heads Better Than One?Leadership and Gender

Are women better leaders than men? (cont’d)

Part of the problem relates to methodological difficulties with studies of leadership effectiveness.

-ie, Do the findings reflect actual differences in ability, or people’s stereotypes about the leader?

-eg, If a woman is viewed as a less effective leader than a man, is it because she really is a worse leader, or because her co-workers are using different criteria to measure her performance?


Conflict and Cooperation

Often people in groups have incompatible goals, leading to conflict (eg, married couples have disagreements; management and labor disagree over wages and working conditions).

Many conflicts are resolved peacefully, but all too often people resort to violence, or war to resolve their conflicts.

How can we resolve conflicts peacefully?



Social Dilemmas

Unfortunately, in many conflicts what is best for individuals is not best for the group (see Stephen King example). This is called the classic social dilemma.

A social dilemma is a conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if chosen by most people, have harmful effects on everyone.



Social Dilemmas

One of the most common social dilemmas is illustrated by a game called The Prisoner’s Dilemma

It is a classical social dilemma because it pits people’s desire to look out for their own interests against their desire to look out for their partner as well.



Social Dilemmas

People’s actions in these games seem to mirror many conflicts in everyday life.

To find a solution desirable to both parties, people must trust each other.

Often they do not, and this lack of trust leads to an escalating series of competitive moves, so that in the end no one wins (e.g., the cold war arms race).



Social Dilemmas: Increasing Cooperation

Such escalating conflict, however, is not inevitable.

Many studies have found that people will cooperate under certain circumstances ensuring that both parties end up with a positive outcome,

- i.e., when they both choose the same option they both win a modest amount of money, or lose the least amount of money (see The Prisoner’s Dilemma).





If people play with a friend, or if they expect to interact with their partner in the future, they are more likely to adopt a cooperative strategy that maximizes profits for both themselves and their partner.

Chances of cooperation are better in smaller groups compared to larger groups.

Cooperation is increased by communicating to your partner that you can be trusted not to exploit him/her.




Cooperation is increased by use of the tit-for-tat strategy

Tit-for-tat strategy: at first, the person acts cooperatively but then always responds the way the opponent did on the previous trial.

This strategy communicates a willingness to cooperate and an unwillingness to be exploited if the partner does not cooperate.

This strategy is usually successful in getting the opponent to cooperate.



Using Threats to resolve Conflicts

When caught in a conflict most of us are tempted to use threats to get the other party to comply, believing that we should ‘walk softly and carry a big stick.’

But is this an effective way of reducing conflict? No.

A classic series by Deutsch and Kraus indicates that threats are not an effective way of dealing with conflict.



Using Threat to resolve Conflicts

Deutsch and Kraus developed a trucking game which placed two parties in conflict (see Fig. 9.7).

There were three groups, i) no threat, ii) unilateral threat and iii) bilateral threat, and three conditions, i) no communication, ii) voluntary communication, and iii) required communication (see Fig. 9.8).



Using Threat to resolve Conflicts

Fig. 9.8 shows that under no threat conditions both parties make money; under unilateral threat they lose money; and under bilateral threat they lose even more money.

This pattern holds, whether or not there is communication between the parties.



Using Threats to resolve Conflicts: Effects of Communicaton

Communication was not effective, it was suggested, because it did not foster trust. Rather, the intercom was used to convey threats.

Kraus and Deutsch (1996) confirmed this observation. They repeated their truck study with the addition of instructions on how to communicate, how to work out a solution that was fair to both parties (building trust) and found that communication did increase the amount of money both sides won.



Negotiation and Bargaining

Negotiation and Bargaining: communication between parties is an essential component of negotiation.

Negotiation is a form of communication between opposing sides in a conflict in which offers and counteroffers are made, and a solution occurs only when it is agreed upon by both parties.




One limitation to successful negotiation is that people often assume that they are locked in a conflict in which only one party can win.

They fail to realize that solutions favourable to both parties are available. Such outcomes are called integrative solutions.




Integrative solutions are solutions to a conflict whereby the parties make trade-offs on issues according to their different interests. Each side concedes the most on issues that are unimportant to it but important to the other side.

-e.g., an increase in salary may be most important to the union, while not increasing vacation days may be most important for management—a trade-off of increased salary for no increase in vacation days is the solution.




One problem when trying to reach integrative solutions is that people are not very good at discovering their opponents’ true interests.

And those directly involved in negotiations are even worse at this task than those not so involved.

Furthermore, when negotiators are in the heat of battle and care deeply about the outcome, they tend to distrust the other side, making it more difficult to realize that there is common ground beneficial to both parties.




The bottom line?

When you’re negotiating with someone, it is important to keep in mind that integrative solutions are often available.

Try to gain the other side’s trust, and communicate your own interests in an open manner.

If both sides do this, then there is an increased likelihood that an integrative solution will be found.


Conflict and CooperationNegotiation and Bargaining: Cultural Influence

Culture plays a role in preferred conflict resolution strategies.

Collectivist cultures (eg, Nigeria) prefer that conflict be resolved through negotiation; whereas

Individualist cultures (eg, Canada) prefer arbitration (see Gire, 1997 study).

End

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter 9 Group Processes: Influence in Social Groups.

Documents

group membership

group processes

group activities

motivating people

particular people

social groups chapter

social norms

welldefined social roles