Chapter 2: Groups Social Psychology by Tom Gilovich, Dacher Keltner, and Richard Nisbett.

Chapter 2: Groups

Social Psychology by Tom Gilovich, Dacher Keltner, and Richard Nisbett

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

Groupthink

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

Study Smarter: Student Website

http://www.wwnorton.com/socialpsych

Chapter Reviews

Diagnostic Quizzes

Vocabulary Flashcards

Apply It! Exercises