Lecture 11 Group & Group Dynamics

8/8/2019 Lecture 11 Group & Group Dynamics

1/20

Groups & Group Dynamics Satisfy survival, psychological,

informational, & identity needs

Structure of small groups norms; roles,status systems

How individuals thoughts, feelings &

actions are influenced by being part of agroup; how individuals can affect groups


2/20

What are groups?Groups differ in their degree of commitment & social cohesiveness.

Incidental groups - minimal group paradigm (workshop at a

conference) Membership groups - defined by being a member

(committee, club)

Identity-reference groups affiliation acts as a referenceframe for social identity (religious community, politicalaffiliation)

People in individual interaction with each other - - - Peopleacting as a group


3/20

Social Influence in groups

Social loafing (idling) - where people have little or noinvolvement or commitment to group, individualisticnorms, no investment in what happens impact of

group on individual behaviour is negative/minimal

Social facilitation (energizing) - working harder as amember of group than alone, task

important/interesting, strong commitment to goal(Collectivist cultures)


4/20

Social loafing = experimental artefact of creating

incidental groups (low commitment, meaningless

tasks), not a universal quality of task performancein a group

Groups that have (collectivist), or are motivated to

develop, cohesiveness, commitment, & work onworthwhile task, social energising more likely


5/20

Identity-reference groups

Shift from personal to social identity

Becomes in-group, encourages

cooperation & conflict with outgroups

Summer Camp experiments (Sherif et al.1961).


6/20

White middle class 11-12 year old boys at

summer camp

4 phases: Spontaneous friendship formation

Ingroup formation (2 groups formed, kept separate)

Intergroup competition (placed in competitive

situations) Intergroup cooperation (create superordinate goals

achieved only through intergroup cooperation)


7/20

Conformity Allport 1924 groups tend to give more

conservative judgments than individuals

Sherif 1936 autokinetic effect

Aschs studies (1951)

Group norms shared standard of conduct

expected of group membersGarfinkel 1967 students behave as lodgers

Festinger 1954 Social Comparison theory


8/20

Minority InfluenceAsch: majority influence many factors but

most important = being only dissenter in

group. Effect extinguished where subjecthas even one supporter.

So easier to resist if not odd one out;

But can you persuade others to move to yourposition?


9/20

Moscovici et al. 1969 study of colour

perception(groups of 6, incl. 2 stooges, blue/green

slides)

Some members of majority can bepersuaded by small minority IF their

judgments are consistent

Also important how behaviour of minority isinterpreted.


10/20

Two main processes What kind of decision is it? (e.g., intellectual vs.

judgmental)

How will the decision be made?

Normative vs. informational social influence

Heuristic vs. systematic processing


11/20

Majority influence on group decisions.

majorities can exert greater normative and

informational social influence than minorities. majority influence (Aschs 1950's classic studies) -

compliance

minority influence (Moscovici 60's/70's) conversion


12/20

Explanations forSocial Influence

Processes in groupsSame Process Models

Dual Process dependency model (Turner 1987) :

Normative & Informational influence contributedifferentially in different situations Where confident of own judgment, + majority perceived

as powerful, then Normative influence predominates

Where lack confidence, so conflicting info from minoritycan have greater impact, majority less powerful, thennormative influence reduced


13/20

Different Process ModelsMoscovicis Innovation Model based on social

representations (how new ideas of original thinkerscome to influence the images, thinking, vocabulary &

beliefs of ordinary people)

Majority influence operates through conformity &normalization, passive heuristic processing

Minority, through a discrete process of innovation, direct

processing effort consistency is key sustainedattempt to exert information influence (real-life pressuregroups - Amnesty Int, Greenpeace)


14/20

Turner's Referent Information Influence model 1991

(based on social identity theory)

3rdform: referent information influence operatesthrough peoples self-categorization

Identify oneself with a group, then use that groupsnorms as standards for own decision making


15/20

Group discussion enhances the initial attitudes of

people who already agree.

Are group decisions more cautious? Researchhas shown shifts both toward caution and

toward risk.

Group enhancement of initial tendencies:group-produced enhancement or exaggeration

of members' initial attitudes throughdiscussion = group polarization.

Brainstorming


16/20

What produces group polarization? A special case ofthe risky shift (Stoner 1961) Social comparison explanation: individual members discover that

they are not nearly as extreme in the socially valued direction asthey initially thought. Because they want others to evaluate thempositively (normative influence), begin to shift toward even moreextreme positions.

Persuasive arguments explanation: hearing more arguments in

favour of their own position rather than against it, and hearingnew supportive arguments that they had not initially considered,members gradually come to adopt even more extreme positions.

Both explanations play a role.


17/20

C. Groupthink (Janis 1971, 1982) when

consensus-seeking overrides critical analysis. Symptoms of groupthink

overestimation of in-group

close-mindedness increased conformity pressures

Research on groupthink - does not always

occur in the way Janis proposed. NOT foundin groups outside lab why? Key = different norms.


18/20

IV. Leadership A leader is an influence agent.

Transformational leaders take heroic and unconventionalactions.

The contingency model Fiedler (1967, 1978) highlightspersonal and situational factors in leader effectiveness.

Gender and culture can influence leadership style.

Importance of task (group effectiveness combination ofleadership style & group task)

E.g., jury forepersonperceived as leader, it is usually men ofhigher SES (socio-economic status), might influence the verdict,although evidence is mixed here.


19/20

VI. Applications: How Do Juries Make Decisions?Minority influence upon others verdicts

a small minority may influence the majority vote by conversion, if they are consistent, committed in their opinions andarguments, seem to be acting on principle rather than out of self-gain and incur some cost, as well as are not overlyrigid and unreasonable in their opinions and arguments.

Social / majority influences on jury decision-makingjurors have usually decided on a verdict before they retire to deliberate and jury deliberation consists merely of trying to

persuade others to the same opinion. Social group pressure may thus lead to illogical decisions for a number ofreasons:

group polarisation a group tends to make more extreme decisions (either riskier or more cautious) through aprocess of social comparison and increasing conformity to the groups initial majority decision;

conformity group pressure to agree with majority verdicts may result in a lack of consideration for alternative,minority opinions. This can be both informational (uncertainty over the verdict) and normative (need to be sociallyapproved). The pressure may increase with the severity of the crime, the need for a majority rather than unanimousverdict (whoever cares about one or two dissidents then...), and the size of the jury (1 against 5 people resists lessthan 2 against 10 people see Asch);

Groupthink esp. in a cohesive and isolated group, dominated by a directive leader e.g. confirmatory bias notequally considering evidence against their joint beliefs;

Social loafing individuals in the jury may be inclined to deliberate less that they would alone and let others thinkfor them.


20/20

ReadingGeneral:Ch. 8 & 9 Hogg & Vaughan

Critical evaluation:Pheonix, A. (2007) Chapter 5 Intragroup processes: Entitativity. In D.Langdridge & S. Taylor (Eds.). Critical Readings in SocialPsychology. OUP.

Wekselberg, V. 1996 Groupthink: A triple fiasco in social psychology. In C.W.

Tolman, F. Cherry, R. van Hezewijk & I. Lubek. ( Eds.). Problems of Theoretical Psychology. Ontario: Captus Press.

Fraser & Burchell Ch. 8 (esp. discussion of normative vs. informational influence)

Lecture 11 Group & Group Dynamics

Documents

Transcript of Lecture 11 Group & Group Dynamics