Chapter 10 Behavior in Groups Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others The presence of others sometimes enhances and sometimes impairs an individual’s performance. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Social Facilitation: People sometimes perform better in the presence of others than when they are alone Social facilitation occurs: Whether others are performing the same task, or whether the others are merely observers In many species others than humans Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Processes Leading to Social Facilitation versus Social Inhibition Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Social inhibition occurs when the presence of others inhibits a person’s performance. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others If dominant response correct, SOCIAL FACILITATION Zajonc’s theory: Presence of others Dominant Response If dominant response wrong, SOCIAL INHIBITION Arousal Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Why does the presence of others motivate us? Innate tendency for arousal in the presence of others Evaluation Apprehension Distraction-Conflict Presence of others evokes challenge reaction when resources are sufficient, threat responses when insufficient. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Social facilitation and inhibition occur when a person’s performance is individually identifiable Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Social Loafing: When an individual’s contribution to a collective activity cannot be evaluated, individuals often work less hard than they would alone. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Processes Leading to Social Loafing versus Social Compensation Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Social loafing depends on How important the person believes his/her contribution is to group success How much the person values group success Karau & Williams, 1993 Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Reducing Social Loafing Make each person’s contribution identifiable Provide rewards for high group productivity Make task meaningful, complex, or interesting Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Social compensation occurs when a person expends great effort to compensate for others in the group. When others are performing inadequately, and the person cares about the quality of the group product Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Comparison of the average intensity of noise one individual produced when cheering alone or in a group Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Across cultures Social loafing has been found in India, Thailand, Japan, & China However, social loafing may be greater among people from the U.S. than among Asians Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others In summary: whether social facilitation or social loafing occurs depends on Whether individuals are identifiable Task complexity How much participants care about the outcome Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Social Impact Theory: the influence of observers depends on their number, strength (importance), and immediacy. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

The impact of an audience on a target depends on the number of people present (the number of circles or “sources”), the immediacy of the people (the nearness of the circles to the target), and the strength or importance of the people (the size of the circles). Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

The impact of an audience on a target depends on the number of people present, plus the immediacy and strength of importance. Circles are sources Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

When each individual is only one of several targets of social influence, the impact of the audience (sources) on the target is lessened. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Deindividuation may occur in crowded, anonymous situations when people lose a sense of responsibility for their own actions and feel free to express aggressive and sexual impulses Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Zimbardo (1970) had groups of four young women deliver electric shocks to another person Groups were either easily identifiable or not (wore “KKK”-type garb). Unidentifiable groups gave twice as many shocks Johnson & Downing (1979) replicated the study using surgical scrubs for the unidentifiable group. Here, this group shocked less. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Deindividuation increases when individuals are anonymous and as group size increases. Might create a special psychological state in which people are focused externally and unaware of own values Or might heighten individual’s identification with the group and increase conformity. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others Crowding refers to the psychological state of discomfort & stress associated with wanting more space than is available. Social density is the objective number of people in a given space. High social density may or may not be experienced as unpleasant Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others When do people experience the presence of others as crowding? Sensory overload Loss of control Arousal and attribution to presence of others Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Behavior in the Presence of Others People from collectivist cultures are less likely to experience high social density as crowding. However, the negative health effects of high social density occur regardless of culture. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Basic Features of Groups A group involves multiple people who are interdependent Typically, but not always, have regular-face-to-face contact. Different from a social category Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Basic Features of Groups Social norms are shared rules and expectations about how group members should act. Social roles are norms that apply to people in a particular position. Social status refers to social position based on prestige and authority. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Basic Features of Groups Cohesiveness refers to forces that cause members to remain in a group Positive Factors Liking of members for each other Extent to which members act effectively together Success of group in meeting goals Negative Factors Cost of Leaving Lack of Alternatives Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Group Performance Types of Group Activities Additive tasks Success is sum of each person’s effort Conjunctive tasks Success depends on least competent member Disjunctive tasks Success depends on most competent member Subdivided tasks Success depends on both skill & coordination Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Group Performance Brainstorming asks group members to think of as many different suggestions as they can in a short time Despite the popularity of this technique, research shows that individuals usually produce more and better ideas working alone Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Group Performance When discussing matters of opinion, groups tend to use a majority-rules decision rule. When discussing matters of fact, groups tend to use a truth-wins decision rule. Unanimous decisions are harder to reach but tend to leave group members more satisfied. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Group Performance Groups do not necessarily make wise decisions because they are vulnerable to special social forces that can bias decision-making. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Group Performance Group Polarization = Group discussion may lead to more extreme decisions. Persuasive arguments theory suggests this is due to new information Self-presentation theory suggests this is due to trying to “one-up” other members Social identity theory suggests group members try to conform to the group but perceive the group norm as more extreme If members of a group are evenly split, groups compromise rather than polarize. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Group Performance Groupthink is a process of faulty decision-making that can occur in groups (Janis, 1982) Occurs when group has a strong leader and is under stress Group members become more concerned with group acceptance than correctness Group members censor themselves, do not do a full information search, and evaluate information in a biased way. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Janis’s Theory Of Group- think Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Group Performance Overcoming groupthink: Leader remains impartial and encourages the expression of dissent Use separate subcommittees to discuss same issue separately Appoint “devil’s advocates” Consult outside experts Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Group Performance Group members tend to discuss shared rather than unshared information Groups may also use meetings to confirm rather than challenge their initial beliefs Thus while groups have the potential to make better decisions than individuals, they do not always do so. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Competition vs. Cooperation Participants in laboratory studies on competition tend to compete, even when cooperation would be a more rewarding strategy. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Road Map of the Trucking Game Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Prisoner’s Dilemma: a game used by researchers to study cooperation and competition. Example of Prisoner’s Dilemma Game: Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Typical Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Matrix or Reward structure Pete’s payoff is shown in blue & Joe’s in gray Choice X is cooperation Choice Y is competitive Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Competition vs. Cooperation There is a strong tendency to compete rather than cooperate in the prisoner’s dilemma game Only about a third of choices are cooperative Cooperation typically goes down over time Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Competition vs. Cooperation Determinants of Competition vs Cooperation Reward Structure Personal Values Communication Reciprocity Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Competition vs. Cooperation Culture and Competition The United States has one of the most competitive cultures on earth. Cultural values about competition are conveyed at home, at school, through the media,and through sports and games. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Competition vs. Cooperation A Social Dilemma is a situation in which the most rewarding short-term choice for an individual will ultimately lead to negative outcomes for all-concerned. Some Real-World Applications: preserving environmental resources, avoiding littering Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Leadership The leader of a group is the person who has the most impact on group behavior and beliefs. Leaders may be appointed, elected, or emerge over time Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Leadership Leaders must perform two types of tasks, task leadership and social leadership. An effective task leader is efficient, directive, and knowledgeable. An effective social leader is friendly, agreeable, concerned with feelings and socially oriented. Sometimes a group will have a different leader for each task; sometimes the same person will serve both roles. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Leadership The great-person theory of leadership suggests that leaders possess particular characteristics Excelling in abilities that meet the group’s goals; strong interpersonal skills; high motivation; confident; optimistic. An interactive perspective focuses on the match between the needs of the situation and the characteristics of the person. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Leadership Fiedler’s Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness suggests that task-oriented leaders are most effective in high-control and low-control situations, while emotion-focused leaders are more effective in moderate-control situations. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall