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 4 13 12

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) 4 13 12

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 4 13 12

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 Group Polarization- tendency to shift toward more extreme positions after group discussion Risky Cautious Neutral

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

Social Facilitation 1. Initial Research a. Triplett (1898) 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

Fig. 2.2 left

Fig. 2.2 right

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)

Distraction-Conflict Theory Social Facilitation Distraction-Conflict Theory Tendency to pay attention to audience or coactors attention to task Conflict Organism performing some task Presence of audience or coactors Increased arousal Social facilitation effects

when individual effort Tendency to slack off when individual effort cannot be monitored Social Loafing Latane’, Williams, and Harkins (1979) Potential productivity Pseudogroup productivity Actual group productivity

Conflict in Groups Conflict—perceived incompatible interests 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 4 13 12

Strategies for Dealing With Conflict Competing Collaborating Concern for Achieving Goals High Low Distributive Dimension Integrative Dimension Compromising Accommodating Avoiding Concern for Relationships Low High

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) 4 13 12

Equity Theory 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 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: Larry Moe Curly z our perception Inputs – amount of work, KSAs, experience Outputs – pay, promotions, perqs

Study Smarter: Student Website http://www.wwnorton.com/socialpsych Chapter Reviews Diagnostic Quizzes Vocabulary Flashcards Apply It! Exercises