Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff THINK SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Chapter The Power of the Group 9

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff What Defines a Group? Two or more people who are seen as a unit and interact with one another  May be people who do or do not know each other  May be defined by some common feature  Group membership can be brief or extended

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff SOCIAL GROUPS Two or more people who identify with one another Groups contain people with shared experiences, loyalties, and interests Not every collection of individuals forms a group The right circumstances can turn a crowd into a group

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Primary and Secondary Groups Two types of social groups  Primary group -A small social group whose members share personal and lasting relationships  Secondary group -A large and impersonal social group whose members pursue a specific goal or activity

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Primary group are groups in which people spend a great deal of time together These personal and tightly integrated groups are among the first experienced in life Members of primary groups think of their group as an end in itself rather than as a means to other ends Members view each other as unique and irreplaceable Primary Groups

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Secondary relationships involve weak emotional ties and little personal knowledge of one another Include many more people than primary groups Passage of time can transform a group from secondary to primary Members do not think of themselves as “we” Secondary Groups

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Categories and Aggregates Categories share a similar characteristic:  Students, elderly, Native Americans Aggregates happen to be in the same place at the same time:  Airline passengers, shoppers, waiting at a traffic light

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Cohesion The extent to which members of a group are connected Shared intimacy, history, or background enhances cohesion Different group members serve different functions, as per individual needs and strengths “We are not simply in a group; we become part of it" (Duff, p. 157).

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff How does a Group Influence Individual Behavior? Social facilitation  The tendency to have enhanced performance when around others  Is not always the case – some performance is hindered by the presence of others  Familiar or simple tasks tend to be facilitated  Unfamiliar or difficult tasks tend to be hindered

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Experienced athletes typically feel more driven to succeed when they are being watched.

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff How does a Group Influence Individual Behavior? (continued) What leads to arousal? 3 factors  Mere presence -The simple presence of others causes physical arousal  Evaluation apprehension -Feeling judged enhances self-consciousness -This can lead to poorer performance

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff How does a Group Influence Individual Behavior? (continued) What leads to arousal? 3 factors  Distraction -Distraction conflict theory The presence of others can take attention away from performance This can lead to poorer performance Is also affected by the difficulty of the task

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Social Loafing Being in a group can cause a decrease in effort Is seen when individual performance is not assessed Group projects where one person doesn’t pull his/her weight?

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Social Loafing (continued) Is seen at different ages (children to adults) Is seen in different cultures, but more in individualist cultures

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Social Loafing (continued) A study led by Alan Ingham and his team (1974) showed that when blindfolded students were led to believe that others were pulling behind them in a game of tug of war, they exerted less effort than when they knew they were pulling alone.

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Social Loafing (continued) Reducing social loafing  The belief that individual effort will be noted by the assessor  Increasing each group member’s commitment  Increasing task importance  If you were loafing in a group, what would make you work harder? Action learning: Practice reducing social loafing

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Eliminating the Loafing. How will you eliminate social loafing on your next group project?

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Deindividuation To let go of self-awareness and restraint and go along with the group Can be caused by a sense of anonymity within a group

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Deindividuation (continued) Can lead to very dangerous behaviors  Mob mentality after a city wins a championship?  The Los Angeles riots in the 1990s?

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Deindividuation (Continued) Three factors contribute to deindividuation (Zimbardo, 1969)  Arousal  Anonymity  Reduced feelings of responsibility

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Deindividuation (continued) New York University study (Zimbardo, 1970); Children in costumes (Diener, Fraser, and Kelem, 1976) Cult behaviors – Heaven’s Gate, 1997

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Children in costumes that created a sense of anonymity chose to steal candy more often when they were in a group than when they were alone or had been identified by name.

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Deindividuation (continued) SIDE – social identity deindividuation  Deindividuation results from a shifting of identity  An individual changes their focus from the self to the group  Leads to conformity to the norms of that group  Can lead to a loss of self-awareness

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff How does a Group Make Decisions? Risky Shift  We will take greater risks as a group than we will as individuals  Related to social loafing, as responsibility is spread out among group members  Risk-taking is related to social status in a group

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Group Polarization An attitude/belief can become magnified within a group after being discussed among group members We may play off of the emotions/attitudes of others in the group

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Group Polarization (continued) A prime example is jury deliberation  Social comparison – adjusting our own attitudes for favorable standing in a group  Persuasion

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Explanations of Crowd Behavior Contagion Theory - People are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior in a crowd because they are anonymous and feel invulnerable. Social unrest and circular reaction - the discontent of one person is communicated to another who reflects it back to the first person.

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Explanations of Crowd Behavior Convergence theory - focuses on the shared emotions, goals, and beliefs people bring to crowd behavior. Emergent norm theory - crowds develop their own definition of the situation and establish norms for behavior that fits the occasion.

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Groupthink The desire for groups to function smoothly may cause the group to ignore other solutions to a problem Maintaining the harmony of the group can exert pressure to avoid "raising red flags." The Bay of Pigs invasion Group norms  Rules or expectations regarding desirable behaviors from group members

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Engineers opposed the launch of the Challenger in 1985 because of potential dangers caused by freezing temperatures. Group pressures to launch, however, took precedence over the engineers’ warnings and resulted in the destruction of the shuttle and the lives of all seven on board.

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Groupthink (continued) Solutions to groupthink  Remain open to criticism  Work with diverse people  Include members outside the group  Train members in group decision-making

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Group Polarization and the Seven Symptoms of Groupthink. These seven symptoms of groupthink are a collective form of reducing any dissonance (for more on cognitive dissonance, see Chapter 4) that group members may feel when threatened.

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff The Classic Trait Approach What traits characterize “natural-born” leaders? Some traits have been found to be characteristic of people who become leaders. More situationally-oriented theories posit that the emergence of a given leader depends on time, place, and circumstances.

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Fiedler’s Contingency Model of Leadership Leaders are either primarily task oriented or relations oriented. Task oriented leaders are most effective in clear-cut situations that are either low or high in control. Relations oriented leaders perform better in situations that afford a moderate degree of control.

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Vroom & Yetton’s Normative Model of Leadership Leadership effectiveness is determined by the amount of feedback and participation leaders invite from workers. Effective long-term leadership depends on having the right amount of worker participation.  The “right amount” depends on situational factors.

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Transactional Leadership Compliance and support from followers is gained primarily through goal setting and the use of rewards. Depends on the leader’s willingness and ability to reward subordinates who perform as expected.  As well as the willingness and ability to correct those who do not

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Transformational Leadership Motivates followers to transcend personal needs in the interest of a common cause.  Particularly in times of growth, change, and crisis Articulates a clear vision of the future and then mobilizes others to join in that vision.

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff How are Conflicts among Groups Resolved? Conflict – a perceived incompatibility of actions, goals, or ideas Causes of conflict  Realistic conflict theory -When different groups compete for resources -Sherif, 1966 – two groups of campers "came together."

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff How are Conflicts among Groups Resolved? (continued) Attributional bias  We form opinions regarding the cause of a behavior without adequate data  Hostile attributional bias -The assumption that others have hostile or negative intentions -Have you ever said/thought, "What’s (s)he looking at" out in public?  Blaming other people when we don’t achieve a goal

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff How are Conflicts among Groups Resolved? (continued) Communication errors  Sometimes simple misunderstandings lead to major conflicts  Different people communicate differently Biased perception  We see ourselves as being "right" while we see others as being biased  Hostile media phenomenon – we think that the media is biased against any view that we hold

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff Resolving Conflict Bargaining (negotiation) Seeking a common ground Differing parties come together to discuss and resolve conflict Involves counter-offers and concessions The goal is for everyone to win a little and no one has to feel like they "lost."

Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. THINK Social Psychology Kimberley Duff GRIT Graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension reduction Good luck remembering THAT one! Try this instead – "gradual reduction in tension" Compromise is the key and it leads to de- escalation of emotions and hostility The goal is trust and cooperation toward a mutually acceptable outcome