Behaviour in Groups: Working in a group Brainstorming Social loafing Group Cohesion Competition

Brainstorming: A technique used to generate ideas in groups Premise of Brainstorming: Group members − Are encouraged to be uninhibited in generating their ideas Offer suggestions without worrying about practicality Are encouraged to build on or combine ideas offered

Are two heads better than one? Empirical evidence DOES NOT SUPPORT benefits of brainstorming POSSIBLE REASONS: (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991) Production of ideas was blocked due to only one person being able to speak at one time Individuals got distracted between generating an idea and being able to report it.

Brainstorming (Playdough Activity) DescriptionMean Rating Score (1 = low; 4 = high) Group 1Group 2 (winning team) Quantity of ideas Feeling understood & listened to Chance to contribute ideas2.9 Satisfaction with degree of participation Inference: Table 1. Comparison of feelings among group members during brainstorming as measured by a Self Report Questionnaire.

Brainstorming (Playdough Activity) DescriptionMean Rating Score (1 = low; 4 = high) Group 1Holey Donuts (winning team) Quantity of ideas 3.73 Feeling understood & listened to Chance to contribute ideas Satisfaction with degree of participation 3.54 Inference: Table 1. Comparison of feelings among group members during brainstorming as measured by a Self Report Questionnaire.

Group Cohesion: Cooperation and Coordination in groups that are task dependent and socially dependent

Group work is better because... Individuals could through joint effort, varying skills, and multi-tasking can accomplish more. (cooperation & coordination) Collective memory is better than individual memory; groups provide more accurate and detailed accounts of events than single participants can. It can generate positive feelings toward group members.

How is group cohesion strengthened? Group membership is considered an important part of an individual’s social identity. Cooperation within the group leads to positive feelings among members. Individual rewards dependent on group cooperation encourage individual excellence. (+/ − ) Development of group norms. (+/ − e.g. passive resistance)

Group Cohesion (Playdough Activity) Description Mean Rating Score (1 = low; 4 = high) Group 1Group 2 (winning team) Personal Contribution 2.9 Competitiveness toward the other group Competitiveness toward group members Cohesiveness Coordination Cooperation Organisation

Group Cohesion (Playdough Activity) Description Mean Rating Score (1 = low; 4 = high) Group 1Holey Donuts (winning team) Personal Contribution Competitiveness toward the other group Competitiveness toward group members Cohesiveness Coordination Cooperation Organisation

COMPETITION Research: Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment (1961) (see description on p71-72 or textbook) yr old boys in a Scout camp divided into 2 groups – Eagles and Rattlers

Theories explaining Competition: REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY Inter-group hostility arises because of competition for scarce but valued resources. (Sherif’s Robbers Cave Expmt) THEORY OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION Feelings of discontent arise from the belief that others are better off. Findings by Tropp and Wright (1999), p 367 of textbook Fig Group Identification Comparison Groups  Group Identification (Social Identity)  group and personal deprivation relative to Comparison Groups

EFFECT OF GROUP SIZE Studies on Conformity Studies on Conformity (Solomon Asch’s Line Comparison Experiment & Stanley Milgram’s Standing on a Busy Sidewalk Looking Up Experiment) Groups of up to 5 elicited linearly increasing response on individuals to conform. >5 up to 15 did not increase conformity significantly. Studies on Coherence and Effectiveness of Groups ( Studies on Coherence and Effectiveness of Groups ( Olson, 1965) Action-taking groups – 5-6 members Non-Action taking groups – 14 or more members Interpretation: If you want decisive action to be taken, groups should be small. If you want opinion and general reactions or feedback, groups should be large.

Social loafing Experimental Evidence: Alan Ingham and others (1974) – Tug-of-war Expmt Blind-folded College students pulling a rope exerted only 82% effort when they believed 3 others were pulling behind them. Bibb, Latané and colleagues coined the term “Social Loafing” Results supported in 78 other experiments done in 6 different countries

Social loafing Impact: Lower group efficiency, decreases motivation Reasons: Diffusion of Responsibility Belief that individual contribution is dispensable How to minimize social loafing: Make group tasks interesting Group members are highly motivated Individual contributions made essential to success Individual performance is monitored Individuals identify strongly with the group (foster “corporate culture”)