Group Processes Raymond A. Mar

What is a Group? Non-groups Nonsocial groups e.g. Strangers in a grocery store Independent No common identity No structured relations to one another

What is a Group? Social groups e.g. A team of grocery-store security guards Are interdependent Share a common identity Exist in structured relations to one another

Nonsocial Group Influence Norman Triplett Cyclists Children Competitive Explanation? Robert Zajonc Cockroaches and more cockroaches

Nonsocial Group Influence

Robert Zajonc Simple versus difficult task Arousal explanation Dominant behaviours Familiar well-learned tasks = Good! Non-Dominant behaviours Difficult, complex tasks = bad.

Nonsocial Group Influence Social facilitation: The process through which the presence of others increases the likelihood of dominant responses, leading to better performance on well-known tasks, and worse performance on poorly-known tasks.

Social Facilitation Michaels et al. (1982) Pool Players In the presence of others: Good players improve from making 71% of shots, to making 80% Poor players get worse, were making 36% of shots but now make only 25%.

Social Facilitation Why does the mere presence of others cause arousal? Alertness, Vigilance Evaluation Apprehension Distraction

But... Max Ringelmann Men pulling carts.

But... Max Ringelmann Men pulling carts. 20 Kg

But... Max Ringelmann Men pulling carts. 20 Kg 30 Kg

But... Max Ringelmann Men pulling carts. 20 Kg 30 Kg

But... Max Ringelmann Men pulling carts. 20 Kg 30 Kg

But... Max Ringelmann Men pulling carts. 20 Kg 25 Kg

But... Max Ringelmann Men pulling carts. In 2 person teams, each man was 93% as productive as on his own. In 4 person teams, each man was 77% as productive as on his own. In 8 person teams, each man was 49% as productive as on his own.

But... Max Ringelmann Men pulling carts.

Social Loafing As people get into larger groups, they tend to decrease their own individual effort. When is this OK? When is this bad? School assignment, Group presentation Why does this occur? Lack of individual evaluation Decrease in pressure = relaxation

Social Loafing Social Loafing: Social loafing is the tendency for people to do worse on simple tasks, but better on complex tasks, when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated.

Social Loafing When is Social Loafing reduced? Individual contributions identified Task is meaningful, challenging or important Risk of total failure Group is valued Group is small

Loafing or Facilitation? Contributions identified = Arousal = Social Facilitation Contributions anonymous = Relaxation = Social Loafing

Loafing or Facilitation? Contributions Identified = Arousal = Social Facilitation (easy better, harder worse) See I as F = C. I. A. S. F.

Loafing or Facilitation? Contributions Anonymous = Relaxation = Social Loafing (easy worse, harder better) CARS L = C. A. R. S. L.

Group Size and Performance Type of task Divisible tasks Unitary tasks Additive tasks Everyone does the same thing The outcome is a sum of all contributions Sweatshop

Group Size and Performance Disjunctive tasks Performance depends on the strongest member Advertising Agency Conjunctive tasks Performance depends on the weakest member Human Pyramid

Decision-making in Groups Why are decisions often made in groups? More diversity of opinion Pooled resources Avoid biases Therefore, groups should make more moderate, less extreme decisions.

Decision-making in Groups But, groups tend to make more extreme decisions than the those favoured by the individuals that compose the group initially Example: The amateur opera Art – Moderately pro-opera Ella – Undecided Juanita – Moderately pro-opera

Decision-making in Groups But, groups tend to make more extreme decisions than the those favoured by the individuals that compose the group initially Example: The amateur opera Art – Very pro-opera Ella – Moderately pro-opera Juanita – Very pro-opera

Decision-making in Groups Group Polarization: When group discussion leads members to make decisions that are more extremely on the side of the issue that the group initially favoured.

Decision-making in Groups Group Polarization and... Risk Caution Prejudice Feminism

Decision-making in Groups Why does Group Polarization occur? Persuasive Arguments explanation Hear more unique arguments for one side Social Comparison explanation Knowledge of group norms Pressure to conform Pressure toward extremes

Decision-making in Groups The decisions made by groups are not only sometimes more extreme, sometimes they are also just stupid. Political decisions Kennedy and Cuba Mulroney and Meech Lack accord Why didn’t anyone point out that it was a bad idea?

Decision-making in Groups Leaders and sycophants Clear hierarchy Leader’s position is made clear Group members want to evaluated positively Group members want to get along, rather than truly analyze the issue (risks, contingencies). Opposing views are stifled Group members are overconfident, semblance of agreement, no discussion

Decision-making in Groups Group-Think: A style of group decision-making characterized by a greater desire among members to get along and agree with one another than to generate and critically evaluate alternative viewpoints.

Decision-making in Groups When is Group-Think most likely to occur? Cohesiveness (but see text for caveats) Structure and composition Hierarchy Isolation Toadies Procedures of decision-making Stress

Decision-making in Groups Combating Group-Think Humble Open-minded Tolerance of dissent Encourage consideration of other options Get outside input Task-focused Critical Examination

Behaviour in Groups Behaviour when alone compared to behaviour when in a group Mob mentality Rwanda L.A. riots Soccer hooligans Can any good come from this? Social protest

Behaviour in Groups Why does this occur? Accountability Anonymity Dodd (1985) Attentional cues Self-awareness

Behaviour in Groups Deindividuation: The loss of a person’s sense of individuality and the reduction of normal constraints against behaviour that occurs when in a group.

Emotion and Negotiation Thompson, Medvec, Seiden, & Kopelman (2001) Is it a good idea to use emotions during negotiations? How could you use emotions to get what you want during a negotiation? Thompson et al. (2001) identify 3 possible types of negotiating

Emotion and Negotiation The Rational Negotiator

Emotion and Negotiation The Rational Negotiator Do not express or feel emotions Feeling emotions means that you can no longer rationally analyze the situation. Expressing emotions shows your negotiating partner that you have lack of control.

Emotion and Negotiation The Positive Negotiator

Emotion and Negotiation The Positive Negotiator Expressing positive emotions can be to your advantage during negotiations People who are in a good mood may use more cooperative strategies. Positive moods are associated with creativity

Emotion and Negotiation The Irrational Negotiator

Emotion and Negotiation The Irrational Negotiator Not actually irrational, but merely appears to be extreme, reckless and out of control Strategy involves displaying negative emotions like rage, anger, indignation and impatience. Chicken.

Emotion and Negotiation The Irrational Negotiator “Anyone can be angry – that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way – this is not easy” -Aristotle

Emotion and Negotiation Which strategy is best? Evaluating the Rational Negotiator Thought suppression, ironic monitoring Entrainment Emotional contagion

Emotion and Negotiation Which strategy is best? Evaluating the Positive Negotiator Compared to neutral or negative moods Creativity Cartoon-sorting But... Rapport and entrainment End of the negotiation

Emotion and Negotiation Which strategy is best? Evaluating the Irrational Negotiator Little direct empirical evidence Perceptual contrast Negative Reinforcement Self-regulation

Emotion and Negotiation Which strategy is best? It Depends Integrative solution possible Zero-sum situations

Emotion and Negotiation Conclusion: In cooperative bargaining situations, positive, and at times rational, strategies can be highly effective. In non- cooperative bargaining games, aggressive and rational strategies can be effective.

Emotion and Negotiation

Group Processes