Group processes: Lecture #7 topics  Welcome to our special guests! (enjoy the class)  A few words about Test #2 (don’t worry – it’s ALL good)  A few words about conformity  The presence of other people  Interacting with other people  Competing with other people

Collective processes: Social facilitation Space shuttle Columbia crew

Collective processes: Social facilitation Space shuttle Challenger crew

Collective processes: Social facilitation

Collective processes: Social facilitation group: a set of individuals having at least one of the following characteristics:  direct interactions with each other over a period of time  joint membership in a social category  shared common fate, identity, or goals

Triplett (1897):  noticed that cyclists racing against each other performed better than cyclists racing alone  led to hypothesis: “presence of another person releases competitive instinct, which increases nervous energy and enhances performance”  found that kids wound fishing reels quicker working side by side than working alone  follow-up findings were mixed, until… Collective processes: Social facilitation

Zajonc’s solution: Collective processes: Social facilitation Other people’s presence increases arousal Increased arousal increases tendency to perform dominant response EASY TASK: Dominant response = Successful performance HARD TASK: Dominant response = Unsuccessful performance “social facilitation”

Collective processes: Social facilitation Derek Jeter Annika Sorenstam

Collective processes: Social facilitation Possible alternative explanations:  evaluation apprehension theory  performance will be enhanced / impaired, but only when you’re in presence of people who will evaluate your performance  distraction conflict theory  distraction while performing creates attentional conflict, which increases arousal

Ringelmann (1880s):  compared to their productivity when they worked alone, people’s individual productivity decreased when they worked together  was it due to lack of effort or lack of coordination?  lack of effort  Ingham (1974): people pulled a rope 20% harder when alone than when they thought they were part of a group Collective processes: Social loafing

Latané et al. (1979): High Low Collective processes: Social loafing

social loafing:  group-produced reduction in individual output on tasks where individual contributions are pooled  occurs in relay races, collective farms, classroom projects  loafing can be reduced if:  people think personal performance is identifiable  the task is meaningful to people  people expect punishment for poor performance  the group is small  the group is cohesive Collective processes: Social loafing

Collective processes: Deindividuation deindividuation: loss of individuality and normal constraints against deviant behaviour environmental factors:  low accountability  people might deliberately choose to engage in behaviour that is usually inhibited (e.g., robbing a bank)  decreased self-awareness  decreased attention to personal standards of behaviour and to long-term consequences of behaviour  e.g., Hallowe’en trick-or-treaters

social identity model of deindividuation:  in deindividuating situations, personal identity is submerged, social identity emerges, and conformity to group increases  effects of deindividuation can be positive / negative, depending on norms of the group  if group norms are negative, then deindividuation can lead to violence  if group norms are positive, then deindividuation can lead to prosocial behaviour Collective processes: Deindividuation

Johnson and Downing (1979): High Low Collective processes: Social loafing

Group processes: Why we belong to groups  increased chances of survival and reproduction  we accomplish things in groups that we can’t accomplish by ourselves  you can’t play football by yourself  groups offer social status and identity, even if the group is low in status  it’s nice to be a big fish in a little pond

Group processes: Group polarization Are groups more likely to push for risk or caution? Group decision will reflect the group average Group decision will be more cautious than risky

Group processes: Group polarization  group discussion exaggerates initial leanings of group members  if group members initially favour risk, discussion will lead to a riskier group decision  if group members initially favour caution, discussion will lead to a more cautious group decision  e.g., prejudice in high school students group polarization:

Group processes: Groupthink

Group processes: Groupthink

Group processes: Groupthink

Group processes: Groupthink groupthink (Janis, 1982):  excessive tendency to see agreement among group members  emerges when need for agreement takes priority over getting accurate information

Group processes: Groupthink SYMPTOMS:  overestimation of group  close-mindedness  pressure toward uniformity ANTECEDENTS: high cohesiveness group structure stress GROUPTHINK CONSEQUENCES: defective decision making high probability of a bad decision

preventing groupthink:  avoid insulation  consult often with people outside of group  reduce conformity pressures  leaders should encourage criticism  establish a norm of critical review  have a devil’s advocate  hold a “second chance” meeting prior to taking action Group processes: Groupthink

 an actor wants to steal a scene from her co-star  a basketball player wants to hog the ball from the other players  a CEO wants to keep more of her company’s profits  a person wants to use more than his fair share of non- renewable natural resources, like coal Competition: Mixed motives and social dilemmas social dilemmas:  situation where making self-interested choices creates the worst outcome for everyone

the prisoner’s dilemma: Competition: Social dilemmas A gets 5 yrs B gets 5 yrs Confession (competes with Prisoner A) A gets 10 yrs B gets 0 yrs A gets 0 yrs B gets 10 yrs A gets 1 yr B gets 1 yr No confession (cooperates with Prisoner A) PRISONER B Confession (competes with Prisoner B) No confession (cooperates with Prisoner B) PRISONER A

tit-for-tat:  reciprocal strategy—cooperation elicits cooperation, competition elicits competition  leads to higher levels of cooperation than other strategies win-stay, lose-shift:  based on basic learning principles  people continue to compete / cooperate as long as the payoff is high (win-stay)  shift to opposite action when payoff is low (lose-shift) Competition: Social dilemmas

factors leading to conflict escalation:  group polarization process  increases extremity of group members’ attitudes  group cohesiveness and groupthink  pressures to conform make it hard for individuals to oppose increasing aggressiveness of their group Competition: Conflict escalation

Competition: Conflict escalation  threat capacity  punishment is used to deter conflict escalation, but when people have access to coercive means, they use them  Deutsch and Krauss (1960): participants blocked each other’s access to a common road because they could  negative perceptions of “the other”  opposing group members are seen as alien and characterized in simplistic ways  when negative views are taken to extremes, “the other” can become dehumanized, which justifies aggression