Chapter 2 Groups Social Psychology by Tom Gilovich

Chapter 2: Groups Social Psychology by Tom Gilovich, Dacher Keltner, and Richard Nisbett

What is a Group? two or more people who: l interact with each other directly or indirectly l share common goals/share norms l have a stable relationship l are interdependent l perceive they are part of a group not a collection of people in a lobby, street corner, or elevator

Group Formation and Function l People join groups to: – – – l 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)

Decision-Making in Groups Social Decision Schemes- rules comparing initial group views to final group decisions l majority-wins rule- group opts for whatever decision majority agreed with initially l truth-wins rule- group eventually accepts correct decision l first-shift rule- groups adopt decision consistent with direction of first shift in opinion these simple rules predict final outcome 80% of time

Consequences of Group Decision Making l Conventional wisdom suggests groups would make better decisions than individual – – l 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- tendency to shift toward more extreme positions after group discussion Risky Neutral Cautious

Groupthink

Mixed Research Support l Most group decision research takes place in lab – l Groups are not “real” groups Group development theories suggest groups need time to develop effective interaction patterns – (e. g. , Tuckman and Jensen) l l l Forming Storming Norming Performing Lab groups don’t have time to develop so effectiveness could hinge on personality of most competent member

Social Facilitation 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

Sources of Arousal l Evaluation Apprehension – A concern about looking bad in front of others l Cottrell, et, al. 1968

Sources of Arousal l Mere presence – – – Presence of others is arousing Cockroaches probably not worried about looking bad Markus (1978)

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

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 l 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 l – Status quo bias—powerful groups often inaccurate Type A personality—highly competitive and hostile

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

Perceived Fairness in Groups l The presence of others affects our judgments of fairness – l Judgments typically made by social comparison Fairness can be judged in terms of: – outcomes (distributive justice) l l l – Equity distribution Equality distribution Need distribution procedures (procedural justice)

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 Larry Moe Curly Perceived inequity creates a state of “unpleasant” z z z 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. – amount of An. Inputs example: work, KSAs, experience Outputs – pay, promotions, perqs

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