SAD Social-People in Groups

Defining a group (Johnson & Johnson, 1987):

· Social unit of >2 individuals who perceive themselves as belonging to the group

· Collection of individuals who influence each other

· Interaction between individuals

· Interdependence among group members

· Seek to achieve group goals

· Try to satisfy a need through their association

· Interaction and behaviours governed by group roles and norms

Social facilitation-How does the presence of a group affect individual behaviour?

>>Triplett (1989): observe better performance when audience/competition present

>>Allport (1920): facilitation could occur even with the mere presence (passive & unresponsive audience) of audience

>>Zajonc (1965): <drive theory>mere presence of audience increases arousal and energises the dominant response (typical response)

>>Hogg & Vaughan (2005): An improvement in the performance of well-learned/easy tasks and a deterioration in the performance of poorly-learned/difficult tasks in the mere presence of the same species.

>>Cottrell(1972): we learn about reward/punishment contingencies based on others’ evaluation, the perception of an evaluating audience (not mere presence) creates arousal

>>Guerin & Inness(1982): social facilitation only occur when the actor could not monitor the audience, the actor could not tell what the audience was thinking, creating uncertainty and arousal

>>Carver & Schier(1981): <self-awareness theory>ideal vs. actual self increases motivation to bring performance into line with ideal

>>Bond(1982): <self-presentation theory>presentation of best possible impression to others (easy for simple tasks, but in complex tasks people may anticipate embarrassment which leads to mistakes)

>>Easterbook(1959): <attentional overload>audience causes attentional overload->narrowing of attention of cues (good for simple tasks)

>>Bon & Titus(1983): mere presence accounted 0.3-3.0% of variance in performance, audience facilitated performance of simple tasks but inhibited performance of complex tasks

Social Loafing (Ringelmann effect)

->men pulling on a rope exerted less force in proportion to the number of people in the group

-><coordination loss>group size inhibits movement, distraction, jostling

-><motivation loss>participants did not try as hard

->Ingham et al.(1974): real group vs. pseudo group

->independent of loss of coordination

->Latane et al.(1979): clapping, shouting and cheering tasks (noise reduced according to size of group)

->Frohlinch & Oppenheimer, 1970): <free rider effect>gaining the benefits of group membership but avoiding costly obligations of membership and allowing other group members to incur the costs

            -free riders aim to exploit the group while contributing as little as possible

            -social loafer makes a contribution(small one) and experiences a loss of motivation

->Karau & Williams(1993): 80% out of 78 social loafing studies found loafing of the individual-group comparisons made

->reasons for loafing:

·    Jacksons &Harkins, 1985<Output equity>: people expect others to loaf so they do so accordingly

·    Harkins, 1987<Evaluation apprehension>: group provides anonymity but when performance is measured they overcome their tendency to loaf

·    Szymanski & Harkins, 1987<Matching standards>: people loaf as there is no clear performance standard

Group Cohesiveness-solidarity/team spirit/morale

=>The property of the group that affectively binds people as group members to one another and to the group, giving the group a sense of solidarity and oneness (Hogg & Vaughan)

=>focus on the psychological processes that makes a group or team cohesive in the workplace, in social situations, in sport etc.

=>Field of forces (attractiveness+mediation of goals)->Cohesiveness->Behaviour

=>Cohesiveness is usually the average interpersonal attraction across the whole group

·      determined by similarity, cooperation, interpersonal acceptance & share threat

·      predicts conformity to group norms, accentuated similarity (self-stereotyping & in-group member stereotyping), improved intragroup communication & enhanced liking

Social Cohesion/Interpersonal Interdependence Model (Hogg, 1982)

>Personal attraction has nothing to do with the groups, it focusses on the individual

>Social attraction is one of the many processes involved in self-categorisation theory which includes: social attraction (the ‘liking’ component of group), stereotyping & self-stereotyping, in-group solidarity, conformity, ethnocentrism &intergroup differentiation

Group Socialisation: Dynamic relationship* between the group and its members that describes the passage of members through the group in terms of commitment and changing roles.

*Dynamic nature: new members join, old members leave, members are socialized by the group, the group is changed/shaped by the members

5-stage model of group socialisation (Tuckman, 1965)

1.     Forming-orientation and familiarisation stage

2.     Storming-disagreements drive working towards goals and practices<conflict stage>

3.     Norming-a consensus, cohesion and common identity and purpose stage

4.     Performing-group performs optionally and smoothly toward shared goals with clear norms and practice, good morale

5.     Adjourning-group dissolves because goals have been achieved or members lose interests/motivation and move on

Moreland & Levine’s (1982, 1984) model of group socialisation

Role transition in group involve the change in function of a group member and are central to M&L model.

Initiation rites are procedures that mark a group member’s transition from one role to another within a group (ritualised public events, pleasant events, sometimes associated with painful events)

Why would people go through this to belong to a group? They should have then ‘hate’ the group!

àCognitive dissonance suggests a mismatch between “I underwent a painful initiation to join this group” and “some aspects of the group are not that group”.

Group Norms

·      Attitudinal & behavioural uniformities that define group membership and differentiate between groups

·      Define what is acceptable, and what is not, in a group

·      Can be enforced by laws/legislation, but could also be implied and taken for granted (Garfinkel, 1967)

·      Closely related with stereotypes->people self-stereotype themselves into group members and assume they accepted normative behaviours of the group (normative behaviour is akin to stereotypical behaviour)

·      Deviation or dissent from norms can lead to vilification and derogation

·      Have strong effect on people (Newcomb, 1965)

·      Function as a ‘frame of reference’ for behaviour in a group

Group Structure <Roles & Status>

>>Status & roles emerge in groups because they reflect intragroup social comparisons processes.

1.    Roles: Patterns of behaviours that distinguish between different activities within the group, and that interrelate to one another for the greater good of the group—roles are NOT people.

            --Roles tend to emerge in groups for three reasons: division of labour, social expectations of member, & give members self-definition within group

            --facilitate group functioning and effectiveness

            --can be related to subgroups within wider groups and can be related to intergroup conflict

            --tend to be rigid

2.     Status: Consensual evaluation of the prestige or role of role occupant in a group/ the prestige of a group and its members as a whole

--highest status=leader: consensual prestige, initiates ideas and activities adopted by a group