Week 1 - TIO.docx

Chapter 1 Studying Small Groups Groupthink: a mode of thinking that people engage un when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. The essence of groupthink lies in the exce...

Chapter 1 Studying Small Groups Groupthink: a mode of thinking that people engage un when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. The essence of groupthink lies in the excessive concurrence-seeking: Group members try to maintain consensus and group harmony, and refrain from criticism or counterargumentation against the alternative that is favored by the group. They might not realize that the course of action is inadequate or dangerous. People are a group when they experience similar outcomes (Lewin). Some form of social structure is essential, because otherwise the group would just be a loose collection of individuals (Sherif). Face-toface interaction is important, and members should meet on a regular basis (Bales). Shared identity is also important, so groups exist when members identify with their group (Tajfel). The more of these properties the group possess, the more entitative the group is. Important group characteristics: *Interdependence: the degree to which group members depend on one another to achieve their goals or important outcomes * Importance: the degree to which the group is important to its members * Interaction: the degree to which group members meet on a regular basis * Size: the number of people that are members of the group * Duration: how long the group stays together as a group * Permeability: the degree to which it is easy to join or leave the group *Similarity: the degree to which group members are similar to one another on one or more attributes *Group structure: the degree to which the group has developed specific characteristics, such as norms, roles, and status differences * Cohesion: the degree to which group members feel attracted to the group It was found that the most important predictor for group entitativity was interaction among group members: Higher levels of interaction were associated with higher entitativity. Importance, common goals and outcomes, group member similarity and duration showed a positive relation, whereas group size and permeability showed a weak negative relation. How to study groups Qualitative research entails that one or a few entities, such as groups or organizations, are extensively studies for relatively long periods of time. A very rich and detailed picture can be given about particular entities. However, only a few entities can usually be studied so extensively (is it generalizable?). Also, data can be very rich and complicated which makes drawing conclusions hard. Surveys and correlational designs are good methods for a large number of entities. Because variables can be quantified, one can compute quantitative relations between variables. Questionnaires can also be administered with the same people at different points in time, to establish relations between variables measured at different points in time. However, surveys rely on subjective data. It is also not possible to establish causality, mainly because of the third variable problem. Experiments are done in situations which are under the control of the researcher. This allows for the use of manipulations. Participants are assigned to different conditions at random, so we can test casual relations. Chapter 2 Group processes and Social Influence Levine and Morland’s model of group socialization distinguishes between five stages of group membership. Moving from one stage to the next involves a role transition, which occurs as a result of evaluation processes: Investigation: Groups look for prospective members who might make a contribution to the attainment of group goals. Socialization: New members learn the norms of the group: the unwritten rules that prescribe the attitudes and behaviors that are and are not appropriate in the context of the group. Members also learn their role in the group. Maintenance: this stage is characterized by high levels of commitment. Through role negotiations, groups and members try to increase the rewardingness of their relationship: members try to occupy the role within the group that best satisfies their needs, whereas the group tries to appoint roles to members in such a way that the group’s goals are best achieved. Re-socialization: Divergence might be followed by a period of re-socialization. In this period, the group might try to persuade marginal members not to leave or might try to accommodate to the wishes of marginal members. Remembrance: The ex-member and the group retrospectively evaluate each other. Group development Because every group faces certain challenges over time, there may be similarities in the way different groups develop over time. This is the reasoning behind Tuckman’s model of group development: Forming: Group members feel insecure, so interactions are polite and inhibited, and people begin to develop a shared identity as members of the same group. Storming: People have gotten to know each other, and now have to develop a group structure. Issues of leadership and influence are at stake, and as group members may compete about different roles in the group, there may be conflicts and disagreements. Norming: Group members come to agree on the group’s goals and develop norms that govern group interaction. Performing: Because group structure and norms have been established, efforts can be directed towards achieving the group’s task. Adjourning: When the task has been accomplished or is abandoned, the group will end. The best-known coding system of group interaction is Bales’ interaction process analysis (IPA). IPA makes the important distinction between task behaviors and socio-emotional behaviors. Task-related behavior is necessary for task completion but can lead to conflicts when people disagree. In order not to disturb the functioning of the group, socio-emotional behavior is necessary to restore group harmony (page 27). The forming stage should be characterized by positive socio-emotional behavior, whereas in the storming stage more negative socio-emotional behavior should occur. In the norming stage, there should be both positive socio-emotional behavior and task-related behavior, and the performing stage should be dominated by task-related behavior. Social influence Majority influence: a larger subgroup produced conformity in a smaller subgroup. Normative social influence occurs when people conform to the expectations of others. These others may not necessarily be right, but their influence is accepted because people expect more positive evaluations when they conform to their opinions or norms. Informational social influence occurs when people conform to others because they accept information obtained from others as evidence about reality. Normative social influence is thus closely connected to the wish to receive positive evaluations, whereas informational social influence is closely connected to the wish to be accurate about reality. Normative social influence is weaker when participants are anonymous, because that makes it harder for the others to evaluate the participant. When a task is important, people will be inclined to follow their own judgements only when judgements can easily be evaluated against physical reality. However, they will follow others even more when the task is difficult. Normative social influence leads to conformity, but influence targets do not necessarily believe that the majority is right (public compliance). Informational influence might on the other hand lead to a real change in one’s private opinions (private acceptance). A critical factor in groups is whether the individual pre-discussion opinions are on the risky or cautious side. When individual judgements are relatively risky, the group’s judgement is even riskier; when they are relatively cautious, the group becomes even more cautious. It is not a conformity effect, because group members do not conform to the group average, but rather become more extreme than they were initially. On any judgmental dimension, groups tend to shift to the pole that their members favor initially (group polarization). *The social comparison explanation argues that people want to put themselves in a favorable light. They want to give their true opinion, but also do not want to appear too extreme or deviate too much from other group members. *The persuasive arguments theory argues that an individual’s position on an issue is a function of the number and persuasiveness of pro and con arguments that the individual has available. Minority influence: smaller subgroups produce change in larger subgroups. Moscovici argued that minority influence is qualitatively different from majority influence. Majority influence will lead to public compliance; because of normative pressure, people will conform to the majority. Minority influence, in contrast, will yield private acceptance. Minorities are not as threatening, and when minorities consistently argue their point, they will stimulate others to scrutinize their arguments carefully. Majorities are generally more powerful on direct measures of influence, both public and private. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Job design * Self-management * Participation * Task variety * Task Significance * Task identity Interdependence * Task interdependence * Goal interdependence * Interdependent feedback and rewards Composition * Heterogeneity * Flexibility * Relative size * Preference for group work Context * Training * Managerial support * Communication/cooperation between groups Process * Potency * Social support * Workload sharing * Communication/cooperation within groups Job design characteristics were very useful in predicting effectiveness for work groups. Except for task identity, all the characteristics showed positive relationships with most criteria. The findings suggest that the model validated so many times at the job level may also be valid at the group level. The motivational value of group work may come in part because such work designs, especially selfmanaged groups, enhance the motivational quality of members’ jobs.