Groups And Individuals PDF

GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS UNIT 4 GROUP Group involves people who perceive themselves to be part of a coherent unit that they see as different from another group. Common-bond group - involves face-to-face interaction among members; the individuals in the group are bonded to each other. Common iden...

GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS UNIT 4 GROUP Group involves people who perceive themselves to be part of a coherent unit that they see as different from another group. Common-bond group - involves face-to-face interaction among members; the individuals in the group are bonded to each other. Common identity groups- members are linked via the category as a whole rather than to each other with face-to-face interaction often being entirely absent.  Entitativity—the extent to which they are perceived to be a distinct group ( a coherent whole) Entitativity can range from, at the low end- a mere collection of individuals who happen to be in the same place at the same time and who have little or no connection with one another, to at the high end, where members of intimate groups, such as families Groups high in entitativity tend to have the following characteristics: (1) members interact with one another often, although not necessarily in a face-to-face setting (e.g., it could be over the Internet), (2) the group is important in some way to its members, (3) members share common goals, and (4) members perceive themselves as similar to one another in important ways. The higher groups are on these dimensions, the more they will be seen by their members and nonmembers alike as forming coherent entities—real groups that can, and often do, exert powerful effects upon their members. Key Components in Groups STATUS : Many groups have hierarchies like this, with members differing in status—their rank within the group. People who are seen as prototypical—by embodying the group’s central attributes—are particularly likely to be accorded status and be selected as leader of a group (Haslam & Platow, 2001). Longevity or seniority in a group too can result in higher status—to the extent that it is seen as reflective of wisdom or knowledge of ingroup ways (Haslam, 2004). Once status within a group is obtained, people with high status actually behave differently than those with lower status. The need to conform to group norms more strongly among those who are junior in a group and therefore have lower status ROLES: DIFFERENTIATION OF FUNCTION Sometimes roles are assigned; for instance, a group may select different individuals to serve as its leader, treasurer, or secretary. In other cases, individuals gradually acquire certain roles without being formally assigned to them. Regardless of how roles are acquired, in many groups, someone often serves as the “good listener,” taking care of members’ emotional needs, while another person tends to specialize in “getting things done.” NORMS: feeling rules—expectations about the emotions that are appropriate to express. An important norm that varies considerably across cultures, but can also apply differentially to groups within a culture is collectivism versus individualism. In collectivist groups, the norm is to maintain harmony among group members, even if doing so might entail some personal costs; in such groups, disagreement and conflict among members are to be avoided. In contrast, in individualistic groups, the norm is to value standing out from the group and be different from others; individual variability is to be expected and disagreeing with the group is often seen as courageous. Cohesiveness—all the forces that cause members to remain in the group (Ellemers, de Gilder, & Haslam, 2004). Cohesive groups have a sense of solidarity: They see themselves as homogenous, support and cooperate with ingroup members, aim to achieve group goals, have high morale, and perform better than noncohesive groups (Hogg, 2007; Mullen & Cooper, 1994). In fact, the presence of an outgroup or other form of competitive threat increases cohesion in a variety of community groups. THE BENEFITS OF JOINING A GROUP 1.We often gain self-knowledge from belonging to various groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Our membership can tell us what kind of person we are—or perhaps, would like to be—so group membership becomes central to our self-concept. As a result, it is fair to say, group memberships provide us with a sense of “existential security.” Once we belong, we can find it hard to imagine not belonging because it makes our life meaningful by defining, to some extent, who we are. 2. Being part of a group can also increase our perceived ability to cope with stress, in part by making us feel a greater sense of control. 3. Groups can help us reach our goals. Attaining prestige: When an individual is accepted into a certain type of group—a highly selective school, an exclusive social club, and a varsity sports team—self-esteem can increase The more an individual is seeking self-enhancement—boosting one’s own public image—the more important will a group’s status be to that person and the more strongly he or she will identify with it. 4. Groups helps us to accomplish goals we could not achieve alone—for example, social change. One way devalued groups cope with the discrimination they experience is to gain strength from and identify with their disadvantaged group. THE COSTS Group membership often restricts personal freedom. Members of various groups are expected to behave in certain ways—and if they don’t, the group may impose sanctions or even expel such violators from membership. Groups often make demands on members’ time, energy, and resources, and members must meet these demands or surrender their membership. EFFECT OF PRESENCE OF OTHERS - SOCIAL FACILITATION - SOCIAL LOAFING SOCIAL FACILITATION Zajonc, Heingartner, and Herman (1969). They arranged to have cockroaches run a maze. they constructed clear plastic boxes close enough to the maze so that a roach “audience” could observe the maze-running “participants.” With this setup the roaches in the maze would also “know” they were being watched—they would be aware of the presence of the onlooking audience. As it turned out, those cockroaches who were watched by other roaches ran the maze faster than cockroaches without an audience. Zajonc (1965) argued that the mere presence of others would only facilitate a well-learned response, but that it could inhibit a less-practiced or “new” response. He noted that the presence of others increases physiological arousal (our bodies become more energized), and, as a result, any dominant response will be facilitated. This means that we can focus better on something we know or have practiced when we are aroused, but that same physiological arousal will create problems when we are dealing with some thing new or complex. Other researchers thought that performance might sometimes be disrupted by the presence of an audience because of apprehension about having their performance evaluated (remember the professor who will be grading your speech!). This evaluation apprehension idea was studied by Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak, and Rittle (1968). In fact, several of their experiments found that social facilitation did not occur when an audience was blindfolded, or displayed no interest in watching the person performing the task, which lent support to this interpretation that concerns about evaluation might play a role. Some have suggested that the presence of others, either as an audience or as co-actors, can be distracting and, for this reason, it can produce cognitive overload (e.g., R.S. Baron, 1986). Because performers must divide their attention between the task and the audience, such increased cognitive load can result in a tendency to restrict one’s attention so as to focus only on essential cues or stimuli while “screening out” nonessential ones. Several findings offer support for this view, known as distraction conflict theory SOCIAL LOAFING Social loafing—reductions in effort when individuals work collectively com pared to when they work individually (Karau & Williams, 1993). Latane, Williams, and Harkins (1979) asked groups of male students to clap or cheer as loudly as possible at specific times, supposedly so that the experimenter could determine how much noise people make in social settings. To make sure participants were not affected by the actual noise of other participants, they wore headphones, through which noise-making was played at a constant volume. Furthermore, they could not see the other participants, but were only told how many others they were shouting with. They performed these tasks in groups of two, four, or six people. Although the total amount of noise rose as group size increased, the amount produced by each participant dropped. This pattern is quite common in situations where groups perform what are known as additive tasks—ones in which the contributions of each member are combined into a single group output. REDUCING SOCIAL LOAFING The most obvious way to reduce social loafing involves making the output or effort of each participant readily identifiable (Williams, Harkins, & Latané, 1981). Research in organizations has found that when individual contributions to a team effort are publicly posted, performance in a group can be even better than working alone. Second, groups can reduce social loafing by increasing group members’ commitment to successful task performance (Brickner, Harkins, & Ostrom, 1986). Pressures toward working hard will then serve to offset temptations to engage in social loafing. Third, social loafing can be reduced by increasing the apparent importance or value of a task (Karau & Williams, 1993). Fourth, people are less likely to loaf if they are given some kind of stan dard of performance—either in terms of how much others are doing or their own past performance. Cooperation & Conflicts Why people don’t cooperate? When outcomes that people seek simply can’t be shared. Several people seeking the same job or romantic partner can’t combine forces to attain these goals: The rewards can go to only one. Social psychologists refer to this situation as one of negative interdependence—where if one person obtains a desired outcome, others cannot. Social Dilemmas Social dilemmas are situations in which each person can increase his or her individual gains by acting in a purely selfish manner, but if all (or most) people do the same thing, the outcomes experienced by all are reduced. PRISONER’S DILEMMA Prisoner’s dilemma—a situation faced by two suspects who have been caught by the police. They are being held in separate rooms, so each does not know what the other will do. Here, either or both people can choose to cooperate (e.g., stay silent and not confess) or compete (e.g., “rat the other person out”). If both remain silent, then they each serve a one-year prison sentence. If both compete, each will serve a two-year prison sentence. What happens if one chooses to compete while the other chooses to cooperate? In this case, the one who competes goes free, while the one who stays silent serves a three-year prison sentence. So in order to achieve a maximally beneficial out come for both of them, they must individually cooperate without the assurance of that outcome. If they decide to compete, however, in an effort to maximize their own indi vidual outcome, they risk both losing the benefits of cooperation.