Lecture 10 Group Notes PDF

Lecture 10 Group TBChapter 8 What is a group? - Two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition Entitativity 實體 - The property of a group that makes it seem like a coherent, distinct and unitary entity. - High- en...

Lecture 10 Group TBChapter 8 What is a group? - Two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition Entitativity 實體 - The property of a group that makes it seem like a coherent, distinct and unitary entity. - High- entitativity groups: clear boundaries, internally well-structured homogeneous 同質 - more interdependent and shared fate - Low- entitativity groups: fuzzy boundaries, heterogenous 異質的 Common-bond and common-identity groups 1. Common-bond groups - Groups based on attachment among members - Egocentric principle of maximize rewards and minimize costs to own contribution 2. Common- identity groups - Groups based on direct attachment to the group - Operate according to altruistic principle of maximizing the group’s rewards and minimizing its costs through their own contributions - Group goal is more salient than personal goals - Group provides an important source of identity Co-acting group; Group effects on individual performance Mere presence and audience effects: social facilitation ● ­Social facilitation effect - An improvement in the performance of well-learnt/ easy tasks - A deterioration in the performance of poorly learnt/ difficult tasks in mere presence of members of the same species - Mere presence: only physically present with unresponsive audience 1 - Drive theory: cause arousal to motivate performance - Increased arousal that energizes behaviors (dominant response: best learnt, habitual) e.g. If the dominant response is correct (we feel is easy) higher arousal → social presence produces improved performance E.g. things that you learnt well, under observation → you will do better If the dominant response is incorrect (we feel is difficult) lower arousal → social presence produces impaired performance = Social inhibition effect E.g. things that you are learning, under observation → you will NOT do better ● Social inhibition effect - Individuals perform worse in the presence of others ● ­Zajonc’s arousal theory - The presence of others automatically produce arousal, which drive dominant response - Performance is improved by a ‘correct’ dominant response, but is impaired by an ‘incorrect’ dominant response Group vs Team ● ­Interdependence ● ­Role - Work group is a collection of two or more people who interact with one another and ­share some interrelated task goals - Work team is a type of work group and has three properties (West, Borrill, & Unsworth, 1998) 1. ­The actions of individuals must be interdependent and coordinated 2. ­Each member must have a particular, specific role 3. There must be common task goals and objectives. Roles are also expected patterns of behaviors, but are focused upon specific positions within the group and are directed toward the particular individuals who occupy those positions. 1. Role expectations 關於特定角色的責任和要求的信念 - beliefs concerning the responsibilities and requirements of a particular role 2 2. Role conflict - conflict that results when the expectations associated with one role interfere with the expectations concerning another role 3. Role differentiation - ­The process that a member learns to perform different roles Group socialization 描述成員在團體中的承諾和角色變化的過程 - Dynamic relationship between the group and its members that describes members through a group in terms of commitment and of changing roles. Interactive groups: Five stages development sequences 1. Forming: an orientation and familiarization stage 2. Storming: a conflict stage, where members know each other well enough to start working through disagreements about goals and practices 3. Norming: Having survived the storming stage, consensus, cohesion and a sense of common identity and purpose emerge 4. Performing: Works smoothly as a unit that has a shared norms and good atmosphere 5. Adjourning 休會: group dissolves 溶解 because it has accomplishes goals, loss interest to move on Differences in performance ● ­Groups are better than an average individual ● ­Most often times groups are worse than the best member ● ­In some situations groups are even better than the best member ● ­Intellective -- judgmental continuum 智力— 判斷的連續體 ● ­Social decision schemes ­Situations that groups do not do well Ringelmann effect - The larger the group size, the less force exerted per person pulled 3 Two explanations: 1. Coordination loss: owing to distraction and the tendency for people to pull slightly against one another, participants were prevented from attaining their full potential 2. Motivation loss: participants were less motivated, did not try so hard ● ­Social loafing - Reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task - Work less hard because they believe that others are also working - One outputs are pooled with 匯集在一起 those of other group members ● Social compensation - Increased effort on a collective task to compensate for other groups member’s actual, perceived or anticipated lack of effort or ability Why do people loaf? 1. Output equity: we believe other loaf, so to maintain equity, to avoid being a sucker, we loaf 2. Evaluation apprehension 顧慮: we worry about being evaluated, but when anonymous we hang back ; when can be identified, loafing is reduced. 3. Matching to standard: people loaf when there is not a clear sense of the group’s standard ● ­Brainstorming - Uninhibited generation of as many ideas as possible in a group, in order to enhance group creativity. Differences in opinions ● ­Choice shift and group polarization 4 1. Stoner's choice dilemma questionnaire ● Found risky shift; Later experiments found cautious shift. Why? 2. Choice shift ● ­The difference between pre-discussion individual decision and group decision 3. Group polarization ● ­The difference between individual opinions before participating or listening to group discussion and after such experience ● These more extreme decisions are towards greater risk if individuals' initial tendencies are to be risky ● Towards greater caution if individuals' initial tendencies are to be cautious. Explaining group polarization Festinger's social comparison theory (normative influence) ● ­Lacking objective standard to evaluate an individual's opinion, look to others to seek validation ● ­Depending on the task, either riskiness or cautiousness is normatively favored by most people ● ­Seeking social approval, individuals want to be more extreme than others ● ­Realize not as extreme as they desire upon discussion ● ­Adjust opinion to become more extreme Burnstein & Vinokur persuasive argument theory (informational influence) ● ­There exists an universal pool of persuasive arguments ● ­More persuasive arguments favoring the dominant direction than another ● ­During discussion the probability of sampling, and thus being persuaded by, novel arguments favoring the dominant direction is higher ● ­Individuals become more extreme in opinion Group polarization refers to the phenomenon where the attitudes or opinions of individuals within a group become more extreme over time as a result of group discussion or interaction. In other words, when people with similar views gather in a group and discuss a topic, their initial opinions tend to become more extreme or polarized in the same direction. Group polarization can occur in various contexts, such as social, political, or organizational settings. The underlying mechanisms behind group polarization can be attributed to several factors: 5 1. Social Comparison: During group discussions, individuals often compare their own opinions or beliefs with others in the group. If they perceive that their initial stance is not extreme enough or deviates from the group norm, they may adjust their views to align more closely with the perceived majority opinion. 2. Informational Influence: Group members may bring new information or arguments to the discussion that support their initial views. As individuals hear these persuasive arguments, they may become more convinced of the validity of their own position and subsequently adopt more extreme positions. 3. Normative Influence: Individuals are often motivated to gain social approval and conform to the perceived norms of the group. If the prevailing norm in the group leans toward a particular extreme position, individuals may adjust their opinions to conform and gain acceptance or approval from the group. 4. Diffusion of Responsibility: When individuals participate in a group, they may feel a diffusion of responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. This reduced personal accountability can lead to a willingness to take greater risks and adopt more extreme positions than they would as individuals. Group polarization has important implications. It can lead to increased social divisions, reinforce existing biases, and escalate conflicts. On the positive side, group polarization can also lead to collective action, mobilization, and the adoption of innovative ideas if the initial group consensus is positive or constructive. Understanding group polarization can help individuals and leaders be more aware of the potential biases and dynamics that can arise within group settings. By encouraging diverse perspectives, promoting critical thinking, and fostering an open and inclusive environment, it is possible to mitigate the negative effects of group polarization and facilitate more balanced decision-making processes. 6 Jury decision making ● ­Group size Consider a criminal trial, the simulation shows that ­When the proportion of people in the population favoring a guilty verdict 有罪判決 is low, 6-person groups are more likely to convict than 12-person groups. ­When guilty verdict 有罪判決 is high, 12-person groups are more likely to convict than 6-person groups ● ­Order effect 1. 3 charges in a criminal trial ­Reckless homicide 魯莽殺人 [RH] → Aggravated battery [AB] → ­Criminal damage to property [CD] 2. Orders to consider the three charges ­RH, AB, CD (descending severity) 嚴重程度遞減 ­CD, AB, RH (ascending severity) 3. Conviction rate 定罪率 on the AB charge ­Descending = .22 > ascending = .04 ● ­Straw poll e.g., Davis, Stasson, Parks, et al. (1993) Empirical results ­Strong effect of local majority at the individual level ­But no effect at the group decision level e.g., Jury decision making A typical decision rule is 2/3-majority, hung otherwise. ● requires a two-thirds majority for a particular outcome to be determined. If the vote does not reach the required two-thirds majority, then the decision is considered "hung," meaning that no clear outcome or decision has been reached. 7