Group Influences Lecture Notes PDF

**PSYC 231** **Group Influences** **Slide 2: Belief in a Just World** **Belief in a Just World posits that many individuals have an inherent need to believe that the world is fundamentally fair (Lerner, 1980; Dalbert, 1999).** \- According to this belief, good people are rewarded while bad peopl...

**PSYC 231** **Group Influences** **Slide 2: Belief in a Just World** **Belief in a Just World posits that many individuals have an inherent need to believe that the world is fundamentally fair (Lerner, 1980; Dalbert, 1999).** \- According to this belief, good people are rewarded while bad people face consequences for their actions (Lerner, 1980; Dalbert, 1999). \- This perspective offers a comforting sense of security. **However, when random tragedies occur to seemingly innocent individuals, this belief is challenged, creating cognitive dissonance (Lerner, 1980; Dalbert, 1999; Myers et al., 2021; Aronson et al., 2022).** \- Such events can disturb our feeling of safety because they imply that anyone, including ourselves, can fall victim to injustice. **To reconcile this discomfort, people often resort to victim-blaming (Dalbert, 1999).** \- By disparaging the victim or attributing their suffering to personal failings, we can preserve our belief in a just world, allowing us to maintain the illusion that we are insulated from similar fates (Lerner & Simmons, 1966). Research has shown that a strong belief in a just world can lead to negative attitudes towards various groups (e.g., poor; disabled; victims of domestic abuse; victims of sexual assault; Dalbert, 1999). **The Terrible Ending Study (Carli et al., 1989; 1999).** **- Participants read narratives that depicted the same social interaction between a man and a woman but concluded with differing outcomes**. Ultimately, the belief in a just world often leads individuals to view victims of crime and misfortune as partially responsible for their situations, thereby protecting their own sense of safety and control in an unpredictable world (Carli et al., 1999; Lerner, 1980). **Slide 3: Groups and Social Roles** **A group is defined as two or more individuals who are interconnected and reliant on one another in various ways (Shaw, 1981; Turner, 1987).** **Our evolutionary history has ingrained in us a strong inclination to form social groups (Kassin et al., 2023; Dunbar, 1998).** \- Those who were part of a group were more likely to survive and successfully reproduce, as communal living offered protection and resources. **Social Identity Theory highlights how groups are essential for shaping our self-concept and self-esteem (Tajfel, 1981; 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).** \- By belonging to a group, we gain a sense of identity, which contributes to our overall self-worth. **Groups provide meaning and purpose in our lives (Aronson et al., 2022; Erikson, 1979).** \- They often inspire social action and engagement, and can even impart a sense of immortality, as the legacies of the groups we belong to may endure beyond our lifetimes. **Three fundamental features characterize groups: group norms, social roles, and group cohesiveness (Heinzen & Goodfriend, 2021; Aronson et al., 2022; Kassin et al., 2023; Greenberg et al., 2020; Myers et al., 2021).** **1. Group Norms:** These are the behavioral expectations that apply to all members of the group, guiding interactions and establishing a framework for acceptable conduct. **2. Social Roles:** Within groups, social roles define behavioral expectations for specific members. \- These roles can sometimes overshadow an individual\'s personal identity (e.g., The Stanford Prison Experiment; Zimbardo, 1971). **3. Group Cohesiveness:** This refers to the degree of unity and connectedness within the group, fostering strong relationships and a sense of belonging among its members. **Slide 4: Social Facilitation** **The Fishing Reel Study (Triplett, 1897; Myers et al., 2021).** \- Drawing inspiration from observations of competitive cyclists, Triplett hypothesized that the presence of an audience would enhance performance. **- To test this idea, he conducted an experiment with 40 schoolchildren, who were tasked with winding fishing reels as quickly as possible.** \- The children either completed the task individually or in pairs. \- The results revealed that the children wound the reels faster when in pairs. **Following Triplett\'s experiment, later research produced mixed outcomes regarding social facilitation.** \- In some studies, participants exhibited improved performance on specific tasks when others were present (Allport, 1920; Dashiell, 1930; Travis, 1925; Garcia-Marques et al., 2015; Lin & Yu, 2018). \- Conversely, other studies found that participants performed worse in the presence of an audience (Dashiell, 1930; Pessin, 1933; Pessin & Husband, 1933; Hills et al., 2019). **Slide 5: Social Facilitation** So, what's the conclusion regarding the impact of others on performance? **The Cockroach Study (Zajonc, 1965)** \- Designed an experiment to observe how the presence of peers affected cockroach behavior. \- The setup involved a runway with a bright light at one end, prompting the cockroaches to escape to a darkened box at the other end. \- Zajonc measured how quickly the cockroaches could reach escape, comparing their performance when alone versus when accompanied by other cockroaches. **To create an audience, Zajonc placed additional cockroaches in transparent boxes adjacent to the runway (Zajonc, 1965).** **Results showed the cockroaches demonstrated faster escape times when in the presence of their peers compared to when they were alone (Zajonc, 1965).** This phenomenon is referred to as social facilitation, which describes the tendency to excel at straightforward tasks (i.e., easy tasks) while in the presence of others (Zajonc, 1965; Bond & Titus, 1983). This pattern has been demonstrated in various studies, indicating that both humans and animals tend to perform better on simple, well-learned tasks when others are present (Hunt & Hillery, 1973; Michaels et al., 1982; Rosenbloom et al., 2007; Bayer, 1929; Larsson, 1956; Chen, 1937). **Slide 6: Social Facilitation** **What occurs when tasks become more challenging?** **To explore this, Zajonc (1965) conducted further experiments with cockroaches.** \- He created a more complex setup featuring multiple runways, with only one pathway leading to the darkened box.  **In this scenario, the cockroaches took longer to navigate the maze when accompanied by other cockroaches compared to when they were by themselves.** \- This phenomenon has been consistently observed in both humans and other animals; when faced with more difficult tasks, the presence of others can hinder performance rather than enhance it. **Slide 7: Social Facilitation** What factors contribute to social facilitation? **The presence of others leads to physiological arousal, which influences our performance (Geen & Gange, 1983; Moore & Baron, 1983; Butler & Baumeister, 1998; Zajonc, 1965).** \- This arousal enhances our ability to perform simple tasks but can hinder our effectiveness on more complex ones. \- Essentially, physiological arousal amplifies our dominant response---the reaction we are most likely to exhibit when alone (Myers et al., 2021). **Why does the presence of others trigger this physiological arousal?** **Increased Vigilance (Zajonc, 1965):** Being around others heightens our alertness as we pay attention to their actions and behaviors. **Evaluation Apprehension (Cottrell, 1968):** We often feel concerned about how others perceive us. \- If individuals are present but cannot assess our performance, we might not experience the same level of physiological arousal. **Distraction (Sanders, Baron, & Moore, 1978; Baron, 1986):** The presence of others can divert our attention, leading to divided focus. \- Any form of distraction can heighten physiological arousal, which, in turn, contributes to social facilitation effects (Sanders, 1981a, 1981b). **Slide 8: Social Loafing** Social facilitation does not occur in every context. **In situations where individual performance is difficult to distinguish from group performance---such as cheering in a large crowd---social facilitation is less evident (Heinzen & Goodfriend, 2021; Aronson et al., 2022; Kassin et al., 2023; Greenberg et al., 2020; Myers et al., 2021).** \- When performing as part of a group, individual contributions become less noticeable, leading to reduced physiological arousal and, consequently, a sense of relaxation.  **The impact of this relaxation on performance varies depending on the complexity of the task**. \- For example, in the 1880s, Max Ringelmann found that individuals exert less effort when pulling a rope in a group compared to when pulling alone (Ingham, 1974). **Latane, Williams, and Harkins (1979) introduced the concept of social loafing, which refers to the tendency for individuals to exert less effort or perform worse on simple tasks when their individual contributions cannot be identified (Myers et al., 2021; Hardy & Latane, 1986; Harkins, 1981).** \- Social loafing is particularly common with simpler tasks. \- Conversely, for more complex tasks, the decrease in physiological arousal associated with being part of a group can enhance performance. Social loafing can occur both consciously and unconsciously; in some cases, individuals may intentionally reduce their effort, while in others, it may happen without their awareness (Aronson et al., 2022; Kassin et al., 2023; Heinzen & Goodfriend, 2021). **Slide 9: Deindividuation** **Being part of a group can lead to deindividuation, which is characterized by a sense of anonymity and a diminished personal identity (Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952).** \- This state can result in individuals engaging in behaviors they typically wouldn't, including socially destructive actions (Zimbardo, 1970, 2002). **The anonymity provided by group settings often contributes to this loss of personal identity, prompting behaviors that deviate from one's usual standards (Festinger et al., 1952; Mann, 1981).** \- A similar effect can occur when individuals conceal their identities with masks or uniforms, as these also obscure personal identification (Watson, 1973). **The Halloween Study (Diener et al., 1976).** \- An illustrative example of deindividuation is a study conducted during Halloween, where researchers observed the behavior of costumed children in Seattle. \- They set up an experiment at 27 different homes, placing a bowl of chocolate bars and a bowl of pennies by the front door. **- When children arrived, a woman greeted them and invited them inside.** \- **The results showed that children in larger groups and in anonymous conditions were more likely to take multiple chocolate bars and even pocket some money.** **Additionally, deindividuation is prevalent in online interactions (Douglas & McGary, 2001; Bae, 2016; Christie & Dill, 2016).** \- The anonymity of the internet can lead to a loss of personal identity, which may explain why individuals often express themselves in ways they wouldn't in face-to-face situations. \- For instance, the online environment can foster norms that encourage explicit racism and other harmful behaviors that individuals might not engage in in real life (Perfumi et al., 2019; Suler, 2004). **Slide 10: Deindividuation** **Why Does Deindividuation Lead to Impulsive Behavior?** **1. Reduced Accountability (Aronson et al., 2022):** In group settings, individuals feel less personally responsible for their actions, as it becomes less likely that anyone will be singled out for blame. **2. Lowers Self-Awareness (Diener, 1980; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989; Beaman et al., 1979; Diener & Wallbom, 1976; Ickes, Layden, & Barnes, 1978):** \- With attention focused on the behaviors of others, individuals may neglect their own self-awareness. \- This diminished awareness can lead to a lapse in moral standards, causing people to lose themselves in group dynamics. **3. Conformity to Group Norms (Postmes & Spears, 1998; Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995; Johnson & Downing, 1979):** \- Deindividuation makes individuals more susceptible to following the norms of the group. \- Research has shown that the outcomes of deindividuation depend significantly on the group\'s prevailing norms (Johnson & Downing, 1979). \- If the group\'s norms are aggressive or violent, individuals may engage in such behaviors; conversely, if the norms promote fun and openness, the behaviors may reflect those qualities instead. **Slide 11: Group Polarization** Group polarization refers to the phenomenon where discussions within a group amplify and spread the prevailing views held by its members (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969). **The Stereotype Study (Brauer et al., 2001).** \- Participants were presented with fictional information about a group of teenage boys, emphasizing negative traits such as selfishness and aggression. \- The participants were divided into two groups: one group shared their opinions individually, while the other engaged in a group discussion before expressing their views. \- The findings revealed that those who participated in the group discussion perceived the boys as significantly more selfish and violent compared to those who shared their opinions independently. **Slide 12: Group Polarization** Group polarization has been explained through two main theories. **The first is the Persuasive Arguments Theory, which posits that the more compelling arguments group members encounter, the more extreme their views become (Isenberg, 1986;** \- During group discussions, individuals typically advocate for their own positions, resulting in most arguments reinforcing the dominant viewpoint prior to the group discussion. \- Even if some arguments are familiar to certain members, the sheer volume of supportive points accumulates (Gigone & Hastie, 1993; Stasser, 1991; Myers et al., 2021; Aronson et al., 2022). **The second explanation centers on Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954; Aronson et al., 2022; Kassin et al., 2023).** \- In group settings, individuals often evaluate their own opinions relative to those of others. **- When they observe that most group members lean towards a particular stance, they may adopt an even more extreme position to align with the group\'s consensus.** **Slide 13: Biased Sampling** **Group cohesiveness refers to the strength of the relationships among group members and their connection to the group (Aronson et al., 2022; Kassin et al., 2023; Heinzen & Goodfriend, 2021; Greenberg et al., 2020).** \- While strong cohesiveness can enhance a group's functionality, it can also lead to poor decision-making when maintaining harmony takes precedence over critical analysis, a phenomenon known as groupthink. **Several factors can lead groups to make decisions that are inferior to those made by individuals.** \- Ivan Steiner (1972) termed this phenomenon **process loss**, which encompasses any group dynamic that hinders effective decision-making. **A notable example of process loss is the tendency for groups to prioritize shared information while overlooking unique insights contributed by individual members.** \- This phenomenon, identified by Garold Stasser as biased sampling, can result in a failure to consider critical information that is not widely known among the group (Stasser & Titus, 1985). **Slide 14: Biased Sampling** **Researchers have identified several conditions that can reduce the likelihood of failing to share unique information within groups:** **First, nondirective leaders who foster an inclusive environment and encourage comprehensive discussions are more effective at eliciting unshared information than leaders who adopt a controlling or directive approach (Aronson et al., 2022; Kassin et al., 2023; Heinzen & Goodfriend, 2021; Greenberg et al., 2020).** \- By promoting open dialogue and critical evaluation, these leaders create a space where all members feel comfortable contributing their unique insights (Schippers et al., 2015). **Additionally, establishing a clear plan for reviewing alternative information before making decisions significantly enhances information sharing (Aronson et al., 2022; Kassin et al., 2023; Heinzen & Goodfriend, 2021; Greenberg et al., 2020).** \- Research indicates that when groups outline specific strategies for considering diverse viewpoints, they are more likely to engage in thorough discussions (Thurmer et al., 2015). **The Job Candidate Study (Thurmer et al., 2015).** \- Participants were organized into groups of three, tasked with deciding which job applicant to hire---either Candidate A or Candidate B. \- While all group members received identical information, everyone also possessed unique, crucial information relevant to the decision. \- Without discussing the unique information, the group would mistakenly favor Candidate A. **Moreover, it\'s essential to allow sufficient time for discussions so that unshared information can be expressed (Aronson et al., 2022; Kassin et al., 2023; Heinzen & Goodfriend, 2021; Greenberg et al., 2020).** \- Typically, shared information is addressed early in the conversation, while unshared insights tend to come up later. This delay can hinder the decision-making process if not adequately managed. Lastly, assigning specific areas of informational review to group members can further enhance the discussion by ensuring that all relevant topics are covered comprehensively, reducing the risk of overlooking vital information (Aronson et al., 2022; Kassin et al., 2023; Heinzen & Goodfriend, 2021; Greenberg et al., 2020). **Slide 15: Groupthink: Antecedents** **Groupthink refers to the phenomenon where a group\'s desire for cohesion and agreement overrides critical thinking and sound decision-making (Janis, 1972).** \- Coined by Irving Janis in 1972, the term highlights how groups can prioritize harmony over rationality, often leading to poor choices. **Antecedents of Groupthink (Janis, 1972; Aronson et al., 2022; Turner et al., 1992; Turner & Pratkanis, 1997).** \- Several factors increase the likelihood of groupthink occurring: **High Cohesion:** In groups where members are closely bonded and seek to maintain their status, the fear of rejection can suppress dissent. \- Members may feel pressured to conform to the group's decisions, leading to a reluctance to voice differing opinions. **Group Isolation:** Groups that are insulated from diverse perspectives and alternative viewpoints are more prone to groupthink. \- This lack of exposure to differing ideas can reinforce a narrow focus and diminish critical analysis. **Directive Leadership:** Leaders who assert their opinions before discussions can create an environment that pressures group members to align with the leader's views. \- This dynamic can stifle dissent, as members may feel that their contributions will be dismissed, limiting opportunities for open dialogue. **High Stress:** Groups under significant stress---whether from external threats or time constraints---are more susceptible to groupthink. **Poor decision-making procedures:** Groups that lack structured processes for decision-making and review are particularly susceptible to groupthink. **Slide 16: Groupthink: Symptoms** Janis (1972) also identified several symptoms that indicate groupthink is at play, potentially leading to flawed decision-making (Aronson et al., 2022; Myers et al., 2021; Turner et al., 1992; Turner & Pratkanis, 1997) **Illusion of Invulnerability:** A strong sense of agreement within the group can create a false belief that the group is incapable of making mistakes. This overconfidence can lead to the rationalization of warnings and potential risks, further reinforcing the illusion of invulnerability. **Unquestioned Belief in Group Morality:** When groups perceive themselves as inherently moral, they may overlook ethical considerations, leading to decisions that reflect biased self-interests rather than a fair assessment of the situation. **Stereotyped Views of Outsiders:** Negative stereotypes about external groups can diminish the willingness to negotiate and lead to miscalculations in judgment about those groups. Viewing opposing leaders as weak or malevolent can foster aggressive decision-making. **Pressure on Dissenters:** Groups that prioritize harmony often exert social pressure on members who express dissent. This pressure can marginalize critical voices and exclude valuable insights from discussions. **Self-Censorship:** To maintain group cohesion, individuals may refrain from voicing doubts or concerns, leading to an environment where important information is withheld. **Illusion of Unanimity:** Members may mistakenly believe that everyone agrees with a decision, partly due to self-censorship and social pressures. This perception can further inhibit meaningful discussion. **Self-Appointed Mindguards:** Some group members may take it upon themselves to shield leaders from criticism and dissenting opinions. These "mindguards" act as protectors of the leader's peace of mind, potentially preventing important critiques from entering the conversation.