Human Relationships Topic 2: Group Dynamics

Social Comparison

Social Comparison

observing the behavior of others to inform our own

Normative social influence

people are more likely to conform if they believe a sufficient number of others will conform and expect them to conform

Cost-Benefit Analysis

valuing personal outcome vs. social norms

Group Size

Cooperation decreases in larger groups/deindividuation (loss of self-awareness & feelings of anonymity)

Culture

Norms, values, cultural dimensions

Ways to improve cooperation

• Create a team identity to avoid cultural/social identity interference

• Set a common goal for all members to work towards

• Use positive reinforcement/rewards as a benefit for cooperation

• Decrease group size to avoid feelings of anonymity

Studies for cooperation and competition

tajfel- (Social Identity Theory)

(the one with the two randomized groups of boys play competitive games and split money.)

aim: to investigate how even minimal groups affect behavior

Results→ created the largest money gap between the groups. They also rated their teammates more likable.

• Experiment

• Opportunity sampling

People tend to favor people of their own category/group/community

tauer and haackiewicz-

(the one where boys were tested on their physical (basketball) capabilites before and after the introduction of competition)

aim: to investigate the effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance in sports

procedure: Each participant was pre-tested on their throwing and scoring ability. 3 conditions:

• The pure cooperation condition: the paired participants pre-test scores were combined and they were told that they had to beat this score by 1 point by working together

• The pure competition condition: one boy was pitted against the other to see who could score the most baskets

• The intergroup competition condition: one pair was put in competition against another pair so they had to work together to win

Results: The intergroup competition condition resulted in the highest performance and self-reported enjoyment scores. There was no significant difference between the other 2 conditions.

• Experiment

• Opportunity sampling

coordination, timing, and motivation improved with intergroup competition

Prejudice

Biased thinking towards an individual based on group membership

Discrimination

Negative actions towards an outgroup

Studies for Prejudice and Discrimination

fein and spencer

(the one where undergrads were given false feedback on an intelligence test, and reviewed/rated and actor(settings were whether the actor was described as gay or not and the feedback given to the students. one group of undergrads was told they were in the top 10% of university while the other was told they scored below average)

aim: To determine to what extent self-esteem impacts discrimination

Results:

• if participant recieved a “below average score” they were more likely to rate the actor in highly negative and stereotypical terms when the actor was implied to be gay

• If the actor was described as heterosexual, then there was no difference in the quality of feedback from the two groups.

It appears that lowering one’s self-esteem makes one more likely to discriminate.

• The Theory of threatened egotism

harris and fiske- brain localization

(the one where people saw different pictures of people and objects and found that they had negative responses to people of out-groups, homeless and poor). Quantitative, experiment, Convenience

aim: to examine the roles of the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala in determining attitudes towards drug users and the homeless population

process: undergraduate students were shown pictures of objects and people while connected to an fMRI: (fMRIs show oxygen levels in the brain; the more oxygen, the more active that part of the brain is at a given time.)

The responses of both the amygdala and the medial prefrontal cortex were recorded by the scanner.The amygdala emits an immediate reaction to a new situation or object. The medial prefrontal cortex asses more slowly, in response to the amygdala.

results: *Images of people considered outsiders to the participants (homeless population & drug users) showed no reaction in the prefrontal cortex. These images only registered in the amygdala, most similar to reactions of disgust to objects such as a dirty sock.

biological mechanisms were capable of dehumanizing people who were stereotyped as belonging to extreme out-groups.

• Drug addicts and the homeless were seen as inhuman.

Integrated Threat Theory

A cognitive explanation of prejudice

Claims prejudice has 3 components:

1. Stereotyping: expectations about outgroups that lead to prejudice

2. Realistic Threats: competition for economic resources

3. Symbolic Threats: threats to one’s culture resulting from the integration of outgroup values and social norms

heuristics

Shortcuts or tricks to making easy decisions;

may influence how people interpret the behavior of others

confirmation bias

people tend to look for information that confirms their stereotypes or prejudices —not the opposite. In order to challenge stereotypes and maybe change them, members of the group who do not fit the stereotype need to be presented to those who hold the stereotype.

The Theory of threatened egotism

argues that intergroup discrimination occurs when our own perception of self is threatened. By acting out against an out-group, we are able to feel better ourselves, boosting or restoring self-esteem. Evidence for this was found in a study by Fein & Spencer (1997)

prejudice-integrated threat theory

This theory argues that prejudice is the result of three types of threats.  First, there is stereotyping which creates expectations about out-groups which often leads to prejudice.  Second, there are realistic threats. This refers to competition for economic resources – for example, jobs

symbolic threats

These are perceived threats to one’s culture as a result of the integration of members of an out-group with morals, social norms, and values that are distinctly different from those of the in-group.

conflict

occurs when what one group wants, another group sees as harmful to its interests

Origins of Conflict and Conflict Resolution Studies

Zak- Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT)

(the one where alpha-males were created by getting either a testosterone gel or a placebo and then given blood test(testosterone gel made for 2x testosterone) then made to play a trust game where they were encourage to be generous with money for others and when they werent and the offer was rejected both men lost money) quantitative, experiment, opportunity

aim: To study the effect of testosterone on males generosity and sense of aggression.

process: gel(placebo or real) → wait during night → blood test in morning where testosterone in experimental gel doubled → trust game that had to do with money exchanges and acceptances.

results: testosterone heavy men were 27% stingier

men with higher testosterone levels are more selfish and prone to punishing others due to an increase in distrust.

Sherif- Robber’s cave experiment- (RCT)

(the one where boys who were white/middle class and didn’t know each other were placed in two summer camps and each group participated in team bonding. when they learn of eachother’s existence they begin to play friendly competitions but it escalated to acts of vandelism and bad mouthing the oppostite group)

aim: To investigate to what extent intergroup conflict may occur

results: Teams were better at working together when the activity benefited them both.

• In-group → they favored kids in their own camp group

• Out-group discrimination → they set fire to each other’s flags and spoke ill of each other

people favor those in their own group and view them in a more positive light. they want to make their group the best group.

limits:

• poor transferability as the situations the kids were placed in such as lack of resources and pettiness are not common.

• all kids were from similar/identical privileged backgrounds

Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT)

• Developed by Muzafer Sherif, this theory states that intergroup conflict arises when groveling to oppose (incompatible) goals and competing for scarce resources. These opposing goals, according to the theory, are the reason why groups develop in-group norms, display acts of in-group favoritism, and discriminate against out-groups.

• The model attempts to explain why prejudice, negative stereotypes, and discrimination are developed towards members of other social groups

Strengths of RCT

Lots of research done that confirms and supports RCT

Backed up by common sense (“face validity”) - we can think of lots of examples that could support this theory

Limitations of RCT

• Foundational study is the Robber’s Cave Study - which was done on young boys, not adults in a situation that created conflict over resources

  • Transferability (generalizability) is an issue

    • Elements of culture that could impact it (America’s individualistic nature, etc.)

Intergroup Contact

by assembling people without regard for race, color, religion, or national origin, we can thereby destroy stereotypes and develop friendly attitudes.

Limitations of Intergroup Contact

• It is difficult to create a contact situation that involves overcoming a meaningful, practical obstacle.

• The results of the experience may be limited to the context of the meeting and cannot be generalized.

• The anxiety felt by the participants may interfere with the experience

Group polarization

is the phenomenon where the decisions and opinions of people in a group become more extreme than their actual, privately held beliefs

leads to the belief that the in-group can do no wrong and their motives are positive.  On the other hand, the out-group can do nothing right and their motives are negative

1. Discuss a biological approach to understanding group dynamics

Harris and Fiske + Zak

2. Discuss a cognitive approach to understanding group dynamics.

Tauer & Haackwiewicz + Fein & Spencer

3. Discuss a sociocultural approach to understanding group dynamics

Tajfel + Sherif

4. Discuss ethical considerations in the study of group dynamics.

Tauer + Tajfel

5. Discuss one or more research methods used to study group dynamics

Sherif(field experiment) + Zak(lab experiment)

6. Discuss research on cooperation and/or competition

7. Discuss one theory of cooperation and/or competition.

Tajfel + Tauer & Haackwiewicz

8. Discuss prejudice and/or discrimination.

Fein & Spencer + Harris & Fiske

9. Discuss the origin of conflict and/or conflict resolution

Zak + Sherif