group dynamics week 6 (cleos set)

conflict

disagreement, confrontation, and friction that happens when the actions or beliefs of one or more members of the group are unacceptable to one or more other members

\
two types: intragroup and intergroup

intragroup conflict

conflict between members of the same group

intergroup conflict

conflict between two or more members which can result in physical violence, discord, and psychological tension

roots of conflict cycle

\

cooperative relationships

relationships where the success of one member improves the chances of other members succeeding

\
DEUTSCH: promotive interdependence

competitive relationships

relationships where the success of one member means the other fails

\
DEUTSCH: contrient interdependence

cooperation

when a situation is organized in such a way that success of any member improves the chances for other members to succeed

\
triggers motivational systems of sharing and collaboration

mixed-motive situation

when both cooperation and competition are used for interdependence among members

\
mixture of positive and negative interdependence

\
prisoner’s dilemma game demonstrates this

positive interdependence

type of interdependence that occurs when choices are made that benefit or do not benefit both parties

\
self + → other +

OR

self - → other -

negative interdependence

type of interdependence that occurs when choices are made where only one party benefits

\
self + → other -

OR

self - → other +

behavioral assimilation

the eventual synchronization of behaviors between group members, due to norm of reciprocity

\
negative reciprocity is higher (if someone does something bad you’re more likely to do something bad in return than you are to return a good deed)

social values orientation (SVO)

different dispositional tendencies to react to conflict, either in a **pro-self** (competitors) way or a **prosocial** (cooperators) way

individualists SVO

pro-self, focus only on their own outcomes.

\
are not involved with group members, do not aim to influence others in any way

competitors SVO

pro self, not only focused on own outcomes, but want to minimize the outcomes of others

\
low prosocial value

\
approach conflict as win-lose only, like to influence others with their ideas

\
often assume other person is also competing, might purposefully misattribute other’s behavior to justify their own behaviors

cooperators SVO

mix of pro self and prosocial values, want to maximize everyone’s outcomes

\
high prosocial value

\
strive for win-win situations

altruists SVO

prosocial, highly motivated to help others so they can reach their outcomes, willingly self-sacrifice their own outcomes

social dilemma

interpersonal situation where individuals must choose between maximizing their personal outcomes or maximizing their group’s outcomes

commons dilemma/social trap

an individual can maximize their outcome by focusing on personal goals rather than collective goals

\
if too many individuals act selfishly, all members of the collective will experience substantial long-term losses

\
key influential factors:

experience, communication, social pressures

public goods dilemma

a persona may or may not be contributing any resources in the support of a public good whilst still benefitting from public services (not paying taxes, using parks)

\
free riding

fairness dilemma

includes fairness judgements determined by two forms of social justice:


1. procedural: used to assign resources
2. distributive: reward and cost distribution among members, relies on norms of group

distributive norms

* equity: rewards based on level of contribution
* equality: everyone gets the same rewards
* power: the higher the status, the more rewards
* need: the ones that need more, get more

negative inquity

when members feel that they have not received enough reward for their contribution level, leads to withdrawal from the group

positive inequity

when members receive more than they can contribute, can encourage people to increase their contribution level

responsibility dilemmas

occur when the outcomes of the tasks are reached, members argue over who deserves credit for what and who deserves blame for what

egocentrism

individuals tend to give themselves more credit for the outcome of an event

unpacking

asking members to think about the other members’ contributions,

\
claims of responsibility can be either sociocentric (group serving) or egocentric (self serving)

group serving claims

success is explained by whole group effort but failure is explained by external influences

\
helps to avoid conflict as blame is not put on members, instead it is put on the circumstance

(MORRILL) competitive actions

* ambush: covert action to inconvenience an adversary
* blindsiding: an intentional and surprising public embarrassment by one individual at another’s expense
* outlaw: an individual who handles conflict in many ways but is regarded as task competent
* meltdown: a physical fight between executives

task conflict

content conflict

substantive conflict

the disagreement over issues that are relevant to the group’s recognized goals and procedures

\
unavoidable, typically occurs in group settings

\
usually occur in the formation stages of ‘storming’ and ‘fight or flight’

process conflict

the disagreement over the methods a group should use to complete its basic tasks

\
resolving these eliminated possible future performance problems

relationship conflict

personal conflict

interpersonal discord that occurs when group members dislike one another

\
blame negative personal qualities for the conflict

balance theory

suggests that tension is highest in unbalanced pairs (disagreeing people liking each other and people who dislike each other agreeing)

\
greatest tension occurs in a balanced situation (when you disagree with someone you don’t like, more likely to become hostile)

reactance

when individuals feel that their freedom to make choices has been threatened or eliminated, they experience a complex emotional and cognitive reaction

\
members feel the need to assert their sense of freedom by defending their autonomy

misattribution

fundamental attribution error

occurs when one assumes that another member's behavior or actions are due to personal (dispositional) factors rather than situational (environmental) factors

\
misperception of motivations

(DEUTSCH & KRAUSS) trucking game experiment

illustrates hard tactics

\
individuals differ in their capacity to threaten and punish others, women had to take on role of truck drivers

\
two threat conditions:


1. **unilateral threat**: some members provided w/ power to threaten opponents (open/close the gates), others were not
2. **bilateral threat**: both members were given power to open and close the gates


1. conflict was worst in this condition
3. **control condition:** members had no gates on their routes

\

rule of rough reciprocity

people give too much (overmatching) or too little (undermatching) in return

\
retaliation tends to be an overmatch

\
usually results in conflict escalating

coalitions

subgroups of group members on the same side of a conflict, form as conflict intensifies and previously neutral members pick a side

\
contentious, heavy-handed influence tactics

\
mixed-motive situation: when rivals join forces temporarily to achieve a specific outcome

negotiation

the reciprocal communication process through which two or more parties dispute and examine specific issues, explain positions, and exchange offers

\
conflicts worsen when groups are unwilling to reach compromise

distributive negotiation

negotiation that resolves differences of opinion and transactions by claiming or dividing resources, making offers, counteroffers, and guarded disclosure of interests

integrative negotiation

negotiation that approaches resolve by identifying common and complementary interests, proposing solutions that satisfy all concerned parties

soft bargainer

individual who sees negotiation as uncomfortable close to competition, choose a soft approach

\
more likely to compromise

hard bargainer

individual who approaches negotiations with tough and competitive tactics

\
take extreme position and then reluctantly make small concessions

\
“take it or leave it, this is my final offer”

principled negotiators

negotiators who seek integrative solutions during negotiations, by sidestepping a commitment to specific positions

\
focus on problem, avoid positional bargaining

dual concern model

assumes that individuals deal with conflict through either avoiding, yielding, fighting or cooperating

\
outcomes differ on two basic dimensions


1. concern for self
2. concern for others

avoidance (dual concern model)

individuals act passively during conflicts, waiting for problem to solve itself without trying to minimize it

\
avoid or change the subject, skip meetings, leave group

\
tends to be a self level resolution

yielding (dual concern model)

individuals are passive but have a prosocial approach to conflict, solve conflicts by giving in to demands of others, withdrawing their own demands

\
can either reflect genuine conversation of superficial compliance

\
tends to be a self level resolution

fighting (dual concern model)

a way of dealing with conflict, active and pro-self means that involves forcing others to accept one’s view

\
see conflict as a win-lose situation

\
contentious methods (contending/forcing/dominating)

\
tends to be a self level resolution

cooperation (dual concern model)

an active, prosocial and pro-self way of resolving conflict, identify underlying issues and work together to identify a solution that works for both sides

\
aim to discuss opponent’s outcomes as well as their own

\
conciliation/middle ground

\
collaboration/problem-solving/win-win orientation

TFT: Tit for Tat

a bargaining strategy that begins with cooperation but then imitates the other person’s choice so that cooperation is met with cooperation and competition with competition

nice TFT

TFT that begins with cooperation and only defects following competition

provokable TFT

TFT that is immediate retaliation against individuals who compete

clear TFT

TFT where people quickly recognize its contingencies

forgiving TFT

TFT where there is immediate reciprocal cooperation if the competitor responds cooperatively

\
reciprocal

forgiveness

the act of letting go or voluntarily setting aside an obligation to punish, undoes the damages of conflict by reversing that conflict spiral

\
may increase connectivity to the group

mitigating causes

factors that indicate the insult was unintentional or unimportant, reduces chances of worsening the conflict

inquisitorial approach (third party resolving conflict)

where mediator questions the two parties and then gives a verdict that the two parties must accept

arbitration approach (third party resolving conflict)

the disputants present their arguments to the mediator, who then bases his or her decision on the information provided

\
most preferred method

moot approach (third party resolving conflict)

the disputants and the mediator openly and informally discuss problems and solutions, but the mediator cannot make binding decisions

escalation summarized

* taking a position
* attribution errors
* win-lose
* blocking
* contagious anger
* negative spiral

de-escalation summarized

* integrative negotiation
* trust
* win-win
* third party
* time-out
* positive spiral

benefits of conflict

if in the storming stage of formation, can expand range of options, generate new alternatives and enhance the group’s unity

\
help set more explicit goals, increase role understanding

pluralistic strategies

strategies that resolve conflicts that apply to the group as a while, such as developing rules, standardizing procedures, and assigning tasks based on skill rather than status

universality of cooperation

more collectivist cultures may prefer harmony-enhancing conflict strategies that minimize the conflict, prefer avoidance (active strategy)

\
individualistic cultures prefer a more direct, confrontational approach

Robber’s Cave Experiment

illustrated the tendency for intergroup conflict

\
examined causes/consequences of conflict between two groups of boys without previous rivalry

\
competition and conflict arose when the groups were pitted against each other in resources contest

\
brought back together by a superordinate goal

realistic group conflict theory

assumes the root for conflict is competition for scarce resources

\
perceptual conflicts are result of people striving for positive self-image from their ingroup and their outgroup

discontinuity effect

the competitiveness of groups is greater when interacting with other groups, compared to the competitiveness of individuals interacting with other individuals

\
due to polarization, greed, negative outgroup stereotypes, local norms

causes of discontinuity

1. groups are greedier than individuals
2. people fear groups more than individuals
3. those who identify with a group tend to maximize the group’s collective outcomes, this triggers desire to outdo the other group

deterring discontinuity

* tit-for-tat
* decrease the rewards of competition
* decrease anonymity
* communication
* tolerant appeasement approach

tolerant appeasement approach

the other group responds by exploiting the pacifist group, who is just appeasing them

intergroup exploitation

the initial conflict for resources can escalate into one group attempting to dominate the other

social dominance theory (SIDANIUS and PRATTO)

assumes that the oppression and domination that can result in conflict between groups stems from dynamic tensions between hierarchically ranked groups within a society

\
dominant group members tend to believe their superiority is justified through precedent, custom, or law

\
low status groups compete with other low status groups (Robber’s Cave, boys competed but did not compete with staff who were above them)

Insko experiment

experiment that found that differences in power have a dramatic effect on productivity and intergroup relations

idle rich hypothesis

members of the most powerful group spend less time working because they can confiscate others’ work, benefit off of their backs

social dominance orientation (SDO)

measurement of the general desire to establish and maintain hierarchically structured intergroup relations regardless of the position of one's own group(s) within this hierarchy

Vladimir’s Choice experiment

based on a Russian story

gave students a choice on how student activity funds should be spent, some options favoring white student interests over minority student interests

\
in order to lower the spendings on the outgroup, students had to choose an option that yielded less money for the ingroup

\
most chose to split funds equally, but those with high SDO chose to get less money themselves so that the minority also didn’t receive more money than them

frustration-aggression hypothesis

an individual becomes more aggressive whenever external conditions prevent them from reaching their goals

general aggression model

organizes the biological, environmental, social, and psychological factors that influence the expression of hostile, negative behavior (personal and situational inputs), cognitive/affective/arousal states, and cognitive appraisals

scapegoat theory

assumes that the built up frustration stemming from environmental circumstances is released in the form of hostile actions against members of other social groups

\
will turn against third party instead of group that caused hardship

\
results in intergroup conflict

Spiral model of conflict intensification

explains the stages of increasing hostility during conflict in ingroups

\

1. group experiences exclusion as a mild form of rejection
2. escalates into verbal abuse
3. intergroup discrimination develops
4. physical violence

\
extent of this hostility varies between cultures

honor cultures

cultures where people strive to avoid offending others, but will respond aggressively if they feel like they/their group has been insulted

dignity cultures

cultures where people stress the importance of personal integrity and individual worth

face cultures

cultures where hierarchy, humility, and harmony are emphasized

evolutionary perspective of conflict

tendency for conflict has a genetic basis, being in a group provided advantages for survival

\
allegiances allowed people to distinguish between insiders and outsiders

conflict and catagorization

categorization of people to an outgroup is sufficient to trigger intergroup discrimination favoring the ingroup

\
sets in motion processes that combine to sustain and encourage conflict between groups

\
further sustained by cognitive biases that justify the aggression (stereotypes, social identity, intensification)

ingroup-outgroup bias

the tendency to favor one’s own group over all others

\
extent of this depends on various situation factors:

group’s outcomes

the way perceptions are measured

ambiguity about each group’s characteristics

members’ identification with the group

\
ingroup favoritism is stronger than outgroup hate

\
made of two other biases:


1. selective favoring of the ingroup
2. derogation of the outgroup

double standard thinking

the judgement of the actions and attributes of one’s own group positively, while viewing these very same behaviors or displays negatively when the outgroup performs them

linguistic intergroup bias

the tendency to describe positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors more abstractly and negative ingroup and positive outgroup behaviors more concretely

Implicit association test (IAT)

test that assesses the extent to which people associate one concept with another concept

\
shown pairs of words, if the pairs reflect intuitive associations the participant’s reaction time is shorter

outgroup homogeneity bias

people see the members of their own group as more heterogenous (more complex) and members of other groups as more homogenous (more simplistic)

\
biases can emerge during extreme conflict

law of small numbers

we base our generalizations about the outgroup on observations of a small number of individuals from that group

\
one assumes that generalizations about the whole group can accurately describe one individual from that group

group attribution error

a person mistakenly assumes that specific group member’s personal characteristics and preferences are similar to the group which they belong to

ultimate attribution error (UAE)

attributing negative actions performed by members of the outgroup to dispositional qualities and positive actions to situational circumstances (seen as a special case)

stereotypes

a socially shared set of cognitive generalizations about the qualities and characteristics of the members of a particular group/category

\
cause quick judgements about others based on categorized membership

\
group level biases

\
can act as self-fulfilling prophecies

self-fulfilling prophecies

tendency to interpret ambiguous information so that it confirms an individual’s expectations

Stereotype content model

explains group perception by assuming that people’s stereotyped views about social groups reflect their beliefs about the **warmth** and **competence** of the stereotyped group

\
warmth ranges from nice/friendly to unpleasant/unfriendly

\
competence ranges from competent/confident to unintelligent/incompetent

\
these dimensions influence people’s emotional reactions to other groups, depend on status of the ingroup relative to the outcome

hatred

a group level emotion not often directed to individuals

\
causes more violent negative reactions to the outgroup than emotions like fear and anger

\
expressed when group members believe that harmful outgroup actions were done with intention out of evil

moral exclusion

a psychological process where opponents in a conflict zone come to view each other as underserving of morally mandated rights and protections

\
groups that subjugate others tend to rationalize their violence by attributing it to the actions/character of the victims

\
eventually outsiders are excluded entirely from moral concern

dehumunization

moves outgroup outside the human realm by denying others the qualities associated with being human aka basic human rights

\
belief that outgroup are animals, not even human

schadenfreude

taking pleasure when other people fail, particularly when the failing is self-relevant (someone fails at something you are good at)

\
can raise self-esteem, only as long as ingroup’s norms support the bias

necessary conditions for creating positive contact situations (ALLOT)

* equal status
* common goals
* cooperation
* support of authorities, laws, or customs

\
superordinate goals must have all of these conditions