The Social Psychology of Groups: The North American Perspective

Group def (textbook)

A collection of individuals who have relations to one another that make them interdependent to some significant degree (North American perspective)

Degrees of “groupness”

Groups that are more interdependent are more of a group than others

Benefits of group living

• Humans are fundamentally social in nature

• Evolutionary: care for offspring, protection from predators, food acquisition + sharing

• Psychological need to belong

Key theoretical principle underlying North American def of groups

Entitativity: the property of a group that makes it appear to be a distinct, coherent, and bounded entity

3 properties that contribute to entitativity

• Common fate: individuals experience inter-related outcomes

• Similarity: extent to which individuals resemble each other (behaviour, appearance)

• Proximity: physical distance between individuals

What North American perspective emphasises (2)

• Sees groups as productive units

• Focuses on what groups do and have the capacity to do, with particular focus on performance

Sense of self in group from North American perspective

• Group membership → individuals lose their sense of self/have diminished sense of self

Social facilitation def

The effect (positive or negative) of the presence of conspecifics on performance

Example of social facilitation

Tend to run 5k faster during ParkRun than when running by myself

Social facilitation explained by drive theory/Zajonc’s theory of mere presence + effects (2)

• Theory that the presence of others is ‘arousing’ → makes us more narrowly + rigidly focused to increase our dominant response

• Mere presence of others (which can be amplified by evaluation apprehension)…

  • Enhances performance of simple/well-learned tasks (facilitation)

  • Hinders performance of difficult/novel tasks (inhibition)

Social loafing def

The tendency to exert less effort when working on a group task where individual contributions cannot be monitored

Steiner’s model of group productivity(in relation to social loafing)

Actual performance = potential performance - process loss

What does potential performance consist of? (1)

Sum of individual abilities

What does process loss consist of? (2)

• Motivation loss (social loafing)

• Coordination loss (sub-optimal between member execution)

Groupthink def

Poor decision making in highly cohesive groups resulting from seeking consensus at the expense of robust appraisal mechanisms

Reasons why groupthink occurs (2)

• Although the goal of the group is to make the best decision possible, this isn’t necessarily the most important thing for individuals group members

  • Individuals may be more concerned about being judged by others, avoiding hurting someone’s feelings, avoiding responsibility when things go wrong etc. → can undermine decision-making process

• The very thing that groups benefit from when making decisions (varied perspectives), never comes into play

Example of groupthink

• ‘Bay of Pigs’ invasion: JFK’s decision to invade Cuba during Cold War (disastrous)

Antecedent conditions for groupthink (4) + mnemonic

• High cohesion

• Insularity (lack of outside input)

• Directive leadership

• High stress, few options other than one favoured by leader

• Cohesion Increases Desire for Harmony

Symptoms of groupthink (4) + mnemonic

• Feeling invulnerable

• Belief in morality of group

• Stereotypes of outgroup

• Self-censorship → illusion unanimity (reinforces lack of incentive to search for alternatives)

• Individuals Blindly Seeking Similarity

Outcomes of groupthink (4) + mnemonic

• Incomplete survey of objectives + alternatives

• Poor information search

• Failure to examine risks

• Failure to reappraise alternatives

• Avoiding Information Risks Rationality

Ways to mitigate risk of groupthink

1. Leader’s opinions are unknown (at least initially)

2. Remain connected to outside input

3. Appoint a devil’s advocate

Collective intelligence what it is + factors contributing to it

• A counterpoint to groupthink

• Empathic individuals/higher emotional intelligence

• Effective turn-taking + open discussion with chance for each member to voice ideas freely

• Diversity: increased proportion of women associated with higher team performance

Why might increased proportion of women in group be associated with higher team performance?

Women tend to be more likely to engage in social behaviours that promote collective intelligence

Group polarisation def

• The tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than initial inclinations of individual members

Group polarisation description + broad example

• Whatever direction the majority of individuals in the group are leaning towards, group discussion tends to push them further in that direction

• E.g. if group is leaning negatively towards idea → might be outraged by end of discussion

2 main mechanisms explaining group polarisation: name, type of influence + explanation

• Persuasive arguments (informational influence): individuals are exposed to new arguments from like-minded peers to further support their initial view → strengthening it → leading to more extreme group position

• Social comparison account (normative influence): people want to view themselves as aligning more closely with the group’s valued traits than the average group member → competition to be “more right” pushes overall group’s stance more extreme

Characteristics of a good leader (3)

• Relevant expertise

• Social skills necessary to foster intra-group cooperation

• Selflessness (to a degree) - ability/willingness to provide/share rewards with group

Power def

The ability to control one’s own outcomes and those of others; a person’s capacity to influence; is relational and varies by context

Hierarchy def, pro + con

• Arrangement of individuals within a group based on relative power/rank

• Can help solve problems of resource division + decision making

• Often solves these unfairly

2 traditional perspectives on how power is gained

• Path of virtue

• Path of vice

Path of virtue (1)

• Performing actions beneficial to the group (e.g. courage, humanity, justice) leads to recognition + increased power

Path of vice (1)

• Using manipulative, deceptive, or aggressive tactics to dominate others increases power

Three components of the “Dark Triad”

• Machiavellianism: cunning + manipulation to gain dominance over others

• Narcissism

• Psychopathy

Approach/inhibition theory of power

• A theory maintaining that high-power individuals are inclined to go after their goals and make quick (sometimes rash) judgments, whereas low-power individuals are more likely to constrain their behaviour and pay careful attention to others

Behaviour associated with high power individuals, description + consequences (3)

• Approach behaviour: less constrained by social norms + others evaluations, more goal-driven action (“green light mentality”)

• Less careful + systematic thinking (stereotyping, inaccurate judgements)

• Overconfidence

• Disinhibited/unethical behaviour

Behaviour associated with low power individuals, description + consequences (1)

• Inhibition behaviour: more dependent on others → increased vigilance + caution in judgements + action “yellow light mentality”

• Less flexible thinking

Negative consequences of power (1→1)

• Can diminish empathetic capacities/ ability to consider perspectives of others (drawing E on forehead experiment)

  • This can lead to powerful individuals focalising on weakness those of lower power status

• Can increase disinhibited/unethical behaviour

Important conclusion on how having power affects individuals (1)

• “Power reveals” → encourages expression of underlying inclinations of individuals (virtuous or vicious)

Emergent properties of groups def

Behaviours that only arise when people are in groups + submerge their individual identities (more than the sum of individual members’ tendencies)

Gustave’s “Madness of the Crowd”

• Early idea that individuals to lose higher mental faculties + descend into less self-reflective “group mind” in large crowds

Deindividuation def

Reduced sense of individual identity + diminished self-regulation that occurs in large groups

Outcomes of deindividuation (2)

• Reduced sense of responsibility for actions

• Less concerned w/ future consequences + evaluations of others

  • Combined → impulsivity (which is often liberating/cathatic)

Zimbardo’s Model of Deindividuation: conditions giving rise to it

• Anonymity

• Diffusion of responsibility

+

• High arousal/sensory overload

Self-awareness theory + examples

• When people focus attention inward, they become concerned with self-evaluation + how their behaviour aligns with their standards + values → individuation

• E.g. mirrors, cameras, name tags, attentive audience increase adherence to personal beliefs/values

Individuation def

An enhanced sense of individual identity produced by focusing attention on the self, leading to careful, deliberate + socially appropriate behaviour

Spotlight effect def

People’s overestimation of how much others are paying attention to their appearance + behaviour