Psychology of Social Interaction - 8: Group Influence

PSYC 3330

group

3+ people who

• identify themselves as a group

• are interdependent (influence each other)

• have a shared purpose

a group provides

• identity and belgoning

• norms and roles

• power to cooperate and create conflict

group dynamics

how others’ presences shapes how you think, feel, and behave

sense of connection is from:

• norms: shared expectations for what’s acceptable

• roles: responsibilities and social positions in the group

• status: power differences affect how opinions are weighed

• cohesion: more connected they are → more the group has an influence

dominant response

your most automatic/natural response to a situation

best predicted by level of ANS arousal

social facilitation/inhibition

the presence of others strengthens your dominant response

situation creates whether they facilitate or inhibit you

• if the situation is easy/well-learned

  • correct dominant response → performance/behavior improves

• if the situation is hard/new

  • incorrect dominant response → performance/behavior worsens

homefield advantage

explained by social facilitation

when the officiator opposes the home team → home fans boo them → statistically, they become more likely to favor the home team in the next critical call

• top 3: soccer, football, baseball

yerkes-dodson law

relationship between ANS arousal and performance

the presence of others increases arousal, but whether you do better or worse at the task depends on the task’s difficulty + familiarity relative to arousal

• a curve: low and high arousal is poor, but medium arousal is best

factors that make others’ presence create arousal

• evaluation apprehension

• distraction

evaluation apprehension (factors that make others’ presence create arousal)

concern for other’s evaluations → apprehension/self-consciousness → hurts our abilities to perform our best

distraction (factors that make others’ presence create arousal)

divided attention → arousal →

• less cognitive capacity to focus

• worse performance if the task is difficult

social loafing

tendency for people in a group to put in less effort toward a common goal compared to when alone

• happens when:

  • individual effort isn’t evaluated

  • goal lacks personal meaning

  • group size increases

• free riders

free riders (social loafing)

in a group, people who benefit without putting in much effort themselves

• happens across cultures, even in collectivist vs individualistic societies

• ex: people tugging rope with a confederate put in less strength compared to when they are alone

how to reduce social loafing

to increase individual efforts, you must

• make each member’s contributions identifiable

• make the task challenging, appealing, or involving

• make the members feel connected (ex: friend group, family, etc)

diminished self-awareness

self-awareness is self-consciousness that makes you more sensitive to your own attitudes and behaviors → diminished self-awareness → less restraint, self-regulation, and more impulsiveness

deindividuation

group situation → arousal and anonymity → deindividuation → loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension

• factors that promote impulses normally restrained by self-awareness:

  • group size

  • physical anonymity

  • distracting activities

group size (deindividuation)

larger groups → loss of sense of self, actions of the individual become those of the group → alleviation of personal responsibility and moral inhibitions

physical anonymity (deindividuation)

group gives illusion of anonymity → incivility, immoral behavior

group polarization

discussion with like-minded group → strengthens that attitude

• why?

  • central route → hearing more arguments for your side → strengthens conviction

  • emotional weight, getting worked up affects your perspective on it

• everyday applications:

  • school → accentuation effect

  • communities → self-segregation

  • politics → moral superiority

  • online → selective exposure

  • terrorist groups → stoking the fire

school → accentuation effect (group polarization)

individual differences between groups → reinforcement of shared inclinations → those differences become accentuated over time

• partier students attend a party campus vs studiers attend a study campus → partiers become more partying, studiers become more studying

communities → self-segregation (group polarization)

echo chambers attract those with similar voices

politics → moral superiority (group polarization)

opposition is corrupt, your team is morally superior → lack of cooperation, shared goals → grid lock, more partisanship, antagonism, no middle ground

online → selective exposure (group polarization)

we embrace media/information we agree with and shun what we don’t

algorithms make these stronger

terrorist groups → stoking the fire (group polarization)

shared grievances → brings people together away from moderating influences → extremism, intensification

why do groups polarize?

• informative influence: we seek information about ambiguous situations by observing others

• normative influence: we want to fit in with others, so we conform to their beliefs and actions

informative influence (why do groups polarize?)

• hearing new, supportive arguments in group discussions strengthens our attitudes, especially if the argument are more ambiguous

• active participation also creates more attitude change compared to passive listening thanks to verbal + public commitment and central route processing

normative influence (why do groups polarize?)

• social comparison: we evaluate ourselves based on others, so learning we share views with others makes us strongly express those opinions

• pluralistic ignorance: private rejection of a norm, in public we accept it because we believe others do as well

  • may perpetuate harmful information if one is not confident enough to speak up

irving janis’ groupthink

suppression of opposing views for the sake of group agreement

• examples: pearl harbor, bay of pigs, vietnam war, challenger launch, iraq war

• requires certain conditions to occur

• decision making:

  • groupthink-breeding conditions → seeking concurrence →

    • symptoms →

      • → defective decision making

• how to prevent it

groupthink-breeding conditions (irving janis’ groupthink)

• group is extremely cohesive

• group is isolated/insulated from outsiders

• group is led by an autocratic leader who has a clear attitude

additionally: no appraisal procedures, high stress/low hope

symptoms (irving janis’ groupthink)

• overestimation of group’s right and might

  • illusion of invulnerability

  • unquestioned belief in the group’s morality

• closemindedness

  • shared rationalization

  • stereotyped view of the outgroup

• leader and their allies create pressure toward uniformity

  • pressuring dissenters to conform

  • self-censorship

  • illusion of unanimity

  • mindguards

illusion of invulnerability (symptoms of irving janis’ groupthink)

overly optimistic to any real danger

unquestioned belief in the group’s morality (symptoms of irving janis’ groupthink)

group members assume the inherent morality of the group and ignore any ethical/moral issues, they can do no wrong

shared rationalization (symptoms of irving janis’ groupthink)

collective justification that discounts real challenges by presenting an explanation that isn’t actually logically sound

stereotyped view of the outgroup (symptoms of irving janis’ groupthink)

belief that the outgroup is too weak/dumb/evil to counter their decision

pressuring dissenters to conform (symptoms of irving janis’ groupthink)

speaking out leads to rebuffing → want to keep cohesion → promotion of social loafing and deindividuation

self-censorship (symptoms of irving janis’ groupthink)

want to prevent uncomfortable disagreements → withholding of views that oppose the group’s

illusion of unanimity (symptoms of irving janis’ groupthink)

self-censorship + pressuring dissenters to conform = seemingly confirms decision and creates an illusion of unanimity

mindguards (symptoms of irving janis’ groupthink)

members prevent spreading of information that question the group’s effectiveness or morality to the other group members

defective decision-making (irving janis’ groupthink)

• not completely surveying/appraising objectives and alternatives

• ignorance fo risks

• meager search for information

• biased information processing

• no contingency planning

prevention (irving janis’ groupthink)

should occur when symptoms present themselves

• be impartial, promote unpopular and diverse views

• encourage critical evaluation by devil’s advocate or dissenters

• subdivide into smaller groups

• welcome critiques from the outside

• call second-chance meetings before enacting major decisions

criticisms (irving janis’ groupthink)

because it analyzed previous scenarios and did not truly conduct research, how much of it is supported by specific evidence is rather shaky

additionally, there are such broad and difficult conditions that it would be hard to use it for experiments anyways

seems to be true?

influence of the minority to sway the majority

how to build credibility

• consistent: certain, committed effort

• self-confident

• defect from the majority: shows courage, empathy, understanding