Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
a group
two or more people who, for longer than a few moments, interact with and influence one another and perceive one another as “us”
collective influence
3 examples: social facilitation, social loafing, deindividuation
social facilitation
mere presence of others
they may be passive or co-actors
tendency of people to perform simple or well-learned tasks better when others are present
the presence of others hinders performance when the task is difficult
the strengthening of the dominant responses owing to the presence of others
Triplett (1898)
Children winding fishing reels Asked to do so by themselves vs. in a group with 5 other kids who aren't interacting
They were faster when winding with a group than by themselves
Maybe because they want to impress each other or so that they can follow their examples, feeling like they're contributing to a group effort
co-actors
a group of people working simultaneously and individually on a non-competitive task
the effects of social arousal
others’ presence —> arousal —> strengthens dominant responses —> enhancing easy behavior OR impairing difficult behavior
crowding
the presence of many others
intensifies positive or negative reactions
enhances arousal
the arousal can interfere with well-learned, automatic behaviors such as speaking
reasons for arousal
evaluation apprehension, driven by distraction, mere presence
evaluation apprehension
concern for how others are evaluating us
the enhancement of dominant responses is strongest when people think they are being evaluated
the self-consciousness we feel when being evaluated can also interfere with behaviors that we perform best automatically
driven by distraction
when people wonder how co-actors are doing or how an audience is reacting, they get distracted
there is a conflict between paying attention to others and paying attention to the task
this overloads our cognitive system and causes arousal
mere presence
produces some arousal even without evaluation apprehension or arousing distraction
many hands make light work
Ringelmann created a rope-pulling apparatus
collective effort of “tug-of-war” teams only about half of sum of individual efforts
group members may actually be less motivated when performing additive tasks
social loafing
tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts towards a common goal then when they are individually accountable
free-riders
benefitting from the group but giving little in return
social loafing is less likely to occur when
the task is challenging, appealing or involving
when the group members are friends
when people see others in their group as unreliable
cohesiveness intensifies effort
social loafing IRL
effort decreases as group size increases
exhibited less in collectivist cultures
women tend to exhibit it less because of being less individualistic
social loafing vs facilitation
social loafing: others’ presence —> individual efforts pooled and NOT evaluated —> no evaluation apprehension —> less arousal
facilitation: others’ presence —> individual efforts evaluated —> evaluation apprehension —> arousal
deindividuation
loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension
occurs in group situations that foster anonymity and draw attention away from the individual
facilitators of deindividuation
group size, physical anonymity, arousing and distracting activities
group size
a group has the power not only to arouse its members but also to render them unidentifiable
“everyone is doing it” can attribute their behavior to the situation rather than to their own choices
physical anonymity
the internet offers it
uniforms allows everyone to be depersonalized
makes one less self-conscious and more responsive to the cues present in the situation, whether negative or positive
increase cohesiveness in a group
tactics like hazing
if it is more difficult to become a member of the group, you will like it more once you become a member (cognitive dissonance)
arousing and distracting activities
aggressive outbursts by large crowds are often preceded by minor actions that arouse and divert people’s attention
when we see others act as we are acting, we think they feel as we do, which reinforces our own feelings
loss of self-awareness
group experiences that diminish self-consciousness tend to disconnect behavior from attitudes
unselfconscious, deindividuated people are less restrained and less self-regulated
self-awareness is the opposite of deindividuation
group polarization
group produced enhancement of members’ pre-existing tendencies; a strengthening of the members’ average tendency, not a split within the group
group polarization - the case of the “risky shift”
impact of group discussion on individuals’ opinions
group discussions were usually riskier than individuals
the small risky shift effect was reliable, unexpected, and without any immediately obvious explanation
explaining group polarization
information influence and normative influence
information influence
there is a combining of ideas which likely favor the dominant viewpoint
ideas that were common knowledge to group members will often be brought up in discussion or even unmentioned will jointly influence their decision
active participation in discussion produces more attitude change than passive listening
normative influence
we are most persuaded by our “reference groups”
since we want people to like us, we may express stronger opinions after discovering that others share our views
when we ask people to predict how others would respond to social dilemmas, they typically exhibit pluralistic ignorance
groupthink
the tendency for groups, in the process of decision making to suppress dissenting cognitions in the interest of ensuring harmony within the group
a “mode of thinking” that individuals engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes dominant in a cohesive in-group
overrides realistic appraisals of alternative courses of action
pluralistic ignorance
a false impression of how other people are thinking, feeling or responding
group think symptoms
overestimate their group’s might and right, group members become close minded, pressure to conform and to be uniform
overestimating the group’s might and right
an illusion of invulnerability
unquestioned belief in the group’s morality
group members becoming close minded
rationalization
stereotyped view of opponent
pressure to conform and to be uniform
conformity pressure
self-censorship
illusion of unanimity
mindguards
preventing groupthink
be impartial
subdivide the group
assign a devil advocate
invite critiques from outside experts
have a “second-chance” meeting as opportunity to discuss lingering doubts
group problem solving
combine group and solidarity brainstorming
have group members interact by writing
incorporate electronic brainstorming
culturally diverse groups make better decisions
leadership
the process by which certain group members motivate and guide the group
4 types of leadership
task, social, transactional, transformational
task leadership
organizing work, setting standards, focusing on goals, directive style
social leadership
building teamwork, mediating conflicts, being supportive, democratic style
transactional leadership
focus on getting to know their subordinates and listening carefully, they seek to fulfill the subordinates’ needs but maintain high expectations for how subordinates will perform
transformational leadership
engender trust by consistently sticking to their goals, often exude self-confident charisma that kindles the allegiance of their followers
individuals influencing the group
persuasive forces are powerful
pressures to conform sometimes overwhelm our better judgement
the groups we create and belong to influence our behavior
factors of individuals influencing the group
consistency
minority slowness effect
a minority that sticks to its position
self-confidence
consistency and persistence convey self-confidence
being firm and forceful
defections from the majority
punctures any illusion of unanimity
minority slowness effect
tendency for people with minority views to express them less quickly than people in the majority