[SOCPSY] Chapter 8 Group Influence

group

two or more people who, for longer than a few moments interact with and influence one another and perceive one another as "us."

Different groups help us meet different human needs

to affiliate (belong and connect with others), achieve, and to gain a social identity

- cooperative animal

mere presence of others

hindering performance other's presence

disruptive effect; diminishes efficiency at learning nonsense syllables

co-actors

co-participants working individually on a noncompetitive activity.

social facilitation

1. original meaning: the tendency of people to perform simple or well-learned tasks better when others are present. 2. Current meaning: the strengthening of dominant (prevalent, likely) responses in the presence of others.

- presence of others increased the number of incorrect response on these tasks

social arousal

facilitates dominant responses whether right or wrong. in other's presence, student took less time to learn a simple maze and more time to learn a complex one.

- Increased arousal enhances performance on easy tasks for which the most likely dominant response

- promotes incorrect responding

- assume that other's presence will arouse people

- boost performance on easy tasks and hurt performance on difficult tasks

Others' presence

--->arousal (energy)--->strengthens dominant responses ---> enhancing easy behavior, impairing difficult behavior

affiliate

to belong to and connect with others, to achieve and to gain a social identity

types of biases in social facilitation

- officiating bias; home teams

- travel fatigue

- familiarity with the home context

- crowd noise disruption

Crowding

presence of many others

- effect increases with their number

- given extreme pressure we are vulnerable to "choking" .

- Being in a crowd intensifies positive or negative reactions -> friendly people are liked and unfriendly are disliked

- When they sit close together friendly people are liked even more, and unfriendly people are disliked even more.

- also increases stress and arousal, facilitates dominant responses

why are we aroused? evaluation apprehension

concern for how others are evaluating us

- enhancement is strongest when they think they are being evaluated

- self-consciousness that we feel

- perform behaviors best w/o overthinking

why are we aroused? driven by distraction

- when we wonder about co-actors. become distracted

- conflict between paying attention to others and paying attention to the task overloads our cognitive system

why are we aroused? mere presence

- produces arousal even without evaluation apprehension or arousing distraction

- hints at innate social arousal mechanism

Three examples of collective influence

social facilitation, social loafing, de-individualism

Three examples of social influence

1. group polarization, 2. groupthink, 3. minority influence

A good theory

1. help confirm or modify the theory,

2. guide new exploration,

3. suggest practical applications

Good theory: Social facilitation theory

1. the basics of the theory that the presence of others is arousing and that this social arousal enhances dominant responses have been confirmed.

2. the theory has brought new life to long-dormant research,

3. practical applications

social loafing

the tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable.

- occurs when people work toward individual goals and their efforts can be individually evaluated

- people pool their efforts toward a common goal and where individuals aren't accountable

- people in groups loaf less when the task is challenging, appealing or involving, team spirit

- they perceive themselves as helping'; no one admits

- decreased evaluation apprehension; responsibility is diffused -> being lost in a crowd

Solution: make individual performance identifiable

free ride

people who benefit from the group but give little in return.

People in groups loaf less when:

the task is challenging, appealing, involving and when their members are friends

social loafing in everyday life

- social loafing in varied cultures

- women are less individualistic than men to exhibit less social loafing

- when rewards are divided equally, any individual gets more reward per unit of effort by free-riding

- collective effort; teamwork is essential

- people loaf less when the task is challenging, appealing, involving and when their members are friends

de-individuation

loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension; occurs in group situations that foster responsiveness to group norms, good or bad

when arousal and diffused responsibility combine, ppl may commit acts that range from a mild lessening of restraint to impulsive self-gratification to destructive explosions

- provoked by the power of a group

- forget their individual identity and become responsive to group norms

group size

a group has the power not only to arouse its members but also to render them unidentifiable.

- Lynch mob enables its members to believe they will not be prosecuted; they perceive the action as the group's.

- the bigger the mob, the more its members lose self awareness and become willing to commit atrocities

anonymity

in de-individuation, anonymous women delivered more shocks to helpless victims than did identifiable women

- anonymity feeds incivility

- children who had been ask their names and where they lived were less than half as likely to transgress as those who were left anonymous

- people were responding to clear antisocial cues

- became less aggressive in admistering shocks

- anonymous makes one less self-conscious, more group-conscious and more responsive to situational cues

arousing and distracting activities

aggressive outbursts by large groups are often preceded by minor actions that arouse and divert people attention, group shouting , chanting clapping or dancing serve both to hype people up and to reduce self-consciousness.

- self-reinforcing pleasure in acting impulsively while seeing others do the same

- impulsive group action absorbs our attention

- seek deindividuating group experiences where we can enjoy intense positive feelings and closeness to others

self-awareness

a self-conscious state in which attention focuses on oneself. It makes people more sensitive to their own attitudes and dispositions. Opposite of de-individuation.

- people who are self-conscious or who are temporarily made so exhibit greater consistency between their words outside a situation and their deeds in it

- deindividuation decreases in circumstances that increase self-awareness

- being with the group, but be self aware of ur identity

diminished self-awareness

disconnect behvaior from attitudes

- deindividuated people are less restrained, act without thinking

group polarization

group-produced enhancement of members' preexisting tendencies; a strengthening of the members' average tendency, not a split within the group.

- group discussion strengthens members' initial inclinations

The Case of the Risky Shift

groups are more cautious than individuals

- Group decisions are usually riskier, occurs not only when a group decides by consensus; after a brief discussion, individuals too will alter their decision.

- not universal

Do groups intensify opinions?

Discussion typically strengthens the average inclination of the group

group polarization experiments

Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969)—French students' attitudes toward their president and toward Americans

Mititoshi Isozaki (1984)—Japanese students' judgments as jury in a traffic case

Shteynberg et al (2016)—judgments of political speech videos

Markus Brauer, et al. (2001)—French students' dislike of someone after discussion of negative impressions

- unaware of the phenomenon int heir own lives

- underestimated how much discussions polarized their attitudes

- discussion amplifies their moral concern

Group polarization in everyday life

- self segregation of boys into all male groups and of girls into all female groups accentuates over time their initially modest gender differences.

- Boys with boys become gradually more competitive and action oriented in their play. girls with girls become more relationally oriented.

Group polarization in schools: accentuation affect

over time initial differences among groups of college students become accentuated. group member reinforced shared inclinations.

Group polarization in communities

Political clustering appears in shopping options. gang delinquency emerges from a process of mutual reinforcement within neighborhood gangs, whose member share attributes and hostilities.

- like-minded group that interacts mostly among themselves and will show you a group that may become more extreme

- competitive relationships and mistrust that individuals often display when playing games often worsen

- like-minded people associate with one another

Group polarization on the internet

read email blogs, electronic chat rooms, medium for like-minded people to find one another and for group interaction that increases social fragmentation and polarization.

- selectively expose ourselves to like-minded media

- political polarization; despising people of opposing political views has become more intense than racial polar

Group polarization in terrorist organizations

terrorism does not erupt suddenly. it arises among people who shared grievances bring them together

- violence acts that the individuals apart from the group would have never committed

- as they interact in isolation from moderating influences they become progressively more extreme.

- mutual emotional and social support & development of a common identity

explaining group polarization: Informational influence

group discussion elicits a pooling of ideas, most of which favor the dominant viewpoint

- entangle information about the person's arguments with cues concerning the person's position on the issue

- arguments matter

- more attitude change than hearing arguments

- active participation in discussion produces more attitude change than passive listening

- the more group members repeat ideas, more validated

- central route persuasion, what people think is crucial

Active participation

in discussion produces more attitude change than does passive listening

explaining group polarization: normative influence

comparison with others. humans want to evaluate our opinions and abilities by comparing our views with others.

- we want people to like us, express stronger opinions after discovering that others share our views

- - prompted experiments that exposed people to other's positions but not to their arguments

- adjust response to maintain a favorable position

- merely learning other's choices contributes to bandwagon effect

social comparison

evaluating one's opinions and abilities by comparing oneself with others.

pluralistic ignorance

a false impression of what most other people are thinking or feeling, or how they are responding

- people discover they are not outshining the others as they had supposed

- liberated to voice their preferences more strongly

- presume that fear of embarrassment explains their silence but that everyone else's silence means they understand the material

group polarization conclusion

- persuasive arguments predominate on issues that have factual element

- social comparison sways responses on value-laden judgments

- discovering that others share one's feelings unleashes arguments supporting what everyone secretely favors

groupthink

the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.

- motivates people to persist on a project BUT when making decisions, close-knit groups pay a price

- amiable cohesive group

- relative isolation of the group from dissenting viewpoints

a directive leader who signals what decision he or she favors

Symptoms of groupthink - Lead group members to overestimate their groups might and right.

1.Illusion of invulnerability.

2. rationalization,

3. unquestioned belief in the groups morality.

4 stereotyped views of the opposition.

5. pressure to conform.

6. self-censorship of misgivings.

7. illusion of unanimity.

8. mind guards who protect the group from unpleasant info

- produce a failure to seek and discuss contrary information and alternative possibilities

- produce defective decisions

Groupthink: illusion of invulnerability, unquestioned belief in group's moratlity

Over estimate the groups "might and right".

1. illusion of invulnerability-excessive optimism.

2. group's morality-assume inherent morality of their group and ignore moral issues.

Groupsthink: can be closed minded

1. rationalization-groups discount challenges by collectively justifying their decisions.

2. stereotyped view of opponent-consider their enemies too evil to negotiate with or too weak or stupid to defend themselves.

Groupthink: group suffers from uniformity

1. conformity pressure-members rebuffed those who raised doubts.

2. self-censorship-members withhold or discount their misgivings to avoid uncomfortable convos

3. illusion on unanimity-self censorship and pressure not to puncture the consensus create an illusion of unanimity.

groupthink: mindguards

some members protect the group from information that would call into question the effectiveness or morality of its decision

Preventing groupthink

a cohesive team spirit can improve decisions.

1. be impartial.

2. encourage critical evaluation,

3. occasionally subdivide the group.

4. welcome outside critique.

5 call a second chance meeting to air any lingering doubts

critiquing groupthink

-Directive leadership is associated with poorer decisions

-Groups do prefer supporting over challenging information

-Groups make smart decisions by widely distributed conversation with members who take turns speaking

-Group acceptance, approval, and social identity, suppress disagreeable thoughts among members

-Diverse groups produce more creativity

-Groups may not always benefit from all that members know

good groups suffer bad outcomes

leadership

the process by which certain group members motivate and guide the group.

group problem solving

-combine group and solitary brainstorming

-have group members interact by writing

-incorporate electronic brainstorming

- team decisions surpass individual decisions whent he discussion values each person's skills and knowledge and draws out their varied information

- more team science; increasing proportion of scientific publication

- feel more productive when generating ideas in grou[s

- people working alone generate more good ideas

- production blocking; losing one's ideas while waiting a turn to speak

too much talent effect

when team members work together, where play requires less continual coordination

3 ways to enhance group brainstorming

1. Combine group and solitary brainstorming

2. Have group members interact by writing

3. Incorporate electronic brainstorming

all of us can become smarter than alost any of us alone

how do individuals influence the group?

1. consistency

2. self-confidence

3. defections from the majority

consistency

- minority that sticks to its position

- nonconformity is often painful and that being a minority can be unpleasant

- minority stimulates deeper processing of arguments w/ creativity

minority slowness effect

a tendency for people with minority views to express them less quickly than do people in the majority

self-confidence

consistency and persistence convey self-confidence

- any behavior by a minority that conveys self confidence tends to raise self-doubts among the majority

defections from the majority

- punctures any illusion of unanmity

- affects minority influence

Influence of the minority

1. Consistency-sticks to position,

2. self confidence- taking head seat at the table.

3.directions from the majority, when a minor consistency doubts the majority, majority members become freer to air their own doubts.

task leadership

leadership that organizes work, sets standards, and focuses on goals

- directive style

- combination of specific, challenging goals and periodic progress reports help motivate high achievement

social leadership

leadership that builds teamwork, mediates conflict, and offers support

- democratic style; delegates authority, welcomes input from members and prevent groupthink

- good for morale

- feel more satisfied role in making decisions

transformational leadership

leadership that, enabled by a leader's vision and inspiration, exerts significant influence.

effective leadership

represent, enhance and champion a group's identity

- varies with teh situation

- exhibit the behaviors that help make a minority view persuasive

- leaders engender trust by consistently sticking to their goals and exude self-confident charisma that kindles the allegiance of their followers

- compelling vision

- communicate that vision to others

- inspire others

- groups also influence leaders