Group Processes: Influence in Social Groups
Introduction to Social Influence in Groups
The Exam Scenario and Environmental Impact: Consider a final exam for a psychology class where the student is prepared but the room is tiny and packed. - The Choice: Students are given the option to take the test in the crowded environment or in smaller, quieter rooms down the hall. - The Scientific Question: Does the presence of a group impact behavior? The answer is yes; being in a group setting affects performance, learning, and overall behavior. - Three Primary Phenomena: - A. Social Facilitation - B. Social Loafing - C. Deindividuation
Defining and Characterizing Groups
Definition of a Group: A group consists of two or more people who interact and are interdependent. Their interdependence implies that their needs and goals cause them to influence one another.
Reasons Why People Join Groups: - Belonging and Identity: Groups are a critical aspect of personal identity, helping individuals define who they are. - Distinctiveness: Groups help individuals feel distinct from other social collectives. - Establishment of Social Norms: Groups provide a framework for acceptable behavior. - Informational Social Influence: Groups serve as an important source of information, helping members resolve ambiguity in the social world.
Social Roles and the Stanford Prison Study
Social Norms vs. Social Roles: - Social Roles: Unlike general norms that apply to all members, social roles are shared expectations in a group regarding how particular people are supposed to behave. - Potential Costs: If an individual becomes too enmeshed in a role, their personal identity and personality can be lost.
The Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo et al., 1973): - Methodology: Male volunteers were randomly assigned to play the role of either a prisoner or a guard in a mock prison for a planned duration of two weeks. - Outcome: Students assumed their roles so quickly and intensely that the experiment was terminated after only days. - Guard Behavior: Became abusive, verbally harassed, and humiliated the prisoners. - Prisoner Behavior: Became passive, helpless, and withdrawn. - Phil Zimbardo’s Conclusion: "What's bad is the barrel." This suggests that a bad environment (the barrel) can corrupt good people (the apples), rather than it being a matter of individual character flaws.
Group Cohesiveness and Diversity
Group Cohesiveness: This refers to the qualities of a group that bind members together and promote mutual liking. - Consequences of High Cohesiveness: Members are more likely to stay in the group, participate in activities, and recruit like-minded individuals. - Impact on Performance: - Task-Oriented Groups: If the function is to solve problems (e.g., military, sales team), high cohesiveness generally helps performance on complex tasks. - Relationship-Oriented Groups: If the primary function is maintaining relationships, cohesiveness can interfere with optimal performance because harmony is prioritized over finding the best solution.
Group Diversity: Group members often share similar ages, sexes, beliefs, and opinions. - Homogeneous Groups: Tend to be more cohesive. - Diverse Groups: Research indicates that diverse groups tend to perform better. - Business Context: Figure highlights that racial and gender diversity correlate with better business performance.
Group Impact on Individual Performance
Social Facilitation: The tendency for people to do better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance can be evaluated. - Conditions for Arousal: - Performing a task with coworkers doing the same thing. - Performing a task in front of an observing audience. - Mechanics of Arousal: The presence of others increases physiological arousal. - Arousal makes it easier to perform simple, well-learned tasks. - Arousal makes it harder to learn something new or perform complex tasks. - Theories of Arousal: - Alertness and Vigilance: Other people make us more aware of our surroundings. - Evaluation Apprehension: Concern about how others are judging us. - Distraction/Divided Attention: The presence of others distracts us from the task.
Social Loafing: The tendency for people to relax when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated. - Ringelmann (): Found that when individuals pulled a rope in a group, each person exerted less effort than when pulling alone. - Performance Outcomes: Individuals do worse on simple tasks but better on complex tasks (because they are relaxed and not experiencing evaluation apprehension). - Gender Differences: A review of over studies suggests social loafing is more common in men. Women tend to be higher in relational interdependence, making them less likely to loaf.
Deindividuation: The Influence of Anonymity
Definition: The loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people cannot be differentiated (anonymity), leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts. - Historical Examples: Soccer mobs, rock concert tramplings, and lynchings committed by the KKK while wearing robes and hoods.
Research Findings (Robert Watson, ): Studied cultures and found that warriors who used face and body paint to hide their identities were significantly more likely to kill, torture, or mutilate prisoners.
Mechanisms of Deindividuation: - Accountability: People feel less likely to be held responsible for their actions. - Obedience to Group Norms: Individuals follow the norms of the specific group they are in at that moment, which may be aggressive or antisocial.
Online Deindividuation: - Cyberspace provides anonymity that can lead to a reduction in common civility. - Internet Trolling: A modern example of deindividuation. - Positive Side: Can also allow for free and open discussion of difficult or taboo topics.
Group Decision-Making and Problem Solving
Transactive Memory: The combined memory of two people that is more efficient than the memory of either individual alone.
Process Loss: Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving. - Causes: Groups may fail to identify the most competent member, the competent member may fear disagreement, or communication problems may arise.
Information Sharing: Groups tend to focus on shared information (what everyone already knows). - Why?: Sharing common information makes a member appear more competent and credible. - Solutions: Discussions should last long enough to exhaust shared info; assign specific areas of expertise to different members.
Groupthink: A style of thinking where maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering facts realistically. - Antecedents: High cohesiveness, isolation from contrary opinions, and a directive leader. - Avoiding Groupthink: Leaders should remain impartial, seek outside opinions, create subgroups, and utilize anonymous opinions.
Group Polarization and Conflict
Group Polarization: The tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of individual members. - Direction: If initial tendencies are risky, the group becomes riskier; if cautious, the group becomes more cautious. - Interpretations: - Persuasive Arguments: Members are exposed to new arguments they hadn't considered before. - Social Comparison: Members check the group's pulse and then take a position similar to others but a bit more extreme to be seen as a "good" group member.
Social Dilemmas and Conflict: - Social Dilemma: A conflict where the most beneficial action for an individual, if chosen by most people, becomes harmful to everyone. - The Prisoner’s Dilemma: A game where two people must choose between cooperation or competition. - Example: Both choose X, win each. You choose Y (defect) while friend chooses X, you win and friend loses .
Strategies to Increase Cooperation: - Trust Building: People cooperate more with friends or those they expect to interact with later. - Labeling and Norms: Changing a game name from "Wall Street Game" to "Community Game" increased cooperation from to . - Representative Negotiation: Using a single representative from rival sides can bridge gaps better than whole-group interaction. - Tit-for-Tat Strategy: Initially cooperating, then responding exactly as the opponent did in the previous trial. This communicates both a willingness to cooperate and a refusal to be exploited.