Ch 8- Group Processes (Social Psyche)

Group: When two or more individuals interact with one another or are joined together by a common fate.

Groups provided evolutionary advantages like shelter/ food and

1. cohesiveness provides social support

2. give a sense of identity

3. safety/security

4. meaningful info

Group cohesiveness: The degree to which members of a group feel connected to one another.

Functional distance: The tendency for people who are in close proximity due to the geographic and architectural design of an environment to be more likely to develop a cohesive group, such as a friendship or a romantic relationship.

“In the Westgate housing project, cohesive friendships emerged for two overlapping reasons: (1) the nuances of where people lived and (2) the need for new mothers, far from their families, to find meaningful social support.”

Sense of individual identity: How individuals perceive themselves to uniquely fit into a larger group. Such social comparisons and group role development contribute to individuals’ self-concept.

Sense of individual identity example: “how the musicians thought about themselves most closely matched how they believed other musicians would rate them. Thinking about what their fellow musicians thought of them was a way of spying on their own musical abilities. All those impressions come together in the context of each person’s standing relative to the other members of the group. In this way, being in a group helps us define our own talents and purpose in a larger social world.”

“Firestone, Kaplan, and Russell (1973) found that anxiety still leads to a desire to be with others. But unlike fear, anxiety makes us want to be surrounded by people who are not anxious.

It seems that both fear and anxiety motivate us to affiliate with others, but when we’re afraid, we like to be with people who feel the same way; this could help us bond together against a common enemy. In contrast, when we’re anxious, we like to be with people who are not anxious because they can calm us down.”

“We are, indeed, usually more committed to groups that are difficult to get into. Recall the heuristic, “If it’s expensive, it must be good quality.” With groups, a parallel thought might be, “If membership is exclusive, it must be a wonderful group.”

effort justification/ initiation effect: Once people have gone through embarrassing, effortful, or expensive efforts to gain membership in a group, it would create cognitive dissonance if they believed those efforts were a waste of time. So, instead, we simply convince ourselves that the group is wonderful! This example of cognitive acrobatics is called

Effort justification/sunk cost fallacy: The tendency for individuals to convince themselves that a group they belong to is wonderful if they have gone through embarrassing, difficult, or expensive efforts to gain membership in the group.”

“ The women who experienced the most severe initiation (reading pornography aloud) gave the most positive attitude ratings to the very dull discussion group (and to the people in the group). The women in the “porn” condition justified their embarrassing efforts to join by telling themselves that it was all worthwhile to join such an exciting group—even though the group was perceived as pretty boring by everyone else”

Maltreatment effects: When hazing elicits social dependency that promotes allegiance to the group

“Step 1: Maltreatment creates confusion, especially when delivered by friends or family members.Step 2: Confusion creates uncertainty about our value or place in a social world.Step 3: Uncertainty leads to emotional vulnerability.Step 4: Vulnerability creates a dependency on the people who hold such power over you; you need their acceptance.Step 5: Dependency creates gratitude when your needs are met. For example, a stale piece of bread and a cup of water can feel like a deep kindness when you are starving, even when it comes from the enemy that is starving you.”

Stockholm syndrome: When hostages develop affection for their captors.”

Rejection sensitivity: The fear of social rejection and ostracism.”

Optimal distinctiveness theory: The idea that individuals can simultaneously achieve the advantages of being seen as a unique and important individual and of being in a group by being an identifiable member of a small and elite group.”

“Humans (and other animals) tend to perform better or faster in the presence “of others (see Bond & Titus, 1983; Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969). The “others” don’t even really have to be there; people only have to believe or imagine that they are there.”

Social facilitation: When individuals exhibit improved effort and individual performance in the presence of others.

Comparative social psychology: Species-level comparisons of social behavior usually used to determine the uniqueness of human behavior.

Mere presence hypothesis: The idea that being in the presence of others, even if they aren’t watching, will increase an individual’s physiological arousal, and this arousal will help performance on easy tasks and hinder performance on difficult tasks.

Social loafing: When people working in a group reduce their individual level of effort.

Free riders: People who gain more benefits from the group than they contribute to the group; social loafers or “slackers.”

Conscientiousness: A personality trait that includes striving for achievement, attention to detail, and a sense of responsibility; people high in this trait are also less likely to be social loafers.

Agreeableness: A personality trait that includes the willingness to be flexible, to cooperate, and to try to please other people; people high in this trait are also less likely to be social loafers.

Protestant work ethic: A set of personality traits that includes valuing discipline, honoring commitments, and doing a good job in any setting; people high in this trait are also less likely to be social loafers.”

“Ringelmann’s (1913) experiments demonstrated that both individual people and oxen would pull less hard on a rope when working together than when working alone. Ringelmann also found that the larger the group size, the lower the individual effort (see Kravitz & Martin, 1986).”

“Karau and Williams’s (1993) meta-analysis of 78 social loafing studies indicated that you are not likely to be a social loafer when

You are doing something difficult.Your contributions can be identified as coming from you.You believe that what you are doing is valuable.You are working with people you know.”

Process loss: The reduction of effort—and thus productivity—in group settings that comes from a lack of motivation, often due to social loafing.

Coordination loss: When a lack of cooperation and communication weakens a group’s effectiveness, leading to a loss of productivity.

Diffusion of responsibility: When an individual feels less responsible for an outcome due to the presence of others.

Group dynamics: The social roles, hierarchies, communication styles, and culture that naturally form when groups interact

Contingency theory of leadership: The idea that there is no one best leadership style; different types of people, environments, and situations call for different kinds of leaders.”

Task leader: A type of leader who focuses on completing assignments, achieving goals, and meeting deadlines.

Social leader: A type of leader who focuses on the people involved and invests time in building teamwork, facilitating interactions, and providing support.

Transactional leader: A type of leader who uses rewards and punishments to motivate group members; these leaders help to maintain the status quo.

Transformational leader: A type of leader who uses inspiration and group cohesiveness to motivate group members; these leaders are useful for challenging established rules or procedures. Example: MLK

Risky shift: The tendency of groups to make riskier or more daring decisions than the average of individuals (see group polarization).

Group polarization: When a group makes more extreme decisions than the average of individual decisions, toward either a more or less risky position.

“For example, in one early study, moderately pro-feminist women became more feminist following a group discussion (Myers, 1975). Several more recent studies have shown that if you lean toward one political candidate or party, exposure to others who also favor that person or party will eventually lead your opinion to become much stronger and more extreme (e.g., Iyengar & Westwood, 2015; Keating, Van Boven, & Judd, 2016; Stroud, 2010). Have you observed this during major elections, in which people tend to become more extreme as they surround themselves with like-minded others?”

Groupthink: The tendency for people in groups to minimize conflict by thinking alike and publicly agreeing with each other, especially in groups with high group cohesiveness, strong and directive leadership, and a stressful situation to resolve.

“Janis identified three general conditions under which groupthink is most likely to occur:

High group cohesiveness. Group members who feel connected to one another are less likely to criticize themselves.Strong, directive leadership. A group structure with a strong, directive leader will tend to isolate the group from alternative opinions and discourage disagreement.Stressful situations. A crisis requires groups to make fast decisions based on incomplete information; this can promote the illusion that there is a clear consensus of opinion.”

to combat group think:

“Consult with outsiders who disagree or who have different information.Criticize your own ideas.Replace the “mindguard” with a “devil’s advocate” whose job is to disagree and find fault with group decisions, even if they personally agree.”

Spiral of silence: When fear of rejection leads people to keep silent about a private opinion, misperceive the louder opinion as a majority opinion, and therefore become even less likely to express their private opinion.

Pluralistic ignorance: When a majority of individuals in a group get the false impression that others do not share their private perspective, making them less likely to express their opinion.”

Wisdom of crowds: Using the collective insights of many people to test, develop, and refine new ideas, products, and services; also called “crowdsourcing.

Brainstorming: A group approach to problem solving that emphasizes nonevaluative creative thinking where members generate lots of ideas, encourage wild ideas, don’t judge any idea, and actively modify or expand other people’s ideas.