Group Behaviour

1. What is a Group?

Definition:

A group is two or more individuals who interact, perceive themselves as part of a group, and are interdependent in achieving shared goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1987).

Core Characteristics:

1. Interaction: Members actively communicate and depend on one another.

2. Entitativity (Campbell, 1958):

   • Perception of a group as a cohesive, unified entity.

   • High Entitativity: Clear boundaries, shared goals, interdependence (e.g., families, sports teams).

   • Low Entitativity: Loosely connected individuals (e.g., commuters on a train).

3. Cohesion:

   • Strength of group bonds influencing commitment and performance.

   • Example: A cohesive jury reaches faster, more aligned decisions.

4. Roles and Norms:

   • Roles: Specific functions assigned to members.

   • Norms: Shared behavioral expectations that guide actions.

5. Mutual Influence: Members affect each other’s attitudes and decisions.

Types of Groups (Lickel et al., 2000):

1. Intimate Groups: High entitativity (e.g., families, close friends).

2. Task Groups: Moderate entitativity (e.g., work teams, committees).

3. Social Categories: Medium entitativity (e.g., demographic groups like gender or nationality).

4. Loose Associations: Low entitativity (e.g., crowds or online followers).

Importance of Group Membership:

• Benefits:

  • Provides identity, belonging, and emotional support (Tajfel, 1972).

  • Improves mental and physical well-being.

  • Example: Participation in support groups enhances health outcomes.

• Costs:

  • Can encourage ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination.

  • Example: Polarization in political groups driven by strong internal bonds.

2. Group Effects on Individual Performance

Social Facilitation:

• Definition: Improvement in performance on simple or well-learned tasks in the presence of others (Allport, 1920).

• Drive Theory (Zajonc, 1965):

  • The presence of others increases arousal, enhancing dominant responses.

  • Performance improves on simple tasks but declines on complex or unfamiliar ones.

  • Example: A skilled musician performs better in concerts but struggles with new pieces under observation.

Social Inhibition:

• Definition: The presence of others impairs performance on difficult or novel tasks.

• Example: Students performing poorly on math problems during observed exams (Allport, 1920).

Evaluation Apprehension (Cottrell, 1972):

• Concern over being judged increases arousal, affecting performance.

• Study: Typing tasks showed faster completion under evaluative observers than blindfolded ones.

Distraction-Conflict Theory (Baron, 1986):

• The presence of others divides attention between the audience and the task, leading to cognitive conflict.

• Effect:

  • Simple tasks: Improved performance due to arousal overcoming distraction.

  • Complex tasks: Impaired performance from divided focus.

Social Loafing:

• Definition: Reduced individual effort when working in groups.

• Key Studies:

  • Ringlemann Effect (1913): Effort in rope-pulling decreased as group size increased.

  • Latane, Williams, & Harkins (1979): Individual shouting intensity declined with larger groups.

• Causes:

  1. Free-Riding: Relying on others to carry the workload.

  2. Output Equity: Matching effort to perceived lower contributions from others.

  3. Anonymity: Lack of personal accountability in group settings.

3. Intergroup Behavior

Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1966):

• Definition: Competition for scarce resources drives intergroup conflict.

• Key Study: Robbers Cave Experiment:

  • Phase 1: Boys formed cohesive in-groups.

  • Phase 2: Intergroup competition created hostility (e.g., flag-burning, cabin raids).

  • Phase 3: Cooperation through shared goals (e.g., fixing a stuck truck) reduced hostility.

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979):

• Key Concepts:

  1. Categorization: Classifying people into groups for understanding the social world.

  2. Identification: Tying self-esteem to group membership.

  3. Comparison: Favoring one’s group over others to boost self-concept.

• Minimal Group Paradigm (Tajfel, 1971):

  • Arbitrary group assignments still led to in-group favoritism.

4. Intergroup Conflict

Conflict Escalation:

• Relative Deprivation (Davies, 1969):

  • Disparity between expectations and reality fosters frustration.

  • Example: LA Riots (1992)—Economic disparity and racial injustice intensified tensions.

Reducing Conflict:

1. Superordinate Goals:

   • Goals requiring intergroup collaboration reduce hostility.

   • Example: Disaster relief efforts uniting rival nations.

2. Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954):

   • Positive, structured interactions lower prejudice.

   • Example: Integrated schools improving racial attitudes.

5. Improving Intergroup Relations

Strategies:

1. Propaganda and Education:

   • Highlighting shared humanity to challenge stereotypes.

   • Example: Public campaigns promoting diversity.

2. Intergroup Contact:

   • Facilitating cooperative interactions.

3. Pluralism:

   • Encouraging diversity while ensuring fairness.

• Realistic conflict theory explains that intergroup behavior by considering the NATURE of the goals b/w groups (compete against each other for resources vs working together for common goal)

• SIT explains intergroup behavior based on mere categorization and members of the in group differentiating themselves from an outgroup

Why do people join groups?

Reasons for Joining Groups:

1. Need for Belonging:

   • Humans are social creatures who seek connection and validation.

   • Belonging to a group reduces loneliness and fosters emotional well-being (Tajfel, 1972).

   • Example: Adolescents join social cliques to avoid social exclusion.

2. Identity Formation:

   • Groups provide a sense of who we are and where we fit in the social world.

   • Social Identity Theory emphasizes that self-esteem is closely tied to group membership.

3. Goal Achievement:

   • Many goals require collaboration and collective effort.

   • Example: Corporate teams work together to complete projects faster and more effectively.

4. Social Support:

   • Emotional, financial, and moral support from group members can reduce stress and improve resilience.

   • Example: Cancer support groups help patients cope with treatment and recovery.

5. Shared Interests:

   • Groups often form around hobbies, beliefs, or causes.

   • Example: Environmental activists unite to address climate change.

6. Social Influence and Norms:

   • Groups shape behaviors through norms and expectations.

   • Example: Religious groups encourage adherence to moral codes.

Relevant Studies:

• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943):

  • Social belonging is essential after physiological and safety needs are met.

• Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment:

  • Boys formed strong group bonds when working toward shared goals.

• Fine & Holyfield (1996):

  • High group cohesion strengthens commitment to shared objectives.

Explain Zajonc’s drive theory. How does it compare with evaluation apprehension and distraction-conflict theory?

Zajonc’s Drive Theory (1965):

• Core Idea: The presence of others increases physiological arousal, which enhances dominant responses (habitual or well-learned behaviors) and impairs non-dominant (novel or complex) responses.

• Mechanism:

  • Arousal triggers alertness, which is beneficial for simple tasks but detrimental for challenging ones.

• Evolutionary Perspective:

  • The presence of others historically signaled opportunities or threats, leading to instinctive readiness.

• Example:

  • A skilled pianist performs better in front of an audience, while a novice makes more mistakes.

Comparison with Other Theories:

1. Evaluation Apprehension Theory (Cottrell, 1972):

   • Arousal arises not from mere presence but from fear of being evaluated.

   • Key Study: Schmitt et al. (1986):

     • Participants typed names faster with evaluative observers than non-evaluative ones (e.g., blindfolded audience).

2. Distraction-Conflict Theory (Baron, 1986):

   • Arousal results from cognitive conflict as attention is split between the task and audience.

   • Evidence:

     • Sanders et al. (1978): Participants distracted by an audience performed worse on complex tasks but improved on simple ones.

Key Differences:

• Drive Theory: Instinctive arousal.

• Evaluation Apprehension: Fear of judgment.

• Distraction-Conflict: Attention divided between task and audience.

According to Sherif’s realistic conflict theory, how does intergroup conflict arise?

Core Idea:

Intergroup conflict emerges when groups compete for scarce or mutually exclusive resources.

Key Mechanisms:

1. Competition:

   • Resources like money, land, or status provoke intergroup rivalry.

   • Example: Two departments in an organization competing for funding.

2. Ethnocentrism:

   • Group loyalty intensifies as competition increases.

   • Example: Nationalism during wartime.

Key Study: Robbers Cave Experiment:

• Phase 1: Boys formed in-groups (Rattlers and Eagles) through shared activities and bonding.

• Phase 2: Competitive games led to conflict, hostility, and sabotage (e.g., flag burning).

• Phase 3: Introduction of superordinate goals (e.g., fixing a truck) reduced conflict and fostered cooperation.

What is ethnocentrism? What is a superordinate goal?

Ethnocentrism:

• Definition: The belief that one’s own group is superior to others.

• Manifestations:

  • Positive ingroup bias.

  • Negative stereotypes and prejudice toward outgroups.

• Example:

  • Historical colonialism justified by ethnocentric beliefs.

Superordinate Goal:

• Definition: An objective requiring cooperation between groups, overriding existing conflicts.

• Example:

  • Rival companies collaborating on disaster relief efforts.

• Key Study:

  • Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment demonstrated how shared goals (e.g., pooling resources) improved intergroup relations.

How does Tajfel’s minimal group paradigm differ from Sherif’s realistic conflict theory?

Tajfel’s Minimal Group Paradigm:

• Core Idea: Mere categorization into groups creates ingroup favoritism, even without competition.

• Study:

  • Arbitrary groupings (e.g., preference for abstract art) led participants to allocate more rewards to ingroup members.

• Significance:

  • Bias occurs without tangible rewards, interaction, or conflict.

Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory:

• Core Idea: Conflict arises from tangible competition for limited resources.

• Study:

  • Robbers Cave Experiment demonstrated hostility during competitions and reduced tensions with superordinate goals.

Differences:

• Minimal Group Paradigm: Bias emerges from group categorization alone.

• Realistic Conflict Theory: Conflict arises from resource-driven competition.

Explain social identity theory.

Core Principles:

1. Categorization:

   • People classify themselves and others into social groups (e.g., gender, nationality) to simplify the social world.

2. Identification:

   • Self-concept is tied to group membership, boosting self-esteem when the group is successful.

   • Example: Fans feel pride when their favorite sports team wins.

3. Comparison:

   • Favorable comparisons with outgroups enhance self-worth.

   • Example: Believing one’s university is superior to others.

Key Findings:

• Ingroup Favoritism: Preferring one’s group over others.

• Positive Distinctiveness:

  • Desire for one’s group to be better than others.

  • Drives prejudice and stereotyping.

• Applications:

  • Explains workplace cliques, political polarization, and social movements.

Relevant Studies:

• Minimal Group Paradigm:

  • Showed that categorization alone leads to favoritism.

• Rubin & Hewstone (1998):

  • High group status is linked to enhanced individual self-esteem.

Additional Questions and Answers

How can intergroup relations be improved?

1. Superordinate Goals:

   • Shared objectives promote collaboration and reduce tension.

   • Example: Climate agreements uniting nations.

2. Contact Hypothesis:

   • Positive, structured interactions reduce prejudice (Allport, 1954).

   • Example: Integrated schools improve interracial relations.

What causes social loafing, and how can it be prevented?

• Causes:

  1. Free-riding.

  2. Perceived inequity.

  3. Anonymity in groups.

• Solutions:

  • Assign clear individual responsibilities.

  • Monitor and evaluate performance.