Forsyth (1998): A group exists when two or more people define themselves as members and its existence is recognized by at least one other.
Breckin et al (2006): Two or more people interacting and/or influencing one another.
Types of Groups (Based On)
Common experience (e.g., Jewish people in Nazi Germany).
Common characteristics (e.g., redheads, gender, sexuality, race).
Implicit social structure (e.g., families, friendship groups).
Common interests/values/beliefs (e.g., religious, anti-fascism, or political groups).
Reflection
How many groups do you belong to?
Are you always aware of your group membership?
Is it context-specific?
Does group membership help or hinder you in navigating the social world or achieving your goals?
Social Cure vs. Social Curse
Groups can have both positive (social cure) and negative (social curse) impacts.
The Social Cure
Social groups positively impact individuals through social identification, making them meaningful and psychologically valuable (Jetten et al., 2012).
Group identification (sense of belonging) is linked to well-being, even when controlling for social integration (Sani et al., 2012).
Evidence shows that meaningful group memberships positively impact well-being across healthcare, employment, community life, and sports (Haslam et al., 2012, 2018; Wakefield et al., 2019).
Loss of Group Membership
Losing valued group memberships can negatively impact mental health.
Seymour-Smith et al. (2017) found that a decrease in valued group memberships after having a baby is associated with increased depressive symptoms in postpartum mothers.
The Social Curse
Group membership and experiences can hinder members (Kellezi & Reicher, 2012).
Social curse phenomena have been identified in various contexts.
Kellezi et al. (2021) found that while family bonds can help overcome challenges, they can also lead to collective suffering; however, the benefits of collective support often outweigh this burden.
Group Behavior: Social Loafing
Performance in groups can provide excuses for reduced effort.
Social loafing is the temptation to exert less effort when others are present.
Example: Group projects where everyone gets the same grade.
Causes of Social Loafing
Incorrect attributions about labor division within the group.
Goals being set too low.
Unidentifiable individual contributions.
Example: Pickle Factory
Employees picking pickles off a conveyor belt without individual monitoring.
Gender Differences in Social Loafing
Karau & Williams (1993) found that men tend to loaf more than women in a review of 150 studies.
This may be due to higher relational interdependence in women (Eagly, 1987).
Social Facilitation: Audience Effects
Tendency to perform better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when in the presence of others and being evaluated.
Cockroach Experiment
Cockroaches completed a simple maze faster when other roaches watched.
They completed a complex maze slower when other roaches watched.
Evaluation Apprehension
Audience effects can be positive or negative.
Simple tasks: Physiological arousal can block out distractions, leading to enhanced performance.
Complex tasks: Physiological arousal restricts the range of attention, leading to impaired performance.
Social Facilitation vs. Social Loafing
Presence of others:
Individual efforts evaluated: Alertness leads to arousal, enhancing simple task performance but impairing complex task performance.
Individual efforts not evaluated: Relaxation enhances complex task performance but impairs simple task performance.
Decision Making in Groups
Groups are often formed for decision-making purposes, but they don't always get it right.
Jury Decision Example
Discussion of a case where a teen girl killed a violent man, raising questions about gender bias in the justice system.
Advantages of Group Decision Making
Access to more information.
Multiple perspectives.
Faulty Decision Making: Groupthink
Ideal Consensus Process:
Gather stakeholders, define the problem, research needed information, facilitate exploration of underlying interests, find common ground, achieve unity, and act on the decision.
Groupthink Process:
Minimal discussion of alternative ideas, avoidance of conflict, rapid convergence without debate.
Symptoms of Groupthink
Illusion of invulnerability.
Rationalization of warnings.
Unquestioned belief in the group's morality.
Stereotyped view of enemy leaders.
Pressure on dissenting group members.
Self-censorship of misgivings.
Illusion of unanimity.
Emergence of self-appointed mindguards.
Real-Life Examples of Groupthink
The bombing of Pearl Harbor: Senior officers ignored warnings due to the belief that Japan wouldn't dare attack the U.S.
The collapse of Swissair: The airline failed to question poor decisions and gross mismanagement due to a belief in their invulnerability.
Counteracting Groupthink
Assign the role of critical evaluator to each member.
The leader should avoid stating preferences and expectations at the outset.
Each member should discuss deliberations with a trusted associate and report back.
Invite outside experts to challenge views.
Assign a devil's advocate to question assumptions and plans.
Set aside time to survey warning signals and construct alternative scenarios.
Group Polarization
Tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members.
Discussion typically strengthens the average inclination of group members (Myers, pg. 304).
Occurs in schools, communities, and online.
Polarization and the Internet
Social networking sites and online identities can increase polarization.