Function of Groups

1. Function of Groups Affiliation (e.g., sororities, fraternities, clubs) Survival Vital for task completion (organizations, work groups, charities) Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.Margaret Mead

2. Group Processes

3. Social Loafing Do people try less hard when working in groups? Does social loafing occur? RinglemanEffect? The average performance (input) of individuals decreases as group size increases

4. Ringelmann Findings • Why? • Less effort • b) Coordination issues

5. Precursor to the Latane et al study (Ingram et al, 1974)

6. Yelling (& clapping) study by Latane, Williams, & Harkins Procedure? Alone In actual groups In pseudo-groups Less individual effort when in groups, even in “groups” when no one was present (but people thought they were)

7. Potential productivity Actual groups Pseudo-groups 10 8 6 4 2 Reduced effort (Social loafing) Sound pressure per person Coordination loss 1 2 6 Group size

8. Social Loafing on a More Complex Task

9. Social Loafing on a More Complex Task (cont.)

10. Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics Procedure? Survey: List of 92 adjectives rated on a 5-point scale from (1) “Not Characteristic to (5) “Characteristic” Ratings on: Men in General, Women in General, and Successful Manager in General

11. Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics Results – Ratings by males?

12. Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.) Results – Rating by females?

13. Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.) Results? High agreement in ratings Less agreement on ratings of women by males and females

14. Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.) Results regarding specific trait differences? Males higher ratings on “Dominant-Aggressive” characteristics – e.g., competitive, need for power, aggressive, assertive (especially by male raters) Females higher ratings on “Social Humanitarian” characteristics -- e.g., sympathetic, desire for friendship, helpful (especially by female raters) Big Picture Implications? Less representation of females in business (e.g., CEOs), politics (e.g., U.S. Senate), academic administration (e.g., universities)

15. Females in Leadership Positions - Percent of females in US Senate? 20 Barbara Mikilski Dianne Feinstein Barbara Boxer Parry Murray Susan Collins Mary Landrieu Maria Cantwell Debbie Stabenow Claire McCaskill Kay Hagan Kirsten Gillibrand Lisa Murkowski Amy Klobuchar Jeanne Shaheen Kelly Ayotte Tammy Bladwin Deb Fischer Heidi Heitkamp Elizabeth Warren Mazie Hirono

16. Female CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies? 2011 = 12; 2012 = 18 23 (Link)

17. Gender and Leadership: Recent Findings Females as CEOs --- increase in stock price But, it depends on industry Price goes up higher if female CEO is head of female-dominated business, otherwise small decrease in stock price (Cooke & Glass, 2011) Survey of over 60,000 direct reports No gender preference for one’s own boss “Ideal” boss: 54% -- No Preference 13% -- Female Preference 33% -- Male Preference • Small but significant preference for opposite-sex • bosses • Increased preference for stereotypical female leader • characteristics (sensitive, supportive) vs. direct, • forceful. Study by Elesser & Lever (2011)

18. Zajonic’s Theory of Social Facilitation Arousal caused by presence of others Social Facilitation Performance enhanced Well-learned (dominant) response Poorly learned or novel (non-dominant) response Social Interference Performance hindered

19. Charting the Course of Groupthink Irving Janis depicted groupthink as a kind of social disease, complete with antecedents and symptoms, that increased the chance of making a bad decision. (Based on Janis, 1982.) • Symptoms • Overestimation of the group • (invulnerability) • Close-mindedness • Rationalization • Increased pressures toward • uniformity • “Mindguards” and pressure on • dissenters • Self-censorship • Illusion of unanimity • Consequences • Incomplete survey of alternatives • Poor information search • Failure to examine risks of preferred choice • High probability of a bad decision • Antecedents • High cohesiveness • Isolation • Directive leader • Homogeneous • members • Stressful situations

20. Other Group Decision-Making Phenomena Collective Entrapment --- The more effort used to make a decision, the greater likelihood of sticking to that decision (even if it’s been shown to be incorrect) Common Knowledge Effect --- Information held by most group members exerts a stronger impact on final decisions

21. ~ Social Identity Theory ~ [In-Group Bias] They tendency to link one’s self-concept and self esteem with the status and/or behavior of groups Also, people tend to reward members of ingroups and disfavor those in outgroups(e.g., Minimal Group Paradigm) --- Basking in Reflected Glory --- Favorite Football Team wins --- “We;” More likely to wear team t-shirt Favorite Football Team loses --- “They”

22. In and Out-Groups Bias • Liking, spend time with leader • Challenging, visible jobs • Better memory for good behavior • Treated warmly • Performance evaluations • Allocation of rewards In-group characteristics • Less desirable jobs • Less time spent with supervisor • Treated formally • Lower performance evaluations • Less rewards Out-group characteristics

23. Are Groups Good or Bad? Gustav Le Bon (1895) stated that leaders can manipulate citizens by simplifying ideas, substituting affirmation and exaggeration for proof, and by repeating points over and again. (From: Forsyth, 2010) --- Concept of “deindividuation” LeBon and Tarde --- Mass hysteria