PSY 321 Dr. Sanchez Obedience/Group Influence

1. PSY 321Dr. SanchezObedience/Group Influence

2. Chapter 8: Group Processes • How do groups effect individual effort? • How/when do groups make bad decisions? • Are groups a sum of their parts? • Applications = I/O, Business, Student Organizations, Class Group Projects

3. Goals • Collective processes = presence of others on individual’s behavior • Group processes = individuals directly interact with each other • Group conflict = Reconciling differences

4. What is a Group? • Groups consist of two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other.

5. What is a Group? • A set of people who have at least one of the following characteristics: • Joint membership in a social category • Direct interactions with each other over a period of time (e.g., work colleagues). • A shared, common fate, identity, or set of goals (e.g., political groups). • Vary in “groupiness”

6. What Is a Collective? • An assembly of people engaging in a common activity but having little direct interaction with each other • Not a real group • Low in entitativity • Some social psychological processes are unique to real groups. • However, others affect both groups and collectives.

7. Collective Processes The Presence of Others

8. Social Facilitation: When Others Arouse Us • How does the presence of others affect our behavior? • Triplett’s (1897-1898) fishing reel studies. • Children winding fishing reels alone or with others • Later research found conflicting findings. • Sometimes the presence of others enhanced performance. • At other times, performance declined. • What was going on???

9. Social Facilitation: When the Presence of Others Energizes Us • Social facilitation: • 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

10. Social Facilitation: When the Presence of Others Energizes Us • Cockroach Example: • Roaches navigate through a maze • Maze was a easy task • ½ roaches in the presence of other roaches • ½ roaches alone • Results: Roaches performed the task faster when other roaches were present than when alone.

11. Social Facilitation: When the Presence of Others Energizes Us • Cockroach Example: • Roaches get through a maze • Maze was a difficult task • ½ roaches in the presence of other roaches • ½ roaches alone • Results: Roaches took longer to solve the maze when other roaches were present than when alone.

12. Pool Hall Example • Pool Hall Study • ½ below- average players • ½ above- average players • ½ unobserved • ½ observed

13. Results of Michaels et al. Pool Hall Study

14. Social Facilitation: When the Presence of Others Energizes Us • Zajonc’s Mere Presence Theory • all animals are aroused by presence of conspecific others • Bob Zajonc suggested that we can understand the influence others on performance by considering three factors: • Arousal • Dominant response • Task difficulty

15. Social Facilitation:When the Presence of Others Energizes Us PRESENCE OF OTHERS EVALUATION APPREHENSION AROUSAL DOMINANT RESPONSE PERFORMANCE IMPROVES ON AN EASY TASK (CORRECT RESPONSE) PERFORMANCE DECLINES ON A HARD TASK (INCORRECT RESPONSE)

16. Evaluation Apprehension • Common to worry about others’ opinions • SF depends on whether evaluator is present • Blindfold study

17. Social Facilitation:When the Presence of Others Energizes Us PRESENCE OF OTHERS DISTRACTION AROUSAL DOMINANT RESPONSE PERFORMANCE IMPROVES ON AN EASY TASK (CORRECT RESPONSE) PERFORMANCE DECLINES ON A HARD TASK (INCORRECT RESPONSE)

18. Distraction Conflict Theory • Distraction Conflict Theory • Conflict between task and distracting stimulus creates arousal. • Maintains there is nothing uniquely social about “social” facilitation. • Which theory is correct? • Mere presence, evaluation, and attention

19. Social Loafing: When Others Relax Us • Ringelmann (1880s): Individual output declines on pooled tasks. • Def. “pooled” • Social Loafing: A group-produced reduction in individual output on easy tasks in which contributions are pooled.

20. Social Loafing:When the Presence of Others Relaxes Us PRESENCE OF OTHERS RELAXATION DOMINANT RESPONSE PERFORMANCE IMPROVES ON A HARD TASK PERFORMANCE DECLINES ON AN EASY TASK

21. Social Loafing: When Many Produce Less Adapted from Jackson & Williams, 1985; Sanna, 1992.

22. When Is Social Loafing Less Likely to Occur?

23. Individual Differences in Social Loafing

24. SOCIAL FACILITATION Improve on simple tasks Individual effort can be evaluated Evaluation apprehension Impaired on complex tasks Presence of others Impaired on simple tasks Individual effort cannot be evaluated No evaluation apprehension Improve on complex tasks SOCIAL LOAFING

25. Social Loafing:When the Presence of Others Relaxes Us • Procedure • Ps worked on a maze on a computer • Another P worked on same task in room • ½ Ps received simple maze • ½ Ps received complex maze • ½ Ps thought performance was unique • ½ Ps thought performance combined • Results???

26. Time to complete mazes Difficulty of the mazes

27. Deindividuation • The repercussions of anonymity can be serious • Deindividuation refers to the reduction of normal constraints against deviant behavior • Examples?

28. Group Processes Interacting with Others

29. Why Join a Group?

30. Group Polarization • When people in groups make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members • Persuasive Arguments Explanation: • Other members often have similar attitudes • Individuals are exposed to supporting arguments they hadn’t thought of before • Social Comparison Explanation: • People want to fit in with others in group • They sense the group’s position and adjust their own attitude even further in that direction to appear to “good” group members

31. Group Polarization • Social Categories Explanation: • Tendency to categorize in ingroups/outgroups • Ingroup members want to distinguish themselves from outgroup members

32. Group Polarization • You’re in a campus organization that supports Affirmative Action • You’re in favor of AA • You meet with group members who offer other arguments in favor of AA you hadn’t heard • You sense the group’s position, and in order to appear to be a “good” group member, you speak out even more strongly in favor of AA • You want pro AA groups to appear distinct and cohesive compared to anti AA groups • You leave even more in favor of AA, as do they

33. Decision Making: Groupthink • Excessive tendency to seek concurrence among group members. • Emerges when the need for agreement takes priority over the motivation to obtain accurate information and make appropriate decisions.

34. Antecedents of Groupthink • Highly cohesive groups • Group structure • Homogeneous members • Isolation • Directive leadership • Unsystematic procedures • Stressful situations

35. Symptoms of Groupthink • Overestimation of the group • Closed-mindedness • Increased pressures toward uniformity

36. Consequences of Groupthink • Defective decision making • Incomplete survey of alternatives • Incomplete survey of objectives • Failure to reappraise initially rejected alternatives • Poor information search • Selective bias in processing information at hand • Failure to work out contingency plans • High probability of a bad decision

37. Preventing Groupthink • Avoid isolation by consult widely with outsiders. • Leaders should reduce conformity pressures. • Establish a strong norm of critical review.