Group processes and coflict, Lecture notes of Social Psychology of Emotion

Download Group processes and coflict and more Lecture notes Social Psychology of Emotion in PDF only on Docsity! 1 PSY202 Social Psychology GROUP PROCESSES Presented by M. M. Pheko Learning Objectives • Explain what groups are and why people join them. • Describe how individuals perform differently when others are around. • Compare the decision-making outcomes of individuals vs. groups • Summarize the factors that determine whether individual and group conflict will escalate or be resolved. Why People Join Groups • Psychological Needs – Affiliation – Identification • Similar social class • Same age group • Survival Needs – Emotional support • AA – Assistance or help • Study Groups 5 • Commonality – Common interests • Clubs – Common goals • Political parties • Situational Reasons – Physical proximity – Assignment • Workplaces • Universities Why Do People Join Groups? • Groups have a number of other benefits – Important source of information • Help us resolve ambiguity in the social world – Important aspect of identity • Help us define who we are • Help us feel distinct from other groups – Establishment of social norms Example –Organisations • Organizations continue to recognize the importance of combining resources, competencies (KESAs) and resources (both across management levels and functional disciplines) to achieve organizational objectives • Specifically, teams – Assist creation of unique synergies and core competencies. – Cross-functional teams utilize a wide variety of unique skill sets to build teams capable of achieving complex objectives. – As a result, teams are usually highly focused groups of employees, with the role of achieving specific tasks to support organizational success. 7 Presence of Others • Social Facilitation and Inhibition – mere presence of others – comparison of performance – evaluation apprehension 10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5n7L68t2hk&feature=youtu.be IMPACT OF ‘OTHERS' ON PERFORMANCE • Social Facilitation – Occurs when an individual’s performance improves because of the presence of others. • Social Loafing – Each person's tendency to exert less effort in a group because of reduced monitoring. • Deindividuation – Occurs when the presence of a group results in the loss of personal identity and decrease in responsibility. 11 IMPACT OF ‘OTHERS' ON PERFORMANCE  Group think  Groupthink, a term coined Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Likely to occur when group is – is cohesive, is insulated from outsiders, believes it is foolproof, it is morally superior, is under pressure to conform, has a leader who promotes a favorite solution  The Risky Shift – The risky shift is the tendency for a group decision to be riskier than the average decision made by individual group members.  The group polarization – Effect is the solidification and further strengthening of initially held views as a consequence of group discussion. 12http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bH_fCvNLCw&feature=related The Stanford Prison Study • Guards – Abusive – Verbally harassed, humiliated prisoners • Prisoners – Passive – Helpless – Withdrawn Group Cohesiveness (1 of 2) • Group cohesiveness: – Qualities of a group that bind members together and promote liking between members • The more cohesive a group is, the more its members are likely to: – Stay in the group – Take part in group activities – Try to recruit new like-minded members • If task requires close cooperation – Cohesiveness helps performance • If maintaining good relationships most important – Cohesiveness can interfere with optimal performance Group Diversity (1 of 2) • Group members tend to be alike in age, sex, beliefs and opinions. • Why are they similar? – Attracted to and likely to recruit similar others – Groups operate in ways that encourage similarity in the members. • Homogenous groups are more cohesive • Diverse groups perform better Why the Presence of Others Causes Arousal (1 of 4) • Three theories to explain the arousal and social facilitation 1. Other people cause us to become particularly alert and vigilant. 2. Other people make us apprehensive about how we’re being evaluated. 3. Other people distract us from the task at hand. 1. Other people cause us to become particularly alert and vigilant. – Because other people can be unpredictable, we are in a state of greater alertness in their presence. • Causes mild arousal 2. They make us apprehensive about how we’re being evaluated. – When other people can see how you are doing, you feel like they are evaluating you. • Evaluation apprehension can cause mild arousal. 3. They distract us from the task at hand. – Divided attention produces arousal. – Consistent with this interpretation, nonsocial sources of distraction, such as a flashing light, cause the same kinds of social facilitation effects as the presence of other people. Social Loafing (1 of 3) • When in the presence of others, individual efforts often cannot be distinguished from efforts of those around them. • If being with other people means merging into a group and becoming less noticeable than when alone – Increase relaxation • Ringelmann (1913) – When a group pulled on a rope, each individual exerted less effort than when doing it alone. • Social Loafing: – People do worse on simple tasks but better on complex tasks when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated. Slacking Off in Class Sometimes being surrounded by others allows us to slack off (or “loaf”), demonstrating that there’s not a single, simple answer to the question of how the presence of other people affects individual performance. Gender, Culture and Social Loafing • In a review of more than 150 studies – Social loafing is more likely among men. – Women tend to be higher than men in relational interdependence. • Focus on and care about personal relationships with other individuals • May make women less likely to engage in social loafing when in groups • Tendency to loaf stronger in Western cultures than in Asian cultures • Why? – Self-definitions • Asian cultures: Interdependent self – Reduces social loafing tendencies Predicting If Presence of Others Will Help or Hurt Performance • Need to know two things; 1. Can individual efforts be evaluated? 2. Is the task simple or complex? Deindividuation: Getting Lost in the Crowd (1 of 2) • Deindividuation: – The loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people cannot be differentiated (such as when they are in a crowd), leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts • Examples – Massacre at My Lai during the Vietnam War – Mobs of soccer fans sometimes attacking each other – Hysterical fans at rock concerts who trampled each other to death – Lynching of African Americans by people cloaked in the anonymity of white robes Deindividuation Online (1 of 2) • Deindividuation does not require face-to-face contact. – Example: Feeling less inhibited on social media that’s anonymous • Cyberspace also provides advantages for the free and open discussion of difficult topics. • Cost seems to be a reduction in common civility. • The phenomenon of the internet “troll” is a modern example of deindividuation, made possible by the feelings of anonymity that often go along with being online. Group Decisions: Are Two (or More) Heads Better Than One? • LO 3 Compare the decision-making outcomes of individuals vs. groups, and explain the impact of leadership in group outcomes. • A group will do well only if the most talented member can convince the others that he or she is right! Process Loss • Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving • Failure to Share Unique Information (1 of 2) – Groups tend to focus on the information they share and ignore facts known to only some members of the group. • Subsequent research has focused on ways to get groups to focus more on unshared information – Group discussions should last long enough to get beyond what everyone already knows. – Assign different group members to specific areas of expertise so that they know that they alone are responsible for certain types of information Under some conditions, maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important to a group than considering the facts in a realistic manner (see “Antecedents”). When this happens, certain symptoms of groupthink occur, such as the illusion of invulnerability (see “Symptoms”). These symptoms lead to defective decision making. (Based on data in Janis & Mann, 1977.) Avoiding the Groupthink Trap • A wise leader can take several steps to avoid groupthink – Remain impartial – Seek outside opinions – Create subgroups – Seek anonymous opinions Group Polarization: Going to Extremes (1 of 2) • The tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members • Joining a group is likely to lead an individual’s attitudes to become more extreme through processes of group polarization. 1. Persuasive arguments interpretation – Individuals bring to the group a set of arguments, some of which other individuals have not considered. 2. Social comparison interpretation – When people discuss an issue in a group, they first explore how everyone else feels. • Counseling for Conflicts • Sometimes people are able to resolve conflicts peacefully, such as a couple that has an amicable divorce. At other times conflicts escalate into rancor and violence. Social psychologists have performed experiments to test ways in which conflict resolution is most likely to occur. Social Dilemmas • A conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual, if chosen by most people, will have harmful effects on everyone Prisoner’s Dilemma (1 of 2) • Two people must choose one of two options without knowing what the other person will choose. • Payoff depends on the choices of both – Example • If you and your friend both choose option X – You both win $3 • If, however, you choose option Y and your friend chooses option X – You win $6 – You friend loses $6 • Change norms about expected behavior – Changing name from “Wall Street Game” to “Community Game” • Increased the percentage of people who cooperated from 33% to 71% in one study