north american perspective on groups
- collection of individuals who have relations to one another that makes then interdependent to some degree
european perspective on groups
set of individuals who perceive themselves as members of the same social category, sharing a sense of belonging, emotional attachment and identification with the group
entativity
campbell 1958
- = the property of a group that makes it appear to be distinct, coherent and bounded entity
-* common fate* - experiences are inter-related outcomes - similiarity - extent to which they resemble each other
- proximity - distance between individuasl
North american groups
- focus on group performance
- lose sense of self in group
- as a productive unit
North american
social facilitation
= the presence of conspecifics (members of the same species) facilitate performance
- - observation - competitive cyclists faster when racing with others than alone
- experiment - children wind fishing reels faster in pairs than along
- extensions - co-action
zajonc drive theory
eg. playing music, eg. maze
- presence of others is arousing and increases the ‘dominant’ response
presence of others –> increase arousal –> dominant response;
(simple learned task correct = performance increase = facilitation
(difficult task incorrect = performance decrease = inhibition - easy maze, cockroaces dominant response is move away from light, when had audience decreased speed, and domiant response wrong direction
North american
social loafing
+ model of group productivity
- ringelmann - observation that oxen were less efficient each when yoked together than solo
- individual force production decreased with group size
- eg. pulling rope - pretended to pull, pull less hard
steiner model of group productivity;
- the actual performance = potential performance(sum of individual abilities) – process loss (motivation and coordination loss)
- motivation loss = suboptimal individual effort
- coordination loss=suboptimal between-member execution eg. all rowing different directions
North american
Groupthink
- we make decisions collectively sometimes, but not always good
= poor decision making in highly cohesive groups resulting from seeking consensus at the expense of a robust appraisal mechanism
conditions
- cohesive, directive leadership
- high stress, few options other than what leader favours
symptoms
- feeling invulnerable
- belief in morality of group
- illusion of unaminity
outcomes
- incomplete survey of alternatives
- poor info search, failure to examine risk/reappraise
= poor decision
NOrth A
safeguarding groupthink
- leaders opinions are unknown (initially)
- remain connected to outside input
- appoint a ‘devils advocate’ who argues against
North A
group polarisation
= decisions made by groups tend to be more extreme than those made by individuals
- risky shift
- eg. asking french and american students opinion of ww2 president before vs after group discussion
- after group discussion made opinion more negative
- initial positive views become more positive and vice versa
shifts towards extreme
North A
why does group polarisation happen?
2 things
1. persuasive arguments account - informational
- group discussion means exposed to more arguments
- more exposure = more persuasion
2. social comparision account - normative
- individuals believe they are most correct/extreme than others on decisions, which discussion can reveal ur not
- respond by taking a more correct position to compete to be ‘better’ member
North A
what makes a good leader of a group?
- machiavelianism = deception, competitors against each other
need;
- skillful expertise relevant to groups goals
- social skills to build strong cooperative relations amongst members
- ability/willingness to provide/share rewards
North A
deindividuation is
‘go mad’
- a reduced sense of individual identity and diminished self-regulation when in a large group
eg. zimbardo 1970= certain conditions promote a deindividuated state
- anonymity
- diffusion of responsiblity
- high arousal
this state can promote
- less self-awareness
- less concern about others evaluations
- lower inhibition, fear, shame, guilt
- impulsive,anti-social behaviour
European social identity
- part of our self concept related to group membership
- emotional and value significance attached
- meaning is associated with it as products of colelctive history and present
- groups providing meaning/structure to social life, not just proximity
- behaviour guided by shared identity, inter-group relations
european
realistic conflict theory
SIT, ‘minimal group’
- eg. boys into 2 groups, competition for resources made more hostility
is conflict even necessary for out/group derogation? probs not;
- social identity theory
- Tajfel minimal experiment - school boys exposed to task, underestimators and overestimators, split into 2 groups, then allocate rewards
–> in-group favouritism - give my group more
– dividing them created antagonism (group membership change behaviour)
european
group as part of the self
- people come to define their selves in terms of group membership (group interest is self-interest)
- group identities can be just as real/important as individual
- social identities are not just self-perceptions (have significance, sense of esteem attached)
- ‘we’ is defined by who ‘we’ are not’ (group distinctiveness)
differentiation in the minimal group studies
- the discrimination towards out-group is not universal
- people can disrciminate beacaus eof soical identity processes
racial hostility
- radicalised in-group members chose to compare themselves to racial others
- seek to differentiate them, which leads to anti-social behaviour
- eg. ‘we belong’ excludes the ones ‘not belonging’
european
strategies for low-status groups
when boundaries are permeable
- social mobility/exit strategy
- disavow identity
- move to higher status group
when boundaries are impermeable
-social creativity strategy
- reconstruct the meaning of ones low status group position
-1. compare downwards eg. we’re not as poor as them’
2. chose a flattering dimension -eg. ‘we’re poor, but friendly’
3. attempt redefine meaning of ingroup membership eg. ‘blessed are the poor’
social competition strategy
when a low status group engages in;
- in-group bias (minimal group studies)
- inter-group conflicts
- collective action
–> happens when they see inter-group status relations as insecure;
- illegitimate (unwarranted)
- unstable - possibly changable
when see both illegitiate and unstable - counterfactural thinking and alternative tothe status quo to hope for change
european
leadership in groups
leaders of groups as entrepreneurs of identity
- a product of intra-group rather than the individuals personality/skill set
= aspiring leader and group of followers
–> alignment as shared social identity
eg. USA spouses give speech during election as an aspiring leader
european
large crowds/groups
4 things
- behaviour shifting from personal to social identity
- acting in life with group norms rather than losing self-control
- crowds are not mindless, but meaning making
- crowd behaviour meaningful - ** shift in identity not loss of identity**
- personal to shared identity
- no deindividualed, but re-individuated as group members
- behaviour guided by group norms, values
3.normative, not disinhibited
- anonymity of crowd strengthens adherence to social group
- behaviour aligns closely with collective expectations eg peaceful protests - theory can be political
- conflict from perceived illegitiamcy of an authoirty or exclusion from dominant groups
- madness of crowd depoliticises colelctive action
- social identiy repoliticises it
crowds as rational actors within socia struggles
North A vs European
north a
- collective behavioural unit that produces things/makes decisions
- social facilitation and loafing
- groupthink, group polarisation as product of INTRAGROUP
- leadership as a product of individuals’ traits
- crows behaviour ‘madness’ disinhibition, deindividuation
Euro
- social structures that define our sense of self in relation to ‘we’ and ‘other’
-INTERGROUP relations
processes of social resistence and social change
- leadership as intragroup discursive achievement
- crowd behaviour = meaningful product of identity and ingroup norms
