group definition
2 or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition.
entitavity
the property of a group that makes it seem like a coherent, distinct and unitary entity.
aggregate
is just a group of people in a particular place who have nothing to do with each other.
social ostracism
the effect of not being i a group.
roles
patterns of behaviour that distinguish between different activities within the group and that interrelate to one another for the greater good of the group.
status
consensual evaluation of the prestige of a role or role occupant in a group or the prestige of a group and its members as a whole.
Fesinger’s comparison theory
states that usually we compete for roles, so if another person get it we usually hold them in a high regard.
how a group functions
commitment increases from entry to acceptance and is highest when they are a full-member. then decreases with time as the member becomes marginal and eventually an ex-member.
SEE DIAGRAM IN NOTES
Tuckman’s group development model
forming
- bringing individuals together.
storming
- conflict stage where there are resolved disagreements and status issues.
norming
- if storming is resolved, standards for interactions emerge members identify with the group to a greater degree.
performing
-members focus on group tasks, focus on decision making and producing output.
adjourning
- group disbands and de-identifies, stage of evaluation of task performance and friendships.
joining and leaving groups
○ Development of groups with the 5 stage model.
○ Mild vs. severe initiation rights (those with extreme initiation rights often rate the group with higher interest due to cognitive dissonance).
norms
○ Descriptive and prescriptive; explicit or implicit.
○ Norms are fairly resistant to change
○ Norms provide guidelines on how to behave as a typical group member.
○ Norms can continue to influence the individual even when the group is not present.
§ The group is carried in the head of an individual in the form of a norm.
Becomes a code as to how we should behave as the group norms are always in the back of our mind
group cohesion
Relies on both personal and social attraction.
social facilitation
○ Found that people did better on easy tasks when in the presence of other, however, did worse on difficult or uncommon tasks when in the presence of others.
○ Performing worse is called social inhibition.
○ Performing better is called social facilitation.
○ (Zajonc’s drive theory) : arousal drives energy to produce dominant response.
○ (Cottrell’s evaluation apprehension model): attentive others produce fear of evaluation.
distraction-conflict theory
- It is also theorised that the reduced performance in the presence of others could be due to distraction: Baron’s distraction-conflict theory.
self-awareness theory
the idea that there is a distinction between who we are and who we want to be.
social loafing
- Ringelmann’s experiments featured the pulling of a rope to see how people worked together as a group.
○ Found that as the number of people pulling the role increased, each person’s exertion was reduced
○ People pulling in 8 person groups each exerted half the effort of a person pulling alone.- Ingham’s experiments ruled out coordination explanation.
- Latane claimed tat motivation loss was equal to social loafing.
○ Social loafing- individuals work less hard because they believe others in the group are also working on the task.
○ A social loafer generally does some work while a free rider does nothing.
to explain social loafing…
- To explain social loafing:
○ Output equity: the idea that you put in less effort because you don’t believe you should be doing all the work if others do nothing.
○ Evaluation apprehension: Fear of judgement, thus, others wont do as much work as they are scared it will be wrong/they will be judged etc.
○ Matching to standard: no explicit rule regarding the standard of work or how much work you should be doing.
factors that influence social loafing
○ Anonymity- people are more likely to loaf if their identity is anonymous.
○ Involvement in task - people are less likely to loaf if they are interested/invested in the group/task.
○ Intergroup comparison- competition within the group can increase or decrease work.
○ Anticipated loafing of others- greater output by other members as they anticipate that some will loaf (I’ll do more work because I know the others wont).
brainstorming
Brainstorming gives an illusion of success due to the sheer number of ideas given. However, is generally more ineffective in groups.
- Poor performance can be due to:
○ Evaluation apprehension
○ Social loafing
○ Production blocking: too many people thinking of the same ideas can be distracting etc.
collective remembering
- Groups are better at remembering things together rather than as individuals.
- This is due to consensus and recognition of true information.
- Transactive memory (group members have a shared memory for who within the group remembers what and is the expert on what).
group think
Desire for unanimity reduces rationality.
group polarisation
- Stoner’s ‘risky shift’ research: group shifts to a more extreme and risky decision.
- Group polarisation: more extreme post-discussion group decisions in the direction of the pre-discussion opinion.
- Explanations
○ Persuasive arguments, social comparison.
Self-categorisation: distinguish from outgroup.
jury decision making
Factors which can influence juries:
- Physical appearance of defendants. - Race of accused - Harshness of penalties - Jury foreman - Age, gender, education, SES of jurors.
high/low entitativity
- High entitavity groups have clear boundaries, and are internally well structured and homogenous.
- Low entitavity groups have fuzzy boundaries and structure are relatively heterogeneous.
- There are four different group types with decreasing entitativity;
○ Intimacy groups
○ Task groups
○ Social categories
○ Loose associations
