Class Notes (811,132)
Canada (494,510)
Psychology (2,648)
PSYC 2100 (115)
all (2)

Social Psychology Group Processes.docx

14 Pages
Unlock Document

Carleton University
PSYC 2100

2/4/2013 6:43:00 AM Group: collection two or more people; interact; interdependent there needs and goals cause them to rely on another come together with common purpose Types of groups: Non-social groups: limited interaction and interdependence group of people waiting for bus Social Group: interact interdependent: sports teams, friends, family Why do people join groups? forming relationship with others fulfills a number of basic human needs possible innate evolutionary: essential to be in group The composition: 2-6: most groups if becomes to large; can not interact with all the members homogeneity of members; similar attitudes, beliefs, and common oal Social Norms: all group members follow these rules gym; wipe machine when done Social Roles: shared expectations how particular people supposed to behave in group boss vs. employee Prisoner vs. guard (zimbardo: to much absorbed) Guards; abusive Prisoners become withdrawn hypothesis matched results; social roles shape behavior this is further demonstrated by Abu Ghraib incidents Gender Roles: there are social expectations now in conflict; women have to do occupational role and home role expectations that come with roles; powerful effect on feelings and behavior Group Cohesion: better cohesion, more its members likely to stay in the group How Groups Influence the Behavior of Individuals how does presence effect us? Presence performing task with others who are doing the same thing performing task in front of audience Cockroach Study: flashlight; timed how long for cockroach to run across individual cockroaches performed better when they were being observed by other cockroaches Triplett (1898) first to assess how others influence us how come cyclists time faster when they ride other people? Increased performance - > presence: due to dynamogenic factors sight of other sets of competitive instinct and inspiration for greater effort experiment: children performing reel turning task results: children turned reel faster in pairs than when alone conclusion: social facilitation: improvement in task performance occurs when people work in the presence of other people > this is only true for simple tasks; more complex tasks the opposite is true Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation: presence of others increases physiological arousal when this occurs; it is easier to do something simple (dominant response) > effect is strongest when spread and quantity count more than quality harder to do something complex (no dominant response) perform better alone Social Facilitation: tendency for people to do better on simples tasks; worse on complex in the presence of other people Why does social Facilitation occur? increased arousal (more alert and vigilant); need to be alert when have people of our own species surrounding Evaluation (apprehensive, getting evaluated): concerned about how other people are evaluating them ; judged; evaluation apprehension Distract us from the task at hand > when others are present; attention is divided between other people and the task; attentional conflicts increases motivation; facilitates performance on simple well learned task Drive Theory: presence of others evokes a generalized drive state characterized by increased readiness and arousal Social Loafing; tendency for people to do worse on simple tasks; better on complex tasks when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated example: tug of war; not trying as hard performance in a group; and we can not be evaluated; become more relaxed. Becoming relaxed improves performance on complex task Ringlemann effect: tendency for people to become les productive when they work with others loss of efficiency increases as group size increases > did the rope pull study E.g., person A pulls 100 units, person B pulls 100 units; together they pull 186 units Ringlemann: 2 key sources of process loss motivation losses: people may not work as hard when in groups Coordination losses: lack simultaneity of efforts lead group to not reach its full potential Latane, Williams, and Harkins: examined social loafing by studying groups performing an easy task; making noise IV: presence of others Asked to yell alone Asked: yell “with others” Dependent Variable: volume level of yells Results: consistent with Ringlemann Effect: groups made more noise than individuals; but failed to reach their potential Gender and Cultural Differences in Social Loafing; tendency to loaf is stronger in men than woman why? Because women tend to be higher than men in relational interdependence stronger in western cultures Asia: have more interdependent view Conclusion: need to know 2 things to predict whether the presence of others will help or hinder your performance can individual efforts be evaluated? Is task simple or complex? Evaluated: presence + simple : do better Evaluated: Presence + complex: do worse Not evaluated (in a group) + simple: do worse; social loafing Not evaluated (in a group) + complex: people do better Methods to reduce Social Loafing: increase identifiability of output to minimize free riding set goals and increase involvement increase identification with the group Social Facilitation (facilitates better performance) if simple; task performance increases if complex; task performance decreases Social Loafing; not evaluated (hidden in group) if simple task, performance decreases Deindividuation: loosening of normal constraints on behavior; leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts when people are in a group (Mob mentality) wearing mask/disguise; makes people feel less accountable for actions presence of others lowers self-awareness; shifting people’s attention away from their moral standards deindividuation also increases the extent to which people obey the group’s norms (can be good or bad thing) it is the specific norm of the group that determines whether deindividuation will lead to positive or negative behaviors Group Decision Groups have the potential to make better decisions than individuals How does this happen? larger pool of information (more resources) Exchanging information; helps to cue memories, stirs up new ideas (more efficient) Analyze each others ideas and make corrections Encourage What problems undermine the effectiveness of decision making in groups? process loss: defined as any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving the tendency for groups to discuss information they share; and ignore unique information what causes shared information bias: desire to fit in group; discuss agreement to make good impression when goal of group is to reach agreement, a group is more susceptible to shared information bias How do we get groups to concentrate more on unshared information? group discussions last long enough to get beyond what everybody already knows unshared information is likely to be brought up later in the discussion Group Polarization: groups make riskier decisions than individuals do groups tend to make decisions that are more extreme in the same direction as the individuals initial predisposition What causes group polarization? occurs for two main reasons > Social Comparison use others as reference point to evaluate their own preference discover group norm;
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 2100

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.