Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Group Processes - Coggle Diagram
Group Processes
Leadership
Good vs Effective
- Effective: objective, set & achieve goals
- Good: subjective - character, morality, goals
- Match style/personality + task/situation
- Effective if match stereotype (general or task-specific)
- Effective if prototypical - if group salient & important
Big 5 Personality Traits
- Extraverted
- Open to experience
- Conscientious
- Personality not sufficient
Contingency Theories
- Effective leadership style
depends on situation (nature of task)
Path-Goal Theory
- Leaders motivate by clarifying paths (how to behave)
- Structuring
** Direct task-related activities
** Best for unclear goals
- Consideration
** Address personal/emotional needs
** Best boring, uncomfortable tasks
Fiedler's Contingency Theory
- Task-oriented: low LPC
** Authoritarian, self-esteem from task accomplishment
** Good when situational control high or low
- Relationship-oriented: high LPC
** Non-directive, friendly, self-esteem from harmony
** Good when situational control in between
- Measured using least preferred co-worker (LPC)
- Situational control: high if good relations, clear task, authority
Leadership
- Getting group members to achieve group goal
- Not through power, reinforcement, rewards/punishments
Transactional Leadership
- Focuses on transaction of resources between leaders & followers
- Idiosyncratic credit: leaders rewarded by being allowed to be idiosyncratic
- Leader-member exchange (LMX): good relationships with individuals
- Appeal to self-interest
Transformational Leadership
- Inspires with a vision that transcends self-interest, often through charisma
- Inspire, challenge, improve
- Charisma: charm & attractiveness -> effective leader OR
- Social ID theory: identify with group -> leader prototypical -> view leader +vely -> attribute internally to personality
Social Identity Theory
- Join group -> provides social ID -> want to internalise prototype -> look to leader as prototype to express & anchor ID
- Prototypical leaders more effective
- Prototypicality important if group salient or strongly ID with
Leader Categorisation Theory
- Followers match leader's characteristics & actions to prototype -> if match, follow
- Categorise leader, then use schema to fill in how they behave
-
Group Features
Entitativity
- Whether coherent, distinct, unitary entity, with clear boundaries and structure
- Features: interact more, important to group members, persists over time, share common goals
- High: clear boundaries, well-structured, homogenous
- Low: fuzzy boundaries, unstructured, heterogeneous
Cohesion
- Binds members to group & each other - oneness, solidarity
- More likely to like each other, ID with group, conform to norms
- Individual perspective: attachment to other members
* Personal attraction*: interpersonal liking
* Social attraction*: liking based on shared group membership (where cannot know everyone)
- Social ID perspective: cohesive if committed + other members are good prototypical exemplars
Socialisation
- Dynamic relationship between group & members, describing passage of members through group
- Ongoing processes: evaluation, commitment, role transition
Initiation rites
- Functions: symbolic, apprenticeship, loyalty elicitation
- Cognitive dissonance: between rite + group -> like group more
Phases
- Investigation - prospective member - recruitment / reconnaissance
- Socialisation - new - accommodation / assimilation
- Maintenance - full - role negotiation
- Resocialisation - marginal - accommodation / assimilation
- Remembrance - ex - tradition / reminiscence
Stages
- Orientation: forming
- Conflict: storming
- Structure: norming
- Work: performing
- Dissolution: adjourning
Structure
- Division into diff roles with diff status / prestige
Roles
- What an individual / subgroup does for the group, and how they interact and relate to other subgroups - division of labour
- Types: implicit / explicit; formal / informal
- Types: leader, task focused, socioemotional, procedural
- Roles can modify behaviour (e.g. Zimbardo prison scenario)
Status
- Consensual evaluation of prestige of role/occupant/group
- Higher status -> valued, prestigious, influential, innovative
- Expectation states theory characteristics
** Specific: ability
** Diffuse: value in society
- Not always fair - emphasise diffuse
Communication networks
- Rules governing how comms take place between diff roles
- More complex & varied as group size increases
- Centralised: through hub - better for simple tasks
** Unless procedures for complex tasks
** Reduces control, satisfaction, harmony
- Decentralised: better for complex tasks
Groups
Definition: collection of individuals interacting
- Share common definition & behave according to the definition
- Interact & influence each other
- Perceive themselves as part of a group that is different to another group
- Within social structure
Types
Ingroup vs outgroup
- Ingroup if meaningful & you/group consider you a member
Common-bond groups
- Interaction required
- Linked to each member
Common-identity groups
- Interaction not required
- Members linked via category
Task taxonomy
- Divisible: benefit from division of labour
- Unitary: cannot be divided
- Maximising: as much as possible
- Optimising: meet standard exactly
- Additive: sum of individual inputs
- Compensatory: average of individual inputs
-
-
-
Decision Making
Social decision schemes
- Explicit or implicit decision-making rules that groups can adopt
- Unanimity
- Majority wins
- Truth wins
- Two-thirds majority
- First shift - by any member
- Rule used is influenced by the task
- Strictness <=> higher power distribution - affect functioning (slower, harder) & satisfaction (higher)
Memory
- Groups remember more, and more accurately - simple tasks
- Remember less (process loss ) - complex tasks
- Transactive memory: unevenly distributed among members
- Constructive process (affected by influence, loafing, complex setting)
Group decisions
- Better decisions (more expertise, viewpoints)
- BUT slow, conflict, biased leadership, conformity
- Functional theory: groups follow steps to make decisions
Presence of others
Social facilitation - no interaction
- Mere presence of others
improves performance of easy task (social facilitation) &
reduces performance or hard task (social inhibition)
- No interaction
- Small effect (compared to interacting)
Drive theory - Zajonc
- Social presence -> arousal -> 'drives' dominant response
- If correct / practised / easy -> better - social facilitation
- If incorrect / difficult -> worse - social inhibition
Evaluation apprehension model - Cottrell
- Social presence -> evaluation -> approval/disapproval -> arousal -> response (worry about evaluation)
- If confident / easy -> expect approval -> perform better
- If not confident / hard -> expect disapproval -> perform worse
- NOT required - only mere presence
Interaction
Work less
-
Social loafing: less effort than alone or co-actively (output not pooled)
aka Motivation loss
- Prevalent, in many contexts
- Larger group + less identifiable, boring task, no responsibility, don't ID with group -> more loafing
- Free-riding: less effort when believe others will compensate
Reasons
- Output equity: think everyone else does less
- Evaluation apprehension: no disapproval if anon
- Matching to standard: not sure of standard, follow norm
- Social impact & collective effort model: less identifiability/accountability, task attractiveness, responsibility, importance of group to self-definition
Work harder
Social compensation: increased effort to compensate for others' actual / perceived / anticipated lack of ability / effort
- Factors: task & group important
Other
- Collectivist culture
- Believe / expect group to achieve important goal
- Strongly identify with group
- Group with high solidarity / cohesiveness
-
Polarisation
Definition: groups produce more extreme decision than mean, in direction of mean - individuals with somewhat extreme position, become more extreme after group discussion
-
Social comparison/cultural values: for social approval / what is socially valued = normative influence
- Bandwagon effect: members compete to advocate socially desirable pole
- Dispels pluralistic ignorance (as you learn what pepople really think)
Social identity theory: ID with group, feel part of it by conforming
- Group norms min. internal variability (to distinguish from outgroup) -> polarised norm = social ID processes