Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
People in groups (Y1) - Coggle Diagram
People in groups (Y1)
Groups and performance
Group effects on individual performance -
- Gordon Allport (1954) - how does the individual’s performance change when other people are present
- Boost existing confidence or increase anxiety based on lack of task knowledge
- Triplett (1898) - people cycle faster when pacing with others than when alone, and faster when in competition than when paced
- Floyd Allport (1920) - social facilitation
Social facilitation -
- An improvement in performance of well learned or easy tasks could be due to the mere presence of members of the same species
- As co-actors - doing the same thing but not interacting
- As a passive audience - passively watching
Drive theory - Zajonc, 1965 -
- Explains what determines whether social presence (mainly in the form of a passive audience) facilitates or inhibits performance
- Presence of others -> arousal -> increasing in performing dominant responses -> if correct = social facilitation, if incorrect = social inhibition
Evaluation apprehension - Cottrell, 1972 -
- Mere presence is not sufficient to produce drive
- We learn that the social rewards and punishments we receive are based on others’ evaluations of us
- Social presence thus produces a drive based on such evaluation apprehension
- Supported by Cottrell et al (1968)
-> Three well learned tasks
-> Audience manipulation -
- Inattentive (blindfolded) -> no social facilitation
- Merely present (only incidentally present) -> no social facilitation
- Attentive -> social facilitation
Schmitt et al, 1986 -
- Performed an easy task, then a difficult one
-> Audience manipulation
- Alone (no audience)
- Mere presence (inattentive) - in hard tasks, it took longer than when alone or with evaluative apprehension
- Evaluation apprehension (attentive) - in hard task, longer than when alone
- Mere presence can cause an impact on performance, but evaluation apprehension helped in harder tasks in comparison to mere presence
Classification of task - Task taxonomy (1972, 1976) -
- Is the task divisible or unitary?
- Is it a maximising (open-ended quantity task) or optimising task (set standard)?
- How are individual inputs related to the group’s product?
- Actual group performance is always inferior to the group’s potential, and this shortfall is due to process loss
Distraction conflict theory - Sanders, 1981 -
- People are a source of distraction - mere presence produces conflict between attending to the task and attending to the audience / co-actors
- While distraction alone impairs task performance, attentional conflict produces drive that facilitates dominant responses
-> Impair the performance of difficult tasks
-> Improve the performance of easy tasks (because drive usually overcomes distraction)
Ringelmann Effect - what changes in an individual’s performance when working with others:
- Individual effort on a task diminishes as group size increases
-> Coordination loss - people not attaining full potential due to jostling, distraction, and the tendency to pull slightly against one another
-> Motivation loss - people not trying hard because they were less motivated
Ingham et al, 1974 - group performance:
- Real groups - additional reduction
- Pseudo-groups (only 1 true participant) - effort reduction due to motivation loss
-> Potential individual performance difference to pseudo-groups is due to motivation loss - social loafing -stop trying because there is no difference
-> Difference between pseudo-groups and real groups is due to coordination loss - therefore, both losses impact group performance
Social loafing - Latane et al, 1979 -
- A reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task (in which our outputs are pooled with those of other group members) compared with working either alone or coactively (our outputs are not pooled)
- Replicated the Ringelmann effect - group size manipulation, 2, 4 and 6, and participants were instructed to cheer and clap as loudly as possible - noise produced decreased as group size decreased
What influences the tendency to loaf -
- Task attractiveness and competition
- Task importance and anticipation of others poor performance
- Social compensation affect - people may work harder collectively on an important task to compensate for other group members actual, perceived or anticipated lack of effort or ability
- Salient group identity
- Presence of an outgroup
- Collectivistic cultures - people place greater value on groups than individuals
Why do we loaf -
- Output equity - we believe that others loaf, so we want to maintain equity and to avoid being a sucker
- Evaluation apprehension - when we are anonymous and cannot be identified and we no longer worry about being evaluated by others and thus loaf
- Matching to standard - we loaf when we don’t have a clear sense of the group’s standards or norms
Groups and performance -
Belbin self-perception inventory -
- Group work is a key aspect of any employment and groups must be ready to deal with the interpersonal issues this raises (positive and negative)
- Belbin’s research showed that the most successful teams are made up of a diverse mix of behaviours
-> People - Coordinator, team worker and resource investigator
-> Action - shaper, completer / finisher and implementer
-> Thinking - monitor evaluator, specialist and plant
The Linear Perspective of Group Formation (Tuckman, 1965)
- Forming - familiarisation, formation of interpersonal relationships, development of team structure
- Storming - building trust, enforcing group structure and understanding any possible conflicts that could emerge
- Norming - development of solidarity and cooperation; group conflicts resolved
- Performing - channelling of energies for team success
Group contracts -
- Set expectations for attendance, preparation, communication and contribution
- A group contract is a document that a group creates to formalise the expectations of group members
- Explicitly discussing these expectations will help establish good faith in the process, identify shared and individual viewpoints and facilitate reflection of the group process
- It does not need to explicitly state the division of labour - this comes later in the process - but does not set shared group values
Group = two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition
Human groups -
Differ in terms of entitativity -
- The property of a group that makes it appear to be a coherent, distinct and unitary entity
-> High-entitativity groups - clear boundaries, internally well structured, relatively homogenous, more interdependent members with a more tightly shared fate - families
-> Low-entitativity groups - fuzzy boundaries and structure, relatively heterogeneous - running club
- Two or more people who interact and exert mutual influence on each other and share the following characteristics
-> A collective sense of identity
-> Distinctive roles
-> Structured models of communication
-> Group norms
Common-bond v common-identity groups
- Common-bond - based upon attachment among members
-> Egocentric principle - personal goals are more salient
-> Rated as more important by women
- Common-identity - based on direct attachment to the group -> Altruistic principle - group goals are more salient
-> Rated as more important by men -> groups may last longer
Not all collections of people can be considered as groups -
- Social aggregates - collections of unrelated individuals
What distinguishes groups from aggregates -
- Individualistic perspective - group processes are nothing more than interpersonal processes between several people
- Collectivist perspective - behaviour of people in groups is influenced by unique social processes and cognitive representations that can only occur in and emerge from groups
Group cohesiveness
- The property of a group that effectively binds group members, giving the group a sense of solidarity and oneness
- Produced by attractiveness of the group and its members
- Group membership continuity and adherence to group standards
In terms of interpersonal liking
- Increased by similarity, cooperation, interpersonal acceptance and shared threat
- Generating conformity to group standards, accentuated similarity, improved intragroup communication and enhanced liking
- ‘Social glue’ hypothesis (Van Vugt and Hart, 2004) - Ingroup loyalty and willingness to sacrifice self-gain for the good of the group -> group cooperation
- Personal attraction - true interpersonal attraction based on close relationships and idiosyncratic preferences
-> Has nothing to do with groups
- Social attraction - inter-individual liking based on perceptions of self and other people in terms not of individuality but of group norms or prototypicality
-> ‘Liking’ component of group membership
Field of forces - Festinger, Schchter and Back (1950)
- Attractiveness of group and of group members + mediation of goals, social interaction per se and individual goals requiring interdependence -> cohesiveness -> behaviour of membership continuity and adherence to group standards
Categorisation - Differences between groups can include specific and general features
- This variety of groups can be reduced by limiting the number of significant dimensions to produce a restricted taxonomy of groups; such as group sizes, group atmosphere, task structure and leadership structure
- Seven definitions of social groups (Johnson and Johnson, 1987)
- A collection of individuals who are interacting with one another
- A social unit of two or more individuals who perceive themselves as belonging to a group
- A collection of individuals who are interdependent
- A collection of individuals who join together to achieve a goal
- A collection of individuals who are trying to satisfy a need through their joint association
- A collection of individuals whose interactions are structured by a set of roles and norms
- A collection of individuals who influence each other
Why do people join groups?
- Physical proximity of promoting group formation
- Recognition of similar interests, attitudes and beliefs can cause group formation
- Group cohesiveness and adherence to group standards
- Sharing goals that require behavioural interdependence for their achievement is a strong and reliable reason for joining groups
- Sherif (1966) - realistic conflict theory of intergroup behaviour; being concerned about degradation of the environment for example, makes us likely to enjoy an environmental conservation group because division of labour and interdependent action among like-minded people achieves a great deal more than actions of a lone protester
- Join groups to get things done
- Join for mutual positive support and the mere pleasure of affiliation, and for emotional support in times of stress
Group socialisation
Groups are dynamic structures that change continuously over time -
- New members join
- Old members leave
- Members are socialised by the group
- The group is influenced by the contribution of members
Models of group socialisation - Moreland and Levine, 1982:
- Describe and explain the passage of individuals through groups in terms of commitment and of changing roles
- Focuses on the dynamic relationship between the group and its members across the lifespan of the group
- Three basic processes
- Evaluation (bilateral)
- Group members and potential members compare the past, present and future rewards of the group with the rewards of potential alternative relationships
- The group as a whole evaluates its individual members in terms of their contribution to the group
- Expectations met -> social approval
- Expectations not met -> social disapproval
- Commitment
- Evaluation affects the commitment of the individual to the group and the group to the individual
- Group and individual agree on goals and values, feel positive ties, are willing to exert effort and desire to continue membership -> symmetrical positive commitment
- Individual more committed to the group -> asymmetrical commitment
- Role transition -
- A sharp change in the type of role a member occupies
- Superimposed on continuous variation in commitment over time
- Occurrence is governed by groups and individuals criteria Three general types of role
-> Non-member; prospective members and ex-members
-> Quasi-member; new members and marginal members
-> Full member - people who are closely identified with the group and have all privileges and responsibilities
Role + social process + group and individual strategies -
- Prospective member + investigation + recruitment and reconnaissance
- New member + socialisation + accommodation and assimilation
- Full member + maintenance + role negotiation
- Marginal member + resocialization + accommodation and assimilation
- Ex-member + remembrance + tradition and reminiscence
Commitment highest when full member -> mountain of commitmentTime = entry -> acceptance -> divergence -> exit
Specific role transition -
- Are smooth and easy when individual and group are equally committed and share the same criteria about what a transition means and when it occurs
- Otherwise, conflict arises when a role transition should or did occur, and as a result initiation rites become a central part of group life
- Can be pleasant events but are more often than not hazing
3 functions of rites -
- Symbolism - they allow consensual public recognition of a change in identity
- Apprenticeship - some rites help individuals become accustomed to new roles and normative standards
- Loyalty elicitation - pleasant initiations with gifts and special dispensations may elicit gratitude, which should enhance commitment to the group
Cognitive dissonance - aversive initiations create dissonance between wanting to join the group and going through the painful experience which is not a great reflection of the group
- As initiation is public and undeniable, dissonance will be reduced by revising opinions of the group through downplaying negative aspects and focusing on positive aspects
Tuckman (1965) - 5 stages of development of groups
- Forming - orientation and familiarisation stage
- Storming - conflict stage, where members known each other well enough to start working through disagreements about goals and practices
- Norming - having survived storming, consensus and cohesion and a sense of common identity and purpose emerge
- Performing - a period in which the group works smoothly as a unit that has shared norms and goals and good morale and atmosphere
- Adjourning - the group dissolves because it has accomplished its goals, or because members lose interest and motivation and move on
Group structure
Division of a group into different roles that often differ with respect to status and prestige
- Roles - They describe and prescribe behaviour - difference between the two is that norms apply to the whole group, whereas roles are specifically designed to differentiate between group members
-> Behavioural descriptions that are assigned to people
-> Can be informal and implicit, or formal and explicit
-> General role differentiation in small groups is between task specialists and socioemotional specialists
Roles emerge because of -
- Representation of division of labour (only simple groups do not have division of labour)
- Furnish clear cut social expectations within the group and provide information about how members relate to one another
- Furnish members with a self definition and a place within the group
Roles facilitate group functioning - inflexible differentiation can sometimes be detrimental to the group
- Roles can sometimes be associated with larger category memberships outside the specific task-oriented groups
- Correspondence bias - a general attribution bias in which people have an inflated tendency to see behaviour as reflecting stable underlying personality attributes
Subgroups part of larger categories
- Group processes significantly linked to this - subgroups do often compete with one another however, and this can make providing effective leadership difficult
- Schism - division of a group into subgroups that differ in their attitudes, values and ideology
Status -
- Not all roles are equal - some are more valued and respected and thus confer greater status on the role occupant
- Highest status role is the leader, and higher status roles have two properties - consensual prestige and a tendency to initiate ideas and activities that are adopted by the group
- Status hierarchies in groups are not fixed - vary over time and from situation to situation
- Happen due to social comparison - expression and reflection of intragroup social comparisons, as groups furnish a pool of relevant other people with whom we can make social comparisons to assess the validity of our own opinions and abilities
- Certain roles have more power and influence as they are more attractive and desirable and have more applicants than the role can accommodate
- Status hierarchies within groups can be institutionalised so members do not continually make social comparisons
- Expectation states theory (Berger et al, 1977) - theory of the emergence of roles as a consequence of people’s status based expectations about others’ performance
- Specific status characteristics are attributes that relate directly to ability on the group task
- Diffuse state characteristics are attributes that do not relate directly to ability on the group task but are generally positive or negatively valued in society
- Both statuses add together to make an additive contribution to a person’s role
Two kinds of member -
- Those who best embody the group’s attributes - core members who are highly prototypical of the group
- Those who do not - marginal or non-prototypical members
Highly prototypical members have significant influence over the group and can occupy leadership roles
- Marginal members - fringe of group due to dislikeable characteristics
- Deviants - can be evaluatively and materially excluded from the group
- Dislikeable attributes places them on the boundary between ingroup and outgroup are actually disliked more if they are classified as ingroup members than as outgroup members - treated as deviants or traitors
- This is because bad traits reflect poorly on the group
- The motivation is self-enhancement through positive social identity
- Subjective group dynamics - a process where normative deviants who deviate towards and outgroup (anti-norm deviants) are more harshly treated than those who deviate away from the outgroup (pro-norm deviants)
- Non-normative members of a group pose a threat to the integrity of the group’s norms and thus identity - particularly if divergence is towards an outgroup
- Marginal members can be agents of social change in a group
- Marginal members can attract exclusion if they fail to benefit the group
- If the dissenters unite as a subgroup, this is even more effective in gaining a voice for change
- However, small groups of individuals who have been constantly ostracised by a range of groups can cause individual or group violence against the source of exclusion - multiple dominant or overarching groups can experience an acute sense of threat to belonging, identity, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence
Norms
- Rules and standards that are understood by members of a group and that guide or constrain social behaviour without the force of laws
- These norms emerge out of interaction with others; they may or may not be stated explicitly and any sanctions for deviating from them come from social networks, not the legal system (Cialdini and Trost, 1998)
- Norms provide a frame of reference for behaviour
Types of norms -
- Descriptive norms (‘is’ norms) - describe which behaviours are typically performed - what they think others think
- Injunctive norms (‘ought’ norms) - convey approval or disapproval of a behaviour - what they think others think you should do
Function of norms -
- Individual function - specify the range of behaviour that is acceptable in a certain context
- Group function - coordinate the action of members towards the fulfilment of group goals
- Resistant to change once established - provide stability and predictability
Effects of group norms on people -
- Newcomb (1965) - small American college with liberal norms, students from conservative families and confidential ballot -> changed their political views over time, with them going conservative in the first year and then more liberal in 3rd/4th year
-
-
Communication networks
Sets of rules governing the possibility or ease of communication between different roles in a group (Shaw et al, 1957)
- Although these networks can be informal, we are more familiar with rigidly formalised ones in large organisations and bureaucracies
- Bavelas (1968) - number of communication links that need to be crossed for one person to communicate with another impacts group performance
- On simple tasks, greater centralisation improves group performance (Leavitt, 1951) - hub person can receive, integrate and pass on information efficiently while allowing peripheral members to communicate within allocated roles
- On complex tasks, less centralisation is superior (Shaw, 1964) as the quantity and complexity of information communicated would overwhelm a hub person who would be unable to integrate, assimilate and pass on information efficiently
- Possibility of coordination losses with overly centralised communication, but centralisation for complex tasks can be helpful in the long run once appropriate procedures have been well established and learned
- Degree of autonomy felt by group members - peripheral members feel restricted and dependent in centralised networks, and the hub person feels powerful, autonomous and satisfied - peripheral members dissatisfied
- Centralised communication networks therefore reduce group satisfaction, harmony and solidarity and instead produce internal conflict
- Organisations - both job satisfaction and organisational commitment are influenced by the amount of control that employees feel they have and that control is related to communication networks
-> Three person networks - wheel (triangle with no edge), circle (complete triangle)
-> Four person - wheel (one centre with 3 spokes), chain, circle (square) and completely connected (all corners of square connected)
-> Five person - wheel (one centre, 4 spokes), chain, circle (pentagon) completely connected
-> Computer mediated communication has also impacted these networks
-
Why not join groups?
- Lonely existence that deprives us of social interaction, social and physical protection, capacity to achieve complex goals, a stable sense of who we are and confidence in how to behave
Social ostracism - exclusion from a group by common consent
- Can have painful and widespread effects - exclusion paradigm (Williams, 2009) of ball catching between 3 people
- Those who ostracise underestimate the degree of social pain caused
- Being ostracised can induce a lack of feeling of meaningful existence and cause aggression
- Feelings of ostracism can be easily induced by computers or hated outgroups