Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Group Processes-1
Group Processes - Psychology
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| entitativity | "the degree to which a collection of persons are perceived as being bonded together in a coherent unit" (Lickel, et al., 2001) "degree to which groups are perceived as having the nature of an entity (Campbell, 1958) |
| What determines "groupiness"? | importance, interaction, common goals, common outcomes, similarity |
| Typical features of groups with high entitativity | Roles, status hierarchy & leadership, norms, cohesiveness high ent (high-entitativity groups by definition lend themselves to perceptions of coherence, organization, and similarity, which fosters stereotyping) Newheiser, et al., 2009 |
| Cohesiveness | "resistance to breaking up" Liking & Similarity Strong Social Ties Commitment and Responsibility Descriptive and Injunctive norms Vertical status structure |
| CEM (Categorization-Elaboration Model) | Van Knippenberg, et al., 2004-Social Category diversity & Informational Diversity both be useful via information elaboration .Groups perform best when SC and ID are high & members identify primarily with the group as whole rather than w/subgroups. |
| Kurt Lewin | cohesion - forces that keep groups in tact by pushing members together along with forces that counteract and push members apart |
| Leon Festinger | the total field of forces that act upon members to remain in the group (Festinger,Schachter,&Back, 1950) Measured via attraction. ratio of ingroup to outgroup id as good friends when attractive forces intensify it transforms group into cohesive unit |
| Dion's Dimensions | social cohesion, task cohesion (shared task focus), vertical cohesiveness (individual to group level), belongingness (ind level, loyal to group, identify with group) |
| Critiques to Lewin vs. Festinger | defined as "field of forces" but measured simply as attraction. Did not consider direction of cohesion or function of cohesion. |
| Group diversity effects (Mediators) | interpersonal attraction (similarity attraction), intergroup relations (produce ingroup/outgroup biases), group problem solving (perspective taking, integrative complexity) - information elaboration |
| Group diversity effects (Moderators) | Openness to Experience - Diversity beliefs(Homen et al., 2008; Van Knippenberg et al., 2007); need for cognition; longevity-surface vs. deep(Harrison, Price, Bell, 1998); Task complexity; interpersonal congruence (self-concept verification) |
| Cohesion and group performance | Mullen & Copper 1994 larger effect for smaller vs. larger groups. Effect is due primarily to commitment to task rather than interpersonal attraction or group pride. Crosslagged (most direct from performance to cohesion) |
| Affect vs. Emotion vs. Mood | A - valence response that something is good or bad M - feeling state not clearly linked to an event E - specific, conscious, evaluative reaction to some specific event |
| Hochschild 1983 | Emotional labor - "incongruity between experienced emotions and displayed emotions" the regulation of feelings and their expression at work - prevalent in service industries |
| Why do we have emotions? | A feedback mechanism Promotes belongingness Guide thinking and learning Affective forecasting (anticipating emotion can guide behavior) |
| Individual functions of emotion | affect as information, anticipated emotion can help decision making while current emotions usually hurt them. guides thinking and learning |
| Social functions of emotion | feedback mechanisms: do that again OR cease and desist. communicates ideas and intentions; embarrassment/guilt implies violation of norms while pride achievement is more intense when public |
| Social cohesion vs. Task cohesion | Social - positive affect towards other group members Task - |
| Mullen & Copper 1994 | meta-analysis indicating the performance effects of cohesion. Primarily due to task cohesion rather than social cohesion; cross-lag |
| Fay et al., 2012 | significant relationship between surface acting and job burnout |
| deep acting | effort exerted to regulate one’s feelings. does the person try to change the underlying emotional state so that display is "authentic"? generally less negative outcomes |
| surface acting | the effort exerted to regulate one’s emotional expressions generally negative outcomes Baumeister et al., 1998 - participants that regulated emotional reactions did not perform as well on an anagram task (ego depletion) |
| Hulsheger & Schewe 2011 | deep acting displayed weak relationships with indicators of impaired well-being and job attitudes but positive relationships with emotional performance and customer satisfaction |
| Integrative negotiation outcomes | extent to which the negotiated outcome satisfies the interests of both parties in a way that implies the outcome cannot be improved upon without hurting one or more of the parties involved (Pareto optimality; Pareto, 1935) |
| Distributive negotiation outcomes | how do negotiators divide or apportion scarce resources among themselves; competition-oriented; self-interest |
| BATNA | best alternative to a negotiated agreement (Fisher & Ury, 1981); social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) - compare the outcomes received with the outcomes you could ahve received in an alternate exchange |
| Discontinuity effect | Insko, et al., 1987-simple prisoner's dilemma game where negotiators were offered cooperative or defecting choice. 1on1 made more cooperative choices than did group. Groups collectively fear others and develop norms of "greed". Schopler & Insko 1992 |
| Interdependence theory | The distinct configurations of the three basic elements (outcomes, CL, CLalt) should reliably predict satisfaction and duration of a relationship. Thibaut & Kelley - rewards refer to the benefits that one enjoys from participating in relationship |
| Interdependence theory (continued) | Not objectve calculation of costs and benefits but rather a perception of the relation between actual outcome and 2 factors: Comparison Level (CL) and Comparison Level of Alternatives CLalt |
| Comparison Level (CL) | Comparison Level (CL) is a standard representing what people feel they should receive in the way of rewards and costs from a particular relationship |
| Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt) | the lowest level of relational rewards a person is willing to accept given available rewards from alternative relationships or being alone |
| Four Components of Principled Negotiation | 1. Separate the People from the Problem 2. Focus on Interests, Not Positions 3. Invent Options for Mutual Gain 4. Use Objective Criteria |
| Dual concern model of conflict resolution | Face a conflict between two motives: cooperation (integrative aspects) and competition (distributive aspects). Concern for others and concern for own outcomes |
| Jujitsu | Don’t counterattack/get defensive,or throw a counteroffer Look behind the position to see the interest; Turn their attacks on you into attacks on problem Deal must be independent of threats and emotion. Ask for their advice in creating different options |
| Social Dilemmas | A decision-making situation in which there is a conflict between individual interests and collective interests. Hardin 1968 Tragedy of the Commons |
| Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin 1968) | medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. Self-interest is to let additional cows graze but overgrazing hurts the group as whole. |
| Social Dilemmas (Dawes, 1980) | Defined by 2 properties: a: each ind. receives higher payoff for a socially defecting choice than for a socially cooperative choice, no matter what the other individuals do, but b: all individuals are all better off it all cooperate than if all defect |
| Three types of social dilemmas | Prisoner's Dilemma; Public Good Dilemma, Fuzzy Dilemma |
| Public Good Dilemma | everyone benefits from the good provided, regardless of individual contributions. However, it does cost resources to provide, so if enough free-riders, the good goes away |
| Fuzzy Social Dilemmas | Heckathorn 1998 - in real life there is much ambiguity about environment and the people facing the dilemma. Moderating role of environmental uncertainty |
| Environmental uncertainty on social dilemmas | Has a direct and negative effect on cooperation. Low uncertainty results in more equality, high environmental and social uncertainty undermines cooperation |
| negative noise | Van Lange et al., 2002 - disconnect between what one party does or intends and what the other party experiences. |
| Types of uncertainty in social dilemmas | Provision Point uncertainty - minimum total leve of contributions is necessary to provide good Social Uncertainty - level of cooperation of others Outcome Uncertainty - Group size uncertainty - |
| SVO | Social Value Orientation. How much you value outcomes for self relative to others: (1) individualism - self-interest regardless of others; (2) competition - self-interest in comparison to others; (3) cooperation - maximizing joint outcomes. |
| Festinger (1957) | The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Humans seek alignment between actions and beliefs. Inconsistencies cause dissonance and motivate people to reconcile. Change beliefs/actions/or perceptions of actions. Highly anxious people more likely to |
| Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) | 71 male students performed dull tasks (turning pegs on a pegboard for an hour) - Paid $1 to $20 to convince participants in a waiting room that the tasks were fun. Those paid $1 perceived the task as more fun and enjoyable tha |
| Sanctioning systems | sanctioning systems work due to accessibility/availability of social norms. Tangible costs less effective than moral costs. |
| Sanctioning and Dissonance | "mild threat" more effective at producing internalized change than "severe threat" : Gneezy & Rustichini (2000) late pickups |
| When do Sanctions work? | when sanctioning systems increase defectors awareness that certain behavior is counter normative... |
| When do they fail? | overjustification effects (Deci & Ryan, 1985) - external incentives can undermine internal attributions for behavior (intrinsic goal of behaving cooperatively) Can be viewed as compensatory measures |
| Self-Awareness Theory | "simply being observed by others increases cooperation rates" When people are made to be aware of themselves they are: 1. Less prejudiced (Abrams & Brown, 1989); 2. Less aggressive (Bailey et al., 1983); 3. Cheat and Steal Less (Diener & Wallbom 197 |
| Diener & Wallbom (1976) | Nearly all university students say that cheating is morally wrong however they found that after bell sounded (anagram task) 71 % worked past the bell. When made self aware only 7% cheated (work in front of mirror while listening to taperecording) |
| Social Loafing | the tendency for people to exert less effort when working together for a collective goal than when working individually. -Ringelmann |
| Deindividuation | loss of self awareness and of individual accountability in a group. Zimbardo (1970) theory of deindividuation |
| Diener et al., 1976 | 1300 trick or treater children in Seattle. significantly more stealing was observed under conditions of anonymity and in the presence of a group. |
| Sherif (1937) | Norm construction - autokinetic experiment - fixed light, people's perceptions of the movement of the light changed when they were asked publicly to express how many times the light moved.These persisted over time (became internal standards of evaluation) |
| Jacobs and Campbell (1961) | An inflated group norm (established by a confederate) will persist for several generations before returning to the control norm. Used Sherif's AKE in groups with one naive and confederates who helped establish fake norm. Confederates were replace |
| Asch (1955) | line judgement studies - (match one of three lines to target line) Alone 99% correct; Groups (6 C's to 1) 37% went along with group. 1/4 never submitted but some p's submitted every time. P's underestimated their conformity when asked later. Dissonance |
| Conformity Moderators | What predicts greater conformity: -Group Size (3-5) -Unanimity (37% conformity, support decreases to 10%) -Cohesion or importance -Status (high status inds exert more influence) |
| Conformity Moderators - 2 | -Public response -No prior commitment -Difficult issue -Majority shows confidence -Cultural values (Smith & Bond, 1993) meta of 133 studies interdependent cultures more likely to conform |
| Conformity Moderators - 3 | -Task importance -Ingroup identification/self-categorization -Gender (Eagly & Carli, 1981) males less likely to conform very small effect, gender of first author makes a diff |
| Informational vs. Normative influence | Deutsch & Gerard 1955 I - based on minority's desire to hold accurate beliefs (expect majority to be correct, desire to reduce uncertainty-difficult/ambiguous task) N-minority's desire to gain social approval/majority reward punish. |
| Moscovici's conversion theory | Minority can influence the majority but only if consistent, confident, and low self-interest. Informational social influence - change produced by minority advocacy is indirect, delayed, and private. |
| Mackie's consensus model | counter to conversion theory - people are more likely to consider a majority message over minority message - counterattidunal behavior form majority has more influence. |
| Crano's leniency contract model | Crano (2001) account for ability of ingroup minorities to produce majority opinion change. Relies on ingroup perceptions by which minorities in a group are afforded lenient evaluation because they are members of the same group. |
| Group polarization | group discussions lead to more extreme views (Myers & Bishop, 1970) - Comparison of shared views reinforces opinions -informational exchange is biased toward shared information -new arguments are generated that provide additional support |
| Group polarization (theories) | Informational Social Influence (# of arguments, repetition, quality) Normative Social Influence (ppl avoid being deviant, want to be seen as above average) Categorization Effects (group salience; identification) |
| Self-categorization view | more attention paid to ingroup members Mackie 1986 polarization only occurred when ppl identified with group and knew group norm. |
| Stasser's information sampling theory | We have a strong tendency to emphasize shared information So, information that is had by fewer/single members has less influence on the eventual group decision (regardless of its actual value) |
| Hidden profile | Rational outcome favors the hidden profile, but data consistently show that the "initial" preference holds, and even more strongly than before. |
| GroupThink | Tendency for groups to make decision without carefully considering alternatives and consequences |
| SDS - Social Decision Scheme Theory | Central premise: where a group starts can predict where it will end up. Predicts group outcome using matrix of conditional probabilities based upon different members beginning preferences. |
| Transactive Memory | collective partitioning of the encoding, storage, and retrieval of information (set of individual memory systems in combination with the communication that takes place between individuals' (Wegner, Giuliano, & Hertel, 1985) |
| Groupthink and Social Sharedness | the idea that task relevant cognitions that members have in common exert a greater influence on the group than do similar constructs that are not shared among the members. |
| Mullen et al., 1994 | - but nonsignificant impact, cohesiveness on group decision making quality Interpersonal attraction bad for decisions Commitment to task good for decisions Group pride marginally good decisions Cohesive groups had poorer decisions as Group size increa |
| SDS Theory | Davis (1973) - provided a framework for modeling different combination processes for different group sizes and member preference distributions "Proportionality |
| SDS Models | Proportionality - likelihood proportional to members who hold that view Majority Wins (majority/plurality process) Majority Wins Equiprobability Otherwise |
| Hastie & Kameda, 2005 | Majority/plurality process was more accurate than any other decision rule with similar computational complexity. |
| Stasser & Titus (1985) | "hidden profile" paradigm information that was initially shared by all of the group members was more likely to be brought up during group discussion and was more influential. When all info is shared - superior results |
| Triplett (1898) | found that adolescents could spin fishing reels more quickly when working in co-acting pairs than when working alone. |
| Ringelmann (1913) | asked individuals and groups of different sizes to pull a rope as hard as they could. Group performance was much worse given individual performance and effectiveness decreased with group size. |
| Kohler (1926, 1927) | participants lifting 41 kg weights alone or in pairs. Dyads with moderately unequal ability performed much better. Not so much for dyad members were very similar or very dissimilar in ability. |
| Comparing Three Classic Studies | Evaluation plays a critical role. Spinning reels and lifting weights in a pair are easily evaluated activities while pulling rope was not. |
| Zajonc's Drive Theory (1965, 1980) | The mere presence of others increases generalized drive or arousal, which enhances the emission of a dominant response. Improves performance for easy/well-learned tasks but reduced performance when dominant response is incorrect or inappropriate. |
| SFI | Social Facilitation and Inhibition |
| Steiner (1972) | Groups fail to realize potential because of process loss (motivation loss and coordination loss) |
Created by:
djmsasaki
Popular Psychology sets