Group Processes

Culture and Social loafing/facilitation

-men loaf more than women b/c more caring and men individualistic

-loafing is stronger in western than Asian cultures

Group Decisions (Divisible/Unitary tasks; Groupthink; Polarization)

Groups are likely to outperform individuals when a task is divisible, or able to be broken down into specific subtasks and roles, but problems can arise when unitary due to ….

Process loss: Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving or decision-making

Ex.) Groups without assigned roles often focus on shared information, not on the unique information each person brings to the table as in juries

-During deliberation, jurors focus on shared information, not unique information - as a result, 12 people put together don’t necessarily remember and understand information that much better than 1 person

Groupthink: When groups champion unanimity and agreement over realism and accuracy, leading to a bad decision

-causes:Group is cohesive and isolated from alternative viewpoints

-symptoms: Feelings of invulnerability, ignoring negative repercussions, strong pressures to conform, feel as if higher power guiding you, etc.

– ex.) JJ-White Night

Group Processes cont’d

Group polarization: groups make more extreme decisions than individuals in group would have made

-Other members often have similar attitudes

-Individuals are exposed to supporting arguments they hadn’t thought of before

-People want to fit in with others in group

-They sense the group’s position and adjust their own attitudes even further in that direction to appear to be "good" group members

Ex.) You’re in a campus organization that supports Affirmative-Action. 1)You’re in favor of A-A, 2)You meet with group members who offer other arguments in favor of A-A you hadn’t heard, 3)You sense the group’s position, and in order to appear to be a "good" group member, you speak out even more strongly in favor of A-A, 4)You leave even more in favor of A-A, as do they

Social Dilemmas

Commons Dilemma: when take from common goods that will replenish itself if used in moderation – ex.) fishing activity; environment

Public Goods Dilemma: individ. Must contribute to a common pool to maintain the public goods – ex.) taxes for public schools; grocery shopping in co-op

 

Prosocial Behavior

Reasons for helping:

1) Prosocial Behavior: helping that benefits another, BUT may also benefit self & be done for that reason

Ex.) volunteer at veterinarian because looks good on resume

2) Altruism: helping in response to another's need, regardless of benefit to self

3) Kin selection: will help a genetic relative over anyone else so can pass on genes

Empathy-Altruism Theory (Batson & his colleagues): When feel empathy for another, will help

ex.) Toi & Batson (1982) "Carol" Study (car accident, behind in school)

IV #1: High-Empathy: "take her perspective"

Low-Empathy: "be objective"

IV #2: Low cost if don’t help: Won’t see her in class

High cost if don’t help: Will see her in class

Bystander effect: Greater the # of bystanders,

less likely any one will help

  1. Notice the Event: Bystanders can distract
  2. Interpret Event as an Emergency
  3. -Bystanders provide info social influence

    -Pluralistic ignorance: Assume nothing is wrong b/c no one else seems concerned

  4. Assume Responsibility: Diffusion of responsibility

-Feel good, do good theory

 

Close Relationships

What determines attraction?

-social validation that we are right

-Maintains consistency to be attracted to someone who agrees with us

-Greater availability/accessibility

-Implies similarity

-Mere exposure effect

-ex.) Festinger, Schacter & Back (1950) Westgate Study

Functional distance more important than physical distance

Social Exchange Theory: Exchange of rewards & costs, Maximize rewards & minimize costs, More rewards & less costs è better relationship

Other topics not covered here

-Relationship Expectations/Standards (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) - comparison alternatives

-love styles

-Attachment styles of love

-Terminating Relationships

-Experience of Breaking up (gender component)

-Communal and Exchange relationships

-Hatfield & Colleagues attractiveness studies

-Equity theory

Prejudice and Intergroup Relations

Prejudice = affective: negative feelings directed toward members of a group based solely upon group membership

Discrimination =behavioral: negative or harmful behaviors toward members of a group based solely upon their group membership

Devine’s (1989) Model

High PREJ (HP) & low PREJ (LP) people...

-When controlled processing is possible, LPs will exert effort to inhibit STs & to activate non-PREJ beliefs

-HPs & LPs similar in knowledge of Black ST

-Activation of Black ST is automatic for both HPs & LPs, but When given chance to be nonprej, LPs will do so (even when social desirability is not a concern)

Ingroup/Outgroups

INGROUP ("us"): Group one belongs to & identifies with

OUTGROUP ("them"): Group one does not belong to & does not identify with

Ingroup Favoritism Effect: Tendency to discriminate in favor of ingroups over outgroups

Minimal Group Paradigm (Tajfel and colleagues): Paradigm in which people are categorized according to arbitrary, minimally important similarities

 

Prejudice and Intergroup Relations cont’d

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

Core Assumptions

Engage in IG favoritism to boost self-esteem that lies in group membership

Contact Theory: Direct contact between hostile groups will reduce prejudice so long as certain conditions are met…

-Equal status for groups

-Engage in personal, not group-level, contact

-View members of other group as typical

-Sustained direct contact

-Support from social norms & authorities

-Common goal