LECTURE 10 Intragroup and Intergroup Processes

1
LECTURE 10 Intragroup and Intergroup Processes

• Administration
• Intragroup Processes
• Social Facilitation
• Social Loafing
• Deindividuation
• Break
• Group Polarization
• Group Think
• Intergroup Processes
• Next Class

2
Questions?
3
What is a group?

• 5 people waiting at the corner for a bus?
• People attending a worship service?
• The rolling stones fan club?
• The students in a seminar class?
• The students in our class?

4
Group

• Myers Spencer definition
• Two or more people who, for longer than a few
  moments, interact with and influence one another
  and perceive one another as us.

5
What is a group?

• 5 people waiting at the corner for a bus?
• People attending a worship service?
• The rolling stones fan club?
• The students in a seminar class?
• The students in our class?

6
Intragroup Processes?

• Processes that occur within a group. How others
  in your own group influence you and how you
  influence your group.
• Who likes to work in a group (e.g., job, school
  projects, committee work)?
• Why?
• Why not?
• Who likes to play in a group (e.g., sports,
  family events, parties)?
• Why?
• Why not?

7
Intragroup InfluenceSocial Facilitation

• Triplett (1898)
• The tendency of people to perform simple or
  well-learned tasks better when others are
  present.
• Zajonc (1965)
• The presence of others increases physiological
  arousal
• Arousal enhances whatever response tendency is
  dominant.

8
Social Facilitation

• More specifically, social facilitation is
• the strengthening of dominant responses owing to
  the presence of others
• the tendency for people to do better on simple
  tasks and worse on complex tasks, when they are
  in the presence of others
• for simple tasks, the correct response is
  dominant. For complex tasks, it is not.

9
Markus (1978)

• How quickly participants performed a familiar
  task (taking off shoes and socks) vs. an
  unfamiliar task (putting on a robe that tied
  backwards) when alone vs. with another person in
  room vs. another person in room and watching.

10
Social facilitation is caused by arousal caused
by

• Evaluation Apprehension concern with being
  evaluated by others
• Distraction others distract us and cause arousal
  by making us nervous
• Mere presence simply having others produces
  arousal (Zajonc believed this)

11
Intragroup Influence Social Loafing

• The tendency for people to be less productive
  when they work with others than when they are
  individually accountable (Ringelmann, 1913).

12
Latane, Williams, Harkin (1979)

• Examined how loudly participants cheered alone
  and in groups. Participants wore blindfolds and
  headsets so their performance could not be
  influenced by sensory feedback. They were
  instructed to shout as loudly as they could while
  headsets played loud music.
• They were either alone or with 1 to 5 other
  people or they thought they were with 1 to 5
  other people but they were actually alone
  (pseudogroups).
• Is loss of production due to coordination or
  social loafing? We can check this in the
  pseudogroup because any loss of production in
  latter groups not due to coordination but to
  social loafing (no one else was shouting).

13
Latane, Williams, Harkin (1979)
74
Performance
36
82
66
Size of Group
14
Decreasing Social Loafing

• Make individual efforts identifiable
• Reward group productivity
• Task is appealing, challenging, or involving
• Friendship

15
Intragroup InfluenceDeindividuation

• Definition
• The loosening of normal constraints on behaviour
  when people are in a group, leading to an
  increase in impulsive and deviant acts
• Groups can
• make people feel less accountable for their
  actions (e.g., mob behaviour, egging on jumpers)
• decrease self-awareness

16
Deindividuation

• Johnson Downing (1979)
• Verbal learning experiment
• After each error subject can choose level of
  shock to give learner (3, 2, 1, -1, -2, -3)
• Study supposedly done in groups of 4 so subjects
  selection of shock levels were nonidentifiable to
  experimenter
• Social cue conditions Everyone asked to wear
  white outfits
• Prosocial cues asked to put on nurses outfits
  (explanation I was fortunate the recovery room
  let me borrow these nurses gowns)
• Anti-social cues asked to put on KKK outfits
  (explanation Im not much of a seamstress, this
  thing looks kind of Ku Klux Klannish)
• Told that pictures of each person in their group
  in their costumes would be given to all members
• Deindividuation conditions
• Told other group members could see their
  selection of shock levels and wore name tags
• Told no way to identify who gave what shocks and
  no name tags

17
Deindividuation
18
Influences on Deindividuation

• Group size
• Physical anonymity
• Arousing or distracting activities

19
Jane is slowly going blind in one eye. Jane has
spoken with a doctor who says that a new surgery
exists which may prevent this blindness. There is
a chance, however, that by manipulating the optic
nerve the surgery may result in complete
blindness in both eyes. Jane must decide whether
it would be best to settle for blindness in one
eye or whether she should try the surgery which
would prevent this from occurring but which might
result in total blindness. Imagine that you
are advising Jane. What is the lowest probability
that you would consider acceptable for surgery to
be attempted? Chance the surgery would succeed
are 1 in 10 (large chance the surgery will
fail 2 in 10 3 in 10 4 in 10 5 in 10 6 in 10 7 in
10 8 in 10 9 in 10 10 in 10 (surgery is certain
to succeed)
20
Bob, a competent chess player, is participating
in a national chess tournament. In an early match
he draws the top-favoured player in the
tournament as his opponent. Bob has been given a
relatively low ranking. During the course of his
play with the top-favoured man, Bob notes the
possibility of a deceptive though risky manoeuvre
which might bring him a quick victory. At the
same time, if the attempted manoeuvre should
fail, Bob would be left in an exposed position
and defeat would almost certainly follow.
Imagine that you are advising Bob. What is the
lowest probability that you would consider
acceptable for this risky play? Chance the play
would succeed are 1 in 10 (large chance the play
will fail 2 in 10 3 in 10 4 in 10 5 in 10 6 in
10 7 in 10 8 in 10 9 in 10 10 in 10 (play is
certain to succeed)
21
Jane is slowly going blind in one eye. Jane has
spoken with a doctor who says that a new surgery
exists which may prevent this blindness. There is
a chance, however, that by manipulating the optic
nerve the surgery may result in complete
blindness in both eyes. Jane must decide whether
it would be best to settle for blindness in one
eye or whether she should try the surgery which
would prevent this from occurring but which might
result in total blindness. Imagine that you
are advising Jane. What is the lowest probability
that you would consider acceptable for surgery to
be attempted? Chance the surgery would succeed
are 1 in 10 (large chance the surgery will
fail 2 in 10 3 in 10 4 in 10 5 in 10 6 in 10 7 in
10 8 in 10 9 in 10 10 in 10 (surgery is certain
to succeed)
22
Bob, a competent chess player, is participating
in a national chess tournament. In an early match
he draws the top-favoured player in the
tournament as his opponent. Bob has been given a
relatively low ranking. During the course of his
play with the top-favoured man, Bob notes the
possibility of a deceptive though risky manoeuvre
which might bring him a quick victory. At the
same time, if the attempted manoeuvre should
fail, Bob would be left in an exposed position
and defeat would almost certainly follow.
Imagine that you are advising Bob. What is the
lowest probability that you would consider
acceptable for this risky play? Chance the play
would succeed are 1 in 10 (large chance the play
will fail 2 in 10 3 in 10 4 in 10 5 in 10 6 in
10 7 in 10 8 in 10 9 in 10 10 in 10 (play is
certain to succeed)
23
Group Polarization is

• Group produced enhancement of groups
  pre-existing tendencies
• Risky Shift Group decisions are riskier than
  individual decisions (Stoner, 1961)
• Cautious Shift Group decisions are more cautious
  than individual decisions
• Strengthening of the members average tendency.

24
Group Polarization

• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
• __________________________________________________
  _______
• A B CD E F

Group 1 mean (ABC)
Group 2 mean (DEF)
Cautious - Large chance of Success
Risky - Small chance of Success
25
Why do we polarize after a group discussion?

• Informational Influence
• Groups generate more arguments that support the
  position endorsed by the majority of the group.
  The group persuades itself.
• Active participation leads to rehearsal and
  validation
• Normative Influence (Social Comparison)
• Individuals spontaneously compare themselves to
  others and if they find a difference they move
  toward the groups view. Discover the group norm
  and then take a view that exceeds this norm
• to be different from the norm but in the right
  direction and to the right degree.

26
Intragroup InfluenceGroupthink

• A kind of thinking in which maintaining group
  cohesiveness and solidarity is more important
  than considering the facts in a realistic manner.
• e.g., Lets reduce our teaching load from 6
  courses per year to 3 courses per year.

27
Groupthink - Antecedents

• Occurs when groups
• are cohesive and desirable
• are relatively isolated from dissenting
  viewpoints
• have a directive leader who signals a favoured
  decision
• high stress
• poor decision-making procedures

28
Groupthink - Symptoms

• Illusion of vulnerability
• Unquestioned belief in groups morality
• Rationalization
• Stereotyped view of opponent
• Conformity pressure
• Self-censorship
• Illusion of unanimity
• Mindguards
• Members who protect the group from information
  that calls into question the quality or morality
  of their decision.

29
Groupthink - Consequences

• Defective decision-making
• Incomplete survey of alternatives
• Failure to examine risks of the favoured
  alternative
• Poor information search
• Failure to develop contingency plans

30
Preventing Groupthink

• 1) Be impartial
• 2) Encourage critical evaluation
• - assign a devils advocate
• 3) Occasionally subdivide the group
• 4) Welcome critiques
• 5) Implement second chance meetings to air any
  lingering doubts

31
Questions?
32
Intergroup Processes?

• Processes that occur between 2 or more groups.
  How other groups influence your group and how
  your group influences other groups.
• Who likes to work with an outgroup vs. their own
  group (e.g., job, school projects, committee
  work)?
• Why?
• Why not?
• Who likes to play with an outgroup vs. their own
  group (e.g., sports, travel)?
• Why?
• Why not?

33
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
34
. . . ... . . . .. . . . . .
... . ... . .
35
... . . . . . . .. . . . . .
. . . . .
36

37
Pat (underestimator) 8 10 13 15 19 Cary
(overestimator) 3 7 13 18 21
38
Terry (overestimator) 8 10 13 15 19 Chris
(underestimator) 3 7 13 18 21
39
According to Realistic Conflict Theory (and
results from the Robbers Cave experiments) To
create discrimination/prejudice you need a)
intergroup interaction b) scarce resources c)
intergroup conflict (competition)
40
Robbers Cave Experiments Sherif et al. (1961)

• 4 Phases
• Spontaneous Interpersonal Friendships
• Group Formation (Rattlers and Eagles)
• Intergroup Conflict
• Intergroup Cooperation

41
According to Realistic Conflict Theory (and
results from the Robbers Cave experiments) To
create discrimination/prejudice you need a)
intergroup interaction b) scarce resources c)
intergroup conflict (competition)
42
According to Social Identity Theory (and results
from the minimal group experiments) To create
discrimination/prejudice you only need a)
categorization into 2 groups The Importance of
Being Positive and Distinct.
43
Minimal Group ParadigmTajfel Turner (1979)
Pat (underestimator) 8 10 13 15 19 Cary
(overestimator) 3 7 13 18 21
44
Which picture do you prefer?
B.
A.
Joe like this painting best
Jack like this painting best
You need to split 15 (loonies) between Joe and
Jack. What split do you favor? Amount must be in
.
45
According to Social Identity Theory People
still show discrimination/prejudice even if a)
they are explicitly told that they are classified
in an arbitrary way (e.g., coin toss) b) they
are never at a personal advantage regardless of
how they divide the points c) they never meet
members of any of the groups
46
Social Identity Theory

• We categorize people into groups
• We identify with our ingroup (the we aspect of
  the self-concept is our social identity)
• We compare our ingroup with outgroups (us vs
  them)
• We are driven to have a positive and distinct
  social identity
• Like to see us as being better than them
• Like us to be different from them

47
Questions?
48
Next Class

• Class 11 Wednesday, March 26th
• Prejudice and Intergroup Relations
• Reading material
• Chapter 12 Prejudice Disliking Others,
• pp. 396-442.
• Chapter 13 Intergroup Relations Conflict and
  Peacemaking, pp. 443-478.