Session 6, SP603

1

• Session 6, SP603
• Staying alive and staying together
• the nature of group cohesion

2
Questions

• What is group cohesion?
• Is there an evolutionary basis for group
  cohesion?
• Which are the social-psychological processes
  underlying group cohesion?
• What is the relation between group loyalty and
  cohesion?

3
Defining group cohesion

• Field of forces acting on individuals to remain
  in their group (Festinger)
• Term derived from Latin, cohaesus, meaning
  sticking together
• Cohesion is a property of the group not the
  individual!

4
Operationalizing group cohesion (Dion, 2000)

• (See also Forsyth, 1999 any group dynamics text)
• Cohesion as binding force (Lewin, 1930s
  Festinger, 1950)
• Cohesion as group belongingness
• Cohesion as group unity
• Cohesion as attraction to group (social
  attraction or interpersonal attraction Lott
  Lott, 1965 Hogg, 1992)
• Cohesion as team work
• Cohesion as multidimensional construct
• Vertical versus horizontal cohesion
• Task versus social cohesion

5
Nature of cohesion

• Evolutionary analysis
• Are there benefits associated with cohesive
  groups?
• Are these benefits at the level of the individual
  or the group (or perhaps both)?

6
Likely evolved functions of group cohesion

• Safety in numbers (selfish herd Hamilton, 1971)
• Group defence (against predators, outgroups)
• Group foraging (e.g., hunting)
• Food sharing
• Information sharing
• These functions are facilitated if individuals
  stick with their group! Thus, selection may have
  favored individuals to stick with their group,
  thereby creating cohesive groups

7
The cohesion problem in theory(like a Prisoners
Dilemma)
Mary
Defect
Cooperate
5
2.50
Cooperate
2.50
0
John
1
0
Defect
5
1
8
Conclusions

• Selection may have favoured individuals sticking
  with their group, particularly when the group is
  under threat
• There are individual and perhaps also group level
  benefits associated with group cohesion
• Yet, there is a fundamental problem with regard
  to maintaining cohesion (cheating individuals
  laving before they have paid their dues)

9
Social psychological analysis of group cohesion

• Hypotheses
• 1. Cohesive groups are expected to perform better
  than non-cohesive groups any evidence? But see
  Mullen Copper (1994) for the impact of
  performance on cohesion

10
Does cohesion pay off? In football teams it
does!

• Table 1
• Indices of Team Stability and Performance in the
  English Premier League, Season 2002/3
• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  __________
• Club Stability index
  Rank Points Goals Goals
  ()
  scored conceded
• Arsenal 63.3 2 78 85 42
• Aston Villa 53.3 16 45 42 47
• Birmingham City 40.0 13 48 41 49
• Blackburn Rovers 61.2 6 60 52 43
• Bolton Wanderers 37.5 17 44 41 51
• Charlton Athletic 59.3 12 49 45 56
• Chelsea 64.5 4 67 68 38
• Everton 55.6 7 59 48 49
• Fulham 71.0 14 48 41 50
• Leeds United 66.7 15 47 58 57
• Liverpool 55.2 5 64 61 41
• Manchester City 65.6 9 51 47 54
• Manchester United 67.9 1 83 74
  34
• Middlesbrough 46.7 11 49 48 44

11
And in student groups as well!
12

• 2. Groups should become more cohesive when under
  threat

13
in 2003
Start of war
14

• 3. All else being equal, people should have a
  tendency to stick with a group, once they have
  become a member
• Social identity as social glue and the importance
  of group loyalty (Levine Zdaniuk, 2003 Van
  Vugt Hart, 2004)

15
Nelson Mandela - Extreme example of group
loyalty
16
Exercise

• Please find another example of extreme group
  loyalty in real-life

17
4. feelings of group loyalty should be
activated fairly easily and spontaneously, and
especially when group is under threat(see e.g.,
Van Vugt Hart, 2004)
18

Method

• Three experiments
• Samples Undergraduate students in Psychology and
  Management
• Procedure
• groups of six involved in computer mediated
  step-level public good dilemma
• Manipulation of group identification
• High We are comparing how your group at the
  University of Southampton is doing with the
  performances of groups at other universities
• Low We are comparing individuals within groups
• bogus outcome feedback showing that group is not
  always successful
• halfway through the task, participants are given
  the option to work on their own or continue to
  work in the group (loyalty-measure).

19
Exp 1. For the next sessions, I wish to remain in
this group (1 not at all, 7 very much),
F(1,50) 4.29, p lt.05
20
4. Groups should want to increase loyalty among
their members

• Groups should react negatively towards members
  who undermine group cohesion and positively
  towards members who strengthen it
• especially if they are critical to the group
  welfare (high status) see Van Vugt Chang
  (2006)
• Especially if group members are high identifying
  (Levine Moreland, 2002)
• Schachters (1951) study on reactions to opinion
  deviates
• Social identity research on black sheep (Marquez
  et al.)
• etc

21
Positive emotion
22
Negative emotion
23
Punishment
24
Schachters (1951)study Groups communicate more
with deviants
25
Take home message

• Group cohesion is described as the forces acting
  upon individuals to remain in groups
• There are evolutionary benefits associated with
  group cohesion
• Social psychological research suggests that group
  cohesion is beneficial for individuals
• Group cohesion depends upon group loyalty
• , which can be activated by a simple
  ingroup/outgroup categorization manipulation (or
  it can be primed Hertel Kerr, 2002)
• Social psychological research suggests that
  groups respond negatively to people who undermine
  group cohesion, because they are disloyal or
  deviant (in opinion)