Lecture 12 - Group Processes Pt. 1
Lecture 12 - Group Processes Pt. 1 PSYC 2012
Popular in Social Psychology
Popular in Psychlogy
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Leslie Ogu on Thursday March 3, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSYC 2012 at George Washington University taught by Stock, M in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 16 views. For similar materials see Social Psychology in Psychlogy at George Washington University.
Reviews for Lecture 12 - Group Processes Pt. 1
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 03/03/16
Leslie Ogu PSYC 2012 03/02/2016 Group Processes Pt. 1 Characteristics of Groups ➢ 2 or more people ➢ Interactions are interdependent and influence each other ➢ Help basic human needs to belong, get information, establish our identity, and social norms ➢ Members tend to be similar to one another ○ This is usually due to the group one belongs to having an impact on who you are if you spend enough time with them ○ Adapting to the culture Deindividuation ➢ Why do people behave differently in crowds? ➢ Def: the loosening of normal constraints on behavior when in a crowd, leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts ○ When we are around large numbers of people, we tend to get a little crazier because we are less wary of the consequences (since the group is so large) ➢ When people become deindividuated, normal constraints against deviant behavior is lessened ○ Feel less accountable for actions (more excuses) ○ ** Deindividuation does not require facetoface contact ** ■ Ex: internet, social media ➢ Factors affecting deindividuation ○ Group Size ■ The larger the group, the more deindividuated people become ● they feel less accountable because it’s harder to single one person out ○ Anonymity ■ The more anonymous a person is, the more deindividuated they become ■ ** This does not always lead to negative behavior, just more groupconscious ● increase obedience to group norms ■ Ex: If you are apart of a protest, you are less likely to be singled out ■ Ex: Kids going out in groups on Halloween, wearing costumes more likely to take more candy because the person or people around them don’t know who they are ● If the person knew them, or the kids were made selfaware (name is called out), deindividuation decreases and they would take less ○ Distraction ■ Environmental cues that take the focus away from the self increase deindividuation ■ People in highly stimulating environments (lights, loud music, etc) are more uninhibited than people in a more sterile environment ● Ex: In a club, if you push someone, or yell an insult at a performer, you are less likely to be caught or pointed out Social Roles ➢ Shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave ○ Ex: Boss v. Employees in the workplace, Professors v. Students in a classroom, etc ➢ Major example of this was done through Zimbardo and his Stanford Prison Study ○ There are potential costs to social roles ■ People can get so far into a role that their personal identities and personalities get lost ● Probably a major contributing factor to why many exconvicts find it hard to integrate into society or why many of them don’t change for the better after their sentence ○ Major factors that enabled brutality in the study: ■ Obedience to Authority ● Experimenter gave orders to guards and encouraged tough behavior ■ Deindividuation ● Guards wore uniforms, mirrored sunglasses ● Anonymity ■ Dehumanization ● Prisoners stripped, wore prisoners clothes, given numbers as names Social Facilitation ➢ Def: the tendency for people to do better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when they are in the presence of others and individual performance can be evaluated ➢ Ex: People solve math problems, or other problems in class quicker because they are in the presence of others ➢ The Zajonc Solution ○ How can we reconcile these opposite findings? ○ 3 steps to the presence of others: ■ Presence of others creates rousal ■ Increased arousal enhances the dominant response ■ For easy tasks, the dominant response is usually correct. For difficu tasks, the dominant response is usually incorrect ■ Ex: athletes and home court advantage ➢ Why do others lead to arousal? ○ 3 Theories ■ Mere Presence Theory: the presence of others causes us to be slightly aroused ● Explains animal studies ■ Evolution Comprehension Theory: the presence of others causes arousal when those others are evaluating us ● Social facilitation disappears when others are blindfolded ■ Distraction Theory: the presence of others causes arousal when others distract us and create attentional conflict ● Nonhuman sources can produce social facilitation effects Social Loafing ➢ Def: tendency for people to do worse on simple tasks, but better on complex tasks when in the presence of others and their individual performance isn’t evaluated ○ Old Definition the tendency for people to produce less when their output is combined with the output of others ➢ What factors decrease social loafing? ○ Performance is personally identified ■ Ex: Doing group work but being graded on how you contributed ○ Task is important to the performers ○ Group is cohesive ○ People believe that their own efforts are necessary for success ○ Collectivist cultures and females show less social loafing