Psych Ch 9 Group Processes

Front 1

Shultz (3 basic needs, cause for groups)

Back 1

Inclusion, control, affection

Front 2

Group

Back 2

3 or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense their needs/goals cause them to influence each other

Front 3

Causes for groups

Back 3

1) Innate/evolutionary purpose (easier for basic human needs)
2) Social reject is chilling (study)
3) Belonging+distinctive feeling
4) Help us define ourselves
5) Help us establish norms

Front 4

Social roles

Back 4

shared expectations in a group about how specific people are supposed to behave

Front 5

Too much social role =

Back 5

Possible to lose ID due to too much role (Stanford prison Study - due to situation, nor personalities)

Front 6

Role conflict

Back 6

Due to roles changing (women and gender roles)

Front 7

Group cohesiveness

Back 7

Qualities of a group that bind members together and promote liking between members

More likely for members to stay, participate

Front 8

Too much cohesiveness can...

Back 8

get in the way of performance

Front 9

Minimal group paradigm

Back 9

Even arbitrary, meaningless things can create basis to form a group

(paintings in class)

Front 10

Social facilitation

Back 10

Having people around helps you perform better individually

WORKS WHEN: Simple, well learned tasks, when individually assessed

Cockroach studies

Front 11

Arousal and dominant response

Back 11

1) Others increase arousal
2) Easier to perform dominant response
3) Harder to perform complex tasks

Front 12

Why does presence cause arousal

Back 12

1) +alertness/arousal
2) evaluation apprehension
3) Distraction conflict btw crowd VS task

Front 13

Social loafing

Back 13

People relax in presence of others

WHEN: Individual is not evaluated

**People do better on difficult tasks when in groups

Front 14

Gender/culture and social loafing

Back 14

Men/ western cultures more likely to be social loafers

Front 15

Preventing social loafing

Back 15

1) Make individual accountable
2) Make task challenging/involving
3) Make goal compelling
4) Contributions should be important
5) Make consequences

Front 16

Deindividuation

Back 16

Loosening of normal constraints of behavior when people can't be ID
(KKK, My Lai Massacre, lynchings, warriors)

Front 17

Causes for deindividuation

Back 17

1) makes people feel less accountable
2) Increases obedience to group norms
3) Deindividuation in cyberspace?

Front 18

Process loss

Back 18

Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving

1) Group doesn't try hard enough
2) Most competent member finds it difficult to disagree with everyone else
3) Communication problems

Front 19

Transactive memory

Back 19

Specializing memories = combined memory of two people more efficient that individual

Front 20

Groupthink

Back 20

Maintaining cohesiveness more important than considering facts realistically

Front 21

Symptoms of groupthink

Back 21

1) People feel invulnerable
2) Rationalizing wrong information for sake of cohesiveness
3) Belief of moral correctness
4) Unique info not shared
5) Stereotyping of out-group
6) Pressure on dissenters to conform
7) Illusion of unanimity
8) Mindguards - protect leader from contradictory information

Front 22

Causes of groupthink

Back 22

1) Group highly cohesive
2) Group isolation
3) Directive leader
4) High stress
5) Poor decision making procedures

Front 23

Results of Groupthink

Back 23

1) Incomplete survey of alternatives
2) Failure to examine risks of chosen alternative
3) Poor information search
4) Failure to develop contengency plans

Front 24

Avoiding groupthink

Back 24

1) Remain impartial
2) Seek out opinions - Have a devil's advocate, welcome criticism
3) Create subgroups
4) Seek anonymous opinions
5) Second chance

Front 25

Risky Shift

Back 25

Group makes riskier decisions than individual

HALF of group polarization

Front 26

Group polarization

Back 26

Groups make more EXTREME decisions (so even more conservative/risky)

REASONS FOR:
1) Accumulation of information
2) Social comparison theory

Front 27

Reasons for group polarization

Back 27

Diffusion of personal responsibilites
Familiarization (information influences)
Value hypothesis (normative influence)
Active participation solidifies views

Front 28

Great person theory

Back 28

Certain key personality traits make a good leader, regardless of situation - not very consistent in reality!

Front 29

Transactional leaders

Back 29

Set clear, short term goals + reward people who meet them

Front 30

Transformational leaders

Back 30

Inspire followers to focus on common, longterm goals

Front 31

Most effective to...

Back 31

adopt both leadership styles

Front 32

Contingency theory of leadership

Back 32

Effectiveness of leader depends on
Task oriented, relationship oriented, influence leader has over group

Front 33

Task oriented

Back 33

Concerned with getting job done (not feelings, etc) - BEST in high/low work situations

Front 34

Relationship oriented

Back 34

Concerned with workers feelings/relaitonships
BEST in moderate control work situations

Front 35

Why is it difficult for women to become leaders?

Back 35

Good leaders believed to be agentic (agency)
Women expected to be communal

Glass ceiling/Glass cliff idea

Front 36

Good in all cultures

Back 36

Charisma, team-oriented

Front 37

Social dilemma

Back 37

A conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if chosen by most people, have harmful effects on everyone (prisoner's dilemma)

Front 38

How to increase cooperation

Back 38

Tit for tat: responding how they respond
If other is friend/will interact in future

Front 39

Threats

Back 39

trucking game??

Front 40

Negotiation

Back 40

Communication in which opposing sides in conflict offers + counteroffers and a solution arises when both agree

Front 41

Integrative solution

Back 41

parties make tradeoffs on issues, each side concedes on unimportant issues important to other side

Front 42

Broken windows theory

Back 42

Maintaining environments in a well ordered condition may stop further vandalism/escalation into more serious crime

You see that injunctive role is violated, which shows that it's ok to do

grafitti study

Front 43

Public goods dillemma

Back 43

Everyone must contribute for common good (blood donation, taxes)

Front 44

Tragedy of the commons

Back 44

Social dilemma in which everyone takes from a common pool of goods that will replenish itself if used in moderation but will disappear if overused (environmental resources, fish)

Front 45

Trust is key, not...

Back 45

communication (truck game)