Social Psyc Chapter 8

Front 1

What is a Group? how is it different from an aggregate

Back 1

two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition
Aggregates are just collections on unrelated individuals

Front 2

What is the difference between common bond groups and common identity groups?

Back 2

common bond groups- based on attachment among members
common identity groups-based on direct attachment to the group

Front 3

Gemeinshaft vs Gesellschaft

Back 3

community vs association, respectively

Front 4

entiativity

Back 4

the property of a group that makes it seem like a coherent, distinct, and unitary entity

Front 5

Johnsons & Johnson 7 emphases of a group

Back 5

1. collection of individuals interacting with one another
2. a social unit consisting of two or more individuals who perceive themselves as belonging to a group
3. a collection of individuals who are interdependent
4. a collection of individuals who join together to achieve a goal
5. trying to satisfy a need through joint association
6. interactions are structured by a set of roles and norms
7. individuals influence each other

Front 6

Norman Triplett

Back 6

performed first social psyc experiment, hypothesized that competition between people energized and improved performance on motor tasks

Front 7

Allport

Back 7

termed social facilitation- an improvement in the performance of well-learned/easy tasks and a deterioration in the performance of poorly learned/difficult tasks in the mere presence of members of the same species

Front 8

Zajonc (Drive Theory)

Back 8

the physical presence of members of the same species instinctively causes arousal that motivates performance of habitual behavior patterns (dominant response). If dominant response is correct it produces social facilitation and if it is incorrect it produces social inhibition

Front 9

Cottrell (Evaluation Apprehension Model)

Back 9

we quickly learnt that social rewards and punishments we receive are based on others' evaluations of us. Social presence thus produces an acquired arousal based on evaluation apprehension

Front 10

Baron (Distraction Conflict Theory)

Back 10

people are a source of distraction, which produces cognitive conflict between attending to the task and attending to the audience or coactors. While attention alone impairs performance, attentional conflict also produces drive that facilitates dominant responses.
People have a finite attentional capacity which can be overloaded by the presence of an audience, which makes them narrow and focus their attention to central cues

Front 11

Bond

Back 11

people are concerned with presenting to others the best possible impression of themselves. On more difficult tasks, people make or anticipate making errors, this creates embarassment, which impairs task performance.

Front 12

Meta-analysis

Back 12

statistical procedure that combines data from different studies to measure the overall reliability and strength of specific effects

Front 13

Steiner's tax taxonomy

Back 13

1. divisible (one that benefits from a division of labor) or unitary (cannot sensibly be broken down into subtasks)
2. Maximizing (open-ended, stresses quantity) or optimizing (one that has a predetermined standard, neither to exceed or fall short of it)
3. how are individual inputs related to the group's product?
additive (groups product is sum of everyone's work)
compensatory- groups product is average of inputs
disjunctive- group selects as its adopted produce one individual's input
conjunctive-groups product is determined by the rate or level of performance on the slowest or least valuable member
discretionary-relationship beween individual inputs and the groups product is not directly dictated by task features or social conventions, instead the group is free to pursue their own course of action

Front 14

Steiner (process loss)

Back 14

The actual group performance is always inferior to the group's potential, due to process loss (ie social distractors, overparticipation by some members, etc.)
For additive tasks, group performance is better than individual performance, compensatory tasks group is better than most, disjunctive tasks group is worse than best individual, conjunctive group performance is equal to the worst individual's performance

Front 15

Coordination loss (also Steiner)

Back 15

deterioration in group performance compared with individual performance, due to problems in coordinating behavior

Front 16

Ringelmann effect

Back 16

individual effort on a task diminishes as group size increases. 2 explanations:
1. coordination loss
2. motivation loss

Front 17

Social loafing (latane et al)

Back 17

a reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task (one in which our outputs are pooled with those of other group members) compared with working either alone or coactively.
As group size increases, addition of new members has decreasing amount of effect

Front 18

Free-rider effect

Back 18

gaining the benefits of group membership by avoiding costly obligations of membership and by allowing other members to incur those costs

Front 19

Steiner (process loss)

Back 19

The actual group performance is always inferior to the group's potential, due to process loss (ie social distractors, overparticipation by some members, etc.)
For additive tasks, group performance is better than individual performance, compensatory tasks group is better than most, disjunctive tasks group is worse than best individual, conjunctive group performance is equal to the worst individual's performance

Front 20

Coordination loss (also Steiner)

Back 20

deterioration in group performance compared with individual performance, due to problems in coordinating behavior

Front 21

Ringelmann effect

Back 21

individual effort on a task diminishes as group size increases. 2 explanations:
1. coordination loss
2. motivation loss

Front 22

Social loafing (latane et al)

Back 22

a reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task (one in which our outputs are pooled with those of other group members) compared with working either alone or coactively.
As group size increases, addition of new members has decreasing amount of effect

Front 23

Free-rider effect

Back 23

gaining the benefits of group membership by avoiding costly obligations of membership and by allowing other members to incur those costs

Front 24

social loafing vs. free rider

Back 24

although loafers reduce effort on co active tasks, they nevertheless do contribute to the group product (motivation loss)
free riders- exploit the group product while contributing nothing to it (different motivation)

Front 25

Green (3 reasons for loafing)

Back 25

output equity- people loaf because they expect their partners to loaf and therefore loaf themselves in order to maintain equity
Evaluation apprehension- presence of group provides a sense of anonymity and unidentifiability for people who are not motivated on a task
matching to the standard-people loaf because they have no clear performance standard to match

Front 26

Social impact

Back 26

The effect that other people have on our behavior, usually as a consequence of factors such as group size, and temporal and physical immediacy. To the extent that there is one participant and one experimenter, the experimenter's instructors will have maximal impact

Front 27

Ways to reduce loafing

Back 27

group size, personal identifiability, personal involvement by the experimenter, partner effect, intergroup comparison, highly meaningful task with the expectation of poor performance by co-workers

Front 28

Social compensation (Zaccaro)

Back 28

increased effort on a collective task to compensate for other group members' actual, perceived, or anticipated lack of effort or ability

Front 29

Cohesiveness

Back 29

The property of a group that affectively blinds people, as group members, to one another and to the group as a whole, giving the group a sense of solidarity and oneness

Front 30

Festinger et al on Cohesiveness

Back 30

a field of forces, based on the attractiveness of the group and its members and the degree to which the group satisfies individual goals , acts upon the individual. The resultant valence of these forces of attraction produces cohesiveness, which is responsible for group membership continuity and adherence to group standards.
Usually operationalized as deriving it from the whole or as a sum of individual cohesiveness measures

Front 31

Social Cohesion/Interpersonal Interdependence Model

Back 31

1. existence of individual goals that cannot be satisfied independently
2. aggregation of unrelated individuals
3. mutual interdependence and cooperative interation
4. mutual goal satisfaction
5. individuals perceive one another as sources of reward; thus imbued with positive valence
6. interpersonal attraction=cohesiveness

Front 32

hogg (personal attraction vs social attraction)

Back 32

personal attraction-liking for someone based on idiosyncratic preferences and interpersonal relationships
social attraction-liking for someone based on common group membership and determined by the person's prototypicality of the group

Front 33

Advantages to Personal Attraction Social Attraction model over traditional model

Back 33

does not reduce group solidarity and cohesiveness to interpersonal attraction
it is as applicable to small interactive groups as to large scale social categories, such as ethnic group or a nation

Front 34

Social Glue hypothesis (Van Vugt et al)

Back 34

group sooperation can be sustained only if members show ingroup loyalty and willingness to sacrifice self-gain or advantage for the good of the group; thus disloyalty is reacted to very strongly

Front 35

Tuckman 5 Stage Developmental Sequence for small groups

Back 35

forming
storming
norming
performing
adjourning

Front 36

Group Socialization (Moreland and Levine)

Back 36

Dynamic relationship between the group and its members that describes the passage of members through a group in terms of commitment and of changing roles
3 Processes:
1. Evaluation-ongoing comparison by individuals of the past, present, and future rewards of the group with the rewards of potential alternative relationships. To the extent that expectations are met, social approval is expressed. Actual or anticipated failure invite social disapproval
2. Evaluation affects commitment of the individual to the group and vice versa in a relatively straightforward manner. Commitment disequilibrium may exist at any time on either side.
3. Role transition from nonmember, quasi member, full member

Front 37

Moreland (Initiation rites)

Back 37

3 functions:
symbolic
apprenticeship
loyalty elicitation

Front 38

Moreland Phases of group socialization

Back 38

1. investigation-finding members, forming group
2. socialization-assimilates new members, eduating them
3. maintenance-role negotiation, transition (divergence)
4. Resocialization-when divergence is expected it is unlikely but when it is unexpected the member is marginalized into a deviant role and tries to become resocialized
5. remembrance- after the individual leaves the group both parties reminisce

Front 39

Norms vs stereotypes

Back 39

norms- shared beliefs about what is the appropriate conduct for a group member; attitudinal and behavioral uniformities that define group membership and differentiate between groups
stereotypes-widely shared and simplified evaluative image of a social group and its members

Front 40

Ethnomethodology (Garfinkel)

Back 40

designed to detect background norms. involves the violation of norms in order to attract people's attention to them