1. Social facilitation theory
1.1. Definitions
1.1.1. Original meaning: tendency of people to perform simple/well-learned tasks better when others are present
1.1.1.1. but, it was later found that an easy task conducted in a group was actually performed worse compared to the easy task being performed alone
1.1.2. Current meaning: the strengthening of dominant (prevalent/likely) responses in the presence of others
1.1.2.1. ie.
1.1.2.1.1. Others' presence
1.1.2.2. The difficulty of the task influences whether social facilitation takes place
1.1.2.2.1. If task was easy/they were skilled in the task, they performed better with co-actors
1.1.2.2.2. If task was difficult/they were unskilled, they performed better when alone
1.1.2.3. eg.
1.1.2.3.1. Others' presence during pool practice
1.1.3. Co-actors
1.1.3.1. co-participants working individually on a non-competitive activity
1.1.3.2. these are the 'mere presence' of another person
1.1.3.3. aka 'audience'
1.1.4. Social Loafing
1.1.4.1. Additive tasks
1.1.4.1.1. tasks where group achievement depends on the sum of individual efforts
1.1.4.2. Free-riders
1.1.4.2.1. People benefitting from the group but giving little in return
1.1.4.3. tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable
1.1.4.3.1. eg. noise produced by six people shouting/clapping 'as loud as you can' was < 3x that produced by one person alone
1.1.4.3.2. People often do not believe they are loafing
1.1.4.3.3. People who perceive themselves as 'average' tend to be less likely to loaf than those who consider themselves 'above average', especially when the task is an easy one
1.1.4.3.4. Evaluation apprehension also comes into play
1.1.4.3.5. Tendency to perceive loafing within a group relates to how strongly they identify with the group and its purpose - also affects how cohesive they perceive the group to be
1.1.4.3.6. occurs less when
1.1.4.3.7. occurs more when
1.1.4.4. Others' presence
1.1.4.4.1. individual efforts evaluated
1.1.4.4.2. individual efforts pooled and not evaluated
1.1.5. Deindividuation
1.1.5.1. loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension; occurs in group situations where responsiveness to positive or negative group norms is fostered, or where anonymity is increased
1.1.5.2. leads to social loafing; people decrease their individual effort within the anonymity
1.1.5.3. weakening of controls based on guilt, shame, fear and committment
1.1.5.4. when in a large group of people, individuals drift toward extreme lack of self-awareness - do not self-monitor, unable to retrieve standards and norms of behaviour from memory, do not plan action, become driven by immediate cues and feel little-no responsibility for their behaviour
1.1.5.5. Emergent Norm Theory
1.1.5.5.1. those norms that 'emerge' within a group or crowd that influence the behaviour of those involved
1.1.5.5.2. when new group members meet, a period of 'milling' occurs where they meet each other - certain individuals become more prominent than others
1.1.5.6. Social Identity Theory
1.1.5.6.1. members of a group are usually bound together in a common cause
1.1.5.6.2. not an absence of personal identity but an increase in a shared social identity
1.1.5.6.3. emphasis of the role of social identity in guilding behaviour
1.1.5.6.4. social identity is the basis for tyranny - when they accept a particular role or identity that seems to require it
1.2. Why does social arousal occur
1.2.1. Evaluation apprehension
1.2.1.1. Concern for how others are evaluating us
1.2.1.2. Enhancement of dominant responses is strongest when people think they're being evaluated
1.2.1.3. Self-consciousness to being evaluated can interfere with behaviours we perform best automatically (eg overthinking instead of just doing)
1.2.1.4. This explains
1.2.1.4.1. Why people perform better when co-acter is of higher group status
1.2.1.4.2. Why arousal lessens when a high status group is diluted by adding people who are of lower status to us
1.2.1.4.3. Why people who are anxiously aroused (socially anxious) by what others think are the ones most affected by others' presence
1.2.1.4.4. Why social facilitation effects are greatest when others are unfamiliar and hard to keep an eye on
1.2.2. Distraction
1.2.3. Mere presence
1.2.3.1. Mere presence of others produces some arousal even without evaluation apprehension or arousing distraction
1.2.3.1.1. eg runners are energised when running with someone else, even one who neither competes nor evaluates
2. Composition
2.1. Own set of norms
2.1.1. Guide group perception, judgement and regulate behaviour
2.1.1.1. The more a member identifies with the group, the more likely they are to adhere to group norms
2.1.1.2. Violating group norm may result in rejection by group
2.1.1.2.1. Likelihood of rejection by group depends on individual's role and status in group
2.2. Roles
2.2.1. Individuals occupy different roles in groups
2.2.1.1. May be based on abilities and qualities, and/or relationship with other members
2.2.1.1.1. Status: not all roles are equal and this has consequences for how people identify and behave in relation to the group
2.2.1.2. Influence the communication, behaviour and decision-making of a member
2.2.1.3. All roles should improve the group in some way
2.2.2. A person's role can offer a sense of identity and purpose, and guide expected behaviour
2.2.2.1. Danger of roles is that people may lose sight of themselves in acting it out
2.2.3. Roles can be formal (eg workplace) or informally (eg friend group)
2.2.4. Role clash may occur between individuals both trying to fulfil their role
2.2.5. Role conflict may occur when a person occupies different roles in different groups
2.2.5.1. eg. mother, teacher, wife
2.3. Communication and decision-making
2.3.1. Formal communication networks
2.3.1.1. eg. professional organisations
2.3.1.2. 'Wheel communication' networks
2.3.1.2.1. The leader is the central medium through which all group members interact
2.3.1.3. 'All-channel communication' networks
2.3.1.3.1. Within small group, individual members can communicate directly with every other member - leaders can discuss decisions with everyone
2.3.1.4. *The more input group members feel they've had over a decision, the more happier and more satified they are
2.3.2. Informal communication networks
2.3.3. People occupying roles need to communicate to some individuals and not others
3. Definition
3.1. 2+ people who interact with or influence each other and/or perceive one another as 'us'
3.1.1. eg. couples, housemates, student peers, workers, soldiers
4. Intergroup Harmony
4.1. Intergroup contact
4.1.1. Contact predicts tolerant attitudes - increased contact predicts decreased prejudice
4.1.1.1. Contact Hypotheeis
4.1.1.1.1. Conflict and prejudice are often based on groups being ignroant of each other - of each others; values and beliefs
4.1.1.1.2. However contact can also fuel conflict and prejudice when negative expectations of outgroup members cause bias judgements and create self-fulfilling prophecies
4.1.1.1.3. Done positively by contact being
4.1.1.2. issue is when conflict is based on conflicts of interest - which highlights the differences between the groups
4.1.1.3. race influences contact
4.1.1.3.1. eg whites predominantly associate with whites, same with black and hispanic etc
4.1.1.4. the greater the contact the more positive attitude changes
4.1.1.4.1. especially when friendships form
4.2. Contact, cooperation, communication and conciliation can transform hostility into harmony
4.3. The path from outgroup discomfort to intergroup harmony
4.3.1. Desegregation
4.3.1.1. increased contact between races markedly increased positive relations and attitudes between them
4.3.1.2. this may not often occur however - attitudes may need more than contact with outgroups in order to change
4.3.1.2.1. especially when there is anxiety or percieved threat
4.3.2. Cohesiveness
4.3.2.1. being reminded of an outgroup heightens responsiveness to their ingroup - when keenly conscious of the 'them' we know who 'we' are
4.3.2.2. against a common threat
4.3.2.2.1. previous social barriers are dropped when groups help each other against a common enemy - they're in this together
4.3.2.3. being mindful of our multiple social identities which we partially share with anyone else, enables social cohesion
4.3.3. Superordinate goals
4.3.3.1. shared goal that nessecitates cooperative effort - ovverides people's differences from one another
4.3.3.1.1. eg successful problem-solving
4.3.3.1.2. friendships bloom, hostilities plummet
4.3.3.1.3. this occurs in all age groups
4.3.4. Tension Reduction (GRIT) Strategy
4.3.4.1. Graduated intiatives
4.3.4.2. Reciprocated initiatives
4.4. Group Salience
4.4.1. when friend who is member of an outgroup is thought of solely as an individual, you may not generalise their positive traits to their other outgroup members
4.4.1.1. outgroup identity must be initially minimised - see them as essentially like us rather than different
4.4.1.1.1. their group identity must then become salient
4.4.1.2. Hostilities lessen when contact encourages emotional ties with individuals identified in an out-group and when structured to convey equal status
4.5. Multiculurism
4.5.1. pluralism: respect for differences between cultures within a prevailing culture
4.5.2. assimilation: meshing different cultural values and habits into the prevailing culture
4.5.3. diversity within unity: all members of a given society will fully respect and adhere to those basic values and institutions that are considered part of the basic shared framework og the society. at the same time being free to maintain distinct subcultures - so long as those policies, habits and institutions don't conflict with the shared core
4.5.3.1. this does well to avoid ethnic wars
4.6. how good intergroup relations can be fostered
4.6.1. decategorisation (personalisation) model: contact is facilitated by de categorising group members by emphasis on individual personal characteristics rather than group identity
4.6.2. common ingroup identity model: members of different social groups re-categorise themselves into one group, sharing a superordinaate identity; having one common ingroup
4.6.3. re-categorisation model: contact is facilitated by working cooperatively and thus creating a new, inclusive group that dissolves former subgroups - the group is given a new name and work together - 'us' and 'them' become 'we'
4.6.4. dual identities mode: minority members adopt a strategy of holding both superordinate and subordinate identities in order to fit into mainstream society - promotes superordinate common identity, but draws attention andrespect for distinct subordinate identities - helping multicul;tural society to respect both the similarities and differences between groups
4.6.4.1. however, the majority group must accept the superordinate identity claims of minority members and welcome the subordinate identity
4.6.4.2. doesn't work when minority group is subject to high levels of threat
4.6.5. communication
4.6.5.1. discussing a filemma forges a group identity through cooperation, enhancing concern for everyone's welfare
4.6.5.1.1. devises group norms and consensus expectations and puts pressure on members to gollow them
4.6.5.2. how people communicate determines outcome
4.6.5.2.1. conveyance of warmth, respect and cooperation increases likelihood of peace
4.6.5.3. key factor is trust - that the other is well intentioned, that being more open and giving the other information won't result in that information being used against you
4.6.5.4. bargining: seek resolution of conflict through direct negotiation
4.6.5.5. mediate: attempt by neutral third part to resolve a conflict by facilitating communication and offering suggestions
4.6.5.5.1. foster constructive communication
4.6.5.5.2. help parties re-think the conflict and gain info about others' interests and perspective
4.6.5.5.3. encourages both sides to set aside conflicting demands to think about each other's underlying needs, interests and goals - to make mutually beneficial tradeoffs and make each party understood and feel understoof by the other
4.6.5.5.4. must be neutral and trustworthy by both parties
4.6.5.6. arbitrate: resolve conflict by neutral third party who studies the issues and imposes a settlement eg judge
4.6.5.7. Conciliation: see GRIT
4.6.6. GRIT - 'graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension reduction'
4.6.6.1. aims to reverse the conflict spiral of parties threatening, coercing and retaliating against each other in the presence of high tension and suspicion, by triggering reciprocal de-escalation
4.6.6.1.1. 1. one side initiatives small de-escalatory actions: announcing conciliatory intent - iunvites adversary to reciprocate
4.6.6.1.2. 2. initator establishes credibility and genuity by carrying out: (diverse) concilatory acts - intensifies presure to reciprocate eg offering medical help, closing military base, lifting trade ban - allows the adversary freeror to choose it's own means of reciprocation
4.6.6.2. Tit-for-tat: begins cooperatively, punishes non-cooperation, immediately forgives when adversary as soon as they make a cooperative move
4.6.7. Pedersen et al. (2005)
4.6.7.1. Eight ways to combat racism in Australia
4.6.7.1.1. combat false beliefs
4.6.7.1.2. involve the audience
4.6.7.1.3. evoke empathy
4.6.7.1.4. emphasise commonality and diversity within and between groups
4.6.7.1.5. focus on changing behaviours as much as changing attitudes
4.6.7.1.6. meet local needs
4.6.7.1.7. evaluate properly
4.6.7.1.8. consider the broader context
4.7. Overall - prejudice may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals
5. Formation
6. Group cohesiveness
6.1. Holds a group together
6.1.1. The more cohesive the group, the more likely it is to remain together
6.2. Perceiving things in common with the group - not just other individuals
6.2.1. Sense of 'we-ness'
6.3. Pros
6.3.1. Highly cohesive groups based on on friendship and interpersonal attraction to the group
6.3.1.1. Group cohesion is associated with success
6.4. Cons
6.4.1. Highly cohesive groups based on homogeny, strong identification and attraction to the group
6.4.1.1. Tend to make poorer decisions
7. Group polarisation hypothesis
7.1. group-produced enhancement of members' pre-existing tendencies
7.1.1. ie. when a rather homogenous group discusses a topic, the opinion of the group members often merges into a more extreme one, strengthening the members' average tendency
7.2. Risky shift phenomenon
7.2.1. group decisions are usually riskier
7.2.1.1. risky shift occurs not only when a group decides by consensus; after brief discussions individuals will also alter their decisions
7.2.1.2. teenagers more likely to risky shift than older people
7.2.1.3. based on a North American study - thus dependent on culture
7.2.2. not universal
7.2.2.1. sometimes being part of a group may lead to safer decisions and behaviours, when other group members regulate each others' behaviour
7.3. Occuring in
7.3.1. Competitions
7.3.1.1. competitiveness and mistrust individuals often display when playing games often worsen when the players are groups
7.3.2. Schools
7.3.2.1. accentuation effect
7.3.2.1.1. over time, initial differences among groups become accentuated
7.3.2.2. where children sit
7.3.2.2.1. can enhance or inhibit learning depending on the ability of the child and the task set
7.3.2.2.2. grouping will determine with whom they can interact
7.3.3. Communities
7.3.3.1. people tend to self-segregate
7.3.3.1.1. eg conservative neighbourhoods attract conservatives and become more so - these neighbourhoods become echo chambers, with opinions being shared by kindred-minded friends
7.3.3.2. Conflict
7.3.3.2.1. like-minded people associate increasingly with one another, amplifying their shared tendencies
7.3.3.2.2. mutual reinforcement
7.3.4. Internet
7.3.4.1. lack of visual cues and increase in anonymity - lack of social presence - increased group polarisation
7.3.4.2. make it easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallise diffuse hatreds and mobilise lethal force
7.4. Group influence
7.4.1. Informational influence
7.4.1.1. results from accepting evidence about reality
7.4.1.2. group discussion elicits a pooling of ideas, most of which favour the dominant viewpoint
7.4.1.2.1. ideas can be common knowledge to group members
7.4.1.2.2. ideas may include persuasive arguments that some group members had not previously considered
7.4.1.2.3. statements by individuals entagle information about the persons arguments with cues concerning the person's position on the issue
7.4.1.2.4. Active participation produces more attitude change than passive listening
7.4.2. Normative influence
7.4.2.1. based on a person's desire to be accepted/admired by others
7.4.2.1.1. allow ourselves to be led by the group for positive rewards (social acceptance/approval)
7.4.2.2. conform to the expectations of others - do what we 'ought' to do
7.4.2.3. norms of the group shape our behaviour
7.4.2.3.1. when we believe the group is monitoring our behaviour and has the power to punish or reward us
7.4.2.4. Social Comparison Theory
7.4.2.4.1. evaluating ones opinions and abilities by comparing oneself to others
7.4.2.4.2. wanting people to like us, we may express stronger opinions after discovering that others share our views
7.4.2.4.3. Plural Ignorance
7.4.2.4.4. Self-serving bias
7.4.2.4.5. when people learn others' positions - without prior commitment and without discussion or sharing of arguments - they will adjust their responses to maintain a socially favourable position
7.4.2.4.6. Factors that influence outcome
7.4.3. Group identity
7.4.3.1. social identity and self-categorisation approach
7.4.3.1.1. Social identity: the groups to which we belong in society - being psychologically attached to the group; having things in common with fellor members (ingroup members) and thinking of ourselves as different from other social groups (outgroup members)
7.4.3.1.2. Risky/Cautious Dilemmas experiment
7.4.3.2. Simply feeling and perceiving oneself to be a member of a group is sufficient to think and act as one
7.4.4. Discovering that others share one's feelings (social comparison) unleashes arguments (informational influence) supporting what everyone secretly favours
8. Group-Think
8.1. The mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action
8.2. Occurs from
8.2.1. Cohesive, amiable group
8.2.2. Isolation of group from dissenting viewpoints
8.2.2.1. Suppression of dissent in the interest of group harmony
8.2.3. Directive leader who signals their preferred decision
8.3. Symptoms
8.3.1. A collective form of dissonance reduction that surface as group members try to maintain their positive group feeling when facing a threat
8.3.2. Types
8.3.2.1. Overestimation of group's might and right
8.3.2.1.1. Illusion of invulnerability
8.3.2.1.2. Belief in inherent morality of the gorup
8.3.2.2. Closed-mindedness
8.3.2.2.1. Collective rationalisation
8.3.2.2.2. Stereotyped view of outgroups
8.3.2.3. Uniformality
8.3.2.3.1. Conformity pressure
8.3.2.3.2. Self-censorship
8.3.2.3.3. Illusion of unanimity
8.3.2.3.4. Self-appointed Mindguards
8.3.3. Can produce a failure to seek and discuss contrary information and alternative possibilities
8.3.3.1. When a leader promotes an idea, and when a group insulates itself from dissenting views, groupthink may produce defective decisions
8.4. Theoretical Analysis
8.4.1. Social Conditions
8.4.1.1. high cohesiveness
8.4.1.2. insulation of the group
8.4.1.3. lack of methodical procedures for search and appraisal
8.4.1.4. directive leadership
8.4.1.4.1. subordinates sometimes feel too weak or insecure to speak up
8.4.1.5. high stress with a low degree of hope for finding a better solution than the one favoured by the leader or other influential persons
8.4.2. Symptoms of groupthink (see above)
8.4.3. Symbols of defective decision-making
8.4.3.1. Incomplete survey of alternatives
8.4.3.2. Incomplete survey of objectives
8.4.3.3. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
8.4.3.4. Poor information search
8.4.3.5. Selective bias in processing information at hand
8.4.3.6. Failure to reappraise alternatives
8.4.3.7. Failure to work out contingnency plans
8.5. Critiques
8.5.1. Some highly cohesive, amiable groups don't breed groupthink
8.5.1.1. Friendship groups
8.5.1.2. Secure family groups
8.5.2. Members aren't always reluctant to express private concerns
8.5.2.1. those who identify most strongly with the group are willing to point out flaws in group reasoning if they believe it will improve the group in some way
8.5.3. Norms of a cohesive group can favour either consensus - group think, or critical analysis which prevents it
8.6. To prevent groupthink in decision-making
8.6.1. be impartial - do not endorse any position
8.6.2. encourage critical evaluation - assign a 'devil's advocate' or even a genuine dissenter to stimulate original thinking and open the group to opposing groups
8.6.3. occasionally subdivide the group, then reunite to air differences
8.6.4. welcome critique from outside experts and associates
8.6.5. before implementing a decision, call a 'second-chance' meeting to air any lingering doubts
8.7. "Two heads are better than one"
8.7.1. If one member of a six person group is initially correct, 3/4 of the time they fail to convince all the others
8.7.1.1. If two members of a six person group are initially correct, 2/3 of the time they convince all the others
8.7.2. Several heads critiquing one another can allow avoiding some forms of cognitive bias and produce some higher-quality ideas
8.7.2.1. Encouraging people to debate ideas appears to stimulate ideas and extend creative thinking
8.7.3. Working in a group makes people *feel* more productive; but research finds that people working alone are more productive
8.7.4. When information from many, diverse people is combined, all together can become smarter than almost any of us alone
9. Minority Influence
9.1. History is made by minorities that sway majorities into changing their minds
9.1.1. eg. in the 1957 film *12 Angry Men*, one lone juror goes against the 11 others, refusing to vote 'guilty' and sentencing a teenage boy to death for the knifing of his father. As the heated deliberation proceeds, the jurors one by one change their minds until the unanimous verdict is 'not guilty'
9.1.2. If minority viewpoints never prevailed, history would be static and nothing would ever change
9.2. (Referring to minority opinions, not racial/ethnic groups)
9.3. Determinants of minority influence
9.3.1. Consistency
9.3.1.1. people are motivated to reduce inconsistency, conflict and disagreement
9.3.1.1.1. only way to restore certainty and consistency is for majority to shift to viewpoint of minority
9.3.1.2. minority introduces uncertainty and anxiety among the majority
9.3.1.2.1. challenges dominant norms, disrupts the status quo
9.3.1.2.2. creates doubt and offers a possible alternative way of looking at things
9.3.1.3. the power of steadfast and persistent consistency in minority causes majority to rethink their ideas and be influenced
9.3.1.3.1. stimulates creative thinking
9.3.1.4. with dissent within own group, people
9.3.1.4.1. take in more information
9.3.1.4.2. think about it in new ways
9.3.1.4.3. often make better decisions
9.3.2. Self-confidence
9.3.2.1. consistency and persistence convey self-confidence, and this tends to raise self-doubts among the majority
9.3.2.2. being firm, forceful and appear self-assured may prompt majority to reconsider its position
9.3.2.2.1. especially on matters of opinion rather than fact
9.3.3. Defection
9.3.3.1. "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain
9.3.3.2. persistent minority punctures any illusion of unanimity
9.3.3.3. consistent doubt of majority's wisdom, members become freer to express their own doubts; may even switch to minority position
9.3.3.4. a minority person who had defected from the majority is even more persuasive than a consistent minority voice - once defections begin, others often soon follow
9.3.3.4.1. new recruits to a group exert a different type of minority influence; through the attention they receive and the group awareness they trigger
9.4. Minority slowness effect
9.4.1. non-conformity is often painful; being minority can be unpleasant
9.4.1.1. must prepare yourself for ridicule, especially when the issue is personally relevant to the majority and when the group wants to settle by consensus
9.4.1.2. people may attribute dissent to psychological peculiarities
9.4.1.3. dissenters typically are quite disliked
9.4.1.3.1. "We dislike arguments of any kind; they are always vulgar, and often convincing" - Oscar Wilde
9.4.2. tendency for people with minority views to express them less quickly than do people in the majority
9.5. Informational influence (via persuasive arguments) and normative influence (via social comparison) fuel group polarisation and minority influence
9.5.1. the social impact of any position, majority or minority, depends on the strength, immediacy and number of those who support it
9.5.2. minorities are more likely to convert people to accepting their views
9.6. Leadership
9.6.1. The process by which certain group members motivate, guide and lead the group
9.6.2. some leaders are formally appointed or elected; others emerge informally as the group interacts
9.6.3. Trait approach theory
9.6.3.1. certain physical characteristics, such as height, extroversion, dominance and intelligence etc are predictors of leadership
9.6.3.1.1. theory is generally disregarded as ungeneralisable
9.6.4. Types
9.6.4.1. Task leadership
9.6.4.1.1. organises work, sets standards and focuses on goals
9.6.4.1.2. typically directive style
9.6.4.1.3. keep group's attention and effort focussed on its mission
9.6.4.2. Social leadership
9.6.4.2.1. builds teamwork, mediates conflict and offers support
9.6.4.2.2. typically democratic style - delegates authority, welcomes team member imput, helds prevent groupthink
9.6.4.2.3. good for morale
9.6.4.2.4. members feel more satisfied when participate in decision making; more motivated to achieve when given control of their tasks
9.6.4.3. Transformational leadership
9.6.4.3.1. enabled by a leader's vision and inspiration; exerts significant influence
9.6.4.3.2. inspire their subordinates to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of the collective; identifying with and committing themselves to the group's mission
9.6.4.3.3. often charismatic, energetic, self-confident extraverts who articulate high standards, inspire people to share their vision, and offer personal attention
9.6.4.3.4. members are more engaged, trusting and effective
9.6.5. who is the leader, and what type of leadership they will show is contingent upon the situation, the group members and how much control they have in the environment
9.6.5.1. the most effective leaders typically score high on tests of both task and social leadership
9.6.5.1.1. actively concerned with how work is progressing and sensitive to the needs of their subordinates