Unit II: Group Dynamics; formation, Structural Properties, decision making and Change;

Prosocial behaviour.

 An Introduction to Social Psychology By Miles Hewstone, Wolfgang Stroebe, Klaus

Jonas
 Group dynamics by Forsyth
 For Group decision making (Myers)

Contents:
1. Group Dynamics: Definition

2. Groups: Definition

3. Types of groups

4. Formation of groups (Reasons for joining the group –perspectives and factors, Theories of
group formation – Tuckman’s sequential model, Bales Equilibrium Model, Punctuated
equilibrium)

5. Group structure:

 Norms: definition, types, conformity to norms (informational and normative

influence); non conformity to norms (Moscovici’s Minority influence),
Conditions affecting adherence to social norms (Latane’s social impact theory,
Cialdini’s Focus theory of normative conduct; resisting pressures to conform),
development of group norms- Keldman’s 4 factors, group norms and group
effectiveness

 Cohesiveness (definition, 4 components of cohesiveness, Factors affecting group

cohesiveness, Group Cohesiveness and Group Effectiveness)

 Status: (Development of status hierarchies: Claiming Pecking order, Expectation

states theory by Ridgeway, Status generalization)

 Roles: (Definition, Zimbardo’s prison study Development of group roles - ISMR–

a model by Moreland and Levine, Group Roles and group effectiveness)

 Communication structure: (Types, Communication networks and group

effectiveness)

6. Decision making
A. ODDI Model by Forsyth

B. Group performance:

1
 Type of tasks and group potential
 Process loss and Process gain
 Process loss and group decision biases
i. Groupthink (janis, 1972)
ii. Group polarization (moscovici and zavalloni, 1969) including risky
shift and cautious shift
iii. Social loafing (Latane et al, 1979) vs social facilitation (Allport,
1920)
iv. Shared information bias (Stasser and titus, 1985)
v. Pluralistic ignorance by allport and katz

7. Groups and Change

GROUP DYNAMICS: Definition

‘Dynamics' is derived from a Greek word meaning force. Hence 'group dynamics' stands for the
forces operating in a group. Kurt Lewin (1943) is credited with coining and popularizing the
term Group Dynamics. In their classic text Group Dynamics, they state, group dynamics is that
branch of knowledge that deals with the study of groups. According to Forsyth, the term ‘group
dynamics has been used in two major ways”

 First, it has been used to depict the vitality and changing nature of groups.
 Second, it has been seen as the field of study that focuses on the behavior of groups.

According to Forsyth, Group Dynamics has the following basic assumptions:

a. Goups are more than the sum of their parts: Lewin believed that a group is a ‘Gestalt’— a
unified system with emergent properties that cannot be fully understood by piecemeal
examination. Adopting the dictum, “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” he
maintained that when individuals merged into a group something new was created and that
the new product itself had to be the object of study.

b. Groups are Dynamic (Change):

1.Groups influence their members

2.Groups influence society: Researchers have documented the role that groups play
in maintaining society. Religious groups provided answers to questions of
values, morality, and meaning. Educational systems and groups took over some
of the teaching duties previously assigned to the family.
3.Groups are living systems: A group, in a very real sense, is alive: It acquires
energy and resources from its environment, maintains its structure, and grows
over time

2
c. Levels of analysis: Two levels of analysis can be distinguished: individual-level analysis
and group level where the former focused on the person in the group (example, studies
have found that individuals work harder and faster when others are present), and the latter
assumes each person is “an element in a larger system, a group, organization, or society”.
The debate between individual-level and group-level approaches waned, in time, as
theorists realized that both levels were important. Kurt Lewin’s approach (1951) reflected
this trend which assumes that the behavior of people in groups (B) is determined by the
interaction of the person (P) and the environment which includes group and the situation
(E). The formula B = ƒ(P,E) summarizes this assumption.

d. Multilevel perspective: This approach, illustrated in Figure 1, suggests that group

dynamics are shaped by processes that range along the micro-meso-macro continuum.
 Micro-level factors include the qualities, characteristics, and actions of the
individual members.
 Meso-level factors are group-level qualities of the groups themselves, such as
their cohesiveness, their size, their composition, and their structure.
 Macro-level factors are the qualities and processes of the larger collectives that
enfold the groups, such as communities, organizations, or societies.

Groups, then, are nested at the meso-level, where the bottom-up micro-level variables meet the
top-down macro-level variables.

3
Importance of group dynamics: The importance of group dynamics stems primarily from the
importance of groups. Groups are important because of the large number that each person
encounters or has membership in and because of the effect that such groups can have on a person's
life. In addition, Forsyth (1983) identified anthropology, political science, education, business,
speech and communication, social work, criminal justice, and sports and recreation as other fields
that recognize the importance of understanding group dynamics. One consequence of the broad
interest in groups (as well as their inherent complexity) has been that theoreticians in the various
disciplines have advanced a wide variety of definitions.

Definition of groups:

Forsyth (2006) gives a simple definition of a group: “A group is defined as two or more individuals
who are connected to one another by social relationships”. Forsyth has emphasized common
properties and qualities of groups:

1) Interaction: All group members interact with each other. Research by Bales
(1950, 1999) determine that there are two main types of interactions;
 Relationship interactions (actions relating to socio emotional needs
such as social support) and
 Task interactions (actions relating to group goals)

2) Interdependence: This interdependence means that members depend on one

another; their outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experiences are
determined in part by others in the group.
3) Goals: Most groups have a reason for their existence and groups can facilitate the
achievement of these goals. Bales believed that the group has two major goals:
 Relationship goals (involving satisfying socioemotional needs
e.g. harmonizing, expressing) and
 Task goals (performing the group's task; e.g. clarifying,
procedure seeking).
To achieve each goal, the group must perform certain actions.

4) Structure: group structure refers to the complex of roles, statuses, norms, and
cohesiveness that organizes the group.
5) Groups are dynamic: Lewin chose the word ‘dynamic’ to describe the activities,
processes, operations, and changes that transpire in groups.

Groups can be usually be differentiated from social aggregates, i.e. collections of unrelated
individuals.
 Crowd is also a collection of people who may be present at a place/situation by chance.
However, it has no structure –roles and statuses, norms or cohesiveness. But crowds can
be converted into mobs.
 Mob behaviour is characterised by a definite sense of purpose, homogeneity of thought and
behaviour as well as impulsivity.

4
 Teams are special kinds of groups and are committed to a common goal or purpose. In
teams, there is a positive synergy attained through the coordinated efforts of the members.

Type of groups

Groups differ in many different ways. Major types of groups are enumerated below:

• Primary and Secondary Groups: A primary group is typically a small social group whose
members share close, personal, enduring relationships (family, close friends). In contrast,
secondary groups are those where relationships among members are more impersonal,
indirect, and less frequent.
• Formal and Informal Groups: The formation and functions of a formal group (e.g.
university) are explicitly stated as in the case of an office organization and it is not so in
informal groups.
• Ingroup and Outgroup: The term 'ingroup' refers to one's own group to which we perceive
we belong, and outgroup' refers to another group.
• Entitativity: Entitativity refers to something like “groupiness”—the perception, either by
the group members themselves or by others, that the people together are a group. Groups
can be classified into four different general types with decreasing entitativity: intimacy
groups (e.g. families), task groups (e.g. jury), social categories (e.g. women), loose
associations.
• Common Identity and common bond groups: Members of common-identity groups (are
attracted to a group because of common interests (e.g. e.g. music groups), or a shared
category/identity (e.g. women’s group). In contrast, common-bond groups such as social
groups comprise members who are attracted to one another as individuals.
• Planned groups and emergent groups: Planned groups are specifically formed for some
purpose. Emergent groups come into being relatively spontaneously where people find
themselves together in the same place, or where the same collection of people gradually
comes to know each other through conversation and interaction over a period of time.
Arrow et al (2000) have split planned groups into
1. 'concocted' (planned by people outside the group) and
2. 'founded' (planned by people who are in the group).

They also divided emergent groups into

1. 'circumstantial' (unplanned groups that develop when external forces bring people
together e.g., people in a bus queue) and
2. 'self-organizing’ (where people gradually cooperate and engage with each other
around some task or interest).

FORMATION OF GROUPS
Reasons for joining the group

Perspectives; People join groups because these groups satisfy a range of needs. According to
Hewstone, Stroebe and Jonas there are three perspectives which explain why people join groups:

5
1. Sociobiological perspective: Following Darwin's theory of evolution, the sociobiological
perspective (e.g., Bowlby, 1958); emphasizes the adaptive value of forming groups. A
predisposition to form groups increased the chances of survival of our ancestors (e.g.
helped us to protect ourselves from predators) and. through the evolutionary principle of
natural selection, this pre disposition was selected and passed on to later generations.

2. Cognitive perspective: According to the cognitive perspective, groups help us to

understand our world.

a. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) argues that people want to hold
accurate views of the world and hence they compare themselves with others. By
choosing comparison targets who are performing poorly compared to themselves
(downward social comparison), individuals bolster their own sense of competence;
and by choosing superior targets {upward social comparison), individuals can
refine their expectations of themselves.

b. Social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel and Turner, 1979, 1986) argues that people
define themselves and others partly in terms of group membership. Being a member
of a group often provides guidelines for the way we should behave and think.

c. Tesser's self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) model argues that people prefer to

associate with individuals who do not outperform them in areas that are very
relevant to their self-esteem.

3. Utilitarian perspective (Social exchange theory): A utilitarian perspective argues that

people derive benefits from groups. Social exchange theory (e.g., Thibaut & Kelley. 1959)
argues groups exist because they facilitate mutually beneficial social exchange. These
exchanges might involve material goods (e.g. borrowing a tool, selling your car) or
interpersonal helping (e.g.. helping a friend move house), but also psychological "goods'
such as esteem, power, love, friendship or approval. Enduring exchange relations between
two or more people are more effectively organized when people form a (more or less stable)
group. Thus, groups exist because they facilitate mutually beneficial social exchange.

Factors: In general, people join groups for the following reasons:

 Personality traits: Extraverts are more likely to seek out groups than are introverts.

 Social motives: Need Hierarchy: Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs (1954) has been
used to describe many human behaviors and may also be used to explain why people join
groups.

a. Need to belong/need for affiliation: Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggest humans
tendency to join groups is generated by a basic ‘need to belong’ or need for
affiliation to social groups that can be explained by terror management theory.

6
According to this theory, fear of death is the most powerful motivating factor in
human existence. People affiliate and join groups in order to reduce fear of death.
Joining groups provide symbolic immortality that outlive individuals.

b. Reduction in feelings of uncertainty: According to uncertainty-identity theory

(Hogg, 2007), one fundamental motivation for joining with groups is to reduce
feelings of uncertainty about who we are, how we should behave, and how others
will perceive and interact with us.

c. Need for Inclusion, control and affection: Schutz’s Fundamental Interpersonal

Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory explains how people use groups to satisfy their
need to receive and express inclusion, control, and affection. The need for inclusion
relates to a person's desire to be recognized by others through human interactions
and to feel like an active participant in these relations. The need for control relates
to a person's desire to feel like they are having an impact in their social sphere. The
need for openness or affection, which is the desire to be liked or loved by others.

d. Social support during stress: Group’s provide their members with social support
during times of stress and tension. Basic types of support from groups include a
sense of belonging and emotional, information, instrumental, and spiritual support.
Stress may not only increase "fight-or-flight" responses to stress, but also the kinds
of "tend-and-befriend" responses seen more often in females (Taylor, 2000). This
latter tendency may increase one’s need to join a group. Taylor argues that females'
behavioral response to stress is to (1) tend their young and (2) affiliate with
(befriend) a social group that, collectively, provides protection from threats. Groups
help members avoid two basic forms of lonliness: social and emotional.

Stages of Group Formation

These theories can be categorized into three main types: sequential stage theories (group moves
from one stage to another), cyclical theories (stages may be repeated), and punctuated
equilibrium theories (Forsyth 1999).

Tuckman’s Sequential models, 1965; Perhaps the best-known scheme for a group development
was advanced by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. The model describes five stages of group formation.
Each of these stages can be differentiated on the basis of its: 1) Processes used to solve problems
and the issues that arise during these processes and 2) Features or characteristics of the stage.

7
1. Forming: ‘Orientation’- The forming phase of group development refers to the initial point
when people come together to form a group. Major task functions concern orientation of group
members - members try to understand precisely what the goal is, what role they will play in
reaching the goal, and what the other group members are like.

 Major processes: In this first meeting, members become familiar with each
other and the group, team members are introduced to each. They share information
about their backgrounds, interests and experience and form first impressions of each
other. At this stage the members are sizing each other up to determine whether or not
they want to continue to be included as part of the group (inclusion issues). Personal
relations within the group are characterized by dependency on the leader to provide
structure, set goals, clarify values, and develop the group vision/mission (dependency
issues).
 Characteristics: Group interactions are likely to be polite and tentative as
members become acquainted with each other and find their place in the group. People
do not want to be embarrassed or break any social rules, so they remain superficial in
their interaction with others. Any real disagreements between people often remain
unacknowledged during this stage because members want to be perceived as flexible
and likable.

8
1. Storming: ‘Conflict’ - The storming stage is characterized by conflict regarding the group
norms, status, and roles. within the group's power structure.

 Major processes: As members figure out the goal and become comfortable with
the other group members, they begin to express their honest opinions and vie for
power and position. They have different opinions on what should be done and how
it should be done - which causes conflict within the team. There is tension amongst
the group members. It is a period of conflicts and disagreements regarding the
group norms, status, and roles. The nature of the group's conflict may also relate
to whether the group has a readily identifiable leader. If the group doesn't have a
leader, tension will exist among the people vying for a leadership position and
other roles in the group. If a group does have a leader, conflict may arise from
challenges to the leader’s authority or decisions. Some group members may create
conflict by withdrawing to the periphery of the group. At this stage, feelings of
anxiety and resentment are also expressed. Group members may express
antagonism toward the leader and each other.
 Characteristics: In performing the group task, ideas are criticized, members are
interrupted while talking, and hostile attitudes can even be displayed. During this
time, attendance is poor, and a more united effort of carrying out objectives may
be difficult. While storming, members may take sides and form coalitions.

Although storming occurs in all groups, some groups manage it better than others.
When storming is severe, it can threaten the group's survival. However, if a group
does not storm, it may experience groupthink.

2. Norming: ‘structure’- This stage occurs after conflict has been resolved and group
structure is relatively stable; norms, roles, and status are now clearly defined.

3. Major processes: Now the conflicts have been resolved and the group starts having
a relatively stable structure: a.) cohesiveness - personal relations are marked by
cohesion; people begin to experience a feeling of group closeness; b) Norms-the
members accept the norms established by the group; c) roles- The roles and
responsibilities are agreed upon; e) status: conflict regarding status, power and
authority has been addressed; e) there is increased communication as members share
feelings and ideas, solicit and give feedback to one another, and explore actions related
to the task. Their communications are characterized by openness and sharing of
information on both a personal and task level. Having expressed honest opinions,
resolved major differences, and sorted out specific roles, members trust each other.
4. Characteristics: There is an agreement on procedures and role ambiguity which
characterized the earlier stage has been removed. The ‘we’ feeling increases.

5. Performing: ‘Work’ - The performing stage is best described as the time when the group
gets its work done, the members relate to each other well, and the group operates effectively

9
and efficiently. Generally, a group must mature to reach the performing stage. Researchers
have found that only a small number of groups actually reach the performing stage and that
the groups that do reach this stage generally do so after a lengthy storming and norming
process.
• Major processes: After the group structure has been put in place,
members begin to work towards goal accomplishment. Conversations are
focused on sharing task-related information. Team members are able to
prevent or solve problems in the team's process or in the team's progress.
• Characteristics: Performing is characterized by harmony, productivity,
problem solving, and shared leadership. During this stage, the group
capitalizes on the skills, knowledge, and abilities of all members to work
toward achieving its goal.

6. Adjourning: ‘Dissolution’ - After the goals of the group have been reached, the team
is dissolved (adjourning stage).

 Major processes: In the dissolution stage, in which the group wraps up

their tasks and terminates their roles. The permanent or ongoing
workgroups in organizations do not pass through this stage. The
temporary groups created for a specific purpose or limited task are most
likely to be dissolved now. Finally, group members will begin to
disengage from their relationships with each other. The group may
formally disband while some members continue to see each other in
social settings.
 Characteristics: It involves disengagement/withdrawal from
relationships and members are trying to become increasingly
independent. However, this is not easy as they may experience several
different emotions (increased emotionality) and concerns about the
team’s impending dissolution. They may be feeling some anxiety
because of uncertainty about their individual role or future
responsibilities. They may feel sadness or a sense of loss about the
changes coming to their team relationships. And at the same time, team
members may feel a sense of deep satisfaction at the accomplishments of
the team. Individual members might feel all of these things at the same
time, or may cycle through feelings of loss followed by feelings of
satisfaction. When the performing stage has resulted in a total integration
with strong feelings of group cohesiveness, its dissolution will bring
sadness and regret. Participants often need to go through a "mourning"
process before making a transition.

Tuckman cited several limitations of the literature, e.g., that the literature could not be considered
truly representative of small group developmental processes because there was an
overrepresentation of therapy and T-group settings and an underrepresentation of natural or
laboratory groups.

10
Bales Equilibrium Model (cyclical model): The ‘equilibrium model’ of group development
(Bales 1965) suggests that there is a cyclical pattern that can be observed in groups which is the
result of maintaining an equilibrium between two needs:
 Task needs (e.g. clarifying, procedure seeking) and
 Socioemotional or group maintenance needs (e.g. harmonizing, expressing).

The cyclical pattern is as follows:

• In addressing the tasks needs, socioemotional issues arise as a consequence of

disagreements among members and the tension that builds up because of a focus on work
rather than intragroup relationships.

• This socioemotional needs have to be looked after, which may be accomplished through
positive activities, such as joking and congratulating members for good ideas, and through
negative activities, such as the expression of frustration or even aggression against other
members. If socioemotional issues are not addressed from time to time, the mounting
tension may otherwise inhibit the group's ability to complete the task.

Hence, groups face an ‘equilibrium problem’ that leads them to go back and forth between concern
with task and concern with socioemotional issues. Successful group performance is achieved once
a group has matured and the members are able to maintain equilibrium between task-oriented
behaviours and socio-emotional behaviours. However, equilibrium may be temporary; for
example, as the group encounters a new situation or takes on new members, the group may need
to move through the three progressive stages once again.

Punctuated equilibrium; Punctuated equilibrium models agree with Bales' view, but they add that
groups often go through periods of relatively rapid change. These changes may be precipitated
by some internal crisis, such as the loss of a leader, or by changes in the type of task the group is
attempting. The halfway point in the group's life, too, can trigger dramatic changes in the group,
as members realize that the time they have available to them is dwindling.

GROUP STRUCTURE
Groups are not unorganized, haphazard collections of individuals, but organized systems of
interactions and relationships regulated by group structure. Group structure refers to
interrelationships between group members and rules of behaviour that allow a group to function
in an orderly way. The five main aspects of group structure are: cohesiveness, norms, status, roles
and communication structure (Pennington, 2002).

11
Norms

Example: A group of passengers took a flight from Uruguay to Chile but it crashed in the Andes.
The survivors of the Andes crash needed to coordinate their actions if they were to stay alive. With
food, water, and shelter severely limited, they were forced to interact with and rely on each other
continually, and any errant action on the part of one person would disturb and even endanger
several other people. So members soon began to follow a shared set of rules that defined how the
group would sleep at night, what types of duties each healthy individual was expected to perform,
and how food and water were to be apportioned. Soon norms emerged.

Definition:
Group norms are the rules that define appropriate and inappropriate behavior in a group. Deviation
from these norms can lead to sanctions

Types of norms (overlapping)

Descriptive vs Descriptive norms describe how most members usually act. Hence, it provides
Prescriptive/Injunctive information. E.g the amount that most members usually eat in a binge eating group.
Prescriptive/Injunctive norms describe defines which behaviors ought to be done by
members. E.g. the amount a member ought to eat in a binge eating group

Informal vs Formal Informal describe the unwritten rules of conduct in the group while formal are clearly
written rules

12
Garfinkel devised a general methodology, called ethnomethodology to detect implicit taken-for-
granted background norms. One specific method involved the violation of norms in order to attract
people's attention to them. For example, Garfinkel had students act at home for 15 minutes as if
they were boarders: that is, be polite, speak formally and only speak when spoken to. Their families
reacted with astonishment, bewilderment, shock, embarrassment and anger, backed up with
charges of selfishness, nastiness, rudeness and lack of consideration! An implicit norm for familial
interaction was revealed, and its violation provoked a strong reaction.

Conformity to social norms:

Norms exert powerful pressures towards conformity and are hard to change. ‘Conformity’ is a
social influence process that involves modifying behavior to adhere to social norms (Baron, 2012).
‘Conformity’ includes both compliance and obedience. ‘Compliance’ refers to a change in behavior
that is requested by another person or group (though it was possible to decline) while ‘obedience’
refers to following the demands or orders that come from some socially recognized authority figure
such as a parent, a teacher, or a military commander. Conformity to social norms may occur due
to two influences: informational influence and normative influence.

 Informational social influence occurs because we see others as a source of information to

guide our behavior; we conform because we believe that others’ interpretation of an
ambiguous situation is more correct than ours. Informational social influence usually
results in private acceptance, wherein people genuinely believe in what other people are
doing or saying. Classical studies were carried out by Sherif (1936) who used a
phenomenon known as the Autokinetic effect. When placed in a dark room with a spotlight
projected onto a screen, the stationary spot of light appears to move (although in fact this
is just a visual illusion). Individuals’ estimates of the amount of movement conformed to
the group’s.

 Normative social influence occurs when we conform to the group’s social norms i.e. (rules
for acceptable behaviors) so that we are liked by others. Normative social influence usually
results in public compliance, but not private acceptance of other people’s ideas. Solomon
Asch's (l951, 1955) famous experiments on conformity demonstrated how the judgements
of others in a group, even if apparently incorrect, cause others to conform to the majority
view. Asch found that a unanimous view produces the greatest pressure on an individual
to conform; if there is one other person who disagrees with the majority view, conformity
levels of the individual under study drop quite dramatically

Solomon Asch (1951) conducted his classic study of conformity by having participants
gather in a room. They were then shown a white card with three black lines of varying
lengths followed by another white card with only one line on it (standard line). The task was
to determine which line on the first card was most similar to the line on the second card. For
the experiment, eight subjects were seated around a table, with the seating plan carefully
constructed to prevent any suspicion. Only one participant was actually a genuine subject
for the experiment, the rest being confederates, carefully tutored to give certain pre-selected
responses. The experiment was simple in its construction; each participant, in turn, was

13
asked to answer a series of questions, such as which line was longest or which matched the
standard line. The results indicated that when surrounded by people giving an incorrect
answer, over one third of the subjects also voiced an incorrect opinion.

Asch (1955) got participants to conform to answers given by others that were obviously
incorrect If the participants gave the correct answers, they risked being ridiculed by the
majority. A conflict had been created between an individual's opinion and that of the group.
In the post-experimental debriefing, many said I didn't want to look stupid' or I didn't want
to be the odd one out'. So they compromised, with what they said (publicly) and what they
believed (privately) being completely different, demonstrating an example of compliance.

Non-conformity to norms and minority influence

There are many situations in which people may not adhere to social norms. Violation of social
norms by minorities may at time be beneficial and may ultimately lead to social change.

Minority influence (Moscovici, 1976, 1980): Burgoon (1995) argued that it is the
violation of social norms by minorities which leads to systematic processing and,
ultimately, social change. In many of the conformity studies it was a minority group who
were conforming to the majority. Moscovici (1976, 1980) argued along different
lines. He argued for minority social influence that occurs where a smaller group of
people is trying to persuade a larger group of people into changing their attitudes,
behaviours or beliefs. Minority influence is the result of the majority being persuaded to
examine the minority’s viewpoint.

To test his ideas about minority influence, Moscovici (1969) developed the 'blue-green'
experiments in which a numerical minority within the group (two of the six group
members) were confederates of the experimenter and gave pre-agreed responses (e.g.
'green') to the blue slides. This response was given aloud before the naive participants
gave theirs. The key finding of the study was that having a minority consistently calling
the blue slides 'green' resulted in an increase in the number of times that the naive
participants also called these slides 'green'. Whether a minority can win over a majority
depends on how the minority goes about its task (its behavioural style). The single most
important behavioural style is consistency – all the members repeat the same message.

Martin & Hewstone (1999) found that minority influence leads to more creative and novel
judgements than majority influence, supporting the idea of minority influence being a
social force for innovation and change.

14
Conditions affecting adherence to social norms
There are a number of factors which may determine whether people adhere to social norms:

 Social Impact Theory (Latane, 1981) As developed by Latane (1981), this theory suggests
that the total impact of other people on an individual to conform to norms depends on three
characteristics of the observers {source of influence):

a) Strength: The importance or power of the influencing group

b) Immediacy: how close the group is to the individual (in space and time).
c) Number: Number of people in the group.

 Focus theory of normative conduct (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990): This theory
suggests that norms will influence behavior only to the extent that they are salient (relevant,
significant) to the people involved at the time the behavior occurs. In other words, people
will obey injunctive norms only when they think about them and see them as relevant to
their own actions.

• Resisting pressures to conform: There are many reasons as to why people do no conform
to norms:
a) Desire for individuation: Person doesn’t want to be seen as being the same as everyone
else
b) Desire to maintain control: Person wants to feel as if they are making their own
decisions
c) Prior commitment: If their original view opposes that of the majority, they may
continue to hold it in order to be consistent.
d) Time to think and find social support: Aronson (1999): people should become aware
of the influences upon them and then find others to join in their resistance of
conforming influences.

Development of group norms: How groups develop group norms, especially in newly established
groups, has been extensively researched. In existing groups we have already seen how a new
member is socialised into a group and adopts the prevailing norms of the group. Keldman (1984)
has suggested four main factors that contribute to the development and establishment of norms:
precedents set over time; carry-overs from other situations; explicit statements made by others,
and critical events in the history of the group. These factors are shown in Figure 4.6 together with
an example of each.

15
Group norms, once established, are very hard to change, and change will only come about if the
group experiences disequilibrium (Lewin, 1947). Disequilibrium occurs when a group is in crisis
or members are highly dissatisfied with the group. When one or both of these are present, changes
in how the group operates will have to be made for the group to continue and function more
effectively.

Group norms and group effectiveness

 First, they foster coordination among members in pursuit of group goals. Because norms
usually reflect a group's fundamental value system, they prescribe behaviors that foster the
attainment of important goals. In an early and classic study of factory production norms.
Lester Coch and John French (1948) describe a group that set itself a standard of 50 units
per hour as the minimum level to secure job tenure. New members quickly adopted this

16
norm. Those who did not were strongly sanctioned by ostracism and in some cases had
their work sabotaged.

 Second, norms are especially useful in novel or ambiguous situations, where they serve as
pointers on how to behave (informational influence). They provide a basis for
distinguishing good from bad, important from unimportant, tenable from untenable. This
idea was explored by Sherif (1936) in his classic experiments on autokinetic effect.

 Third, norms define and enhance the common identity of group members. This is especially
true when group norms require members to behave differently from persons outside the
group. Thus, norms that prescribe distinctive dress (for example, clothing or hairstyles) or
distinctive speech patterns will differentiate group members from non group members.

Through the process of developing shared norms of behavior, team members begin to hold each
other accountable for how they contribute to the team. By pointing out when someone violates a
norm, the team helps keep its performance on track.

Group cohesiveness

Examples of cohesive groups: Anecdotal accounts of highly cohesive groups— military squads,
adolescent peer groups, sports teams, fraternities and sororities, and cults—often describe the
strong pressures that these groups put on their members. Drug use and illegal activities are often
traced back to conformity pressures of adolescents' peer groups (Giordano, 2003). Cohesive gangs
exert strong pressure on members. Cults may demand extreme sacrifices from members, including
suicide. Even sports teams, if highly cohesive, may extract both compliance and sacrifice from
members.

Definition:
 Degree of closeness: Cohesiveness defines the degree of closeness that the members feel
with the group.

 “We-ness’: One way of assessing group cohesiveness is the frequency with which the word
'we' is used by individuals to refer to the group: highly cohesive groups used the word 'we'
very frequently.

 Strength of forces to stay in the group: Festinger et al (1950) defined it as strength of the
forces acting on the group members to stay in the group and the most common way to
measure group cohesiveness was to measure it through interpersonal attraction.

 Social attraction: However, Hogg (1992) states that group cohesiveness is determined
more by social attraction (i.e. attraction to the group as a whole) rather than interpersonal

17
attraction (i.e. attraction between members). Social attraction is depersonalized, since it is
based on admiration for individuals who possess the kinds of qualities that typify the group.

Components of cohesiveness: Most researchers believe that cohesiveness has 3 or 4 components:

(1) Social cohesion (both social and interpersonal attraction): attraction to the group and its
members which is essentially a liking for the group or the group members,

(2)Task Cohesion: Focus or commitment to the task as indicted by (a) teamwork displayed by
group members as they coordinate their efforts and (b) the group’s level of collective efficacy.

(3) Emotional cohesion (Group Pride) which is the extent to which group members experience
positive affect from being associated with the group (Beal et al., 2003).

4) Perceived cohesion: Forsyth adds another component: Perceived cohesion. The extent to which
the group members feel as though they belong in the group (individual-level) and the overall
entitativity of the group (group-level).

Factors affecting group cohesiveness: Many factors affect the cohesiveness of a group:

 Attraction/Liking: When group members like each other and are connected by bonds of
friendship, cohesiveness is high (Paxton & Moody, 2003). Indeed, researchers have often
measured cohesiveness by assessing the amount of liking among group members.

 Stability, size, and structure: As defined by Ziller, open groups display less cohesion than
closed groups. Smaller groups tend to be more cohesive than larger groups, as do groups
with particular structural features (such as the absence of subgroups, less hierarchy, etc.).

 Initiations: Many groups require prospective members to pass an initiation test before they
join the group. Initiates in biker gangs, for example, must earn the right to wear the
emblems of their gang by performing a variety of behaviors. Since membership must be
earned voluntarily through initiation rites therefore people who go through these rites will
more likely be active and investing members. However, when an initiation is severe, such
as some extreme ‘hazing’ practices (Hazing or ragging is the practice of rituals, challenges,
and other activities involving abuse or humiliation used as a way of initiating a person into
a group), it does not increase cohesiveness.

 Minimal conflict: Another source of cohesiveness is the extent to which a group interacts
effectively and harmoniously with minimal conflict.

 Instrumental goals: Third, people's motivation to remain in a group is also influenced by

the instrumental goals of the group. Our attraction to a group depends on the match between
our goals and those of the group, and on how successfully the group accomplishes its objec-
tives.

18
 Finally, group cohesiveness is also affected by forces that discourage members from
leaving, even if they are dissatisfied. Sometimes people stay in groups because the costs of
leaving are high or because they have no available alternatives.

Group Cohesiveness and Group Effectiveness: An interesting question is whether cohesiveness

makes groups perform better. It may seem obvious that it should, but in fact the relationship
between cohesiveness and performance is not a simple one. The causal relationship works both
ways: On the one hand, when a group is cohesive, group performance often improves; on the other
hand, when a group performs well, it often becomes more cohesive. Many team athletes recognize
that winning creates team chemistry even more than team chemistry creates winning. In their meta-
analysis of the research on cohesiveness and group performance, Mullen and Copper (1994) found
stronger evidence that performance affects cohesiveness than that cohesiveness affects
performance. This relationship tended to be stronger in small groups than in large ones.

Finally, the impact of cohesiveness on performance depends on the group's productivity norm.
When that norm encourages productivity, cohesiveness facilitates performance. But when that
norm discourages productivity (e.g., because members feel underpaid}, cohesiveness undermines
performance.

At times, highly cohesive groups may also perform poorly, because of 'groupthink’. When the
group norms emphasize the value of cooperation and agreement; members of highly cohesive
groups avoid disagreement more than members of noncohesive groups. Irving Janis’s (1982)
theory of groupthink suggests that these pressures undermine a group’s willingness to critically
analyze its decisions leading to ‘groupthink’.

In sum, the impact of cohesiveness on group processes and outcomes is far from simple.

Group status
Example: In the Andes group, some members became more influential as time passed, whereas
others found that they could do little to persuade others to accept their lead. Some became leaders
while others became followers. Hence different status emerged.

Status can be defined as a position or social ranking of individuals, groups, or objects us superior
or inferior according to a shared standard of social value. Status is revealed in the prestige, esteem,
honor, respect and deference accorded to the person, group, or object in comparison to others.
Status may be formal or informal. Formal status is associated with a position such as the manager
of a company and is also associated with status symbols (such as a plush office). Informal status
may come about through, for example, length of time in the job, older and more experienced team
or group members, or individuals who have special skills or qualifications not formally recognized
but seen as being of value to the group.

19
Development of status hierarchies: Overtime most groups develop a stable pattern of variations in
authority and power (e.g., such as leader and follower) through a status differentiation process:

 Claiming Pecking order: In some instances, people compete with one another for status in
groups; the resulting ‘pecking order’ or status hierarchies determines who is dominant and
who is submissive. People may signal their status by using such nonverbal cues as a firm
handshake, an unwavering gaze, a relaxed but poised posture to let others know that they
should be respected. People also signal their authority through their verbal
communications. Those seeking high status often initiate conversations and shift the
discussion to their own areas of competence (Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986).

 Emergence of status hierarchies - Expectation states theory (Ridgeway, 2001): According

to this theory ‘socially significant characteristics’ lead to ‘expectation states’ (beliefs about
the worthiness of each group members) which in turn decide the status of the group
member.

Socially significant characteristics (e.g., race, gender, physical attractiveness) can be either
specific or diffuse:

a. Specific status characteristics: Information about those abilities of a

person that are directly relevant to the group task (e.g., athletic ability
in a sports team, public speaking in a law firm).
b. Diffuse status characteristics: Characteristics that do not relate directly
to ability on the group task but are generally positive or negatively
valued in society. Gender is an example of a diffuse status characteristic.
Widely shared cultural beliefs about gender have been shown to include
expectations that men are diffusely more competent at most things.

20
Both specific and diffuse status characteristics lead to expectation about worthiness of a
group member which in turn decides his status in the group.

 ‘Status generalization’: Groups do not always allocate status fairly. Status

generalization occurs when a status that is irrelevant in a situation still has an effect (or is
generalized) on that situation. One disturbing example is the persistent gender pay gap that
exists in most societies. This gap exists because most people either consciously or
subconsciously believe that one's gender status impacts one's value, and thus one's worth,
as an employee. Gender status also impacts how a person's intelligence is evaluated.

Group roles

Example: On the day after the Andes crash, Marcelo, one survivor organized the efforts of those
who could work. Two young men and one of the women administered first aid to the injured. One
subgroup of boys melted snow for drinking water, and another team cleaned the cabin of the
airplane. These various positions in the group— leader, doctor, snow melter, cabin cleaner—are
all examples of roles.

Definition: Roles in a group may be defined as 'the sets of behaviours or responsibilities that indi-
viduals occupying specific positions in a group are expected to perform' (Baron and Byrne, 2001).
3. The group often has different expectations for different group members. These shared
expectations help to define individual roles, such as team captain (a formal role) or newcomer (an
informal role) (Levine & Moreland, 1990).

 Role differentiation refers to how different people perform different roles within a group
(e.g. group leader, finance officer, note-taker).
 Role ambiguity occurs when an individual does not know what is expected of them.
 Role conflict is experienced when there is conflict between multiple roles that one
occupies. For example, employees often face conflicting demands between work and
family.
 Role strain refers to the difficulties a person experiences when performing or trying to enact
a particular role. This may be caused by the person lacking the skills, experience or
expertise needed to perform the role effectively or by external forces.

The Prison studies: Some studies also indicate that people internalize their social roles—and these
roles soon become a part of the self-concept. In the Stanford prison experiment (Zimbardo, 1971)
twenty-four male students were assigned the roles of either prisoners or guards in a mock prison .
The guards subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture while many of the prisoners
passively accepted psychological abuse. The study indicated that as a result of simply being placed
in a role, participants would come to behave in ways that were consistent with that role i.e. they
started acting like real guards and real prisoners. However, the Stanford experiment were not
supported by the BBC Prison study by Reicher and Haslam (2002). Specifically, there was no
evidence of guards conforming 'naturally' to the role.

Collectively, these simulated prison studies illustrate that roles are not automatic determinants of

21
behavior. Rather, an internalization process whereby we come to identify with, and see ourselves
in terms of a role and identity must take place before out behavior will reflect it.

Development of group roles (ISMR): Moreland and Levine (2001) have also developed a model
for group socialization which describes how group roles develop over a period of time.

1 Investigation. Here an individual is a prospective member of the group. The individual

engages in reconnaissance and the group engages in recruitment.
2 Socialization. The individual is now a new member of a group. In this stage, new members
learn the norms as well what role they will be playing in the group so as to function
effectively.
3 Maintenance: The individual is now an accepted member of the group and ‘role
negotiation’ regarding the specific duties the individual might engage in, such as leadership
occurs. Thus, the member tries to occupy the role within the group that best satisfies his or
her needs, whereas the group tries to assign roles to members in such a way that the group's
goals can be best achieved.
4 Resocialization: The individual may not agree on their assigned role, and the group
member becomes marginalized. In this period, the group might try to persuade marginal
members not to leave, or they might try to accommodate to the wishes of marginal members
(e.g. give them a different role).

Group Roles and group effectiveness

 First, they allow for a division of labour to take place among the members of a group; this
should result in efficient operation of the group on the task set.
 Having a set of clear roles is beneficial to a group (Lu et al., 2008). A meta-analysis of
studies involving more than 11,000 individuals found a significant negative correlation
between role ambiguity and job performance—the more role ambiguity, the worse one’s
job performance is (Tubre & Collins, 2000).

22
Communication structure
People occupying different roles in a group need to coordinate their actions through
communication, although not all roles need to communicate with one another. Alex Bavelas (1968)
suggested that an important factor was the number of communication links to be crossed for one
person to communicate with another. For example, if I can communicate with the dean of my
faculty directly, there is one link; but if I have to go through the head of department, there are two.

Types of communication networks: Communication networks may differ to the extent of

centralization:

 Centralized networks: Centralized networks require communications flow through a

central position or person (called the ‘hub’). The ‘hub’ has often got a great deal of
decision-making power. One advantage to the centralized approach is that it encourages
standardized processes that typically result in cost savings and better quality control. One
disadvantage to centralized communication is that as the organization grows, the amount
of information can overwhelm the central hub that processes this information.

 Decentralized networks, tend to utilize many channels of information flow, allowing for
more open communication between group members. One of the major advantages of
decentralized communication is that problems can be solved in a timely manner. A major
disadvantage to a decentralized organization is that the group can easily lose sight of the
common goal.

Some common networks are given below:

a. In a wheel network, for example, most group members communicate with just one person.
Highest degree of centralization as each person can communicate with only one person i.e.
‘B’ who is the ‘hub’.
b. In a comcon (combination of two words “completely connected”) all members can and do
communicate with all other members. Comcon network has the highest degree of
decentralization
c. In a chain, communication flows from one person to the next in a line.
d. A circle is a closed chain,
e. Pinwheel is a circle where information flows in only one direction (Shaw, 1964).

Communication networks and group effectiveness:

 For simple tasks: For relatively simple tasks, greater centralisation improves group
performance (Leavitt, 1951): the hub person is able to receive, integrate and pass on
information efficiently while allowing peripheral members to concentrate on
their allotted roles.

23
 For more complex tasks: For more complex tasks, a less centralised structure is superior
{Shaw, 1964) because the hub can suffer from information overload leading to
‘information saturation’ (Shaw, 1964). Peripheral members would thus experience delays

Another important consideration is the degree of autonomy felt by group members. Because they
are dependent on the hub for regulation and flow of information, peripheral members have less
power in the group, and they can feel restricted and dependent. According to the Dutch
psychologist Mauk Mulder (1959), having more power—being more central and feeling like a 'key
person"—leads to a greater sense of autonomy and satisfaction, so peripheral members can become
dissatisfied, while hub members, who are often perceived to be group leaders, feel a sense of
satisfaction.

Group decision making

ODDI Model- Forsyth, 2009

Many models of group decision making have been suggested. Some suggest three stages while
others suggest four stages. According to Forsyth (2009), when a group needs to make a decision
or solve a problem, such as organizing a demonstration or letter-writing campaign, raising funds,
or prioritizing goals, the group should make its choice deliberately and mindfully. Although groups
reach their decisions in many ways, Forsyth has recommended a functional model (emphasizing
various functions of the group to reach its goal) that involves moving through four basic stages:
(a) orientation: (b) discussion: (c) decision making: and (d) implementation.

24
ORIENTATION PHASE (O):. During the orientation phase, a group has to define the problem,
set goals, and develop a strategy. Research suggests that most groups spend little time in this phase,
assuming that planning is a waste of their time, but that groups who spend a fair amount of time
in the orientation phase are more successful than groups that do not (Hackman, 1976).

DISCUSSION PHASE (D): Discussion allows members to voice their perspectives and critically
evaluate options. These conversations are a form of critical reflection in which members analyze
issues and weigh the pros and cons of various decisions.

This stage involves remembering information, exchanging information, processing information

and detecting errors. Key questions here are whether groups can remember more information and
do so more accurately than individuals. Clearly, different people recall different information.
When they come together as a group to share this information each person’s memory is expanded
and the group has remembered more. Unshared information is now shared (Clark & Stephenson,
1995). Sometimes however, it leads to ‘shared information bias’ as well.

During this stage groups can aid in memory through two processes:
1) Cross cueing: When group members exchange information, they may give each other
cues that help them remember things that they would not recall if working alone. This
process is known as cross-cueing.

25
2) Transactive memory systems (TMS): Groups also have ‘transactive’ memory which
aid in recall. Transactive memory is an interdependent form of memory that combines
individual recall with systematic group recall. Different members remember different
things (memory specialisation is distributed), but everyone also needs to remember
‘who remembers what’ – who to go to for information. In new groups, transactive
memory is often based on stereotypical expectations about who is most likely to know
what – the ‘geeky’ looking person will know about computers, the adolescent girl will
know about texting, the macho male will know about cars and the older person will
know how to negotiate. In practice, most groups go on to develop more sophisticated
memory-assignment systems. A group can negotiate over who will remember what, or
they can assign responsibility for memory domains on the basis of who has
demonstrated most knowledge and competence or who has easiest access to specific
sources of information.

What a group remembers is a significant part of the group’s culture (Moreland, Argote & Krishnan,
1996). Consider the culture of work groups in organisations: such groups develop detailed
knowledge about norms, allies and enemies, cliques, working conditions, motivation to work,
performance and performance appraisal, who fits in, and who is good at what.

DECISION PHASE (D): A decision rule is a rule about how many members must agree before the
group can reach a decision. Decision rules set the criteria for how individual choices will be
blended into a group product or decision. Groups will find a decision rule that leads to good
decisions and stick with that rule throughout the life cycle of the group (Miller, 1989). Two
common decision rules are majority rule (the winning alternative must receive more than half the
votes) and unanimity rule (consensus, all members must agree). The majority rule is used in most
groups (Davis, 1980).

There are other decision rules as well. The decision rule used by a group may depend on what kind
of task the group is working on.

 When the group deals with intellective tasks—problems for which there is a definitive
correct answer, such as the solution to an equation—the decision rule is truth wins. In other
words, when one member of the group solves the problem, all members (who have
mathematical knowledge) recognize the truth of the answer.

 If the problem has a less definitively correct answer, such as, say, the solution to a word
puzzle, then the decision rule is that truth supported wins. When one member comes up
with an answer that the others support, that answer wins (Kerr, 1991).

26
 When the group deals with judgmental tasks—tasks that do not have a demonstrably
correct answer, such as a jury decision in a complex case—then the decision rule is majority
wins (Laughlin & Ellis, 1986).

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE (I): After a decision is made, a group will often create an
implementation plan to put the decision into action. Once a decision has been made, tasks can be
assigned, deadlines determined, and schedules created.

Implementation is affected by procedural justice - group members’ evaluation of the fairness in

the processes that the group used to make its decisions. Many factors influence perceptions of
procedural fairness, but when people believe that they had a voice in the matter—that they could
have expressed any concerns they had and others would have listened and responded— then they
tend to be far more engaged in the implementation of the final decision. This is referred to as voice
effect.

Groups that follow these four stages are more likely to make better decisions than those who
sidestep or mishandle information at any particular stage (Hollingshead et al., 2005; Wittenbaum
et al., 2004).

GROUP PERFORMANCE:

Type of tasks and group potential: In general, research shows that groups do outperform
individuals—at least the average individual—on many jobs and tasks (Stasser, Kerr, & Davis,
1989). But this may always not be the case. To determine group-performance, we have to know
what performance would have occurred if the same members had worked independently of each
other (i.e., not as a group). This latter performance will be labelled potential group performance
(group potential). The potential is contrasted with how the group actually performs, which is called
actual group performance. This ‘group potential’ is determined by combining the individual
contributions into a (hypothetical) group product. This second step depends strongly on the type
of task under investigation. Additive tasks are those in which the performance of a group is simply
the sum of its members' individual performances. In a disjunctive task, a group has to choose one
of several judgements or proposals. A conjunctive task requires all group members to be successful
for the group to complete the task. An example is climbing a mountain as part of a roped team.
Suppose that, in order to reach the peak, the climbers have to pass a difficult overhang. The
climbing team will only reach the peak if all members are successful in passing the overhang.

27
Process Gain and process loss: Group potential and actual group performance often diverge. This
divergence is due to process losses and process gains, both of which occur due to social
interdependence and social interaction in groups. This is expressed in the following formula by
Hackman and Morris (1975):

Process loss occurs when a people working in a group or team performs worse than the individual
members. Process gain occurs when a people working in a group or team perform better than the
individual members. Process gains occur when interactions among group members build on or
extend the combination of individual contributions for better-than-expected outcomes. The term
synergy describes such interactions, in which the collective result substantially exceeds the sum of
results expected from the same individuals working separately. One of the main advantages groups
have over individuals is that Groups may possess what has been called ‘transactive memory
systems’. Details of process loss are given next.

Process loss and group decision biases: There may be many biases due to which process losses
may occur:

 GROUPTHINK (JANIS, 1972)

 GROUP POLARIZATION (MOSCOVICI AND ZAVALLONI, 1969) including
risky shift and cautious shift
 SOCIAL LOAFING (LATANE ET AL, 1979) vs SOCIAL FACILITATION
(allport)
 SHARED INFORMATION BIAS/ BIASED SAMPLING (STASSER AND
TITUS, 1985)
 PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE, (ALLPORT AND KATZ, 1931)

Groupthink (Janis, 1972): Irving Janis (1972) coined the term groupthink: an emphasis on group
unanimity at the expense of critical thinking. Groups sometimes become so intent on ensuring that
everyone agrees with everyone else that they lose their capacity to evaluate issues objectively Even

28
if members of a group have doubts they suppress their doubts about a group's decision for fear of
making a bad impression or disrupting group harmony.

Janis set the foundation for the study of groupthink starting with his research on a number of
'disasters' in American foreign policy. He provided supporting analyses of four political decisions
that were classified as groupthink fiascoes (the Bay of Pigs, invasion of North Korea, Pearl Harbor,
and the escalation of war in Vietnam). Janis arrived at the concept of groupthink after studying the
reasoning processes behind the failed 1961 invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. Following lengthy
discussions with cabinet members, President John F. Kennedy recruited 1,400 Cuban immigrants
to invade Cuba and overthrow its dictator, Fidel Castro. But Castro found out about the invasion
in advance and nearly all the invaders were captured or killed. After the failed invasion, Kennedy
asked, “How could I have been so stupid?” (Dallek, 2003). Janis had a simple answer: Kennedy
and his cabinet fell prey to groupthink.

A model of Groupthink by Janis: The full model included five elements that are assumed to be
causally related. The chain starts with antecedent conditions (group cohesion, structural
organizational faults, and provocative situational context). These result in pressures to agree
(concurrence-seeking). The seeking of concurrence influences the following three symptoms of
groupthink: overestimation of the group, closed-mindedness, and pressures toward uniformity. In
turn, the symptoms of groupthink cause different symptoms of defective decision-making. In the
final stage of this causal chain, the symptoms of defective decision making result in bad decisions.

Antecedent conditions (causes): According to Janis, three conditions make it more likely: high
cohesion, structural flaws, and situational characteristics:

 Cohesion refers to the degree of connection between group members, or a sense of

solidarity. In highly cohesive groups there are more pressures to conform.

29
 Structural flaws, refers to problems with the way the group is organized. Janis identified
four specific structural flaws. First, group insulation means that the group is somehow
isolated from the larger world. This reduces the information that is available to them from
the outside world. The second structural flaw is biased leadership - a leader who exerts too
much of authority to conform can increase pressures to conform. Third, a lack of standard
procedure can lead to groupthink. Last, too much homogeneity is problematic.
Homogeneity refers to similarity; group members who are very similar—in background,
values, or beliefs-are less likely to challenge each other's ideas.

 High stress: Groupthink is more likely to occur in times of high stress.

Symptoms of Groupthink

 Overestimation of the Group: An overestimation of the group includes those behaviors

that suggest that the group believes it is more than it is. Two specific symptoms are: 1)
Illusion of group invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking
extreme risks. 2) Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their
cause and therefore ignore the consequences of their decisions.
 Closed-Mindedness: When a group is closed-minded, it ignores outside influences on the
group.
 Pressures toward Uniformity: Doubts and deviations are not expressed and members
protect the group/leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the
group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

Symptoms of poor decision making: Janis lists many consequences of poor decision making
which may lead to low probability of a successful outcome. These are: incomplete survey of
alternatives, poor information search, failure to work out contingency plans etc.

Remedies for Groupthink: Decision experts have determined that groupthink may be prevented
by adopting some of the following measures:

 To avoid isolation, groups should consult widely with outsiders. One or more experts
should be invited to each meeting to challenge views of the members.

 To reduce group pressures to conform, leaders should explicitly encourage criticism and
not take a strong stand early in the group discussion.

 To establish a strong norm of critical review, subgroups should separately discuss the
same issue, a member should be assigned to play devil’s advocate and question all
decisions and ideas, and a “second chance” meeting should be held to reconsider the
group decision before taking action.

Group Polarization by Moscovici and Zavalloni, 1969: Group polarization is said to

occur when, after discussion, the attitudes held by the individual group members become more

30
extreme than before. For example, aer discussing feminism a group of moderately pro-feminist
individuals would tend to become, on average, more pro-feminist than they had been initially.

Polarization has been observed with respect to political attitudes, jury verdicts, satisfaction with
new consumer products, judgments of physical dimensions etc. However, Group polarization does
not occur in all groups but tends to happen most often when two conditions are present:

 Initial leaning towards a position: First, the group members must have an initial leaning
toward a given opinion or decision. If the group members generally support liberal policies,
their opinions are likely to become even more liberal after discussion. But if the group is
made up equally of both liberals and conservatives, group polarization would not be
expected.

 Group Discussion: Second, group polarization is strengthened by discussion of the

topic. Polarization occurs in communities, as people liberal communities attract liberals
and become more liberal, while conservative places attract conservatives and become more
conservative. During actual community conflicts, like-minded people associate
increasingly with one another, amplifying their shared beliefs.

Two phenomenon which are part of group polarization include risky shift and cautious shift.

1. Risky Shift: In a group, people are likely to make riskier decisions than when they are
alone. This is called ‘risky shift’ (Wallach et al, 1962).

2. Cautious Shift: Other studies however, have revealed something directly opposite to the
risky shift. On certain issues, when members are more likely to be cautious or risk avoidant,
group discussion actually causes members to become even more cautious than they were
initially (Stoner, 1961). This move away from risk following a group discussion is termed
a cautious shift. So although group discussion leads to more extreme decisions, these are
not necessarily riskier decisions.

Theoretical explanations

 Informational and normative influence: Informational social influence occurs because we

see others as a source of information to guide our behavior. Because most information
supports one position, the members become even more persuaded due to these influences
and polarization occurs.

 According to persuasive arguments theory, the greater the number and persuasiveness of
the arguments to which group members are exposed, the more extreme their attitudes
become. If most group members favor a cautious decision, for example, most of the
arguments discussed will favor caution, giving the members more and more reasons to
think caution is the correct approach.

31
 Group identification theory: group members identify with the “in” group and differentiate
themselves from the ‘out’ group. Group members then conform to a prototypical group
position that is more extreme than the group mean.

 Optimal distinctiveness theory: The optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991), states
there is a fundamental tension between two needs; the need to belong and the need to be
unique. When people feel too unique they will have a desire to be like others and this leads
to group polarization.

Social Loafing (Latane et al, 1979) vs. Social facilitation (Allport, 1920): Sometimes the presence
of one or more people can have a detrimental effect on our performance (social inhibition). One
form of social inhibition is the phenomenon of social loafing.

Social loafing is the tendency of a group member to exert less effort on a task when working in a
group than when working individually. This pattern is quite common on ‘additive tasks’ i.e. tasks
in which the contributions of each member are combined into a single group output. Ringelmann
(1913) found that when he asked a group of men to pull on a rope, that they did not pull as hard
as they did when they were pulling alone (called Ringelmann effect).

Social Loafing has two common manifestations. (1) Free-rider effect is where some people who
benefit from the group give little in return, and thus cause (2) sucker effect, where the other (fully
performing) members lower their efforts in response to the free riders' attitude. Nobody wants to
be the “sucker” who does all the work while everyone else goofs off, so everyone withholds effort
and the result is very poor group performance

Theoretical explanations

o Social Impact Theory: Latane, et al (1979) stated that ‘diffusion of responsibility’ makes it
difficult to distinguish one person's contribution from another in a group (“I am lost in the
crowd so who cares”).

o Collective effort model (Karau & Williams,1993): One of the most influential model is the
collective effort model which suggests that if members view the task as personally
unimportant or meaningless then social loafing is likely to occur (e.g. “Why should I work
hard when it is a meaningless task”?). If on the other hand the outcome is personally important
to individual members of the group then they are likely to increase their efforts to try to
compensate for the anticipated social loafing.

o Expectancy value theory (Sheppard, 1998): According to this theory social loafing arises from
three conditions: a) if people perceive their contributions as unneeded, b) people perceive
their contributions as unrewarded, and c) the costs of contributing are excessive.

Contrasted to social loafing there is sometimes a positive effect of the term ‘social facilitation’
was first used by Floyd Allport (1920) to describe the phenomenon that many people seem to

32
perform better when in front of an audience. This phenomenon was first reported (in what some
have suggested represents the first social psychological experiment) by Norman Triplett (1898),
who observed that people cycled faster when provided with pacing than they did when cycling
alone, and faster still when engaged in competition than with pacing. Now, while the notion that
people perform better when engaged in competition was hardly novel, Allport’s suggestion that
it was the mere presence of other persons that influenced performance certainly was.

Why does the presence of others sometimes facilitate performance, and at other times inhibit
performance? One explanation offered by Robert Zajonc (1965)

1. Increased arousal: The presence of others creates general physiological arousal,

which energizes behavior.
2. Dominant response: Increased arousal enhances an individual’s tendency to
perform the dominant response. The dominant response is the reaction elicited most
quickly and easily by a given stimulus.
3. Performance depends on task: The quality of an individual’s performance varies
according to the type of task. On an easy task (one that is simple or well learned),
the dominant response is usually correct or successful. But on a difficult task (one
that is complex or unfamiliar), the dominant response is often incorrect or
unsuccessful.

Shared Information Bias/ Biased sampling (Stasser and Titus, 1985): Shared information bias is
the tendency for group members to spend more time and energy discussing information that all
members are already familiar with (i.e., shared information), and less time and energy
discussing information that only some members are aware of (i.e., unshared information).
Imagine that you are part of a group that is discussing which of several candidates should be
supported for an election. You have read some potentially damaging personal information about
one of the candidates, and you assume that the others are also aware of it. If you observe during
group discussion that nobody else mentions this information, you may further assume that the

33
others don’t think the information is relevant or credible, so you may not mention it yourself.
Other group members may also have unique bits of information known only to them. For similar
reasons, these pieces of information fail to enter the discussion. In the end, the discussion is
dominated by information everyone in the group already knew, while the unshared information
never makes it to the table.

Pluralistic ignorance (Allport and Katz, 1931): we are ignorant of what others think (i.e. of the
plurality of people). Foe e.g to intervene in an emergency, we first need to recognize that the
situation is really an emergency. Imagine that on your way to class tomorrow you see a student in
dirty clothing slumped across a bench. We look around, notice that nobody is responding, and
assume—perhaps mistakenly—that the situation isn’t an emergency. We assume we’re the only
one who thinks the situation might be an emergency. We are ignorant of the fact that others
(plurality) also are unsure of the situation.

Factors That Affect the Decision-Making Ability of a Group

Group Composition Psychologist Robert Steinberg believes that every group has its own
intelligence level, or “group IQ” (Williams & Steinberg, 1988). The groupʼs IQ is not simply the
sum of each memberʼs IQ. Rather, it is the blending of their intellectual abilities with their
personalities and social competence. Steinberg found that successful groups had a good mix of
people with different talents who brought different points of view to the problem.

Group Size Increasing the number of members of a group does increase the resources available to
the group and therefore the groupʼs potential productivity. On the other hand, increasing group
size also leads to more process loss (Steiner, 1972).

Group Cohesiveness When we consider decision making or problem-solving groups, two types of
cohesiveness become important: task-based cohesiveness and interpersonal cohesiveness (Zachary
& Lowe, 1988). Each type of cohesiveness influences group performance in a somewhat different
way, depending on the type of task facing the group.

When a task does not require much interaction among members, task-based cohesiveness increases
group productivity, but interpersonal cohesiveness does not (Zaccaro & McCoy, 1988). For
example, if a group is working on writing a paper, and each member is responsible for different
parts of that paper, then productivity is increased to the extent that the members are committed to
doing a good job for the group. The group members do not have to like one another to do the job
well.

Now, it is true that when members of the group like one another, their cohesiveness increases the
amount of commitment to a task and increases group interaction as well. However, the time they
spend interacting may take away from their individual time on the task, thus offsetting the
productivity that results from task-based cohesiveness.

34
Finally, the impact of cohesiveness on performance depends on the group's productivity norm.
When that norm encourages productivity, cohesiveness facilitates performance. But when that
norm discourages productivity (e.g., because members feel underpaid}, cohesiveness undermines
performance.

At times, highly cohesive groups may also perform poorly, because of 'groupthink’. When the
group norms emphasize the value of cooperation and agreement; members of highly cohesive
groups avoid disagreement more than members of noncohesive groups. Irving Janis’s (1982)
theory of groupthink suggests that these pressures undermine a group’s willingness to critically
analyze its decisions leading to ‘groupthink’.

Groups and Change

Groups are Dynamic:

1.Groups influence their members: Group norms and group decision making
2.Groups influence society: Researchers have documented the role that groups play
in maintaining society. Religious groups provided answers to questions of
values, morality, and meaning. Educational systems and groups took over some
of the teaching duties previously assigned to the family.
3.Groups are living systems: A group, in a very real sense, is alive: It acquires
energy and resources from its environment, maintains its structure, and grows
over time (write about group formation here)

Groups as Change agents:

The use of groups as agents of change dates back many years, but it was Lewin who stated the
basic “law” of group therapy in its most simple form: “It is usually easier to change individuals
formed into a group than to change any one of them separately” (1951, p. 228).

 Psychotherapy group (or group psychotherapy) Individuals seeking treatment for a

psychological problem who meet as a group with a trained mental health professional.
Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis also generated the first group therapy: group
psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis. Freud (1922) recognized that groups, in many cases,
become an unconscious means of regaining the security of the family. Group
psychoanalysis also stimulates transference, but in a group, the therapist and the other
group members are included in the process. Psychodrama, developed by Jacob Moreno
(1934), also makes use of exercises to stimulate emotional experiences in group members.
He made his sessions more experientially powerful by developing psychodrama
techniques. When role playing, for example, members take on the identity of someone else
and then act as he or she would in a simulated social situation. Role reversal involves
playing a role for a period of time before changing roles with another group member.
Doubling is the assignment of two group members to a single role, often with one member
35
of the pair playing him- or herself.
 Interpersonal learning group: Lewin was one of the first to suggest using small groups to
teach people interpersonal skills and self insight. (e.g., T group). Lewin developed training
groups, or T-groups. Participants themselves (typically, between eight and 15 people) learn
about themselves (and about small group processes in general) through their interaction
with each other. They use feedback, problem solving, and role play to gain insights into
themselves, others, and groups. The emphasis is on sharing emotions, as opposed to
judgments or conclusions.
 Support group (or self-help group):. A group of people who meet regularly to help one
another cope with or overcome a problem they hold in common. There are groups for
sufferers of heart disease, cancer, liver disease, and AIDS; groups for people who provide
care for those suffering from chronic disease, illness, and disability.

SOURCES OF CHANGE IN GROUPS

Group approaches to change, despite their wide variations in method, structure, and procedure,
have certain key elements in common:

36