Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 51 views

    Group Think

    Uploaded by

    Surbhi Sabharwal
    A group is defined as a collection of two or more people who interact with each other and rely on each other to meet needs and goals. Key intragroup processes that influence members include social facilitation, which is performing better on simple tasks in groups due to arousal; social loafing, which is reduced individual effort in groups; deindividuation of less constrained behavior in groups; and group polarization where group discussions strengthen preexisting tendencies towards riskier or more cautious decisions. Groupthink can also occur when maintaining group cohesion becomes more important than realistic decision making.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Group Think

    Uploaded by

    Surbhi Sabharwal
    51 views26 pages
    A group is defined as a collection of two or more people who interact with each other and rely on each other to meet needs and goals. Key intragroup processes that influence members include social facilitation, which is performing better on simple tasks in groups due to arousal; social loafing, which is reduced individual effort in groups; deindividuation of less constrained behavior in groups; and group polarization where group discussions strengthen preexisting tendencies towards riskier or more cautious decisions. Groupthink can also occur when maintaining group cohesion becomes more important than realistic decision making.

    Original Description:

    Organization behavior

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A group is defined as a collection of two or more people who interact with each other and rely on each other to meet needs and goals. Key intragroup processes that influence members include social facilitation, which is performing better on simple tasks in groups due to arousal; social loafing, which is reduced individual effort in groups; deindividuation of less constrained behavior in groups; and group polarization where group discussions strengthen preexisting tendencies towards riskier or more cautious decisions. Groupthink can also occur when maintaining group cohesion becomes more important than realistic decision making.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    51 views26 pages

    Group Think

    Uploaded by

    Surbhi Sabharwal
    A group is defined as a collection of two or more people who interact with each other and rely on each other to meet needs and goals. Key intragroup processes that influence members include social facilitation, which is performing better on simple tasks in groups due to arousal; social loafing, which is reduced individual effort in groups; deindividuation of less constrained behavior in groups; and group polarization where group discussions strengthen preexisting tendencies towards riskier or more cautious decisions. Groupthink can also occur when maintaining group cohesion becomes more important than realistic decision making.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 26

    What is a group?

    • 5 people waiting at the corner for a bus?


    • People attending a worship service?
    • The rolling stones fan club?
    • The students in a seminar class?
    • The students in our class?
    What is a group?

    A collection of two or more people who interact


    with each other and are interdependent, in the
    sense that their needs and goals cause them to
    rely on each other.

    (perceive one another as “us”)


    Intragroup Processes

    • Processes that occur within a group. How others in your own


    group influence you and how you influence your group.

    • Who likes to work in a group (e.g., job, school projects,


    committee work)?
    – Why?
    – Why not?

    • Who likes to play in a group (e.g., sports, family events,


    parties)?
    – Why?
    – Why not?
    1) Intragroup Influence: Social Facilitation

    • Triplett (1898)
    – The tendency of people to perform simple or well-learned
    tasks better when others are present.
    • Zajonc (1965)
    – The presence of others increases physiological arousal.
    – Arousal enhances whatever response tendency is
    dominant.
    Social Facilitation

    More specifically, social facilitation is …


    – the strengthening of dominant responses owing to
    the presence of others
    – the tendency for people to do better on simple tasks
    and worse on complex tasks when they are in the
    presence of others
    • for simple tasks, the correct response is
    dominant. For complex tasks, it is not.
    Markus (1978)

    How quickly participants performed a familiar task


    (taking off shoes and socks) vs. an unfamiliar task
    (putting on a robe that ties backwards) when alone vs.
    with another person in room vs. another person in
    room and watching.
    Alone
    35
    Watched
    30 Present

    25

    20

    15

    10
    Familiar Unfamiliar
    Social facilitation
    is caused by arousal caused by:

    • Evaluation Apprehension: concern with being


    evaluated by others
    • Distraction: others distract us and cause arousal
    by making us nervous
    • Mere presence: simply having others around
    causes us to be alert and vigilant
    – These effects are found in the Markus study.
    2) Intragroup Influence: Social Loafing

    The tendency for people to be less productive


    when they work with others than when they are
    individually accountable (Ringelmann, 1913).
    Latane, Williams, & Harkin (1979)

    Why?

    When people work in groups and they produce less


    is it because of coordination issues or social loafing?
    How can we examine this?
    Latane, Williams, & Harkin (1979)

    Participants were instructed to cheer as loud as possible.


    They were blindfolded and had on headsets with loud
    music “so their performance could not be influenced by
    sensory feedback.”
    They were either
    – alone
    – with 1 to 5 other people
    – they thought they were with 1 to 5 other people but
    they were actually alone. These pseudogroups were
    used to check the impact of social loafing. Because no
    one else is shouting any loss of production can not be
    due to coordination issues.
    Latane, Williams, & Harkin (1979)

    700
    Potential
    600
    500
    Pseudogroups
    74%
    Perforrmance

    400
    300
    Actual Groups
    200 36%
    82%
    100 66%
    0
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6
    Size of Group
    Decreasing Social Loafing

    • Make individual efforts identifiable


    • Reward group productivity
    • Task is appealing, challenging, or involving
    • Friendship
    3) Intragroup Influence: Deindividuation

    Definition:
    – The loosening of normal constraints on
    behaviour when people are in a group, leading to
    an increase in impulsive (and deviant) acts
    – Groups can:
    • make people feel less accountable for their
    actions (e.g., mob behaviour, egging on
    jumpers)
    • decrease self-awareness
    4) Intragroup Influence: Group Polarization

    Group produced enhancement of groups’ pre-


    existing tendencies
    • Risky Shift: Group decisions are riskier than
    individual decisions (Stoner, 1961)
    • Cautious Shift: Group decisions are more
    cautious than individual decisions
    Strengthening of the members’ average
    tendency.
    Group Polarization

    Risky Cautious
    Small chance Large chance
    of Success of Success

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    _________________________________________________________

    midpoint
    Group Polarization
    Decision 1 mean
    Risky - (ABC) Cautious -
    Small chance Large chance
    of Success of Success

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    _________________________________________________________

    A B C&D E F
    Group Polarization

    Decision 2 mean
    Risky - (DEF) Cautious -
    Small chance Large chance
    of Success of Success

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    _________________________________________________________

    A B C&D E F
    Why do we polarize
    after a group discussion?

    • Persuasive Arguments
    – Groups generate more arguments that support the
    position endorsed by the majority of the group. The group
    persuades itself.
    – Active participation leads to rehearsal and validation
    • Social Comparisons
    – Individuals spontaneously compare themselves to others
    and if they find a difference they move toward the group’s
    view. Discover the group norm and then take a view that
    exceeds this norm
    – to be different from the norm but in the right direction
    and to the right degree.
    5) Intragroup Influence: Groupthink

    A kind of thinking in which maintaining group


    cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than
    considering the facts in a realistic manner.
    Groupthink

    Antecedents Groupthink Consequences

    Group processes that lead to defective decision making.


    Groupthink - Antecedents

    • Groupthink occurs when groups:


    – are cohesive and desirable
    – are relatively isolated from dissenting viewpoints
    – have a directive leader who signals a favoured
    decision
    – high stress
    – poor decision-making procedures
    Groupthink - Symptoms

    – Illusion of invulnerability
    – Unquestioned belief in group’s morality
    – Stereotyped view of opponent
    – Conformity pressure
    – Self-censorship
    – Illusion of unanimity
    – Mindguards
    • Members who protect the group from information
    that calls into question the quality or morality of
    their decision.
    Symptoms of Groupthink
    • Illusion of unanimity (false consensus)
    – Silence implies agreement
    • “I’m not going to call for a vote, I think we are all in
    agreement here”
    • “We’ve decided..”
    – Challenger example
    • Self-censorship
    – Not speaking up (feeling of tension caused by
    pressure to be silent & internally wanting to speak
    up)
    • “I had a few objections, but since everybody seems committed, I
    won’t bring them up.”
    Symptoms of Groupthink
    • Illusion of invulnerability & Rationalization
    – “Our strategy has worked in the past, odds are it
    will again”
    – “We are the best military in the world, what do we
    have to worry about”
    • Mindguards
    – “No need for you to be at the meeting; I’ll
    summarize your concerns for the board”
    Groupthink - Consequence

    • Groupthink results in defective decision-


    making because there is
    – An incomplete survey of alternatives
    – A failure to examine risks of the favoured
    alternative
    – A poor information search
    – A failure to develop contingency plans
    Preventing Groupthink

    1) Leader should be impartial


    2) Encourage critical evaluation
    - assign a devil’s advocate
    3) Occasionally subdivide the group
    4) Welcome criticism
    5) Implement “second chance” meetings to air any
    lingering doubts
    6) Seek anonymous opinions
    7) Seek outside opinions

    You might also like