【Social Psychology】Chapter 08 — Main Points
* All the following abstractions are excerpted from <Social Psychology>, David G. Myers, 12th edition
Chapter 08 — Group Influence.
— What Is a Group?
A Group exists when two or more people interact for more than a few moments, affect one another in some way, and think of themselves as "us."
— Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected By the Presence of Others?
Social psychology's most elementary issue concerns the mere presence of others. Some early experiments on this question found that performance improved with observers or co-actors present. Others found that the presence of others can hurt performance. Robert Zajonc reconciled those findings by applying a well-known principle from experimental psychology: Arousal facilitates dominant responses. Because the presence of others is arousing, the presence of observers or co-actors boosts performance on easy tasks (for which the correct response is dominant) and hinders performance on difficult tasks (for which incorrect responses are dominant).
Being in a crowd, or in crowded conditions, is similarly arousing and facilitates dominant responses.
But why are we aroused by others' presence? Experiments suggest that the arousal stems partly from evaluation apprehension and partly from distraction — a conflict between paying attention to others and concentrating on the task. Other experiments, including some with animals, suggest that the presence of others can be arousing even when we are not evaluated or distracted.
— Social Loafing: Do Individuals Exert Less Effort in a Group?
Social facilitation researchers study people's performance on tasks where they can be evaluated individually. However, in many work situations, people pool their efforts and work toward a common goal without individual accountability.
Group members often work less hard when performing such "additive tasks." This finding parallels everyday situations in which diffused responsibility tempts individual group members to free-ride on the group's effort.
People may, however, put forth even more effort in a group when the goal is important, rewards are significant, and team spirit exists.
— Deindividuation: When Do People Lose Their Sense of Self in Groups?
When high levels of social arousal combine with diffused responsibility, people may abandon their normal restraints and lose their sense of individuality.
Such deindividuation is especially likely when people are in a large group, are physically anonymous, and are aroused and distracted.
The resulting diminished self-awareness and self-restraint tend to increase people's responsiveness to the immediate situation, be it negative or positive. Deindividuation is less likely when self-awareness is high.
— Group Polarization: Do Groups Intensify Our Opinions?
Potentially positive and negative results arise from group discussion. While trying to understand the curious finding that discussion increased risk taking, investigators discovered that discussion actually tends to strengthen whatever is the initially dominant point of view, whether risky or cautious.
In everyday situations, too, group interaction tends to intensify opinions. This group polarization phenomenon provided a window through which researchers could observe group influence.
Experiments confirmed two group influences: informational and normative. The information gleaned form a discussion mostly favors the initially preferred alternative, thus reinforcing support for it.
— Groupthink: Do Groups Hinder or Assist Good Decisions?
Analysis of several international fiascos indicates that group cohesion can override realistic appraisal of a situation. This is especially true when group members strongly desire unity, when they are isolated from opposing ideas, and when the leader signals what he or she wants from the group.
Symptomatic of this overriding concern for harmony, labeled groupthink, are (1) an illusion of invulnerability, (2) rationalization, (3) unquestioned belief in the group's morality, (4) stereotyped views of the opposition, (5) pressure to conform, (6) self-censorship of misgivings, (7) an illusion unanimity, and (8) "mindguards" who protect the group from unpleasant information. Critics have noted that some aspects of Janis's groupthink model (such as directive leadership) seem more implicated in flawed decisions than others (such as cohesiveness).
Both in experiments and in actual history, however, groups sometimes decide wisely. These cases suggest ways to prevent groupthink: upholding impartiality, encouraging "devil's advocate" positions, subdividing and then reuniting to discuss a decision, seeking outside input, and having a "second-chance" meeting before implementing a decision.
Research on group problem solving suggests that groups can be more accurate than individuals; groups also general more and better ideas if the group is small or if, in a large group, individual brainstorming follows the group session.
— The Influence of the Minority: How Do Individuals Influence the Group?
Although a majority opinion often prevails, sometimes a minority can influence and even overturn a majority position. Even if the majority does not adopt the minority's views, the minority's speaking up can increase the majority's self-doubts and prompt it to consider other alternatives, often leading to better, more creative decisions.
In experiments, a minority is most influential when it is consistent and persistent in its views, when its actions convey self-confidence, and after it begins to elicit some defections from the majority.
Through their task and social leadership, formal and informal group leaders exert disproportionate influence. Those who consistently press toward their goals and exude a self-confident charisma often engender trust and inspire others to follow.