‘or many years, 1(RAB) veruty Because all faculty members were state employees, ouF salanes could not be hept secret. tn fact, salary information was readily lower than that of several available ina government office But sons, including me, He burst nto as far as | know, no one ever chose this route to get this information if they did, they didn’t calk about exploited, but now | know it for cer- (Ore year, though, someone visited the state capital and recorded the salanes of all faculty. Then, this per son printed copies and distributed them to every department on cam: pus. Soon, shouts of anger and dismay could be heard from every direction! Many people were shocked to learn that they earned less than 474 ge stare uni down ume ofthe colleagues, and they awhile, he cal made thete feelings knawn to everyone who would listen One of my frends © but from that day on, troubles plagued our department. Faculty who felt they were not being treated sn particular, was entremely upi rywas fairly remained disgruntled, and when he learned that his her per their annoyance showed up in many ways. They stopped being team play my office, shouting, “It’s $0 unfair! £75, 30 cooperation took a nose dive or Valways suspected that | was being I politics of the And organiatio rrastiest kind increased. Ultimately, tain. [ean see why you get more than several of the people who were 1 do, but how about (and he most upset about their salaries named one of our colleagues)."I'm took other jabs; s0, over a period worth twice what hea!" | did my best of several years, we lost some of -to.calm him down, pointing out thar our best people. In short, the day his salary was onlya few hundred four salaries were made public marked dollars less than this other person's the start of problems that persisted and reminding him that he doubled for years. his yearly salary by consulting, After tthe time this unhappy chain of events took place, Iwas too close to them to fully grasp what was happening, But now, looking back, see that these events cleatly illustrate several important facts about groups—collections of persans perceived to form coherent units to some degree 68s Lickel et al,, 2000), First, and most abviously, this incident calls attentiva to the importance of feelings of fairness within groups. When people conclude that they are not being treated faitly, their willingness to cooperate with athers may be greatly reduced; instead, conflict may be trixgered. The result of these processes, in turn, may be reduced performance by the group; this was certainly true for our departe ment, which became less effective in several ways, For instance, people seemed (0 work less hard on projects that required joint efforts to succeed (e.g., plans for new, team-taught courses). And it became harder for us to reerait new faculty members, because instead of praising our department, several persons began making nek tive remarks ahout 1.0 job applicants when they visited campus, Decision mak: ing, to0, became much harder: we could no longer reach consensus on important issues, and our meetings often turned into angry shouting matches rather than log CHAPTER 12 / GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS sev abongimancomibarono Scanned with CamScanneral discussions. important sank: It short, the internal workings of eur department changed in an alte tht these changes, in uit, exerted negative effects, ne way or another, on allot us, So, yes, that anes During the course at our datly hives, weeall belong M! ; Sfou tnluenice— how berng part al a social guna ean acre the weave in which fink and behave—has long: been of manor inteteat tr seal pay hpts le Sedikides, Schopler, & Insko, 1998), Th provide you with an overview of sehat research on this topic has revete, we'll take a closer look at the their members. Next, we'll mus, For this reasins, the topic of wed issues First, we'll Ke HALE Of gtoMIpS—what they are and how they affect examine the impact af groups an task perforinance— how our pettormance on vations tasks ean be allected by working with others or, in some cases, merely by thei presentce on the scene, Thitd, we'll turn to the ques tion of what might be termed coordination within groups—the extent to which individuals pool their eftorts and work together toward certain goals fie, cooperate with one another! or, instead, choose to work against each other in what is known as conthet Fourth, we'll examine the question of perceived faieness in groups— the central process at work in the salary ineident described earlier. Finally, we'll consider decision making in groups; as we'll soon see, this differs from decision making by individuals in several important ways, (We'll consider another impor: tant aspect of group functioning—leadership—in Chapter 13.) "Groups: What They Are and How They Function ‘ook at the photos in Figure 12.1, Which shows a group? Prob- ———— ably you would identify the one on the left asa group but the | “povp &coleren Tp | one on the right as showing a mere collection of persons. whe ae percened te Be Why! Because, implicitly, you already accept a definition ofthe term group close Soe ieee to the one adopted by social psychologists: A collection of persons who are phigh in entianvty: che members un this group interact with one spaatiy,t 8.4 mere collection of people who happen to ben the same loeation atthe same time : . Groups: Whot They Are and How They Function 47s. Scanned with CamScanneri ded together in a coherent unit to some degree (e., Dasgupta, Peni ‘Khon, 1999; Lickel eta, 2000). Social psychologists refer to this property of groups as entiativity—the extent 10 which a oup 6 perceve as Pee yomerene enity (Campbell, 1958). Entiativiy varies prety, anking from eine a ectons of people who happen to be in the same place athe same time race litle or no connection with one another, to highly intimate groups such aoa ily or persons with whom we have romantic relationships, So clearly, aoe groups are much closer to our conception of what a group. is like than oth- aoe arevhat determines whether, and to what extent, we perceive several pr. cre ees forming a coherent group! This question has received growing attention Foe searchers in recent years, and a clear answer has begun to emerge, For Instance, consider rescarch on this issue by Lickel and bis colleagues (Lickel et al,, 2000), ‘These researchers pr. sports teams, the audience at a movie] t0 res rate each on several dimensions, including ¢ Coherent unit fentiativity), how important its to group members, how much group members interact with one another, the extent co which they share common goals snd common outcomes, how similar they are to one another, and how long these groups are likely to last. In addition, participants were asked to place the groups into categories—clusters of groups that seem to go together. ‘As shown in Table 12.1, participants perceived the groups as differing greatly in terms af entiativity: some (eg, families, rock bands, close friends) were rated being very high on this dimension, while others eg, plumbers, people at a bus stop) were perceived as very low in this respect. Perhaps more important, other findings indicated that several factors influenced these ratings: the degree to which group Pea Entiativity of Various Groups. Participants na recent study rated some groups as much higher on entiatnty—beng a coherent entity Ratings could esented the names of forty different kinds of groups e.g, earch participants and asked them to hese: the extent to which it is a range from 1 t0 9. cnours eNTIATvITY RATINGS Members of a professional sports team 827 Members ofa family 816 Members ofa rock band 816 Friends who do things together 278 Members ofan orchestra 721 Members of labor union 6.39 Women 5.16 People who live in the same neighborhood 478 Teachers ao People attending an athletic contest 3.69 People inline ata bank 240 SOURCE, #540 On Osta FROM Uc EL ET AL, 3000) CHAPTER 12 / GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS ww slongman comberontnene Scanned with CamScannerpisbions interacted with one another (this was the strongest predictor of ratings Shang vtY) the group's importance to members, the extent to which members ree outcomes and common goals, and their similarity to each ather. The higher roups were on these dimensions, the more they were seen as forming coherent Earities. Other findings indicated that four distinct types of groups emerged from Participants’ efforts to divide them into categories: ntinidey groups [tamily, two People in a romantic relationship, task-oriented groups (ex. committees, work Sroups}, soctal categories (e.g, women, Americans), and weak soctal reluasonshaps Paseociations (e.g, people who live in the same neighborhoud, people who enioy Classical music|, To test thee generality of these findings, Lickel and his colleagues (2000) then repeated this stusly wer country —Poland, Results were virtually identical, so it appears that at least im yw different eultures, the factors that lead individuals to perceive groups as forming coherent units ji. as heing high in entiae tivity] are very much the same. Additional research indicates that judgments concerning a group's entiativity exert important effects on how we think ahout such groups—for instance, our over- all impression of the group (eg, Susskind etal, 1999] and the attributions we make about it(e.g,, Yzerbyt et al,, 1998}, Indeed, judgments concerning a group's entia- Uvity, once made, scem to influence our processing of information about the group av an implicit jnonconscious} level of thought. For instance, when we perceive sroup as being high in entiativity, we tend to compare the members with each other to a greater extent than is true for groups low in entiativity [Pickett, 2001). And such comparisons scem to vecur implicitly, without conscious thought or inten- ton. Clearly, then, entiativity isa key dimension fom the point of view of under. standing precisely what constitutes a group and how being part of a group can influence our behavior. SL How Groups Function: Roles, Status, Norms, and Cohesiveness MI 9s often exere powerful effects upon their members iso ous and will be a basic theme of this chapter. Before turning to specific aspects of roup influence, however, we should address a basic issue: How, precisely, do yroups affect their members? A complete answer to this question involves many processes we have already examined in this book (e.g,, conformity, persuasion, and attrac tion). In addition, four aspects of groups themselves play a key role in this regard: roles, status, norms, and cohesiveness. 1 ROLES: DIFFERENTIATION OF FUNCTIONS WITHIN GROUPS, Think of a group to which you belong or have helonged—anything from the Scouts toa professional associ- ation. Now consider this question: Did everyone in the group act in the same way or perform the same functions? Your answer is probably io, Different persons per formed different tasks and were expected to accomplish different things for the group. In short, they played different roles. Sometimes roles are assigned for instance, a group may select different individuals to serve as its leader, treasurer, or seeretary, In other cases, individuals gradually acquire certain roles without being formally assigned to them, Regardless of how roles are acyuuired, people often inter- nalize them, they link their roles to key aspects of their self-concept (see Chapters 2 and 5). When this happens, a rale may exert profound effects on a person's behav. ior, even when she or he is not in the group, For instance, a professor, used to le turing to students, may lecture his or her family when at home—something I've been accused of doing myself! Groups: What They Ave and How They Fonction Toles: Sets of Behaviors hat indwaduals occupying specific positions within a group are expected (0 perform. Scanned with CamScannerFexnus: Position oF rank within Roles help to clarify the responsibilities and obligations of sroup members, so in this respect, they are very useful. They do have a downside, though. Group members sometimes experience role conflict—stress stemming irom the fact that two roles they play are somehow at odds with each other. For instance, the parents of young children often experience conflict between their tole as parent and their role as stu dent or enyployee. and this can be highly stressful for them (Williams et a., 1992), astaTus WieRaRcHiEs iN GROUPS. When the president of my university enters the room, evervone stands, and no one sits down until she has taken a seat. Why? One answer involves an important aspect of groups or, rather, positions within them. status— position or rank within a group. Different roles or positions in a group are often associated with different levels of status, and our president is Flearly very high on this dimension, People are often extremely sensitive to sta tus because its linked toa wide range of desirable ourcomes—everything from salary and “perks” to first choice among potential romantic partners (Buss, 1998) For this reason, groups often use status.as a means of influencing the behavior of their members: only “good” members—ones who follow the group's rules—receive high status. Evolutionary psychologists attach considerable importance to status, noting that in many different species, including our own, high status confers important advan. tages on those who possess it. Specifically, high-status persons have greater access than lower status persons to key resources relating to survival and reproduction, such as food and access to mates, For instance, throughout human history, and in many different societies, high-status males have had access to a larger number of potential mates. Asa result, some theorists contend, evolution has favored stronger fnotivation for status among men than among women, And in fact, men tend to score higher on measures of status mouvation than do women |e.g,, Pratto, 1996} Whether this isdiue to evolutionary pressures or other factors, of course, is unclear, bur there seems little doubt that high status brings important rewards for persons of both genders, so it 1s not surprising that people seek to gain it. In short, status ards that groups otfer members, and as such may be one factor in is one of the rew group iniluence How, precisely, do people acquire high status? As noted by Buss (19981, sheer size may play some role—taller men have an edge, For instance, presidents and heads of large corporations tend to be taller than average [¢.&, Gillis, 1982}. Whether this advantage of being tall will fade as women move increasingly into such high-status positions remains to be seen, but at least for men, “bigger” does seem to be “bet: ter” where status is concerned. Factors relating to individuals’ behavior, too, play a role in acquiring status. Recent research by Tiedens (2001/, for instance, suggests that people ean sometimes oost their status through intimidation—by appearing angry and threatening. In one intriguing study, Tiedens [2001) showed participants videotapes of President Clinton's grand jury testimony about the Momca Lewinsky scandal. (As you recall, Clinton had an affair with Ms. Lewinsky, who was a young White House intern at the time.) In one sexment, Clinton appeared to be sad and expressed regret over his affair with Ms, Lewinsky. In the other, he wagyed his finger and appeared to be angry about the investigation into his private lie. After watching fone of these tapes, participants rated their approval of President Clinton. As shown in Fipoe 1.2, they expressed higher approval when he was angry than when he vveral other studies offered additional support for the suggestion that displays tatus, For instance, in another study, participants {employ- BEE ces of a software company) rated each other in terms of how frequently they each 478 CHAPTER 12) GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS sev ablongian comune —<—$— $$ re Scanned with CamScannerParnespants were significantly more [peo-Chnton after watching a wdeotape mth he eapreceed anger than after watching a ndeotape im which he pressed sadness | S82 ii i 5 as} | j | a | i or | Experimental Condon Expressions of Anger: One Route to High Status? Research partopants expressed greater support for President Clinton after watching a wdeotape sm shich he expressed anger than afer watching vdeotape in which he expressed sadness, These find ngs, and other, related results, suggest that express: sng anger may be one technique for acquiring status. "1 ‘expressed several emotions, including anger and sadness. These ratings were then related to several measures of status in the company—the number of previous peo motions they had received, current salary, and predictions of future promotions by the manager, Results indicated that the lequency of sadness as not related to any of these measures, but fre of expressing. anger was strongly related to all. three. In other words, the more often employees expressed anger, the higher thei current and future predicted status Ot course, there may be important limits to these findings: Too much anger mn reduce rather than nerease status, and calm anger may be mone elfective than were rage, But overall, Tiedens’ (2001 findings sujgest that expressinganger may be one means of acquiring status in at least some groups, NORMS: THE RULES OF THE GAME. A thitd factor responsible for the powerful impact of groups on their members is narms—rules established by grouse that tell their members how they ate supposed te hchave. We discussed ne Chapter 9, so here we simply want to note, atin, chat they olten exert paweertal effects on behavior, Morcaver, as noted above, aherence to such nine teolven 4 necessary condition for gaining status and other rewards controled hy pro Groupe: What They Ave und How They Function Tporme! Rules whim a group indicating how sts members should oF should not behave 479 Scanned with CamScannera: # COHESIVENESS: THE FORCE THAT BINDS, Consider two groups. In the lirst, mem. bers like one another very much, strongly desire the goutls their group is seeking, and fcel that they could not possibly find another group that would better satisfy their needs. In the second, the opposite is true: members don’t like one another very much, don’t share common goals, and are actively secking other groups that might offer them a better deal, Which group would exert stronger effects on the behay. iorof its members! The answer is obvigus: the first. The reason for this dilference involves what social psychologists describe as cohesiveness—all the forces factors} that cause members to remain in the group, such as liking for the other members, and the desire to maintain or increase one’s status by belonging to the “right” groups Festinger et al, 1950), At first glance, it might seem that cohestveness would involve primarily liking hetween group members, However, evidence suxgests that it involves depersonatized attraction—liking for other group members stemming from the fact that they belong to the group and embody or represent its key features, quite apare from their traits as individuals (Hogg & Haines, 1996! Several factors influence cohesiveness, including (1! status within the group (Cota et al, 1998}—cohesiveness is often higher for high: than for low-status memt- bers, [2] the effore required to gain entry into the gtoup—the tester these costs, the higher the cohesivencss (sce our discussion of dissonance theory in Chapter 4); (3) the existence of external threats or severe competition—such threats inerease members’ attraction and commitment to the group; and (4] size—small groups tend to be more cohesive than large ones. In sum, several aspects of groups—roles, status, norms, and eohesiveness—shape the extent to which the groups influence their members’ behavior. We'll have rea: son to refer to these factors at later points in this chapter, as we discuss specific forms of such group influence. oS A group isa collection of persons perceived to form a coherent unit to some degree. The estent to which the group is perceived to form a coherent entity is known as entiauvity Groups influence their members in many ways, but such effect 5 are often pro- duced through roles, status, norms, and cohesiveness ven pro Men are higher status motvation than are r ‘women: evolutionay psyeholo- gins atebutehstothe acc thathighstatun men obramsccenerey faumber of mates than do lower status men. = Recent findings indicate that one technique for gainin anger. 3g statusis By expressing *How Groups Affect Individual Performance: From Social Facilitation to Social Loafi ng ometimes, when we perform a task, we work ask, we work totally alone; for aan ain OUP EMIS ee gh SE Ws am lime in my aie Inimanyraeg eee even 0 remain inthe group, You might ak 282 task by aursclves, other people de present instance, —=—=_"*__ Gtowiled library or in your room while your romnmnate ‘80 CHAPTER 12.) GRoUS aNO MNDIViDUALS swmabbongenan combronbyire Scanned with CamScannersleeps or also studies. In oth we work ont Lasky tygcther with other per Sons as part of a py What ane the effectsel the ers om performance sn ese wana ttn Leone wht reseaig have revealed Social Facilitation: Performance in the Presence of Others and that you are preparing for yous fast important compet iin. You practice your routines alone for several hours each day, month alter month, Finally the big arrives and you skate aut ant the ree ti fiuge arena Hed wit the biggest crowd you's en [sce Fagure 12.8), How will you dat Metter ar worse thy Presence of an Audience: Does it improve or impair Performance? ‘Achletes such as the one shown here usualy practice alone, but then often perform in front of 3 large audience, Will this improve or impair thei performance? Socrl psychologsts have made interesting discoveries about this sue ¢ . 38t How Groups Affect Inve Performance: From Social Faxlitation to Socal Looting Scanned with CamScanner———— ae alone? This was one of the first topics ever studied in social ts (e , Allport, 1920] susested that performance was ‘eorkeal in the presence of others than when they worked alone, Jy. Alljwtt (1920) asked participants to write down as many ft words printed at the top of an otherwise tory" They were allowed to work eal this task both alone and in the when you practiced wology, and early rest svhen peop For instanee, inne sti ations as they could th jeg, Sbmalding,” “labora ne inmate periods, and they penton inwaather peteone Iesnlts were clear Ninety three percent of the par- Copan prxiived more asic tations when warking in the presence of others than Chun eorking alone On the basis of such findings, Allport and ather researchers vo the effects on pettormance of the presence nf other persons as social ition, beeavise appeared that shen others were present, performance was 1 fut other research soon called the accuracy of this phrase into question Trwas soon clear that sometinies the presence of others facilitated task per- formance, but sometimes it actually teduced performance (Pessin, 1933), Taking te of this result, researchers today sometimes refer to 1 as social facriitation that mote accurately reflects the complex effects of the pres- 1s the presence of others sometimes enhance answer to this mystery was K sheet ol aahibrtron. a phrase ence of other persons. Rut why doe and sometimes reduce performance! One elegant ottered by Robert Zajone. 18 ZAJONC'S ORIVE THEORY OF SOCIAL FACILITATION: OTHER PERSONS AS A SOURCE OF AROUSAL Imagine that you are performing some task alone. Then, several other people arrive on the scene and begin to watch you intently. Will your pulse beat quicker heeause of this audience? Informal experience suggests that it may—that the presence of other persons in the form of an interested audience can increase our ‘activation or arousal. Zajone suggested that this might provide the solution to the puzzle of social facilitation. Here's how. When arousal increases, our tendency to perform dominant responses—the ones that are most likely to occur in a given situation—also rises. Such dominant responses, in turn, can be correct or incorrect. If this is so, then it follows logically that if the presence of an audience increases arousal, this factor will improve per- formance when dominant responses are correct ones, but may inypatr performance when such responses are incorrect [see Figure 12.4), “Another implication of Zajone’s reasoning—which is known as the drive theory of social facilitation because it focuses on arousal or drive—is this: The presence of others will improve individuals’ performance when they are highly skilled ae ehe {in this case, their dominant responses would cend to be correct), ¢ with performance when they are not highly skilled—for instance, ring to perform it. (Under these conditions, their dominant task in queso but will interfer when they are l responses would Hol be correct.) ‘Many studies soon provided support for Zaione’s theory. Individuals were more Iikely to perform dominant responses in the presence of others than when alone, and their performance on various tasks was either enhanced or impaired, depend- orieet oF incorrect in each situation [6 Tocal faclination: (ects upon perlormance rmislung trom the yon whether these responses we 1, 1989, Zajone & Sales, 1966), deve theory of social facili But the stary does not cil there, Additional research ratsed an important fom Atiecrysazgeang that question. Does social facilitation stent Liam the mere physteal presence of oth the a a ite erst ON other factors such ay concer about others’ evaluations of us also ve arousing and creases the play ave! This Iy un reseateh «an social facili tion, and, aw essene coaetors (other persons per- G presence of others jestion was tatsed very “How lo a tendency t0 responses forming the same task), influence petormance®” Is tt through increased drive, as. 482 CHAPTER 12 / GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS ssewablangian.cvmairanbyime Scanned with CamScanneros | If dominant responses are correct in the resent situation Performance a t Enhanced tendency 10 perform dominant responses, 4 If dominant responses are incorrect in the Present situation ‘The Drive Theory of Social Facil ‘According, to the drive theory of sca fclitetion (Zayonc, arousal and thi Zajonc suggested, or do other mechanisms also play a rol tion, To sce how social psy- chologists have attempted to answer this question, please read the Social Psy- chology: Thitty Years of Progress section on page 484 How Groups Affect Indradvol Performance: From Social Fachtation to Soc Loafing Scanned with CamScanner 1965), the presence of others increases in turn, increases the tendency to perform dominant responses. If these responses are correct, performance is enhanced; they are incorrect, petformance is im} ed 385 =FROM DRIVE TO ATTENTIONAL FOCUS: HOW DOES THE THIRTY YEARS OF PROGRESS é ages PRESENCE OF OTHERS INFLUENCE TASK PERFORMANCE? he dnve theory of social fei tatwon suggests that isthe mere presence of other per mn social Froleation effexts. The presence of others, this theory sates. mncreases die (arousal) and this, oo tum, afReots tas perfor mance {that 80, then any kind of audierce even one that 1s Blindfolded and can't observe or evaluate perfor: mance-should produce social facilita pon effects If, however, other factors, suck as concer over the audience's evaluations (evaluation apprehension) play a role, then ape ofaudience should matter In fact, several studies, be the case: for instance, tion effects did not oceur sdience was blindfolded or showed no interest in watching the person performing a task (Cottrell et ssandieate that a, 1968), Such find there is more to social facitation than just mereased deve, concern over being evaluated also plays aeale: Reasonable as these conclusions seem, however, they didn't apply in all ceases, For instance, other studies con ducted with animals found that perfor= mance of simple tasks was facilitated by the presence of an audience. In one ingenious study, Zajonc, Heingartner, and Herman (1969) placed cock- roaches in simple mazes where the animals had to run straight ahead £0 leseape from a bright light, orin more complex ones in which they had to. choose the correct path to escape from the light, Audiences of other roaches were placed next ro the maze in clear plastic bores 0 that the cockroaches running through the maze could see them (see Figure 12.5). Results were fully consistent with Zajone’s drive theory: The presence of an audience of four other roaches facilitated perfor. mance on the simple mare but reduced iton the complex maze. Because it seems weird to suggest that insects are ‘concerned about the impressions they make on others, these findings do not seem compatible with the suggestion that social facilitation stems solely From ‘evaluation apprehension. So what's the final answer? Modern research suggests that it may involve cognitive mecha nisms relating to attentional focus. Simple Maze Goat L_ Aasionce bores TEA tion among Insects? In an ingenious (and amusing!) study (Zajonc et al., 1969), cockroaches ‘ran through a simple (eft hand drawing) or complex (right hand drawing) maze to escape from a bright light. They performed bot sks either in the presence of an auslience of four other roaches or alone, Resules indicated that an audience facitated performance on the simple maze but interfered with performance Con the more complex maze, These findings are consistent with Zajone's (1965) drive theory of sca facilitation. le CHAPTER 12 / GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS, sewn ablongman.convbronbyme Scanned with CamScanner'BFO one researcher— Rober S. Baron (not the author ofthis tet} the presence of other Actors, can be dis: ndbecawetaqcoe Ststracting, i can threaten the organem Performing a task with cogiitwe ower, load (e.g., Baron, 1956) Specifically, task performers must divide their attention benween the task and the audience, and this generates both increased arousal and the possibilty of cognitive overload. Cognitive over: loads, m turn, can lead to a tendency to Festrict one’s attention so as te focus only on essential cues o stimuli while “screening out” nonessential ones, Several findings offer support for this view, known as distraction-conflict theory (Baron, 1986). For example, audiences produce social facilitation effects only when directing attention to them conflicts in some way with task demands (Groff, Baron, & Moore, 1983). Similarly, individuals experience greater distraction when they perform various tasks in front of an audience than when they perform them alone (Baron, Moore, & Sanders, 1978) But a key question remains Which Ss more important—inereased drive or this tendency toward a attentional focus? According to Daron (1986), the two theories (dive theory and distraction-contMit theory) make contrasting predictions with respect to fone type of task: a poorly learned task that involves only a few key stimuh Dnve theary predicts that the presence of others will facilitate dominant responses, which, on a pocrly earned task, are errors. Thus, performance will be reduced by the presence of an audience. In contrast, the attentional focus perspective predicts that the presence of others will eause individu als to focus more closely on the impor- tant taskerelevant cues, with the result narrowed that performance will be improved ‘These predictions were tested by Huguet and his colleagues (1999) in a series of ingenious studies. These researchers employed the Stroop task— a task that involves only a small num- Incongruent words “The presence of an audience reduced Stroop interference (ce, reduced response latencies) ‘on the incongruent words ‘As expected the presence fun avdenee bad no tect om coma word ‘Control words Experimental Condition How Groups Affect Indvidval Performance: From Socal Facilitation to Social Loafits ber of stimul but poorly tearned On the Stroop task, the names oF Colors (ed, green) ae printed ether in the color named by the word (e g. the word red 1s printed im red) or in another, different color (e p, the word red 6 printed m green). Typi cally, indonduals perform more slowly (1e., read more slowly) when the word and ink color do not match— this known as Step terference In several studies, Huguet and bis colleagues (1999) had parvopants per. form the Stroop task ether alore orn the presence of several nds of au: ence: an audience that was busy -ead- ing a book (mattertve busy audience), an audience hidden from the partic pants’ view (imasible audience), and an audience that watched the parvcicancs as they performed (attertve audience) Inaddition, after completing the tack, participants were asked to recognize the words they had previously seen among fother words they had ner seen. AS you can seein Figure 12.6, results offered strong support forthe artentonal focus Attentional Focus. The presence of an audience reduced interfer- cence on the Stroop task~a sign, that the presence of others caused persons performing this task co narrow their attentional focus. interestingly, am attentive audience or one that was net visible to task performers produced stronger effecss than an inattentive audience. fnasto on O4TA {source mara pow HUGUETET AL 1999 (continued) Scanned with CamScannertheory: Stroop interference was greatest inthe alone condition but was reduced inthe audience conditions—and espe: ually m the artentive and inate au ence condibons. This woul be eepectent the presence of an audience caused, parncipants fo focus thevr attention on the ink colors (the essential cues) while igronng the words In addition, par popants did herter on the recognition memon taskin the alone condition she others; this was predicted, because fan audience s distracting, ths would interfere with memory THIRTY YEARS OF PROGRESS (coMTiNUEO) In sum, appears that cognitive not just increased arousal— portant role in social facilis processes play an tation The presence of others may well produce increased arousal, but may do so because of the cognitive demands of paying attention both to an audience and to the task being per formed, as distraction-conflict theory suggests; and it may influence task performance by inducing a narrowed attention focus. One advantage of this cognitive perspective is that it helps explain why animals as well as people are affected by the presence of an audience. After all, animals, too (even cockroaches), can experience conflicting tendencies to work an a task and pay attention toan audience Atheory that can explain similar pat. terns of behavior among organisms ranging from cockroaches ta human beings is powerful, indeed. So, clearly, social psychologists have made cone siderable progress in their efforts ta answer the question, “Why does social facilitation occur? ‘evaluasion apprehension: Concem over beng evaluated endure to socal faciixation Gistraction-conflict theory: A theory suggesting that social Faciitation stems trom the con- fet produced when indiaduals attempt, umultaneously to pay driention to other persons and to the task being pertormed, additive tasks: Tasks for which the group product 1s the sum or combyration of the efforts of individual members social loafing: Reductions mn motivation and effort when indraduals work collectively ina group compared to when they work indwadually oF a8 indepandent coactors | | ass Social Loafing: Letting Others Do the Work When Part of a Group HEI pce that you and several other people are helping a friend move. In order to lift the heaviest pieces of furniture, you all pitch in. Will all of the people helping exert equal effort! Probably not. Some will take as much of the load as they can, while others will simply hang on, perhaps grunting loudly in order to pretend that they are helping more than they are. This pattern is quite common in situations in which groups perform what are known as additive tasks—ones in which the contributions of each member are com- bined into a single group ourput. On such tasks, some persons work hard while och- cers goof off, doing less than their share and less than they might do if working alone (see Figure 12.7]. Social psychologists refer to such effects as social loafing —reduc- tions in motivation and effort that occur when individuals work collectively in a group compared to when they work individually as independent coactors |Karau. & Williams, 1993). That social loafing occurs has been demonstrated in many experiments. For example, in one of the first, Latané, Williams, and Harkins (1979) asked groups of male students to clap or cheer as loudly as possible at specific times, supposedly so that the experimenter could determine how much noise people make in social settings. They performed these tasks in groups of two, four, or six persons. Results indicated that although the total amount of noise rose as group size increased, the amount produced by each participant dropped. In other words, each person put out less and less effort as group size increased. Such effects are not restricted to sim- ple and seemingly meaningless situations like this; on the contrary, they appeat tobe quite general in scope and occur with respect to many different tasks—cog- nitive ones as well ay ones involving physical effort (Weldon & Mustari, 1988, Willams & Karau, 1991), Morcover, they appear among both genders, and among children as well as adults. The only exception to the generality of such effects seems CHAPTER 12 / GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS sew ablongman comMbaronbyne — 2 . Scanned with CamScanner —is more highly 1993) In tact, such cultures, people seem to work harder whe edly, cultural factors sometimes play avery important role tf so ‘Aside from this importa tion, however, social loafing appears to be a per- yacive tact of soctal life. Ithis is indeed true, then two important questions arise: Jobo do such effcets oceurt And what steps can be taken to reduce their occurrence? EXPECTANCY THEORY OF SOCIAL LOAFING. While runt different explanations for the occurrence of soeial loafing have been proposed reg tatane, 1981), pethaps the most comprehensive explanation of social loa eB Suteted to date, however, 1s the collective effort model (CEM for short), pro posed by Karay and Willams (1998, These rese gest that social povng ean be understorn by extencting a baste theory of individlal motivation— Rpectancyvalence heory—t tuations involving group performance, Expectancy Salence theory suggests that individuals will work a given task only to the vetem that the following, cemuitions exist (1] They believe chat working han will ead to better performance fexpectancy) (2) they believe that better performance rel be tecogntced and rewarded (enstruntentality), ad (8) the rewards obtained are nes they value and desire [valence]. ‘Recndiny to Karau and Willams 1993}, theye links often appear weaker when individuals work together in groups than when they work alone, Consier expect- anesthe belief that increased effarg wil lead tq better performance This may be high when individuals work alone but lower when they work together im groups, e realize that other tactuts aside from their own effort will determine the group's pertormance—tor instance, the amount of effort exerted by other mem bers. Similarly, instrumentality-—the beliel that good pertormance will be recog nized and rewarded—may also be weaker when people work together in groups. ‘They realize that valued outcomes are divided among all roup members and that, e THE COLLECTIVE EFFORT MODEL: AN Hove Groups Aft Individual Performance: Fron Socal Farttation to Soil Looting Social Loafing: ‘A Danger When People Work Together. “When several persons work on stash, come may engage ia sonia Iafrg-they pretend 10 work hard but, fact, put out less effort than they would if they were working alone . ‘Collective effort model An feaplanation of social loafing Suggesting that perceive [inks between ndmaduals' effort and thei outcomes are weaker {shen they work rogether with thers ina group. This, in carn, produces tendencies toward Social loafing. 487 Scanned with CamScanner488 as a result, they may not get their fair share given their level of effort. CEM the. ‘ory suggests that because there is more uncertainty hetween how hard people work and the rewards they receive, they engage in social loafing. After all, why work hand when this may fail to produce the outcomes you desire? Research findings have confirmed any predictions derived from the CEM (e,, Karau & Williams, 1993}, so this model appears to offer a useful framework for ‘nderstanding the nature of social loafing and why it occurs. For example, the CEM predicts that social loafing will be weakestewhen (1) individuals work in small rather than large groups; (2) when they work on tasks that are intrinsically inter. esting of important to them; (3) when they wark with respected athers (friends, teammates, exc.) (4] when they perceive that their contnbutions to the group prod. uct are unique or important; (5| when they expect their coworkers to perform, Poorly; and (6) when they come from cultures that emphasize individual effort and outcomes rather than group outcomes (Western cultures versus Asian ones, for instance}. The results of the meta-analysis offered support for all af these pre dictions. In others words, social loafing was weakest and strongest under con tons predicted by CEM theory. While the CEM provides a useful frame causes of social loafing, it ‘work for understanding the nature and also suggests that this effect 1s a potentially serious prob. em for task-performing groups, According to the CEM, social loafing 1s most likely to occur under conditions in which individuals’ contributions can't he evaluated, When people work on tasks they find horing or uninspuring, and when they work with others they don't gyeatly respect or dont know very well. Untortunately, these Conditions exist in many settings in which szoups of persons work together Ml socra loafing is a common occurrence, then an impettant question anses What steps.ean be taken to reduce it! Let's see what research findings suyest “REDUCING SOCIAL LOAING SOME USEFUL TECHNIQUES. The most reduce social loafing involves making the o ily identifiable c.g, Walliams, Harkins, People cant sit hack an let others dh Second, groups can reduce soctal lo Ibvious way to Put or effort of cach participant read & Latane, 1981) Under thes conditions, their work, so social loafing iy in fact reduced. wling by increasing, group members’ commit. ce (Brickner, Harkins, & Ostrom, 19K6) 1. Pres- T serve to offset temptatiins tu engage in soe loafing. Third, secialloaing can be nathesppavent eee oral atch Kara & Wh vafing declines when individuals view their contnbutie : erly ta dant with those of others (Weldon & Mustan, lysne ethan merely ea Together, these steps can sharply reduce secs, he temptation to Caiceteat the expense of onhers. Please see the Ideas to Take wig siesscakur on page 513 for some practical suggestions om hnatgee ee ee efit from social facilitation and protect youre ‘elf against social loafing by athers| » When individuals work together on a. sesial cfirg—reduced outpea | woupmerber~sometimesoceors ve ms to the task as unique rath al Loafing—and ¢ the tal loafing can be reduced in several ways ‘denufiable, by increasing commament to he by malang outputs indnadually Lance, and by arsunng chat each member's ath and sense of tatk impor. Contributions co the task are unique. CHAPTER 12 / GROUPS ann inDiviDUALS wore athongman cureasertopre Scanned with CamScanner. - —ao something “special”: extra talent, experience, a higyer reputation, or some other special qualities. In such cases, individuals who feel that they c inate w at least cope with it and reduce the discom even though they may continue to be treated unfairly by others, ee ‘Individuals wish to be treated (aiely by the groups to which they belong. Fairness | ‘ean be judged in terms of outeonies (distibutiva justice) i terms of procedures | {procedural jn of courteous treatment (interactional tice), © When indivishials feel that they have been treated unfairly, they often take steps torestore farness & These steps range from overt actions such as reducing their contributions ta ‘covert actions such as employee theft or sabotage, or changes in perception, suggesting that others deserve better treatment * In intimate relationships, conflict can lead to increased feelings of unfair creat iment, and this, n turn, can further intensify confl ot elim. tit produces, "Decision Making by Groups: How It Occurs and the Pitfalls It Faces roups are called upon to perform many tasks—everything from conducting surgical operations to entertaining large crowds. ‘One of the most important activities they perform, however, is decision making—combining and integrating available information in order t0 ‘choose one out of several possible courses of action. Governments, large comporations, military units, sports teams—these and many other groups entrust key decisions to groups. Why? While many factors play a role, the most important seems to be this: Most people believe that groups usually reach better decisions than do individuals. Afterall, groups can pool the expertise oftheir members and avoid extreme decisions. ‘Are such beliefs accurate? Do groups really make better or more accurate decisions than individuals? In their efforts to answer this question, social psychologists have focused on three major questions: (1| How do groups actually make their decisions and reach consensus? (2) Do decisions reached by groups differ trom those reached by individuals? (3] What accounts for the fact that groups sometimes make truly dis astrous decisions—ones so bad itis hard to believe they were actually reached? ‘The Decision-Making Process: How Groups Attain Consensus a... groups first begin to discuss any issue, their members rarely voice unanimous agreement, Rather, they come to the decision-making task with different information and so support a wide tange of views (e.g, Larson, Foster —_——_—_—_ \ “Sails naling Frocensr Fishman, & Franz, 199K, Gigone & Hastie, 1997), Alter some perio! of discussion, involved in combining and however, groups usually reach a decision, This does not always happen—inrics imegracing available informa- become “Hung, and other decision-making gtoups, toa, sometimes deadlock. But tion in order Liiricpeachela An general, some decision is reached, How ts this accomplished, and can the final of wel pale enuoe ‘outcome be predicted from the views initially held by a group's members? Here is ns What rescarch findings suggest. CHAPTER 12 / GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS sewer ablongenan comb __—a 1s Scanned with CamScanner"SOCIAL DECISION SCHEMES: BLUEPRINTS FOR DECISIONS, Let's hegin with the ques- ton of whether a group's decisions can be predicted from the views held by its members at the start. Here, the answer itself is quite straightforward, even though the processes involved are more complex: Yes. The final decisions reached by groups can often be predicted quite accurately by relatively simple rules known as social decision schemes. These rules relate the initial distrihution of members’ views or preferences to the group’s final decisions, For example, one scheme—the majority wins rule—suggests that, in many cases, the group will opt for whatever position is initially supported by most of urs members [ex., Nemeth et al., 2001), Accord- ing to this rule, discussion serves mainly to confirm or strengthen the most pop: ular initial view, tis generally accepted no matter how passionately the minority argues for a different position. A second decision scheme i the trath-wurs rule. This indicates that the correct solution or decision will ultimately be aceepted as its cor: reetness is recognized by more and more members. A third decision rule is known as the first-shift rule. Groups tend to adopt a decision consistent with the direc- tion of the first shiit in opinion shown by any member. Surprising as it may seem, the results of many studies indicate that the: ple rules are quite successful in predicting even complex group decisions, Indeed, they have been found to be accurate up to 80 percent of the time (eg, Stasser, Tay: Jor, & Hanna, 1989}. Thus, they seem to provide important insights into how groups move toward agreement, | NORMATIVE AND INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE IN GROUPS: HOW GROUP MEMBERS INFLUENCE EACH OTHERS" VIEWS. Many stuulies indicate that, in general, decisio making groups move toward consensus; indced, as we'll sce below, this strong te dency t0 seek uniformity or agreement is one of the potential dangers of decision making by groups. Bur how, precisely, da members influence each other so that the sz0up moves toward such consensus? The answer seems to be through the two kinds of influence we described in Chapter 9: normative soctal influence ani! informational social influence. Normative social influence is based on our desire to be liked or accepted, and groups certainly use this tactic to influence disagreeing members to 0 along, Similarly, groups also employ informational social influence, which is based on our desire to be right—to hold the correct views. Many studies in which decision-making groups have becn carefully observed indicate that hoth forms of social influence are used by members to bring “mavericks” [disagreeing members} into line (e.g, Kaplan, 1989, Kelley et al., 1997; Larrey & Paulus, 1999]. Moreover, this appears to be truc in a wide range of decision-making groups, ranging from juries to cabinet-level sroups in governments. In short, there is no real mystery as to why soups move toward the position adopted by the majority oftheir members initially, they attain consensus through reciprocal social influence among their members. The Nature of Group Decisions: Moderation or Polarization: MBB 1) exportanc decisions are rarely lefs to individuals, Instead, they ae usually assigned to g7oups—and highly qualified groups at chat. Even total dic- tators usually consult with groups of highly skilled advisers before taking major actions. As we noted earlier, the major reason bebund this strategy isthe belief that groups are fat less likely than individuals to make serious errors—to rush blindly ver the edge. Is this really true? Research on this issuc has yielded sueprising find- ings. Contrary to popular belie Large body of evidence indieates that groups are dctually more likely to adopt extreme positions than are individuals making de Sons alone in fact, aeross many diferent kinds of slecisions and many different con texts, groups show a pronounced tendency to shife toward views moreextreme than Decision Makiig by Groups: How It Occurs and the false Faces ——__— ‘social decision sehernes: Rules Felating the initial dismbusion (of members views t0 Final group decisions. 507 Scanned with CamScannerBefore Group, Alter Group Discussion ‘Average it milly avor of some coune of action ‘Average is strongly in favor of some coure of action i eS ee Newral ‘Views Hel hy Group Members Views Hell iy Group Members ¢$——_i i ey ttt Views Held by Group Members (more ext v Average wrong cpposed (mer a) ‘Average i lly opposed to some oune of action 4 ‘Newtal ‘Views Held by Group Members Group Polarization: Ies Basic Nature. As shown here, grovp polarization involves the tendency for decision-making groups to shift toward views that are more extreme than the ones with which they initially began, but in the same general direction. Thus, if groups stare out slightly in favor of ‘one view or position, they often end up holding this view more strongly or extremely after deliberations. The shift toward extremity can be quite dangerous in many settings. ration: We ter group pola Eeney of group members, as 2 result of group discussion, to shift coward more extreme positions than those they ‘nitially held. 508 the ones with which they initially began (Burnstein, 1983; Lamm & Myers, 1978). This is known as group polarization, and its major effects can be summarized as follows: Whatever the initial leaning or preference of a group prior to its discussions, it is strengthened during the group's deliberations. The result: Not only does the group shift toward more extreme views, but individual members, too, often show such a shift see Figure 12.17), (Note: The term group polarization does not refer toa tendency of groups to split apart into two opposing camps or poles, on the con trary, it refers toa strengthening of the group's initial preferences.| ‘Why does this effet occur? Two major factors seem to be involved. Fist, it appears that social comparison—a process we examined earlier—plays an important role. Everyone wants to be “above average,” and where opinions are concerned, this implies holding views that are “better” than those of other group members. What does “bet ter” mean? This depends on the specific group: Among a group of liberals, “better” would mean “more liberal.” Among a group of conservatives, it would mean “more conservative.” Amonga groupof racist, it would mean “even more bigoted.” In any case, during group discussions, at least some members discaver-—to their shock!— that their views are nor “better” than those of most other members. The result. After comparing themselves with these persons, they shift to even more extreme views, and the gimp polarization effect is off and running [Goethals & Zanna, 1979}. A second factor involves the Lict that, dung group discussion, most anguments Presented are ones favoring the group initial leaning or preference. Ava result of hear, Ing such arguments, persutsion occurs (ptestimably thnonigh the central route dexeribed apter a} anxl members shift, increasingly, towanl the majonty view. These shifts increase the proportion of nts favoring this view, and, ultimately, members omvince themselves that thsi the “tight” view and shift toward ie with increasing Strength. Group polarization results from this process (Vinokur & Burnstein, 1974} CHAPTER 12 / GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS \wowcablongman comtarantyene Scanned with CamScannerRegardless ofthe precise basis for group polarization, tt definitely has important impheations. Th ng groups to aulopt post singly dangerous In this contest ts lily shifts in haa may Tead many decision fem, and there mas decisions by pulitical military; ot fuasiness garmyps that sh by all accounts, have known better for example, the deersion hy the hare liners inthe now vanished Soviet Union to stage a coup to restore fra communist tile, ot the deerston bv Apple computer nor ta ficense its software th other manufac turers a decision that ultimately cost ar mwest of ite sates Di group po influence these and ther sisastrons decisions? [is possible to say for sure, research findings suggest that this isa real posstbility, Potential Dangers of Group Decision Making: Groupthink, Biased Processing, and the Tendency of Group Members to Tell Each Other What They Already Know HE 5.20.0: many te serous probl jon-making gtoups towand polartzation 1.4 "syne that can untertete with thetr ability to make accurate deck sons Untortunately, this is not the only process that can exert such negative ects Several others, too, emerge during group discussions and can lead groups make costly. even disastrous, decisions (Hins, 1995). Among the most impor tant ot ink, 2) based processing of information by group mem: snd 3) groups’ secming inability to share and use information held by some bot not all ot ther members. fe CROUPTHINK WHEN TOO MUCH COHESIVENESS IS A DANGEROUS THING. Earlier, we jencies toward group polarization may be one reason why deci joon-msking coups sometimes xo off the deep eid, with catastrophic results. How- nother even more disturbing factor may also contnbute to such outcomes. «3 process known as groupthink—a strong tendency for devi on-maki Spoupetorlone ranks, cognitively, around a decision, ssstining thar the Rroup cat allmembers must support the decision strongly, and that any infor it should be reiected (Janis, 1972, 1982)}Once this collective, \elops. t appears, groups hecome unwalling—and perhaps unable— -n if external events suggest that these decisions are very punt ones For example, consider the repeated decisions by three United States. presents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon) to escalate the war in Vietnam, Each esca lation by nereased American casualties and no visible progress toward the unng the survival of South Vietnam as an independent country; yet the presider tinued 1 nmend escalation. According to Janis: 1982) the waisl psychologast who ornginated the concept of sroupthink, this. allingness to consnier alternative courses of action rapes among gzoup micrmbers—may well have eonttibuted to this tragic nis And other psychulogists nated the passible effects of groupthink. sna wide range of other contents ey, Hilton, DAIS) Why does oupthink cur’ Research hndings (eg, Tetlock et al, 1992; Kameda pn 1774) suggest that two factors may be enucta The tiist is a very high Jiestveness among yzoup members: they are sumilar in backgtounad, unter ext5,and valucs and tend to libe cachwtber sets anash The sevonsl w emergent grinay tien cwtrms suggesting that the group ts bath antallible and morally supe: tan sat ae thn tn auld be ws tuatler discussion ot the sssues at hand rhe decssion thas beet ade, aid fhe only cash 1 (840 stp The result: Such groups shift from f ts the best deerstons parsibl the sneteasiny un slice decisions making, Deomen Making by Carepy How Orc aad ene pl it Fe? Toop ee ers of NN the members a Ther ve nae eppene Scanned with CamScannerto focusing on maintaining a high level of consensus, and this, in turn, can yield truly disastrous effects. . ~ BIASED PROCESSING OF INFORMATION IN GROUPS. While groupthink is a drama process, other more subtle but equally costly sources of bias exist in decision-rmake ing groups. One of {Re fost important of these 1s the tendency for such gr process available information in a biased mannet. Groups, “like individ ene always motivated to maximize accuracy, on the contrary, they are often to fra support for the views they iniually favor In other words, they act more like intuitive lawyers,” searching for evidence that supports their case niu pet erences! than as “intuitive scientists,” seeking truth and accuracy (¢ 8, Baur fer & Newman, 1994], Such tendencies do not always stem from the selfish pursue Jecltanverest; rather, they may denve from adherence to values of panciples tha sre generally accepted in socicty and viewed in a positive light. clear llustration atte kand of potential clash between positive values and accuracy in decision tnaking occurs in juries—especially those concerned with settling civil surts is which one side seeks damages from the other Tn euch cases, judges often instruct juries to follow one of three legal rules: com parative negligence reduce the award sought by the plaintiff in proporson ro the Deere che plaintiff was negligent (responsible forthe harm she or he suffered con Siburony negligence—award the plaintiff no damages if she or he was nenligent 19 aaeveatent, eriet ability award fall damages to the plaintiff ifthe detendane was negligent to any extents ‘you ean see, only the first of these rules is consistent aoe ceibative iustic® the other rules, although often used in legal proceedins, | Wrolate this common-sense rule, Taking account of this fact, Sommer, Horowiss, and Bourgeois (2001) predicted that juries ‘mation in order to adhere to distributive justice, low the other two rules. ‘To test this prediction, participants listened to an audiotape ‘of a civil trial in which a plaintiff was suing PaFTSPaM pile manulacturer for one million dollars in damages; the case involved ai aly fuel fiver chat caused a gas tank to explode, resulting in the death of the plaintiff's wife. In three different conditions, jurors were told to follow each of the ules above in making their decisions. Sommer, Horowitz, & Bourgeois (2001) rea- saned chat jurors would engage in biased processing of information concerning the sone onder to adhere to distributive justize. Thus, for example, they would dis: rovplainuif evidence under the contributory negligence rule (which strongly favors the defendant) than under the strict liability rule (which strongly favors the plaintiff) As you can see from Figure 12.18, this is precisely what hap- toned, Other measures indicated that jurors did actually engage in biased processing Pret lable evidence in order to obtain the decisions they wanted—ones consis: tent with the principle of distributive justice. "These findings and those of related research (e.g., Frey, Schulz-Hardt, & Stahlberg, 1996] dicate that juries and other decision-making groups do indeed engage in braved processing: in other words, they process available information in ways that allow them to reach the decisions they want! ‘would engage in biased processing of infor- ‘even if instructed by a judge to fol- they conducted a study in which cuss more WHY GROUPS OFTEN FAIL TO SHARE INFORMATION UNIQUE TO EACH MEMBER. A third potential source of bias for decision-making groups involves the fact that con- trary to what common sense suggests, such groups do not always pool their resources—share information and ideas that are unique to ‘each member. In fact research on this Issue (Gigone & Hastie, 1993, 1997, Stasser, 1992) indicates that such pooling of resources or inurmation may be t c exception rather than the rule. When groups discuss a given issue and try to reach 4 decision about it, (hey tend Gene information shared by most if not all members, rather than information ee bale tusunly anc ava few. The result: The decisions they make tend «© Fed information fe, Gigone & Hastie, 1993), This is nota problem ew 12 / Gu CHAPTER 12 / GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS swwwecablongren.combaronty= Scanned with CamScannerParieipanes discuss the most provplaitiff evidence unde th Condition, whieh i if such information points to the best decision. But consider what happens when information pointing to the best decision is not shared by most members. In such cases, the tendency of group members to discuss mainly the information they all already possess may prevent them from reaching the best decision. Disturbingly, research findings suggest that this tendency is strong indeed. For instance, even with respect to medical diagoses, which can involve life-and-death decisions, teams of interns and medical students discussed more shared than unshared information dunng group discussians. However, the more they pooled unshared information [information known, initially, to only some members), the more sccu- rate were the groups’ diagnoses e, Larson et al, 1998, Winguist & Larson, 1998) s1ea0vING GROUP DECISIONS. Groupthink, biased processing, discussing infor- mation already known toall the members—these are discouragsng barners to effec- tive decision making by groups. Can these potential pitfalls be overcome! Many studies have addressed this issue, and together, they do point to some promising techniques, Several of these involve encouraging dissent, because doing so may slow the rapid movement of groups toward consensus. One such approach 1s the devil's ( advocate technique |c.z., Hirt & Markman, 1995}, in which one group member is “assigned the task of disagreeing with and criticizing whatever plan ot deeision is under consideration. This tactic often works Because wt induces members to think carefully about the decision toward which they are moving”) (( Another approach involves calling in outside experts who offer their recom: ‘mendations and opinions on the group's plans (eg, Janis, 19821. Recent studies sug. gest that most effective ofall may be authentic dissent, in which one of more group members actively disagree with the jroup's inital preference without being sep this: or instance, a study by Nemeth and her colleagucs (2001) found that authen- tie dissent was more likely to encourage onyanal thinking by group members, sreater consideration of alternative views, and more atitude change away from the group's initial position than was the devil's advocate apprusch. In any case, ats clear that dee. sion making by groups can he improved; however, active steps must he taken to achieve this goal, Let to their owen devices, and without outside intervention, groups often do slip casily into the mental traps outlined here—often with disastrous results, ‘Deesen Mating by Grove: How t Occur and the Pfs Feces Biased Processing and Group Decisions. Mack ywors told to feller legal eves in decrhing & damage case engpard in haved procesung in order to nore thee rules and adhere to the prreiple of daenbnane nance (fawmess) Speeiicaly, hey dscusted move proplasnedt eodence ur reghipence rule (which wrongly Favors the defendare) than under the sarct abo rte (whch urongly favors the plano), the corer bony fount sasto om ore x ‘deei's advocate tachenque A technique for improwng the ‘quality of group decsiont in which one group member is _asugned the task of dsagreeng. wath and cnecinng whatever plan or decision under consideravon authenic dissent: Atechongue For improwng he Gualty of group decisions in which one (Gr more group member 3c mel daagree mith the group's invnal preference wehout beng iogned the role sit Scanned with CamScannerIe ie wsidely believed that groups make better decisions than do individuals, However, research findings indicate that groups are often subject to group polarcaton effects, which lead them to make more extreme decisions than doindwrduals © tn addition, groups often suffer from groupihink—a tendency to assume that they can't be wrong and that information contrary to the group's view should be rejected. ® Groups often engage in biased processing of information in order to reach the decisions they intially prefer, orto adhere to general values such asthe principle of distributive astice, ee IN THIS CHAPTER, YOU READ ABOUT, . the role of rormsin the Functioning of groups the nazure of cooperation and conflict and factors that affect their occurrence wndwaduals' concern with ochers™ eealuanons of ther performance perceved fairness the role of persuasion and other forms oF socal influence in group decision making 1. Do you see any connection between social loafing and percened farrness? (Hint: Have you ever been in 3 group in which you wepected that other people were engaging in social loafing? IF xo, what did you do about it? And fou INTEGRATING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN OTHER CHAPTERS, YOU WILL FIND RELATED DISCUSSIONS OF, .. ‘the nature of norms and their role in social influence (Chapter 9) and aggression (Chapter 11) * ‘other forms of behavior that either assist or harm otherss discrimination (Chapter 6} helping behavior (Chapter 10) aggression (Chapter 11) the effects of others’ evaluations on our selfconcepe (Chapter 8) and oa ur king for others (Chapter 7) the efecs of peeved fsiess on many other Torms of Fadil behavior suchas helping (Chapter 10) and aggression (Chapter 11), and is role in close relationships (Chapter 8) the nature of persuasion (Chapter 4); various forms oF foal mfluence (Chapter 9} UT) connections cooperate with athers, everyone Bains, but itis tempting to pursue ur own selfinterests because, in the short-run, doing so s easier and offers wmmediate gains. Can you think of such « situation ia Your own bfe? What did you do ‘when you found yourself ni differently in such situations than you have nthe pase? 3, Decision making by groups isa ‘complex process, Drawing on Previous discussions of gender "throughout this book (Chapters 6.7.10, and 11), do you that decision mating would be ”) night" thing or the “easy” thing? didtabe action?) sll nee dierent in groups consisting of 2. Many situations in Ov dhs chapcer, you might beha orate 8 UPS consisting rece social dlemmas-ifwe dus chapeer.y we ‘of males? Ifs0, in what ways? CHAPTER 12 / GROUPS AND IneDIviOUAL, i 512 aii Scanned with CamScanner