User:Jenny O/Groups

I found Fisk's (2004) chapter Small Groups: Ongoing interactions far more interesting and informative than our textbook for this section (see Further Reading under Groups).



What is a group?
A group can be defined as two or more people who perceive themselves, or are perceived by others, as belonging together (Fiske, 2004). Aspects of belonging include: a shared identity, a common goal, interdependence and being distinct from an out-group. Interestingly, two people can constitute a group, albeit a special case. (However, I am not absolutely convinced of this: In my mind the combination of interactions between a couple - or dyad - are very different from the combination of interactions of three people. Adding just one person to a dyad increases the interactions exponentially). The degree to which a group makes a whole (in-group homogeneity) depends on similarity, proximity, interdependence and interaction (Gestalt principals). One's social identity (part of self-concept) is contextually based and derived from group membership. Self categorisation and social identity increase in-group favouritism and out-group disadvantage.

Human groups have social and cultural purposes. Groups offer animals advantages such as, safety, vigilance, shared resources and increased power (Evolutionary perspective). In addition humans can benefit from groups as groups facilitate complex communication and economic exchange, accumulation of knowledge, and role differentiation.



Concepts, theories and studies
There are a number of interesting concepts, theories and studies relating to groups: Deindividuation refers to the loss of self-awareness and individual accountability one can experience by becoming part of a group or mob. The individual actions of many Hutus during the Rwandan genocide may be attributed to this (see Ghosts of Rwanda). However, Fiske (2004) reports on more recent evidence suggesting that situation specific norms rather than deindivuation predict collective behaviour. According to the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation, a contextually salient group identity develops and group members express that identity in their behaviour. Fiske illustrates this with an example of the police action making a disparate group of protesters more homogeneous and thus making moderates more radical.

Social facilitation refers to the tendency to perform well while others are watching. This was identified in Triplett’s (1897) classic study of bicycle riders who performed better against other riders than the clock. However, further work in this area resulted in the Zyjonc’s Social Faciliation Theory which linked the presence of others with arousal to show that familiar tasks (practised or dominant response) improve in the presence of others, while unfamiliar tasks are impaired (see Yerkes-Dodson Law). For example, I have noticed, that people generally speak well in public if they are passionate about or well versed on the topic.

The Distraction Conflict Theory (Baron,1986) suggests that levels of attention or distraction affect performance. The presence of an audience results in an attentional conflict (attending to audience or task). This increases arousal and drive, leading to increased social facilitation (increased performance). This includes the “Somebody upstairs cares” syndrome (someone is actually intrested in what I am doing) and the Hawthorne Effect (conscious and unconscious modification of performance when being watched). Coupled with this is the cognitive concept of evaluation apprehension or one’s concern about being judged while performing a task – obviously not a problem experienced by  narcissists who crave attention and admiration.

Social loafing is an interesting phenomenon describing decreased individual effort on a collective task. According to Latane (1981) this occurs as individual responsibilty can be diffued in a group. Other contributing factors include: evaluation apprehension, the bad apple effect, or even not wanting to be a sucker (a uniquely human trait). So it seems reasonable that social loafing can be decreased by identifying group members and making them accountable.

Social Dilemmas describe a conflict of self and collective interest – an individual can gain more by defecting than cooperating. The commons dilemma (Originally named from grazing private flocks of sheep on the village green - the common) is one in which groups members all take from a shared resource, but if individuals take too much the communal resource is depleted (Fiske, 2004). That is, there are gains if all cooperate or losses if all compete. James provided the problem of global warming as a good example of this. Communication, personality, mood and the behaviour of others influence the use of common resources.

Group decision-making
Group decisions are not necessarily superior to or more balanced than individual decisions. They are different. It was originally thought that groups tended to make more risky decisions; however, current thinking suggests groups tend to make more polarised (extreme) decisions than individuals. This occurs due to individual attitudes, learning from others and conforming to a group stereotype. Groupthink refers to the tendency of group members to think alike as they are motivated by the need for consensus and minimum conflict. An illusion of invulnerability, a sense of moral superiority and underestimation of opponents also contribute. Groupthink is more likely to occur when the group is homogeneous, cohesive and isolated and the leader is strong or biased (Fiske, 2004). I imagine this is the type of thinking that occurs in cults.

Leadership
Leadership is very interesting and quite complex. A leader is a prototypical individual to whom others look for guidance. He or she essentially has more power than others and the ability to use social influence. Theories relating to leadership seem to have evolved over the past 50 years from a trait-based approach to behavioural and situational theories to the current transformational or transactional leadership theories. Transformational leaders seek to inspire and excite followers to improve performance. Whereas, transactional leaders use reward and punishment in the exchange of valued resources between leader and follower (Fiske, 2004). This approach emphasizes resource control, self-enhancement, shared understanding (roles and goals), and norm compliance.

We were shown a video during the lecture of leadership training. This is based on the premise that leadership skills can be taught. I actually question the validity of that process. The video really focused on confidence training for a woman who was unable to confidently lead a meeting. It might be a semantic argument but the notion of confidently leading a meeting and leadership are very different constructs in my mind. I believe there are very few people who are “true” and effective leaders (I suppose I adhere to the Great Man Theories – true leaders are born not made). The modern day leader or what is construed as leadership is usually more like facilitation or bullying than leading others.