1. Introduction to Groups

2. Lessons for Today Groups are valuable.
Groups often do better than the individual in them. They allow people to handle projects that are too large or complex for a single individual.
The success of a group consists of three components:
Getting work done
Supporting the needs of individual members
Keeping the group as an unit functioning.
These outcomes are only loosely related.
Groups are often afflicted by "process losses", which prevent them from doing as well as they are capable of doing:
Problems in coordination
Problems in motivation
Social loafing & ways to control it
Problems of diversity (I'm not sure how to control this)
Problems in resolving conflict

3. Groups
Groups = Social aggregates that involve mutual awareness & potential mutual interaction. In organizations, they often have a goal of producing something
Kinds of groups
Ad hoc groups – Lab groups with no history or organizational context
Teams - Groups with organizational embedding, internal differentiation & common goal
Groups have pervasive, persistent & powerful effects on human behavior
Large number of stylized facts about how groups & teams operate
Social psychology – Focus on ad hoc, contextless, laboratory groups
Organizational behavior – Focus on embedded, production teams
Much of the work in organizations done by groups - either directly or indirectly.
Effects - culture transmissions; medium for developing self; artibtor of permissibility;

4. Groups are valuable
Way to pool resources to tackle problems that are too large or complex for an individual to solve
Effort - e.g., construction gang, large software development projects
Expertise - e.g., teaching this course, executive team
Interests - e.g., school board, Congress
Perspective/Point of view - e.g., human subjects review board
In many task groups do better than the individuals comprising them
E.g., Problem solving
Groups are more likely to solve problems than average member
E.g., Learning
Students often learn better thru cooperative learning teams in schools than through individual instruction
Advantage depends upon the task & whether the group is interacting or a statistical aggregation

5. Some illustrations of the value of groups & the mechanisms thru which they improve performance

6. Largest connected component in the high school dating network.
Study of spread of STD
Largest connected component in the high school dating network.
How many males (blue?)
144 blue dots = male; 50% of total in largest connected component
Largest connected component N = 288, representing 52% of students in Jefferson High. Predominately white high school of abt 1000 students.
Data collected to model the possible spread of STD among students. This is a spanning tree network. Trees generally the results of prohibition. X can’t date Y. The smallest possible heterosexual cycle has a length of 4. The empirical results seem to be the result of a rule that that persons do not date the former (or current) partner of their former (or current) partner. I.e., don’t accept seconds, since it’s a loss of status.
High school dating: Data drawn from Peter S. Bearman, James Moody, and Katherine Stovel, Chains of affection: The structure of adolescent romantic and sexual networks, American Journal of Sociology 110, (2004).
Peter S. Bearman, James Moody, and Katherine Stovel, Chains of affection: The structure of adolescent romantic and sexual networks, American Journal of Sociology 110, (2004)

7. Eureka Tasks:Truth Revealed Wins
Musically inclined
Raise in pay
Last but not least
The long & the short of it
But on 2nd thought
Cross purposes
One in a million
One thing after another
Two under par
Hard up
Fooling around
History repeats itself

8. Group problem-solving example: Suicide as cause of death
Suicide was the 10th leading cause of death in the US in 2007, with suicides per 100,000 in the population (base rate)
Procedure
First make your estimate individually
Form 3-person groups:
Reach a consensus answer with group in 3 minutes
What is the suicide rate of different demographic groups in the US (per 100,000 in the group) to one decimal point?
Base rate Own Group Actual
White males ______ ______ ______
White females ______ ______ ______
Black males ______ ______ ______
Black females ______ ______ ______
Which demographic group has the lowest suicide rate? Estimate it in number per 100,000 of that demographic group.
Self Group Actual
White males ______ ______ 20.2
White females ______ ______ 5.2
Black males ______ ______ 8.8
Black females ______ ______ 1.7
17,352/34,598 = 50% by fire arms
In 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, 483,596 people visited a hospital for injuries due to self-harm behavior, suggesting that approximately 12 people harm themselves (not necessarily intending to take their lives) for every reported death by suicide. Together, those harming themselves made an estimated total of more than 650,000 hospital visits related to injuries sustained in one or more separate incidents of self-harm behavior.
Because of the way these data are collected, we are not able to distinguish intentional suicide attempts from non-intentional self-harm behaviors. But we know that many suicide attempts go unreported or untreated, and surveys suggest that at least one million people in the U.S. each year engage in intentionally inflicted self-harm.
As with suicide deaths, rates of attempted suicide vary considerably among demographic groups. While males are 4 times more likely than females to die by suicide, females attempt suicide 3 times as often as males. The ratio of suicide attempts to suicide death in youth is estimated to be about 25:1, compared to a about 4:1 in the elderly.

9. Why Do Groups Perform Better than the People Who Comprise Them?
For the counting task?
For the visual pun task?
For the suicide task?

10. Why Do Groups Perform Better than the People Who Comprise Them?
Law of large numbers & central limit theorem: Average of many independent judgments drawn from a single distribution is closer to the true value that any single estimate
Aggregation of resources: Diversity of knowledge, skills, abilities, approaches, social ties and interests enhances creativity, problem solving, and decision quality
Synergy: Contribution by one member sparks contributions by others
Creative conflict: Task-based conflict brings out different ideas and solutions. May lead to new, win-win solutions.
Efficiency: Groups offer opportunities for division of labor
Commitment: Group decisions fosters understanding and acceptance
Learning: Working with others builds members’ skills

11. Wisdom of Crowds Term popularized by Surowiecki*
10/2000
Wisdom of Crowds
Term popularized by Surowiecki
Answers given by an aggregation of people is better than a single person’s answer *

12. Who wants to be a millionaire
Ask the audience: 91% right
Phone a friend: 65% right

13. Iowa Electronic Market (IEM)*
10/2000
Iowa Electronic Market (IEM)
How does this work?
Prices on the market are predictions of how well a candidate will do in the election.
Example: Prices on Sep 4, 2012
Obama $0.660
Romney $0.341
The IEM is a real money, real-time futures market run by the University of Iowa. Traders sign up and deposit money which they invest in contracts which pay an agreed-upon value which is determined by the outcomes of political and business events.
One question might be where do these contracts come from? At any time, a trader can buy a bundle of contracts from the market for $1 which contains one of each of all the contracts available in the market. The total expected value of these contracts is $1. In the vote share markets, the total vote share will add up to $1. Traders make money by buying contracts whose value, they think, is currently less than the vote share that candidate will attain on election day. For example, if the price of a Gore contract is 0.45 and a trader thinks that Gore will have more than 50.0% of the 3-candidate popular vote, then s/he can make $ by buying the contract at If Gore does get 51.0% of the 3-candidate popular vote, the trader will make ( = 0.06) on this transaction.
Traders can also make money by buying bundles and selling off contracts in the market which they think are over-priced. That is, the price that someone is willing to pay in the market is more than the vote share the trader expects the candidate will attain on election day.
Traders indicate their willingness to buy and sell contracts by posting offers to buy at a given price called “bids” and offers to sell which are called “asks”. *

14. Across Elections IEM Is Very Accurate*
10/2000
Across Elections IEM Is Very Accurate
Accuracy of predictions in 106 contracts (candidates/parties) in 20 markets (elections)
Average absolute prediction error = 2.39% (1.37% for US presidential elections)
In five US presidential elections from , market was closer to actual 2-party vote than 964 polls 75% of time *

15. Markets dominance of polls independent of time to election*
10/2000
Markets dominance of polls independent of time to election *

16. When would the Wisdom of the Crowd not work?
Ignorance (i.e., when individual knowledge is low)
Non-independence via communication btw crowd members or common influence
Systematic biases
Prejudice and marketing
Anchoring and adjusting
Framing effects: losses loom larger than gains
P&M: asking men with discriminatory attitudes to make judgments of women’s abilities. Or, asking people in states who have been targeted by marketing campaigns about who the next president should be.
Anchoring and adjusting: an initial value can impact subsequent predictions. E.g., if I ask you: does this have more or less than 200 jellybeans, vs. more or less than 2000 jellybeans, in which case do you think the final answer would be larger?
Framing effects: would you rather have $5 or a 50% chance winning $10? Losing $5 is worse than gaining $5. There are a whole set of cognitive biases that we have that can affect the decisions that we make in what is technically an “irrational” manner.

17. Brief case: Rowing in an 8

18. Army Crew Team
The coach of the Army Crew team at West Point faced a dilemma about how to foster team performance. At the start of the crew season, he had used objective data on individual performance to select his top eight rowers for the Varsity crew and the lower tier of eight for the JV crew. But when the two crews race one another in practice, the JV beat the Varsity about two-thirds of the time. By the end of the season, the Varsity was still mired in a downward spiral with only one week to go before the Nationals.

19. Discussion Which was more successful?
What criteria are you using to define success?

20. Criteria for Group Success
What were the criteria for success in the rowing crews?
The success of a group consists of three components:
Production: Getting the work done & meeting needs of stakeholders
Member support: Supporting the needs of individual members
Group maintenance: Keeping the group as an functioning unit and developing it with time and experience.
These components can be in tension

21. Performance & their espirit de corps
What is the relationship between morale/spirit de corps/cohesion in these teams and their successful racing?
How does morale/spirit de corps/cohesion translate into performance? (or vice versa?)

22. Group cohesion & performance
Meta-analyses of 66 studies show small but reliable correlations btw cohesion & group performance
Effect is especially strong in project teams (r ~ .65) vs productin teams (r ~ .29)
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6),
Size of effect depends up whether success is measured at behavioral level (e.g., crew speed) or outcome level (e.g., win/loss ratio). Outcomes influenced by non-team factors, like competition.
Size of effect also depends on aspect of cohesion measured – liking for individuals, commitment to task & group pride (i.e., commitment to group as a whole)
Which way does causation go?
Binomial Effect Size Display for an r=.26 means those in top vs bottom half of cohesion distribution will be in top half of behavior distribution 26% more frequently & 14% more frequently for outcomes.
Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small group research, 40(4),

23. Binomial Effect Size Display for r=.26
Binary Effect Size Display for r=.26 Formula: Binary Effect Size Display = .50 +/- r/2
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American psychologist, 44(10), 1276.

24. Interpreting effect size estimates
For context, the average effect size in over 400 social psych experiments is r=.21.

25. Interplay btw cohesion & performance
Effects are bi-directional
Performance  cohesion is generally stronger than cohesion performance
Cohesion-performance relationship is stronger for more interdependent task
Especially strong for project work
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6),

26. Your analysis
Why is varsity crew losing to the JV crew?
In forums, some students identified lack of cohesion & espirit d’corps as a root cause of poor varsity performance
“A truly successful team has a stronger emotional connection to each and every member, where every member genuinely believes in promoting the performance of the boat rather than the individual, and encourages discussion/feedback.”
[In the varisity team], there is no sense of trust or communication and each member is too proud too admit their mistakes or take blame. 
First complete and total trust is essential to a successful team. And secondly, a positive mentality rather than feeling pressure to perform allows for more open communication and more opportunity to address issues.
How does poor espirit d’corps translate into poor performance?

27. Your analysis
Why is varsity crew losing to the JV crew?
In forums, some students identified lack of cohesion & espirit d’corps as a root cause of poor varsity performance
“A truly successful team has a stronger emotional connection to each and every member, where every member genuinely believes in promoting the performance of the boat rather than the individual, and encourages discussion/feedback.”
[In the varisity team], there is no sense of trust or communication and each member is too proud too admit their mistakes or take blame. 
First complete and total trust is essential to a successful team. And secondly, a positive mentality rather than feeling pressure to perform allows for more open communication and more opportunity to address issues.

28. What are the mechanisms?
How does poor espirit d’corps translate into poor performance?

29. Fixes Given these causes, what are the options for fixing the problem?
To prevent the problem in the first place
At the end, before the Nationals, to fix a team in crisis
Why will your solution work?
What are the risks?
What should Coach P done early in the season to prevent the problem?
Make sure the recommendations are connected to root causes identified earlier
How does your suggestion influence team, identification or trust?
Can coach intervene with individual members or team as a whole?
When exactly should Coach have conducted this intervention? Is there a point where the downward spiral began? (e.g., Atlanta retreat – should Varsity have raced JV during this retreat?)
Is there a point where it is too late to intervene?
What should Coach P do on Tuesday, 3 days before the nationals? Why? How should he implement the intervention?
Will any of the early interventions work?
Switch entire crew with JV? Competition with JV to see who will race in Nationals?
Switch individuals members – why would this work now?
Deal with trust problem
Coach as leader – pep talk, encourage natural leaders to encourage motivation
Discussion to identify root problem
Boost individual identification by giving everyone & change to either leave or publically commit to team
Unite the team by making self a common enemy
Venting & releasing tension. This is close to what happened – Coach P forced teammates to wrestle in 90 second, one-on-one bouts. After 6 or 7, big release of tension, group mad house, laughter, turned to play & hugging.
Ended up placing second in their Nationals heat, & placed second in semi-finals. Best performance of any Army crew ever & far better than JV team
What did Coach P hope to get from the interventions? What did it work? Gave a “safe” area to be open about conflict & convert it to something else
How much can you generalize from these two cases?
Sports vs work?
Army vs non-military?

30. Root causes  Fixes Lack of trust among teammates
Trust in particular rowers
Trust in team as a whole
Don’t trust that others will return to rhythm after a bad stoke
Insufficient identification with the overall team
 rower try to compensate  further reductions in speed
Greater team-level training to improve coordination
Team-level bonding experiences

31. Functionalist Perspective
Normative approach that seeks to identify the inputs to groups and the group processes that cause groups to be more or less successful.
Groups are goal oriented
Both group behavior & performance can be evaluated
One can control group interactions to make them more appropriate for achieving group goals
Other factors (both internal & external) influence group performance through group interaction
“Normative” means that there are better or worse ways to organize groups to achieve the goals for which they were formed.

32. Group I-P-O models Groups have 3 outputs to be successful
The success of groups depend heavily on their input: people, tools, & tasks.

33. Traditional Input-Process-Outcome (IPO) Model of Group Effectiveness
Input Process Output
Forsyth, D. (2010). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub Co.

34. Group Are Generally Successful If:
Input Process Output
Clear engaging direction
Challenging
Consequential
Clear
Production
Apply adequate knowledge & skill
Exert sufficient effort
Use appropriate work processes
Team composition
Individually talented
Right mix
Small as possible
Member support
Group maintenance
Resources
Coaching

35. Group Think (Janis, 1972)
Group think: Style of group decision-making in which the desire for harmony or conformity results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

36. I-P-O Model of Groupthink
Input Process Output
Internal conformity pressures
Illusion of unanimity
Perceptions of group superiority
Incomplete search & decision analysis
High group cohesiveness
Strong leader
Group isolation
External threat
Time pressure
Decision quality
Group cohesion