1. Group Dynamics – Behaviour in Groups
Psychology ATAR Year 11 Unit 2

2. Content Social Psychology Behaviour within groups Cooperation
Competition
Deindividuation
Social loafing
Brainstorming
Impact of group size

3. What affects how you work in a group?

4. Cooperation
The practice of individuals and groups working in common with commonly agreed upon goals and possible methods instead of working separately in competition
A form of pro-social behaviour
Link back to Sherif (1956) ‘The Rattlers & The Eagles’
Cooperation and cohesion due to group identity

5. Cooperation Needs to have (Deutsch, 2005): Effective communication.
Friendliness and helpfulness.
Coordination of effort, divisions of labour, orderliness in discussion, high productivity.
The willingness to enhance others’ power (as others’ capabilities are strengthened, you are strengthened).
Defining conflicting interests as a mutual problem to be solved by collaborative effort.

6. Lewin, Lippit & White (1939)
Lewin randomly assigned 10-year-old boys to different activity groups led by an adult and observed their behaviour over the course of 5 months.
The groups differed in the adults' leadership styles: autocratic (authoritarian), democratic (collective rule), or laissez-faire (no structure or guidance).
Boys with an autocratic leader became aggressive towards each other and were submissive in their approaches to the leader.
Boys with a democratic leader got on much better with each other. Although slightly less work was actually done, approaches to the leader were usually task-related.
Boys with a laissez-faire leader were aggressive towards each other. Very little work was done.

7. Competition Rivalry between groups and/or individuals
Competition between groups increases productivity whereas competition within groups decreases productivity
Think back to Sherif et al. (1961)
Competing for resources
Realistic group conflict theory

8. Type of inter-individual relations
Sherif (1966)
Goal
Type of inter-individual relations
Shared goals: requiring interdependence for their achievement
Mutually exclusive goals
Interpersonal relations
Interpersonal cooperation 
Group formation/solidarity
Interpersonal competition
Interpersonal conflict, reduced group solidarity, group collapse
Intergroup relations
Intergroup cooperation
intergroup harmony
Intergroup competition
intergroup conflict

9. Deindividuation
Process whereby an individual will lose their normal moral restraints and join in with the crowd or group behaviour, which is often antisocial in nature (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011).
Being in a crowd or group leads to a diminished sense of responsibility, but a heightened sense of arousal.

10. Johnson & Downing (1979)
In one condition they put participants in KKK (Ku Klux Klan) costumes and the second group in nurses costumes.  They all became deindividuated.
It was a learning task – shocks were given for incorrect answers.
The group dressed as members of the KKK administered more shocks. 
Nurses became more caring – they gave less shocks when they deindividuated and took on the role of ‘nurse’
Those who were not wearing ‘name badges’ also gave more shocks.
Thus suggesting that people respond to normative cues associated with the social context they find themselves in, making it easier to deviate from morals and impulses.

11. Social loafing
A reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task (one in which our outputs are pooled with those of other group members) compared to with working either alone or co-actively (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011).

12. Social loafing Can be reduced by:
Task to be completed by the group is interesting
Members are highly motivated
Individual contributions are essential for success
Monitoring individual performance
Individuals identify strongly with the group

13. Ringlemann (1913)
Young men were placed in groups of various sizes (2, 3 or 8)
Had to pull a rope horizontally; measured force using a dynamometer
Found the larger the group the less hard the individual pulled.
Similar study conducted by Ingham (1974).

14. Latané, Williams & Harkins (1979)
Cheering and clapping task:
Got them to do this as loudly as possible in groups of 2, 4 or 6
Amount of noise an individual made was reduced by:
29% [2 people group]
49% [4 people group]
60% [6 people group]

15. Latané, Williams & Harkins (1979)
Shouting
Got them to wear blindfolds and had them in groups or implied there was a group [psuedogroup] and wore headsets with whitenoise
Shout alone, 2- or 6- real or pseudogroups
Reduction in volume with more people in the group
Even more so with blindfolds – removed the social cue to coordinate.

16. Brainstorming
The uninhibited generation of as many ideas as possible in a group, in order to enhance group creativity (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011).
Popular opinion is that it works but empirical evidence does not support this
Some studies (Diehel & Stobe, 1987) suggests that groups in which individuals create their own ideas and do not interact are more creative.

17. Brainstorming Factors affecting the efficacy of brainstorming:
Evaluation apprehension
Might be concerned about making a good impression in front of the group
Social loafing and free riding
Production matching
We regress to the average – could be a lesser quality
Production blocking
Reduced individual creativity and productivity as are interrupted and have to take turns

18. Diehl & Stroebe (1991)
If brainstorming is shown not to be that good, why do we use it?
Illusion of group effectiveness: belief that we produce more and better ideas in groups than alone.
Negatives
Too much waiting time reduces productivity
We get distracted by others ideas
We don’t pay attention to others as we think about our own ideas
Positive
Can help to broaden out mind if groups are heterogeneous (diverse knowledge)

19. Group size Ringlemann Effect (1913)
Individual effort on a task diminishes as group size increases.
Higher deindividuation with larger groups
Reduces the creativity and flow during brainstorms