8/1/2013
 Formally or informally, a significant
part of life is spent in groups.
 In this lecture we discuss:
 Group processes
 Leadership and decision making
 Formal organizations
1

A group is a social unit consisting of two or more
persons with the following attributes:
1. Membership
▪ To be a group member one must think of
themselves as a member of the group, and other
group members must recognize the person as part
of the group as well.
2. Interaction
▪ Group members interact with one another; their
behavior influences one another.
2
1
8/1/2013
3. Goals
▪ Group members are interdependent with respect to
goal attainment; one’s progress toward an objective
makes it more likely another member will also reach
an objective.
4. Norms
▪ Groups have normative expectations that place
limits on behavior and define appropriate conduct.
3
 Primary groups
 A primary group is a small group with
strong emotional ties among members.
▪ E.g. nuclear families, peer groups, informal
work groups in organizational settings, resocialization groups (such as therapy
groups).
4
2
8/1/2013
 Secondary groups
 Secondary groups have few emotional
ties among members.
▪ Members refer less to one another as
individuals and more as occupants of roles.
▪ Interaction tends to be formal and
impersonal.
5
6
3
8/1/2013
 Groups vary in terms of…
1. Size
▪ Actors become more and more
constrained the larger the group one is
part of.
▪ The difference between small and large
groups shows how structure emerges to
constrain agency.
7
 Groups vary in terms of…
2. Formality
▪ Actors have opportunities to interact
directly in small groups.
▪ In large groups, formal structures are
required for interaction (i.e. actors are
more likely to interact indirectly).
8
4
8/1/2013
 Groups vary in terms of…
3. Relations
▪ In small groups, people tend to refer to
one another as individuals.
▪ In large groups people tend to refer to
others using abstract generalizations.
9
 Group cohesion refers to the extent
members of a group desire to remain
in the group and resist leaving it.
 Cohesive groups have strong ties among
members, and members tend to
perceive events in similar ways.
10
5
8/1/2013
 In highly cohesive groups, members:
1. Communicate more
2. Have friendlier, more cooperative interactions
3. Work harder to coordinate and reach agreement
4. Have more influence on each other
5. Conform more to group expectations
6. Have higher levels of performance and
productivity (if task-oriented)
11

Group cohesion can take multiple forms:
 Social cohesion
▪ When members stay in a group due to mutual
liking.
 Task cohesion
▪ Defines members’ desire to stay part of a group in
order to complete a common task the group
shares.
12
6
8/1/2013

Research has shown that different
specialists emerge in task-oriented groups:
1. Task-oriented leaders
▪ The task-oriented leader is the highest initiator who drives
the group toward attainment of its goals.
2. Socio-emotional leaders
▪ The socio-emotional leader emerges in response to the
pushiness and aggressiveness of the task-oriented leader.
▪ Socio-emotional leaders specialize in easing the tension and
soothing hurt feelings of group members.
13
 Those similar to us are categorized as
an in-group.
 In-groups tend to be evaluated positively.
 Those dissimilar to us are categorized
as an out-group.
 Out-groups tend to be evaluated
negatively.
14
7
8/1/2013
 There are both positive and negative
effects of in-group bias:
 Positive effects:
▪ Biases can serve as a positive motivational
device that strengthens an in-group’s effort,
boosts group morale, and helps members
avoid complacency.
▪ E.g. team spirit, a sense of “we-ness”
15
 There are both positive and negative
effects of in-group bias (cont.):
 Negative effects:
▪ Biases can lead to stereotyping and
discrimination of the out-group and of its
individual members.
▪ E.g. race riots, gang fights
16
8
8/1/2013
 Samuel A. Stouffer (1900-1960)
examined the importance of reference
groups.
 A reference group is a social group that
serves as a point of reference for people
when making evaluations or decisions.
17

People do not so much evaluate success or
failure by objective standards, but rather on
the basis of their position relative to others
around them.
 This phenomenon is called relative deprivation.
▪ E.g. Los Angeles Laker Andrew Bynum
($16,500,000/year) may feel deprived next to Kobe
Bryant ($28,000,000/year), because Kobe is part of
Andrew’s reference group and Andrew makes less $.
18
9
8/1/2013
 Solomon Asch’s (1952)
famous
experiment on spatial judgments
showed how powerful group conformity
can be.
 Asch revealed that people do not always
behave rationally; they often behave
irrationally in order to conform to group
norms.
19
20
10
8/1/2013

The experiment contained 8 subjects
(7 confederates, 1 naïve participant).

The participant was asked to decide which of
three comparison lines was equal in length to
a standard line, after 7 confederates decided
first.

75% of participants conformed to the majority
decision, even when the majority was wrong!
21
 Leadership is one of the most
important features of formal groups.
 Leaders have some degree of authority over the
behavior of group members.
 In formal groups, members hold
different status and authority.
 These differences usually persist over time.
22
11
8/1/2013
 Kurt Lewin (1939) cited three different
leadership styles that impact group
productivity differently:
1.
Democratic leadership
2.
Authoritarian leadership
3.
Delegative leadership
23
 Lewin discovered that a democratic
leadership style is generally more effective
than authoritarian or delegative leadership
styles.
 The democratic style is participative.
 The authoritarian style is autocratic.
 The delegative style is laissez-faire.
24
12
8/1/2013

Large groups have the advantage of greater
resources (information and skills) which can
lead to greater productivity, but they can
suffer problems of coordination among
members.

Two phenomena can occur in large groups:
1. The Ringelmann effect
2. Social loafing
25
1.
The Ringelmann effect
 The Ringelmann effect is a law stating
that the average contribution of each
group member decreases as group size
increases.
▪ Loss in a group’s contribution is due to
coordination loss among additive efforts
among group members.
26
13
8/1/2013

Ringelmann’s experiment measured group
members’ efforts in a rope-pulling task.
Pulling
power per
person
decreased as
the number
of people in
a group
increased.
27
2.
Social loafing
 The larger a group, the more likely
individual members will become social
loafers.
▪ Social loafing represents motivation loss that
occurs when there is no clear way to know
how much individual group members are
contributing to a task.
28
14
8/1/2013

J. Stoner’s (1961) classic study presented various
choice dilemmas to subjects which described a
situation where they must make a choice
between two actions whose outcomes differ in
their attractiveness and probability:
 Example of a choice dilemma:
▪ “You have been accepted into University X which has high
standards and only graduates a fraction of students; you
have also been accepted into University Y which has a
poorer reputation but graduates almost all students.”
29

Subjects chose to attend University X or Y,
both as an individual and as part of a group.
 Results showed a risky shift toward choosing
University X in the group condition.

Stoner’s conclusion:
 People’s decision making process differs
whether they make a decision as an individual,
or as part of a group.
30
15
8/1/2013

The risky shift phenomenon describes
situations where people make riskier
choices in groups than they would make as
an individual.

The cautious shift phenomenon describes
situations where people make more
cautious choices in groups than they would
make as an individual.
31
 Sometimes riskier, sometimes more
cautious: Why?
 Answer: the phenomenon of group
polarization.
 Group polarization occurs in a group when
members shift their opinions toward a position
that is similar to but more extreme than their
opinion before a group discussion.
32
16
8/1/2013

Group polarization is a function of social
comparison and persuasive argumentation.
 E.g. an individual who is moderately against
abortion may change his/her view to extremely
against abortion after discussing the issue with a
group.

People who are exposed to mostly risky
arguments in groups make riskier decisions;
people who hear mostly cautious arguments in
groups become more cautious.
33

Groupthink is a mode of thinking within a cohesive
group whereby pressures for unanimity overwhelm
members’ motivation to realistically appraise
alternative courses of action.
 Groupthink is a dangerous phenomenon as majority
influences can persuade individuals to choose hasty,
and potentially incorrect alternatives.
 E.g. a nation’s decision to go to war is often made by
highest ranking military and government personnel;
groupthink can affect such a group seeking a quick
resolve when a decision is expected under time
constraints.
34
17
8/1/2013

There are eight indicators that reveal when
groupthink exists in a group setting:
1. The Illusion of invulnerability
▪ Group members may think they are invulnerable
and cannot fail, displaying excessive optimism and
thus taking excessive risks.
2. The Illusion of morality
▪ Members may display an unquestioned belief in a
group’s inherent superior morality, leading them to
ignore ethical consequences of the group’s
decision.
35
3. Collective rationalization
▪ Members may discount warnings that if heeded
would cause them to reconsider their assumptions.
4. Stereotyping
▪ A group may develop a stereotyped, and incorrect,
view of others.
▪ In the war example, enemies may be viewed as too
evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or too
weak to mount effective counteractions.
36
18
8/1/2013
5. Self-censorship
▪ Members may engage in self-censorship of any
deviation from an apparent group consensus, with
each member inclining to minimize the importance
of his/her own doubts.
6. Pressure on dissenters
▪ The majority may exert direct pressure on any
member who dissents or argues against any of the
group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments.
37
7. Mindguarding
▪ There may emerge in the group some selfappointed “mindguards” (members who protect
against information that might shatter the
complacency about the effectiveness and morality
of a group’s decision).
8. Apparent unanimity
▪ Despite personal doubts, members may share an
illusion that unanimity regarding a decision exists
within a group.
38
19
8/1/2013
 There are five general strategies for
avoiding groupthink:
1. A group’s leader should encourage dissent
and call on each member to express
objections and doubts
39
2. A leader should be impartial and not
announce a preference for any particular
option or plan
3. A group can divide itself into subgroups,
each working on the same problem
independently
40
20
8/1/2013
4. After a tentative consensus is met, a
group should hold an additional meeting
where remaining or additional doubts are
discussed
5. A group can appoint a “devils advocate”
who is responsible for challenging others’
positions
41

Various outcomes are possible when
groups come into contact with each other.

Social diversity (race, ethnicity, class, and
gender) influences intergroup contact in
four ways:
1. The larger a group, the more likely members
will maintain relationships only with other ingroup members.
42
21
8/1/2013
2. The more internally heterogeneous a group is,
the more likely its members will interact with
outsiders.
3. The greater the overall social parity within a
setting, the more likely people from diverse
backgrounds will mingle and form ties.
4. Physical space affects the chances of contact
among groups.
43

The intergroup contact hypotheses
proposes that increased contact between
members of opposing groups will lessen
stereotypes and reduce bias, consequently
lessening antagonism between groups.
 This hypothesis has proved correct in some
situations, but not in all situations.
44
22
8/1/2013

Sustained close contact may reduce
prejudice and stereotyping because:
1. Sustained close contact produces cognitive
dissonance, which produces changes in attitudes
and behavior
2. Self-disclosure increases during sustained contact,
which in turn promotes interpersonal liking
3. Sustained close contact breaks down stereotypes
45

Intergroup contact is more likely to reduce
prejudice when in-group and out-group
members occupy positions of equal status.
 E.g. White soldiers often change their attitudes
toward Black soldiers after the two racial groups
fight in combat as equals, side by side.
 Likewise, prejudice is often reduced when Black
and White children attend summer camp together
or live in interracial housing situations.
46
23
8/1/2013

Intergroup conflict represents a situation in
which groups take antagonistic actions
toward each other to influence an outcome
each considers important.
 Issues at stake become larger and more
apparent as conflict progresses.
 Members of opposing groups develop
antagonistic attitudes toward each other;
distrust and hostility grow.
47
 Overt conflict, external threats, and
common enemies can produce changes
in the internal structure of groups.
 Groups become more cohesive when
threatened from the outside.
 A group’s boundaries become more firmly
etched, and its members show increased
loyalty and commitment.
48
24
8/1/2013

In 1954, Muzafer Sherif conducted the most
successful field experiment ever on intergroup
conflict.
 The experiment (participant observation) took place at a
summer camp at Robbers Cave, Oklahoma.
 Subjects included 22 middle class, White, Protestant,
well-adjusted 11 year-old boys who were separated into
two groups: the “Rattlers” and the “Eagles.”
 Ethnocentrism, stereotyping, and perceived injustice were
all experimentally created to reveal how ethnic conflict
emerges.
49
 How does ethnic conflict emerge?
 Conflict between groups has three
elements:
1. Ethnocentrism
2. Stereotyping
3. The perception that resources are
unfairly distributed
50
25
8/1/2013
1.
Ethnocentrism
 Ethnocentrism is the view that one’s in-group is the
center of everything and superior to other groups.
2.
Stereotyping
 Stereotypes are distinctive character profiles attributed
to in-groups and out-groups. People tend to positively
stereotype themselves and other in-group members, and
negatively stereotype those in out-groups.
3.
The perception that resources are unfairly
distributed
 Unjust disadvantages and frustration are the main cause
of anger and aggression between groups.

51
The two groups were kept isolated for one
week to allow in-group dynamics to
emerge (neither group knew each other
existed).
 Leaders and a stable status hierarchy emerged in both
groups (typical phenomena in any group).
 Specific norms developed for each group (e.g. the
Rattlers cussed a lot; the Eagles defined
homesickness as “weakness” which was to be
avoided at all costs).
52
26
8/1/2013
 After one week, each group gained
knowledge of each others’ existence.
 In-group/out-group language of “us” and
“them” quickly emerged for both.
 E.g. “They better not be using our
baseball diamond!” and “They better not
use our pool!”
53

Camp counselors (confederates) announced that a
“grand tournament” would occur between the
Rattlers and Eagles over five days.
 The tournament consisted of 10 sporting events.
 Awards were to be given for the group with the cleanest
cabin.
 Skits and songs were to be judged and awarded points
(judged events were included to manipulate a close
tournament toward its end).
 The winning group was to receive a trophy and
pocketknives (which the boys examined and found to be
very desirable).
 Each group’s cumulative score was displayed for all to see.54
27
8/1/2013

The Rattlers won the first event (baseball).
 The Eagles claimed that the Rattlers were
“older and bigger” (which was untrue).
 The Eagles then stole the Rattler’s team flag,
burned it, and hung up the remains for all to
see.
 The Rattlers were furious about their flag, and
subsequently started a fight with the Eagles.
55
 The Eagles won the second sporting
event.
 The Eagles attributed their win to their
previous night’s team prayer, and noted that
the Rattlers lost because they were “bad
cussers.”
 The Eagles concluded that they should not
talk to the Rattlers if at all possible.
56
28
8/1/2013
 The events continued with similar
results.
 The Rattlers felt the Eagles tug-of-war strategy
was unfair, so they ransacked the Eagles’ cabin.
 The Eagles retaliated by doing the same, with
sticks and bats.
 The Rattlers then filled their socks with rocks and
moved toward the Eagles…the counselors
intervened.
57
 The Eagles won the tournament and
were presented with the prizes.
 Later the Rattlers stole the knives and
trophy.
 The Rattlers told the Eagles they could
have them back if they “got down on
their bellies and crawled for them.”
58
29
8/1/2013

At the end of the tournament, camp
counselors intervened and began a
debriefing process which defused the ingroup/out-group dynamic that had evolved
over the second week.
 Researchers collected data to measure whether
ethnocentrism, stereotyping, and a perception of
injustice operated to motivate conflict.
59
 Measuring ethnocentrism:
1. All boys were asked to rank all others in the
camp in terms of desirability as friends.
▪ 93% of the ratings were in-group in nature.
2. A “bean” game was used to determine
group preferences.
▪ Both teams over-evaluated in-group members,
and under-evaluated out-group members.
60
30
8/1/2013
 Measuring stereotyping:
 Both groups used positive traits to
describe their in-group and negative
traits to describe the out-group.
▪ In-group members were characterized as
brave, tough, and friendly.
▪ Out-group members were characterized as
sneaky, stinkers, and smart-alecks.
61
 Measuring perception of injustice:
 The competition threatened an unfair
distribution of rewards as they were in short
supply. The winner was not perceived as
deserving since each out-group was
considered to be sneaky cheaters.
 The researchers had prepared to introduce an
unfair outcome to manipulate injustice (not
needed).
62
31
8/1/2013
 Stanley Milgram’s (1933-1984) study of
obedience to authority is the most
famous experiment in social
psychology.
 Milgram revealed how the majority of
people obey authority, even when
authority figures demand immoral
behavior.

63
In the obedience study, a subject was told
they would play the role of a “teacher” in
an experiment that measured memory.
 The “teacher” was to administer electric shocks to a
“learner” (a study confederate) each time the learner
was incorrect in memorizing a set of word pairs.
 Every time a “learner” was incorrect, the “teacher”
was instructed to administer a higher voltage shock.
64
32
8/1/2013

Before the study, psychologists predicted
that only 3% of the “teachers” would
administer the maximum voltage possible.

The results of the study were astonishing:
 65% of study subjects (“teachers”)
administered the most severe shock possible,
even though many were obviously
uncomfortable doing so.
65

Organizations are secondary groups that
are created to achieve goals efficiently.

Three types of formal organizations include:
1. Utilitarian organizations
2. Coercive organizations
3. Normative organizations
66
33
8/1/2013
 Utilitarian organizations are
organizations where people join in
pursuit of material rewards.
 E.g. companies, corporations, places of
employment
67
 Coercive organizations are
distinguished by involuntary
membership.
 E.g. prison, insane asylums, the military
(sometimes, depending on whether a
society is industrial or militant)
68
34
8/1/2013
 Normative organizations are voluntary
associations in which people pursue
goals they consider morally
worthwhile.
 E.g. Red Cross, United Way
69
 A bureaucracy is a classic example of a
formal organization.
 A bureaucracy is the most efficient form of
social organization to achieve goals.
 The reason for the advance of bureaucratic
organization is its purely technical superiority
over any other form of organization.
70
35
8/1/2013

Key elements to bureaucracies:
1. Governed by impersonal rules &
procedures applied universally to
everyone in an organization.
2. Made up of technically qualified experts
who do specific tasks (i.e. a division of
labor).
71

Elements of bureaucracies (cont.):
3. Defined by a hierarchy of authority.
Superiors →
Subordinates →
4. Authority is vested in qualifications, skill,
seniority, and experience—not in personal
characteristics (the position holds power
rather than an individual person).
72
36
8/1/2013

Elements of bureaucracies (cont.):
5. Personal property is separate from the
organization.
6. Written rules/documents/official records
define appropriate conduct.
73
 Max Weber noted that bureaucracies
are highly rationalized (calculated)
entities.
 Rationalization is an ongoing process in
which social interaction and institutions
become increasingly governed by
methodical procedures and calculable
rules.
74
37
8/1/2013

George Ritzer’s McDonaldization of Society
(1993) applies Weber’s theories of
rationalization to the modern world.
 McDonaldization refers to the process by which the
principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to
dominate more and more sectors of society.
 McDonaldization has occurred in education, work,
the family, religion, and virtually every other aspect
of society.
75

A “McDonaldized” world is a highly
rationalized world, operating under the
following values:
1. Efficiency
2. Calculability
3. Predictability
4. Control
76
38
8/1/2013

Efficiency represents the best means to
achieve an end, or the optimum method
for getting from one point to another.
 McDonalds values efficiency as it is the best
method to maximize profits.
 Eating at places like McDonalds is the most
efficient way to go from hungry to full.
77

Calculability represents the emphasis on
quantitative elements of social life, or the
desire to understand in exact terms
benefits vs. losses (i.e. time and costs).
 Quantity has become equivalent to quality
(i.e. more and/or bigger = better).
 An emphasis on calculability generally
benefits the capitalist over the consumer.
78
39
8/1/2013

Predictability represents the assurance
that products and services will be the
same over time.
 There seems to be comfort in the idea that fast-
food restaurants and corporate retail chains offer
no surprises.
 The emphasis on predictability in society has
created new interaction rituals: both customers and
employees at McDonalds operate under normative
expectations (of how to order, eat, etc.).
79

Control represents the substitution of
nunhuman for human technology.
 Human technologies are controlled by people
(e.g. a screwdriver); nonhuman technologies
control people (e.g. the assembly line).
 People who eat at and work at McDonalds do so
under a great degree of control.
▪ A controlled environment leads to a predictable
environment.
80
40