PSY301 w5d1 grouplink

tazeknmcclay5

09ch_feenstra_psychology.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >PSY301 w5d1 grouplink

Corbis/Photolibrary

Learning Objectives

By the end of the chapter you should be able to:

• Define “group” and describe the various types of groups

• Explain the positive and negative effects of social facilitation

• Differentiate social loafing from the Köhler effect

• Explain what deindividuation is and when it occurs

• Explain brainstorming techniques that increase or decrease the number of ideas developed

• Describe the effect of group polarization on group decisions

• Explain the antecedents, characteristics, and consequences of groupthink

Groups 9

Chapter Outline

9.1 Group Actions • What Is a Group? • Social Facilitation • Social Loafing and the Köhler Effect • Deindividuation

9.2 Group Cognition • Brainstorming • Group Polarization • Groupthink • Group Decision Making

9.3 Social Dilemmas • Commons Dilemma • Resource Dilemma • Prisoner’s Dilemma • Dealing With Social Dilemmas

Chapter Summary

• Explain factors in group decision making

• Differentiate the following social dilemmas: tragedy of the commons, resource dilemma, prisoner’s dilemma

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 193 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 Group Actions

Jury trials were adopted by the United States in 1791, with the 14th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Jury trials were seen as a way for citizens to be part of the decision-making process and to prevent political leaders or others who might be in power from unfairly or unjustly prosecuting citizens. About 154,000 jury trials take place every year in the United States (Graham, 2009). Almost 30% of Ameri- cans have served as a trial juror in their lifetime, with about 32 million Americans being summoned each year to serve on a jury (Burnett, 2009; Read, 2009). Jury trials occur in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and many other countries around the world. They usually consist of a small group of people, typically, between 6 and 12 jurors. When juries make decisions, they take about 4 hours for deliberation (Burnett, 2009).

Juries are just one example of a small group working together to make a decision or accomplish a goal. Every day, groups of people engage in actions, large and small, that affect their own lives and the lives of others. A family may jointly decide what restaurant to eat at that night. A group of executives may decide to engage in a hostile takeover of a rival company. Citizens of a nation may rise up together to overthrow their leaders, as occurred in Tunisia and Egypt in January and February of 2011. Understanding how groups think and act together is important to under- standing their influence on us.

9.1 Group Actions

In life, we engage with groups in a variety of settings. A child jumping rope may do so with an audience of other children. A basketball player shooting a free throw may be affected by the presence of the crowd. A team on a factory floor may produce dif- ferent amounts of product than would be expected based on each member’s individual production. A mob of angry protesters may act in ways uncharacteristic of its individual members. Groups can affect individual behavior in positive and negative ways. In this section, we investigate these types of situations, focusing primarily on the way individu- als act, think, and interact.

What Is a Group? A jury is a fairly clear example of a group. Would a dozen people standing at the bus stop qualify as a group? What about three students studying at the same library table? A group can be defined as at least two people interacting and forming some kind of coherent unit (Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Dasgupta, Banaji, & Ableson, 1999). According to this defini- tion, those bus riders or the studying students might qualify as a group if they are doing something together. If the students are interacting and quizzing one another on class material, they would qualify as a group. If the bus riders are simply standing together as they wait for the bus, they are unlikely to qualify.

Hemera/Thinkstock

This group of golfers enjoying each other’s company would likely be an intimacy group.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 194 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 Group Actions

We can also differentiate vari- ous types of groups. Relatives or friends—that is, groups of individu- als who are related to one another or enjoy one another’s company—are intimacy groups. Intimacy groups help fulfill one’s need for affiliation. Groups that engage in tasks together, like juries or work groups, are task groups. Achievement needs are met by participation in task groups. Social categorization, like being a woman or a Japanese American, can be the basis of a group and provide us with a sense of identity. Groups might also be described by loose associations, like those who like hip- hop music or football (Johnson et al., 2006; Lickel, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2001). When people think about each of these types of groups, they think about them differently. Intimacy groups are assumed to be small and long-lived, involve a lot of interaction, and be relatively impermeable to outsiders. Social categories, on the other hand, are likely to be large and involve less interaction, but, like intimacy groups, be long-lived and relatively closed to outsiders. Because task groups work together on tasks, we see them as having common goals and interacting to meet those goals, but they are less likely to be of long duration. Loose associations are likely to be short-lived and open to outsiders, with little interaction (Lickel et al., 2000).

Social Facilitation When people are together and interacting with one another, they may act differently than if they are alone. In the 1890s, Norman Triplett noticed that bicycle riders clocked differ- ent times depending on whether they were bicycling alone or with others. He saw that when bicyclists competed against the clock and there were no other bicyclists cycling with them, they went slower than when other bicyclists were there. Triplett began by looking at the records of cyclists, but discovered that a large number of other variables, extrane- ous variables, might affect the findings. For example, when bicyclists race together they draft one another, allowing the group to go at a faster pace than an individual might be able to achieve. To focus in on the impact of the group and to control extraneous variables, Triplett looked at the behavior of 40 children. He asked these children to wind up a modi- fied fishing reel. Sometimes the children were alone and sometimes other children were present, winding up their own fishing reels. On average the children wound most quickly when other people were there. Triplett’s study is considered by many to be one of the first studies in social psychology.

Later researchers found results similar to Triplett’s. Participants performed better when oth- ers were present. For example, when people engaged in tasks like doing easy multiplication

9.1 Group Actions

Hemera/Thinkstock

This group of golfers enjoying each other’s company would likely be an intimacy group.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 195 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 Group Actions

problems or crossing out all the vowels in a written pas- sage, they did better when others were present (Allport, 1920; 1924). But these find- ings were not consistent; some researchers found that the presence of others caused problems. In one study par- ticipants did worse on a memory task when others were present than when they

performed the task alone (Pessin, 1933). This left researchers questioning what determined whether the presence of others actually helped performance or hindered it.

An explanation for this difference was provided by Robert Zajonc (“Zajonc” rhymes with “science”). He proposed that the presence of others increases arousal. Increased arousal, he argued, increases the dominant response tendency, which is related to the nature of the task. For simple, easy, or well-learned tasks our most likely (dominant) action (response tendency) is to do the task well. For difficult, new, or complex tasks, our most likely action is to do the task poorly. If the presence of others increases our arousal, and arousal increases our dominant response tendency, then we should do simple or easy tasks particularly well in the presence of others. On the other hand, if the presence of others increases our arousal and arousal increases our dominant response tendency, then we should do difficult or new tasks poorly (see Figure 9.1). If you were a star basketball player in high school and shooting a free throw is a well-practiced response, you should be more likely to make the basket in a packed gym because your increased arousal due to the audience would drive your dominant response of free-throw shooting behaviors. Alternatively, if you have played basketball rarely and making a basket is a relatively new and difficult task for you, an empty gym would provide you with the best chance to make that basket because your arousal would be lower.

Figure 9.1: Social facilitation

The presence of others can affect a person’s task performance.

Photo credits: Hemera/Thinkstock; iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Presence of others Arousal Dominant response

If dominant response is simple/familiar

If dominant response is complex/unfamiliar

Social facilitation

Social inhibition

Expand Your Knowledge: Triplett

You can read Triplett’s classic study of social facilita- tion at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Triplett/index .htm. Triplett offers a number of possible explanations for his observations, including theories like the suc- tion theory, the brain worry theory, and the theory of hypnotic suggestions.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 196 7/16/13 10:27 AM

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Triplett/index.htm

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 Group Actions

When the presence of others affects task performance, social facilitation has occurred. Evidence of this can also be found in animal as well as human behavior. Zajonc and col- leagues set up an experiment using cockroaches (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969). They created both complicated and simple mazes for the cockroaches, and provided tiny Plexiglas audience boxes for observer cockroaches. When other cockroaches were in the audience boxes, the cockroach in the maze completed the simple maze faster but com- pleted the complicated maze more slowly. Similar effects have been found with rats and chickens (Tolman, 1967; Wheeler & Davis, 1967; Zentall & Levine, 1972). People show social facilitation just like these insects and animals. Good pool players play better when watched, but poor players tend to do worse with an audience (Michaels, Bloommel, Bro- cato, Linkous, & Rowe, 1982).

Zajonc (1980) argued that social facilitation could occur simply because others are there, what he called mere presence, not because of other factors. Other researchers suggested that the presence of others creates distraction or concern about being evaluated and it is this distraction or concern that is the true cause of the social facilitation effects (Cottrell, 1972). There is some support for these alternate explanations. In one study participants completed a task in a room where another person was present. The other person either quietly observed or was blindfolded, presumably because the person was waiting for a study of vision to begin soon and needed to have his or her eyes adapt to darkness. If social facilitation occurs simply because of the presence of others, there should be no difference in how well the participant completes the task because in both conditions the “mere pres- ence” of another exists. This study, however, showed no social facilitation effects when the other person was blindfolded (Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak, & Rittle, 1968). Although this study suggests that social facilitation requires more than the mere presence of others, later studies showed that mere presence is enough; the effect of apprehension about evaluation remains a question (Platania & Moran, 2001).

Some researchers have questioned whether arousal is the mechanism behind social facilitation (Aiello & Douthitt, 2001). More recent ideas have proposed cognitive- neuropsychological mechanisms—the presence of others seems to put demands on the frontal lobes of the brain and the cognitive system that manages the other systems (exec- utive system), diminishing the capacity to process new or difficult tasks (Wagstaff et al., 2008). The frontal lobes of the brain are particularly important for planning for the future, attention in the present, and initiation of actions, so such an explanation makes logical sense.

Test Yourself

• Of the types of groups discussed, which is most likely to be small, have a long life, and largely be closed to outsiders?

Intimacy groups are often small, have longevity, and are not very open to new members.

(continued)

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 197 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 Group Actions

Test Yourself (continued)

• When learning how to perform tricks with a yo-yo for the first time would you be better off with an audience or without?

According to research on social facilitation,when learning to do something new or doing a difficult task, people do better when others are not present, so you would likely do better without an audience.

• How are the frontal lobes of the brain involved in the performance issues found with social facilitation?

The frontal lobes of the brain are important for our engagement in new or difficult tasks, and the presence of others also puts demands on our frontal lobes.

Social Loafing and the Köhler Effect In studies involving social facilitation, the individual performing the action was simply in the presence of others, with the others either doing an action at the same time or observing. What happens when the others are working with the individual doing the action? When a group performs actions together to accomplish a goal, do the members of the group act differently than if they were engaging in that action alone? At about the same time as Triplett, Max Ringelmann completed a set of early studies in social psychology to answer these questions. Ringelmann, a French agricultural engineer, investigated the amount of work individuals versus groups put into tasks. He suggested that two or more individuals working together did not accomplish as much as one individual alone because of a dif- ficulty in coordinating their efforts, termed coordination loss. Even though, he suspected there might be issues with the motivation of the members of a group, he left it to later researchers to investigate this possibility (Kravitz & Martin, 1986).

The tendency for individuals to pro- duce less or not work as hard when working with others is called social loafing. Social loafing occurs when individuals are working together toward a shared goal and their efforts are pooled. When our work is combined we tend to have less motivation or show less effort. In one study of this phenomenon, par- ticipants were asked to pull a rope as hard as they could in a simu- lated tug-of-war exercise (Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974). The researchers measured how hard participants pulled when they were pulling alone and knew it, as opposed to when they thought they

Cultura Limited/SuperStock

Individuals tend to socially loaf when they do not expect their contributions to lead to something they value.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 198 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 Group Actions

were pulling with others. To separate coordination loss from issues involving motivation, researchers had participants do the work alone, although they believed they were working with others. In the tug-of-war, participants completed the task blindfolded so they would not know they wethe only one pulling. When participants thought a number of other peo- ple were pulling, they pulled with less force than if they thought the task was theirs alone.

If your efforts toward a group goal, like a class project, were pooled, but you knew that each person’s piece could be clearly identified, would you engage in social loafing? One key factor in social loafing is the identifiability of individual effort. When one’s work is pooled with others but one’s effort can be identified individually, social loafing declines or disappears. To determine if identifiability was important, research participants were asked to yell as loud as they could under three conditions: when they were yelling alone and knew they were alone, when they thought they were yelling with one other person, and when they thought they were yelling with five other people (Williams, Harkins, & Latane, 1981). The participants had headphones and blindfolds on so they could not actu- ally see or hear what others were doing. The researchers found that when people thought they were yelling with one other person, they produced 69% as much sound as when they were yelling alone. When participants thought they were part of a group of six, they produced 63% as much sound. The researchers were able to eliminate this reduction in sound production by putting individual microphones on participants and telling them that when they were yelling with others their individual efforts were identifiable.

When individuals do not expect their contributions to matter, they are most likely to socially loaf. This could occur either because they perceive that their contributions are not going to be meaningful, or because they do not value the outcome of the group. In a tug-of-war, you might feel that your additional effort is not going to add much to the group, so you would pull less when the group is pulling with you. You might also feel that any praise you would get would be quite small in the tug-of-war, because it would be divided amongst your group members. It follows, then, why individual identifiability is important. When your contribution can be recognized, it becomes meaningful and the outcome more valued. When people engage in social loafing while in a group, they are called free riders. Free riders do not put as much energy or work into a group task, gain- ing the rewards of the group’s outcome without investing.

Social loafing is partly determined by the nature of the group and the types of task. We engage in less social loafing when we know the other people in our group and we have a cohesive group. Perhaps knowing your friends are relying on you is different from hav- ing strangers rely on your contributions. We loaf less when the outcome depends on us in some way (e.g., the project will not be completed without our contribution) or the task is meaningful, important, or enjoyable to us in some way (Hoigaard, Safvenbom, & Tonnes- sen, 2006; Karau & Hart, 1998; Karau & Williams, 1993; Shiue, Chiu, & Chang, 2010; Smith, Kerr, Markus, & Stasson, 2001). If you know your group cannot finish the class project without you or you simply enjoy investigating the topic or putting together a report, you may not loaf.

Social loafing varies depending on gender and culture. In general, men are more likely to socially loaf than women (Karau & Williams, 1993; Kugihara, 1999). Women tend to show more equal inputs whether working alone or with a group. Individuals from more interdependent cultures are also less likely to socially loaf than those from independent

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 199 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 Group Actions

cultures (Gabrenya, Wang, & Latane, 1985; Klehe & Anderson, 2007). Within each culture, though, women are less likely to loaf than men (Kugihara, 1999). In men and women, social loafing is less likely in people who are high in the personality trait of conscientious- ness (Ferrari & Pychyl, 2012)

In some instances, groups can positively affect performance by eliciting motivation to work harder (rather than engage in social loafing). Imagine you were recruited to be part of a basketball team. Though you know the rules and have played before, your back- ground in basketball is limited. When you are playing with a team of great players, will you try as hard as you can or not as hard as you can? Most likely you would be motivated to work hard and would put a great deal of effort into your play, hoping you will not let your team down. The tendency for individuals to work harder when they are less capable than the other group members has been called the Köhler effect (Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000; Kerr, Seok, Poulsen, Harris, & Messe, 2008). That increased motivation may come from comparing oneself to other group members and realizing that one’s performance is lacking. It could also come from a realization that the group’s outcome will only be as good as one’s weaker performance allows (Kerr, Messe, Park, & Sambolec, 2005; Kerr et al., 2008; Stroebe, Diehl, & Abakoumkin, 1996).

The weakest players on a team gain the most from the Köhler effect. For example, on a swim team, the members with the slowest times in individual trials show the greatest declines (and so, the greatest improvement) in their times when swimming with their team in the finals (Osborn, Irwin, Skogsberg, & Feltz, 2012). The effect is also strongest for tasks that are conjunctive, where the entire team can only do as well as its weakest mem- ber, rather than additive, where the weakest team member contributes less to team output than other members (Kerr & Hertel, 2011). Weaker group members tend to do better when a group is continually changing rather than when it remains stable, perhaps because the weaker member continues to compare his or herself to others and does not simply get used to being outperformed (Lount, Kerr, Messe, Seok, & Park, 2008).

Test Yourself

• What factors make social loafing less likely to occur?

Social loafing is less likely when people are individually identifiable, when members of a group are cohesive and know one another, when members are women or from a more interdependent culture, and when members perceive the task as being meaning- ful, valuable, or interesting.

• After joining a pub quiz team you discover you are the weakest member of the team. What is likely to happen to your performance as a result of this situation?

According to the Köhler effect being the weakest member of a team provides people with the motivation to try harder and work to live up to the level of the other members of the team.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 200 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 Group Actions

Deindividuation Have you ever attended a sporting event and found yourself yelling at the top of your lungs in a way you would not ever do if you were alone? If you have ever been in a crowd and found yourself acting in a way you would not act alone, you may have experienced deindividuation. Deindividuation is the tendency for awareness of one’s individual identity to decline in group settings, often leading to engagement in behaviors with a group that one would not engage in alone. Yelling insults, throwing objects onto the field at a sporting event, or looting have all been behaviors participated in when people feel deindividuated.

Researchers have proposed a variety of factors that could lead to deindividuation. A reduced sense of individual responsibility for action, high physiological arousal, a lower awareness of personal values and beliefs, novel situations, and a sense of anonymity have all been suggested as factors that increase deindividuation (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982; Zimbardo, 1969). Imagine the types of situations where such things are true. When a mob is involved in looting, individuals know their own behavior is unlikely to be traced back to them. At a sporting event people are excited and may be distracted from awareness of their inner thoughts by the action on the court/field/rink. At a rock concert, low lighting and wearing a band t-shirt like many others may allow one to feel anonymous. Research- ers further investigated the factors that may lead to deindividuation using a technique called meta-analysis. Meta-analysis involves looking at as many studies as possible on a particular topic and using a statistical technique to summarize those findings. When researchers did this for factors that promote deindividuation, they found that feelings of individual responsibility were most important (Postmes & Spears, 1998). This means that, while a novel situation or high physiological arousal might have a small impact on ten- dency to engage in deindividuation, feeling like one is not accountable for one’s actions is essential.

Deindividuation often leads to negative behavior, such as stealing and cheating (Postmes & Spears, 1998). For example, one Halloween, trick-or-treating children were told that they were supposed to take only one piece of candy. When the adult who had given the children these instructions left, researchers watched from a hidden location to see how many pieces of candy the children actually took. Children who were more anonymous and were in a group were more likely to steal candy than those who were more identifi- able or trick-or-treating alone (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976). In another study, Halloween masks that hid children’s identities led to greater stealing of candy (Miller & Rowold, 1979).

Most examples you will find of deindividuation evaluate behaviors such as yelling insults, stealing, or cheating, but this sort of behavior is not inevitable. In a study by Johnson and Downing (1979) participants were placed either in a situation to induce deindividuation or in a situation where their actions were clearly identified as their own. The participants

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 201 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 Group Actions

were asked to put on one of two costumes. For half of the participants, a nurse’s uniform was provided, with the explanation that the costumes had been borrowed from the hos- pital for the study. The other half were asked to put on a robe that the researcher had sup- posedly made himself. He said “I’m not much of a seamstress so these ended up looking kind of Ku Klux Klannish” (Johnson & Downing, 1979, p. 1534). The idea was that the costumes might provide participants with different cues toward behavior. The research- ers believed the nurse’s uniform would provide people with an environmental cue to be helpful, because we generally think of nurses as helpful. The robe could provide people with an environmental cue toward negative, aggressive behavior, because the KKK is and has been a violent organization.

Participants were asked to select an electrical shock level when another participant responded incorrectly. They had the option of either raising the shock level, up to a posi- tive 3, or reducing it, down to minus 3. By raising the shock level participants were engag- ing in an action that inflicted additional harm on the other participant. By lowering the shock level they were helping the other participant by making the shock less painful. The other participant, who was allegedly being shocked, did not really exist; no one received a shock in this study. The researchers wondered if deindividuation could actually create helpful behavior, if the environmental cues were right, or if anonymity always leads to negative behavior. Table 9.1 shows the results of the study.

Table 9.1: Average shock level increase or decrease of participants in different groups in Johnson and Downing’s (1979) study of deindividuation

Individuated Deindividuated

Cue for helpfulness 20.35 21.47

Cue for aggression 0.76 0.95

From Johnson, R. D. & Downing, L. L. (1979). Deindividuation and valence of cues: Effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(9), 1532-1538. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.9.1532 Copyright © 1979 by the American Psychological Association.

As you can see from the table, deindividuated individuals with the aggressive cue showed more aggressive behavior: They increased the shock level. Those who had something in their environment that suggested helpfulness tended to do what they could to reduce the pain someone else would experience, particularly when they were deindividuated. Therefore, deindividuation has the potential to create positive behavior if the environ- ment supports it.

Overall, deindividuation increases the individual’s responsiveness to the situation or the group norms (Postmes & Spears, 1998). The person will take on the norms of the group, the group identity, and engage in behavior that goes along with those norms, good or bad. You can think of the impact individual identity and group identity has on our behavior as working like a teeter-totter. When one side of a teeter-totter goes down, the other goes up; when our reliance on our individual identity goes down, the identity of the group becomes more important. On the other hand, when we are very aware of our own indi- vidual identity, the group is less of a determinant for our behavior. This is the idea behind the social identity model of deindividuation effects. As people lose a sense of their own identity, they take on the identity of the group around them.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 202 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Group Cognition

9.2 Group Cognition

In the previous section we explored how groups affect the actions of individuals. When in groups, people do not simply act differently, they also think differently. Individuals in groups may think together to generate ideas or make decisions. The number and quality of ideas and the quality of the decisions may be influenced by the group. Group discussions can also affect individual attitudes.

Brainstorming When groups think together, coming up with ideas as a group, it is called brainstorming. Brainstorming has been proposed as a way to develop a wide variety of solutions or new and creative ideas (Osborn, 1957). Common brainstorming practices include trying to gen- erate as many ideas as possible, with encouragement to combine, improve, or expand on previous ideas. Brainstorming seems, to many, to generate more ideas than the same indi- viduals would generate working alone (Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes, & Camacho, 1993). In fact, overall, brainstorming actually provides fewer ideas per person than the same number of individuals would provide on their own. This may be because of issues related to pro- duction within a group. Individuals might interrupt one another or spend time in social conversations unrelated to the task at hand (Diehl & Strobe, 1987). As groups get bigger and there are more people to interrupt or get off topic, groups show a greater loss of pro- ductivity (Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991). Brainstorming groups also tend to become fix- ated on particular realms of ideas, leading to lower diversity of ideas (Kohn & Smith, 2009).

Some people are anxious in social situations and may put a damper on group brainstorm- ing interactions. Researchers have found that people who find interacting with others a stressful and anxiety-provoking experience were not as helpful in brainstorming sessions because they were unwilling to participate orally. When highly anxious people were in a group with those who were not anxious, the low-anxiety individuals tended to show poorer performance as well (Camacho & Paulus, 1995). Feeling anxious in interactions puts a damper on both those who feel the anxiety and those with whom they interact.

Test Yourself

• Does deindividuation always lead to negative behavior?

Deindividuation tends to lead to negative behavior but, given positive cues in the envi- ronment, it is possible for deindividuation to lead to prosocial behavior.

• Because you are wearing your favorite team’s colors and are in the stands with hundreds of others in that color, you lose some sense of your unique identity. According to the social identity model, what is likely to occur?

According to the social identity model, when you lose some of your own identity you take on the identity of the group.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 203 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Group Cognition

To maximize the potential of brainstorming, the standard technique of getting all mem- bers of the group into a room and speaking their minds may not be most effective. Combining individual ideas and group brainstorming can be helpful. Studies show that the greatest number of ideas are developed when the group brainstorms together, and then each person brainstorms alone (Brown & Paulus, 2002). The group may prompt individuals to think in directions the individuals would not have thought about on their own. Following a group session with an individual session allows individuals to come up with a number of ideas without the loss of productivity due to interruptions by other members of the group, and without the social anxiety of the group context. Talking over other group members can also be avoided by having members write down their ideas and read rather than speak the ideas of others, or by using a computer to type up one’s ideas and sending them electronically to other group members (Brown & Paulus, 2002).

Group Polarization Do group discussions change the way people think? When the opinions of individuals are surveyed before and after a group discussion of opinion-related topics, opinions tend to shift farther toward an extreme. If we think of opinions on a continuum, with strong agreement on one pole and strong disagreement on the other pole, people tend to polarize. Polarization involves a shift closer to whichever pole people were initially leaning toward.

There are a variety of possible reasons why this occurs. During a group discussion, indi- viduals might hear arguments in favor of their own position that they had not heard or thought of before (Burnstein & Vinokur, 1977). People might also realize that their opinion is more common than they thought (Myers & Lamm, 1976). Such a realization may lead us to make our own attitude more extreme as we strive to be distinctive from the group. Thus, group discussion may provide us with more arguments bolstering an already held opinion and the motivation to make that opinion stronger.

In general, people are more persuaded by their ingroups than by an outgroup, particularly when the ingroup and outgroup are in conflict, and are more persuaded by unanimous groups than by groups with a dissenter (Kunovich & Deitelbaum, 2004; Mackie & Cooper, 1984; Williams & Taormina, 1993). Greater polarization occurs during deindividuation (Lee, 2007). According to the social identity model of deindividuation, people take on the identity of the group when personal identity is lowered, leading to greater identification with the attitudes of the group and therefore greater polarization.

Polarization can occur not only within group discussion, but also as a result of repeated exposure to an attitude, or with dedicated time spent thinking about the attitude (Brickman, Redfield, Harrison, & Crandall, 1972; Downing, Judd, & Brauer, 1992; Tesser, 1978). Part of the effect of polarization may, therefore, come not because of the group but because the interaction allows individuals to state their own opinion and time to think about their attitude (Van Boven, Judd, & Sherman, 2012). Polarization also occurs with juries. In general, individuals who initially want to be lenient have a greater slant toward leniency after some jury deliberation. Those whose initial leaning is toward a severe pun- ishment have an even more severe stance after discussion (Bray & Noble, 1978). When juries deliberate, the first vote often predicts the outcome of the deliberation, particu- larly when the initial vote favors acquittal rather than conviction (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966; MacCoun & Kerr, 1988; Sandys & Dillehay, 1995).

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 204 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Group Cognition

Groupthink In 1961 a group of 1,600 U.S. funded and trained Cuban exiles invaded Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. The mission was to lead a popular movement to overthrow Fidel Castro and his communist regime. The mission failed entirely, and the exiles were captured or killed. The world was outraged that the United States invaded a sovereign country. Far from being overthrown, Castro remained in power for nearly 50 years, and only ceded power to his brother in 2008 because of ill health.

Groups are often involved in decision making. With the adage “two heads are better than one,” many of us believe that a decision made with others is better than a decision made by an indi- vidual. President Kennedy and a small group of advisors made the decision to move forward with the invasion plan, hatched during the Eisenhower administration. Neither Kennedy nor his advi- sors seemed to have understood the hazards of invading with such a small force. The tactics, the numbers, the weapons, and even the intelligence from Cuba added up to a flawed plan doomed to failure (Sidey, 2001). Despite the characteriza- tion of Kennedy’s group of advisors as “the best and brightest” (Halberstam, 1972), Kennedy later described their actions as stupid (Sorensen, 1966).

The Bay of Pigs Invasion shows that groups can and do make bad decisions. Similarly, disastrous decisions were made by various groups in the failure of the United States to prepare for the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the escalation of the Viet Nam war, and even in the Challenger space shuttle disaster. Many of these group deci- sions share common characteristics. Researcher Irving Janis studied these types of group decisions, and developed a model to describe how groups could make such poor choices

Universal Images Group/SuperStock

In the Challenger space shuttle incident, the push to launch overrode the warnings of concerned engineers.

Test Yourself

• Do group members come up with more ideas collectively in a group brainstorming session or individually?

Combining the efforts of many individuals outside of a group usually leads to more ideas being generated than a group brainstorming session.

• After group discussion do people’s attitudes tend to remain the same, become less extreme, or become more extreme?

Individual attitudes tend to become more extreme after group discussion than they had been before, a phenomenon called group polarization.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 205 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Group Cognition

(Janis, 1972; 1982). Janis’s model involves a process including the antecedents, characteris- tics, and consequences of this type of group decision making. He named it groupthink, a decision-making process that occurs when a desire for harmony and consensus within the group interferes with appropriate information seeking, and leads to bad decision making.

According to this model, the antecedents are the conditions that must be in place for groupthink to occur. The group needs to

• be highly cohesive, • be insulated from other viewpoints, • have a directive leader, • have poor procedures for searching out and evaluating alternatives, and • be under high stress or feel threatened.

Notice that these conditions revolve around an insular, cohesive group that follows a leader with a certain plan. The group does not seek outside input, but looks into itself for answers.

The antecedents lead to a group decision-making process with particular characteristics. These characteristics are the natural outgrowth of such an insular group, where the group

• feels invulnerable; • assumes the moral correctness of its viewpoint; • stereotypes outsiders, particularly opponents; • engages in self-censorship, not sharing concerns, doubts, or disagreements; • pressures dissenters to conform to group opinion; • has an illusion of unanimity; and • has members who act as mindguards—individuals who protect leaders from

hearing a viewpoint contrary to their own.

When a group is showing characteristics of groupthink, that group supports its own view- point and dismisses or ignores those of others. Even those within the group who disagree are silenced. Because of mindguards, the leader never hears about dissenting opinions. For example, had Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon appointed at least one person whose job it was to challenge proposed decisions, historical courses of action may have been different.

The consequences of such a process can be devastating, as the historic examples illustrate. The particular consequences of groupthink for the group are that the group does not

• fully consider its true objectives, • consider alternatives to the proposed course of action, • fully examine risks of the proposed course of action, • thoroughly search for information, and • develop appropriate contingency plans.

Because the group does not consider alternatives, risks, or develop a contingency plan, when things go wrong the group is surprised and left scrambling for answers.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 206 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Group Cognition

Though we would expect to find groupthink when the antecedents for groupthink are present, this does not always happen. The antecedents set the stage, but a group might still avoid groupthink. Not all antecedents are necessary for groupthink to occur. Cohe- sive groups that are insulated from other viewpoints and have directive leaders are the most vulnerable (Ahlfinger & Esser, 2001; McCauley, 1989). Since the Bay of Pigs and Janis’ work, these insulated cohesive groups have continued to make poor decisions in circumstances, such as in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, the space shuttle Chal- lenger accident, and a series of decisions a group of NBC executives made regarding Jay Leno and The Tonight Show (Moorhead, Ference, & Neck, 1991; Neck, 1996; Post, 2011).

Although a decision-making process characterized by groupthink does not use the best decision-making strategies, decisions made this way are not always disastrous. It is pos- sible for a groupthink decision to turn out well if the group happens to stumble on a good solution or gets lucky in the outcome of its actions. Groups making decisions without groupthink do not always make the best decisions either (Tetlock, Peterson, McGuire, Chang, & Feld, 1992). However, a decision made when groupthink is in play is more likely to turn out badly than one made by a group not involved in groupthink.

Social Psychology in Depth: The Wisdom of Crowds

Want to know what movie will be big at the box office this weekend?

Want to know the answer to that tough question on the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

Want to know how many jelly beans are in the jar?

All these questions are best answered by combining the answers of many rather than rely- ing on the response of one person. The average estimate for the group is usually closer to the real number of jelly beans in a jar than any individual estimate. The studio audience picks the right answer 91% of the time on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Friends give cor- rect answers only 65% of the time (Surowiecki, 2004).

Prediction markets use the wisdom of the group to predict events. Within these markets, individuals use real or fake money to bet on the likelihood of an event (though other types of predictions are also used, see Wolfers & Zitzewitz, 2004) and their collective wager is often quite accurate. The Iowa Electronics Market (http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/) correctly predicted Obama’s presidential victory in 2008 with closer accuracy than any of the major polling companies (Rowe, 2010). This was not a fluke; such markets have been more accu- rate than polls for a variety of political races (Berg, Forsythe, Nelson, & Reitz, 2001).

According to James Surowieci, author of The Wisdom of Crowds, groups are helpful with three types of problems: cognitive, coordination, and cooperation. Cognitive problems are those that require judgment. If you poll 100 people about the month and year humans first set foot on the moon, the group will get closer than almost all of the members of that group. This holds true for prediction as well as facts. Want to know who will be awarded an Oscar? Take a look at the Hollywood Stock Exchange (http://www.hsx.com/) to find out (Pennock, Lawrence, Giles, & Nielsen, 2003).

(continued)

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 207 7/16/13 10:27 AM

http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/

http://www.hsx.com/

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Group Cognition

Social Psychology in Depth: The Wisdom of Crowds (continued)

Groups also show wisdom in their coordination. Walking down a sidewalk, you might find yourself drifting to the right side while the foot traffic coming toward you inhabits the left. Because of this coordinated action, you rarely crash into another pedestrian. Finally, crowds show cooperation. At the beach, the group may collectively watch over one another’s pos- sessions and the small children playing the waves, all without talking about the task or knowing one another.

Not all crowds are wise. The key to good collective decision making is independence (Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001; Surowiecki, 2004). Each member of a group needs to make an independent judgment for the collective response to be accurate. Solomon Asch, who performed his classic studies of conformity, would agree. In comments about Asch’s work, Levine (1999) wrote,

[T]he bottom line is that, because people are involved in cooperative efforts to understand the world, they have a responsibility both to assert their own viewpoint, which involves independence, and to pay attention to others’ viewpoints, which can lead to conformity. (p. 360)

Group Decision Making Research on juries, as well as other groups, has revealed that a variety of factors can affect the process and the outcome of group decisions. Beyond the decision-making defects of groupthink, groups that make decisions together are affected by the information indi- viduals bring to the table and whether or not they share that information, the size of the group, and if the group is required to make unanimous decisions.

Unique Knowledge When a group comes together, each member brings a unique perspective. For example, if your work group was making a decision and you were the only one who knew about a new product the rival company was developing, it would be useful to your group if you shared that information. For many group decisions, each member could help the group most by clearly and concisely sharing his or her unique knowledge. Yet often times group members focus on what all of them know or hold in common, ignoring the unique, poten- tially useful, information they possess as individuals (Stasser & Titus, 1985). For example, a committee might primarily discuss the aspects of a situation they all best understand. Committee members who have other expertise or knowledge that could help the group are less likely to bring those up, at least initially. Because they do not readily share unique information, some groups fail to find a solution to the problem they face (Lu, Yuan, & McLeod, 2012).

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 208 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Group Cognition

Unique information is more likely to come up later in a group discussion, suggesting that longer discussions are more likely to yield diverse information (Fraidin, 2004; Larson, Christensen, Franz, & Abbott, 1998). People also tend to bring up information when they know it is their task to do so. By giving different members of the group different tasks and asking them to report on those tasks, groups can amass a greater depth of informa- tion (Moreland, Argote, & Krishnan, 1996; Stasser, 2000). Groups that are persuaded of the value of diverse opinions are also more likely to share diverse information amongst themselves (Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007). When members of a group are in a good mood, they tend to broaden the focus of their information search and share more unique information (Bramesfeld & Gasper, 2008). Happy groups, therefore, are less likely to rely on shared information to make decisions and are more likely to use the unique knowledge that various members bring to the group.

Unanimous Versus Nonunanimous Decision Rules Groups that are required to come to a unanimous decision act differently than those who can quit deliberation when a majority agrees. With majority rule, group mem- bers who hold alternative opinions can be outvoted. Traditionally, unanimous decisions

were required of juries. In research on juries, a nonunanimous verdict is associated with taking less time to reach a verdict (Davis, Kerr, Atkin, Holt, & Meek, 1975; Foss, 1981; Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington, 1983). Given that longer group deliberation is more likely to include discussion of information unique to particular members, it is likely that these non- unanimous juries are making deci- sions having not fully explored the knowledge of all members. Nonun- animous juries are more likely to be able to come to a decision because they do not need to convince those final few people to agree with the majority (Nemeth, 1977; Padawer- Singer, Singer, & Singer, 1977).

Group Size and Diversity Both small groups and large groups have their advantages. When groups get too big, unanimous decisions can be virtually impossible (Romme, 2004). In general, smaller groups tend to share more information (Cruz, Boster, & Rodriguez, 1997; Waller, Hope, Burrowes, & Morrison, 2011). Small groups are also more efficient, and members may have more chance to participate. However, larger groups offer more diversity of

Stock Connection/SuperStock

The U.S. Congress illustrates how group size and majority rules can affect decision making.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 209 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Group Cognition

opinion and are more likely to include people with a diversity of backgrounds or ideas (Cummings, Huber, & Arendt, 1974). For example, larger juries are more likely to contain members of ethnic and racial minorities (Saks & Marti, 1997).

How does diversity affect decision making? Overall, diverse groups tend to have less group cohesiveness and lower morale (Jackson, 1991; O’Reilly, Cadwell, & Barnett, 1989). At times, diverse groups do not perform as well as less diverse groups (Ancona & Cadwell, 1992; Mullen & Copper, 1994). However, diverse groups tend to do better with complex decisions, or decisions that require creative thinking as opposed to decisions that require settling on one answer or performing a simple task (Levine & Moreland, 1998). One important factor in this distinction is the ways individuals from different back- grounds share information and in their willingness to share. When diverse groups are encouraged to share diverse information, they can make good decisions (Kooij-de Bode, van Knippenberg, & van Ginkel, 2008). Going back to jury research, juries with minority members were found to spend more time deliberating, discussed a wider range of infor- mation, and made fewer errors in their discussion of the case. This was not solely due to the contributions of the minority members of the groups. Majority members brought up more information and made fewer errors in the diverse groups than similar members in homogeneous groups (Sommers, 2006).

Test Yourself

• What are some characteristics of groups that make them vulnerable to groupthink?

Groups that are cohesive, insulated from outside influences, and have directive leaders are particularly vulnerable to groupthink.

• What characteristics of group discussions make it more likely that group members will bring up information they know uniquely?

When groups meet for a longer time, members are more likely to bring up unique infor- mation. Groups in which individuals know it is their task to bring their unique knowledge and value diverse opinions are also more likely to have unique information brought out in discussion.

• What are one positive and one negative about the requirement that a group reach a unanimous decision?

Groups required to come to unanimity tend to talk longer and listen to all members to a greater degree but they are also more likely to encounter an inability to come to a final decision.

• How is diversity within a group helpful to decision making?

Groups with diverse members spend more time digging into complex questions, discuss a wider range of information, and make fewer errors in their discussions.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 210 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Social Dilemmas

9.3 Social Dilemmas

After emptying a can of soda, what do you do with the can? Throwing it in the trash might be easiest. The trash bin is right there, and you are taking out the trash soon anyway. But if you throw it in the trash, you know that the can will end up in a landfill. The recycling bin might be harder to get to and require a special trip; however, recycling is better for the environment, saves energy and landfill space, and reduces pol- lution. Do you do what is best or easiest for you, at least in the short term, or do what is best for the larger group? You are facing a social dilemma.

When individuals face decisions whose outcomes create a tension between what is best for the individual and what is best for the collective (or group), they are facing a social dilemma. For these dilemmas, what is best for the individual is not what is best for the group. The individual would be best served by being selfish. But those individual behav- iors are harmful to the collective and may, in the end, come back to harm the individual.

Commons Dilemma Imagine you live in a village with a common grazing field. Each person in your village could graze one cow on that common green space. As you evaluate the space, you realize that adding one more cow would harm the field only a small amount. You need the milk to get you through the winter, so you add one or two more cows. Your neighbor comes to the same conclusion, as do a number of other villagers. With the addition of many animals the common field becomes a field of mud and no cows are able to graze. In situations like these, the individual can gain the best outcome by taking advantage of a collective resource, but if too many in the group take advantage of the resource, it will not be sus- tainable and will no longer be available. This phenomenon is called the commons dilemma or tragedy of the commons (Hardin, 1968).

Commons dilemmas are a part of a variety of social problems: overfish- ing, pollution, overpopulation, forest depletion, and overuse of energy. For each of these scenarios, what is best for the individual, at least in the short term, is to act in a self-interested way. A fisherman needs to make a living, so making a large catch is important. If only a few individuals took advan- tage of a collective resource, the out- comes might not be as good for the collective but the resource would be sustained. If only a few fishermen take large catches, there will still be fish to reproduce and provide future fishing opportunities. The tragedy

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Ocean pollution is one example of a commons dilemma. What other examples can you think of?

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 211 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Social Dilemmas

occurs when large numbers act in a self-interested way. This depletes the resource. For a commons dilemma, fairness means equal outcomes for all (van Dijk & Wilke, 1995). Even if a fishing resource could sustain some additional catches by some fisherman, what we view as fair is for each fisherman to have equal access or take an equal amount of fish from that resource.

Often times decisions can be win-lose situations. For example, if you buy the house on the corner that I was looking at, you win and I lose because we cannot both have the house. Many of the games we play, everything from Monopoly to Jeopardy, are zero-sum games—games where the gains or losses of the one person are balanced out by the gains or losses of another. So if I win $100 dollars, you lose $100 dollars. Social dilemmas are of a different type. Social dilemmas like the commons dilemma are non-zero-sum games. Within a social dilemma, played as a game or lived out in real life, the outcome does not need to sum to zero. If everyone cooperates, everyone can win, but if everyone competes, everyone will lose.

Resource Dilemma With the tragedy of the commons, individuals have the option of gaining from a collec- tively owned resource that will naturally renew itself. A related social dilemma is called the resource dilemma. With the resource dilemma, individuals contribute to a resource from which all may benefit. Public television and public radio in the United States are funded, to a large extent, by those who watch or listen, but everyone with a radio or televi- sion within range has access to PBS and public radio, regardless of their contributions. The best individual strategy would be to not contribute and take advantage of the resource. Blood banks also encounter a resource dilemma. We all hope that blood is available when we need it, but what is best for us as individuals is to avoid the time and discomfort asso- ciated with blood donation. The dilemma is that if no one were to contribute, the resource would not exist. For resource dilemmas, we view fairness in terms of equity. Those who benefit most from a resource should contribute the most and those who benefit little can contribute little and be seen as being fair in their contributions (van Dijk & Wilke, 1995).

Prisoner’s Dilemma The commons dilemma and the resource dilemma involve groups of people, whereas the prisoner’s dilemma only involves two people. The prisoner ’s dilemma is a scenario that demonstrates that two individuals might not cooperate, even when it is in their collective best interest to do so (Axelrod, 1984). To understand how this dilemma works, imagine you are a thief. The police caught you and your partner engaging in a minor crime. The police take the two of you into separate interrogation rooms and offer you this deal: If you confess to a major crime they suspect you of and implicate your partner, you will go free and your partner will spend 20 years in jail. The police tell you they are offering the same deal to your partner: If your partner confesses to the major crime, you will go to jail for 20 years and your partner will go free. If you both confess to the major crime, you will both spend 5 years in jail. If neither one of you confesses to the major crime, you will both be charged with the minor crime you were arrested for and spend a year in jail. (See Table 9.2.) What do you do?

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 212 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Social Dilemmas

Table 9.2: Prisoner’s dilemma matrix

Partner

Confess (does not cooperate with you)

Do not confess (cooperates with you)

You

Confess (do not cooperate with partner)

Partner 5 years You 5 years

Partner 20 years You 0 years

Do not confess (cooperate with partner)

Partner 0 years You 20 years

Partner 1 year You 1 year

It would be best for you if you confessed and your partner did not. Collectively, it would be best if the two of you cooperated and spent only a year in jail each. If you both try to get the good deal, both of your sentences will be appreciably longer than if you had cooper- ated with one another.

When the prisoner’s dilemma is played by two players several times in a row, called the “iterated prisoner’s dilemma,” players can use a number of different strategies. One strategy would be to always cooperate with one’s partner no matter what the partner did. If the partner always cooperates this is a good strategy. By always cooperating the two of you are able to, collectively, get the best outcome. The drawback comes if the partner realizes you always cooperate and is willing to take advantage of that. If so, you will get the worst outcome while your partner gets the best. Another strategy would be to always compete. Such a strategy would avoid the danger that you will be taken advantage of and may get you the best outcome (0 years) if your partner cooperates. If your partner is will- ing to cooperate consistently, competition prevents the best collective outcome.

Another strategy for the prisoner’s dilemma game is the tit-for-tat strategy. With tit-for- tat you would use whichever strategy your partner did on the previous turn. If your partner cooperated on turn 2 you would cooperate on turn 3. If your partner competed on turn 3 you would compete on turn 4. If your partner cooperated on every turn you would also cooperate on every turn. If your partner consistently competed you would also compete. A problem with the tit-for-tat-strategy is that if both members are using it and competition becomes the norm, each side reciprocating with competition, you have a negative outcome, individually and collectively. Because tit-for-tat can result in this nega- tive cycle of responding, some have proposed a generous tit-for-tat strategy, where the individual cooperates more than would be strictly done in response to a partner’s compe- tition (Wedekind & Milinski, 1996).

Another strategy where you change depending on what your partner does is called the win-stay, lose-shift strategy. With this strategy, you would continue with whatever strat- egy is providing you with the best outcome. If cooperating is getting you the best outcome,

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 213 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Social Dilemmas

you would continue to use it until it starts to be a problem, then you shift to competition (Nowak & Sigmund, 1993). Other strategies exist, but overall, the generous tit-for-tat and win-stay, lose-shift strategies have consistently had the best outcomes (Axlerod, 1984; Nowak & Sigmund, 1993; Wedekind & Milinski, 1996).

Test Yourself

• What is the difference between a commons dilemma and a resource dilemma?

A commons dilemma occurs when collectively owned resources are destroyed because everyone takes more than their fair share; whereas, a resource dilemma occurs when everyone must contribute for the resource to exist. One relies on the group’s good stew- ardship of a pre-existing resource to continue, the other relies on the group’s collective generosity for the resource to exist.

• How is a zero-sum game different from a non-zero-sum game?

With a zero-sum game one person wins in proportion to what the other person loses, so the total sums to zero. With a non-zero-sum game it is possible for all parties to win or for all parties to lose.

• If you were to play the prisoner’s dilemma game what would be the danger of cooperating with your partner?

Cooperating with your partner is a good idea if your partner cooperates with you, but if your partner competes you will end up with a much worse outcome than if you had also competed.

Dealing With Social Dilemmas Pitting self-interest against collective interest, social dilemmas are difficult to solve. There are some factors, however, that make cooperation more likely. One factor that increases cooperation most of the time is communication (van de Kragt, Dawes, Orbell, Braver, & Wilson, 1986). Individuals playing the prisoner’s dilemma game or engaging in a labo- ratory simulation of the tragedy of the commons are more likely to cooperate with one another if they can communicate with one another. There is some evidence that commu- nication does not even need to take place for cooperation to be increased. When people simply thought about the kinds of things that might be said concerning a social dilemma during a group discussion, they showed more cooperation than without the imagined discussion (Meleady, Hopthrow, & Crisp, 2012).

Cooperative behavior is more likely when payoffs make cooperation more attractive, either through punishment for selfish behavior or through rewards for cooperative behav- ior (Dawes, 1980; Shaw, 1976; van de Kragt et al., 1986). Changing payoffs to punish self- interested behavior or reward cooperation may involve oversight by a government or other organization. For example, most states issue a limited number of hunting and fish- ing licenses to make certain overhunting and overfishing do not occur. The problem with oversight is that it can cost resources to implement, police, and maintain; societies need to

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 214 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Social Dilemmas

be sure such oversight does not cost more resources than it saves. Even when authorities impose regulations in service of the common good, if the people do not trust the authority or feel like the authority is not listening to their concerns, they are unlikely to follow the regulation (Van Vugt, 2009).

Social dilemmas continue because we do not see the effect our behavior is having on the collective, or do not know the people our behavior would impact. In a tragedy of the commons, if people see that the common resource is likely to soon be depleted, they will typically diminish their use of that resource (Messick et al., 1983; Samuelson, Messick, Rutte, & Wilke, 1984). If fishermen were able to see how many fish were in the sea, they might reduce consumption of fish when supplies were low. Accurate information shared with all of the stakeholders is important for encouraging cooperation (Van Vugt, 2009). In addition, if we know the people that may be affected by our self-interested behavior, we are less likely to compete. Therefore, we tend to find more cooperation in social dilemmas that involve smaller groups (Seijts & Latham, 2000). We might identify with the group more when the group is small, which is important for our cooperation (Van Vugt, 2009); we are more likely to cooperate with friends than with strangers (Majolo et al., 2006).

If people are unable to engage in a behavior for reasons beyond their control, they may be unlikely to engage in cooperative behaviors. If one’s recycling is only sporadically picked up or if the transportation system keeps changing the bus route, one may cease to recycle or take public transportation (Brucks & Van Lange, 2008). Difficulty in acting positively in an earlier situation can lead to less cooperation in a later situation, even when the bar- riers are gone. Encountering problems seems to lower motivation to act in positive ways. However, when prosocial behavior is difficult social forces can be powerful in encourag- ing cooperative behavior. Individuals might recycle, despite the trouble, if it becomes a norm. Knowing one’s friends and neighbors would be disappointed or disapproving may motivate the individual to do what is best for the collective and make a personal sacrifice (Dawes, 1980).

Is there any reason to do what is best for the collective, despite the costs to oneself? Some people put greater value on minimizing differences in outcomes between themselves and others and maximizing collective outcomes. These individuals are described as having a high prosocial value orientation. Others put greater value on maximizing their own out- comes, even at the expense of others. Those high in prosocial value orientation are more likely to engage in cooperative behavior, such as carpooling or taking public transporta- tion, particularly when their trust in others is high and others have also shown coopera- tive behavior. (Van Lange, 1999; Van Lange, Van Vugt, Meertens, & Ruiter, 1998).

Individuals who always cooperate may be taken advantage of, gaining little self-benefit for their actions (Deutsch, Epstein, Canavan, & Gumpert, 1967; Solomon, 1960). How- ever, their actions as consistent contributors may influence their fellow group members toward better behavior. When their cooperative actions tell the rest of the group that cooperation is valued and expected, it may spark reciprocal cooperation and, in the end, lead the entire group to better behavior (Weber & Murnighan, 2008). Creating a norm of cooperation can be powerful. Even when social sanctions, such as expressions of disap- proval from the group, are removed, people tend to continue their prosocial behavior well beyond what they do when financial sanctions encouraged prosocial behavior (Nelissen & Mulder, 2013). Our strongest motivators for cooperation are other people.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 215 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Chapter Summary

Test Yourself

• How might a business encourage more carpooling among its employees?

If the company makes carpooling parking spots more available or allows carpoolers to come a little later to work, thus changing payoffs, that may encourage coopera- tion. Encouraging communication among employees, making carpooling the norm, and helping employees see the effect of their driving alone may also have a positive impact on behavior.

Conclusion Although groups are made up of individual people, groups are qualitatively different from individuals. We cannot predict group behavior by simply combining individual behavior. Groups need to be studied as entities in and of themselves. Groups affect how the individual acts and thinks. In some instances, the person needs to sort out group inter- ests from individual interests to determine behavior. Given the amount of time most of us spend in groups and how the decision of groups affect our lives, understanding groups is important.

Chapter Summary

Group Actions A group is a collection of at least two individuals who are interacting in some way. A group can affect individual performance positively or negatively depending on the task. This is called social facilitation. Being in a group can also affect a person’s production. When individual inputs cannot be identified, people tend to engage in social loafing, that is, not putting in full effort. The group can have positive effects on individual perfor- mance, as proposed by the Köhler effect, when an individual attempts to rise to the level of performance common in their group. Groups may also induce individuals to act in ways they normally would not. When individuals feel they cannot be identified they tend to take on the identity of the group and engage in actions with the group.

Group Cognition Although some believe that brainstorming as a group can provide the greatest number of ideas, in actuality, a combination of both individual and group brainstorming is best for idea generation. When groups discuss attitudes, the attitudes of individual members tend to polarize. With polarization, individuals become more extreme in their attitudes after a discussion than they were before. When groups get together to make a decision, specific weaknesses in decision making can be identified amongst cohesive groups with strong directive leaders. Group decision making in general is affected by the willingness of indi- vidual members to share unique knowledge, by the decision rules imposed on the group, by the size of the group, and by the diversity within the group.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 216 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Key Terms

brainstorming A strategy for developing ideas as a group involving generating as many ideas as possible, with encourage- ment to combine, improve, or expand on previous ideas.

commons dilemma A social dilemma in which the individual can gain the best outcome by taking advantage of a collec- tive resource; however, if too many in the group take advantage of the resource it will not be sustainable and will no longer be available. This is also called the tragedy of the commons.

coordination loss The loss of production that occurs in groups because of difficulty in coordinating efforts.

deindividuation The tendency for aware- ness of one’s individual identity to decline in group settings.

free rider An individual who does not put as much time or energy into a group task, relying on others to invest in the activity.

group Two or more people who are inter- acting to form some type of coherent unit.

Social Dilemmas Social dilemmas pit individual self-interest against the interest of the group. In the com- mons dilemma, a common resource can sustain a minimal amount of selfish behavior, but too much self-interest will destroy the resource. When individuals can contribute to a common resource that all, regardless of contribution, benefit from, a resource dilemma might develop. It is advantageous to the individual to take advantage of the resource without contributing, but the resource disappears without some individual contributions. The prisoner’s dilemma involves a situation where cooperation yields the best collective outcome, but competition can provide the individual with a better outcome, provided that cooperation is present on the other side. Mutual competition results in a poor out- come for both. Social dilemmas can be tamed by allowing for communication among the parties by: making cooperation more attractive and self-interested behavior more costly, making individuals aware of their effect on a common resource, and by using norms that encourage cooperative behavior.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. If you were assigned to do a group project for a class, how might the research on social loafing help you encourage equal participation in your group?

2. Have you experienced deindividuation? What forces lead you to deindividuation? Were the effects positive or negative?

3. When might group polarization have a positive effect? When might group polar- ization have a negative effect?

4. If you were concerned a group was likely to engage in groupthink, what might you do to combat that?

5. Social dilemmas are common in a variety of venues, from friendships to interna- tional relations. Where have you seen social dilemmas at work? How might they be satisfactorily resolved?

Key Terms

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 217 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Key Terms

groupthink A decision-making process that occurs when a desire for harmony and consensus within the group interferes with appropriate information seeking and leads to poor decision making.

intimacy group A group made up of relatives or friends, that is, people who are related to or who enjoy one another’s company. Intimacy groups are viewed as small, long-lived, having a great deal of interaction, and being relatively imperme- able to outsiders.

Köhler effect The tendency for individu- als who are less capable than their group to work harder in a group context than they would if they were working alone.

loose association A group made up of individuals who are connected by common attitudes, experiences, or appreciations (such as an affinity for dogs). Loose asso- ciations are viewed as large, potentially short-lived, having little interaction, and being very open to outsiders.

mindguards Individuals who protect the leader of a group from hearing a viewpoint contrary to his or her own, resulting in the leader never hearing about dissenting opinions.

non-zero-sum games Games or situations where the outcome is not a win-or-lose sce- nario but one where everyone could win or everyone could lose. The tragedy of the commons and resource dilemmas are both non-zero-sum games.

polarization The tendency for people to move toward more extremes in their opin- ions after group discussion or more atten- tion to a topic. It involves a shift closer to whichever pole they were initially leaning.

prisoner’s dilemma A social dilemma involving two individuals in which if both individuals compete, both lose. If both cooperate, they have the best collective outcome. The best individual outcome comes when one competes and the partner cooperates.

resource dilemma A social dilemma in which the individual can gain the best out- come by taking advantage of a collective resource without contributing, but the col- lective does best if everyone contributes.

social categorization A group made up of individuals with similar characteristics (such as Army veterans). Social categoriza- tion is characterized as large, long-lived, potentially having little interaction, and being relatively impermeable to outsiders.

social facilitation The tendency for the presence of others to increase the domi- nant response tendency. For an easy or well-learned task the dominant response tendency is to do well. For a difficult or new task the dominant response tendency is to do poorly.

social identity model A model for deindi- viduation that proposes that as people lose their individual identity they take on the identity of the group around them.

social loafing The tendency for individu- als to produce less or not work as hard when working with others.

task group A group that engages in a task together. Task groups are typically small and short-lived, and have a great deal of interaction.

tit-for-tat strategy Strategy used in the prisoner’s dilemma game that involves adopting the strategy used by one’s part- ner on the previous turn.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 218 7/16/13 10:27 AM

CHAPTER 9Key Terms

win-stay, lose-shift strategy Strategy used in the prisoner’s dilemma game that involves using whatever strategy is pro- viding the best outcome. If cooperation is providing the best outcome, the individual stays with that and changes when that strategy is no longer helpful.

zero-sum games Games where the out- come must sum to zero. One individual or group will gain in proportion to the amount another loses.

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 219 7/16/13 10:27 AM

fee85798_09_c09_193-220.indd 220 7/16/13 10:27 AM