Social 6 Group Think & Decision Making

?
  • Created by: freya_bc
  • Created on: 23-03-18 20:18
Johnson & Johnson, 1987)
major characteristics of a group
1 of 30
Tuckman (1965)
model of group socialisation- forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning
2 of 30
Moreland and Levine (1982, 1984)
explains group dynamics across lifespan of a group- evaluation, commitment and role transitions
3 of 30
Festinger, Schacter, and Back (1950)
model of group cohesiveness- field of forces attractiveness of group and group members, mediation of goals: social interaction per se, idv goals require interdpeenc...
4 of 30
...
membership continuity, adherence to group standards
5 of 30
Hogg (1993)
cohesiveness an‘elusive’concept based on idiosyncratic characteristics:- personal attraction, and social attraction
6 of 30
(Cialdini & Trost, 1998).
groups norms- rules and standards of behaviour that are understood by group members and guide or constrain social behaviour
7 of 30
Garfinkel, 1967)
norms can be enforced by laws/legitimacy, or implied and taken for granted
8 of 30
Siegel & Siegel, 1957)
have a strong effect on peoples’ behaviour - dorm progressive liberal norms signif decrease, sotority - didnt differ signif because of group rein
9 of 30
Berger et al., 1977
Expectation States Theory - roles in groups are assigned based on expectations of peoples’ performance. Specifies how roles seen as high or low status
10 of 30
Knottnerus & Greenstein, 1981
Female confed and female pp –work together on two sep tasks – told pp either performed better on cog attention task or worse Low- if told performed worse than confed High- told performed better than confed ...
11 of 30
...
Social cueing- confed older tf looks wiser compared to female undergrad % time working together and how much said “I trust your judgement” Younger- actually deferred to confed more
12 of 30
Laughlin, Hatch, Silver & Boh, 2006).
Groups function better when solving factual problems – those with one correct answer
13 of 30
Clark and Stephenson (1989, 1995)
group vs idv memory- students/polce watched interrogation of alleged **** case Group out-performed individuals: Recalled more correct information Fewer meta-statements (over-interpretations of data) No difference in number of errors made
14 of 30
Osborn, 1957).
Brainstorming = “Uninhibited generation of as many ideas as possible in a group, in order to enhance group creativity”
15 of 30
Strobe & Diehl, 1994; Mullen, Johnson & Salas, 1991).
Systematic reviews show individuals are 2x more creative when they brainstorm ideas alone
16 of 30
Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho (1993):
why brainstorming inefficient- eval apprehension, social loafing/free riding, production matching, production blocking
17 of 30
Diehl & Stroebe, 1991)
illusion of group effectivty Mere volume of production of ideas- difficult to judge creativity? Enjoyment and satisfaction of the process Individuals share only some of their ideas – assume everyone has more (and novel) ideas to share.
18 of 30
Janis (1972)
A mode of thinking in highly cohesive groups in which the desire to reach unanimous agreement overrides the motivation to adopt rational decision making procedures.”
19 of 30
McCauley (1989)
Re-analysed 6 historical cases from Janis’s research and Marshall Plan & Cuban Missile Crisis Only group insulation, leadership and group homogeneity were not involved in non-groupthink cases. Cohesion, time pressure and perception of external threat
20 of 30
Tetlock et al. (1992):
Q-sort card task with 100 bipolar statements for 6 historical cases of groupthink and 2 non-groupthink cases- Positive correlations for the 6 groupthink cases Negative correlations for the 2 non-groupthink cases- pp characterisations sim to Janis
21 of 30
...
BUT not all theorised paths signif- not for group cohesion and high stress situ
22 of 30
Flowers (1977)
120 college students given a crisis problem, leadership open or closed exp and cohesiveness strangers vs friends DV=no of sol, no of facts discussed
23 of 30
...
Significantly more solutions and facts were discussed with the open leader. Group think is closed Participants in closed leader condition rated the leader as more influential in the decision-making process than those open. Cohesive not signif
24 of 30
Leana, (1985)
208 college students given a hypothetical business problem Cohesiveness (low & high) & Leadership (directive vs. nondirective) manipulated. DV = number of facts and solutions discussed. signif less facts discussed in low coh groups...
25 of 30
...
fewer sol disucssed with directive leader
26 of 30
Esser’s (1998)
review- All case studies and experimental lab studies reviewed Inconsistent and mixed results. Lab and case studies both support the role of directive leadership in groupthink, but evidence for the role of group cohesiveness was generally unsupported
27 of 30
Hart, 1990
What types of situations trigger groupthink (e.g., collective avoidance vs. collective optimism;
28 of 30
Janis & Mann (1977):
methods to avoid groupthink
29 of 30
(Turner and Oakes, 1989).
SIT- group memberships leads to conformity to group norms, which minimises variability within the group
30 of 30

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Tuckman (1965)

Back

model of group socialisation- forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning

Card 3

Front

Moreland and Levine (1982, 1984)

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Festinger, Schacter, and Back (1950)

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

...

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Group Think and Decision Making resources »