GROUP DYNAMICS

Definition
The word dynamic comes from the Greek dynamics, which means to be strong, powerful,
and energetic. Dynamic implies the influence of forces that combine, sometimes smoothly
but sometimes in opposition, to create continual motion and change.

Group dynamics, then, are the influential interpersonal processes that occur in and between
groups over time. These processes not only determine how members relate to and engage
with one another, but they also determine the group’s inherent nature and trajectory: the
actions the group takes, how it responds to its environment, and what it achieves.

Kurt Lewin (1943) is credited with coining and popularizing the term Group Dynamics. In their
classic text Group Dynamics, he states, group dynamics is that branch of knowledge that
deals with the study of groups. According to Forsyth, the term ‘group dynamics has been
used in two major ways”

- First, it has been used to depict the vitality and changing nature of groups.
- Second, it has been seen as the field of study that focuses on the behavior of groups.

Group Dynamics encompasses the dynamics of interaction patterns within the group, the
subtle and the non-subtle pressures exerted by group members, the manner in which
decisions are made in the group, how work gets done and how members’ needs are satisfied.
Understanding of all these enable managers to manage groups effectively, leading to
organisational effectiveness.

Cartwright and Zander (1968) observe that “group dynamics is a set of behavioural and
psychological processes that occur within a social group or between groups. It refers to the
nature of groups, the laws of their development, and their interactions with individuals, other
groups and larger institutions”

WHAT ARE GROUPS

A group consists of two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense
that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other.

The groups to which we belong determine what language we speak, what accent we have,
what attitudes we hold, what cultural practices we adopt, what education we receive, what
level of prosperity we enjoy and ultimately who we are. Even those groups to which we do not
belong, either by choice or by exclusion, have a profound impact on our lives. In this tight
matrix of group influences, the domain of the autonomous, independent, unique self may
indeed be limited.
Groups differ in many different ways (Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, & Ethier, 1995). Some have a large
number of members (e.g. a nation, a gender), and others are small (a committee, a family);
some are relatively short-lived (a group of friends, a jury), and some endure for thousands of
years (an ethnic group, a religion); some are concentrated (a flight crew, a selection
committee), others dispersed (academics, Facebook ‘friends’); some are highly structured
and organised (an army, an ambulance team), and others are more informally organised (a
supporters’ club, a community action group); some have highly specific purposes (an
assembly line, an environmental protest group), and others are more general (a tribal group,
a teenage ‘gang’); some are relatively autocratic (an army, a police force), others relatively
democratic (a university department, a commune); and so on.

Any social group can therefore be described by an array of features that highlight similarities
to, and differences from, other groups. These can be very general features, such as
membership size (e.g. a religion versus a committee), but they can also be very specific
features, such as group practices and beliefs (e.g. Catholics versus Muslims, liberals versus
conservatives, Masai versus Kikuyu).

Forsyth has emphasized common properties and qualities of groups:

1) Interaction: All group members interact with each other. Research by Bales (1950,
1999) determine that there are two main types of interactions;
● Relationship interactions (actions relating to socio emotional needs such as social
support) and
● Task interactions (actions relating to group goals)

2) Interdependence: This interdependence means that members depend on one another;

their outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experiences are determined in part by
others in the group.
3) Goals: Most groups have a reason for their existence and groups can facilitate the
achievement of these goals. Bales believed that the group has two major goals:

- Relationship goals (involving satisfying socioemotional needs e.g. harmonizing,

expressing) and
- Task goals (performing the group's task; e.g. clarifying, procedure seeking).
To achieve each goal, the group must perform certain actions.

4) Structure: group structure refers to the complex of roles, statuses, norms, and
cohesiveness that organizes the group.
5) Groups are dynamic: Lewin chose the word ‘dynamic’ to describe the activities,
processes, operations, and changes that transpire in groups.
 Groups can be usually be differentiated from social aggregates, i.e. collections of unrelated
individuals.
● Crowd is also a collection of people who may be present at a place/situation by
chance. However, it has no structure –roles and statuses, norms or cohesiveness.
But crowds can be converted into mobs.
● Mob behavior is characterized by a definite sense of purpose, homogeneity of thought
and behavior as well as impulsivity.
● Teams are special kinds of groups and are committed to a common goal or purpose.
In teams, there is a positive synergy attained through the coordinated efforts of the
members.

TYPES OF GROUP

1. Primary and Secondary Groups: A primary group is typically a small social group whose
members share close, personal, enduring relationships (family, close friends). In contrast,
secondary groups are those where relationships among members are more impersonal,
indirect, and less frequent.

2. Formal and Informal Groups: The formation and functions of a formal group (e.g.
university) are explicitly stated as in the case of an office organization and it is not so in
informal groups.

3. Ingroup and Outgroup: The term 'ingroup' refers to one's own group to which we perceive
we belong, and outgroup' refers to another group.

4. Entitativity: Entitativity refers to something like “groupiness”—the perception, either by the

group members themselves or by others, that the people together are a group.

Groups can be classified into four different general types with decreasing entitativity:-

- intimacy groups (e.g. families),

- task groups (e.g. jury),
- social categories (e.g. women),
- loose associations.

5. Common Identity and common bond groups: Members of common-identity groups (are
attracted to a group because of common interests (e.g. e.g. music groups), or a shared
category/identity (e.g. women’s group). In contrast, common-bond groups such as social
groups comprise members who are attracted to one another as individuals.

6. Planned groups and emergent groups: Planned groups are specifically formed for some
purpose. Emergent groups come into being relatively spontaneously where people find
themselves together in the same place, or where the same collection of people gradually
comes to know each other through conversation and interaction over a period of time.

THE BENEFITS OF JOINING: WHAT GROUPS DO FOR US

- First, we often gain self-knowledge from belonging to various groups.

- Once we belong, we can find it hard to imagine not belonging because it makes our
life meaningful by defining to some extent who we are. Indeed, to be rejected by a
group—even one we have recently joined—can be among the most painful of
experiences.

- Group membership becomes central to our self cobcept. For example, being part of a
prestige group enhances it, and it also makes our life meaningful by defining to some
extent who we are

- Benefit of belonging to some groups is that they help us reach our goals. One
important goal is attaining prestige. When an individual is accepted into a certain type
of group—a highly selective school, an exclusive social club, a varsity sports team—
self-esteem can increase.

- The more an individual is seeking self-enhancement—boosting one’s own public

image—the more important will a group’s status be to that person and the more
strongly he or she will identify with it.

- People are also attracted to groups when they fit our goals—even if those goals are
relatively transient. People like being in a group best when that group matches their
current goal orientation (Sassenberg, Jonas, Shah, & Brazy, 2007).

- Benefit of joining groups is that doing so often helps us to accomplish goals we

could not achieve alone (i.e., social change). People can develop a politicized
collective identity, which prepares them to engage in a power struggle on behalf of
their group. (politicized collective identity - Recognizing shared grievances and
engaging in a power struggle on behalf of one’s devalued group).

THE COSTS OF GETTING ACCEPTED INTO A GROUP

The desire to join exclusive and prestigious groups may be so strong that individuals are
willing to undergo painful and dangerous initiations in order to become members. After
doing so, people must justify to themselves, their efforts to join the group, and therefore
show increased positive attitude change toward that group. (embarrassment, humiliation,
physical/mental pain)

FORMATION OF GROUPS
Reasons for joining the group/functions of the group Perspectives; People join groups
because these groups satisfy a range of needs.

According to Hewstone, Stroebe and Jonas there are three perspectives which explain why
people join groups:

1. Sociobiological perspective: Following Darwin's theory of evolution, the

sociobiological perspective (e.g., Bowlby, 1958); emphasizes the adaptive value of
forming groups. A predisposition to form groups increased the chances of survival of
our ancestors (e.g. helped us to protect ourselves from predators) and. through the
evolutionary principle of natural selection, this pre disposition was selected and
passed on to later generations.

2. Cognitive perspective: According to the cognitive perspective, groups help us to

understand our world.

a. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) argues that people want to hold
accurate views of the world and hence they compare themselves with others.
By choosing comparison targets who are performing poorly compared to
themselves (downward social comparison), individuals bolster their own sense
of competence; and by choosing superior targets {upward social comparison),
individuals can refine their expectations of themselves.

b. Social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel and Turner, 1979, 1986) argues that people
define themselves and others partly in terms of group membership. Being a
member of a group often provides guidelines for the way we should behave and
think.

c. Tesser's self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) model argues that people prefer to

associate with individuals who do not outperform them in areas that are very
relevant to their self-esteem.

Groups help us compare ourselves, shape our identity, and protect our self-
 esteem. This is why being part of a group is so important for how we think and feel
about ourselves and the world.

3. Utilitarian perspective (Social exchange theory): A utilitarian perspective argues that

people derive benefits from groups. Social exchange theory (e.g., Thibaut & Kelley.
1959) argues groups exist because they facilitate mutually beneficial social exchange.
These exchanges might involve material goods (e.g. borrowing a tool, selling your car)
or interpersonal helping (e.g. helping a friend move house), but also psychological
"goods' such as esteem, power, love, friendship or approval. Enduring exchange
relations between two or more people are more effectively organized when people
form a (more or less stable) group. Thus, groups exist because they facilitate mutually
beneficial social exchange.

Factors: In general, people join groups for the following reasons:

● Personality traits: Extraverts are more likely to seek out groups than are introverts.

● Social motives: Need Hierarchy: Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs (1954) has
been used to describe many human behaviors and may also be used to explain why
people join groups.

a. Need to belong/need for affiliation: Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggest

humans’ tendency to join groups is generated by a basic ‘need to belong ‘or
need for affiliation to social groups that can be explained by terror
management theory. According to this theory, fear of death is the most
powerful motivating factor in human existence. People affiliate and join groups
in order to reduce fear of death. Joining groups provide symbolic immortality
that outlive individuals.

b. Need for Inclusion, control and affection: Schutz’s Fundamental

Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory explains how people use
groups to satisfy their need to receive and express inclusion, control, and
affection. The need for inclusion relates to a person's desire to be recognized
by others through human interactions and to feel like an active participant in
these relations. The need for control relates to a person's desire to feel like
they are having an impact in their social sphere. The need for openness or
affection, which is the desire to be liked or loved by others.

c. Social support during stress: Group’s provide their members with social
support during times of stress and tension. Basic types of support from groups
include a sense of belonging and emotional, information, instrumental, and
spiritual support. Stress may not only increase "fight-or-flight" responses to
stress, but also the kinds of "tend-and-befriend" responses seen more often
 in females (Taylor, 2000). This latter tendency may increase one’s need to join
a group. Taylor argues that females' behavioral response to stress is to (1) tend
their young and (2) affiliate with (befriend) a social group that, collectively,
provides protection from threats. Groups help members avoid two basic forms
of loneliness: social and emotional.

d. Reduction in feelings of uncertainty: According to uncertainty-identity theory

(Hogg, 2007), one fundamental motivation for joining with groups is to reduce
feelings of uncertainty about who we are, how we should behave, and how
others will perceive and interact with us.

Stages of Group Formation

These theories can be categorized into three main types: sequential stage theories (group
moves from one stage to another), cyclical theories (stages may be repeated), and
punctuated equilibrium theories (Forsyth 1999).

Tuckman’s Sequential models,1965; Perhaps the best-known scheme for a group

development was advanced by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. The model describes five stages of
group formation. Each of these stages can be differentiated on the basis of its:

1) Processes used to solve problems and the issues that arise during these processes and
2) Features or characteristics of the stage.

1. Forming: ‘Orientation’- The forming phase of group development refers to the initial point
when people come together to form a group. Major task functions concern orientation of
group members - members try to understand precisely what the goal is, what role they will
play in reaching the goal, and what the other group members are like.

● Major processes: In this first meeting, members become familiar with

each other and the group, team members are introduced to each. They share
information about their backgrounds, interests and experience and form first
impressions of each other. At this stage the members are sizing each other up to
determine whether or not they want to continue to be included as part of the group
(inclusion issues). Personal relations within the group are characterized by
dependency on the leader to provide structure, set goals, clarify values, and
develop the group vision/mission (dependency issues).
● Characteristics: Group interactions are likely to be polite and tentative
as members become acquainted with each other and find their place in the group.
People do not want to be embarrassed or break any social rules, so they remain
superficial in their interaction with others. Any real disagreements between
people often remain unacknowledged during this stage because members want
to be perceived as flexible and likable.
2. Storming: ‘Conflict’ - The storming stage is characterized by conflict regarding
the group norms, status, and roles. within the group's power structure.

● Major processes: As members figure out the goal and become comfortable
with the other group members, they begin to express their honest opinions
and vie for power and position. They have different opinions on what should
be done and how it should be done - which causes conflict within the team.
There is tension amongst the group members. It is a period of conflicts and
disagreements regarding the group norms, status, and roles. The nature of the
group's conflict may also relate to whether the group has a readily identifiable
leader. If the group doesn't have a leader, tension will exist among the people
vying for a leadership position and other roles in the group. If a group does
have a leader, conflict may arise from challenges to the leader’s authority or
decisions. Some group members may create conflict by withdrawing to the
periphery of the group. At this stage, feelings of anxiety and resentment are
also expressed. Group members may express antagonism toward the leader
and each other.
● Characteristics: In performing the group task, ideas are criticized, members
are interrupted while talking, and hostile attitudes can even be displayed.
During this time, attendance is poor, and a more united effort of carrying out
objectives may be difficult. While storming, members may take sides and
form coalitions.

Although storming occurs in all groups, some groups manage it better than
others. When storming is severe, it can threaten the group's survival.
However, if a group does not storm, it may experience groupthink.

3. Norming: ‘structure’- This stage occurs after conflict has been resolved and
group structure is relatively stable; norms, roles, and status are now clearly defined.

- Major processes: Now the conflicts have been resolved and the group starts
having a relatively stable structure: a.) cohesiveness - personal relations are
marked by cohesion; people begin to experience a feeling of group closeness;
b) Norms-the members accept the norms established by the group; c) roles- The
roles and responsibilities are agreed upon; e) status: conflict regarding status,
power and authority has been addressed; e)there is increased communication
as members share feelings and ideas, solicit and give feedback to one another,
and explore actions related to the task. Their communications are characterized
by openness and sharing of information on both a personal and task level.
Having expressed honest opinions, resolved major differences, and sorted out
specific roles, members trust each other.

- Characteristics: There is an agreement on procedures and role ambiguity which

characterized the earlier stage has been removed. The ‘we’ feeling increases.
4. Performing: ‘Work’ -The performing stage is best described as the time when the
group gets its work done, the members relate to each other well, and the group
operates effectively and efficiently. Generally, a group must mature to reach the
performing stage. Researchers have found that only a small number of groups
actually reach the performing stage and that the groups that do reach this stage
generally do so after a lengthy storming and norming process.
• Major processes: After the group structure has been put in place,
members begin to work towards goal accomplishment.
Conversations are focused on sharing task-related information.
Team members are able to prevent or solve problems in the team's
process or in the team's progress.
• Characteristics: Performing is characterized by harmony,
productivity, problem solving, and shared leadership. During this
stage, the group capitalizes on the skills, knowledge, and abilities of
all members to work toward achieving its goal.

5. Adjourning: ‘Dissolution’ - After the goals of the group have been reached, the
team is dissolved (adjourning stage).

● Major processes: In the dissolution stage, in which the group wraps

up their tasks and terminates their roles. The permanent or ongoing
workgroups in organizations do not pass through this stage. The
temporary groups created for a specific purpose or limited task are
most likely to be dissolved now. Finally, group members will begin to
disengage from their relationships with each other. The group may
formally disband while some members continue to see each other
in social settings.

● Characteristics: It involves disengagement/withdrawal from

relationships and members are trying to become increasingly
independent. However, this is not easy as they may experience
several different emotions (increased emotionality) and concerns
about the team’s impending dissolution. They may be feeling some
anxiety because of uncertainty about their individual role or future
responsibilities. They may feel sadness or a sense of loss about the
changes coming to their team relationships. And at the same time,
team members may feel a sense of deep satisfaction at the
accomplishments of the team. Individual members might feel all of
these things at the same time, or may cycle through feelings of loss
followed by feelings of satisfaction. When the performing stage has
resulted in a total integration with strong feelings of group
cohesiveness, its dissolution will bring sadness and regret.
Participants often need to go through a "mourning" process before
 making a transition.

Tuckman cited several limitations of the literature, e.g., that the literature could not
be considered truly representative of small group developmental processes because
there was an
overrepresentation of therapy and T-group settings and an underrepresentation of natural or
laboratory groups.

GROUP STRUCTURE
Groups are not unorganized, haphazard collections of individuals, but organized systems of
interactions and relationships regulated by group structure. Group structure refers to
interrelationships between group members and rules of behavior that allow a group to
function in an orderly way. The five main aspects of group structure are: cohesiveness,
norms, status, roles and communication structure (Pennington, 2002).

1. STATUS

A status is simply a socially defined position in the group and is associated with related
roles.

Evolutionary psychologists explain that having high status is very important for survival and
success, not only in humans but also in many other species. High-status individuals often
enjoy many advantages, including respect, influence, and material rewards. But how do
people gain high status? Physical traits like attractiveness or height often help people get
better social evaluations and can lead to higher pay and faster career growth. Besides
physical appearance, behavior is very important. People who represent the group’s main
qualities—called prototypical members—are more likely to be respected and chosen as
leaders. Additionally, staying in a group for a long time can increase a person’s status
because it shows experience, wisdom, and knowledge about how the group works.

Once people achieve high status, they tend to behave differently from those with lower
status. Research shows that high-status members act more independently and show more
unique behaviors. On the other hand, people with lower status, such as newcomers, feel a
stronger need to follow group rules and conform to group expectations. This is because low-
status members want to be accepted and avoid punishment. In fact, new members who do
not respect the higher-status people in the group may face penalties or rejection. Surveys of
professional and student groups show that senior members report being less influenced by
the group compared to those who have just joined or have fewer years in the group. This
suggests that low-status members may act more willing to conform as a way to gain
acceptance.

In summary, differences in status are a natural and important part of most groups. Status
can be based on official roles or informal factors like experience. High status brings respect,
 influence, and benefits, while low status often means having to work harder to fit in.
Understanding these hierarchies helps explain why people behave the way they do in groups
and why status matters so much in social life.

2. ROLES

Roles are shared expectations about the functions of individuals in the groups.

The roles people play in groups can also become a part of how they see themselves, which
can affect their happiness and mental health. When people feel that the role they are playing
matches their own personality and strengths, they feel more genuine and satisfied. For
example, in a study, students were given different roles in a class activity, like “idea
generator” or “devil’s advocate.” Those whose roles matched their own traits felt happier
and enjoyed the activity more than those whose roles did not fit their personality. This shows
that when our roles fit who we are, we feel better and perform better.

Research also shows that how much we identify with our assigned roles can change our
behavior. In a famous study where adults were assigned to be either prisoners or guards in a
simulated prison, the guards did not really see themselves as guards and worried about how
others would think of them. As a result, they did not work well together and felt more
stressed. On the other hand, the people assigned as prisoners started to strongly identify
with their role, supported each other, and even felt less depressed as time went on. This
shows that simply being given a role does not automatically change how we act; it matters
whether we accept and identify with that role. When we do, the group’s expectations for that
role guide our behavior and even influence our emotions.

In summary, groups work better when people take on different roles, and these roles can
shape how we feel about ourselves and how we behave. If we feel comfortable and
connected with our role, we are likely to be happier and more effective in the group. The way
we see ourselves and the group’s expectations for our role both play a big part in how we act
and feel within the group.

3. NORMS

Groups have a powerful influence on how their members behave, mainly through norms.
Norms are the unwritten rules that tell people what is expected of them in a group. These
rules can be about anything, from how to act to how to feel. For example, in some jobs like
being a cashier, restaurant server, or flight attendant, workers are expected to always smile
at customers, no matter what. This is a clear example of a norm about showing positive
emotions. On the other hand, in jobs like being a funeral director, the norm is to be serious
and show empathy, never smiling inappropriately. These examples show that different
groups and settings have different norms for how people should behave and even what
emotions they should display.

Norms can also guide our emotions in less obvious ways. For instance, a study of
Evangelical Christians found that new members at first did not enjoy church meetings.
However, over time, they learned to copy the emotions of others in the group. They were
encouraged to talk about their past selves as unhappy and to present their new Christian
selves as happy and positive. Eventually, most new members started to genuinely feel
happier and saw this as part of their new identity. In this group, feeling happy was seen as a
sign of being a good member, and negative emotions were discouraged. This shows how
groups can teach people not just how to act, but also how to feel and express their
emotions.

Norms can be very different depending on the culture or the type of group. In collectivist
groups, the main rule is to keep harmony among members, even if it means giving up
personal desires. Disagreements are avoided to prevent conflict. In contrast, individualist
groups encourage people to stand out and be different, and disagreeing with the group is
often seen as brave or admirable. How much a person cares about being part of a group also
affects how strongly they follow its norms. Research shows that people who feel a strong
connection to their group are more likely to follow its norms, while those who don’t feel
connected might ignore or even go against these rules.

One study looked at how students reacted to someone who disagreed with the group’s
opinion, depending on whether their group valued collectivism or individualism. The results
showed that in groups where the norm was individualism, members liked someone who
disagreed, seeing them as independent. But in groups with a collectivist norm, someone
who disagreed was disliked because it threatened group harmony. This effect was strongest
among people who felt a strong connection to their group. For those who didn’t identify
much with the group, the norm didn’t matter as much. This research highlights that breaking
group norms can have social costs, especially among people who highly value their group
membership.

In summary, norms are the invisible rules that shape our behavior and even our feelings
within groups. They can vary widely between different groups and cultures, and how much
we follow them often depends on how important the group is to us. Breaking these norms
can lead to being liked or disliked, depending on what the group values and how much we
identify with it.

4. GROUP COHESIVENESS

Cohesiveness is the force that keeps a group together and makes its members want to stay
in the group. Imagine two different groups. In the first group, everyone likes each other,
agrees on what they want to achieve, and feels that this group is the best place for them.
They have a strong sense of group identity, work well together, and are likely to succeed in
reaching their goals. In the second group, the opposite is true: people don’t get along, they
don’t share the same goals, and some members are even looking for other groups to join.
This group doesn’t have a shared identity and struggles to work together. The difference
between these two groups is due to their level of cohesiveness, which is all the reasons and
forces that make members want to remain part of the group.

Cohesive groups are marked by unity and support. Members see themselves as similar,
cooperate with each other, and are motivated to achieve group goals. They usually have high
morale and perform better than groups that are not cohesive. When there is an outside
threat or competition from another group, cohesiveness often becomes even stronger, as
members band together to protect their group. However, this strong sense of unity can make
it hard for outsiders to join, because they may not fit in with the group’s norms and values.

Sometimes, the fear that a group might lose its unique identity can also increase
cohesiveness and lead to actions to protect the group. For example, research has shown
that French Canadians who worry about their culture blending too much with English
Canadians are more likely to support Quebec separating from Canada. Similarly, some
British people voted for Brexit because they were concerned about losing their British
identity in the larger European Union. When people feel that their group’s future is
threatened, they often take steps to strengthen their group’s unity and make it stand out
from others. In summary, cohesiveness is a powerful force that binds group members
together, helps them work effectively, and motivates them to protect their group’s identity,
especially when they feel it is under threat.

GROUP DECISION MAKING

One of the most important things that groups do is make decisions—choosing one option
from several possible choices. This is true for many types of groups, such as governments,
companies, and other organizations, which often rely on groups to make important
decisions. Even though groups have the advantage of bringing together the knowledge and
experience of many people, and can help avoid mistakes that individuals might make on
their own, many people still believe that groups actually make worse decisions than
individuals. This belief is common in our society, but is it really true?

To find out, social psychologists have studied group decision making in detail. They focus on
three main questions. First, they ask how groups actually go about making decisions and
reaching agreement. This involves looking at the process groups use to discuss options and
come to a final choice. Second, they examine whether the decisions made by groups are
really different from those made by individuals working alone. Finally, they try to understand
why groups sometimes make very poor or disastrous decisions, even when they have plenty
of resources and information. By studying these questions, researchers hope to understand
the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making, and to find ways to help groups
make better choices.

FACTORS INFLUENCING GDM

- The nature and composition of groups, their size, demographic makeup, structure
and purpose, all affecting their functioning to some degree.
- The external contingencies faced by group( time pressure and conflicting goals)
impact the development and effectiveness of group decision making groups as well.

Group decision making process

- It has three stages:

 a. Orientation- defining the situation and procedures
b. Evaluation- discussion of ideas, opinions
c. Decision – deciding what to do

Groups that devote relatively more time and effort to orientation issues generally produce
more high quality solutions and are generally more satisfied with the interactions and end
result.

For middle stage process, evaluation, it has been demonstrated that varied contribution,
critical appraisals, expressions of commitment and ongoing assessments of performance all
facilitate effective group decisions.
However, studies have shown that group also frequently engage in counterproductive
processes at this such stage, such as procrastinating, ignoring plausible solution,
withholding critical comments, trivializing the discussion or avoiding responsibility for the
decision.

Final stage is the implementation of a decision rule (or social decision scheme) that dictates
how the preferences of individual group members will be combined to generate a single
collective decision.
The most prominent explicit decision rule across all types of human groups is the majority
rule. There is evidence that implementation is more successful if groups members are
closely involved in the decision- making process
Reluctance is more likely if group members are simply orders to implement a decision that
they had no role in determining.

When groups begin discussing an issue, members usually have different opinions and do not
all agree right away. Each person brings their own ideas and preferences to the table.
However, after some discussion, groups almost always manage to reach a decision. This
process of reaching agreement is called attaining consensus. But how does this actually
happen, and can we predict what the group will decide based on the members’ original
views?

One interesting question is whether groups make more extreme or less extreme decisions
than individuals. Some people think that groups are more cautious and less likely to make
extreme choices, but research shows the opposite. In fact, groups often end up making
more extreme decisions than any one member would make alone. This effect is called group
polarization. It means that whatever direction the group was leaning toward at the start—
whether risky or cautious—they will usually end up taking an even stronger position in that
direction after discussing the issue together. For example, if most group members are
already leaning toward taking a risk, the group as a whole will likely become even more
willing to take risks after discussion. On the other hand, if the group starts off cautious, they
will become even more cautious together.

There are two main reasons why group discussions tend to lead to more extreme decisions.
First, social comparison plays a role. People want to fit in with the group and sometimes
want to be seen as “better” or more committed to the group’s values than others. So, in a
group of people who are already leaning in a certain direction, members may try to show they
are even more dedicated to that view, making the group’s overall decision more extreme.
Second, during discussions, most arguments tend to support the group’s initial preference.
As members hear more reasons that back up the majority opinion, they become even more
convinced that it is the right choice. This creates a cycle where the group’s original leaning
gets stronger and stronger.

Interestingly, research has found that if group members do not know each other’s opinions
before they start discussing, the group is more likely to consider a wider range of arguments
and make better decisions. This is because there is less pressure to agree with the majority
right from the start, so more diverse ideas are shared. Overall, group decision-making is a
complex process that often leads to stronger, more extreme outcomes than individual
decision-making, mainly because of social comparison and the way group discussions
reinforce the majority view.

DOWNSIDE OF GROUP DECSION MAKING

While groups can sometimes make good decisions, there are also important problems that
can happen during group decision-making. One major problem is that groups tend to
become more extreme in their decisions, a process called group polarization. But there are
other serious issues as well, such as groupthink and the failure to share important
information.

Groupthink happens when a group becomes too cohesive or united. While it’s good for
members to feel connected and committed, too much cohesiveness can lead to problems.
In groupthink, members become so focused on agreeing with each other and supporting the
group’s decisions that they ignore or reject any information that goes against what the group
wants to do. They may believe their group is always right and that there is no need to discuss
things any further. This can make the group unwilling to change its mind, even if it becomes
clear that the decision was a mistake. Groupthink is more likely when the group is very close-
knit and when a small group of influential members, often close to the leader, have a big
impact on decisions. The group may also develop beliefs that it is morally better than others
and that outside criticism is just an attack, not something to be considered. Research shows
that when criticism comes from someone outside the group, especially if they are not seen
as part of the group, it is often ignored or viewed negatively, even if the criticism is helpful.

Another problem is that groups often do not share all the information they have. Instead,
they tend to talk mostly about things everyone already knows, rather than sharing unique
information that only some members have. This is a problem because sometimes the best
decision depends on information that only a few people in the group know. If that
information isn’t shared, the group may miss out on making the best choice. Studies show
that when there is disagreement or dissent in the group, it can actually help because it
encourages people to share different ideas and information, leading to better decisions.

Brainstorming is another group activity that is supposed to help generate creative ideas. The
idea is that by working together, people will come up with more and better ideas than if they
worked alone. However, research shows that brainstorming in groups does not always
produce more creative ideas than individuals working by themselves. One reason is that
people may compare themselves to others and lower their effort to match the group’s
average, especially if others are not contributing much. On the other hand, if people think
they are competing with others, they might work harder to come up with better ideas.
Studies also show that when people are exposed to lots of ideas, especially if they believe
these ideas come from other people, they are inspired to generate more and higher quality
ideas themselves. Interestingly, encouraging debate and discussion of ideas, rather than
just listening without criticism, can lead to more creative and useful solutions. Allowing
group members to challenge each other and debate ideas seems to be more effective than
simply avoiding criticism.

In summary, while groups have the potential to make good decisions and generate creative
ideas, they also face challenges like groupthink, not sharing all information, and sometimes
failing to be as creative as possible. Encouraging open discussion, welcoming dissent, and
making sure everyone’s unique information is shared can help groups avoid these problems
and make better decisions.

EFFECTS OF THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS

It’s not surprising that our behavior is strongly influenced by the groups we belong to, since
these groups usually have clear rules and expectations for how we should act. What might
be more surprising, though, is that sometimes just having other people around us—even if
we’re not part of a group with them—can change how we behave. You have probably noticed
this in your own life. For example, if you are studying alone in a room, you might sit however
you like, maybe even putting your feet up on a chair. But if a stranger walks in, you are likely
to change your behavior. You might sit up straighter, take your feet off the furniture, and
generally act more properly, even though you don’t know the person and aren’t talking to
them. This shows that simply having someone else present can make us act differently.
These effects can happen in many ways, but two important examples are how the presence
of others affects how well we perform tasks, and how being part of a large crowd can
influence our behavior.

SOCIAL FACILITATION

Social facilitation is the effect that the presence of other people has on how well we perform
a task. Sometimes, we do things completely alone, like studying in our own room. Other
times, even if we are working by ourselves, there are other people nearby, such as when you
study in a café or when your roommate is also in the room. The question is: does having
other people around help us do better, or does it make things harder for us?

Imagine you have to give a speech in class, and you have practiced many times alone. When
the day comes and you see a big audience waiting for you, your performance might change.
Some people get nervous and do worse than they did while practicing alone, while others
feel energized and perform even better in front of a crowd. Research shows that the
presence of others can affect our performance in both positive and negative ways.
To understand this, social psychologists did an experiment with cockroaches. They had
cockroaches run a maze, and in some cases, other cockroaches watched them from clear
boxes nearby. The cockroaches being watched actually ran faster than those who were
alone. This experiment showed a group phenomenon called social facilitation: the presence
of others can affect how well we do a task.

A psychologist named Zajonc explained this by saying that having others around increases
our arousal, or energy level. When we are doing something we know well or have practiced a
lot, this extra energy helps us do even better. But if we are doing something new or difficult,
being watched can make us more likely to make mistakes. This idea is called the drive theory
of social facilitation. It means that the presence of others improves our performance if we
are skilled at the task, but it can hurt our performance if we are still learning or if the task is
hard for us.

Other researchers suggested that sometimes, we do worse in front of others because we are
worried about being judged or evaluated. For example, you might be nervous about your
teacher grading your speech. Some experiments showed that if the audience can’t see you
or doesn’t care about what you’re doing, social facilitation doesn’t happen. This supports
the idea that being concerned about what others think—called evaluation apprehension—
plays a role in how we perform.

However, Zajonc’s cockroach experiment showed that social facilitation can happen even
when there is no fear of being judged, at least in animals. This means that simply having
others present can change our performance, whether or not we are worried about their
opinions. In summary, the presence of others can make us perform better or worse,
depending on how well we know the task and how we feel about being watched.

SIMPLE AND DIFFICULT TASKS

Before deciding whether you should stay in the crowded classroom to take your exam, it’s
important to understand how the presence of others affects different types of tasks. Earlier,
we saw that having other people around helps us do better on simple, well-learned tasks.
But what about when the task is more difficult or unfamiliar?

To explore this, Zajonc and his colleagues added another part to their cockroach experiment.
This time, instead of a straight path to the dark box, the cockroaches had to solve a more
complicated maze with several runways, but only one led to the escape. When the task was
harder, the cockroaches actually took longer to solve the maze if other cockroaches were
watching them, compared to when they were alone.

Many other studies have found the same thing with both people and animals: when the task
is difficult or new, having others around makes performance worse, not better. This means
that if your exam is going to be especially challenging for you, being surrounded by other
students might make it harder for you to concentrate and do your best. In summary, while
the presence of others can help with easy tasks, it can actually hurt your performance on
difficult ones.

AROUSAL AND THE DOMINNAT RESPONSE

Zajonc (1965) provided a clear explanation for why having other people around can help us
do some things better but make other things harder. He said that when others are present,
our bodies become more alert and energized—this is called physiological arousal. When we
are aroused, it is easier for us to perform tasks that we already know well, because these are
our “dominant responses.” For example, if you are really good at riding a bike or writing your
name, having people watch you will probably make you do these things even better.
However, if you are trying to do something new or complicated, like learning a new sport or
solving a tough math problem, this extra arousal can actually make you feel nervous or
distracted, leading to more mistakes.
This idea is known as social facilitation. It means that people tend to perform better on
simple or well-practiced tasks when others are watching, but do worse on difficult or
unfamiliar tasks. The key factor is whether your performance can be seen and evaluated by
others. If it can, the presence of others increases your arousal, which helps with easy tasks
but hurts with hard ones. So, whether an audience helps or hurts your performance depends
on how comfortable and skilled you are at the task you’re doing.

WHY HAVING PRESENCE OF OTHERS AFFECTS OUR PERFORMANCE?

Researchers have developed three main theories to explain why the presence of others
causes arousal, which in turn affects our performance on different tasks.

1. Alertness and Vigilance:

The first explanation is that the presence of other people makes us more alert and
vigilant. When we are alone, we only need to focus on what we are doing, such as
reading a book, and don’t have to pay attention to anything else. However, when
someone else is in the room, we need to be alert to the possibility that they might do
something that requires us to respond. Other people are less predictable than
objects like a lamp, so their presence naturally puts us in a state of greater alertness.
This increased vigilance causes mild arousal in our bodies. This explanation,
preferred by Zajonc, helps explain why both animals and humans show arousal in the
presence of others. For example, a solitary cockroach does not need to worry about
what another cockroach is doing unless it is present in the same room.

2. Evaluation Apprehension:
The second explanation is that people, unlike cockroaches, are often concerned
about how others are evaluating them. When others can see how we are doing, we
feel as if we are being judged. We might worry about being embarrassed if we do
poorly or feel pleased if we do well. This concern about being judged is called
evaluation apprehension, and it can cause arousal. According to this view, it is not
just the presence of others, but the presence of others who are evaluating us, that
leads to arousal and social facilitation.
 3. Distraction:
The third explanation is that the presence of other people can be distracting. This
theory is similar to the alertness idea but focuses on the conflict that comes from
having to pay attention to both the task and the people around us. Any source of
distraction, whether it’s other people or something like a loud party upstairs, can
make it difficult to focus on just one thing. This divided attention produces arousal.
For example, college students trying to work while their roommate is talking on the
phone or playing loud music will feel this kind of distraction. Research has shown that
even non social distractions, like a flashing light, can produce the same effects as the
presence of other people.

Summary of Effects:
No matter which of these reasons is at work, the result is the same: when we are around
other people, we do better on tasks that are simple and well-learned, but we do worse on
tasks that are complex or new. This is because arousal helps us perform our dominant (most
likely) response, which is good for easy tasks but not for difficult ones.

Practical Advice:
So, if you know your exam material well and the test is simple for you, being in a crowded
room with classmates will likely help you perform better. However, when you are studying or
learning new material, it’s better to do so alone, since the arousal caused by others can
make it harder to concentrate.
Interestingly, these effects are not limited to real people. Even the presence of a favorite
television character—whether human or animated—can cause similar social facilitation
effects. People performed better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when their
favorite character was displayed on a screen, just as if a real person were in the room.

CAN HAVING A GROUP DISTRACT US?

Some researchers believe that having an audience or even just other people around can
actually distract us, making it harder to focus on what we are doing. This idea is called
distraction conflict theory. According to this theory, when we perform a task in front of
others, we have to split our attention between the task and the people watching us. This can
create a kind of mental overload, where our brains are working harder than usual. To cope
with this, we tend to narrow our focus and pay attention only to the most important parts of
the task, ignoring things that don’t matter as much.

There is research to support this idea. For example, a study looked at how distraction affects
eating. Male participants were observed eating in different situations: with friends, while
watching TV, and with strangers. The results showed that people ate more when they were
with friends or watching TV, both of which are distracting. The distraction seemed to make
them focus more on their food, leading them to eat more. However, eating with strangers
was less distracting, so it didn’t have the same effect.
This cognitive perspective helps explain why the presence of others sometimes affects how
we perform tasks. It’s not just about feeling more energized or aroused, as suggested by
other theories, but also about how much our attention is divided. If the people around us are
distracting, we might focus more on the main task and ignore other things, which can
sometimes help and sometimes hurt our performance. This idea applies to both humans and
animals, showing that even creatures like cockroaches can be affected by the distraction of
having an audience. Overall, whether an audience helps or hurts our performance can
depend on how distracting they are and how much attention we can give to the task itself.

SOCIAL LOAFING

Social loafing is a common problem that happens when people work together in groups,
especially on tasks where everyone’s efforts are combined to create a single result. For
example, you might have seen a group of construction workers where some are working hard
while others seem to be just standing around. In these situations, not everyone puts in the
same amount of effort. Some people do as much as they can, while others may pretend to
work or do much less than they would if they were working alone. Social psychologists call
this reduction in effort social loafing. It means that people tend to put in less effort when
working in a group compared to when they work by themselves.
This effect has been shown in many different types of tasks. In one classic study, groups of
students were asked to clap or cheer as loudly as possible. Each person wore headphones
so they couldn’t hear how loud the others were, and they were told how many people were in
their group. The results showed that as the group size increased, each person put in less
effort, even though the total noise made by the group went up. Social loafing doesn’t just
happen with physical tasks; it also happens with mental tasks and even with things like
tipping in restaurants—people tend to tip less per person when they are in a large group.

Social loafing is also common in schools. For example, students participate less in larger
classes, and when working on team projects, some students may let others do most of the
work. Research has found that people are more likely to loaf if they feel their contribution
isn’t important or if they don’t feel connected to the group. On the other hand, if people feel
their skills are needed or if the group is fair and everyone is treated equally, social loafing is
less likely to happen. Also, if someone feels different from the rest of the group, they may
feel less responsible and are more likely to loaf.

In summary, social loafing is when people put in less effort in group tasks than they would if
they were working alone. It happens because people feel less accountable, think their
contribution won’t be noticed, or don’t feel connected to the group. Understanding why
social loafing happens can help us find ways to reduce it and make group work more
effective.

DEINDIVIDUALISM

Deindividuation is what happens when people feel anonymous in a group, and it can lead to
behaviors that they would never do if they were alone and easily identified. This feeling of
being “lost in the crowd” means that normal rules and self-control can fade away,
sometimes resulting in extreme or even violent actions. History is full of examples where
groups of people, hidden by their numbers or by disguises, have committed terrible acts—
like riots, violence at concerts, or even lynchings. For instance, research has shown that the
larger a mob is, the more brutal it can become, because individuals feel less responsible for
their actions. Another study found that warriors who disguised themselves with paint or
masks before battle were more likely to act violently than those who did not hide their
identities.

One main reason deindividuation leads to such behavior is that people feel less accountable
for what they do when they think they can’t be singled out or blamed. A famous example
from the novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" shows how a mob about to commit violence was
stopped when a little girl recognized and greeted one of the men by name, reminding him—
and the rest of the group—that they were individuals who could be held responsible. This
broke the spell of anonymity, and the mob went home.

Deindividuation also makes people more likely to follow the norms of the group they are
with, even if those norms go against the rules of society. If the group’s norm is to act
aggressively, then deindividuation will make people more likely to act out violently. But if the
group’s norm is something harmless, like dancing wildly at a party, then deindividuation just
makes people more likely to join in and have fun. In other words, deindividuation doesn’t
always lead to bad behavior—it depends on what the group is doing.

This effect isn’t limited to face-to-face situations. Deindividuation is very common online,
where people can comment anonymously. Many people feel less inhibited and may post
rude or offensive comments that they would never say in person. Because it’s easy to hide
your identity on the internet, people often feel free to act in ways that are less polite or
respectful. This is why many websites now require users to sign in with real accounts before
posting, to reduce the negative effects of online anonymity.

In summary, deindividuation can make people feel less responsible for their actions and
more likely to follow the group, for better or worse. Whether it leads to negative or positive
behavior depends on what the group’s norms are and how anonymous people feel, both in
real life and online.

REDUCING SOCIAL LOAFING

There are several effective ways to reduce social loafing and encourage everyone in a group
to contribute their fair share. One of the most straightforward methods is to make each
person’s effort or output easy to identify. When people know that their individual
contributions are visible to others, they are less likely to slack off and let others do all the
work. In fact, research has shown that when organizations publicly display each team
member’s contributions, people actually work harder, sometimes even harder than if they
were working alone. This is because public recognition motivates people to be seen as
valuable members of the group.

Another way to reduce social loafing is to help group members feel that their contribution
really matters and that the group’s success depends on everyone doing their part. When
people believe their effort will make a difference and lead to a good outcome, they are more
likely to try hard. This is especially true in situations like sports teams, where each player’s
role is clear and everyone feels like part of a tight-knit, cohesive group.

Increasing group members’ commitment to the task is also important. When people care
about the group’s goals and are motivated to succeed together, they are less likely to loaf.
Making the task itself seem important or valuable helps, too. If people think what they are
doing is meaningful, they will put in more effort.

Finally, giving people clear standards or goals can reduce social loafing. If group members
know how much is expected of them—either by comparing their work to others or to their
own past performance—they are more likely to stay motivated. Even simple feedback from
other group members during a project can help keep everyone on track and reduce loafing.

In summary, making individual contributions visible, increasing commitment and the

importance of the task, and providing clear standards and feedback are all useful ways to
reduce social loafing and encourage everyone to participate fully in group work.

GENDER AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE IN SOCIAL LOAFING

Research has shown that there are some differences in social loafing based on gender and
culture. For example, if Kate and William are both working on a group project where no one
can tell exactly how much each person is contributing, William is more likely to slack off than
Kate. Studies looking at over 150 cases of social loafing found that men tend to loaf more
than women. One reason for this could be that women usually care more about their
relationships with others and are more focused on working well with people in a group. This
relational focus makes women less likely to let others do all the work when they are in a
team.

Cultural differences also play a role in social loafing. People from Western cultures, like
those in the United States or Europe, are more likely to engage in social loafing than people
from Asian cultures. This is because people in Asian cultures often see themselves as
connected to others and define themselves through their relationships, which encourages
them to contribute more to group efforts. However, it is important to remember that these
differences are not absolute—women and people from Asian cultures can still loaf in groups,
but they are less likely to do so compared to men or people from Western cultures.

To sum up, whether the presence of others helps or hurts your performance depends on two
main things: whether your individual effort can be measured and whether the task is simple
or complex. If your performance can be seen and judged, having others around usually
makes you more alert and can help you do better on easy tasks, but might make you do
worse on hard tasks (this is called social facilitation). If your efforts cannot be measured, you
might relax too much and not try as hard, especially on simple tasks (this is social loafing),
but you might actually do better on complex tasks because you feel less pressure.

These findings are important for managers and teachers who organize group work. If you
want people to do well on simple tasks, it helps if their individual efforts can be seen and
evaluated. But if the task is difficult and complicated, it might be better to reduce the
pressure of being watched, so that people can focus and do their best work without worrying
about being judged