Chapter 1
Entitativity: Does the group look like a group?
To describe the extent to which a group seems to be a single, unified entity—a
real group.
Entitativity; the “groupiness” of a group, perceived rather than actual group
unity or cohesion
According to Campbell: entitativity is influenced by similarity, proximity &
common fate & perceptual cues as pragnanz (good form) & permeability
Proximity: for the smaller the distance separating individuals, the more likely
perceivers will assume they are seeing a group rather than individuals who
happen to be collocated
Common fate: if all the members begin to act in similar ways or move in a
relatively coordinated fashion, then your confidence that this cluster is a unified
group would be bolstered
Groups:
Primary group (professional sports teams, families, and close friends),
received the highest entitativity ratings
followed by social groups (e.g., a jury, an airline crew, a team in the
work- place)
categories (e.g., women, doctors, classical music listeners)
collectives (e.g., people waiting for a bus, a queue in a bank).
Suggests that:
people are more likely to consider aggregations marked by strong bonds
and frequent interactions among members to be groups
social categories were viewed as more group-like than such temporary
gatherings as waiting lines and audiences and, in some cases,
task-focused groups
Thomas Theorem: which maintains that people’s conception of a social
situation, even if incorrect, will determine their reactions in the situation; “If
men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”
(applied to groups) → theorem predicts that if people define groups as real, they
are real in their consequences
Once people think an aggregate of people is a true group—one with
entitativity, (as Donald Campbell suggested)—then the group will have
important interpersonal consequences for those in the group and those
who are observing it.
The shift in thinking triggers a series of psychological & interpersonal changes
for both members & non-members
As entitativity increases members identify more with the group and its
goals, they value their membership more, and they feel more bonded to
the group
,1.2 What are group Dynamics
Essentialism: The belief that all things, including individuals and groups, have a
basic nature that makes them what they are and distinguishes them from other
things; a thing’s essence is usually inferred rather than directly observed and is
generally assumed to be relatively unchanging.
Dynamic Group Processes:
Dynamic: t o be strong, powerful and energetic - implies influence of forces that
combine to create continual motion and change
Group Dynamics: 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.
(e.g: groups tend to become more cohesive over time.--> Larger groups often
break down into smaller subgroups.)
In most groups, one person is allowed to exert more influence over the other
members.
Even in the most temperate of group climates, disagreements can lead to
prolonged conflicts. Why? Because these processes occur with predictable
regularity in groups.
Formative Processes:
Reliable alliances - due to their recognition they needed the group to survive to
climb
Influence Processes: importance of coordination in action with actions of
others in group, also the fact that you need to adapt to others
Performance Processes:
Performance can be better when in a group because groups get things done
Conflict processes:
Conflict is omnipresent in and between groups
When conflict occurs in a group, the actions or beliefs of one or more
members of the group are unacceptable to and resisted by one or more of
the other members.
These tensions tend to undermine the cohesiveness of the group and
cause specific relationships within the group to weaken or break
altogether.
Contextual processes:
How contextual factors affect group dynamics
Why study groups?
Groups tend to be powerful rather than weak
Understanding people:
, When people encountter a group - tend to see only the individuals
in these groups and not the groups themselves → they resist
explainations that highlight group-level influences
Fundamental attribution error (FAE): occurs because perceivers
are more likely to attribute a person’s actions to personal, individual
qualities rather than external, situational forces—including groups
Perceivers are often surprised when the same individual acts
differently when he or she changes groups
If you want to understand individuals you must understand groups
people acquire their attitudes, values, identities, skills, and
principles in groups
Groups change people
People, when in groups, conform to group pressures, and as
a result engage in all sorts of behaviors that they would
never do had they been isolated from the group’s influence
Theory of national cultures: (Hofstedes)
Power Distance Index (PDI): indicator of inequality within a given culture
When low: cultures strive to minimize inequalities in the distribution
of power within society
When High: both those with/without power accept hierachy as the
natural order of things
Individualism (IDV): contrasts group-centered & more individualistic
cultures
The more individualistic cultures: ties between people are loser
Collective cultures: people are integrates into cohesive groups that
support them in exchange for their loyalty
Masculinity (MAS): extent to which masculinity & its associated elements
are manifested in the culture’s practice
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI): extent to which the cultures practices
minimize uncertainty & ambiguity
Understanding the Social world
Groups are the interpersonal micro-structures that link individuals
to society
the groups within a social system determine that society’s culture
and institutions
Applications to practical problems:
Groups are now the makers, the builders, and producers of nearly
everything the world needs and consume
The value of groups:
Groups are often the arena for profound interpersonal conflicts that end in
violence and aggression
, Ch.2 Studying Groups
2.1 Scientific Study of Groups
Groups dynamics resulted from group processes
Paradigm: Scientists’ shared assumptions about the phenomena they study; & a set of research
procedures
Determines the questions they consider worth studying, using methods that are most
appropriate
2.1A The individual and the group
Wundt: book “folk psychology” - “group psychology”: combined elements of anthropology and
psychology by examining the conditions and changes displayed by social aggregates and how
groups influence members’ cognitive and perceptual processes
Levels of Analysis
→ Focus of study when examining a multilevel process/phenomenon (e.g: individual-level or
group-level of analysis)
Group-level analysis: humans are the constitutive elements of groups & groups and their
processes have impact on their members (sociological researchers)
Individual-level analysis: focus on person in group (psychological researchers)
Durkheim: suicide traced back to group-level processes: individuals who aren’t members of
friendship, family or religious groups can experience anomie and so: more likely to commit suicide
Collective representations: widely shared belief, cornerstone of society, “emotions and
tendencies are generated not by certain states of individual consciousness, but by the
conditions under which the social body as a whole exists”
group fallacy: Explaining social phenomena in terms of the group as a whole instead of basing the
explanation on the individual-level processes within the group; ascribing psychological qualities,
such as will, intentionality, and mind, to a group rather than to the individuals within the group.
The Group Mind
Group mind (or collective consciousness): A hypothetical unifying mental force linking group
members together; the fusion of individual consciousness or mind into a transcendent
consciousness.
The reality of groups:
Researchers have Never found any evidence that group members are linked by psychic, telepathic
connection that creates a single group mind
Norms are not just individual members’ personal standards,BUT shared among group members.
Only when members agree on a particular standard does it function as a norm, so embedded at
group level rather than at individual level
Sherif: norm is more than just the sum of individual beliefs of all the members of a group
Found:
Men gradually accepted a standard estimate in place of their own idiosyncratic judgments
BUT even when men were later given the opportunity to make judgments alone, they still
based their estimates on the group’s norm
Lewin and Interactionism !!!!
Field theory: premised on interactionism: assumes that actions, processes and responses of people
in groups (behavior) are determined by interaction of the person and the environment
