PREMIUM summaries are quality controlled, selected summaries prepared for you to help you achieve your study goals faster!
Samenvatting - Group Dynamics
1 Perspectives from social, organisational and evolutionary psychology
welke measurement heb je bij groepen?oberservatie en zelf rapportage
welke research methode worden er gebruikt?
- case studies
- correlational studies
What Are the Three Critical Requirements of a Scientific Study of Groups?
- reliable and measurement
- Research procedures to test hypotheses about groups
- Theories that organize knowledge of groups
Group dynamics are the influential actions, processes, and changes that occur within and between groups. Groups come in all shapes and sizes and their functions are many and varied, but their influence is universal. The tendency to join with others in groups is perhaps the single most important characteristic of humans, and the processes that unfold within these groups leave an indelible imprint on their members and on society. To understand people, one must understand groups and their dynamics.
explain what entitativity means?
Entitativity: The apparent cohesiveness or unity of an assemblage of individuals.
what are the core characteristics of a group?
what kind of interaction do you have in groups?Relationship interaction (sustaining relationships, encouraging others, complaining)Task interaction (problem solving, providing guidance, coordination)
what kind of goals and group task do you have?Generation,(rasing new ideas , looking for new markets, reducing cost)Choosing,(deciding which main courses)negogiating, managing difference in opinions(arguing who to blame for loosing, political leaders)executing, taking action, carrying out planes.(sport team, building a house, deadlines)
Primary group e.g. family, friends or military ( ondoordringbare groep)
social group e.g. no interaction, temporary, common goal
Collective group e.g. footbal fans or a theatre, everybody can entre and leave.
Caegories e.g. people with red hair, piercings or women in NL.
interdependce groups are devided in 4 schema's, which ones and give a example for each.
- A<->B<->C and A<->C e.g. Hockeyteam (more equil to eachother)
- A->B, A->C and A->D e.g. Army division (hierarchical without reciprocity)
- A<-> B,A<->C, A<->D e.g. University department (hierarchical with unique reciprocity)
- A->B and B->C e.g. Car manufacturer (sequential interdependence with reciprocity)
what is swarming?Swarming is in a group fish who are swimming around in a group
what kind of cohesion do you have in groups?Social-, task-(deadlines), collective(the group as a whole)-, emotional-(standing at a funeral) and structure-(network boundaries where related elements) cohesion
Why did our ancestors need a group to survive?
- Safety in numbers (selfish herd)Sharing foodInformation sharingAvailability of partnersKeeping warmReduced cost of transport (air, water)
2 Studying groups
Why is Reliable and valid measurement crucial for the scientific study of groupsThere are many things that can go wrong in doing research.Even in technics of observating things can go wrong.Overt: researcher being open about their intentions in the field and ensuring all members of the social group are aware of what is happening. Disadvantage: social desirability behavior.Covert: the researcher not informing members of the group the reason for their presence; keeping their true intentions secret. Disadvantage: 'going native'= perspective is not objective
The capacity of the neocortex of the human brain is positive correlated with the mean group size
Social networking as ultimate function of language (gossip)70% of our conversations concern other people (not necessary around) .which number is the groupnumber where a conversation plit into two groups?5 personsHumans can be studied in 2 ways. Name them!1. self-report data2. observational dataWhich various research methods are there to study group dynamic processes ?and name there own strenght and weaknesses
What are the 3 critical requirements of a scientific study of groups?1. Reliable and valid measurements2. Research procedures to test hypotheses about groups (survey, case study, experiment)3. Theories that organize knowledge of groupsThere are many underlying theoritical perspectives about groupdynamics, name them allMotivational and emotional perspectivesBehavioral perspectives e.g. social exchange theorySystems theory perspectives e.g. input and output system-individual and team effortCognitive perspectives e.g. self categorisation perspective on leadership.Biological/evolutionary perspectives e.g ' If I am being threatened I follow a strong leader'.fysic pai and rejection (social) light up in the same brain regions.The evolution of language - what do people talk about?- Social networking as ultimate function of language (gossip)- 70% of our conversations concern other people (not necessary around)methods and theory's are often complementary
- Case studise: - atypical of most groups, subjective,
- Experiment: - strenght: causal inference (manipulate, measre and controle variables)
- correlational studies: strenght: asses the correlation between variables. the findings are often expressed in the
form of a correlational coefficient
- Issues: - weakness: causal is not clear e.g. stabiliteit zorgt voor rankorde of is het andersom ( football competition). Strenght: precise estimates of the strength of relationships, less artificial, fewer ethical concerns
Study on conversational groups (Dunbar et al. 1991):
- How did they study it?
- On which hypothesis is this study based?
- What is the meaning of the 5 most important contacts (clique)?
- What are the results?
- What are differences between men and women?- They studied people overtly and covertly in a mensa.- This study has to do with the social brain hypothesis: brains cannot manage more than 150 contacts.- When a 5th member is added to a group while talking, a subgroup will form! -> You cannot attend to a conversation with more than 4 people!- Results: 54% of conversations happened with 2 indiv.; 27% happened with 3 people; 13.5% with 4 people. Very few managed to all in a group of 5!- Even with a group of 16 students, people talked in groups of max. 5 people.- In same gender cliques, all members talk about the same amount.- in mixed gendre cliques, the men tend to do the talking and the women the listening.Humans can be studied in 2 ways of meaurement:1. self-report data2. observational dataYou can also study the content of what people talk about. How?With an observational study, which can be:- qualitative or- quantitative (structured)An example is the Interaction Process Analysis System, which looks at the following:- Social-emotional area: pos. retains- Task area: attempted answers- Task area: questions- Socia-emotional area: neg. reactionsWhat are self-report measures? Example of Moreno's sociometry method.- Group members describe their perceptions and experiences.- Example: People where asked e.g. 'Who do you trust?'Then you draw arrows between the circles -> let's you identify the density and the centrality of the group!Group roles:- stars: a lot of arrows pointing towards you (Doc in graph)- isolates (Lou, Alex)- gatekeepers (link between in- and out-group -> Nutsy)- couples (paired)- rejecteds- sociables (a lot of (outgoing) ties)- unsociablesName 4 different research methods for studying groups!1. Case Studies2. Experiments3. Correlational Studies4. IssuesWhat is an case study? Example of Korean air disastersIt is an in-depth analysis of one or more groups based on interviews, observation, analysis of archival documents, and so on.Example: A lot of disasters with Korean airlinesPossible exam question: When was an air disaster more likely to happen, when the pilot or the co-pilot is flying (korean airline)?When the pilot was flying, the co-pilot did not dare to intervene, so more accidents could happen. when the co-pilot was flying, less accidents did happen.-> Explanation: Korea has a high power distance. Therefore, a new training was introduced in order to teach the co-pilots to be more assertive/intervene effectively and the pilots to be less bossy.What are the key ingredients of an experiments as research method? Example of Van Vugt et al. leadership study (2004) cf. Lewin et al. (1939).Key ingredients:- manipulate one or more independent variables- measure one or more dependent variables- control other variables, as much as possibleExample:Dependent variable: You want to stay in this group or do you want to leave?Different conditions:- autocratic leader: the groups actually performed quite well, but the exit of members was high- democratic leader: the number of members wanting to leave was much smaller- Laissez-faire leader: there were really not much leavers.Correlational Studies: What are the key ingredients?; Example of football team study + problem of correlation studyKey ingredients:- measure two ore more variables- assess the strength of the relationship between the variablesExample: What is the effect of team spirit on team performance?Stability, operationaliyed in terms of numbers of players that are here now and that are there last year-Results: football teams perform better (especially in terms of defense), the longer they stay together!!Problem: 3rd variable problem: There is no causality -> what is causing why? Could it be the other way around? The better your performance, the better your stability?Why are correlational studies called like this?Because the findings are often expressed in the form of a correlational coefficient.Key characteristics of, and differences between case, experimental, and correlational studies of group processes- Case studies: atypical of most groups, subjective, stimulate theory- Experiments: too artificial, not "real" groups, but clearest test of cause and effect- Correlational studies: limited information about causality but precise estimates of the strength of relationships, less artificial, fewer ethical concernsTheoretical perspectives - motivational & emotional: Are people with a high SE differently motivated in term of choosing a leader?Is about self-esteem.YES, people with more SE prefer more assertive leaders!Theoretical perspectives - behavioral perspectives (social exchange theory)Social exchange theory: who you vote for to lead the group depends on your satisfaction level. You're more likely to vortex for Obama, if your satisfaction level of the current leader is low, if there are no good alternatives, and if you have already invested a lot (you've always voted for Obama).-> This perspective is about costs & rewardsTheoretical perspectives - Systems' theory perspective:This is a holistic approach.Input-Process-Output Model of Group Performance:The outcome could e.g. be for whom you vote.According to the systems' theory perspective, this is determined by team interactions processes that in turn are influenced by individual-level factors, team-level factors, and environmental factors (e.g. if there currently is a war).Issues: Key characteristics of, and differences between case, experimental, and correlational studies of group processes- Case studies: atypical of most groups, subjective, stimulate theory- Experiments: too artificial, not "real" groups, but clearest test of cause and effect- Correlational studies: limited information about causality but precise estimates of the strength of relationships, less artificial, fewer ethical concernsTheoretical Perspectives - Cognitive perspective:Relationship between perceptional processes and leadership influence.Example of self-categorization perspective on leadership. You vote for the one who embodies the best your own perspective on a certain topic you have a strong opinion about (as e.g. abortion).Theoretical perspectives - Biological/Evolutionary perspective:Biological perspectives, such as evolutionary theory, argue that some group behaviors may be rooted in physiological and neurological processes.Brain regains recruited during social rejection (same as physical) -> anterior insula.In humans, social exclusion is so crucial that it is experienced in the same way as physical pain.Who you choose as a leader has to do with the situation your country is in! In war situations, more … leaders are chosen; in times of peace, more … leaders are chosen.war: masculine leaderspeace: feminine leadersBaby face traits are seen as more ...There is something as a cheater detection in people. What does this mean?People tend to be able to detect whether people are cheaters or not from their faces.What were the main findings of the study 'the collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network'?- There were many more smokers in 1971 than in 2000 and the smokers occupied the centre of their circles of friend and family to the same extent that non-smokers did.- However, by 2000, most people had stopped smoking, and those who still smoked were more likely to be at the periphery of the network.- There were whole clusters of connected smokers that quitted smoking together (so no gradual and indiv. act).- there was an increased tendency for smokers to be connected primarily to other smokers.- The risk of smoking is highest when directly connected to a smoker (61% = 1st degree separation) and it decreases the further away you are of the smoking network member. (2nd degree separation: 29%; 3rd degree separation: 11%)- Nature of social tie is important too
What are the different types of observation?- overt- covert- participantWith observation, bodylanguage and verbal speaking is very importantWhat is the conclusion of the Farmington heart study?There were less smokers in 2000, education from 1971, then not a smoker anymore in 2000. If you smoke, you are expected to have a direct relation with a smoker. There are 3 sorts of influence: direct, second and third. If you smoke is determined by the behaviour of friends, friends of friends etc.What was a negative point of the study of leadership?validity is more a combination of different styles, that is more commonLees volledige samenvattingDeze samenvatting: GRATIS. +380.000 andere samenvattingen: GRATIS. Een mini bootcamp effectief studeren: GRATIS. Een unieke studietool: GRATIS. Een oefentool voor deze samenvatting: GRATIS
- smoking cessation by a spouse decreased a person's chances of smoking by 67%
- smoking cessation by a sibling decreased the chafes by 25%
- s. c. by a friend decreased the chances by 36%
- Among colleagues (that interact), smoking cessation decreased by 34%
Example questions in this summaryWhy is Reliable and valid measurement crucial for the scientific study of groups8which number is the groupnumber where a conversation plit into two groups?8There are many underlying theoritical perspectives about groupdynamics, name them all8Explain the tit for tat strategy8