SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

UNIT:4

NATURE OF GROUPS

No individual has any existence apart from his group. From birth till death,
human being is always a member of some group or other and his behaviour is
constantly influenced by the group to which he belongs at that time.

All groups, despite their distinctive characteristics, possess common properties

and dynamics. When researchers study a group, they must go beyond its unique
qualities to consider characteristics that appear with consistency in most
groups. Some of these qualities, such as what the group members are doing and
the tasks they are attempting, are relatively obvious ones. Other qualities, such
as the degree of interdependence among members or the group’s overall unity,
are harder to discern.

• DEFINITION

A group involves people who perceive themselves to be part of a coherent,

logical, and consistent unit that they perceive as different from another group.

Sheriff and Sheriff states that “a group is a social unit which consists of a
number of individuals who stand in (more or less) definite status and role
relationship to one another and which possesses a set of values or norms of its
own regulating the behavior of individual members at last in matters of
consequence to the group”.

Baron and Byrne say, “Groups consist of two or more persons engaged in social
interaction who have some stable structure relationship with one another, are
interdependent, share common goals and perceive that they are in fact part of
a group.” Thus, when two or more individuals gather together to serve a common
purpose or common motive it is called a group”.

A group is two or more individuals who are connected by and within social
relationships.

• CHARACTERISTICS
Some easily detectable characteristics of a group are as follows:

- Social Unit

Groups always develop in social context or in society. Social unit means a kind
of bounded system of interaction delineated from others, i.e, an in-group
feeling or a feeling of oneness.

- Status: role of Hierarchies

Many groups have hierarchies with members differing in status—their rank

within the group. Sometimes it is an “official position” and sometimes it is
not so explicit and instead is simply the “old-timers” in a group who are
accorded higher status compared to “newcomers.”

People are often extremely sensitive to their status within a group because
it is linked to a wide range of desirable outcomes— everything from respect
and deference from other group members to material benefits such as salary
received.

Evolutionary psychologists attach considerable importance to status

attainment within a group, noting that in many different species, including
our own, high status confers important advantages on those who possess it.

People can acquire status in the context of many factors:

(i) Physical attributes such as height may play some role—taller men and
women have a consistent edge, especially in the workplace. Those who are
taller are held in higher esteem compared to shorter people—they are
literally “looked up to.” Meta-analyses have revealed that taller people earn
more in salary, are perceived as having more skills, and are more likely to be
nominated as leader of groups relative to shorter people.

(ii) Factors relating to individuals’ behavior also play a critical role in status
acquisition. People who are seen as prototypical—by embodying the group’s
central attributes—are particularly likely to be accorded status and be
selected as leader of a group.

(iii) Longevity or seniority in a group too can result in higher status—to the
extent that it is seen as reflective of wisdom or knowledge of ingroup ways.

Once status within a group is obtained, people with high status actually
behave differently than those with lower status.
Guinote, Judd, and Brauer observed that high-status group members are
more “idiosyncratic and variable” in their behavior than are lower-status
group members. Indeed, there appears to be an awareness of the need to
conform to group norms more strongly among those who are junior in a group
and therefore have lower status.

Across a number of different samples from professional to student groups

where status varied, people with high status report conforming less than
people with lower status.

By portraying themselves as open to group influence, low-status group

members may be helping to ensure they become accepted in the organization.
In fact, newcomers who lack status in a group are more likely to be
subjected to punishments if they fail to yield to those with higher status.

- Roles: differentiation of Functions

Everyone in the group perform different tasks and are expected to

accomplish different things for the group. In short, they play different
roles.

Sometimes roles are assigned; for instance, a group may select different
individuals to serve as its leader, treasurer, or secretary. In other cases,
individuals gradually acquire certain roles without being formally assigned to
them.

Regardless of how roles are acquired, in many groups, someone often serves
as the “good listener,” taking care of members’ emotional needs, while
another person tends to specialize in “getting things done.”

To the extent that people internalize their social roles—those roles are
linked to key aspects of the self-concept—they can have important
implications for psychological well-being. Enacting a role well can lead people
to feel that their behavior reflects their authentic self.

While roles are not automatic determinants of behavior, when they are
internalised they can affect how we see ourselves, who we identify with, and
our actions. Once people identify with a role, the norms—or appropriate ways
for “people like us” to act—guide our behavior and, even our emotions.

Roles specify the general behaviors expected of people who occupy different
positions within the group. The roles of leader and follower are fundamental
ones in many groups, but other roles— information seeker, information giver,
elaborator, procedural technician, encourager, compromiser, harmonizer—
may emerge in any group.

- Norms

Groups powerfully affect the behavior of their members via norms—implicit

rules that inform people about what is expected of them.

Group members’ actions and interactions are also shaped by their group’s
norms—consensual standards that describe what behaviors should and should
not be performed in a given context.

Norms within a group are defined and renegotiated over time, and conflicts
often emerge as members violate norms. In group meetings, the opinions of
members with higher status carry more weight than those of the rank-and-
file members.

Many employers demand that the service providers “always smile” at

customers, no matter how annoying or rude they may be! In this case, norms
for displaying positive feelings are specific to these kinds of employment
settings.

Perhaps socialization into groups involves more than being told how to “act”
emotionally.

An important norm that varies considerably across cultures, but can also
apply differentially to groups within a culture, is collectivism versus
individualism. In collectivist groups, the norm is to maintain harmony among
group members, even if doing so might entail some personal costs. In
contrast, in individualistic groups, the norm is to value standing out from the
group and be different from others. Therefore, greater tolerance might be
expected for those who deviate from group norms in individualist groups
than in collectivist groups.

The potential costs of violating a group’s norms, at least in the eyes of those
who highly value that group, is the widely invited dislikedness from the group
members.

- Cohesiveness
Cohesiveness refers to all the forces that cause members to remain in the
group. Cohesive groups have a sense of solidarity; they see themselves as
homogenous, supportive of ingroup members, cooperative with ingroup
members, aim to achieve group goals rather than individual goals, have high
morale, and perform better than noncohesive groups.

Outgroup members may find it difficult to gain acceptance in cohesive

groups—they may not “fit” the norms all that well. The presence of an
outgroup or other form of competitive threat tends to increase cohesion and
commitment to local community groups.

All groups require a modicum of cohesiveness, else the group would

disintegrate and cease to exist as a group.

- Entitativity

Entitativity refers to the extent to which groups are perceived as coherent

wholes.

Entitativity can range from, at the low end, a mere collection of individuals
who happen to be in the same place at the same time and who have little or
no connection with one another, to at the high end, where members of
intimate groups such as families share a name, a history, and an identity.

Those groups that are rated as high in entitativity also tend to be groups
that people rate as relatively important to them. Groups high in entitativity
are also perceived as persisting across time, although the specific members
may change, whereas those low in entitativity are often not seen as
possessing such continuity.

Groups high in entitativity tend to have the following characteristics: (1)

members interact with one another often, although not necessarily in a face-
to-face setting (2) the group is important in some way to its members; (3)
members share common goals; and (4) they are similar to one another in
important ways. The higher groups are on these dimensions, the more they
will be seen by their members and non-members alike as forming coherent
entities—real groups that can, and often do, exert powerful effects upon
their members.

Highly entitative groups are more likely to be stereotyped than are groups
low in entitativity.
People even use different language to describe entitative groups compared
to those low in entitativity. Abstract language is used to imply that high
entitativity groups are enduring and that they possess distinct
characteristics that differentiate them from other groups, whereas groups
low in entitativity are seen as less distinctive and members are less likely to
be characterized as sharing attributes.

Perhaps, it is not the size of a group per se that matters for entitativity—
some small and some large groups are perceived to be high in entitativity. It
is behavioral features such as sharing of resources, reciprocating favors
among group members, recognition of group authorities, and adherence to
group norms that tend to result in greater entitativity rather than
structural features of groups.

- Interaction

Group members exchange information with each other, through both verbal
and nonverbal communication; they get into arguments, talk over issues, and
make decisions.

They upset each other, give one another help and support, and take
advantage of each other’s weaknesses. They work together to accomplish
difficult tasks, but they sometimes slack off when they think others will not
notice.

Group members teach each other new things and they touch each other
literally and emotionally. Group interaction is as varied as human behavior
itself.

Bales concluded that interactions are of two basic types:

(i) Relationship interaction (or socioemotional interaction) pertains to the

interpersonal, social side of group life. When group members disagree with
the others, they are often roundly criticized and made to feel foolish.

(ii) Task interaction, in contrast, includes all group behavior that is focused
principally on the group’s work, projects, plans, and goals. In most groups,
members must coordinate their various skills, resources, and motivations so
that the group can make a decision, generate a product, or achieve a victory.
- Goals

Groups make it easier to attain our goals. For this reason, much of the
world’s work is done by groups rather than by individuals.

Joseph E. McGrath’s circumplex model of group tasks brings order to the

many goal-related activities that groups undertake. McGrath’s model
distinguishes among four basic group goals: generating ideas or plans,
choosing a solution, negotiating a solution to a conflict, or executing
(performing) a task.

- Interdependence

When people join groups they soon discover that they are no longer masters
of their own fate.

Interdependence means that members depend on one another; their

outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experiences are determined in
part by others in the group. Some groups create only the potential for
interdependence among members.

- Unity

(include the concepts of cohesion and entitativity)

• TYPES OF GROUP

- Primary and secondary groups

- Formal and Informal Groups
- Ingroups and Outgroups
- Autocratic and Democratic groups
- Face to Face and Co acting groups
- Membership and Reference groups

• FUNCTIONS OF A GROUP
- Fulfillment of the basic needs
- Emotional Support
 - Security and protection
- Socialization of the child
- Providing social identity
- Transmission of culture
- Social control
- Achievement of goals
- Personality development
- Development of ethics and morality
- Development of sense of working together
- Development of leadership quality
- Decision making and problem solving
- Teaches us the democratic way of working
- Development of the society.

GROUP DYNAMICS
Group dynamics are the influential processes that take place in groups and also
the discipline devoted to the scientific analysis of those dynamics.

Group dynamics describes both a subject matter and a scientific field of study.
When Kurt Lewin (1951) described the way groups and individuals act and react
to changing circumstances, he named these processes group dynamics.

Kurt Lewin, chose the word dynamic to describe the activities, processes,
operations, and changes that transpire in groups. This word suggests that
groups are powerful and influential: they change their members and society-at-
large. Dynamic systems are also fluid rather than static, for they develop and
evolve over time.

Groups have a profound impact on individuals: they shape actions, thoughts, and
feelings. Some of these changes are subtle ones. Groups can also change their
members by prompting them to change their attitudes and values as they come
to agree with the overall consensus of the group.

People acquire their attitudes, values, identities, skills, and principles in groups,
and become practiced at modifying their behavior in response to social norms
and others’ requirements.

Groups also change people more dramatically. Groups may just be collections of
individuals, but these collections change their members.
Group dynamics deal with the attitudes and behavioural patterns of a group.
group dynamics concern: how groups are formed; what is their structure; which
processes are followed in their functioning. Thus, it is concerned with the
interactions and forces operating between groups. Group dynamics is relevant to
groups of all kinds- both formal and informal.

Group dynamics are shaped by processes that range along the micro-meso-macro
continuum.

• PRINCIPLES

- The members of the group must have a strong sense of belonging to the
group. The barrier between the leader and to be led must be broken down.

- The more attraction a group has to its members, the greater influence it
would exercise on its members.

- The greater the prestige of the group member in the eyes of other
members, the greater influence he would exercise on the theme.

• GROUP DEVELOPMENT

Bruce Tuckman’s theory of group development, assumes that most groups

move through the five stages.

In the forming phase, the group members become oriented toward one
another.

In the storming phase, conflicts surface in the group as members vie for
status and the group sets its goals.

These conflicts subside when the group becomes more structured and
standards emerge in the norming phase.

In the performing phase, the group moves beyond disagreement and

organizational matters to concentrate on the work to be done.

The group continues to function at this stage until it reaches the adjourning
stage, when it disbands.

Groups also tend to cycle repeatedly through some of these stages as group
members strive to maintain a balance between task-oriented actions and
emotionally expressive behaviors.
 A group, in a very real sense, is alive: It acquires energy and resources from
its environment, maintains its structure, and grows over time.

• PRACTICALITY

A multilevel perspective makes it clear that many of the most important

aspects of human existence, including individuals, organizations, communities,
and cultures, cannot be fully understood without an understanding of groups.

Groups are relevant to many applied areas. Much of the world’s work is done
by groups, so by understanding groups we move toward making them more
efficient. The study of groups in the work setting has long occupied business-
oriented researchers, who are concerned with the effective organization of
people.

The application of group dynamics to practical problems is consistent with

Lewin’s call for action research.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE
The presence of others can affect our performance—sometimes positively and
sometimes negatively.

• SOCIAL FACILITATION

Zajonc and his colleagues were intent on making a point about a group
phenomenon called social facilitation (i.e., the effects of the presence of
others on performance).

Zajonc argued that the mere presence of others would only facilitate a well
learned response, but that it could inhibit a less-practiced or “new” response.
He noted that the presence of others increases physiological arousal and, as
a result, any dominant response will be facilitated. This means that we can
focus better on something we know or have practiced when we’re aroused, but
that same physiological arousal will create problems when we’re dealing with
something new or complex. This reasoning became known as the drive theory
of social facilitation because it focuses on arousal or drive-based effects on
performance. The presence of others will improve individuals’ performance
when they are highly skilled at the task in question, but will interfere with
performance when they are not highly skilled—for instance, when they are
learning to perform it.

However, other researchers thought that performance might sometimes be

disrupted by the presence of an audience because of apprehension about
having their performance evaluated. This evaluation apprehension idea was
studied by Cottrell. In fact, several of their experiments found that social
facilitation did not occur when an audience was blindfolded, or displayed no
interest in watching the person performing the task.

Some have suggested that the presence of others, either as an audience or as

co-actors, can be distracting and, for this reason, it can produce cognitive
overload (e.g., Baron, 1986). Because performers must divide their attention
between the task and the audience, such increased cognitive load can result in
a tendency to restrict one’s attention so as to focus only on essential cues or
stimuli while “screening out” nonessential ones. Several findings offer support
for this view, known as distraction conflict theory.

• SOCIAL LOAFING

On additive tasks- tasks for which the group product is the sum or combination
of the efforts of individual members- some people will work hard, while others
goof off and do less than they would if working alone. Social psychologists
refer to such effects as social loafing—reductions in effort when individuals
work collectively compared to when they work individually.

Social loafing has been demonstrated in many different task contexts. For
example, in one of the first studies on this topic, Latane, Williams, and Harkins
asked groups of male students to clap or cheer as loudly as possible at specific
times.

To make sure participants were not affected by the actual noise of other
participants, they wore headphones, through which noise-making was played at
a constant volume. They performed these tasks in groups of two, four, or six
people. Results indicated that although the total amount of noise rose as group
size increased, the amount produced by each participant dropped. In other
words, each person put out less and less effort as the size of the group
increased.

Such effects appear to be quite general in scope, and occur with respect to
many different tasks—cognitive ones as well as those involving physical effort.
 Likewise, social loafing occurs among students working on team projects. Price,
Harrison, and Gavin identified several psychological factors that affect
students’ social loafing on team projects.

(i) First, those who felt “dispensable” to the group were more likely to loaf.

(ii)Second, the more fairness that was perceived in the group generally, the
less likely students were to loaf. When participants had substantial knowledge
and skills relating to the task, they felt less dispensable.

(iii) In addition, dissimilarity from the other group members led participants
to feel more dispensable, and thus more likely to loaf.

- Reducing Social loafing

The most obvious way of reducing social loafing involves making the output or
effort of each participant readily identifiable. The most obvious way of
reducing social loafing involves making the output or effort of each
participant readily identifiable.

Second, groups can reduce social loafing by increasing group members’

commitment to successful task performance. Pressures toward working hard
will then serve to offset temptations to engage in social loafing.

Third, social loafing can be reduced by increasing the apparent importance or

value of a task.

Fourth, people are less likely to loaf if they are given some kind of standard
of performance—either in terms of how much others are doing or their own
past performance.

Together, use of these tactics can sharply reduce social loafing—and the
temptation to “goof off” at the expense of others.

CONSEQUENCES OF GROUP BELONGINGNESS

• PERFORMANCE

When important tasks need to be performed quickly or effectively, we

frequently create groups to accomplish them. Many people believe that groups
are more effective than individuals in performing tasks and such a belief seems
common-sensical. After all, because groups have many members, they will also
have more resources and thus more ability to efficiently perform tasks and
make good decisions. However, although groups sometimes do perform better
than individuals, this outcome is not guaranteed.

(now explain social inhibition and facilitation)

• COOPERATION AND CONFLICT

(not included in syllabus)

• DECISION MAKING

DECISION MAKING
One of the most important activities that groups perform is decision
making—deciding on one out of several possible courses of action.
Governments, corporations, and many other organizations entrust key
decisions to groups.

People turn to groups because, in most cases, groups are better at choosing,
judging, estimating, and problem solving than are individuals. Groups form
more accurate perceptions of people than do individuals. Groups using Google
can find the information they need faster than single individuals can.

None of us alone is as smart as all of us together.

Compared to individuals, groups generate more correct solutions, and they

are also better at checking for errors in calculations and faulty inferences
about the problems.

If a group member recommends a solution that is inaccurate, groups are

more likely to reject that solution. Groups, when they do make mistakes, also
err later in the decision process than do individuals, in part because groups
are more proficient at noticing and correcting errors than are individuals.

• FUNCTIONAL THEORY of group decision making

A functional theory of group decision making suggests that skilled decision-

making groups are more likely to make use of group procedures that enhance
the way they gather, analyze, and weigh information.
Although no two groups reach their decisions in precisely the same way, the
stages examined are often evidence when groups make decisions.

- The group defines the problem, sets goals, and develops a strategy in the
Orientation Phase.

Decisions begin with a problem that needs a solution. Situations trigger a

decision-making process that often begins with recognition of the
unsatisfactory state of the current situation and the search for a solution.
But groups also meet, more routinely, to check progress, review feedback,
identify any possible issues, and to identify new goals.

In the first stage of problem solving the group must organize the procedures
it will use in its work. Members clarify the group’s goals, identify the
resources needed to make the decision, enumerate obstacles that must be
overcome or avoided, specify the procedures to be followed in gathering
information and making the decision, and agree on procedures to follow
during the meeting.

All this planning provides the blueprint for “the order in which a sequence of
operations is to be performed”. The group should, by the end of the
orientation phase, understand its purpose, its procedures, and the tasks that
it will undertake.

It includes defining the problem; and the planning process.

- Next, during the Discussion Phase, the group gathers information about
the situation and, if a decision must be made, identifies and considers
options.

During the discussion stage, group members gather and process the
information needed to make a decision.

An information processing approach to decisions assumes that people strive,

in most cases, to make good decisions by acquiring the information that is
relevant to the issue and processing that information thoroughly, so that its
implications are clearly understood.

A collective information processing approach to decision making also assumes

that people seek out and process relevant information, but that they do this
cognitive work during the group discussion. Three information processing
gains that result from discussion are —improved memory for information,
increased information exchange, and more thorough processing of
information.

- In the Decision Phase, the group chooses its solution by reaching

consensus, voting, or using some other social decision process.

A social decision scheme is a group’s method for combining individual

members’ inputs in a single group decision. Some groups have clearly defined
ways of making a decision—their bylaws may state.

Social Decision Scheme talks about the ways that a group can reach a
decision. James Davis distinguished between several explicit or implicit
decision-making rules that groups can adopt:

• Unanimity- a situation or state when there is a complete agreement about

something among a group of people)-discussion is aimed at pressuring
deviants to conform

• Majority Wins- discussion confirms the majority position, which is then

adapted as the group position.

• Truth Wins- discussion reveals the position that can be demonstrated to be

correct

• Two-Thirds Majority- unless there is a two-thirds majority, the group is

unable to reach a decision.

• First Shift- the Group ultimately adopts a decision in line with the
direction of the first shift in opinion shown by many members of the group.

In many cases, though, the social decision scheme is an implicit one that is
taken for granted by group. Some common social decision schemes are
delegation, averaging, voting, consensus (discussion to unanimity), and random
choice.

- In the Implementation Phase, the decision must be put into action and the
impact of the decision assessed.

When the die is cast and the decision made, two significant pieces of work
remain to be done. First, the decision must be implemented. Second, the
quality of the decision must be evaluated.
Procedural Justice: Implementation is affected by procedural justice: group
members’ evaluation of the fairness in the processes that the group used to
make its decisions.

Participation and Voice: Many factors influence perceptions of procedural

fairness, but when people believe that they had a voice in the matter—that
they could have expressed any concerns they had and others would have
listened and responded— then they tend to be far more engaged in the
implementation of the final decision.

Groups that follow these four stages are more likely to make better
decisions than those who sidestep or mishandle information at any particular
stage

• REACHING A CONSENSUS

When groups first begin to discuss any issue, their members rarely start out
in complete agreement. Rather, they come to the decision-making task with a
range of views. After some period of discussion however groups usually do
reach a decision. It is accomplished by knowing the techniques of reaching
consensus, like initial preference and group polarization.

- Initial Preference

First thing which involves the fact that during group discussion, most
arguments favor the group's initial preference. As a result of hearing
such arguments, members shift, increasingly, towards the majority's
view. Consequently, the proportion of discussion favoring the group's
initial preference increases so that ultimately, members convince
themselves that this must be the "right" view.

- Group Polarization

A large body of evidence indicates that groups are actually more likely to
adopt extreme positions than if its members made those same decisions
alone.

Across many different kinds of decisions and many different contexts,

groups show a pronounced tendency to shift toward views that are more
extreme than the ones with which they initially began. This is known as
group polarization.
Whatever the initial leaning or preference of a group prior to its
discussions, this preference is strengthened during the group’s
deliberations. As a result, groups make more extreme decisions than
individuals. Initial research on this topic suggested that groups move
toward riskier alternatives as they discuss important issues.

Groups do not urge restraint; instead, they polarize. Group polarization is

the tendency for members of a deliberating group to move to a more
extreme position, with the direction of the shift determined by the
majority or average of the members’ pre-deliberation preferences.

Polarization may, in some cases, yield positive effects. Polarization may

also encourage the strengthening of positions within the group that might
go unexpressed or even be suppressed.

Thus, polarization, though sometimes a source of error and bias, can in

some cases have a beneficial impact on the group and its members.

• POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ERROR

The drift of many decision-making groups toward polarization is a serious

problem— one that can interfere with their ability to make sound
decisions, but this is not the only process that can exert such negative
effects.

- Groupthink

When cohesiveness reaches very high levels, groupthink may develop. This
is a strong tendency for decision-making groups to “close ranks” around a
decision, to assume that the group can’t be wrong, with pressure for all
members to support the decision strongly, and to reject any information
contrary to the decision.

Research indicates that once groupthink develops, groups become

unwilling to change their decisions, even when initial outcomes suggest
that those decisions were very poor ones.

Groupthink is “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are

deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members’ strivings for
unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative
courses of actions”.
During groupthink, members try so hard to agree with one another that
they make mistakes and commit errors that could easily be avoided.

Janis identified a number of recurring patterns that occur in groupthink

situations. He organized these symptoms into three categories:
overestimation of the group, closed-mindedness, and pressures toward
uniformity.

(i) Overestimation of the group: Groups that have fallen into the trap of
groupthink are actually planning fiascos and making all the wrong choices.

(ii) Closed-mindedness: Groups that are overtaken by groupthink are not

open-minded groups, searching for new ideas and perspectives. Rather,
they are closed-minded—rigidly shut off from alternatives, merely
seeking to bolster their initial decision through rationalization. One key
element of this closure is the tendency to view other groups in biased,
simplistic ways.

(iii) Pressures toward Uniformity: The struggle for consensus is an

essential and unavoidable aspect of life in groups, but in groupthink
situations, interpersonal pressures make agreeing too easy and
disagreeing too difficult.

Self-censorship is Janis’s term for a personal ban on expressing

disagreements about the group’s decisions. In the planning group, many of
the members of the group privately felt uncertain about the plan, but
they kept their doubts to themselves.

Research findings suggest that two factors are crucial for groupthink to
occur:

(i) One of these is a very high level of cohesiveness among group members
and the fact that supportive group members in the leader’s “inner circle”
exert a disproportional impact on the ultimate decision making.

(ii) The second is emergent group norms—norms suggesting that the

group is infallible, morally superior, and because of these factors, there
should be no further discussion of the issues at hand; the decision has
been made, and the only valid response is to support it as strongly as
possible.

- Failure to Share Information

A second potential source of bias in decision-making groups involves the
fact that such groups do not always be able to share information and
ideas unique to each member. In such cases, the tendency of group
members to discuss mainly the Information they all already possess may
prevent them from reaching the best decision.

- Brainstorming

In brainstorming—a process whereby people meet as a group to generate

new ideas—it has generally been assumed that more creative output will
emerge than when the same people work as individuals. But in contrast to
this expectation, brainstorming does not on the whole result in more
creative ideas being generated than if the same people worked alone.

Dugosh and Paulus investigated both cognitive and social aspects of

brainstorming, particularly the effects of idea exposure. This is
especially important because the benefits of brainstorming were assumed
to result from group members’ exposure to others’ creativity. These
researchers considered whether exposure to common or unique ideas by
other group members would result in similar quality ideas being generated
by the other participants, as well as whether people engage in social
comparison during brainstorming.

Exposure to a larger quantity of ideas did in fact result in more ideas

being generated by participants. Moreover, participants who were led to
believe they were being exposed to people-generated ideas, as opposed to
computer-selected ideas, produced more high-quality ideas—presumably
because participants felt the need to be as creative as those “other
people.”