Social Psychology Lecture 11

Social psychology lecture 11 l.jpg
1 / 37
871 days ago, 369 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Eureka Task (Lorge et al, 1958). Desirous husbands3 wedded couples need to cross the waterway yet there is just 1 vessel

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

Social Psychology Lecture 11 Group Performance Jane Clarbour Room PS/B007 Email

Slide 2

Eureka Task (Lorge et al, 1958) Jealous spouses 3 wedded couples need to cross the waterway yet there is just 1 watercraft… . Standards of the undertaking: Only men can push the pontoon Wives can't cross with another man unless the spouse is available

Slide 3

Lorge et al's discoveries… Individuals just 3/21 tackled issue Groups 3/5 tackled issue Why????

Slide 4

Overview Group procedures Steiner's typology of errand Brainstorming Processes required in profitability Additive undertakings Disjunctive assignments

Slide 5

Objectives Give a record of Steiner's typology of errands Specify the impacts of gathering size on added substance undertakings Specify the impacts of gathering size on disjunctive assignments Review confirm on the adequacy of "conceptualizing" as a system for amplifying bunch execution.

Slide 6

Theory of gathering execution T heoretical system (Steiner, 1972) Performance is dependant upon 3 classes of factors: Task requests Resources Process

Slide 7

Task requests The strategies important to play out an errand . Errand requests as 'building arrangements' home being assembled materials required apparatuses to utilize request of work Management of aggregate process

Slide 8

Resources Relevant belonging of individuals in gathering learning capacities aptitudes devices

Slide 9

Group Processes What the gathering does "Process" alludes to the genuine strides brought when stood up to with an assignment The degree that the aggregate succession of practices relates to the example requested by the undertaking Formula:- Actual efficiency = potential profitability (less misfortunes because of flawed procedures)

Slide 10

Faulty Processes What parts of gathering conduct result in loss of generation because of defective procedures? Either poor supply of assets ? (low potential efficiency) Or procedures neglect to meet requests of undertaking? Then again both!

Slide 11

Two types of flawed procedures (Steiner, 1972) Steiner distinguished 2 types of defective process : Coordination misfortune Lack of synchronization Motivation misfortune Lack of acknowledgment Lack of advantage

Slide 12

Performance and gathering size "What is the impact of gathering size on the undertaking execution?" Are gatherings more gainful than a person? Are people more gainful than a gathering? Are expansive gatherings more gainful than little gatherings? What are the undertaking requests? How do the errand requests identify with the accessible assets?

Slide 13

Effect of gathering size on execution Task requests are introductory determinants of both potential and genuine generation. Contrasts in defective procedures may shift: Groups might be more gainful than people, or.. People might be more gainful than a gathering So, important to have some sort of typology of undertaking .

Slide 14

Task measurements Tasks can be recognized along 3 principle measurements: Divisible versus unitary undertakings Maximizing versus mimimizing errands Combinability of the assignments

Slide 15

Divisible versus unitary errands Some undertakings are promptly partitioned into sub-assignments each of which might be performed by an alternate individual Building a house Playing football Creating a garden Other errands have neither rhyme nor reason if subdivided Reading a page Doing a maths total

Slide 16

Maximizing versus limiting assignments Maximizing/upgrading Maximizing: (amount) D oing errand however much as could reasonably be expected Doing undertaking as fast as conceivable Generating numerous thoughts Scoring the most runs Optimizing: (quality) Accuracy of accounting Weather anticipating Writing your articles!!! Limiting doing as meager as would be prudent

Slide 17

How combinable are the assignments for gathering individuals? Added substance undertakings Group item = whole of the individuals Conjunctive errands An undertaking which everybody must perform Disjunctive undertakings The gathering chooses from individual part's judgments, requires a decision of reply among a few conceivable option s Discretionary errand s Conditions infrequently may permit distinctive individuals to contribute pretty much (shifted weightings) by allocating: T otal weight to single part Equal weight to everyone Or giving every individual an alternate weight

Slide 18

Individual results of gathering individuals "What is the impact of gathering size on assignment execution?" Meaningless question without a palatable scientific categorization of undertakings (Steiner, 1972, 1976) .

Slide 19

Additive undertakings E arly exploratory proof RINGLEMANN (1913) A French agrarian designer who led a large portion of his examination in late 1880's. 1, 2, 3, or 8 individuals pulling on rope Device measured the correct mount of constrained applied on the rope 63 kilo (1 individual) 118 kilo (2 individuals) 160 kilo (3 individuals) 248 kilo (8 individuals)

Slide 20

Group proficiency Results demonstrated an INVERSE relationship between the quantity of individuals in the gathering and individual execution As more individuals pulled, they utilized less exertion! Found that a substantial gathering required just a large portion of the exertion per individual than a little gathering Attributed to co-appointment misfortunes (pulling at various circumstances) Additive assignments – bunch execution is superior to anything individual's execution when on claim, albeit relative effectiveness per individual may diminish with expanding bunch estimate.

Slide 21

Conjunctive Task s An undertaking that each gathering part should perform Performance of gathering dependant upon weakest gathering part (i.e hand off race, or gathering accent up the Tor) Performance relies on upon the relative capacities of the people worried With expanding bunch measure execution would be required to diminish because of expanded plausibility of powerless gathering part.

Slide 22

Disjunctive Task An errand that requires a decision among a few conceivable options Potential profitability of gathering is dictated by the most equipped part If one individual from the gathering can play out the undertaking, the gathering can ,, still perform it With expanding bunch measure, you expect better execution Conjunctive Disjunctive more individuals = more individuals = bring down execution better execution

Slide 23

Disjunctive assignment : early test confirm TAYLOR & FAUST (1952) Game of '20 inquiries' (disjunctive as need to settle on a decision between a few choices) Ss separated into classifications Working alone (x 15) Working in sets (x 15) Working in gatherings of 4 (x 15) Ss given 4 issues a day for 4 back to back days and permitted to ask 30 questions Experimenter can just answer: Yes/ No/Partly/Sometimes/Not in the typical feeling of the word. DV s = n o. of inquiries, disappointments , & time taken to take care of issue

Slide 24

R esults TAYLOR & FAUST (1952) Superiority of gatherings over people as far as Fewer inquiries asked Fewer wrong answers given Less t ime taken per issue Groups better than sets: Fewer wrong answers given Individuals better than gatherings and sets: For 'man-minutes' (e.g. time x no of individuals in gathering) Individuals were faster than sets, who were speedier than gatherings (as far as man-minutes to achieve an answer , instead of genuine time ) So, less expensive to pay people by the hour than gatherings by the occupation

Slide 25

Early co nclusion s (Taylor & Faust, (1952) Disjunctive errands predominant execution with gatherings (entrenched finding) But this impact is contrarily corresponding to gathering size Individuals are more compelling (regarding man-minutes) Steiner recommends that better execution of gatherings is expected than the more noteworthy assets which they have.

Slide 26

Brainstorming Osborn (1957) Special sort of gathering procedure This is inventive Increased quantities of individuals excessively increment number of thoughts created Rules of conceptualizing Free the person from self-feedback and feedback of others The more thoughts the better Can adjust others thoughts Can join thoughts Should not be basic…

Slide 27

Empirical confirmation ( MULLEN et al. 1991 ) Meta-investigation of 20 investigations of conceptualizing Compared up close and personal gatherings working under conceptualizing conditions against 'ostensible gatherings' Nominal gatherings were people who were working alone however their thoughts were along these lines pooled. Efficiency was measured in two distinctive ways Quantity: the quantity of non-repetitive thoughts Quality: included rating of the thoughts

Slide 28

Results ( MULLEN et al. 1991 ) Meta-examination of 20 investigations of conceptualizing Individuals created a larger number of thoughts than up close and personal gatherings Productivity LOSSES increment with the extent of the gathering Both people and gatherings work best without a "specialist" giving direction Most thoughts were created when reactions were composed down and not openly shared

Slide 29

Why generation misfortunes in conceptualizing happen Free-stacking (social loafing) Motivation misfortune Individual individuals expect that all thoughts will be pooled (aggregate credit) Group distribution?

Slide 30

Effects of gathering designation (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987) Allocation of gathering influences profitability Design: 2 x 2 Results: Only 8% of fluctuation clarified by credit given Most of the impact clarified by gathering distribution Conclusion: BRAINSTORMING GROUPS LESS PRODUCTIVE

Slide 31

Summary Task subordinate execution ( Steiner) Additive & disjunctive assignments Performance increments with expanded gathering size But relative proficiency decays Conjunctive errands Performance diminishes with expanded gatherings measure in conjunctive undertakings

Slide 32

Mullen et al. 1991 don't have to summon any exceptional gathering process for conceptualizing Group prevalence over people can be clarified by deciphering conceptualizing as a conjunctive errand But this relies on equivalent status…

Slide 33

Group Structure of gathering is free of the general population who possess the different positions Each individual assumes a ROLE inside the gathering Roles are dictated by social standards, guidelines of direct Each part is assessed contrastingly by others Each part has varying status But how does status rise?

Slide 34

Interaction handle examination (IPA) Problem settling gatherings of unacquainted people