Skip to main content Skip to navigation


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">




<title>Performance and decision making in groups</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur="00:51:30" n="9741">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>



<person id="nm1213" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm1213, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf1214" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1214, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf1215" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1215, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf1216" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1216, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm1217" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm1217, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf1218" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1218, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf1219" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1219, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="om1220" role="observer" n="o" sex="m"><p>om1220, observer, observer, male</p></person>

<person id="su1221" role="participant" n="s" sex="u"><p>su1221, participant, student, unknown sex</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="l"><p>ss, audience, large group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="l"><p>sl, all, large group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="11"><p>number of speakers: 11</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">Psychology</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ss</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG</item>

<item n="module">Further Psychology</item>




<u who="nm1213"> okay let's # <pause dur="1.1"/> let's get going <pause dur="0.7"/> i've got # <pause dur="0.8"/> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/><pause dur="0.5"/> a couple of # a couple of announcements before we start one about the resurrection of the psychology society tah-dah <kinesic desc="turns on overhead projector showing transparency" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.5"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="sl" dur="1"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> some of you have been to the meetings in one-four # one-four-nine-C whatever it was <pause dur="0.4"/> about the <trunc>c</trunc> psychology society it is being resurrected as is it <trunc>sa</trunc> it usually is every year when enthusiasm <pause dur="0.4"/> builds it up <pause dur="0.2"/> and # <pause dur="0.3"/> it has these people it has these officers some of whom may be here now i believe <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> so it has a president <pause dur="0.4"/> <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> <pause dur="0.5"/> vice-president <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> <pause dur="1.2"/> treasurer <pause dur="0.4"/> <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> secretary <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> <pause dur="0.5"/> ents officer <pause dur="0.2"/> # <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> <pause dur="1.0"/> and there is a meeting <pause dur="0.4"/> on Wednesday of week nine between one o'clock and two <pause dur="0.4"/> that's next week week nine <pause dur="0.7"/> in the common room for people to pay deposits for Cumberland Lodge <pause dur="0.3"/> and or to join the psychology society now <pause dur="0.4"/> the <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> the psychology society first

i guess you've heard a bit about it it <trunc>wel</trunc> it it organizes <pause dur="0.2"/> things <pause dur="0.4"/> and generally as a result of what people want to do <pause dur="0.7"/> social events visiting speakers <pause dur="0.4"/> and and i <trunc>g</trunc> i guess it will continue to do so now it's up and going it'll respond to whatever you want to do <pause dur="0.5"/> so that'll be partly what that meeting is about <pause dur="0.5"/> and secondly there is this <pause dur="0.2"/> Cumberland Lodge now that seems to be <pause dur="0.2"/> up and running now <pause dur="0.7"/> people seem to be interested and it's going to go <pause dur="0.8"/> there are <pause dur="0.3"/> # we have some speakers arranged i guess you i guess you've heard enough about what it is it's a residential weekend away in <pause dur="0.4"/> in Windsor Park et cetera and <pause dur="0.2"/> i think you all <pause dur="0.3"/> you all know what the event is do you <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="nod heads" iterated="n" n="ss"/> <trunc>b</trunc> <pause dur="1.0"/> okay well it's <trunc>b</trunc> it's being organized <trunc>e</trunc> deposits have been taken from some people <pause dur="0.3"/> and we have some speakers now i happen to know we i think we've got <pause dur="0.4"/> a hypnotherapist set up <pause dur="0.8"/> and we've got somebody who's from the M-R-C <pause dur="0.7"/> # Medical Research Unit in Cambridge who'll talk about cognitive rehabilitation <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> after

brain damage so <pause dur="0.4"/> people with <pause dur="0.3"/> brain damage from accidents so there's a sort of <trunc>neur</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> the practical end of neuropsychology <pause dur="1.0"/> and we have a speaker <pause dur="0.4"/> who analyses it's Peter Bull actually <pause dur="0.4"/> # from University of York <pause dur="0.4"/> whose interest is <trunc>i</trunc> is in <pause dur="0.2"/> political rhetoric the analysis of political spee<pause dur="0.7"/>ches and he's always pretty entertaining <pause dur="0.6"/> lots of speeches of politicians <pause dur="0.4"/> telling the truth or otherwise <pause dur="0.8"/> and so his interest is <pause dur="0.2"/> his interest is in sort of political rhetoric so <pause dur="0.3"/> there are some speakers arranged as <pause dur="0.2"/> and as i as i think you know <pause dur="0.4"/> Cumberland Lodge is a mixture of <pause dur="0.5"/> outside speakers who are either sort of academic or professionally orientated <pause dur="0.4"/> and internal home-grown <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> talks as well which can be sort of brief <pause dur="0.6"/> and we'll be trying to organize some of those you don't want members of staff giving them there will be about forty or so <pause dur="0.3"/> psychology students going and about sort of five <pause dur="0.5"/> five or so members of staff going <pause dur="0.4"/> we'll try and organize some brief speeches <pause dur="0.3"/> talks <pause dur="0.5"/> on <pause dur="0.2"/> topics of interest <pause dur="0.3"/> from # <pause dur="0.5"/>

those who go and i hope a lot of you will go very rewarding and interesting it is too <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.8"/> i think there's some even some talk of subsidizing <pause dur="0.4"/> the cost of going for anyone who wants to talk while they're there <pause dur="0.3"/> but there's <trunc>m</trunc> more about that in due course <pause dur="0.2"/> are any of the people <pause dur="0.2"/> on that list there <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> and <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> are you here i think there are some </u><u who="sf1215" trans="latching"> yeah </u><pause dur="0.7"/> <u who="nm1213" trans="pause"> are you all in a row the committees we're going to talk about committees and groups <pause dur="0.3"/> is there anything you want to say this is your chance <pause dur="0.5"/> camera's on </u><pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="su1221" trans="pause"> no <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/></u><u who="nm1213" trans="overlap"> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.6"/> is there about about Cumberland Lodge </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sf1214" trans="pause"> yeah it it should be it should be good i mean if anybody has any suggestions about what what kind of speakers that they'd # like to hear there </u><u who="nm1213" trans="overlap"> mm </u><u who="sf1214" trans="latching"> as well <pause dur="0.3"/> # it's a bit kind of <pause dur="0.2"/> kind of open <pause dur="0.5"/> # </u><u who="nm1213" trans="overlap"> yes </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="sf1214" trans="pause"> i mean it should just be good fun really <pause dur="0.2"/> # i think the places are going quite quickly anyway so # <pause dur="0.4"/> if you well # i think

probably about twenty have gone or something already </u><u who="sf1215" trans="overlap"> yeah </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nm1213" trans="pause"> yes </u><u who="sf1214" trans="latching"> so it's kind of like <unclear>do you do you</unclear> want to go 'cause it should be <pause dur="0.2"/> excellent </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nm1213" trans="pause"> yes hurry hurry while stocks last <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>because there <pause dur="0.3"/> aren't <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>many tickets left so <pause dur="0.4"/> there you are and it is good fun and <pause dur="0.4"/> there's still there's still <trunc>o</trunc> there's still # a degree of negotiation about i mean <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> for what <pause dur="0.2"/> who we get whom we ask i mean you can ask <pause dur="0.5"/> or we'll ask to get people along we've had some response <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean the hypnotherapist we <trunc>s</trunc> that was suggested yesterday and we <pause dur="0.4"/> we've been asking <pause dur="0.3"/> all our hypnotherapy <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>hyp</trunc> our hypnotherapist pals <pause dur="0.2"/> of which we've got many <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>and <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> and so <pause dur="0.2"/> we seem to have got a couple there and # <pause dur="0.7"/> and <trunc>cer</trunc> certainly someone who's going who deals with runny brains as well <pause dur="0.5"/> will be # <pause dur="0.4"/> sort of someone suggested but <trunc>th</trunc> there's <pause dur="0.2"/> room for others so <pause dur="0.4"/> Cumberland Lodge <pause dur="0.2"/> the meeting <pause dur="0.3"/> don't forget to sign up or there

won't be a place <pause dur="0.6"/> right secondly <pause dur="0.3"/> i i <pause dur="0.5"/> i needed to say something about just briefly about the seminars <pause dur="0.3"/> the last <trunc>rou</trunc> we we've done one round of <trunc>pra</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> presentations of the practical work jolly good they were very interesting <pause dur="0.3"/> and next Wednesday <pause dur="0.4"/> we have the next the the <pause dur="0.5"/> the other two groups <pause dur="0.4"/> so there'll be eight <pause dur="0.3"/> eight more presentations hopefully to do <pause dur="0.4"/> and i said in the last week <pause dur="0.4"/> it turned out talking to the other seminar group that we really needed to arrange <pause dur="0.3"/> four seminars in the last week of term i was going to make the <trunc>w</trunc> the seminars <pause dur="0.5"/> in week ten <pause dur="0.8"/> gear them to the the assessed essays there seemed to be a lot of interest in this <pause dur="0.4"/> and i said # <pause dur="0.5"/> i asked how many would come and it seemed that <pause dur="0.2"/> nearly all the people from the seminar groups this week <pause dur="0.2"/> would come in week # <pause dur="0.8"/> # in week ten <pause dur="0.3"/> and # so i suspect the the <pause dur="0.3"/> people coming to seminars <pause dur="0.2"/> in week nine <pause dur="0.2"/> would also come to these ones in week ten so <pause dur="0.2"/> we might <pause dur="0.3"/> i was going to cram everybody into those two <pause dur="0.4"/> those two slots

at eleven o'clock and twelve o'clock on Wednesday <pause dur="0.3"/> but that won't do <pause dur="0.5"/> it seems that'll be too crowded there'll be too many people to go in the rooms if we try and to combine two groups into one for the last week <pause dur="0.7"/> # so <pause dur="0.5"/> the suggestion is that we have four seminars in the last week <pause dur="0.3"/> and each one is geared towards one particular assessed essay title and you can choose to come to one or more of them so you won't be sitting around for <pause dur="0.4"/> fifty minutes waiting for just ten minutes on an essay that's relevant to you <pause dur="0.3"/> so i'm going to have to find two more seminar slots <pause dur="0.3"/> i assume that eleven and twelve as usual are free everybody can make eleven or twelve in <pause dur="0.2"/> in principle <pause dur="0.6"/> and i'm looking at your second year timetable here <pause dur="0.2"/><event desc="looks at timetable" iterated="n"/> can i just check that the <pause dur="0.2"/> i haven't been in touch with timetables yet but can i just check that all these times are available <pause dur="0.5"/> for instance twelve o'clock on a Monday it seems free on your timetable would that be all right if it

if it were available would everyone be able to come at that time <pause dur="0.7"/> okay <pause dur="0.6"/> then i see that two o'clock on Monday would also be free on your timetable is that in principle free </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="ss" trans="pause"> yeah </u><u who="nm1213" trans="overlap"> i don't know whether these will be the times yeah </u><u who="sf1215" trans="latching"> yeah </u><pause dur="0.7"/> <u who="nm1213" trans="pause"> then looking on Tuesday it's <trunc>s</trunc> see that eleven o'clock and twelve o'clock there's a methods lecture but only in weeks four to eight is in principle <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> Tuesday <pause dur="0.7"/> # eleven or twelve would that in principle be free </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="sf1216" trans="pause"> twelve <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nm1213" trans="latching"> twelve no <pause dur="0.7"/> can i cross out twelve <pause dur="0.5"/> i can't cross out twelve 'cause i've not brought anything to write <unclear>at</unclear> <event desc="knocks microphone off" iterated="n"/><pause dur="3.2"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="2"/> ah <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="2"/><pause dur="1.9"/><event desc="tries to reattach microphone" iterated="y" dur="12"/> mm <pause dur="0.2"/> right i've got to put this little thing back on here <pause dur="1.8"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="11"/> sorry about the <pause dur="0.4"/> technology <pause dur="2.8"/> oh dear <pause dur="1.5"/> mm <pause dur="2.4"/> does it matter if it's off </u><u who="om1220" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nm1213" trans="overlap"> all right <pause dur="0.5"/> i i've been in make-up for an hour this morning you know <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="2"/><vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>i <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><pause dur="0.2"/> then they <trunc>deci</trunc> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> they decided

there wasn't anything they could do so i've come as i am <pause dur="0.5"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="2"/> # # <pause dur="0.4"/> i wanted the <trunc>j</trunc> Julian Clary look but there we were <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/><pause dur="0.3"/> okay so <pause dur="0.3"/> we can't <pause dur="0.8"/> we can't make twelve and <trunc>ju</trunc> i yeah i'd better i'd better get a few 'cause the timetable is very crowded and i'd like sort of smallish rooms and in Humanities so i don't have to walk too far as well <pause dur="0.4"/> so what about eleven o'clock on Wednesday would that be in principle free <pause dur="0.4"/> yeah <pause dur="0.4"/> and eleven o'clock on # sorry <pause dur="0.5"/> # not eleven o'clock <pause dur="0.3"/> # we have one anyway then don't we <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> ten o'clock on Wednesday would that be free the hour before this start okay i'll try that one <pause dur="0.3"/> and another one <pause dur="0.4"/> # Thursday at <trunc>t</trunc> ten o'clock <pause dur="1.5"/> yeah </u><u who="sm1217" trans="overlap"> yeah </u><pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="nm1213" trans="pause"> that would be free </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="ss" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible, multiple speakers" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nm1213" trans="overlap"> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> or is that not a very good idea is that 'cause you don't have anything on Thursday </u><u who="ss" trans="latching"> yeah </u><u who="nm1213" trans="overlap"> oh right i'll scrub that out i <trunc>le</trunc> that i'll only do that in an emergency so

it'll probably be <pause dur="0.3"/> one of those times on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday then two seminar slots </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="sf1218" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nm1213" trans="latching"> yes </u><u who="sf1218" trans="latching"> Wednesday at ten o'clock </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nm1213" trans="pause"> sorry </u><pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="sf1218" trans="pause"> # can't do Wednesday ten o'clock </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nm1213" trans="pause"> you can't do Wednesday ten o'clock <pause dur="0.2"/> right okay <pause dur="1.0"/> might be Monday or Tuesday i'll see what we can find <pause dur="0.6"/> right <pause dur="0.2"/> so that's the seminars that's Cumberland Lodge <pause dur="0.2"/> let us now turn our attention to the <pause dur="0.4"/> matter in hand <pause dur="0.3"/> which is to start doing <pause dur="0.4"/> well it's to look at groups group performance group decision making things that go on in groups <pause dur="0.9"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> # i suppose this marks try to see how the <pause dur="0.2"/> the lectures <pause dur="0.4"/> are grouped together <pause dur="0.2"/> we're going to be doing three lectures now <pause dur="0.5"/> which are about group <pause dur="0.2"/> orientated phenomena <pause dur="1.4"/> and <pause dur="1.3"/> we'll look at things that go on within groups we'll look at the concept of groups <pause dur="1.3"/> see what we shall do <pause dur="2.3"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="12"/> we'll try and get through some of these things here although i think <pause dur="0.5"/> not <pause dur="0.2"/> all of them but <pause dur="6.9"/> these <pause dur="0.5"/> # more about things that go on within small groups the decision making the performance the impact of being around small numbers of people this week <pause dur="0.5"/> and

then move on next week to begin to look at things that go on within between groups prejudice discrimination intergroup relations cooperation <pause dur="0.3"/> and conflict <pause dur="2.8"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> other <pause dur="0.2"/> other <pause dur="0.2"/> points about this <pause dur="0.3"/> i think <pause dur="0.9"/> they are <pause dur="1.4"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> relevant very very much to the <trunc>s</trunc> the stuff that Ian Morley talks about in his third year course <pause dur="0.3"/> Ian Morley's third year <pause dur="0.2"/> option is called Applied Social Psychology <pause dur="0.3"/> its its particular emphasis <pause dur="0.3"/> is on <pause dur="0.2"/> applied social psychology in organizational contexts and those are mainly <pause dur="0.4"/> sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>i</trunc> <pause dur="1.4"/> # or <trunc>in</trunc> sorry industrial <trunc>organi</trunc> no <trunc>t</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> that's just not the quite <pause dur="0.3"/> work organizations i mean the word organization can be very loose but he <pause dur="0.3"/> he has a fairly specific <pause dur="0.6"/> # view of that <pause dur="0.2"/> and therefore some of these concepts particularly i shall talk about group think towards the end and group polarization and and leadership <pause dur="0.5"/> will be topics that he picks up again so this can serve as a sort of an introduction <pause dur="0.3"/> to some of the literature which will be picked up in

greater depth next year <pause dur="0.8"/> it also <trunc>rai</trunc> it all <trunc>c</trunc> comes back <trunc>t</trunc> as well to the difference <trunc>t</trunc> <trunc>b</trunc> between <pause dur="0.5"/> people as perceivers and participants we've had <pause dur="0.5"/> we've had this <pause dur="0.7"/> come up so far <pause dur="0.3"/> on the course <pause dur="0.2"/> and here i think we're moving to <pause dur="0.3"/> back to sort of people as participants things people do when they interact with each other but <pause dur="0.4"/> but both <pause dur="0.4"/> both are really irrelevant there's <trunc>al</trunc> there's something about the representation of knowledge <pause dur="0.4"/> here within groups but it's more about how people are influencing each other in groups <pause dur="1.6"/> okay so <pause dur="0.2"/> i'll certainly <trunc>sa</trunc> try and <pause dur="0.2"/> say something about <pause dur="0.5"/> functions and dimensions of groups <pause dur="0.2"/> say something about <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="2.4"/> performance just the impact of having people around one <pause dur="0.4"/> i'll skip over this a bit decision making in groups and aspects of group processes <pause dur="0.3"/> but i will mention it because <pause dur="0.2"/> when we come on to looking at # group think which is a really <trunc>d</trunc> <pause dur="0.7"/> can be summed up as defective <pause dur="0.5"/> # group decision making <pause dur="0.9"/> that will # alert us to some of

the things <pause dur="0.2"/> that aren't being done <pause dur="0.3"/> i'll try and say something about leadership <pause dur="1.1"/> <trunc>r</trunc> role differentiation leadership <pause dur="0.3"/> risk taking so <pause dur="0.2"/> it'll really be mostly about <pause dur="0.3"/> what is a group performance in groups <pause dur="0.2"/> and then going on to <pause dur="0.8"/> roles and influence in groups <pause dur="0.2"/> risk taking and group think <pause dur="0.3"/> now <pause dur="1.7"/> the word <pause dur="0.9"/> the word group <pause dur="3.6"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="4"/> emerges all over the place in social psychology just like it emerges all over the place in everyday language <pause dur="0.3"/> group is the collective noun <pause dur="0.3"/> of persons you have flocks of sheep <pause dur="0.3"/> herds of goats groups of people <pause dur="0.5"/> and it means <pause dur="0.3"/> it means a whole lot of things group group can <trunc>r</trunc> refer to <pause dur="0.4"/> a small number of face to face interacting individuals of course <pause dur="0.2"/> a a group <pause dur="0.2"/> a family or a committee or a jury <pause dur="0.5"/> but we also use the word to describe aggregates <pause dur="0.5"/> of people <pause dur="0.3"/> and people who are just identified by <trunc>c</trunc> some common concept we talk about blood groups you don't know all the people who are O-positive <pause dur="0.5"/> there's a lot of them <pause dur="0.8"/> sixty to seventy isn't it sixty per cent of the

room you don't know who they are but somehow <pause dur="0.4"/> you know if you needed blood <pause dur="0.8"/> you'd want to know who they were <pause dur="1.1"/> and people who share religion common national ethnic origin they are groups as well we refer to them as groups but there <pause dur="0.4"/> there it's a sort of an abstract <pause dur="0.5"/> quality a phenomenon <pause dur="0.3"/> something with which one <trunc>migh</trunc> # i might identify <pause dur="0.4"/> something which <pause dur="0.2"/> influences behaviour <pause dur="0.3"/> influences attitudes <pause dur="0.3"/> does have an effect on what you do <pause dur="0.8"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> in a in a sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> an abstract sort of sense <pause dur="0.4"/> but other times <pause dur="0.6"/> a group means a set # a group of people small number of people <pause dur="0.3"/> with whom you're actually interacting with whom you're actually talking put together for the purposes <pause dur="0.2"/> of doing something or saying something or making some sort of decision <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.8"/> it <pause dur="0.2"/> # it applies certainly <pause dur="0.3"/> to both of those two senses <pause dur="0.2"/> this week it'll be more about the face to face <pause dur="0.5"/> aggregates of people things we do when making decisions in groups <pause dur="0.3"/> what happens to us when we have people around us looking at us <pause dur="0.6"/> but next week

when we deal with intergroup relations <pause dur="0.6"/> there is a sense sometimes intergroup relations when you have two football teams or two sports teams playing against each other when <pause dur="0.2"/> the competition is about people <pause dur="0.3"/> all of whom know <pause dur="0.4"/> who it is <pause dur="0.5"/> competing against them <pause dur="0.2"/> but more usually when we talk about intergroup relations we're talking about <pause dur="0.8"/> concepts <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> abstract notions of groups who have some sort of territorial dispute <pause dur="0.4"/> or some ideological dispute <pause dur="1.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> some examples just to sort of prime us a bit to what we're talking about i've <pause dur="0.2"/> got down some examples here <pause dur="0.4"/> things we do just to sort of alert us to what what happens here <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean we work and play in groups so you know example seminars <pause dur="0.3"/> production teams and sports teams <pause dur="0.4"/> we socialize in the technical sense as well as the non-technical sense the so <pause dur="0.3"/> the technical sense in the sense of <pause dur="0.6"/> inducing <pause dur="0.4"/> children <pause dur="0.2"/> into the world of adult values <pause dur="0.4"/> so there's that sort of <trunc>s</trunc> the psychological sense but of course we socialize in the

sense of <pause dur="0.2"/> hanging about <pause dur="0.4"/> in groups <pause dur="0.8"/> families peer groups and friends <pause dur="0.4"/> we derive important aspects of our identity <pause dur="0.5"/> from groups gender <pause dur="0.4"/> race <pause dur="0.6"/> class nationality <pause dur="0.3"/> we make important decisions in groups <pause dur="0.6"/> oh and important decisions about us <pause dur="0.5"/> are made by groups <pause dur="0.3"/> exam boards <pause dur="0.6"/> and then of course there's committees interview panels and juries and so on <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> the dimensions of groups there are a number of ways i've already sort of hinted at this <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>f</trunc> the face to face versus the <pause dur="0.3"/> the concept dimension <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean the the numbers of individuals comprising the group obviously is a dimension <pause dur="0.4"/> we have sort of committees <pause dur="0.6"/> families there are two person families i suppose <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> two is the minimum number i suppose for a group although that's <pause dur="0.3"/> not really a group <pause dur="0.3"/> three is more like a group because there's a possibility that two people will talk and the other person listens <pause dur="0.4"/> there's the possibility of coalitions and lots of interesting things <pause dur="0.3"/> happen once you get beyond two to three but some <trunc>peo</trunc>

some <trunc>psy</trunc> social psychologists talk about groups as if they were three <pause dur="1.8"/> as if they were <trunc>t</trunc> and <trunc>th</trunc> a two person group could be a group # <pause dur="0.6"/> the length of time people remain in groups they can be quite transient a pub crawl or a jury <pause dur="0.3"/> or on the other hand they can be quite long lasting like a family or a nation <pause dur="0.3"/> they could be structured and formal <pause dur="0.9"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> we can have # <pause dur="1.1"/> they could be <pause dur="0.3"/> structured like police <pause dur="0.3"/> or freemasons <pause dur="0.5"/> actually it occurs to me they're the same group so <pause dur="0.3"/> it's not a <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>very <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> not a very good <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>example there <pause dur="0.4"/> there are day trippers <pause dur="0.5"/> there for the time <pause dur="0.2"/> supporters associations <pause dur="0.3"/> all sorts of different purposes <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> they can be <trunc>pur</trunc> well they can be purposeful or purposeless assembly lines local action groups street gangs <pause dur="0.2"/> local communities <pause dur="0.2"/> are all aggregates of people that have been studied by social psychologists <pause dur="0.5"/> then then well # they could be organized in different ways they can be autocratic they can be democratic they can be laissez-faire <pause dur="0.5"/>

looking at the armed forces or the Mormons <pause dur="0.2"/> as opposed to say students sharing a flat or <pause dur="0.4"/> well <trunc>peo</trunc> members of a university department <pause dur="1.0"/> so we have all those <pause dur="0.4"/> dimensions <pause dur="0.3"/> to look at <pause dur="3.9"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> let's <pause dur="6.7"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="8"/> i should just <pause dur="0.6"/> refer back of course <pause dur="0.9"/> to <pause dur="0.7"/> those the <trunc>vor</trunc> the course that was called <trunc>intr</trunc> # <pause dur="0.2"/> further <pause dur="0.6"/> Foundations of <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>Psychology <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>last year it's now called Further Psychology this year <pause dur="0.4"/> just to remind you and those that did it that <pause dur="0.6"/> the the work we did last year two lectures on social influence and those of you that didn't do the course <pause dur="0.3"/> you can look up <pause dur="0.3"/> social influence in in the Hogg and Vaughan textbook and see what was talked about <pause dur="0.4"/> but they're such classic studies <pause dur="0.5"/> even those of you that didn't <pause dur="0.2"/> do the two-plus-two students for instance can hardly have escaped the sorts of studies <pause dur="0.8"/> such as the Ash study on compliance Sherif <pause dur="0.4"/> on normative influences within social groups <pause dur="0.4"/> Latané on bystander apathy <pause dur="0.3"/> those are all <trunc>ex</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> all studies <pause dur="0.2"/> on groups the impact of <pause dur="0.4"/> face to

face interaction <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> we've really <trunc>be</trunc> begun to look <pause dur="0.2"/> at groups <trunc>w</trunc> last year <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and those studies <pause dur="0.3"/> and especially the role of social influence i'll remind you of those three <trunc>plo</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> these those three processes of social influence <pause dur="0.6"/> compliance identification and internalization <pause dur="0.5"/> much beloved of social psychologists absolutely fundamental <pause dur="0.2"/> to social influence <pause dur="0.2"/> and social influence <trunc>i</trunc> <pause dur="0.7"/> # as often as not <pause dur="0.3"/> goes on <pause dur="0.3"/> within the context of a group <pause dur="1.2"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> all of those processes compliance <pause dur="0.6"/> identification <pause dur="0.3"/> and internalization <pause dur="0.3"/> all have some <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> something <pause dur="1.5"/> to do with groups and groupness about them and that'll that'll come up when we look at <pause dur="0.9"/> types of leadership <pause dur="1.4"/> decision making <pause dur="0.3"/> we'll see those three processes are still going on <pause dur="2.6"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> let's have a quick look at a quick review <pause dur="0.3"/> of just what happens when going to remind you what <pause dur="0.2"/> just what happens when people get together just the <pause dur="0.3"/> the mere impact of other people <pause dur="0.6"/> i think the original definitions of social psychology that come up in the <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> in the beginning of most books <pause dur="2.2"/><event desc="adjusts transparency" iterated="n"/> just pull that down a bit performance and groups that says then i'll

put it up again <pause dur="1.0"/> # suggest that <trunc>s</trunc> remember <trunc>s</trunc> it's a study of social influence processes in the presence <pause dur="0.3"/> or absence you know in the real or imagined presence of other people <pause dur="0.5"/> and there's a <trunc>n</trunc> there are a number of <pause dur="0.3"/> studies <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> areas of social psychology which look at the <trunc>e</trunc> impact of other people <pause dur="0.5"/> first of all <pause dur="0.3"/> we've <pause dur="0.3"/> mentioned this before <pause dur="0.3"/> the effect of mere presence social facilitation is something we have to bear in mind <pause dur="0.2"/> having other people around us whether they're in groups or not <pause dur="0.5"/> seems to <pause dur="0.8"/> impact on what we do <pause dur="1.3"/> remember <trunc>tri</trunc> triplet study cyclists <pause dur="0.8"/> child winders <pause dur="0.4"/> and then the triplets <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>w</trunc> wonderful wonderful <pause dur="0.4"/> tasks to give people get them to wind <pause dur="0.2"/> a reel <pause dur="0.7"/> a fishing reel because you actually measure how much they've done by how much fishing line <pause dur="0.3"/> is left at the end <pause dur="0.4"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>it's a hundred <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> years old but it's a very good dependent variable i think getting people to <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>wind <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>a fishing reel <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> people go faster people are generally razzed up when there are other people around them and they do more and

they do faster things <pause dur="0.3"/> but then it it turns out it's slightly more complicated sometimes they do better <pause dur="0.2"/> sometimes they do worse <pause dur="0.5"/> this <pause dur="1.6"/> # confusion <pause dur="0.2"/> is sort of sorted out by Robert Zajonc in his articles in Science nineteen-sixty-five onwards <pause dur="0.7"/> suggesting that <pause dur="0.3"/> what we're dealing with here <pause dur="0.2"/> is arousal it's a sort of drive theory explanation of why people sometimes do better <pause dur="0.3"/> and sometimes do worse you've probably had the experience sometimes <pause dur="0.3"/> you just do better if there's other people <pause dur="0.2"/> sometimes <pause dur="0.2"/> your whole act you're about to do your party piece <pause dur="0.7"/> and suddenly it all falls to pieces when people are around you watching <pause dur="1.4"/> and that's <pause dur="1.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> that's what really what <trunc>zajan</trunc> Zajonc addresses <pause dur="0.3"/> and his drive theory approach is what's really going on is here is we're generally being wound up <pause dur="0.2"/> and the dominant responses <pause dur="0.2"/> are the ones that # come to the fore <pause dur="0.2"/> and if it's something very easy we do better <pause dur="0.5"/> and if it's something rather difficult <pause dur="0.6"/> where <pause dur="0.2"/> the dominant response is <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>not necessarily

the <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>correct one <pause dur="0.2"/> we tend to do worse <pause dur="0.3"/> so that's <pause dur="0.2"/> sort of tidying up this <pause dur="1.0"/> this finding <pause dur="0.3"/> now there have been various developments which i can <trunc>dir</trunc> direct you to in Hogg and Vaughan <pause dur="0.3"/> particularly Cotterill's work in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology nineteen-sixty-eight <pause dur="0.4"/> audience evaluation has to come in here <pause dur="0.3"/> it depends who these people are who are watching you i think this is very important <pause dur="0.5"/> it seems a bit simplistic just to think well are there people there or not <pause dur="0.4"/> what <pause dur="0.3"/> what we're really thinking about is what is their attitude what are they doing <pause dur="0.2"/> are they evaluating us or not <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> that's really what Cotterill's work is about <pause dur="0.4"/> looking at the sort of if you like mindset or attitude of the people who are around us when we're in groups are they friendly or unfriendly <pause dur="0.4"/> are they <pause dur="0.4"/> better than us or <pause dur="0.5"/> are they are they evaluating us <pause dur="1.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and then we've also got <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>ad</trunc> that's advanced as an experimental social psychology the Baron reference <pause dur="0.3"/> a development of

audience evaluation <pause dur="0.2"/> just the role of distraction just <trunc>com</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> competition for where attention goes <pause dur="0.3"/> is another way of approaching <pause dur="0.3"/> what happens when we just have people around us <pause dur="0.7"/> now <trunc>wa</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> one other branch of work <pause dur="3.1"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> that gets discussed quite a lot although it seems to be rather value laden <pause dur="0.6"/> is what come what's come to be known as social loafing <pause dur="0.6"/> and this is <pause dur="0.7"/> this describes the effect <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> people doing less pro rata <pause dur="0.2"/> when there are other people <pause dur="0.6"/> around you <pause dur="6.2"/> i seem to remember <pause dur="0.5"/> my grandmother had a <pause dur="0.5"/> had a saying which was i just just occurred to me so one one boy's a boy two boys half a boy and three boys no bloody use at all <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>you find that <pause dur="0.2"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> somehow <pause dur="0.2"/> as <pause dur="0.2"/> as as the sort of groups of people have you ever heard that phrase or something like it </u><u who="sf1219" trans="latching"> yeah </u><u who="nm1213" trans="latching"> i thought <pause dur="0.5"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> it's the idea of a you know the # <pause dur="0.2"/> having <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # people just do less i mean that's that's really basically what <trunc>socia</trunc> social loafing <pause dur="0.4"/> is about and # <pause dur="1.4"/> the the original <trunc>e</trunc> the

original experiments # <pause dur="1.5"/> were to do with # <pause dur="0.5"/> i can't remember what the original experiments were about <pause dur="0.3"/> okay i remember <trunc>l</trunc> Latané's <pause dur="0.6"/> oh Ringleman isn't it it's Ringleman's work of course that's right <pause dur="0.6"/> Ringleman had people doing tug of war teams sort of pulling <pause dur="0.5"/> and really you had the the real the real subject was the person at the front of the rope <pause dur="0.2"/> pulling against the dynamometer that just measured how much force <pause dur="0.4"/> and so <pause dur="0.2"/> he or she i think they were hes <pause dur="0.2"/> wouldn't know how much effort was coming from behind on the pull and they'd just be pulling as hard as they could <pause dur="0.4"/> if you're in a tug of war team always go at the back i suppose is the is the answer here <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> in Ringleman's experiments the # <pause dur="0.6"/> the he found that the the actual pull <pause dur="0.2"/> if you doubled the number of people you didn't double the number of pull <pause dur="0.8"/> # you <trunc>d</trunc> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> you didn't double the amount of pull <pause dur="0.2"/> the more people you had <pause dur="0.2"/> it didn't go up five <trunc>t</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> five people didn't pull five times as

hard <pause dur="0.3"/> as one person <pause dur="0.3"/> and this was picked up by Latané the same Latané of the # Bibb Latané of the # <pause dur="0.5"/> of bystander apathy experiments <pause dur="1.2"/> his # <pause dur="1.1"/> his <pause dur="0.4"/> paradigm was to get people to shout <pause dur="0.3"/> in an anechoic chamber <pause dur="0.3"/> and found that people <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> asked to shout as loudly as they could make as much volume as they could <pause dur="0.9"/> and they made a certain amount of volume <pause dur="0.3"/> if you added extra people <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the amount of noise <pause dur="0.4"/> that was # <pause dur="0.3"/> created <pause dur="0.3"/> didn't go up <pause dur="0.5"/> have i put it down there the yes i think i have got the percentages <pause dur="0.5"/> percentages there <pause dur="0.3"/> he found that # <pause dur="0.8"/> # <trunc>i</trunc> # <trunc>th</trunc> the noise was reduced by twenty-nine per cent for pairs <pause dur="1.3"/> quite a lot getting on for a third <trunc>as</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> third off <pause dur="0.6"/> and then only half as much noise per person per fours <pause dur="0.2"/> so if you'd <pause dur="0.4"/> if you # <pause dur="0.4"/> if you have four times the number of people you only get double the amount of noise <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="1.7"/> social loafing <pause dur="0.2"/> this tendency to # to do less when there's <pause dur="0.3"/> when there's people around <pause dur="1.4"/> do less per person <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> now <pause dur="1.2"/> there <trunc>a</trunc> there are various

explanations for this i can # leave you to look <trunc>u</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> look this up <pause dur="1.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but it does seem a a a rather negatively <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>evalua</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # <trunc>evalu</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> evaluative sort of term to use social loafing <pause dur="0.4"/> because <pause dur="0.7"/> sometimes <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean there obviously there are distractions going on <pause dur="0.2"/> but <trunc>of</trunc> often group performance is about not everybody <pause dur="0.5"/> acting <pause dur="0.2"/> their optimum <pause dur="0.8"/> sometimes <pause dur="0.8"/> the whole point of a group working effectively if <trunc>i</trunc> is for people to stand back <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.6"/> and contribute in a constructive way wait for your turn <pause dur="0.3"/> contribute to something which will be greater the sum than the sum of the parts <pause dur="0.3"/> by <pause dur="0.5"/> by just standing back and not <pause dur="0.8"/> operating at the maximum operating in in the way that one would <pause dur="0.4"/> if # <pause dur="0.3"/> you were working on your own <pause dur="0.9"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> social loafing <pause dur="0.7"/> social impact <pause dur="0.3"/> so <trunc>th</trunc> <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> the approach is really <pause dur="0.2"/> just looking at the impact of other people so having people around you <pause dur="0.3"/> affects performance <pause dur="0.3"/> in a variety of ways <pause dur="1.0"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="12"/> now <pause dur="0.4"/> i'd like to move on to sort of talking about <pause dur="0.8"/> <trunc>de</trunc> making decisions in groups dealing with # information in groups <pause dur="0.5"/>

and i'm going to <pause dur="0.6"/> zip over this quite quickly <pause dur="0.3"/> just to just to draw attention you've got them on the notes in in on the notes in front of you <pause dur="0.5"/> i had some <pause dur="0.9"/> points to make about <pause dur="0.7"/> how <pause dur="0.9"/> how when when groups make decisions <pause dur="3.2"/> how the activity is sort of divided and analysed <pause dur="0.2"/> and certainly <pause dur="3.0"/> # traditionally the process the context and the quality have been around <pause dur="0.3"/> and then Bales whom we're going to come back in a minute when <trunc>t</trunc> come back to in a minute when we look at # <pause dur="2.1"/> # leadership <pause dur="2.4"/> developed those throughout the nineteen-fifties <pause dur="0.2"/> to orientation <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>groups need a shared view of the problem to work well <pause dur="0.6"/> evaluation solutions have to be put forward</reading> <pause dur="0.3"/> and then <pause dur="0.7"/> control <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>one solution has to be developed</reading> <pause dur="0.2"/> that's Bales' contribution to <pause dur="0.4"/> to to <pause dur="0.8"/> tidying up <pause dur="0.3"/> the <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> the processes that go on <trunc>i</trunc> in a group <pause dur="0.3"/> and then more recently <pause dur="0.5"/> that seems to have developed into <pause dur="0.3"/> these three phases <pause dur="0.2"/> and i think these are slightly <trunc>m</trunc> more noteworthy <pause dur="0.2"/> because these <pause dur="0.4"/> are you can look at these and <trunc>s</trunc> look <pause dur="0.4"/> in terms of what

goes wrong when groups don't make group <trunc>d</trunc> good decisions <pause dur="0.5"/> the orientation <pause dur="0.7"/> research <trunc>su</trunc> <pause dur="0.8"/> looks at <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>getting the right procedures to ensure that the group has understood the problem</reading> everyone knows what they're doing <pause dur="0.8"/> and then <pause dur="0.4"/> when that happens <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>the</trunc> these are really the characteristics of a good decision <pause dur="0.7"/> they <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> # a good decision making group they spend some time <pause dur="0.2"/> standing back making sure everybody knows what's going on <pause dur="0.2"/> bad groups rush straight in <pause dur="0.6"/> secondly <pause dur="0.9"/> they go on to actually do the discussion bit where information is exchanged and there are various procedures that ensure that's done well <pause dur="0.3"/> and if they're <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> not followed <pause dur="0.3"/> it gets done badly <pause dur="0.3"/> and then you move on to the decision making <pause dur="0.4"/> and that's a <pause dur="0.2"/> that's an important part of group decision making 'cause there are very many different ways in which <trunc>thi</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> this can be done <pause dur="1.0"/> social decision schemes <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and groups <pause dur="0.4"/> often go to groups expecting how it's going to be done is one <trunc>per</trunc> is the <pause dur="0.4"/> are you going to vote

for instance <pause dur="0.2"/> or are you going to talk on and on and on until eventually one rather like electing the Pope <pause dur="0.4"/> until one sort of solution emerges <pause dur="0.4"/> or <pause dur="0.3"/> you know <pause dur="0.3"/> what other procedures have we got down here <pause dur="0.4"/> or are you going to <pause dur="0.4"/> at the end of talking <pause dur="0.2"/> just take an average everybody writes down everybody rates <pause dur="0.2"/> all of <pause dur="0.2"/> all of their choices <pause dur="0.2"/> and the one that gets the best <pause dur="0.3"/> the best overall average <pause dur="0.2"/> gets chosen <pause dur="0.3"/> there are a whole <pause dur="0.9"/> a whole range <pause dur="0.2"/> of different ways <pause dur="0.2"/> in which groups <pause dur="0.2"/> having <pause dur="0.4"/> understood the problem <pause dur="1.3"/> having gone through the discussion <pause dur="0.2"/> then move on to coming up with their solution whether it's a verdict of guilty or not <pause dur="1.4"/> does it does it have to be unanimous do <pause dur="0.2"/> do juries vote well on the <trunc>whol</trunc> whole on the whole <pause dur="0.5"/> juries i've done jury service <pause dur="0.2"/> they talk <pause dur="0.2"/> and talk and talk and <trunc>s</trunc> somehow it sort of emerges sort of magically <pause dur="0.2"/> but sometimes you sit and you have a vote saying who's you know <pause dur="0.6"/> who thinks guilty who thinks innocent so it's a sort of mixture of <pause dur="0.5"/>

voting <pause dur="0.6"/> which sort of orientates you and then you go on and on <pause dur="0.6"/> and on discussing <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>m</trunc> decision schemes are an important part <pause dur="0.3"/> 'cause <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>pe</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> people go into groups with ideas about how it should be done <pause dur="0.3"/> and some or sometimes it just emerges about <pause dur="0.6"/> how this <pause dur="0.2"/> how the decision will emerge <pause dur="0.9"/> right <pause dur="0.4"/> now <pause dur="0.4"/><event desc="takes off transparency" iterated="n"/> like to <pause dur="0.3"/> to move on now <pause dur="0.8"/> to to say something about leadership <pause dur="0.3"/> and then <pause dur="1.5"/> then to go on to talking about group think <pause dur="0.4"/> now <pause dur="0.5"/> so much it's a huge area so much is written <pause dur="0.3"/> about leadership <pause dur="0.4"/> and i can't really begin to do it justice here <pause dur="1.0"/> i'd like to <trunc>s</trunc> <trunc>su</trunc> suggest <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> it's really <pause dur="0.2"/> obviously it's an example of group processes <pause dur="0.3"/> it's something to do with # <pause dur="0.2"/> some sort of role differentiation obviously that emerges within a group <pause dur="0.3"/> but we've already seen that groups can be face to face in <pause dur="0.5"/> interacting units <pause dur="0.2"/> or there could be <pause dur="0.3"/> large scale aggregates of people <pause dur="0.2"/> and # obviously <pause dur="0.2"/> the sort of person <pause dur="0.3"/> or the sort of role that we'd call leadership is very different <pause dur="0.3"/> you know <pause dur="0.9"/> a small group like a family or a

jury they have their foreman or foreperson or they have their <pause dur="0.2"/> their leader <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> it's a very different set of <pause dur="0.2"/> circumstances and a very <trunc>s</trunc> different set of activities as a role perhaps <pause dur="0.3"/> from someone who is a dictator <pause dur="0.2"/> or a prime minister <pause dur="0.8"/> and not all groups of course have leaders there isn't a leader of the people who are group O-positive <pause dur="0.6"/> # and lots # the the lots of <pause dur="0.3"/> things that are very <pause dur="0.7"/> you know very solidly understood as groups don't have leaders <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> there are very different types of groups therefore we'd expect <pause dur="0.2"/> the sorts of roles <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.8"/> we'd call leadership to vary <pause dur="0.9"/> but i think <pause dur="0.7"/> one thing you can say and i think this makes some sort of sense <pause dur="0.5"/> is to say that <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>o</trunc> it's a role <pause dur="0.2"/> but it's a role that's to do with influence <trunc>leadersh</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> thing about leaders is they <pause dur="0.5"/> have a particular <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> role with respect to influence within the group <pause dur="0.3"/> so we're talk we're back to social influence again <pause dur="0.3"/> leadership is about social influence it's a particular case <pause dur="0.3"/> of social

influence in that it's a particular role that emerges <pause dur="0.4"/> from a group <pause dur="0.2"/> well i say emerges it doesn't have to be <trunc>em</trunc> it doesn't have to emerge it can be <pause dur="0.4"/> imposed from the outside <pause dur="1.2"/> so <pause dur="0.7"/> think roles <pause dur="0.7"/> think variety of groups <pause dur="0.2"/> and particularly think of social influence <pause dur="0.2"/> and of course once again once we start to talk about social influence we're reminded of compliance we're reminded of identification <pause dur="0.3"/> and we're reminded of internalization <pause dur="0.3"/> and all three of those processes of social influence <pause dur="0.3"/> can <pause dur="0.2"/> bring about a role of influence <pause dur="0.3"/> compliance <pause dur="0.3"/> if one has the power <pause dur="0.3"/> or the authority in a group <pause dur="0.8"/> or the political might <pause dur="0.3"/> or one's just very strong <pause dur="2.0"/> one's going to have some sort of influence 'cause you can force people to be influenced by you <pause dur="0.4"/> if one is particularly attractive or charismatic <pause dur="0.5"/> wears the right clothes is very good at <trunc>some</trunc> doing something <pause dur="0.4"/> people like to be like you you're going to have <pause dur="0.2"/> you're going to emerge <pause dur="0.2"/> as having the role of social influence in a group <pause dur="0.3"/> and similarly if

you're right this is internalization <pause dur="0.3"/> if your ideas are good effective or useful or people say yes that's right why didn't i think of that people will be <pause dur="0.5"/> following you and be influenced by you <pause dur="0.3"/> because of the process of <pause dur="0.5"/> internalization so we're back <pause dur="0.5"/> we're back with social influence we're back with those three processes <pause dur="1.4"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> let's look at some classic studies <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> leadership <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> we can move on to looking at # <pause dur="0.3"/> although really <pause dur="1.1"/> i mean ah well <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> roles emerge for division of labour <pause dur="0.5"/> expectation self-definition i <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> that's <trunc>r</trunc> <pause dur="2.6"/> the functional aspect <pause dur="0.9"/> of # leadership <pause dur="0.3"/> i wanted to # <pause dur="0.9"/> just look at some of the <pause dur="0.4"/> classical studies <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> one of the one of the earliest studies is this one by Lippett and White on leadership style this is done i think in # # # <trunc>ninet</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> nineteen-forty-three <pause dur="0.3"/> they were the first people to really <pause dur="0.5"/> i mean classic studies in a way really because <pause dur="0.4"/> they were some of the earliest studies to <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.9"/> to <trunc>l</trunc> look at <trunc>ex</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> experimentally truly

experimentally <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>s</trunc> group phenomenon perhaps <trunc>bef</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> you know some of the first <pause dur="0.4"/> group <trunc>stud</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> studies ever done <pause dur="0.5"/> and they were interested in styles of leadership <pause dur="0.4"/> i guess you can look at the political context of nineteen-forty-three and work out <pause dur="0.3"/> why people are interested in <pause dur="0.4"/> in leadership there were some beefy dictators around in the early nineteen-forties in Spain and Italy and Germany <pause dur="0.6"/> and i suspect that has something to do with suddenly this interest in leadership <pause dur="1.6"/> they they studied boys' clubs <pause dur="0.3"/> and they looked at the imposition of types of leaders they're the first people really to <pause dur="0.2"/> start looking at the personalities of leaders addressing this question are orders <pause dur="0.2"/> are leaders <pause dur="0.4"/> born <pause dur="0.3"/> or are they made by the circumstances <pause dur="0.3"/> and they were they <pause dur="0.2"/> they were interested in the <pause dur="0.5"/> the personality of people imposed in in groups of boys so <pause dur="0.2"/> there's all sorts of specific situations here <pause dur="0.3"/> there's a there's a an authority <pause dur="0.2"/> in any case that we're talking about adults and children <pause dur="0.2"/> and

we're talking about <pause dur="0.2"/> a leader imposed from the outside as is the case in sort of boys' clubs <pause dur="0.3"/> and so on <pause dur="0.2"/> but they interesting they studied <pause dur="0.3"/> autocratic leaders democratic leaders and laissez-faire leaders <pause dur="0.6"/> autocratic leaders organized activities gave orders were aloof and focused on the task in hand <pause dur="0.3"/> democratic leaders asked for suggestions <pause dur="0.5"/> # discussed plans acted as ordinary club <pause dur="0.4"/> members laissez-faire leaders <pause dur="0.4"/> just sort of hung back and did not much <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="1.0"/> the results if you think about them i guess were quite predictable <pause dur="1.0"/> and democratic led groups had a better atmosphere <pause dur="0.3"/> laissez-faire had a good atmosphere with play-related activities but not with other activities <pause dur="0.4"/> # the democratic <trunc>ac</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> leaders had <pause dur="0.2"/> better atmosphere for task-related activities <pause dur="0.6"/> the autocratically <pause dur="0.4"/> led groups had high productivity when the leader was present <pause dur="0.3"/> not very high productivity as soon as the leader was gone <pause dur="0.2"/> so obviously the autocratic leaders are working by <pause dur="0.5"/> compliance <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> and so on now <pause dur="0.3"/> you can <pause dur="0.2"/> you can look in Hogg and Vaughan or any of the textbooks and you can see a bit more detail

about the sorts of findings <pause dur="0.3"/> but at <trunc>l</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> but it <trunc>sh</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> it showed that the different styles of leaders produced different styles of behaviour <pause dur="0.4"/> and that had implications for <trunc>whe</trunc> you know for how for how the group performed <pause dur="0.2"/> especially whether the leader was there or not what could be relied upon within the group <pause dur="0.5"/> this work was picked up by Bales again <pause dur="0.5"/> who <pause dur="0.3"/> looking more at groups where leaders evolved <pause dur="0.2"/> this research was more about adults <pause dur="0.3"/> more about <pause dur="0.3"/> groups <pause dur="0.2"/> that were just were allowed to get on with tasks they were <trunc>u</trunc> usually laboratory tasks experimental tasks like <pause dur="0.3"/> rank order <pause dur="0.7"/> a group of <trunc>eq</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> # a <trunc>s</trunc> set of equipment for if you were stranded on a desert island you know compass needle <pause dur="0.5"/> eight gramophone records copy of Hogg and Vaughan <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>et cetera <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> things you'd have on a <pause dur="0.3"/> things you'd have on a desert island <pause dur="0.3"/> and # and ask them to sort of rank them <pause dur="0.3"/> tasks like that i think <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and then what he <trunc>s</trunc> what he discovered were that there were

different types of influence for going on it wasn't just all about the task <pause dur="1.3"/> and particularly he's <pause dur="0.2"/> well known his work for distinguishing two types of leader <pause dur="0.3"/> a sort of task orientated role getting things done ordering people around <pause dur="0.3"/> getting <pause dur="0.3"/> getting the job done <pause dur="1.1"/> certainly <pause dur="0.7"/> individuals emerged who had more influence in doing that <pause dur="0.4"/> but at the same time another another role emerged which was vital for group performance <pause dur="0.2"/> and that was what Bales called the socio-emotional <pause dur="0.4"/> leader <pause dur="0.4"/> the someone who sort of kept people together <pause dur="0.2"/> put an arm round someone who'd been moaned at or wasn't doing very well <pause dur="0.3"/> cracked a joke lightened the atmosphere <pause dur="0.3"/> and he found that his most effective groups were groups where both these roles <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> were seen to emerge <pause dur="0.2"/> and thought to have emerged <pause dur="0.2"/> by the people participating <pause dur="0.4"/> so here's <pause dur="0.2"/> his example of <pause dur="0.2"/> more than one <pause dur="0.4"/> social influence function <pause dur="0.2"/> needs to take place for a group to be <pause dur="0.2"/> effective <pause dur="0.4"/> now this is picked up by <pause dur="0.6"/> by # <pause dur="0.2"/> Fiedler who's not on this file <pause dur="0.2"/> <kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="6"/>

# he gets a he gets an O-H-P to himself <pause dur="0.6"/> and in the sixties and then onwards and i still think Fiedler is probably the most influential <trunc>peo</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> influential person <pause dur="0.4"/> in <pause dur="0.5"/> in the study of groups certainly was all throughout the sixties and seventies <pause dur="0.4"/> and onwards <trunc>peop</trunc> <pause dur="1.8"/> people may <pause dur="2.3"/> other <pause dur="0.7"/> and it's a lot of work <pause dur="0.4"/> which Ian will no doubt tell you more about next year <pause dur="0.3"/> on leadership <pause dur="0.6"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> it's still set in the context of Fiedler's work most people are sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> he's a sort of shadow cast over <pause dur="1.0"/> the # the <pause dur="0.2"/> the world of <pause dur="0.6"/> # <trunc>l</trunc> leadership studies <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> he was interested in Bales' work and his his own research <pause dur="0.3"/> comes out of Bales' work <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> and he <pause dur="1.6"/> looked <pause dur="1.0"/> it's sometimes called a contingency theory of leadership it's usually called a contingency theory of leadership actually <pause dur="0.3"/> and it <pause dur="0.2"/> and the the the message here is that the sort of style of leader is contingent upon the circumstances within the group <pause dur="0.3"/> so he's <pause dur="0.5"/> interested in classifying <pause dur="0.3"/> the tasks that confronted a

group <pause dur="1.2"/> and he saw there as <pause dur="0.2"/> he saw there being at least three important bases for classifying <pause dur="0.4"/> what was going on in a group the <trunc>situ</trunc> the circumstances in which the group <pause dur="0.6"/> leader might emerge <pause dur="0.9"/> there were the leader-member relations were they good or bad <pause dur="2.0"/> the task structure <pause dur="0.3"/> was it high or low <pause dur="0.9"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> the power of the leader <pause dur="0.3"/> was it high <pause dur="0.2"/> or low <pause dur="0.3"/> don't think they don't think <pause dur="0.4"/> don't need too much <pause dur="0.2"/> description <pause dur="0.4"/> there <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> that actually made you can <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> eight types of groups theoretically and indeed he's claims to have found <pause dur="0.4"/> examples of each one of those two groups you know you can have <pause dur="0.5"/> marvellous relationships with lots of power and lots of structure or or <pause dur="0.3"/> various combinations you can work on that yourself <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> he also <pause dur="0.4"/> going # <pause dur="0.2"/> going on from <pause dur="0.3"/> # Bales' work he could see that there were these two functions <pause dur="0.4"/> the sort of getting down to it regardless of what people were up to <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> and helping people <pause dur="0.6"/> task socio-emotional <pause dur="0.7"/> and he <trunc>v</trunc> <pause dur="0.8"/> his <trunc>c</trunc> one of his contributions was to find a way

of measuring that <pause dur="0.3"/> he started actually out measuring <pause dur="0.3"/> getting everybody to sort of rate the difference between themselves <pause dur="0.3"/> and the worker they most preferred <pause dur="0.3"/> and themselves <pause dur="0.2"/> and the worker they least preferred <pause dur="0.2"/> that was his first way of measuring things <pause dur="0.3"/> but then <pause dur="0.3"/> after doing that for a while <pause dur="0.3"/> realized that everybody saw themselves as being their <trunc>m</trunc> like their most preferred coworker the difference between <pause dur="0.2"/> individuals' ratings of themselves <pause dur="0.2"/> and their most preferred coworker <pause dur="0.2"/> were very small almost non-existent 'cause people are like that <pause dur="0.3"/> and the difference between <pause dur="0.4"/> the most <trunc>prefer</trunc> themselves and the least preferred coworker <pause dur="1.0"/> is was big <pause dur="0.3"/> so he cut out <pause dur="0.2"/> the middle person the the <trunc>s</trunc> the self <pause dur="0.3"/> and just asked his subjects to <pause dur="0.4"/> rate <pause dur="0.4"/> their most preferred coworker <pause dur="0.2"/> and their least preferred coworker <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> he <pause dur="0.4"/> his <trunc>depend</trunc> his measure is really the difference between <pause dur="0.5"/> the ratings you give to your most preferred coworker <pause dur="0.3"/> and the ratings you give to your least preferred

coworker <pause dur="0.3"/> basically <pause dur="0.3"/> there is # <pause dur="0.3"/> it it it's a measure of discrimination you've got <pause dur="0.2"/> you know people who <pause dur="0.4"/> for whom that difference is big <pause dur="0.2"/> discriminate a lot <pause dur="0.3"/> people <pause dur="0.5"/> # for whom that difference is <pause dur="0.6"/> small <pause dur="0.4"/> like everybody and don't discriminate very much at all <pause dur="0.5"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> he set this <pause dur="0.4"/> against his <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> types of groups <pause dur="0.3"/> and found <trunc>s</trunc> basically <pause dur="0.3"/> when <pause dur="0.6"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> things were good for the group and the task structure was high <pause dur="0.2"/> when the leader has lots of power <pause dur="0.2"/> and the leader and <pause dur="0.5"/> follow-up relationships were good <pause dur="1.0"/> then <pause dur="0.2"/> it was best to have <pause dur="0.4"/> someone <pause dur="0.3"/> who discriminated a lot <pause dur="0.3"/> someone who just got on with it 'cause it was an easy task to do <pause dur="0.4"/> when things were really bad for the group <pause dur="1.1"/> number of you know the <trunc>m</trunc> the <pause dur="0.2"/> # the leader-member relations is bad task structure low <pause dur="0.6"/> power of the leader is low <pause dur="0.3"/> then it's also <pause dur="0.3"/> best <pause dur="0.2"/> to have <pause dur="0.7"/> # the autocractic style of leader the one who makes big discriminations <pause dur="0.3"/> it's when things are in the middle <pause dur="0.9"/> then you need <trunc>s</trunc> then you need someone who's <pause dur="0.2"/> much more sort of <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> much more

sort of subtle <pause dur="0.4"/> # # the besser better leaders when in in the intervening <pause dur="0.8"/> intermediate stages <pause dur="0.3"/> is someone who makes <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>le</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> fewer discriminations between these two preferred coworkers <pause dur="0.2"/> so the message coming up from Fiedler simply is you know <pause dur="0.3"/> if things are very good <pause dur="0.5"/> just get on with it doesn't matter what the leader's like <pause dur="1.0"/> # if things are very bad it doesn't really matter <pause dur="0.2"/> you know whether the leader is sort of very friendly <pause dur="0.2"/> and in all all other cases it's better to have someone who is a bit more subtle in distinguishing between people <pause dur="1.0"/> right <pause dur="0.9"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> that's <pause dur="0.2"/> Fiedler's contingency <pause dur="0.2"/> model of leadership and there's a lot of research <pause dur="0.2"/> stimulated by it <pause dur="0.2"/> and it is <pause dur="0.2"/> you know and a lot of research support it which you can look <pause dur="1.2"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="10"/> <trunc>fur</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> further to <pause dur="0.7"/> now <pause dur="0.6"/> coming back to <pause dur="0.2"/> or moving on really to with <pause dur="0.2"/> decision making groups i'd like now to look at <pause dur="0.5"/> risk taking and polarization <pause dur="0.4"/> as a particular <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.6"/> as a particular instance <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/><pause dur="0.6"/> example <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>th</trunc> this <pause dur="0.4"/> this is <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>m</trunc> this is moving

back temporarily to really decision making within groups <pause dur="0.2"/> but particularly types special types of decision making <pause dur="0.3"/> and then i think if we can move on <pause dur="0.5"/> one <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>un</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> with what we know about risk taking and group polarization and what we know about leadership <pause dur="0.3"/> that leads into <pause dur="0.3"/> group think <pause dur="0.2"/> which i'm not sure whether i shall finish today but we might do that next week look at the beginning of next week <pause dur="0.4"/> now <pause dur="2.5"/> been quite an important topic in social psychology # i think the amount of research it's generated far outweighs its importance but i suppose it's something that worked and therefore it attracted social psychologists <pause dur="1.0"/> this <pause dur="0.2"/> risk taking <pause dur="0.3"/> really was the discovery <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> if you <pause dur="0.6"/> if you get groups <pause dur="0.3"/> groups of people making decisions <pause dur="0.2"/> they're not averages they're not boring <pause dur="0.2"/> you know committees aren't necessarily boring <pause dur="0.2"/> but when but when people made decisions involving risk in groups they tended to be riskier than individuals <pause dur="0.2"/> and they tend to be quite a robust sort of finding <pause dur="0.3"/> the

paradigm here would be <pause dur="0.3"/> you have <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>es</trunc> well in fact the original research had a series of sort of life dilemmas <pause dur="0.4"/> the difference between <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>t</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> moving to a new job which was <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> might pay a lot in a few years' time <pause dur="0.8"/> but there is a risk you might be sort of lose the job <pause dur="0.3"/> or taking a safe job with a sort of gold watch and a pension you never earn much but you always keep that sort of job <pause dur="0.3"/> or another example is <trunc>s</trunc> someone playing <pause dur="0.4"/> in a chess match you've got a risky move you can make <pause dur="0.4"/> yeah mean it might <pause dur="0.4"/> result in you losing the chess <pause dur="0.3"/> chess match <pause dur="1.6"/> but it might just get you some really sneaky victory <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.6"/> when i play chess with my son he always tries fool's mate do you ever play chess <pause dur="0.3"/> in sort of three moves you can see it coming the queen comes out the bishop comes out and you see it coming you sort of <pause dur="0.2"/><shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> move something <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>in the way and <pause dur="0.2"/> then you're all you're all to pieces afterwards it's a risky move <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>co</trunc> if the other person sees it coming good move if they

don't see it coming <pause dur="0.8"/> so <pause dur="1.7"/> that's one of the dilemmas <pause dur="0.2"/> but the the paradigm is you get individuals to sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> deal with these dilemmas individually <pause dur="0.2"/> then you get them to discuss them to consensus <pause dur="0.2"/> they argue and argue until they can agree <pause dur="0.4"/> on a on a on a decision <pause dur="0.6"/> and then you get them to # # to rate them <pause dur="0.3"/> individually afterwards so you've got predecision individual measures you've got a group consensus you've got a post-<pause dur="0.5"/>group consensus <pause dur="0.3"/> individual measure that's the paradigm <pause dur="0.4"/> and you can <pause dur="0.2"/> look <pause dur="0.2"/> at the mean of the individual decisions <pause dur="0.3"/> and compare it with the consensus <pause dur="0.8"/> 'cause usually these are <pause dur="0.5"/> # you know <pause dur="0.5"/> fixed on bipolar scales <pause dur="0.2"/> in fact the dependent variable for the risk taking <pause dur="0.3"/> experiments is <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the minimum odds of success you would <trunc>c</trunc> you would accept before you take the risky decision <pause dur="0.6"/> and and lo and behold <pause dur="1.5"/> the the the consensus was more risky than the the average <trunc>w</trunc> or you know what you'd have expected if it <trunc>wa</trunc> if you just looked at the average of the initial

decisions <pause dur="0.4"/> now <pause dur="1.3"/> there are <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> a lot of <pause dur="0.4"/> well a variety of explanations that go on here <pause dur="0.2"/> and certain they take us back to the Deutsch <pause dur="0.2"/> and Gerard <pause dur="0.4"/> normative and informational aspects of group influence are wheeled out to discuss this <pause dur="0.3"/> you've got two types of <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>dis</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> two types of explanation here <pause dur="0.4"/> on the one hand there is actually what is said in the groups <pause dur="0.2"/> if you if you look at the <pause dur="0.3"/> interactions <pause dur="0.6"/> people say different things oh i wouldn't take that job and they bring in information <pause dur="1.6"/> and # <pause dur="1.0"/> you know there's a sort of informational social influence going on here in these groups <pause dur="0.5"/> but there is also <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>th</trunc> as a normative type of explanation as well <pause dur="0.3"/> risk is risk is cool you know being risky is a bit cool rather than being sort of boring <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> in as much as <pause dur="0.6"/> wider values are evoked and preferences which are really embodied in norms and values <pause dur="0.8"/> you we get an explanation <pause dur="0.3"/> in terms of the cultural values for for risk <pause dur="0.8"/> there's something else a bit of a problem with these studies <pause dur="0.3"/> and that is that

sometimes people get cautious as well <pause dur="0.3"/> on some types of dilemmas people get cautious <pause dur="0.3"/> but on some dilemmas <pause dur="0.2"/> people <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> go for risk it's not always risky <pause dur="0.3"/> and that really led to <pause dur="0.2"/> a development of the risk taking <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> literature <pause dur="0.3"/> group polarization it was suggested that really <pause dur="0.3"/> risk taking <pause dur="0.3"/> was quite possibly just a <pause dur="0.3"/> a specific <pause dur="0.5"/> # instance <pause dur="0.2"/> of a more general <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> tendency <pause dur="0.2"/> for groups to <pause dur="3.8"/> to make more extreme decisions on anything they happen to be talking about <pause dur="0.3"/> than individuals <pause dur="0.4"/> this was introduced by Moscovici and Zavalloni Journal of Personality and Social Psychology nineteen-sixty-nine <pause dur="0.3"/> and much developed <trunc>af</trunc> developed afterwards in subsequent years <pause dur="0.7"/> but <pause dur="0.5"/> polarization <pause dur="0.7"/> really refers to the fact that <trunc>i</trunc> if there is a tendency <pause dur="0.3"/> for a group in one direction <pause dur="0.5"/> or another <pause dur="0.4"/> that after a group discussion <pause dur="0.2"/> they will move more in that direction <pause dur="1.4"/> the word <trunc>l</trunc> you can talk about extrematization just becoming more extreme <pause dur="1.0"/> polarization is really a <trunc>s</trunc> # # an example of extrematization within a

group <pause dur="0.4"/> if there is a <pause dur="0.3"/> a tendency for the group to <pause dur="0.2"/> have leaned in one direction to be for an issue or against an issue <pause dur="0.4"/> before a particular attitude or a point of view <pause dur="0.2"/> before it starts <pause dur="1.3"/> after group discussion <pause dur="0.2"/> they will tend to realize that point of view <pause dur="0.3"/> more than they did before they started <pause dur="1.2"/> and that's quite an <pause dur="0.3"/> important and quite a robust finding and feeds into a lot of <pause dur="0.3"/> a lot of aspects of group decision making <pause dur="1.4"/> now <pause dur="2.3"/> there are <pause dur="2.1"/> once again a variety unfortunately of explanations for this <pause dur="0.2"/> and they all seem to work <pause dur="0.3"/> the literature is full of studies which show that this works <pause dur="0.2"/> and then <pause dur="0.4"/> another study which shows <pause dur="0.2"/> well this works too <pause dur="0.2"/> if you if i try to isolate the variables that are behind this group extrematization <pause dur="0.4"/> but basically they come down to <pause dur="0.6"/> four types of explanation <pause dur="0.3"/> affective cognitive statistical and interactive <pause dur="0.3"/> and i think as i've <pause dur="0.4"/> spent too too long at the beginning <pause dur="0.2"/> i think i'll go this <pause dur="0.2"/> thus far <pause dur="0.3"/> rather than well i'm not going to be able to whip through

group thinking in <pause dur="0.2"/> five minutes 'cause it'll take about ten minutes to talk about 'cause it is <pause dur="0.3"/> it is rather important so <pause dur="0.3"/> i'll just just <pause dur="1.0"/> go this far and talk about group polarization <pause dur="0.2"/> and then squeeze in i think it'll be quite comfortable next week to <pause dur="0.2"/> to squeeze in <pause dur="0.3"/> the group think factor <pause dur="0.4"/> now <pause dur="1.1"/> what have we got then <pause dur="0.2"/> are <pause dur="0.4"/> affective cognitive statistical and interactive explanations <pause dur="0.2"/> and all these <pause dur="0.2"/> are <pause dur="0.4"/> relevant <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="0.7"/> group decision making <pause dur="1.6"/> in this sort of paradigm when we're comparing <pause dur="0.4"/> individual <pause dur="0.6"/> positions <pause dur="0.2"/> with a group position <pause dur="0.4"/> affective <pause dur="0.4"/> means <pause dur="0.7"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> that the explanation <pause dur="0.7"/> the well that the effects of discussion <pause dur="0.7"/> # are on how one feels about the issue so this is about attitude change in a way <pause dur="0.2"/> but really especially the affective how one feels <pause dur="0.2"/> how one values something after you've after you've talked about it <pause dur="1.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but clearly this is also <pause dur="0.5"/> while <pause dur="0.3"/> in passing we should <pause dur="0.4"/> we should mention <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> we're really talking about attitude change here as well <pause dur="1.0"/> as another <pause dur="0.3"/> sort of an

interactive effect on attitude change <pause dur="0.4"/> we talked about attitude change <pause dur="0.2"/> in terms of # <pause dur="0.6"/> persuasion <pause dur="0.9"/> we talked about attitude <trunc>cherm</trunc> attitude change <pause dur="0.3"/> in terms of <pause dur="0.2"/> consistency theories <pause dur="0.2"/> reminded you of functions <pause dur="0.2"/> but there are interactive effects as well <pause dur="0.3"/> when one's dealing with attitudes looking round group effects well what does the group think you know how is this making me feel <pause dur="0.2"/> and so on <pause dur="0.3"/> so we've got <pause dur="0.5"/> we've got affective <pause dur="0.5"/> # and under this heading as well as as how how changing how one feels about the issue under discuss <pause dur="0.2"/> discussion <pause dur="0.4"/> are <pause dur="0.4"/> concepts like <pause dur="0.2"/> diffusion of responsibility <pause dur="1.0"/> you know we don't feel quite so responsible <pause dur="1.1"/> or <pause dur="0.5"/> the social comparison looking around and seeing how everybody else feels <pause dur="0.3"/> or impression management <pause dur="0.4"/> mm i don't want to be <pause dur="0.3"/> look dull or sad on this issue i'd better sort of change <pause dur="0.2"/> what i say and what i do <pause dur="0.5"/> these these are all <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>b</trunc> could affect how one feels about <pause dur="0.2"/> the issue under discussion <pause dur="1.0"/> and then there are cognitive explanations <pause dur="0.7"/> here <pause dur="0.6"/> here <pause dur="0.2"/> what

<trunc>hap</trunc> this is the <trunc>inf</trunc> about the information content in the interaction <pause dur="1.5"/> # you just hear things that you didn't know before <pause dur="0.2"/> people give statistics people give information <pause dur="0.4"/> people <pause dur="0.2"/> give examples and of course here we're open to all those # <pause dur="0.3"/> heuristics and biases for representation people talk about what their granny did well i've already done that you know oh that that means it yes i'll take notice of that <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="1.1"/> as well as affect of course <pause dur="0.2"/> there's the information in the group <pause dur="0.4"/> is done <pause dur="0.4"/> now <pause dur="0.5"/> there are also # <pause dur="0.8"/> explanations which are really up <pause dur="0.3"/> to <trunc>she</trunc> suggests it's really artefactual <pause dur="0.4"/> if you <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> if you have a lot of people if you have a wide distribution i suppose i could <pause dur="1.7"/> let's draw this <pause dur="0.5"/> if you had if you <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> if <pause dur="0.3"/> if we could somehow imagine that this was sort of positive <pause dur="0.6"/> and this was negative <pause dur="0.2"/> and we had a sort of wide distribution <pause dur="0.6"/> of opinion and this represented neutrality couldn't care or was sort of individual <pause dur="0.3"/> <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="5"/> if you had some people in the group who

were sort of out this way <pause dur="0.8"/> and some people a couple of people who are out this way <pause dur="0.4"/> something like that <pause dur="0.3"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> the mean position if you were to <trunc>m</trunc> measure and these experiments do measure it <pause dur="0.3"/> of their positions i guess would be somewhere around <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="1"/> here before you start <pause dur="0.3"/> now <pause dur="0.5"/> in discussing <pause dur="0.3"/> they all might become more <pause dur="0.3"/> they all might become more reasonable if you like <pause dur="0.3"/> more neutral so <pause dur="0.2"/> they could all sort of <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="10"/> shift in <pause dur="1.0"/> but these might shift in a bit more <pause dur="1.1"/> than those <pause dur="0.2"/> now <pause dur="0.4"/> the sort of the means of this new range of positions might be something like this <pause dur="1.1"/> so they've all moved to less extreme positions <pause dur="0.2"/> but the group mean would probably have <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="1"/> gone <pause dur="0.6"/> out to there <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.6"/> we're we're we're to <pause dur="0.2"/> we're to take care <pause dur="0.5"/> in this sort of paradigm that not all <pause dur="0.2"/> apparent extrematization of the group <pause dur="0.3"/> represents extrematization or polarization of opinions <pause dur="0.3"/> it is the case

in some of these experiments are quite <pause dur="0.4"/> are quite naughty in in <trunc>a</trunc> in overlooking this <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> it is possible for individual members all to converge <pause dur="0.9"/> to a <pause dur="0.6"/> to a sort of central position <pause dur="0.2"/> but the group <trunc>i</trunc> but for it to appear as if the group <trunc>mu</trunc> mean <pause dur="0.3"/> has # <pause dur="0.2"/> moved to a <pause dur="1.1"/> # a more extreme position <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and then <pause dur="0.3"/> there are <pause dur="0.4"/> also <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>wh</trunc> what we might call interactive <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="3.0"/> explanations <pause dur="0.3"/> i'll just i'll just <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>j</trunc> <trunc>j</trunc> just make this the penultimate point <pause dur="0.4"/> and that is that <pause dur="0.5"/> just <trunc>di</trunc> different people have different styles of arguing <pause dur="0.3"/> some people are more forceful <pause dur="0.2"/> some people just say more <pause dur="0.2"/> it's not the information but it's just how relentless they are <pause dur="0.5"/> they might appear <pause dur="0.6"/> once again they might appear more influential they might appear more knowledgeable <pause dur="0.3"/> they might appear more confident they might look more attractive <pause dur="0.2"/> et cetera <pause dur="0.3"/> there are these <pause dur="0.3"/> these are variables <pause dur="0.2"/> which <pause dur="0.3"/> which <trunc>sugge</trunc> you know perhaps it is the the more polarized people <pause dur="0.2"/> just are more confident about their attitudes <pause dur="0.2"/> and

there's a differentiation <pause dur="0.2"/> in the amount of influence that the <trunc>indi</trunc> that each individual has within the group <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> we've got four types of # <pause dur="0.3"/> interaction there <pause dur="0.3"/> and once again <pause dur="0.2"/> we can split these up <pause dur="0.2"/> back to <trunc>deu</trunc> Deutsch and Gerard's normative and information influence within groups <pause dur="0.3"/> it's either the the information that goes on in in groups <pause dur="0.2"/> or it's something about the relationship between people and their feelings that go on within groups <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> it seems that <pause dur="0.4"/> one way of sort of clarifying which of these explanations is going to be the more useful <pause dur="0.2"/> the more <pause dur="0.5"/> yes the more useful in describing why we get this polarization within groups <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> when <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>i</trunc> is to look really at the type of task that's in front of us <pause dur="0.3"/> if it's one that's really heavy on information <pause dur="0.9"/> and the the the right decision will just really be based <pause dur="0.2"/> not so much on attitudes or values but it'll be just knowing the right things to do working out the calculations and so on <pause dur="0.4"/> then <pause dur="0.4"/> the then obviously we're going to be in the realm of cognitive <pause dur="0.6"/> informational <pause dur="0.6"/> persuasive arguments <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>interac</trunc> you know <pause dur="0.5"/> persuasive

arguments type of <pause dur="0.3"/> type of # <pause dur="0.4"/> explanations <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> on the other hand <pause dur="0.3"/> if what we're talking about in the group <pause dur="0.5"/> is something that involves <pause dur="0.2"/> values <pause dur="0.2"/> and preferences <pause dur="2.4"/> and # <pause dur="0.7"/> yes values and preferences <pause dur="0.2"/> values # and preferences <pause dur="0.2"/> then <pause dur="0.2"/> we're we're going to be more in the role <pause dur="0.2"/> # more in the domain of affective <pause dur="0.6"/> types of explanations <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> that's there's a # you'll see if you read accounts of this there's a lot of <trunc>diff</trunc> <pause dur="0.5"/> disagreement <pause dur="0.5"/> in which <trunc>o</trunc> which is the most important explanation for the polarizing effect of groups <pause dur="0.3"/> but it really does depend <pause dur="0.4"/> on us taking a wide <pause dur="0.4"/> sort of stance on the sorts of <pause dur="0.5"/> causes that there could be <pause dur="1.7"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> looking carefully at the task and then working out <pause dur="0.3"/> # how the <trunc>sor</trunc> how each of these influences could interact with the task <pause dur="0.4"/> now <pause dur="0.5"/> i think the <trunc>ta</trunc> i think that's a good place to stop i've overrun anyway <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> i'm going to follow this up to talk about group <pause dur="0.9"/> group think next week <pause dur="0.3"/> which will be a sort of synthesis <pause dur="0.2"/> of what we know about leadership <pause dur="0.8"/> and what we know <pause dur="0.5"/> about <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> decision making <pause dur="0.4"/> and and we'll look to see how group <pause dur="0.4"/> decisions are are defective <pause dur="0.3"/> okay