nm1213: okay let's er [1.1] let's get going [0.7] i've got er [0.8] [0.5] a 
couple of er a couple of announcements before we start one about the 
resurrection of the psychology society tah-dah [1.5] [laughter] [laughter] er 
[0.3] some of you have been to the meetings in one-four er one-four-nine-C 
whatever it was [0.4] about the c-, psychology society it is being resurrected 
as is it sa-, it usually is every year when enthusiasm [0.4] builds it up [0.2] 
and er [0.3] it has these people it has these officers some of whom may be here 
now i believe [0.5] [laughter] so it has a president [0.4] namex [0.5] vice-
president namex [1.2] treasurer [0.4] namex [0.2] secretary namex [0.5] ents 
officer [0.2] er namex [1.0] and there is a meeting [0.4] on Wednesday of week 
nine between one o'clock and two [0.4] that's next week week nine [0.7] in the 
common room for people to pay deposits for Cumberland Lodge [0.3] and or to 
join the psychology society now [0.4] the s-, [0.2] the psychology society 
first 
i guess you've heard a bit about it it wel-, it it organizes [0.2] things [0.4] 
and generally as a result of what people want to do [0.7] social events 
visiting speakers [0.4] and and i g-, i guess it will continue to do so now 
it's up and going it'll respond to whatever you want to do [0.5] so that'll be 
partly what that meeting is about [0.5] and secondly there is this [0.2] 
Cumberland Lodge now that seems to be [0.2] up and running now [0.7] people 
seem to be interested and it's going to go [0.8] there are [0.3] er 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 [0.4] in Windsor Park et cetera and [0.2] i 
think you all [0.3] you all know what the event is do you [0.7] b-, [1.0] okay 
well it's b-, it's being organized e-, deposits have been taken from some 
people [0.3] and we have some speakers now i happen to know we i think we've 
got [0.4] a hypnotherapist set up [0.8] and we've got somebody who's from the M-
R-C [0.7] er Medical Research Unit in Cambridge who'll talk about cognitive 
rehabilitation [0.5] er [0.3] after 
brain damage so [0.4] people with [0.3] brain damage from accidents so there's 
a sort of neur-, [0.3] the practical end of neuropsychology [1.0] and we have a 
speaker [0.4] who analyses it's Peter Bull actually [0.4] er from University of 
York [0.4] whose interest is i-, is in [0.2] political rhetoric the analysis of 
political spee [0.7] ches and he's always pretty entertaining [0.6] lots of 
speeches of politicians [0.4] telling the truth or otherwise [0.8] and so his 
interest is [0.2] his interest is in sort of political rhetoric so [0.3] there 
are some speakers arranged as [0.2] and as i as i think you know [0.4] 
Cumberland Lodge is a mixture of [0.5] outside speakers who are either sort of 
academic or professionally orientated [0.4] and internal home-grown s-, [0.2] 
talks as well which can be sort of brief [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 [0.3] psychology students going and about sort of five [0.5] five 
or so members of staff going [0.4] we'll try and organize some brief speeches 
[0.3] talks [0.5] on [0.2] topics of interest [0.3] from er [0.5] 
those who go and i hope a lot of you will go very rewarding and interesting it 
is too [0.8] er [1.8] i think there's some even some talk of subsidizing [0.4] 
the cost of going for anyone who wants to talk while they're there [0.3] but 
there's m-, more about that in due course [0.2] are any of the people [0.2] on 
that list there namex namex namex namex and namex are you here i think there 
are some 
sf1215: yeah [0.7] 
nm1213: are you all in a row the committees we're going to talk about 
committees and groups [0.3] is there anything you want to say this is your 
chance [0.5] camera's on [0.6] 
su1221: no [laughter] 
nm1213: [laugh] [0.6] is there about about Cumberland Lodge [0.4] 
sf1214: 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 er like to hear there 
nm1213: mm 
sf1214: as well [0.3] er it's a bit kind of [0.2] kind of open [0.5] er 
nm1213: yes [0.5] 
sf1214: i mean it should just be good fun really [0.2] er i think the places 
are going quite quickly anyway so er [0.4] if you well er i think 
probably about twenty have gone or something already 
sf1215: yeah [0.3] 
nm1213: yes 
sf1214: so it's kind of like do you do you want to go 'cause it should be [0.2] 
excellent [0.5] 
nm1213: yes hurry hurry while stocks last [laughter] because there [0.3] aren't 
many tickets left so [0.4] there you are and it is good fun and [0.4] there's 
still there's still o-, there's still er a degree of negotiation about i mean 
[0.7] f-, [0.2] for what [0.2] who we get whom we ask i mean you can ask [0.5] 
or we'll ask to get people along we've had some response f-, [0.2] i mean the 
hypnotherapist we s-, that was suggested yesterday and we [0.4] we've been 
asking [0.3] all our hypnotherapy [0.7] hyp-, our hypnotherapist pals [0.2] of 
which we've got many [0.4] [laughter] and [laugh] and so [0.2] we seem to have 
got a couple there and er [0.7] and cer-, certainly someone who's going who 
deals with runny brains as well [0.5] will be er [0.4] sort of someone 
suggested but th-, there's [0.2] room for others so [0.4] Cumberland Lodge [0.
2] the meeting [0.3] don't forget to sign up or there 
won't be a place [0.6] right secondly [0.3] i i [0.5] i needed to say something 
about just briefly about the seminars [0.3] the last rou-, we we've done one 
round of pra-, [0.3] presentations of the practical work jolly good they were 
very interesting [0.3] and next Wednesday [0.4] we have the next the the [0.5] 
the other two groups [0.4] so there'll be eight [0.3] eight more presentations 
hopefully to do [0.4] and i said in the last week [0.4] it turned out talking 
to the other seminar group that we really needed to arrange [0.3] four seminars 
in the last week of term i was going to make the w-, the seminars [0.5] in week 
ten [0.8] gear them to the the assessed essays there seemed to be a lot of 
interest in this [0.4] and i said er [0.5] i asked how many would come and it 
seemed that [0.2] nearly all the people from the seminar groups this week [0.2] 
would come in week er [0.8] er in week ten [0.3] and er so i suspect the the [0.
3] people coming to seminars [0.2] in week nine [0.2] would also come to these 
ones in week ten so [0.2] we might [0.3] i was going to cram everybody into 
those two [0.4] those two slots 
at eleven o'clock and twelve o'clock on Wednesday [0.3] but that won't do [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 [0.7] er so [0.
5] the suggestion is that we have four seminars in the last week [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 [0.4] fifty 
minutes waiting for just ten minutes on an essay that's relevant to you [0.3] 
so i'm going to have to find two more seminar slots [0.3] i assume that eleven 
and twelve as usual are free everybody can make eleven or twelve in [0.2] in 
principle [0.6] and i'm looking at your second year timetable here [0.2] can i 
just check that the [0.2] i haven't been in touch with timetables yet but can i 
just check that all these times are available [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 [0.7] okay [0.
6] then i see that two o'clock on Monday would also be free on your timetable 
is that in principle free [0.2] 
ss: yeah 
nm1213: i don't know whether these will be the times yeah 
sf1215: yeah [0.7] 
nm1213: then looking on Tuesday it's s-, see that eleven o'clock and twelve 
o'clock there's a methods lecture but only in weeks four to eight is in 
principle [0.5] er [0.3] Tuesday [0.7] er eleven or twelve would that in 
principle be free [0.5] 
sf1216: twelve 
nm1213: twelve no [0.7] can i cross out twelve [0.5] i can't cross out twelve 
'cause i've not brought anything to write at [3.2] [laughter] ah [laughter] [1.
9] mm [0.2] right i've got to put this little thing back on here [1.8] 
[laughter] sorry about the [0.4] technology [2.8] oh dear [1.5] mm [2.4] does 
it matter if it's off 
om1220: 
nm1213: all right [0.5] i i've been in make-up for an hour this morning you 
know [laughter] [laugh] [0.5] i [laughter] [0.2] then they deci-, they decided 
there wasn't anything they could do so i've come as i am [0.5] [laughter] er er 
[0.4] i wanted the j-, Julian Clary look but there we were [laughter] [0.3] 
okay so [0.3] we can't [0.8] we can't make twelve and ju-, 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 [0.4] 
so what about eleven o'clock on Wednesday would that be in principle free [0.4] 
yeah [0.4] and eleven o'clock on er sorry [0.5] er not eleven o'clock [0.3] er 
we have one anyway then don't we [0.4] er [0.3] ten o'clock on Wednesday would 
that be free the hour before this start okay i'll try that one [0.3] and 
another one [0.4] er Thursday at t-, ten o'clock [1.5] yeah 
sm1217: yeah [0.6] 
nm1213: that would be free [0.4] 
ss: 
nm1213: okay [0.4] or is that not a very good idea is that 'cause you don't 
have anything on Thursday 
ss: yeah 
nm1213: oh right i'll scrub that out i le-, that i'll only do that in an 
emergency so 
it'll probably be [0.3] one of those times on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday 
then two seminar slots [0.3] 
sf1218: 
nm1213: yes 
sf1218: Wednesday at ten o'clock [0.2] 
nm1213: sorry [0.6] 
sf1218: er can't do Wednesday ten o'clock [0.3] 
nm1213: you can't do Wednesday ten o'clock [0.2] right okay [1.0] might be 
Monday or Tuesday i'll see what we can find [0.6] right [0.2] so that's the 
seminars that's Cumberland Lodge [0.2] let us now turn our attention to the [0.
4] matter in hand [0.3] which is to start doing [0.4] well it's to look at 
groups group performance group decision making things that go on in groups [0.
9] and [0.3] er i suppose this marks try to see how the [0.2] the lectures [0.
4] are grouped together [0.2] we're going to be doing three lectures now [0.5] 
which are about group [0.2] orientated phenomena [1.4] and [1.3] we'll look at 
things that go on within groups we'll look at the concept of groups [1.3] see 
what we shall do [2.3] we'll try and get through some of these things here 
although i think [0.5] not [0.2] all of them but [6.9] these [0.5] er 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 [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 [0.3] and 
conflict [2.8] er [0.7] other [0.2] other [0.2] points about this [0.3] i think 
[0.9] they are [1.4] er [1.3] relevant very very much to the s-, the stuff that 
Ian Morley talks about in his third year course [0.3] Ian Morley's third year 
[0.2] option is called Applied Social Psychology [0.3] its its particular 
emphasis [0.3] is on [0.2] applied social psychology in organizational contexts 
and those are mainly [0.4] sort of [0.4] i-, [1.4] er or in-, sorry industrial 
organi-, no t-, [0.4] that's just not the quite [0.3] work organizations i mean 
the word organization can be very loose but he [0.3] he has a fairly specific 
[0.6] er view of that [0.2] and therefore some of these concepts particularly i 
shall talk about group think towards the end and group polarization and and 
leadership [0.5] will be topics that he picks up again so this can serve as a 
sort of an introduction [0.3] to some of the literature which will be picked up 
in 
greater depth next year [0.8] it also rai-, it all c-, comes back t-, as well 
to the difference t-, b-, between [0.5] people as perceivers and participants 
we've had [0.5] we've had this [0.7] come up so far [0.3] on the course [0.2] 
and here i think we're moving to [0.3] back to sort of people as participants 
things people do when they interact with each other but [0.4] but both [0.4] 
both are really irrelevant there's al-, there's something about the 
representation of knowledge [0.4] here within groups but it's more about how 
people are influencing each other in groups [1.6] okay so [0.2] i'll certainly 
sa-, try and [0.2] say something about [0.5] functions and dimensions of groups 
[0.2] say something about [0.4] er [2.4] performance just the impact of having 
people around one [0.4] i'll skip over this a bit decision making in groups and 
aspects of group processes [0.3] but i will mention it because [0.2] when we 
come on to looking at er group think which is a really d-, [0.7] can be summed 
up as defective [0.5] er group decision making [0.9] that will er alert us to 
some of 
the things [0.2] that aren't being done [0.3] i'll try and say something about 
leadership [1.1] r-, role differentiation leadership [0.3] risk taking so [0.2] 
it'll really be mostly about [0.3] what is a group performance in groups [0.2] 
and then going on to [0.8] roles and influence in groups [0.2] risk taking and 
group think [0.3] now [1.7] the word [0.9] the word group [3.6] emerges all 
over the place in social psychology just like it emerges all over the place in 
everyday language [0.3] group is the collective noun [0.3] of persons you have 
flocks of sheep [0.3] herds of goats groups of people [0.5] and it means [0.3] 
it means a whole lot of things group group can r-, refer to [0.4] a small 
number of face to face interacting individuals of course [0.2] a a group [0.2] 
a family or a committee or a jury [0.5] but we also use the word to describe 
aggregates [0.5] of people [0.3] and people who are just identified by c-, some 
common concept we talk about blood groups you don't know all the people who are 
O-positive [0.5] there's a lot of them [0.8] sixty to seventy isn't it sixty 
per cent of the 
room you don't know who they are but somehow [0.4] you know if you needed blood 
[0.8] you'd want to know who they were [1.1] and people who share religion 
common national ethnic origin they are groups as well we refer to them as 
groups but there [0.4] there it's a sort of an abstract [0.5] quality a 
phenomenon [0.3] something with which one migh-, er i might identify [0.4] 
something which [0.2] influences behaviour [0.3] influences attitudes [0.3] 
does have an effect on what you do [0.8] but [0.2] in a in a sort of [0.4] an 
abstract sort of sense [0.4] but other times [0.6] a group means a set er a 
group of people small number of people [0.3] with whom you're actually 
interacting with whom you're actually talking put together for the purposes [0.
2] of doing something or saying something or making some sort of decision [0.6] 
so [0.8] it [0.2] er it applies certainly [0.3] to both of those two senses [0.
2] this week it'll be more about the face to face [0.5] aggregates of people 
things we do when making decisions in groups [0.3] what happens to us when we 
have people around us looking at us [0.6] but next week 
when we deal with intergroup relations [0.6] there is a sense sometimes 
intergroup relations when you have two football teams or two sports teams 
playing against each other when [0.2] the competition is about people [0.3] all 
of whom know [0.4] who it is [0.5] competing against them [0.2] but more 
usually when we talk about intergroup relations we're talking about [0.8] 
concepts [0.5] er [1.0] er [0.5] abstract notions of groups who have some sort 
of territorial dispute [0.4] or some ideological dispute [1.2] okay [0.3] some 
examples just to sort of prime us a bit to what we're talking about i've [0.2] 
got down some examples here [0.4] things we do just to sort of alert us to what 
what happens here [0.3] i mean we work and play in groups so you know example 
seminars [0.3] production teams and sports teams [0.4] we socialize in the 
technical sense as well as the non-technical sense the so [0.3] the technical 
sense in the sense of [0.6] inducing [0.4] children [0.2] into the world of 
adult values [0.4] so there's that sort of s-, the psychological sense but of 
course we socialize in the 
sense of [0.2] hanging about [0.4] in groups [0.8] families peer groups and 
friends [0.4] we derive important aspects of our identity [0.5] from groups 
gender [0.4] race [0.6] class nationality [0.3] we make important decisions in 
groups [0.6] oh and important decisions about us [0.5] are made by groups [0.3] 
exam boards [0.6] and then of course there's committees interview panels and 
juries and so on [0.7] so [0.5] the dimensions of groups there are a number of 
ways i've already sort of hinted at this [0.2] f-, the face to face versus the 
[0.3] the concept dimension [0.4] i mean the the numbers of individuals 
comprising the group obviously is a dimension [0.4] we have sort of committees 
[0.6] families there are two person families i suppose [0.4] so [0.3] two is 
the minimum number i suppose for a group although that's [0.3] not really a 
group [0.3] three is more like a group because there's a possibility that two 
people will talk and the other person listens [0.4] there's the possibility of 
coalitions and lots of interesting things [0.3] happen once you get beyond two 
to three but some peo-, 
some psy-, social psychologists talk about groups as if they were three [1.8] 
as if they were t-, and th-, a two person group could be a group er [0.6] the 
length of time people remain in groups they can be quite transient a pub crawl 
or a jury [0.3] or on the other hand they can be quite long lasting like a 
family or a nation [0.3] they could be structured and formal [0.9] so [0.2] we 
can have er [1.1] they could be [0.3] structured like police [0.3] or 
freemasons [0.5] actually it occurs to me they're the same group so [0.3] it's 
not a very [laugh] [laughter] not a very good example there [0.4] there are day 
trippers [0.5] there for the time [0.2] supporters associations [0.3] all sorts 
of different purposes [0.3] er [0.5] they can be pur-, well they can be 
purposeful or purposeless assembly lines local action groups street gangs [0.2] 
local communities [0.2] are all aggregates of people that have been studied by 
social psychologists [0.5] then then well er they could be organized in 
different ways they can be autocratic they can be democratic they can be 
laissez-faire [0.5] 
looking at the armed forces or the Mormons [0.2] as opposed to say students 
sharing a flat or [0.4] well peo-, members of a university department [1.0] so 
we have all those [0.4] dimensions [0.3] to look at [3.9] okay [0.4] er [0.8] 
let's [6.7] i should just [0.6] refer back of course [0.9] to [0.7] those the 
vor-, the course that was called intr-, er [0.2] further [0.6] Foundations of 
Psychology last year it's now called Further Psychology this year [0.4] just to 
remind you and those that did it that [0.6] the the work we did last year two 
lectures on social influence and those of you that didn't do the course [0.3] 
you can look up [0.3] social influence in in the Hogg and Vaughan textbook and 
see what was talked about [0.4] but they're such classic studies [0.5] even 
those of you that didn't [0.2] do the two-plus-two students for instance can 
hardly have escaped the sorts of studies [0.8] such as the Ash study on 
compliance Sherif [0.4] on normative influences within social groups [0.4] 
Latané on bystander apathy [0.3] those are all ex-, [0.3] all studies [0.2] on 
groups the impact of [0.4] face to 
face interaction [0.3] so [0.5] we've really be-, begun to look [0.2] at groups 
w-, last year [1.3] er [0.2] and those studies [0.3] and especially the role of 
social influence i'll remind you of those three plo-, [0.2] these those three 
processes of social influence [0.6] compliance identification and 
internalization [0.5] much beloved of social psychologists absolutely 
fundamental [0.2] to social influence [0.2] and social influence i-, [0.7] er 
as often as not [0.3] goes on [0.3] within the context of a group [1.2] so [0.
3] all of those processes compliance [0.6] identification [0.3] and 
internalization [0.3] all have some [1.3] er [0.5] something [1.5] to do with 
groups and groupness about them and that'll that'll come up when we look at [0.
9] types of leadership [1.4] decision making [0.3] we'll see those three 
processes are still going on [2.6] er [0.4] let's have a quick look at a quick 
review [0.3] of just what happens when going to remind you what [0.2] just what 
happens when people get together just the [0.3] the mere impact of other people 
[0.6] i think the original definitions of social psychology that come up in the 
f-, [0.3] in the beginning of most books [2.2] just pull that down a bit 
performance and groups that says then i'll 
put it up again [1.0] er suggest that s-, remember s-, it's a study of social 
influence processes in the presence [0.3] or absence you know in the real or 
imagined presence of other people [0.5] and there's a n-, there are a number of 
[0.3] studies [0.3] [sniff] areas of social psychology which look at the e-, 
impact of other people [0.5] first of all [0.3] we've [0.3] mentioned this 
before [0.3] the effect of mere presence social facilitation is something we 
have to bear in mind [0.2] having other people around us whether they're in 
groups or not [0.5] seems to [0.8] impact on what we do [1.3] remember tri-, 
triplet study cyclists [0.8] child winders [0.4] and then the triplets [0.5] w-,
wonderful wonderful [0.4] tasks to give people get them to wind [0.2] a reel 
[0.7] a fishing reel because you actually measure how much they've done by how 
much fishing line [0.3] is left at the end [0.4] it's a hundred years old but 
it's a very good dependent variable i think getting people to wind a fishing 
reel [0.5] er [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 [0.3] but then it it turns out it's slightly more 
complicated sometimes they do better [0.2] sometimes they do worse [0.5] this 
[1.6] er confusion [0.2] is sort of sorted out by Robert Zajonc in his articles 
in Science nineteen-sixty-five onwards [0.7] suggesting that [0.3] what we're 
dealing with here [0.2] is arousal it's a sort of drive theory explanation of 
why people sometimes do better [0.3] and sometimes do worse you've probably had 
the experience sometimes [0.3] you just do better if there's other people [0.2] 
sometimes [0.2] your whole act you're about to do your party piece [0.7] and 
suddenly it all falls to pieces when people are around you watching [1.4] and 
that's [1.2] er [0.6] that's what really what zajan-, Zajonc addresses [0.3] 
and his drive theory approach is what's really going on is here is we're 
generally being wound up [0.2] and the dominant responses [0.2] are the ones 
that er come to the fore [0.2] and if it's something very easy we do better [0.
5] and if it's something rather difficult [0.6] where [0.2] the dominant 
response is not necessarily 
the correct one [0.2] we tend to do worse [0.3] so that's [0.2] sort of tidying 
up this [1.0] this finding [0.3] now there have been various developments which 
i can dir-, direct you to in Hogg and Vaughan [0.3] particularly Cotterill's 
work in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology nineteen-sixty-eight 
[0.4] audience evaluation has to come in here [0.3] it depends who these people 
are who are watching you i think this is very important [0.5] it seems a bit 
simplistic just to think well are there people there or not [0.4] what [0.3] 
what we're really thinking about is what is their attitude what are they doing 
[0.2] are they evaluating us or not [0.4] and [0.3] that's really what 
Cotterill's work is about [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 [0.4] are they [0.4] better than us or [0.5] are they are they 
evaluating us [1.6] er [0.2] and then we've also got [0.7] ad-, that's advanced 
as an experimental social psychology the Baron reference [0.3] a development of 
audience evaluation [0.2] just the role of distraction just com-, [0.3] 
competition for where attention goes [0.3] is another way of approaching [0.3] 
what happens when we just have people around us [0.7] now wa-, [0.6] one other 
branch of work [3.1] that [0.3] that gets discussed quite a lot although it 
seems to be rather value laden [0.6] is what come what's come to be known as 
social loafing [0.6] and this is [0.7] this describes the effect [0.3] of [0.2] 
people doing less pro rata [0.2] when there are other people [0.6] around you 
[6.2] i seem to remember [0.5] my grandmother had a [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 [0.5] [laughter] you find that [0.2] somehow [0.
2] as [0.2] as as the sort of groups of people have you ever heard that phrase 
or something like it 
sf1219: yeah 
nm1213: i thought [0.5] yeah [0.2] it's the idea of a you know the er [0.2] 
having [0.2] er [0.3] er people just do less i mean that's that's really 
basically what socia-, social loafing [0.4] is about and er [1.4] the the 
original e-, the 
original experiments er [1.5] were to do with er [0.5] i can't remember what 
the original experiments were about [0.3] okay i remember l-, Latané's [0.6] 
oh Ringleman isn't it it's Ringleman's work of course that's right [0.6] 
Ringleman had people doing tug of war teams sort of pulling [0.5] and really 
you had the the real the real subject was the person at the front of the rope 
[0.2] pulling against the dynamometer that just measured how much force [0.4] 
and so [0.2] he or she i think they were hes [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 [0.4] if you're in a tug of war team always go at the back i suppose 
is the is the answer here [0.5] and [0.3] in Ringleman's experiments the er [0.
6] the he found that the the actual pull [0.2] if you doubled the number of 
people you didn't double the number of pull [0.8] er you d-, [laugh] [0.2] you 
didn't double the amount of pull [0.2] the more people you had [0.2] it didn't 
go up five t-, [0.2] five people didn't pull five times as 
hard [0.3] as one person [0.3] and this was picked up by Latané the same 
Latané of the er Bibb Latané of the er [0.5] of bystander apathy experiments 
[1.2] his er [1.1] his [0.4] paradigm was to get people to shout [0.3] in an 
anechoic chamber [0.3] and found that people [0.4] er [0.7] asked to shout as 
loudly as they could make as much volume as they could [0.9] and they made a 
certain amount of volume [0.3] if you added extra people [1.1] er [0.2] the 
amount of noise [0.4] that was er [0.3] created [0.3] didn't go up [0.5] have i 
put it down there the yes i think i have got the percentages [0.5] percentages 
there [0.3] he found that er [0.8] er i-, er th-, the noise was reduced by 
twenty-nine per cent for pairs [1.3] quite a lot getting on for a third as-, [0.
4] third off [0.6] and then only half as much noise per person per fours [0.2] 
so if you'd [0.4] if you er [0.4] if you have four times the number of people 
you only get double the amount of noise [0.3] so [1.7] social loafing [0.2] 
this tendency to er to do less when there's [0.3] when there's people around [1.
4] do less per person [0.7] er [0.3] now [1.2] there a-, there are various 
explanations for this i can er leave you to look u-, [0.3] look this up [1.2] 
er [0.3] but it does seem a a a rather negatively [0.3] evalua-, [0.2] er evalu-
, [0.2] evaluative sort of term to use social loafing [0.4] because [0.7] 
sometimes [0.2] i mean there obviously there are distractions going on [0.2] 
but of-, often group performance is about not everybody [0.5] acting [0.2] 
their optimum [0.8] sometimes [0.8] the whole point of a group working 
effectively if i-, is for people to stand back [0.6] and [0.6] and contribute 
in a constructive way wait for your turn [0.3] contribute to something which 
will be greater the sum than the sum of the parts [0.3] by [0.5] by just 
standing back and not [0.8] operating at the maximum operating in in the way 
that one would [0.4] if er [0.3] you were working on your own [0.9] so [0.2] 
social loafing [0.7] social impact [0.3] so th-, th-, [0.4] the approach is 
really [0.2] just looking at the impact of other people so having people around 
you [0.3] affects performance [0.3] in a variety of ways [1.0] now [0.4] i'd 
like to move on to sort of talking about [0.8] de-, making decisions in groups 
dealing with er information in groups [0.5] 
and i'm going to [0.6] zip over this quite quickly [0.3] just to just to draw 
attention you've got them on the notes in in on the notes in front of you [0.5] 
i had some [0.9] points to make about [0.7] how [0.9] how when when groups make 
decisions [3.2] how the activity is sort of divided and analysed [0.2] and 
certainly [3.0] er traditionally the process the context and the quality have 
been around [0.3] and then Bales whom we're going to come back in a minute when 
t-, come back to in a minute when we look at er [2.1] er leadership [2.4] 
developed those throughout the nineteen-fifties [0.2] to orientation [0.4] 
groups need a shared view of the problem to work well [0.6] evaluation 
solutions have to be put forward [0.3] and then [0.7] control [0.2] one 
solution has to be developed [0.2] that's Bales' contribution to [0.4] to to [0.
8] tidying up [0.3] the th-, [0.4] the processes that go on i-, in a group [0.
3] and then more recently [0.5] that seems to have developed into [0.3] these 
three phases [0.2] and i think these are slightly m-, more noteworthy [0.2] 
because these [0.4] are you can look at these and s-, look [0.4] in terms of 
what 
goes wrong when groups don't make group d-, good decisions [0.5] the 
orientation [0.7] research su-, [0.8] looks at [0.3] getting the right 
procedures to ensure that the group has understood the problem everyone knows 
what they're doing [0.8] and then [0.4] when that happens [0.3] the-, these are 
really the characteristics of a good decision [0.7] they s-, [0.4] er a good 
decision making group they spend some time [0.2] standing back making sure 
everybody knows what's going on [0.2] bad groups rush straight in [0.6] 
secondly [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 [0.
3] and if they're n-, [0.2] not followed [0.3] it gets done badly [0.3] and 
then you move on to the decision making [0.4] and that's a [0.2] that's an 
important part of group decision making 'cause there are very many different 
ways in which thi-, [0.2] this can be done [1.0] social decision schemes [0.8] 
er [0.3] and groups [0.4] often go to groups expecting how it's going to be 
done is one per-, is the [0.4] are you going to vote 
for instance [0.2] or are you going to talk on and on and on until eventually 
one rather like electing the Pope [0.4] until one sort of solution emerges [0.
4] or [0.3] you know [0.3] what other procedures have we got down here [0.4] or 
are you going to [0.4] at the end of talking [0.2] just take an average 
everybody writes down everybody rates [0.2] all of [0.2] all of their choices 
[0.2] and the one that gets the best [0.3] the best overall average [0.2] gets 
chosen [0.3] there are a whole [0.9] a whole range [0.2] of different ways [0.
2] in which groups [0.2] having [0.4] understood the problem [1.3] having gone 
through the discussion [0.2] then move on to coming up with their solution 
whether it's a verdict of guilty or not [1.4] does it does it have to be 
unanimous do [0.2] do juries vote well on the whol-, whole on the whole [0.5] 
juries i've done jury service [0.2] they talk [0.2] and talk and talk and s-, 
somehow it sort of emerges sort of magically [0.2] but sometimes you sit and 
you have a vote saying who's you know [0.6] who thinks guilty who thinks 
innocent so it's a sort of mixture of [0.5] 
voting [0.6] which sort of orientates you and then you go on and on [0.6] and 
on discussing [0.3] so [0.5] m-, decision schemes are an important part [0.3] 
'cause [0.2] pe-, [0.4] people go into groups with ideas about how it should be 
done [0.3] and some or sometimes it just emerges about [0.6] how this [0.2] how 
the decision will emerge [0.9] right [0.4] now [0.4] like to [0.3] to move on 
now [0.8] to to say something about leadership [0.3] and then [1.5] then to go 
on to talking about group think [0.4] now [0.5] so much it's a huge area so 
much is written [0.3] about leadership [0.4] and i can't really begin to do it 
justice here [1.0] i'd like to s-, su-, suggest [0.3] that [0.5] it's really [0.
2] obviously it's an example of group processes [0.3] it's something to do with 
er [0.2] some sort of role differentiation obviously that emerges within a 
group [0.3] but we've already seen that groups can be face to face in [0.5] 
interacting units [0.2] or there could be [0.3] large scale aggregates of 
people [0.2] and er obviously [0.2] the sort of person [0.3] or the sort of 
role that we'd call leadership is very different [0.3] you know [0.9] a small 
group like a family or a 
jury they have their foreman or foreperson or they have their [0.2] their 
leader [0.8] and [0.2] it's a very different set of [0.2] circumstances and a 
very s-, different set of activities as a role perhaps [0.3] from someone who 
is a dictator [0.2] or a prime minister [0.8] and not all groups of course have 
leaders there isn't a leader of the people who are group O-positive [0.6] er 
and lots er the the lots of [0.3] things that are very [0.7] you know very 
solidly understood as groups don't have leaders [0.4] so [0.4] there are very 
different types of groups therefore we'd expect [0.2] the sorts of roles [0.5] 
that [0.8] we'd call leadership to vary [0.9] but i think [0.7] one thing you 
can say and i think this makes some sort of sense [0.5] is to say that [0.3] o-,
it's a role [0.2] but it's a role that's to do with influence leadersh-, [0.2] 
the [0.4] thing about leaders is they [0.5] have a particular [0.4] er [0.3] 
role with respect to influence within the group [0.3] so we're talk we're back 
to social influence again [0.3] leadership is about social influence it's a 
particular case [0.3] of social 
influence in that it's a particular role that emerges [0.4] from a group [0.2] 
well i say emerges it doesn't have to be em-, it doesn't have to emerge it can 
be [0.4] imposed from the outside [1.2] so [0.7] think roles [0.7] think 
variety of groups [0.2] and particularly think of social influence [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 [0.3] and we're reminded of 
internalization [0.3] and all three of those processes of social influence [0.
3] can [0.2] bring about a role of influence [0.3] compliance [0.3] if one has 
the power [0.3] or the authority in a group [0.8] or the political might [0.3] 
or one's just very strong [2.0] one's going to have some sort of influence 
'cause you can force people to be influenced by you [0.4] if one is 
particularly attractive or charismatic [0.5] wears the right clothes is very 
good at some-, doing something [0.4] people like to be like you you're going to 
have [0.2] you're going to emerge [0.2] as having the role of social influence 
in a group [0.3] and similarly if 
you're right this is internalization [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 
[0.5] following you and be influenced by you [0.3] because of the process of [0.
5] internalization so we're back [0.5] we're back with social influence we're 
back with those three processes [1.4] now [0.3] let's look at some classic 
studies [0.3] of [0.3] er [0.7] of [0.3] leadership [0.3] we can move on to 
looking at er [0.3] although really [1.1] i mean ah well [0.2] er [0.3] roles 
emerge for division of labour [0.5] expectation self-definition i s-, [0.3] 
that's r-, [2.6] the functional aspect [0.9] of er leadership [0.3] i wanted to 
er [0.9] just look at some of the [0.4] classical studies [0.2] the [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 er er er ninet-, [0.3] nineteen-forty-
three [0.3] they were the first people to really [0.5] i mean classic studies 
in a way really because [0.4] they were some of the earliest studies to [0.3] 
to [0.9] to l-, look at ex-, [0.4] er [0.4] experimentally truly 
experimentally [0.3] er [0.2] s-, group phenomenon perhaps bef-, [0.2] you know 
some of the first [0.4] group stud-, [0.3] studies ever done [0.5] and they 
were interested in styles of leadership [0.4] i guess you can look at the 
political context of nineteen-forty-three and work out [0.3] why people are 
interested in [0.4] in leadership there were some beefy dictators around in the 
early nineteen-forties in Spain and Italy and Germany [0.6] and i suspect that 
has something to do with suddenly this interest in leadership [1.6] they they 
studied boys' clubs [0.3] and they looked at the imposition of types of leaders 
they're the first people really to [0.2] start looking at the personalities of 
leaders addressing this question are orders [0.2] are leaders [0.4] born [0.3] 
or are they made by the circumstances [0.3] and they were they [0.2] they were 
interested in the [0.5] the personality of people imposed in in groups of boys 
so [0.2] there's all sorts of specific situations here [0.3] there's a there's 
a an authority [0.2] in any case that we're talking about adults and children 
[0.2] and 
we're talking about [0.2] a leader imposed from the outside as is the case in 
sort of boys' clubs [0.3] and so on [0.2] but they interesting they studied [0.
3] autocratic leaders democratic leaders and laissez-faire leaders [0.6] 
autocratic leaders organized activities gave orders were aloof and focused on 
the task in hand [0.3] democratic leaders asked for suggestions [0.5] er 
discussed plans acted as ordinary club [0.4] members laissez-faire leaders [0.
4] just sort of hung back and did not much [0.5] and [1.0] the results if you 
think about them i guess were quite predictable [1.0] and democratic led groups 
had a better atmosphere [0.3] laissez-faire had a good atmosphere with play-
related activities but not with other activities [0.4] er the democratic ac-, 
[0.2] leaders had [0.2] better atmosphere for task-related activities [0.6] the 
autocratically [0.4] led groups had high productivity when the leader was 
present [0.3] not very high productivity as soon as the leader was gone [0.2] 
so obviously the autocratic leaders are working by [0.5] compliance [0.5] and 
[0.5] and so on now [0.3] you can [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 [0.3] but at l-, [0.3] but it sh-, [0.2] it showed 
that the different styles of leaders produced different styles of behaviour [0.
4] and that had implications for whe-, you know for how for how the group 
performed [0.2] especially whether the leader was there or not what could be 
relied upon within the group [0.5] this work was picked up by Bales again [0.5] 
who [0.3] looking more at groups where leaders evolved [0.2] this research was 
more about adults [0.3] more about [0.3] groups [0.2] that were just were 
allowed to get on with tasks they were u-, usually laboratory tasks 
experimental tasks like [0.3] rank order [0.7] a group of eq-, [0.3] er a s-, 
set of equipment for if you were stranded on a desert island you know compass 
needle [0.5] eight gramophone records copy of Hogg and Vaughan et cetera 
[laughter] things you'd have on a [0.3] things you'd have on a desert island [0.
3] and er and ask them to sort of rank them [0.3] tasks like that i think [0.7] 
er [0.3] and then what he s-, what he discovered were that there were 
different types of influence for going on it wasn't just all about the task [1.
3] and particularly he's [0.2] well known his work for distinguishing two types 
of leader [0.3] a sort of task orientated role getting things done ordering 
people around [0.3] getting [0.3] getting the job done [1.1] certainly [0.7] 
individuals emerged who had more influence in doing that [0.4] but at the same 
time another another role emerged which was vital for group performance [0.2] 
and that was what Bales called the socio-emotional [0.4] leader [0.4] the 
someone who sort of kept people together [0.2] put an arm round someone who'd 
been moaned at or wasn't doing very well [0.3] cracked a joke lightened the 
atmosphere [0.3] and he found that his most effective groups were groups where 
both these roles [0.2] w-, [0.3] were seen to emerge [0.2] and thought to have 
emerged [0.2] by the people participating [0.4] so here's [0.2] his example of 
[0.2] more than one [0.4] social influence function [0.2] needs to take place 
for a group to be [0.2] effective [0.4] now this is picked up by [0.6] by er [0.
2] Fiedler who's not on this file [0.2] 
er he gets a he gets an O-H-P to himself [0.6] and in the sixties and then 
onwards and i still think Fiedler is probably the most influential peo-, [0.3] 
influential person [0.4] in [0.5] in the study of groups certainly was all 
throughout the sixties and seventies [0.4] and onwards peop-, [1.8] people may 
[2.3] other [0.7] and it's a lot of work [0.4] which Ian will no doubt tell you 
more about next year [0.3] on leadership [0.6] but [0.2] it's still set in the 
context of Fiedler's work most people are sort of [0.3] he's a sort of shadow 
cast over [1.0] the er the [0.2] the world of [0.6] er l-, leadership studies 
[0.4] and [0.4] he was interested in Bales' work and his his own research [0.3] 
comes out of Bales' work [0.7] er [0.5] and he [1.6] looked [1.0] it's 
sometimes called a contingency theory of leadership it's usually called a 
contingency theory of leadership actually [0.3] and it [0.2] and the the the 
message here is that the sort of style of leader is contingent upon the 
circumstances within the group [0.3] so he's [0.5] interested in classifying [0.
3] the tasks that confronted a 
group [1.2] and he saw there as [0.2] he saw there being at least three 
important bases for classifying [0.4] what was going on in a group the situ-, 
the circumstances in which the group [0.6] leader might emerge [0.9] there were 
the leader-member relations were they good or bad [2.0] the task structure [0.
3] was it high or low [0.9] and [0.2] the power of the leader [0.3] was it high 
[0.2] or low [0.3] don't think they don't think [0.4] don't need too much [0.2] 
description [0.4] there [0.4] so [0.2] that actually made you can m-, [0.4] 
eight types of groups theoretically and indeed he's claims to have found [0.4] 
examples of each one of those two groups you know you can have [0.5] marvellous 
relationships with lots of power and lots of structure or or [0.3] various 
combinations you can work on that yourself [0.6] w-, [0.2] he also [0.4] going 
er [0.2] going on from [0.3] er Bales' work he could see that there were these 
two functions [0.4] the sort of getting down to it regardless of what people 
were up to [0.3] er [0.3] and [0.3] and helping people [0.6] task socio-
emotional [0.7] and he v-, [0.8] his c-, one of his contributions was to find a 
way 
of measuring that [0.3] he started actually out measuring [0.3] getting 
everybody to sort of rate the difference between themselves [0.3] and the 
worker they most preferred [0.3] and themselves [0.2] and the worker they least 
preferred [0.2] that was his first way of measuring things [0.3] but then [0.3] 
after doing that for a while [0.3] realized that everybody saw themselves as 
being their m-, like their most preferred coworker the difference between [0.2] 
individuals' ratings of themselves [0.2] and their most preferred coworker [0.
2] were very small almost non-existent 'cause people are like that [0.3] and 
the difference between [0.4] the most prefer-, themselves and the least 
preferred coworker [1.0] is was big [0.3] so he cut out [0.2] the middle person 
the the s-, the self [0.3] and just asked his subjects to [0.4] rate [0.4] 
their most preferred coworker [0.2] and their least preferred coworker [1.0] er 
[0.4] and [0.5] he [0.4] his depend-, his measure is really the difference 
between [0.5] the ratings you give to your most preferred coworker [0.3] and 
the ratings you give to your least preferred 
coworker [0.3] basically [0.3] there is er [0.3] it it it's a measure of 
discrimination you've got [0.2] you know people who [0.4] for whom that 
difference is big [0.2] discriminate a lot [0.3] people [0.5] er for whom that 
difference is [0.6] small [0.4] like everybody and don't discriminate very much 
at all [0.5] now [0.2] he set this [0.4] against his th-, [0.2] types of groups 
[0.3] and found s-, basically [0.3] when [0.6] the [0.2] things were good for 
the group and the task structure was high [0.2] when the leader has lots of 
power [0.2] and the leader and [0.5] follow-up relationships were good [1.0] 
then [0.2] it was best to have [0.4] someone [0.3] who discriminated a lot [0.
3] someone who just got on with it 'cause it was an easy task to do [0.4] when 
things were really bad for the group [1.1] number of you know the m-, the [0.2] 
er the leader-member relations is bad task structure low [0.6] power of the 
leader is low [0.3] then it's also [0.3] best [0.2] to have [0.7] er the 
autocractic style of leader the one who makes big discriminations [0.3] it's 
when things are in the middle [0.9] then you need s-, then you need someone 
who's [0.2] much more sort of s-, [0.3] much more 
sort of subtle [0.4] er er the besser better leaders when in in the intervening 
[0.8] intermediate stages [0.3] is someone who makes [0.2] le-, [0.2] fewer 
discriminations between these two preferred coworkers [0.2] so the message 
coming up from Fiedler simply is you know [0.3] if things are very good [0.5] 
just get on with it doesn't matter what the leader's like [1.0] er if things 
are very bad it doesn't really matter [0.2] you know whether the leader is sort 
of very friendly [0.2] and in all all other cases it's better to have someone 
who is a bit more subtle in distinguishing between people [1.0] right [0.9] so 
[0.3] that [0.3] that's [0.2] Fiedler's contingency [0.2] model of leadership 
and there's a lot of research [0.2] stimulated by it [0.2] and it is [0.2] you 
know and a lot of research support it which you can look [1.2] fur-, [0.4] er 
[0.9] further to [0.7] now [0.6] coming back to [0.2] or moving on really to 
with [0.2] decision making groups i'd like now to look at [0.5] risk taking and 
polarization [0.4] as a particular [0.7] er [1.6] as a particular instance [0.
6] example [0.2] th-, this [0.4] this is [0.2] m-, this is moving 
back temporarily to really decision making within groups [0.2] but particularly 
types special types of decision making [0.3] and then i think if we can move on 
[0.5] one [0.2] un-, [0.4] with what we know about risk taking and group 
polarization and what we know about leadership [0.3] that leads into [0.3] 
group think [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 [0.4] now [2.5] been quite 
an important topic in social psychology er 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 [1.0] this [0.2] risk taking [0.
3] really was the discovery [0.2] that [0.3] if you [0.6] if you get groups [0.
3] groups of people making decisions [0.2] they're not averages they're not 
boring [0.2] you know committees aren't necessarily boring [0.2] but when but 
when people made decisions involving risk in groups they tended to be riskier 
than individuals [0.2] and they tend to be quite a robust sort of finding [0.3] 
the 
paradigm here would be [0.3] you have [0.2] es-, well in fact the original 
research had a series of sort of life dilemmas [0.4] the difference between [0.
3] t-, [0.2] moving to a new job which was [0.2] m-, [0.2] might pay a lot in a 
few years' time [0.8] but there is a risk you might be sort of lose the job [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 [0.3] or another example is s-, 
someone playing [0.4] in a chess match you've got a risky move you can make [0.
4] yeah mean it might [0.4] result in you losing the chess [0.3] chess match [1.
6] but it might just get you some really sneaky victory [0.5] so [0.6] when i 
play chess with my son he always tries fool's mate do you ever play chess [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 [0.2] move something in the way and 
[0.2] then you're all you're all to pieces afterwards it's a risky move [0.2] 
co-, if the other person sees it coming good move if they 
don't see it coming [0.8] so [1.7] that's one of the dilemmas [0.2] but the the 
paradigm is you get individuals to sort of [0.2] deal with these dilemmas 
individually [0.2] then you get them to discuss them to consensus [0.2] they 
argue and argue until they can agree [0.4] on a on a on a decision [0.6] and 
then you get them to er er to rate them [0.3] individually afterwards so you've 
got predecision individual measures you've got a group consensus you've got a 
post- [0.5] group consensus [0.3] individual measure that's the paradigm [0.4] 
and you can [0.2] look [0.2] at the mean of the individual decisions [0.3] and 
compare it with the consensus [0.8] 'cause usually these are [0.5] er you know 
[0.5] fixed on bipolar scales [0.2] in fact the dependent variable for the risk 
taking [0.3] experiments is [1.1] er [0.2] the minimum odds of success you 
would c-, you would accept before you take the risky decision [0.6] and and lo 
and behold [1.5] the the the consensus was more risky than the the average w-, 
or you know what you'd have expected if it wa-, if you just looked at the 
average of the initial 
decisions [0.4] now [1.3] there are [0.9] er [0.3] a lot of [0.4] well a 
variety of explanations that go on here [0.2] and certain they take us back to 
the Deutsch [0.2] and Gerard [0.4] normative and informational aspects of group 
influence are wheeled out to discuss this [0.3] you've got two types of [0.4] 
dis-, [0.2] two types of explanation here [0.4] on the one hand there is 
actually what is said in the groups [0.2] if you if you look at the [0.3] 
interactions [0.6] people say different things oh i wouldn't take that job and 
they bring in information [1.6] and er [1.0] you know there's a sort of 
informational social influence going on here in these groups [0.5] but there is 
also [0.4] th-, as a normative type of explanation as well [0.3] risk is risk 
is cool you know being risky is a bit cool rather than being sort of boring [0.
6] and [0.4] in as much as [0.6] wider values are evoked and preferences which 
are really embodied in norms and values [0.8] you we get an explanation [0.3] 
in terms of the cultural values for for risk [0.8] there's something else a bit 
of a problem with these studies [0.3] and that is that 
sometimes people get cautious as well [0.3] on some types of dilemmas people 
get cautious [0.3] but on some dilemmas [0.2] people [0.4] er [0.4] go for risk 
it's not always risky [0.3] and that really led to [0.2] a development of the 
risk taking [0.5] literature [0.3] group polarization it was suggested that 
really [0.3] risk taking [0.3] was quite possibly just a [0.3] a specific [0.5] 
er instance [0.2] of a more general [0.9] er [1.4] tendency [0.2] for groups to 
[3.8] to make more extreme decisions on anything they happen to be talking 
about [0.3] than individuals [0.4] this was introduced by Moscovici and 
Zavalloni Journal of Personality and Social Psychology nineteen-sixty-nine [0.
3] and much developed af-, developed afterwards in subsequent years [0.7] but 
[0.5] polarization [0.7] really refers to the fact that i-, if there is a 
tendency [0.3] for a group in one direction [0.5] or another [0.4] that after a 
group discussion [0.2] they will move more in that direction [1.4] the word l-, 
you can talk about extrematization just becoming more extreme [1.0] 
polarization is really a s-, er er an example of extrematization within a 
group [0.4] if there is a [0.3] a tendency for the group to [0.2] have leaned 
in one direction to be for an issue or against an issue [0.4] before a 
particular attitude or a point of view [0.2] before it starts [1.3] after group 
discussion [0.2] they will tend to realize that point of view [0.3] more than 
they did before they started [1.2] and that's quite an [0.3] important and 
quite a robust finding and feeds into a lot of [0.3] a lot of aspects of group 
decision making [1.4] now [2.3] there are [2.1] once again a variety 
unfortunately of explanations for this [0.2] and they all seem to work [0.3] 
the literature is full of studies which show that this works [0.2] and then [0.
4] another study which shows [0.2] well this works too [0.2] if you if i try to 
isolate the variables that are behind this group extrematization [0.4] but 
basically they come down to [0.6] four types of explanation [0.3] affective 
cognitive statistical and interactive [0.3] and i think as i've [0.4] spent too 
too long at the beginning [0.2] i think i'll go this [0.2] thus far [0.3] 
rather than well i'm not going to be able to whip through 
group thinking in [0.2] five minutes 'cause it'll take about ten minutes to 
talk about 'cause it is [0.3] it is rather important so [0.3] i'll just just [1.
0] go this far and talk about group polarization [0.2] and then squeeze in i 
think it'll be quite comfortable next week to [0.2] to squeeze in [0.3] the 
group think factor [0.4] now [1.1] what have we got then [0.2] are [0.4] 
affective cognitive statistical and interactive explanations [0.2] and all 
these [0.2] are [0.4] relevant [0.4] to [0.7] group decision making [1.6] in 
this sort of paradigm when we're comparing [0.4] individual [0.6] positions [0.
2] with a group position [0.4] affective [0.4] means [0.7] that [0.2] that the 
explanation [0.7] the well that the effects of discussion [0.7] er are on how 
one feels about the issue so this is about attitude change in a way [0.2] but 
really especially the affective how one feels [0.2] how one values something 
after you've after you've talked about it [1.4] er [0.3] but clearly this is 
also [0.5] while [0.3] in passing we should [0.4] we should mention [0.3] that 
[0.2] we're really talking about attitude change here as well [1.0] as another 
[0.3] sort of an 
interactive effect on attitude change [0.4] we talked about attitude change [0.
2] in terms of er [0.6] persuasion [0.9] we talked about attitude cherm-, 
attitude change [0.3] in terms of [0.2] consistency theories [0.2] reminded you 
of functions [0.2] but there are interactive effects as well [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 [0.2] and so on [0.3] so we've got [0.
5] we've got affective [0.5] er and under this heading as well as as how how 
changing how one feels about the issue under discuss [0.2] discussion [0.4] are 
[0.4] concepts like [0.2] diffusion of responsibility [1.0] you know we don't 
feel quite so responsible [1.1] or [0.5] the social comparison looking around 
and seeing how everybody else feels [0.3] or impression management [0.4] mm i 
don't want to be [0.3] look dull or sad on this issue i'd better sort of change 
[0.2] what i say and what i do [0.5] these these are all [0.4] b-, could affect 
how one feels about [0.2] the issue under discussion [1.0] and then there are 
cognitive explanations [0.7] here [0.6] here [0.2] what 
hap-, this is the inf-, about the information content in the interaction [1.5] 
er you just hear things that you didn't know before [0.2] people give 
statistics people give information [0.4] people [0.2] give examples and of 
course here we're open to all those er [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 [0.6] so [1.1] 
as well as affect of course [0.2] there's the information in the group [0.4] is 
done [0.4] now [0.5] there are also er [0.8] explanations which are really up 
[0.3] to she-, suggests it's really artefactual [0.4] if you s-, [0.2] if you 
have a lot of people if you have a wide distribution i suppose i could [1.7] 
let's draw this [0.5] if you had if you s-, [0.2] if [0.3] if we could somehow 
imagine that this was sort of positive [0.6] and this was negative [0.2] and we 
had a sort of wide distribution [0.6] of opinion and this represented 
neutrality couldn't care or was sort of individual [0.3] if you had some people 
in the group who 
were sort of out this way [0.8] and some people a couple of people who are out 
this way [0.4] something like that [0.3] now [0.3] the mean position if you 
were to m-, measure and these experiments do measure it [0.3] of their 
positions i guess would be somewhere around here before you start [0.3] now [0.
5] in discussing [0.3] they all might become more [0.3] they all might become 
more reasonable if you like [0.3] more neutral so [0.2] they could all sort of 
shift in [1.0] but these might shift in a bit more [1.1] than those [0.2] now 
[0.4] the sort of the means of this new range of positions might be something 
like this [1.1] so they've all moved to less extreme positions [0.2] but the 
group mean would probably have gone [0.6] out to there [0.7] so [0.6] we're 
we're we're to [0.2] we're to take care [0.5] in this sort of paradigm that not 
all [0.2] apparent extrematization of the group [0.3] represents 
extrematization or polarization of opinions [0.3] it is the case 
in some of these experiments are quite [0.4] are quite naughty in in a-, in 
overlooking this [0.3] that [0.6] it is possible for individual members all to 
converge [0.9] to a [0.6] to a sort of central position [0.2] but the group i-, 
but for it to appear as if the group mu-, mean [0.3] has er [0.2] moved to a [1.
1] er a more extreme position [1.3] er [0.3] and then [0.3] there are [0.4] 
also [0.4] wh-, what we might call interactive [0.6] er [3.0] explanations [0.
3] i'll just i'll just [0.2] j-, j-, just make this the penultimate point [0.4] 
and that is that [0.5] just di-, different people have different styles of 
arguing [0.3] some people are more forceful [0.2] some people just say more [0.
2] it's not the information but it's just how relentless they are [0.5] they 
might appear [0.6] once again they might appear more influential they might 
appear more knowledgeable [0.3] they might appear more confident they might 
look more attractive [0.2] et cetera [0.3] there are these [0.3] these are 
variables [0.2] which [0.3] which sugge-, you know perhaps it is the the more 
polarized people [0.2] just are more confident about their attitudes [0.2] and 
there's a differentiation [0.2] in the amount of influence that the indi-, that 
each individual has within the group [0.5] so [0.2] we've got four types of er 
[0.3] interaction there [0.3] and once again [0.2] we can split these up [0.2] 
back to deu-, Deutsch and Gerard's normative and information influence within 
groups [0.3] it's either the the information that goes on in in groups [0.2] or 
it's something about the relationship between people and their feelings that go 
on within groups [0.6] and [0.4] it seems that [0.4] one way of sort of 
clarifying which of these explanations is going to be the more useful [0.2] the 
more [0.5] yes the more useful in describing why we get this polarization 
within groups [0.3] is [0.3] when [0.7] i-, is to look really at the type of 
task that's in front of us [0.3] if it's one that's really heavy on information 
[0.9] and the the the right decision will just really be based [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 [0.4] then [0.4] the then obviously 
we're going to be in the realm of cognitive [0.6] informational [0.6] 
persuasive arguments [0.3] interac-, you know [0.5] persuasive 
arguments type of [0.3] type of er [0.4] explanations [0.4] s-, [0.4] on the 
other hand [0.3] if what we're talking about in the group [0.5] is something 
that involves [0.2] values [0.2] and preferences [2.4] and er [0.7] yes values 
and preferences [0.2] values er and preferences [0.2] then [0.2] we're we're 
going to be more in the role [0.2] er more in the domain of affective [0.6] 
types of explanations [0.7] so [0.4] that's there's a er you'll see if you read 
accounts of this there's a lot of diff-, [0.5] disagreement [0.5] in which o-, 
which is the most important explanation for the polarizing effect of groups [0.
3] but it really does depend [0.4] on us taking a wide [0.4] sort of stance on 
the sorts of [0.5] causes that there could be [1.7] and [0.2] looking carefully 
at the task and then working out [0.3] er how the sor-, how each of these 
influences could interact with the task [0.4] now [0.5] i think the ta-, i 
think that's a good place to stop i've overrun anyway [0.3] and [0.3] i'm going 
to follow this up to talk about group [0.9] group think next week [0.3] which 
will be a sort of synthesis [0.2] of what we know about leadership [0.8] and 
what we know [0.5] about [0.3] er [0.2] decision making [0.4] and and we'll 
look to see how group [0.4] decisions are are defective [0.3] okay