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