Social Influence and Group Processes
Define the term 'group' as presented in the chapter.
Explain the terms 'ingroup' and 'outgroup'.
Name the four important elements of group structure mentioned in the text.
Define 'social loafing'.
What is 'cohesiveness' in a group?
Examine why social loafing might occur in a group tug-of-war competition.
Evaluate the relative importance of 'proximity' versus 'similarity' in the initial formation of a study group for a difficult university course.
Contrast the concepts of 'status' and 'role' within a group structure.
Analyze how the need for 'security' and 'status' might motivate an individual to join a well-established student council in their school.
Evaluate whether a family, typically a primary group, can also function as a formal group in the context of a family-run business.
Justify the importance of unspoken norms, in addition to explicit rules, for the functioning of an informal group like a circle of friends.
Demonstrate your understanding of 'group polarisation' by explaining what might happen when a group of people who mildly favor environmental conservation discuss the issue together.
Formulate a comprehensive plan for a new school club to attract members by appealing to the six primary reasons people join groups.
Recall the definition of 'norms' in the context of a group.
Describe four methods that can be used to reduce social loafing in groups.
List and briefly explain three reasons why people join groups.
Explain the difference between a primary group and a secondary group.
Identify and describe the three conditions that facilitate group formation.
Describe the main differences between a group and a team.
Explain the difference between a crowd and a mob.
Compare the key characteristics that differentiate a 'team' from a 'group' in terms of performance and responsibility.
Apply Tuckman's stage model to analyze the likely development process of a committee formed to organize a school's annual cultural festival.
Analyze how the concepts of 'ingroup' and 'outgroup' can influence the behavior of students from two rival schools during an inter-school sports competition.
Examine the critical differences between a 'crowd' that gathers at an accident site and an 'audience' watching a movie.
Justify why a short-term, highly structured project team might skip the 'storming' stage of group formation.
Critique the idea that extreme cohesiveness is always beneficial for a group's performance, using the concept of groupthink.
Evaluate the decision to structure a critical software development project as a 'team' rather than a 'group', focusing on mutual accountability and positive synergy.
Critique the effectiveness of making individual contributions identifiable as the sole method to reduce social loafing in a large volunteer project.
Compare the structural foundations of a formal group, like a university, with an informal group, like a study group formed by friends.
Examine how 'norms' and 'roles' contribute to the functional structure of a cricket team.
Examine two distinct ways by which social loafing can be reduced in a group project.
Justify why status, both ascribed and achieved, is a necessary element of group structure even in informal groups.
Create a multi-faceted strategy for a teacher to implement in a classroom to reduce social loafing during a semester-long group project.
Design an intervention for a community forum discussing a controversial local issue to mitigate the effects of group polarisation.
Explain the concept of 'group polarisation' and list the three reasons provided for why it occurs.
Apply the three conditions of group formation to explain how a group of musicians might form a band.
Analyze why the 'storming' stage of group formation is often characterized by conflict but is essential for a group's long-term success.
Propose a strategy for a corporate board to prevent groupthink during a high-stakes merger decision, incorporating at least two methods mentioned in the text.
Analyze how extreme group cohesiveness in a corporate board meeting could lead to the phenomenon of 'groupthink' when deciding on a risky business merger.
Describe the five stages of group formation as suggested by Tuckman.
Critique the assertion that group polarisation and groupthink are essentially the same phenomenon. Justify their distinct outcomes.
Summarize the phenomenon of 'groupthink' as described by Irving Janis, including its key characteristics.
Contrast the characteristics of primary and secondary groups, using a family and a professional work team as examples.
Propose a series of school-wide activities designed to break down ingroup-outgroup distinctions between different student houses or sections.
Critique the real-world applicability of the Minimal Group Paradigm experiments. Justify whether such flimsy criteria for group formation can truly explain complex intergroup conflicts.