GROUPIN

CONTEXT
 SOCIAL CONTEXT

"Groups do not exist within a vacuum; they function within a context.

For instance, in settings such as school or the workplace.

Considering the connection between groups and their environments, one

way for groups to establish a connection with their surroundings is
through interaction with people outside the group."
 SOCIAL CONTEXT

He can interact with members

of other teams, upper
A member of an organizational
management, and customers,
team
engaging with resources such
as money and information.
 SOCIAL CONTEXT

Only resources, like information, don't just transition from one

group to another; sometimes, existing members may leave, and
new members may join the group. Groups often operate within the
context of other groups.
 GROUPS AS OPEN SYSTEMS

Cross-Border Activities
Ancona and Caldwell (1988) conducted a study titled 'Cross-Border Activities.' In the study:
They interviewed 38 project team managers. Managers recorded their interactions with individuals outside the
group, as well as those of team members, over the course of one week. (For example, meetings, one-on-one
discussions, phone calls) Later, they categorized these interactions into four groups.
 BORDER ACTIVITIES

Discovery Diplomatic Activities Duty GuardingActivities

Activities Activities
• Importing the required • Exporting resources and • Allowing entry • Classify
resources and information information to external • Facilitating access of • Deliver
• Transmitting information parties foreigners to the team • Provide requested
internally • Opening communication
• Translating resources or
• Modeling channels
• Withholding complete information
• Scanning • Communicating with
external stakeholders (e.g., information from the group • Protect
• Having a general
having a coffee) (to shield the group from
knowledge about the
• Informing external pressure)
external environment
• Coordinating and negotiating
"Subsequent studies have shown that cross-border activities can have positive effects on team
performance. Ancona and Caldwell, in particular, found a positive correlation between embassy
activities and team performance. It is also believed that cross-border activities can lead to higher
performance levels, but at the cost of reduced internal communication and cohesion. Another study
supports this notion. Keller (2001) conducted research on 93 project teams. Keller hypothesized that
higher levels of functional diversity might be associated with increased external communication.
However, he observed that functional diversity could be related to less internal communication and
lower team cohesion."
"This research suggests that teams need to strike a balance
between internal and external communication. While
cross-border activities can enhance performance, an excess
of internal communication can detract from it.
Consequently, it may lead to alienation and reduced
performance."
Membership Change
Cross-border involves the movement of resources, such as information, between groups
or between different divisions of an organization.

Incoming Members

Departing Members

Members Changing Locations

Membership changes can impact group performance in two distinct ways:

The first is that, since groups rely on their members as the main resources, membership
changes affect the available resources for groups and consequently, the potential performance
of groups.

The second is that membership changes influence group processes that have an impact
on the actual performance of the group.
Choi and Thompson (2005) examined the effects of membership change on group
creativity.

They concluded that groups that underwent a change in membership generated more
ideas compared to unchanged groups and that resources brought by a new member
improved group performance.
Transient Memory System
Lewis and others (2007) argued that groups form a system where members are aware of 'who
knows what.

Performance

Partially reconstituent Partially Deep

Robust
robust robust + thinking

Group type
Newcomers can bring fresh resources and ideas to a group, but existing members may not
always readily accept the ideas of newcomers.

Kane et al. (2005) proposed solution is based on the Common In-Group Identity Model. This
model suggests that intergroup bias decreases when different groups share a common
overarching identity.
When an outsider shares a common overarching identity with other group members, the
proposal would be closely examined. If the proposal is of high quality, it will be accepted and
enhance group performance; if it is of low quality, it will be rejected, and group performance
should not be affected by it.

Simple method- using

Performance

newcomer

Superior method-using
newcomer

No common identity Common identity

In summary, membership changes can positively or negatively impact
group performance.
GROUPS IN A SOCIAL CONTEXT: INTERGROUP
RELATIONS
●BUILDING A POSITIVE SOCIAL
IDENTITY

The presence of other groups causes a number of intergroup processes and

changes in intra-group dynamics.

Intergroup relations are analysed within the framework of social identity

and self-classification theories.

• The self-concept consists of both a personal identity and a social

identity
• Social identity theory argues that people strive for a positive social
identity while striving for a positive self. When group membership
provides a positive social identity, people identify with a group.
• People's striving for a positive social identity can lead to
intergroup social comparisons and ingroup bias.

• The striving for a positive social identity can also lead

to intergroup competition.

• Therefore, members will work hard for their group if

their group is to be compared with other groups.
 • In the study, students from the University of Washington and the University of Arizona
were asked to arrange irregularly arranged letters, and their performance was compared in
4 conditions in which group salience and social group comparison were manipulated.

• Performance is high when group membership is made clear and there

is competition between groups.
Performance

• In the absence of inter-group competition, group salience reduced

performance, which is due to the social shirking effect.
• As a result, the combination of group salience and intergroup
competition may motivate group members to work harder to make
their group more successful.

Low group distinctiveness, High group distinctiveness

Group comparative Group non-comparative

 ●SELF-CATEGORISATION, CONFORMITYAND
POLARISATION
According to the self-categorisation theory, we tend to categorise people. The way in which
people are categorised depends on the salience of these categories.
1)This salience depends on how clear a particular categorisation makes distinctions between
groups (e.g. gender or ethnicity).
2)Salience depends on how logical the classification is in a given context (e.g. a hairdresser
classifying people according to their hair colour).
Social categorisation processes also lead to depersonalisation, i.e. a
process in which we start to see people only as group members
rather than as individuals. As a result, people within the group are
perceived as more similar than they actually are, while differences
between groups are perceived as greater than they actually are.
Social categorisation is not limited to others; people also categorise
themselves as group members. Especially when people identify
strongly with their group, they will be more inclined to conform to
the norms of their group.
Social categorisation processes also lead to
group polarisation. Mackie (1986) argued that
intergroup competition will increase people's
awareness of group membership and lead to
social categorisation. Thus, people will see
their group as more homogenous and more
extreme than it really is.
• In his study, Mackie played an audio recording of a discussion on
stopping the production of nuclear weapons.
• In order to create competition between the groups, some participants
were told that the group with the best discussion would win a prize
money and the other groups were not given this information.
• Participants in the intragroup competition condition were told that the
best member of each group would win a bonus cash prize, whereas no
such promise was made to the other participants.
• In this study in which polarisation attitudes were examined, it was

Polarization
observed that attitudes were polarised in all conditions except in groups
where there was no inter-group competition but there was intra-group
competition.
• Consequently, social categorisation processes can create polarisation
because they can lead members to perceive their group as more
homogeneous and extreme, and conforming to groups can lead to Inter-group No ınter-group
polarisation. competition exists competition exists

intra-group competition
no intra-group competition
Interdependence, intergroup competition, and collaboration

• In previous studies, there was no real interaction

between groups. However, in most cases, groups are
in interaction with each other, which can take the
form of collaboration or competition.

• In 1961, Sherif and colleagues conducted a field

study to observe this interaction. They organized a
camp with 12-year-old children and divided the
study into three stages.
 Stage 1: Group Formation
• Two different male groups, unaware of each other,
engaged in separate activities.

Stage 2: Direct Competitive Encounters

• Competitions were organized between the two groups. These
competitions led to intergroup hostility, escalating to the point of camps
being destroyed and physical fights.

Stage 3: Intergroup Collaboration

• Tasks requiring collaboration were assigned to the
groups. After a series of collaborative activities,
hostilities between the groups gradually disappeared.
 Realistic Conflict Theory:

According to this theory, there are two types of

interdependence.

1. Positive/Cooperative Dependence:
• In this case, groups need each other to achieve their goals, and their
interests are compatible.

2. Negative/Competitive Dependence:
• In this case, groups must compete with each other to reach their goals.
 Discontinuity Effect:
The magnitude of the difference between individuals and groups in competitive behavior.

In situations with mixed causation, intergroup relationships tend to be more competitive than interpersonal relationships.
There are two reasons for this.

• Maintaining personal interest is not normative, so individuals hesitate to do it. However, when in a group, they can
take advantage of the group's "crowd" to hide.
• Group members often assume that the other group will be competitive and feel the need to be competitive
themselves.
Intergroup Contact, Decategorization, and Recategorization

Contact Hypothesis:
Argues that direct positive contact between people from
different groups can reduce prejudice and ingroup bias.
Optimal contact conditions must be provided for the increase
in reduction of bias.
 Six individuals One group (common Two subgroups within
Two groups (deindividuation) in-group identity) a group (dual identity)

• One way to reduce ingroup bias is to emphasize individuality rather than group membership, known as decategorization.

• Another approach is to associate group members with a comprehensive social category that includes both groups, creating a dual
identity.

• Research indicates that creating collaboration between groups and emphasizing similarities reduces ingroup bias.
 Group Mergers, Ingroup Bias, Status, and
Identification*

Group mergers, where different groups unite to

form a larger entity, are studied in labs and fields.
Research indicates they trigger ingroup bias and
impact identification with the new group.

In-group bias decreases when individuals see two

groups as part of a larger whole.
 Giessner and Mummendey (2008) propose
ingroup bias hinges on success beyond
categorization. They hypothesize its decrease
post-success feedback and increase post-
failure feedback, especially in two-group
conditions, with results supporting this.
 Their experiment involved two groups
merging into six, using factors like colored
jackets and seating arrangements. Feedback
was given based on assigned group
membership (pre- and post-merger).
They predicted a decrease in ingroup bias following success feedback and an increase after failure
feedback, particularly in two-group conditions, with results confirming this hypothesis.

In-group bias

Success Failure

Two groups One group Dual identity

 Group mergers and the impact of status differences on group members

During mergers, unequal status prompts a psychological process. Research shows dominant group
members strongly identify with the old and new groups, while dominated group members lack this
continuity.

Pre-merger dominance affects continuity, linked to "merger integration patterns" or pre-merger groups
being represented post-merger.
Mottola et al. propose three integration patterns: absorption (A+B=A), blending (A+B=AB), integration
(A+B=C).

The absorption pattern The blending pattern Integration pattern

involves post-merger groups preserves characteristics of indicates the post-merger
being essentially similar to both groups in the new group having new and
the acquiring group, group (A + B = AB). unique characteristics, not
common in takeovers (A + reflecting both old groups
B = A). (A + B = C).
Dominant group members prefer
withdrawal to preserve identity and
dominance post-merger. High status
differences may lead low-status
members to resist, causing anxiety.
Over time, concerns may diminish,
and identification may increase.
 In conclusion, the dominance of pre-merger groups and status
differences influence post-merger perceptions. Addressing dual
identities and status is a way to mitigate problems, even if it is
difficult.
Thanks!
Esma Nur Gümüş 200209057
Gamze Çöloğlu 200209040
İrem Bilgili 200209028
Seval Pekgöz 200209084
Zeynep Sümeyra Kayhan 200209068
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0C99TowWJU

Muzaffer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment