Exam-useful questions from this chapter, grouped by marks, each with a full model answer. Try writing the answer yourself first, then check it against this one.
1 1-Mark Questions
Q. Define a group as given in the chapter.
Answer: A group is an organised system of two or more individuals who are interacting and interdependent, who have common motives, have a set of role relationships among its members, and have norms that regulate members’ behaviour.
Q. Name Tuckman’s five stages of group formation, in order.
Answer: Forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning.
Q. What is groupthink?
Answer: Groupthink is a process, discovered by Irving Janis, in which a group’s concern for unanimity overrides the motivation to realistically appraise its options, leading to irrational and uncritical decisions.
Q. Define social loafing.
Answer: Social loafing is a reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task, i.e. one in which outputs are pooled with those of other group members.
Q. Define group polarisation.
Answer: Group polarisation is the strengthening of a group’s initial position as a result of interaction and discussion within the group.
Q. Give the book’s example of a crowd.
Answer: People collecting at the spot of a road accident by chance: present at one place with no structure, no feeling of belongingness, and no interdependence.
Q. What are the two bases on which group status can be given, according to the chapter?
Answer: Status may be ascribed (given, e.g. because of seniority) or achieved (earned through expertise or hard work).
Q. Name the two artists whose paintings British schoolboys chose between in Tajfel’s Minimal Group Paradigm experiment.
Answer: Vassily Kandinsky and Paul Klee.
2 2-Mark Questions
Q. Distinguish between a group and a crowd, using the chapter’s own criteria.
Answer: A group is an organised system of interdependent, interacting individuals with common motives, defined roles and norms, e.g. a family or a class. A crowd is a collection of people present at a place purely by chance (e.g. after a road accident); it has no structure, no feeling of belongingness, no interdependence among members, and behaviour in a crowd is irrational.
Q. State the two differences between a group and a team that the chapter gives.
Answer: (1) In a group, performance depends on the contribution of individual members; in a team, both individual contribution and teamwork matter. (2) In a group, the leader or whoever heads the group holds responsibility for the work; in a team, although there is a leader, members hold themselves responsible for their own activities.
Q. Explain ‘proximity’ as a condition of group formation, with the chapter’s own example.
Answer: Proximity means repeated contact and interaction with the same set of people: living in the same colony, going to the same school, or playing in the same playground. Such repeated interaction gives us a chance to know others’ interests and attitudes, and common interests, attitudes and background become important determinants of liking your group members; the book notes you would probably not have become friends with your friend group if you had not shared this proximity.
Q. What conditions, according to the chapter, make groupthink more likely to occur in a group?
Answer: Groupthink is likely in groups that are socially homogeneous and cohesive, that are isolated from outsiders, that have no tradition of considering alternatives, and that face a decision with high costs or failures.
Q. Explain the ‘ascribed’ and ‘achieved’ forms of status with examples.
Answer: Ascribed status is given to a person, for example because of their seniority in the group. Achieved status is one the person has earned through expertise or hard work. Status can also vary within a single group: the book’s own example is a cricket team captain, who has higher status than the other players, even though every member remains equally important to the team’s success.
Q. Why, according to the chapter, are ingroup and outgroup categories ‘not real’?
Answer: The chapter says that although it is common to make these categorisations, these categories are not real and are created by us, and that in some cultures, such as India, plurality is celebrated: India’s unique composite culture is reflected in the lives people live and in its art, architecture and music.
Q. Explain, with the book’s tug-of-war example, why some collective tasks encourage social loafing.
Answer: In a task like tug-of-war, it is not possible to identify how much force each team member is individually exerting, because outputs are pooled. Such situations give members the opportunity to relax and become ‘free riders,’ since no one can see or evaluate any one person’s own contribution: leading to reduced individual effort.
Q. State any two of the book’s reasons why social loafing occurs.
Answer: Any two of: (1) members feel less responsible for the overall task and so exert less effort; (2) motivation decreases because members know their contribution will not be evaluated individually; (3) the group’s performance is not compared with other groups; (4) there is improper (or no) coordination among members; (5) belonging to the group is not important to members: it is merely an aggregate of individuals.
3 4-Mark Questions
Q. Describe Latané’s experiment on social loafing and state its main finding.
Answer: Latané and his associates asked groups of male students to clap or cheer as loudly as possible, as the experimenters were interested in knowing how much noise people make in social settings. They varied the group size: individuals were either alone, or in groups of 2, 4 or 6. The results showed that although the total amount of noise rose as group size increased, the amount of noise produced by each individual participant dropped: each participant exerted less effort as the group grew larger. This demonstrated social loafing: when working in a group on a pooled task, individuals work less hard than they do performing the same task alone.
Q. Explain groupthink and illustrate it using the book’s own Vietnam War example.
Answer: Groupthink, discovered by Irving Janis, is a process in which a group’s concern for unanimity overrides the motivation to realistically appraise its courses of action, producing irrational and uncritical decisions. It shows an appearance of consensus: every member believes all agree, and no one voices dissent for fear of seeming unpopular or damaging the group’s cohesion. Such groups develop an exaggerated sense of their own power and ignore or minimise real-world signs of danger, in order to preserve internal harmony. The book’s example: from 1964 to 1967, President Lyndon Johnson and his advisors in the US escalated the Vietnam War, believing this would bring North Vietnam to the peace table, and made these escalation decisions despite warnings. The grossly miscalculated move resulted in the loss of 56,000 American and more than one million Vietnamese lives, and created huge budget deficits.
Q. Describe Tajfel’s Minimal Group Paradigm experiment and state what it showed about ingroup behaviour.
Answer: Tajfel and his colleagues wanted to know the minimal conditions needed for intergroup behaviour. British schoolboys expressed a preference for paintings by two artists, Vassily Kandinsky and Paul Klee, and were told this was a decision-making experiment; they were sorted into a ‘Kandinsky group’ or ‘Klee group,’ with other members’ identities hidden behind code numbers. The children then distributed money between recipients, knowing only the recipient’s code number and group membership, as in the book’s sample distribution matrix, where each column pairs an amount for an ingroup member (7 to 19) with an amount for an outgroup member (1 to 25). Even though these groups were created on a flimsy criterion (painting preference) with no past history or future, the results showed that children still favoured their own group: demonstrating that ingroup favouritism can appear under even the most minimal group conditions.
Q. Distinguish between primary and secondary groups, with the chapter’s own examples.
Answer: Primary groups are pre-existing formations usually given to the individual (e.g. family, caste and religion), while secondary groups are those the individual joins by choice (e.g. membership of a political party). In a primary group there is face-to-face interaction, close physical proximity, and warm emotional bonds; primary groups are central to a person’s functioning and play a major role in shaping their values and ideals in early development. Boundaries in primary groups are less permeable: members have little choice over their own membership. In secondary groups, relationships are more impersonal, indirect and less frequent, and it is easy to leave one and join another.
Q. Explain the four elements of group structure named in the chapter.
Answer: (1) Roles are socially defined behaviours expected of a person in a given situation, e.g. as a son or daughter you are expected to respect elders and be responsible about your studies. (2) Norms are expected standards of behaviour and belief, established, agreed upon and enforced by group members: a group’s ‘unspoken rules.’ (3) Status is the relative social position given to a member by others; it may be ascribed (e.g. by seniority) or achieved (through expertise/hard work), e.g. a cricket captain’s higher status though all members matter equally. (4) Cohesiveness is the togetherness, binding and mutual attraction among members, which makes them think, feel and act as one social unit rather than as isolated individuals.
Q. Explain group polarisation with the book’s bribery example, and state why it occurs.
Answer: Group polarisation is the strengthening of a group’s initial position as a result of interaction and discussion within the group: groups are more likely than lone individuals to reach extreme decisions. The book’s example: an employee caught taking a bribe or committing some other unethical act has their punishment decided by colleagues. They may let the employee go scot-free or decide to terminate their services instead of imposing a punishment commensurate with the unethical act. This happens for three reasons: hearing new arguments in the company of like-minded people that favour one’s existing view; feeling that a shared view is validated by others (a sort of bandwagon effect); and starting to see similar-minded people as one’s ingroup, identifying with the group, and showing conformity, which strengthens one’s own views further.
Q. Compare formal and informal groups, and ingroups and outgroups, as asked in the chapter’s own first Review Question.
Answer: Formal and informal groups differ in how explicitly and formally the group’s functions are stated: a formal group’s roles and functions are explicitly and formally declared, the group is formed on the basis of specific rules or laws, and a set of norms helps establish order: the book’s example is a university. An informal group’s formation is not based on rules or laws, and members share a close, informal relationship instead. Ingroup and outgroup differ in a different way: ‘ingroup’ refers to one’s own group, for which the word ‘we’ is used, while ‘outgroup’ refers to another group, for which the word ‘they’ is used. Ingroup members are generally seen as similar to oneself, viewed favourably, and seen as having desirable traits, while outgroup members are viewed differently and are often perceived negatively: even though, as the book notes, these categories are not real and are created by us, and in some cultures, such as India, plurality is celebrated.
4 6-Mark Questions
Q. Discuss the meaning of a ‘group’, its salient characteristics, and how it differs from a mere collection of people, using the chapter’s own examples.
Answer: The chapter defines a group as an organised system of two or more individuals who are interacting and interdependent, who have common motives, have a set of role relationships among members, and have norms that regulate members’ behaviour. Its salient characteristics are: (1) a social unit of two or more people who perceive themselves as belonging to the group, giving it a unique identity; (2) a collection with common motives and goals, working toward a goal or away from a threat; (3) interdependence, where what one member does has consequences for others (e.g. a fielder dropping an important catch affects the whole cricket team); (4) individuals satisfying a need through joint association who also influence each other; (5) a gathering that interacts directly or indirectly; and (6) interactions structured by roles and norms, so members perform the same functions each time and follow group norms. Fig. 7.1 in the book contrasts a football team (Picture A), which is a group because members interact, have roles and share goals, with the audience watching the match (Picture B), which is only a mere collection of people who happen to be at the same place at the same time, perhaps sharing an interest in football but without any interdependence, structure or defined roles between them. Similarly, people gathered to watch a school function are at one place but are not a group, because they lack interdependence, defined roles, status differences or expectations of each other: unlike a family, class or playgroup, which are groups precisely because these features are present.
Q. Explain the concept of groupthink, its causes, the conditions that favour it, and the ways to counteract it, illustrating with the chapter’s own example.
Answer: Groupthink, discovered by Irving Janis, is a process in which a group’s concern for unanimity overrides the motivation to realistically appraise its courses of action, resulting in irrational and uncritical decisions. It is characterised by an appearance of consensus: each member believes all members agree on a decision, and no one voices a dissenting opinion because they believe it would undermine group cohesion and make them unpopular. Such groups develop an exaggerated sense of their own power to control events and tend to ignore or minimise real-world signs that suggest danger to their plan, in order to preserve the group’s internal harmony. Groupthink is more likely in groups that are socially homogeneous, cohesive, isolated from outsiders, that have no tradition of considering alternatives, and that face decisions with high costs or failures. The chapter’s example is the escalation of the Vietnam War: from 1964 to 1967, President Lyndon Johnson and his advisors in the US escalated the war believing this would bring North Vietnam to the peace table, and continued making these decisions despite warnings: a grossly miscalculated move that cost 56,000 American and more than one million Vietnamese lives and created huge budget deficits. To counteract groupthink, the book suggests: (i) encouraging and rewarding critical thinking and even disagreement among members, (ii) encouraging the group to present alternative courses of action, (iii) inviting outside experts to evaluate the group’s decisions, and (iv) encouraging members to seek feedback from trusted others.
Q. Explain social loafing: its meaning, an example task where it occurs, the experimental evidence for it, its causes, and ways to reduce it.
Answer: Social loafing is a reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task: one in which outputs are pooled with those of other group members. Tug-of-war is the chapter’s example: it is impossible to identify how much force any one team member is exerting, so such situations let members relax and become free riders. Latané and his associates demonstrated this experimentally by asking male students to clap or cheer as loudly as possible, as the experimenters were interested in knowing how much noise people make in social settings; group size was varied between individuals alone and groups of 2, 4 and 6. The total amount of noise rose as group size increased, but the noise produced by each individual participant actually dropped: each participant put in less effort as the group grew. The book’s explanations for why this happens include: members feeling less responsible for the overall task and so exerting less effort; motivation dropping because members know their own contribution will not be individually evaluated; the group’s performance not being compared with other groups; improper (or no) coordination among members; and group membership not being important to members, so that the ‘group’ is really just an aggregate of individuals. Social loafing can be reduced by making each person’s effort identifiable, increasing the pressure to work hard by committing members to successful task performance, increasing the task’s apparent importance or value, making members feel their own individual contribution matters, and strengthening group cohesiveness, which increases motivation for a successful group outcome.
Q. Explain group polarisation, its meaning, the book’s examples, and the three reasons it occurs.
Answer: Group polarisation is the strengthening of a group’s initial position as a result of interaction and discussion within the group: the book states that groups are more likely to take extreme decisions than individuals acting alone. Important decisions, such as whether to establish a school in a village, are usually taken by groups rather than by individuals. The book’s worked example: an employee caught taking a bribe or engaging in some other unethical act has colleagues decide their punishment; they may let the employee go scot-free or decide to terminate their services instead of imposing a punishment commensurate with the unethical act. A second example concerns capital punishment: if a person already favours it and discusses the issue with like-minded people, their views may become stronger after the discussion. The book gives three reasons for this: first, in the company of like-minded people, one is likely to hear newer arguments favouring one’s own viewpoint, making one more favourable to it; second, finding that others also hold the same view feels like the view is validated by the public, described as ‘a sort of bandwagon effect’; and third, seeing people who share similar views leads a person to perceive them as an ingroup, to identify with the group, and to show conformity, as a result of which their own views become further strengthened.
5 Case Studies
(A) 1 mark Which of Tuckman’s stages does the committee’s first, uncertain meeting best represent?
Answer: Forming: there is uncertainty about the group, the goal and how it is to be achieved, along with excitement and apprehension.
(B) 2 marks Name and explain the stage the committee is in during the week of heated disagreements about who is in charge.
Answer: This is the storming stage: intragroup conflict about how the goal is to be achieved, who is to control the group and its resources, and who performs which task. It typically ends with a leadership hierarchy and a clearer shared vision emerging, as the committee later shows.
(C) 3 marks Using the chapter’s own explanation of social loafing, explain why students may be pulling with less effort in the 8-a-side tug-of-war than in the 2-a-side round.
Answer: This is consistent with social loafing: as the collective task pools everyone’s effort into one outcome (the rope’s movement), it becomes harder to identify any one student’s individual contribution, so students feel less responsible for the outcome and their effort is not individually evaluated: exactly as the book’s own tug-of-war example describes. This matches Latané’s finding that per-person effort drops as group size grows, even though total effort may still rise.