Social Psychology of Group Behavior

Does the presence of others help or hinder performance?

Early research by Triplett with bicyclists and fishing reels

Evidence for Social Facilitation (others, acting as competitors, helped performance)

Later studies found mixed effects; the presence of others sometimes helped performance while other studies found that they decreased performance

Why this inconsistency in results?

Zajonic’s Theory of Social Zajonic’s Theory of Social FacilitationFacilitationHow does the presence of others affect our performance on tasks?

Zajonic’s (1965) theory of social facilitation argues that the presence of other people increases arousal, which then facilitates dominant, well-learned habits but inhibits non-dominate, poorly learned habits.

Well-learned(dominant)

response

Poorly learnedor novel

(non-dominant)response

Social Facilitation

Performance enhanced

Social Interference

Performance hindered

Arousal causedby presence of

others

Why is arousal due to the presence of other people?

• Biological (presence alone leads to physiological arousal)

• Evaluation concerns (by others)

• Concentration/Focus

Goal GoalAudience

Boxes

Start

Audience Boxes

Start

Floodlight

Floodlight

EASY MAZE DIFFICULT MAZE

Two mazes used in experiments on social facilitation with cockroaches (Zajonc et al., 1969)

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Alone Mere Presence Experimenter watching

Tim

e to Com

plete T

ask

(second

s)

Condition

Novel Task

Well-learned Task

Results of a Study of Mere Presence Effects (Schmitt et al., 1986)

Does the mere presence of another person lead to social facilitation effects?Schmitt et al. (1986) asked college students to type their names either forward (easy task) or backward (difficult task). Subjects were either alone, in the presence of a watching experimenter, or in the presence of another subject who was wearing a blindfold and earphones.As the previous graph shows, subjects showed social facilitation effects (that is, less time taken on the easy task, more time taken on the difficult task) even when the person present could not see them, which suggests that the mere presence of another person is somewhat arousing

Do people try less hard when working in groups?

Does social loafing occur?

Ringleman Effect --- (e.g., with rope pulling task)

The average performance (input) of individuals decreases as group size increases

Why?

a) Less effort

b) Coordination issues

Social Loafing

Yelling (& clapping) study by Latane, Williams, & Harkins

Alone

In actual groups

In pseudo-groups

Less individual effort when in groups, even in “groups” when no one was present (but people thought they were)

Why less effort Why less effort (loafing)?(loafing)?

• Expectation that others will try less hard (equity)

• Less social pressure on each individual group member

• Less contingency between individual inputs and outputs (individuals in groups cannot be identified; anonymous)

Kind of TaskKind of Task DescriptionDescription ExamplesExamples

Additive Group members pool or add their efforts

•Tug of war•Crop harvesters

Conjunctive

Group members separately perform same subtask (s)

•Relay Race•Bowling Team•Mountain-climbing team

Disjunctive Group members collaborate to arrive at an “either/or,” “yes/no” decision

•Quiz game team•Jury

Divisible Group members perform subcomponents of task; a true labor division

•Football team•Baseball team•NASA

Four Kinds of Group TasksFour Kinds of Group Tasks

What are common kinds of group tasks? How do they differ from on another?

AntecedentAntecedentConditionsConditions

Isolated, cohesive,homogeneous

decision-makinggroup

Lack of impartialleadership

High stress

Systems of Systems of GroupthinkGroupthink

Closed-mindedness

Rationalization

Squelching of dissent

“Mindguards”

Feelings of righteousness

and invulnerability

Defective Defective Decision Decision MakingMaking

Incomplete examination of

alternatives

Failure toexamine risks

and consequences

Incomplete searchfor information

The Stages of GroupthinkThe Stages of GroupthinkWhat are the causes and consequences of

groupthink?

Poor decisions

Participative Decision-Making --- Participative Decision-Making --- Some IssuesSome Issues

• Time requirement (group decisions take more time)

• Which decisions are made in this manner (all, some, only the most important ones; who decides)?

• Perceptions of leaders are affected (diminished)

• Who participates (everyone, only those who are interested, only those who are capable; who decides)?

• Lowered individual responsibility for decisions made

• High level of leadership skills required

Leadership style (impartial, use of outside input)

Brainstorming?

Nominal Group Technique• Define the problem

• Individuals anonymously generate solutions

• Solutions presented to the group (no evaluation allowed)

• Group rates solutions

• Best solution is chosen (vote, consensus)

Ways to Improve Group Decision-Making

The loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people are in a crowd, leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts

Deindividuation: Getting Lost in the Crowd

Trick or Treat Study

More candy taken in this

condition

Identified Anonymous

Individual

Group

Why does deindividuation occur?

• Anonymous (feel less accountable for individual behavior)

• Focus is outside oneself (increases the likelihood that one will conform to group norms)

The Jonestown Massacre

Jim Jones leader of the ("Peoples

Temple")

November 18, 1978 – Most of the 912 people in a compound named “Jonestown” in British Guyana died from voluntarily drinking Kool-Aid mixed with cyanide, sedatives, and tranquilizers. It was depicted by Jim Jones as an act of "revolutionary suicide."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuJpTO9YU4M

WHY DID PEOPLE JOIN?WHY DID PEOPLE JOIN?

CHARASMATIC LEADER

DESPERATE, SENSE OF PURPOSE, UTOPIA

INITIAL COMMITMENT TECHNIQUE (FITD)

ROLE OF SEVERE INITIATION (VIEWED AS POSITIVE)

WHY DID THEY STAY?WHY DID THEY STAY?

THREATS/PUNISHMENT

LIMITED ACCESS TO INFORMATION

LITTLE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MEMBERS (FALLACY OF UNIQUENESS)

SELF-JUSTIFICATION (E.G., COGNITIVE DISSONANCE) JONESTOWN SITUATION PERCEIVED AS INEVITABLE (NO ESCAPE) VIEWED AS POSITIVE (EX. BREHM SRUDY; FUTURE NOTICE OF FOOD OR PERSON)

LONG-LASTING EFFECTS!SELF-BLAME

... .. .... .....

..

.

.

..

Objects

• The person who grabs the most objects (after 10 seconds) wins the game

• After 10 seconds has passed, any remaining objects will be doubled

Tragedy of the Commons

Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit - in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. (Hardin, 1968)

Tragedy of the Commons

“Capitalism recognizes only private property and free-for-all property. Nobody is responsible for free-for-all property until someone claims it as his own. He then has a right to do as he pleases with it, a right that is uniquely capitalist. Unlike common or personal property, capitalist property is not valued for itself or for its utility. It is valued for the revenue it produces for its owner. If the capitalist owner can maximize his revenue by liquidating it, he has the right to do that." [Apostles of Greed, pp. 58-59]

The Commons Dilemma: Everyone takes from a common pool of goods that will replenish itself if used in moderation but will not if overused.