PSYCA321FSocial Psychology

Lecture 12

Groups

19 December 2012

Lecturer: S. Tess Pak, PhD.

1

2

Group

• What is a group?– A collection of at least two people with at least one of the

following characteristics:◦ Direct interactions with each other over a period of

time, e.g., classmates, colleagues◦ A shared, common fate, identity, or set of goals, e.g., a

religious group, a football team◦ Joint membership in a social category based on some

attribute, such as sex and race, e.g., the Chinese ethnic group;

3

Group

• What is a group?– People engaged in a common activity but have little direct

interaction with each other, e.g., bus passengers, are collectives not real groups (Milgram & Toch, 1969)

4

Group

• Unity of a group– Similarity

◦ Common identity, beliefs, values and practices are often contributors to group unity, e.g., a family unit is more likely to be a unified group than club members

– Presence of an out-group◦ Unity increases when working together for the

common good against an opponent

Group

• Group accomplishment– Social level

◦ Promote safety, increase chance of survival, and perform tasks which individuals are incapable of.

– Cultural level◦ Preserve information for passing on to future

generations.◦ With role differentiation people become experts in

different areas and it benefits the entire group.

5

6

Group Influence

• People are not quite the same between acting alone and acting in a group …

• Typical group influences on individuals:– Social facilitation– Social loafing– Deindividuation– Group polarization– Groupthink

Social Facilitation

• Triplett (1897):– Why cyclists performed better when racing against each

other than when racing against time alone?

7

8

Social Facilitation

• Triplett’s Competition Hypothesis (1897):– The presence of others releases the competitive instinct

and so enhances the performance◦ E.g., children wound up the fishing reel faster when

working parallel to each other than working alone– However, inconsistent evidence …

◦ The presence of others sometimes enhances but sometimes deteriorates performance

◦ E.g., we sometimes do the test less well when doing it in a group than doing it alone

9

Social Facilitation

• Zajonc’s Theory (1965) 1. Others influence our performance simply because they

are there:– Tests by cockroach subjects:

◦ Alone condition: The lone cockroach runs for less time in a simple maze than in a complex maze

◦ Co-action condition: The cockroach, running with another cockroach, runs for even less time in a simple maze and even more time in a complex maze

◦ Audience condition: Similar results to the Co-action condition, though the cockroach now runs alone but with an cockroach-audience

10

Alone vs. Co-action Alone vs. Audience

11

Social Facilitation

• Zajonc’s Theory (1965) 2. The mere presence of others arouses us and strengthens

our dominant response– The others can be doing the same task or merely

observers– The dominant response is the most common response in

that situation. Therefore:◦ When doing an easy or well-learned task, we’ll do

better in others’ presence because the dominant response is usually correct

◦ When doing a difficult, unfamiliar, or complex task, we’ll do worse in others’ presence because the dominant response is usually wrong

12

Social Facilitation

13

Social Facilitation

• Zajonc’s Theory (1965)– Social facilitation, in other words, means the

strengthening of the dominant response in the presence of others

– The presence of others improves our performance on easy tasks but impairs performance on difficult tasks

– Effect is supported by 241 studies in a meta-analysis (Bond & Titus, 1983), e.g.:◦ Good pool players played better when others are

watching◦ Poor pool players played worse when others are

watching

Social Facilitation

• More on social facilitation: – Evaluation apprehension

◦ The mere presence of others is not enough◦ Arousal also because others make us apprehensive

about how they would evaluate us ◦ E.g., performance is affected more by a watching than

by a blindfolded audience (Cottrell et al., 1968; Green, 1991)

– Distraction-conflict◦ Others watching distracting our attention and

conflicting with our attention to the task at hand cognitive system overloaded arousal increases

14

Social Loafing

• Ringelmann’s query (1913):– Why didn’t the farm produce increase as much as it should

when new men were added to the labor?– A man pulled a cart with 100% effort Two men should be

pulling it with 200% or more - but was 186% only in a 8-men team, effort dropped to less than half of the effort compared when alone

– People don’t seem to work as hard in a team as they do when alone

Social loafing

15

16

Social Loafing

• The tendency for people to exert less effort when pooling efforts with others towards a common goal than when they are individually accountable

• Other examples:– People cheered and clapped less loudly when in a group

than when alone (Latané et al., 1979)– Farm produce was disproportionately more in private

plots than in collective plots in former communist economies

– Quite a reliable phenomenon – found in 78 studies across tasks and countries in a meta-analysis (Karau & Williams, 1993)

Social Loafing

• Why social loafing?– A group situation people are not accountable

individually evaluation apprehension about individual performance decreases responsibility is diffused across all group members

– Even if slacking off in a group, still entitled to group rewards regardless of individual contributions more rewards in proportion to effort made

17

18

Social Loafing

• Culture and individual differences– Social loafing seems universal, but also varies with

cultures and personality– Less so in collectivist cultures, such as found in some

Asian countries where interdependence is emphasized – Less so in individuals who have a higher need for

cognition (i.e., who enjoy effortful cognitive activities) when doing a cognitively engaging task (Brian et al., 2001); and

– Less so in individuals who are high in achievement motivation (Hart et al., 2004)

19

Social Loafing

• How to reduce social loafing?– Make individual performance identifiable and so is

subject to evaluation – Make the task challenging, appealing, or involving (Karau

& Williams, 1993)– Make believe that individual contributions are

indispensable for group success (Comer,1995)– Make a cohesive group: group membership is valuable

and important to the group members, and the individuals like each other (e.g., Davis & Greenless, 1992)

– Keep the group small– Punishment is likely for the group if poor performance

20

Unifying Social Facilitation and Social Loafing

• Presence of others social facilitation or social loafing?

Others’ Presence

Social Facilitation

Social Loafing

21

Unifying Social Facilitation and Social Loafing

• Presence of others social facilitation or social loafing?

Others’ Presence

Social Facilitation

Social Loafing

Evaluation Apprehension

Arousal

yes

no

increases

more

less

decreases

individual efforts identifiable

individual efforts pooled andnot identifiable

22

Unifying Social Facilitation and Social Loafing

• Social facilitation and social loafing are common in a group situation but they are distinct

• Depends on whether the individual performance is identifiable or not

• When individual contributions are identifiable the presence of others increases evaluation apprehension increases arousal social facilitation

• When individual contributions are pooled or not identifiable the presence of others decreases evaluation apprehension decreases arousal social loafing

23

Deindividuation

• Why rational individuals can become unruly in a crowd?– Examples:

◦ Football fans turn into football hooligans◦ Solid citizens turn into an impulsive mob◦ Cyberbulling …

• Deindividuation– A loss of individual accountability and reduction of self-

awareness, mainly due to the presence of others (e.g., Dietner et al., 1976; Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952)

24

Deindividuation

• Occurs in a group situation: – Group size: The larger the crowd, the more likely its

members lose self-awareness (Mullen, 1986) – Physical anonymity: Not or less individually identifiable in

a large group– Diffusion of responsibility: As a member of a large group,

feeling submerged in a group and not individually responsible for the group action

– Strong arousing and distracting effects: People in large groups arouse each other, such as by shouting, to engage in impulsive group actions

25

Deindividuation

• Effects on internal states:– Less focus on the self:

◦ Lessened self-observation and self-evaluation disconnect behavior from attitudes weakening internal controls

◦ Lessened evaluation apprehension, i.e., fear less others’ evaluation of the self

◦ Lessened concern with shame, guilt, fear, commitment

26

Deindividuation

• Effects on internal states:– More focus on the others:

◦ More responsive to the group norms and the immediate situational cues

◦ Not thinking much about personal values ◦ Although the behavioral cues are not necessarily

negative, people are more likely to engage in impulsive acts because the usual constraints are gone

27

Deindividuation

• Effects on behavior:– Heightened

◦ Impulsivity, e.g. hooliganism◦ Irrationality, e.g., blind obedience◦ Emotionality, e.g., going wild in a carnival◦ Antisocial activity, e.g., more children Halloween trick-

or-treaters took coins without permission when in a group and were anonymous (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976)

28

How Groups Think?

• Brainstorming research suggests that groups do not produce better or more ideas than do lone individuals (Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991

• Occasionally, however, groups do think better than individuals …

• Criteria for achieving group smart (Surowiecki, 2004)– Members’ minds work independently– Members offer diverse opinionsWork independently and then collaborate with their

separate ideas• Group stupidity occurs if group members conform blindly to

dominant views

29

Foolish Committees

• Committees are often formed to pool views and expertise together in hope of making sound decisions

• The desire to get along with others, however, can be so strong among committee members that members:– neglect differences or the unique information they have– focus only on what they have in common

• As a result, committees have a narrow focus information is lost, not gained

30

31

Groupthink

• Why decisions made by groups – even those intelligent groups – could result in fiascos?

• When concurrence-seeking overrides critical thinking in a group – Groupthink (Janis, 1971)

Groupthink

• Groupthink : The mode of thinking that people engage in when:– The desire for agreement in opinion is so dominant in a

group to the extent of overriding realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action (Janis, 1971)

• Factors which contribute to groupthink– The group is fairly similar and cohesive to start with.– The presence of a strong directive leader.– The group is not exposed to outside views or facts; the

group is isolated. – The group maintains an aura of high-self esteem and

superiority.

32

Groupthink

• Signs of groupthink– Pressure toward conformity– Appearance of unanimous agreement

◦ Self-censorship is choosing not to express doubts or other information that goes against a group’s plans and views.

– Illusion of invulnerability– Sense of moral superiority– Tendency to underestimate opponents

33

Groupthink

• Adverse effects– Discussions are narrowed to a few alternative courses of

action with inadequate deliberation of other possibilities– Failure to re-examine the course of action agreed– Selective bias in attending only to information and

opinions that support the group’s preferred solutions– Little discussion on possible obstacles to the

implementation of the agreed plan and so no contingency plan

34

Groupthink

• Prevention– Be impartial– Encourage critical evaluation– Occasionally subdivide the group, the reunite to air

differences– Welcome critiques from outside experts and associates– Call a second-chance meeting before implementation

(Janis, 1982)

35

36

Group Polarization

• Helen’s case:– Helen is a writer who seems to have creative talent but

who so far has been earning a comfortable living by writing cheap fictions.

– Recently, she has come up with an idea for a potentially significant novel. If successful, the novel would be a great boost to her career. If not, she would have wasted time and energy without compensation.

– If you are to advise Helen, what is the lowest probability of success that you would consider acceptable for Helen to attempt the novel?◦ 20% __ 40%__ 60%__ 80%__ 100%__

37

Group Polarization

• Roger’s case– Roger, a married man with two young children, has a

secure job and can easily afford the necessities of life. Except for a life insurance policy, he has no savings.

– Reliable sources that the stock value of a relatively unknown Company X might triple if its new product sells well. If not, the stock value will drop considerably. Roger is thinking if he should invest in Company X with his insurance policy.

– If you are to advise Roger, what is the lowest probability of success that you would consider acceptable for Roger to invest in Company X stock:◦ 20% __ 40%__ 60%__ 80%__ 100%__

38

Group Polarization

• Risk-prone or risk-averse?– Stoner (1961) first found people become more risk-prone,

i.e., willing to invest even with a lower chance of success than initially decided after a group discussion (e.g. Helen’s scenario) risk shift phenomenon

– However, people could also become more risk-averse, i.e., willing to invest only at a higher chance of success after group discussion (e.g. Roger’s scenario)

• What is the general principle to explain both phenomena? Group polarization

39

Group Polarization

• A tendency for group discussion to enhance group members’ initial leanings, i.e., their pre-existing tendencies

• Discussion typically strengthens the average inclination of like-minded group members rather than a split within the group (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969)

40

Group Polarization

• Example experiments:– French students’ dislike for

certain people became even more severe after discussing with others who held similar negative views (Brauer et al., 2001)

– High school students diverged more after discussion with like-minded peers on prejudice issues (Myers & Bishop, 1970)

• Everyday life examples?

41

Group Polarization: Why?

1. Persuasive Arguments Theory• The greater the number and persuasiveness of the

arguments to which group members are exposed, the more extreme attitudes would become (Vinokur & Brunstein, 1974)

• More arguments, more information and more reasons to support a particular position (central route of persuasion)

• Realizing that others favor a position, focus on that position and fail to bring up alternative points (Pavitt, 1994)

• Hearing others repeat our arguments can validate our own reasoning and give us more confidence in what may be not that strong initially (Baron et al., 1996)

• Informational influence

42

Group Polarization: Why?

2. Social Comparison • We tend to evaluate our opinions and abilities by comparing

ours with others• Upon discovering more support for personal opinions than

originally anticipated in group discussion• Motivated to take on more extreme attitudinal position

consistent with the group’s values to win approval (Lamm & Myers, 1978)

• Normative influence

43

Group Polarization: Why?

3. Social categorization • We tend to categorize ourselves and others into social groups• Being ingroup members, people want to distinguish

themselves from outgroup others• So, a tendency to overestimate the extremity of their group’s

position and distance themselves from the position of an outgroup (Hogg et al., 1990; McGarty et al., 1992)

44

Group Influence

Group

Social Facilitation

Social Loafing

Group Polarization

Groupthink

Deindividuation

On On

On On

On

45

Group Influence

Group

Social Facilitation

Social Loafing

Group Polarization

Groupthink

Deindividuation

On Attitudes

On Efforts

On Decision-making

On Self-awareness

On Performance

Reading Assignment

Chapter 14 GroupsBaumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2011). Social psychology and

human nature (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

ReferenceChapter 8 Group InfluenceMyers, D. G. (2010). Social psychology (10th ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

46

Revision Class

1-3pm

24 Dec 2012, Mon

at P01

47