Lec8 Group Behaviour

What is a group?
According to Social Psychologists, a group can be defined as a collection of people who are
perceived to be bonded together in a coherent unit to some degree.
o Soccer team
o Not random people in an elevator
Characteristics of true groups (Lickel, 2000)
o Members interact with one another often
o The group is important to its members
o Members share common goals and outcomes
o Members are similar to one another in important ways
The stronger these characteristics are the more cohesive the group will be.
The presence of others
Social Facilitation
o If performance can be individually evaluated, the presence of others will be arousing
This will improve performance on simple tasks but interfere with
performance on complex tasks
Triplett (1897)
o Was one of the first scientists to ask the question What happens when individuals
join together with other individuals??
o Triplett, who was a bicycling enthusiast, noticed that cyclists performed better in
races than when they were timed riding the course alone
Mere Presence of Others and Social Facilitation
o Same result when he asked children to wind fishing reels as quickly as possible
o Triplett (1897) thought that the mere presence of others would improve
performance
o Participants:
40 children ages 8 to 17
o Procedures:
A trial consisted in turning the reel at the highest rate of speed until a small
flag sewed to the silk band had made four circuits of the four-meter course
The time of the trial was taken by means of a stop-watch
o Results:
All children performed faster when in competition compared to when alone
For a long time, the social facilitation phenomenon was viewed as a universal principle
Some may have even called it a proven fact
So, no one did much research on it for decades
Zajonc (1965) went back and analyzed the research
He noticed that nearly all of the many studies that documented social facilitation studied
well-learned responses
o Bicycling
o Lifting weights
o Eating rapidly
But he found that there were some exceptions
o People had some trouble when being watched if the tasks were novel
Difficult math problems
Writing poetry
Learning nonsense syllables
Triplett was only partially right
o The type of task was an important determinant to success as well
o Was it a well-learned task or was it relatively new?
Zajonc (1969)
Cockroach study
o Cockroach placed in a tube with a bright light at one end of the tube
o To escape the light, the cockroach had to run down the tube and into a darkened
box at the other end of the tube
IV: Presence or absence of other cockroaches
DV: Speed of escape
o Results: Cockroaches were faster to escape when other cockroaches were present
Audience increased cockroaches performance on the easy straight-ahead task, but not on
the more complex turning task
Experimental set-up
Zajonc (1969): Results
Simple Maze:
o Alone: 41 seconds
o Audience: 33 seconds
Social facilitation effect
Complex Maze:
o Alone: 110 seconds
o Audience: 130 seconds
No social facilitations
Another study (Michaels & al., 1982)
o Secretly rated pool players in a hall as above average or below average ability
Then a group of confederates came and stood by their table as they played
The above average players' shot accuracy improved from 71 to 80% accurate,
while the below average players slipped from 36 to 25% accurate
Why Does Social Facilitation Occur?
Distraction Conflict Theory (Sanders, 1981)
o Attentional conflict between focusing on task and inspecting the distracting stimulus
creates arousal
Can hurt performance sometimes and help sometimes
Presence of others can create a distraction leading to poorer
performance
But sometimes will stimulate greater effort to overcome the
attentional conflict
Tunnel vision can help on some tasks
Group Behaviour
Social Loafing
o A group-produced reduction in individual output on easy tasks in which
contributions are pooled
o Individuals in a group who are working below their potential
Ringlemans experiments (1880)
o Individuals became less productive
o Individual output declines on pooled tasks in all his experiments
o For example in a rope-tugging task
Units pulled in rope-tugging task:
1 person 100 (units)
2 people 186
3 people 255
8 people 392
o Explanation: apparently there was a loss of coordination
o For soc psychs it's more like participants put in less effort when there are more
people around
The more people there are they arent really synchronized and so that tasks becomes a tad
bit more difficult.
Ingham & al (1974)
o Blind folded rope pulling
DV: Effort
IV: Thought people were behind them or not
o Subjects pulled 18% harder when they thought they were alone
Latane, Williams, and Harkins (1979)
Sat participant in a group of 6 people
o Blindfolded participant and had them put on headphones
o Played clapping or shouting over headphones
o I.V. thought they were making noise alone or with 5 others
o Results: 1/3 less noise when they thought others were also making noise
Why does loafing happen?
Diffusion of responsibility:
o In a group we feel able to share responsibility and this may lead to a reduction of
effort
Free-rider effect:
o If we feel like our contribution is not essentialstill benefit from the group and give
little in return (low input, high output)
Sucker effect:
o Willing to do your share but not more than that (esp. if others are free-riding)
o Since everyone is benefiting and getting credit, you dont want to be the sucker who
does all the work (and no recognition), therefore do the minimum requirement
We loaf less when
personal efforts are identifiable
o you enjoy the task
a task is challenging, appealing, or involving
the task is meaningful and important
we think our contribution is essential
we are working with friends vs. strangers
o loaf less with friends
the group expects to be punished for poor performance
the group is small
the group is cohesive
Deindividuation Theory
Deindividuation theory is a social psychological account of the individual in the crowd
Deindividuation is a psychological state of decreased self-evaluation, causing anti-normative
and disinhibited behavior
Anonymity has been shown to amplify the effect
o E.g., wearing a mask
o Main thing is that you no longer pay any attention to who you are.
Crowds and Deindividuation: The Halloween Studies
Dierner et al. (1976)
o Trick-or-treaters in groups more likely to steal extra candy than individual kids,
unless they were individuated by being asked their names
Beaman et al. (1979)
o Anonymous children in Halloween costumes stole more from a candy jar than kids
asked their first names
o Even less likely to steal if a mirror was put behind the candy bowl
Group Behaviour
Group polarization
o The exaggeration, through group discussion, on initial tendencies in the thinking of
group members; often manifests itself as a shift towards the opinion of the majority
Imagine you were considering the pros and cons of going to grad school, and you talked it
over with two groups:
o Your family:
Who was initially slightly opposed to the idea
o Your fellow students:
Who were initially slightly favorable
After discussion within each group (see next slide)
Why do groups polarize after discussion?
Persuasive arguments
o With even a slight bias in one direction, youll hear more favorable arguments on that
side
Social comparison
o When members realize the group is leaning in one direction, they may seek
acceptance by moving further in that direction
Groupthink
Definition:
o Tendency of the members of highly cohesive groups to assume that their decisions
cannot be wrong, that all members must support the groups decisions and that
information contrary to these decisions must be ignored.
Leads to group decision-making process that is not optimal, sometimes disastrous, because
the groups primary goal is consensus instead of accuracy
They seem to have a greater desire to get along and agree with one another than to generate
and critically evaluate alternative viewpoints and positions
The deterioration of group judgment produced by striving for consensus
Revised groupthink framework (article 34)-super important
o Two moderators: Time pressure and Leadership style
Antecedent conditions- group character(?)
o Highly cohesive group
o Leader has a preference
o Insulation of the group from a qualified outside opinions
Symptoms of Groupthink
The group overestimating their might and right
o Illusions of invulnerability - over-optimism, blind to warnings
o Unquestioned belief in the groups morality
Members become close-minded
o Rationalization discounts challenges by justifying their decisions
o Holding a stereotyped view of the opponent (weak, dumb)
Pressures toward uniformity
o Conformity pressure- those who raise doubts are rebuffed. (ridiculed)
o Self-censorship- disagreements are uncomfortable
o Illusions of unanimity - everyone keeps quiet, seems like everyone is unanimous
o Mind guards - some members keep information (that would lead to question) from
the group
Decision making defects
o Few alternatives presented
o No re-examinations of an alternative
o Reject expert opinion
o Reject negative information
o No contingency plan is made.
Antecedents group think symptoms decision making defectsoutcome
Two moderators to this model
o Time pressure(in between antecedent and group think symptoms)
Favor Conesus
Censor concerns
Higher the pressure higher the chance of having group thing symptoms
With no time pressure it is possible that no group think symptoms will occur
o Leadership style. Same spot as above
Degree to which the leader allows or promotes discussion of alternatives
Leader can have a specific preference but is open to hearing what the other
group members think-less chance if group think symptoms.
How can we prevent groupthink?
Be impartial; dont endorse any position
o Listen to everyone
Encourage critical evaluation; devils advocate
Subdivide the group
Encourage and welcome criticisms from outsiders
Before implementing, call a second-chance meeting (with alcohol!)