PSY 321
Dr. Sanchez
Obedience/Group Influence
1
Chapter 8: Group Processes




How do groups effect individual effort?
How/when do groups make bad decisions?
Are groups a sum of their parts?
Applications = I/O, Business, Student
Organizations, Class Group Projects
2
Goals



Collective processes = presence of others
on individual’s behavior
Group processes = individuals directly
interact with each other
Group conflict = Reconciling differences
3
What is a Group?

Groups consist of two or more people who
interact and are interdependent in the
sense that their needs and goals cause
them to influence each other.
4
What is a Group?

A set of people who have at least one of
the following characteristics:




Joint membership in a social category
Direct interactions with each other over a
period of time (e.g., work colleagues).
A shared, common fate, identity, or set of
goals (e.g., political groups).
Vary in “groupiness”
5
What Is a Collective?


An assembly of people engaging in a common
activity but having little direct interaction with
each other
Not a real group


Low in entitativity
Some social psychological processes are unique
to real groups.

However, others affect both groups and collectives.
6
Collective Processes
The Presence of Others
7
Social Facilitation:
When Others Arouse Us


How does the presence of others affect
our behavior?
Triplett’s (1897-1898) fishing reel studies.


Later research found conflicting findings.



Children winding fishing reels alone or with
others
Sometimes the presence of others enhanced
performance.
At other times, performance declined.
What was going on???
8
Social Facilitation:
When the Presence of Others Energizes Us

Social facilitation:

tendency for people to do better on simple tasks
and worse on complex tasks when they are in
the presence of others and their individual
performance can be evaluated
9
Social Facilitation:
When the Presence of Others Energizes Us

Cockroach Example:





Roaches navigate through a maze
Maze was a easy task
½ roaches in the presence of other roaches
½ roaches alone
Results: Roaches performed the task faster
when other roaches were present than when
alone.
10
Social Facilitation:
When the Presence of Others Energizes Us

Cockroach Example:





Roaches get through a maze
Maze was a difficult task
½ roaches in the presence of other roaches
½ roaches alone
Results: Roaches took longer to solve the maze
when other roaches were present than when
alone.
11
Pool Hall Example

Pool Hall Study
 ½ belowaverage players
 ½ aboveaverage players


½ unobserved
½ observed
12
Percentage of Shots Made
Results of Michaels et al. Pool Hall Study
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Unobserved
Observed
Below Average
Above Average
Skill of Player
13
Social Facilitation:
When the Presence of Others Energizes Us

Zajonc’s Mere Presence Theory


all animals are aroused by presence of conspecific others
Bob Zajonc suggested that we can understand the
influence others on performance by considering
three factors:

Arousal

Dominant response

Task difficulty
14
Social Facilitation:
When the Presence of Others Energizes Us
PRESENCE OF OTHERS
AROUSAL
DOMINANT RESPONSE
PERFORMANCE
IMPROVES
ON AN EASY TASK
(CORRECT RESPONSE)
PERFORMANCE
DECLINES
ON A HARD TASK
(INCORRECT RESPONSE)
15
Evaluation Apprehension


Common to worry about others’ opinions
SF depends on whether evaluator is
present

Blindfold study
16
Social Facilitation:
When the Presence of Others Energizes Us
PRESENCE OF OTHERS
AROUSAL
DOMINANT RESPONSE
PERFORMANCE
IMPROVES
ON AN EASY TASK
(CORRECT RESPONSE)
PERFORMANCE
DECLINES
ON A HARD TASK
(INCORRECT RESPONSE)
17
Distraction Conflict Theory

Distraction Conflict Theory



Conflict between task and distracting stimulus
creates arousal.
Maintains there is nothing uniquely social
about “social” facilitation.
Which theory is correct?

Mere presence, evaluation, and attention
18
Social Loafing:
When Others Relax Us

Ringelmann (1880s): Individual output
declines on pooled tasks.


Def. “pooled”
Social Loafing: A group-produced
reduction in individual output on easy
tasks in which contributions are pooled.
19
Social Loafing:
When the Presence of Others Relaxes Us
PRESENCE OF OTHERS
RELAXATION
DOMINANT RESPONSE
PERFORMANCE
IMPROVES
ON A HARD TASK
PERFORMANCE
DECLINES
ON AN EASY TASK
20
Social Loafing: When Many
Produce Less
Adapted from Jackson & Williams, 1985; Sanna, 1992.
21
When Is Social Loafing Less
Likely to Occur?
22
Individual Differences in Social
Loafing
23
SOCIAL FACILITATION
Individual
effort
can
be evaluated
Evaluation
apprehension
Improve
on simple
tasks
Impaired
on complex
tasks
Presence of
others
Impaired
on simple
tasks
Individual
effort
cannot be
evaluated
No evaluation
apprehension
SOCIAL LOAFING
Improve
on complex
tasks 24
Social Loafing:
When the Presence of Others Relaxes Us

Procedure







Ps worked on a maze on a computer
Another P worked on same task in room
½ Ps received simple maze
½ Ps received complex maze
½ Ps thought performance was unique
½ Ps thought performance combined
Results???
25
Time to complete mazes
8
7
6
5
score individual
score combined
4
3
2
1
Easy
Difficult
Difficulty of the mazes
26
Deindividuation



The repercussions of anonymity can be
serious
Deindividuation refers to the reduction of
normal constraints against deviant behavior
Examples?
27
Group Processes
Interacting with Others
28
Why Join a Group?
29
Group Polarization


When people in groups make decisions that are
more extreme than the initial inclinations of its
members
Persuasive Arguments Explanation:



Other members often have similar attitudes
Individuals are exposed to supporting arguments they
hadn’t thought of before
Social Comparison Explanation:


People want to fit in with others in group
They sense the group’s position and adjust their own
attitude even further in that direction to appear to “good”
group members
30
Group Polarization

Social Categories Explanation:


Tendency to categorize in ingroups/outgroups
Ingroup members want to distinguish themselves
from outgroup members
31
Group Polarization

You’re in a campus organization that
supports Affirmative Action





You’re in favor of AA
You meet with group members who offer other
arguments in favor of AA you hadn’t heard
You sense the group’s position, and in order to
appear to be a “good” group member, you speak
out even more strongly in favor of AA
You want pro AA groups to appear distinct and
cohesive compared to anti AA groups
You leave even more in favor of AA, as do they
32
Decision Making: Groupthink


Excessive tendency to seek concurrence
among group members.
Emerges when the need for agreement
takes priority over the motivation to obtain
accurate information and make
appropriate decisions.
33
Antecedents of Groupthink


Highly cohesive groups
Group structure





Homogeneous members
Isolation
Directive leadership
Unsystematic procedures
Stressful situations
34
Symptoms of Groupthink



Overestimation of the group
Closed-mindedness
Increased pressures toward uniformity
35
Consequences of Groupthink

Defective decision making







Incomplete survey of alternatives
Incomplete survey of objectives
Failure to reappraise initially rejected
alternatives
Poor information search
Selective bias in processing information at
hand
Failure to work out contingency plans
High probability of a bad decision
36
Preventing Groupthink



Avoid isolation by consult widely with
outsiders.
Leaders should reduce conformity
pressures.
Establish a strong norm of critical review.
37