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 Facilitation
How 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 learned
or novel
(non-dominant)
response
Social Facilitation
Performance enhanced
Arousal caused
by presence of
others
Social Interference
Performance hindered
Why is arousal due to the presence of other people?
• Biological (presence alone leads to physiological
arousal)
• Evaluation concerns (by others)
• Concentration/Focus
EASY MAZE
Goal
DIFFICULT MAZE
Goal
Audience
Boxes
Audience
Boxes
Start
Floodlight
Start
Floodlight
Two mazes used in experiments on social
facilitation with cockroaches (Zajonc et al., 1969)
75
70
Time to Complete Task (seconds)
65
60
55
50
Novel Task
45
40
Well-learned Task
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Alone
Mere Presence
Condition
Experimenter
watching
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
Social Loafing
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
Rope
6
5
4
3
2
Rope Pull Apparatus
(Ingram et al.)
1
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)
Potential productivity
Actual groups
Pseudo-groups
10
Sound
pressure
per person
8
Reduced effort
(Social loafing)
6
Coordination loss
4
2
1
2
6
Group size
Why less effort (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)
Four Kinds of Group Tasks
What are common kinds of group tasks? How do they differ from on another?
Kind of Task
Addictive
Description
Examples
Group members pool or add •Tug of war
their efforts
•Crop harvesters
Conjunctive
Group members separately
perform same subtask (s)
Disjunctive
Group members collaborate •Quiz game team
to arrive at an “either/or,”
•Jury
“yes/no” decision
Divisible
Group members perform
subcomponents of task; a
true labor division
•Relay Race
•Bowling Team
•Mountain-climbing
team
•Football team
•Baseball team
•NASA
Group Decisions: Are Two (or More) Heads Better
than One?
Process loss: Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits
good problem solving.
The Stages of Groupthink
What are the causes and consequences of groupthink?
Antecedent
Conditions
Isolated, cohesive,
homogeneous
decision-making
group
Lack of impartial
leadership
High stress
Systems of
Groupthink
Defective
Decision
Making
Closed-mindedness
Rationalization
Incomplete
examination of
alternatives
Squelching of dissent
“Mindguards”
Feelings of
righteousness
and invulnerability
Failure to
examine risks
and consequences
Incomplete search
for information
Poor
decisions
Participative Decision-Making --- Some 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
Ways to Improve Group Decision-Making
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)
Deindividuation: Getting Lost in the Crowd
The loosening of normal constraints on behavior when
people are in a crowd, leading to an increase in impulsive
and deviant acts
Trick or Treat Study
Identified
Anonymous
Individual
Group
More candy
taken in this
condition
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
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."
Jim Jones leader of
the ("Peoples
Temple")
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?
 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
Tragedy of the Commons
The Commons Dilemma: Everyone takes from a common pool of goods
that will replenish itself if used in moderation but will not if overused.
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)
“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]
Tragedy of the Commons
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