Performance in Groups Social Facilitation Social loafing Collective behavior Brainstorming

What is Group Dynamics? §Group DYNAMICS l Refers to social FORCES operating on individuals as members of a group l Refers to group processes and the scientific study of groups

Triplett’s (1898) study §Triplett l Noticed bicyclists performed better when riding with others l Study with children performing simple task either alone or with others. l Results: Children performed better when in the presence of others compared to when alone

I. Social Facilitation §Enhancement and impairment performance effects resulting from the presence of one or more persons §Social facilitation: l Performance enhancement §Social inhibition: l Performance impairment

Social Facilitation a la Zajonc §Dominant response: l Well-learned or instinctive behaviors that the organism has practiced and is primed to perform §Nondominant response: l Novel, complicated, or untried behaviors that the organism has never performed (or performed infrequently) §Presence of others increases our tendency to perform dominant responses

Research Examples §Cockroach study (Zajonc et al. 1969) : l Not limited to humans! l Cockroaches performed simple or difficult task Runway or maze l Measured speed when alone or with fellow roaches present l Presence of other roaches facilitated performance on easy task and hampered it on difficult task

Cockroach study Seconds

Research Examples §Pool room study (Michaels et al., 1982) l Players identified as above or below average l Research team of 4 approached the table and observed playing l Found classic facilitation/inhibition effects

Pool room study % shots made

The Social Facilitation Effect Perform task in presence of audience Perform task in presence of audience Do not know the task well Know the task well Performance Improves Performance Improves Performance Declines

II. Social Loafing §Social loafing l Members work below their potential when in a group l i.e., people getting lazy in groups

The Social Loafing Effect High Low One person working alone Small groups Large groups Number of People Working Amount of Individual Effort Exerted The greater the number of people who work on a group task, the smaller the contribution any one member of the group will make

Research Example §Shouting experiment l SS separated into rooms with headphones l Led to believe they were shouting alone or with other people l Results: Groups of 2 shouted at 66% capacity Groups of 6 at 36% capacity §People exhibit a sizable decrease in individual effort when performing in groups compared to alone

Ways to Reduce Social Loafing Identify individual performance. Form smaller work groups. More task structure and specialized roles Direct and immediate feedback Increased personal involvement Group cohesion

III. Collective Behavior

§Deindividuation: l Loss of sense of individuality. This loss reduces constraints against "deviant" behavior. §Conditions promoting deindividuation l When you feel anonymous; unlikely to be caught l When environment focuses your attention away from the self Collective Behavior

Zimbardo’s (1969) Model of Deindividuation Output behaviour Emotional, impulsive, irrational, regressive and extreme behaviour Uncontrolled behaviour Distorted memory/ perception Hyper-responsiveness to immediate surroundings Liking for group Destruction of traditional forms and structures Input Variables Anonymity Shared/diffused responsibility Group size Arousal Sensory input overload Physical involvement in the act Novel and unstructured situations Altered consciousness through drugs, alcohol Subjective changes Decreased self-observation and -evaluation Decreased Concern for social evaluation Crowd  Reduced self-awareness  Disinhibition Reduced accountability

Classic Studies §Focused on anonymity and its effects

Research Examples

§Trick or treat study (Diener et al. 1976) l Children trick or treated alone or in group l 1/2 Trick or treating children asked name; other 1/2 not l All children given the opportunity to steal extra candy Research Examples

Trick or Treat Study % transgressing

Another Account of Collective Behavior §Social Identity explanation: l In the crowd the person doesn’t lose a sense of individuality rather the person transitions from a personal identity to a social identity §Social identity l When social identity is made salient, people internalize group norms as their own. If group members behave normatively, collective behavior results.

§KKK vs. nurses study (Johnson & Downing 1979) l Participants identified by name or anonymous l Participants wore KKK or nurses costumes l Then given opportunity to shock Research Examples

“Deindividuation Effects” Depend on Normative Cues

Collective Behavior Explanations Compared DEINDIVIDUATION §Cause: Anonymity, arousal, noise, other external factors demanding attention §Process: Loss of identity, decreased (self) awareness §Outcome: Disinhibition, anti- normative behaviour, suggestibility SOCIAL IDENTITY §Cause: Factors inducing identity salience §Process: Transition from individual to social identity §Outcome: Normative behaviour, responsiveness to group norms

Brainstorming §Brainstorming groups often create fewer ideas than individuals because: l social loafing l blocking (because of waiting turns, ppl forget ideas or decide not to share) l evaluation apprehension l social matching (lower standards of performance are matched).

Brainstorming Exercise §"Each year a great many Americans go to Europe to visit. Now suppose that Americans want to entice Europeans to come to America. What steps would you suggest to get more Europeans to visit America?"