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. Arousal caused by presence of others Social Facilitation Performance enhanced Well-learned (dominant) response Poorly learned or novel (non-dominant) response 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 DIFFICULT MAZE Goal Goal Start Start Floodlight Audience Boxes Goal Goal Audience Boxes Start Floodlight Start Two mazes used in experiments on social facilitation with cockroaches (Zajonc et al., 1969) Floodlight

Time to Complete Task (seconds) 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Time to Complete Task (seconds) Novel Task Well-learned Task Alone Mere Presence Experimenter watching Condition

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? Less effort b) Coordination issues

Rope Pull Apparatus (Ingram et al.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rope Pull Apparatus (Ingram et al.)

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)

Sound pressure per person Potential productivity Actual groups Pseudo-groups 10 8 6 4 2 Reduced effort (Social loafing) Sound pressure per person Coordination loss 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 Description Examples Addictive Group members pool or add their efforts Tug of war Crop harvesters Conjunctive Group members separately perform same subtask (s) Relay Race Bowling Team Mountain-climbing team Disjunctive Group members collaborate to arrive at an “either/or,” “yes/no” decision Quiz game team Jury Divisible Group members perform subcomponents of task; a true labor division 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 Closed-mindedness Rationalization Squelching of dissent “Mindguards” Feelings of righteousness and invulnerability Defective Decision Making Incomplete examination of alternatives 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 More candy taken in this condition Individual Group

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