1. Social Psychology of Group Behavior
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

2. Are Groups Good or Bad?
Gustav Le Bon (1895) stated that leaders can manipulate citizens by simplifying ideas, substituting affirmation and exaggeration for proof, and by repeating points over and again. (From: Forsyth, 2010
LeBon and Tarde --- Mass hysteria

3. * 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?

4. * Zajonic’s Theory of Social Facilitation
How does the presence of others affect our performance on tasks?
Zajonic’s (pronounced ZYE-unts; 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

5. Why is arousal due to the presence of other people?
Biological (presence alone leads to physiological arousal)
Evaluation concerns (by others)
Concentration/Focus

6. 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

7. 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 (type info backwards with descending numbers in between)
Well-learned task (type name, city, etc. normally)
Alone Mere Presence Experimenter watching
Condition

8. 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

9. * Social Loafing Ringleman Effect --- (e.g., with rope pulling task)
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

10. Group/Individual Ratio
Ringelmann Findings
Individuals
Individual Efforts
(Sum)
Group Effort
Group/Individual Ratio
1-7
764
480
.63
8-14
516
432
.84
15-21
533.7
435.4
.82
22-28
575.5
471.2
15-28
1109.2
858.9
.78

11. Precursor to the Latane et al study (Ingram et al, 1974)

12. 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)

13. 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
Group size

14. * Social Loafing on a More Complex Task
Some evidence that people in groups who cannot be identified do better on complex tasks via effect of relaxation (e.g., Jackson & Williams, 1985)

15. Social Loafing on a More Complex Task (cont.)
More output when individual performance could be evaluated and compared to others

16. * 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)

17. Social Loafing Across Cultures
Alone
Performance
Group 30 27 24 21 18 15
24.5
23.8
23.3
20.8
18.5
16.5
United States
Israel
China
Country

18. * Four Kinds of Group Tasks
Kind of Task
Description
Examples
Additive
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
Also:
Optimizing vs. maximizing
Unitary vs. divisible

19. Example of Groupthink
Link for Film

20. * The Stages of Groupthink
What are the causes and consequences of groupthink?
Isolated, cohesive,
homogeneous
decision-making
group
Lack of impartial
leadership
High stress
Closed-mindedness
Rationalization
Squelching dissent
“Mindguards”
Feelings of
righteousness
and invulnerability
Self-censorship
Incomplete
examination of
alternatives
Failure to
examine risks
and consequences
Incomplete search
for information
Antecedent
Conditions
Systems of
Groupthink
Consequences
Poor decisions

22. * 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)

23. * Other Group Decision-Making Phenomena
Collective Entrapment --- The more effort used to make a decision, the greater likelihood of sticking to that decision (even if it’s been shown to be incorrect)
Common Knowledge Effect --- Information held by most group members exerts a stronger impact on final decisions

24. 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

25. Some Basic Leadership Factors
Flexibility in leader behavior (style must match the requirements of a given
situation such as time frame, group acceptance, decision quality)
Know their subordinates and provide incentives that match their needs and
desires
Treat subordinates fairly
Set realistic and challenging goals
Leaders need to be perceived as important in order for employees to get
rewards
Guarantee that employee job performance leads to getting desired rewards

26. * Perceived Fairness in Groups Perceptions of Justice (Equity)
Distributive Justice --- Judgments about the fairness of outcomes/rewards given (e.g., money, promotions) relative to others
Procedural Justice --- Perceived fairness of the procedures or processes used
Interactional Justice
Interpersonal -- Perceptions about how people are treated (e.g., caring, consideration) by decision makers
Informational --- Data regarding why the decision(s) need to be made

27. * Interpersonal Justice Effects Interpersonal Justice Level
Acceptance of smoking ban
Low
High
More interpersonal justice lead to greater acceptance, especially among heavy smokers
5.9 6 5 4 3 2
5.6
4.8
4.3
4.1
2.7
Heavy
Light
None
Level of Smoking

28. * 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

29. * Why does deindividuation occur?
Anonymous (feel less accountable for individual behavior)
Current example = Internet trooling
Focus is outside oneself (increases the likelihood that one will conform to group norms)

30. 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")

31. Why Did People Join?
Charasmatic leader
Desperate, sense of purpose, utopia
Initial commitment technique (FITD)
Role of severe initiation (viewed as positive)

32. 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 study; future
notice of food or person)
Long-lasting effects!
Self-blame

33. 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 ]

34. * 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

35. Overfishing
About one-third of all fishing stocks worldwide have collapsed. If current trends of overfishing and pollution continue, the populations of just about all seafood face collapse by 2048 (Science, 2006)

36. Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/eart-nf.html
World Water Supply
Water covers roughly 70 percent of Earth's surface, but only 2.5 percent of it is freshwater, which humans need for irrigation, drinking water, and other everyday uses.
Source:

37. Deforestation
According to the World Resources Institute, more than 80 percent of the Earth’s natural forests already have been destroyed. Up to 90 percent of West Africa’s coastal rain forests have disappeared since 1900.
Map Source:

38. Carbon Dioxide Emission Surface Air Temperature Increase
Energy Usage
Carbon Dioxide Emission
Surface Air Temperature Increase
Global energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are likely to increase by more than 50% over the next 20 years, with much of the growth centered in the developing world, according to the latest international energy forecast by the U.S. Department of Energyﾕs Energy Information Administration