1. Social Psychology of Group Behavior

2. 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?

3. 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

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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

14. Group Decisions: Are Two (or More) Heads Better than One?
Process loss: Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving.

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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

19. 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)

20. 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")

21. WHY DID PEOPLE JOIN?  CHARASMATIC LEADER
 DESPERATE, SENSE OF PURPOSE, UTOPIA
 INITIAL COMMITMENT TECHNIQUE (FITD)
 ROLE OF SEVERE INITIATION (VIEWED AS
POSITIVE)

22. 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

23. 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 ]

24. 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