Social Psychology of Group Behavior

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 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. 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 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 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. 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

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?

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 Individual Group

19. Why does deindividuation occur? • Anonymous (feel less accountable for individual behavior) • Focus is outsideoneself (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 PERCEIVEDAS 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. 58-59]

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