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

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 Zajonic’s Theory of Social FacilitationFacilitationHow 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.

Well-learned(dominant)

response

Poorly learnedor novel

(non-dominant)response

Social Facilitation

Performance enhanced

Social Interference

Performance hindered

Arousal causedby presence of

others

Why is arousal due to the presence of other people?

• Biological (presence alone leads to physiological arousal)

• Evaluation concerns (by others)

• Concentration/Focus

Goal GoalAudience

Boxes

Start

Audience Boxes

Start

Floodlight

Floodlight

EASY MAZE

DIFFICULT MAZE

Two mazes used in experiments on social facilitation with cockroaches (Zajonc et al., 1969)

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Alone Mere Presence Experimenter watching

Tim

e to Com

plete Task

(seconds)

Condition

Novel Task

Well-learned Task

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

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?

a) Less effort

b) Coordination issues

Social Loafing

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

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)

10

8

6

4

2

Sound pressure

per person

1 2 6

Group size

Reduced effort(Social loafing)

Coordination loss

Potential productivity

Pseudo-groups

Actual groups

Why less effort (loafing)?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)

30

27

24

21

18

15

Performance Alone

Group

16.5

24.5

United States Israel China

23.3

20.8

23.8

18.5

Country

Social Loafing Across Cultures

Kind of TaskKind of Task DescriptionDescription ExamplesExamplesAdditive 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

Four Kinds of Group TasksFour Kinds of Group TasksWhat are common kinds of group tasks? How do they differ from on another?

Isolated, cohesive,homogeneous

decision-makinggroup

Lack of impartialleadership

High stress

Closed-mindedness

Rationalization

Squelching dissent

“Mindguards”

Feelings of righteousness

and invulnerability

Self-censorship

Incomplete examination of

alternatives

Failure toexamine risks

and consequences

Incomplete searchfor information

The Stages of GroupthinkThe Stages of GroupthinkWhat are the causes and consequences of

groupthink?

Poor decisions

Consequences

Systems of Systems of GroupthinkGroupthink

AntecedentAntecedentConditionsConditions

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)

Information Sampling --- Information that is shared by most members is most likely to be mentioned (discussed); information held by one (or a few) members not likely to be presented

Common Knowledge Effect --- Information held by most group members exerts a stronger impact on final decisions

Participative Decision-Making --- Some IssuesParticipative 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

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)

Ways to Improve Group Decision-Making

• 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

Some Basic Leadership Factors

Perceived Fairness in GroupsPerceptions 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

• Interpersonal Justice --- Perceptions about how people are treated (e.g., caring, consideration) by decision makers

6

5

4

3

2

Heavy

Level of Smoking

Light

2.7

4.14.3

4.8

5.65.9

Interpersonal Justice LevelLow

HighMore interpersonal justice lead to greater acceptance,

especially among heavy smokers

Acceptance of smoking ban

None

Interpersonal Justice Effects

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.0Low info., no apology

4.80

3.70

3.50

3.20

Amount of money taken

High info., no apology

Low info., Apology

High info., Apology

Greater interpersonal justice, less extra money taken

Reactions to Perceived Justice Violations

The loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people are in a crowd, leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts

Deindividuation: Getting Lost in the Crowd

Trick or Treat Study

More candy taken in this

condition

Identified Anonymous

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

Jim Jones leader of the ("Peoples

Temple")

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."

Why did people join?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?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

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)

Tragedy of the Commons

“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]

The Commons Dilemma: Everyone takes from a common pool of goods that will replenish itself if used in moderation but will not if overused

... .. .... .......

.

.

..

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

Tragedy of the Commons

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)

Overfishing

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: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/eart-nf.html

World Water Supply

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: http://www.kap.zcu.cz/opory/mv1_2/deforestace%20a%20desertifikace.pdf

Deforestation

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

Carbon Dioxide Emission

Surface Air Temperature Increase

Energy Usage

• Logging and conversion have shrunk the world's forests by as much as half

• Nearly 70 percent of the world's major marine fish stocks are overfished or are being fished at their biological limit

• Soil degradation has affected two-thirds of the world's agricultural lands in the last 50 years

• Some 30 percent of the world's original forests have been converted to agriculture

• Since 1980, the global economy has tripled in size and population has grown by 30 percent to 6 billion people

• Twenty percent of the world's freshwater fish are extinct, threatened or endangered

Source: United Nations Development Programme (2000)

Some Implications of the Tradegy of the Commons