Transcript Welcome to Leadership and Group Dynamics Psychology 160

Performance in Groups
Social Facilitation
Social loafing
Collective behavior
Brainstorming
Activity
 Task:

Using two pencils in one hand (like chopsticks)
individually pick up jellybeans from one cup
and place them in the other cup.
Triplett’s (1898) study
 Triplett
 Noticed bicyclists performed
better when riding with others


Study with children performing
simple task either alone or with
others.
Results:
 Children performed better when
in the presence of others
compared to when alone
I. Social Facilitation
 Enhancement and impairment performance
effects resulting from the presence of one or
more persons
 Social facilitation:

Performance enhancement
 Social inhibition:

Performance impairment
The Scope of Social Facilitation
 Many contradictory findings:

Sometimes people performed better in the presence of
others and sometimes people performed worse
 Interest in social facilitation dwindled
(40’s & 50’s)
 Zajonc integrated the divergent results

Distinction between dominant and nondominant responses
Social Facilitation a la Zajonc
 Dominant response:

Well-learned or instinctive behaviors that the organism
has practiced and is primed to perform
 Nondominant response:

Novel, complicated, or untried behaviors that the
organism has never performed (or performed infrequently)
 Presence of others increases our tendency to
perform dominant responses
Research Examples
 Cockroach study (Zajonc et al. 1969) :




Not limited to humans!
Cockroaches performed simple or difficult task
 Runway or maze
Measured speed when alone or with fellow roaches
present
Presence of other roaches facilitated performance on
easy task and hampered it on difficult task
Cockroach study
140
120
100
Seconds
80
Others
Alone
60
40
20
0
Simple Runway
Complex Maze
Research Examples
 Pool room study



(Michaels et al., 1982)
Players identified as above or below average
Research team of 4 approached the table and observed
playing
Found classic facilitation/inhibition effects
Pool room study
90
80
70
60
% shots 50
made 40
30
Others
Alone
20
10
0
Above average
Below average
The Social Facilitation Effect
Performance
Improves
Know the task well
Perform task in
presence of
audience
Do not know the task well
Performance
Declines
Why Does Social Facilitation Occur?
 Three basic processes highlighted:



Arousal
Evaluation apprehension
Distraction-conflict theory
Increased
arousal
Presence of
Other People
Evaluation
Apprehension
Cognitive
conflict
Distraction
Social Facilitation
of
Dominant Responses
II. Social Loafing
 Ringlemann effect
 Social loafing


Members work below their potential when in a
group
i.e., people getting lazy in groups
Amount of Individual Effort Exerted
The Social Loafing Effect
High
The greater the number of people
who work on a group task, the
smaller the contribution any one
member of the group will make
Low
One person Small
working alone groups
Number of People Working
Large
groups
Research Example
 Shouting experiment



(Latane, Williams, Harkins)
SS separated into rooms with headphones
Led to believe they were shouting alone or with
others
Results:
 Groups of 2 shouted at 66% capacity
 Groups of 6 at 36% capacity
 People exhibit a sizable decrease in
individual effort when performing in groups
compared to alone
Ways to Reduce Social Loafing
 Identify individual





performance.
Form smaller work groups.
More task structure and
specialized roles
Direct and immediate
feedback
Increased personal
involvement
Group cohesion
III. Collective Behavior
Collective Behavior
 Deindividuation:

Loss of sense of individuality. This loss
reduces constraints against "deviant"
behavior.
 Conditions promoting deindividuation


When you feel anonymous; unlikely to be
caught
When environment focuses your attention
away from the self
Zimbardo’s (1969) Model of
Deindividuation
Crowd

Reduced self-awareness
Reduced accountability
Input Variables
Anonymity
Shared/diffused
responsibility
Group size
Arousal
Sensory input overload
Physical involvement in
the act
Novel and unstructured
situations
Altered consciousness
through drugs, alcohol

Disinhibition
Output behaviour
Subjective changes
Decreased self-observation
and -evaluation
Decreased Concern for
social evaluation
Emotional, impulsive,
irrational, regressive
and extreme behaviour
Uncontrolled behaviour
Distorted memory/
perception
Hyper-responsiveness to
immediate surroundings
Liking for group
Destruction of traditional
forms and structures
Classic Studies
 Focused on anonymity and its effects
Research Examples
Shock duration -->
Ostensible Administration of Electric Shocks to
Participant in Adjacent Room (Zimbardo, 1969, Study
Plain Clothes
Cloak & Hood
1)
Research Examples
 Trick or treat study (Diener et al.
1976)



Children trick or treated alone or in
group
1/2 Trick or treating children asked
name; other 1/2 not
All children given the opportunity
to steal extra candy
Trick or Treat Study
70
60
50
%
transgressing40
Identified
Anonymous
30
20
10
0
Alone
Group
Another Account of Collective Behavior
 Social Identity explanation:

In the crowd the person doesn’t lose a sense of
individuality rather the person transitions from a
personal identity to a social identity
 Social identity

When social identity is made salient, people
internalize group norms as their own. If group
members behave normatively, collective behavior
results.
Research Examples
 KKK vs. nurses study



(Johnson & Downing 1979)
Participants identified by name or
anonymous
Participants wore KKK or nurses costumes
Then given opportunity to shock
“Deindividuation Effects” Depend on
Normative Cues
Shock Intensity -->
Ostensible Administration of Electric Shocks to
Participant in Adjacent Room
Klanlike robes
Nurselike uniforms
Unmasked
Masked
Collective Behavior Explanations Compared
DEINDIVIDUATION
 Cause: Anonymity, arousal,
noise, other external factors
demanding attention
 Process: Loss of identity,
decreased (self) awareness
 Outcome: Disinhibition, anti-
normative behavior,
suggestibility
SOCIAL IDENTITY
 Cause: Factors inducing
identity salience
 Process: Transition from
individual to social identity
 Outcome: Normative
behavior, responsiveness to
group norms
Brainstorming
 Brainstorming groups often create fewer
ideas than individuals because:


social loafing
blocking (because of waiting turns, ppl forget ideas or
decide not to share)


evaluation apprehension
social matching (lower standards of performance are
matched)
 What can be more effective?
Brainstorming Exercise
Page 302
 "Each year a great many Americans go to
Europe to visit. Now suppose that Americans
want to entice Europeans to come to
America. What steps would you suggest to
get more Europeans to visit America?"
Post Performance Review
1. How many ideas do you think you, as an individual,
generated while brainstorming?
2. In general, do you believe you would produce more ideas
alone or by brainstorming in a group?
3. In general, do you believe you would produce more creative
ideas by alone or by brainstorming in a group?
4. Evaluate the process your group used to generate its ideas.
a. Did the production of ideas change over time?
b. Did some individuals in the group produce more than
others?
c. Did your group follow the rules of brainstorming?
5. Did any of the following coordination and motivational
factors influence your group's performance?
a. Social loafing
b. Evaluation apprehension
c. Blocking
d. Social matching