Group Processes

Social Psychology Chapter 8 October 15, 2004 Class #7

Social Facilitation

 If performance can be individually evaluated, the presence of others will be arousing  This will improve performance on simple tasks but interfere with performance on complex tasks

Triplett (1897)

 Was one of the first scientists to ask the question "What happens when individuals join together with other individuals?"  Triplett, who was a bicycling enthusiast, noticed that cyclists performed better in races than they did when they were paced by motor-driven cycles or when they were timed riding the course alone

Mere Presence of Others and Social Facilitation

 Same result when he asked children to wind fishing reels as quickly as possible  He thought that the others mere presence of would improve our performance

Triplett (1897): F ishing reels study

  

Participants:

 40 children ages 8 to 17

Procedures:

 A trial consisted in turning the reel at the highest rate of speed until a small flag sewed to the silk band had made four circuits of the four-meter course  The time of the trial was taken by means of a stop watch

Results:

 All children performed faster when in competition compared to when alone

A universal principle…NOT!

   For a long time, the social facilitation phenomenon was viewed as a universal principle… Some may have even called it a “proven fact” So, no one did much research on it for decades

Zajonc extended Triplett’s theory…

  Zajonc went back and analyzed the research He noticed that nearly all of the many studies that documented social facilitation studied well learned responses    Bicycling Lifting weights Eating rapidly

But he found that there were some exceptions…

 People had some trouble when being watched if the tasks were novel…   Difficult math problems Writing poetry  Learning nonsense syllables

It seems as if Triplett was only partially right…



Zajonc (1965)

 The type of task was an important determinant to success as well  Was it a well-learned task or was it relatively new?

Zajonc (1969)



Cockroach study

 Cockroach placed in a tube with a bright light at one end of the tube…  To escape the light, the cockroach had to run down the tube and into a darkened box at the other end of the tube…  IV: Presence or absence of other cockroaches  DV: Speed of escape  Results: Cockroaches were faster to escape when other cockroaches were present

Zajonc (1969)

 Audience increased cockroaches’ performance on the easy straight-ahead task but not on the more complex turning task  See next slide 

Zajonc (1969): Experimental set-up

Zajonc (1969): Results



Simple Maze:

 Alone: 41 seconds  Audience: 33 seconds 

Complex Maze:

  Alone: 110 seconds Audience: 130 seconds

Michaels et al. (1982)

 Secretly rated pool players in a hall as above average or below average ability…  Then a group of confederates came and stood by their table as they played  The above average players' shot accuracy improved from 71 to 80% accurate, while the below average players slipped from 36 to 25% accurate

Why Does Social Facilitation Occur?



Distraction Conflict Theory (Sanders, 1981)

 Attentional conflict between focusing on task and inspecting the distracting stimulus creates arousal  Can hurt performance sometimes and help sometimes  Presence of others can create a distractions leading to poorer performance  But sometimes will stimulate greater effort to overcome the attentional conflict  “Tunnel vision” can help on some tasks

Social Loafing

 A group-produced reduction in individual output on easy tasks in which contributions are pooled  Individuals in a group who are working below their potential

Ringelman’s (1880’s) experiments

  Individual output declines on pooled tasks in all his experiments For example in a rope-tugging task  Units pulled in rope-tugging task:  1 person 100  2 people 186   3 people 255 8 people 392

Social Loafing



Ingham et al (1974)

 Blind folded rope pulling  DV: Effort  IV: Thought people were behind them or not  Subjects pulled 18% harder when they thought they were alone

Latane, Williams, and Harkins (1979)

 Sat participant in a group of 6 people…  Blindfolded participant and had them put on headphones  Played clapping or shouting over headphones  I.V. thought they were making noise alone or with 5 others  Results: 1/3 less noise when they thought others were also making noise

Why does loafing happen ?

  

Diffusion of responsibility:

 In a group we feel able to share responsibility and this may lead to a reduction of effort

Free-rider effect

:  If we feel like our contribution is not essential…still benefit from the group and

give little in return

high output) (low input,

Sucker effect:

 Willing to do your share but others are free-riding)

not more

 than that (esp. if Since everyone is benefiting and getting credit, you don’t want to be the sucker who does all the work (and no recognition), therefore do the

minimum

requirement

We loaf less when…

       

If personal efforts are identifiable

If a task is challenging, appealing, or involving

If the task is meaningful and important

If we think our contribution is essential

If we are working with friends vs. strangers

If the group expects to be punished for poor performance If the group is small If the group is cohesive

Collective Effort Model

 Individuals try hard on a collective task when they think their efforts will help them achieve outcomes they personally value

Deindividuation Theory

 Deindividuation theory is a social psychological account of the individual in the crowd  Deindividuation is a psychological state of decreased self-evaluation, causing anti-normative and disinhibited behavior 

Zimbardo, Haney, Banks, & Jaffe (1973)

  One of the all-time great psychological experiments Illustrates deindividuation

Stanford Prison Experiment

 Thirty years ago, a group of young men were rounded up by Palo Alto police and dropped off at a new jail -- in the Stanford Psychology Department

These were just like real arrests…

  On a quiet Sunday morning... each was arrested for violation of Penal Codes 211, Armed Robbery or Burglary, a 459 PC Some arrested still vividly remember the shock of having neighbors come out to watch the commotion as TV cameras recorded the hand-cuffing for the “nightly news”

Treated poorly from the start…

 Strip searched, sprayed for lice and locked up with chains around their ankles, the "prisoners" were part of an experiment to test people's reactions to power dynamics in social situations

Don’t mess with us…

 Other college student volunteers -- the "guards" - were given authority to dictate 24-hour-a-day rules

Soon, they were humiliating the prisoners

And it got worse and worse…

It didn’t take long…

 Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage…he was released

You want us to do what???



Upon hearing of a rumored break-out Zimbardo panicked…

 Instead of sitting back and observing what was to occur next, like the good experimental psychologist that he was…  He went back to the Palo Alto Police Department and asked the sergeant if “we could have our prisoners transferred to your jail for at least one night” 

Zimbardo had also fallen totally into his role

Parole Board

 During the parole hearings they also witnessed an unexpected metamorphosis of the prison consultant as he adopted the role of head of the Parole Board  He literally became the most hated authoritarian official imaginable, so much so that when the experiment was over he felt sick at who he had become…  He acted no different than his own tormentor who had previously rejected his annual parole requests for 16 years when he was a prisoner

“I think it is terrible what you are doing to those boys”

 Christina Maslach was a recent PhD graduate at Stanford and in a romantic relationship with Zimbardo  She almost got physically ill when seeing the cruelty

Her reactions convinced Zimbardo it was time to call it off…

 Maslach realized that the experiment was becoming very ugly…she couldn’t believe some of the transformations…  Upon her arrival, she had a pleasant conversation with a "charming, funny, smart" young man waiting to start his guard shift  Other researchers had told her there was a particularly sadistic guard, whom both prisoners and other guards had nicknamed John Wayne

Which one is “John Wayne”?

 Later, when she looked at the monitor of the prison yard again, she asked someone to point out John Wayne and was shocked to discover it was the young man she had talked with earlier…

Jekyll and Hyde experience



He was talking in a different accent a Southern accent, which she hadn't recalled at all

  He moved differently, and the way he talked was different, not just in the accent, but in the way he was interacting with the prisoners “It was like seeing Jekyll and Hyde”

Interesting note…

 Christina Maslach was one of about 50 visitors who had arrived after the experiment had began…  She was the only one who complained about it  The only one who suggested that it be stopped

Full debriefing…

 Zimbardo: On the last day, we held a series of encounter sessions, first with all the guards, then with all the prisoners (including those who had been released earlier), and finally with the guards, prisoners, and staff together. We did this in order to get everyone's feelings out in the open…

A final question…

  No guards left the experiment – most seemed to enjoy it The prisoners were abused – some sobbed their way out 

What would you have done differently had you been a guard? A prisoner?

How about in the real world?

   This naturalistic observation type of experiment seems to illustrate this effect… In 1969, the Chief of Police of the California community of Menlo Park, in the interest of improving community relations, embarked on a program whose most apparent feature was a change in the style of police attire The police of Menlo Park shifted from the typical blue, military style uniform to a civilian green blazer

It’s all in the uniform?

 Does the traditional police uniform bring about a sense of deindividuation?

 If so, what effect do you think the “green blazer” had?

Had to wear jeans today…



Lang (1986)

 Casually dressed teachers achieve higher academic performance and receive fewer disciplinary problems from students

Social Identity Model of Deindividuation



Johnson and Downing (1979)

Crowds and Deindividuation: The Halloween Studies



Dierner et al. (1976)

 Trick-or-treaters in groups more likely to steal extra candy than individual kids, unless they were individuated by being asked their names 

Beaman et al. (1979)

 Anonymous children in Halloween costumes stole more from a candy jar than kids asked their first names  Even less likely to steal if a mirror was put behind the candy bowl

Back to the real world…



Mullen (1986)

 Bigger the mob, the greater the atrocities

Zimbardo (1970): The abandoned car study

 Palo Alto, California vs. NYC

Real Groups

 Real groups (e.g., sororities) are distinguished from aggregations (e.g., crowds of strangers on the street) by:  Interdependence: Group members need each other to reach shared goals.

 Group identity: Individuals perceive themselves as belonging together.  Group structure: Everyone has a role

Group Structure



Roles

 Expectations held by group members for how members in particular positions ought to behave.

 Example:  A sorority president is expected to make decisions and guide discussion at weekly meetings

Group Structure



Status Hierarchy

 A ranking of group members by their power and influence over other members  Example:  A sorority pledge is below a regular member, who is below the president

Group Roles

 People’s roles in a group can be formal or informal  Two fundamental types of roles:  An instrumental role to help the group achieve its tasks  An expressive role to provide emotional support and maintain morale

Group Norms

 Groups establish norms or rules of conduct for members  Norms may be either formal or informal

Group Cohesiveness

 The strength of the bonds among group members  Interpersonal cohesiveness: Enjoyment of one another’s company  Task cohesiveness: group’s task Commitment to the

Discussion and Decision Making



Group polarization

  The exaggeration through group discussion on initial tendencies in the thinking of group members Originally, this effect was labeled the “

risky shift

” phenomenon

Group Polarization

  Imagine you were considering the pros and cons of going to grad school, and you talked it over with two groups: 

Your family:



Who was initially slightly opposed to the idea



Your fellow students:



Who were initially slightly favorable

After discussion within each group (see next slide) 

Definite GO After discussion, the group that initially favored grad school would be even more strongly in favor Unsure Definite NO (Get A Job!) Before Group Discussion After Group Discussion Conversely, the group that initially disfavored grad school would be even more opposed

Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969)

 Here group discussion enhanced the average inclination of group members…  French students liked their premier more, but Americans less, after discussing these topics in a group

Myers and Bishop (1970)

 Used high and low prejudiced high school students as participants…  Had them talk about racial attitudes with like minded students  Results?

Why do groups polarize after discussion?



Persuasive arguments

 With even a slight bias in one direction, you’ll hear more favorable arguments on that side 

Social comparison

 When members realize the group is leaning in one direction, they may seek acceptance by moving further in that direction

Groupthink

 Group decision-making that is not optimal, sometimes disastrous, because the group’s primary goal is consensus instead of accuracy  They seem to have a greater desire to get along and agree with one another than to generate and critically evaluate alternative viewpoints and positions  The deterioration of group judgment produced by striving for consensus  Examples:  NASA tragedies, Bay of Pigs, etc.

Symptoms

 The group overestimating their might and right…   Illusions of invulnerability- over-optimism, blind to warnings Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality

Symptoms

 Members become close-minded  Rationalization discounts challenges by justifying their decisions  Holding a stereotyped view of the opponent (weak, dumb)

Symptoms

 Pressures toward uniformity  Conformity pressure- those who raise doubts are rebuffed. (ridiculed)   Self censorship- disagreements are uncomfortable Illusions of unanimity-everyone keeps quite, seems like everyone is unanimous (like pluralistic ignorance)  Mindguards-some members keep information (that would lead to question) from the group

THE CHALLENGER: A MODEL OF DEFECTIVE DECISION-MAKING

    Jesse Moore has the ultimate authority to approve or scrub the shuttle mission An engineer later testified that the o-ring seals have never been tested below 53 degrees F Problems started when the temperature in Florida dropped in the low 20’s The O-rings had long been classified as a critical component of rocket motor failure that without back up could cause loss of life or the rocket

How can we prevent groupthink?

  Be impartial; don’t endorse any position Encourage critical evaluation; devil’s advocate   Subdivide the group Encourage and welcome criticisms from outsiders  Before implementing, call a second chance meeting

Brainstorming…

People brainstorming as a group come up with a greater number of better ideas than the same number of people working individually.

Brainstorming…

 A technique that attempts to increase the production of creative ideas by encouraging group members to speak freely without criticizing their own or others’ contributions

Factors That Reduce the Effectiveness of Group Brainstorming

Escalation Effects

 Occurs when commitment to a failing course of action is increased to justify previous investments  Groups more likely to escalate commitment  Also likely to do it in more extreme ways

Social Dilemmas

 Situations in which a self-interested choice by everyone creates the worst outcome for everyone  What is good for one is bad for all

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Strategies Used When Facing Mixed-Motive Situations

  Tit-for-Tat Win-Stay, Lose-Shift

Resource Dilemmas

 Social dilemmas concerning how two or more people share a limited resource.

 Two types of resource dilemmas:  Commons dilemma (“take-some dilemma”)  Public goods dilemma

Reducing Conflict: GRIT

 Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-Reduction (GRIT)  A strategy for unilateral, persistent efforts to establish trust and cooperation between opposing parties  GRIT is a reciprocal, tit-for-tat strategy

Reducing Conflict: Negotiating

 Integrative agreement is a negotiated resolution where all parties obtain outcomes that are superior to a 50-50 split  Key elements in successful negotiating include:  Flexibility and strength  Communicating and trying to understand the point of view of the other person