Social Psychology of Group Behavior

1
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
2
Are Groups Good or Bad?
Gustav Le Bon (1895) stated that leaders can
manipulate citizens by simplifying ideas,
substituting affirmation and exaggeration for
proof, and by repeating points over and again.
(From Forsyth, 2010 LeBon and Tarde --- Mass
hysteria
3
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?

4
Zajonics Theory of Social Facilitation
How does the presence of others affect our
performance on tasks?
Zajonics (pronounced ZYE-unts 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
5
Why is arousal due to the presence of other
people?

• Biological (presence alone leads to
  physiological arousal)
• Evaluation concerns (by others)
• Concentration/Focus

6
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
7

75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Time to Complete Task (seconds)
Novel Task (type info backwards with descending
numbers in between) Well-learned task (type
name, city, etc. normally)
Alone Mere Presence
Experimenter
watching
Condition
8
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
9
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

10
Ringelmann Findings
Individuals Individual Efforts (Sum) Group Effort Group/Individual Ratio
1-7 764 480 .63
8-14 516 432 .84
15-21 533.7 435.4 .82
22-28 575.5 471.2 .82
15-28 1109.2 858.9 .78
11
Precursor to the Latane et al study (Ingram et
al, 1974)
12
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)
13
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
14
Social Loafing on a More Complex Task
Some evidence that people in groups who cannot be
identified do better on complex tasks via effect
of relaxation (e.g., Jackson Williams, 1985)
15
Social Loafing on a More Complex Task (cont.)
More output when individual performance could be
evaluated and compared to others
16
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)

17
Social Loafing Across Cultures
Alone
Performance
Group
30 27 24 21 18 15
24.5
23.8
23.3
20.8
18.5
16.5
United States
Israel
China
Country
18
Four Kinds of Group Tasks
Kind of Task Description Examples
Additive 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

• Also
• Optimizing vs. maximizing
• Unitary vs. divisible

19
Example of Groupthink
Link for Film
20
The Stages of Groupthink
What are the causes and consequences of
groupthink?
Isolated, cohesive, homogeneous decision-making
group Lack of impartial leadership High stress
Closed-mindedness Rationalization Squelching
dissent Mindguards Feelings of
righteousness and invulnerability Self-censorshi
p
Incomplete examination of alternatives Failur
e to examine risks and consequences Incomplete
search for information
Systems of Groupthink
Antecedent Conditions
Consequences
Poor decisions
21
(No Transcript)
22
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)

23
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 its been
shown to be incorrect) Common Knowledge Effect
--- Information held by most group members exerts
a stronger impact on final decisions
24
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

25
Some Basic Leadership Factors

• 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

26
Perceived Fairness in Groups Perceptions 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
• Interactional Justice
• Interpersonal -- Perceptions about how people
  are treated (e.g., caring, consideration) by
  decision makers
• Informational --- Data regarding why the
  decision(s) need to be made

27
Interpersonal Justice Effects
Interpersonal Justice Level
Acceptance of smoking ban
Low
High
More interpersonal justice lead to greater
acceptance, especially among heavy smokers
5.9
6 5 4 3 2
5.6
4.8
4.3
4.1
2.7
Heavy
Light
None
Level of Smoking
28
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
More candy taken in this condition
29
Why does deindividuation occur?

• Anonymous (feel less accountable for individual
  behavior)
• Current example Internet trooling
• Focus is outside oneself (increases the
  likelihood that one will conform to group norms)

30
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")
31

• Why Did People Join?
• Charasmatic leader
• Desperate, sense of purpose, utopia
• Initial commitment technique (FITD)
• Role of severe initiation (viewed as
  positive)

32

• 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

33
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
34
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

35
Overfishing
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)
36
World Water Supply
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
37
Deforestation
According to the World Resources Institute, more
than 80 percent of the Earths natural forests
already have been destroyed. Up to 90 percent of
West Africas coastal rain forests have
disappeared since 1900. Map Source
http//www.kap.zcu.cz/opory/mv1_2/deforestace20a
20desertifikace.pdf
38
Energy Usage
Carbon Dioxide Emission
Surface Air Temperature Increase
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?s
Energy Information Administration