Summary #4 the individual within the group
4a.
How does working in a group influence personal performance?
Ringelmann effect
1. Coordination loss
2. Motivation loss = social loafing
Experiments with pseudo groups (clapping task/rope pulling)
Social loafing
= individuals generate less effort in a group than they would if each worked alone
(rope pulling experiment, latané 1981)
Why social loafing?
- diffusion of responsibility > evaluation apprehension is impossible
- contribution does not feel crucial to group success
- sucker effect/equity
- not aware of a groups norm (how much effort do we put in according to the norm?)
what reduces social loafing:
- personal identifiability
- involvement in task
- relevance of task
- pattern effort (equity)
- being a woman
- collectivist ideals
- hope for the group (much potential)
- importance of group to the individual
relevance of groupsize in social loafing
+ group size > + social loafing
However, law of diminishing returns!
, How does working in front of an audience influence personal performance?
Audience effects
Social facilitation
= tendency to perform simple/well-rehearsed tasks better in (mere) company of others
than alone (or is it not MERE presence? The relationship between performer and
audience matters)
Social inhibition
= tendency to perform complex/new tasks worse in company of others than alone
Drive theories to explain group influence on personal performance
D.R. = Dominant Response: habitual/primitive response
(Zajonc, 1965)
Correct D.R. (familiar/easy) > social facil.
audience bodily arousal highly D. R.
False D.R. (hard/new) > social inhib.
Evaluation apprehension model (Cottrell)
Correct D.R. (familiar/easy) > social facil.
audience bodily arousal highly D. R.
(due to evaluation) False D.R. (hard/new) > social inhib.
Distraction-conflict theory (Baron, Sanders)
Attention to audience
Corr. D.R. (familiar/easy) > social facil.
audience attentional confl. Arousal D. R.
(due to evaluation) False D.R. (hard/new) > social inhib.
Attention to task
Non-drive theories
Self-awareness > aware of own capabilities (I’m able to do this well on the task)
Idea of ideal self (perfect execution of the task)
self-discrepancy theory
there always is a discrepancy between realistic self and ideal self.
Realistic ideal social facilitation
Discrepancy
Difficult ideal discouraging social inhibition
4a.
How does working in a group influence personal performance?
Ringelmann effect
1. Coordination loss
2. Motivation loss = social loafing
Experiments with pseudo groups (clapping task/rope pulling)
Social loafing
= individuals generate less effort in a group than they would if each worked alone
(rope pulling experiment, latané 1981)
Why social loafing?
- diffusion of responsibility > evaluation apprehension is impossible
- contribution does not feel crucial to group success
- sucker effect/equity
- not aware of a groups norm (how much effort do we put in according to the norm?)
what reduces social loafing:
- personal identifiability
- involvement in task
- relevance of task
- pattern effort (equity)
- being a woman
- collectivist ideals
- hope for the group (much potential)
- importance of group to the individual
relevance of groupsize in social loafing
+ group size > + social loafing
However, law of diminishing returns!
, How does working in front of an audience influence personal performance?
Audience effects
Social facilitation
= tendency to perform simple/well-rehearsed tasks better in (mere) company of others
than alone (or is it not MERE presence? The relationship between performer and
audience matters)
Social inhibition
= tendency to perform complex/new tasks worse in company of others than alone
Drive theories to explain group influence on personal performance
D.R. = Dominant Response: habitual/primitive response
(Zajonc, 1965)
Correct D.R. (familiar/easy) > social facil.
audience bodily arousal highly D. R.
False D.R. (hard/new) > social inhib.
Evaluation apprehension model (Cottrell)
Correct D.R. (familiar/easy) > social facil.
audience bodily arousal highly D. R.
(due to evaluation) False D.R. (hard/new) > social inhib.
Distraction-conflict theory (Baron, Sanders)
Attention to audience
Corr. D.R. (familiar/easy) > social facil.
audience attentional confl. Arousal D. R.
(due to evaluation) False D.R. (hard/new) > social inhib.
Attention to task
Non-drive theories
Self-awareness > aware of own capabilities (I’m able to do this well on the task)
Idea of ideal self (perfect execution of the task)
self-discrepancy theory
there always is a discrepancy between realistic self and ideal self.
Realistic ideal social facilitation
Discrepancy
Difficult ideal discouraging social inhibition
