ISDP Revision
Social
Group processes (Week 6)
Learning objectives
Define groups and group cohesiveness.
Describe social facilitation effects with reference to drive theory and related
research studies.
Describe social loafing with reference to the Collective Effort Model.
Define groupthink, and provide a real-life example of its occurrence.
What is a group?
A set of individuals who share the following characteristics (Kassin, Fein &
Marcus, 2011):
-Direct interactions with each other over a period of time;
-Joint membership in a social category based on sex, race or other attributes
-A shared fate, identity or set of goals.
Why do people join groups?
Protection against threat and uncertainty?
Gain a greater sense of social identity?
OR: is this just what humans do?
Sometimes in evolutionary perspectives, researchers talk about the difference between
an ONTOGENETIC and PHYLOGENETIC advantage when trying to understand why
particular adaptations may have occurred
Ontogenetic: Ontogenetic behaviour is due to events that occur over the lifetime
of an individual. Ontogenetic history builds on species history to determine when,
where, and what kind of behaviour will occur at a given moment
Phylogenetic: Behaviour relations that are based on the evolutionary history of a
species are called phylogenetic
Group Cohesiveness
“The extent to which forces push group members closer together.”(Kassin,Fein and
Marcus,2011 p,299)
Cohesiveness and performance
Better performance=improve cohesiveness…
For smaller groups (Mullen and Copper,1994)
Female sports team (Carron et al,2002)
*Group cohesiveness: Social process that characterizes groups whose members
interact with each other and refers to the forces that push group members closer
together
Strength of cohesiveness varies between groups-contexts and across time-
groups with low levels of cohesiveness are hardly groups
Also describes the psychological process responsible for an individual’s
attachment to a group and its members
Theory of group cohesiveness-Festinger,Schachter and Back’s (1950)
Believed that field of forces, based on attraction and goal mediation acts on
individual group members to render the group more or less cohesive, and that
cohesiveness influences membership continuity and adherence to group norms-
When characterise cohesiveness in terms of interpersonal liking-factors that
increase liking raise cohesiveness.-Elevated cohesiveness-generates conformity
, ISDP Revision
to group standards, accentuated similarity, improved intragroup communication
and enhanced liking
Question raised by social identity researchers asks to what extent an analysis of group
cohesiveness in terms of aggregation of interpersonal attraction really captures a group
process at all-to resolve this issue Hogg (1993) distinguished between personal attraction
and social attraction.
*Personal attraction has nothing to do with groups-while social is the “liking”
component off group memberships
[PA: Liking for someone based on idiosyncratic [individual]preferences and
interpersonal relationships
SA: Liking for someone based on common group membership and determined by
the person’s prototypicality of the group]
Hogg’s analysis has advances over traditional model
Doesn’t reduce group solidarity and cohesiveness to interpersonal attraction
Applicable as to small interactive groups-only valid focus as to large scale social
categories, such as an ethnic group or a nation
*Broader view of cohesion as linked as group solidarity and social identity may explain
why loyalty is so important to group life
The presence of others-Triplett (1898)
Hypothesis: Competitive instinct “released” in presence of another, increasing nervous
energy and enhancing performance.
Study: Fishing reels
40 children winding fishing reels
Alone vs. In competition with another
Results: Faster when in competition than when alone
Social facilitation
*the improvement in an individual’s performance of a task that often occurs when others
are present.
Zajonc’s (1965, 1980) drive theory: The presence of others increases arousal, which
strengths the dominant response to a stimulus.
Step 1: Physical presence of others creates physiological arousal,
Step 2: Increased arousal enhances tendency to perform the dominant response
(drive)
Step 3: Quality of performance depends on type of task:
Easy task=successful response Difficult task=unsuccessful response
More recently, consistent findings in a variety of settings eg
Electronic Gambling (Rockloff and Dyer 2007)
Driving tests (Rosenbloom et al., 2007)
Neuropsychological testing (Yantz & McCaffrey, 2007)
*The presence of “virtual others”- Social facilitation effects just as evident (Park &
Catrambone, 2007)
, ISDP Revision
*Drive Theory-1965-Robet Zajonic published theoretical statement-drive theory[theory
that the physical presence of members of the same species instinctively causes arousal
that motivates performance of habitual behaviour patterns]-Argues that because people
are relatively unpredictable-there is a clear advantage to the species for people’s
presence to cause us to be alert and in readiness-increased or motivation is thus an
instinctive reaction to social presence.-Such arousal functions as a “drive”engerise that
behaviour which is our dominant response.-Idea that the presence of others
automatically produces arousal-which thus drives dominant responses
-Performance is improved by a “correct” dominant response but it is impaired by an
“incorrect” dominant response-In spite of these findings, there is quite a lot of
controversy about drive theory Alternative theories include:
Evaluation apprehension theory – changes in performance when others are
around are related to (perceived) evaluation by the audience – negative, or
positive!
Distraction-conflict theory – an audience causes inevitable distraction, and
therefore cognitive load, which effects an individual’s performance.
Cottrel (1972)-proposed evaluation apprehension model-agreement that the
physical presence of members of the same species causes drive because people
have learnt to be apprehensive about being evaluated-idea that we quickly learn
that the social rewards and punishments we receive based on others evaluations
of us
Sanders(1981-1983)-presence of others can “drive us to distraction”-Distraction-
conflict theory-physical presence of members of the same species is distracting
and produces conflict between attending to the task and attending to the
audience-idea that people are a source of distraction-which produces cognitive
conflict between attending to the task and attending
Social Loafing
*[the reduction of individual effort that occurs when people work in groups compared to
when they work alone]
Ringelmann (1913) -Individual output decreased when working together.
Ingham et al. (1974) – Rope pulling task
Condition 1: Ps led to think that they were pulling with a group.
Condition 2: Ps informed they were pulling alone.
Ps pulled almost 20% harder when they thought they were pulling alone.
*Group-produced reductions in individual output (Latane et al., 1979).
Social loadfing:Ringelmann effect-individual effort on a task diminishes as group size
increases
2 explanations for this
1. Coordination loss- refers to the lack of simultaneity of effort in groups, which
interferes with efficiently combining individual inputs.
2. Motivation loss
Loss of motivation termed -SOCIAL LOADING by Latane et al-reduction in
individual effort when working on a collective task
Notable feature of loafing is that as group size increases-addition of new members
to the group has a decreasingly significant impact on effort-reduction of effort
conforms to negatively accelerating power function
, ISDP Revision
SL related to the free rider effect [gaining the benefits of group membership by
avoiding costly obligations of membership and by allowing other members to
incur [suffer] those costs]
Review of social motivation research concluded 3 reasons why we loaf when in a group
[Glen 1991]
1. Output equity-we believe that others loaf so to maintain equity
2. Education apprehension-worry that being evaluated by others-but when we are
anonymous and cannot be identified we hang back and loaf especially when a
task is not engaging
3. 3Matching to standard-often we don’t have a clear sense of the group’s standards
or norms so we hang back and loaf-however presence of a clear personal, social
or group performance standard should reduce loading
*But in some cases-people may work harder collectively in order to compensate for
anticipated loafing by others on important tasks or in important group-Social
compensation effect [increased effort on a collective task to compensate for other group
members-Other circumstances when people may work harder in groups than when
alone-1-When people place greater value on groups than on individual-collective eastern
cultures In comparison to more individualist Western cultures-2-when groups and their
members believe and expect that the group will be effective in achieving important goals
Social Loafing-Evidence
Later research (e.g. Miles and Greenberg, 1993)
Social loafing is not restricted to simple motor tasks.
Karau and Williams (1993) - Collective Effort Model (CEM).
*Meta-analysis of 78 studies. Findings:
1.Loafing happens!
2.Mediated by many variables...
Reducing Social Loafing
According to the Collective Effort Model: When do we see reductions in social loafing?
If people believe their own performance can be identified and evaluated by
others.
The task is important and meaningful to those performing it.
If people perceive their efforts to be critical to a successful outcome. (so,
perceptions of efforts of rest of group are critical)
If the group; expects to be punished for poor performance; is small; is cohesive
(membership in the group is valuable and important to the members and the
individuals like each other).
Aggarwal and O’Brien (2008) – University students
Deindividuation: “Loss of person’s sense of individuality and the reduction of normal
constraints of deviant behaviour.” (Kassin,Fein and Marcus 2011,p.307)
*Process whereby people lose their sense of socialised individualised identity and engage
in unsocialized
Factors that contribute to deindividuation [Zimbardo,1969]:
Arousal,
Anonymity,
Focus on external events,
High levels of group unity.
Social
Group processes (Week 6)
Learning objectives
Define groups and group cohesiveness.
Describe social facilitation effects with reference to drive theory and related
research studies.
Describe social loafing with reference to the Collective Effort Model.
Define groupthink, and provide a real-life example of its occurrence.
What is a group?
A set of individuals who share the following characteristics (Kassin, Fein &
Marcus, 2011):
-Direct interactions with each other over a period of time;
-Joint membership in a social category based on sex, race or other attributes
-A shared fate, identity or set of goals.
Why do people join groups?
Protection against threat and uncertainty?
Gain a greater sense of social identity?
OR: is this just what humans do?
Sometimes in evolutionary perspectives, researchers talk about the difference between
an ONTOGENETIC and PHYLOGENETIC advantage when trying to understand why
particular adaptations may have occurred
Ontogenetic: Ontogenetic behaviour is due to events that occur over the lifetime
of an individual. Ontogenetic history builds on species history to determine when,
where, and what kind of behaviour will occur at a given moment
Phylogenetic: Behaviour relations that are based on the evolutionary history of a
species are called phylogenetic
Group Cohesiveness
“The extent to which forces push group members closer together.”(Kassin,Fein and
Marcus,2011 p,299)
Cohesiveness and performance
Better performance=improve cohesiveness…
For smaller groups (Mullen and Copper,1994)
Female sports team (Carron et al,2002)
*Group cohesiveness: Social process that characterizes groups whose members
interact with each other and refers to the forces that push group members closer
together
Strength of cohesiveness varies between groups-contexts and across time-
groups with low levels of cohesiveness are hardly groups
Also describes the psychological process responsible for an individual’s
attachment to a group and its members
Theory of group cohesiveness-Festinger,Schachter and Back’s (1950)
Believed that field of forces, based on attraction and goal mediation acts on
individual group members to render the group more or less cohesive, and that
cohesiveness influences membership continuity and adherence to group norms-
When characterise cohesiveness in terms of interpersonal liking-factors that
increase liking raise cohesiveness.-Elevated cohesiveness-generates conformity
, ISDP Revision
to group standards, accentuated similarity, improved intragroup communication
and enhanced liking
Question raised by social identity researchers asks to what extent an analysis of group
cohesiveness in terms of aggregation of interpersonal attraction really captures a group
process at all-to resolve this issue Hogg (1993) distinguished between personal attraction
and social attraction.
*Personal attraction has nothing to do with groups-while social is the “liking”
component off group memberships
[PA: Liking for someone based on idiosyncratic [individual]preferences and
interpersonal relationships
SA: Liking for someone based on common group membership and determined by
the person’s prototypicality of the group]
Hogg’s analysis has advances over traditional model
Doesn’t reduce group solidarity and cohesiveness to interpersonal attraction
Applicable as to small interactive groups-only valid focus as to large scale social
categories, such as an ethnic group or a nation
*Broader view of cohesion as linked as group solidarity and social identity may explain
why loyalty is so important to group life
The presence of others-Triplett (1898)
Hypothesis: Competitive instinct “released” in presence of another, increasing nervous
energy and enhancing performance.
Study: Fishing reels
40 children winding fishing reels
Alone vs. In competition with another
Results: Faster when in competition than when alone
Social facilitation
*the improvement in an individual’s performance of a task that often occurs when others
are present.
Zajonc’s (1965, 1980) drive theory: The presence of others increases arousal, which
strengths the dominant response to a stimulus.
Step 1: Physical presence of others creates physiological arousal,
Step 2: Increased arousal enhances tendency to perform the dominant response
(drive)
Step 3: Quality of performance depends on type of task:
Easy task=successful response Difficult task=unsuccessful response
More recently, consistent findings in a variety of settings eg
Electronic Gambling (Rockloff and Dyer 2007)
Driving tests (Rosenbloom et al., 2007)
Neuropsychological testing (Yantz & McCaffrey, 2007)
*The presence of “virtual others”- Social facilitation effects just as evident (Park &
Catrambone, 2007)
, ISDP Revision
*Drive Theory-1965-Robet Zajonic published theoretical statement-drive theory[theory
that the physical presence of members of the same species instinctively causes arousal
that motivates performance of habitual behaviour patterns]-Argues that because people
are relatively unpredictable-there is a clear advantage to the species for people’s
presence to cause us to be alert and in readiness-increased or motivation is thus an
instinctive reaction to social presence.-Such arousal functions as a “drive”engerise that
behaviour which is our dominant response.-Idea that the presence of others
automatically produces arousal-which thus drives dominant responses
-Performance is improved by a “correct” dominant response but it is impaired by an
“incorrect” dominant response-In spite of these findings, there is quite a lot of
controversy about drive theory Alternative theories include:
Evaluation apprehension theory – changes in performance when others are
around are related to (perceived) evaluation by the audience – negative, or
positive!
Distraction-conflict theory – an audience causes inevitable distraction, and
therefore cognitive load, which effects an individual’s performance.
Cottrel (1972)-proposed evaluation apprehension model-agreement that the
physical presence of members of the same species causes drive because people
have learnt to be apprehensive about being evaluated-idea that we quickly learn
that the social rewards and punishments we receive based on others evaluations
of us
Sanders(1981-1983)-presence of others can “drive us to distraction”-Distraction-
conflict theory-physical presence of members of the same species is distracting
and produces conflict between attending to the task and attending to the
audience-idea that people are a source of distraction-which produces cognitive
conflict between attending to the task and attending
Social Loafing
*[the reduction of individual effort that occurs when people work in groups compared to
when they work alone]
Ringelmann (1913) -Individual output decreased when working together.
Ingham et al. (1974) – Rope pulling task
Condition 1: Ps led to think that they were pulling with a group.
Condition 2: Ps informed they were pulling alone.
Ps pulled almost 20% harder when they thought they were pulling alone.
*Group-produced reductions in individual output (Latane et al., 1979).
Social loadfing:Ringelmann effect-individual effort on a task diminishes as group size
increases
2 explanations for this
1. Coordination loss- refers to the lack of simultaneity of effort in groups, which
interferes with efficiently combining individual inputs.
2. Motivation loss
Loss of motivation termed -SOCIAL LOADING by Latane et al-reduction in
individual effort when working on a collective task
Notable feature of loafing is that as group size increases-addition of new members
to the group has a decreasingly significant impact on effort-reduction of effort
conforms to negatively accelerating power function
, ISDP Revision
SL related to the free rider effect [gaining the benefits of group membership by
avoiding costly obligations of membership and by allowing other members to
incur [suffer] those costs]
Review of social motivation research concluded 3 reasons why we loaf when in a group
[Glen 1991]
1. Output equity-we believe that others loaf so to maintain equity
2. Education apprehension-worry that being evaluated by others-but when we are
anonymous and cannot be identified we hang back and loaf especially when a
task is not engaging
3. 3Matching to standard-often we don’t have a clear sense of the group’s standards
or norms so we hang back and loaf-however presence of a clear personal, social
or group performance standard should reduce loading
*But in some cases-people may work harder collectively in order to compensate for
anticipated loafing by others on important tasks or in important group-Social
compensation effect [increased effort on a collective task to compensate for other group
members-Other circumstances when people may work harder in groups than when
alone-1-When people place greater value on groups than on individual-collective eastern
cultures In comparison to more individualist Western cultures-2-when groups and their
members believe and expect that the group will be effective in achieving important goals
Social Loafing-Evidence
Later research (e.g. Miles and Greenberg, 1993)
Social loafing is not restricted to simple motor tasks.
Karau and Williams (1993) - Collective Effort Model (CEM).
*Meta-analysis of 78 studies. Findings:
1.Loafing happens!
2.Mediated by many variables...
Reducing Social Loafing
According to the Collective Effort Model: When do we see reductions in social loafing?
If people believe their own performance can be identified and evaluated by
others.
The task is important and meaningful to those performing it.
If people perceive their efforts to be critical to a successful outcome. (so,
perceptions of efforts of rest of group are critical)
If the group; expects to be punished for poor performance; is small; is cohesive
(membership in the group is valuable and important to the members and the
individuals like each other).
Aggarwal and O’Brien (2008) – University students
Deindividuation: “Loss of person’s sense of individuality and the reduction of normal
constraints of deviant behaviour.” (Kassin,Fein and Marcus 2011,p.307)
*Process whereby people lose their sense of socialised individualised identity and engage
in unsocialized
Factors that contribute to deindividuation [Zimbardo,1969]:
Arousal,
Anonymity,
Focus on external events,
High levels of group unity.
