Social Facilitation:
“The process by which the presence of others can facilitate behaviour (Gordon Allport, 1954, p. 46)
Triplett’s study (1898)
Triplett concluded that ‘the bodily presence of another contestant participant simultaneously in the race serves to liberate latent energy not ordinarily available’ (p533)
Social Inhibition:
The process by which the presence of others can hinder behaviour
3 Explanations for Social Facilitation/Inhibition
Mere Presence:
- enough to increase drive and facilitate or hinder behaviour (Zajonc)
- E.g. Joggers running quicker around others
- But may be more complicated (PL has been unusual this year)
Evaluation apprehension:
- Concern about being evaluated by observers when performing a task.
- Dominant response & being watched/evaluated (Cottrell et al, 1968)
Distraction:
-People become concerned so: Distraction up, Performance down (Sanders, Baron and Moore, 1978)
Social Loafing
The tendency for people’s performance to decrease in a group when they are not individually responsible for their actions.
Ringelmann effect -
The observation that as group size increases, individual effort on the task decreases
If presence of others increases evaluation apprehension……
social facilitation will occur
If presence of others decreases evaluation apprehension……
social loafing will occur
INCREASED EVALUATION CONCERNS …
- Facilitate on Easy task
- Inhibit on Hard Task
DECREASED EVALUATION CONCERNS…
- Impairs performance on easy tasks due to low motivation
- Enhances performance on difficult tasks due to support from the group
Factors that reducing Social Loafing
- Individual group performances is identifiable
- Taking responsibility out
- Task is challenging, appealing or involving
- People value the group with whom they are interacting
- General spirit of commitment to the ‘team’
- Strong personal work ethic
- High narcissist
- People of Eastern culture (e.g., China, Japan)
- Women
Deindividuation
“Process whereby people lose their sense of socialised individual identity and engage in unsocialised, often antisocial, behaviours” (Hogg and Vaughan 2010: 421)
Lack of individualism causes people to act badly
Deindividuation: ‘cloak of anonymity’
Removes individuals’ responsibility for actions by:
- Loss of a sense of identity
- Loss of concern for social evaluation (Zimbardo, 1970)
- Large groups & Night time → Atrocities/Level of violence/Encourage harming acts
- Lynch mobs more likely to do horrific things as the group gets bigger (Mullen, 1986)
Deindividuation factors
Attentional cues:
Features of the environment that draw attention away from the self
Accountability cues:(Prentice-Dunn and Rogers 1982; 1983)
What behaviours people can ‘get away with’ in a social context
Accountability: Public vs private self-awareness:
Loss of public self-awareness (less aware of norms) - antisocial behaviour
Loss of private self-awareness – not necessarily antisocial (unless norm is)
Le Bon wanted to show establishment how to…
control crowds
Social Identity Theory
People have different levels of identity. Individual and (many) group levels
In crowds people shift from individual to specific group level identity (e.g. student)
Student/lecturer often opposite identities, but in this crowd become one ‘supporter of education’ identity
Different process to deindividuation
Depersonalisation
Crowds encourage shared social identity
Individuals self categorise based on this group identity
Identity as ‘student’ becomes primed
Different to deindividuation
sense of self not lost
Social identity more relevant
Even in riots violence has a direction (Fogelson 1970)
Group decision making
Risky shift: Groups can make riskier decisions than individuals (Stoner, 1961)
Not always and not always risky
Group Polarisation
Group interaction strengthens the initial leanings of group members so that attitudes (and decisions) become polarised.
Groupthink
The mode of thinking that groups engage in when cohesion seems more important than making the right decision and considering alternatives (Janis, 1971)
Group Polarisation – Gender
Polarisation leads to the accentuating of gender-typical behaviour and gender roles (Maccoby, 2002)
Polarisation can have positive and negative consequences
3 components of group polarisation
1.Normative influence:
the tendency to conform to the perceived norms of the group.
“we want the like-minded people to like us”
- Informational influence:
when the correct attitude or behaviour is unclear, people look to others for guidance. - Social conformity to group norm.
Social categorisation theory
Thee features of groupthink (Janis, 1971)
- A cohesive group where people come from similar backgrounds
- Group is isolated from outside opinions
- No clear rules that guide decision making
Symptoms of groupthinok
- Illusion of invulnerability
- Belief in morality of the group
- collective rationalization
- Stereotyped view of the outgroup
- Pressure for dissenters to conform
- self - censorship
- Illusion of unanimity
- Self - appointed ‘mindguards’
Strategies for avoiding groupthink
- Illusion of invulnerability - groups, especially leaders, need to be impartial and not endorse any one position from the outset
- Stereotyped view of the outgroup - it is useful to divide groups, encourage members to seek advice from trusted outsiders and then reunite them to discuss any differences.
- Self censorship - Groups should regularly invite critiques from outside experts who will challenge the groups decisions.
Group cohesiveness doesn’t always lead to groupthink
True or false?
True
