11.

GROUP INFLUENCE
DOES PRESENCE OF OTHERS AFFECT PERFORMANCE?
 Triplett 1898: bicycle racing against clock or other competitors
 Problem of self-selection in naturalistic setting
 Lab study: children winding fishing reels

SOCIAL FACILITATION
 Same for simple cog tasks (Allport 1920)
o Multiplication probs/crossing letters out; performed better if 4-5 others present even though
working independently
 Social facilitation: presence of others improves person’s performance
 In lower animals (ants); other experiments found presence of others hindered performance

RESOLVING CONTRADICTIONS: ZAJONC’S MODEL OF SOCIAL FACILITATION

 Others’ presence  arousal  strengthen dominant responses  enhance easy behaviour or impair
diff behaviour
 Less time for simple task in presence of others; more time for complex

WHY DOES AROUSAL INCREASE?

 Mere presence: more alert/motivated when others around, esp if strangers
 Evaluation apprehension: look bad in others’ eyes
o Joggers; size/status of audience affects anxiety of students performing learning task;
evaluation apprehension in Zajonc’s cockroaches?

INDIVIDUALS WORKING TOWARDS GROUP GOAL

 Presence of others increase probability that dominant response will occur
 Task cooperation – performance improves? (tug-of-war)

SOCIAL LOAFING
 Latane et al 1979 – yelling/clapping
o Earphones of yelling/clapping, Ss blindfolded
o IV: Ss believes alone or in group; DV: Ss asked to clap/yell as loudly as they could  1/3
louder alone
 Social impact theory: social pressure directed towards group divided among members; as group size
increases, each feels under less pressure to contribute max effort

HELPING OTHERS & BYSTANDERS

 Bystander effect: less likely to provide help when other bystanders
 Kitty Genovese 1964 – brutally assaulted over 30min period; residents heard but few reacted
 When do we help? – emergency situations: potential danger, unusual, vary in nature, unexpected,
rapid response
 Darley & Latane: typical bystander anguished individual in genuine doubt, concerned to do right thing
but compelled to make complex decisions under pressure of stress/fear; reactions shaped by others’
actions/inactions
 Improving chances of help: make needs clear, select specific person

OTHER SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES

 Prior commitment (watch my things); in a hurry (good samaritan)
 More likely to engage in helpful acts in rural vs urban settings
WHY DO PEOPLE LOSE SENSE OF SELF IN GROUPS?
 Deindivduation: in groups, likely to abandon normal restraints, lose sense of individual identity,
respond to crowd norms
 Power due to group size: unidentifiable in group
 Mann 1981: when conditions likely to increase anonymity, suicide bating increases

SELF-AWARENESS
 Opp of deindividuation (mirrors, cameras, name tag; cheating)
 Can be tiresome; holiday from self

GROUP DECISION-MAKING
 Often diffs b/w group/individual goals in group
 Groupthink: highly cohesive decision-making groups suppress dissent in interests of group
harmony/consensus
o Camaraderie/team spirit good but close-knit groups may pay price
o Group characteristics leading to groupthink:
 Cohesive group; isolation of group from dissenting viewpoints; directive leader who
signals what decisions they favour
 Preventing groupthink
o Uphold impartiality; encourage ‘devil’s advocate’ positions; subdivide/reunite to discuss
decision; seek outside input; schedule “second chance meeting” before final decision