GROUP

INFLUENCE
Chapter 8
OBJECTIVE LEARNING
W H A T IS A GROU P ?

S O C IAL FACILITAT I O N : H O W A R E W E
A F F E CTED BY TH E P R E S E N C E O F
O T H ERS?

S O C IAL LOAFING : D O I N D I V I D U A L S
E X E R T LESS EFFOR T I N A G R O U P?

D E I N DIVIDUATIO N : W H E N D O P E O P L E
L O S E THEIR SEN S E O F S E L F I N G R O U P S ?

G R O UP POLARIZA T I O N : D O G R O U P S
IN T E NSIFY OUR OP I N I O N S ?

G R O UPTHINK: DO G R O U P S H I N D E R
O R A SSIST GOOD D E C I S I O N S ?

T H E INFLUENCE O F T H E M I N O R I T Y : H O W
D O I NDIVIDUALS I N F L U E N C E T H E G R O U P ?

P O S TSCRIPT: AR E G R O U P S B A D F O R U S ?
 W H A T IS GROUP?
Two or more people who, for
longer than a few moments,
interact with and influence
one another and perceive one
another as “us.”
Different groups help us
meet different human
needs—to affiliate (to
belong to and connect
with others), to achieve,
and to gain a social
identity (Johnson & others,
2006).
SOCIAL FACILITATION
(1) Original meaning: the tendency of people to perform
simple or well-learned tasks better when others are
present. (2) Current meaning: the strengthening of dominant
(prevalent, likely) responses in the presence of others.

More than a century ago, Norman Triplett (1898), a

psychologist interested in bicycle racing, noticed that
cyclists’ times were faster when they raced together than
when each one raced alone against the clock. Before he
peddled his hunch (that others’ presence boosts
performance), Triplett conducted one of social psychology’s
first laboratory experiments. Children told to wind string on a
fishing reel as rapidly as possible wound faster when they
worked with competing co-actors than when they worked
alone. “The bodily presence of another contestant . . . serves
to liberate latent energy,” concluded Triplett.
 But wait: Other studies revealed that on some tasks the
presence of others hinders performance.

THE ZAJONC SOLUTION

Robert Zajonc reconciled those findings by applying a well-known principle
from experimental psychology: Arousal facilitates dominant responses.
Because the presence of others is arousing, the presence of observers or co-
actors boosts performance on easy tasks (for which the correct response is
dominant) and hinders performance on difficult tasks (for which incorrect
responses are dominant).
WHY A R E W E A R O U SED IN THE PRESE NCE
OF OT H E R S ?
Experiments suggest that the arousal stems partly
from evaluation apprehension and partly from
distraction—a conflict between paying attention to
others and concentrating on the task. Other experiments,
including some with animals, suggest that
the presence of others can be arousing even when
we are not evaluated or distracted.
EVALUATION
APPREHENSION

Other experiments confirmed Cottrell’s

conclusion: The enhancement of dominant
responses is strongest when people think
they are being evaluated.

The self-consciousness we feel when

being evaluated can also interfere with
behaviors that we perform best
automatically (Mullen & Baumeister, 1987).
DRIVEN BY DISTRACTION

This conflict between paying attention to

others and paying attention to the task
overloads our cognitive system, causing
arousal. We are “driven by distraction.”
This arousal comes not just from the
presence of another person but even from
a nonhuman distraction, such as bursts of
light (Sanders, 1981a, 1981b).

STRATEGI PERIKLANAN PERUSAHAAN PAKAIAN BAKS

MERE PRESENCE

Zajonc, however, believed that the mere

presence of others produces some
arousal even without evaluation
apprehension or arousing distraction.
 The tendency for people to exert less
SOCIAL LOAFING effort when they pool their efforts
toward a common goal than when they
are individually accountable.

Nearly a century ago, French engineer

Max Ringelmann (reported by Kravitz &
Martin, 1986) found that the collective
effort of tug-of-war teams was but half
the sum of the individual efforts.
Contrary to the presumption that “in
unity there is strength,” this suggested
that group members may actually be
less motivated when performing
additive tasks.
SOCIAL LOAFING

Group members often work less hard when performing such “additive tasks.”
This finding parallels everyday situations in which diffused responsibility
tempts individual group members to free-ride on the group’s effort.
People may, however, put forth even more effort in a group when the goal is
important, rewards are significant, and team spirit exists.
People in groups loaf less when the task is challenging, appealing, or involving
(Karau & Williams, 1993; Tan & Tan, 2008).
FREE RIDERS

People who benefit from the

group but give little in return.
D E F INITION
Loss of self-awareness and
evaluation apprehension;
occurs in group situations
that foster responsiveness to
group norms, good or bad.
DEINDIVIDUATION
Such deindividuation is
especially likely when
people are in a large group,
are physically anonymous,
and are aroused and
distracted.
3 F A CTORS
D E IN DIVIDUAT I O N
GROUP SIZE
ANONYMITY
AROUSING AND DISTRACTING
ACTIVITIES
When high levels of social
arousal combine with
diffused responsibility,
people may abandon their
normal restraints and lose
their sense of individuality.
 GROUP
POLARIZATION
Group-produced enhancement of members’
preexisting tendencies; a strengthening of
the members’ average tendency, not a split
within the group.
GROUP POLARIZATION
EXPERIMENTS

The group polarization hypothesis

predicts that discussion will
strengthen an attitude shared by
group members.
GROUP POLARIZATION
IN EVERYDAY LIFE

schools communities on the Internet in Terrorist

Organizations
I N F O RMATIONAL
I N F L UENCE
Group discussion
elicits a pooling of
ideas, most of which
favor the dominant
viewpoint.
Arguments, in and of
themselves, matter.
N O R MATIVE INFL U E N C E
Social comparison
Evaluating one’s opinions
and abilities by comparing
oneself with others.
Pluralistic ignorance A
false impression of what
most other people are
thinking or feeling, or how
they are responding.
GROUPTHINK
WHEN DOES GROUPTHINK
DEFINITION
“The mode of thinking that persons
engage in when concurrence-seeking
becomes so dominant in a cohesive
in-group that it tends to override
realistic appraisal of alternative
courses of action.”—Irving Janis
(1971)
HAPPEN?
an amiable, cohesive group.
relative isolation of the group
from dissenting viewpoints.
a directive leader who signals
what decision he or she
favors.
Symptoms of Groupthink
The first two groupthink symptoms lead group
members to overestimate their group’s might and right.
An illusion of invulnerability & Unquestioned belief in
the group’s morality
Group members also become closedminded :
Rationalization & Stereotyped view of opponent.
Finally, the group suffers from pressures toward
uniformity : Conformity pressure, Self-censorship,
Illusion of unanimity
 CRITIQUING
GROUPTHINK

Directive leadership is Groups that make When members Groups with diverse
Groups do prefer
indeed associated smart decisions have look to a group perspectives outperform
supporting over
with poorer decisions, widely distributed for acceptance, groups of like-minded
challenging
because conversation, with approval, and experts
information
subordinates socially attuned social identity, In discussion, information
sometimes feel too members who take they may that is shared by group
weak or insecure to turns speaking suppress members does tend to
speak up disagreeable dominate and crowd out
thoughts unshared information,
meaning that groups often
do not benefit from all that
their members know
 Be impartial—do not endorse any
position.
Encourage critical evaluation; assign a
PREVENTING “devil’s advocate.”

GROUPTHINK Occasionally subdivide the group, then

reunite to air differences.
Welcome critiques from outside experts
and associates.
Before implementing, call a “second-
chance” meeting to air any lingering
doubts.
GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING
CONTRARY TO THE POPULAR IDEA THAT
BRAINSTORMING IS MOST PRODUCTIVE WHEN THE
BRAINSTORMERS ARE ADMONISHED “NOT TO
CRITICIZE,” ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO DEBATE
IDEAS APPEARS TO STIMULATE IDEAS AND TO
EXTEND CREATIVE THINKING BEYOND THE
BRAINSTORMING SESSION (NEMETH & OTHERS,
2004).
THE INFLUENCE OF THE MINORITY:
HOW DO INDIVIDUALS INFLUENCE
THE GROUP?
consistency, self-confidence & defection
from the majority
IS LEADERSHIP MINORITY INFLUENCE?
Through their task and social leadership,
formal and informal group leaders exert
disproportionate influence.
Those who consistently press toward their
goals and exude a self-confident charisma
often engender trust and inspire others to
follow.
Transformational leadership Leadership
that, enabled by a leader’s vision and
inspiration, exerts significant influence.
“A devout communing on spiritual things sometimes greatly helps
the health of the soul,” observed fifteenth-century cleric Thomas à
Kempis, especially when people of faith “meet and speak and
commune together.” Depending on which tendency a group is
magnifying or disinhibiting, groups can be very, very bad or very,
very good. So we had best choose our groups wisely and
intentionally.

POSTSCRIPT:
Are Groups Bad for Us?
THANKS