Unit-II GROUP INFLUENCE

Group
A group exists when two or more people interact for more than a few moments, affect one
another in some way, and think of themselves as “us.”

Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of

Others?
Introduction: Basic Question: Does the mere presence of another person affect human
behavior? "Mere presence": No competition, no rewards or punishments, passive audience or
co-actors. Scientific mystery story: Exploring the impact on activities like jogging, eating,
typing, or exam performance.
The Mere Presence of Others: Norman Triplett (1898): Noted faster cycling times in
groups, sparking interest in social facilitation. Early experiments: Children winding string on
a fishing reel were faster with co-actors. Subsequent experiments: Improved speed in simple
tasks, accuracy in motor tasks with others' presence. Social facilitation effect observed in
animals: Ants excavate more, chickens eat more, rats mate more. Contradictory findings:
Some tasks hindered by others' presence, e.g., learning mazes or complex multiplication
problems. Research hiatus until Robert Zajonc's intervention in 1965.
Zajonc's Solution: Arousal enhances dominant response tendency. Increased arousal aids
performance on easy tasks but hinders complex tasks. Social arousal facilitates dominant
responses. Tasks categorized as easy or difficult based on well-learned or less probable
responses. Zajonc's solution simplified seemingly contradictory results.
Experimental Confirmation: Over 300 studies with 25,000+ volunteers supported Zajonc's
solution. Social arousal facilitates dominant responses, whether right or wrong. Examples:
Students learning mazes, pool players' performance influenced by observers. Well-practiced
skills performed best when energized by a supportive audience. Home advantage in sports
linked to familiarity, less travel fatigue, and increased team identity.
Crowding: The Presence of Many Others: Observers' presence increases arousal:
Perspiration, faster breathing, tense muscles, higher blood pressure. Even a supportive
audience may elicit poorer performance on challenging tasks. Effect of others' presence
intensifies with their number. Large audience interferes with automatic behaviors, leading to
"choking."
Why Are We Aroused in the Presence of Others?
Evaluation Apprehension: Observers make us apprehensive due to concerns about their
evaluation. Strengthens dominant responses when people think they are being evaluated.
Examples: Performing better with a slightly superior co-actor, effects of a high-status group.
Driven by Distraction: Wondering about others' performance or audience reactions causes
distraction. Overloading cognitive systems leads to arousal. Arousal not only from the
presence of others but also from nonhuman distractions.
Mere Presence: Zajonc's belief: Mere presence produces arousal without evaluation
apprehension or distracting stimuli. Facilitation effects observed in nonhuman animals,
hinting at an innate social arousal mechanism. Runners energized when running with
someone else, irrespective of competition or evaluation.

Social Loafing: Do Individuals Exert Less Effort in a Group?

Introduction: Question: Will individuals exert as much effort in a group as they would
individually? Focus on "additive tasks" where group achievement depends on the sum of
individual efforts. Laboratory simulations used to study social loafing.
Many Hands Make Light Work: Max Ringelmann (early 20th century): Found that
collective effort in tug-of-war teams was only half the sum of individual efforts. Alan Ingham
(1974): Participants pulled 18% harder when they believed they were pulling alone,
eliminating coordination issues. Bibb Latané, Kipling Williams, Stephen Harkins (1979):
Coined the term "social loafing." Experiment with noise production: Participants shouted or
clapped one-third less when they thought others were doing the same. Evaluation
apprehension: Individuals less motivated when not individually accountable.
Everyday Examples of Social Loafing: Assembly-line workers produced 16% more when
individual output was identified. Pickle factory example: Workers stuffed any size pickle
since their output was not identifiable. Evidence of social loafing in different cultures:
Collective farms in communist countries showed inefficiency. Social loafing in collectivist
cultures but to a lesser extent than in individualist cultures. Women tend to exhibit less social
loafing than men.
Factors Influencing Social Loafing: Challenging, appealing, or involving tasks reduce
social loafing. Perception of individual efforts as indispensable. Incentives, challenges, and
striving for standards promote collective effort. Friendships, identification with the group,
and feeling indispensable reduce social loafing. Expectation of future interactions increases
effort on team projects. Cohesiveness intensifies effort, as seen in communal kibbutz farms
outperforming noncollective farms in Israel.

Deindividuation: When Do People Lose Their Sense of Self in

Groups?

Doing Together What We Would Not Do Alone: Social facilitation and social loafing
experiments show how groups can influence individual behavior. Deindividuation involves a
combination of arousal, diffused responsibility, and diminished inhibitions. Group situations
may lead to mild actions (e.g., throwing food) to more extreme behaviors (e.g., group
vandalism, riots).
Factors Triggering Deindividuation:
Group Size: Large groups can render individuals unidentifiable, leading to decreased
evaluation apprehension. Examples include sports crowds, lynch mobs, and looters during
wartime.
Physical Anonymity: Studies by Philip Zimbardo and others show that physical anonymity,
such as wearing masks, increases aggressive behavior. Internet anonymity contributes to
behaviors like online piracy and cyberbullying.
Arousing and Distracting Activities: Group activities like chanting, clapping, and dancing
can hype people up and reduce self-consciousness. Ed Diener's experiments demonstrate that
activities like throwing rocks set the stage for more disinhibited behavior.
Diminished Self-Awareness: Group experiences that diminish self-consciousness disconnect
behavior from attitudes. Research by Ed Diener and Steven Prentice-Dunn reveals that
deindividuated individuals are less restrained and more responsive to the situation.
Diminished self-awareness is opposite to increased self-awareness, which leads to greater
consistency between words and actions.
Practical Implications: Circumstances that decrease self-awareness, such as alcohol
consumption, increase deindividuation. Factors increasing self-awareness, like mirrors,
cameras, and individual clothes, counteract deindividuation. Encouraging individuals to
maintain self-awareness in group settings can mitigate negative outcomes.

Group polarization
Group polarization refers to the phenomenon where individuals, after participating in a group
discussion, tend to adopt more extreme positions in line with the initial inclinations of the
group. This can lead to an intensification of opinions, whether they are positive or negative.
The process involves the strengthening of individuals' pre-existing attitudes through group
interaction.
Risky Shift Phenomenon: One of the early observations in group polarization is the "risky
shift phenomenon," where group decisions tend to be riskier than the average initial
individual decision. This discovery led to numerous studies on group risk-taking.
Group Polarization Hypothesis: Group polarization suggests that discussions within a
group tend to enhance the average inclination of the group members. This hypothesis has
been supported by various studies, including those involving attitudes toward political
figures, legal judgments, and social issues.
Influence on Attitudes: Group polarization can occur in various contexts, influencing
attitudes on issues such as politics, race, and social justice. Studies have shown that group
discussions can accentuate the initial gaps between individuals' attitudes, leading to more
extreme positions.
Everyday Life and Communities: Group polarization is not limited to experimental
settings; it occurs in everyday life, such as in schools and communities. People often
associate with others who share similar attitudes, contributing to the amplification of those
attitudes over time.
Internet and social media: The internet, particularly social media platforms, has provided a
new medium for group interaction. Online discussions among like-minded individuals can
contribute to group polarization. The internet facilitates the formation of virtual groups where
individuals with similar views can find support and reinforcement.
Polarization in Terrorism: The phenomenon of group polarization is observed in the context
of terrorist organizations. Shared grievances and isolation from moderating influences can
lead individuals to become progressively more extreme in their views, contributing to violent
acts.

Explanations:
Informational Influence: Group discussion allows for the pooling of ideas, including
common knowledge and persuasive arguments. Exposure to different perspectives and
arguments during discussion can lead individuals to shift their positions.
Normative Influence: Social comparison plays a role in group polarization. Individuals may
express stronger opinions after realizing that others share similar views. Pluralistic ignorance,
where individuals misperceive the opinions of others, can contribute to this effect.
Implications:
Complexity of Social Influence: Group polarization illustrates the complexity of social
influence. Multiple factors, including informational and normative influences, contribute to
the phenomenon, and outcomes may vary depending on the nature of the issue being
discussed.
Real-world Consequences: The phenomenon has real-world consequences in areas such as
politics, community dynamics, and even terrorism. Understanding group polarization is
crucial for addressing issues related to extremism, social division, and decision-making in
various contexts.

Groupthink: Do Groups Hinder or Assist Good Decisions?

Group Influence on Decision-Making:
Negative Aspects:
 Groupthink Definition: The tendency of decision-making groups to suppress dissent
in favor of group harmony.
 Historical Examples: Pearl Harbor: Overoptimism led to a lack of alert, resulting in a
devastating attack. Bay of Pigs Invasion: Lack of critical evaluation and dissent led to
failure. Vietnam War: Escalation despite warnings, causing significant consequences.
Symptoms of Groupthink:
 Illusion of invulnerability: Overestimating the group's capabilities.
 Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality: Ignoring ethical concerns.
 Rationalization: Justifying decisions despite challenges.
 Stereotyped view of opponent: Misjudging adversaries.
 Conformity pressure: Rejecting dissenting opinions.
 Self-censorship: Withholding disagreements for group harmony.
 Illusion of unanimity: Falsely perceiving unanimous agreement.
 Mindguards: Members protecting the group from dissenting information.
Critique of Groupthink: Some skepticism about retrospective evidence. Follow-up
experiments supporting aspects of Janis’s theory. Acknowledgment that even good group
procedures can lead to flawed decisions.
Preventing Groupthink: Recommendations from Irving Janis: Be impartial; do not endorse
any position. Encourage critical evaluation; assign a "devil’s advocate." Occasionally
subdivide and reunite to air differences. Welcome critiques from outside experts. Hold a
"second-chance" meeting before implementation.
Group Problem Solving: Groups can enhance decision-making under certain conditions.
Examples of successful group problem-solving ventures: Marshall Plan and Cuban Missile
Crisis handling. Conditions for effective group problem-solving include impartiality, critical
evaluation, and external input.

The Influence of the Minority: How Individuals Influence the

Group
Minority Influence:
 Reference to the film "12 Angry Men," where a minority sways the majority.
 Historical examples of minorities influencing change (e.g., Copernicus, Rosa Parks).
 Importance of minorities in sparking innovation in technology and social movements.
Determinants of Minority Influence:
 Factors identified by Serge Moscovici: Consistency, Self-Confidence, and Defection.
 Consistency is crucial; persistent nonconformity can be challenging but effective.
 Self-confidence, demonstrated through behavior, raises doubts among the majority.
 Defections from the majority, especially lone defectors, enhance persuasiveness.
Influence of Diversity and Dissent:
 Racially diverse friendships and exposure to diversity promote less simplistic
thinking.
 Dissent within a group leads to better decision-making through increased information
processing.
Leadership as Minority Influence:
 Comparison of leadership to minority influence.
 Effective leadership varies with situations and can be task-oriented or socially
focused.
 Transformational leadership motivates commitment to a shared vision.
Characteristics of Effective Leaders:
 Effective leaders exhibit consistency, self-confidence, and charisma.
 Transformational leaders inspire commitment and engagement within the group.
 Leadership styles vary, with some leaders excelling in both task and social aspects.
Leadership and Group Dynamics:
 Leaders are influenced by groups; smart leaders align with majority views.
 Rare instances of historical greatness result from the right combination of traits and
opportunities.