Presentation by SHEANE LIBRANZA AND ANNA PURA

CALO

CHAPTER 10
PERFORMANCE

GROUP DYNAMICS 2023

Overview
 THIS CHAPTER EXAMINES
THESE KINDS OF GROUPS BY
ASKING THREE QUESTIONS:
ARE WE BETTER TOGETHER?
01 Does the presence of other people facilitate our performance,
and if it does, why?

DO MANY HANDS MAKE LIGHT OF THE WORK?

02 Do groups bring out the best in us, or are our groups places
where can, and do, loaf?

WHEN ARE TWO HANDS BETTER THAN ONE?

03 Do groups always outperform individuals, or does their
superiority depend on the type of task the group is
attempting?
 10-1 SOCIAL
FACILITATION
 10-1A
PERFORMANCE IN THE
PRESENCE OF OTHERS
NORMAN TRIPLETT's 1989 study of People's reaction to other
people was one of the first experiments ever conducted in
psychology. His inspirations coming from bicycle races.

He knew about drafting--riders are faster when biking with others

because the lead cyclist creates a partial vacuum that pulls
followers along while also breaking down wind resistance.
Triplett arranged for 40 children to perform simple reel-turning task
in pairs and when alone. His study was a success and was able to
confirm:

SOCIAL FACILITATION
The positive impact of working in the presence of other people.
COACTION, AUDIENCE,
AND INCONSISTENCIES

Triplette also studied about coaction situations--people working

in the presence of other people, but not necessarily interacting
with other people.

Researchers also discovered that social facilitation occurs when

individuals perform in the presence of an audience.
COACTION, AUDIENCE,
AND INCONSISTENCIES

Social psychologist Floyd Allport arranged for participants to

complete tasks twice.

He found that people in groups produced more than isolated

individuals, but their products were often lower in quality.
 ZANJONC'S
RESOLUTION
Robert Zajonc (Za-yonce) noted that some behaviors are easier to
learn and perform than others.

Dominant Responses are located at the top of the organism's

response hierarchy.

Non Dominant Responses are behaviors that are less likely to be

performed.

He noticed that researchers documenting social facilitation studied

well-learned or instinctual response like weight lifting, cycling,
eating; Studies involving novel, writing poetry, and solving math
problems are found to have little social facilitation.
Zanjoc's insight was that the presence of others increases the tendency to
perform dominant responses and decreases the tendency to perform
nondominant responses.
• If the Dominant response is correct in a particular situation, then social facilitation
occurs.

• If the task calls for Nondominant responses, then the presence of other people
interferes with performance.
 SPEED, QUANTITY, AND
QUALITY
When researchers reviewed hundreds of studies of over 24,000 humans meta-physically, they
concluded that social facilitation is most likely to occur on tasks where speed and quantity matter more
than accuracy.

So long as the task is a simple one, people tend to work more quickly when others are present, and the
result is small, but uptick in productivity.

The presence of other people interferes with speed however, when the task is complex, so other people
significantly inhibited both the quantity and the quality of their performance.
 10-1b
WHY DOES SOCIAL
FACILITAYION OCCUR?
The situations studied by Triplett and Zanjoc barely qualify as groups, for they involved strangers
working on individualized tasks without any interaction, shared identity, or common goals.
 DRIVE
PROCESSES
COMPRESENCE
Describes the state of responding in the presence of others.
• Compresence in and of itself elevated the drive levels that triggered
social facilitation when tasks were so easy that only dominant
responses would be needed to perform them.

Zanjoc's Drive Theory uniquely predicts that social facilitation will occur
even when all forms of social interaction, communication, and evaluation
between the individual and the obsever are blocked.
Investigators tested this hypothesis by asking people to work on simple or
complex tasks in the presence of an "observer" who was blindfolded and
wore earplugs.

Even though the observer could not interact with participants in any way,
his mere presence still enhanced their performance when they worked on
simple tasks and slowed their performance on complex ones.
 PHYSIOLOGICAL
PROCESSES
Zanjoc's Drive Theory suggests that people react, physiologically, to the presence of people-but the
magnitude of this change depends on the type of situation and on who is watching.

Ex. James Blascovich and his colleagues in their studies in the threat/challenge model, have verified
than an audience triggers increases in the cardiac and vascular reactivity.

When we are confident we can master a problem or difficulty, we tend to display a challenge response.
More daunting tasks, in contrast, may trigger a threat response.
NEUROLOGICAL
PROCESSES
Social Neuroscientists also trace social facilitation back to a
physiological process, but locate that process in the brain itself.

Since human are social species, we are neurologically prepared

to monitor and respond to other individuals and groups. This so
called "social brain" includes mechanisms that sustain and
promote our capacity to perceive and understand other people,
and respond to them appropriately.
In one study that tested this hypothesis, researchers confirmed
that the presence of another person activated a specific area of
the brain associated with social cognition (dorsalateral
prefrontal cortex) , and that this increase was associated with
inhibited performance on complex, but not simple tasks.

This study found relatively few effects of other physiological

processes--such as heart rate and blood pressure-- on the
performance concluding that the brain overreacts to the
presence of others.
 MOTIVATIONAL
PROCESSES
Psychologist Nickolas Cottrell suggested that this evaluative pressure is one of the
reasons why people tend to be more productive in the presence of others.

His evaluation apprehension theory assumes that most of us have learned through
experience that other people are the source of rewards and punishment we receive.

Cotrell thus believed that apprehension (awareness of evaluation), and not the arousal
response identified by Zanjoc, is the source of social facilitation effects.
Erving Goffman's analysis of self-presentational processes, noted in Chapter 6, also
underscores the motivational impact of impression management pressures.

Self-presentation theory assumes each of us actively controls others' impression of us by

displaying social behaviors that establish and maintain a particular social image, or face.

We do not want people to have negative impressions of us, shameful qualities and
characteristics, so we strive to make good impression.
Researchers have tested, and in many cases confirmed, the primary hypothesis that
derives uniquely from such motivational models--that any stimulus increasing an
organism's apprehension (awareness) over future rewards or punishments should increase
drive level.
• When people find themselves in evaluative situations, they tend to perform dominant
rather than nondominant responses.

Individuals who were told that an "observer" was evaluating them, their performance
improved, but only on simple tasks. People who failed the first time and attempts to do
the task a second time, may perform worse than before.
The presence of other people--even friends who we can count on for social support--can increase
physiological reactivity in some circumstances.

Ex. When women performed a difficult math test with a friend who was merely present--the friend could
touch the participant's wrist but was preoccupied with another task and was wearing a headset that blocked
all sound--the participant's cardiovascular responses were lowered. But when their friends watched them as
they worked on different math problems, most people showed signs of physiological arousal rather than
relaxation.

In fact, people are more relaxed when they are with their pets rather than with other people.
ATTENTIONAL PROCESS

When people work in the presence of other people, they must split their attention between the task they
are completing and the other person.
• The presence of an audience may also increase individual's self-awareness and as result, they may
focus their attention on themselves and fail to pay sufficient attention to the task.

Distraction-conflict theory suggests that distraction interferes with the attention given to the task, but
these distractions can be overcome with effort.
• therefore, on simple tasks that require dominant responses, the interference effects are
inconsequential compared with the improvement that results from concentrating on the task so
performance is facilitated.
• on more complex tasks, the increase in drive is insufficient to offset effects of distraction, and
performance is therefore impaired.
The Stroop task, participants are shown a color name printed in primary color
and are asked to name the color of the ink.
• When the ink and the color word match, people have no problems. But when the
ink and the color word are incongruent, reaction time and errors increase.

The presence of other people decrease of errors:

• The extra cognitive demand imposed on participants by the presence of the
observer and the need to evaluate the task itself.
• The increased attentional focusing on the task that is triggered by a threat of
self-evaluation.
 COGNITIVE PROCESSES
Social Psychologist Stephen Harkin developed the Mere-effort Model (or the Threat Induced
Potentiation of Prepotent Responses model) suggests that the gains and losses in performance we
exhibit when we work on simple and complex tasks are due, in part, to changes in the way we process
information.

This increased effort causes us to concentrate more on ideas and information that are readily accessible
to us, and if this information is relevant to the task at hand, then facilitation occurs.

However, if this information is not relevant, then thinking about this information will inhibit our
performance.
To test this hypothesis, Harkins measured the performance of individuals who worked on simple and
complex versions of the Remote Associates Test (the RAT).
• Each item on the RAT consists of three words, and the task-taker's task is to provide a single word
that the three stimulus words have in common.

Harkins discovered that evaluative pressure improve performance on simple RATs but slowed
performance on complex RATs, as evaluation apprehension theory would suggest.
 PERSONALITY
PROCESSSES
Social Orientation Theory suggests that people differ in their overall orientation toward social
situations, and these individual differences in social orientation predict who will show facilitation in
the presence of others and who will show impairment.
• Individuals who displays positive orientation are so self-confident that they react positively to the
challenge the group may throw their way.
• In contrast, individuals who display negative orientation approach social situations apprehensively,
for they feel inhibited and threatened by other people.

Others possess personality traits that prompt them to become more negative, such as low self-esteem,
self-consciousness, anxiety, and neuroticism.
• Individuals with qualities that suggested their social orientation was positive usually showed social
facilitation effects, whereas those with negative orientation showed a social interference effect.
 10-1c CONCLUSIONS AND
APPLICATIONS
Social facilitation occurs because humans, as social beings, respond in predictable ways when joined by
other members of their species.
• Some of the reactions, according to Zanjoc are very basic ones, for the mere presence of other people
elevates drive levels.
• Arousal only becomes substantial when group members realize that the people around them are
evaluating them and might form a negative impression of them if they perform badly.

Cognitive and Personality Mechanisms that govern how individuals process information and monitor the
environment also come into play when people work in the presence of others.
 PREJUDICE AND SOCIAL
FACILITATION
Prejudices such as racism and sexism are increasingly recognized as
unfair and socially inappropriate, so individuals who are prejudiced
often try to keep their prejudices to themselves to avoid being labeled
a racist or sexist.
It is often learned, dominant response and the presence of others may
lead individuals to express even more biased opinions when they are
in public rather than in private.
Social facilitation is also high when people are eating with them,
not observing them.
EATING IN GROUPS
The presence of other people facilitates one of the most dominant
of basic responses: eating.
When researchers ask people to keep track of how much and with
whom they eat, they usually find that people eat more--
sometimes 40-50% more--when they dine in groups.
Watching someone else eat also increases social imitation of
eating response.
• when the participants witnessed another person eating 20
crackers, they ate far more crackers themselves than did the
other.
People even seem to prepare relatively larger portions for meals
to be eaten in groups than individually.
Social facilitation for eating is weak when eating with strangers
or disliked individuals.
ELECTRONIC PERFORMANCE
MONITORING
Social psychologist John Aiello drew studies of social facilitation in his analyses of Electronic
Performance Monitoring (EPM).

When workers use their computer to enter data, communicate with one another, or search databases for
stored information, their activity can be monitored automatically; as many as 75% of all companies in
the US use that data to monitor the performance of their employees.

Aiello discovered that EPM enhanced the performance of highly skilled workers, but interfered with
the performance of less skilled participants.
• Monitoring also increased workers' feeling of stress, except among those who were part of a
cohesive group.
• Individuals responded more positively to monitoring when they believed that they can turn off the
monitoring and that job-related activities were being monitored.
 SOCIAL FACILITATION IN
EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
Even though learning in a social context is a common practice, the presence of other people may
actually inhibit the acquisition of new concepts and skills.

Zanjonc, however, suggests that once students have learned their skills well, then they should perform
with others present if possible. He suggests:
• Students should study all along, preferably in an isolated cubicle, and arrange to take his
examination in the company of many other students, on stage, and in the presence of a large
audience. The results of his examination would be beyond his wildest expectation, provided,
ofcourse, he had learned his material quite thoroughly.
10-2 SOCIAL LOAFING
 10-2a THE RINGELMAN
EFFECT
Max Ringelmann, a nineteenth century French agricultural engineer, was one of the first researchers to
study group productivity.

• How many oxen should be yoked in one team?

• Should you plow a field with two horses or three?
• Can five men turn a mill crank faster than four?
 PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES
IN GROUP
Ringelmann's most startling discovery was that workers--including horses, oxen, and men--all become
less productive in groups.

In his experiment, Ringelmann had individuals and groups pull on a rope attached to a pressure gauge.

His findings:
• Groups performed below their predicted potential productivity.
• Groups certainly outperformed individuals, but as more and more people were added, the group
became increasingly inefficient.

Ringelmann effect us the tendency of groups to become less productive as group size increases.
 COORDINATION LOSSES
"The lack of simultaneity of their efforts," introduced inefficiencies
into each group.
Even on simle tasks, such as rope pulling, people tend to pull and
pause at different times, resulting in some process loss and a failure to
reach their full productive potential.
MOTIVATION LOSSES
People did not work as hard when they were in groups rather
than alone.
After watching a group of prisoners turning the rank of a flour
mill, for example, he noted that their performance was "mediocre
because after only a little while, each , trusting in his neighbor to
furnish the desired effort, contented himself by merely following
the movement of the crank, and sometimes even let himself be
carried along by it."
This reduction of effort by individuals working in groups is now
known as social loafing.
MANY HAND MAKE LIGHT
OF THE WORK
Bibb Latane, Kipling Williams, and Stephen Harkins disentangled the effects of both coordination loss
and social loafing.
• They recruited men to participate in their research. The participant's job was to sout as load as they
can.
Their findings:
• Consistent with the Ringelmann effect, groups of participants made more noise than individuals,
but groups failed to reach their potential.
• Alone, the rousing was 9.22 dynes/cm^2.
• In dyads, they produced 66% of shouting.
• In a six person group, the shouting was only at 36% capacity.

However, Latane and his colleagues could not distinguish whether this reduction in effort was due to
social loafing or coordination loss. In order to distinguish whether the productivity drop was caused by
coordination loss or social loafing, they created a pseudogroups.
In this conditions, participants were lead to believe that either one other participant or five other
participants were shouting with them, but in actuality, they were working alone.

After conducting the research to the pseudo-group, the results found that when participants thought that
one other person was working with them, they shouted only 82% as intensely.

If they thought that five other persons were shouting, they reached only 74% of their capacity.
 10-2b CAUSES OF AND CURE FOR
SOCIAL LOAFING

People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental tasks--including brainstorming, evaluating
employees, monitoring equipment, interpreting instructions, and formulating casual judgements--
have been shown to exert less effort when they combine their efforts in group situation.
 INCREASE
IDENTIFIABILITY
Studies of social loafing suggest that people are less productive when they work with others.

When people feel as though their level of effort cannot be ascertained because the task is a collective
one, then social loafing becomes likely.

When people feel that they are being evaluated, they tend to exert more effort and their productivity
increases.

Researchers illustrated the importance of evaluation by asking the members of four person groups to
generate as many ideas as possible for a common object.
• Participants did not discuss their ideas and only wrote on a piece of paper.
• Some thought their thoughts were identifiable.
• Some thought that ides were collected in pools.
 MINIMIZE FREE RIDING

Free riding is where members do less than their share of work because others will make up for their
slack.

Although norms of fairness warn members to do their part, if they feel that the group does not need
them or their contribution, they will be tempted to free-ride.

Group members reduce their efforts to match the level they think the group is expending. This sucker
effect is strongest when they feel that their fellow group members are competent but lazy.

The effects of free riding can be minimized by reducing the size of the group, strengthening the group's
performance norms, sanctioning those who contribute too little, and increasing member's sense of
indispensability: members who feel that their contribution to the group is unique or essential for the
group's success to work harder.
 SET GOALS
Groups that set clear, challenging goals outperform groups whose members have lost sight of their
objectives.
• In a study of groups generating ideas, members were more productive when they had a clear
standard by which to evaluate the quality of their own work and the group's works.

The group's goals should also be challenging rather than too easily attained.
• the advantages of working in a group are lost if the task is so easy that i can be accomplished even
if the group loafs, so care should be taken to set the stanards high--but not so high that they are
unattainable.
INCREASE INVOLVEMENT
When researcher first screened people on a set of questions that measured their approach to work--the
protestant ethic scale-- they discovered that people with high scores loafed very little.

In general, the more engaged people are in the group or the group's work, the less likely they will loaf.
• So long as the competition remains "friendly," group members may persevere with much greater
intensity when they are vying with other in the group for the best score.

Social loafing is also reduces when rewards for successful performance are group-based rather than
individually based, so long as the group is not too large in size. and the reward is divided nearly
equally among all the group members.
Involvement may even prompt group members to compensate for the expected failures or
incompetence of their fellow group members by expending extra effort.

Williams and Karau documented social compensation by convincing individuals that their group's task
was a meaningful one, but that the motivation of other group members was in doubt. participants were
also led to expect that their partners were either skilled or unskilled at the task.
INCREASE INDENTIFICATION WITH
THE GROUP
Social Identity theory also suggests a way to reduce loafing: increase the extent to which group
members identify with the group or organization.
• This suggests that the difference between hardworking group and a loafing group is the match
between the group's tasks and its member's self-definitions.

When individuals derive their sense of self and identity from their membership, social loafing is
replaced by social laboring as members expend extra effort for their group.
10-2c THE COLLECTIVE EFFORT
MODEL
Collective Effort Model (CEM) provides a comprehensive theoratical framework for understanding the
causes and cure for social loafing.

It is suggested that there are two facotrs to determine group member's level of motivation:
• Their expectations about reaching a goal.
• The value of that goal.

Working in a group, unfortunately, can diminish both expectations about reaching a goal and the value
that is placed on that goal.
• In groups, link between our effort and the chance of success is ambiguous.