Discuss how deindividuation and social loafing can affect an individuals behavior

• Home
• Library
• Contact Us
• |
• Arts
  • Architecture
  • Drawing
  • Fashion
  • Sculpture
• Business
  • Advertising
  • Costing
  • Human Resource Management
  • Investing
  • Management
  • Marketing
• Certifications
  • GRE
  • GMAT
  • IELTS
• Commerce
  • Accounting
  • Auditing
  • Banking
  • eCommerce
  • Finance
  • Taxation
• Computer Science
  • Database Management
  • e-Commerce
  • Graphics Designing and Multimedia
    • Maya
  • Hardware
  • Information Technology
  • Networking
    • Wireless Networking
  • Operating Systems
  • Programming Languages
    • C++
    • JAVA
    • Oracle
    • PHP
  • Software Engineering
  • Web Design and Development
• Earth Sciences
  • Geography
  • Climatology
• Engineering
  • Bioengineering
  • Chemical Engineering
  • Electrical Engineering
  • Electronics Engineering
    • VHDL
  • Mechanical Engineering
  • Software Engineering
  • Telecommunication Engineering
• English
  • Grammer
  • Language
  • Literature
  • Writing
  • IELTS
  • Linguistics
  • Stories and Novels
• Formal Sciences
  • Computer Science
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics
• Health Sciences
  • Neurology
  • Pediatrics
• Management
• Marketing
• Mass Comm
• Natural Sciences
  • Biology
  • Chemistry
  • Physics
  • Space Science - Astronomy
• Political Science
  • International Relations
  • Public Administration
• Social Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Economics
  • Psychology
  • Sociology
• |
• SiteMap
• Links

Social Psychology (PSY403)

VU

Lesson 40

GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE............)

Aims

To introduce the psychological effects of being in a group and of interacting with others on an inter-

individual level

Objectives

�  To introduce the concept of social loafing and discuss classic and contemporary research

�  To discuss the concept of deindividuation

Social Loafing

What is social loafing?

�Group-induced reduction in individual output when performers' efforts are pooled and so cannot be

individually judged. When an individual's contribution to a collective activity (pooled) cannot be

evaluated, individuals often work lesshard than they would alone.

�Occurs when our efforts are lost in the crowd

�Group induced reduction in individual output is known as social loafing

�Social facilitation occurs when individual output in a group can be assessed

Early & contemporary research

Max Ringleman (1913)conducted first empirical study: efforts to pull a rope or pushing a cart were less

when people worked in a group

Latane (1979)

�Six blindfolded participants in a semicircle

�Earphones with shouting voices being played

�Told to shout as loud as possible

�Told they were shouting with one other person vs. with 5 others, while actually always just them shouting

�Social loafing occurs behaviourally and cognitively

�Occurs due to a diffusion of responsibility

�Bystanders fail to aid victims when there are more

people

Percentage intensity of shouting

�Occurs in both individualistic and collectivistic

alone or in a group

cultures,

Figure 1 indicates that social loafing occurs when in

100

group.

90

Task complexity & social loafing

Jackson & Williams (1985):

80

�  So far all the activities we talked about were

simple. But if evaluation apprehension is the key

70

to social loafing, then working together will

lower the evaluation apprehension

60

�  Task was working on a complex computer maze

alongside a co-worker

50

Told shouting with

Told shouting in

�  Task outcome responsibility is diffused among

one other person

group

fellow co-actors; evaluation apprehension is

decreased

�  Told that they would be individually vs. collectively evaluated

�  Participants showed better performance when collectively evaluated

169

Social Psychology (PSY403)

VU

�

With complex tasks the diffusion of responsibility allows less evaluation-apprehension so easier to

attend to the task

�

On poorly learned tasks, less evaluation apprehension and presumably arousal allows more careful

concentration on the task at hand, and thus an increase in performance

Figure 2 shows social loafing as a function of task

Social loafing as a function of task

complexity.

complexity

Processes  leading  to  social  loafing  versus  social

compensation

�  Karau & Williams (1993) maintained that:

14

o  Social loafing depends on how important the

12

person believes his/her contribution is to

10

group success, and how much the person

8

Individual

values group success.

Collective

6

o  Social compensation occurs when a person

4

expends great effort to compensate for others

in the group, and when others are performing

2

inadequately, and the person cares about the

0

Simple

Complex

quality of the group product

The relationship between social compensation and social

loafing is shown below in Figure 3:

Reducing Social Loafing

Processes leading to social loafing versus social

�  Make  each  person's  contribution

identifiable

compensa tion Karau & Williams (1993)

o  People were led to believe

that

their

performance

(shouting) was identifiable or

never identifiable (Williams

et al., 1981)

�

Provide them with a standard to

evaluate  their  own  or  group's

performance.

o  Provide rewards for high

group productivity

�

Make task meaningful, complex, or

interesting:  On  challenging  tasks

people may perceive their efforts as

indispensable

o  Social ostracism: Lazy workers are socially rejected until they conform to the group

productivity norm.

o  Gender differences have been reported by Williams & Sommer (1997): males coped by

redirecting their interest to non-tasks in their surroundings, while females when were given

a chance to get back into the good graces of the group, they worked hard to do so.

Social loafing across cultures

�Social loafing has been found in India, Thailand, Japan, & China

�However, social loafing may be greater among people from the U.S. than among Asians; 17 studies

showed these results (Karau & Williams, 1993).

170

Social Psychology (PSY403)

VU

�In summary: Whether social facilitation or social loafing occurs depends on:

�Whether individuals are identifiable

�Task complexity

�How much participants care about the outcome

�Loyalty to family and work groups in collectivistic cultures.

�Gender: women showed less social loafing as they are considered less individualistic.

Deindividuation

�Research indicates that groups can arouse us, and can lower evaluation apprehension. In such

circumstances our normal inhibitions may diminish and we may engage in behaviors we normally avoid.

�May occur in crowded, anonymous situations when people lose a sense of responsibility for their own

actions and feel free to express aggressive and sexual impulses.

�Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1980) believe that accountability cues, such as anonymity, tell people how far

they can go without being held responsible for their actions.

�These cues loosen restraint against deviant behavior by altering a person's cost-reward calculations, e.g.,

during a riot people often believe that they would not be caught.

Situational factors leading to deindividuation

Deindividuation is an internal state that involves lowered self observation and evaluation.

Once it occurs it results in intense behaviors, which are not under stimulus control, difficult to terminate,

and are self reinforcing. Once inhibitions are gone, people impulsively engage in antisocial behavior, like

vandalism, aggression, and rioting.

�According to Zimbardo (1970), following are the factors leading to deindividuation:

�Group size

�Stimulus overload

�Altered states of consciousness

�Anonymity

�Arousal

�Noncognitive interactions

�Diffusion of responsibility

�Zimbardo (1970) had groups of four young women delivering electric shocks to another person:

­Groups were either easily identifiable or not

­Unidentifiable groups gave twice as many shocks

Internet-induced deindividuation:

­Christina Demetriou and Andrew Silke (2003) established a web site to determine whether people who

visited to gain access to legal material will also try to gain access to illegal and pornographic material when

they discovered it was available (not available actually). Over a three-month period, a majority of more

than 800 visitors tried to get an access to the illegal material. The researchers concluded that "Virtual"

groups created on Internet sites:

­ have the capacity to induce deindividuation, OR

­might heighten individual's identification with the group and increase conformity

Figure 4 shows effects of deindividuation on stealing (Diener, 1980). Children were asked to take only one

candy; while hidden observers recorded how many the children actually took when alone and when in

group.

171

Social Psychology (PSY403)

VU

Figure 4:

Explanations of deindividuation

�Deindividuation increases when individuals

60

are anonymous and as group size increases.

� Diener (1980) indicates that the crucial

50

cognitive factor in deindividuation is a lack of

self awareness. Deindividuation might create

40

a special psychological state in which people

are focused externally and unaware of own

Identified

30

values. People do not attend to their own

A nonymous

inner values and standards. When people fail

20

to take themselves as an object of attention,

they abdicate their personal standards of

10

conduct and fall prey to the influence of

immediate situation.

0

�Not a loss of personal identity, but

A lone

In a group

deindividuation setting facilitates a transition

from a personal to a more social identity.

People are simply conforming to the prevailing group norm.

Readings

�Franzoi, S. (2003). Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 10

Other Readings

�Lord, C.G. (1997). Social Psychology. Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Company. Chapter 8.

�David G. Myers, D. G. (2002). Social Psychology(7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

�Taylor, S.E. (2006). Social Psychology (12th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

172

Table of Contents:

1. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Readings, Main Elements of Definitions
2. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Social Psychology and Sociology
3. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Scientific Method
4. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Evaluate Ethics
5. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH PROCESS, DESIGNS AND METHODS (CONTINUED)
6. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OBSERVATIONAL METHOD
7. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY CORRELATIONAL METHOD:
8. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
9. THE SELF:Meta Analysis, THE INTERNET, BRAIN-IMAGING TECHNIQUES
10. THE SELF (CONTINUED):Development of Self awareness, SELF REGULATION
11. THE SELF (CONTINUE��.):Journal Activity, POSSIBLE HISTORICAL EFFECTS
12. THE SELF (CONTINUE���.):SELF-SCHEMAS, SELF-COMPLEXITY
13. PERSON PERCEPTION:Impression Formation, Facial Expressions
14. PERSON PERCEPTION (CONTINUE�..):GENDER SOCIALIZATION, Integrating Impressions
15. PERSON PERCEPTION: WHEN PERSON PERCEPTION IS MOST CHALLENGING
16. ATTRIBUTION:The locus of causality, Stability & Controllability
17. ATTRIBUTION ERRORS:Biases in Attribution, Cultural differences
18. SOCIAL COGNITION:We are categorizing creatures, Developing Schemas
19. SOCIAL COGNITION (CONTINUE��.):Counterfactual Thinking, Confirmation bias
20. ATTITUDES:Affective component, Behavioral component, Cognitive component
21. ATTITUDE FORMATION:Classical conditioning, Subliminal conditioning
22. ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR:Theory of planned behavior, Attitude strength
23. ATTITUDE CHANGE:Factors affecting dissonance, Likeability
24. ATTITUDE CHANGE (CONTINUE���.):Attitudinal Inoculation, Audience Variables
25. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:Activity on Cognitive Dissonance, Categorization
26. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION (CONTINUE���.):Religion, Stereotype threat
27. REDUCING PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:The contact hypothesis
28. INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION:Reasons for affiliation, Theory of Social exchange
29. INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION (CONTINUE��..):Physical attractiveness
30. INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS:Applied Social Psychology Lab
31. SOCIAL INFLUENCE:Attachment styles & Friendship, SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
32. SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONTINE���):Normative influence, Informational influence
33. SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONTINUE��):Crimes of Obedience, Predictions
34. AGGRESSION:Identifying Aggression, Instrumental aggression
35. AGGRESSION (CONTINUE��):The Cognitive-Neo-associationist Model
36. REDUCING AGGRESSION:Punishment, Incompatible response strategy
37. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR:Types of Helping, Reciprocal helping, Norm of responsibility
38. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE���):Bystander Intervention, Diffusion of responsibility
39. GROUP BEHAVIOR:Applied Social Psychology Lab, Basic Features of Groups
40. GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE����):Social Loafing, Deindividuation
41. up Decision GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE���.):GroProcess, Group Polarization
42. INTERPERSONAL POWER: LEADERSHIP, The Situational Perspective, Information power
43. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN COURT
44. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN CLINIC
45. FINAL REVIEW:Social Psychology and related fields, History, Social cognition