| |||
|
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:
| ||
Discuss how deindividuation and social loafing can affect an individuals behavior
Deindividuation is a process where people lose their sense of socialized individual identity and resort to unsocialized and anti-social behavior. Deindividuation is a state of decreased self-evaluation in a crowd, and is one of the most widely-cited effects of social groups [Postmes and Spears, 1998].
Social loafing is a psychological concept that refers to the inclination for people to exert less of an effort when working in a group, than when working individually [Karau & Williams, 1993].
Social loafing creates a negative impact on the performance of the group and thus slowing down the productivity of the whole organization. Leads to Poor Team Spirit: If few members become lazy and reluctant, making the least contribution in the group, the whole team feels demotivated and demoralized.
Effects of Deindividuation
Deindividuation can be extremely emotional, and some people feel exhilarated when they return to a sense of self-awareness. However, deindividuation can also contribute to destructive group behavior. Political oppression, mass violence, riots, and bullying can all stem from deindividuation.
According to deindividuation theory, anonymity contributes to an individual's loss of self-awareness and loss of concern for self- evaluation within a group setting, enabling the individual to participate in anti-normative or aggressive behavior [Newcomb et al.
In social facilitation, the presence of others enhances performance. In social loafing, the presence of others diminishes performance. This is often due to the fact that people put in less effort when responsibility is shared with others.