Group: collection of individuals who have some relation to one another that make them interdependentExamples: family, tribe members, classmatesGroups fall along a continuum;Slightly interdependent -> Highly interdepedentSocial FacilitationSocial Facilitation: the positive and negative effect of the presence of others on performanceIn other words, the phenomenon where having other people around us can affect how we do on a taskFishing Reel Experiment (Triplett, 1898)Kids are asked to spin fishing reels as fast as they canWhen other kids are present, they spin them faster – performance is enhancedHOWEVER, sometimes, the presence of others can hurt performancePerformance in debatesMemorization TasksMaze LearningWhy does the presence of others help performance in some situations and hurt in others?Answer: The presence of others helps performance on simple tasks and hurts performance on difficult tasksThree step process:1)Presence of others make people aroused2) Person become “rigid” and more likely to do their dominant response3) For Easy (well learned) tasks, the dominant response is correct. For difficult tasks, the dominant response is incorrect.Distraction-conflict theory: attending to the task at hand *and* to an audience is distracting.This distraction leads to arousal, which leads the effects previously describedOther explanations:What if it’s not the presence of other people that makes others aroused, but something more specificEvaluation apprehensionStudy: Participants given a list of nonsense words to memorize – studied some words more, making them well-learnedQuickly flashed many words on the computer and told to guess what word was shownThree conditions: Alone, With an audience, With an audience blindfoldedResults: Only the Non-blindfolded audience increased dominant response useCockroach study:For simple tasks, the presence of another cockroach helps performanceFor complex tasks, the presence of another cockroach hurts performanceSocial loafing: tendency to exert less effort when working on a group taskEspecially when individual contributions can’t be monitoredDon’t want to work too hardA loss in motivationHow to reduce social loafing: (NOT ON FINAL)Increase identifiabilityPromote involvementReward team members for performanceStrengthen team cohesion Increase personal responsibilityUse team contractsProvide team performance reviews and feedbackDeindividuationSome behaviors only emerge when in groupsWe do things in a group setting that we do not do aloneThought patterns of individuals change when in large groupsDeindividuation: the loss of individual identity accompanied by decreased self-regulationFeeling “lost in the crowd”Three Step Model of Deindividuation:1) Antecedent Condition must be presentAnonymityDiffusion of ResponsibilityArousalStimulus overload2) Person feels Deindividuated (Internal State)Has less self-evaluationHas less concern with other people’s evaluationHas less internal control**Deindividuated person is less aware of the self and more focused on others and the immediate environmentCan lead to behavioral effects3) Behavioral EffectsImpulsivityIrrationalityEmotionalityAntisocial ActivityExamples of deindividuation (NOT ON FINAL)Suicide Baiting/Encouraging Suicide (Mann, 1981)15 yrs of newspaper accounts analyzed21 instances of attempted suicideSuicide baiting occurred 50% of the timeTwo variables associated with baiting: Crowd Size & DarknessConduct of War (Watson 1973)23 Non-western Cultures analyzed for aggression in battleStrong correlation between deindividuation and aggressivenessDisguises increased aggressivenessHalloween Study (Deiner et. al. 1976)Monitored 27 homes in Seattle on HalloweenMeasured whether child was alone (individuated) or a in a group (deindividuated)Randomly asked children for name & address (individuate) or left them anonymous (deindividuated)All children told they can take one piece of candy from a large bowl sitting on a table in the entranceDV = Antisocial Behavior/ Candy TakingResults: Children not asked for their name tended to take more candy than they were supposed to.Children arriving in groups tended to take more candy than they were suppose to.Self-Awareness and IndividuationIndividuation: focusing attention on the selfIndividuation is the opposite of DeindividuationSelf-Awareness theory: when focusing attention inward, people become concerned with self-evaluation and how their current behavior conforms to internal standards and valuesPeople cheat less in from of a mirrorSelf-ConsciousnessSpotlight Effect: People’s conviction that other people are attending to them more than is actually the casePeople are more likely to think they will be judged more harshly for falling down than other people actually do (Savitsky et al, 2001)People are more likely to think others can remember embarrassing things about them than other people actually do (Gilovich et al. 2000)Group Decision MakingWhen groups and individuals are presented with problems where there is a precise and factual answer, groups are more likely to arrive at the solution than the average individual.There are also situations where the group decisions are no better than individual decisions1)Group members may be concerned with being judged2)People may not want to hurt other’s feelings3)People may not want responsibilityGroupthink: when groups do not give careful scrutiny to the issues at hand because of social pressures to all agreeThe pressure to all agree can lead individuals to not mention different solutionsSelf-censorship: withholding information or opinions in group decisionsHow to prevent group think:1) Have the leader refrain from making his/her opinions known at the beginning2) Do not be cutoff from outside input3) Designate one person to play the group’s ‘devil’s advocateRiskiness of Group DecisionsRisky Shift: groups tend to recommend riskier courses of action than individual group membersParticipants who first make individual decisions and then meet with a group tend to come to a consensus on the risky optionLater, participants will prefer the risky option when by themselvesSubsequent research found that sometimes groups actually prefer more conservative choicesGoes contrary to risky shiftTo understand why, the underlying factors must be explored – group polarizationGroup Polarization: tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than those made by individualsA slight preference towards an issue by the individuals,