Group Behaviour Flashcards
Social Facilitation:
“The process by which the presence of others can facilitate behaviour (Gordon Allport, 1954, p. 46)
Triplett’s study (1898)
Triplett concluded that ‘the bodily presence of another contestant participant simultaneously in the race serves to liberate latent energy not ordinarily available’ (p533)
Social Inhibition:
The process by which the presence of others can hinder behaviour
3 Explanations for Social Facilitation/Inhibition
Mere Presence:
- enough to increase drive and facilitate or hinder behaviour (Zajonc)
- E.g. Joggers running quicker around others
- But may be more complicated (PL has been unusual this year)
Evaluation apprehension:
- Concern about being evaluated by observers when performing a task.
- Dominant response & being watched/evaluated (Cottrell et al, 1968)
Distraction:
-People become concerned so: Distraction up, Performance down (Sanders, Baron and Moore, 1978)
Social Loafing
The tendency for people’s performance to decrease in a group when they are not individually responsible for their actions.
Ringelmann effect -
The observation that as group size increases, individual effort on the task decreases
If presence of others increases evaluation apprehension……
social facilitation will occur
If presence of others decreases evaluation apprehension……
social loafing will occur
INCREASED EVALUATION CONCERNS …
- Facilitate on Easy task
- Inhibit on Hard Task
DECREASED EVALUATION CONCERNS…
- Impairs performance on easy tasks due to low motivation
- Enhances performance on difficult tasks due to support from the group
Factors that reducing Social Loafing
- Individual group performances is identifiable
- Taking responsibility out
- Task is challenging, appealing or involving
- People value the group with whom they are interacting
- General spirit of commitment to the ‘team’
- Strong personal work ethic
- High narcissist
- People of Eastern culture (e.g., China, Japan)
- Women
Deindividuation
“Process whereby people lose their sense of socialised individual identity and engage in unsocialised, often antisocial, behaviours” (Hogg and Vaughan 2010: 421)
Lack of individualism causes people to act badly
Deindividuation: ‘cloak of anonymity’
Removes individuals’ responsibility for actions by:
- Loss of a sense of identity
- Loss of concern for social evaluation (Zimbardo, 1970)
- Large groups & Night time → Atrocities/Level of violence/Encourage harming acts
- Lynch mobs more likely to do horrific things as the group gets bigger (Mullen, 1986)
Deindividuation factors
Attentional cues:
Features of the environment that draw attention away from the self
Accountability cues:(Prentice-Dunn and Rogers 1982; 1983)
What behaviours people can ‘get away with’ in a social context
Accountability: Public vs private self-awareness:
Loss of public self-awareness (less aware of norms) - antisocial behaviour
Loss of private self-awareness – not necessarily antisocial (unless norm is)
Le Bon wanted to show establishment how to…
control crowds