1 / 16

Social Psychology of Sport 1. Group Cohesion

Social Psychology of Sport 1. Group Cohesion. 1.2 Social Loafing . So, what is Social Loafing?. The tendency of individuals to put less effort into tasks when they are part of a group.

artan
Télécharger la présentation

Social Psychology of Sport 1. Group Cohesion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Social Psychology of Sport 1. Group Cohesion 1.2 Social Loafing

  2. So, what is Social Loafing? • The tendency of individuals to put less effort into tasks when they are part of a group. • All members of the group are pooling their effort to achieve a common goal- Each member of the group contributes less than they would if they were individually responsible • Imagine that your teacher assigned you to work on a class project with a group of ten other students. • If you were working on your own, you would have broken down the assignment into steps and hopefully started it • Since you are part of a group, however, the social loafing tendency makes it likely that you would put less effort into it • Instead of assuming responsibility for certain tasks, you might simply assume that one of the other group members will take care of it

  3. Sound familiar? • What is this similar to? • Bystander effect ~ Latane!

  4. Ringlemann • Rope Pulling: • As you add more and more people to a group pulling on a rope, the total force exerted by the group rose, but the average force exerted by each group member declined. • Problem may not be the reduction of individual effort, but poor coordination between members of the group • Example: People may pull the rope in different directions at different times, so the group does not use the efforts of each individual member of the group. • Alternative explanation must be eliminated

  5. What you would expect to see….and what you would actually see

  6. Key Study Latane et al ~ Many hands make light work • Wanted to replicate Ringlemanns work theoretically • 8 occasions, 6 undergrad males asked to help researcher judge how much noise people make in social situations • Cheering and applause • How loud they seem to those who hear them • Asked to • Clap or cheer as loudly as possible for 5 secs • Judge noises • Both performers AND observers were asked to guess how much noise was produced • 36 trials of yelling in pairs and groups of 4 and 6 • 36 trials of clapping • general radio sound level meter was placed 4m from each performer

  7. Latane et al Results • Noise produced did not grow in proportion to the number of people • Average sound pressure generated decreased with increasing group size (p<0.001) • 2 person groups performed at only 71% of their individual capacity • 4 person groups at 51% • 6 person groups at 40%

  8. Latane et al Discussion • Appears that when it comes to clapping many hands do, in fact, make light work • Ringlemann’s findings were replicated using a different task in a different culture • Link to: • Social loafing?? • Faulty social processes?? As group size increases, number of co-ordination links increases • According to Steiner (1972), coordination problems between group members are a function of the demands of the tasks to be performed • How to answer these questions??? • Another experiment!!

  9. Latane et al Experiment 2! • Co-ordination loss or reduced effort? • 6 more groups of 6 male undergrads • Aim = remove the ‘non reduced effort’ factors • Told exp about sensory feedback NOT judgements • Blindfolded and used headsets ~ told room was soundproofed

  10. Experiment 2 Results and Discussion • Despite the social factors (co-ordination) being removed (lost) … • …and despite in exp 1 p’s applauded with all the excitement, embarrassment and conformity that go with such a situation…. • …. The 2 studies produced similar results • ….. Suggesting that social loafing is in fact a robust phenomenon

  11. Application • Why would social loafing be something to consider in a sport psychology role? • Why do YOU think it occurs? • Loss of co-ordination? • Reduced effort? Discuss these points in your groups…

  12. Class Demonstration • We do a lot of thought showers etc… • Group sizes vary: • 2, 4, 8, 12! • Prediction: • Total group output should increased with increasing group size. • Number of ideas generated per person should decrease with increasing group size.

  13. POTENTIALLY…..Increasing Group Size, Increasing Group Output

  14. …But Decreasing Individual Input

  15. Social Loafing? • So…. Do you limit your contribution to the group discussion? Why or why not? • Were there people who contributed more ideas than others? • Was there some expectation or goal for how many ideas you should personally contribute to the group? • Are there alternative explanations other than social loafing?

  16. Evaluation Apprehension • Do you limit your contributions to the group discussion because you are worried that people would judge your ideas? OR, • Do you limit your contribution to the group discussion because you felt that no one was paying any attention to how much you were contributing? OR, • Something else????

More Related