C82SAD People in Groups: Social Facilitation, Cohesiveness & Group Norms

1. C82SAD People in Groups:Social Facilitation, Cohesiveness & Group Norms

2. What is a Group? “A group is not a mere collection of two or more individuals… a group comprises two or more people, involves interaction between people, demands an awareness of some form of common fate or goals, has a specific structure such as the role and status of individuals within the group and group norms” Hagger and Chatzisarantis (2005, p. 161)

3. What is a Group? “A group is two or more individuals in face-to-face interaction, each aware of his or her membership of the group, each aware of the others who belong to the group, and each aware of their positive interdependence as they strive to achieve mutual goals” Johnson and Johnson (1987, p. 8)

4. What is a Group? Seven major characteristics of a group (Johnson & Johnson, 1987): • Social unit of 2 or more individuals who perceived themselves as belonging to the group • Collection of individuals who influence each other • Interaction between individuals • Interdependence among group members • Seek to achieve group goals • Try to satisfy a need through their association (c.f. Maslow, 1943) • Interaction and behaviours governed by group roles and norms

5. Effects of a Group on Individual Performance • Most basic question: How does the presence of a group affect individual behaviour? • Triplett (1898) studied the effects of others on the performance of behaviour • Engendered the entire literature on the effect known as ‘social facilitation’ • Also often credited with the first psychology ‘experiment’

6. Triplett’s (1898) classic paper thought to be the first in social psychology

7. Social Facilitation: Early Work • Triplett (1898) observed track cyclists and noticed that performances were faster when • Paced compared with being alone • In competition compared with being paced • Hypothesised that the presence of the audience, particularly competition, ‘energised’ performance • Triplett tested his hypothesis using a ‘fishing line’ apparatus and found that children performed better when racing against each other than when alone

8. Social Facilitation: Early Work • Allport (1920) termed this effect ‘social facilitation’ • Triplett focused on competition (actually ‘coaction’) but Allport suggested a more generalised effect known as ‘mere presence’ • Mere presence is defined as an “entirely passive and unresponsive audience that is only physically present” • Allport hypothesised that facilitation would occur when the audience either coacted (but not necessarily competed) or passively observed (mere presence)

9. Social Facilitation: Early Work • Much research corroborated this phenomenon in animals and even insects! • However, there were a number of studies on people (e.g., Dashiell, 1930) that showed effects inconsistent with hypotheses • There were null findings and even findings of a decrease in task performance in the presence of others • This lead many to question the ‘social facilitation’ effect • Inconsistent methodological approaches: coaction vs. audience/mere presence

10. Social Facilitation: Evolution of Theory • Zajonc’s (1965) drive theory reinvigorated research in social facilitation • Mere presence of others creates an increase in arousal (evolutionary link) and energises the ‘dominant response’ • The ‘dominant response’ is that what is typically done in that situation i.e., a well-learnt/habitual response • If the dominant response is the same as that of the task, (i.e., correct) then performance will be facilitated • the dominant response is not the same, (i.e., incorrect) then performance will be inhibited

11. Social Facilitation: Zajonc’s (1965) Drive Theory If correct Social facilitation Arousal Presence of others Increase in performing dominant responses If incorrect Social inhibition

12. Social Facilitation: Definition “An improvement in the performance of well-learned/easy tasks and a deterioration in the performance of poorly-learned/difficult tasks in the mere presence of the same species” Hogg and Vaughan (2005, p. 278)

13. Evaluation Apprehension • Despite general support for the drive theory of social facilitation (e.g., Geen & Gange, 1977) some questioned whether presence caused drive • Cottrell (1972) suggested that we learn about reward/punishment contingencies based on others’ evaluation • Suggested that it was the perception of an ‘evaluating’ audience that created arousal, not mere presence • Social facilitation is an acquired effect based on perceived evaluations of others

14. Evaluation Apprehension • Cottrell et al. (1968) supported this finding in an experiment with 3 audience conditions: • Blindfolded • Merely present (passive and uninterested) • Attentive audience • Only the 3rd condition should give rise to facilitation or inhibition of dominant response • Results supported hypotheses and social facilitation found only when the audience was perceived to be evaluative

15. Evaluation Apprehension Time taken to dress in familiar/unfamiliar clothes as a function of social presence Source: Markus (1978)

16. Evaluation Apprehension Time taken for simple/complex typing tasks as a function of social presence Source: Schmitt et al. (1986)

17. Evaluation Apprehension • Guerin and Innes (1982) suggested that social facilitation only occurred when the actor could not monitor the audience • This created uncertainty and the actor could not tell what the audience was thinking, creating uncertainty and arousal • Guerin’s (1989) letter copying experiment: social facilitation only occurred when the observed could NOT be seen • Recall definition of social psychology: behaviour in “implied” presence of others

18. Non-drive Explanations of Social Facilitation • Self-awareness theory (Carver & Schier, 1981): Ideal vs actual self increases motivation to bring performance into line with ideal • Self-presentation theory (Bond, 1982): Presentation of best possible impression to others – simple for simple tasks, but complex tasks people may anticipate embarrassment which leads to mistakes • Attentional overload (Easterbrook, 1959): Audience causes attentional overload and causes narrowing of attention to cues – which is good for simple tasks but detrimental for complex tasks – see Monteil & Huguet’s (1999) Stroop task.

19. Evaluating the Evidence for Social Facilitation • Meta analysis of 241 social facilitation studies (Bond & Titus, 1983): Mere presence accounted for between 0.30 to 3.0 percent of the variance in performance • Findings did suggest that audience facilitated performance of simple tasks but inhibited performance of complex tasks • Also found little support for the evaluation apprehension hypothesis, suggested that this is actually a methodological artifact

20. Social Loafing • Ringelmann (1913, 1927) observed that men pulling on a rope attached to a dynamometer exerted less force in proportion to the number of people in the group: The Ringelmann effect Expected performance Actual performance

21. Social Loafing • Reasons for Ringelmann effect: • Coordination loss: as group size inhibits movement, distraction, jostling • Motivation loss: participants did not try as hard • Ingham et al. (1974) investigated this in ‘real groups’ and ‘pseudo-groups’ varying the size of the group in a ‘tug-of-war’ situation • Real group: Groups of varying size • Pseudo-group: Only one true participant, rest were confederates who did not ‘pull’ at all

22. Social Loafing Potential performance Motivation loss Pseudo-groups Coordination loss Real groups Source: Ingham et al. (1974)

23. Social Loafing • The motivation loss is what is called ‘social loafing’ and is independent of loss of coordination • Latané et al. (1979) supported this through clapping, shouting, and cheering tasks • Recorded amount of cheering/clapping noise made per person reduced by • 29% in 2-person groups • 49% in 4-person groups • 60% in 6-person groups

24. Social Loafing Potential performance Motivation loss, reduced effort, social loafing Pseudo-groups Coordination loss Real groups Source: Latané et al. (1979)

25. Social Loafing • Group size as a decreasingly significant impact on effort – therefore large effect of a 1 or 2 person increase when group is small but small effect of same increase when group is large

26. Free Rider Effect • ‘Free rider effect’ – gaining the benefits of group membership but avoiding costly obligations of membership and allowing other group members to incur the costs (Frohlich & Oppenheimer, 1970) • Closely related to social loafing, but motives are different: • Free rider’s aims to exploit the group while contributing as little as possible • Social loafer makes a contribution albeit a small one and experiences a loss of motivation

27. Evaluating the Evidence for Social Loafing • Meta analysis of 78 social loafing studies (Karau & Williams, 1993): 80% found loafing of the individual-group comparisons made • Reasons for loafing? • Output equity: People expect others to loaf, so do so accordingly (Jackson & Harkins, 1985) • Evaluation apprehension: Group provides anonymity but when performance is measured (or individual or coactive) they overcome their tendency to loaf (Harkins, 1987) • Matching standards: People loaf because they have no clear performance standard (Szymanski & Harkins, 1987)

28. Group Cohesiveness • Group cohesiveness – also called ‘solidarity’, team spirit, morale • “The property of the group that affectively binds people, as group members, to one another and to the group as a whole, giving the group a sense of solidarity and oneness” (Hogg & Vaughan, p. 291) • Focus on the psychological processes that makes a group or team cohesive in the workplace, in social situations, in sport etc.

29. Field of Forces • Membership continuity • Adherence to group • standards Behaviour • Attractiveness • of group • of group members • Mediation of goals: • social interaction per se • individual goals requiring • interdependence Group Cohesiveness Cohesiveness Source: Festinger, Schacter, and Back (1950)

30. Group Cohesiveness • ‘Field of forces’ difficult to operationalise, so a much simpler set of factors was required (Evans & Jarvis, 1980) • Cohesiveness is usually characterised (measured) by averaging interpersonal attraction across the whole group (summation) • Research reveals that cohesiveness is determined by factors influencing interpersonal attraction: • Similarity • Cooperation • Interpersonal acceptance • Shared threat • Cohesiveness predicts: • Conformity to group norms • Accentuated similarity (self-stereotyping and in-group member stereotyping) • Improved intragroup communication (use of jargon, ‘restricted’ codes) • Enhanced liking

31. Social Cohesion/Interpersonal Interdependence Model Existence of individual goals that cannot be satisfied independently Aggregation of unrelated individuals Mutual interdependence and cooperative interaction Mutual goal satisfaction Individual perceived one another as sources of reward: Thus imbued with positive valence Source: Hogg (1992) Interpersonal attraction ≡ cohesiveness

32. What is Cohesiveness? • Hogg (1992) cohesiveness an ‘elusive’ concept based on idiosyncratic characteristics - how is it different from interpersonal attraction? • Need to distinguish between: • Personal attraction: True interpersonal attraction based on close relationships and idiosyncratic preferences • Social attraction: Inter-individual liking based on perceptions of self and others not in terms of individuality but group norms and prototypes

33. What is Cohesiveness? • Personal attraction has nothing to do with groups, it focuses on the individual • Social attraction is one of the many processes involved in self-categorisation theory which includes the following processes: • Social attraction (the ‘liking’ component of group membership) • Stereotyping and self-stereotyping • Ingroup solidarity • Conformity • Ethnocentrism • Intergroup differentiation

34. Solidarity (Cohesiveness) and Liking (Personal Attraction) Interpersonal attraction: Source: Hogg & Turner (1985)

35. Group Socialisation • A salient feature of groups is their dynamic nature: • New members join • Old members leave • Members are socialised by the group • The group is changed/shaped by the members • Group socialisation: Dynamic relationship between the group and its members that describes the passage of members through the group in terms of commitment and changing roles

36. Group Socialisation • Tuckman’s (1965) model of group socialisation: • Forming – orientation and familiarisation stage • Storming – disagreements drive working towards goals and practices – a conflict stage • Norming – a consensus, cohesion, and common identity and purpose stage • Performing – group performs optimally and smoothly toward shared goals with clear norms and practices, good morale • Adjourning – group dissolves because goals have been achieved or members lose interest/motivation and move on • Effective model in occupational settings where groups form and dissolves relatively quickly – a very dynamic model

37. Group Socialisation • Moreland and Levine’s (1982,1984) model of group socialisation New member Full member Marginal member Ex-member Role Prospective member Socialisation Maintenance Resocialisation Remembrance Social process Investigation Recruitment Reconnaissance Accommodation Assimilation Role negotiation Accommodation Assimilation Tradition Reminiscence Group and individual strategies Commitment Entry Acceptance Divergence Exit Time

38. Group Socialisation • Role transitions in group involve the change in function of a group member and are central to Moreland and Levine’s model • Initiation rites are procedures that mark a group member’s transition from one role to another within a group • Are ritualised public events • Pleasant events marked with celebration • Painful events a degree of pain, suffering, and humiliation • Why would anyone go through this to belong to a group - surely they would then ‘hate’ the group? • Cognitive dissonance suggests a mismatch between “I underwent a painful initiation to join this group” and “Some aspects of the group are not that good”

39. Cognitive Dissonance Explanation of Initiation Rites Level of electric shock: Source: Hogg & Turner (1985)

40. Group Norms • Norms: Attitudinal and behavioural uniformities that define group membership and differentiate between groups • Norms define what is acceptable, and what is not, in a group • Can be enforced by laws/legitimacy, but can also be implied and taken for granted (Garfinkel, 1967) • Norms and stereotypes are closely related – people self-stereotype themselves into group members and assume the accepted (normative) behaviours of the group • “Normative behaviour” is akin to “stereotypical behaviour” • Deviation or dissent from norms can lead to vilification and derogation • Group norms have a strong effect on people (e.g., Newcomb, 1965)

41. Group NormsVoting preference after exposure to liberal group normsin 1936 US Presidential election Source: Newcomb (1965)

42. Group NormsVoting preference after assignment to sororities and dormitories with different normative ideology Conservatism Time Period Source: Seigel & Seigel (1957)

43. Group Norms • Function of norms: They provide a ‘frame of reference’ for behaviour in a group • Sherif’s (1936) ‘autokinetic’ experiments are an example of ‘normative’ behaviour • MacNeil and Sherif (1976) demonstrated that norms can be powerful and lasting using a modified ‘autokinetic’ paradigm • Found that groups with 3 confederates and 1 experimental participant in which the confederates gave ‘extreme’ estimates was upheld when the confederates were eliminated 1 by 1 and replaced with ‘true’ participants

44. Group Norms • Sherif and Sherif (1964) adolescent gangs in American cities • Participant observers infiltrated gangs and studied them over several months • Numerous features of the gangs indicated strong group norms: • Names of gang and gang members • Insignia and dress codes (colours very important) • Sexual conduct • Dealing with ‘outsiders’ e.g., parents, police • Leaders given some ‘latitude’ in adherence to norms

45. Group Norms

46. Group Structure • Cohesiveness, socialisation, and norms refer to processes within groups that are relatively consistent across group members within groups • Within groups, members are not necessarily ‘equal’ in terms of roles and status – there is some variation • Group structure: Division of the group into different roles that often differ with respect to status and prestige

47. Roles • Roles: Patterns of behaviour that distinguish between different activities within the group, and that interrelate to one another for the greater good of the group – roles are NOT people • Roles tend to emerge in groups for three reasons: • Division of labour • Social expectations of member – frame of reference • Give members self-definition and place within group • Roles facilitate group functioning and effectiveness • Roles can be related to subgroups within wider groups and can therefore be related to intergroup conflict e.g., doctors and nurses, workers and executives • Roles tend to be quite rigid – especially if they are legitimate e.g., given by job description, rules, law etc. • Zimbardo’s prison experiment and The Experiment are examples of the effect of roles on intergroup behaviour

48. Status • Status: Consensual evaluation of the presitige or role or role occupant in a group, of the prestige of a group and its members as a whole • Highest status is ‘leader’ which has two properties: • Consensual prestige • Initiates ideas and activities adopted by group • Status roles emerge in groups because they reflect intragroup social comparison processes • There are many applicants for roles of status in groups and intragroup social comparison processes for unsuccessful ‘applicants’ results in the shared view that the successful candidate is superior to the rest • Roles of status are also often assumed rather making constant social comparison processes e.g., Strodtbeck et al. (1957) found that jury foremen were almost always people of high status in society – doctors or lawyers rather than janitors or mechanics

49. Status • Expectation states theory: Theory of the emergence of roles as a consequence of people’s status-based expectations about others’ performance • Specific status characteristics: Information about those abilities of a person that are directly relevant to the group task (e.g., athletic ability in a sports team, public speaking in a law firm) • Diffuse status characteristics: Characteristics that do not relate directly to ability on the group task but are generally positive or negatively valued in society (e.g., being male, being older, having a white-collar occupation) • Specific and diffuse status characteristics are independent and additive in determining status in groups (Knottnerus & Greenstein, 1981)

50. Status Diffuse status of participant relative to confederate: Source: Knottnerus & Greenstein, 1981