ZeePedia

GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE…………):Social Loafing, Deindividuation

<< GROUP BEHAVIOR:Applied Social Psychology Lab, Basic Features of Groups
up Decision GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE……….):GroProcess, Group Polarization >>
img
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 less hard 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
img
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
img
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
img
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:
  1. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Readings, Main Elements of Definitions
  2. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Social Psychology and Sociology
  3. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Scientific Method
  4. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Evaluate Ethics
  5. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH PROCESS, DESIGNS AND METHODS (CONTINUED)
  6. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OBSERVATIONAL METHOD
  7. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY CORRELATIONAL METHOD:
  8. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
  9. THE SELF:Meta Analysis, THE INTERNET, BRAIN-IMAGING TECHNIQUES
  10. THE SELF (CONTINUED):Development of Self awareness, SELF REGULATION
  11. THE SELF (CONTINUE…….):Journal Activity, POSSIBLE HISTORICAL EFFECTS
  12. THE SELF (CONTINUE……….):SELF-SCHEMAS, SELF-COMPLEXITY
  13. PERSON PERCEPTION:Impression Formation, Facial Expressions
  14. PERSON PERCEPTION (CONTINUE…..):GENDER SOCIALIZATION, Integrating Impressions
  15. PERSON PERCEPTION: WHEN PERSON PERCEPTION IS MOST CHALLENGING
  16. ATTRIBUTION:The locus of causality, Stability & Controllability
  17. ATTRIBUTION ERRORS:Biases in Attribution, Cultural differences
  18. SOCIAL COGNITION:We are categorizing creatures, Developing Schemas
  19. SOCIAL COGNITION (CONTINUE…….):Counterfactual Thinking, Confirmation bias
  20. ATTITUDES:Affective component, Behavioral component, Cognitive component
  21. ATTITUDE FORMATION:Classical conditioning, Subliminal conditioning
  22. ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR:Theory of planned behavior, Attitude strength
  23. ATTITUDE CHANGE:Factors affecting dissonance, Likeability
  24. ATTITUDE CHANGE (CONTINUE……….):Attitudinal Inoculation, Audience Variables
  25. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:Activity on Cognitive Dissonance, Categorization
  26. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION (CONTINUE……….):Religion, Stereotype threat
  27. REDUCING PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:The contact hypothesis
  28. INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION:Reasons for affiliation, Theory of Social exchange
  29. INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION (CONTINUE……..):Physical attractiveness
  30. INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS:Applied Social Psychology Lab
  31. SOCIAL INFLUENCE:Attachment styles & Friendship, SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
  32. SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONTINE………):Normative influence, Informational influence
  33. SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONTINUE……):Crimes of Obedience, Predictions
  34. AGGRESSION:Identifying Aggression, Instrumental aggression
  35. AGGRESSION (CONTINUE……):The Cognitive-Neo-associationist Model
  36. REDUCING AGGRESSION:Punishment, Incompatible response strategy
  37. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR:Types of Helping, Reciprocal helping, Norm of responsibility
  38. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE………):Bystander Intervention, Diffusion of responsibility
  39. GROUP BEHAVIOR:Applied Social Psychology Lab, Basic Features of Groups
  40. GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE…………):Social Loafing, Deindividuation
  41. up Decision GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE……….):GroProcess, Group Polarization
  42. INTERPERSONAL POWER: LEADERSHIP, The Situational Perspective, Information power
  43. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN COURT
  44. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN CLINIC
  45. FINAL REVIEW:Social Psychology and related fields, History, Social cognition