1. 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)
“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)

2. 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

3. 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’

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

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

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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

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

20. 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

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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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)

25. C82SAD People in Groups II
Cohesiveness and Norms

26. 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.

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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

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

33. 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

34. 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

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

36. 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”

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

38. 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)

39. Group Norms Voting preference after exposure to liberal group norms in 1936 US Presidential election
Source: Newcomb (1965)

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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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)

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

48. Deviants and Marginal Members
Two types of group member:
Core members – highly prototypical of the group
Marginal or non-prototypical members of the group
Marginal members are often disliked by the group and subject to the ‘black sheep effect’ (Marques and Páez, 1994)
People whoso characteristics make them unlike the ingroup members and more like outgroup members are often derogated
In fact, marginal ingroup members are often evaluated more negatively than members of the outgroup!
Marginal members often serve a function to illustrate and reinforce the characteristics of the ingroup and the norms and roles of the ingroup members