Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Performance in Groups Social Facilitation Social loafing Collective behavior Brainstorming.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Performance in Groups Social Facilitation Social loafing Collective behavior Brainstorming."— Presentation transcript:

1 Performance in Groups Social Facilitation Social loafing Collective behavior Brainstorming

2 Activity Task: Using two pencils in one hand (like chopsticks) individually pick up jellybeans from one cup and place them in the other cup.

3 Triplett’s (1898) study Triplett Noticed bicyclists performed better when riding with others Study with children performing simple task either alone or with others. Results: Children performed better when in the presence of others compared to when alone

4 I. Social Facilitation Enhancement and impairment performance effects resulting from the presence of one or more persons Social facilitation: Performance enhancement Social inhibition: Performance impairment

5 The Scope of Social Facilitation Many contradictory findings: Sometimes people performed better in the presence of others and sometimes people performed worse Interest in social facilitation dwindled (40’s & 50’s) Zajonc integrated the divergent results Distinction between dominant and nondominant responses

6 Social Facilitation a la Zajonc Dominant response: Well-learned or instinctive behaviors that the organism has practiced and is primed to perform Nondominant response: Novel, complicated, or untried behaviors that the organism has never performed (or performed infrequently) Presence of others increases our tendency to perform dominant responses

7 Research Examples Cockroach study (Zajonc et al. 1969) : Not limited to humans! Cockroaches performed simple or difficult task Runway or maze Measured speed when alone or with fellow roaches present Presence of other roaches facilitated performance on easy task and hampered it on difficult task

8 Cockroach study Seconds

9 Research Examples Pool room study (Michaels et al., 1982) Players identified as above or below average Research team of 4 approached the table and observed playing Found classic facilitation/inhibition effects

10 Pool room study % shots made

11 The Social Facilitation Effect Perform task in presence of audience Perform task in presence of audience Do not know the task well Know the task well Performance Improves Performance Improves Performance Declines

12 Why Does Social Facilitation Occur? Three basic processes highlighted: Arousal Evaluation apprehension Distraction-conflict theory

13 Presence of Other People Increased arousal Evaluation Apprehension Distraction Cognitive conflict Social Facilitation of Dominant Responses

14 II. Social Loafing Ringlemann effect Social loafing Members work below their potential when in a group i.e., people getting lazy in groups

15 The Social Loafing Effect High Low One person working alone Small groups Large groups Number of People Working Amount of Individual Effort Exerted The greater the number of people who work on a group task, the smaller the contribution any one member of the group will make

16 Research Example Shouting experiment (Latane, Williams, Harkins) SS separated into rooms with headphones Led to believe they were shouting alone or with others Results: Groups of 2 shouted at 66% capacity Groups of 6 at 36% capacity People exhibit a sizable decrease in individual effort when performing in groups compared to alone

17 Ways to Reduce Social Loafing Identify individual performance. Form smaller work groups. More task structure and specialized roles Direct and immediate feedback Increased personal involvement Group cohesion

18 III. Collective Behavior

19 Deindividuation: Loss of sense of individuality. This loss reduces constraints against "deviant" behavior. Conditions promoting deindividuation When you feel anonymous; unlikely to be caught When environment focuses your attention away from the self Collective Behavior

20 Zimbardo’s (1969) Model of Deindividuation Output behaviour Emotional, impulsive, irrational, regressive and extreme behaviour Uncontrolled behaviour Distorted memory/ perception Hyper-responsiveness to immediate surroundings Liking for group Destruction of traditional forms and structures Input Variables Anonymity Shared/diffused responsibility Group size Arousal Sensory input overload Physical involvement in the act Novel and unstructured situations Altered consciousness through drugs, alcohol Subjective changes Decreased self-observation and -evaluation Decreased Concern for social evaluation Crowd  Reduced self-awareness  Disinhibition Reduced accountability

21 Classic Studies Focused on anonymity and its effects

22 Research Examples

23 Trick or treat study (Diener et al. 1976) Children trick or treated alone or in group 1/2 Trick or treating children asked name; other 1/2 not All children given the opportunity to steal extra candy

24 Trick or Treat Study % transgressing

25 Another Account of Collective Behavior Social Identity explanation: In the crowd the person doesn’t lose a sense of individuality rather the person transitions from a personal identity to a social identity Social identity When social identity is made salient, people internalize group norms as their own. If group members behave normatively, collective behavior results.

26 KKK vs. nurses study (Johnson & Downing 1979) Participants identified by name or anonymous Participants wore KKK or nurses costumes Then given opportunity to shock Research Examples

27 “Deindividuation Effects” Depend on Normative Cues

28 Collective Behavior Explanations Compared DEINDIVIDUATION Cause: Anonymity, arousal, noise, other external factors demanding attention Process: Loss of identity, decreased (self) awareness Outcome: Disinhibition, anti- normative behavior, suggestibility SOCIAL IDENTITY Cause: Factors inducing identity salience Process: Transition from individual to social identity Outcome: Normative behavior, responsiveness to group norms

29

30 Brainstorming Brainstorming groups often create fewer ideas than individuals because: social loafing blocking (because of waiting turns, ppl forget ideas or decide not to share) evaluation apprehension social matching (lower standards of performance are matched) What can be more effective?

31 Brainstorming Exercise Page 302 "Each year a great many Americans go to Europe to visit. Now suppose that Americans want to entice Europeans to come to America. What steps would you suggest to get more Europeans to visit America?"

32 Post Performance Review 1. How many ideas do you think you, as an individual, generated while brainstorming? 2. In general, do you believe you would produce more ideas alone or by brainstorming in a group? 3. In general, do you believe you would produce more creative ideas by alone or by brainstorming in a group? 4. Evaluate the process your group used to generate its ideas. a. Did the production of ideas change over time? b. Did some individuals in the group produce more than others? c. Did your group follow the rules of brainstorming? 5. Did any of the following coordination and motivational factors influence your group's performance? a. Social loafing b. Evaluation apprehension c. Blocking d. Social matching


Download ppt "Performance in Groups Social Facilitation Social loafing Collective behavior Brainstorming."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google