group processes

• group(Johnson & Johnson, 1987, p.8)


  • interacting individuals, each aware of their membership in the group
  • and each aware of their positive interdependence to achieve mutual goals
• Why study groups?

  studying and taking care of individuals is sufficient as a group is just a collection of individuals?
• Types of groups

  • Strong interpersonal relationships
  • Families
  • Small groups of close friends
  • Formed to fulfil task: Lickel et al., (2000)
  • Committees
  • Work groups
• Different types of groups Lickel et al. (2000)

  • Groups based on large social categories
  • Americans, women
  • Groups based on weak social relationships
  • people who enjoy the same artist's music; from same local area
  • Transitory groups
  • people waiting at bus stop
• Minimal groups - Tajfel, Billig, Bundy and Flament (1971, replicated by Allen & Wilder, 1975)

  • allocated more money to their ‘own’ group
  • effect could not be explained by:
  • self-interest (as they didn’t get a share)
  • existing friendships = split randomly into two-groups
• what does minimal groups study demonstrate?

  how easily bias (and groups), i.e., in-group favouritism, can develop
• early work on social facilitation Triplett (1898) study


  Observed track cyclists

  • performances were faster when:
  • Timed alone
  • Timed and racing alongside other cyclists.
  • ‘fishing line’ apparatus and found children performed better when racing against each other
• Social Facilitation Allport (1920)

  improvement in performance due to the mere presence of others as co-actors or passive audience.
• Social Facilitation in other animals

  Kangaroos, monkeys and horses eat more and run faster when other members of their species are doing the same thing (e.g., Dindo, et al., 2009; Pays, et al., 2009).
• Social Facilitation vs Social Inhibition

  • presence of others can impaired performance (review by Bond & Titus, 1983)
  • Complex task (typing name backwards) (Schmitt, et al., 1986)
  • Men take longer to urinate when someone is standing immediately beside them at a urinal (Middlemist, et al., 1976)
• Social Facilitation: Zajonc’s (1965) Drive Theory

  • mere presence of others .
  • increase in arousal
  • energises ‘dominant response’ (typically done in that situation i.e., a well-learnt/habitual response)
  • anxious -> tend to do better on easy tasks (already good at) and worse on difficult ones (that they normally struggle at)
  • If the dominant response is correct (easy), performance will be facilitated (social facilitation)
  • if the dominant response is incorrect (difficult), performance will be inhibited (social inhibition)
• Cottrell (1972): Evaluation Apprehension Theory

  • social reward / punishment contingencies (e.g., approval and disapproval) learned from others’ evaluation.
  • Perception of an ‘evaluating’ audience creates arousal, not mere presence.
  • Social facilitation = acquired effect based on perceived evaluations of others.
• social faciliation + inhibition in times of not just mere presence

  • evaluation apprehension theories
  • Cottrell
  • Markus?
• Cottrell et al. (1968) experiment + results

  3 audience conditions:

  • Blindfolded [cannot see participant]
  • Merely present (passive and uninterested)
  • Attentive audience
  • Tasks were well learned (i.e., easy).
  • Social facilitation = when audience were evaluative (attentive);
  • wanting to perform well for their audience worked in their favour.
• research against evaluation apprehension - Markus (1978)

  • Time taken to dress in familiar clothes (easy task, own clothes) / unfamiliar clothes (difficult task, lab coat and unfamiliar shoes) as a function of social presence
  • 3 conditions:
  • alone
  • presence of an inattentive audience
  • in the presence of an attentive audience
• research against evaluation apprehension - Markus (1978)

  • Attentive audience speeded up performance in easy task.
  • Inattentive and attentive not much difference in difficult task.
• evaluation apprehension: Schmitt et al. (1986)

  • asked participants to type either their name or a code backwards on a computer
  • mere presence of others: simple task quicker and difficult task slower.
  • however, evaluation apprehension condition made little difference to the typing speed
  • evaluation apprehension sometimes unnecessary for social facilitation
• Distraction-Conflict Theory

  • distracted: focusing (“drive”) on what others are doing and perform worse
  • Sanders et al. (1978) had participants’ complete an easy or difficult digit task, but:
  • Alone
  • Someone doing the same task or someone doing different task
  • People performed worse when someone did the same thing as them (i.e., more distraction as focusing on their evaluation)
  • Not just others – Sanders (1981) showed bursts of light could similarly affect social facilitation.
• Does it matter what is evaluating you? E.g can AI lead to evaluation apprehension?

  • Finnish participant presented an idea to either Alan or Phillip.
  • Participants express less evaluation apprehension when presenting their idea to AI than Phillip.
  • when humans are involved in evaluating an idea, people tend to feel concerned.
• Social Loafing (Ingham et al. 1974)

  • Investigated this with ‘real groups’ and ‘pseudo-groups’ pulling on a rope; participant blind-folded.
  • Real: Groups of varying size.
  • Pseudo: Only one true participant, rest were confederates who did not pull at all.
  • Loss of motivation termed ‘social loafing’ (Latane et al., 1979) “Reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task compared with working either alone”
• Latané et al. (1979) supported social loafing through clapping, shouting, and cheering tasks.

  • Recorded amount of cheering/clapping noise made per person [blind folded] reduced by:
  • 29% in 2-person groups.
  • 49% in 4-person groups.
  • 60% in 6-person groups.
• Tasks in groups: The Ringelmann Effect (1913, 1927) + social loafing

  • men pulling on a rope attached to a dynamometer exerted less force than number of people in the group
  • Reasons for the effect:
  • Coordination loss: as group size inhibits movement, distraction, and jostling.
  • Motivation loss: participants did not try as hard; less motivated.
• Why do people loaf? Geen (1991)

  • Output equity
  • When people learn others are not pulling their weight -> too lose motivation and less effort in.
  • Evaluation apprehension
  • Individuals only believe their efforts are being judged when they perform alone
• How can we reduce social loafing?

  • Identifiability (Williams et al., 1981)
  • Individual responsibility (Harkins & Petty, 1982)
• Identifiability (Williams et al., 1981).

  • when people’s individual contributions to a task can be identified.
  • e.g. people shout louder in a group shouting task when they think every individual’s volume can be recorded
• Individual responsibility (Harkins & Petty, 1982)

  • make a unique contribution to a task
  • e.g. group task, watching for dots on a screen:
  • People worked harder if they thought they were solely responsible for watching particular segment
• Replication of social loafing across groups? (Karau & Williams, 1993)

  • robust across gender, culture and task
  • although effect is smaller for subjects from Eastern cultures
  • as greater importance placed on:
  • Western = individual performance
  • Eastern = group performance
• The collective effort model - Impact of groups on performance (Karau & Williams, 1993)


  People will put effort into a group task when:

  • believe their input will have an impact AND likely to bring them something they value, which could include:
  • Concrete things like money, grades etc
  • Abstract things e.g satisfaction / enjoyment
• Group polarisation

  • people often discuss topics with those similarly minded, which can strengthen attitudes
  • e.g group discussions enhanced French students (already) positive towards their president and enhanced their (already) negative attitudes towards Americans
  • (Moscovici and Zavalloni 1969)
  • As people come together to share their grievances, often in isolation – more extreme over time, leading to actions (such as violence) that might not have happened on their own
  • (McCauley & Segal, 1987).
• contexts when group problem solving is useful

  • critiquing each other’s ideas -> better-quality ideas (McGlynn, et al., 1995)
  • More effective when small rather than large groups and if the experimenter is not present to monitor the process (Mullen, et al. 1991)
  • However, if only simple group decisions occur, with no break-out from individuals, solitary efforts are typically better than the group’s (e.g., Diehl & Stroebe, 1987)
  • Key: Ensure a combination of group and individual brainstorming (Brown & Paulus, 2002).
• contexts when group problem solving is useful + not useful

  • critiquing each other’s ideas -> better-quality ideas
  • (McGlynn, et al., 1995)
  • more effective in small groups and the experimenter not present to monitor
  • (Mullen, et al. 1991)
  • however, simple group decisions occur, solitary efforts are typically better (e.g., Diehl & Stroebe, 1987)
  • combination of group and individual brainstorming (Brown & Paulus, 2002).
• Groupthink, Janis (1982)

  • flawed group decision making
  • disastrous political decision - Invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs
  • objections to poor group decisions are suppressed to maintain group harmony
• Conditions for groupthink: Janis (1971, 1982); Turner & Pratkanis (1998).

  • Stressful situation without a clear, correct solution
  • Cohesive group of like-minded people, cut off from external (moderating) influences
  • Strong, vocal leader
• Consequences of groupthink, Janis (1971, 1982)

  • group does not carry out adequate research
  • alternative options are not considered; group members cascade around the same opinion (Glebovskiy, 2018)
  • risks not adequately assessed.