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

<< GROUP BEHAVIOR:Applied Social Psychology Lab, Basic Features of Groups

up Decision GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE……….):GroProcess, Group Polarization >>

Social Psychology (PSY403)

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.

Task complexity & social loafing

Jackson & Williams (1985):

� So far all the activities we talked about were

simple. But if evaluation apprehension is the key

to social loafing, then working together will

lower the evaluation apprehension

� Task was working on a complex computer maze

alongside a co-worker

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

Social Psychology (PSY403)

�

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:

o Social loafing depends on how important the

person believes his/her contribution is to

group success, and how much the person

Individual

values group success.

Collective

o Social compensation occurs when a person

expends great effort to compensate for others

in the group, and when others are performing

inadequately, and the person cares about the

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

Social Psychology (PSY403)

�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

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Figure 4:

Explanations of deindividuation

�Deindividuation increases when individuals

are anonymous and as group size increases.

� Diener (1980) indicates that the crucial

cognitive factor in deindividuation is a lack of

self awareness. Deindividuation might create

a special psychological state in which people

are focused externally and unaware of own

Identified

values. People do not attend to their own

A nonymous

inner values and standards. When people fail

to take themselves as an object of attention,

they abdicate their personal standards of

conduct and fall prey to the influence of

immediate situation.

�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: