Ch. 8 - Group Influence

how are we affected by the presence of others?

• We are affected by the presence of others

• We are also affected by crowding: the presence of many others

• Why are we aroused in the presence of others?

Social inhibition

In other cases, the presence of others is not beneficial, but harmful to performance

• People have a harder time learning nonsense syllables, completing a maze, and performing complex math when others are around

• Cockroaches, parakeets, and green finches learn mazes more slowly when in the presence of others

The effects of social arousal

Robert Zajonc - arousal facilitates dominant responses

• Boosts performance on easy tasks; e.g., eating or doing simple multiplication problems → better “performance”

• Hinders performance on difficult tasks; e.g., doing complicated math or learning nonsensical words → worse “performance”

Social facilitation original vs current meaning

Original - the tendency of people to perform simple or well-learned tasks better when others are present

Current - the strengthening of dominant (prevalent, likely) responses in the presence of others

Crowding

Effect of others’ presence increases with their number

• Large audiences can interfere with even well-learned, automatic behaviors

Being in a crowd also intensifies positive or negative reactions

• When they sit close together, friendly people are liked even more, and unfriendly people are disliked even more

• Fun shared with others is more energizing and fun

Evaluation apprehension

Concern for how others are evaluating us

• Observers make us apprehensive because we wonder how they are evaluating us

  • In experiments where observers are blindfolded, we don’t see the same effects on performance

• Self-consciousness plays a role here (ex: basketball players who are self conscious about their movements are more likely to miss)

Why are we driven by distraction?

• When we wonder how we are perceived by others, we become distracted

• There is a conflict between paying attention to others and paying attention to the task that overloads our cognitive system, causing arousal

• When we wonder how co-actors are doing or how an audience is reacting, we become distracted and this causes arousal

Mere presence as arousal

• There may be an innate social arousal mechanism

• Zajonc believed that mere presence may be enough, even without evaluation apprehension or distraction

• Facilitation occurs with nonhuman animals too, which hints at an innate social arousal mechanism common to much of the zoological world 

Social loafing

the tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their effort toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable

Why does social loafing happen?

• People believe they are being evaluated when they act alone, but less so in groups

• When people are not accountable and cannot be evaluated based on their own efforts, responsibility is diffused across all group members

Deindividuation

loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension

• Occurs in group situations that foster responsiveness to group norms, good or bad

Doing together what we wouldn’t do alone

• Group size is significant

  • Larger the group, the more its members lose self-awareness and become willing to commit atrocities

  • People’s attention is focused on the situation, not on themselves

  • “Everyone’s doing it” attitude 

• Anonymity may lessen inhibitions

  • Makes one less self-conscious, more group-conscious, and more responsive to cues present in the situation - whether negative or positive

  • Note the internet offers anonymity

• Arousing and distracting people’s attention, even with minor actions, increases the likelihood of aggressive outbursts by large groups

  • Group shouting, chanting, clapping, and dancing hype people up and reduce self-consciousness

  • When we act in an impulsive way as a group, we are not thinking about our values; we are reacting to the immediate situation

• Sometimes we seek deindividuating group experiences (ex: worship experiences)

Self-awareness

a self-conscious state in which attention focuses on oneself and makes people more sensitive to their own attitudes and dispositions

• Those who are self-aware exhibit increased self-control and are less likely to cheat

• opposite of deindividuation

Group polarization

group-produced enhancement of members’ preexisting tendencies

• Strengthening of the members’ average tendency, not a split within the group

Risky shift phenomenon

Group and individual decisions tend to be riskier after group discussion

• Occurs not only when a group decides by consensus: after a brief discussion, individuals, too, will alter their decisions

• Risky shift is not universal—some dilemmas lead people to be more cautious after discussion

  • Original “risky shift” dilemma: should Helen expend time and energy on writing her novel?

  • Dilemma that induced caution: should Roger, with a low-paying job and two children, invest in the stock?

Do Groups Intensify Opinions?

Discussion typically strengthens the average inclination of group members

Group polarization experiments:

• Bekafigo et al (2019) - voters increased dislike of Donald Trump after group discussion

• Mititoshi Isozaki (1984) - Japanese students’ judgments as jury in a traffic case

• Shteynberg et al (2016) - judgments of political speech videos

• Markus Brauer et al. (2001) - French students’ dislike of someone after discussion of negative impressions

Social comparison

evaluating one’s opinions and abilities by comparing oneself with others

Pluralistic ignorance

a false impression of what most other people are thinking or feeling, or how they’re responding

Groupthink

tendency of decision-making groups to suppress dissent in the interest of group harmony

• Vulnerable groups incorporate some of these:

  • Amiable, cohesive group

  • Relative isolation of the group from dissenting viewpoint

  • A directive leader 

Symptoms of groupthink

• Illusion of invulnerability: group members develop excessive optimism that blinds them to warnings of danger

• Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality: group members assume the inherent morality of their group and ignore ethical and moral issues

• Rationalization: discount challenges by collectively justifying their decisions

• Stereotyped views of opponent: group members consider their enemies too evil to negotiate with or too weak and unintelligent to defend themselves against the planned initiative 

• Conformity pressure: group members rebuff those who raise doubts about the group’s assumptions and plans

• Self-censorship: group members withhold or discount their misgivings to avoid uncomfortable disagreements

• Illusion of unanimity: group members face pressure not to puncture the group “consensus”

• Mindguards: some members protect the group from info that would call into question the effectiveness or morality of its decisions

Preventing groupthink

Recommendations for leaders

• Be impartial

• Encourage critical evaluation

• Occasionally subdivide the group, then reunite to air differences

• Welcome critiques from outside experts and associated

• Before implementing, call a “second-chance” meeting to air any lingering doubts

3 ways to enhance group brainstorming

1. Combing group and solitary brainstorming

2. Have group members interact by writing

3. Incorporate electronic brainstorming

Minority slowness effect

a tendency for people with minority views to express those views less quickly that do people in the majority

The influence of leaders

• Formal and informal group leaders exert disproportionate influence

• Task leadership: organizes work, sets standard, and focuses on goals

• Social leadership: builds teamwork, mediated conflict, and offers support

• Transformational leadership: enabled by a leader’s vision and inspiration, exerts significant influence