Social Influence, Loafing, and Deindividuation in Group Behavior

Social Loafing

Phenomenon where individuals exert less effort to achieve a goal when in a group than when alone.

Cyberloafing

Involves personal use of email & internet at work, draining workers' productivity.

Cultural Differences in Social Loafing

Less prevalent among people from East Asian collectivist cultures (Japan, China, Taiwan) than among people from Western, individualist cultures (e.g. Aus & N.Z).

Social Striving

Greater individual effort when working in a group, identified in collectivist cultures.

Conditions for Reduced Social Loafing

Social loafing is less likely when group members must each exert maximum effort for the group goal to be achieved, like and value the group, perceive task as important, challenging and appealing, can be evaluated on their individual performance, and believe that their individual loafing may lead to group failure.

Social Facilitation

A phenomenon whereby the presence of others enhances performance on easy tasks but impairs performance on challenging tasks.

Zajonc's 3 Step Process

1. Presence of others increases physiological arousal; 2. Arousal → enhanced tendency to perform 'dominant response'; 3. Dominant response is likely to be correct/successful on simple tasks but often incorrect/unsuccessful on unfamiliar, challenging tasks.

Dominant Response

The response elicited most quickly and easily by a given stimulus, which is well learned and does not require much thought.

Zajonc's Study on Cockroaches

Cockroaches completed the easy maze more quickly when they had an audience and completed the difficult maze more slowly when they had an audience.

Physiological Arousal

Increased physiological arousal due to the presence of others, which can affect performance in different ways depending on the specific task.

Performance on Easy Tasks

Enhanced performance is likely when the task is simple or well learned.

Performance on Challenging Tasks

Performance is often impaired on unfamiliar, challenging tasks due to increased physiological arousal.

Influence of Audience

The presence of an audience can produce social facilitation effects.

Meta Analysis by Karau & Williams (1993)

Found social loafing is evident across numerous tasks in many countries around the world.

Social Influence

The effect that the presence of others has on individual behavior in a group context.

Research Evidence on Social Influence

Analysis of research evidence on social influence in the group context.

Class Experiment Interpretation

Interpret the results of our class experiment with reference to relevant theory and research.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this week you should be able to describe, explain, analyze, and interpret social influences on behavior.

Group Context

The social setting in which individuals interact and influence one another's behavior.

Individual Behavior

The actions or reactions of an individual in response to external or internal stimuli.

Evaluation Apprehension Theory

The presence of others will produce social facilitation effects only when others are perceived as potential evaluators, leading to worry about how the audience will judge performance.

Distraction-Conflict Theory

The presence of others will produce social facilitation effects only when others present distract from the task and create attentional conflict.

Deindividuation

A psychological state in which a person becomes submerged in the group, resulting in the loss of one's sense of individuality and the reduction of normal constraints against deviant behavior.

Zimbardo (1969) Observation

Increased arousal, reduced feelings of personal responsibility, and anonymity contribute to deindividuation, exemplified by alcohol-soaked sports fans who riot after a game.

Diffusion of Responsibility

In large groups or crowds, responsibility for behavior is diffused among many people, leading individuals to feel less accountable for their actions.

Diener (1980) Theory

In group situations, attention is often focused externally on the environment and group behavior, reducing objective self-awareness and the likelihood of reflecting on the consequences of actions.

Zimbardo (1970) Method

Female participants were asked to administer shocks to confederates during a learning task, with one group wearing white coats and hoods and referred to as a group, while the other wore everyday clothing and were referred to individually.

Zimbardo (1970) Results

Participants in the group condition administered shocks that were double in intensity compared to those in the individual condition.

Diener, Fraser, Beaman & Kelem (1976) Method

A field experiment on Halloween where 1300 trick-or-treating children were given the opportunity to steal candy under various conditions of anonymity and group presence.

Diener, Fraser, Beaman & Kelem (1976) Results

Children in groups and who were anonymous were most likely to take more than one piece of candy, with stealing increasing threefold under these conditions.

Deindividuation: Always Bad?

Deindividuation does not necessarily lead to bad behavior; it depends on the norms of the group in which one loses oneself.

Johnson & Downing (1979) Critique

Criticized Zimbardo's experiment, suggesting that participants' clothing resembling the KKK may have shaped behaviors in line with those norms.

Johnson & Downing (1979) Findings

Participants dressed as nurses gave fewer shocks to confederates than those in their own clothes, indicating that loss of personal identity does not always lead to negative behavior.

Social Identity Model of Deindividuation (SIDE)

Explains deindividuation as a shift from personal to social identity, focusing on situational group norms.

Conformity to Group Norms

As personal identity fades and internal controls are quieted, social identity emerges, leading to increased conformity to group norms.

Impact of Group Norms

Losing personal identity in a group defined by prejudice and hatred has different consequences than losing oneself in a prosocial group of volunteers.