Social Psych Lecture 26 - Social Influence III

Group Polarization

a group-produced exaggeration of members’ preexisting tendencies

3 features:

1. Refers to average tendency, not split in group

2. Whole group becomes more extreme in initial direction

3. Doesn’t work if a dissenter present

How Does Group Polarization Occur

Two processes:

Social comparison

extreme positions in favorable direction viewed as better (normative influence)

Mutual persuasion

members being new, persuasive information and arguments (informational influence)

Groupthink

group members share such strong motivation to achieve consensus that they lose the ability to evaluate alternative points of view critically

• Based on historical examples: Pearl Harbor, Bay of Pigs

Condition Leading to Groupthink

1. Highly cohesive group 

2. Group isolated from contrary opinions

3. Group led by dominant leader who makes his/her wishes known

Social Loafing

-

Additive task

a task in which each member performs the same (or similar) duties and the final product is the sum of all contributions

• Example: football team executing a play, factory workers making a product

Social loafing

tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool resources toward a common goal (than when they are individually accountable)

Latane et al (1979)

1. Subjects wore headphones and were blindfolded

2. Told would hear cheering/clapping; task was to make same noise as loudly as possible 

3. Conditions:

   1. Control (alone)

   2. Two group

   3. Four group

   4. Six group

Results

More results

Factors that Reduce Social Loafing

Less likely when: 

1. Contribution of each member is identifiable 

• Example: football film study

2. Task is challenging, interesting, or meaningful

• Amish example 

3. Group performance rewarded/punished

4. Other group members are one’s friends

Deindividualization

loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people in a crowd or their identity is concealed

• Leads to increase in impulsive acts

• Leads to increase in deviant acts

Conditions Promoting Deindividualization

1. Anonymity

2. Focusing attention away from self

Johnson & Downing (1979)

1. Told task was to recommend increase or decrease in shock level for another subject (confederate)

2. Clothing conditions:

   1. KKK robe

   2. Nurse outfit

3. Deindividuation conditions:

   1. Deindividuation (face covered)

   2. Control

Results

DV: increased or decreased shock (up to three levels in either direction)

Results: 

1. KKK condition, no hood = +0.75

2. Nurse condition, no hood = -.30

3. KKK condition, hood = +0.97

4. Nurse condition, hood = -1.6

Gergen et al (1973)

1. Four male and four female subjects put in room for one hour

2. No rules; won’t see each other after study

3. Two conditions:

   1. Control (lights on)

   2. Deindividuation (lights off)

Results

Talking: Control condition talked more

Touching others: 0% touched others in control condition; 90% touched others in deindividuation condition

Hugging/kissing: 0% hugged or kissed in control condition; 50% hugged/kissed others in deindividuation condition