A group is defined as two or more people who interact and influence one another. Groups meet various human needs such as affiliation, achievement, and social identity. The presence of others can strengthen dominant responses through social facilitation or cause poorer performance if it induces evaluation apprehension. Groups can also intensify pre-existing opinions through group polarization as discussion amplifies the average member tendency. However, groupthink can cause poor decision-making if the group is cohesive, isolated, and has a directive leader as it leads to closed-mindedness and failure to consider alternative viewpoints or warnings.
7. But why do we sometimes perform
poorer in the presence of other
people?
8. The social psychologist ROBERT
ZAJONC (Zy-ence) answered this through the
following idea:
“Arousal enhances whatever
response tendency is dominant.”
9. The effect of others’ presence increases with their
number (Jackson & Latané, 1981; Knowles, 1983).
10. Sometimes the arousal and self-conscious attention
created by a large audience interferes even with well-
learned, automatic behaviors, such as speaking.
11. Being in a crowd also intensifies positive or negative
reactions.
Friendly people are liked even more, and unfriendly people are
disliked even more.
(Schiffenbauer & Schiavo, 1976; Storms & Thomas, 1977)
12. 2. Why are we
aroused in the
presence of
others?
16. B. DRIVEN BY
DISTRACTIONThis conflict between paying attention to others and paying
attention to the task overloads our cognitive system, causing
arousal.
17. C. MERE PRESENCE
The mere presence of others produces some arousal
hinting an innate social arousal mechanism.
19. A. SOCIAL LOAFING
The tendency for people to exert less effort when
they pool their efforts toward a common goal
than when they are individually accountable.
21. Six blindfolded
participants with
headphones (that makes
them hear like other
people were also shouting
with them) were
instructed to shout as loud
as they could and clap as
hard as they could.
22. When being observed increases evaluation
concerns, SOCIAL FACILITATION occurs;
but,
when being lost in a crowd decreases evaluation
concerns, SOCIAL LOAFING occurs.
25. DEINDIVIDUATION
- Loss of self-awareness
and evaluation
apprehension.
- Occurs in group
situations that foster
responsiveness to group
norms, good or bad.
26. A. GROUP SIZE
A group has the power not only to arouse its
members but also to render them unidentifiable.
28. Philip Zimbardo (1970, 2002) experimented with such
anonymity, he dressed New York University women in identical
white coats and hoods.
Asked to deliver electric shocks to a woman, they pressed the
shock button twice as long as did women who were unconcealed
and wearing large name tags.
29. C. AROUSING AND
DISTRACTING ACTIVITIES
Group shouting, chanting, clapping, or dancing
serve both to hype people up and to reduce self-consciousness.
30. There is a self-reinforcing pleasure in acting impulsively
while observing others doing likewise. When we see others
act as we are acting, we think they feel as we do, which
reinforces our own feelings (Orive, 1984).
32. Circumstances that decrease self-
awareness, increase deindividuation.
Deindividuation decreases in
circumstances that increase self-
awareness: mirrors and cameras,
bright lights, large name tags, etc.
37. -Group Polarization in schools
-Group Polarization in communities
-Group Polarization on the Internet
-Group Polarization in Terrorist
Organizations
38. 2. Why do groups
adopt stances
that are more
exaggerated
than that of
their
average
individual
member?
39. A. INFORMATIONAL
INFLUENCEA group discussion elicits a pooling of ideas which could include
ideas that were not previously considered by the individual.
42. Evaluating one’s opinions
and abilities by comparing
oneself with others.
We are most persuaded by
people in our “reference
groups”—groups we
identify with.
43. A false impression of what
most other people are
thinking or feeling, or how
they are responding.
44. The information gleaned from a
discussion mostly favors the
initially preferred alternative,
thus reinforcing support for it.
46. “The mode of thinking
that persons engage in
when concurrence-seeking
becomes so dominant in a
cohesive in-group that it
tends to override realistic
appraisal of alternative
courses of action.”
—Irving Janis (1971)
47. • an amiable, cohesive
group.
• relative isolation of the
group from dissenting
viewpoints.
• a directive leader who
signals what decision he
or she favors.