Lecture 3: Lecture 3:

Social Influence IISocial Influence IISocial Facilitation (cont),

& Social Loafing

OutlineOutline• Recap—what did we learn last week?

• Social facilitation– Theories of Social Facilitation

• Mere Presence theory• Distraction-Conflict theory• Evaluation-Apprehension theory

• Social Loafing– What is social loafing? – Social loafing in day-to-day life– Studies of social loafing– Factors that may increase or reduce social loafing

Let’s recap….Let’s recap….

• Social facilitation– Triplett (1898) found that the presence of

others improves performance (social facilitation)

– However, Pessin (1933) found the opposite pattern of results (social interference)

– Zajonc (1965) developed the mere presence theory—explained both sets of results (i.e., social facilitation and social interference)

The mere presence of others

Increases our arousal

Increases our performance on

well-learned tasks

Impairs our performance on

poorly learned tasks

Evidence for the Mere Presence Evidence for the Mere Presence TheoryTheory

• But, there were critics…..

Distraction-Conflict TheoryDistraction-Conflict Theory

• Baron, Moore, & Sander (1978)– The presence of others may

influence our performance because they are cognitively distracting

Distraction-Conflict Theory (cont)Distraction-Conflict Theory (cont)

• The presence of others is arousing because it causes

conflict between two basic tendencies:

1. whether to pay attention to the presence of others

OR2. whether to concentrate on the task at hand

This conflict results in increased arousal, which either facilitates or inhibits our performance.

• Sanders & Baron (1975)– Simple or complex copying tasks (shown

to be drive/arousal related)– Two conditions: distraction or non

distraction– There were 10 trials—worked on each

trial for 40 sec with a 10 sec rest period between each trial

• In the distraction condition, during each trial, participants received 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 distraction signals

X

• In the non-distraction controls, participants worked uninterrupted

• FOUND:

In the simple task, distraction facilitated performance (i.e., performed the task better when distracted)

In the complex task, distraction impaired performance (i.e., performed the task worse when distracted)

Support for the distraction-conflict theory (we are “driven by distraction”)

• BUT does this reflect real life?

Worringham & Messick, 1983• Looked at evaluation apprehension and joggers• Evaluation condition: confederate watched them

jog Mere presence condition: confederate looked

away from the jogger Alone condition: jogged without confederate

FOUND: Jogged faster when the confederate was watching support for evaluation apprehension theory of social facilitation

Evaluation-Apprehension Evaluation-Apprehension TheoryTheory

• Cottrell– Is it just the mere physical

presence of others that affects our performance, or the fact that we are being evaluated by others?

– Conducted a study where the audience was manipulated

Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak, & Rittle (1968)– Asked to memorise lists of nonsense

words – Varied the amount of practice—

1, 2, 5, 10, 25 trials

BIWONJI CIVADRAFEVKANI LOKANTA MECBURI NANSOMAPARITAF SARIDIK

ZABULON

– Manipulated who watched the participant

1. Alone condition

2. Audience condition

3. Mere presence condition

• If the mere presence theory is correct, then it shouldn’t matter if the audience is watching the participant or not—both groups should show facilitation

• If evaluation apprehension theory is right, then facilitation should only be apparent in the audience condition

FOUND: Social facilitation was most apparent in the audience condition (support for the evaluation apprehension theory)

Overall…Overall…

• So, we have examined several explanations for social facilitation

• These explanations may not be mutually exclusive

• Depending on the situation and the particular task, it is possible that all these processes may work together to affect performance

Social LoafingSocial Loafing

• However, there are instance where the presence of others has the opposite effect.

• That is, sometimes we don’t work as hard in the presence of others as we do when we are alone, especially if our behaviour is not under surveillance.

• This phenomenon is known as social loafing

• Social facilitation demonstrates that the presence of others can motivate us to increase our performance in particular tasks.

What is Social Loafing?What is Social Loafing?

• Social loafing is the reduction in motivation and effort when individuals work collectively compared with when they work individually or coactively.

• It differs from social facilitation. – Social facilitation: occurs when a person is

in the presence of an audience or a co-actor; their performance can be evaluated.

– Social loafing: occurs in a group situation where the performance of the individual can not be differentiated or evaluated.

Social Loafing in Everyday Social Loafing in Everyday LifeLife

• Social loafing occurs constantly in day-to-day life…

Ringelmann (1913)

• Examined tug-o-war• Asked German workers to pull as

hard as they could on a rope: a. Aloneb. Or with 1, 2, or 7 others

• Then used a strain gauge to measure how hard they pulled in kilograms of pressure

• Now, social facilitation would predict that we would pull more in the presence of others

Alone = 63 kg

How much did they pull?

Group of 3 = 160kg(only 85% of solo effort)

How much would we expect them to pull?

Group of 3 = 189kg

Group of 8 = 248kg(only 49% of solo effort)

Group of 8 = 504kg

• Thus, the collective group effort increases, however at a rate that is substantially less than the sum of individual efforts

MAJOR SLACKING OFF!

• But what if these results were due not to slacking off, but because of problems that arise from performing in a group?

Alan Ingham & his colleagues (1974)

• Replicated the tug-o-war study to see whether reductions in individual effort were due to problems with group performance or reductions in personal exertion

Studies of Social LoafingStudies of Social Loafing

• Changed the perception of group size. – Participants were blindfolded– Led to believe that they were

pulling the rope alone or with others (but in actual fact, they were always pulling alone)

– Thus, bad group performance could not be blamed on dodgy group members

• FOUND: – Individuals pulled at 90% of their alone rate when

they believed that they were pulling the rope with one other puller, and only 85% of their alone rate when they believed that they were pulling the rope with 2 to 6 other pullers

Bibb Latané, Kipling Williams, & Steven Harkins (1978)

• They called this phenomenon social loafing

• Instead of pulling on a rope, they looked at clapping and cheering

Study 1 • Participants clapped or cheered for 5

sec• Always in the presence of others but

clapped and cheered under several conditions: – By themselves, – In pairs– In groups of 4 & 6.

FOUND:

– Individuals: 84dB clapping, 87dB cheering

– Groups of 6: 91dB clapping, 95dB cheering

• However, average sound pressure per person decreased with group size

But again, what if you have a dodgy group?

Study 2 • Participants clapped or cheered for 5 sec• They wore headsets and blindfolds• Always in the presence of others but

clapped and cheered under several conditions: – By themselves, in pairs, and in groups of 4 &

6.

FOUND:

• Groups cheered and clapped louder than individuals

• However, as the noise level increased, the amount of noise made by each individual decreased

support for social loafing (not dodgy group performance)

1. Evaluation Potential• When performing in a group, your

individual input can not be evaluated.

• Thus, you can…– “hide in the crowd” and avoid taking

the blame for a poor performance– But you can also feel “lost in a

crowd,” that is, you can not receive your fair share of the credit

Why do we Socially Loaf?Why do we Socially Loaf?

2. Dispensability of Effort• Individuals exert less effort when

working collectively because they feel that their input is not essential to a high–quality group product (i.e., they are “dispensable”)

3. Matching of Effort• When working collectively, people

match their efforts to their co-workers• Social loafing occurs because individuals

expect others to slack off, and thus they reduce their own efforts to maintain equity

Say you were on Say you were on ‘Survivor’…‘Survivor’…

Gender• Females are less likely to socially loaf than

males

Say you were on ‘Survivor’…Say you were on ‘Survivor’…

Culture• People from Eastern collectivist countries are less

likely to socially loaf than people from Western cultures

Say you were on ‘Survivor’…Say you were on ‘Survivor’…

Relationship between group members• Social loafing tends to be eliminated

when working with close friends or team-mates

Group Members1. Gender

• Females are less likely to socially loaf than males

2. Culture• Those from Eastern/Collectivist cultures are

less likely to socially loaf than those from Western cultures

3. Relationship between group members• Social loafing tends to be eliminated when

working with close friends or team-mates

Factors that may influenceFactors that may influence Social Loafing Social Loafing

The Task

• Social loafing occurs in simple or additive tasks

– Ensure that the task is interesting or complex. Or ensure that individuals perform unique subtasks.

Management Factors

• Try to identify individual effort – Give each member a sub-task

• Provide members with a standard against which to evaluate their performance or the performance of the group

• Try to ensure that all members feel that their contribution is indispensable

1. Organisations

e.g., Division of labour, communication of performance, office layout

2. Sport

e.g., training practices

Social Loafing and the Social Loafing and the Real WorldReal World

Where you should park your car in the US if you want it stripped in under a day…

What not to say to someone who is about to jump off a building…

And fun things you can do with a shock machine….

Next Time…Next Time…