Scribd
Upload
261 views33 pages

Chapter 8 - Group Influences, Spring 2021

The chapter discusses how groups can influence individuals. It defines key concepts like social facilitation, social loafing, and deindividuation that explain how people are affected by the mere presence of others. The chapter also examines phenomena like group polarization, groupthink, and minority influence that demonstrate how social interaction within groups can shape members' opinions, decisions, and behaviors.

Uploaded by

Miranda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
261 views33 pages

Chapter 8 - Group Influences, Spring 2021

The chapter discusses how groups can influence individuals. It defines key concepts like social facilitation, social loafing, and deindividuation that explain how people are affected by the mere presence of others. The chapter also examines phenomena like group polarization, groupthink, and minority influence that demonstrate how social interaction within groups can shape members' opinions, decisions, and behaviors.

Uploaded by

Miranda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 33

GROUP INFLUENCE

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change
the world”. Anthropologist Margaret Mead

Chapter 8
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter, you will:
 Have learned the definition of group.
 Know the concept of Social Facilitation: Understand how

and why we are affected by the presence of others.


 Be able to explain the concept of Social Loafing: Do

individuals work better with others or alone?


 You will understand the concept of Deindividuation:

When and why people lose their sense of self-control.


 You will be able to explain the concept of Group

Polarization: Do groups help intensify our opinion?


 You will be able to identify Groupthink: Do groups hinder

or assist good decision?


 You will be able to explain when and how a minority can

influence the majority.


GROUP
Two or more people
who, for longer than
a few moments,
interact with and
influence one
another, and
perceive one another
as “us”.
MINIMAL GROUP
SITUATIONS
SITUATIONS IN WHICH GROUPS HAVE
MINIMAL INTERACTION
Three effects that have to do with the mere presence
of others:
1. Social Facilitation
2. Social Loafing
3. Deindividuation
Social influence in interacting groups; three examples:
4. Group polarization
5. Groupthink
6. Minority influence
SOCIAL FACILITATION
 Tendency of people
to perform simple
or well-learned
tasks better when
others are present.
Or “performance is
stronger in the
presence of others”
SOCIAL FACILITATION (CONT.)

 Norman Triplett observed that adolescents


wound a fishing reel faster in the presence of
others working on the same task.

 It has been found that the presence of


observers improves a person’s performance
on easy tasks and hinders a person’s
performance on difficult tasks.
SOCIAL FACILITATION
EXAMPLES:

Winding Fishing Reels Bicycle Racing


CROWDING: We experience
Means “the presence
of many others”. evaluation
 Being in a crowd apprehension,
meaning that
intensifies positive
observers make us
or negative
apprehensive
reactions.
because we wonder
 The effect of others’
how they are
presence increases evaluating us; it is
with their number. concern for how
 Crowding enhances
others are evaluating
arousal. us.
EVALUATION APPREHENSION
Means “concern for
how others are
evaluating us”.
 Enhancement of

dominant
responses are
stronger when we
think we are being
evaluated.
SOCIAL LOAFING
 Tendency for
people to display
less effort when
they are pulling
their efforts
toward a
common goal.
EXAMPLE: Clapping and Shouting
Blindfolded subjects
were observed to
clap louder when
they thought they
were clapping alone
than when they
thought they were
clapping with
others.
EXAMPLE: Working in Groups
 Students working in
groups on major
course papers,
where every member
will get the same
grade, leads to
social loafing.
DEINDIVIDUATION
 In a large group, people
are aroused but their
feelings of responsibility
are diminished.
 Individuals who are

normally law-abiding
may vandalize and loot
when they become a
part of a mob, due to
individuation.
DEINDIVIDUATION
This is “Doing Together What We Would Not Do
Alone”

People may experience 1) mild lessening of


restraint, such as throwing food in a dining
hall, or screaming at a rock concert, 2) to
impulsive self-gratification, such as orgies,
thefts, and vandalism), 3) to destructive social
explosions, such as police brutality and even
lynchings.
GROUP SIZE & ANONIMITY
 The bigger the  A group has the
mob, the more its power to arouse its
members lose self- members and
awareness and render them
become willing to unidentifiable.
commit atrocities.  Internet offers
 People’s attention anonymity to do
is focused in the things we normally
situation, not on would not do, copy
themselves. music, etc.
MASKED BANDITS
 may be more
likely than
unmasked
bandits to
physically injure
their victims
due to
deindividuation.
TRIBAL WARRIORS

 Who depersonalize
themselves with
war paints are more
likely than those
with exposed faces
to kill, torture, and
mutilate captured
enemies, due to
deindividuation.
SELF-AWARENESS
 A self-conscious
state in which
attention focuses
on oneself. It makes
people more
sensitive to their
attitudes and
dispositions.
GROUP POLARIZATION
 Increaseof a
group’s prevailing
attitudes through
discussion within
the group.
Tendency of a
group’s ideas to
become stronger
through group
discussion.
TERRORISM IS SHARED
It arises among
people whose
shared grievances
bring them
together.
Many are radicalized
through internet
exposure.
EXPLAINING GROUP POLARIZATION
using the following theories”
Due to arguments Theory of Normative
presented during the Influence: Influence
discussion, has to do based on a person’s
with the Theory of desire to be accepted
Informational or admired by
Influence: which is others. Concerns
information that how members of a
results from accepting group view
evidence about reality. themselves versus
the other members
INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE
 People hear each
other’s arguments
and learn their
positions.
 Active participation

in discussion
produces more
attitude change
NORMATIVE INFLUENCE
 Evaluating one’s
 A false impression of
opinions & abilities what most other
people are thinking or
by comparing oneself
feeling, or how they
with others.
are responding.
 We want people to  When people learn
like us, so we may other’s positions they
express stronger will adjust their
opinions when we responses to maintain
discover others share a socially favorable
our views. position.

SOCIAL COMPARISON PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE


GROUPTHINK
 Thinking which occurs for the sake of keeping
harmony with a decision making group,
overriding realistic alternatives.
 An overwhelming desire for harmony in a

decision-making group increases the


probability of groupthink.
 The consequences may be devastating
EXAMPLES INVOLVING
GROUPTHINK
 Kennedy’s invasion of
Cuba
 Failure to anticipate

the 1941 Japanese


attack on Pearl
Harbor
 Watergate coverup
 The Challenger

launch that ended in


accident
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK
 An illusion of invulnerability – excessive optimism that
blinds them to warnings of danger.
 Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality.

 Rationalization – justifying their decisions.

 Stereotyped view of the opponent (too weak, or too evil, or

too unintelligent to negotiate with).


 Conformity pressure – doubters are rebuffed, and prefer to

fall inline rather than to be ridiculed.


 Self-censorship – to avoid disagreements, members withhold

or discount their misgivings.


 Illusion of unanimity – apparent consensus. They all agree,

apparently.
 Mindguards – protecting from disagreeable facts, rather
than physical harm
PREVENTING GROUPTHINK
Be impartial – do not endorse any position.
Encourage critical evaluation - assign a
“devil’s advocate”.
Occasionally subdivide the group, then reunite
to air differences.
Welcome critiques from outside experts.
Call a “second chance” meeting to air lingering
doubts before implementing.
DETERMINANTS OF
MINORITY INFLUENCE
How can a minority influence the
majority?

1. Consistency
2. Self-Confidence
3. Defection from the Majority
CONSISTENCY
 More influential
than a majority that
wavers is a minority
that sticks to its
position.
 Social history is

made by a minority
that sways the
majority.
SELF-CONFIDENCE
 Consistency and
persistence convey
self-confidence.
 Being firm and

forceful the
minority may
prompt the majority
to reconsider.
DEFECTION FROM
THE MAJORITY
When a minority
consistently doubts the
majority, majority
members feel freer to
express their doubts
and may even switch to
the minority.
One person who defected
from the majority was
even more persuasive
than a consistent
minority.
GROUP LEADERS
Through their task  Those who
and social continually press
leadership, formal toward their goals
and informal and exude a self-
leaders exert confident charisma
disproportionate often engender
influence. trust and inspire
others to follow.

You might also like