Introduction

Group Process
Group processes are the social and cognitive aspects of people working together in
groups. These processes include how groups form, how they make decisions, and how they
perform.

Examples of group processes

 Social facilitation: When the presence of others helps people perform a task
 Social loafing: When people put in less effort when working in a group than when
working alone
 Groupthink: When group members change their opinions to align with the group's
consensus
 Group polarization: When group members make decisions that are more extreme
than their individual opinions

Other group processes are Contagion, Conflict, Anxiety, Consensual validation,

Universality, Family re-enactment, and Instillation of hope.

Group process refers to the behaviors of the members of small working groups
(usually between three and twelve members) as they engage in decision-making and task
performance. Group process includes the study of how group members’ characteristics
interact with the behavior of group members to create effective or ineffective group
performance. Relevant topics include the influences of group norms, group roles, group
status, group identity, and group social interaction as they influence group task
performance and decision-making, the development and change of groups over time, group
task typologies, and decision-making schemes. Relevant group outcomes include group
cohesion, process losses and process gains in performance, free riding, ineffective
information sharing, difficulties in brainstorming, groupthink, and group polarization. Other
variables that influence effective group process include group member diversity, task
attractiveness, and task significance. A variety of techniques are used to improve group
process.

1|Page
The Psychology of Groups
This module assumes that a thorough understanding of people requires a thorough
understanding of groups. Each of us is an autonomous individual seeking our own
objectives, yet we are also members of groups—groups that constrain us, guide us, and
sustain us. Just as each of us influences the group and the people in the group, so, too, do
groups change each one of us. Joining groups satisfies our need to belong, gain information
and understanding through social comparison, define our sense of self and social identity,
and achieve goals that might elude us if we worked alone. Groups are also practically
significant, for much of the world’s work is done by groups rather than by individuals.
Success sometimes eludes our groups, but when group members learn to work together as
a cohesive team their success becomes more certain. People also turn to groups when
important decisions must be made, and this choice is justified as long as groups avoid such
problems as group polarization and groupthink.

Learning Objectives
● Review the evidence that suggests humans have a fundamental need to belong to
groups.
● Compare the sociometer model of self-esteem to a more traditional view of self-
esteem.
● Use theories of social facilitation to predict when a group will perform tasks slowly or
quickly (e.g., students eating a meal as a group, workers on an assembly line, or a
study group).
● Summarize the methods used by Latané, Williams, and Harkins to identify the
relative impact of social loafing and coordination problems on group performance.
● Describe how groups change over time.
● Apply the theory of groupthink to a well-known decision-making group, such as the
group of advisors responsible for planning the Bay of Pigs operation.
● List and discuss the factors that facilitate and impede group performance and
decision making.
● Develop a list of recommendations that, if followed, would minimize the possibility
of groupthink developing in a group.

2|Page
 How many groups are you a part of on a daily basis? Whether it’s family, class, work,
social, sports, church or other areas, we typically spend a good deal of our time and
attention each day interacting with others in groups.

Psychologists study groups because nearly all human activities—working, learning,

worshiping, relaxing, playing, and even sleeping—occur in groups. The lone individual who is
cut off from all groups is a rarity. Most of us live out our lives in groups, and these groups
have a profound impact on our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Many psychologists focus
their attention on single individuals, but social psychologists expand their analysis to include
groups, organizations, communities, and even cultures.

This examines the psychology of groups and group membership. It begins with a
basic question: What is the psychological significance of groups? People are, undeniably,
more often in groups rather than alone. What accounts for this marked gregariousness and
what does it say about our psychological makeup? The module then reviews some of the
key findings from studies of groups. Researchers have asked many questions about people
and groups: Do people work as hard as they can when they are in groups? Are groups more
cautious than individuals? Do groups make wiser decisions than single individuals? In many
cases the answers are not what common sense and folk wisdom might suggest.

The Psychological Significance of Groups

Many people loudly proclaim their autonomy and independence. Like Ralph Waldo
Emerson, they avow, “I must be myself. I will not hide my tastes or aversions . . . . I will seek
my own” (1903/2004, p. 127). Even though people are capable of living separate and apart
from others, they join with others because groups meet their psychological and social
needs.

Across individuals, societies, and even eras, humans consistently seek inclusion over
exclusion, membership over isolation, and acceptance over rejection. As Roy Baumeister
and Mark Leary conclude, humans have a need to belong: “a pervasive drive to form and
maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and impactful interpersonal
relationships” (1995, p. 497). And most of us satisfy this need by joining groups. When

3|Page
surveyed, 87.3% of Americans reported that they lived with other people, including family
members, partners, and roommates (Davis & Smith, 2007). The majority, ranging from 50%
to 80%, reported regularly doing things in groups, such as attending a sports event together,
visiting one another for the evening, sharing a meal together, or going out as a group to see
a movie (Putnam, 2000).

People respond negatively when their need to belong is unfulfilled. For example,
college students often feel homesick and lonely when they first start college, but not if they
belong to a cohesive, socially satisfying group (Buote et al., 2007). People who are accepted
members of a group tend to feel happier and more satisfied. But should they be rejected by
a group, they feel unhappy, helpless, and depressed. Studies of ostracism—the deliberate
exclusion from groups—indicate this experience is highly stressful and can lead to
depression, confused thinking, and even aggression (Williams, 2007). When researchers
used a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner to track neural responses to
exclusion, they found that people who were left out of a group activity displayed heightened
cortical activity in two specific areas of the brain—the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and
the anterior insula. These areas of the brain are associated with the experience of physical
pain sensations (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). It hurts, quite literally, to be left
out of a group.

Affiliation in Groups
Groups not only satisfy the need to belong, they also provide members with
information, assistance, and social support. Leon Festinger’s theory of social
comparison (1950, 1954) suggested that in many cases people join with others to evaluate
the accuracy of their personal beliefs and attitudes. Stanley Schachter (1959) explored this
process by putting individuals in ambiguous, stressful situations and asking them if they
wished to wait alone or with others. He found that people affiliate in such situations—they
seek the company of others.

Although any kind of companionship is appreciated, we prefer those who provide us

with reassurance and support as well as accurate information. In some cases, we also prefer
to join with others who are even worse off than we are. Imagine, for example, how you

4|Page
would respond when the teacher hands back the test and yours is marked 85%. Do you
want to affiliate with a friend who got a 95% or a friend who got a 78%? To maintain a sense
of self-worth, people seek out and compare themselves to the less fortunate. This process is
known as downward social comparison.

Identity and Membership

Groups are not only founts of information during times of ambiguity, they also help
us answer the existentially significant question, “Who am I?” Common sense tells us that
our sense of self is our private definition of who we are, a kind of archival record of our
experiences, qualities, and capabilities. Yet, the self also includes all those qualities that
spring from memberships in groups. People are defined not only by their traits, preferences,
interests, likes, and dislikes, but also by their friendships, social roles, family connections,
and group memberships. The self is not just a “me,” but also a “we.”

Even demographic qualities such as sex or age can influence us if we categorize

ourselves based on these qualities. Social identity theory, for example, assumes that we
don’t just classify other people into such social categories as man, woman, Anglo, elderly, or
college student, but we also categorize ourselves. Moreover, if we strongly identify with
these categories, then we will ascribe the characteristics of the typical member of these
groups to ourselves, and so stereotype ourselves. If, for example, we believe that college
students are intellectual, then we will assume we, too, are intellectual if we identify with
that group (Hogg, 2001).

Groups also provide a variety of means for maintaining and enhancing a sense of
self-worth, as our assessment of the quality of groups we belong to influences our collective
self-esteem (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990). If our self-esteem is shaken by a personal setback,
we can focus on our group’s success and prestige. In addition, by comparing our group to
other groups, we frequently discover that we are members of the better group, and so can
take pride in our superiority. By denigrating other groups, we elevate both our personal and
our collective self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1989).

5|Page
 Mark Leary’s sociometer model goes so far as to suggest that “self-esteem is part of a
sociometer that monitors peoples’ relational value in other people’s eyes” (2007, p. 328). He
maintains self-esteem is not just an index of one’s sense of personal value, but also an
indicator of acceptance into groups. Like a gauge that indicates how much fuel is left in the
tank, a dip in self-esteem indicates exclusion from our group is likely. Disquieting feelings of
self-worth, then, prompt us to search for and correct characteristics and qualities that put us
at risk of social exclusion. Self-esteem is not just high self-regard, but the self-approbation that
we feel when included in groups (Leary & Baumeister, 2000).

Definition of Group Dynamics

Although humans could survive on their own, very few choose to. Most of us will
spend our entire lives within a group as most of our activities – working, school, worshiping,
and playing – take place within groups. There are many definitions of a group. Many would
say that a group requires communication and mutual dependence, while others will require
the inclusion of a shared goal or purpose. A group must include two or more individuals, but
a group's size can vary greatly.

Group dynamics explores how people work together, what factors facilitate cohesion
and cooperation, leadership efficacy, and how groups interact with outside groups. Group
dynamics is the study of the actions, changes, and processes within and between groups.

Group Dynamics and Types of Groups

Groups can be split into two broad categories – primary groups and non-primary
groups. Primary groups will include smaller, more intimate connections such as families,
friends, or close work associates and are often joined involuntarily (i.e. you can’t choose
your family). Members in the primary group regularly interact with one another and spend a
lot of time together. Primary groups also have a lot of influence on their individual
members.

A family is considered a primary group

Non-primary groups include social groups, collectives, or categories. Social groups can be
relatively large and have a more formal organizational structure. Members can come and go

6|Page
as they choose and decide how emotionally involved they wish to be within the group.
Collectives who may behave similarly at any point in time. They may or may not need to
interact to achieve their goals. An example of this is a group of people waiting in line for a
concert.

Five Stages of the Group Dynamics Development

1. Forming – the selection process for members of the group. Individuals ask one
another questions and decide who would be most beneficial to the group. At this
point, the objective is often unclear, but hopefully, with the help of leadership, the
group can begin to form these objectives.
2. Storming – the point at which group members discuss their ideas and begin to form
a plan to complete tasks. Members also start to find their place and discover what
role they wish to play within the group that best suits their identity and skills.
3. Norming – the point at which members have agreed on the best way to achieve their
common goal and have identified the needs of each member. Leadership also
establishes a plan for the group to stay on track.
4. Performing – the point at which a group is working at its highest level of synergy and
cooperation. The goals and individual roles are established, and strong leadership
has enabled members to become self-reliant.
5. Adjourning – coming together to celebrate one another's efforts. Each member
commends one another on completing the project, recognizing that they could not
have achieved their goal on their own.

Group Dynamics in Psychology

When studying group dynamics, researchers are tasked with looking beyond the
individual characteristics of each group and identifying commonalities that are consistent
between most, if not all, groups. The five main elements of group dynamics are
-- interaction, goals, interdependence, structure, and cohesiveness.
Interaction in Group Dynamics

Members of a group are often engaged in some form of interaction. This interaction
can be either positive or negative. Group members make decisions, get into arguments, talk

7|Page
about issues, and even gossip. They may upset each other or offer support. Groups may
work to accomplish difficult tasks, or some may plot against each other.

Group interaction focused on accomplishing a goal is referred to as task interaction.

Task interaction is any behavior within a group that is primarily focused on achieving the
group’s goals, projects, or plans. Coworker must interact with one another to complete their
project

Task interaction requires the coordination of skills and resources within the group.
Contrarily, relationship interaction refers to group behavior that either facilitates or sustains
emotional bonds or behavior that threatens the group’s emotional bonds.

Group Dynamics and Goals

Goals are an important element of a group’s dynamic. Humans innately tend to set
up both short-term and long-term goals as a means of survival. Being in a group intensifies
this behavior. Specific goals within a group may involve members as a whole or just a few
members, but a common goal ultimately unites the group. For example, a jury’s goal is to
decide on a guilty or innocent verdict. A study group’s goal is to ensure everyone in the
group achieves the highest grade possible.

According to McGrath (1984), a group achieves its goals by first generating ideas,
choosing between options, negotiating solutions, and finally executing tasks. Being in a
group can be a meaningful source of inspiration to achieve the group’s goals and the
individual goals of each member of the group.
Interdependence in Group Dynamics

Group members often must depend on one another to achieve their goals. Lebron
James couldn’t win a championship on his own without his team members. Steve Jobs could
not have built the iPhone without the help of engineers, programmers, and other staff. This
is called interdependence.

8|Page
Interdependence refers to how group members must depend on one another to achieve
their collective and individual goals. Interdependence doesn’t just apply to the group’s
goals, but members may also depend on one another to determine their behavior, thoughts,
or feelings.

Different groups may have different levels of interdependence. Some groups can
achieve their goals independently; however, for other groups, interdependence can mean
the difference between life and death, such as a military platoon.

Structure of Group Dynamics

Within a group, the connection between members is organized. This organization is
the group’s structure. Group structure refers to the organization of the roles, norms, and
relationships within a group.

Group roles specify the expected behaviors of group members in their assigned
positions, while the group’s norms specify the standard and expected behaviors in a given
context. Observing the structure of a group can provide the most information about group
dynamics. When first joining a group, a person will likely spend the most time figuring out
where they fit within the group’s structure. If they cannot find their place, it is likely for that
person to decide to leave the group (Forsyth, 2014).

Group Dynamics and Cohesiveness

How the individual members of a group are bound together is the group’s
cohesiveness. Group cohesion is the unity, connection, or bond within a group resulting
from interpersonal bonds or other forces like a shared commitment to achieving the group’s
goals. Without cohesion, a group is at risk of disbanding and falling apart entirely. In a
strong group, the individual members become one entity.

Formal Group Dynamics

Formal group dynamics are in groups created by some organization or entity to
achieve a specific goal. Its formation is deliberate, and the size of the group is often large.

9|Page
Formal group dynamics are more professional, and the hierarchical structure within the
group is imperative.

Formal Group Dynamics Examples

Formal group dynamics can occur in many different settings, from corporations and
universities to churches, military units, and even sports teams. Real-world examples include:
Corporate departments, School committees, Special task forces, Church elders,

Informal Group Dynamics

Informal group dynamics are present in groups created more naturally and usually
arise due to some organizational need or window of opportunity. This type of group
dynamic usually takes place in smaller groups. Members join the group voluntarily, and an
approval process is not usually required. Informal group dynamics do not have a well-
defined structure but can still impact formal group dynamics.

Informal Group Dynamics Examples

Informal group dynamics can arise to fill a need within the formal group dynamic. This could
include interest groups, friendship groups, or reference groups. Real-world examples
include: Gatherings to watch football games, Country clubs, gaming groups.

Group Dynamics Theory

Several group dynamics theories look at how groups and intergroup dynamics can
affect the individual members and the group's function as a whole. They also seek to
understand how and why people perceive a group.

The two most widely accepted group dynamics theories are intergroup
conflict and social identity. Intergroup conflict often occurs when there are limited
resources and groups have to compete, resulting in conflict. Intergroup conflict can easily
result in negative consequences, affecting group performance and achievement of its goals.
However, this theory suggests that it can also result in an increase in solidarity and unity
within each group. Intergroup conflict can be resolved through communication and
problem-solving to eliminate the conflict between the groups.

10 | P a g e
The second theory in group dynamics is social identity. It suggests that social groups are a
significant part of how individuals identify and categorize themselves. A person's social
identity can lead them to compare their group (or ingroup) to outside groups (or outgroups).
As a result, individuals whose social identities are similar are more likely to have an easier
and more comfortable time cooperating (Forsyth, 2014).

Entitativity
Group dynamics psychologists also observe how and why we perceive a congregate
of people as a group. Take, for example, the term entitativity, first coined by social
psychologist Donald Campbell in 1958. Entitativity is the extent to which a group
is perceived as a single entity rather than individuals.

Campbell drew inspiration from the principles of perception identified by Gestalt

psychologists who base their research on how the whole is perceived before the sum of its
parts. Entitativity refers to how a gathering of people may be perceived as a group simply
due to common fate, similarity, proximity, and other Gestalt principles rather than
unrelated individuals. Entitativity has nothing to do with the group's cohesion or unity. For
example, four men walking down the street going the same direction and in the same
proximity will more likely be perceived as a group rather than four random men who
happen to be going the same way.

Thomas Theorem
The Thomas theorem was originally coined by a sociologist named W.I. Thomas in
1928. The Thomas theorem states that "if men define situations as real, they are real in their
consequences" (Thomas & Thomas, 1928, p.572). Relating this statement to group
dynamics, if someone believes they are in a group or perceive a group, then the group is real
in its consequences. The Thomas theorem in group dynamics can easily lead to stereotyping.
For example, say the person who saw those four men thought their group was a part of a
gang. That person perceived they were part of a gang and will, consequentially, begin to
make assumptions about the individuals in the group based on their assumptions about
gangs.

11 | P a g e
On the other end, say those four men walking down the street were told they were part of a
group and began to believe it for themselves. Individuals who believe they are part of a high
entitativity group will likely begin to believe that they are similar to other members of that
group and that they may fit in with them well easily. Those four men may begin to believe
that they are similar simply because they believe they are part of a group.

Group Dynamics - Key takeaways

● Group dynamics is the study of the actions, changes, and processes within groups
and between groups.
● The five main elements of group dynamics are interaction, goals, interdependence,
structure, and cohesiveness.
● Primary groups will include smaller, more intimate connections such as families,
friends, or close work associates and are often joined involuntarily while non-
primary groups include social groups, collectives, or categories.
● The five stages of group dynamics development
are forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
● Interdependence refers to the ways in which group members must depend on one
another to achieve their collective and individual goals.
● Group cohesion is the unity, connection, or bond within a group that is the result of
interpersonal bonds or other forces like a shared commitment to achieving the
group’s goals.

Definition of group behaviour

 A group is defined as two or more people who interact and share a common identity,
belief, purpose, or morals.
 Group behavior refers to the actions, thoughts, or feelings of a collection of people
or individuals within a group
 Group behavior is often guided by a set of rules or regulations that may not always
be the case for every individual within that group.
 Group Behavior and Group Identity
Once we identify with a group, we begin to categorize ourselves within an ingroup
and others in an outgroup. The tendency is to form an “us vs them” mentality and view

12 | P a g e
outgroups as homogeneous and favor our ingroup. Outgroup homogeneity refers to our
tendency to see members of our ingroup as individuals and members of an outgroup as the
same. Ingroup favoritism or ingroup bias refers to our tendency to assume that people
similar to us are like us, favoring ingroup members over outgroup members.

Four Aspects of Group Behavior

There are four aspects of a group’s behavior that may be present within a group.
 Purpose and Mission: Individuals within the group share similar beliefs, values, or
attitudes resulting in a unified mission or purpose. The group may then develop clear
goals or a specific agenda.
 Norms: The group has a clear standard of behavioral norms. These norms are used
to evaluate group members. Behavioral norms may be clearly written as rules, or
they may be informal. However, group members are always aware of what the
behavior norms are.
 Cohesion: How well the group can overcome conflict or other unpleasant
experiences. If cohesion is low, the group may struggle to establish control over its
members and enforce its behavior norms and rules.
 Structure: Each group has a structure for status and authority. This may be
hierarchical or more democratic. There is also a clear dynamic between the leader
and the follower.

Types of Group Behavior

Communal labor, joining protests or a march, acting patriotically, and spectating are
examples of social situations in which group behavior may occur.

Group Behavior: Communal Labor

Communal labor refers to a group that comes together to accomplish a specific task
that benefits the group as a whole. This type of group behavior is usually constructive as
cooperation is imperative for the group to accomplish its task. Members of groups that
gather for communal labor often have common social interests, aspirations, feelings, and a
particular topic.

13 | P a g e
Joining a Protest or March
Another form of group behavior is when individuals join a protest or march. In this
case, individuals come together to protest for or against a cause. A modern-day example of
a protest or demonstration is the one that took place after the murder of George Floyd. Or
the Women’s March that formed following the inauguration of former President Donald
Trump

Acting Patriotically
Groups that have been formed as a result of shared love and pride for their country
are acting patriotically. The behavior of groups who have gathered for this purpose is often
zealous and committed. Groups acting patriotically can be constructive but can also easily
become destructive.

Groups that have been formed as a result of shared love and pride for their country
are acting patriotically. The behavior of groups who have gathered for this purpose is often
zealous and committed. Groups acting patriotically can be constructive but can also easily
become destructive.

Groups that have been formed as a result of shared love and pride for their country
are acting patriotically. The behavior of groups who have gathered for this purpose is often
zealous and committed. Groups acting patriotically can be constructive but can also easily
become destructive.

Culture as a Form of Group Behavior

Humans are social animals capable of learning and adapting their behaviors for
survival. Cultures form as the result of this human trait. Through language, humans have
been able to preserve innovation throughout history. Even though we differ across cultures,
our capacity for culture is the same. Culture enables us to communicate, play, engage in
commerce, and live.

14 | P a g e
 As cultures compete for resources, they evolve over time. A Frenchman in the
fourteenth century might not fully understand a Frenchman in the twenty-first century.
While cultures evolve to survive, the change is not always positive. For example, although
the federal government increased the loan amount a student could borrow for their post-
secondary degree, it may have allowed colleges to raise their tuition costs. (Bundick &
Pollard, 2019). Culture and cultural differences can greatly affect the behavior of groups and
individuals within that group.

Group Behavior – Examples

Group behavior can occur in everyday situations. Here are some examples:
● Planning/executing cultural festival
● Organizing the cleanup of a dirty street corner
● Setting up a community garden
● Black Lives Matter Protests
● March on Washington during the Civil Rights Movement
● Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
● January 6th United States Capitol Attack

Groupthink
When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors of people around us. Whether it is due to normative or informational social
influence, groups have the power to influence individuals. Another phenomenon of group
conformity is groupthink. Groupthink is the modification of the opinions of members of a
group to align with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In group
situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the
group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover,
groupthink can hinder opposing trains of thought. This elimination of diverse opinions
contributes to a faulty decision by the group.

There are several symptoms of groupthink including the following

● perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible—confidence in the strength of the
group

15 | P a g e
 ● believing the group is morally correct—believing it can do no wrong
● self-censorship by group members, such as withholding information to avoid
disrupting the group consensus
● the quashing of dissenting group members’ opinions
● the shielding of the group leader from dissenting views
● perceiving an illusion of unanimity among group members
● holding stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group or others’ with
differing viewpoints (Janis, 1972)

Given the causes and symptoms of groupthink, how can it be avoided? Several
strategies can improve group decision making including seeking outside opinions, voting in
private, having the leader withhold position statements until all group members have voiced
their views, conducting research on all viewpoints, weighing the costs and benefits of all
options, and developing a contingency plan (Janis, 1972; Mitchell & Eckstein, 2009).

Group Polarization
Another phenomenon that occurs within group settings is group polarization. Group
polarization (Teger & Pruitt, 1967) is the strengthening of an original group attitude after the
discussion of views within a group. That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after
discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint.
Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely
lead to stronger opposition. Group polarization explains many actions taken by groups that
would not be undertaken by individuals. Group polarization can be observed at political
conventions, when platforms of the party are supported by individuals who, when not in a
group, would decline to support them. Recently, some theorists have argued that group
polarization may be partly responsible for the extreme political partisanship that seems
ubiquitous in modern society. Given that people can self-select media outlets that are most
consistent with their own political views, they are less likely to encounter opposing
viewpoints. Over time, this leads to a strengthening of their own perspective and of hostile
attitudes and behaviors towards those with different political ideals. Remarkably, political
polarization leads to open levels of discrimination that are on par with, or perhaps exceed,
racial discrimination (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015). A more everyday example is a group’s

16 | P a g e
discussion of how attractive someone is. Does your opinion change if you find someone
attractive, but your friends do not agree? If your friends vociferously agree, might you then
find this person even more attractive?

Social traps refer to situations that arise when individuals or groups of individuals
behave in ways that are not in their best interest and that may have negative, long-term
consequences. However, once established, a social trap is very difficult to escape. For
example, following World War II, the United States and the former Soviet Union engaged in
a nuclear arms race. While the presence of nuclear weapons is not in either party’s best
interest, once the arms race began, each country felt the need to continue producing
nuclear weapons to protect itself from the other.

Social Loafing
Imagine you were just assigned a group project with other students whom you
barely know. Everyone in your group will get the same grade. Are you the type who will do
most of the work, even though the final grade will be shared? Or are you more likely to do
less work because you know others will pick up the slack? Social loafing involves a reduction
in individual output on tasks where contributions are pooled. Because each individual’s
efforts are not evaluated, individuals can become less motivated to perform well. Karau and
Williams (1993) and Simms and Nichols (2014) reviewed the research on social loafing and
discerned when it was least likely to happen. The researchers noted that social loafing could
be alleviated if, among other situations, individuals knew their work would be assessed by a
manager (in a workplace setting) or instructor (in a classroom setting), or if a manager or
instructor required group members to complete self-evaluations.

The likelihood of social loafing in student work groups increases as the size of the
group increases (Shepperd & Taylor, 1999). According to Kamau and Williams (1993),
college students were the population most likely to engage in social loafing. Their study also
found that women and participants from collectivistic cultures were less likely to engage in
social loafing, explaining that their group orientation may account for this.

17 | P a g e
 College students could work around social loafing or “free-riding” by suggesting to
their professors use of a flocking method to form groups. Harding (2018) compared groups
of students who had self-selected into groups for class to those who had been formed by
flocking, which involves assigning students to groups who have similar schedules and
motivations. Not only did she find that students reported less “free riding,” but that they
also did better in the group assignments compared to those whose groups were self-
selected.

Interestingly, the opposite of social loafing occurs when the task is complex and
difficult (Bond & Titus, 1983; Geen, 1989). In a group setting, such as the student work
group, if your individual performance cannot be evaluated, there is less pressure for you to
do well, and thus less anxiety or physiological arousal (Latané, Williams, & Harkens, 1979).
This puts you in a relaxed state in which you can perform your best, if you choose (Zajonc,
1965). If the task is a difficult one, many people feel motivated and believe that their group
needs their input to do well on a challenging project (Jackson & Williams, 1985).

De-individuation
Another way that being part of a group can affect behavior is exhibited in instances in
which deindividuation occurs. Deindividuation refers to situations in which a person may
feel a sense of anonymity and therefore a reduction in accountability and sense of self when
among others. Deindividuation is often pointed to in cases in which mob or riot-like
behaviors occur (Zimbardo, 1969), but research on the subject and the role that
deindividuation plays in such behaviors has resulted in inconsistent results (as discussed in
Granström, Guvå, Hylander, & Rosander, 2009).

Group Behavior
The power of the situation can lead people to conform, or go along with the group,
even in the face of inaccurate information. Conformity to group norms is driven by two
motivations, the desire to fit in and be liked and the desire to be accurate and gain
information from the group. Authority figures also have influence over our behaviors, and
many people become obedient and follow orders even if the orders are contrary to their
personal values. Conformity to group pressures can also result in groupthink, or the faulty

18 | P a g e
decision-making process that results from cohesive group members trying to maintain group
harmony. Group situations can improve human behavior through facilitating performance
on easy tasks, but inhibiting performance on difficult tasks. The presence of others can also
lead to social loafing when individual efforts cannot be evaluated. In this section, you’ll learn
about each of these concepts as well as the influences that lead to helpful, prosocial
behavior.

Stanley Milgram’s Experiment

Conformity is one effect of the influence of others on our thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors. Another form of social influence is obedience to authority. Obedience is the
change of an individual’s behavior to comply with a demand by an authority figure. People
often comply with the request because they are concerned about a consequence if they do
not comply. To demonstrate this phenomenon, we review another classic social psychology
experiment.

Stanley Milgram was a social psychology professor at Yale who was influenced by the
trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal. Eichmann’s defense for the atrocities he
committed was that he was “just following orders.” Milgram (1963) wanted to test the
validity of this defense, so he designed an experiment and initially recruited 40 men for his
experiment. The volunteer participants were led to believe that they were participating in a
study to improve learning and memory. The participants were told that they were to teach
other students (learners) correct answers to a series of test items. The participants were
shown how to use a device that they were told delivered electric shocks of different
intensities to the learners. The participants were told to shock the learners if they gave a
wrong answer to a test item—that the shock would help them to learn. The participants
gave (or believed they gave) the learners shocks, which increased in 15-volt increments, all
the way up to 450 volts. The participants did not know that the learners were confederates
and that the confederates did not actually receive shocks.

In response to a string of incorrect answers from the learners, the participants

obediently and repeatedly shocked them. The confederate learners cried out for help,
begged the participant teachers to stop, and even complained of heart trouble. Yet, when

19 | P a g e
the researcher told the participant-teachers to continue the shock, 65% of the participants
continued the shock to the maximum voltage and to the point that the learner became
unresponsive. What makes someone obey authority to the point of potentially causing
serious harm to another person?

Several variations of the original Milgram experiment were conducted to test the
boundaries of obedience. When certain features of the situation were changed, participants
were less likely to continue to deliver shocks (Milgram, 1965). For example, when the setting
of the experiment was moved to an office building, the percentage of participants who
delivered the highest shock dropped to 48%. When the learner was in the same room as the
teacher, the highest shock rate dropped to 40%. When the teachers’ and learners’ hands
were touching, the highest shock rate dropped to 30%. When the researcher gave the
orders by phone, the rate dropped to 23%. These variations show that when the humanity
of the person being shocked was increased, obedience decreased. Similarly, when the
authority of the experimenter decreased, so did obedience.

20 | P a g e
Reference
 Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience. Authored by: OpenStax College. Located at:
https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-4-conformity-compliance-and-
obedience. License: CC BY: Attribution. License Terms: Download for free at
https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
 Social Influence: Crash Course Psychology #38. Provided by: CrashCourse. Located at:
https://youtu.be/UGxGDdQnC1Y?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOPRKzVLY0jJY-uHOH9KVU6.
License: Other. License Terms: Standard YouTube License
 Abramis, D. J. (1990). Semiconductor manufacturing team. In J. R.
Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don't) (pp. 449–470). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
 Alcoholics Anonymous. (2001). Alcoholics anonymous. New York: Alcoholics
Anonymous World Services.
 Aldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. (1993). Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink
phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 533–552.
 Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Group and intergroup relations. In J. R. Hackman & J. L.
Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work (pp. 227–296). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
 Alderfer, C. P. (1987). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J.
Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 190–222). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 Alderfer, C. P. (1997). Embedded intergroup relations and racial identity theory. In C.
E. Thompson & R. T. Carter (Eds.), Applications of racial identity development theory:
Individual, group, and organizational interventions (pp. 237–263). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

21 | P a g e