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
Contagion, Conflict, Anxiety, Consensual validation, Universality, Family reenactment, and
Instillation of hope.
Stages of group development Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning.
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.

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.

The Psychology of Groups

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. [Image: CC0 Public Domain, https://goo.gl/m25gce]
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 module 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.

The Need to Belong

The need to belong is a strong psychological motivation. [Image: CC0 Public

Domain, https://goo.gl/m25gce]
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
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 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).
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 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 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.

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
Finally, 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. Formal
group dynamics are more professional, and the hierarchical structure within the group is
imperative.
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.

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 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
  Bible studies
 Country clubs
 Dungeons & Dragons 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.
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.
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 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.
1. 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.
2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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 clean up 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

 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
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.

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).
 Deindividuation

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).
GLOSSARY
Group polarization: strengthening of the original group attitude after discussing views within
the group
Groupthink: group members modify their opinions to match what they believe is the group
consensus
Informational social influence: conformity to a group norm prompted by the belief that the
group is competent and has the correct information
Normative social influence: conformity to a group norm to fit in, feel good, and be accepted
by the group
Obedience: change of behavior to please an authority figure or to avoid aversive
consequences
Social facilitation: improved performance when an audience is watching versus when the
individual performs the behavior alone
Social loafing: exertion of less effort by a person working in a group because individual
performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group, thus causing performance
decline on easy tasks.

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 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.
Conformity
Solomon Asch conducted several experiments in the 1950s to determine how people are affected by
the thoughts and behaviors of other people. In one study, a group of participants was shown a series of
printed line segments of different lengths: a, b, and c (Figure 1). Participants were then shown a fourth
line segment: x. They were asked to identify which line segment from the first group (a, b, or c) most
closely resembled the fourth line segment in length.

Figure 1. These line segments illustrate the judgment task in Asch’s conformity study. Which line on the right—a, b,
or c—is the same length as line x on the left?
Each group of participants had only one true, naïve subject. The remaining members of the group
were confederates of the researcher. A confederate is a person who is aware of the experiment
and works for the researcher. Confederates are used to manipulate social situations as part of the
research design, and the true, naïve participants believe that confederates are, like them, uninformed
participants in the experiment. In Asch’s study, the confederates identified a line segment that was
obviously shorter than the target line—a wrong answer. The naïve participant then had to identify
aloud the line segment that best matched the target line segment.
How often do you think the true participant aligned with the confederates’ response? That is, how
often do you think the group influenced the participant, and the participant gave the wrong answer?
Asch (1955) found that 76% of participants conformed to group pressure at least once by indicating
the incorrect line. Conformity is the change in a person’s behavior to go along with the group,
even if he does not agree with the group. Why would people give the wrong answer? What factors
would increase or decrease someone giving in or conforming to group pressure?
The Asch effect is the influence of the group majority on an individual’s judgment.
What factors make a person more likely to yield to group pressure? Research shows that the size
of the majority, the presence of another dissenter, and the public or relatively private nature of re
sponses are key influences on conformity.

 The size of the majority: The greater the number of people in the majority, the more likely an
individual will conform. There is, however, an upper limit: a point where adding more
members does not increase conformity. In Asch’s study, conformity increased with the number
of people in the majority—up to seven individuals. At num
Numbers beyond seven, conformity leveled off and decreased slightly (Asch, 1955).
The presence of another dissenter: If there is at least one dissenter, conformity rates drop to
near zero (Asch, 1955).
The public or private nature of the responses: When responses are made publicly (in front of
others), conformity is more likely; however, when responses are made privately (e.g.,
writing down the response), conformity is less likely (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).
The finding that conformity is more likely to occur when responses are public than when
they are private is the reason government elections require voting in secret, so we are not
coerced by others (Figure 2). The Asch effect can be easily seen in children when they have
to publicly vote for something. For example, if the teacher asks whether the children would
rather have extra recess, no homework, or candy, once a few children vote, the rest will
comply and go with the majority. In a different classroom, the majority might vote
differently, and most of the children would comply with that majority. When someone’s
vote changes if it is made in public versus private, this is known as compliance. Compliance
can be a form of conformity. Compliance is going along with a request or demand, even if
you do not agree with the request. In Asch’s studies, the participants complied by giving the
wrong answers, but privately did not accept that the obvious wrong answers were correct.

A photograph shows a row of curtained voting booths; two are occupied by people.
Figure 2. Voting for government officials in the United States is private to reduce the
pressure of conformity. (credit: Nicole Klauss)

Now that you have learned about the Asch line experiments, why do you think the
participants conformed? The correct answer to the line segment question was obvious, and it
was an easy task. Researchers have categorized the motivation to conform into two types:
normative social influence and informational social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).

In normative social influence, people conform to the group norm to fit in, to feel good, and
to be accepted by the group. However, with informational social influence, people conform
because they believe the group is competent and has the correct information, particularly
when the task or situation is ambiguous. What type of social influence was operating in the
Asch conformity studies? Since the line judgment task was unambiguous, participants did
not need to rely on the group for information. Instead, participants complied to fit in and
avoid ridicule, an instance of normative social influence.
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 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 (Figure 4). What
makes someone obey authority to the point of potentially causing serious harm to an other
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.
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

1. 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.

Google Scholar
2. Alcoholics Anonymous. (2001). Alcoholics anonymous. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World
Services.

Google Scholar

3. 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.

View

Google Scholar

4. 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.

Google Scholar

5. 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.

Google Scholar

6. 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.

Google Scholar

7. Alge, B. J., Wiethoff, C., & Klein, H. J. (2003). When does the medium
matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making
teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 26–37.

View

Web of Science®Google Scholar

8. Allen, N. J., & Hecht, T. D. (2004). The “romance of teams”: Toward an

understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77, 439–461.

View

Web of Science®Google Scholar

9. Allmendinger, J., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. V. (1996). Life
and work in symphony orchestras. The Musical Quarterly, 80, 194–219.

View

Web of Science®Google Scholar

10. Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Google Scholar

11. Ancona, D., & Bresman, H. (2007). X-teams: How to build teams that lead,
innovate, and succeed. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Google Scholar

12. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992a). Bridging the boundary: External
activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.

View

Web of Science®Google Scholar

13. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992b). Demography and design:

Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3, 321–341.

View

Web of Science®Google Scholar

14. Ancona, D. G., & Chong, C. (1996). Entrainment: Pace, cycle, and rhythm in
organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 251–284.

Web of Science®Google Scholar

15. Ancona, D. G., & Nadler, D. A. (1989, Fall). Top hats and executive tales:
Designing the senior team. Sloan Management Review, 19–29.

Google Scholar

16. Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking

time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26, 512–529.

View
 Web of Science®Google Scholar

17. Andrews, K. T., Ganz, M., Baggetta, M., Han, H., & Lin, C. (in
press). Leadership, membership, and voice: Civic associations that work. American Journal of
Sociology.

Google Scholar

18. Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring

knowledge. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

Web of Science®Google Scholar

19. Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. (2001). Group learning in
organizations. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 369–411). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Google Scholar

20. Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R.

L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of
others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 1–8.

View

Web of Science®Google Scholar

21. Argote, L., Insko, C. A., Yovetich, N., & Romero, A.

A. (1995). Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group
performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 512–529.

View

Web of Science®Google Scholar

22. Argyris, C. (1964). T-Groups for organizational effectiveness. Harvard Business

Review, 42(2), 60–74.

Web of Science®Google Scholar

23. Argyris, C. (1969). The incompleteness of social psychological theory: Examples from small
group, cognitive consistency, and attribution research. American Psychologist, 24, 893–908.

View
 Web of Science®Google Scholar

24. Argyris, C. (1993). Education for leading–learning. Organizational Dynamics, 21(3), 5–17.
View

Web of Science®Google Scholar

25. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Google Scholar

26. Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw method: Building cooperation in the
classroom ( 2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Google Scholar

27. Arrow, H. (1997). Stability, bistability, and instability in small group influence
patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 75–85.

View

Web of Science®Google Scholar

28. Arrow, H. (2005). Chaos, complexity, and catastrophe: The nonlinear dynamics perspective.
In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 201–220). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

View

Google Scholar