Social Facilitation & Social Loafing

What is a group?

2+ people who interact, influence each other and perceive each other as ‘us’.

Characteristics of group membership:

• Interaction
• Mutual influence
• Shared identity

Examples of groups vs. non-groups:

• Band of musicians = group
• People in an elevator = not a group

Evolutionary Advantages of Group Living

1. Protection from threats
2. Efficient food gathering
3. Assistance in raising children

Social Facilitation & the Mere Presence Effect

Social Facilitation:

The tendency to perform tasks differently in the presence of others.

Mere Presence Effect:

The presence of others can enhance our performance on well-learned tasks due to increased physiological arousal

Evaluation Apprehension:

People perform better on tasks due to concern about being judged by others

History & Evidence for Social Facilitation

Triplett’s Classic Study:

• Children wound fishing cords faster when paired with other children
• 40 children winding a 4 meter silk cord using a fishing reel
• Showed that the presence of others can enhance performance on simple tasks

Evidence in Animals:

• Ants move more sand working in groups than alone
• Animals & fish eat more in the presence of others
• Not just limited to humans

Contradictory Findings:

• Allport found performance in simple tasks can improve in the presence of others, however for more familiar or complex tasks being observed could decrease performance

Why does social influence affect performance?

Arousal & Dominant Response

Zajonc (1965)

• Presence of other people increases physiological arousal –> strengthens the dominant response
• Dominant response = behaviour we are most likely to perform in a given situation
• On simple tasks, dominant response if often correct = improved performance
• Complex task, dominant response often incorrect = decreased performance

Mere Presence vs Evaluation Apprehension

• It might also be the fear of judgement that influences performance
• Evaluation apprehension
• Fear of judgement over just the enhanced arousal

Empirical Evidence

Mere Evidence:

Zajonc (1969)

• Cockroaches in pairs performed better in the maze that utilised their dominant response (running straight away from light)
• Cockroaches in a maze performed better when alone
• Mere presence of others improves dominant reponses & hinders performance of non dominant responses

Why does the presence of others increase arousal?

1. We become more alert & motivated
2. We are afraid of being judged/ evaluated

Markus (2978)

• Tested whether social facilitation is driven more by mere presence or evaluation apprehension
• Patients asked to change into lab clothing and back while being covertly timed
• Familiar task= changing their own shoes
• Unfamiliar task = putting on an oversized lab coat
• 3 conditions
  • Alone
  • Non-attentive observer
  • Attentive observer

Findings:

• Presence of others led to faster performance in familiar tasks, slower in unfamiliar tasks regardless of who was watching
• Both mere presence & evaluation apprehension contribute to social facilitation

Social Loafing

• When being part of a team reduces effort compared to working alone

Ringlemann (1913)

• Used a dynamometer attached to rope to see how people perform pulling a load alone vs in a group
• As group size increased, individual effort decreased
• Hinted at motivational factors

Ingham et al. (1974): Motivation Loss

• Studies whether reduction in individual effort observed in groups was due to motivational factors
• People pulled on a rope 18% harder when they believed they were alone, compared to when they thought they had a team
• People decrease motivation & effort when they think they are part of a group

Social Loafing (Latane et al.1979)

• Social Loafing= tendency for people to exert less effort when working collectively vs alone
• People clapped 1/3 louder when they thought they were alone than when they they thought there were others in the room
• More people decreases perceived accountability & motivation
• When people’s individual effort can be identified, effort increases once more

Helping Behaviour & The Bystander Effect

The By Stander Effect

• Individuals are less likely to help in emergencies when others are present

The case of Kitty Genovese:

• 1964 Kitty was attacked outside her New York apartment
• Despite her cries for help, no one did anything
• Attack lasted 30 mintues
• Supposedly 38 residents did nothing, although this was later proven not entirely true

Why didn’t people help?

• Emergency situations are ambiguous, unexpected and dangerous
• People look to others to respond

How do Groups Affect Helping?

Smoke-Filled Room Experiment (Latané & Darley, 1968)

Aim

• To investigate how the presence of others affects helping behaviour in an ambiguous emergency situation.

Procedure

• Participants completed a questionnaire:
  • either alone
  • or with other people (including calm confederates).
• Smoke slowly began entering the room through a wall vent.

Findings

• Participants alone:
  • noticed the smoke faster
  • were more likely to report it.
• Participants in groups:
  • responded more slowly
  • often misinterpreted the smoke as harmless (e.g., air conditioning, steam).
• Participants with two calm confederates were the least likely to seek help.

Key Concept: Pluralistic Ignorance

• In ambiguous situations, people look to others for cues about how to react.
• If everyone appears calm, individuals assume the situation is not an emergency.
• This leads to inaction even when help may be needed.

Conclusion

• The presence of others can reduce helping behaviour.
• Demonstrates the bystander effect.

Woman Falling Experiment (Latané & Rodin, 1969)

Aim

• To examine whether bystanders would help during what appeared to be an emergency involving injury.

Procedure

• Male participants heard:
  • a female researcher fall,
  • scream,
  • and cry out in pain: “I can’t move… my ankle, I can’t get this thing off me.”

Findings

• Many participants did not intervene.
• Some reinterpreted the event as:
  • a minor accident,
  • or not serious enough to require help.
• Others avoided helping to prevent embarrassment.

Important Finding

• The bystander effect is weaker when people know each other.
• Acquaintances are:
  • more concerned for one another
  • more likely to interpret the situation as a real emergency.

Conclusion

• People may fail to help even in clear distress situations.
• Social relationships influence helping behaviour.

Seizure Experiment (Darley & Latané, 1968)

Aim

• To test whether bystanders must be physically present for the bystander effect to occur.

Procedure

• Participants believed they were discussing university life over an intercom.
• They thought there were:
  • between 1 and 5 other participants,
  • all located in separate rooms.
• During the discussion, a confederate appeared to have a seizure:
  • speaking incoherently
  • pleading for help.

Key Manipulation

• Researchers varied how many bystanders participants believed were listening.

Findings

• As the number of perceived bystanders increased:
  • helping became less likely
  • response times became slower.
• Even believing others were present was enough to reduce helping.

Additional Finding

• Participants often denied that others influenced their behaviour, saying things like: “I would have reacted the same way if they weren’t there.”

Conclusion

• Physical presence is not necessary for the bystander effect.
• Perceived social presence alone can inhibit helping behaviour.

Key Psychological Mechanisms

Pluralistic Ignorance

Definition

• In ambiguous situations, people look to others for cues about how to react.
• If nobody else appears concerned, individuals may assume the situation is not serious, even if they personally feel uncertain.

How it Works

• Everyone observes everyone else’s calm behaviour.
• This creates a false impression that help is unnecessary.
• As a result, the seriousness of the situation is underestimated by the whole group.

Outcome

• Leads to hesitation and inaction in emergencies.
• Contributes to the bystander effect.

Example

• In the smoke-filled room experiment, participants ignored the smoke because others appeared calm.

Diffusion of Responsibility

Definition

• As the number of bystanders increases, each individual feels less personally responsible for helping.

How it Works

• People assume:
  • someone else will help,
  • someone more qualified will intervene,
  • or responsibility belongs to the group rather than themselves.

Outcome

• The likelihood of helping decreases as group size increases.
• Emergencies may receive slower responses.

Example

• In the seizure experiment, participants were less likely to help when they believed more people were listening.

Emotional Experience of Bystanders

Key Idea

• Bystanders are not usually uncaring or indifferent.
• Many genuinely want to help.

Common Emotional Reactions

• Anxiety
• Uncertainty
• Conflict
• Fear of embarrassment
• Stress about making the wrong decision

Darley & Latané’s View

• The typical bystander is:
  • emotionally conflicted,
  • distressed,
  • and struggling to decide what to do under social pressure.

Conclusion

• Failure to help is often caused by social and psychological pressures rather than lack of empathy.

Stages of Bystander Decision-Making

Other Factors:

• Feeling a sense of prior commitment increases personal responsibility
• Being in a hurry reduces helping behaviour

How to increase helping behaviours:

• Make situation unambiguous by clearly stating the issue and what help is needed -> reduces pluralistic ignorance
• Assign responsibility directly -> reduces diffusion of responsibility

Important Clarification About the Bystander Effect

• Bystander research shows that the presence of others reduces the likelihood that any one individual will help.
• However, this does not mean that help is unlikely overall.

Example: Seizure Study

• In the seizure experiment:
  • about 85% of participants helped when alone
  • only around 31% helped when others were present.
• Even so, if there are several bystanders, the overall chance that someone helps becomes much higher.

Combined Probability of Helping

• Example:
  • if 5 bystanders each have a 31% chance of helping,
  • the probability that at least one person intervenes rises to about 84%.
• With even larger groups, the probability increases further.

Key Idea

• Individuals are less likely to act in groups,
• but groups contain more potential helpers overall.

Study of CCTV Footage — Philpot et al. (2020)

Aim

• To examine helping behaviour in real-world emergencies using CCTV footage.

Procedure

• Researchers analysed:
  • 219 real-world incidents
  • across:
    • the UK
    • the Netherlands
    • South Africa.
• Most incidents involved multiple bystanders.

Findings

• At least one person intervened in around 90% of cases.

Interpretation

• In real-life emergencies, help is usually provided by someone.
• Although responsibility is diffused across bystanders, the overall likelihood of intervention increases with group size.

Important Note

• Responses may still be:
  • slower,
  • hesitant,
  • or influenced by pluralistic ignorance.

Overall Conclusion

The Bystander Effect Does NOT Mean:

• nobody will help in a group.

Instead, It Means:

• each individual feels less personal responsibility,
• making any one person less likely to act.

However:

• larger groups increase the cumulative probability that someone will eventually help.

De-individuation & Group Behaviour

Deindividuation = when people lose their sense of individual identity in group settings

• Leads to reduced self awareness & personal responsibility

Features that can lead to it:

• Anonymity
• group immersion
• heightened arousal

Why does De-individuation occur?

Emergent properties of the group:

• Feeling anonymous in a group causes people to act in ways that may differ from their norms
• People prioritise group mood over their own values

Diminished personal restraint:

• Heightened arousal & reduced accountability within group setting
• People have less restraint
• Can be more aggressive
• People feel less identifiable
• People get more impulsive

Le Bon’s Perspective on Group Behaviour

French sociologist, Le Bon (1895) wrote:

By the mere fact that he forms part of an organised crowd, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilisation.

• People in crowds lose self awareness & are influenced by the group mind

How Anonymity and Groups Shape Behaviour

Deindividuation

• Deindividuation occurs when people in groups become:
  • less self-aware,
  • less identifiable,
  • and less personally accountable.
• This can change behaviour, especially in crowds.

Why Groups Affect Behaviour

As group size increases:

• anonymity increases
• identifiability decreases
• responsibility becomes diffused.
• People may feel:
  • hidden,
  • interchangeable,
  • and less responsible for their actions.

Research Methods

• Crowd behaviour is difficult to study experimentally.
• Researchers often use:
  • field studies
  • naturalistic observations
  • real-world incidents.

Deindividuation Studies

Suicide Baiting — Mann (1981)

Aim

• To investigate factors linked to suicide baiting in crowds.

Findings

• Antisocial crowd behaviour was more likely when:
  • crowds were large
  • conditions were dark
  • bystanders were physically distant.
• These conditions increased anonymity.

Conclusion

• Anonymity can encourage antisocial behaviour people may not display alone.

Important Limitation

• Later research found crowd frustration (e.g., delays, restricted movement) may predict suicide baiting better than anonymity alone.
• Online anonymity may still strongly contribute to antisocial behaviour.

Hooded KKK-Style Outfits — Zimbardo (1969)

Procedure

• Participants delivered shocks to a victim.
• Some wore anonymous hooded outfits.
• Others were identifiable.

Findings

• Anonymous participants gave more intense shocks.

Conclusion

• Anonymity reduces inhibition and increases aggressive behaviour.

Convertible Cars — Ellison et al. (1995)

Procedure

• Researchers observed drivers at traffic lights.
• Compared:
  • roof up (less identifiable)
  • roof down (more identifiable).

Findings

• Drivers with the roof up:
  • honked sooner
  • honked more often
  • honked for longer.

Conclusion

• Reduced identifiability increases impulsive and aggressive behaviour.

Warriors — Watson (1973)

Procedure

• Anthropological study of warriors in battle.

Findings

• Warriors who disguised themselves:
  • were more likely to torture enemies
  • were more likely to fight to the death.
• Aggression rates:
  • disguised warriors: 80%
  • non-disguised warriors: 13%.

Conclusion

• Anonymity increases aggressive behaviour.

Halloween Candy Study — Diener et al. (1976)

Aim

• To examine the combined effects of anonymity and group membership.

Procedure

• Around 1,000 trick-or-treating children:
  • arrived alone or in groups.
• Some children were asked for:
  • names
  • addresses (identifiable condition).
• Others remained anonymous.
• Children were told to take one candy but were left alone.

Findings

• Children were more likely to steal extra candy when:
  • anonymous
  • and especially when anonymous in groups.
• Children in groups were about twice as likely to transgress.

Conclusion

• Anonymity and group immersion have additive effects.
• Both reduce self-awareness and accountability, increasing antisocial behaviour.

Key Point

• Group size = naturally occurring (quasi-experimental).
• Anonymity = experimentally manipulated.

Main Finding

✔ Children were more likely to take extra candy when they were anonymous and in a group.

What Determines the Effects of Deindividuation?

Downing (1979)

Procedure

• Similar setup to Zimbardo’s shock study.
• Participants wore nurses’ uniforms associated with helping and care.

Findings

• Anonymous participants delivered fewer shocks than identifiable participants.

Conclusion

• Deindividuation does not always produce aggression.
• Behaviour depends on:
  • situational cues
  • group norms
  • social roles.

Overall Idea

• If the group promotes aggression → anonymity may increase antisocial behaviour.
• If the group promotes caring norms → anonymity may increase prosocial behaviour.

Groupthink

Definition

• Groupthink is the tendency for highly cohesive groups to:
  • suppress dissent,
  • prioritise harmony,
  • and seek consensus over critical evaluation.
• This can lead to poor decision-making.

Symptoms of Groupthink

Common Symptoms:

• Illusion of invulnerability
• Pressure to conform
• Suppression of dissent
• Self-censorship
• Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality
• Illusion of unanimity

NOT a Symptom

❌ Encouragement of dissent

Irving Janis and Groupthink

Janis (1972)

Irving Janis developed the concept of groupthink by analysing major failures in U.S. government decision-making.

Key Idea

• Highly cohesive groups:
  • prioritise agreement,
  • suppress opposing opinions,
  • ignore warnings,
  • and overestimate their correctness.

Method

• Case study analysis of historical events.

Examples of Groupthink

Vietnam War Escalation

• Johnson administration prioritised consensus.
• Dissenting views and warnings were dismissed.
• Result:
  • increasing troop involvement,
  • prolonged conflict,
  • significant loss of life.

Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961)

What Happened

• U.S. attempted to overthrow Fidel Castro using Cuban exiles.
• Invasion failed quickly.

Groupthink Features

• Excessive optimism
• Suppression of dissent
• Ignoring risks
• Overconfidence

Outcome

• Political and military failure.

NASA Challenger Disaster (1986)

What Happened

• NASA launched the Challenger shuttle despite engineers’ concerns about O-ring failures in cold weather.

Groupthink Features

• Pressure to maintain schedules
• Shared overconfidence
• Warnings minimised
• Dissent ignored

Outcome

• Shuttle exploded shortly after launch.
• All seven crew members died.

Kodak’s Digital Camera Failure

What Happened

• Kodak ignored early digital photography developments despite inventing the first digital camera.

Groupthink Features

• Maintaining status quo
• Ignoring internal warnings
• Resistance to alternative ideas

Outcome

• Lost competitive advantage
• Filed for bankruptcy in 2012.

Antecedents of Groupthink

Factors Increasing Risk

• Strong group cohesion
• Isolation from outside opinions
• Directive leadership
• Pressure to conform
• Self-censorship

Important Note

• Cohesive groups are not always bad.
• Cohesive teams can make excellent decisions if:
  • dissent is encouraged,
  • critical evaluation is valued,
  • outside perspectives are considered.

True or False

❌ “Highly cohesive groups always make poor decisions.”
→ False

Preventing Groupthink

Janis’ Strategies

1. Leader Impartiality

• Leaders should avoid stating preferences too early.

2. Devil’s Advocate

• Assign members to challenge ideas and consensus.

3. Subdivide Groups

• Smaller teams generate different viewpoints before regrouping.

4. Seek Outside Input

• Consult experts and diverse stakeholders.

5. Second-Chance Meeting

• Reconsider decisions before finalising them.

Recommended Strategy

✔ Encourage open dialogue and dissenting opinions.

Criticisms of Groupthink

Main Criticisms

• Often based on retrospective analysis of failed decisions.
• Difficult to prove groupthink directly caused outcomes.
• Cohesive groups can also make highly effective decisions.

Conclusion

• Groupthink is influential but not inevitable or universal.