Chapter 99. Social Facilitation and Social Loafing

Learning Objectives

aggression
behavior intended to hurt another person physically or emotionally
retrieval
getting information out of memory storage so it can be used
bystander effect
tendency for people to be less likely to offer help in an emergency if other people also witnessed the event
social facilitation
performance improvements in the presence of others, especially on well-learned tasks
chameleon effect
a form of automatic mimicry or mirroring in which people, often unconsciously, imitate the posture and gestures of others around them
social inhibition
reduction in performance in the presence of the others, primarily due to fear of social disapproval
cognitive
refers to the mental activities involved in perceiving, remembering, thinking, and reasoning
social loafing
tendency for people to put less effort into a group task than into a task for which they are individually accountable
deindividuation
tendency for people to lose their individual identity and self-control when absorbed in a group of anonymous people
experiment
a method of research that manipulates an independent variable to measure its effect on a dependent variable
Social Facilitation and Social Loafing
true
true
true
Photo of Hope College Pull
Photo by Steven Herppich,
courtesy Hope College
Learning Objectives:

Describe some ways that the presence of other people influences performance.

Contrast social facilitation and social loafing.

Review

concept_review

Review

Select the NEXT button to continue with the Review.

Illustration: Two women are putting their hands to the face
Bertrand Guay / Getty Images

1. Humans are social creatures, very much aware of and influenced by the presence and the actions of the people around them. The chameleon effect refers to the tendency for people to imitate, often unconsciously, the gestures, posture, and speech patterns of others nearby, just as a chameleon lizard changes color to match its surroundings.

Review

concept_review

Review

Select the NEXT button to continue with the Review.

Illustration: photo of the Hope Pull
Photo by Steven Herppich, courtesy Hope College

2. Sometimes, the presence of others energizes us and improves our performance. This is called social facilitation. In a “tug of war” situation, participants pull harder when the crowd is cheering and friends are shouting encouragement.

Review

concept_review

Review

Select the NEXT button to continue with the Review.

Illustration: Cartoon-type illustration representing anxiety in a public-speaking situation

3. However, if the task is a difficult one, or outside your area of expertise, the presence of other people might actually hurt your performance. This is called social inhibition. As your anxiety about possible failure increases, the added physiological arousal might impair your coordination on a physical task or interfere with memory retrieval on a cognitive task, such as speaking in front of a large crowd.

Review

concept_review

Review

Select the NEXT button to continue with the Review.

Illustration: photo of group of individuals performing a shared task with no witnesses
Huntstock/Getty Images

4. If the task is a shared task, the presence of others sometimes leads to social loafing, in which each participant exerts less effort, knowing that his or her individual performance will be hidden in the group product.

Review

concept_review

Review

Select the NEXT button to continue with the Review.

Peter Charlesworth/Getty Images

5. This lack of individual accountability for action, called deindividuation, can also lead people to engage in aggressive or destructive behavior. We see this in mob violence and in the fan riots after sporting events, both of which tend to occur at night or in conditions where there is a low probability people will be identified and punished.

Review

concept_review

Review

Select the NEXT button to continue with the Review.

The image has five people. The person in the middle of the screen is laying on the street with the other four people standing around him. The first person is thinking, He must be drunk. The second person is thinking, Im sure that someone else will help him. The third person is thinking, I wonder if this is a psychology experiment. The fourth person is thinking, He must be OK because nobody is paying any attention.

6. Another consequence of deindividuation is the bystander effect, the surprising finding that you are more likely to receive assistance in an emergency if only one person witnesses it, rather than a group of people. In fact, the larger the number of bystanders, the less likely that any one of them will take responsibility for providing help.

Practice 1: Exploring the Chameleon Effect

practice1
true

Practice 1: Exploring the Chameleon Effect

Select each button to view the outcome. Then, select the “Continue” button to learn more.

asset/activities/social_facilitation/images/95UN08a.svg
asset/activities/social_facilitation/images/95UN08b.svg

Research suggests that, within a few seconds, you would unconsciously mimic your partner’s action, moving one of your hands up to your face.

asset/activities/social_facilitation/images/95UN08c.svg

Research suggests that, within a few seconds, you would automatically imitate your partner’s action, wiggling your foot without really being aware of what you are doing.

Imagine that you have been assigned a new discussion partner and are now engaged in a 10-minute discussion of a psychology topic. You might be influenced by the ideas that your partner proposes, but would you also be influenced by your partner’s gestures? Think about what would happen if your partner made one of the gestures indicated here.

When a Continue button is selected, a line graph appears with two lines, one representing when the participant shakes foot and one when the participant touches face.  The X axis is labeled with two groups: confederate rubs face, and confederate shakes foot.  The Y axis is labeled likelihood of behavior in percentage of time the behavior occurred and ranges from 0 to 100 in increments of 100. The likelihood that a participant touches face after the confederate rubs face is 55%, but only 35% after when the confederate shakes foot.  The likelihood that a participant shakes foot after the confederate rubs face is 45%, but is 70% after when the confederate shakes foot.  The lines cross, demonstrating that the participant was more likely to imitate the same behavior as the confederate than a different behavior.

Perhaps you are wondering whether the imitated behaviors could be due to chance rather than to social influence. After all, during a conversation people spontaneously touch their face, wiggle a foot, and perform many other gestures that are not related to the topic under discussion. In one controlled experiment, researchers paid a confederate to touch the face or wiggle a foot during a conversation with a volunteer participant. This graph shows that, when the confederate touched the face, the participant was more likely to touch the face than to wiggle a foot. In contrast, when the confederate wiggled a foot, the participant was much more likely to imitate that behavior than to spontaneously touch the face.

Practice 2: Facilitation, Inhibition, or Loafing?

hover_review
true

Practice 2: Facilitation, Inhibition, or Loafing?

Roll over each scenario to see the most likely outcome.

The presence of other people influences us—boosting our performance, reducing our effort, or perhaps suppressing our actions completely. Can you predict what type of influence other people would have in each of the following scenarios?

Illustration: image of face mask

Half of the student volunteers for a “judicial panel” experiment are asked to wear a mask that hides their identity. The panel hears testimony about other students who have broken campus rules, and then takes a vote to determine the type of punishment.

Illustration: image of science lab equipment

After writing a number of individual lab reports, your professor assigns you to a group of four people. The four students will pool their efforts to write a combined lab report, and all four will receive the same grade.

Illustration: image of a rope

Students compete in front of a large crowd to earn dollars for charity. Students can choose either an easy task (throwing darts) to earn $20, or a difficult task (walking a tightrope) to earn $50.

Illustration: image of a basketball

After shooting baskets by yourself to prepare for a team tryout, five of your friends come over to the basketball court to watch you shoot.

Type of influence:

This setting is likely to demonstrate the worst aspects of deindividuation. The masked, anonymous students feel reduced individual accountability, and tend to vote for more severe punishments.

This setting is likely to produce social loafing. Each student’s individual effort is hidden in the group project, so on average, students will invest less effort than on the individual reports.

This setting is likely to produce social inhibition. Even though the tightrope task is worth more money, fewer students will choose it, because they are afraid of looking foolish if they fail the task.

This setting is likely to produce social facilitation. The presence of your friends will raise your physiological arousal and motivation to do well, so your performance is likely to improve.

Quiz 1

matching_test

Quiz 1

Match the terms with their descriptions by dragging each colored circle to the appropriate gray circle. When all the circles have been placed, select the CHECK ANSWER button.

Select the NEXT button and move to Quiz 2.
Perhaps you should go back to review how the presence of other people influences performance.
deindividuation
social inhibition
bystander effect
social facilitation
social loafing
chameleon effect
automatic mimicry of the posture and gestures of others around them
improved performance on well-learned tasks in the presence of others
putting less effort into a group task than into a task for which people are individually accountable
reduction in performance in the presence of the others, due to fear of disapproval
losing a sense of individual identity and self-control when absorbed in a group of anonymous people
being less likely to offer help in an emergency if other people also witnessed the event

Quiz 2

multi_mc_test

Quiz 2

For each of these scenarios, indicate whether the situation is more likely to produce social facilitation or social loafing. When responses have been placed for all the scenarios, select the CHECK ANSWER button.

Select the NEXT button and move to the Conclusion.
Perhaps you should back to review social facilitation and social loafing.
Social facilitation
Social loafing
Six research participants are holding a rope that is attached to a strain gauge that measures the total combined force of all six people. They are asked to pull the rope as hard as they can for one minute.
Social facilitation
Social loafing
Sprinters trying out for the track team run 100 meters individually, with their times measured by the coach. The five fastest sprinters are brought together to run in front of a cheering crowd.
Social facilitation
Social loafing
Participants in an endurance training course individually practice carrying bricks up a ladder until they are exhausted. For the endurance test, the participants all gather around to watch each other perform.
Social facilitation
Social loafing
Workers picking blueberries by hand pour their berries into a common wagon. At the end of the day, the total weight of the wagon determines how much the pickers get paid.

Conclusion

end_slide
Photo of Hope College Pull
Photo by Steven Herppich,
courtesy Hope College
Congratulations!
You have completed the activity Title