Group influence is more important in determining behaviour Essay Example

performance (e.g. Triplett 1898), particularly the quantitative aspects of performance, while in other studies the quality of performance was impaired in co-action settings (e.g. Gates and Allee, 1933).

An explanation for these ambiguous results was put forward by Zajonc (1965). His theory proposes that audiences or other group members enhance the emission of dominant responses. A dominant response is defined as "the response which prevails, that is, takes precedence in a subject's response repertoire in a given stimulus situation." (Hewstone et al, Introduction to Social Psychology 2nd e, p443). On simple tasks, where the dominant response is the correct one, it was found that doing a task in front of an audience enhanced people's performance in comparison to when in isolation. In contrast, on complicated tasks for which the correct answer is not dominant, the presence of an audience only served to increase the proportion of incorrect answers given, compared to when the task was performed in isolation.

An experiment that supports this solution was conducted by James Michaels (1982). He observed the number of balls potted by good and weak pool players under the conditions of an audience and playing alone. The results were as follows:

A graph showing the percentage of balls potted under different conditions

(Source: Myers. D, Social Psychology, p317).

It can be seen from the graph that for good players, the dominant response is to make a good shot. The dominant response increases with the presence of an audience by 11%. The weak player however, whose dominant response is to miss the pocket accordingly suffered from a fall in the number of balls potted under observation by 12%. Zajonc claims the mere presence of an

audience, despite being passive, is sufficient to produce social facilitation. But despite the strength of evidence regarding social facilitation, there are other convincing theories as to the way being in a group can influence the performance of an individual.

* Evaluation Apprehension

This theory suggests that the mere presence of an audience is not sufficient to elicit a dominant response. Arousal will only occur when the observers are seen as potential evaluators. For example, joggers at the University of California were found to increase their jogging pace as they encountered a woman seated on the grass facing them, compared to no change in speed when the woman was positioned with her back to the path. (Worringham & Messick, 1983).

* Social Loafing

This is the tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts towards a common goal than when they are individually accountable. With social facilitation, individually identifiable results are produced. However, when an individual is performing as part of a group, the individual effort that person puts into the tasks diminishes. This inverse relationship between the number of people in a group and individual performance is known as the Ringelmann effect.

Latane (1979) conducted the following experiment: a group of students were told to cheer or clap as loudly as they could. The sound pressure generated by each individual decreased as the size of the group increased, as shown in the graph below.

A graph to show the change in sound pressure in relation to group size

When an individual believed the five other participants were also cheering or clapping, they produced one-third less noise than when they thought themselves to be alone. Curiously, those who clapped

both alone and in groups did not view themselves to be social loafing; they perceived themselves to be clapping equally in both situations. Another aspect of social loafing is the free-rider effect. This is a tendency people have to let others do the work, while taking advantage of the fact ones own contribution is not identifiable. However, the individual still benefits from the total group product. It arises because evaluation apprehension is decreased and responsibility is diffused across all group members.

De-individualisation

Social facilitation experiments have shown that being a member of a group arouses different behaviour in people. Social loafing experiments have shown that groups can diffuse responsibility. When arousal and diffused responsibility are combined in the group situation, the characteristics of an individual may diminish.

In 1991, an eyewitness videotaped four LA police officers hitting unarmed Rodney King more than 50 times, leaving him brain-damaged, while 23 other officers stood-by and watched passively. One of the main questions surrounding this incident is what provoked such a brutal, uncharacteristic change in behaviour from these officers and why did none of the 23 observing officers move to intervene?

People involved in collective violence such as riots sometimes behave in ways which, as individuals, they would probably never dream of doing. Experiments by Jaffe and Yinon (1983), have shown individuals in groups display much more aggressive behaviour than they do when acting as individuals. This change in behaviour has been accounted for by de-individualisation. This can be defined as "a loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension which occurs in group situations that foster anonymity and draw attention away from the individual." (Myers. D, Social Psychology, p327).

A group has the power

to not only arouse its members but also render them unidentifiable. It is this property that often incites people to behave differently to their individual self. An experiment by Ed Diener (1976) supporting this statement shows the extent to which this is true.

At Halloween, he observed 1352 Seattle children trick-or-treating. As the children, either alone or in groups, approached one of the designated homes in the city, an experimenter invited them to "take one of the sweets", and then left the room. The results are shown in the graph below:

A graph to show the percentage transgression under different conditions

(Source: Myers. D, Social Psychology, p329)

The graph shows that those children in groups, relative to individual children, were more than twice as likely to take extra candy. Children who were asked their name and address were also less likely to transgress than those left anonymous. Overall, this indicates that being in a group does indeed have a strong effect on behaviour and takes precedence over individuals' characteristics. This is even more prevalent when group involvement and anonymity are combined, where nearly 60% of the children disobeyed the instructions and stole extra candy.

Conformity

Conformity is the tendency for people to change their behaviour to be consistent with group norms. Pressure to conform is one of the most common and powerful ways in which groups can influence the behaviour of an individual. But what factors determine to extent to which individuals yield to conformity pressure and move away from their individual beliefs? There are three main areas to consider: cohesiveness, group size and the degree of social support.

* Cohesiveness

Attraction towards a particular group to which we belong, or towards its

individual members, is usually described by the term cohesiveness. A high level of cohesiveness within a group has a strong impact on conformity. For example, a person may consider himself to be politically neutral, but prefers more liberal polices. If most of his friends start to express strong conservative opinions, they will feel strong pressure to conform to the same views, or at least suppress their own views. However, if extreme liberal views are being discussed with strangers at a cocktail party, he will feel far less pressured to agree with them. This is due to the fact people care about the opinions of their close friends much more strongly than those of strangers. It is not surprising, therefore, that the former group with high cohesiveness will have a much stronger influence on the extent to which a person conforms than the latter.

* Size of the group

Although it seems obvious that the larger the size of the influencing group around us, the greater our tendency is to conform, this is only true up to a certain point. The Social Influence Model (SIM) proposed by Tanford and Penrod (1984) can explain this. It proposes that the function relating group size to conformity is S shaped in form. Initially, each person added to the group produces a larger increment in conformity pressure than the one before. This soon levels off so that each additional person adds less to the total amount of influence than preceding ones. One explanation for these findings is that when people are exposed to social pressure from large groups they suspect that collusion may be occurring. In other words, they believe that group

members are not behaving in accordance with individual preferences but instead working together to exert pressure. As a result, some individuals become more determined to stand up for their own beliefs when in large groups. (Wildman, 1977).

* Social Support

Conformity pressure is not always just directed towards a single, hold-out member, but instead several people. The SIM model also logically suggests that as the number of targets increases, the function becomes flatter. If individuals see they are not the only ones standing up for their beliefs, they become further encouraged to resist pressure from the group to conform. This is an example of minority influence.

Conclusion

The theory of social facilitation provides conclusive evidence that the influence of an audience elicits a dominant response, be it to enhance or deteriorate performance levels from what they would be under isolated conditions. Social loafing, whereby an inverse relationship exists between the number of people in a group and individual performance further supports the hypothesis that group influence is more important in determining behaviour than personal characteristics.

De-individualisation results when arousal from social facilitation and diffused responsibility as a result of social loafing are combined in the group situation, the characteristics of an individual may diminish and may result in deviant behaviour to which the individual would never engage in under normal conditions.

Finally, conformity is the tendency for people to change their behaviour to be consistent with group norms. By its very definition, this strongly illustrates that group influence is more important in determining behaviour than personal characteristics. People conform in their public behaviour to avoid appearing socially deviant. However, conflicting evidence shows that the Ringlemann Effect is only true to a

certain extent. After a certain point, the size of the group can incense an individual to hold out against pressure to conform, especially if there is sufficient moral support from other group members. This would indicate that personal characteristics are able to override group influence in certain situations.