Social Facilitation, Social Inhibition and Social Loafing

Psychology Essay Instructions

Two Parts - social facilitation, social inhibition, and social loafing and the second is Impact of Group Behavior

Part 1: 1.5 pages
As you may recall in the work of Triplett (1898), the presence of others in a
bicycle race was found to enhance individual performance. This is called social
facilitation (Williams, Harkins, & Karau, 2007). At times, however, the presence
of others can detract from individual performance, which is termed social
inhibition (Crisp & Turner, 2007). Similarly, social loafing can occur when an
individual’s performance within a group decreases due to his or her reliance on
others in the group (Crisp & Turner, 2007).
For this Discussion, review the media program, Week 5: The Virtual Office.
Focus on the characters in the media and determine which characters
displayed social facilitation, social inhibition, and social loafing.
With these thoughts in mind:
Post a description of the characters in the media program demonstrating social
loafing, social inhibition, and social facilitation. Explain how you identified
them. Then, select one of the characters and, using the current literature,
explain two ways you might mitigate their behavior.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the
Learning Resources.
• Course Text: The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology
• Chapter 13, “Social Performance”
• Book Excerpt: Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2010). In Essential social
psychology (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
• Chapter 5, "Group processes" pp. 126-137
• Article: Klehe, U., Anderson, N., & Hoefnagels, E. A. (2007). Social
facilitation and inhibition during maximum versus typical performance
situations. Human Performance, 20(3), 223–239.
• Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
• Article: Rovio, E., Eskola, J., Kozub, S. A., Duda, J. L., & Lintunen, T.
(2009). Can high group cohesion be harmful? A case study of a junior
ice-hockey team. Small Group Research, 40(4), 421–435.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
• Animation: Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2011).
Week 5: The virtual office. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Part 2 - 1.5 pages
Discussion 2: Impact of Group Behavior
Group polarization can be defined as the process that can occur after group
interaction, when an initial group attitude (e.g., “Our company is the best at
providing Service B in this community”) becomes more extreme (e.g., “Our
company is the best at providing Service B in this entire region”). Group
polarization may be particularly likely when the issue at hand is deemed
particularly “important” (Crisp & Turner, 2007, p. 169).
Groupthink is considered a more extreme version of group polarization and
refers to decreased flexibility in group processing and can, in turn, lead to
decreases in group productivity. This has never been more evident than in
the space shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986, when Challenger exploded in
mid-flight. In this case, evidence suggests that groupthink played a major
role in this event.
For this Discussion, review this week’s Learning Resources. Pay particular
attention to the impact of groupthink and group polarization. In addition,
using the Walden Library, research alternatives to groupthink and group
polarization and select an article that discusses an alternative.
With these thoughts in mind:
Post by Day 4 a description of a situation in which you experienced or
observed negative consequences resulting from groupthink or group
polarization. Then describe two consequences as a result of groupthink or
group polarization in your example. Finally, using an article from the current
literature, explain how one alternative to groupthink or group polarization
could have been used in that situation.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the
Learning Resources.

Solution Paper

Psychology

Name

Institution Affiliation

Group Behaviour

Those that portray an aspect of social facilitation are those that their performances are enhanced by the presence of others. On the other hand, those that portray aspects of social inhibition are those whose performances are negatively affected by the presence of others.  Others performance may be negatively affected by the presence of group members in a group project. In this case, Ken seems to be the group leader since he brings out the idea of handling the project and dictates the course of the project.

Kathy agrees and provide more insight on the issue and therefore is affected by the social facilitation since her performance improves by the presence of others. Gavin also portrays some aspect of social facilitation.  Initially, Brian and Amanda did not contribute which shows that their performance was negatively affected by the group and therefore have an aspect of social inhabitation or social loafing. In the beginning, Amanda is not even aware of what she is supposed to say (Crisp, & Turner, 2010).

Amanda is affected by the presence of other group members. Even though she had the information on PowerPoint, she was unable to perform in the process. Kathy was even concerned that Amanda was nervous during the discussion. Amanda and Brain, in this case, did not seem prepared, and this is evident from their responses during the discussion. Brian did not make any contribution, and he relied on the contribution of Ken and others and therefore has issues related to social loafing. His failure to contribute anything means that he is relying on the group to provide all the information needed to make the project a success. On the other hand, Amanda is suffering from social inhibition. Even though she had carried out similar and related research on the presentation, her contribution to the project is affected by the presence of others within the group and therefore is affected by the aspect of social inhibition.

Overcoming social loafing

Brian individual performance reduces due to the presence of group and therefore is unable to contribute to the project. Through this Brian portrays social loafing behaviour. However, this is further facilitated by the social facilitation aspect portrayed by who as a group leader willingfully undertakes all the aspects of the project (Klehe, Anderson, & Hoefnagels, 2007). As a project leader, one can manage the social loafing behaviour shown by Ken by subdividing duties and responsibilities among the group members. The group leaders in this case should limit their involvement in the project by ascertaining that they do not take up all the roles and responsibilities just like Ken did. In this case, Brian should be encouraged more to participate in the project by building their self-confidence. The action of Ken could be discouraging to others considering that he volunteered to undertake almost every aspect of the group project. In the end, the group members were not sure if that was a team since both ken and Kathy had volunteered to cover almost every aspect of the project. In a group project, there is a need for the group members to actively participate in the execution of the project. Group cohesion in this case is important as the group members should be given an opportunity to gel and in the process execute the set responsibility. The most important aspect in this case is that the group should be given opportunities and time to understand each other and learn on the topic that they are supposed to be discussing.

Groupthink and Group polarization

I was once a part of a group that the need to achieve harmony or conformity resulted in making poor decisions to satisfy each other. Even though I had reservations in regards to the decision that was made, I still withheld my comment so as not to create division within the group. This was primarily due to the fact that the most trusted person within the group had provided the suggestion and was supported by 95% of the group. Therefore, disagreeing with those suggestions would have been seen as a form of revolt which would have compromised the unity and the conformity of the group. Through this, I suppressed my reservations or the decisions, and since one of the member's viewpoints was suppressed by others, it was difficult to air other opinions within the group. As a result, there were no critical evaluations of the viewpoint that had been suggested, and every person within the group had a fear that they would be isolated if the new opinions had been raised. Even though this helped in avoiding conflicts, in the long run, the decision led to the failure of the project. The issue, in this case, is that the group fell apart after the project since we were unable to establish the cohesiveness that was needed. People lost trust with one another as blame game started as people stated shifting the blame on who was responsible for the decisions taken.

One aspect of group polarization was evident when we were discussing the aspect of racialism. However, before the project, there were some members who held ideas that some communities or tribes were not equal to others and therefore were not entitled to similar or related opportunities. In the process, they defended their position even more intensely held their extreme position as a result. Initially, most of the group members were cautious on the issue before extreme positions on the issue came into the limelight.

One alternative to groupthink, or group polarization is the group dissent and avoiding high group cohesion (Rovio, Eskola, Kozub, Duda, & Lintunen, 2009). Manufacturing a group dissent is essential since I help in avoiding a situation where people agree on certain issues even when they are aware that some of the decisions are wrong. However, dissents should be supported and collaborated by facts given it is only through this that one can be able to sway others from making irrational decisions. Through this one should be able to provide the weaknesses of the decisions taken and through this provide the facts or alternatives needed if the best solutions are to be formed in the process. In this case, one can act as a devil advocate within the group and in the process provide the solutions needed to overcome the issues that the group may face. Having authentic dissent is essential, but this should be supported with facts. There is a need to ensure that the alternatives suggested providing better results to the group members. For instance, if the issues that the group was failing could have been avoided, there was a need to provide the materials fact to the topic under discussion. Even though the idea was supported by the 95% of the group, it was necessary to make sure that dissenting voices are backed by facts rather than opinions.

References

Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2010). In Essential social psychology (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Klehe, U., Anderson, N., & Hoefnagels, E. A. (2007). Social facilitation and inhibition during maximum versus typical performance situations. Human Performance, 20(3), 223–239.

Rovio, E., Eskola, J., Kozub, S. A., Duda, J. L., & Lintunen, T. (2009). Can high group cohesion be harmful? A case study of a junior ice-hockey team. Small Group Research, 40(4), 421–435.