More handpicked essays just for you.
Conclusion on social loafing
Conclusion on social loafing
6 areas for the investigation of team effectiveness
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Conclusion on social loafing
“In Groups We Shrink” Summary
According to the article “In Groups we shrink” by Carol Tavris, she contrasts the nature of groups and the nature of individuals. If one person is in a dangerous situation, he or she will seek safety on their own or go to someone for help. However when a group of people are in a bad situation, they will most likely panic and hold back on solving the problem. This is called “diffusion of responsibility” or “social loafing,” according to psychologists (Tavris 151). Carol Tavris concludes that when people are in groups, they respond differently than when they are on their own.
Tavris experimented with groups and individuals in behavioral psychology, which helps prove her theory. In one experiment, students participated
“Something happens to individuals when they collect in a group. They think and act differently than they would on their own. (17)” States Carol Tavris in her article, “In Groups We Shrink From Loner’s Heroics”. Tavris believes people who are in groups tend to act in a more sluggish manor than those alone. She states many examples of this theory in her article, including the story of Kitty Genovese which is stated in the first paragraph. Kitty was stabbed repeatedly and killed in front of her New York apartment. No one did anything to stop this heinous action from taking place. Within her essay she obtains rhetorical appeals to prove that her statements are plausible to the audience.
Milgram's study of obedience is a classic example of a study that lacked in experimental validity and also in mundane realism. Milgram's study consisted of a confederate having to answer questions, which if they got wrong they would fake being given an electric shock by the machine they were attached to. The participant's role was to give these electric shocks to the confederate every time a question was answered wrong, and also the voltage would be turned up with every answer wrong. Along with this Milgram took part as a confederate who would encourage the participant to give the shocks by saying things such as, "This has to be done."
From the Velasquez excerpt he explains Janis definition of Group think which refers to the susceptibility of groups of people to get increasingly out of touch with reality (Janis 84). Velasquez believes the main cause of groupthink is socials pressures within the group due to the group wanting to get along and keep harmony (Janis 84). When a group really wants to have a good standing relationship with each other they could possibly just agree on something to not upset the others, or to make them not like them for their beliefs and not agreeing resulting in them not evaluating the situation. This negatively affects ones decision making outcome. Groupthink as any other problem has symptoms and we will go over each of these.
In 1951, Solomon Asch carried out several experiments on conformity. The aim of these studies was to investigate conformity in a group environment situation. The purpose of these experiments was to see if an individual would be swayed by public pressure to go along with the incorrect answer. Asch believed that conformity reflects on relatively rational process in which people are pressured to change their behaviour. Asch designed experiments to measure the pressure of a group situation upon an individual judgment. Asch wanted to prove that conformity can really play a big role in disbelieving our own senses.
The present study identified social loafing is less likely in collective conditions than coactive conditions although results were non-significant. This study supports the research of Worchel, Rothgerber & Day (2011) as participants who worked in newly formed groups worked harder in the group setting than alone. This was shown to occur due to a number of reasons including group goal setting and group level comparison between participants. Future studies should consider the influences of group tasks for group development. In conclusion, social loafing in collective groups are not significantly less than the coactive condition however results may vary in future experiments due to having new variables, different participants and a change methodology in future experiments.
One difference is parties will not speak to each other the same say depending on the environment. Domenici and Littlejohn (2007) explain, “You will not communicate the same way with your best friend, son or daughter, co-worker, or professor” (p. 32). For example, in a group setting, a student might not be as verbally violent with other students as if there were two sisters having a dispute in a personal context. Moreover, in a group context parties may hold back opinions due to the fact of not know each other as well as they might in a personal setting. If parties hold back on what is said less damage can be done to the relationships and people making it easier to move to the sphere of value. On the other hand, parties involved in a personal context may know each other well enough to feel the right to push the issue and/or issues more so than in a group. The more parties know each other the easier it is to cause additional damage to peers, relationships and social worlds, creating a sphere of harm. With that being said in this case moving from the sphere of harm to value may be faster and/or easier in a group context, while in a personal context it may require extra time and effort. In addition, group contexts have additional parties involved with diverse values and beliefs to respect. When involved in a conflict parties have to take people’s religion, culture and age
... that areas of expertise can be exploited, different people are good at different things. Groups can discuss material, and that discussion can improve the quality of the decision. Groups are less likely to suffer from judgmental biases that individuals have when they make decisions. People are more likely to follow through on decisions made by groups that they are connected to. Also, more monumental decisions can be made in groups, because one member will not be singled out for blame, making the entire group responsible.
According to Coleman & James (1961) ‘cohesion tends to be weaker and moral tends to be lower in a larger group than in a smaller one.’ The reason they state this happens is because, in the majority of cases there is a lack of intimacy within the group and in extremely large groups the members are almost strangers to one another.
Groups are vital to society simply because being alone with nobody to share experiences with and help through the hard times, can drive a person insane. A great example of this is shown in the movie Cast Away where Tom Hanks' character, Chuck Noland, has been stranded for a long length of time with no human interaction and in crazed desperation, creates a friendship with a Wilson volleyball. Groups have always been a beacon of safety in multiple ways. In ancient times being part of a group would provide more protection from the wildlife surrounding them and today being in a group can save people from sexual predators and even murderers. In my own person life, having multiple groups helps me prioritize where and when to complain or when to be
There are many different experiments that have been carried out to test different psychological aspects of the human brain. One of the experiments I find most entertaining is the Milgram experiment. In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram's electric-shock studies showed that people will obey the most dangerous of orders. Stanley Milgram was a psychologist at Yale. He conducted an experiment where he focused on the relationship between obedience to authority and personal conscience.
Groupthink is the psychological phenomenon in which groups working on a task think along the same lines which could have drastic results. It is the result of group polarization where discussions are enhance or exaggerate the initial leanings of the group. Therefore, if a group leans towards risky situation at the beginning of the discussion on average they will move toward an even riskier position. (Marks, 2015). The idea when everyone think the same no one is really thinking. The drastic outcomes result from people trying to avoid conflict with one another, being highly cohesive, and results is questionable decision making (Oliver, 2013). Houghton Mifflin publication of Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions
There have been additional studies that show the contradictory effect known as social facilitation. Originally, social facilitation research began with Zajon. In his research he believed the presence of others would augment the effort of the group and would generally provoke performances and in the process increase the output of the individual. He theorized there are several necessary aspects for the process to work, such as simple or familiar tasks. If the task is complicated or unfamiliar, an increased group size would impede productivity by increasing social loafing (Zajonc, 1965). This...
It is actually like the example in the notes; I was in an elevator and two people came in and turn backward like not the normal way people stand in an elevator. I just stood there like, “what are you doing?” I was so confused. Then one more person came into the elevator and did the same and by that point I turned around too. One person got off and another on and they at first stood the normal way, but then looked around and also turned. It will always be something I will remember because the fact it is so simple of a change but it felt so wrong to do at the same time. Before taking this class I never thought that could have been an experiment to see what people would do. I kind of want to try it myself to get reactions from people. When they say that groups are powerful influences they aren’t kidding. I could probably think of many more things that I’ve been influenced on by
Several experiments and researches have been conducted that have focused on how people behave in groups. The findings have revealed that groups affect peoples’ attitudes, behavior and perceptions. Groups are essential for personal life, as well as in work life.
As individuals, we always been considered living in groups. Knowing why having a group mind is important because it gives a better explanation of the definition of group minds. Lessing’s suggest that "We all live our lives in groups— the family, work groups, social, religious and political groups." (Behrens, Rosen 652). Wanting to belong in a group is precisely the reason why some individuals have group’s minds and the reason why groups are important. Having a group mind isn’t a bad thing since group minds consist of people who think the same and share similar ideas. Group minds can actually be a better skill than the group itself. This seems that the idea of being in a "group" contributes to the definition of group minds more than you think. What I mean is that the groups is the reason why an individual 's way of thinking may change. Various experiments have shown the effects of how groups can apply pressure to an individual way of thinking which exact description of what group minds are.