Group and performance 2.3 Social Facilitation Social facilitation may be defined as the improvement in performance produced by the mere presence of others. It indicates that the persons perform the same task independently. The basic idea behind Zajonc’s drive theory of social facilitation is the presence of others which produces increments in arousal Allport (1920) defined the term social facilitation as one of the improvements in performance produced by the mere presence of others, either as audience or as co-actors that are the persons performing the same task, but independently. Some basic principles are as follows: 1) When arousal increases, the tendency to make dominant responses also increases. 2) Dominant responses may be correct or incorrect for any given task. 3) The presence of other person will facilitate performance when an individual's dominant responses are the comect ones in a given situation or vice-versa. 4) Leaming to perform a new task has a significant role in this context. 5) Social facilitation was not always facilitating, sometimes it appears to be misleading 6) Individuals sometimes believe that their performance may be observed and evaluated by others. 7) There are large individual differences with respect to basic form of group influence. 8) Evaluation apprehension takes an important role in social facilitation. 9) Good sense improves the performance. 10)Mere presence of others is arousing and influences performance, but that the possibility of being evaluated by others increases even more, and produces even stronger social facilitation effects. 11) When individuals have little reason to pay attention to others present on the scene, social facilitation fails to occur, when they have strong reasons for Paying attention to others, social facilitation occurs. 12) Social facilitation is the ‘simple type of group influence’. 2.3.1 Drive Theory of Social Facilitation ‘The basic idea behind Zajone's drive theory of social facilitation is that the presence of others produce increments in arousal, which affect our performance. ‘Thus, it can be said that the presence of others will facilitate performance when a person's dominant responses are the correct ones jin a given situation but the presence of others will impair performance, when a person's dominant responses are incorrect in ‘a given situation. When individuals have little reason to pay attention to others presenton the scene, secial facilitation fails to occur, but when have strong reason for paying attention to others, Social facilitation occurs. 2.4 SOCIAL LOAFING ‘One may observe in many situations that there are some persons in a group who work hard while others may work litle, doing less than their share of what they might do if they work alone. Social psychologists want to see the effects giving the term as ‘social loafing’. This is a very common feature in many situations. The effect of this is known as social loafing.Thus social loafing is the reduction in motivation and effort when individuals work collectively in a group compared to when they work individually or as independent co actors. Social loafing seems to be a basic fact of social life. The activities of sports teams, committees, juries etc. are under the category of social loafing. 2.4.1 Characteristics of Social Loafing ‘The important characteristics of social loafing are: ¢ As group size increases, each member feels less and less responsible for the task being performed. Each person exerts decreasing effort an it. According to Expectancy-Valence theory it can be said that individuals will work hard on a given task only to the extent that i) hard work will lead to better performance (expectancy) il) better performance will be recognised and rewarded (instrumentality)and i) the rewards available are ones they value and desire (valence). Expectancy - the perception that increased effort will lead to better performance. Instrumentality — the belief that good performance will be recognised and rewarded, may also be weaken when people work together in groups. Social loafing occurs and within the framework of the collective effort model. ‘© When individual works together with others, the relationship between their own effort and performance and rewards is more uncertain than when they work alone. © Collective effort - Perceived links. between individuals’ effort and their outcomes are weaker when they work together with others in a group. © Social loafing is a serious problem. It is most likely to occur under conditions in which individuals’ contributions can't be evaluated, when people work on task they find boring or uninspiring and when they work with others they don’t respect and don't know very well © In many situations social loafing pases a threat to performance in many settings.© Groups can reduce social loafing by increasing group members’ commitment to successful task performance. © Social loafing is reduced when individuals consider their contributions to the task as unique rather than merely redundant with those of others. Social loafing can be reduced by strengthening group cohesiveness. Social loafing is not an unavoidable feature of task-performance groups. It can be reduced especially when appropriate safeguards are buill into the situation Deindividuation:Definition and Historical Background * Deindividuation is the idea that, when in groups, people act differently than they would as individuals. Because of the anonymity that groups provide, psychologists have found that people can even act in impulsive or antisocial ways when they're part of a crowd @ In 1895, Gustave LeBon put forward the idea that being part of a crowd can change people's behavior. According to LeBon, when people join a crowd, their behavior is no longer restricted by the usual social controls, and impulsive or even violent behavior can result. ¢ The term deindividuation was first used by psychologist Leon Festinger and his a 1952 paper. Festinger suggested that, when in deindividuated groups, the intemal controls that typically guide people's behavior begin to loosen. Additionally, he suggested that people tend to like deindividuated groups, and will rate them more highly than groups with less deindividuation. Philip Zimbardo's Approach to Deindividuation But what exactly causes deindividuation to accur? According to psychologist Philip Zimbardo, several factors can make deindividuation more likely to occur: ‘Anonymity: When people are anonymous, their individual behavior can't be judged—which makes deindividuated behaviors more likely. Lowered sense of responsibility: Deindividuation is more likely when people feel that other people are also responsible in a situation, or when someone else (such as a group leader) has taken responsibility. Being focused on the present (as opposed to the past or future). Having high levels of physiological activation (i.e. feeling keyed up). Experiencing what Zimbardo called "sensory input overload" (for example, being at a concert or party with blaring music). Being in a new situation. Being under the influence of alcohol or drugs.Importantly, not all of these factors need to occur in order for someone to experience deindividuation—but each of them makes experiencing deindividuation more likely When deindividuation occurs, Zimbarde explains, people experience ‘changes in perception of self and others, and thereby to a lawered threshold of normally restrained behavior." According to Zimbardo, being deindividuated isn't inherently negative: the lack of restraints could lead people to express positive feelings (such as love). However, Zimbardo described ways in which deindividuation can lead people to behave in violent and antisocial ways (such as stealing and rioting, for example) Social Identity Theory's Explanation of Deindividuation ‘Another approach to understanding deindividuation comes from social identity theory. According to social identity theory, we derive a sense of who we are from our social groups. People readily categorize themselves as members of social groups; in fact, social identity researchers have found that even being assigned to an arbitrary group (one created by the experimenters) is enough for people to act in ways that favor their ‘own group. In a 1995 paper about social identity, researchers Stephen Reicher, Russell Spears, and Tom Postmes suggest that being part of a group causes people to switch from categorizing themselves as individuals to categorizing themselves as group members. When this happens, group membership impacts people's behavior and people are more likely to behave in ways that match the norms of the group. The researchers suggest that this could be an alternate explanation for deindividuation, which they call the social identity model of deindividuation (SIDE). According to this theory, when people are deindividuated, they're not acting irrationally, but rather are acting in ways that take into account the norms of that particular group. ‘A key implication of SIDE is that we can’t actually know how someone will behave as part of a group unless we actually know something about the group itself. For example, SIDE and Zimbardo’s theary would make similar predictions for a group attending a fratemity party: both would predict that the partygoers would engage in loud, boisterous behavior. However, the SIDE model would predict that the same group of partygoers Would behave very differently if another group identity became salient, for example, taking a test the next morning, the social identity of "student" would predominate, and the test-takers would become quiet and serious. Reducing Deindividuation Although psychologists point out that deindividuation isn't necessarily negative, there are some cases where people can act in imesponsible or antisocial ways when theyte deindividuated. Fortunately, psychologists have found that there are several strategiesto counter deindividuation, which rely on increasing how identifiable and self-aware people feel ‘As Diener’s Halloween study showed, people are less likely to behave in irresponsible ways if their identity is known—so one way to reduce deindividuation is to do what the experimenter in this study did: have people be identifiable rather than anonymous. ‘Another approach involves increasing self-awareness. According to some researchers, people lack self-awareness when they are deindividuated; consequently, one way to counter the effects of deindividuation is to make people more self-aware. In fact, in some social psychology studies, researchers have induced feelings of self-awareness with @ mirror, one study showed that research participants are actually less likely to cheat on a test if they can see themseives in a mirror. A key tenet of social psycholagy is that we need to look at people's social context in order to understand their behavior—and deindividuation provides an especially striking example of this phenomenon. However, research also suggests that deindividuation isn't an inevitable consequence of being around others. By increasing people's individual identifiability as well as their self-awareness, i's possible to individuate people who are part of a group. What Is Intergroup Conflict? Intergroup conflict is a term that refers to disagreement or confrontation between two or more groups and their members. This confrontation can involve physical violence, interpersonal discord, and psychological tension. Intergroup conflict is a major factor that affects group-level movement patterns and space use and ultimately shapes the evolution of group living and sociality (Hewstone & Greenland, 2000). ‘The first person to describe intergroup conflict was Thomas Hobbes in his work “Leviathan.” In this book, Hobbes. argued that humans are innately selfish and aggressive and will engage in conflict with others in order to survive and thrive. This view of human nature was later echoed by many other theorists, including Freud and Darwin. That is to say, intergroup conflict is not a new phenomenon. It has been around since the beginning of time and has played a role in shaping human history. From wars between countries to battles between gangs, intergroup conflict has always been a part of the human world (Hewstone & Greenland, 2000). it was not until the early 1800s that sociologists began to study intergroup a systematic way, most often to figure out ways to reduce or mitigate it.One such person to do so was Floyd Allport, who published The Nature of Prejudice in 1954. In this book, Allport proposed the contact hypothesis, which posits that increased contact between members of different groups will lead to reduced prejudice and, ultimately, conflictIntergroup Conflict Models ‘There have been numerous conflict models that have emerged over time. These models of conflict escalation can act either exclusively or in concert with each other. ‘The Aggressor-defender Mode! ‘The aggressor-defender model of intergroup conflict is one that dominates the thinking of many leaders in public life. In this view, one group sees the other as an aggressor. This could occur in a conflict including warfare among nations, strife between racial groups, controversies among scientists, and so on ‘The aggressor is seen as motivated by evil and illegitimate aims, while the one being aggressed upon by noble, morally correct, and legitimate motivations. ‘As a result, following this logic, the ones being aggressed must increase their deterrent power to ensure that the aggressors cannot reach their goals (Rusch & Gavrilets, 2020) The Conflict-spiral model Meanwhile, the conflict-spiral model contends that conflict breeds conflict, In turn, each party extends and intensifies the conflict by reacting in a punitive or defensive way to the other party's behavior. Consequently, @ continuing spiral of escalation ensues, trapping both parties. In this conflict perspective, the initial source of friction may be consequential. However, rather than focusing on the initial cause of the conflict, the conflict-spiral mode! describes the dynamic, interactive process by which individuals or groups find themselves caught in an upward spiral of hostilities (Rusch & Gavrilets, 2020) The conflict spiral model does not only describe escalation. De-escalation of intergroup conflict can occur in a spiral fashion. For example, the strategic arms limitation talks and summits between the United States and the Soviet Union caused a step-by-step retreat from nuclear confrontation (Rusch & Gavritets, 2020) The Structural Change mode! Finally, the structural-change model of intergroup conflict is also concemed with the dynamic interaction between parties in the course of the conflict. Unlike the conflict-spiral mode!, however, this view holds that certain enduring changes take place that perpetuate the conflict. For example, military elites often gain large amounts of power during a war. They may gain a stake in perpetuating hostilities so that they will not lose their power and privileges to civilian authorities (Rusch & Gavrilets, 2020),This view comes with one major caveat, however: not all conflicts last long enough that they can bring about major institutional changes. Indeed, societies may return to their pre-conflict conditions after the initial conflict is resolved. Ingredients of intergroup conflict: belief domains ‘There are several types of beliefs that commonly lead to intergroup conflict. These include superiority, injustice, vulnerability, distrust, and helplessness. Superiority:At_an individual level, beliefs of superiority revolve around a person's enduring notion that he or she is better than other people in important ways. ‘At the group level, this translates into the belief that one's own group has a superior cultural heritage to others. This often leads to a sense of entitlement and a desire to protect that heritage from contamination by outsiders. For example, the development of Hitler’s Nazi party was based on the idea of racial purity and the belief that the Aryan race was superior to all athers. This led to @ sense of entitlement to land and resources, which in turn led to conflict and, ultimately, war (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003). Injustice: A second set of beliefs that commonly leads to intergroup conflict is the belief that one has been treated unfairly jual level, such as when a person feels passed over for a promotion, or at the group level, such as when a minority group feels it has been discriminated against ‘These feelings of injustice can lead to a desire for revenge or retribution. One example of injustice fueling intergroup conflict is the civil war in Syria ‘The conflict began as a peaceful protest against the government but quickly escalated into a full-blown civil war when the government began ta crack down on the protesters, leading to a cycle of violence (Edelson & Eidelson, 2003). Vulnerability: A third set of beliefs that can lead to intergroup conflict is the belief that one is vulnerable to harm from others. This can be at an individual level, such as when a person feels threatened by someone else, or at the group level, such as when a country feels threatened by another country's military buildup. These feelings of vulnerability can lead to a desire for self-protection or even preemptive strikes. One example of vulnerability leading to intergroup conflict is the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States.‘The United States justified the invasion by claiming that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction that could be used to attack the United States or its allies (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003). Distrust: A fourth set of beliefs that can lead to intergroup conflict is distrust. This can be at an individual level, such as when a person doesn't trust someone else, or at the group level, such as when one country doesn't trust another country's motives. ‘These feelings of distrust can lead to a desire to distance oneself from the other or even to attack the other. One example of distrust leading to intergroup conflict is the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. ‘The two countries distrusted each other's motives and engaged in a long period of competition and tension that led to several crises, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis (Edelson & Eidelson, 2003). Helplessness: The fifth and final set of beliefs discussed here that can lead to intergroup confict is helplessness, This can be at an individual level, such as when a person feels powerless, or at the group level, such as when a country feels it cannot defend itself against another country's aggression ‘These feelings of helplessness can lead to a sense of despair or even resignation. One example of helplessness leading to intergroup conflict is the Rwandan genocide. ‘The Hutu majority in Rwanda felt helpless against the Tutsi minority, leading to the mass slaughter of Tutsis (Eidelson & Edelson, 2003). conflict resolution strategies Conflicts can be reduced if we know about their causes. The processes that increase conflict can be tumed around to reduce it also. A number of strategies have been suggested by psychologists. Some of these are Introduction of superordinate goals ‘Sherif's study, already mentioned in the sectian ‘on cooperation and competition, showed that by introducing superordinate goals, intergroup conflict can be reduced. A superardinate goal is mutually beneficial to both parties, hence bath groups work cooperatively. Altering perceptions : Conflicts can also be reduced by altering perceptions and reactions through persuasion, educational and media appeals, and portrayal of groups differently in society. Promoting empathy for others should be taught to everyone right from the beginningIncreasing intergroup contacts : Conflict can also be reduced by increasing contacts between the groups. This can be done by invalving graups in conflict on neutral grounds through community projects and events. The idea is to bring them together so that they become more appreciative of each other's stand. However, for contacts Ta be successful, they need to be maintained, which means that they should be supported over a period of time. Redrawing group boundaries : Another Technique that has been suggested by Some psychologists are redrawing the group boundaries. This can be done by creating conditions where groups boundaries are redefined and groups come to perceive themselves as belonging to a camman group. Negotiations : Conflict can also be resolved through negotiations and third party interventions. Warring groups can resolve conflict by trying to find mutually acceptable solutions. This requires understanding and trust. Negotiation refers to reciprocal communications $0 4s to reach an agreement in situations in which there is a conflict. Sometimes it is difficult to dissipate conflict through negotiations; At that time mediation and arbitration by a third party is needed. Mediators help bath parties to focus their discussions on the relevant issues and reach a voluntary agreement. In arbitration, the third party has the authority to give a decision after hearing both parties. Structural solutions : Conflict can also be reduced by redistributing the societal resources according to principles based on justice. Research on justice has identified several principles of justice. Some of these are : equality (allocating equally to everyone), need (allocating on the basis of needs), and equity (allocating on the basis of contributions of members). Respect for other group’s norms : In a pluralist society like India, it is necessary to respect and be sensitive to the strong norms of various social and ethnic groups. It has been noticed that a number of communal riots between diferent groups have taken place because of such insensitivity.