Definition: Individuals exert less effort in

group tasks than when working alone.

Tug-of-War Experiment (Ingham, 1975):

Co-actors: Individuals performing the
People pulled 18% less in perceived group
Definition: Performance is influenced by same task alongside you.
settings.
the presence of others.
Key Studies: Social Loafing: Audience: Observers of your performance.
Noise Experiment: Individuals clapped
less loudly when they thought others were
Norman Triplett (1898): Cyclists performed
contributing.
better in groups than individually.
Implication: Responsibility diffuses in
group efforts, leading to unconscious free- Social Facilitation: Findings:
Improve performance on simple or well-
riding. practiced tasks.

Presence of others can: Hinder performance on complex or

unfamiliar tasks (e.g., solving mazes, math
Misrepresentation of the case led to problems).
insights on group inaction. Kitty Genovese Case (1964):
Presence of others increases arousal.
Pluralistic Ignorance: Misinterpreting
Robert Zajonc (1965):
inaction as a signal that help isn’t needed. Arousal improves performance on simple
Key Phenomena: tasks but hinders it on complex tasks.
Diffusion of Responsibility: Belief that
someone else will act.
Bystander Effect: Children imitate behaviors observed in
Smoke-Filled Room Study: People report
emergencies less when others are present. adults, whether aggressive or passive.
Albert Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment
Experiments: (1970s): Key Insight: Learning occurs through
Seizure Study: Response times decrease
as the perceived number of witnesses imitation even without explicit
reinforcement. Conformity
increases.

Directly assign responsibility (e.g., “You in Participants were instructed by an authority

the green sweater, call an ambulance!”). Overcoming the Effect: figure (experimenter) to deliver electric shocks to
a "learner" (an actor) whenever they gave an
incorrect answer.

Definition: Groups sometimes make Social Learning Theory: Stanley Milgram (1960s) Key finding: A significant percentage of participants
decisions that are riskier than what any
individual member would choose on their
Influence of Others 1 were willing to administer potentially lethal shocks,
simply because they were instructed to by an
Conclusion: People tend to obey authority
figures even when it conflicts with their
own. authority figure personal morals.

A group of investors might decide to back A simulated prison environment where Within days, guards exhibited abusive
a high-risk project, even though individual participants were randomly assigned roles behavior, while prisoners displayed
members were more cautious before the of guards or prisoners. extreme stress and helplessness.
group discussion. Example: Risky Shift:

Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) Key finding: Situational power and

Diffusion of Responsibility: Risk feels assigned authority roles can lead
"safer" when shared among the group. individuals to behave in ways they Conclusion: Social roles and environments
wouldn’t normally. significantly influence behavior.
Social Comparison: Individuals want to Why It Happens:
align with or exceed the group’s
enthusiasm.
Muzafer Sherif (1930s): Studied
If individuals are slightly risk-prone, the Risky Shift vs. Group Polarization: conformity using the autokinetic effect
group becomes more risk-prone. (illusion of movement in a stationary light).
Definition: Group discussions amplify the
initial tendencies of the group. Norm Formation:
If individuals are slightly cautious, the Responses converge over time, influenced
group becomes more cautious. by group norms.

A team discussing a cautious approach to

a business strategy may end up choosing
an even more conservative plan after Conformity
discussion. Example: Group Polarization:

75% conformed to incorrect group

Reinforcement of Ideas: Group discussion
answers at least once.
strengthens pre-existing beliefs.
Group Decision Making: Solomon Asch (1950s): Line judgment experiments revealed: Normative Function: Fear of rejection or
Desire to Fit In: Individuals align more
desire to fit in.
strongly with the perceived majority
opinion. Why It Happens: Reasons:
Informational Function: Belief others
might be correct.
Exposure to New Arguments: Hearing
others' reasons for a position may solidify it
further.

Strong group cohesion overrides critical

thinking.

Overestimation of the group’s correctness.

Members dismiss or rationalize warnings Symptoms:

and negative feedback that challenge the Groupthink (Irving Janis):
group’s assumptions

Encourage critical evaluation.

Assign a devil’s advocate. Prevention strategies:

Hold second-chance meetings.