4.8 - Individual & Group Performance
Social facilitation
Social facilitation refers to the way in which the presence of others can influence an individual's performance on a task. This concept was first explored by Triplett in 1898, who noticed that people often perform differently when others are around compared to when they are alone.
Factors influencing social facilitation
- Drive - This is the increased arousal and internal motivation that pushes someone to achieve a goal.
- Drive theory - Proposed by Zajonc in 1965, this theory suggests that people perform better on simple, familiar tasks in the presence of others due to heightened arousal. However, for complex or new tasks, this arousal leads to social inhibition, where performance worsens compared to working alone.
- Evaluation apprehension - This is the anxiety a person experiences when they fear being judged by others.
Research evidence for social facilitation: Schmitt et al. (1986)
Schmitt et al. conducted an experiment to demonstrate social facilitation and evaluation apprehension. They randomly assigned undergraduates to three conditions and measured task speed on simple and complex activities.
Key findings:
| Condition | Simple task speed | Complex task speed |
|---|---|---|
| Alone | Slowest | Fastest |
| In the presence of someone wearing a blindfold and headphones | Faster than alone | Slower than alone |
| In presence of an evaluating experimenter | Fastest | Slowest |
Social loafing
Social loafing occurs when individuals exert less effort when working in a group compared to working alone, leading to reduced overall group productivity. This was first observed by Ringelmann in 1913 through an experiment where people pulled on a rope attached to a pressure gauge. He found that as group size increased, each person's contribution decreased below their individual potential. Although groups still outperformed single individuals, the output was not as high as expected based on adding up individual efforts.
Social impact theory
Social impact theory, developed by Latané in 1981, provides an explanation for phenomena like social loafing. It proposes that the influence of others on an individual is divided among group members. As a result, in larger groups, each person experiences less social pressure and motivation. This can lead to loafing if individuals are not evaluated on their personal performance.
Research on social loafing and culture: Earley (1993)
Earley investigated how culture affects social loafing, focusing on individualism versus collectivism. The study also examined how efficacy expectations – beliefs about one's ability to perform individually or as a group – influence performance in different settings.
Method
- Volunteer sample of 165 entry-level or middle managers: 45 from Israel, 60 from China, and 60 from the USA, aged 25 to 40.
- Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: working alone, as a member of a ten-person outgroup, or as a member of a ten-person ingroup.
- In group conditions, participants were not physically together but were informed they belonged to an ingroup or outgroup.
- The task involved 60 minutes of simulated office work with 40 'in-basket' items, measuring performance, individualism-collectivism orientation, and self-efficacy for individuals and groups.
Results
- Individualists performed better when working alone.
- Collectivists performed better in ingroups.
- Results were partly mediated by self-efficacy levels and expected performance.
- Measures of group and individual self-efficacy and anticipated performance were higher for collectivists in ingroups.
Conclusions
- Individual and group efficacy increases in collectivists in ingroups.
- Individual loafing may occur in collectivists when working alone.
- Although collectivism-individualism affects group performance, type of group may be more important.
Electronic performance monitoring and social facilitation: Claypoole and Szalma (2019)
Electronic performance monitoring (EPM) involves using technology to observe workers, which can influence performance through social facilitation effects. Research suggests EPM may improve productivity on certain tasks but could impair difficult ones due to evaluation apprehension. Claypoole and Szalma tested this on a vigilance task – a cognitively demanding activity requiring sustained attention to detect rare signals.
Aim
To determine whether social facilitation effects could be observed when using EPM on a vigilance task.
Method
- Experimental design with independent samples.
- Independent variable: Presence or absence of EPM (using a webcam and video recorder).
- Dependent variables: Speed and accuracy in responding to 20 random 'critical signals' over 24 minutes.
- Controlled variables: Fixed time period, random allocation to conditions, and identical tasks for all.
- Volunteer sample: 106 US undergraduates (65 female, 41 male; mean age 20.57 years).
- Procedure: Participants completed a demographics questionnaire, a three-minute practice, and the main 24-minute task. They viewed a computer display of two-digit numbers and pressed the spacebar for 'critical signals' (numbers differing by 0 or ±1, like 45 or 66). Experimental group was told they were recorded (though no actual recording occurred). Ethics included voluntary participation, informed consent (with some deception revealed in debriefing), and course credit.
Results
| Measure | Electronic presence (n=53) Mean | Electronic presence (n=53) SD | Control (n=53) Mean | Control (n=53) SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correct detections | 0.6906 | 0.20 | 0.6038 | 0.21 |
| False alarms | 0.0059 | 0.01 | 0.0201 | 0.05 |
| Response times | 767.34 | 67.41 | 802.02 | 75.67 |
- EPM participants detected significantly more critical signals and had significantly fewer false alarms.
- EPM participants also had faster median times for each detection.
Conclusions
- Social facilitation, including EPM, can be used to improve performance on cognitively demanding but boring vigilance tasks.
- Video-based monitoring is an effective monitoring method.
Methodological issues in research on individual and group performance
Research in this area often uses experiments to test theories, but there are common strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths and weaknesses
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| Quantitative data – Studies like Earley (1993) and Claypoole and Szalma (2019) collect measurable data, improving replicability and allowing statistical analysis. | Ecological validity – Experiments often lack real-world realism; for example, Earley's participants had no group interaction, and Claypoole and Szalma used an unrealistic vigilance task. |
| Reliability – Quantitative methods (e.g., rating scales in Earley) and standardised procedures (e.g., in Claypoole and Szalma) reduce interpretation bias and increase replicability. | Generalisability – Samples like Claypoole and Szalma's US undergraduates may not apply to other populations or cultures. |
| Usefulness – Findings can guide organisations; Earley's cultural insights apply to diverse workplaces, and Claypoole and Szalma's support EPM for productivity. | Type of data – Reliance on quantitative measures limits understanding of underlying reasons for behaviours. |
Issues and debates
Cultural differences
Cultural differences may affect how people react to others' presence, whether real or electronic. Use of vigilance tasks and webcams varies, so participants would vary depending on familiarity with surveillance. Earley's study shows individualists and collectivists perform differently in group settings.
Application to everyday life
If EPM can increase performance on vigilance tasks, then organisations can use it to increase workplace productivity. However, volunteer participants agreed willingly to EPM use. There are ethical considerations regarding workplace use.