(b) Reduced effort in a group

Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to exert less effort when working in a group than when working alone, due to diffusion of responsibility and reduced identifiability.

(c) Competing

Tuckman’s five stages are: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. “Competing” is not one of the stages.

(b) Makes initially held views more extreme

Group polarisation is the tendency for group discussion to strengthen members’ initial inclinations — making cautious individuals more cautious and risky individuals more risky.

(c) Primary group

A family is a primary group — small, intimate, with strong emotional bonds and long-lasting relationships.

(b) Suppressing dissent to maintain group harmony

Groupthink (identified by Irving Janis) occurs when group members prioritise consensus and harmony over critical thinking, leading to poor decision-making.

Social loafing is the tendency of individuals to put in less effort when working collectively in a group compared to when working individually.

Two ways to reduce social loafing:

1. Make individual contributions identifiable — when each person’s work can be tracked and evaluated separately, they are more likely to put in full effort (e.g., assigning specific tasks with individual accountability)

2. Keep groups small — in smaller groups, each member’s contribution is more visible and important, reducing the opportunity for free-riding

Group polarisation is the phenomenon where group discussion causes members’ initial attitudes to become more extreme in the same direction.

If members start with a slightly risky attitude, discussion will make the group more risky (risky shift). If they start cautiously, discussion will make them more cautious (cautious shift).

Example: A group of students initially somewhat in favour of organising a protest against a school policy discuss the matter. After discussion, they become much more strongly in favour and decide to stage a large-scale demonstration. The discussion amplified their initial inclination rather than moderating it.

Reasons: Social comparison (wanting to align with the dominant view), informational influence (hearing supporting arguments reinforces the position), and group identity (wanting to represent the group’s values strongly).

Nature of Groups:

A group is a collection of two or more individuals who:

• Interact with each other regularly
• Share common goals and interests
• Have defined roles and norms
• Perceive themselves as a collective unit
• Are interdependent — each member’s actions affect others

Groups are distinct from mere aggregates (e.g., people in a queue) because group members have a shared identity and structured relationships.

Why people join groups: Security, self-esteem, affiliation, goal achievement, status, and access to information.

Tuckman’s Model of Group Development:

1. Forming: The initial stage where members meet, get to know each other, and understand the group’s purpose. There is uncertainty and members are polite and cautious.

2. Storming: Conflicts and disagreements emerge as members compete for roles, express different opinions, and challenge authority. This can be an uncomfortable but necessary stage.

3. Norming: The group establishes shared norms, rules, and expectations. Cohesion develops, roles are clarified, and members begin cooperating effectively.

4. Performing: The group functions at its best. Members work collaboratively toward goals, resolve conflicts constructively, and achieve high productivity.

5. Adjourning: The group disbands after achieving its goals. Members may experience a sense of accomplishment along with sadness at the group’s end.

Not all groups pass through every stage smoothly — some may regress or get stuck at certain stages.

Groups exert powerful influence on individual behaviour through several mechanisms:

1. Social Loafing:

The tendency for individuals to put in less effort when working in a group than when working alone. This occurs because:

• Diffusion of responsibility — the responsibility for the outcome is spread across all members, so no single person feels fully accountable
• Reduced identifiability — individual contributions may not be separately evaluated
• Free-rider effect — some members rely on others’ efforts

How to reduce social loafing: Make individual contributions identifiable, keep groups small, assign specific roles, set clear individual and group goals, and increase group cohesiveness.

2. Group Polarisation:

The tendency for group discussion to make members’ initial views more extreme. After discussion:

• A slightly risky group becomes more risky (risky shift)
• A slightly cautious group becomes more cautious (cautious shift)

Causes include:

• Social comparison — members adjust their views to match or exceed the dominant position
• Informational influence — new arguments supporting the prevailing view strengthen it
• Group identity — members adopt more extreme positions to demonstrate loyalty

Other forms of group influence:

• Conformity — adjusting behaviour to match group norms (demonstrated by Asch’s line experiment)
• Groupthink — suppressing dissent and critical thinking to maintain harmony, leading to poor decisions
• Social facilitation — improved performance on simple tasks in the presence of others

These phenomena demonstrate that being in a group fundamentally alters how individuals think and behave.

(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A

This describes social loafing. In larger groups, individual contributions become less visible (reduced identifiability), and responsibility for the outcome is diffused among many members. This causes individuals to exert less effort than they would if working alone.

(i) The phenomenon being demonstrated is social loafing — the tendency for individuals to exert less effort when working in a group than when working alone.

(ii) Two causes:

1. Diffusion of responsibility — the four students feel that since others are “already handling it,” they don’t need to contribute. The responsibility for the project is spread across six people, reducing each individual’s sense of personal accountability.

2. Free-rider effect — the four students are “free-riding” on the efforts of the two hardworking students. They benefit from the group’s output (grades) without contributing their fair share of effort.

(iii) Three strategies:

1. Individual accountability — assign specific, clearly defined tasks to each student and evaluate each person’s contribution separately (e.g., individual marks for individual sections)

2. Reduce group size — divide the group of six into smaller groups of two or three, where each member’s contribution is more visible and essential

3. Peer evaluation — have group members rate each other’s contributions. This increases identifiability and social pressure to contribute, as each student knows their effort will be evaluated by their peers

(i) Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs in highly cohesive groups where the desire for consensus and harmony overrides members’ ability to think critically and evaluate alternatives realistically. It was identified by Irving Janis.

(ii) Two symptoms from the passage:

1. Suppression of doubts — members avoid expressing their concerns or objections to maintain group harmony
2. Pressure on dissenters — members who disagree are pressured to conform to the majority view, discouraging independent thinking

(iii) Groupthink leads to poor decisions because:

• Alternative viewpoints are suppressed — the group does not consider a full range of options or potential risks
• Critical evaluation is absent — members do not challenge assumptions or test ideas against evidence
• Illusion of unanimity — silence is interpreted as agreement, creating a false sense that everyone supports the decision
• As a result, the group may make a decision that is irrational, risky, or inappropriate — one that no individual would have made on their own

(iv) Two ways to prevent groupthink:

1. Assign a “devil’s advocate” — designate one member to deliberately challenge proposals and raise counterarguments. This ensures critical examination of ideas even in a highly cohesive group.

2. Encourage open discussion and dissent — the leader should actively invite different opinions, refrain from stating their own preference early, and create a safe environment where disagreement is welcomed rather than punished.