Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Groups and individual motivation reduction

Groups and individual motivation reduction:
How can group dynamics diminish or undermine individual motivation?

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Overview

Case study Figure 1. Space Shuttle Challenger explodes after take-off after warnings of launching in cold weather were ignored. "How could we have been so blind?" President John F. Kennedy and his group of advisors reflected after the Bay of Pigs Invasion, a disastrous military operation against Cuba in 1961 (Janis, 1972). The same sentiment reverberated through the world on 28th January 1986, when the Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated just 73 seconds after launch (see Figure 1), leading to the tragic loss of seven astronauts (Janis, 1972). Despite repeated warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching in cold weather, NASA officials pressed on, swayed by the unanimity of groupthink and dismissed crucial dissenting opinions (Janis, 1972).

These cases highlight how group dynamics can severely undermine individual motivation and decision-making quality (Walker & Main, 1973). However, this phenomenon extends beyond high-stake situations like space missions and military operations; it infiltrates everyday life, affecting organisational, legal, and social contexts (Walker & Main, 1973). Juries deliver verdicts that contradict the evidence presented, while other groups adopt radical stances on issues without fully considering the consequences (Myers & Lamm, 1976; Forsyth, 2024). Research also demonstrates that anonymity and confirmation bias have perpetuated group dynamics on social media platforms, leading to polarised opinions and reduced critical thinking (Sunstein, 2017).

Psychological science provides valuable insights into the mechanisms that diminish individual motivation in groups and methods to address them. This chapter explores the psychological phenomena such as groupthink, group polarisation, social loafing, deindividuation and diffusion of responsibility, and examine how they reduce individual motivation by diminishing accountability, critical thinking, and active participation. By understanding these dynamics, organisations can implement strategies to promote critical thinking, uphold individual accountability, and foster environments that value diverse perspectives.

Focus questions: What drives individuals to seek inclusion in groups, and what psychological needs are fulfilled through group participation? What psychological theories explain how groups undermine individual motivation? In what specific ways do group dynamics undermine individual motivation in everyday life? What strategies can be used to mitigate the negative effects of group dynamics?

The need to belong

Humans have an inherent need to belong, and this need drives much of our behaviour, especially when it comes to group dynamics (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). A simulation by Sandstrom and Dunn (2014) found that 71% of people feel happier with others than when alone. Schachter (1959) also found that when people were placed in uncertain, stressful situations and offered the choice to wait alone or with others, 63% of participants preferred to wait with others. This indicates a strong motivation to seek social support in challenging circumstances (Schachter, 1959).

Why do individuals gravitate towards groups?

Across individuals, societies, and throughout history, humans have consistently valued inclusion over exclusion and sought companionship over solitude (Sandstrom & Dunn, 2014). Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging have found that individuals left out of group activities exhibit increased activity in the anterior insula and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (Eisenberger et.al., 2003). These regions are associated with the experience of physical pain (Eisenberger et.al, 2003). Being excluded from a group does not just hurt emotionally - it literally causes physical pain (Eisenberger et.al, 2003).

Groups vs individuals

Figure 2: This game of tug-of-war demonstrates the benefits of working with groups. In this instance, a team can achieve more than a single person.

Groups often form for a specific purpose, whether it's solving problems, creating products or sharing knowledge (Sandstrom & Dunn, 2014). In many instances, groups can accomplish more than people working alone (Latane, et.al., 1979). For instance, a single person in a game of tug-of-war would struggle to compete against a team (see Figure 2; for more benefits of groups, see Groups and individual motivation enhancement). Research on social facilitation shows that working in groups can boost motivation and performance, especially when people know their efforts are being observed by others (Bond & Titus, 1983). However, this dynamic changes when tasks require an even collective effort, where the contributions of individuals are less visible (Latane et.al., 1979).

Think about it... Have you ever felt frustrated by the lack of effort from group members when working on a group assignment? Have you wondered why they are contributing less than if they were working on it individually? Studies have shown that people often exert up to 64% less effort when they believe their contributions are not easily identifiable or evaluated, which can significantly impact the quality of the group’s output (Latané et.al., 1979). Keep reading to find out ways to combat the "doom and gloom" of group assignments!

Psychological theories

To understand how group dynamics can impact individual motivation, it's crucial to examine several key psychological theories. These theories provide insights into how group processes can diminish individual motivation to actively participate, act accountably, and contribute meaningfully to group tasks.

Groupthink

Groupthink occurs when a group values consensus and conformity over critical analysis, which can reduce individual motivation to share differing views (Grube & Killick, 2023). In these situations, people refrain from sharing their disagreement because they believe their input may be met with resistance (Janis, 1972). As a result, individuals may become passive participants, leading to disengagement and less investment in the group's decisions, ultimately harming the quality of the outcomes (Grube & Killick, 2023).

Janis (1972) identified several characteristics that foster groupthink among intelligent groups which are applied to the case study of the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster in Table 1 below:

Table 1

Application of Janis' (1972) elements of groupthink to the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger Case Study

Janis' (1972) Groupthink Element	Application to Challenger Disaster
Illusions of unanimity	NASA's team believed there was unanimous agreement to launch despite the concerns about the cold weather. This led some engineers and scientists to doubt their objections and accept the decision to launch, rather than voicing their concerns.
Unquestioned beliefs	The NASA team held a strong belief in the reliability of their shuttle program and their engineering solutions. This overconfidence led them to underestimate the risks posed by the cold weather, and ignore critical safety warnings.
Rationalisation	The engineers concerns were rationalised as isolated incidents, rather than serious issues that could jeopardise the mission, minimising the perceived threat of potential failure.
Stereotyping	Those who voice concerns about the launch were stereotyped as overly cautious or pessimistic. This stereotyping led to the dismissal of their viewpoints and reinforced the group's decision to proceed.
Mindguards	These mindguards prevented the full range of concerns from being openly discussed and considered, thus shielding the group from information that might have altered their decision
Illusions of invulnerability	By maintaining an overly optimistic view of the shuttle program's success, the NASA team were led to an unjustified belief in the mission's success.
Direct pressure	The group were under pressure by the media and NASA leadership to launch successfully.

The Challenger disaster demonstrates how groupthink can lead to catastrophic outcomes when critical thinking is sacrificed for conformity (Janis, 1972). A thematic analysis of cabinet decisions confirmed that these dynamics can be used to predict poor decision-making within the United Kingdom Government (Grube & Killick, 2023). Addressing these groupthink elements is crucial to preventing future failures in high-stakes decisions (Janis, 1972).

Social loafing

Social loafing occurs when individuals exert less effort while working in a group compared to when they work alone (Karau & Williams, 1993). When people believe that their individual contributions will not significantly impact the group's outcome or assume that peers will compensate for their lack of effort, their motivation to actively participate and contribute diminishes (Latane, et.al., 1979). Social loafing can lead to lower overall productivity and effectiveness within the group, and intensifies as group size increases (Latane, et.al., 1979). Social loafing is common in group settings, including workplaces, academic projectsm and sports teams, where individual contributions seem less critical (Karau & Williams, 1993).

Case study: Latané and colleagues (1979) investigated social loafing through an experiment where students were instructed to cheer or clap, either alone or in groups of different sizes. As group size increased, individual effort decreased: participants in pairs exerted only 66% of their potential effort, and in groups of six, this dropped to 36%. Even when participants merely believed they were in a group, their effort still decreased, demonstrating that social loafing stems from reduced motivation rather than coordination issues (Latané et al., 1979).

Group polarisation

Figure 3: Man holding a provocative sign during the Iranian hostage crisis protest 1979, demonstrating the extreme political opinions that can form by group polarisation

Researchers have also found that group members tend to adopt views that are more extreme than their initial beliefs after discussion with other group members (Myers & Lamm, 1976). Moscovici and Zavalloni's (1969) research with 140 students demonstrated that group discussions intensified negative opinions towards Americans while simultaneously increasing positive views of the French government. A metanalysis found that prejudiced individuals who discussed racial issues with like-minded peers developed even stronger negative biases, whereas those with more tolerant views became even more accepting of diversity (Mullen & Salas, 1991; see Figure 3).

This research demonstrates that group polarisation can undermine individual motivation by compelling members to conform to more extreme group views or behaviours, even if these are more radical than their initial beliefs (Myers & Lamm, 1976). Festinger's social comparison theory (1954) supports this, suggesting that people seek groups to validate their own beliefs and attitudes. As a result, the need for validation often outweighs critical thinking, diminishing individuals' intrinsic motivation to question or moderate their views (Festinger, 1954).

Deindividuation

Deindividuation occurs when people in a group lose their sense of personal identity, which diminishes their motivation to act ethically, often leading them to engage in behaviours they would not typically exhibit alone (Festinger, et.al.,1952). This loss of individuality reduces personal responsibility and increases the likelihood of impulsive or violent behaviour, especially when people feel anonymous within the group (Goldstein, 2002). Zimbardo's study (1973) demonstrates how group contexts and anonymity foster detachment from one's usual self-regulatory mechanisms, leading individuals to reflect the group’s dynamics rather than adhere to their own values.

Case study: Zimbardo's (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated how deindividuation can create a state of altered consciousness. College students assigned as "guards" in a mock prison quickly adopted aggressive and authoritarian behaviours, imposing harsh and degrading punishments on the "prisoners." The guards' anonymity, reinforced by their uniforms and mirror sunglasses, led to a loss of personal responsibility. The motivation to act in morally right ways was undermined by the collective identity and the power dynamics established within the group. The prisoners, dehumanised by being referred to by numbers instead of names, became submissive and emotionally distressed. The experiment was intended to last two weeks but was terminated after just six days due to the extreme behaviour exhibited by the participants.

Diffusion of responsibility

Diffusion of responsibility occurs when people in a group feel less responsible to take action because they assume that others will respond instead (Darley & Latane, 1968). This undermines individual motivation to act in critical situations because as responsibility is spread across the group, the likelihood of any single person acting decreases (Darley & Latane, 1968). This perceived reduction in personal responsibility can result in mass inaction, as seen in the Genovese case:

Case study: In 1964, Kitty Genovese was brutally attacked and murdered outside her New York apartment. Despite multiple neighbours hearing her cries for help, none intervened or called the police, assuming someone else would take action. This case study became notorious for what was perceived as the community's apathy, sparking widespread media attention and public outrage (Mullen et.al., 1998).

Test yourself! 1 What phenomenon occurs when individuals in a group reduce their effort because they believe their contributions are less noticeable? Social facilitation Group polarisation Groupthink Social loafing 2 Which psychological theory explains how group discussions can lead to more extreme positions than individuals initially held? Deindividuation Groupthink Group polarisation Diffusion of responsibility 3 According to the Stanford Prison Experiment, what psychological effect led participants to act in ways they normally wouldn’t? Deindividuation Groupthink Social loafing Diffusion of responsibility

These psychological theories offer a foundational understanding of how group dynamics can undermine individual motivation. The next section explores how these concepts manifest in everyday life and provide strategies to overcome these effects.

Group dynamics in practice

The impact of social media on group dynamics

Social media has become a significant arena for group dynamics and has profoundly impacted individual motivation and behaviour (Bastug, et.al., 2020). With its vast reach and algorithm-driven content, these platforms allow users to create echo chambers - online spaces where their existing beliefs are reinforced by like-minded individuals. Bastug and colleagues' (2020) study of 51 Canadian extremists demonstrated that group polarisation is intensified on social media, as users tend to engage with content that reinforces their existing views, making opinions and attitudes more extreme over time. Sunstein (2017) further argues that this selective exposure of information can lead to a narrowing of perspectives, reducing motivation to seek out diverse viewpoints or question personal beliefs.

Furthermore, the anonymity provided by social media platforms can increase deindividuation, often exacerbating toxic behaviour. Suler (2004) describes the online disinhibition effect in which anonymity allows people to act more aggressively or unethically than they would in person. The group dynamic diffuses personal responsibility for such actions and reduces individual motivation to avoid behaviour like online harassment or bullying (Bastug et.al., 2020).

Group dynamics in political and legal contexts

Group dynamics also play a powerful role in political and legal settings, where they can have significant consequences on decision-making processes. Walker and Main's (1973) conducted a study of 521 U.S. Federal District court judges' decisions to investigate group polarisation. When making decisions alone, judges took extreme actions 35% of the time, but when deliberating in groups, this increased to 65% (Walker & Main, 1973). This reinforces previous findings and has demonstrated that group polarisation is prevalent even among those expected to be impartial and measured in their judgements.

In politics, Abramowitz and Saunder's (2008) analysis of United States election results from 1952-2004 demonstrates that partisan loyalty often leads people to support their party's stance without question, simply because it aligns with their group's identity. This blind allegiance suppresses individual thinking and leads people to ignore alternative policies that might better serve the public (Brams, 1991). Forsyth (2024) reinforces this, observing that political environments are becoming more polarised, with individuals increasingly entrenched in their views.

The implications of these group dynamics extend to the broader democratic process. Sunstein (2009) notes that groupthink and partisan loyalty can undermine democratic principles by stifling the diversity of perspectives and critical evaluation necessary for a healthy democracy. When freedom of speech is stifled, the erosion of critical discourse and diversity of opinion weakens the democratic process, potentially leading to decisions that are less reflective of the population's true desires (Sunstein, 2009).

Reflecting on these dynamics is crucial for fostering environments that encourage individual responsibility, critical thinking and the consideration of diverse perspectives. As social media continues to evolve and influence our interactions, and as political and legal landscapes become increasingly polarised, it is essential to remain vigilant about the ways in which group dynamics can shape our behaviours and decisions.

Think about it... As you scroll through social media this week, take a moment to spot the group dynamics in action! Can you see how your algorithm might be reinforcing your opinions? Notice how people can be harsher in the comments because of the anonymity online. Keep an eye out for how people might rally behind a trending topic, quickly jumping on the bandwagon without much thought. Or maybe you'll spot how group pressure influences people to share or like content that everyone else seems to be supporting. Happy scrolling, and remember—you're now equipped to see beyond the screen! 🧐📱

Overcoming group dynamics

Fortunately, research has found effective strategies (Table 2) to counteract the effects of group dynamics, ensuring that group work remains productive, inclusive, and balanced.

Table 2.

Strategies to Overcome Group Dynamics

Group dynamic	Strategy to overcome the group dynamic
Social loafing	Clearly define each member's role and responsibilities to ensure accountability. For example, in group projects, assign specific tasks to individuals and regularly review progress (Latane, et.al., 1979).
Groupthink and polarisation	Promote open discussion that considers all alternative viewpoints (Janis, 1972). Admit to the possibility of failure and actively seek out diverse perspectives to avoid bias (Myers & Lamm, 1976). Allow time for reflection and individual consideration before finalising decisions to prevent hasty choices driven by group pressures (Sunstein, 2009).
Deindividuation and diffusion of responsibility	Encourage personal accountability by setting clear participation guidelines, fostering transparency, and providing individual feedback (Darley & Latané, 1968). When individuals are aware of their specific contributions and responsibilities, they are more likely to be motivated to act ethically (Darley & Latané, 1968). Use the Delphi Method which gathers anonymous input from all group members to reduce bias and encourage independent thinking, minimising the influence of dominant voices (Linstone & Turoff, 1975).

The role of leaders

Leaders are pivotal in shaping group behaviour and individual motivation, and can even influence the overall mood of the group (George, 1995). To combat groupthink, leaders should ensure consider appointing a "devil's advocate" or breaking the group into smaller discussion teams to bring out diverse perspectives (Janis, 1972). Leaders should avoid expressing their preferences early on to avoid biasing the group (Janis, 1972). In the Space Shuttle Challenger case, pro-launch opinions by leaders discouraged open discussion and contributed to the tragedy (Moorhead et.al., 1991).

Future research avenues

As group dynamics evolve with changing social climates and the rise of social media, it is essential for research to adapt existing strategies to align with the modern environment. Some meta-analyses indicate that these strategies remain effective (Gerber et al., 2018; McComb, 2023). However, these findings must be interpreted with caution given the lack of participant blinding and potential publication bias from omitting key studies. Therefore, more rigorous and comprehensive research is needed to fully understand the applicability and effectiveness of these strategies in contemporary settings.

Conclusion

The desire to seek inclusion in groups, share experiences, and receive validation fulfills the human need for social support and interpersonal attachments (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). However, key psychological theories reveal that group dynamics can diminish individual motivation by reducing accountability, critical thinking, and active participation. These dynamics are increasingly prevalent in social media and politics, where they not only reinforce ideological conformity and suppress diverse perspectives, but also exacerbate polarisation, and undermine democratic principles. Moving forward, research should adapt existing strategies to the modern landscape. Meanwhile, groups must implement practices that promote individual accountability, encourage open debate, and foster an environment where diverse perspectives are valued. Organisations and individuals alike can actively manage group dynamics to foster healthier group environments, informed decision-making, and contribute to more effective collaboration.

See also

• Diffusion of responsibility (Wikipedia)
• Deindividuation (Wikipedia)
• Group polarisation (Wikipedia)
• Groupthink (Wikipedia)
• Social loafing (Wikipedia)
• Groups and individual motivation enhancement (Book chapter, 2024)

References

Abramowitz, A., & Saunders, K. (2008). Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381608080493

Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Bastug, M., Douai, A., & Akca, D. (2020). Exploring the "demand side" of online radicalisation: Evidence from the Canadian context. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 43(7), 616–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2018.1494409

Brams, S. (1991). Alternative voting systems. In L. S. Maisel (Ed.), Political parties and elections in the United States: An encyclopedia (pp. 23–31) Garland.

Darley, J. & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589

De Dreu, C., & West, M. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191–1201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191

Eisenberger, N., Lieberman, M., & Williams, K. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(2), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057906

Forsyth, D. (2024). The psychology of groups. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds.), Noba textbook series: Psychology. DEF publishers.

George, J. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(9), 778–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01775.x

Gerber, J., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127

Goldstein, A. (2004). The psychology of group aggression. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013451

Grube, D. C., & Killick, A. (2023). Groupthink, polythink and the challenges of decision making in cabinet government. Parliamentary Affairs, 76, 211-231. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab047

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascos. Houghton-Mifflin

Karau, S., & Williams, K. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822 Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley.

McComb, C. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effects of social media exposure to upward comparison targets on self-evaluations and emotions. Media Psychology, 26(5), 612–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2023.2180647

Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. (1991). Group decision fiascoes continue: Space Shuttle Challenger and a revised groupthink framework. Human Relations, 44(6), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679104400601

Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027568

Mullen, B. & Salas, E. (1998). Meta-analysis and the study of group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(4), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.2.4.213

Myers, D. & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 602–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602

Sandstrom, G., & Dunn, E. (2014). Is efficiency overrated?: Minimal social interactions lead to belonging and positive affect. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613502990

Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford University Press.

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295

Sunstein, C. (2009). Deliberative trouble? Why groups go to extremes. The Yale Law Journal, 110(1), 71–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/797343

Sunstein, C. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.

Walker, T. & Main, E. (1973). Choice shifts and extreme behavior: Judicial review in the federal courts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 91(2), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1973.9923044

Zimbardo, P., Haney, C., & Jaffe, D. (1973). The psychology of imprisonment: A study of the social dynamics of the prison environment. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1(4), 269–278.

External links

• Exploring negative group dynamics (Article, Cornell University)
• Group dynamics and behaviour (Universal Journal of Educational Research)
• The psychology of groups (NOBA Project, University of Richmond)