Difficulty: Intermediate | Prerequisites: Social Cognition and Attitudes notes.
This unit covers two closely related areas. The Self asks how we construct and maintain our sense of who we are, including the roles of group identity, technology, biology, and self-regulation. Group Behaviour asks what happens when individuals come together: how groups shape thinking, how intergroup hostility develops, and how classic studies on conformity and obedience reveal the power of the social situation. These topics tie together because the self is not formed in isolation; it is built, tested, and sometimes compromised in social and group contexts. If you are behind, make sure you have the Social Cognition and Attitudes material first, since concepts like schemas, self-serving biases, and the attitude–behaviour link are assumed knowledge here.
Our sense of self develops through social interaction and is shaped by group memberships, culture, technology, and biology. When people form groups, predictable dynamics emerge: in-group favouritism, social facilitation and inhibition, loafing, and conformity to group norms. Classic experiments by Asch and Milgram show that social pressure can override individual judgement to a degree that surprises most people.
Self-concept clarity (SCC)
The extent to which a person's beliefs about themselves are clearly defined, internally consistent, and stable over time. Higher SCC is associated with better psychological adjustment. Think of it as knowing who you are and not having that picture shift dramatically from day to day.
Self-regulation
The process by which individuals monitor and control their own behaviour, emotions, and thoughts in pursuit of goals. In simple terms, it is the capacity to override impulses and stay on track.
In-group
A social group to which a person belongs or identifies with. People tend to view in-group members more favourably.
Out-group
A social group to which a person does not belong. Out-group members are often perceived as more homogeneous ("they're all the same") and are evaluated less favourably.
In-group bias (in-group favouritism)
The tendency to favour members of one's own group over members of other groups in attitudes, evaluations, and resource allocation. This occurs even when group membership is assigned on trivial or arbitrary criteria (as demonstrated in minimal group paradigm studies).
Contact hypothesis
The idea that intergroup hostility can be reduced through direct, sustained contact between groups, provided certain conditions are met: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support from authorities or social norms.
Social facilitation
The tendency for people to perform better on simple or well-practised tasks when in the presence of others. Think of it as the audience lift you get when doing something you are already good at.
Social inhibition
The tendency for people to perform worse on complex or unfamiliar tasks when in the presence of others. The flip side of social facilitation.
Social comparison theory
Festinger's (1954) theory that people evaluate their own abilities and opinions by comparing themselves to others, especially when objective measures are unavailable. We compare upward (to those doing better) and downward (to those doing worse), with different emotional and motivational consequences.
Social identity theory
Tajfel and Turner's theory that a significant part of a person's self-concept is derived from the groups they belong to. People are motivated to see their in-groups positively, which drives in-group favouritism and out-group derogation.
Social loafing
The tendency for individuals to exert less effort when working collectively than when working alone, particularly when individual contributions are not identifiable. Think of it as hiding in the crowd.
Conformity
Adjusting one's behaviour or thinking to align with group norms or standards. Asch's line-judgement studies are the classic demonstration.
Obedience
Complying with the commands of an authority figure, even when those commands conflict with personal values. Milgram's shock experiments are the defining study.
How identity develops in relation to others
The self is not a solo construction. We learn who we are through social interaction: reflected appraisals (how we think others see us), social comparison (how we stack up against peers), and the roles we occupy in groups.
Charles Cooley's "looking-glass self" captures this: we imagine how we appear to others, imagine their judgement, and develop a self-feeling (pride or shame) in response.
Self-concept clarity (SCC)
SCC measures how clearly and confidently a person can describe who they are.
Low SCC is associated with neuroticism, low self-esteem, and rumination. High SCC is linked to psychological well-being and more stable relationships.
SCC can fluctuate: major life transitions (starting university, ending a relationship) can temporarily lower it.
Technology and the self
Social media platforms create new arenas for identity construction. People curate online selves that may diverge from their offline experience.
Challenges include: social comparison intensified by curated feeds, pressure to present an idealised self, fragmentation of identity across platforms, and reduced self-concept clarity when online and offline selves conflict.
Group identity and the self
Slotter et al. (2015) and related work show that group memberships become part of the self-concept. When a valued group membership is lost (e.g. leaving a team, a breakup that severs a shared social circle), people can experience reduced self-concept clarity, because part of who they understood themselves to be is no longer available.
Biology and the self
Postan (2016) and related readings raise the question of how much of the self is biological. Genetics, neuroscience, and pharmacology all suggest that some aspects of personality, temperament, and cognitive style have biological substrates.
The course does not take the position that the self is entirely biological or entirely social; the point is that both interact.
Self-regulation
Self-regulation is the capacity to control impulses, manage emotions, and direct behaviour toward goals.
It draws on limited cognitive resources (the "ego depletion" model, though this is debated in recent literature).
Failures of self-regulation underlie many social problems: procrastination, addiction, impulsive aggression, and poor health behaviours.
In-groups and out-groups
Merely categorising people into groups, even on arbitrary criteria (the "minimal group paradigm"), is enough to produce in-group favouritism and out-group derogation.
Once group boundaries form, people tend to see out-group members as more similar to each other than they are (out-group homogeneity effect) and in-group members as more varied.
Why hostility develops
Competition over scarce resources (realistic conflict theory, demonstrated in Sherif's Robbers Cave experiment) fuels intergroup hostility.
Social identity processes add a motivational layer: people want their in-group to be positively distinct from out-groups, so they may derogate out-groups to boost their own group's standing.
In-group bias does not require personal animosity toward out-group members. It can operate through preferential treatment of in-group members rather than active harm toward out-group members.
The contact hypothesis and Sherif's Robbers Cave
Sherif et al.'s Robbers Cave experiment (1954) is the classic study. Two groups of boys at a summer camp were brought into competition, which generated intense hostility. Conflict was reduced only when the groups had to cooperate toward superordinate goals (goals that required both groups to work together).
The contact hypothesis holds that intergroup contact reduces prejudice, provided four conditions are met: equal status between groups, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and institutional support (authorities and norms endorse the contact).
Simple exposure to out-group members without these conditions can sometimes increase rather than decrease hostility.
Social facilitation
The presence of others enhances performance on simple or well-learned tasks. The dominant response (the one most likely to occur) is strengthened.
Zajonc's drive theory explanation: the presence of others increases physiological arousal, which amplifies the dominant response.
Example: an experienced runner posts a faster time when racing alongside others than when running alone.
Social inhibition
The presence of others impairs performance on complex or novel tasks, for the same reason: arousal strengthens the dominant response, and on an unfamiliar task the dominant response is often the wrong one.
Example: a student learning a new language struggles more when practising in front of classmates than when practising alone.
Social comparison theory
Festinger (1954) proposed that people have a fundamental need to evaluate their abilities and opinions, and they do so by comparing themselves to others.
Upward comparison (comparing to someone better) can be motivating but also threatening to self-esteem.
Downward comparison (comparing to someone worse off) can boost self-esteem but may reduce motivation.
Social media has intensified social comparison processes by providing a constant stream of curated upward-comparison targets.
Social identity theory
Tajfel and Turner argued that people derive part of their self-esteem from their group memberships.
When in-group status is threatened, people are motivated to restore positive distinctiveness, either by competing with out-groups, redefining the criteria of comparison, or leaving the group for a higher-status one.
Social identity theory explains why people take sports losses personally, why national pride matters, and why intergroup conflict can escalate even without material stakes.
Social loafing
People reduce effort in group tasks when they believe their individual contribution is not identifiable.
Loafing increases with group size (more places to hide) and decreases when the task is meaningful, the group is cohesive, or individual contributions are monitored.
Cultural moderation: social loafing is less pronounced in collectivist cultures, where group outcomes carry personal significance.
Asch's line-judgement study
Participants judged which of three comparison lines matched a standard line, an objectively easy task. Confederate "participants" unanimously gave wrong answers on critical trials.
About 75% of participants conformed at least once. Overall conformity rates across all critical trials were around 33%.
The study demonstrates normative social influence: people conform to group pressure even when the group is clearly wrong, often to avoid social rejection or awkwardness.
Factors that increased conformity: larger unanimous majorities (up to a point), higher task difficulty, lower self-confidence. Factors that decreased conformity: the presence of a single dissenter (even one who gave a different wrong answer), private responding.
Milgram's obedience studies
Participants were instructed by an experimenter (authority figure) to deliver increasingly intense electric shocks to a "learner" (a confederate). No real shocks were delivered.
In the baseline condition, 65% of participants obeyed all the way to the maximum 450-volt shock.
The study demonstrates the power of authority and the social situation: ordinary people can engage in harmful behaviour when directed by a legitimate authority figure in a structured setting.
Factors that reduced obedience: physical proximity to the learner, absence of the experimenter, presence of disobedient peers, reduced institutional legitimacy of the setting.
Distortions and misrepresentations over time
Asch's study is sometimes cited as proof that people are "sheep" who always conform. The fuller picture is more nuanced: the majority of responses were correct, and many participants resisted conformity. The study shows that conformity pressure is real and potent, not that it is irresistible.
Milgram's study has been simplified into a narrative that people will blindly follow orders. More recent scholarship highlights that many participants showed visible distress, that obedience rates varied dramatically across conditions, and that participants often understood themselves as cooperating with a legitimate scientific enterprise rather than mindlessly following commands. Ethical criticisms of the study (deception, distress, lack of informed consent) are also part of the story.
Both studies are sometimes used to make sweeping claims about human nature that go beyond what the data support. The exam expects you to know the studies well enough to discuss what they do and do not show.
Social facilitation and inhibition explain why athletes perform differently in practice vs. competition, and why open-plan offices can hurt complex cognitive work. Social loafing is relevant to any team-based workplace or classroom project: making individual contributions visible reduces it. The contact hypothesis informs desegregation policy, workplace diversity programmes, and international exchange programmes. Conformity and obedience research has been applied to understanding atrocities, corporate ethical failures, and the design of organisational safeguards (e.g. anonymous reporting systems, whistleblower protections).
Students often think social facilitation means groups always improve performance. They do not. The effect depends on task complexity: presence of others helps on easy tasks and hurts on hard ones.
Students confuse social loafing with social inhibition. Loafing is about reduced effort (motivational). Inhibition is about impaired performance due to arousal (cognitive/physiological). Different mechanisms, different solutions.
Students sometimes describe Milgram's participants as sadistic or unusual. They were ordinary people in a powerful situation. The point of the study is about the situation, not the character of the participants.
Students may assume that the contact hypothesis means any contact between groups reduces prejudice. It does not. Contact without the conditions (equal status, common goals, cooperation, institutional support) can backfire.
⚠️ Self-concept clarity (SCC) is likely to appear as a short-answer question. Know the definition, what high vs. low SCC looks like, and how life transitions or group membership loss can reduce it.
⚠️ The Robbers Cave experiment is the go-to study for the contact hypothesis. Be ready to describe the study's three phases (group formation, intergroup conflict, conflict resolution through superordinate goals) and name the four conditions required for contact to reduce prejudice.
⚠️ Social facilitation vs. social inhibition: expect a scenario asking you to predict whether the presence of others will help or hurt performance. The answer depends on task complexity.
⚠️ Asch and Milgram are among the most commonly tested studies in introductory social psychology. The exam will likely ask not just what happened, but what the studies reveal about the power of the social situation, and how they have been oversimplified or misrepresented.
⚠️ Social loafing vs. social inhibition is a distinction students often fumble. Loafing is motivational (effort drops when you can hide in the group). Inhibition is arousal-driven (performance drops on hard tasks because others are watching). Know which is which.
⚠️ Social identity theory ties the Self unit to the Group Behaviour unit. Be prepared to explain how group membership feeds self-esteem and why threats to in-group status trigger out-group derogation.
True or False: Social facilitation improves performance on all types of tasks.
Answer: False. Social facilitation improves performance on simple or well-learned tasks but impairs performance on complex or novel tasks (that impairment is called social inhibition).
Fill in the blank: The four conditions for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice are equal status, common goals, ________, and institutional support.
Answer: Intergroup cooperation.
True or False: In Milgram's baseline obedience study, the majority of participants refused to deliver the maximum shock.
Answer: False. 65% of participants obeyed all the way to the maximum 450-volt shock.
Fill in the blank: ________ theory argues that part of our self-esteem comes from the groups we belong to.
Answer: Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner).
True or False: Social loafing tends to be equally strong in individualist and collectivist cultures.
Answer: False. Social loafing is less pronounced in collectivist cultures, where group outcomes carry greater personal significance.
Q: Explain how self-concept clarity (SCC) can be affected by the loss of a group membership. Use a concrete example.
A: SCC depends in part on stable group memberships that anchor the self-concept. When a valued group membership is lost (e.g. an athlete who is cut from a team, or a person who goes through a breakup that also severs a shared friend group), the person loses a source of identity. Their sense of who they are becomes less clear and less stable, temporarily lowering SCC. Slotter et al. (2015) found that relationship dissolution reduced self-concept clarity because the partner had been integrated into the self.
Q: A group of students is assigned a joint presentation worth 20% of their grade. One student contributes very little. Which concept explains this, and what could the instructor do to reduce it?
A: This is social loafing: the student reduces effort because individual contributions are not easily identifiable within the group product. The instructor could reduce loafing by making individual contributions identifiable (e.g. peer evaluations, individual sections of the presentation), increasing the task's meaningfulness, or reducing group size so that each person's effort is more visible.
Q: In Asch's conformity study, what happened when a single confederate broke from the unanimous majority and gave the correct answer? What does this tell us about conformity?
A: Conformity dropped sharply when even one confederate dissented from the majority. This shows that unanimity is a critical ingredient of conformity pressure. A single ally, or even a single person who breaks consensus (even with a different wrong answer), substantially weakens the group's power to compel agreement. It suggests that conformity is driven more by the appearance of consensus than by the number of people in the majority.
Q: Describe two factors that reduced obedience in variations of Milgram's experiment. What do these variations reveal about the nature of obedience?
A: (1) Physical proximity to the learner: when participants were in the same room as the learner, or required to physically press the learner's hand onto the shock plate, obedience dropped significantly. (2) Presence of disobedient peers: when two confederate "teachers" refused to continue, the participant's obedience rate fell to around 10%. These variations reveal that obedience is not a fixed personality trait but a product of situational factors. The more psychologically distant the harm and the more legitimate and present the authority, the higher the obedience.
Q: Explain the difference between social facilitation and social loafing. Could both occur in the same group setting?
A: Social facilitation is the enhancement of performance on simple tasks due to the arousal caused by the presence of others. Social loafing is the reduction of individual effort in a group when contributions are not identifiable. They could co-occur in the same setting: a team member might experience facilitation on the easy parts of a task (because others are watching) while simultaneously loafing on the hard parts (because individual effort is hidden within the group output). The key distinction is that facilitation is about arousal affecting performance quality, while loafing is about motivation affecting effort quantity.
The Self unit connects back to social cognition (self-serving biases, egocentric thought) and attitudes (cognitive dissonance as a mechanism for protecting self-consistency). Social identity theory bridges the Self and Group Behaviour units by showing that group membership is part of the self-concept. The contact hypothesis and in-group bias connect to the Attitudes unit's coverage of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Conformity and obedience research connects to the multi-level analysis framework: both studies illustrate how the situational and institutional levels can override the dispositional level.
The self, self-concept, self-concept clarity, SCC, identity, looking-glass self, reflected appraisals, self-regulation, ego depletion, technology and identity, social media and self-concept, group identity, Slotter, biology and the self, Postan, in-group, out-group, in-group bias, in-group favouritism, out-group homogeneity effect, minimal group paradigm, realistic conflict theory, Robbers Cave experiment, Sherif, contact hypothesis, superordinate goals, social facilitation, social inhibition, Zajonc, dominant response, social comparison theory, Festinger, upward comparison, downward comparison, social identity theory, Tajfel, Turner, positive distinctiveness, social loafing, free-riding, conformity, Asch, line-judgement study, normative social influence, obedience, Milgram, authority, situational power, PSYCH 101, social psychology midterm, NYU social psychology