Social psychology, which mostly deals with the behavior of people, either individuals or groups, has established that there is a degree of influence that the presence of others affects the behavior of an individual. Indeed, the many research studies that have been conducted have confirmed that the presence of others has a great effect on the behavior of an individual. From the days of Asch, confirmed through Asch experiment, it can be confirmed that the presence of others affects the behavior of an individual in one way or the other. As it has been verified by social-psychological experiments, the presence of others affects an individual’s behavior in terms of group conformity and social facilitation among other effects. These effects are displayed through variation in attitudes, decisions, obedience, loyalty and other aspects that have been proved to vary, when one acts alone as compared to when one acts in the presence of others. As such, the presence of others can bring about positive or negative influences. Negative influences include the effects where one makes wrong choices while positive effects can be viewed through social facilitation of the presence of others that motivates one to perform excellently on a task. In lieu of the mentioned aspects, this essay will discuss the effect of the presence of others on a person’s behavior, especially as regards group conformity and social facilitation. Additionally, the essay will look at both the positive and negative effects of such deviations in behavior.

As identified in the introductory part of this essay, the presence of others affects one’ behavior in terms of group conformity. A major social-psychological experiment that explains group conformity is Asch experiments (Bernstein, 2010). In Asch experiments, there is evidence of a significant number of the participants making wrong decisions knowingly in order to identify with the group. A survey of some of the participants showed that they feared ridicule from the other members of the group. The fear of ridicule and rejection from the other members of the group influenced them to make a wrong decision, even though they knowingly did so. Indeed, in line with group conformity, some members of the group were influenced to drop their otherwise correct answer as they thought the other participants were correct because of the mere fact that they were the majority. In this case, the urge to identify with the majority made them drop their correct choices, an act that explains the essence of the effect of the presence of others. These results give an impression that the presence of others influences an individual by making them think that others are better off, and the individual also feels the urge to fit in the group. The level of conformity in Asch’s experiments is very evident in real life situations where the majority of the people act to impress their peers.

According to Nevid (2012), group conformity can be explained in three ways. The first way is in normative conformity, in which an individual feels the urge to give in to their instincts in order to fit in the group. Such behavior has been displayed in Asch’s line study (Bernstein, 2010). Normative conformity involvescompliance and loyalty, where an individual may just conform because of the fear of rejection from their peers. The second way in which an individual conforms to a group is informational conformity, in which an individual lacks knowledge and usually turns to the members of the group for guidance. In such a situation, the individual depends entirely on the group. As demonstrated in Sherif’s study, an individual may conform to a group because they are experiencing ambiguity in decision-making. In such a case, the individual has no option but to internalize the decisions that the group has made and adopt them. Lastly, there is the ingrational conformity, in which an individual conforms with a view of gaining favour or impressing the members. Ingrational conformity happens mostly when there is an expectation of social rewards, in which case the individual may be expectant. However, it is important to note that not all individuals conform. In a wider context, for example, people may fail to conform because of cultural differences.

The second way in which the presence of others affects the behavior of an individual is throughsocial facilitation as seen in impairments and improvements. According to Sharmar, Booth, Brown and Huget(2010), the presence of others has been found to improve the performance of individuals on tasks that are simple and easy to learn, otherwise known as dominant responses. On the same line, peer presence interferes with an individual’s understanding of new, difficult tasks. According to Robert Zanjoc’s theory of elevated arousal, and as supported by recent research studies in the area of social psychology, social facilitation results from distraction and apprehension evaluation. Distraction, according to the researchers, comes about as a result of the presence of others and affects the performance of an individual. In regard to evaluation apprehension, an individual’s behavior tends to change at the realization that their acts will be judged by others in the process of social facilitation. Indeed, crowding due to the presence of others leads to a change in the blood pressure, a reduction in contentment and an increase in aggression, in processes that are dictated by social facilitation.

The effect of the presence of others on an individual’s behavior results in both positive and negative consequences. Both group conformity and social facilitation have both positive and negative consequences on either the individual orthe influencing group. One way in which group conformity, for example, affects an individual is through the change of attitude. Through the principle of cognitive dissonance, an individual will not feel to hold constantly onto the inconsistent behavior that may lead to them being seen as opposers. Through attribution theory and the avoidance of the fundamental attribution error, an individual will do anything possible to avoid thoughts or attitude that increase cognitive dissonance. In the knowledge of such, the authority can use such influence to instill loyalty to its subjects (Sharmar, Booth, Brown,&Huget, 2010). On the same line, the management of an organization can use the same principle to ensure that employees are loyal to the management. While such acts are advantageous to the organization (positive effect), they may be disadvantageous to the individual (negative effect) since the individual will be required to suppress their inner judgments to identify with the expectations.

Social loafing is a good example of  a negative effect on the result of the presence of others’ effect on an individual’s behavior. Social loafing refers to a situation where an individual does not put enough effort to ensure a group succeeds in its mission. When tested individually, the individual tends to perform better on the same task. This is likely to have poor results on the part of the group. Another negative effect of a group’s influence on an individual’s behavior is deindividuation (Reicher, Spears, &Postmes, 2010). This is the instance where an individual loses self-restraint and self-awareness, especially while in group activities. Such an effect is very consequential because the individual may perform dismally as compared to their potential.

In essence, the negative effects of others’ influence on an individual’s behavior can be summarized into: making wrong decisions, cultivation of bad habits and the loss of identity. As seen in Asch’s experiments (Bernstein, 2010), an individual is likely to make a wrong decision as a result of peer influence. Regardless of the group’s perception of the decision, a wrong decision is disastrous to an individual. The cultivation of acceptance of peer influence to make wrong decisions repeatedly leads to bad habits (Blachnio&Weremko, 2012). Such behaviors have been very evident in teens, especially when they are lured into drug abuse and other bad behaviors by their peers. Additionally, as seen in informational group conformity, an individual tends to lose their identity in order to identify with the group. The loss of identity may lead to adverse consequences for the individual, including costing them the treasures of their lives.

On the other hand, a group’s influence is not always bad. As seen from the discussion, the presence of others can influence a person to be loyal to the authority. Loyalty is a virtue that is highly needed for the progression of humanity. In the case where the group exercises good habits, the individual is likely to be influenced into making the right decisions, hence ending up with the right behavior. Additionally, an individual can correct their weaknesses through group behavior, especially in the cases where they identify with the right peers.

In conclusion, the presence of others has significant influences on the behavior of an individual. The influences can result in either positive or negative behavior. This essay has discussed the influence of others on an individual’s behavior in relation to social facilitation and group conformity. The exploration of these two effects of peer influence has been supported by various social psychology researchers of all times. Among the negative effects of peer influence as outlined in the essay include adopting bad decisions, copying bad habits and losing one’s identity. The opposite is true in the case where an individual adopts the behavior of a positively-impacting group. In truth, the presence of others affects the behavior of an individual.

References

Bernstein, D. (2010). Essentials of psychology. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Blachnio, A.,&Weremko, M. (2012). Academic cheating is contagious: the influence of the presence of others on honesty, a report. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 1(1), 14-19.

Sharmar, D., Booth, R., Brown, R., &Huget, P. (2010).Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the stroop task.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 52-58.

Nevid, J. (2012). Psychology: concepts and applications. Boston, MA: CengageLearnng.

Reicher, S.D., Spears, R., &Postmes, D. (2010).A social identity model of deindivduation phenomena.European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161-198.

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW