Match the situations in List-I with the group influence they show in…

Match the situations in List-I with the group influence they show in List-II.

List-I	List-II
(A) Kiran, a good singer, sings better on stage when the judges score her alone.	(I) Group polarisation
(B) In a rope-pulling game at a school fete, each boy pulls with less force than when he pulls alone.	(II) Social facilitation
(C) A panel that leaned towards a strict penalty for a cheating student ends up, after discussion, giving the harshest penalty.	(III) Favouring one's own group in a minimal group
(D) Students grouped only by the colour of their name tags give more marks to members of their own colour group.	(IV) Social loafing

Choose the correct answer from the options given below:

Answer & explanation

Correct answer: option 1

The correct answer is Option (1) → A-II, B-IV, C-I, D-III

List-I	List-II	Reason
(A) Kiran, a good singer, sings better on stage when the judges score her alone.	(II) Social facilitation	Kiran is already good and is judged alone. The presence of others raises arousal and improves her performance: social facilitation.
(B) In a rope-pulling game at a school fete, each boy pulls with less force than when he pulls alone.	(IV) Social loafing	A rope pull is a collective task where each boy's force cannot be identified, so individual effort drops: social loafing.
(C) A panel that leaned towards a strict penalty for a cheating student ends up, after discussion, giving the harshest penalty.	(I) Group polarisation	The panel's initial position became stronger after discussion, giving an extreme decision. This is group polarisation.
(D) Students grouped only by the colour of their name tags give more marks to members of their own colour group.	(III) Favouring one's own group in a minimal group	Groups made on a flimsy criterion still lead members to favour their own group, as in Tajfel's minimal group experiments.

NCERT (2026-27): “Social Loafing
Social facilitation research suggests that presence of others leads to arousal and can motivate individuals to enhance their performance if they are already good at solving something. This enhancement occurs when a person’s efforts are individually evaluated. What would happen if efforts of an individual in a group are pooled so that you look at the performance of the group as a whole? Do you know what often happens? It has been found that individuals work less hard in a group than they do when performing alone. This points to a phenomenon referred to as ‘social loafing’. Social loafing is a reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task, i.e. one in which outputs are pooled with those of other group members. An example of such a task is the game of tug-of-war. It is not possible for you to identify how much force each member of the team has been exerting. Such situations give opportunities to group members to relax and become a free rider. …”

“… Groups show another tendency referred to as ‘group polarisation’. It has been found that groups are more likely to take extreme decisions than individuals alone. Suppose there is an employee who has been caught taking bribe or engaging in some other unethical act. Her/his colleagues are asked to decide on what punishment s/ he should be given. They may let her/ him go scot-free or decide to terminate her/his services instead of imposing a punishment which may be commensurate with the unethical act s/ he had engaged in. Whatever the initial position in the group, this position becomes much stronger as a result of discussions in the group. This strengthening of the group’s initial position as a result of group interaction and discussion is referred to as group polarisation. …”

Match the situations in List-I with the group influence they show in List-II.

List-I	List-II
(A) Kiran, a good singer, sings better on stage when the judges score her alone.	(I) Group polarisation
(B) In a rope-pulling game at a school fete, each boy pulls with less force than when he pulls alone.	(II) Social facilitation
(C) A panel that leaned towards a strict penalty for a cheating student ends up, after discussion, giving the harshest penalty.	(III) Favouring one's own group in a minimal group
(D) Students grouped only by the colour of their name tags give more marks to members of their own colour group.	(IV) Social loafing

Choose the correct answer from the options given below:

Answer & explanation

Correct answer: option 1

The correct answer is Option (1) → A-II, B-IV, C-I, D-III

List-I	List-II	Reason
(A) Kiran, a good singer, sings better on stage when the judges score her alone.	(II) Social facilitation	Kiran is already good and is judged alone. The presence of others raises arousal and improves her performance: social facilitation.
(B) In a rope-pulling game at a school fete, each boy pulls with less force than when he pulls alone.	(IV) Social loafing	A rope pull is a collective task where each boy's force cannot be identified, so individual effort drops: social loafing.
(C) A panel that leaned towards a strict penalty for a cheating student ends up, after discussion, giving the harshest penalty.	(I) Group polarisation	The panel's initial position became stronger after discussion, giving an extreme decision. This is group polarisation.
(D) Students grouped only by the colour of their name tags give more marks to members of their own colour group.	(III) Favouring one's own group in a minimal group	Groups made on a flimsy criterion still lead members to favour their own group, as in Tajfel's minimal group experiments.