Full model answers to all 5 Review Questions printed at the end of NCERT’s Psychology textbook, Chapter 7: “Social Influence and Group Processes” (Reprint 2026-27). This book uses Review Questions instead of a formal “Exercises” section; the same 5 questions appear in both the English and Hindi editions, matching one-to-one. After them come the chapter’s in-text questions and its three in-text Activities (7.1 to 7.3).
Q. Compare and contrast formal and informal groups, and ingroups and outgroups.
Answer: Formal and informal groups differ in how explicitly the group’s functions are stated. A formal group’s functions and the roles of its members are explicitly and formally declared, the group is formed on the basis of specific rules or laws, and a set of norms helps establish order: a university is the book’s example. An informal group’s formation is not based on rules or laws at all; instead, members share a close, informal relationship. Ingroup and outgroup are a different kind of distinction: “ingroup” refers to one’s own group, for which the word “we” is used, while “outgroup” refers to another group, for which the word “they” is used. Ingroup members are generally seen as similar to oneself, viewed favourably, and seen as having desirable traits, whereas outgroup members are viewed differently and are often perceived negatively. The book adds a caution: although it is common to make these categorisations, these categories are not real and are created by us. In some cultures, such as India, plurality is celebrated.
Q. Are you a member of a certain group? Discuss what motivated you to join that group.
Answer: This is a personal, reflective question with no single correct answer, but a strong answer should connect your own group membership to the book’s six reasons people join groups: security (feeling protected and less vulnerable), status (recognition from belonging to a group others see as important), self-esteem (a sense of self-worth and positive social identity), satisfaction of psychological and social needs (belongingness, giving/receiving attention), goal achievement (achieving as a group what one could not achieve alone), and knowledge and information (broadening your view through the group). For example: “I am a member of my school’s debate club. I joined mainly for self-esteem and status: winning inter-school debates gave me a sense of pride and recognition, and also for knowledge and information, since discussing topics with other members broadened my own understanding of current issues.”
Q. How does Tuckman’s stage model help you to understand the formation of groups?
Answer: Tuckman’s model breaks group formation into five developmental stages, which helps explain why a group’s early days feel different from its later, settled functioning. In the forming stage, there is great uncertainty about the group, its goal, and how to achieve it, along with a mix of excitement and apprehension as members try to know each other. This is followed by storming, a stage of intragroup conflict over how the goal should be achieved, who should control the group and its resources, and who should perform which task: a stage that ends once a leadership hierarchy and a clearer shared vision emerge. In norming, members develop shared norms about group behaviour, which builds a positive group identity. By performing, the group’s structure has evolved and is accepted by all members, who now move together toward the group’s goal: for some groups, this is the final stage. For some groups, for example an organising committee for a school function, there may be a fifth stage, adjourning, in which the group may be disbanded once the function is over. The model’s practical use is in showing that groups do not always move through the stages in a fixed sequence: several stages can run at once, groups may go back and forth, or skip some stages.
Q. How do groups influence our behaviour?
Answer: The book’s own Summary names social facilitation and social loafing as the chapter’s two important influences of a group on individual behaviour; the chapter body also develops a third, group polarisation. First, social facilitation: the presence of others leads to arousal that can enhance a person’s performance on a task they are already good at, provided their individual effort is being separately evaluated. Second, social loafing: a reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task whose outputs are pooled with those of other group members, such as tug-of-war, where no one can identify how much force any one member is exerting. Latané’s experiment demonstrated this directly: as group size grew from being alone to groups of 2, 4 and 6, the total noise produced rose, but the noise produced by each individual participant actually dropped. This happens because members feel less individually responsible, know their contribution will not be separately evaluated, know the group’s performance is not compared with other groups, experience poor coordination, or simply do not find belonging to the group important. Third, group polarisation: the strengthening of a group’s initial position as a result of discussion within the group, so that groups are more likely to reach extreme decisions than individuals acting alone: illustrated by the book’s example of colleagues deciding a bribe-taking employee’s punishment: they may let her/him go scot-free or decide to terminate her/his services instead of imposing a punishment commensurate with the act. This occurs because members hear new supporting arguments from like-minded people, feel their view is validated by a “bandwagon effect,” and start identifying similar-minded people as their own ingroup, which strengthens their conformity to the shared view.
Q. How can you reduce social loafing in groups? Think of any two incidents of social loafing in school. How did you overcome it?
Answer: The book gives five ways to reduce social loafing: (i) making each person’s individual effort identifiable, (ii) increasing the pressure to work hard by committing members to successful task performance, (iii) increasing the task’s apparent importance or value, (iv) making people feel that their own individual contribution matters, and (v) strengthening group cohesiveness, which raises motivation for a successful group outcome. Two typical school incidents, and how they can be overcome using these principles: (1) In a group project where only one or two students end up doing most of the work while others “loaf,” the teacher can assign each member a clearly identifiable, individual sub-task with their name attached, so each person’s own contribution becomes visible and can be evaluated separately: directly using the “identifiable effort” remedy. (2) In a group cleaning or decoration task before a school event, where students in a large group put in less effort than they would alone, dividing the large group into smaller, clearly accountable teams with a specific target each, and reminding members how important the finished task is to the event’s success, increases both the task’s apparent importance and each member’s sense that their own share matters: directly using the “apparent importance” and “individual contribution matters” remedies.
In-text questions. The chapter asks a few questions inside its text. They are reflective, so the answers below are guidance built from the chapter’s own ideas.
Q. Have you ever been away to a place where you were without your family, school, and friends? How did you feel? Did you feel there was something vital missing in your life?
Answer (guidance): Describe such a time honestly. The chapter’s point is that our family, class and friends are groups that provide the needed support and comfort and facilitate our growth, so being away from all of them usually feels as if something vital is missing.
Q. Look at these two pictures.
Answer (guidance): Picture A shows a football team: a group, in which members interact with one another and have roles and goals. Picture B shows an audience watching the match: a mere collection of people who by some coincidence happened to be in the same place at the same time.
Q. Just think about your group of friends. Would you have been friends if you were not living in the same colony, or going to the same school, or may be playing in the same playground?
Answer (guidance): Probably not. Repeated interactions with the same set of individuals give us a chance to know them and their interests and attitudes, and common interests, attitudes and background are important determinants of liking for group members.
Q. Why do we like people who are similar?
Answer: The book gives two explanations. (1) People prefer consistency and like relationships that are consistent; when two people are similar there is consistency, and they start liking each other. (2) Meeting similar people reinforces and validates our own opinions and values, so we feel we are right and start liking them.
Q. 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?
Answer: Individuals work less hard in a group than they do when performing alone. This is social loafing: a reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task whose outputs are pooled.
In-text Activities. The chapter also prints three Activity boxes inside the text. They are classroom exercises, so there is no single model answer; the guidance below shows what to look for, using the chapter’s own ideas.
Q. Select 10 members from your class randomly and form a committee to plan an open house. See how they go ahead. Give them full autonomy to do all the planning. Other members of the class observe them as they function. Do you see any of these stages emerging? Which were those? What was the order of stages? Which stages were skipped? Discuss in the class.
Answer (guidance): Watch for Tuckman’s stages. Forming: members are unsure of the goal and of each other, with excitement and some apprehension. Storming: disagreements over how to plan the open house, who takes charge and who does which task, ending with some leadership hierarchy. Norming: the committee agrees on how it will work together. Performing: the planning actually moves ahead. Adjourning: once the open house is over, a committee like this disbands. Also note the book’s caution: stages may run together, the group may go back and forth, or skip a stage.
Q. Think of any interinstitutional competition held in the near past. Ask your friends to write a paragraph about your school and its students, and about another school and students of that school. Ask the class and list the behaviour and characteristics of your schoolmates, and students of the other school on the board. Observe the differences and discuss in the class. Do you also see similarities? If yes, discuss them too.
Answer (guidance): The paragraphs usually show the ingroup-outgroup pattern the chapter describes: your own school (“we”) is described as similar, favourable and with desirable traits, while the other school (“they”) is described differently and often more negatively. Seeing real similarities between the two lists shows the book’s point that these categories are not real but are created by us.
Q. Give the class a short, 5-item attitude scale developed by your teacher to assess attitudes towards capital punishment. Based on their responses, divide the class into two groups, i.e. those pro-capital punishment and those anti-capital punishment. Now seat these groups into two different rooms and ask them to discuss a recent case in which death sentence has been given by the court. See how the discussion proceeds in the two groups. After the discussion, re-administer the attitude scale to the group members. Examine if, in both groups, positions have hardened in comparison to their initial position as a result of group discussion.
Answer (guidance): If group polarisation occurs, both groups’ positions harden: the pro group becomes more strongly in favour and the anti group more strongly against. The chapter’s three reasons explain why: like-minded members hear newer arguments that favour their own view, others agreeing feels like public validation (a sort of bandwagon effect), and members start seeing the like-minded group as their ingroup, identify with it and conform, so their views become stronger.