Belonging and Ostracism Flashcards
Group definition - Hogg and Vaughan
Two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition
Have something in common: live in the same area, share same religious beliefs
Group definitions - Johnson and Johnson
A collection of individuals who are interacting with one another
A social unit consisting of two or more individuals who perceive themselves as belonging to a group
A collection of individuals who join together to achieve a goal
A collection of individuals whose interactions are structured by a set of roles and norms
A collection of individuals who influence each other
Nested groups
Smaller groups can be found within larger groups
How roles within a group are decided and importance of them
Length of time: newcomer, full member, old timer
Level of commitment: peripheral (outskirts of group, does not get too involved), prototype (very committed to group, displays expected norms of group member, may not be a person but an idea)
Affects how strongly you can influence a group - prototype has more influence than peripheral
How being in a group impacts performances - cyclists and children
Observed that cyclists cycled faster when in a group than when solo
Examined children’s performances at winding in fishing reels alone versus with another
20 children performed better, 10 worse (overstimulated?) and 10 no change
Social facilitation
How the presence of others can impact a persons performance in a task
Better performance with easier tasks - as you have the skills needed
Worse performance with more difficult tasks - do not have the skills needed
Social facilitation in the presence of a virtual human
Participants completed easy and difficult tasks under three conditions: Alone, Another person present, A human-like avatar present
Easy tasks: Completion times quicker in presence of virtual human than alone; and in presence of human than alone
Hard tasks: Completion times slower in presence of virtual human than alone; and in presence of human than alone
Conclusion: Social facilitation effect can be seen in the presence of virtual humans
Real world examples of social facilitation
People eat more when in groups (Herman, 2015)
Competitive people perform better in sport in presence of others (Snyder et al, 2012)
Baggage X-Ray Handlers perform easy tasks quicker in presence of others but complex tasks slower in presence of others (Yu & Wu, 2015)
Evaluation of social facilitation
Strobe (2005) did statistical testing on Triplett’s raw scores and found very small effect (at best)
Bond & Titus (1983) – meta analysis. Social facilitation explained 0.3-3.0% of variation in behaviour
Triplett’s work gave foundation for further work in Social Facilitation and led to research in social loafing
Influential in Sports Psychology
Social loafing
When people work less hard on a task because they believe others are working on it
Social loafing experiment - tug of war
Ringelmann (1913) examined effort in a rope-pulling task with 1, 2, 3 and 8 person groups
Force per person decreased with increasing group size: ‘Ringelmann effect’
Compared with pseudo group (only front person was a real participant, all Ps behind them were confederates and just pretended to pull)
Large reduction in force in real groups, but also in pseudo groups
No coordination issues in pseudo groups, so must be due to lack of effort (motivation loss)
Factors that may impact social loafing
Evaluation potential - if you know your individual task will be analysed you are less likely to slack
Task valence - how important is the task to you? More important it is the less likely you are to social loaf
Group valence - how important the group is to you
Expectation of co-workers’ efforts - if you think others will put in the effort you are more likely to social loaf
Uniqueness of individual inputs - if your inputs are obvious you are less likely to social loaf
Gender - men are more likely to social loaf
Group size - the larger the group the more likely social loafing is
Culture - western societies are more likely to display social loafing tendencies
Why do we have a need for belonging
Belonging is an evolutionary need - for protection, reproduction and sharing resources
Feeling as though you belongs can have effects on functioning
Belonging to group can affect how we think (e.g. in-group bias)
Feelings of belonging can contribute to increase in engagement with school (Oyserman, Briskman, Bybee & Celious, 2006)
Belonging to group can result in feelings of contentment, happiness
Consequences of having no or low feelings of belonging:
behaviour problems, mental illness (anxiety, depression, loneliness)
Ostracism
Any behaviour where you are excluded or ignored by another individual or group
Detrimental in animals as it can lead to starvation and death, don’t have access to protection or shared resources
Which 4 fundamental needs does social exclusion undermine?
The need to belong
The need to have control
The need for self-esteem
The need for a meaningful existence
Functional to have an ‘early warning system’ that detects potential ostracism early to try to prevent it
Impacts of ostracism - cyberball
After playing Cyberball, ostracised participants report
lower mood
lowered sense of belonging
lower self esteem
Life is less meaningful
They are more likely to conform
These effects are found even when participants believe their exclusion is due to a technical fault, and when they know there are no real people involved
Sustained impacts of ostracism on different personality types - cyber ball
Looked at levels of social anxiety and ostracism
All participants were equally affected immediately after playing Cyberball
45 minutes later, participants low on social anxiety had ‘recovered’, while socially anxious participants still felt rejected
Does being ostracised lead to social loafing or social compensation? - method
3 Ps in a room, 2 confederates, one starts throwing a ball between them
3 Groups:
Ostracism: Started with 3 then left real P out
Inclusion: All 3 played ball throughout
Neutral: No ball game played
Participants then given one of two tasks:
Coactive - told individual performance is measured
Collective - told group performance is measured
Does being ostracised lead to social loafing or social compensation? - hypothesis
Control condition: Collective group lower than coactive group = social loafing
Ostracism condition: Collective group higher than coactive group = social compensation
Does being ostracised lead to social loafing or social compensation? - results - men and women
For females
Being ostracised leads to social compensation
No evidence of social loafing in control condition
For males
No significant differences
marginally non-significant difference in control condition (social loafing)
Explanations
Different emotions displayed in men and women?
Difference in coping strategies used? - women feel the need to prove themselves more
Impacts of long term ostracism
Long term ostracism can result in depletion of coping mechanisms and acceptance of message: you are worthless
Leads to: alienation, depression, helplessness, social avoidance, self-ostracism
Increased prevalence of depression, suicide, eating disorders, short-term promiscuity
Can also lead to attempts to regain control and recognition through aggression
Importance of interpersonal relationships
To give us a sense of belonging
How do we maintain a sense of belonging?
Promoting acceptance - opening doors, telling jokes, being kind
Reducing the likelihood of being ignored or rejected - following social norms
What is relational value?
The degree to which others value interacting and having a relationship with an individual
Those who are important to you have a high relational value to you
Those who are less important to you have a low relational value to you
Relational value is relative between people and does not have to be bidirectional - you can be more important to someone than they are to you
