Block 2

Question 1

Inclusion

Answer 1

Inclusion is the need to belong. A pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positie and impactful interpersonal relationships.

Question 2

Ostracism

Answer 2

Ostracism is being excluded and ignored

Question 3

Ostracism and brain

Answer 3

Ostracism is painful - it activates pain regions in the brain (anterior Cingulate and right ventral prefrontal)

Question 4

Why is ostracism bad

Answer 4

Ostracism is detrimental to health - it effects:

Psychological health 
Lower satisfaction with basic human needs
Belonging
Self esteem
Control
Meaningful existence 

Physical health to like High blood pressure, heart disease, shorter life span

Question 5

Consequences of ostracism

Answer 5

3 stages to ostracism:

Reflexive stage (pain)
Reflective stage (appraisal and coping)
Resignation stage (alienation/depression)

Question 6

Stage 1 of ostracism of the Temporal need threat model of ostracism

Answer 6

Stage 1 of ostracism is the reflexive stage

It’s the pain so the lack of:
Belonging
Self esteem
Control
Meaningful
Existence and can lead to 

Anger
Sadness
Shame
Uncertainty

Question 7

Stage 2 of the temporal need-threat model of ostracism: Reflective stage

Answer 7

The reflective stage looks at trying to fit in, getting angry and lashing out and seeking solitude

Question 8

Stage 3 of the temporal need threat mode of ostracism: Resignation Stage

Answer 8

Resignation stage looks at alienation, depression, helpfulness, worthlessness

Question 9

Does ostracism lead to aggression?

Answer 9

Leary case: Example of 15 school shootings that occurred. Ostracism is one of the causal factors of mass violence

Question 10

Does ostracism lead to negative emotions

Answer 10

Experiment for this to test cause and effect relationships. Study showed being ignored/excluded occurs more in ostracism and also need for satisfaction is much lower in ostracism than in inclusion.

The preference over the next ride was mainly to be alone for ostracism or to have a new group. Participants rarely wanted to remain in the group that they feel ostracised from.

Question 11

Ostracism in group events

Answer 11

Ball tossing paradigm development (CYBERBALL)

Question 12

Ostracism occurs online

Answer 12

Inclusion: control condition
Ostracism: experimental condition

Question 13

What people do to overcome ostracism

Answer 13

They reduce painC and decrease sensitivity to physical pain. Through paracemental, marijuana, alcohol and schizotypal personality disorder

But pain is functional

Question 14

Ways to improve comping methods of ostracism

Answer 14

Methods of coping with ostracism are:

Prevent rumination/distraction
Focus attention, mindfulness training
Dogs
Social support
Reminders of close relationship partners
Comfort food
Prayer / self affirmation

Question 15

Affiliation why people seek it

Answer 15

People seek affiliation because

Romantically involved individuals are more satisfied with their lives and healthier
Many solitary activities are in fact social
Individuals administer electric shocks to themselves when being alone
Itroverts are happier when acting like extraverts

Question 16

Solitude

Answer 16

Solitude are often studied as forced solitude:
Ostracism, exclusion, rejection
Loneliness
Solitary confinement

Question 17

Stanley schachter study

Answer 17

Stanley stachheter study is about the book of pshychology of affiliation. All about giving electric shocks to patients. Those with low anxiety would rather wait alone before getting it done, but those with high anxiety would rather wait with others. It’s the term misery loves company.

He done a further statement where he said to two different sets of people one that the girls are talking about it in the hall, and one where he directed them where to go but didn’t mention talking. Affiliation with ones who got told others were talking was high but ones where no talking was mentioned was low. It gives the term misery doesn’t love just any kind of company, it loves only miserable company.

Question 18

Stress and affiliation in a hospital setting - James Kulik Pre operative roommate preferences

Answer 18

This looked at whether patients waiting for surgery would rather wait with someone who is going to have surgery too, no preference or one who just had one. The most favourable one was post operative and least popular was pre operative.

Patients discovered a strong interest for post operative people (dissimilar emotional status) rather then pre operative (similar emotional status)

Question 19

When do people seek affiliation

Answer 19

When under stress/anxiety they want emotional support

When under uncertainty they want informational support.

Question 20

The idea of cloak

Answer 20

Cloak is an app that helps users reduce their social fatigue by finding where friends co workers etc are and by being able to avoid them

Question 21

Hermits

Answer 21

Hermits are people who choose to love in solitude and avoid social interactions

Links to Buddhism where monks apply yourself to solitude. One who does so will see things as they are

Question 22

Solitude experiences

Answer 22

Solitude is a state of being alone - either by oneself, or if in the presence of others, without any social interaction eg dining alone in a restaurant

Solitude experiences:
Solitude as loneliness
Solitude as anonymity

Question 23

Preference for solitude

Answer 23

Preference for solitude scale is predicted hours per week that they interact with friends, and get quiet time alone
Also looks at number of attempts to initiate conversations

Question 24

Why people seek solitude

Answer 24

Why someone would want to be on their own,

Tired stressed out studying upset angry

A motive perhaps like their best friend betrayed them

Infrequent answers would be masturbation

2013 handbook of solitude results;
Negative emotions 20% (angry depressed anxious)
Non social 47% (concentrate, excerise, sleep, private behaviours)
Social 30%
Social pain (death of family/friend, romantic relationship dissolution, excessive social interaction (need alone alone time, social exhaustion)

Question 25

The cyberball example with seeking solitude

Answer 25

The ball is obvs being thrown with them so they are inclduded. But when the next offer of same group new group and alone is offered. The new group is the highest as they may seek new people to be with and alone is there as they can be exhausted

Question 26

Why do people seek solitude

Answer 26

People seek solitude when they feel ostracised. In solitude they tend to lick ones wounds

People also seek solitude when they feel smothered. In solitude they tend to rejuvenate

Question 27

Push and pull

Answer 27

Push and pull is the argument that affiliation and solitude are direct lllsite and you can’t do one if you want the other

Question 28

Social facialiation

Answer 28

Norman triplet did an archival study: bicyclists go faster when competing eg against clock, pacemaker and competition.

Lab study was boys reeled a motor contraption faster in the social presence of another competing boy

Question 29

Social facilitation after Triplett

Answer 29

3 different studies,

1. Compressnce (zajonic)
   Follow route what group does

2: evaluation apprehension
Being evaluated is arousing, and the presence of others implies potential evaluation
If you can make such that others are present but clearly can’t evaluate social facilitation should disappear. Blindfolded audience or expertise of the audience.

3. Distraction conflict - the presence of others is distracting and being distracted from a task is arousing. Thus either distraction alone (non social, eg loud unpredictable noise) should be sufficient to cause so called social facilitation
   Studying exams while listening to music

Question 30

Social facilairion route

Answer 30

Costume or evaluative presence of others > arousal > likelihood of dominant response leads to either 1) performance on easy well learned tasks 2) performance on difficult, poorly learned tasks

Question 31

Ringelmann effect and social loading

Answer 31

Ringlemann effwct is the tendency for individual members of a group to become increasingly less productive as the size of their group increases.

Study was he got men to pull on a rope as individuals and as part of a group. The research showed that the greater the size of the group the less effort each individual put into pulling the rope.

Steiner did a study and believed the ringlemann effect is not psychological and more about in coordination. But

Alan lingham blindfolded his participant and told some that they were pulling part as a team and some on their own. Participants who thought they were part of group exerted less effort than those who were told they were pulling alone

Later latane Willems and Garmins did a test on potential for coordination loss and noise production. The results showed that the bigger the group the less effort of getting the correct results

Question 32

Social loafing

Answer 32

Social loafing is trying less hard when working collective than when working coactively (or individually)

Question 33

The difference of social facilition and loafing

Answer 33

Individual tasks are social facilaition

Collective tasks are social loafing

Question 34

Route of social loafing

Answer 34

Route of social loafing is
1. Collective presence of others
2. Low arousal
3. Less likly of dominant response
Then either
Less performance on easy well learned tasks
Or less performance on difficult poorly learned tasks

Question 35

Meta analysis of all the studies on social loafing

Answer 35

Karau and Williams meta analysis study of 78 social Loafing studies

It revealed that the primary causes of social loading are:
Evaluation potential - we log more when it’s more difficult to evaluate our contributions( free riders v loafers)

Task valence we loaf more in meaningless tasks
Uniqueness of individual inputs - we loaf more when we believe our contributions are redundant

Group size - we loaf more in larger groups

Sex and culture - makes and people from individualistic cultures loaf more than females or people from collectivistic cultures

Task complexity - while motivation is not stringy affected by task complexity, performance is. Studies show worse performance collectively with simple tasks, better performance in complex tasks.

Question 36

Norb kerr sucker effect

Answer 36

The norb kerr sucker effect is we loaf more when we expect that our coworkers will be weak contributors

Question 37

Social compensation

Answer 37

Social compensation is a study from Williams and karau - we loaf less when we expect that our co workers will be weak contributors

Under certain circumstances, individuals will compensate for others on collective tasks; thus working (and trying) harder collectively than coactively
When partners are not expected to contribute sufficiently
When the task is meaningful

Question 38

Social compensation study 1/3

Answer 38

Study 1 for social compensation: trust as an individual difference

If we have high levels of trust in our co workers should we be less or more likely to socially loaf.

Rotters interpersonal trust scale: trust in the sense that you can depend on others, Rely on others, others keep their word, they don’t cheat.
Results were low trusters socially compensated
Medium trusters socially loafed
High trusters socailly loafed big time

Question 39

Study 2 of social compensation : partner effect

Answer 39

Stage 2; groups of two individuals in 2x2 between a design. Task description held constant at highly meaningful. (Ie indicating intelligence)

Idea generation task; the more the better
Worked co actively or collective
Partner ( a confederate) would say

(Low effort partner) this is interesting but I’m not going to try very hard

High effort partner this is interesting I’m going to try really hard

Results shows that when we think our partner will try hard we loaf
When we thinknour partner will not try hard we socially compensate

Question 40

Study 3 of social compensation: partner ability

Answer 40

Study 3 of social compensation is partner ability:

Groups of 2x2x2 between s designs
Task description is manipulated:
Highly meaningful (indicTing intelligence)
Low meaningful

Worked co actively or collectively

Low effort ability; this is interesting but I’m awful at this sort of thing
Hugh effort partner: this is interesting I’m pretty good at this sort of thing

Results: of our partner is highly able, we loaf
If our partner is unable to perform wel, we socially compensate

Social compensation appears to require that we value the task or the meaning attached to the performance

Question 41

Implications of social compensation

Answer 41

Implications of social compensation is

Trust isn’t always a good thing
Hugh trusters may take adv of others efforts and contributions, and slack off when the opportunities arise.
Encouraging individuals to increase their trust in their coworkers (eg trust exercises) might actually promote social loafing

Question 42

Cohesiveness reduces social loafing

Answer 42

Cohesiveness reduces social loafing -

Karau and Williams - in 2 studies for intact groups social loafing was reduced or eliminated

Karau and hart - groups where were induced to be more cohesive were less likely to engage in social loafing

Karau Markus and Williams - In three studies for groups whose social identity was made salient (ie university affiliation or gender) social loafing was reduced

Question 43

Conclusions on trust and cohesiveness

Answer 43

Trust and cohesiveness may often co occur; but if seperate trust may incline people to take advantage of others; whereas cohesiveness may obligate us to be reliable

Question 44

Summary for individual and collective tasks

Answer 44

Individual tasks: social facilitation: co active or evaluative others > dominant response

Collective tasks; social loafing > work less hard collectively compared to co actively

Social compensation > work harder collectively compared to co actively