Block 2 Flashcards
Inclusion
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.
Ostracism
Ostracism is being excluded and ignored
Ostracism and brain
Ostracism is painful - it activates pain regions in the brain (anterior Cingulate and right ventral prefrontal)
Why is ostracism bad
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
Consequences of ostracism
3 stages to ostracism:
Reflexive stage (pain) Reflective stage (appraisal and coping) Resignation stage (alienation/depression)
Stage 1 of ostracism of the Temporal need threat model of ostracism
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
Stage 2 of the temporal need-threat model of ostracism: Reflective stage
The reflective stage looks at trying to fit in, getting angry and lashing out and seeking solitude
Stage 3 of the temporal need threat mode of ostracism: Resignation Stage
Resignation stage looks at alienation, depression, helpfulness, worthlessness
Does ostracism lead to aggression?
Leary case: Example of 15 school shootings that occurred. Ostracism is one of the causal factors of mass violence
Does ostracism lead to negative emotions
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.
Ostracism in group events
Ball tossing paradigm development (CYBERBALL)
Ostracism occurs online
Inclusion: control condition
Ostracism: experimental condition
What people do to overcome ostracism
They reduce painC and decrease sensitivity to physical pain. Through paracemental, marijuana, alcohol and schizotypal personality disorder
But pain is functional
Ways to improve comping methods of ostracism
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
Affiliation why people seek it
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
Solitude
Solitude are often studied as forced solitude:
Ostracism, exclusion, rejection
Loneliness
Solitary confinement
Stanley schachter study
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.
Stress and affiliation in a hospital setting - James Kulik Pre operative roommate preferences
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)
When do people seek affiliation
When under stress/anxiety they want emotional support
When under uncertainty they want informational support.
The idea of cloak
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
Hermits
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
Solitude experiences
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
Preference for solitude
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
Why people seek solitude
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)
The cyberball example with seeking solitude
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
Why do people seek solitude
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
Push and pull
Push and pull is the argument that affiliation and solitude are direct lllsite and you can’t do one if you want the other
Social facialiation
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
Social facilitation after Triplett
3 different studies,
- 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.
- 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
Social facilairion route
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
Ringelmann effect and social loading
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
Social loafing
Social loafing is trying less hard when working collective than when working coactively (or individually)
The difference of social facilition and loafing
Individual tasks are social facilaition
Collective tasks are social loafing
Route of social loafing
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
Meta analysis of all the studies on social loafing
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.
Norb kerr sucker effect
The norb kerr sucker effect is we loaf more when we expect that our coworkers will be weak contributors
Social compensation
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
Social compensation study 1/3
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
Study 2 of social compensation : partner effect
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
Study 3 of social compensation: partner ability
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
Implications of social compensation
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
Cohesiveness reduces social loafing
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
Conclusions on trust and cohesiveness
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
Summary for individual and collective tasks
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
