ch 12 Flashcards
Zajonc’s theory of mere presence
1)the presence of others makes us more aroused(ooolalalala)
2)arousal tends to make us more narrow and rigidly focused, we are more liely to make a dominant response
3)the increase in dominant response tendencies facilitates performance on simples tasks and inhibits performance on difficult tasks
Easy task
Presence of others->facilitating dominant response->correct response,improve performance
Difficult task
presence of others->dominant response not likely to be correct->hinder performance
cockroach experiment
Results: the presence of another cockroach facilitated performance on simple maze (dominant responses) but hindered performance on complex maze
When most people reflect on why they would be aroused in the presence of others, it’s not just their presence that seems decisive, instead its evaluation apprehension
concern about looking bad in the eyes of others, about being evaluated, that seems important
mere presence or evaluation experiemnt
Gave participants a list of 10 nonsense words and had them pronounce two of ten words once, two words twice, two words 5 times, ..etc with the more practiced words being the dominant response
Results:participants performing in front of an evaluative audience made more dominant responses than those performing alone did, but those performing in front of blindfolded audience did not
Demonstrates that its not the concern of mere presence but source of evaluation
Carried out a study showing that the mere presence of another person in the absence of any concern about that person being evaluative is enough to create arousal facilitating performance on easy task
While there they had to dress for the experiment, which required them to take off their own shoes and put on lab socks, lab shoes, lab coat
Conclusion: even though participants did not think they were performing, results prove Zajonc’s theory right, participants took off and put on their own shoes more quickly and the labs items more slow when in presence of another person even when other person had his back turned
Effects were stronger for attentive audience than mere presence suggesting evaluation apprehension can add to a person’s arousal and intensify the effect of mere presence results
self-censorship(groupthink)
he decision to withhold infro or opinions
Ideas for improving groupthink
Group leaders refrain from making opinions known at beginning
Avoid tunnel vision and illusion of consensus by making sure group isnt cut off from outside input
People who aren’t in early stage of discussion can provide fresh perspective
Designate a devil’s advocate- one person who brings up weaknesses
Group polarization:
group decisions tend to be more extreme than those made by individuals
French students expressed their opinion on president Charles de Gaulle and about americans, first individually then again after discussed in groups
Results: initially pos sentiments on president charles became even more pos, and their initially neg towards americans became more neg
Tendency to compare ourselves to others encourages group polarization
People tend to think that they are farther out on the correct side of the opinion distribution on most issues (ie: people think they are more generous than the average person)
What happens when all group members are inclined to make the same choice (risky choice) and are also inclined to think of themselves as more likely than average to take risks
Many people will find that their tolerance for risk is closer to average than they thought
This leads to some individuals to attempt to show that they are in fact more risk tolerant than avg.
The group as a whole then becomes a bit riskier on those issues for when a risky approach is warranted
effects of power
People who feel power over their lives feel happier, greater agency, experience less stress, and enjoy more physical health
2 pathways to gaining power within groups:
1)virtue:doing things that are good for the group
2)vice:actions that give us power using dominance such as fraud,manipulation
virtue or vice
Results: senators who showed evidence of virtue in speech were more often able to convince other senators to sign on the bills they were promoting, senators who showed vice-based tendencies did not have such influence
approach/inhibition theory of power
power is freedom to act as one wishes
more power grants freedom to pursue personal goals
approach behavior
reduced concern of others evaluations and increased inclination to pursue goals
occurs with greater power
inhibition behaiovr
increased dependence on others, marked by vigilance, careful decision-making and restrained action
occurs with reduced power
abuse of power
higher power may lead to ignoring many usualy contraints on behavior
ie:doing whatever satisifes ones desire (hitler)
power influences
social cognitions
high power
inclined to pursue goals and less careful and systematic in thoughts/judgements abt others
failure to respond empathically
more likely to stereotype others
powers infleunce on social cognition and self perception
too much power results in overconfience and overestimation in own knowledge accuracy and likelihood of action’s success
costs of powerlessness
feeling less power dimininshes cognitive flexibility
inducing feelings of low power impairs performance on cognitive tasks requiring flexbility and control
power and disinhibited behavior
powerful people feel freedom to act on goals and desires including sexally inappro behaviors
power is induced by:recalling past behavior of power and priming with power related wrods
unethical behavior and power
high power is associated with increased unethical/immoral behavior
powerful indivduals are more liekly to swear and interrupt others
wealthy white kids are more likely to shoplift
wealthy people cross culturally are less disapproving of unethical behaviors
expensive car drivrs are less likely to stop for pedestrians than lower status
deindividuation and group behavior
collective behavior exceeds individual tendencies and actions
people do things they wouldnt normally do alone when its in bigger group
group mind
group possess a collective consciousness for deicions making capacity distinct from individual members
deindividuation
loss of self-awareness and individual accountability in group settings
indivduals are deindivduated in larger group
lost in the crowd: diminished self-observation/evaluation and concern for how others perceive one’s action
zimbardo’s model
identifies certain cnoditions promote impulsive and often destructive mob behaviors
zimbardo model
anonymity guranteed by large group
diffusion of responbility
lower self awareness/observation
immersion in large groups, promoting arousal, impuslivity, heightened activity or sensory overload
warfare
ananoymity and reduced accountability leads to increased brutality in warfare
strong correlation between deindividuation and aggression in warfare
halloween
kids who dressed up more ananoymous were more likely to hoard candy
kids who arrived in groups were more likely to hoard candy than those alone
spotlight effect
tendency to overestimate extend to which others notice and remember their appearance and behavior
