CH. 8 Flashcards
1
Q
Norman Triplet Study (1898)
A
- social facilitation
- had children reel in a fishing pole alone or in competition with another child
- most did better in the presence of others (energized by competition)
- some overstimulated/unaffected by competition
2
Q
social facilitation– early definition vs. new definition
A
- early def: performing simple or well-learned tasks better in the presence of others
- new def: The strengthening of the dominant response in the presence of others
3
Q
Robert Zajonc’s resolution to social facilitation
A
- arousal principal: presence of others increased physical arousal (I.e. bodies become more energized)
- leads to a ‘dominant response’
- makes it easier to do simple/well-learned tasks, but makes it harder to do complex/new tasks
4
Q
social loafing
A
- the tendency to exert less effort when pooling efforts towards a common goal than when held individually accountable
5
Q
why are we aroused in the presence of others? (3 explanations)
A
- mere presence (social arousal mechanism)
- evaluation apprehension (concern for how others are evaluating us)
- distraction (attention divided = arousal)
6
Q
Ringleman rope pulling study
A
- social loafing
- ppl pulling a rope alone– told they were alone or in groups
- people pulled less when they thought they were in a group
7
Q
Latane noise-making study
A
- ppl blindfolded with headphones playing cheering sounds
- told they were alone or there were other people there (always alone tho)
- people cheered louder when they thought they were alone
8
Q
Why does social loafing occur?
A
- when individual efforts are not evaluated
9
Q
Collectivist vs. individualistic social loafing
A
- individualistic cultures loaf more
10
Q
gender differences and social loafing
A
- women loaf less than men!
11
Q
reduce social loafing?
A
- evaluation of individual
- task seems challenging or appealing
- group cohesiveness/team spirit (friends)
12
Q
deindividuation
A
- doing together what we would not do alone
- occurs in groups situations that foster responsiveness to group norms, good or bad
12
Q
characteristics of someone who is deindividuated
A
- Reactive to immediate situation (what’s going on around you)
- Loss of self-awareness and evaluation of apprehension
- Perceived individual responsibility low (don’t feel identifiable)
- Long-term consequences not considered
- Low self-awareness, so less sensitive to one’s own attitudes/levels– more concerned on the group level
13
Q
what leads to deindividuation?
A
- Group size: Larger group, more-
~ Loss of individual self-awareness
~ Greater feelings of anonymity
~ Diffusion of responsibility
~ Attention focused on the situation (not on the self)
~ “Everybody else is doing it!” - Physical anonymity: disguises, sunglasses, internet, etc.
~ Less self-conscious
~ Less individually identifiable (less personally responsible)
~ More group-conscious
~ More responsive to cues in situation (+ or -)
14
Q
Diener Halloween Study (1976)
A
- deindividuation
- women giving out candy on Halloween, kids were made to feel anonymous or identified, and kids in groups or alone
- “phone rings” and kids told to take one piece
- Children in groups generally committed more transgressions
- Higher in the anonymous group
- Children alone committed less transgressions
- Least amount of transgressions when alone and identified by researcher
15
Q
decrease deindividuation leading to antisocial behavior
A
- things that increase self-awareness and decrease diffusion of responsibility (bright lights, cameras, mirrors, name tags, etc.)
16
Q
decision-making in small groups (likelihood of repeating shared vs. unshared info)
A
- expertise: someone w expertise doesn’t hesitate to speak up bc they know ppl will understand they know more
- status: ppl with high status/power aren’t worried that others will perceive them negatively due to their standing
17
Q
collective information sampling bias
A
- tendency to share/repeat information that’s already known to the group
18
Q
group polarization
A
- strengthening of group members’ average tendency
- occurs when people associate w mostly others whose attitudes are like their own
19
Q
“risky shift” and new definition
A
- OG: are groups more cautious than individuals?
- NEW: people shift towards the initial leaning of the group
- direction initially believed typically gets stronger after discussion
20
Q
Myers and Bishop prejudice study
A
- people who started w/ low prejudice got even less prejudiced
- people who started w/ higher prejudice got even more prejudiced
- difference between groups gets larger by the end!
21
Q
informational influence
A
- group polarization
- people are driven by available info.
22
Q
normative influence
A
- group polarization
- people are driven by social norms/wanting to fit in
23
Q
groupthink
A
- “many heads, one mind”
- Janis– a deterioration of mental efficacy, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from group pressure
- lack of critical thinking = worse decisions
24
8 symptoms of groupthink
1) Illusion of invulnerability
2) Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality (Group members become closed-minded)
3) Rationalize your decision instead of considering why it could be wrong
4) Stereotyped view of opponent
5) Conformity pressure
6) Self-censorship
7) Illusion of unanimity
8) Mindguards: protecting groups from facts that would call into question the groups’ decision
25
Critiques of Janis's Work
- groups that make smart decisions have widely distributed conversations, with socially attuned members who take turns speaking
- Groups with diverse perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts
- Group success depends both on what group members know and how effectively they can share that information
