Exam 2- Lecture 8 Flashcards
What is a group?
A collection of individuals who have RELATIONS with one another and are INTERDEPENDENT to a significant degree.
On e continuum of “groupiness” based on degree of interdependence.
Triplett (1898)- String in fishing reel study
Concluded: mere presence of others can ENHANCE performance
- also occurred when others NOT COMPETING
- universal (animals)
Social facilitation
-enhanced performance in the presence of others
Social facilitation
Triplett (1898)- String in fishing reel study
ENHANCED
Zajonc (1965)
-effect, POSITIVE or NEGATIVE, of presence of others on performance
Dashiell (1930)
Mere presence of others DISRUPTS or HINDERS performance (completing maze, complex math, etc.)
Social inhibition
-hindered performance in presence of others
Zajonc (1965)
Presence of others -> arousal (physiological state)
Arousal -> increase likelihood of dominant response (easy or well-learned task)
Social facilitation
-effect, POSITIVE or NEGATIVE, of presence of others on performance
Dominant response
Responses that are most likely to occur in a situation (habits, automatic behaviors)
Why does the presence of others affect performance?
- Evaluation apprehension (concern over how others are viewing us)
- blindfolded audience
- powerful audience - Distraction (conflict between paying attention to others and to the task)
- overloads cog resources - Heightened attention (presence of others increases likelihood of something important happening)
- evolutionary expectation
Evaluation apprehension
Concern over how others are viewing us
Blindfolded audience -> no social facilitation (reduced effects)
- Jogger and woman on grass study
- > facing path- joggers ran faster
- > away- no effect
Powerful audience -> increased social facilitation
Distraction
Conflict between paying attention to others and to the task
Overloads cognitive resources and leads to arousal
Bursts of light and noises also increase dominant responses
Heightened attention
Presence of others increases likelihood of something important happening
An evolutionary expectation
Social loafing
Tendency for people to exert LESS EFFORT when pool efforts toward common goal, then when individually accountable
Ringelmann- Tug of war study
- asses amount of pull
- 1:1 exert more individual force then when in group
Latane et al. (1979)- Shouting and clapping study
-when believed group- less load than believed alone
How can we eliminate social loafing?
Make individuals accountable
Make task challenging and involving
Make the goal compelling/important to all
Make individuals feel their contribution is important
Provide consequences for success and failure
Group polarization
Risky shift:
Decisions become riskier after group discussion
Not just normative influence, individuals later made riskier decisions on their own (internalization)
Risk-Adverse:
group became more cautious
Conclusion: group polarization
Group-produced enhancement of members’ preexisting tendencies
Occurs
- persuasive arguments account
- social comparison account
Persuasive arguments account
In group discussions, participants are exposed to ADDITIONAL arguments in FAVOR of original position
Conformation bias
Informational influence
Social comparison account
People think they’re more risk-seeking OR risk-adverse than others
->prompts people to try to STAND OUT in group
Normative influence
