Exam 3 Flashcards
Group influence
- Social Facilitation
- Social Loafing
- Deindividuation
Social facilitation might look like…
muscian/actor performing better in front of audience
work better in a library vs at home
weightlifters can lift more in front of others
Norman Triplett (1898)
Considered the first social psych experimentation
archival research on competitive cyclers
- compared times across 3 races (fastest? slowest?)
- races
- paced racers
- unpased racers (riding alone)
children + wind up fishing task (alone vs comp) –> times faster when in competition for MOST trials
- interesting patterns
Triplett patterns from Children fishing task
- better: energized (~20)
- worse: overstimulated (~10)
- no difference: unaffected (~10)
current definition of social facilitation
the strengthening of the dominant response in the presence of others
The Resolution: Robert Zajonc (1965)
The arousal principle
The arousal principle
Robert Zajonc
Dominant response –> most likely response (likely to be the correct repsonse when the task is simple)
- simple/well learned task vs hard/new tasks
- ex: someone throws a ball at your –> you try to catch or duck
Home team advantage with Group influence
Social facilitation: home team wins vs. loses, teamwork-focused sports, reliable over time across sports
Other contributing factors: travel fatigue, jetlag, knowing the court/field
how does social faciliation occur
- mere presence
- Evaluation apprehension
- distraction
mere presence
Any presence of others is arousing
- even if no evaluation or distraction
- it could be an innate social arousal mechanism
- support comes from non-human studies (cockroaches in a maze alone vs with others)
Evaluation apprehension
concern for how we are being evaluated
- is the dominant response more likely to occur in certain circumstances?
Distraction
distracted by the presence of others
- attentional conflict: divided attention between watchers and the task
- motivates task completion
attentional shift (small) –> increases arousal (easy vs hard)
being in a crowd…
- enhances arousal
- intensifies positive and negative reactions
- friendly and unfriendly people (depends on group influence)
Social Loafing
tendency to exert less effort when in a group when you pool your efforts together
free riders
free riders
people who benefit from the group’s work while they do little work
ringlemann + latane
ringlemann (1913)
rope pulling task –> less and less effort with more people added to the effort
- pulling alone –> most effort /strength exerted
latane et al (1979)
shout and clap
- clapping by themselves vs others (they think this but they’re really alone)
- ppl produce less noise when they think others are doing so
- DV = individual effort (loudness IV = group size
- blind folded and noise cancelling component (?)
social loafing potential factors
- gender (mean loaf more, small differences)
- culture: more in individualistic cultures (US + individuality)
- Field evidence: evidence in the field that is similar to the lab (classrooms/organizations)
less social loafing when:
- evaluation of individual
- challenging/appealing task
- friends/cohesiveness
evaluation of the individual
if there is a way of identifying people and showing accountability there is less tendency to socially loaf
challenging/appealing task
ex: team sports (everyone wants to win
friends/cohesiveness
gemini: loafing is more likely when group = strangers
- loaf less with friends
Deindividuation
doing together what we wouldn’t do alone
- group situations foster responsiveness to group norms
- often studied in context of -/deviant behavior (mob mentality)
- looting/rioting (R. King), lynchings, witch hunts, jan 6, charging the field/court after win/loss, throwing trash
Disconnect between B and A
situations of diminished self-consciousness/awareness
- drinking at a crowded bar
characteristics of deinviduated people
(BESIDES LOW SELF AWARENESS)
- Increased agressive/antisocial behavior (not always the result)
- depends on: norm of group, situational cues,
can be positive –> like-minded volunteers plant trees to help combat climate change.
- camraderie/cooperative group spirity –> make them plant more trees
or GOFUNDMEs
Factors that affect deindividuation
- group size
- anonymity
- arousing + distracting activities
Group size on Individuation
- Attentional focus is on the group norm rather than self-awareness
- anonymity
- repsonsibility
“everybody is doing it” mentality
anonymity on individuation
masks, uniforms, disguises, technology/screens, physical anonymity and cues
Zimbardo 1970
Zimbardo 1970
The milgrim shock study but with women wearing regular clothes (control) vs KKK like robes (negative cues)
- DV = shock/reaction to costume
- Women held the shock button 2x longer than the control when the robes were being shocked
Being in a group and anonymous
Diener 1976
diener 1976
Halloween study
- 27 women were asked to give out sweets to 1,000 trick-or-treaters
- 2 IVs (anonymous vs identifiable + group vs alone)
- I or A? –> women asked kids questions (researcher manipulated)
- DV = percentage transgression (kid)
- A + G: 55% –> highest
- A + A: 23%
1 + G: 22%
I + A: 8%
Confederates chat with children, phone rings, given strict instructions to take one piece.
More likely to transgress when you are anonymous and in a group
Arousing and distraction activities on Individuation
Group shouting, clapping, cheering, dancing, loud music, dark/dimly lit areas
- arousal + energy (higher)
- inhibitions (lower)
- self-awareness (at the group level)
Ex: January 6th
- “stop the steal”
- large crowds, more anonymous, wins and losses influence
To decrease deviant behavior
increase self-awareness + decrease diffusion of responsibility
- mirror
- bright lighting
- name tags
- cameras everywhere
diffusion of responsibility
spreading the responsibility we have out to others (making us less responsible)
risky shift phenomenon
group and individual decisions are riskier after group discussion
stoner 1961
Make decisions about real-life situations individually and then after discussion with others
- strengthening of group member’s average/initial inclination after discussion
- discussion enhances group members’ initial leaning