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