Groups

Question 1

Hogg + Vaughan - group definition

Answer 1

2 or more people whoshare a common definition + eval of themselves + beh in accordance with definition
- feel you have something common with eachother

Question 2

Johnson + Johnson - Group definition

Answer 2

-collection of indivs interacting with each other
-consisting of 2+ indiv s perceiving themselves as belonging to group
Join to achieve a goal
- interactions structured by roles + norms
- influence each other

Question 3

Roles in groups

Answer 3

Defined by :
- length of time
- Level of commitment
- peripheral ~ not involved too much , Sits on outside , less influential
- prototype ~ committed , embody beh, live up to norms, influential

Question 4

Social facilitation Tripplett (1898) - Experiment

Answer 4

-40 children
- Performance winding fishing reels alone VS with Others
- Results .20 performed better + 20 performed worse (overstimulated ?)
- 10 Children had no change

Question 5

social facilitation Drive Theory - Zajonc ( 1965)

Answer 5

in presence of Others = arousal + dominant response increases (skills) , if correct = performance increases , if incorrect = decreases
Better performance with easy task, worse with difficult in presence of others

Question 6

Virtual social facilitation / Inhibition - park + catrambone

Answer 6

examination in presence of virtual human
- completed easy + difficult task in 3 conditions : alone , person present, virtual human present
-Results for easy task = quicker with virtual human or human than alone
- Results for hard task =slower with virtual + human than alone

Question 7

Herman ( 2015)

Answer 7

people eat more when in groups

Question 8

synder et al (2012)

Answer 8

competitive performs better in sport in presence of others

Question 9

social Facilitation critique

Answer 9

strobe (2005) - stat test on Triplett’s raw score very small effect
Bond + Titus ( 1983) Meta analysis found it explains 1.3 - 3 %

Question 10

social facilitation pos

Answer 10

-Triplett’s work gave foundation for others
-Influential in sport psyc
- Led to social loafing research

Question 11

social Loafing definition - Ringelmann (1913)

Answer 11

• When indiv believes group performance is measured put less effort but when indiv is measured put more effort in

Question 12

social loafing experiment - Ringelmann (1913)

Answer 12

examined effort in rope-pulling task with 1,2,3 +8 person groups
- force per person decreased with increasing group size

Question 13

factors affecting loafing - karau + Williams

Answer 13

Eval potential - known your indiv efforts are measured
Task valence- importance of task
Group valence -importance of group (unimportant = more loafing)
Expectation of others -Believe others will do the work = more loafing
uniqueness of indiv input -identify own contribution = less loafing
Gender - males more likely
Group size - larger = more
culture - western more likely

Question 14

Belonging -Baumeister + Leary

Answer 14

Belonging is a fundamental need
- people form pos relationships to maintain need
-Need caring bonds
-Evolutionary -protection , reproduction + sharing

Question 15

Effects of belonging - Baumeister + Leary

Answer 15

• can effect functioning
  -can affect how we think (in-group bias)
• increase engagement with school ( Oyserman, Briskman, Bybee + Celsius , 2006 )
• can create contentment + happiness

Question 16

consequences of not belonging (Baumeister + leary)

Answer 16

• Beh problems ( to get people to notice them to feel belonged)
• mental illnesses (anxiety , depression + loneliness)

Question 17

foMo +social connections (Robert + David 2020)

Answer 17

-Aim : test whether fomo led to more sm use + increase social connection
- 170 UG Students
-self report questionnaire : fomo, social media intensity , social connection
-Likert Seale to measure agreement statements
-Results: sig indirect of fomo on connection through sm intensity

Question 18

ostracism definition

Answer 18

Beh where you are excluded / ignored by an indiv/group

Question 19

Williams (2007) - sensitivity to ostracism

Answer 19

exclusion undermines 4 fundamental needs : belong , control, self-esteem. meaningful existence
- pOs function = early warning detecting potential ostracism -can prevent

Question 20

cyberball -Study of ostracism

Answer 20

• is a game of catching throwing a ball with NPC + after a while ball is never thrown back to you
• after playing it people report lower :belonging , self esteem , meaningfulness of life
  -shows sensitivity to exclusion as effects still f ound when believe its a tech fault

Question 21

Zadro et al (2006) Effects of Ostracism

Answer 21

-looked at labels of social anxiety + ostracism
-all ppts equally affected-immediately after playing
- 45 mins later low anxiety ppts recovered , Others didn’t
- indiv differences can affect recovary from ostracism

Question 22

Williams + S ommer (1997)Experiment of ostracism

Answer 22

• Does ostracism lead to loafing or compensation
• in waiting room with box of kids toys
  -ostracism group :confed tosses ball with ppt involved , then leave ppt out
  -Inclusion group: ppt not left out
• Neutral group: no game played
  -Then each group either coactive ( indiv performance recorded) or collective (group performance measured )
• Results for female: ostracism = compensation, in control no loafing
• Results for males : no sig difference but in controll slight loafing
  -only realised they were being ostracised
  -long term ostracism = depletion of coping mech + acceptance of neg messages = alienation +depression