Groups Flashcards
Hogg + Vaughan - group definition
2 or more people whoshare a common definition + eval of themselves + beh in accordance with definition
- feel you have something common with eachother
Johnson + Johnson - Group definition
-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
Roles in groups
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
Social facilitation Tripplett (1898) - Experiment
-40 children
- Performance winding fishing reels alone VS with Others
- Results .20 performed better + 20 performed worse (overstimulated ?)
- 10 Children had no change
social facilitation Drive Theory - Zajonc ( 1965)
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
Virtual social facilitation / Inhibition - park + catrambone
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
Herman ( 2015) -eating + groups
people eat more when in groups
synder et al (2012) -sport
competitive performs better in sport in presence of others.
social Facilitation critique
strobe (2005) - stat test on Triplett’s raw score very small effect
Bond + Titus ( 1983) Meta analysis found it explains 1.3 - 3 %
social facilitation pos
-Triplett’s work gave foundation for others
-Influential in sport psyc
- Led to social loafing research
social Loafing definition - Ringelmann (1913)
- When indiv believes group performance is measured put less effort but when indiv is measured put more effort in
social loafing experiment - Ringelmann (1913)
examined effort in rope-pulling task with 1,2,3 +8 person groups
- force per person decreased with increasing group size
factors affecting loafing - karau + Williams
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
Belonging -Baumeister + Leary
Belonging is a fundamental need
- people form pos relationships to maintain need
-Need caring bonds
-Evolutionary -protection , reproduction + sharing
Effects of belonging - Baumeister + Leary
- can effect functioning
-can affect how we think (in-group bias) - increase engagement with school ( Oyserman, Briskman, Bybee + Celsius , 2006 )
- can create contentment + happiness
consequences of not belonging (Baumeister + leary)
- Beh problems ( to get people to notice them to feel belonged)
- mental illnesses (anxiety , depression + loneliness)
foMo +social connections (Robert + David 2020) -experiment
-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
ostracism definition
Beh where you are excluded / ignored by an indiv/group
Williams (2007) - sensitivity to ostracism
exclusion undermines 4 fundamental needs : belong , control, self-esteem. meaningful existence
- pOs function = early warning detecting potential ostracism -can prevent
cyberball -Study of ostracism
- 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
Zadro et al (2006) Effects of Ostracism recovery
-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
Williams + S ommer (1997)Experiment of ostracism, loafing + compensation
- 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
