Lecture 10 - people in groups Flashcards
What is social facilitation (Triplet 1898 and opposing Allport 1920)
Performing better in front of others
Cyclists were studied to see how fast they were alone vs in front of others and they were faster in front of an audience.
Then did a lab experiment with children reeling in a fishing line either alone or at the same time as another child.
Faster alongside others.
Triplett suggested this was due to competition
Allport 1920 said it is not simply competition but just the mere presence. Cyclists were not competing
What is social inhibition
Performing worse in front of others
Zajonc 1965 drive theory
physical presence of others increase arousal which can either be positive or negative impact on performance.
Evolutionary aspect: survival of the fittest in presence of others to continue genes. This is why we are aroused
It then depends on the nature of the task and how experienced/ easy the task is for the person.
Evaluation apprehension Cottrell 1972
It is the worry of being judged.
Inhibition or facilitation will not occur where there is no fear of judgement.
Experiment: completing a well learned verbal task
- either alone, blind folded audience or audience
- only 3rd condition produced facilitation
- contradicts drive theory
Distraction - conflict theory Sanders 1981
Presence of others can drive us to distraction which produces arousal as we are trying to multitask known as attentional conflict
- Participants either did easy/hard task alone/alongside someone else.
- Other participant was either doing same (increased arousal)/different task.
- Distraction condition had improved performance on easy and decreased it on hard (Sanders et al 1978)
What do non-drive theories suggest
Arousal is not the core
Self-awareness (Carver and Scheier 1981)
Presence of others makes us more self-aware. This elicits more comparisons between ideal and actual self.
- So we are more motivated to reduce discrepancy between the two.
- Discrepancy is low when task is easy so performance is better as they feel motivated as the goal seems achievable.
- When high they give up as it seems to hard to reach
Self- presentation Bond 1982
Presence of others leads to impression management tactics to make a favourable impression of ourselves
- Easier to do during easy tasks.
- Hard tasks we feel embarrassed and so make more mistakes.
Ringelmann effect 1913
How effectively people worked within groups.
- PPT pulled rope attached to dynamometer either alone or different group sizes.
- Found PPT put less effort as group size increased.
1) Coordination loss: poor coordination of effort reduces ability to reach maximum output
2) Motivation loss: People stopped trying as hard
We know it is not just the first:
INGHAM ET AL 1974: same experiment but some groups were with confederates.
In pseudo group there was a decrease which must have been motivation loss as confederates were not really pulling
What is social loafing and why does it occur?
Output equity: belief that others loaf and so to avoid doing all the work they also loaf (Kerr and Brunn 1983)
Evaluation apprehension: individual contributions are not being recognised so we loaf
- When work is identifiable we loaf less (Harkins and Jackson 1985)
Matching to standard: unsure of what group norm/ standard is so do not work to full capacity
- Introducing clear norms reduces loafing (Szymanski and Harkins 1987)
What is entitativity and what properties are included (Campbell 1958)
Clear cut boundaries
Clear internal structure
Relatively homogenous
Members are interdependent and have a shared fate.
Lickel et al 2000 on group entitativity
Asked ppt to rate 40 groups on 8 dimensions (sports team, religion, family etc)
On interaction and similarity amongst members, importance of group to members, common goals, duration, permeability and size.
Then rate the entitativity of groups and then sort them following any criteria.
Perceived entitativity increased with: 1- intimacy groups, task groups, social categories, loose associations.
Size and permeability has negative relationship.
All other dimensions showed positive relationships esp interaction and importance.
Common bond and common identity
bond: attachment between members (similarity and likeability)
this leads to self-serving interests as they dont have the same goals like friends and family
Identity: attached to the group and identify with group goal/ purpose like sports team and nationality. Leads to group goal interests as they have same interests and goals.
(Prentice et al 1994. Utz and Sassenberg 2002)
Why do people join groups?
Sociobiological perspective: Adaptive value and increased chance of survival, evolution suggests we need to belong (Baumeister and Leary 1995)
Cognitive: To be able to understand the world, membership allows us to know how to behave and predict others behaviour.
Serves uncertainty reduction function (Hogg 2007) Thinking of people as representations of groups/ stereotypes rather than individuals
Utilitarian: Can fuflfil needs (companionship, support and approval) Join groups because benefits outweigh costs so when we no longer have this we leave or if there are better prospects (Rusbult and Farell 1982)
We associate different groups with different needs (Johnson et al 2006)
Ethnomethodology (Garfinkel 1967)
Violating of a norm.
- Student acted very formal as a lodger at family home and family found them rude
- Research at a small, progressive and liberal college with students coming from conservative family family. Did confidential ballot 1st yr for upcoming election.
Mostly conservative but by 3/4th yr they adapted norms and voted liberal (Newcomb 1943)
