week 23 Flashcards
groups
- 3+ ppl
- shared goals needs
-permanent or temporary
natural / deliberate - specific social norms (unwritten rules)
- neccessary for survival and reproduction
(example with meerkats) - can facilitate or inhibit various processes (easier to get a job done with help)
social facilitation
- influenece of group on individual when working ALONE towards an outcome
(when ppl are watching you do something it makes u perform worse)
TRIPLET:
- when cycling alone = slower than cycling with others
EXPERIMENT: gave kids / adolescence fishing rod (had to reel in a bunch of string as fast as they could) when eveyone was doing it together ppl did it faster and performed quicker vs when they did it alone (WHEN DOING SAME THING)
ZAJONC: reevaluated this and DOMINANT RESPONSE:
- reformulation in terms of facilitaion in ones dominant response = GUITAR EXAMPLE PRACTICE = BETTER
basically ur skills after a certain practice
whatever we’ve practiced the most and most likely to do - arousal due to mere presence of others affects performance (when ppl are watching usually decreases performance , influences physical arousal)
ORIGINAL YERKES DODSON LAW:
- our best performance at intermediate levels of arousal
- above: too nervous
- below: too bored
ultimate level of arousal - about our dominant response
difficult task: lower arousal needed ofc performance and vice versa
EXPERIEMENT POOL:
- watched ppl watch pool secretly
catogrized players by good or bad player
good players got better bad players got worse with an audience
MECHANISM:
- presence raises arousal
- evaluation apprehension (what they think about our performance)
- distraction
- competition
difficult to disentangle increased arousal from other explanations
we don’t need other explanation beyond increased arousal
COCKROACH EXPERIMENT:
- only have increased arousla by the presence of others and no other attributions
- cocreach running away from floodlight with audience vs no audience in either simple or complex tube maze
- simple maze with audience = better
- difficult maze with audeince = got worse
Social Loafing
the more ppl there are the less work u need to put in to complete a task hence briniing down performance level
RINGLEMANN’s
- loss of coordinatio and loss of motivation (tug of war example)
only one team:
- one side had weights to measure pulling strengths
- ALONE plus 1 to or 8 confederates and (only one real person)
IV–> makeup of team (whose pulling)
DV–> pulling power pounds
STRENGTH DECREASES THE MORE PPL ARE ADDED
example with shouting / clapping as loud as u can
- 3x less when 6 ppl vs 1
- even if thers cant be heard
SAME WITH PEDDLING IN GROUP
- ppl peddle less in a group than when they do along FREE RIDINGGGG (when socially loafing)
- UNLESS individual is monitored
REASON FOR SOCAIL LOAFING : diffuion of evaluation?
diffusion of evaluation:
reason for social loafing
- men tend to loaf more
- loaaf less with friends than strangers
individualistic cultures loaf more
cultivistic cultures: loaf more
GROUP THINK
where groups of ppl make bad decision cuz ignore factual info in favour of cohesion an getting along with other memebrs of the group
“bus to abeline” story originate from
people are going along to get along
occurs when group is:
- homogenous
Isolated from contradictory opinion
(when ppl are too much alike can risk group think) - being lead by directive leader
- high stress
- poor procedures
results in:
- perception in invulnerability
- belief in correctness
illusion that the group is unanimous cuz they got rid of a disagreeing opinion
good example in TITANIC SINKING:
- they really thought it wouldn’t sink
- guy who looked out for icebergs lot binoculars (his coworkers made fun of him)
- mindgaurded him from facts
- self censorship of the guard who got made fun of)
AVOIDING:
- impartial leadership
consulting outside resources
- creating su committees
(red teaming - military terms)
- soliciting anonymous feedback
Group polarization
after being exposed our intial opinions are more extreme
origins in risky shift
ppl after consulting wihtba group would then make more risky choices
250 highschool students
T1 all students filled out racial attidute survey (how prejudice they were or weren’t)
- grouped with similar ppl who answered similar things
- they had discussion either on related subject or unrelated subject
T2: both groups changed scoring
less prejudice —> even less prejuiced
more prejudice—-> even more prejudice
talking with ppl who have similar veiews on sicila issues amplifiesstreaght of our opinions
