Social Psych Week 10
Social Psych Week 10 Psych 360
Popular in Social Psych
Popular in Psychology (PSYC)
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Katie Truppo on Friday August 26, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Psych 360 at University of Tennessee - Knoxville taught by Dr. Lowell Gaertner in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Social Psych in Psychology (PSYC) at University of Tennessee - Knoxville.
Reviews for Social Psych Week 10
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 08/26/16
Groups I. Performance in the Presence of Others Social facilitation: tendency to performance when working in the presence of others. Social loaﬁng: tendency to decrease eﬀort when working with others. A. Social Facilitation (increase performance when working in the presence of others) E.g., Norman Triplett (1897) Noticed people would bike faster/longer when in presence of others Subsequent research indicated that presence of others facilitated the performance of easy or well-practiced behaviors but inhibited the performance of diﬃcult or novel behaviors. Explanations for Facilitation/Inhibition Mere Presence (Zajonc, 1965) Presence of others increases arousal & arousal increases tendency to perform dominant (i.e., well-learned) responses and decreases tendency to perform non- dominant (i.e., novel or poorly learned) responses. Evaluation Apprehension (Cottrell, 1972) Presence of others who evaluate us Distraction and Conﬂict (Sanders, 1981; Baron, 1986) Presence of an audience is distracting and promotes cognitive conﬂict in which person divides attention between the task and the audience. Such conﬂict forces the person to restrict attention only to essential task cues. Such focused attention facilitates performance of simple tasks but inhibits performance on complex tasks (which require attention to multiple details). II. Experimental Evidence E.g., Zajonc & Sales (1966) – manipulated dominant vs. non-dominant response Showed students fake words that he said was foreign, told to say word when showed it Manipulated frequency of words, practiced those more Presence of others caused students to say more familiar words E.g., Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman (1969) cockroaches Put cockroaches in simple maze and complex maze, turned on light to make them run away Cockroaches in simple maze did it faster when in presence of others E.g., Schmitt, Gilovich, Goore, & Joseph (1989) Participants had to type name (easy task), and then type backwards with increasing numbers in between letters (hard task) Participants were either alone, with another person blindfolded with headphones, or with experimenter watching over shoulder Both blindfolded person and experimenter caused participant to be slower for hard task, and faster for easy task A. Social Loaﬁng (decrease eﬀort when working with others, even on simple tasks) Max Ringleman (1913) pull a rope either alone or in a group. Latane and colleagues demonstrated that a psychological component (i.e., decreased eﬀort – motivation loss) contributes to decreased performance in groups in addition to the coordination issue. E.g., Latane, Williams, & Harkins (1979) 6 students wearing blindfolds and headphones screamed alone, in group of 2 or 6, or in pseudo-group of 2 or 6 (alone but think they’re doing it with others) Subsequent research demonstrated that Social Loaﬁng occurs when individual productivity is not identiﬁable. People who are alone but think they are screaming with others causes motivation loss (quieter/less eﬀort) E.g., Williams, Harkins, & Latane (1981) Time 1: screamed 1-at-a-time, in group of 2 or 6, pseudo-group of 2 or 6 Time 2: wore individual microphones and screamed 1-at-a-time, in group of 2 or 6, pseudo-group of 2 or 6 Loaﬁng disappeared when working with others & individual productivity was identiﬁable. Persons do not always loaf when working with others. Persons evidence a social compensation eﬀect and exert more eﬀort when (a) the outcome is important and (b) they expect other members of the group to slack-oﬀ. B. Bridging Facilitation and Loaﬁng with Social Impact Theory 1. Structure of Facilitation and Loaﬁng Paradigms (Jackson & Williams, 1985) Facilitation compares working ALONE vs. working in the PRESENCE of others Loaﬁng compares working in the PRESENCE of others vs. working WITH others Social Impact Theory can explain why working in the presence of others increases arousal but working with others decreases arousal (i.e., eﬀort) Impact: any change that can be exerted (attitudes, behavior, cognition, etc.) 2. Social Impact Theory (Bibb Latane, 1981) Strength, Immediacy, Numbers Source: Impact exertedà Function of SIN: Source, Immediacy, Number E.g., 10 security guards have more impact on an unruly crowd than does 1 guard. President has more impact than does a high school student (i.e., strength) Target: Impact experiencedà How we create impact E.g., each member of a crowd experiences less impact from a security guard as the size of the crowd increases. 3. Facilitation & Loaﬁng: Who is the Source & Who is the Target? In the Presence of Others the individual might feel distinct from the others and those others are perceived as multiple sources of impact. That is, working in the presence of others increases the SOURCES’ NUMBER, which increases impact (i.e., arousal or motivation). Working with others in a situation in which individual productivity is anonymous might increase the extent to which self and others feel like a group. That is, self might assimilate with other, which increases the TARGET’S NUMBER and, consequently, decreases felt impact (i.e., arousal or motivation).