Chap 9 Group Polarization
Chap 9 Group Polarization 105.0
Popular in INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCH
Popular in Psychlogy
This 50 page Class Notes was uploaded by Lydia Huber on Thursday October 29, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to 105.0 at University of Pittsburgh taught by Orehek,Edward A in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 22 views. For similar materials see INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCH in Psychlogy at University of Pittsburgh.
Reviews for Chap 9 Group Polarization
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/29/15
Group In uence Plan of Action Group In uence 0 Social Facilitation 0 Social Loa ng 0 Deindividuation What is a Group Two or more people who interact with one another 0 Jogging partners 0 Audience at a play Key is collective in uence by interacting groups affect their members and members affect their groups So what is a group lPeople bonded together in a coherent unit lHow coherent Entitativity V howwgLQLJpjeieyeyjQEQLJR f t i i it 739 t tattimgmygmggmMgmyentitativityzs w How do groups funch on Norms rules that indicate the appropriate behavior within a group Roles differentiation of functions within group Status position or rank within a group Cohesiveness factors causing people to remain in a group Liking Status Identity Effort Competition Size So what s different in a group lPerformance lTriplett 1898 lAllport 1920 lZajonc 1965 lBehavior Social Facilita on Social facilitah on Tri plett 1889 QPASLQIMEQ P 2 P19vw hmwwbenitszgejhsrtnamxbenejgne 0 Cyclists competing directly against one another on the same track vs raced alone against the Clock MiEygl liLQQQE ELGFWhequotquotMAVJEEQAQHEEAM 0 Children reel in shing lines in the presence of other children vs alone childrenworkedlhardernwhenlothersiwere around Mere presence of others prege ngggjlothersiats glmotivatinggggg Animal behavior ratswi havemoreAsewaith ltheAsamei PSQPJQH magi moreratsli nthei rn gage Complex tasks D 139 D D 3 HR J 1 x3 gm 039 1 J quotL39 H g 1 HR 175 3 039 g J 5 x31 g H T HR 623 3 1 l 7 quotL39 3 g quot C CN q Y7 1 x31 573 9 1 x3 g quotL39 7 a quotC 1 gm 5 n p quotL39 93 g n p in g T 39 g d m 7 g J in quot39 quot g 1 HM r3939lli ll w ml ll ll M ml U ll w HHM lgllml UH w w Ural w ll w H M ll w UH l n l r39alLiix 44 ml 4 2le H wwll w Hula l ls lllllll H 73 xs ll w l Ur U U l wlww H ll ll U 7 57 L54 57 j Kim 3 x c K524 7 184 j 57 7 57 no 57 r 7 3 31 Kim 3 3 7 951 8 471 grim cl D Kim 3 Q L 57 j Kim 57 u U Q 57 u u 57 3 57 57 u u 57 37 3 3 57 r r E r Qt EYES L U9 f E Di dig ms l l l l l El Ell JTSJ Ell Ei l5 ll l j Is it better to take your social psychology exam in a crowded classroom or by yourself Social inhibih on Allport 1920 0 Students refuting philosophical arguments in the presence of others vs alone Social Facilitah on Simple taSkS Where the o 0 Complex tasks where the dominant or response IS answer is not obvious correct 0 Novel 0 Overlearned I o Learned O lnsuncwa V o Controlled o Automatized o Require cognitive resources 0 Performance suffers when person is a little anxious o Require no resources Performance heightened when person is a little anxious then you gglpkemttekrawith iotherRarou nd Exper se can make complex tasks simpler Good recreational pool players performed even better when the experimenters watched them whereas poor players did even worse Social Facilita on Others presence 1 Arousal 1 Strengthens dominant response Enhances easy Impairs difficult behavior behavior Social Facilitah on Why are we aroused in the presence of others 0 Evaluation apprehension o Explains why 0 People perform better when partner is superior 0 People who are evaluation sensitive are most affected by arousal 0 Driven by distraction o Explains why 0 Same effects are seen when ashing lights are present is apchauengeltovsee howwe youtcanidoiSQmethingshame nder 1 pteesureldi ig lt Social Facilitah on Why are we aroused in the presence of others 0 Mere presence 0 Explains why 0 Color preferences are stronger in presence of others 0 Animals show the effect if LUBE PJEQQQ 319 PI DI they U 111K LIEUquot Wailquot BEE Social Facilitation in the Real World Gyms Of ce buildings thuwi31toll mgl l m imml1thn liglzi hem loMmj 1M9i2ltp opkshws h ea m rtl ch immi l mwi m fay l m t p k D 7 if glmglg limk iliWM l l hli m ml t v imjiw ilill UMEigltglw ajil3mmii i iilUl117 lpoillyl i ll mwi h m fi 4i f c is Emam mwmwmla L Choking based on Evaluation Apprehension in in in Dquotu m quotu iiiWRUIFJWWJ D15 ue u i aimu imgr wvimw gfH qfeuta 11W grew mm ZT HH than ue ue Mme fj uen gf m3ne ueuies n C I 39 w i quota O Q 0 a p l r 5K 390 49 What about working toward common goals I L 39 m v 1 a n 39 r A 5 i r 17 H v t 39 I I I v n quot ft 4 394 19 39 Jra A gig quotIO ft lgsa 53 lhffry V 5 39 I 391 b L quot t quot7 V d y pq 2 9 A 539 39 39 39 h39I93r t 39 irh h g 1 39 I 39 4 I A 39nquot 39 Ft kr i 55v n a r39 J s39 quot39a f 7 M 2 gt4 41 0w 0 i t 0s 111 39 39 s 39 39 I 39 a v A 39I a 0 39 m quot a n 39I QM I 39 quotv 3 39 V J 39 43 a x 3 Iquot V V 0 I 4quot 5 E E I f Y 11 I o o k b v r n g f r Aquot t u Q It v I q a a m u I 9 t r r H r l UV V lt v 39f39 I r woiAoi 31 AAgM Atg2o39 f LVAAzg V 39 amp 39 1 1quot 7 1quot AM AogAi A39 W hf fiufjquot J mmom S r PEQ 3 39 Wod W W 3 Social Loa ng Pull on a rope In a tugofwar 9 I09 I 19999 I reeeeajrghere 999M 19 hard the partieipaenle IV Al 0 n e o r were planing 0 One person behind 0 Two people behind 0 Three people behind DV How hard people pull Social Loa ng oomhno 1 v 20 decrease in individual effort Number of other quotpullersquot Social Loa ng pegple ryleeehardWnen hewrepar aorowp therele n lie re i ne thwohg theylreell nwr eema lgu beeemee he gmmgnogelg We eulcponeeigwelyWgrk leee hard Participants to make as much noise as possible wearing blindfold IV Think on your own vs with others Each person made 13 the noise when they thought they were in a group People perceived themselves as making equal noise alone and in group Latane Williams amp Harkins 1979 Social Loa ng The tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts towards a common goal than when they are individually accountable No evaluation apprehension less effort Want to get rid of social loafing 0 Make individuals accountable r individualsxarel heldlaccountablelfornwhatltheyl reAguppAgggd 999519339 red uceAsociall loafi ng WMWMWw w Social Loa ng in the Real World Sports teams Work groups Does social loafing always occur with group efforts 0 Not when 0 task is challenging appealing involving 0 group members are friends 0 big reward foreffort why p egp lglxaren39ltwponsmlelyathelrwIndIVIdual behaVIorabecauseayQAgtcanlt Nea i lyitg iwholigtcontri butingy how much When i pAeAgpplgXareAanonymougsg they two nf39lyyyrgg hard 7 Ques ons Clari ca ons If you could be totally invisible for 24 hours and were completely assured that you would not be detected or held responsible for your actions what would you do 09325510 Groups make us do strange things Deindividua on M r Social facilitation groups can arouse people Social loafing groups can diffuse responsibility When arousal and diffused responsibility combine Deindividuat39ion 0 Loss of selfawareness and evaluation apprehension o Occurs in group situations that foster anonymity and draw attention away from the individual Deindividua on What factors elicit this state 0 IV Group size I Identified l Anonymous 60 0 IV PhySIcal anonymity Example children and Halloween 50 candy 40 whenrchildrgn vygj galonexand identifiablemg9519 pjegeg 30 20 10 0 Alone In groups Deindividua on How can we counteract it 0 Increase selfawareness o The presence of mirrors 0 Large name tags 0 Individualized clothing HmEanLiO Feeling Anonymous Increases Deindividuah on Participants in a darkened room cheat more 0 quotstreet lights make the best police Wearing sunglasses leads people to act more sel sth in a two player game l9 l lgg illlg l DQQQQ 9 199 I El partially 991935 Zhong Bohns amp Gino 2010 How to get a dance party going Zimbardo 5 Model of deindividua on ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS 0 anonymity 0 diffusion of responsibility energizing effect of others stimulus overload INTERNAL STATE DEINDIVIDUATION 0 lessened selfobservation and selfevaluation 0 lessened concern with the evaluations of others 0 weakening of internal controls lessened concern with shame guilt fear commitment BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS Summary Social Facilitation Social Loa ng Deindividuation Mimickry JiiwiiigL TIWIEGEUE mm ut am Group Decision Making I quot 3 a x W o L Cascade Effects People have different levels at which they ll join in an activity HM U W t textilaithcstawtthee amte iaawtgtheat gt kmtets a h arkm totethaxaawtotp m e Combined with behavioral contagion funny things can happen fl i il ld fi f i i miIDNJUWEii immf ei tt y Wt Kuran amp Sunstein 1999 Examples quotIt takes three men to make a tiger hgingpJgm gwg 0 Pang Cong of Wei Warring States period of China nglleate 939199i391r99999919Re eveegmemingg Ltww 9919593gugt3 quoti quot o magical number ggalway How many glasses of water should vou drink a day waterm ggmp rjeesaid 19d rinkrrgiyetae9 myrwgujg id rink more 9amp9er Lambertwth repeategeg manyitime s J i 7 new information Lnggneianieeareh Mintelligerieelaboutineqming P 1panesl information itwhg tjggggggggglm migrh tapgru nsafe ivygg iwith held regmebggy knewm iiihirigeegyigrggM ng meAinformationrv1a there Group decision making JanB1972 oCuba s Bay of Pigs 0Concusion of US naval command to ignore the warnings of an imminent Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor OThe launch of the Challenger Space Shuttle 39 doesn39ttmeanyeu made Lounggeet ig siys 1 engggg mule r0 U p I n M933pminlsharinglinformation glnglmyymakeltheir gm 7 subordinateslwantggks isjylQe leader becauseAth yAwantAtllgleadern LoALiKIggthem gnsdegbecause tlLe wielig th lad ee right i Faulty thinking in highly cohesive grouos 9thhege j tgnwguwrmeaneemebegyrww 0 Strong leader is 0 Contrary info divergent opinions is ignored 0 Decisions can t be wrong eAsxpeciallylwhen lives are at stakeubut ifykml e rybodyixs i ggreement then it feels eihgdecisionjs set o m b m upgitgrteics eegtmjeteylbylinfgrmationtc n andtvev meigw y9u d9n39ttwant13 993ubi about M e e u a g e a riskytdecisiony consideringggifjegremlindicatedlygukdon39t eAm leadergallgl donlagreAeAwith the gig pgno cohesiveness LnAtwhegLgt lp Which groups are at risk iwflygughaven39ktthougllgmrgughgyerylpossibility good and bad thenlygugneegjg 0 Very cohesive W39eeva39m 0 Homogeneous amp isolated mama e wmindedmis 0 Emergent norms Directive charismatic leader 0 eduge xgigupthink bylhavinga devinggdyggggt ezydon39t have theAleadenstartggkflwith hisgpinion Groupthink 0 Groups think they have made the correct decision 0 Feeling of overcon dence 0 Important to 0 State divergent opinions 0 Play quotdevil s advocate 0 Consider alternative points of view 0 Resist time pressure 0 The leader can be especially important in making this happen Group Polariza on Group Polariza on Why does it occur Remember conformity lecture 0 Informational in uence hearing a 993 pegp lxe agzrewe about t e ggmgthingwill increaseyourquot belief eyen morethat something Will appenbgwilLstronglyi polarizeygg 0 Normative in uence Group Polariza on Discussion of a topic will 0 Low risk situation strengthen an opinion shared IHigh risk situation by all group members Solo decision Groupmade Patti RantsrweregivenAsp e nletgmaketheir 91993193 d e C I S I O n If people already favor a decision they will favor it even more after discussion If people are against a decision they will be against it even more C NwBUIQNOO igharois g hguy ltwag33519pews igsgrte Li geta ghotoangwerf39 9932 bothAgesieigee egr eixmqrgextremeandegrseqiwi i 43 Group Polarizah on in the Real World Does everyday interaction with likeminded friends enhance shared attitudes 0 Schools 0 Communities 0 Internet 0 Juries Cascade Effects People have different levels at which they ll join in an activity Combined with behavioral contagion funny things can happen Kuran amp Sunstein 4 OOO Examples quotIt takes three men to make a tiger 0 Pang Cong of Wei Warring States period of China How many glasses of water should you drink a day nonxgq egigligmimicry howlbeinginthg pijpthencan pmsubtle nonponscious conforming behaviorn byl mimickingkwhat 91993 a39rgdoingyw takekgnhb havior l patters naturally IVIimicry 5E5 Chameleon Effect Very subtle nonconscious form of conformity Taking on speech patterns and behavioral mannerisms of one s interaction partner Study Participant and confederate engaged in interaction together Videotapes coded for nonverbal behavior Mimicking Behaviors Number of times 08 07 06 05 04 03 Participant rubs face Confederate rubs Face Confederate shakes foot Participant shakes foot Implica ons of IVIimicry When others mimic us 0 We like them more 0 We feel the interaction goes more smoothly 0 We are more inclined to help them lvggwantktg feel a sense of smooth coordination AM KMMV Summary Groupthink Group polarization Cascade effects Mimickry
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'