BABS1201 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Floyd Henry Allport, Social Facilitation, Drive Theory
PSYC1001
21ST MARCH 2018
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
× Social influence processes- how do people go about influencing each other?
× Social influence is everywhere- have you ever…
- Asked a friend for fashion advice? Bought clothes that didn’t suit you just because
everyone else wears them?
- Agreed to buy something you didn’t want?
- Agreed to attend a social event because someone else asked you to?
- Changed your behaviour in response to a direct order from a police officer,
parent, teacher or school official?
- Found yourself laughing over something that wasn’t funny?
- Performed a stupid act on a dare or a bribe?
× Above are all situations where we are subject to social influence
× Simplest kind of social influence- minimal social influence can occur from mere presence
and audience effects
- Social facilitation
× Triplett (1898)- first empirical social psychology experiments
× Dynamogenic factor theory- the presence of another person is a stimulus to
arousing the competitive instinct
× Test- wind fishing reels alone, or in presence of others- tasks were
performed better in the presence of others
× Tower (1986)- in everyday life- drivers take 15% less time to travel the first
100 yards at an intersection when there is another driver beside them, than
when they are alone
× Bayer (1929)- in the animal kingdom- looked at the eating behaviour of
chickens alone and in company ® an apparently full chicken again ate 2/3
as much grain as it had already eaten in the presence of other chickens
× Chen (1937)- insects- an ant digging alone excavates 232mg, whereas when
two ants dig together, they excavate 765mg
× Social influence: mere presence (when others happen to be there), co-action (more than
one person performs the same task) and audience effects (one person performs and other
people watch)
- Floyd Allport, 1924- the first person to coin the term ‘social facilitation’-
phenomenon observed that just having another person there (mere presence)
promotes (facilitates) behaviour
× Contrary evidence- other experiments found that this does not happen
universally- evidence of social inhibition? ® for example, if a student is
asked to write an essay (or to take part in any complex, unusual task) in the
presence of someone else, they may not perform as well
- Zajonc, 1965- Drive theory- arousal increases dominant responses
× If dominant response (prominent, easy and readily performed) correct-
facilitation (arousal promotes performance)
× If dominant response incorrect (new, complex and/or problematic)-
inhibition (arousal hinders performance)
× In other words, arousal has different effects on performance (i.e. helps or
harms performance)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
× Thus what an individual does well (i.e. is highly skilled at), is what they
tend to do best in front of others
- Potential sources of this arousal
× Mere presence
× Evaluation apprehension (humans’ potential for evaluating and making
judgements about you- generates ‘evaluation anxiety’)
× Distraction-conflict (other people may distract you-coping with this can be
arousing as well)
× The first and third apply universally to all species; however, the second
uniquely applies to humans
- Evidence for mere presence effect in animals-
× Cockroaches’ dominant response is to run from light in a straight line
(simple maze) ® cockroaches in the mere presence (audience) condition
performed faster in the maze than those in the alone condition- thus
arousal facilitates the performance of the dominant response
× However in a complex maze, cockroaches in the mere presence (audience)
condition were slower to perform than those in the alone condition- thus
arousal inhibits the performance of the non-dominant response
- Does evaluation anxiety matter? The effects of an evaluative (viewing) or non-
evaluative (non-viewing) audience on the speed of dressing into familiar or
unfamiliar clothes
× Phenomenon referred to as ‘social loafing’- when a task is done in such a way that the
input of the individual cannot be separately evaluated, enabling people to ‘slack off’ (since
individual effort cannot be monitored)
- Causes: own contributions cannot be identified, larger group size = less
responsibility (low expectancy- “working hard won’t help”, or low
instrumentality- “nobody will notice anyway”)
- Solutions: increase relevance and commitment, make individual performance
uniquely identifiable, increase group cohesiveness (capitalise on the tendency to
have an in-group attachment, making everybody feel important)
× Conformity- copying what others do is an almost universal tendency- it is a building human
characteristic ® non-conformists just conform to different norms
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Above are all situations where we are subject to social influence. Simplest kind of social influence- minimal social influence can occur from mere presence and audience effects. Dynamogenic factor theory- the presence of another person is a stimulus to arousing the competitive instinct. Test- wind fishing reels alone, or in presence of others- tasks were performed better in the presence of others. Tower (1986)- in everyday life- drivers take 15% less time to travel the first. 100 yards at an intersection when there is another driver beside them, than when they are alone. Bayer (1929)- in the animal kingdom- looked at the eating behaviour of chickens alone and in company an apparently full chicken again ate 2/3 as much grain as it had already eaten in the presence of other chickens. Chen (1937)- insects- an ant digging alone excavates 232mg, whereas when two ants dig together, they excavate 765mg.