Class Notes (837,434)
Canada (510,272)
Brock University (12,132)
Psychology (853)
PSYC 2P30 (63)
Lecture

PSYC 2P30 March 19.docx

7 Pages
71 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSYC 2P30
Professor
Gordon Hodson
Semester
Winter

Description
PSYC 2P30 March 19 1. Social Facilitation Triplett (1898):  Noticed that cyclists were faster cycling with others than when alone  Problem - Sometimes presence of others helped performance, sometimes hindered performance  Original conceptualization - Tendency to perform simple or well-learned tasks better when others are present Zajonc – AROUSAL:  Presence of others -> increased arousal -> facilitate or interfere (depends on situation) Drive Theory of Social Facilitation - When learning, we have correct and incorrect responses in repertoire - Arousal increases both responses o Hence, errors take longer to decline, learning is hampered - When performing (i.e. not learning), largely correct responses available o Hence, arousal helps performance Evaluation Apprehension - Question: is it merely the presence of others, or other factors (evaluation apprehension; self-presentation) - Seems reasonable.. but we find social facilitation in animals too - For simple tasks, the presence of others improves performance (found in insects and humans) - For difficult tasks, the presence of others decreased performance Distraction- Conflict Theory - Keeps ideas: “others cause arousal” o But, arousal from conflict between:  1. Paying attention to the task  2. Paying attention to the audience/co-actor o Arousal still leads to facilitation effects - Conflict when attention to others and attention to task are simultaneous (information overload); increased arousal -> social facilitation Social Facilitation: Current Understanding - Strengthening of dominant (i.e., prevalent, likely) responses owing to the presence of others - Question remains: what is the source of the arousal? o Basics: “others” cause arousal -> arousal -> dominant response - Occurs when worked on individual goals, where individuals can be evaluated/noticed o But.. what about when you're working on a common goal, where you’re not accountable for individual efforts (i.e., additive task) (Two) Social Loafing - Reduction in motivation and effort when working in a group, when compared to working as individuals or co-actors) o Co-actors: individual tasks in the presence of others - Latane et al. (1979) o Ps clapped and cheered (either alone, or with 2, 4 or 6 person groups) o Results:  The larger the group size, the less effort was put forth by an individual Social Loafing: Why? - Social Impact Theory o Diffusion of responsibility (increased group sizes makes individuals feel like responsible) - Collective Effort Model o No individual evaluation of performance leads to decreased motivation o Working alone:  Effort -> performance -> outcomes  Work hard -> produce a good paper -> get an A o Working with others in a group:  Effort ---> group performance ---> sharing rewards  Weaker connection between effort and performance Decreasing Social Loafing - Working in small groups o Less room to disguise your poor effort - Interesting/important tasks - Working with respected others (e.g., friends, teammates) - Perceived accountability - Expecting coworkers to perform poorly o You’re more likely to pick up the slack of others - If cultures emphasize group outcomes (e.g., Asia, women compared to men) o Early, 1993: western cultures display social loafing much more than eastern (e.g., Israel, Chine); eastern cultures should better performance in group settings rather than individual, minimal social loafing - To give others the opportunity to evaluate their own performance (relative to others) Social facilitation: - Presence of others -> individual efforts can be evaluated -> alertness, evaluation apprehension, distraction-conflict -> arousal -> enhanced performance OR impaired performance on complex tasks Social Loafing: - Presence of others -> individual efforts cannot be evaluated -> no evaluation apprehension -> relaxation -> impaired performance on simple tasks OR enhanced performance on complex tasks (three) Numerical Minority Influence - “minority influence” refers to minority opinions (i.e., concerns numerical minorities) not ethnic minorities - Sometimes, minorities (individuals and groups) can have substantial influence on majorities When Minorities are Influential: - Consistency - Avoid appearance of rigidity or dogmatic - Suitable social context - Single vs. double minority What Does Minority Influence Mean? - Moscovici et al (1969) o Follow majority = public compliance o Follow minority = genuine acceptance o Groups of 6 (2 were confederates; a part of the experiment) o Report colour of slides (all were actually blue) o 2 confederates reported consistently seeing green o Results:  8% of responses were “green” (32% said green at least once)  Control group: .25% “green” and that was same participant twice) o Then...  Part 2: individually sort colour disks (ranged from green to blue)  Those in experimental (vs. control) group were more
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 2P30

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit