Class Notes (834,819)
Canada (508,737)
Psychology (5,208)
PSYCH 1X03 (1,058)
Joe Kim (989)

Influence Others Video Lecture Psych 1X03

7 Pages
Unlock Document

Joe Kim

Video Lecture Psych 1X03 Influence Others Influence of Others I Introduction  Common sense does not always equal research findings Presence of Others  Eg/ Norman Triplett, 1898 – cyclists bike faster when in a group race, rather than when racing against a clock individually  Triplett hypothesized that there mere presence of others was an important variable in the performance of the actor  Social Facilitation – the increased performance that occurs in the presence of co-actors or an audience o Co-Actor – another individual performing the same task o Audience – a group of people watching an individual perform a task  Co-Actor + Audience = Improved Performance, No Effect or Enhanced Performance  Zajonc’s Resolution – 1965, Robert Zajonc o Presence of others increases arousal to improve performance on simple tasks and decrease performance on complex tasks o Eg/ If you’re well prepared for a presentation, you will likely do well under pressure; however, if you are under prepared, the pressure will cause you anxiety that will cause you to under perform Social Learning Theory  Social Learning Theory – you learn appropriate behaviours be modeling and imitating the behaviours of others o When applied to social behaviours, can be differentiated from basic conditioning because the behaviours you learn from others do not always require explicit reinforcement to develop o Popularized by Albert Bandura, 1970s  The Bobo Doll Experiment o Inflatable doll with a weight at the bottom that picks the doll back up once it tips over o Children (age 3-6) were placed in a room with a Bobo doll o Adults would model behaviour – aggressive or passive o Child would be brought to another room after observing adult model  Children who viewed the aggressive model were more aggressive with the Bobo Doll; punching, yelling and attacking the doll  Aggressive behaviour was spontaneous with no explicit reinforcement or encouragement  Finding ran against the pure behaviorist ideas that suggest that learning of a behaviour would only occur with explicit reinforcement  Children still attached the real person with kicks, punched and toy hammers Conformity  Autokinetic Effect o Muzafer Sherif, 1930, o Subject in a pitch black room, looking at a small dot of light at the front of the room o Light seems to move sporadically for a few seconds and subject has to observe how much it moves o Subjects gave a report that the light moves a mean of 5 cm o The light doesn’t actually move, your eyes scan the scene of a dot of light against a uniform dark background, so subject mistakes the movement of the image on their retina as actual motion of the light o Later put into the same room with 2 others; who report that the light moves a mean of 15 and 20 cm o Over several days of testing, your responses slowly converge  Norm Formation   Normative Function – the role of others in setting standards for our conduct based on a fear of rejection o Evident in fashion trends and popular culture Video Lecture Psych 1X03 o Asch’s Stimuli  Solomon Asch  Subjects were seated in a room with a group of other individuals and told they were going to complete a rather simple experiment  They would see one sample line and three comparison lines, and they would have to identify which of the comparison lines matched the standard  Group of 7 participants; one is a real subject, six are confederates of the experiment  Subject is always sixth to respond – most of the confederated responding first  At first everything proceeds as expected – all subjects agree on rather obvious line judgments  As the experiment progresses, slowly the confederated start agreeing on clearly incorrect answers  By the time it reaches the subjects response, it is clear that the popular answer is wrong  37% of all responses conformed to a clearly incorrect answer  75% of subjects conformed to an incorrect answer at least once  Comparative Function – the role of other in providing information about an ambiguous situation o Eg/ Fire Drill – real fire or just a drill? o Deutsch and Gerard, 1955, Experiment  Each subject was seated in a separate cubicle where they could neither see nor hear the other subjects  They would see one sample line and three comparison lines, and they would have to identify which of the comparison lines matched the standard  A light would flash to indicate the other subjects responses  Normative Function not in effect because there is no reason for the subject to feel ostracized for choosing a different answer  Subjects still went alongwith the wrong answers  Conformed primarily on trials where the correct answer was less clear – subject doubted own perceptions Group Dynamics  The Risky Shift o 1961, James Stoner o Asked subjects to read a set of hypothetical situations and make risk assessments – individually then in groups o Found that group decisions were on average riskier than the mean decision of the individual before group discussion for some examples  Eg/ Helen is a book writer; if she writes this next book, it has the potential to earn her a lot of money if it’s a success, but if it’s a flop it will cause her a large amount of wasted time without pay  groups were riskier  Eg/ Roger is a father with two children and has little money and is considering selling his life insurance policy groups were less risky  Group Polarization – group decision making strengthens the original inclination of the individual group members o Can move the group decision either in the risky or cautious direction o Supported by experiments which demonstrate that group decision making seems to enhance national pride, negative racial and financial attitudes and decision-making in juries  Groupthink - a group decision making environment that occurs when group cohesiveness becomes so strong it overrides realistic appraisals of reality and alternative opinions o Irving Janis coined the term groupthink o ”Mob mentality” o Groups falling victim to groupthink  Often believe that they are unquestionably right and all other groups are wrong  Fail to critically test, analyze and evaluate the ideas of the group o Group decisions tend to be rationalized and pressure to conform is high Video Lecture Psych 1X03 o Individuals in these groups often censor dissenting opinions and those who disagree are rejected from the group o Groups tend to overestimate their might and right o Recommendations for preventing groupthink  Be Impartial – group leader should never endorse any particular position from the outset  Encourage Critical Evaluation – allow group members to disagree  Devils Advocate – present counter arguments  Subdivide the Group – different groups coming to different conclusions then discuss differences  Provide a Second Chance – air any lingering doubts The Bystander Effect  Kitty Genovese, 1960s –murdered outside her apartment in New York after being stabbed repeatedly and left for dead by her assailant in an attack that lasted 30 minutes o Appalling not only because of the crime but also because there were 38 witnesses from the apartment windows who did nothing o Witnesses did nothing to help her for fear of their own safety o Witnesses didn’t call for help, because they saw others looking out at the rime scene and assumed someone else had called the police  Experiments to examine a groups response to an emergency o An individual must decide  Whether the situation is an emergency  Whether the situation required them to personally respond o If answer is yes to both – likely to respond o If answer is no to either – likely not to respond  Collective Ignorance – when each individual in a group see nobody responding in a given situation, they conclude that the situation is not an emergency o Latane and Darley Experiment 1  Subjects were asked to complete a short questionnaire either alone or in a rom with others  At one point, smoke would begin to seep into the room  Individuals were more likely to report the smoke than people in groups  As the number of people in the room increased, the likelihood that any one subject would report the smoke decreased  Diffusion of Responsibility – in deciding whether we have to act, we determine that someone else in the group is more qualified o Latane and Darley Experiment 2  Subject was asked to participate in a group discussion with each individual in a different room, communicating with the others over an intercom  Only was person was a subject in the experiment; others were prerecorded tapes  In different conditions, a subject was lead to believe there were different numbers of participants joining him in the discussion  At one point, the subject would hear someone calling over the intercom for help in the grips of a seizure  More rapid responses came from subjects who thought that nobody else was on the intercom  As the number of others believed to be listening increased, the probability that the subject would take action decreased  Getting Help o Choose an individual and give them responsibility  “You in the green shirt, this is an emergency, you need to go call an ambulance” o Seeing someone else helping increases the probability that you will help in later situation  Experiment 1 – confederate of the experiment parked car on the side of the road with the hood up, indicating that help was needed – number of passing drivers that stopped to offer help was recorded Video Lecture Psych 1X03  Experiment 2 – disabled car getting help parked some distance before the confederate – when exposed to this helping model, the proportion of passing cars that stopped to help the confederate was higher  Social Loafing –individuals seem to be less motivated when working in a group than when working alone o Alan Ingham, 1975  Devised a task where participants were brought into the lab, blind folded and told they were going to be playing a game of tug of war with a group  Individuals pulled 18% less when they thought they were pulling as a group as compared to pulling alone o Latane, Williams and Harkins  Pa
More Less

Related notes for PSYCH 1X03

Log In


Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.