Class Notes (837,539)
Canada (510,303)
Psychology (3,528)
PSY220H1 (190)
Lecture

Lecture VII - March 5th.doc

6 Pages
70 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSY220H1
Professor
Jennifer Fortune
Semester
Winter

Description
Lecture VII March 5 th Intra and Inter group Relations Intra-group refers to relations between members of one group, while inter-group refers to the relations between members of two different groups. Why do we study groups? Simply having other people around can influence our thoughts, feelings, and behaviour. The presence of others does not have to be actual in order to exert influence; it can be implied or imagined. Triplett, who published the first study in social psychology (1898), studied social facilitation. Remember that he noted how the presence of other people influence behaviour; namely that children wound up their fishing rods faster if they went up against another child than when they went against a clock. From this experiment we can take away the idea that the presence of other people can improve our own performance. This is known as social facilitation. However, some research has shown that the presence of others can also degrade performance. This is called social inhibition. Thus, the presence of others simply arouses people and there happen to be different degrees of arousal. For complex tasks, the optimal level of arousal is lower while for simple tasks the optimal level is higher. Robert Zajonc proposed an explanation for both facilitation and inhibition effects. His idea was that the presence of others increased arousal. When the task at hand was well practiced and known (task is dominant), then that arousal leads to social facilitation. If the task is new, unpractised, or novel, then that arousal leads to social inhibition. The Dominant Response is the action that is most likely to occur in a situation or on a task when the individual is alone. A dominant response can either be negative or positive, and that negativity or positivity will be heightened by the presence of others. For example is the dominant response is perfection, the presence of an audience will most likely make the performance of said action ideal, boost you up to the next level, and cause social facilitation. If making mistakes is the dominant response on the other hand, the presence of an audience will increase the chances of said mistakes and degrade your overall performance, leading to social inhibition. In either case (social facilitation or inhibition), the dominant response is what matters. Furthermore, it is the audience that will exacerbate the dominant response, whether it is perfection or mistake making. Basically; the Presence of Others leads to Arousal, which leads to an increase in chances that the Dominant Response will occur. If the Dominant Response is Correct (positive/perfection), then Performance Increases and Social Facilitation occurs. If the Dominant Response is Incorrect (negative/mistakes), then Performance Decreases and Social Inhibition occurs. There is an ideal level of arousal for any task. In difficult tasks, for example, you do not want to be feeling energetic and hyped up, but calm and focused. While the ideal level of arousal for simple tasks is the exact opposite. However, this could depend and vary individual to individual. We also see social facilitation and inhibition occur in animals. Zajonc, Heingartner, and Herman (1969) Looked at facilitation and inhibition in cockroaches. These cockroaches were taught to run a simple maze which consisted of running down the end of a tube for some food. In the simple maze, cockroaches performed faster when another cockroach was with them in the maze (aka social facilitation). The researchers created a more difficult maze afterwards. In this case, the cockroaches were faster when they were alone, and slower when there was another cockroach with them (aka social inhibition). Inside Groups How do we behave within a group? How do groups form? Think about stage 1 of the Robber’s Cave experiment. The experimenters wanted to develop group cohesion (the degree to which members feel close to other people in the group) and a strong group identity. What made them, or makes people in general, feel “groupy” (i.e., how are groups formed)? Consider the Halloween Party example from lecture. Groups feel “groupy” when it is obvious to the in-group and out-group members who belongs to which group. In other words, there is an obvious us versus them distinction. What is a group? A group is when two or more people are interacting and influencing one another. Typically people in a group share a common identity, goal, work together, and depend on each other. Thus, groups serve a variety of functions. They are favoured by evolution: humans are oriented to live in small groups and also tend to do better in said groups. Groups are also important to cultures. Groups give advantages in the animal kingdom via: Safety in numbers, Vigilance (it takes only one member to notice the presence of danger and alert the others), Permits sharing of resources (specialization of skill), Working together (which facilitates power and increases the chances of getting good resources). To humans, groups lead to and provide Role Differentiation and the division of labour (creation of experts, people do different things, specialize in one area, assembly line example), the Accumulation of Knowledge (acquiring core knowledge, where no one member has to know everything, something that is passed on throughout the generations, is added unto, and thus increases the sustainability and presence of the group in the future), and Economic Exchange (people can trade personal input, work, and trade skills for another persons input, work, and trade skills; this means that people do not have to be self sufficient). Thus, in a group, people can be better than the sum of its parts. Usually, groups tend to be and do more (achieve more, etc) than the individual could on his own. However, sometimes groups make us worse off. When is it the case that groups do this and what causes it? Social Loafing: group performance decreases in situations in which individual output is not identified. In other words, when no one else can tell whether or not you are inputting your maximum effort, you will not try to do so. This is almost always unintentional because people simply think that others could do it better than you or that your contribution is not noticeable. Social Loafing is predicted by de-individuation (feeling that your contribution to a group is not identifiable, is unnoticed, and anonymous), the meaningfulness of group (is you value the group mates, if there is respect, affection, and if is important to your identity), and by cohesiveness of the group (how close everyone is). If you respect the group members and find it important to your identity, chances are you will not slack off. Those who have neither respect nor find the group that important, may intentionally slack off. Ringlemann (1913) Ringlemann was a French engineer studying farm workers. He theorized that if one person gives 100% effort or does 100% of the work, two people doing the same task should provide double the effort. However, this was not the case. Two men pulling a cart did not pull twice as much as one man pulling a cart. Instead of 200%, the two men pulling a cart exerted 186% of the effort that one man exerted. The effort exertion lowered as the members in the group increased to the point where an 8 man team exerted less than 400% effort. This could be because of the physical barriers involved in larger groups (e.g., finding the space), but it can’t be only that. Social loafing plays a large role. In other words, the realization that if the task or essential process is happening means you are doing your part or are at least doing enough, is what explains these particular set of results. Compare this experiment with Triplett. The two tasks are fundamentally different. In one the individuals are alone and compete against another individual. In this case, the individuals own force and performance is easily measurable, noticeable, and obviously traceable to the individual himself. In the other tasks, individuals are in one group, working as one person. The individual contribution is not easily noticeable, measurable, or traceable to the individual slacking off. Latane, Williams, and Harkins (1979) Participants were asked to come into the lab and make as much noise as possible. Some participants did this alone in a room, while others were assigned different types of number grouping (e.g., groups of 2, 3, 4, 6, etc). People made much more noise when they were alone than when they were with other people and three people
More Less

Related notes for PSY220H1

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