Social Psychology IV

Where the mere presence of other members of one's species (conspecifics) facilitate performance.

1) Drive Theory (zajonc, 1965)All animals are genetically predisposed to become physiologically aroused in the presence of members of their own species. Increased physiological arousal (or drive) facilitates the dominant response. For simple tasks the dominant response is usually the correct one. Hnece, increased drive leads to better performance (social facilitation). Vice versa for complex tasks.
2) Evaluation Apprehension Theory (Cottrell 1972)Mere presence is not enough. Actors must believe that observers are evaluating their performance. Apprehension about this causes physiological arousal. this facilitates the dominant response. 3) Distraction-Conflict Theory (Baron 1986)The presence of others distracts the actor from attending to the task at hand. Actor is conflicted between attending to others or attending to the task. This conflict heightens the actor's physiological arousal. This facilitates the dominant response!

Social loafing is a decrease in individual effort and performance that occurs when a group of people perform the same task.

Participants were asked to pull on a rope. They took part alone or in groups. Ringelmann found the amount of weight people pulled as a group was less than the sum of their individual capacities. The force exerted per person decreased as a function of group size. Decreased performance could be due to coordination loss, motivation loss (social loafing).

Output equity = You believe that others loaf so you do too. Submaximal goal setting = There is less compulsion to exert oneself in large groups. Lack of identifiability = Participants find it easier to 'hide in the crowd' in larger groups. Lack of responsibility = you feel less responsible for the group outcome

Personal identifiability = Social loafing is reduced if people realize that their performance can be traced back to them Task attractiveness = Social loafing is reduced for attractive tasksPersonally meaningful tasks = Social loafing is reduced for personally meaningful tasks Performance-reward contingency = Social loafing is reduced on tasks for which good performance is rewarded.

A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of actin. Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgement that results from in group pressures.

Group cohesiveness = the group wants to stick together on the issueDirective leadership = the group's leader clearly favors a particular option. Insulation = The group is insulted from alternative sources of informationHigh Stress = The group is stressed and does not feel that there are any options other than those proposed by the leader.

-overestimating the in groups might and right (illusion of invulnerability) - group members become close minded - pressures towards uniformity

- incomplete survey of alternatives- incomplete survey of objectives- failure to examine risks of the preferred choice- poor information search- selective bias in processing information at hand- failure to reappraise alternatives- failure to work out contingency plans

Expressiveness - express any idea that comes to mindNon-evaluative - Ideas are not to be evaluated during the generation phaseQuantity - the more ideas the betterBuilding - Try to modify and extend other people's ideas

McGarth (1984) 1) To make sure that the creativity of each individual is not stifled by the various social processes that operate in groups2) To take advantage of whatever creativity-enhancing forces operate in groups.

Nominal group: A group of people working separately from one anotherReal group: A group of people working together as a groupResearchers say nominal groups outperform real groups.

Evaulation apprehension - concerned about making a good impressionSocial loafing - motivation lossMutual production blocking Production matching - group members match their performance to the poor performance of the group as a whole

There are three stages. E.g. "Should Tim give up his job at Kooindah for an exciting but insecure poker career?" 1. First private response (pre consensus) 2. Group discussion leading to a unanimous decision (consensus)3. Second private response (post consensus) Conclusion: Groups make riskier decisions than individuals