PSYCH-366 Exam #2 Review

social facilitation

tendency of people to perform better on familiar tasks & perform worse on unfamiliar tasks in the presence of others

why does social facilitation happen?

4 reasons:

• because arousal improves well-rehearsed thoughts & actions but hinders less-rehearsed thoughts & actions

• an individual’s concern about being evaluated by others motivates well-practiced actions but hinders less-practiced actions

• distraction hurts less-practiced actions but doesn’t impact well-practiced actions

• social comparison with others does the same

when do individuals perform better, alone or in groups?

depends on the task

• physical effort tasks = individuals’ physical effort decreases in groups, suggests individuals do better alone

• problem-solving tasks = groups solve more problems than individuals, but takes longer

• memory tasks = groups recall more than individuals

• creativity & brainstorming tasks = individuals’ ideas are added up & total a larger number compared to group’s ideas but groups are good at combining and evaluating ideas

Steiner’s Theory of Group Productivity

proposes a group’s observed performance on a task is determined by 3 factors:

• task demands

  • divisible or unitary

    • divided into small bits or something everyone has to do together

  • maximizing or optimizing

    • everyone has to put in full effort to win or the group can find the best solution that meets a standard

  • additive, disjunctive, conjunctive, or discretionary

    • additive = everyone does the same amount of work that’s then added up

    • disjunctive = either or solution

    • conjunctive = everyone has to do same thing which then adds up to total team performance

    • discretionary

• process by which the group interacts to accomplish its task

  • requires coordination, smooth social dynamics, & motivation

• resources of the group

  • resources of individual members collectively matched to task demands

groupthink

phenomenon that occurs when a group prioritizes a general consensus and the illusion of correctness and unanimity within the group, over critical analysis, which leads to poor decision-making

example of groupthink

Janis 1982 Analysis of American foreign policy decisions between 1940-1980

• Attempted invasion of Cuba at Bay of Pigs in 1961

• Bombing of North Vietnam in 1965

• Watergate scandal in 1973

groupthink features

• groups dominated by directive leader

• illusion of unanimity & correctness within the group

• pressure of dissenters to conform to the majority

• insulation from external information

• time pressure

• cohesiveness within the group

what 5 factors cause groupthink to happen

• a group dominated by a directive leader

• an illusion of unanimity & correctness within the group with pressure on dissenters to conform to the majority

• insulation from external information where group rarely sought out alternative policy options to evaluate relative merits & there was a perceived inferiority of all competing options

• time pressure to make a decision

• cohesiveness within the group

what factors prevent groupthink?

• when leader adopts a more neutral role

• group encourages a social norm of critical thinking, commenting, & expression of minority viewpoints

• presence of dissenting roles, where the group appoints a devil’s advocate or independent expert whose job is to provide a critical appraisal of the group’s currently preferred decision

collective intelligence

enhanced knowledge or ability that a group has over the sum of the intelligence of that group’s individual members

key components of intelligent groups

• alignment of individuals’ skills with their contribution to the group

• sharing of responsibilities among members strategically

• being perceptive & responsive to each other’s feelings

• communicating frequently & cooperatively without a few voices dominating

key ingredients in a local environment that can increase talent & performance

• strong bonds with the expectation that individuals will look out for each other

• a social norm to pay it forward through mentoring, volunteering, etc.

• expectation of consistent effort & practice to learn, refine, & master skills

• connection between purpose of the group’s work & social good

example of a positive training environment

Wang School of Elite Sports in Oslo, Norway

• mixed skills group that emphasizes a belief in the consistent application of effort, coaching from multiple more experienced members, & everyone paying it forward & mentoring/learning from each other

are groups good for individuals’ health & well-being? evidence?

people with multiple group memberships are happier & healthier than people with few group affiliations, suggesting that groups are good for individuals’ health & well-being

• membership in multiple social groups is correlated with higher self-esteem in multiple studies across multiple countries, true of children, adolescents, university students, & older adults

• belonging to & identifying with several groups makes us happier because it gives us a greater sense of being in control over our lives

Greenaway et al. (2015)

• over 6,000 participants & over 47 countries

• show that people’s identification with their local community group, nation, & the world was correlated with higher perceived control, which in turn is linked to well-being

why is there a common assumption that being in groups unleashes negative impulses in individuals?

common assumption that being in groups unleashes negative impulses in individuals by creating deindividuation

• deindividuation leads to anonymity, which leads to less self-awareness, then to less self-control, then being less attuned to social constraints, & finally leads to more antisocial behavior

deindividuation

Le Bon (1896) & Zimbardo (2007)

deindividuation is when the presence of others creates anonymity, reduces individual responsibility & self-restraint, & enables antisocial behavior

• leads to anonymity, which leads to less self-awareness, then to less self-control, then being less attuned to social constraints, & finally leads to more antisocial behavior

what is wrong or oversimplified about the deindividuation account? what’s the connection to social identity theory & self-categorization theory

deindividuation account is overly simple

• assumes that individuals acting alone are rational & that group behavior is irrational, that individual behavior is the product of the real self, whereas group behavior is not

• doesn’t fit with the perspective of social identity theory or self-categorization theory that personal identity & group identity are two ways we define ourselves

• what deindividuation regards as a loss of identity could be seen as a shift from personal to social identity, ex. when a person’s behavior is guided by group norms & not personal motivations

• but people haven’t lost the ability to regulate their own behavior, they are using group standard to decide what behavior is appropriate

research evidence for & against the claim that deindividuation leads to antisocial behavior

• evidence shows that having difficult conversations anonymously produces more hostility than having similar conversations in-person

• large meta-analysis of 60 studies shows that deindividuation can lead to prosocial or antisocial behavior depending on what social norms are active in the situation

• mixed evidence for a link between deindividuation & antisocial behavior but deindividuated individuals behave in a way that conforms to local social norms, they don’t always behave negatively

stanford prison experiment

stanford prison experiment was a mock prison study in which 24 male participants were randomly assigned to either the guard or prisoner role

• goal was to examine the extent to which harmful behaviors were produced by people’s social roles & situational forces rather than their personalities

• critique of the study is that guard’s behavior was not due to deindividuation or loss of personal responsibility, leading to unconstrained aggression

• guards were research assistants instructed to play an oppressive role - they were obeying authority, & their behavior was socially approved, rather than due to uncontrolled aggressive impulses

UK replication of stanford prison experiment

one difference than original study

• guards were simply asked to ensure the smooth running of the prison & were not given instructions about oppressing the prisoners

• takeaway:

  • initially, role assignment wasn’t enough to produce abusive behavior —> later dynamics started to tip toward abuse & collective pushback wasn’t strong enough

presumed role of deindividuation in stanford prison experiment

deindividuation has been invoked to interpret results in the stanford prison experiment

• Hanley et al., 1972

• Zimbardo, 2007

people’s behavior in groups & crowds

reflects group norms, not deindividuation

Elaborated Social Identity Model of crowd behavior

Reicher et al., 1996

• crowds are heterogeneous, consisting of several subgroups, of which a few might seek confrontation

• confrontational groups is seen as peripheral initially

• opposing group may see crowd as undifferentiated mass or threat

• if there are indiscriminate actions by the opposing group against the whole crowd, those actions will be seen as illegitimate

• crowd members now categorize themselves in opposition to those targeting them, seeing themselves as a unified group against a hostile outgroup

• new us vs. them social categorization changes how the peripheral confrontational subgroup is viewed —> now becomes central because their antagonism fits the crowd’s new relationships with the opposing group

bystander effect

phenomenon in which people are less likely to offer help to a person in need in the presence of others

• tendency is increased with group size because they assume that others will act or that the situation is not a true or immediate emergency

Latane & Darley’s 5-step model of helping behavior

• noticing the event

• interpreting it as a problem

• taking responsibility

• deciding how to help

• providing help

the presence of others can reduce helping at each stage

• distraction

• pluralistic ignorance

• diffusion of responsibility

• lack of skills

• audience inhibition

when does the presence of others reduce helping vs. increase helping

increases helping if:

• the emergency involves violence

• the presence of bystanders instead motivates people to try & de-escalate violence in the making

• cohesive groups, rather than aggregates of strangers, are more helpful in emergencies

• when facing shared danger or emergency, individuals experience solidarity, common fate, & are more likely to coordinate effort & help each other

in general, people are more likely to help ingroup members, except in certain situations

• shared commonalities

• shared experience of external threat

• when helping protects helper’s image or reputation

• helping because ingroup norms demand it

• helping preserves a relationship of dependency that protects the high-status position of the ingroup

positive interdependence

when groups share common goals & they are interdependent on each other for resources & outcomes

negative interdependence

when groups have competing goals, & they compete for resources & outcomes

increases antipathy towards outgroups, because when another group is in direct competition with ours for resources, warm feelings towards them hinder our own group’s chances of success, & hostility towards them may be seen as more functional

Sherif & Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory (1954)

idea that prejudice develops when there’s competition for resources between groups, which motivates hostility, prejudice, & stereotyping of the outgroup

• as structural relations between groups change, toward greater negative vs. positive interdependence, it affects group members’ behavior towards each other

Robber’s Cave experiments & progressive stages

boy’s summer camp in a state park in Robber’s Cave, OK

• all boys were middle-class, white, & ~12 years old

• stage 1: group formation

  • setting the groups in different parts of the park where they developed internal structure, mini-culture, their own group symbols & names & group norms

• stage 2: development of intergroup conflict

  • social comparison with other group, groups transitioned from independent to negatively independent, as well as more internally cohesive

• stage 3: conflict resolution

  • introducing superordinate goals desired by both groups that required cooperation between groups, resulting in positive interdependence between groups

real-world realistic group conflict

Brewer & Campbell (1976)

• ethnographic survey of 30 triabl groups

• people evaluated their ingroup & an outgroup, most showed ingroup favoritism

• a closer proximity to the group led to more resource disputes, which caused more ingroup favoritism

Brown et al. (1986)

• workers judged their own group’s contributions to the organization most favorably

• found that outgroups with which there was the least harmony & more negative interdependence, there was also more prejudice

two theories that propose a link between content of group stereotypes & structure of intergroup relations

• Stereotype content model (Fiske et al., 2022)

• Image theory (Alexander et al., 2005)

Stereotype Content Model (Fiske & Cuddy)

says that group stereotypes are defined by 2 dimensions:

• warm-cold (trustworthy, friendly)

• competent-incompetent (capable, assertive)

outgroups that collaborate with the ingroup (positive interdependence) = warm

outgroups that compete with the ingroup (negative interdependence) = cold

outgroups with higher status relative to the ingroup = competent

outgroups with lower status relative to the ingroup = incompetent

Image Theory (Alexander)

says that power, status, & type of relationship of an outgroup with one’s ingroup evokes specific emotions & actions

5 outgroup images

• ally image

  • outgroups with equal power & status as ingroup & cooperative relations

• enemy image

  • outgroups with equal power & status as ingroup & competitive relations

• barbarian image

  • outgroups with more power & lower status & competitive relations

• imperialist image

  • outgroups with more power & higher status & incompatible goals in relation to ingroup

• dependent image

  • outgroups with less power & lower status & presumed compatible goals

how do structural relationships between groups affect types of prejudice people might develop toward outgroups - sociofunctional theory of prejudice

says that specific threats posed by the outgroup toward the ingroup elicit specific emotions & different forms of prejudice & that not all prejudice is the same

• if an outgroup is perceived as posing a threat to safety & property, dominant emotion is fear & dominant behavior is avoidance

• if outgroup is perceived as posing a threat to moral values & health, dominant emotion is fear & dominant behavior is exclusion

• if outgroup is perceived as posing a threat to economic well-being or freedom, dominant emotion is anger & dominant behavior is aggression

paternalistic relationships

relationships between 2 groups with an unequal power dynamic due to members of 1 group:

• restricting autonomy or freedom of other group

• acting as a caretaker

• making decisions for other group without consulting them

• assuming they know best

can be between men & women, countries, employees & employers

can be hierarchical, close, positive, controlling, and/or exploitative

ambivalent sexism

proposes that two complementary beliefs about gender relations work together to maintain a gender hierarchy: hostile sexism & belevolent sexism

• hostile sexism = portrays women as seeking to control men by using their sexuality or through feminism

• benevolent sexism = views women as positive, in need of protection, & complementary to men

system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994)

says that people have 3 psychological needs:

• to think positively about themselves

• to think positively about their ingroup

• to think positively about the system in which they live

motive is the desire to see the status quo as legitimate, fair, natural & desirable, even if one’s own ingroup is disadvantaged by it

to preserve sense of safety & certainty, people sometimes feel the need to justify the system, even when it opposes their interests

• ex. people who believe the U.S. socioeconomic system is fair who have positive attitudes toward rich people & provide less support for social safety net policies

cultural match

alignment between an individual’s beliefs/values/communication style/background/learned social norms & their environment

fosters engagement, confidence, success

cultural mismatch

misalignment between individuals beliefs/values/communication style/background/learned social norms & their environment

often leads to stress, misunderstanding, poor performance

cultural mismatch theory

aims to explain what cultural mismatch is & why it occurs

states that cultural mismatch is the friction that arises when an individual’s background, values, communication style, & social cues clash with those of a dominant institution, workplace, or social setting —> leading to misunderstanding, stress, and poorer performance

examples:

• clash between what university leaders say are the dominant norms in their academic community & what students say are their reasons for pursuing college

how does cultural mismatch/match affect people’s navigation of college & job search processes

cultural match in college = increased sense of belonging, less stress, more positive emotions, better GPAs

cultural mismatch = decreased sense of belonging, more stress, more negative emotions, lower GPAs

job search = Chua 2022

• study exploring desirable qualitites in candidates

• hiring managers in tech companies looked for technical & behavioral skills that were more likely a cultural match with upper-middle-class norms & a mismatch with working-class norms

interview process = Sharps & Anderson, 2021

• found that class didn’t matter for confidence levels & that working-class interviewees may have been more confident

• confidence is seen as a proxy for skill

tight culture

strong social norms & clear rules & sanctions for anyone who violates those norms

poor & working-class communities are often tighter because they face more adversity & react in a way that keep their group protected & aligned

often experience a cultural mismatch

loose culture

weaker norms & more permissive towards anyone who violates those norms

abundant affluent communities often have looser cultures & emphasaize individualism

often experience a cultural match

real-world study showing families move from one type of culture to another

US department of housing & urban development from 1994-98

• move from a tight culture (public housing) to loose culture (affluent neighborhood) was good for kids who moved at age 8 but bad for kids who moved at age 15

  • younger kids had fewer established social & emotional ties, fewer ties to responsibilities (jobs/extracurriculars), more resilience to start anew

    • experienced more of a cultural match & older kids experienced more of a cultural mismatch