PSYSOCI Modules 6-13

Social Facilitation

Psychological tendency to perform better on simple or well-practiced tasks, and worse on complex or unfamiliar tasks, when in the presence of others

Who Discovered Social Facilitation?

Norman Triplett

Who Expanded on Social Faciliation?

Robert Zajonc (dominant response)

Triplett’s Experiment

Represented one of the first attempts to apply laboratory methods to social behavior and first laboratory experiment

Triplett’s 1898 Model

Robert Zajonc’s Drive Theory of Social Facilitation

Explains why the presence of others improves performance on well-learned tasks but can impair performance on novel or difficult tasks

Zajonc’s Drive Theory (1965)

Allport (1920s)

Co-Action vs. Competition

Co-action

Doing the same action with others (no direct competition)

Competition

Doing the same action with others in competition

Action with the audience

Doing the performance while others who are not doing the same action are observing

Mere Presence Effect

The physical presence of other people naturally increases a person’s physiological arousal

Cottrell’s Evaluation Apprehension Theory (1968)

Evaluation Apprehension Theory

We become aroused because we anticipate judgment; type of audience is important

Distraction Conflict Theory

The presence of others creates an attentional conflict between focusing on a task and monitoring the audience → The divided attention increases physiological arousal, which subsequently improves performance on simple tasks but impairs it on complex tasks

Baron’s Distraction-Conflict Theory (1986)

Triplett

Competition matters; showed that performing with others can change behavior

Allport

Competition is not necessary; co-action

Zajonc

Mere presence matters

Cottrell

Evaluation matters; arousal comes from the belief that other people are evaluating you

Baron

Distraction matters; attentional conflict can also generate necessary arousal

Social Influence

The process by which individual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are shaped by the real or imagined presence of others, operating primarily through conformity, compliance, and obedience

Sherif’s International Social Influence Model (1935)

Outcomes from Sherif’s Experiment

Social norms emerge naturally, ambiguity increases social influence, and perception is socially constructed

Informational Social Influence (Sherif, 1935)

Conforming because others are perceived as a valuable source of information

Normative Social Influence (Asch, 1951)

Conforming to gain approval or avoid disapproval

Ambiguity in Social Influence

The less objective evidence people have, the more they rely on others

Expertise in Social Influence

Later research showed that people are even more likely to accept information from individuals perceived as knowledgeable

Uncertainty in Social Influence

Modern research in judgment and decision making shows that uncertainty often increases reliance on social cues; universal

Culture in Social Influence

Collectivistic culture often show stronger conformity

Key Takeaways from Social Influence

Uncertainty leads people to seek information from others & the desire for social acceptance can outweigh the desire to be correct

Social Modeling / Social Learning Theory

People acquire new behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions by observing and imitating others within a social context

Albert Bandura

Social Modeling

The Bobo Doll Experiment

1961 study by psychologist Albert Bandura that proved children learn aggressive behaviors by watching and copying adults. The study used 72 children, an inflatable toy, and different adult behaviors

Learning

Acquiring knowledge; children may learn things but may not immediately use them

Performance

Displaying Behavior; may depend upon opportunity, motivation and expected consequences

Self-Efficacy

Belief in one's ability to perform successfully; behavior results from continuous interaction among personal factors, behavior, & environment

Social Modeling Key Takeaways

Children can acquire aggressive behaviors by observing others, even without direct reinforcement and people can learn simply by observing others (vicarious learning)

Cognitive Dissonance

Individuals experience psychological discomfort (dissonance) when they simultaneously hold two or more inconsistent cognitions. Individuals attempt to reduce the resulting discomfort through various cognitive and behavioral strategies

Example of Cognitive Dissonance

Smoking: Knowing tobacco causes cancer yet smoking to relieve stress. People cope by telling themselves it helps them relax or that everyone dies of something anyway.

Leon Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Self-Affirmation Theory (Steele, 1988)

People can reduce dissonance by affirming valued aspects of the self rather than changing their attitudes

Cognitive Dissonance Key Takeaway

People are motivated not only by external rewards but also by a desire for internal consistency; when attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors conflict, individuals experience psychological discomfort and employ various strategies to reduce that discomfort

Bystander Effect

Individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present. The likelihood of intervention decreases as the number of onlookers increases

Diffusion of Responsibility (Darley & Latané, 1968-1970)

Individuals often fail to help not because they lack compassion, but because responsibility becomes psychologically diffused across multiple witnesses

Five-Step Decision Model of Helping

Notice the event → Interpret it as an emergency → Accept personal responsibility → Know how to help → Decide to implement assistance (failure at any stage reduces the likelihood of intervention)

Darley & Latané (1968) Key Takeaways

The presence of other people can paradoxically reduce the likelihood that anyone will help during an emergency.

Intergroup Competition

Many social conflicts stem not from individual personalities or inherent hostility, but from competition over valued yet limited resources

Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1966)

Prejudice, hostility, and discrimination between groups arise from competition over scarce or limited resources, such as jobs, land, power, or money.

• Groups Naturally Form Social Identities

• Resources Are Limited

• Competition Produces Conflict

• Cooperation Reduces Conflict

Cooperation Reduces Conflict

When groups must cooperate to achieve a shared objective, hostility gradually decreases. This occurs because both groups recognize that success depends upon mutual cooperation

Competition Produces Conflict

Conflict becomes increasingly likely

Resources Are Limited

Many resources cannot be shared equally. Competition emerges when groups pursue the same limited resource

Groups Naturally Form Social Identities

People naturally categorize themselves into groups. These identities become psychologically meaningful

Zero-Sum Competition

One group's success appears to require another group's loss

Ingroup Favoritism

People begin favoring their own group. There is greater trust, preferential treatment & positive stereotypes

Outgroup Derogation

Negative beliefs develop about competitors.

Intergroup Competition Key Takeaways

The Robbers Cave Experiment demonstrated that intergroup conflict is not an inevitable consequence of personality or cultural differences but can emerge from competition over valued resources.

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

A person's self-concept is derived not only from their personal identity but also from their membership in social groups. Individuals strive to maintain a positive social identity because belonging to valued groups contributes to self-esteem and psychological well-being

Basic Assumptions of Social Identity Theory

• People Possess Multiple Social Identities

• Group Membership Contributes to Self-Esteem

• People Seek Positive Distinctiveness

• Intergroup Comparisons Are Inevitable

Intergroup Comparisons Are Inevitable

Groups rarely exist in isolation. “Us” vs “Them” divide

People Seek Positive Distinctiveness

Individuals want their own group to compare favorably with relevant outgroups

Group Membership Contributes to Self-Esteem

People derive psychological value from belonging to groups they perceive as successful, respected, prestigious, morally good, & competent

People Possess Multiple Social Identities

Individuals simultaneously belong to many groups. Each identity becomes more or less important depending on the social context

Cognitive Processes of Social Identity Theory

Social Categorization, Social Identification, Social Comparison

Social Categorization

People simplify the social world by placing themselves and others into categories

Social Identification

Individuals adopt the identity of the group to which they belong

Social Comparison

People compare their own group with relevant outgroups

In-Group Favoritism

People preferentially evaluate members of their own group. Ingroup favoritism does not always require outgroup hostility

Outgroup Bias

People may evaluate members of other groups less favorably. Outgroup bias often emerges from ordinary cognitive categorization rather than personal animosity

Tajfel’s Minimal Group Paradigm

Simply dividing people into groups is enough to produce ingroup favoritism, even when there is no competition, conflict, or prior relationship

Role

Social roles influence expectations and behavior (ex: Stanford Prison Experiment sought to test how deeply these roles could shape actions in a realistic institutional setting)

Stanford Prison Experiment

Suggested that ordinary people quickly conform to assigned social roles and power dynamics; Prison environment fostered deindividuation, role conformity, dehumanization, diffusion of responsibility, & obedience to institutional norms

Deindividuation

Previous research suggested that anonymity and group membership reduce personal accountability (ex: uniforms, mirrored sunglasses, and institutional settings would facilitate deindividuation among guards)

Social Identity Theory (Reicher & Haslam, 2006)

Abusive behavior depends not merely on role assignment but also on identification with group norms and authority