PSY220 Term Test One Flashcards

Social Psychology

The scientific study of the reciprocal influence of the individual and his or her social environment.

mind -> behaviour

Diagram of Social Psychology

Beliefs, feelings, attitudes, and emotions of the individual ->

Behaviour of the individual

The Interdisciplinary Nature of Social Psychology

A foothold in abstract theory such as theoretical formation/practice and in concrete practice such as research. Both contribute equally to understanding the great human ills and goods.

How is social psychology different from chemistry or physics?

We traffic in probabilities, likelihood, and correlations rather than absolute laws. When we say x predicts y, we do not mean this happens every time without fail we mean it happens probabilistically (more often than it would occur if it only occurred due to chance, rather than through experimental manipulation).

Is it possible to extract some basic patterns of human behaviour?

Yes, despite the enormous amount of variability in human behaviour, we can find statistically significant trends. There are some rules that people follow most of the time.

What does social psychology tell me that my grandmother couldn't tell me?

Sometimes grandma is wrong. Sometimes prevalent intuitions in society don't stand up to empirical scientific testing (sometimes they do), and you may have intuitions that are proved (supported by data) or disproved (not supported by data).

Intuitions must be tested against...

Empirical Data

In-Class Cuban Cigar Example

You are rolling cigars in a Cuban cigar factory with 20 other people. The owners expand the factory so that now 100 people are rolling cigars side by side. Will this make a difference in your individual cigar output?

Three competing/opposing intuitions/cliches for the Cuban Cigar Example

-More people, more competition, more impetus to perform better
-More people, more anonymity, easier for me to 'coast'/perform worse
-Maybe it doesn't make a difference

*Each of these options seems plausible to people* we need to test these empirically to see which will win!

Topic of Study for Unit One

Exploring how people being in our social environment impacts our own behaviour.

Group Influence

Interactions that take place as part of a group often have more dramatic effects than interactions that take place just as an individual.

Group

Two or more people, who for longer than a few moments, interact and influence one another and perceive one another as 'us'.
-though simply being in one another's presence does not technically constitute a group as there is no interaction, this may still cause influence on behaviour

Four Principles of Group Dynamics and Collective Influence Involving Minimal Group Interaction

1. Social Facilitation Theory
2. Social Loafing Theory
3. Social Compensation Theory
4. Deindividualization Theory

Opposing cliches for the question: what is the difference between working on a task in the presence of others (an audience) versus working on the same task alone?

-The crowd brings out the best in me, the bigger the crowd the better I perform (Ex/ Magic Johnson)
-Choking under intense scrutiny of a large audience (Ex/ Rick Ankiel who was a great pitcher in the regular season, but the pressure of being in the play-offs impaired his performance)

In the cliches we are investigating (and for Social Facilitation Theory), the audience/group is composed of...

Co-actors: a group of people working simultaneously and individually on a non-competitive task.

Who investigated these opposing cliches and what sparked his interest?

Triplett (1897)
-Bicycles were popular and he saw that bikers achieved faster times in a group than when travelling the same distance alone (he analyzed the data)

Triplett's Experiment

Got 40 children to wind up fishing reels, sometimes alone and sometimes side by side with others.
-found that the group that reeled with others reeled faster (reeled more wire in the same amount of time)

The Problem with Triplett's Experiment

It was not recreatable every time. Sometimes people performed worse on certain tasks when placed with others and did better alone (or there was no difference).

Zajonc came along and resurfaced Triplett's studies by saying...

The mere presence of others increases arousal.
-this is something that is physiologically measurable such as increased heartrate, sweating palms, etc.

Zajonc's Social Facilitation Theory is called...

Arousal Based Model of Social Facilitation

Arousal Based Model of Social Facilitation

Arousal (from the mere presence of others) energizes you and facilitates the dominant response (the behaviour that comes most quickly and easily given a particular stimulus). Arousal activates the thoughts and motor responses that are the most practiced.
-on a well learned/easy task (reciting the alphabet/your birthday, info that is well learned and accessible), the dominant response is the correct response -> this causes your performance to be better in a group
-on a poorly learned/difficult task (naming state capitols or remembering your mother-in-law's birthday, info that is not well learned and accessible), the dominant response is likely to be incorrect -> this causes your performance to be worse in a group

Zajonc's 'Cockroach Experiment'

A 2x2 Experiment: cockroaches had to navigate through an easy (straight) or hard (right angle) maze, and they did it either with other cockroaches watching (the maze was see-through) or without other cockroaches.
-Coackroaches running the easy maze: did better with an audience
-Cockroaches running the hard maze: did worse with an audience

A Note on the cockroach experiment...

We cannot measure 'arousal' in cockroaches, so we do not know for sure that arousal is what caused the cockroaches to do better or worse, but we can observe this phenomenon in our species and other species so it is therefore likely it is fundamental to organisms.

Zajonc found in animals and humans...

An audience improves your performance on tasks that are easy for you and hamper your performance on tasks that are more difficult.

Cottrell wondered...

Whether it was the mere presence of people that caused arousal, or something that the people were doing that caused it?

Cottrell's Experiment

Had tasks performed with people watching and then with people blindfolded.
-found that Zajonc's social facilitation effect was significantly reduced when the spectators were blindfolded

Cottrell's Social Facilitation Theory is called...

Evaluation Apprehension

The Evaluation Apprehension Theory of Social Facilitation

Your arousal and therefore performance on easy tasks is only enhanced by the presence of others if they are in a position to evaluate you or there is a threat of failure.

Baron wondered...

If the stimuli for arousal had to be PEOPLE.

Baron's Experiment

Used a noisy printer while people performed a task, or had people perform a task alone.
-found that Zajonc's social facilitation effect occured in the presence of the printer
-determine you don't need people to see the social facilitation effect, only arousal

Baron's Social Facilitation Theory is called...

Distraction Conflict

The Distraction Conflict Theory of Social Facilitation

Being distracted causes arousal - an attentional conflict, we want to investigate the distraction (person or other) and complete the task. There is nothing unique about people being there in social facilitation, the people are just another distraction.

What is similar between the three theories of social facilitation?

All three state that arousal facilitates the dominant response.

What is different between the three theories of social facilitation?

How arousal comes about.
-Zajonc: the mere presence of others
-Cottrell: the evaluating eyes of others
-Baron: any type of distraction

Zajonc's Theory: is it social/are other members of your species required? is the mere presence of the stimulus sufficient?

Yes, Yes

Cottrell's Theory: is it social/are other members of your species required? is the mere presence of the stimulus sufficient?

Yes, No (the person must be evaluating)

Baron's Theory: is it social/are other members of your species required? is the mere presence of the stimulus sufficient?

No (any distracting stimulus), No (it must be distracting)

How can the three of these theories be applied?

Different theories work better in different conditions. Current, ongoing work looks at isolating these conditions.

Something else that effects Social Facilitation...

Crowding

Crowding

The presence of many others.
-has a similar effect to being observed by a crowd as in social facilitation, it enhances arousal (especially when people are close together, there is many of them, and the space is confined), which facilitates dominant responses.

Zajonc observed individual tasks with spectators/other people performing the task - but who investigated collective tasks (working WITH others)?

Latane and Ringelmann

When does the presence of others cause us to relax, rather than get aroused as it does in social facilitation?

Collective Tasks: when efforts are pooled and the performance of any one individual is difficult or impossible for observers to determine.
-assembly lines, juries, orchestras

Example of a collective task

On a collective task where everybody is performing a similar task and working towards a collective goal, there is option for slacking. One viola player in an orchestra could be faking, and would anybody ever know?

Ringelmann's 'Rope Pulling Experiment'

Observed people pulling on a rope attached to a scale and measured how much pulling they did alone or in a group.
-with 2 people pulling the rope, the sum of the individual forces was the same as when they pulled in a group
-with 3 people pulling the rope, they only pulled the sum of 2.5 individual forces
-with 8 people pulling the rope, they only pulled the sum of 4 individual forces

*The group pulled with less pressure than the sum of the individual forces would pull*

What did the results of Ringelmann's 'Rope Pulling Experiment' violate?

-The common cliche: "The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" -> no, it is less!
-Zajonc's Social Facilitation Predictions: pulling a rope is an easy task, and therefore the dominant response and performance should be enhanced for the individuals not hindered

What theory did Ringelmann's 'Rope Pulling Experiment' spur?

Social Loafing Theory

Social Loafing

The tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts towards a common goal than when they are individually accountable.

How does social loafing occur (two possible explanations for the results of Ringelmann's 'Rope Pulling Experiment')?

-Coordination Loss: Groups are less coordinated and there is more interference; it's harder to get coordinated pulling and individuals eachother's ability to pull -> nothing to do with individual effort
-People try less hard in groups

Who explored the two possible explanations of social loafing?

Latane (and Ringelmann with his 'Rope-Pulling Apparatus' where he took out the coordination loss condition by blindfolding participants, and got the same results)

Latane's Experiment

Participants were told to scream and yell and make as much noise as possible and their decibel level would be measured. Told the subject either that they were alone, or that they were part of a team but their teammates were all in separate rooms (Why separate rooms? There were actually no teammates)

What confound of Ringelmann's Experiment did this eliminate?

Interference between teammates.
-also eliminates the issue of measuring decibel level in groups (apparently waves smash together)

Results of Latane's Experiment

Alone - 100% decibels
1 other - 82% decibels
5 others - 74% decibels

*Participants predicted they would be louder in a group and perceived themselves as cheering equally in each situation*. Interference is ruled out here, so the reduction of effort must be due to actually trying less hard in groups.

Was Latane's Experiment repeatable?

Yes, across situations and cultures. It contradicted the thought that people might feel less inhibited in groups and scream louder.

What six factors did Latane and colleagues discover over numerous experiments, that reduce loafing?

-when individual effort is identifiable (evaluation apprehension)
-when a task is important (appealing, challenging, or involving)
-when an individual perceives their own efforts as necessary for a successful outcome (especially when another group member is seen to not contribute much)
-when there is a threat of punishment for poor performance (or high reward for exemplary performance)
-when the group is small
-when the group is cohesive

Group Cohesiveness

The degree to which group members are similar to one another, are friends, or are likely to see one another again. A we feeling, the extent to which group members are attracted to one another.
-even if parts of a group all have different roles working towards a common goal as a team will reduce loafing
-this idea has been operationalized differently by different researchers

When do we experience social facilitation and when do we experience social loafing?

When being observed increases evaluation apprehension, social facilitation occurs. When being lost in a crowd (additive task rather than working with co-actors or for an audience) decreases evaluation concerns, social loafing occurs.

Presence of others...
individual efforts evaluated -> EA -> Arousal -> Facilitation

individual efforts not evaluated -> no EA -> Less Arousal -> Loafing

Karau and William's Experiment

Ran simple math problems alone or with partners in a collective task (participants told they would be rewarded collectively for group performance).
-In collective tasks where a partner said 'This is stupid I'm not going to try hard', the partcipants performance went up
-In collective tasks where a partner said 'I'm trying hard!', the participants performance went down (they were more likely to loaf)

Karau and Williams founded what model based off of their experiment?

The Collective Effort Model

The Collective Effort Model

Big Tradeoff: Effort is fatiguing, but success is desired. People seek to optimize the ratio between their input and the group's output. People are not entirely lazy and not entirely concerned with top performance, but rather seek an optimum balance.

We have covered performing individual tasks with an audience, performing collective tasks where effort is pooled, but what about coactive tasks (where everyone works on the same task as as in a collective task, but their own individual output is measured as opposed to pooled effort)?

They are used for comparison with collective tasks.

Why do we compare collective tasks with coactive tasks and not with individual's effort on a task?

To see if the mere presence of others will effect the individual's output on the task.

Plaks and Higgins Study

In collective conditions participants tried harder on a task when their teammate was a female (no matter whether the participant was a male or a female) rather than when the teammate was a male.
-people assumed if they had a female partner they would need to try harder

What concept are the Karau and Williams and Plaks and Higgins studies getting at?

Social Compensation
-their studies measured social loafing and social compensation and found that individuals would loaf less when they felt they needed to compensate based on judgements about their teammates (such as gender)

Social Compensation

Considered the complement of social loafing, and refers to when individuals work harder and expend more effort in a group setting - to compensate for other group members - compared to when working alone.
-working on a collective task that is important to you, but teammates may not do a good job, then your output will go above your baseline to achieve the desired goal

Deindividuation Theory

When deindividuated (a loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension in group situations that foster anonymity and draw attention away from the individual), people are more likely to abandon normal restraints and lose their sense of individual responsibility.

Factors that increase deindividuation...

1. Large groups - make members unidentifiable and allows individuals to believe they will not be persecuted and perceive their actions as the groups.
2. Physical anonymity - makes individuals less self conscious and more responsive to cues present in the situation whether negative or positive (ie. Longer shocks when anonymous and when in KKK uniforms).
3. Arousing and distracting activities - aggressive outbursts by large crowds are often preceded by minor actions that arouse and divert people's attention (impulsive group action absorbs our attention and allows us to discard our values, reacting only to the immediate situation).
4. Decreased self-awareness - in a group people can become self-unaware, lose personal identity, and be deindividuated, they are then more likely to act without thinking about their own values.

Four Principles of Group Dynamics and Collective Influence Involving Maximal Group Interaction

1. Group Polarization Theory
2. Groupthink
3. Leadership
4. Influence of the Minority

Intuition on Group Decision-Making: who makes riskier decisions: an individual or a group?

Many people assume the group turns out to be more conservative because people don't want to express a deviant opinion.

Stoner's 1961 Study

Contradicted the intuition about group decision making and found a 'risky shift' - when in groups people were more likely to make riskier decisions.
-the study where people read stories (decision dilemmas - take risk is chances are at least __ in 10) and rated how much risk the person should take

The Risky Shift Phenomenon

It seemed to Stoner that small group discussion leads to a light riskier shift and group risk-taking is promoted.

Studies after Stoner...

Contradicted his findings. Later evidence suggested the opposite: that when in groups people make less risky decisions.
-we can write decision dilemmas where people become more cautious after discussion

What did Moscovici do?

Come along and proposed a theory that reconciled the contradicting literature suggesting that groups made riskier and less risky decisions; called the group polarization effect.
-studied how individual responses in a group of people changed after they discussed the answers they gave

Group Polarization Effect (the Group Polarization Hypothesis)

Group discussion amplifies initial group inclinations, whether risky or conservative.
-initial group inclination is calculated as a mean of the individual ratings on a riskiness scale.

Ex/ Relatively prejudiced or unpredjudiced students speaking together did indeed increase the initial gap between the two groups.

*Extends beyond risky/conservative decisions and can be as simple as coke or pepsi (ie. in a group if more people like pepsi, then the same people who had said coke before may switch to pepsi)

Where do we see group polarization?

We tend to surround ourselves with like-minded individuals, and polarization then increases this likeness in distinction from other groups.

-schools
-communities
-the internet
-terrorist organizations
-massacres

What creates group polarization?

1. Greater number of arguments in favour of one position (you may hear support for your position or hear and think about new positions).

2. Informational Influence may solidify ideas that used to be vague for you (even when there was no discussion, and the individuals simply said their answers to questions in groups there was polarization - when we are not sure about our opinion, hearing other people's opinions may make us more sure).
-pluralistic ignorance may play a role (self-serving bias where people think they are better embodiments of socially desirable traits and attitudes leads them to misperceive the norm - informational influence may liberate them from this norm)

3. Social Categorization draws clear boundaries between in-group and out-group (people may be drawn to opinions within their group and opposed to opinions outside their group) - a Normative Influence

When does informational influence predominate in situations of group polarization and when does normative influence predominate?

When discussion is about a decision with a factual element (persuasion), informational influence. When discussion is about a decision with a social element (social comparison), normative influence.
-discovering others share one's feelings (normative influence) unleashes arguments (informational influence) supporting what everyone secretly favours - need to break the pluralistic ignorance

Overview of Janis's Research (1982)

Used archival (rather than experimental) methods; investigated beneficial (Cuban Missile Crisis - SU and USA in nuclear stand-off and JFK diffused the situation) decisions, and disastrous (Bay of Pigs Fiasco - sent people to murder Fidel Castro, attack team discovered by the Cuban military and captured and killed) decisions made by the Kennedy Administration.
-focused on JFK's advisors (his inner circle)
-proposed groupthink was occuring in the disastrous decision

Groupthink

An excessive tendency to seek agreement among group members (maintaining harmony by surpressing dissent).
-the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking (attempting to abstain from disputes) becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it ends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action

Janis proposed that group think is likely when...

1. Members have similar backgrounds.
2. Group is isolated (from decisions that were made in other situations and the media).
3. When there is a strong charismatic leader.
4. When systematic decision-making procedures are lacking (this is why in parliament there is a very structured and coordinated system of who speaks when).
5. When the decision must be made under high stress.

Janis proposes that the eight symptoms of groupthink are...

*Note: the more symptoms present, the more groupthink present - but not all symptoms have to be present for groupthink to be present*

1. Illusion of invulnerability ("Our decision is bound to be correct!")
2. Collective efforts to rationalize (reasons the decision is good are listed, and any opposing opinions are rationalized as bad)
3. Unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality ("Bad things won't happen to good people!", nobody questions questionable policies)
4. Stereotyped view of enemy leaders as weak or stupid
5. Direct pressures on dissenters to comply with the group (dissenters told "It's more important to be unanimous", their opinions dismissed)
6. Self-censorship of deviations from group consensus (individuals won't voice dissent because they know if they do, #5 will happen)
7. Shared illusions of unanimity (pluralistic ignorance - more in later cards)
8. Emergence of self-appointed 'mind guards' to screen the group from adverse information (see next card)

Mind Guards

A member of a group who serves as an informational filter, providing limited information to the group and, consciously or subconsciously, utilizing a variety of strategies to control dissent and to direct the decision-making process toward a specific, limited range of possibilities.
-only providing group with certain available information
-who will protect the group from any information that calls into question the morality of the group's decisions

Options for combatting groupthink... (class discussion)

-someone can act as a devil's advocate to introduce opposing opinions
-you can bring in a mediator or an outsider perspective
-you can have a more diverse group
-in secure highly cohesive groups committed members will often care enough to voice disagreement

Changes Kennedy made after his bad decision that lead to his good decision (and the reduction of groupthink)?

He made his inner circle be composed of a more diverse group of people (with various backgrounds), therefore reducing isolation.

He skipped some of the meetings, therefore removing the strong leader component. He sensed that people were holding back in the anxiety of his presence and they did actually voice more opinions when he reviewed the manuscript later.

Techniques for Preventing Groupthink

-being impartial and not endorsing any position
-encouraging critical evaluation and getting input from a genuine critic to stimulate original thinking and open group to opposing views
-occasionally subdivide group and then reunite to air differences
-before implementing, call a 'second chance' meeting to air any lingering doubts

What did Steiner wonder about in 1972?

Whether a group (group average) works better than an individual (individual average) depending on the nature of the task (it does!).

Additive Tasks and what Steiner found...

Additive Task: product is the sum of all members' contributions to meeting a goal, but are not accountable for their efforts (ie. contributing to a United Way Campaign)

Results: group performance was better than individual performance (potential for social loafing)

Conjunctive Tasks and what Steiner found...

Conjunctive Task: product is determined by the individual with the worst performance (ie. a mountain climbing team - since they are tied together they can only go as fast as the slowest member)

Results: individual performance was better than the group performance because the more people there are (in a group) the more likely there will be a bad person who will bring the average down

Disjunctive Tasks and what Steiner found...

Disjunctive Task: product is determined by the individual with the best performance (ie. the group needs to generate one brilliant idea)

Results: mixed, you may see some social loafing in groups though a bigger idea pool would likely produce better ideas

Group Problem Solving

Not every decision is flawed by groupthink. In some cases, more heads are better.
-when group members freely combine creative ideas and varied insights, the frequent result is not groupthink but problem-solving

Ex/ More accurate eyewitness reports can be reconstructed in groups as opposed to on one's own, better weather reports from 2 person forecasting teams, etc.

Brainstorming

Allowing people to free associate and express any ideas they may have in a non-judgmental setting.

Did Mullen et al. (1991) think that brainstorming was really such a great idea?

No! Although there are cases where it can work and produce more ideas than an individual can alone, on average brainstorming is only 1/2 as productive as the same number of people working alone.
-people credit themselves for ideas produced by the whole group

Why is brainstorming not as effective at idea generation as an individual according to Mullen et al.?

1. Production blocking may occur (discussion means that the rules of polite conversation must occur and waiting for one's turn to speak and trying to remember their ideas means one is not really listening to other people's ideas)
2. Free-riding or social loafing
3. Evaluation Apprehension (you can feel people's judgment and can lead to censoring and a lack of creativity)
4. Performance matching (people want to match the group standard, don't want to seem deviant)

What are some benefits of brainstorming?

-it is an enjoyable morale booster
-improves loyalty and cohesiveness of the group, but doesn't produce the best decisions/ideas

Ways to enhance brainstorming

1. Combine group and solitary brainstorming - solitary brainstorming with priming from group ideas can be beneficial.
2. Brainwriting - adding ideas to a paper/ communicating on paper eliminates production blocking (electronic brainstorming - communicating via computer, has a similar effect).

Leadership

The process by which certain members motivate and guide the group. They can be appointed/elected formally or emerge informally.

The four types of leadership...

Task Leadership, Social Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership

Task Leadership

Leader focused on organizing work, setting standards, and focusing on goal attainment.
-a directive style
-are able to get the most out of low achieving and high achieving groups

Social Leadership

Leader focused on building teammwork, mediating conflicts, and being supportive.
-a democratic style
-are able to lead people who value good group feeling and take pride in achievement

Transactional Leadership

Characteristic great leaders, test high on measures of both task and social leadership.

Transformational Leadership

Leader exhibits behaviours that help make a minority view persuasive.
-a charismatic style
-have a compelling vision of a desired state of affairs and can communicate this well/inspire others to follow
-motivate others to identify with and commit themselves to the group mission