group processes. what is a group? which of these are meaningful groups? members of your...
TRANSCRIPT
Which of these are Which of these are meaningfulmeaningful groups? groups? Members of your
fraternity/sorority Your family Members of the St. Louis
Cardinals Fans watching a Cardinals
game Males Social psychologists A group of people occupying
the same elevator
People who like watching The Sopranos
People who own sexy red sports cars
People who wear glasses People who wear funny-looking glasses
People who notice other people’s funny-looking glasses
People who are sick of my “funny glasses” example
An index of “groupiness”: An index of “groupiness”: entitativity (Campbell, 1958)entitativity (Campbell, 1958)
what specific factors lead to perceptions of high entitativity?
At least three:– Similarity, interaction, common goals
Lickel et al. (2000)Lickel et al. (2000)– Cluster one: Intimacy groups (e.g. families, close friends,
street gangs, fraternities/sororities) high levels of interaction/similarity/importance; long duration,
and shared goals; moderate permeability; high perceived entitativity
– Cluster two: Task-oriented groups (e.g. juries, students studying for an exam, labor unions)
similar to intimacy groups, but of shorter duration and often small in number; high permeability; moderate entitativity.
– Cluster three: Social category groups (e.g. Women, Jews, Hispanics)
low interaction, low importance, few shared goals, low perceived similarity (as viewed by fellow group members); impermeable, low entitativity.
– Cluster four: loose associations (e.g. people who drive red sports cars, people in the same neighborhood)
Short or moderate duration, low importance, interaction, similarity, extremely low entitativity
Functions served by different Functions served by different kinds of groupskinds of groups
Intimacy groups: affiliation needs (emotional attachment, belongingness)
Task-oriented groups: achievement needs
Social category groups: social identity needs
Classic paradigms in social Classic paradigms in social facilitation facilitation
Perform task in Private, versus:“co-actor”“audience” (you plus others
watching)Public
First known study: Triplett (1898)
Brief overview of Brief overview of social facilitation literaturesocial facilitation literature
Is performance improved or impaired in “public” (audience or co-actor) conditions ?
Decades of confusing resultsResolution: Zajonc (1965)
– Dominant (habitual, well-learned) responses more likely in public
If dominant response yields correct answer: helps performance
If dominant response yields incorrect answer: hurts performance
Zajonc studyZajonc study
Pronounce words between 1 and 16 times – Creates “dominant” response – Words pronounced most frequently
Words flashed very quickly: 1/100 second – Participants guess word
If others are present, more likely to guess “dominant” words
Zajonc: Basic Principle of Zajonc: Basic Principle of Animal BehaviorAnimal Behavior
Cockroaches placed in runway Bright light shown Run to other end of runway to escape
light Cockroach “spectators” or not Perform faster with spectators But only if maze is simple
Ok, but Ok, but whywhy dominant response in dominant response in public ?public ?
Presence of others (of same species) arousing for at least three reasons:– Mere presence– Evaluation apprehension– Distraction
Arousal then directly leads to enhanced likelihood of well-learned response– Actual mechanism a little obscure
Alternate “Cognitive load” Alternate “Cognitive load” explanationexplanation
more parsimonious Public settings distracting for several reasons Erodes capacity to engage in controlled
(complex) processes, and, hence:– Habitual/automatic responses more likely
Similar to findings in heuristics literature– Baron (1986); Lambert, Payne, Jacoby, 2003)
Social LoafingSocial Loafing
Output of individual is diminished when working in a group
Ringelmann--rope pulling – Clapping, cheering
Why no social facilitation?
Presence of others
Individual efforts can be evaluated
Individual efforts cannot be evaluated
Arousal/ distraction
Enhanced performance on simple tasks
Impaired performance on complex tasks
Little arousal/evaluation apprehension
relaxation
Impaired performance on simple tasks
Enhanced performance on complex tasks
SOCIAL FACILITATION
SOCIAL LOAFING
Jackson and Williams (1986)Jackson and Williams (1986)
Simple vs. complex mazes on computer Another participant worked on identical task
in other room Researcher:
– Each performance would be evaluated separately,
or– Computer would average scores (no
accountability)
DeindividuationDeindividuation
Original view: loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people are in a crowd
“mob behavior”