Social Psychology

• We are we more aroused in others’ presence? (Evaluation Apprehension) (who produced the theories)


  Corttrell, 1972: others make us apprehensive because we expect it and wonder how they are evaluating us.

  Corttrell, compared the effects on performing well learn tasks, while alone ,with two Confederates blindfolded ,and with two Confederates watching. The results showed performance boosted with two watching these are the same results as Schmitt et al. (1986).

  Worringham and Messick (1983) find 47 joggers sped up when a woman was watching compared to facing away.
• Give evidence for the Zajonc drive theory.

  Hunt and Hillary, 1973: record of the time, taken for students to learn, simple and complex mazes (either with 2 confederates or alone). Results showed fewer errors, learning, simple, mazes, but more and difficult mazes in the presence of others.

  Michaels et al. (1982): I’m search poo players in a student union with for observers watching. Good players did better (80% successful shots compare to 71% alone) bad players did worse (25% successful shots versus 36% shots alone).
• What is the drive theory of social facilitation? (Zajonc, 1965)

  Others presences leads to arousal which leads to strengthening dominant responses which enhances easy behaviour/behaviour we are good at(social facilitation) and in pairs, difficult behaviour/behaviour that we are not good at(social inhibition).
• What does other’s presence hinder?

  Slowed at learning nonsense, syllables. Completing a maze.

  Doing complex multiplication (Dashiel, 1930, Pessin, 1933)
• What does other’s presence improve?

  Speed of doing multiplication problems.

  Accuracy of motor tasks.

  Production of word associations (Allport, 1920)
• How are we affected by the presence of others? (Triplett?)

  Triplet, 1998, asked 40 kids age 9 to 15, twine string on a fishing reel, either in pairs or alone over six trials. Results showed children were quicker working in the presence of another. Allport (1920, 1954) called this social facilitation (in presence of co-actors or passive audience)
• What does bond and Titus do 1983?

  Bond and Titus produced a meta analysis of 241 studies showing the presence of others only accounts for 0.3 to 3% variation in performance.
• What did Ringleman 1913 do?


  Ringleman, hard young man, alone, or in groups of 2, 3 or 8, pull a rope. The force exerted per person decreased as function of grip size. (Ringleman affect.)
• What can we conclude about affects if others’ presence?

  The presence of others may have more impact when people interact with each other (non-Drive explanation). Herman 2015 found in the social facilitation of eating. We eat more in the presence of friends and family who are also eating, then we do alone. But when eating with strangers, we follow the norm. If others are watching or have eaten, we eat less because of evaluation apprehension.
• What is the destruction conflict theory Sanders, 1983?

  Other’s presence makes us have a conflict of attention on whether we should attend to the task or attend to the audience. This makes us aroused and leads to social facilitation.

  Sanders found the presence of others, enhanced performance on easy and similar tasks.
• Why are we more effective when we’re on our own?

  Loss of coordination in groups? Groups inhibit movement, distracts us and makes individuals jostle. Or loss of motivation.
• What did Ingham et al. 1974 do?


  compared individuals pulling a rope when on their own, in a group or a pseudo group?

  The pseudo-group was made up of confederates with a real participant at the front, confederates were pretending to pull the rope by grunting.

  Results found individual performance reduced in the real group compared to staggering up and down in the pseudo-group.
• How/Why does loss in motivation happen? What did Latane call this?


  Latane et al. 1979, called loss of motivation, social loafing. It means a tendency to work, less on a task if you think others are working hard on it. He showed less individual effort for clapping and cheering when the group size increased. The noise made per person reduced by 29% in a group of 2, 49% in a group of four and 60% in a group of six, coordination was not a problem.
• Evidence to support Latane‘s theory?

  Boyes et al. (2004) showed people in groups give lower tips on individuals, (the larger the group, the lower the tip).
• Why does social loafing happen?

  Output equity (Jackson, Harkins, 1985) “we expect others to loaf”

  Anonymity (de-individuation affect and diffusion of responsibility)

  No evaluation apprehension. For example, Kerr and Bruun (1981) individual performance not evaluated in groups and so, less motivation to make an effort.
• How can we reduce social loafing?

  Make the output effort of each individual identifiable (Williams et al. 1989)

  Increase individuals commitment to the task (believing that own efforts are needed for success)

  Increase the value or importance of the task (in which case we may compensate for the anticipated loafing of others) (Williams and Karau, 1991)

  (Zaccaro, 1984)
• What is group polarisation?

  Named by Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969), group polarisation refers to the tendency for the group to make decisions that are more extreme than the mean of individuals members’ initial positions, but in the same direction.
• Evidence to support group polarisation?

  Stoner 1961, found groups recommended the riskier alternative more than individuals. Subsequent work show the group do not always makes your decisions but group discussion enhances members‘ initial views.
• What did Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969) do?


  They asked 140 male secondary students to complete an attitude scale towards President, Charles de Gaulle and Americans ( calculated individual averages).

  In groups of four, they discussed targets and policies and reach a consensus.

  They are than us to fill out the attitude scale again.
• What did Moscovici and Zavalloni results find?

  After the discussion, the views towards the president became more positive when it was already sitting in a positive region. The views on Americans became more negative when it was sitting in a neutral region.
• why does group polarisation occur?

  Persuasive, arguments or informational influence like-minded, others produce support of the new arguments, and these will strengthen the already held opinion. Initial views can influence information sort of support these views. (Schmitz-Hardt et al. 2000).

  Social comparison or normative influence. We seek social approval. Discussions indicates which views are socially desirable and valued, and so group members shift in the direction of the group to gain approval.