PSY 556 1nd Edition Lecture 10Outline of Last Lecture I. Last class was the midtermOutline of Current Lecture I. Group InfluenceII. Social Facilitation vs. InhibitionIII. Social Loafing vs. CompensationIV. Social IdentityCurrent LectureGroupsI. Group Influencea. What is a group?i. Group members interact and influence one another (for more than a brief moment)ii. Interdependence or shared identity (an “us” quality)b. Social facilitation vs. inhibitioni. Presence of others is helpful when task is:1. Easy2. Well learned (dominant)ii. Presence of others is hurtful when task is:1. Complex2. Poorly learned (non-dominant)c. Social loafing vs. compensationd. Social identityII. Mere presence of othersa. How does presence of others affect performance?i. Facilitate or hinder?ii. Early research was mixed1. Triplett (1898) first lab study (fishing line)2. Ants dig 3x more sand when in group (Chen, 1937)b. Mere presence: always good?i. But is performance always ENHANACED by the presence of others?ii. Our own gut instinct tells us not…iii. Maybe there is social INHIBITIONiv. Why?These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.1. Mere presence of othersa. Others present leads directly to alert/arousal2. Distraction: can hurt or help us3. Evaluation apprehension: Presence of others only leads to arousal if they can evaluate usIII. Stereotype threat and social facilitationa. Female participants all run in groups (mere presence of others held constant)b. Told they would be doing difficult math testi. ½ told test was gender neutral: no threatii. ½ not given any info: threat 1. ** stereotype that men are generally better at math than womeniii. before taking test, asked to perform task1. ½ given easy task2. ½ given difficult taskiv. Results: women with threat, and easy task were more successful1. women with no threat, and difficult task were more successfulc. What if arousal were misattributed?i. Same experiment, but this time completed with a “subliminal noise machine”1. Misattribution group: “arousal, nervousness, and heart rate”2. Control group: “no discernable physical effects”3. Results: women without threat and subliminal noise won’t make any affects on them, perform worsea. Women with threat and subliminal noise will make them nervous, perform betterIV. Social Loafinga. Why does social loafing occur?i. People in groups feel they won’t be evaluated on an individual basisii. Reduction of the evaluation apprehension responsible for social facilitationV. Social Compensationa. In some cases, people do the opposite of loafing – they work extra hard for the group!i. Example: group projectsb. People will work hard to compensate for others when they:i. Care about the group performanceii. Believe that coworkers are untrustworthy or incapableVI. Deindividuationa. The loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people are in a crowd,leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant actsi. The more people in a lynch mob, the more brutal their attackii. Warriors who use face paint and other identity hiding techniques are more viciousVII. Just bad behavior?a. Johnson & Downing (1979) had groups of women participants shock an obnoxious confederateb. Group identity variedi. ½ wore white hoods and robes (KKK)ii. ½ wore nurses uniformsc. anonymity variedi. ½ had name tagsii. ½ did notVIII. Social Identity Model (Postmes & Spears, 1998)a. Deindividuation effects reflect the characteristics of the group normi. As personal identity and internal controls are submerged, social identity takes overii. Consequences of losing yourself to a group identity depend on what group you lose it toIX. Group Decisionsa. Are two (or more) heads better than one? It dependsb. Failure to share unique informationX. Group Polarizationa. Exaggeration of initial attitudes in group’s thinking following group decisionb. Why?i. Persuasive arguments theory1. Exposure to new arguments; more confidenceii. Social comparison1. If believing X is good, double X is great; distinguish self in groupiii. Social categorization1. Distinguishing group from other groupsXI. Groupthink (Janis, 1971)a. The kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness is more important then considering the facts in a realistic manner.i. Large impact on many fieldsii. Most evidence is case studies of historical decisionsiii. There has been empirical support for many of the factors suggested by Janisb. Groupthink: Antecedentsi. High cohesiveness: Valued by and attractive to membersii. Isolation from alternative viewpointsiii. Strong leadership: Leader controls the discussion and makes his/her view known early in the discussioniv. High stress situationv. Poor decision making proceduresc. Groupthink: Symptomsi. Feeling of invulnerability creates optimism and increases risk-takingii. Discounting of warnings and challenges to assumptionsiii. Ignoring consequences of actionsiv. Stereotyped views of enemy leadersv. Pressure to conformvi. Derogating contrary ideasvii. Illusion of unanimityviii. Mindguards- members who see their role as shielding group from outside ideasd. Groupthink: Consequencesi. Incomplete survey of alternativesii. Failure to examine risks of chosen pathiii. Failure to develop contingency plane. Groupthink: Bay of Pigs (1961)i. Train a group of Cuban exiles to infiltrate Cuba and start a revolution against Castroii. All members from similar backgrounds and political attitudesiii. Robert Kennedy “mindguarded” by telling dissenters that JFK had already decidedf. Groupthink: Preventioni. Avoid isolation by consulting ii. Reduce conformity pressures1. Leader should not take stand2. Encourage alternative viewsiii. Establish a norm for criticism1. Assign a devil’s advocate2. Talmud example: death penaltyiv. Increase “collective intelligence”1. Correlates with a. “Reading Mind’s Eye”: nonverbal recognitionb. Speaking turns: Equal distribution of inputc. Gender: Females have higher NV