Psych 225 Lecture 15 Outline of Last Lecture 1) Paper Result2) Zajonc Theory3) Cottrell Theory4) Chapter 3Outline of Current Lecture 1) Schmitt Article 2) Bray and Sugarman ArticleCurrent LectureLecture 10-28-2014Schmitt, Gilovich, Goore, & Joseph (1986)~mere presence and social facilitation: one more time~Problems of past research?-in no presence condition there was still a 2 way mirror -some of the tasks researchers had P’s do, could have been inherently embarrassing or increased evaluation apprehension Slide: Schmitt et al.-designed: mixedaudience: none, blind/headphones, observanttask difficulty: well-learned v. novel Within: task difficulty Between: audience 1 column for audienceThese 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.Audience1 none2 blind3 obsvr2 blind2 blind 2 column for task difficultywell learned novel# #Schmitt et al.Type of Audience Type of Audience Type of AudienceTask None Blind ObserverWell-Learned 14.77 c 9.83b 7.07 aNovel 52.41d 72.57f 62.52e*For well-learned task, did better with observer than alone.*For novel task, did better with alone than with observer Need to include the disputed condition to compare the two past competing theories; had to add the blind column to see if mere presence had an effect~Cottrell would want the none and blind condition to be similar because it is only when evaluated does another person influence social facilitation; however those conditions are different in the novel task, suggesting mere presence played a role-marginal means across the chart aren’t interesting because well-learned tasks are generally easierStudy 2: (mere presence condition is modified)-told P’s that person with blindfold was in a different group than they are and that they would not be blindfolded (in study 1 they were told that the blindfold phase came later-could be why blind audience had biggest affect on new task) Type of Audience Type of AudienceTask None BlindWell-learned 11.38b 9.34aNovel 58.33c 95.53(don’t need the observer condition really to pit past theories (Z and C)against each other*Replicated mere presence findings that audience still played a role in how long the task took todo -social impairments effects are bigger (more likely to make worse in novel condition) than social facilitation effect (more likely to make better in well-learned condition)-theoretical refinements?~clarify why social impairment tends to be a larger effect than on social facilitation Bray and Sugarman (1980)-social facilitation among interacting groups: evidence for the evaluation apprehension hypothesis -Cottrell would support this more-problem they saw: only when P’s worked alone could they feel the presence of the observerWorkers GroupIndividual GroupObservers absentObserver present High observer salience Low observer salience *looking for impairment affect, not facilitation affectMixed DesignObservers: none, non-eval (watch and learn), and evaluativeTask difficulty: moderate vs. high Group size/# of workers: alone, @, & 4 person groups~within ss factors: task difficulty~between ss factors: observer and group size DV=# of mysteries solved Observer: 1 column (code with 1, 2, or 3) for type of observer Task difficulty: 2 columns (one for moderate task # and one for difficult task #)Group size: 1 column (code with 1, 2, or 4) for type of group 3x2 of the design Task Observer~ None Watch/learn “non-eval”Evaluation Moderate 2.50b 2.60b 1.90aHigh 1.40c 1.40c 1.40c-be critical: is it really non-evaluative to have someone watch and learn? -did effect of observers on performance of mod-more workers, the more mysteries solved when moderately difficult-need a significant amount more of workers to help with difficult mysteriesGreen (1974)Dissonance and self-perception analyses of “forced compliance” When two theories make competing predictions ~Festinger is the grand-daddy of dissonance~Deryl Bem is the father of self-perception Video:-talks about cognitive dissonance: we try to reduce the dissonance between how believe we should act and how we actually act by changing one or the otherStudy: P’s asked to tell someone else that the study was fun even though it was very boring/tedious. P’s were offered $1 or $20. ~those with $20 knows the task is dull but knows he has sufficient justification; lied to P’s but later asked and still agreed it was boring~those paid $1 know they don’t have sufficient justification; for him there is dissonance-lies to P’s but then reduces the dissonance by changing dullness of task and eventually believes he actually liked the task *People come to believe in the things they have to suffer forFestinger and Carlsmith (1959)-low (v. high) justification for inconsistency more attitude change -Festinger seems as motivational approachBem: Self-perception -Bem has a colder more cognitive approach: thinks of us as detached observers-simulation studiesno conflict, no unpleasant arousal -actors are observers of own behaviors-observers behaviorexternal justification?Absent: infer attitudePresent: do not infer