PSYC1001 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Floyd Henry Allport, Drive Theory, Social Loafing
PSYC1001
21ST MARCH 2018
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
× Social influence processes- how do people go about influencing each other?
× Social influence is everywhere- have you ever…
- Asked a friend for fashion advice? Bought clothes that didn’t suit you just because
everyone else wears them?
- Agreed to buy something you didn’t want?
- Agreed to attend a social event because someone else asked you to?
- Changed your behaviour in response to a direct order from a police officer,
parent, teacher or school official?
- Found yourself laughing over something that wasn’t funny?
- Performed a stupid act on a dare or a bribe?
× Above are all situations where we are subject to social influence
× Simplest kind of social influence- minimal social influence can occur from mere presence
and audience effects
- Social facilitation
× Triplett (1898)- first empirical social psychology experiments
× Dynamogenic factor theory- the presence of another person is a stimulus to
arousing the competitive instinct
× Test- wind fishing reels alone, or in presence of others- tasks were
performed better in the presence of others
× Tower (1986)- in everyday life- drivers take 15% less time to travel the first
100 yards at an intersection when there is another driver beside them, than
when they are alone
× Bayer (1929)- in the animal kingdom- looked at the eating behaviour of
chickens alone and in company ® an apparently full chicken again ate 2/3
as much grain as it had already eaten in the presence of other chickens
× Chen (1937)- insects- an ant digging alone excavates 232mg, whereas when
two ants dig together, they excavate 765mg
× Social influence: mere presence (when others happen to be there), co-action (more than
one person performs the same task) and audience effects (one person performs and other
people watch)
- Floyd Allport, 1924- the first person to coin the term ‘social facilitation’-
phenomenon observed that just having another person there (mere presence)
promotes (facilitates) behaviour
× Contrary evidence- other experiments found that this does not happen
universally- evidence of social inhibition? ® for example, if a student is
asked to write an essay (or to take part in any complex, unusual task) in the
presence of someone else, they may not perform as well
- Zajonc, 1965- Drive theory- arousal increases dominant responses
× If dominant response (prominent, easy and readily performed) correct-
facilitation (arousal promotes performance)
× If dominant response incorrect (new, complex and/or problematic)-
inhibition (arousal hinders performance)
× In other words, arousal has different effects on performance (i.e. helps or
harms performance)
× Thus what an individual does well (i.e. is highly skilled at), is what they
tend to do best in front of others
- Potential sources of this arousal
× Mere presence
× Evaluation apprehension (humans’ potential for evaluating and making
judgements about you- generates ‘evaluation anxiety’)
× Distraction-conflict (other people may distract you-coping with this can be
arousing as well)
× The first and third apply universally to all species; however, the second
uniquely applies to humans
- Evidence for mere presence effect in animals-
× Cockroaches’ dominant response is to run from light in a straight line
(simple maze) ® cockroaches in the mere presence (audience) condition
performed faster in the maze than those in the alone condition- thus
arousal facilitates the performance of the dominant response
× However in a complex maze, cockroaches in the mere presence (audience)
condition were slower to perform than those in the alone condition- thus
arousal inhibits the performance of the non-dominant response
- Does evaluation anxiety matter? The effects of an evaluative (viewing) or non-
evaluative (non-viewing) audience on the speed of dressing into familiar or
unfamiliar clothes
× Phenomenon referred to as ‘social loafing’- when a task is done in such a way that the
input of the individual cannot be separately evaluated, enabling people to ‘slack off’ (since
individual effort cannot be monitored)
- Causes: own contributions cannot be identified, larger group size = less
responsibility (low expectancy- “working hard won’t help”, or low
instrumentality- “nobody will notice anyway”)
- Solutions: increase relevance and commitment, make individual performance
uniquely identifiable, increase group cohesiveness (capitalise on the tendency to
have an in-group attachment, making everybody feel important)
× Conformity- copying what others do is an almost universal tendency- it is a building human
characteristic ® non-conformists just conform to different norms
Document Summary
Above are all situations where we are subject to social influence. Simplest kind of social influence- minimal social influence can occur from mere presence and audience effects. Dynamogenic factor theory- the presence of another person is a stimulus to arousing the competitive instinct. Test- wind fishing reels alone, or in presence of others- tasks were performed better in the presence of others. Tower (1986)- in everyday life- drivers take 15% less time to travel the first. 100 yards at an intersection when there is another driver beside them, than when they are alone. Bayer (1929)- in the animal kingdom- looked at the eating behaviour of chickens alone and in company an apparently full chicken again ate 2/3 as much grain as it had already eaten in the presence of other chickens. Chen (1937)- insects- an ant digging alone excavates 232mg, whereas when two ants dig together, they excavate 765mg.
