Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Group Performance Notes

Psychology Notes > Social Psychology (2nd year) Notes

This is an extract of our Group Performance document, which we sell as part of our Social Psychology (2nd year) Notes collection written by the top tier of Durham University students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Social Psychology (2nd year) Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Group performance
SOCIAL FACILITATION: EFFECTS OF MINIMAL INTERDEPENDENCE
Social facilitation = people perform better when in the presence of others than when alone
Interdependence = each group member's thoughts, emotions, and behaviours influence the others'
Improvement and impairment
MERE PRESENCE:
Group presence  improved performance
DRIVE THEORY:
Group presence  increases arousal 
 Improved performance on easy tasks
 Impaired performance on difficult tasks
EVALUATION APPRAISAL:
Group presence  fear of evaluation  increases arousal 
 Improved performance on easy tasks
 Impaired performance on difficult tasks
DISTRACTION CONFLICT:
Group presence  fear of evaluation  distraction  increases arousal 
 Improved performance on easy tasks
 Impaired performance on difficult tasks 1 MERE PRESENCE: Simply the presence of others produces social facilitation
Triplett, 1898: cyclists times with 30% faster when cycling in a group vs alone
BUT not a simple correlation  eg new task = performance worse in front of a group 2 DRIVE THEORY: Zajonc, 1965: presence of others increases arousal  makes behaviours easier/harder

• Improves performance of accessible (well-learned, well-practiced) behaviors

• Impairs performance of less accessible (novel) behaviours

• Audience can affect two people performing the same task in opposite ways
Michaels et al., 1982:
o Expert pool players  improved performance - good shots are highly accessible

Poor players  succeeded on fewer shots - miscues more accessible

• Innate mechanism to be aroused by presence of other members of species?
Blascovich et al., 1999: Social 'Facilitation' as Challenge and Threat
Challenge = sufficient resources to meet situational demands in a goal-relevant performance situation
Threat = insufficient resources to meet demands
Cardiovascular responses of Ps performing a well-learned task in the presence of others fit the challenge pattern ( cardiac response and  vascular resistance)
Cardiovascular responses of Ps performing an unlearned task in the presence of others fit the threat pattern ( cardiac response and  vascular response)
 supports idea that audience improves performance when confident, impairs performance when not
Evans, 1979: 10 strangers crammed into a small room had higher BP/arousal than those in a large room 3 EVALUATION APPREHENSION: Cottrell Group performance
Not simply the presence of others  it is the worry of being judged
Concern that others may be judging us  we want other people to value/like us - self-esteem affected by others
Apprehension can improve performance on simple tasks and impair performance on difficult tasks:
Bartis et al., 1988:
Ps asked to list various uses for a knife - either simple uses or think of new, creative uses
Ps either believed their performance would be identified individually or pooled with everyone else's
Possibility of individual evaluation on the simple task improved performance and impaired it for the difficult task
Allen et al., 1991: evaluation, not mere presence, is the factor that affects behaviour  non-evaluative presence does not affect performance

4 DISTRACTION CONFLICT: Saunders et al., 1978

Presence of others makes us think about them, which may deflect attention from task at hand  creates arousal and impacts performance
Schmitt et al., 1986:
Someone sat behind Ps in a location he could not monitor the Ps performance
Presence of the person improved performance on easy tasks and interfered with it on difficult ones
Conflict between concentrating vs reacting to others  arousal
Presence of others: splits attention between other people and task  attentional conflict
 Distraction can focus us on task-relevant cues, improving performance
In a large crowd: arousing  many opportunities for evaluation and distraction
Matthews et al., 1976: arousal induced by a crowd can energise effort, thereby improving performance on simple tasks (sports game), and impairing performance on complex tasks

PERFORMANCE IN FACE-TO-FACE GROUPS: INTERACTION AND INTERDEPENDENCE

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Social Psychology (2nd year) Notes.