Please read the following guildine , you have to write 1000-1200 words This is a social psychology homework, you are required to write a reflective paper on how you can apply the psychological concept

▪ Singing in the bathroom VS singing in public  The presence of others sometimes enhances and sometimes impairs an individual’s performance  Even just a mere presence of others would affect our behaviors 3 Social Facilitation  Social Facilitation : People sometimes perform better in the presence of others than when they are alone  Others are watching!! 4 Social Facilitation  Zajonc, Heingartner & Herman (1969) ▪ Cockroaches run a maze ▪ Cockroaches watched by others run faster than those without any audience ▪ Conclusion: the presence of an audience would facilitate a well -learned /dominant responses , BUT inhibit a less -practiced/new response. ▪ WHY? ▪ → an increase in arousal 5 Social Facilitation  Michaels et al. (1982) ▪ Studied pool players in a college student union building ▪ Pairs of players who were above or below average were identified and scores were secretly recorded ▪ Teams of 4 confederates approached the players ▪ Poor players: accuracy dropped from 36 to 25% ▪ Good players: accuracy rose from 71 to 80% 6 Social Facilitation 7 • WHY would there be an increase in arousal in the presence of an audience? • Cottrell, Wack , Sekerak & Rittle (1968) ▪ Evaluation apprehension – concern of being evaluated, which increase arousal and contribute to social facilitation effects ▪ When the audience was blindfolded or displayed no interest in watching the person performing the task – no social facilitation Social Facilitation 8 • Baron (1986) ▪ Distraction conflict theory – social facilitation stems from the conflict produced when an individual attempts to pay attention to the other people present and to the task being performed ▪ Cognitive overload can restrict a person’s attention to only focus on essential cues and ‘screen out’ nonessential ones . Social Facilitation 9 Social Facilitation  Social inhibition - the presence of others inhibits a person’s performance ▪ Presence of a spectator reduced individual performance on a memory task (Pessin, 1933) ▪ Can you think of any daily examples? 10 Social Facilitation *Dominant responses : the responses produced most readily at a given situation 11 Social Facilitation 12 • Huguet et al. (1999) found that Stroop interference decreased in the critical -audience conditions, compared to the alone and inattentive -audience conditions Social Loafing Social Loafing :  Declines in motivation and effort when a person works as part of a group as opposed to working alone (Karau & Williams, 1993) ▪ Letting others do the work ▪ Not individually held accountable ▪ Do you have such experience? 13 14 Social Loafing Social Loafing  The noise produced by each person cheering decreases as group size increases (Latané , Williams, & Harkins, 1979) Sound Pressure per Person Group Size 15 Social Loafing0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cheering Clapping Social Loafing  Collective Effort Model (CEM) by Karau and Williams (1993, 1995)  Social loafing depends on 1. How important the person believes his/her contribution is to group success 2. How likely that better performance will be recognized and rewarded 3. How much the person values group success 16 Why does social loafing occur? Social Loafing Social Loafing Collective Effort Model (CEM) predicts that social loafing will be weakest when 1. They expect their coworkers to perform poorly 2. Individuals work in small rather than big groups 3. They perceive their contributions to the group product are unique and important 4. They work on tasks that are intrinsically interesting 5. When they work with respected others, e.g.

friends 17 Social Loafing Social Loafing  Reducing Social Loafing ▪ Make each person’s contribution identifiable ▪ Have members see their own contributions as unique ▪ Provide rewards for high group productivity ▪ Make task meaningful, complex, or interesting ▪ A strong commitment to the ‘team’ ▪ Keep work groups small 18 Social Loafing Social Loafing  Social compensation occurs when a person expends great effort to compensate for others in the group ▪ When others are performing inadequately, and the person cares about the quality of the group product 19 Social Loafing Social Loafing  Across cultures ▪ Social loafing has been found in Asian countries such as India, Thailand, Japan, Malaysia and China ▪ However, social loafing may be greater among people from the U.S. than among Asians (Karau & Williams, 1993) ▪ WHY ? 20 Social Loafing Deindividuation 21 Deindividuation  Deindividuation - in crowded, anonymous situations when people lose a sense of responsibility for their own actions and feel free to express aggressive and sexual impulses  Lowered Individuality  Disappear into the crowd!! 22 Deindividuation  Zimbardo (1970) had groups of 4 young women deliver electric shocks to another person ▪ 1 st condition: participants were greeted by name, wore name tags, and were easily identifiable ▪ 2 nd condition: The participants wore oversize white lab coats and hoods, were never called by name, and were difficult to identify ▪ They were asked to deliver electric shocks to a person not in the group ▪ Results? ▪ those were not identifiable gave almost twice as many shocks as others. 23 Deindividuation  Diener et al. (1976) ▪ Researchers stationed at 27 homes waiting for children who were trick -or -treating on Halloween ▪ IV1: anonymous (no name asked) or identified (names asked) ▪ IV2*: alone or in groups ▪ Children were given an opportunity to take extra candies when the adult was not present ▪ What was the result?

• Those children who have been asked names (identified) were less likely to steal 24 Deindividuation  Deindividuation increases when individuals are anonymous and as group size increases ▪ Explanations : ▪ Make people feel less accountable for their actions (Zimbardo, 1970) ▪ Might create a special psychological state in which people are focused externally and unaware of own values (Diener, 1980) ▪ Or might heighten individual’s identification with the group and increase conformity (Postmes & Spears, 1998) 25 IMAGINE… Suppose you are admitted to a University degree program, but you don’t have enough money to pay for the school fee for the coming year (no government subsidy available). Your friend who works in a finance company persuades you to borrow money there (with a VERY HIGH interest rate 8%!!!)…  How likely would you borrow?  Rate 1 -10  Why?  How much? (If yes) 26  Group polarization : the tendency of members of a group to move toward a more extreme position than their original position simply as a result of the group’s discussion 27 Group Polarization 28 Group Polarization  Two major contributing factors:

 Social comparison: Our need to be above -average → generate and hold views that are better than other group members  Persuaded by arguments favoring the group’s initial preference during discussions 29 Group Polarization Reflection ◆ How do you think about group? ◆ What would be your role(s)? ◆ How’s your experiences in groups? ◆ How your experiences in group shape who you are now?