Robert S. Baron

Distraction-Conflict Theory: Progress and Problems

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses the progress and problems of distraction–conflict theory. Distraction–conflict theory suggests that attentional conflict might be the key mediator of drive in research settings. This chapter reviews the research and argues that—despite a good deal of corroborating data for some of the major contentions of distraction–conflict theory—attentional mechanisms may offer a more parsimonious account of social facilitation phenomena than does a drive perspective. Distraction–conflict theory can account post hoc for the findings that indicate that evaluative or competitive pressure heightens social facilitation or impairment; mere presence occasionally produces social facilitation in the absence of evaluative or competitive pressure; social loafing can occur on simple well-learned tasks; and hidden audiences produce social facilitation. The attentional emphasis suggests that distraction may have a variety of effects on cognition, attitude change, and social behavior.

The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence

Two studies examined how incentives for accuracy (task importance) affected the social influence of inaccurate confederates in a modified Asch situation (S. E. Asch, 1951). Not unexpectedly, when task difficulty was low, incentives for accuracy reduced the social impact of( inaccurate) confederates (Study 1 ). However, when task difficulty was increased, the reverse was true, with individuals conforming more to an inaccurate confederate norm when incentives for accuracy were high ( Studies 1 and 2). The results are discussed in terms of possible mediating mechanisms and also in terms of their historical and pragmatic implications.

The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion.

Results of an experiment comparing face-to-face groups with anonymous and identified computer-supported groups challenged theoretical arguments (V. S. Rao & S. L. Jarvenpaa, 1991) that computer-based group decision support systems (GDSS) can increase group decision quality by facilitating expression of minority opinions. In groups working on a hidden-profile investment decision task, minority opinion holders expressed their arguments most frequently under anonymous GDSS communication, but the influence of the minority arguments on private opinions and on group decisions was highest under face-to-face communication. These results suggest that the conditions that facilitate the expression of minority arguments may also diminish the influence of those arguments. The implications of these findings for a normative view of social influence, for social presence theory, and for the effects of GDSS on participation rates in group discussion are discussed.

Social support and immune function among spouses of cancer patients

This study investigated whether social support was related to immune function among spouses of cancer patients. Effects of depression and negative life events were examined as potential mediators. Results showed evidence of greater immunocompetence on 2 of 3 dynamic measures: natural killer cytotoxicity and proliferation response to phytohemagglutinin among spouses who reported high levels of social support. All six components of social support assessed by the Social Provisions Scale (Cutrona & Russell, 1987) were strongly related to these indices of immune function. No evidence was found for mediation by either life events or depression.

Influence of prototypes on perceptions of prejudice.

Two studies examined the influence of cultural stereotypes and personal factors (ones race, gender) on perceptions of racial and gender discrimination. Overall, the data suggest that our perceptions of prejudice are strongly influenced by specific expectations regarding who are the prototypic perpetrators and victims of prejudice. More general expectations regarding out-group conflict or regarding only the characteristics of the perpetrator appear to have less of an impact on such perceptions. Additionally, women were found to be more likely than men to perceive sexism directed against men and racism directed at African Americans and Caucasians. Also, African Americans were more likely than Caucasians to perceive racist events against Whites and Blacks. The implications of these data are discussed.

Distraction and social comparison as mediators of social facilitation effects

Abstract Sanders and Baron (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 956–963) suggested that increases in drive produced by the presence of others (social facilitation) are due to the tendency for others to distract task performers as they worked on a task. This Distraction-Conflict theory proposes that socially mediated drive induction will occur whenever there is some reason to shift attention from the task to the social stimuli. In the case of humans, one such reason may be the opportunity to obtain social comparison information from an audience or coactors. The present research demonstrated that social facilitation effects (improved simple task performance and impaired complex task performance produced by the presence of others) occurred only when subjects were motivated to obtain comparison information (Experiment I) and when comparison information was available (Experiment II). The availability of comparison information also led to increased accuracy in estimating the coactors performance. This indicated that in conditions manifesting social facilitation, subjects were spending some time monitoring the coactors work, which is an inherently distracting activity. Several supplementary measures of distraction were generally consistent in indicating greater distraction under conditions manifesting social facilitation. The present results offer no support for the explanations of social facilitation suggested by Zajonc and by Cottrell.

Is social comparison irrelevant for producing choice shifts

Abstract After 15 years of research on group induced shifts in individual choice, two hypotheses, social comparison (involving image maintenance) and persuasive arguments (involving attitude change), have emerged as the leading explanatory contenders. Burnstein and his associates have recently reported a series of studies that they feel clearly establish the persuasive arguments hypothesis as the best explanation for the shifts. The present paper takes issue with their conclusion. A study is presented that supports a social comparison interpretation of one of the experiments reported in Burnstein and Vinokur (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1973, 9, 123–137). In addition, a critical analysis of several other key studies reported by Burnstein and his associates yields the conclusion that neither hypothesis completely accounts for the available data. Rather, both image maintenance and attitude change processes may operate in a complementary manner, with persuasive arguments facilitating the shifts motivated by social comparison. Parallels are drawn between the factors that affect choice shifts and those that affect conformity behavior.

So Right It's Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making

Publisher Summary This chapter introduces a ubiquity model of groupthink or Janiss model of groupthink that specifies a revised set of antecedent conditions to explain the reason for groupthink-like behavior occurring in mundane, temporary, and even minimal groups and yet is not an invariant feature of group decision making. It mentions that Janiss probing and insightful analysis of historical decision making was correct about the symptoms of groupthink and their relationship to outcomes, such as the suppression of dissent, polarization of attitude, and poor decision quality and yet wrong about the antecedent conditions. The frequent failure to verify the more ambitious of Janiss predictions regarding the causal role played by the models antecedent conditions stem from the general prevalence of consensus seeking, group polarization, outgroup stereotyping, and the suppression of dissent in a wide array of group settings. After some 30 years of investigation, the evidence has largely failed to support the formulations more ambitious and controversial predictions, specifically those linking certain antecedent conditions with groupthink phenomena.

Detecting and Labeling Prejudice: Do Female Perpetrators Go Undetected?

The present study tested the notion that gender bias against women would be less likely to be recognized if it came from an unexpected source, a female perpetrator. One hundred ninety-six college students read 12 vignettes (embedded in 7 fillers) that described sexist actions against females. Both male and female subjects were more likely to label a critical vignette as sexist if the perpetrator of the act was male rather than female. In addition, for a given action, male perpetrators were perceived by both males and females as displaying more intense sexist behavior than female perpetrators. Furthermore, women subjects provided higher average intensity scores than male subjects when a perpetrator was identified as sexist. The results are discussed in light of research on gender stereotypes. Alternative explanations and social implications are also discussed.

Exercise and the illusory correlation: Does arousal heighten stereotypic processing?

Abstract Subjects experienced high or low physiological arousal via cycling exercise and then were exposed to D. L. Hamilton and T. L. Roses (1980, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39 , 832–845) illusory correlation procedure. Arousal increased the illusory correlation effect reported by Hamilton and Rose, i.e., the tendency to overestimate the frequency of stereotypically consistent adjectives in comparison with irrelevant adjectives used to describe target individuals of different occupations. In addition, the illusory correlation occurred for frequency estimates for adjectives that had never been originally presented to subjects. Arousal did not enhance this effect, however. Theoretical mechanisms and research implications are discussed.