All questions
Question 1
A researcher observed social loafing during a group task where individual effort could be measured. Students were asked to generate as many unique uses for a common object as possible in 10 minutes. In the “identifiable” condition, each student typed ideas into their own labeled document. In the “non-identifiable” condition, students sat together and spoke ideas that a recorder typed into a single unlabeled list; the researcher stated that only the group’s total number of unique ideas would be counted. Which pattern is most consistent with social loafing?
- Students contribute fewer ideas per person in the non-identifiable condition because individual accountability is reduced (correct answer)
- Students contribute more ideas per person in the non-identifiable condition because they imitate the most productive group member
- Students contribute fewer ideas per person in the identifiable condition because being evaluated triggers deindividuation
- Students contribute the same number of ideas per person in both conditions because effort is fixed by time limits
Explanation: This question tests the concept of social loafing, which analyzes effort reduction in group brainstorming. Social loafing occurs when individuals contribute less in groups, especially without personal accountability, due to perceived dispensability of effort. Here, the identifiable condition used labeled documents, while the non-identifiable one pooled ideas anonymously in a group list. Fewer ideas per person in the non-identifiable condition matches social loafing, as lower accountability led to reduced individual input. A common distractor, such as more ideas from imitation in groups, fails because it overlooks how loafing decreases effort rather than promoting mimicry of productivity. To check applicability, consider if outputs are individually tracked, mitigating loafing effects. This extends to classroom group work, where anonymous contributions often yield uneven effort.
Question 2
Researchers studied social facilitation using a simple performance task. Forty volunteers completed two 2-minute rounds of sorting mixed cards into two piles by color (a well-practiced, straightforward task). In Round 1, each participant worked alone in a quiet room. In Round 2, the same participant repeated the task while two unfamiliar observers sat behind them and silently watched. The researchers recorded the number of correctly sorted cards per round and noted that most participants increased their correct-sorts count in Round 2 compared with Round 1, with few errors in either condition. Which outcome is most consistent with social facilitation in this study?
- Participants sort fewer cards correctly when watched because evaluation apprehension uniformly impairs performance on any task
- Participants sort more cards correctly when watched because the presence of others increases arousal that enhances dominant responses on simple tasks (correct answer)
- Participants sort the same number of cards in both rounds because observers only affect behavior when they provide explicit feedback
- Participants sort more cards correctly when watched because responsibility is diffused across the observers
Explanation: This question tests the concept of social facilitation, which examines how the presence of others influences individual performance. Social facilitation occurs when the mere presence of observers increases arousal, enhancing performance on simple or well-learned tasks by strengthening dominant responses. In this study, participants performed a straightforward, well-practiced card-sorting task alone in Round 1 and with silent observers in Round 2. The outcome where participants sorted more cards correctly when watched is consistent with social facilitation, as the observers' presence boosted arousal and improved execution of the easy task. A common distractor, such as suggesting uniform impairment from evaluation apprehension, fails because it overlooks how arousal benefits simple tasks rather than always hindering performance. To verify similar scenarios, consider whether the task is simple and if observers are passive, as this setup typically yields facilitation effects. This principle applies to real-world contexts like athletes performing better in front of crowds on routine skills.
Question 3
A workplace analyst examined social loafing in a customer-support office. Employees were asked to draft short responses to common customer questions during a 15-minute block. In Condition 1, each employee submitted responses under their own name, and the manager later reviewed each person’s output. In Condition 2, employees worked in 4-person teams and submitted a single pooled document labeled only with the team name; the manager stated that only the team’s total number of usable responses would be recorded. Which outcome is most consistent with social loafing in this setting?
- Individuals produce the same number of usable responses in both conditions because group size does not affect effort on cognitive tasks
- Individuals produce more usable responses in the pooled team condition because team membership increases intrinsic motivation for all tasks
- Individuals produce fewer usable responses in the named condition because being evaluated increases distraction regardless of task demands
- Individuals produce fewer usable responses in the pooled team condition because their individual contributions are less identifiable (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests the concept of social loafing, which explores reduced individual effort in group settings. Social loafing happens when people exert less effort in groups, particularly when individual contributions are not identifiable, leading to lower productivity. In this workplace scenario, Condition 1 involved named submissions with individual review, while Condition 2 used pooled team documents with only team totals recorded. The outcome of fewer usable responses in the pooled condition aligns with social loafing, as reduced identifiability decreases accountability and motivation. A common distractor, like claiming increased motivation from team membership, fails because it ignores how anonymity in groups often diminishes effort rather than enhancing it. When evaluating similar tasks, check if contributions are traceable, as identifiability mitigates loafing. This concept extends to team projects where monitoring individual input can sustain effort levels.
Question 4
An observer examined deindividuation in a crowded public transit station after a service disruption. In one corridor, lighting was dim and many commuters wore similar rain hoods; staff reported it was difficult to identify who had pushed past barriers. In another corridor, lighting was bright and staff stood near a sign stating “Area monitored; individuals may be identified,” and commuters’ faces were clearly visible. Which behavior is most likely in the dim corridor if deindividuation is operating?
- No difference because deindividuation requires explicit group goals and coordinated planning
- Less pushing past barriers because anonymity increases fear of punishment and strengthens self-control
- More pushing past barriers because individuals believe their effort is unnecessary when others are present
- More pushing past barriers because anonymity reduces self-awareness and increases impulsive, norm-violating acts (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests the concept of deindividuation, assessing behavior in transit disruptions. Deindividuation occurs when anonymity in crowds reduces self-awareness, fostering impulsive and anti-social actions. The dim corridor with hoods made identification hard, unlike the bright one with monitoring signs and visible faces. More pushing in the dim corridor fits deindividuation, as anonymity increased disinhibition and norm violations. A common distractor, like less pushing from fear under anonymity, fails because it mistakes deindividuation for heightened control, when it actually weakens it. For relevance, evaluate visibility and cues, indicators of deindividuation risk. This applies to blackouts, where low light can amplify disorderly conduct.
Question 5
A manager suspects social loafing is reducing productivity on a data-entry project. In Week 1, each employee was assigned a distinct set of records and the system logged entries by username. In Week 2, the same total number of records was assigned to 5-person teams; the system displayed only a team progress bar, and the manager announced that only team totals would be reviewed. No changes were made to workload, pay, or deadlines. Which outcome most strongly indicates social loafing occurred in Week 2?
- Average entries per employee decrease in Week 2 when individual contributions are not tracked (correct answer)
- Average entries per employee increase in Week 2 because teams create competition that always boosts effort
- Average entries per employee decrease in Week 1 because being individually identified causes diffusion of responsibility
- Average entries per employee remain unchanged because social loafing occurs only in physical, not cognitive, tasks
Explanation: This question tests the concept of social loafing, focusing on productivity in data tasks. Social loafing describes decreased effort in collective work when individual contributions are untraceable, leading to overall lower output. In Week 1, entries were logged by username, while Week 2 used team progress bars with only totals reviewed. A decrease in average entries in Week 2 indicates social loafing, as lack of individual tracking reduced motivation. A common distractor, such as decreased entries in Week 1 from diffusion, fails because it misapplies responsibility diffusion to identifiable settings, where effort is typically higher. To verify, assess tracking mechanisms, as individual logging counters loafing. This relates to remote teams, where anonymous metrics can diminish performance.
Question 6
An experimental vignette examines social facilitation during a well-learned behavior. Participants who regularly type on a computer complete a 3-minute typing test in a quiet lab. In one condition, they type alone; in another, two silent observers sit behind them and are introduced as staff who will watch the test. Participants are told accuracy and speed both matter, and the typing passage is the same for everyone.
Which result would best support the presence of social facilitation in this scenario?
- Typing speed is unchanged, but participants report stronger identification with the observer group
- Typing speed decreases with observers present because attention is divided between the task and the audience
- Typing speed increases with observers present only when participants believe they are anonymous to the observers
- Typing speed increases with observers present, with no decrease in accuracy compared with typing alone (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests social facilitation, which predicts that the presence of others enhances performance on simple or well-learned tasks but impairs performance on complex or novel tasks. Social facilitation occurs because the presence of others increases arousal, which strengthens dominant (well-practiced) responses. In this scenario, typing is described as a well-learned behavior for regular computer users, making it a simple/dominant task. The correct answer D shows the expected pattern: typing speed increases with observers present while accuracy is maintained, demonstrating enhanced performance on a well-practiced task. Answer B incorrectly predicts impairment (which would occur for complex tasks), while C introduces an irrelevant anonymity factor that isn't part of basic social facilitation theory. To identify social facilitation effects, check whether the task is simple/well-learned (enhancement expected) or complex/novel (impairment expected).
Question 7
During a community demonstration, organizers note that participants in the center of the crowd—where individuals are tightly packed and many wear similar hats—are more likely to shout profanity and ignore requests to stay on sidewalks. The organizers suspect deindividuation. Which behavior would be expected under deindividuation conditions?
- Higher performance on a well-learned task due to increased arousal from spectators
- Greater likelihood of careful self-presentation due to increased self-awareness
- Lower individual effort on a shared task due to reduced evaluation of contributions
- Greater likelihood of acting in ways inconsistent with personal norms due to reduced identifiability (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests the concept of deindividuation, analyzing norm adherence in groups. Deindividuation heightens actions against personal norms when identifiability is low, reducing accountability. In this demonstration, central crowding and similar hats decrease visibility, fostering deindividuation. Greater likelihood of inconsistent actions is expected under deindividuation due to lowered self-awareness. A common distractor, such as choice B, flips to increased awareness, contradicting theory. To evaluate, look for packing density; similar in marches with uniforms. Contextually, pertinent to protests where anonymity escalates behaviors.
Question 8
A teacher assigns a class to pull together a short presentation. In one class, each student must submit a slide with their name on it and will be graded individually. In another class, the group submits one shared slide deck and receives a single group grade; the teacher does not track who created which slides. The teacher is concerned about social loafing.
Which change would most directly reduce social loafing in the second class?
- Increase the total number of slides required so the group must work longer
- Add a peer-evaluation form that links specific tasks to specific group members (correct answer)
- Allow students to choose their own groups to increase comfort
- Provide an inspirational talk about teamwork before the project begins
Explanation: This question tests understanding of how to reduce social loafing by increasing individual accountability. Social loafing occurs when individual contributions are unidentifiable within group output, reducing personal accountability and effort. The second class exhibits conditions promoting social loafing: shared submission and group grading with no tracking of individual contributions. To reduce social loafing, the most effective intervention would restore individual accountability by making specific contributions identifiable. Adding a peer-evaluation form that links tasks to specific members (choice B) directly addresses this by creating a mechanism for identifying and evaluating individual contributions within the group project. Choice C (choosing groups) might increase comfort but doesn't address the accountability issue that drives social loafing. To prevent social loafing, implement systems that make individual contributions visible and evaluable, even within group work.
Question 9
A city transit system reports that minor vandalism (e.g., scratching seats) occurs more often in tightly packed trains late at night than in less crowded trains during the day. Late-night riders are more likely to wear similar outerwear and keep their faces partially covered due to weather, and staff presence is minimal. The transit system suspects deindividuation.
Which policy change would most directly target the mechanism underlying deindividuation in this situation?
- Increase clear identification cues and accountability by adding visible staff and improving lighting (correct answer)
- Post messages describing the long-term costs of vandalism to the transit budget
- Offer discounts to riders who travel during off-peak hours to reduce crowding over weeks
- Play calming music to reduce general stress levels during late-night rides
Explanation: This question tests understanding of how to counteract deindividuation by addressing its underlying mechanisms. Deindividuation occurs when anonymity (similar outerwear, covered faces) and reduced accountability (minimal staff, darkness) allow people to feel less personally responsible for their actions. The most direct way to combat deindividuation is to increase identifiability and accountability. Adding visible staff and improving lighting (choice A) directly targets both factors: better lighting makes individuals more identifiable, while increased staff presence creates accountability and reminds people they can be observed and identified. Choice B addresses motivation but not the anonymity that enables deindividuation, while choice C's long-term crowding reduction doesn't address the immediate anonymity issue. To prevent deindividuation, focus on making individuals feel identifiable and accountable for their actions.
Question 10
A researcher observes a group task in which four participants are asked to generate as many alternate uses as possible for a common object within 6 minutes. In one condition, each person writes ideas on a separate sheet labeled with their name and is told their individual list will be reviewed. In another condition, the group submits a single combined list with no indication of who contributed what. The researcher is specifically evaluating social loafing.
Based on the setup, which outcome is most consistent with social loafing?
- Participants generate more ideas in the anonymous group-submission condition because anonymity reduces fear of judgment
- Participants generate fewer ideas per person in the group-submission condition because individual contributions are less identifiable (correct answer)
- Participants generate the same number of ideas per person in both conditions because the task is time-limited
- Participants generate fewer ideas in the named individual condition because they feel pressured by evaluation
Explanation: This question tests understanding of social loafing, the tendency for individuals to exert less effort when working in a group where individual contributions cannot be identified or evaluated. Social loafing occurs because people feel less accountable when their specific contribution is hidden within group output. In this scenario, the anonymous group-submission condition creates the perfect conditions for social loafing: individual contributions are unidentifiable and cannot be evaluated separately. Therefore, participants would generate fewer ideas per person in the group-submission condition (choice B) compared to when their individual lists are reviewed. Choice A incorrectly focuses on anonymity reducing fear rather than reducing effort, missing that social loafing is about decreased motivation, not increased comfort. To identify social loafing, look for situations where individual contributions become unidentifiable within group work, leading to reduced individual effort.
Question 11
In a workplace analysis, a manager compares how quickly employees complete a simple, well-practiced data-entry task when working alone versus when a few coworkers stand nearby observing quietly. Each employee completes the same number of routine entries, and accuracy is already high for all employees. The manager suspects social facilitation.
Which outcome would best support social facilitation in this setting?
- Employees type faster with observers present while maintaining similar accuracy compared with working alone (correct answer)
- Employees type slower with observers present because they worry about being evaluated
- Employees type at the same speed in both conditions because observers do not speak
- Employees type faster only when they are paid as a group rather than individually
Explanation: This question tests understanding of social facilitation, which predicts that the presence of others enhances performance on simple or well-practiced tasks but impairs performance on complex or novel tasks. Social facilitation occurs because the presence of observers increases arousal, which strengthens our dominant (most likely) response. In this scenario, data entry is described as simple and well-practiced, making it a task where the dominant response is correct execution. Therefore, social facilitation would predict that employees type faster when observers are present (choice A), as increased arousal enhances their already-strong typing skills. Choice B incorrectly assumes that evaluation apprehension always impairs performance, failing to recognize that arousal improves performance on simple tasks. To identify social facilitation, check whether the task is simple/well-learned (performance improves with observers) or complex/novel (performance worsens with observers).
Question 12
A real-world application examines deindividuation in a crowded public setting. During a busy transit delay, a station becomes packed and noisy. A subset of commuters begins chanting and throwing small objects onto the tracks. Security footage shows that many participants are partially masked by scarves and hats, and the crowd is dense enough that individuals are hard to identify. Investigators want to reduce the likelihood of similar behavior in future delays.
Which change would most directly reduce the behavior by targeting deindividuation?
- Increase identifiability by improving lighting and making clear that individuals can be recorded and recognized (correct answer)
- Offer small rewards to commuters who remain calm to increase positive reinforcement
- Provide a persuasive announcement describing why throwing objects is dangerous to change attitudes
- Increase crowd density near the platform edge so commuters feel more connected to the group
Explanation: This question tests practical applications of deindividuation theory to reduce antisocial behavior in crowds. Deindividuation occurs when anonymity, arousal, and reduced self-awareness combine to produce disinhibited behavior, so interventions must target these factors. The scenario describes classic deindividuation conditions: partial masking by clothing, dense crowds making individuals hard to identify, and group arousal through chanting. The correct answer A directly addresses the core mechanism by increasing identifiability through better lighting and recording capabilities, which would increase self-awareness and personal accountability. Answer B (rewards) and C (persuasion) target different psychological processes unrelated to deindividuation, while D would actually worsen deindividuation by increasing crowd density. The most effective way to reduce deindividuation is to make individuals feel identifiable and accountable for their actions.
Question 13
In an experimental vignette, participants complete two tasks: (1) a simple reaction-time button press that they have practiced repeatedly, and (2) learning a new sequence of button presses they have never seen before. In one condition, they perform alone; in another, they perform while a small audience watches silently from behind a divider. The researcher is testing social facilitation.
Which pattern of results is most consistent with social facilitation?
- Performance improves on both tasks with an audience because arousal always increases skill
- Performance worsens on both tasks with an audience because evaluation apprehension is unavoidable
- Reaction time improves with an audience, but learning the new sequence is slower with an audience (correct answer)
- Reaction time is unchanged with an audience, but learning the new sequence improves with an audience
Explanation: This question tests understanding of social facilitation's differential effects on simple versus complex tasks. Social facilitation theory predicts that the presence of others increases arousal, which enhances performance on simple or well-practiced tasks but impairs performance on complex or novel tasks. The simple reaction-time task represents a well-practiced, automatic response where the dominant response is correct, so performance should improve with an audience. The new sequence learning represents a complex, novel task where errors are likely and the dominant response may be incorrect, so performance should worsen with an audience. Therefore, the pattern most consistent with social facilitation is improved reaction time but slower sequence learning with an audience (choice C). Choice A incorrectly claims arousal always improves performance, ignoring that it impairs complex task performance. To apply social facilitation, categorize tasks as simple/practiced versus complex/novel to predict whether audience presence will help or hinder.
Question 14
At a crowded public gathering, participants are asked to wear matching masks and are told that no photos will be taken. Shortly after, organizers notice an increase in rule-breaking behaviors such as cutting lines and taking items from restricted areas. The organizers suspect deindividuation.
Which additional observation would most strongly support deindividuation as the explanation?
- Rule-breaking increases primarily when individuals are separated from the crowd and approached one-on-one
- Rule-breaking is higher when people are masked and in dense groups than when unmasked and easily identifiable (correct answer)
- Rule-breaking occurs only among people who report disliking the organizers
- Rule-breaking decreases over time as people become more familiar with the event layout
Explanation: This question tests understanding of the key factors that promote deindividuation and its behavioral consequences. Deindividuation occurs when anonymity and group immersion reduce personal accountability, leading to disinhibited behavior that violates normal social constraints. The scenario already shows one aspect of deindividuation (matching masks preventing identification), and the question asks what additional observation would support this explanation. The strongest support would be finding that rule-breaking is higher when people are masked and in dense groups than when unmasked and identifiable (choice B), as this directly demonstrates the role of anonymity and group density in promoting deindividuation. Choice A incorrectly suggests deindividuation increases when people are separated from crowds, when it actually requires group immersion. To confirm deindividuation, look for evidence that anonymity and group conditions specifically correlate with increased antisocial behavior.
Question 15
A supervisor notices that a team completes fewer quality-control checks per person when assigned as a 6-person unit than when the same employees are assigned to work in pairs, even though the total workload is similar. In the 6-person unit, only the team’s total number of checks is reported to management; in pairs, each pair’s output is tracked. The supervisor suspects social loafing.
Which additional finding would best support social loafing as the cause of the reduced per-person checking in the 6-person unit?
- Per-person checking increases in the 6-person unit after individual contributions are recorded and shared with the team (correct answer)
- Per-person checking decreases in pairs when the supervisor observes them more closely
- Per-person checking is lowest when the task is novel and requires learning new procedures
- Per-person checking is higher in the 6-person unit when members report liking each other more
Explanation: This question tests understanding of how to confirm social loafing as the cause of reduced productivity. Social loafing occurs when individual contributions are unidentifiable, reducing personal accountability and effort. The scenario shows classic social loafing conditions: the 6-person unit has only total output tracked, while pairs have specific output tracked. To confirm social loafing, we need evidence that increasing individual accountability reverses the effect. Finding that per-person checking increases after individual contributions are recorded and shared (choice A) would directly support social loafing, as this intervention specifically targets the lack of individual accountability. Choice D about liking each other doesn't address accountability, the key mechanism of social loafing. To verify social loafing, look for evidence that making individual contributions identifiable increases individual effort within the same group context.
Question 16
During a large outdoor event, organizers provide identical ponchos to attendees and dim the lighting for a coordinated countdown. Volunteers later report that some attendees began shouting insults and pushing others in a way that those same individuals had not shown earlier in small, well-lit lines. The organizers suspect deindividuation.
What behavior would be most expected under deindividuation conditions in this scenario?
- Attendees conform more to the behavior of nearby people because personal accountability feels reduced (correct answer)
- Attendees become more helpful because being in a crowd increases empathy for strangers
- Attendees act more cautiously because they assume they are being recorded by cameras
- Attendees avoid interacting because crowds consistently produce social anxiety
Explanation: This question tests understanding of deindividuation, a psychological state where individuals lose their sense of personal identity and accountability when immersed in a group, often leading to behavior they wouldn't normally exhibit. Deindividuation is facilitated by anonymity (identical ponchos), darkness (dim lighting), and group immersion (large crowd). In this state, people feel less personally accountable for their actions and are more likely to conform to immediate group behaviors, including antisocial ones. Therefore, attendees would conform more to nearby behaviors because personal accountability feels reduced (choice A), explaining the shouting and pushing. Choice B incorrectly suggests crowds increase empathy, when deindividuation actually reduces self-awareness and concern for social norms. To identify deindividuation, look for conditions that reduce individual identifiability (uniforms, masks, darkness) combined with group settings that lead to uncharacteristic behavior.
Question 17
An experimental vignette tests social facilitation using a task that is new to participants. People with no prior experience are taught a novel sequence on a keypad (a 10-step pattern) and given 2 minutes of practice. They then perform the sequence for speed and accuracy either alone or while an audience of three peers watches silently. The experimenter keeps instructions, lighting, and timing constant.
Which outcome is most consistent with social facilitation effects given the task characteristics?
- Participants perform the novel sequence faster and more accurately with the audience present
- Participants perform the novel sequence worse with the audience present due to increased arousal impairing non-dominant responses (correct answer)
- Participants perform the novel sequence the same in both conditions because peers are not authority figures
- Participants improve with the audience present only if they believe the peers share their group identity
Explanation: This question tests social facilitation with a novel/complex task, which is crucial for predicting the direction of the effect. Social facilitation theory states that arousal from others' presence enhances dominant (well-learned) responses but impairs non-dominant (novel/complex) responses. In this scenario, participants are learning a completely new 10-step keypad sequence with only 2 minutes of practice, making this a novel/non-dominant task. The correct answer B accurately predicts that performance would be worse with an audience present because increased arousal impairs the execution of non-dominant responses. Answer A incorrectly predicts improvement (which would occur for well-learned tasks), while C ignores the robust effects of mere presence regardless of authority status. To apply social facilitation correctly, always assess task difficulty: simple/well-learned tasks improve with audiences, while complex/novel tasks suffer.
Question 18
A group task is used to test social loafing while holding ability constant. Four participants are trained to assemble a simple kit with 12 identical parts. After training, they complete two 10-minute work periods: Period 1, each person assembles kits at their own station and their individual totals are posted on a board; Period 2, the group works at one long table and completed kits are placed into a single bin, with only the bin total announced. Participants are told the study compares “different work layouts,” and no one is assigned a leader.
Which finding would most strongly support social loafing as the explanation for any productivity change?
- Higher total kit count in Period 2 because shared space increases coordination and arousal
- Lower average kits assembled per person in Period 2 because individual contributions are less identifiable (correct answer)
- Lower kit quality in Period 1 because public posting creates stress that reduces fine motor control
- No difference between periods because trained tasks are unaffected by social context
Explanation: This question tests social loafing in a physical assembly task where output measurement differs between conditions. Social loafing predicts reduced individual effort when personal contributions cannot be identified within group output. Period 1 maintains individual accountability by posting personal totals, while Period 2 creates social loafing conditions by pooling all output in a single bin with only group totals announced. The correct answer B accurately identifies that average kits per person would be lower in Period 2 because individual contributions are less identifiable, reducing personal accountability and effort. Answer A incorrectly predicts improvement through coordination (social loafing predicts the opposite), while C focuses on the wrong period and introduces stress effects not related to social loafing. The diagnostic feature is whether individual output can be tracked—when it cannot, social loafing typically reduces individual productivity.
Question 19
A research observation examines deindividuation in a group task setting. Participants are placed in a dim room and asked to discuss a controversial policy for 10 minutes. In one condition, each participant wears a large name tag and sits at a well-lit table; in another, participants wear identical plain clothing with no name tags, and the room remains dim. The discussion is audio-recorded in both conditions, but participants in the second condition are told the recording will not be linked to individuals.
Which outcome is most consistent with deindividuation in the second condition?
- Participants make more extreme and less self-censored comments when they believe they cannot be individually identified (correct answer)
- Participants show higher accuracy in recalling the policy details because anonymity improves attention
- Participants show less conformity because anonymity increases personal accountability for each statement
- Participants speak less because they expect negative evaluation from the group despite anonymity
Explanation: This question tests deindividuation in a discussion context where anonymity and environmental factors reduce self-awareness. Deindividuation theory predicts that when individuals feel anonymous and less identifiable, they become less self-aware and more likely to engage in disinhibited behavior they would normally suppress. The second condition creates classic deindividuation conditions: dim lighting, no name tags, identical clothing, and assurance that recordings won't be linked to individuals. The correct answer A accurately predicts that participants would make more extreme and less self-censored comments when deindividuated. Answer B incorrectly suggests cognitive improvement, C contradicts deindividuation by claiming increased accountability, and D misunderstands that deindividuation reduces concern about evaluation. A key marker of deindividuation is the expression of normally inhibited behaviors when anonymity reduces self-monitoring.
Question 20
A study on performance in the presence of an audience examines social facilitation in a behavioral context. Participants complete two tasks: (Task 1) repeatedly tap a single key as fast as possible (simple, well-practiced motor action after a brief warm-up), and (Task 2) solve unfamiliar logic puzzles under time pressure (complex, not well-practiced). Each participant does both tasks either alone or with two observers present. The researcher wants a prediction consistent with social facilitation.
Which pattern of results is most consistent with social facilitation across these tasks?
- Observers improve performance on both tasks because presence of others always increases motivation
- Observers impair performance on both tasks because attention is split regardless of task difficulty
- Observers improve tapping speed but reduce logic-puzzle accuracy compared with being alone (correct answer)
- Observers improve logic-puzzle accuracy but reduce tapping speed because arousal favors careful responding
Explanation: This question tests the differential effects of social facilitation on simple versus complex tasks. Social facilitation theory predicts that the presence of others enhances performance on simple/well-practiced tasks but impairs performance on complex/novel tasks due to increased arousal strengthening dominant responses. Task 1 (repeated key tapping) is a simple motor task that becomes dominant after warm-up, while Task 2 (unfamiliar logic puzzles) is complex and non-dominant. The correct answer C accurately predicts the differential pattern: observers improve tapping speed (simple task enhancement) but reduce logic-puzzle accuracy (complex task impairment). Answer A incorrectly assumes universal improvement, B assumes universal impairment, and D reverses the expected pattern. The critical check for social facilitation is task complexity: audiences help with simple tasks but hurt with complex ones.