Drive theory Flashcards
Who proposed drive theory
Zajonc in 1965
Basics of this theory
Suggests that what determines direction of performing the task is perceived as either being subjectively easy for the individual or sibjectively difficult for the individual.
Increased alertness is instinctive response to social presence and the alertness functions as a ‘drive’ that energises our dominant behaviour
what is dominant behaviour
the behaviour that is most likely to perform in a given situation
Social facilitation in drive theory
well learned task=no mistakes (Dominant behaviour) = improved performance
social inhibition in drive theory
not well learned task/new task=lots of mistakes (dominant behaviour)= decreased performance
Explain dominant response to performance
if dominant response is easy (correct response) having someone around should increase performance. If it is a difficult task and hence dominant response is incorrect response, then performance decreases in front of an audience.
Who conducted a study on drive theory
Michaels et al, 1982
Michaels et al 1982
12 pool players were selected to play in front of 4 observers, 6 were above average and 6 were below average
When being watched, those who were above average, their accuracy average improved from 69%-80% whereas those who were below average, their accuracy average worsened from 36% to 25%.
The dominant response of the skilled players was to improve whereas for the unskilled player it was to do worse.
Supporting the drive theory
What are 2 negatives of the Michaels et al 1982 study
small sample
only students
the process
MERE PRESENCE of others increases physiological responses- based on animals needing heightened responses when other animals are around
AROUSAL facilitates performance on well know tasks and leads to increased reliance on well known tasks
INCREASE IN PERFORMING DOMINANT RESPONSE
IF CORRECT-SF
IF INCORRECT-SI
However…
there are some cases where people who are experts at a skill and do not perform better with an audience
ORDER
what is it dominant behaviour example for SF and SI Michaels et al 1982 Process however
