Social Contagion in Competitors Versus Cooperators

Park, Su Hyoun; Son, Lisa K.; Kim, Min Shik

doi:10.1002/acp.3197

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different goals in a social interaction context lead to mixed behavior performance. Many studies have found that competition and cooperation have the same effects (Ruys & Aarts, 2010; Tauer & Harackiewicz, 2004) or different effects (Balas & Thomas, 2015; Park, Son, & Kim, 2016; Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995) on individual motivation and behavior, which in turn facilitates the goal achievement of competition and cooperation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in the effects of competition and cooperation on risk‐taking under ambiguity

Liu

2020

PsyCh Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision theories have made a distinction between risk (i.e., known probabilities) and ambiguity (i.e., unknown probabilities).Prior work has examined the effect of competition and cooperation on risk-taking under risk. However, little is known about whether and how competition and cooperation affect risk-taking under ambiguity and the role of gender in this effect. The current study addresses this research gap. In the present study, a shortened version of a balloon analogue risk task was used to assess risk-taking under ambiguity.The participants completed this task in competition against a peer, in cooperation with a peer, or alone. The results showed that the participants took more risks in the competition and cooperation conditions than in the individual condition, but no differences were found between the competition and cooperation conditions. More important, gender modulated these effects. First, these effects were driven by males, but not by females. Second, males showed more risk-taking under ambiguity than females in the competitive situation, but not in the cooperative situation. Overall, this work contributes to understanding the effect of social interaction on risky decisions under ambiguity.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in the effects of competition and cooperation on risk‐taking under ambiguity

Liu

2020

PsyCh Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current findings are informative given the regularity with which we engage in discussions and recalls in group settings, and given recent calls for examination of how social factors and group interactions influence memory processes and products (Andrews & Rapp, 2014; Barber et al, 2012; Maswood & Rajaram, 2019; Park et al, 2016; Rajaram, 2011). When people are sufficiently motivated to engage in careful evaluation, they more successfully apply strategies and behaviors intended to detect and discount inaccurate information (Ecker et al, 2011; Hinze et al, 2014; Lewandowsky et al, 2012; Rapp, 2016; Rapp & Braasch, 2014; Salovich & Rapp, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Differential effects of pressure on social contagion of memory.

Andrews‐Todd¹,

Salovich²,

Rapp³

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration can support performance on a variety of tasks, but recent projects have indicated that group collaborations can also be associated with memory decrements. For example, when people discuss ideas, any shared inaccurate information can be used by group members to complete subsequent tasks. Across two experiments, we examined whether this social contagion is influenced by performance pressures that regularly emerge during group interactions. In Experiment 1, participants under individual-directed pressure, goal-directed pressure, or control conditions studied word lists before completing a collaborative recall with a confederate partner who occasionally recalled incorrect words. We examined whether partnerproduced inaccuracies contaminated participants' memories for the list contents on a subsequent individual recall. Goal-directed pressure, focused on monitoring partner accuracy, facilitated subsequent individual recall, as demonstrated by reduced reproductions of partner-generated inaccuracies. In contrast, individualdirected pressure, focused on appearing competent, resulted in greater use of those inaccuracies. Experiment 2 ruled out that the benefits associated with goal-directed pressure were solely due to warning participants about the possibility of social contagion. These results demonstrate that different instantiations of pressure can help or hinder memory-related performance in collaborative settings. Under the right conditions, pressure can help overcome the effects of exposure to inaccurate information. Public Significance StatementThis study provides evidence that different kinds of performance pressure can help or hinder memoryrelated activities in collaborative settings. Under certain conditions, pressure can help people resist being influenced by inaccurate information shared by others. Pressure that motivates monitoring the accuracy of others' contributions can usefully reduce reproductions of partner-generated inaccuracies. In contrast, pressure that motivates individuals to appear competent, unfortunately, can result in a greater use of partner-generated inaccuracies.

show abstract

“…In contrast, participants rely on information more from partners with whom they have a prior relationship (e.g., friends or romantic partners) than from strangers (French, Garry, & Mori, ; Hope, Ost, Gabbert, Healey, & Lenton, ), presumably because of perceived reliability. Perception of power also plays a role; for example, individuals are more likely to incorporate information received from those perceived to have more power in certain relationship dynamics (Skagerberg & Wright, ; but see Carol, Carlucci, Eaton, & Wright, ; Skagerberg & Wright, ), those with a competitive rather than cooperative mindset (Park, Son, & Kim, ), those who speak first (Gabbert, Memon, & Wright, ; Hewitt, Kane, & Garry, ; Wright & Carlucci, ), and those asserting more confidence (Allan & Gabbert, ; Wright et al., ). Finally, personality and emotional factors such as social avoidance (Wright, London, & Waechter, ), increased openness, extraversion, and neuroticism are associated with reduced social contagion, whereas increased agreeableness is associated with greater social contagion (Doughty, Paterson, MacCann, & Monds, ).…”

Section: Social Transmission Of False Memories In Small Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Transmission of False Memory in Small Groups and Large Networks

Maswood

Rajaram

2018

Topics in Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sharing information and memories is a key feature of social interactions, making social contexts important for developing and transmitting accurate memories and also false memories. False memory transmission can have wide-ranging effects, including shaping personal memories of individuals as well as collective memories of a network of people. This paper reviews a collection of key findings and explanations in cognitive research on the transmission of false memories in small groups. It also reviews the emerging experimental work on larger networks and collective false memories. Given the reconstructive nature of memory, the abundance of misinformation in everyday life, and the variety of social structures in which people interact, an understanding of transmission of false memories has both scientific and societal implications.

show abstract

Social Contagion in Competitors Versus Cooperators

Cited by 6 publications

References 37 publications

Gender differences in the effects of competition and cooperation on risk‐taking under ambiguity

Gender differences in the effects of competition and cooperation on risk‐taking under ambiguity

Differential effects of pressure on social contagion of memory.

Social Transmission of False Memory in Small Groups and Large Networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About