Groupdrink: The Effects of Alcohol and Group Process on Vigilance Errors

This research examined how group processes alter the impact of alcohol on a judgment task requiring vigilance. The authors compared two competing explanations, deindividuation and group monitoring, for the possible effects of alcohol. Two hundred and eighty-six undergraduates with normal drinking ha...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Group dynamics 2008-09, Vol.12 (3), p.179-190
Hauptverfasser: Frings, Daniel, Hopthrow, Tim, Abrams, Dominic, Hulbert, Lorne, Gutierrez, Roberto
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 190
container_issue 3
container_start_page 179
container_title Group dynamics
container_volume 12
creator Frings, Daniel
Hopthrow, Tim
Abrams, Dominic
Hulbert, Lorne
Gutierrez, Roberto
description This research examined how group processes alter the impact of alcohol on a judgment task requiring vigilance. The authors compared two competing explanations, deindividuation and group monitoring, for the possible effects of alcohol. Two hundred and eighty-six undergraduates with normal drinking habits undertook a vigilance task alone or in four-person groups having consumed either alcohol (calculated to achieve up to .08 blood alcohol content) or a placebo. The vigilance task required them to count occurrences of the word "the" in a spoken passage. Alcohol significantly impaired the performance of individuals but not groups. Group members performed at a similar level in both conditions, making fewer errors than individuals in the alcohol condition. The fit of different decision-making models were tested. In both the alcohol and placebo conditions, group consensus was predicted by processes consistent with the group monitoring hypothesis. The evidence highlights that under certain conditions, group process can compensate for the cognitively impairing effects of alcohol on individuals.
doi_str_mv 10.1037/1089-2699.12.3.179
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_614502144</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>614502144</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a303t-e64217cf74f2dcc73037a8f2edae54efdc663b674e21cfd1d264ef6ae80ee93c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFj8FKAzEQhoMo2FZfwKN43TWTpMnmKEVboeBFz0NMJrK17q5J99C3N2UVTzP8fP8MH2M3wGvg0twDb2wltLU1iFrWYOwZm4GVvDINF-dl_wMu2TznHeegpIUZm69TPw4htd3nFbuIbp_p-ncu2NvT4-tqU21f1s-rh23lJJeHirQSYHw0KorgvSmhcU0UFBwtFcXgtZbv2igS4GOAIHRJtaOGE1np5YLdTneH1H-PlA-468fUlZeoQS25AKUKJCbIpz7nRBGH1H65dETgeFLGkxGejBAESizKpXQ3ldzgcMhH79Kh9XvK-BG6f-wH3WBUPQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614502144</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Groupdrink: The Effects of Alcohol and Group Process on Vigilance Errors</title><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Frings, Daniel ; Hopthrow, Tim ; Abrams, Dominic ; Hulbert, Lorne ; Gutierrez, Roberto</creator><creatorcontrib>Frings, Daniel ; Hopthrow, Tim ; Abrams, Dominic ; Hulbert, Lorne ; Gutierrez, Roberto</creatorcontrib><description>This research examined how group processes alter the impact of alcohol on a judgment task requiring vigilance. The authors compared two competing explanations, deindividuation and group monitoring, for the possible effects of alcohol. Two hundred and eighty-six undergraduates with normal drinking habits undertook a vigilance task alone or in four-person groups having consumed either alcohol (calculated to achieve up to .08 blood alcohol content) or a placebo. The vigilance task required them to count occurrences of the word "the" in a spoken passage. Alcohol significantly impaired the performance of individuals but not groups. Group members performed at a similar level in both conditions, making fewer errors than individuals in the alcohol condition. The fit of different decision-making models were tested. In both the alcohol and placebo conditions, group consensus was predicted by processes consistent with the group monitoring hypothesis. The evidence highlights that under certain conditions, group process can compensate for the cognitively impairing effects of alcohol on individuals.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1089-2699</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1930-7802</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.12.3.179</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Educational Publishing Foundation</publisher><subject>Alcohol Intoxication ; Ethanol ; Female ; Group Decision Making ; Human ; Judgment ; Male ; Monitoring ; Social Influences ; Vigilance</subject><ispartof>Group dynamics, 2008-09, Vol.12 (3), p.179-190</ispartof><rights>2008 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2008, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a303t-e64217cf74f2dcc73037a8f2edae54efdc663b674e21cfd1d264ef6ae80ee93c3</citedby><orcidid>0000-0002-0183-9516 ; 0000-0003-2331-7150</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Frings, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hopthrow, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abrams, Dominic</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hulbert, Lorne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutierrez, Roberto</creatorcontrib><title>Groupdrink: The Effects of Alcohol and Group Process on Vigilance Errors</title><title>Group dynamics</title><description>This research examined how group processes alter the impact of alcohol on a judgment task requiring vigilance. The authors compared two competing explanations, deindividuation and group monitoring, for the possible effects of alcohol. Two hundred and eighty-six undergraduates with normal drinking habits undertook a vigilance task alone or in four-person groups having consumed either alcohol (calculated to achieve up to .08 blood alcohol content) or a placebo. The vigilance task required them to count occurrences of the word "the" in a spoken passage. Alcohol significantly impaired the performance of individuals but not groups. Group members performed at a similar level in both conditions, making fewer errors than individuals in the alcohol condition. The fit of different decision-making models were tested. In both the alcohol and placebo conditions, group consensus was predicted by processes consistent with the group monitoring hypothesis. The evidence highlights that under certain conditions, group process can compensate for the cognitively impairing effects of alcohol on individuals.</description><subject>Alcohol Intoxication</subject><subject>Ethanol</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Group Decision Making</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Monitoring</subject><subject>Social Influences</subject><subject>Vigilance</subject><issn>1089-2699</issn><issn>1930-7802</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFj8FKAzEQhoMo2FZfwKN43TWTpMnmKEVboeBFz0NMJrK17q5J99C3N2UVTzP8fP8MH2M3wGvg0twDb2wltLU1iFrWYOwZm4GVvDINF-dl_wMu2TznHeegpIUZm69TPw4htd3nFbuIbp_p-ncu2NvT4-tqU21f1s-rh23lJJeHirQSYHw0KorgvSmhcU0UFBwtFcXgtZbv2igS4GOAIHRJtaOGE1np5YLdTneH1H-PlA-468fUlZeoQS25AKUKJCbIpz7nRBGH1H65dETgeFLGkxGejBAESizKpXQ3ldzgcMhH79Kh9XvK-BG6f-wH3WBUPQ</recordid><startdate>200809</startdate><enddate>200809</enddate><creator>Frings, Daniel</creator><creator>Hopthrow, Tim</creator><creator>Abrams, Dominic</creator><creator>Hulbert, Lorne</creator><creator>Gutierrez, Roberto</creator><general>Educational Publishing Foundation</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0183-9516</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2331-7150</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>200809</creationdate><title>Groupdrink</title><author>Frings, Daniel ; Hopthrow, Tim ; Abrams, Dominic ; Hulbert, Lorne ; Gutierrez, Roberto</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a303t-e64217cf74f2dcc73037a8f2edae54efdc663b674e21cfd1d264ef6ae80ee93c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Alcohol Intoxication</topic><topic>Ethanol</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Group Decision Making</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Monitoring</topic><topic>Social Influences</topic><topic>Vigilance</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Frings, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hopthrow, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abrams, Dominic</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hulbert, Lorne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutierrez, Roberto</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><jtitle>Group dynamics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Frings, Daniel</au><au>Hopthrow, Tim</au><au>Abrams, Dominic</au><au>Hulbert, Lorne</au><au>Gutierrez, Roberto</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Groupdrink: The Effects of Alcohol and Group Process on Vigilance Errors</atitle><jtitle>Group dynamics</jtitle><date>2008-09</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>179</spage><epage>190</epage><pages>179-190</pages><issn>1089-2699</issn><eissn>1930-7802</eissn><abstract>This research examined how group processes alter the impact of alcohol on a judgment task requiring vigilance. The authors compared two competing explanations, deindividuation and group monitoring, for the possible effects of alcohol. Two hundred and eighty-six undergraduates with normal drinking habits undertook a vigilance task alone or in four-person groups having consumed either alcohol (calculated to achieve up to .08 blood alcohol content) or a placebo. The vigilance task required them to count occurrences of the word "the" in a spoken passage. Alcohol significantly impaired the performance of individuals but not groups. Group members performed at a similar level in both conditions, making fewer errors than individuals in the alcohol condition. The fit of different decision-making models were tested. In both the alcohol and placebo conditions, group consensus was predicted by processes consistent with the group monitoring hypothesis. The evidence highlights that under certain conditions, group process can compensate for the cognitively impairing effects of alcohol on individuals.</abstract><pub>Educational Publishing Foundation</pub><doi>10.1037/1089-2699.12.3.179</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0183-9516</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2331-7150</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1089-2699
ispartof Group dynamics, 2008-09, Vol.12 (3), p.179-190
issn 1089-2699
1930-7802
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_614502144
source EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES
subjects Alcohol Intoxication
Ethanol
Female
Group Decision Making
Human
Judgment
Male
Monitoring
Social Influences
Vigilance
title Groupdrink: The Effects of Alcohol and Group Process on Vigilance Errors
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T19%3A29%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Groupdrink:%20The%20Effects%20of%20Alcohol%20and%20Group%20Process%20on%20Vigilance%20Errors&rft.jtitle=Group%20dynamics&rft.au=Frings,%20Daniel&rft.date=2008-09&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=179&rft.epage=190&rft.pages=179-190&rft.issn=1089-2699&rft.eissn=1930-7802&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/1089-2699.12.3.179&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E614502144%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614502144&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true