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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Group dynamics 2008-09, Vol.12 (3), p.179-190 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 |