Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

40 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Interdependent people who have potential for mutual interaction
Features of a Group
Social norms: shared rules and expectations about how members should behave. Social roles: cluster of norms that apply to people in a particular position. Similarity: people are attracted to similar others. Group cohesiveness: the more cohesive, the more likely group members will stay
Stanford Prison Study
Social roles can be so powerful that they can take over personal identities
Social Facilitation
the tendency for people to be aroused into better performance on simple tasks (or tasks at which they are expert or that have become autonomous) when under the eye of others, rather than while they are alone (audience effect), or when they are working along side other people (coactor effect). Complex tasks (or tasks at which people are not skilled), however, are often performed in an inferior manner in such situations.
Social Inhibition
Social inhibition is a conscious or unconscious constraint or curtailment by a person of a process or behaviour that the person may consider objectionable in a social setting. Inhibitions can serve necessary social functions, reducing or preventing certain antisocial impulses from being acted on.
Ant Study
Chen, in 1937, observed ants excavating soil for four days. On the first day, he had them so it alone. Day 2: groups of 2. Day 3: groups of 3. Day 4: alone. Results: The ants moved more soil when they worked in groups.
Cockroach Study (original and replication)
Gates and Allee, 1933, taught cockroaches to learn a maze where they could escape the light by running into a dark bottle. Result: Learned the maze faster when they were alone. Shows that we learn more complex things faster when alone. Replicated with Zajonc in 1969, IV1: Presence of other roaches, IV2: difficult or easy maze. Results: in the presence of others, the cockroaches improved running times in simple maze, but worsened running times in difficult maze.
Zajonc’s Social Facilitation Theory
Presence of others increases motivation. Increased arousal facilitates or interferes with performance depending on task. Increases performance on well-learned tasks, but decrease performance on difficult task
Social Loafing
Working less hard in a group than you would have worked alone—when you individual contribution cannot be evaluated.
Ringelmann Study
Used a strain guage to measure effort in kilograms of pressure. When the person pulled alone, pulled 85kg per person. Team of 7: 65kg per person. Team of 4: 61 kg per person.
Latane Study
People clap and cheer louder by themselves than in a group
Why does social loafing occur?
Not accountable for actions, allows you to slack off.
How do you reduce social loafing?
A)Make each individual’s contribution identifiable. B) If it’s something you care about or you have a relationship group members, you are less likely to loaf.
Jackson & Williams
IV1: simple or complex maze. IV2: individual performance is evaluated vs. performance is averaged with partner. Results: when performance was averaged with partnet, participants performed better in difficult maze but worse on easy maze.
Gender differences in social loafing
Men are more likely to loaf. This is because women are higher in relational interdependence (the tendency to care about relationships with others)
Social facilitation vs. Social loafing
If aroused: social facilitation takes into effect (better at simple tasks, worse on complex tasks). If relaxed: social loafing comes into play (worse on simple tasks, better on complex tasks).
Cultural differences
Deindividuation and its effects
The loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people are in a crowd. A) People feel less accountable for their actions if they feel they are not perceived as an individual. B) It, therefore, leads to an increase in impulsive and deviant act. C) Increases obedience to group norm (mob mentality)
Deindividuation Studies
Cultures in which warriors hid their identities before going to fight were more likely to kill, torture, or mutilate captives than cultures in which warriors did not hide their identities (Watson, 1973). Wearing a sports team uniform led to greater aggression (Rehm et al., 1987). Zimbardo (1970): Participants are more likely to shock others if they are anonymous. Anonymous- coats, hood: gave 2 times more shock. Not anonymous: normal clothes, name tags. In a study of lynchings, the larger the mob, the greater the savagery with which they killed their victims (Mullen). Halloween study (Beaman et al., 1979): Kids wearing Halloween costumes were more likely to take extra candy when in groups vs. alone. Those who had given their first names did so to a far lesser extent. Being part of a large group & costume/outfit/mask are important factors
Why does deindividuation occur?
People feel less accountable for their actions. Increased obedience to group norms.
Process Loss
When group interactions inhibit good problem solving
Why does process loss occur?
Groups may not try hard enough to find out who the most competent member is. Members are afraid to disagree with the group (conformity). And failure to share unique information.
How to avoid process loss
Assign each person a different responsibility. Take time to discuss unshared ideas.
Group Polarization
Tendency for groups to make extreme decisions
Risky shift
Groups tend to make riskier decision than individuals
Why does risky shift exist?
People gain new information from listening to others. Also, in order to be liked, people check out how everyone feels and then takes a position similar to their but a little more extreme.
Lack of preparation for Pearl Harbor attack (1941, Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba (1960), Challenger explosion (1986) – afraid to make big decision/ Internal division
Conditions for groupthink
Highly cohesive groups, strong, dynamic leaders; sealed off from outside opinions.
Symptoms of Groupthink
Illusion of invulnerability, belief in moral correctness of group, stereotyped views of out-group, self-censorship, pressure to conform, illusion of unanimity
How to avoid groupthink
Impartial leaders, get outside information, divide into subgroups, and secret ballots.
Juries and groupthink
Problems can occur at each phase of trial (before, during, and after evidence is presented). Pretrail: Publicity created an emotional biasing. Likely names and events damaging even in opposite directions. Solutions: “Please destroy evidence you have seen” Trail: Lawyers present their evidence in either story order or witness order. Juries are more likely to believe work presented in story order vs. witness order. One reason the conviction rate in felony trials in America is so high (about 80%) is that in real trail, prosecutors usually use the story order while defence attorneys usually use the witness order. Deliberations: In 97% of cases, the jury’s final decision (guilty vs. not guilty) will be the one initially favored by the majority. But minority views can have an effect: Minority opinions often change people’s minds about the extent of guilt Ex: first degree murder vs second degree murder. Jury Size: 6 vs. 12. Problem with 6: a minority of 1 on a 6-person jury is much more likely to conform than 2 people on a 12-person jury. Social psych ---> 12 jurors
Social dilemma
A conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if chosen by most people, have harmful effects on everyone; Ex: pollution.
Prisoner’s Dilemma
DA thinks that suspects have committed a major crime together but has no proof against either one.
maximizing joint rewards received by both self and partner
maximizing their own gains relative to those of partner (want to do better than partner)
maximizing own gains, no concern for gains or losses of partner
Norm of reciprocity
initial competition provokes more competitions and vice versa
Groups and Competition
Groups end up being more competitive than the individual, the US as a culture is also very competitive
Commons Dilemma
a social dilemma in which everyone takes from a common pool of goods that will replenish itself if used in moderation but will disappear if overused. Relates to natural resources.
How do people divide?
Rural structure, reminding people of social norms, and individual value limitations.