Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
43 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
small group
intimate/social |
primary group- family
-shape psychological and social identity - also peer gropus, clubs, etc |
|
|
small group
task-oriented |
formal decision-making (juries)
problem solving/discussion (committees) education and therapy |
|
|
effects of working in groups
|
wheel barrel experiement- if 1 is good, 2 is better
- not automatically true regarding productivity -sometimes a group gets better productivity, sometimes its gets equal, sometimes worse |
|
|
social facilitation
|
two minds are better than one
inspire each other, something happens to get better ideas |
|
|
social loading
|
too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the soup
either individual or group as a whole less productivity than on own because hindering each other |
|
|
factors leading to productivity
|
group size
group cohesiveness group leadership |
|
|
group size
|
anywhere from 3-25 people
big group- able to hide -few people tend to dominate discussion -more time needed to reach decisions -subgroups tend to form - PRODUCTIVITY= NEGATIVE LINEAR RELATIONSHIP MORE PEOPLE=LOWER PRODUCTIVITY |
|
|
optimal group size
|
5-7 people
|
|
|
group cohesiveness
|
how close, connected, mutually liked are group members
cohesiveness increases -cx participation increases - satisfaction increases HIGH SATISFACTION= HIGH COHESIVENESS= POSITIVE LINEAR RELATIONSHIP HIGH CX PARTICIPATION=HIGH COHESIVENESS= POSITIVE LINEAR RELATIONSHIP PRODUCTIVITY: curvilinear relationship the middle is the optimal level |
|
|
group leadership
what makes a good leader? |
situational approach
-effectiveness depends on the leaders ability to adapt style to group needs -change overtime often more than one leader in a group look at table regarding relationship orientation and task orientation and leadership |
|
|
organizational cx
|
system of individuals
typically organizd in a formal hierarchy pursuing multiple goals within complex cx networks |
|
|
flow of messages (org cx)
|
downward cx
upward cx informal cx |
|
|
downward distortion
|
selective exposure- attention, perception, reaction, action
we choose what info we take in; remember ex: only open certain emails; only read parts of it; only act on certain parts |
|
|
upward cx
|
employees to bosses
|
|
|
downward cx
|
-how do "bosses" cx
-often take cx for granted usually trained in another area tend to rely on official channels (requests, orders, memos, guidelines, policy statements) |
|
|
upward distortion
|
condensed, simplified
-people above you break it down more -upper people have to look at tons of reports, only want important info -standardized, idelized, syntheszed |
|
|
informal cx
|
"the social grapevine"
not the official reports and guidelines; people talking to eachother |
|
|
informal distortion
|
leveling- info gets dropped off; key parts of story
sharpening- key parts - fixate and build up on them assimilation- fix info into self; way pass on info (ads spin, frame of reference) |
|
|
organizational culture
|
shared beliefs, values of he org; norms of working, interacting
EX: university- new faculty wear suit and tie BUT few weeks break them down to casual attire some widespread org. norms -EX- "casual fridays" - different concepts of casual friday -industry jargon/office speak some norms are specific to the org. |
|
|
organizational culture sustained/created:
|
stories and myths
rituals and ceremonies the "social grapevine" |
|
|
Nature of Mass Cx
|
messages sent to large and diverse audience
professional communicators as source messages mediated (through print or electronics) |
|
|
Mass Cx vs other contexts
|
more one way
-feedback reduced and delayed "Knowing" your receiver (audience) is more difficult -audience research- industry based on it more likely mismatch in meanings -what you intend to tell audience may not be what they receive |
|
|
influences on media content
societies/nations |
cultural and political values are important
-ex: funding - ads vs the govt different systems even within the US -print media -broadcast media (over air tvand radio) -cable/satellite TV Channels -movie industry -internet (not always mass cx) |
|
|
influence on media content
government |
US- influence on content is very limited - 1st amendment rights- censorship
-1st amendment gives protection for speech Some influence -ban on broadcast indecency ---only applies to networks and radio ---cant ban entirely- protecting kids (not 24 hrs a day- 6AM-10PM) cant fine violence childrens advertising and educational TV Rules --host selling-> cant have spongebob show, then have spongebob in a fruit roll-up comercial -----differentiating between commercial and show --3 hours of kids educational shows a week required |
|
|
v-chip requirement
|
1996 law
chip in TV sets parents can use it to estrict what the kids watch no one even knows about it now |
|
|
influences on mass cx
technoligical influence |
recording and time-shifting ability
-watch it when you want -allows consumers to be more demanding with what they want/when they want it -increased interactivity |
|
|
economic influence - mass cx
|
want people to watch show- make shows in order to get viewers to watch
mass media messages are expensive to make and deliver only 10% of product(films, TV shows, albums) account for 90% of the revenue(amazingly high failure rate) profits in the US come from- ---consumers --- advertisers |
|
|
consequences of economics
|
very broad appeal
-tv content dumbed down? ---lowest common denominator or value - pitch message low enough to have broad audience, but not so low that you loose the "opera people" --- passive medium, no imagination needed OR -getting smarter? (since the 90's) could be due to ability to re-watch stuff -now have shows with complex stories More narrow appeal possible for cable/satelite TV (although TV ratings still matter) Print media much more narrow targeting Very little risk-taking -do not want viewrs or advertisers offended -consumer boycotts can be effective -industry self-censorship is common --BUT controversy CAN boost ratings Repeat what works |
|
|
All-powerful media view
|
20's-40's
post WWI- Propaganda media act as "hypodermic needle" or "magic bullet" - have no choice - audience has no say - effects are direct, immediate, uniform - now evidence to support this |
|
|
Limited effects view
|
40's to present
not everyone is affected and not in the same way audience is active -selective exposure and attention ---whats interesting --- choose/interpret media to fit/reinforce existing attitues -use media to serve needs -bad day, just want to to watch face show -compete with other sources and with each other filter messages through interpersonal relationships and opinoin leaders |
|
|
powerful but subtle effects view
|
60's to present
social learning of behaviors and scripts cultivation of views about reality priming of thought or mental scripts |
|
|
social learning of behaviors and scripts
|
-learn behavior by watching models
- imitate rewarded (or unpunished) behavior EX: violence short term effects vs long term |
|
|
cultivation of views about reality
|
tv viewing is related to beliefs about the "real world" (high TV, high fear of violence)-amount of tv, not what is being watched
|
|
|
priming of thoughts or mental scripts
|
priming-brought to the forefront of your mind
media can do it by making something an issue media messagesbring to mind thoughts/emotions that we then act upon (TV violence can prime anger) politics-agenda setting-issue with lots of coverage- Important, bring to peoples mind, creates halo on ex: president deal with issues = how well he is doing job |
|
|
internet use
|
grown so quickly since 1995
|
|
|
issues for interpersonal cx internet
lack of nonverbals |
now slightly different- photos/videos/ichat
less immediacy (showing involvement, connectedness) than face-to-face creative use of keyboard/enriched text -typing in all caps, colors, etc emoticons |
|
|
issues for interpersonal cx internet
connection or fragmentation |
facebook parody: the IT Crowd
studies show: increased use for social purposes (keeping in touch, maintaining rels) no less intimacy thatn F-t-F (But takes longer) online cx can even be hyperpersonal -arguing, airing dirty laundry, people odnt realize its public |
|
|
issues for group cx
|
sense of anonymity
|
|
|
issues for group cx internet
sense of community |
people feel likethey belong
exchange of info and support (but also, "flaming" and "bullying") group roles emerge (elders, contribute most) |
|
|
issues for group cx internet
netiquette (norms) |
etiquette used online
particularly in groups brief messages valued acronyms shortcuts common each group has its own norms too messages can reach thousands (mass cx) |
|
|
issues for group org cx internet
|
info-based society -specialized knowledge/skills
increased need for collaboration rise of the virtual organization cx networks critical |
|
|
issues for mass cx internet
narrowcasting |
can more selectively target audiences
how "mass" it is varies widely --highly localized to major org and mass media markets |
|
|
issues for mass cx internet
a democratizing technology |
no real skills required, so anyone can use it
connects "marginalized" voices --people who wouldnt normally get media coverage can via web --news that mainstream media avoid --2nd opinions on info-> drs. tell you something go look it up-> other sources with different opinions --hate groups, pedophiles, terroists, too individuals have voices personal publishing - digital video, essays, blogs, fan clubs interpersonal elemtn- interactivity and feedback |
