Final

Front 1

Why do people join groups?

Back 1

Social approval Groups of friends give you acceptance, sense of belonging, make you feel good etc.

Knowledge I.e. People join study groups, groups for diseases

Goal attainment Join network of people because you all want a certain career, etc.

Front 2

Additive task

Back 2

Individual contributions added together make up group effort.

i.e. Ask group to clap, how loud the group is a sum of how much each person claps.

Front 3

Compensatory task =

Back 3

Individual contributions average to make up group effort.

Front 4

Disjunctive task

Back 4

Only 1 solution to task Only 1 person in the group must complete task for the whole group to succeed.

Example: Pictionary, but only one person in the group is really good at it, so they go every turn. Success depends on most competent group member

Front 5

Conjunctive task

Back 5

All group members must complete task for group to succeed Example: Relay racing, everyone has to do well.

Success depends on LEAST COMPETENT group member.

Front 6

4 rules of brainstorming

Back 6

Criticism is ruled out

Freewheeling suggestions are welcomed

Quantity is wanted

Combinations & improvements sought

Front 7

Mainfindings of research in brainstorming:

Back 7

Brainstorming groups perform WORSE than individuals brainstorming alone.

Front 8

Social facilitation

Back 8

Presence of others facilitates task performance (e.g., perform tasks better)

Front 9

SOCIAL INHIBITION

Back 9

esenceof others inhibits task performance (e.g, perform tasks worse)

Front 10

2 distinct leadership styles

Back 10

Task-oriented leader Focus on getting the task completed. Doesn't care if people get along, etc.

Relationship-oriented leader Higher priority is focusing on relationship within the group. Focus on people working well with one another.

Front 11

3 types of group situations

Back 11

High control situation

Moderate control situation

Low control situation (People do not get along, leader not respected, etc.)

Front 12

Attraction

Back 12

Positive,neutral or negative attitude towards others. General evaluation of other people (e.g., like or dislike)

Front 13

Familiarity

Back 13

The more familiar you are with something (or someone), the more you like it.

"Mere exposure effect" (Zajonc)

Only for neutral or positive stimuli, NOT for negative stimuli.

Front 14

Proximity

Back 14

We tend to like stimuli that are physically close to us (proximal) better.

Reasons proximity increases attraction

Proximity increases familiarity.

Greater availability/opportunity.

Expecting future interaction -> focus on + qualities.

Front 15

Factors influencing interpersonal attraction.

Back 15

Familiarity

Proximity

Similarity

Physical attraction

Desirable personality

Front 16

Define social facilitation

Back 16

presence of others facilitates task performance (eg. perform tasks better).

Task performance is better in the presence of others However, we sometimes perform worse

Front 17

3 causes of arousal (explanations) for social facilitation

Back 17

Mere presence hypothesis (zajonc)

Evaluation apprehension explanation

Distraction conflict model (baron)

Front 18

Describe attraction

Back 18

Attraction: positive, neutral, or negative attitude towards others

General evaluation of other people eg.) like or dislike

Front 19

3 factors influencing attraction

Back 19

Familiarity: the more familiar you are with someone the more you like it

Proximity: we tend to like stimuli that are physically close to us

Proximity increases familiarity

Greater availability/ opportunity

Expecting future interaction → focus on + qualities

Similarity: we like people who are similar to us

Physical attraction: we like physically attractive people better than people who are not attractive

Front 20

Effective (emotional) aggression

Back 20

Usually preceded by strong negative emotional state (eg., anger)

Main goal: harm person

Front 21

Instrumental aggression

Back 21

Not preceded by strong negative emotional state

Main goal: obtain desired object

Front 22

Darley’s 5 step model of helping

Back 22

1. Notice the event

2. Interpret the event as an emergency

3. Take responsibility for providing help

4. Know the appropriate form of help

5. Implement the decision to help

Front 23

Reasons for bystander effect

Back 23

Ambiguity - > breakdown in step 2 of model You are not sure if the event is an actual emergency or not.

Example: Hear gunshots, but think it is firecrackers.

Diffusion of responsibility - > Breakdown in step 3 of model

You think someone else will take responsibility and provide the help.

Evaluation apprehension - >Breakdown in step 5 of model

You are concerned with how you would be evaluated if you decide to help (afraid of making a mistake, or being judged

Front 24

Social learning (aggression influence)

Back 24

All behavior is learned by modeling and imitation “Bobo doll study”:

Assumptions: Aggression is learned by modeling and imitation.

Bandura et al (1961) -- "bobo doll" study.

Kids who observed adult "model" non-aggressive or aggressive behavior with toy "bobo doll"

Results: Children who observed aggressive behavior imitated aggressive behavior.

Front 25

Frustration- aggression hypothesis

Back 25

frustration causes aggression

Front 26

Social cognition (influence on aggression)

Back 26

Aggressive people process information differently than non-aggressive people

Front 27

Love vs Liking

Back 27

Liking = feelings of respect

Value other person’s company. i.e. Your feelings towards a really good friend.

Love = exclusiveness or absorption need for affiliation or dependency predisposition to help

When together: only each other matter

When not together: feel empty

Front 28

3 components of love

Back 28

Intimacy

Passion

decision/ commitment:

Front 29

Intimacy

Back 29

emotional bond you have with someone

Front 30

Passion

Back 30

physical drives associative with someone/ motivation component

Front 31

decision/ commitment

Back 31

cognitive component of love

Decision towards love, and commitment towards that person

Front 32

6 Different "love styles"

Back 32

Eros

Ludus

Storge

Mania

Agape

Pragma

Front 33

Negative affect reciprocity:

Back 33

Negative feelings communicate back and forth. I.E., crying and/or scream to each other.

Front 34

Paulu’s model of group brainstorming

Back 34

Evaluation apprehension: concern of how other people is going to evaluate you

Free riding or social loafing: when we perform tasks in groups we don’t put effort

Production blocking: only happens in groups

Social comparison: we want to evaluate our abilities so that we can compare to other individuals