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;
159 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Just World Hypothesis
|
we have a strong desire to believe that the world is a just place (people get what they deserve and deserve what they get)
study: innocent person gets shocked and observers derogate unless they could save, children liking lucky events just as they like positive intentional events |
|
|
consequences of the Just World Hypothesis
|
victim derogation and overvaluation of the fortunate (also spreads to members of group)
|
|
|
Why, evolutionarily, do we employ the Just World Hypothesis (ie in religion)?
|
if we can't separate luck vs. earned, we might as well just associate with winning!
could it be also that we ignore circumstances in favor of dispositions (check East Asian cultures), or that it makes us feel safer? study: accident victims that blame another cope poorly and those that blame self cope well (taking some responsibility is advantageous from first person perspective) |
|
|
Terror Management theory (as a function of self-esteem and cultural world views)
|
death awareness creates potential for constant terror so we manage terror by developing faith in a meaningful conception of reality (the cultural worldview) and adopting the belief that we meet the standards of value prescribed by that worldview (self-esteem)
|
|
|
consequences of mortality salience manipulation (making people think about death)
|
harsher judgments of transgressions and more severe punishments, prejudice and inflexibility
|
|
|
What is the function of self-esteem during mortality salience?
|
an anxiety buffer
study: the scrooge effect (mortality salience of funeral home encourages prosocial behavior via positive attitude towards fav charity) |
|
|
terror management and aggression
|
study: confederate "must" write essay (consistent-proUS or threatening-antiUS) and then taste hot sauce although they "hate spicy," mortality salience manipulated via death/dental...with death, gave diff hot sauce amounts
|
|
|
evolutionary alternative to Terror Management theory
|
threat and groups, even before we learned of our mortality we needed a response to threats (we cling to our cultural worldview that binds group together)
|
|
|
Kohlberg's State Theory for responses to moral dilemmas (moral development assessed by analyzing justifications for answers)
|
1) preconventional (self, avoiding punishment, serving own needs)
2) conventional (follow the rules) 3) postconventional (universal morality higher than law) |
|
|
Critique of Kohlberg with emphasis on cognition and reasoning (by Haidt)
|
nearly all moral reasoning is post-hoc rationalization, instead moral judgments are driven almost entirely by intuitive emotional responses
|
|
|
evidence of moral behavior in non-human primates
|
gorilla picking up unconscious boy and carrying to zookeepers' door (empathy, etc)
|
|
|
the story of Phineas Gage
|
medial prefrontal cortex was damaged and then he retained cognitive function but experienced dramatic changes in personality (decision-making related to moral character)
|
|
|
studies related to VMPRC damage and/or emotional decision making
|
patients with VMPFC damage stick with "bad" deck of cards because no emotional signal or proper physical arousal response (yet they look formake on moral reasoning tests unless damage occurred in early childhood...)
subjects hypnotized to feel disgust at words, in stories (even those that are not disgusting) there is a flash of disgust that causes them to rate the story as less morally acceptable (they don't know why) pick words/items that "wash away sins" after recalling an unethical experience, and if not give chance to wash hands give more to charity (compensatory) |
|
|
Dual-Process Theory of the Moral Brain
|
Utilitarian (do what is best overall) vs. Kant-ian (do what is "right")...grounded in different systems in brain
|
|
|
variations on the Trolley Problem
|
personal versus impersonal moral judgment (*pushing* is more emotional than *switch*...different way of thinking in that it is not abstract/cost-benefit/UTIL)
|
|
|
moral judgment brain regions
|
personal/emotional (medial frontal cortex)
impersonal/cognitive (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) |
|
|
The Crying Baby Problem...brain region for response conflict
|
people respond in different ways (about half and half), what is different
ACC activity because it is difficult can divide brain images based on responses and it matches up (judgment pushed by certain type of cognition) |
|
|
if VMPFC is damaged, what kind of answers to moral reasoning dilemmas would be expected?
|
utilitarian answers
|
|
|
studies related to moral judgment
|
(interfere with emotional response) positive emotional response to Chris Farley leads to utilitarian judgments, negative leads to emotional judgment (countering negative emotion)
(interfere with utilitarian response) cognitive load slows judgment for utilitarian (almost speeds up for emotional!) note: response time not actual judgment keeping a promise (personal) vs acting for the greater good (impersonal). those who say break promise are utilitarian brain (changing the social not physical nature of harm) |
|
|
critique of affective-cognitive conflict
|
is Kant just rationalizing his emotion anyways...?
|
|
|
what is different between the footbridge and switch cases? ie what determines if you have that emotional response after the appraisal process?
|
distance? contact? personal force?
the differences are rather quirky and you wouldn't think that it matters but the sum of these abstract philosophical moral judgements determine how the world works study: person in need by the roadside versus in another country |
|
|
evolutionary explanation for difference in footbridge/switch cases
|
evolved in environment where you usually encounter people in person who are in great need (and could be saved)...so maybe this is just obsolete cognitive architecture rather than moral insight...
|
|
|
Eye of the Storm video
|
teaching about prejudice/discrimination to children in classroom that was generally removed from racial stereotyping
|
|
|
studies demonstrating racism today
|
resumes with "white" and "black" names received different amounts of call-backs and responses to quality
different health care responses for whites and blacks the IAT (suggesting different associations for WHITES...even if you don't think so) |
|
|
what causes stereotypes/prejudice to develop?
|
real group conflict and social categorization
|
|
|
Sherif's Robber's Cave Experiment on harmony and conflict
|
2 summer camp groups that bonded within the group while separated and then introduced to competition between while together led to fighting, but after joint tasks they came together A LOT
|
|
|
the Minimal Group Paradigm
|
don't need much for allegiance to group
study: transparently arbitrary separation but when given opportunity to distribute rewards tend to favor own group |
|
|
study about control of stereotyping
|
people divided into high/low prejudice, cognitive load interfered more with "low prejudice"
thus, knowledge of stereotype is the same but low inhibit stereotypes when they report their impressions |
|
|
automatic versus controlled processing of stereotypes in the brain
|
explicit and implicit racism measured, fMRI responses to subliminal and superliminal faces observed, the amygdala (emotional feelings) flashed for subliminal black faces...correlates with IAT
but for superliminal there was activity in cognitive control regions (ACC/DLPFC) and a decrease in amygdala activity...and IAT predicts amygdala activity here too if you control of imp/exp discrepancies |
|
|
race versus coalition (evolutionary rational for hope for racism)
|
in ancestral environment, racial differences didn't exist--what mattered was coalition membership
study: argument between two mixed teams, people confuse within teams rather than within race! note: this doesn't work for gender because this did matter historically race is just salient for group membership, we just need to change the way we draw our lines! |
|
|
How does William James explain popular delusions (two separable laws of the will to believe)
|
"we must know the truth, and we must avoid error"
discovery (seeking truth, no false negative) and skepticism (avoiding error, no false positive) have no definite threshold... |
|
|
we see patterns everywhere, such as...
|
face on surface of mars, virgin mary on wall...but most of the world is not patterns, it's just that if you look at enough...
|
|
|
examples of the power of coincidence (NOT synchronicity, which is something more)
|
the lincoln/kennedy connection (there are so many coincidences that DON'T happen, it's just chance, need to correct for multiple comparisons)
MMR Vaccine and Autism (ultimately bad for public health) The Hot Hand (actually the opposite! but random events don't look random until 70% alteration rate, rather than 50%) Airborne (takes advantage of likelihood of cold actually occurring) |
|
|
Prayer and Medical Outcomes study
|
prayer with knowledge, prayer without knowledge, no prayer
prayer did nothing, knowledge of prayer increased complications (meds, performance, social support) |
|
|
Pascal's explanation for why a demonstration of something occurring is powerful evidence but a demonstration of it NOR occurring has little effect
|
a false negative with God is the worst
we can try to believe and either fail (infinitely bad) or succeed (infinitely good)...this is the best we can do |
|
|
what really goes on when people think they experience an "alien abduction"
|
responses resemble PTSD when re-listening to their own story, so it was real to them
actually sleep paralysis, but dreaming with eyes open thus a hallucination (plus these individuals tend to have "new age" and fantasy beliefs anyways |
|
|
semantic spreading
|
priming can be either direct or indirect, but people that show indirect semantic priming are more likely to believe in ESP
|
|
|
how does the availability heuristic apply to personality prediction
|
people agree that they are like to opposite descriptions (a some points, they are!)
|
|
|
Study Skills study
|
no actual improvement in grades but people report former grades as worse
|
|
|
memory for false/true statements under a load
|
we are more likely to remember a false claim as true...because understanding something makes it feel true (it requires extra cognitive effort to mark it as false)
|
|
|
what is an evolutionary explanation for why we remember false claims as true (the automaticity of belief)?
|
until recently, perceiving has been knowing. they chances that you'll see something untrue are low. only humans have the special problem due to language that requires the ability to filter out false beliefs with brain
|
|
|
collective delusion
|
social snowballing regarding socially shared (often scary) themes or plots
|
|
|
how does emotion affect the "stickiness" of memes?
|
more likely to pass on information if it is interesting to pass along (not necessarily truthful)
lost of disgust themes, etc |
|
|
errors of agency
|
overestimates of agency=illusion of control (ie lottery tix sell back, chance events seem controllable given skill clues)
underestimates of agency (dowsing, table turning...we don't even realize it!) |
|
|
"The Will to BS"
|
people are inclined to believe things that flatter their preconceptions (think computer generated passage is Derrida)
even after revealed as hoax, made up "excuses" |
|
|
crowds give rise to *new* characteristics, have the effect of:
|
uncovering base unconscious desires, intellectual retardation, unveiling destructiveness, exaggerating emotion
ie Orson Wells and The War of the Worlds |
|
|
what are the mechanisms of the effect of crowds? (Le Bon)
|
anonymity, contagion, suggestibility
|
|
|
Milgrim's study on coordination of attention
|
when just one person is looking up, many also look up
levels off around 4-5 people |
|
|
coordination of attention as part of social cognition
|
we use other people's eye gaze for coordination of joint attention
|
|
|
crowd patterns
|
circling (around something of interest)
banding (when crossing street) |
|
|
herding behavior in crowds
|
ie in emergency exit (sometimes pretty much all people go to one exit! need to break up the crowd with obstacles)
|
|
|
"herding behavior" with respect to popular items...is it inevitable? (study)
|
music lab with 9 different online worlds of unknown songs (one is "independent" and thus objective)
best is best and worst is worst but pretty much any other results are possible thus a huge amount is just luck of social dynamics (become popular because already a bit more popular) [are other things *more* important, though? ie marketing, what matters in the long run diff than short run?] |
|
|
black swan
|
history is dominated by rare but important events and you can really do the statistics on things like that. they're just outliers
|
|
|
does mere social presence (crowds) increase arousal or "drive" [Zajonc]?
|
modeled with cockroach maze. simple maze better with audience, complex maze better without audience.
is this homology or analogy? |
|
|
theory behind energizing individuals in crowds
|
drive facilitates performance of dominant responses and inhibits performance of non-dominant responses
|
|
|
promotion of cooperation via synchronization
|
singing and moving plastic cups before playing "public goods" game, synchronized groups reported more team feeling, similarity, and trust (but NOT happiness)
another study: attendance at religious services (not belief but rather coalitional commitment encouraged by synch group activity) predicted support for suicide attacks |
|
|
how does baiting happen?
|
conversation turns to topic, pattern feeds on itself from random
|
|
|
deindividuation in crowds (Zimbardo re KKK)
|
anonymity, diffusion of responsibility, and lack of self-awareness
study: deviance in the dark (ie removing potential inhibitors) |
|
|
examples of how crowds are "smart" ON AVERAGE
|
guessing weight, lost submarine location, audience vote on Millionaire, Iowa Electronic Markets (election bets)
|
|
|
WHEN are crowds smart?
|
diversity , independence, decentralization, aggregation
as long as there is not systematic bias, etc (although this is not what happens in a real physical crowd) |
|
|
hostile aggression
|
motivated by anger and hostility, primary aim is harming others either physically or psychologically
|
|
|
instrumental aggression
|
intended to achieve some goal that just happens to require aggression
|
|
|
aggression and gender
|
violence more common in men, women are more likely to use relational violence such as gossip and ostracism to hurt others emotionally
|
|
|
media violence
|
shown to cause violence and aggression in real life (news leads to copycat, tv/vg lead to violence in long and short run)
|
|
|
heat and violence
|
higher rates of violent crime in hotter cities/hotter months
|
|
|
frustration-aggression hypothesis
|
aggression results from thwarted needs
|
|
|
how do construal processes affect aggression?
|
acts that seem to be intentional are more likely to cause aggression than identical acts that do not seem intentional
|
|
|
aggression by region
|
the South adheres to a culture of honor meaning they are inclined to respond to threats (verbal or physically) with violence [history of herding, great risks of loss of all wealth]
|
|
|
differences between rape-prone and rape-free cultures
|
prone: high levels of violence in general (rape as battle weapon, ritual act, threat to keep women subservient)
free: tend to grant women equal status |
|
|
evolutionary theory of family violence
|
stepchildren more subject to abuse than genetic offspring who can carry on genetic line, men who have more to gain by eliminating rivals are more likely to kill other men than women are to kill other women
|
|
|
study demonstrating situational nature of altruism
|
seminary students and helping a victim
|
|
|
bystander intervention
|
whether someone offers to help a victim (generally reduced as number of observers increases, as each individual feels that someone else will be likely to help)
|
|
|
diffusion of responsibility
|
people less likely to help if others are present (assume someone else will)
|
|
|
pluralistic ignorance
|
when people are uncertain about what is happening and do nothing, often out of fear of embarrassment in case nothing is really wrong, this reaction reinforces the erroneous conclusion that the events are innocuous
|
|
|
victim characteristics that increase the likelihood of being helped
|
whether victim is similar to target, whether victim screams and makes known the situation, whether the victim is female
|
|
|
why, evolutionarily, does altruism exist?
|
kin selection theory, which says that people will help others to preserve the genes of close kin so as to benefit their own gene pool
|
|
|
reciprocal altruism
|
arises out of selfish motives, people help in the belief that at some future time the favor (of similar value) will be returned
|
|
|
reasons that people may help others
|
to enhance reputation or obtain social rewards (praise/attention/rewards/honor/gratitude)
|
|
|
reducing experienced distress
|
altruism in order to avoid feeling distress at another's pain (also selfish)
|
|
|
a form of pure undiluted altruism
|
empathy, feeling of concern for another after observing and being moved by that person's needs (actually show different physiological patterns)
|
|
|
location and altruism
|
people who like in rural (rather than urban) areas are more likely to help
|
|
|
inclusive fitness
|
evolutionary tendency to look out for oneself, one's offspring, and one's close relatives together with their offspring so that one's genes will survive
|
|
|
learned helplessness
|
passive and depressed responses that individuals show when their goals are blocked and they feel that they have no control over their outcomes
[another response that frustration can lead to, other than aggression] |
|
|
altruism
|
unselfish behavior that benefits other without regard to the consequences for the self
|
|
|
why must humans who live in groups behave in a cooperative fashion?
|
they are a social species and depend on each other to survive and reproduce
|
|
|
the four aspects of benign human behavior
|
compassion, sense of morality, desire for justice, capacity to cooperate
|
|
|
morality
|
a system of principles people use as guides to making evaluative judements about their own and others' actions and character
|
|
|
what is involved in morality?
|
obligation, inclusiveness, and sanctions
|
|
|
what is encompassed within the moral realm?
|
ethic of autonomy (rights and freedom), ethic of community (obligations and duties), ethic of divinity (purity and sin)
|
|
|
moral judgment across cultures
|
similar (harm to children, incest, genocide)
different (one cultures favor one or more of the three aspects--automony, community, divinity--more than the others) |
|
|
two systems of moral judgment
|
fast (emotion-based) and more complex reasoning processes
|
|
|
distributive justice
|
assessment of whether resources have been allocated fairly or unfairly
|
|
|
what can distort people's sense of distributive justice?
|
self-interest and egocentric construals, relative deprivation
|
|
|
three principles which affect people's reactions to how resources are allocated in different relationships
|
equity, equality, need
different domains and different cultures reply on different principles in establishing distributive justice... |
|
|
procedural justice
|
manner in which authority figures allocate resources and punishments
|
|
|
when is there generally a sense of procedural justice?
|
when authority figures are neutral, trustworthy, and respectful of others
|
|
|
restorative justice
|
actions people take to restore just conditions in the face of injustice
involves maintaining a belief in a just world (by blaming victims) |
|
|
difference between retributive punishment and utilitarian punishment...or reconciliation
|
retributive punishment is revenge while utilitarian punishment is designed to lesson the likelihood of further damage by the perpetrator...or reestablishing a bond between opponents through apologies and forgiveness
|
|
|
prisoner's dilemma
|
use to study cooperation, tempts participants to maximize their own outcomes at the expense of another person by defecting. the strategy backfires if the other person also defects so the optimum outcome is for both to settle for something less than the theoretical maximum by cooperating
|
|
|
different mindsets of cooperators and competitors
|
cooperators tend to recognize that some people are cooperators and others are competitors, competitors behave in a way as to confirm their mistaken hypothesis that everyone is a competitor
|
|
|
tit-for-tat
|
for the prisoner's dilemma game, strategy that is cooperative. not envious, nor exploitable, forgives, and is easy to read
maximizes outcomes in real life situations |
|
|
moral transgressions
|
violations of others' rights, or to harm others
|
|
|
social convention transgressions
|
violations of agreed-upon rules that govern such things as how we greet each other, how we eat, and the gender based roles and identifies we assume...
|
|
|
ethic of autonomy
|
framework of moral reasoning that is centered on rights and equality, and is focused on protecting individuals' freedom to pursue their own interests
|
|
|
ethic of community
|
framework of moral reasoning that revolves around duty, status, hierarchy, and interdependence whose goal is to protect relationships and roles within social groups to which one belongs
|
|
|
ethic of divinity
|
framework of moral reasoning that is defined by a concern for purity, sanctity, pollution, and sin
|
|
|
equity
|
principle of distributive justice, individuals should receive rewards that directly correspond to their contributions
|
|
|
equality
|
principle of distributive justice, individuals making contributions to some endeavor should receive equal rewards
|
|
|
need
|
principle of distributive justice, individuals with the greatest needs should be given priority for resources
|
|
|
relative deprivation
|
feeling of deprivation based on comparisons with relevant others who are seen as doing better than oneself
|
|
|
system justification
|
the tendency to justify differences in wealth and opportunity with beliefs that imply that such inequalities are deserved, just and even natural and inevitable
|
|
|
reactive devaluation
|
deduced attractiveness of an offer from an opposing side just because the other side made it
|
|
|
stereotypes
|
generalizations about groups that are often applied to individual group members
|
|
|
prejudice
|
a negative attitude and emotional response to members of a group
|
|
|
discrimination
|
negative behavior toward an individual because of the person's membership in a group
|
|
|
what kind of racism is there today?
|
not blatant, explicit racism but more subtle modern racism (people may hold overtly egalitarian attitudes and values but at the same time have unconscious negative attitudes)--prejudice alongside rejection of racist beliefs
|
|
|
benevolent racism (ie smart asian) and, at times, sexism (ie kind woman)
|
people think of these attitudes as favorable but really have effect of supporting traditional subservient roles for members of oppressed groups
|
|
|
implicit association test
|
measures people's true attitudes with measure that are not easy to fake by comparing reaction times for picture/word associations
|
|
|
priming
|
measures people's true attitudes with measure that are not easy to fake by priming with picture and then measuring time it takes to recognize pos/neg words (increases the accessibility of a concept or schema)
|
|
|
three approaches to prejudice and discrimination
|
the economic perspective, the motivational perspective, the cognitive perspective
|
|
|
economic perspective on prejudice and discrimination
|
one version is realistic group conflict theory (reflects the face that groups are sometimes in competition for scare resources and that this can lead to prejudice and discrimination)
ie Robber's Cave |
|
|
superordinate goals
|
goals that can only be achieved when two groups work together (noncompetitive situation that dissipates hostility)
|
|
|
motivational perspective on prejudice and discrimination
|
sometimes poor relations between groups occur simply because there are two groups and a we/they opposition results
|
|
|
minimal group paradigm
|
people find out they are members of a group that has been defined in a trivial and arbitrary way yet they will favor members of their own group over members of another (even when it actually costs to "beat" the opposition)
|
|
|
social identity theory and groups
|
explains ingroup favoritism by maintaining that self-esteem is derived from group membership and group success (not just personal)
|
|
|
frustration-aggression theory and dangerous behavior towards outgroups
|
when people are thwarted in reaching goal they often last out at less powerful individuals or groups (also with challenges to self-esteem)
|
|
|
cognitive perspective on prejudice and discrimination
|
focuses on stereotypes, a form of categorization which people rely on most when they are tired or overloaded
|
|
|
construal processes that lead to inaccurate stereotypes
|
outgroup homogeneity effect, biased information processing, self-fulfilling prophecies
|
|
|
outgroup homogeneity effect
|
because we know our own groups best, we tend to assume that outgroups are more homogeneous than ours
|
|
|
biased information processing
|
seeing those aspects of other groups that confirm our stereotypes and failing to see facts that are inconsistent with them
|
|
|
self-fulfilling prophecies
|
sometimes we apply stereotypes to members of outgroups and unknowingly behave toward them in such a way as to bring out the very behaviors that fit our stereotypes
|
|
|
paired distinctiveness
|
minority (distinctive) groups are often associated with rare (distinctive) behaviors, resulting in our attributing illusory properties to groups
|
|
|
what happens when we encounter information about groups?
|
favorable evidence about ingroups: high level of generality
favorable evidence about ingroups: low level of generality [converse for unfavorable evidence] thus we may not change our ideas because we treat some evidence as exceptions to our rule |
|
|
attribution of behavior for outgroup
|
behavior consistent with stereotype is attributed to disposition, inconsistent is attributed to situation
|
|
|
responding to outgroups with automoatic vs controlled processes
|
sometimes we respond reflexively (prejudice outside of our awareness) but often corrected by conscious
|
|
|
attributional ambiguity
|
members of stigmatized groups suffer not just from prejudice and discrimination but also have to ask whether others' neg/pos behavior towards them is due to prejudice or to some other factor not related to group membership
|
|
|
stereotype threat
|
performance of members of stigmatized groups can be impaired by the fear that one will confirm the stereotypes that others have regarding some salient group of which one is a member
|
|
|
ethnocentrism
|
glorifying one's own group while vilifying other groups
|
|
|
basking in reflected glory
|
the tendency to take pride in the accomplishments of those with whom we are associated in some way (even if it is weakly)
|
|
|
illusory correlation
|
erroneous belief about a connection between events, characteristics, or categories that are not actually related
|
|
|
social facilitation
|
presence of others sometimes facilitates human performance and sometimes hinders it, but in predictable ways. presence of others is arousing and arousal increases people's tendencies to do what they are already predisposed to do (so do better on easy tasks and worse on hard (or new) tasks)
|
|
|
alternatives to just "mere presence" of others that could have lead to social facilitation
|
evaluation apprehension, distraction-conflict theory
|
|
|
distraction-conflict theory
|
the awareness of another person can distract an individual and create conflict between attending to the other person and to the task at hand, a conflict that is itself arousing
|
|
|
social loafing
|
tendency to exert less effort on a group task when individual contributions cannot be monitored
|
|
|
why do large groups sometimes transform into unruly mobs? and what are the results?
|
deindividuation (anonymity, diffusion of responsibility) leads one to be less concerned with the future, with normal societal constraints on behavior, and with the consequences of one's actions
|
|
|
how do people usually feel when not in crowds? what does the self-awareness theory say about this?
|
individually identifiable, the self-awareness theory says that focusing attention on the self will lead to individuation and thus careful deliberation and concern with how well one's actions conform to internal moral standards
|
|
|
spotlight effect
|
most people overestimate how much they personally stand out and are identifiable to others
|
|
|
groupthink
|
tendency for members of cohesive groups to deal with stress of making highly consequential decisions by pursuing consensus more vigorously than a critical analysis of all available information (bad)
|
|
|
what affects group decision making?
|
how cohesive group is, how directive its leader is, and ingroup pressures that lead to self-censorship
|
|
|
self-censorship
|
tendency for people to refrain from expressing their true feelings or reservations in the face of apparent consensus on the part of the other group members and to ignore or reject alternative viewpoints
|
|
|
risky shift
|
exchanging views with a group can lead to more extreme decisions and make people more extreme in their attitudes (so groups sometimes make riskier decisions than individuals)
|
|
|
group polarization
|
group discussion tends to make initial leanings in a risky direction MORE risky and initial leanings in a conservative direction MORE conservative
|
|
|
how is group polarization produced?
|
persuasive arguments (larger pool of info and arguments available), social comparison (people compare their opinions and arguments to those of others when there are not objective standards)
|
|
|
risky decisions and culture
|
people from cultures that value risk are more likely to make risky decisions after group discussion
|
|
|
what kind of groups are likely to experience polarization?
|
homogeneous groups (people tend to encounter information that fit preexisting views)
with today's technology, it is easy to find like-minded others and exchange info only with people of the same opinion |
|
|
dominant response
|
in a hierarchy of responses, the response you are most likely to make
|
|
|
evaluation apprehension
|
a concern about how one appears in the eyes of others--that is, about being evaluated
|
|
|
emergent properties of groups
|
behaviors that only surface when people are in groups
|
|
|
suicide baiting
|
urging a person who is on the verge of committing suicide to take his life
|
