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;
48 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
need to belong |
evolutionary basis. survival. guides social cognition. profound consequences lack of it. |
|
|
social exchange theory |
! how people feel about a relationship dependson their assessments of its costs and rewards |
|
|
relational self |
beliefs feelings about ourselves that is derived from our relationships with significant others |
|
|
attachment theory |
bowlby's attachment theory -> strange situation secure anxious preoccupied dismissive avoidant fearful avoidant |
|
|
propinquity |
physical proxmity |
|
|
how similarity attracts attraction |
1. more fluent interaction 2. they may like us 3. they validate our beliefs |
|
|
halo effect |
physically attractive -> all the good traits maybe due to self fullfiling prophecies e.g. misbehavior of attractive babies are seen as less problematic |
|
|
evolutionary functions of beaty |
physical attractiveness -> health facial symmetry ->no disease or genetic issues |
|
|
Sternberg's triangular theory of Love |
Commitment Intimacy Passion CI - compainonate love CP - fatuos ??aptal IP - romantic love |
|
|
investment model |
rewards alternatives -> commitment -> investment |
|
|
predictors of divorce |
-lower SES -young marriage -neuroticsm 1. critism 2.stonewalling 3. defensiveness 4.contempt looking down |
|
|
racism |
stereotype ->belief that certain traits are characteristics of a group COGNITION prejudice ->negative attitude towards a group of people that is also applied to individual membembers EMOTION discrimnation-> unfair treatment to a member of a group BEHAVIOR |
|
|
perspectives on discrimination and prejudice |
1. economic -> fighting for limited resources 2. cognitive -> due to social schemas and heuristics 3. motivational -> identification within a group |
|
|
Robbers Cave experiment |
two boy groups seperated fighting for resouce they discriminate but mere exposure is not enough cooperation is needen |
|
|
Realistic group conflict |
!Competition for scarceresources will increaseconflict among groups,resulting in prejudice anddiscrimination |
|
|
Minimal group paradigm |
meaningless criteria but still behave in for the group |
|
|
Outgroup homogeneity effect |
chinese |
|
|
! Illusory correlations |
corelating two distinct events |
|
|
subtypin |
!Explaining away people that dont fitstereotypes by creating a subcategory of thestereotype |
|
|
Attributional ambiguity |
is it due to me or is it because im black |
|
|
stereotype threat |
fear of confirming the stereotype |
|
|
group |
collection of individuals that are interdependent |
|
|
social facilitation |
mere presence of other leads to arousal WHY Evaluation apprehension /Dİstraction conflict it has two effects easy tasks -> facilitation hard tasks->impairment |
|
|
markus |
change into expeirmental gear |
|
|
social loafing |
! Exert less effort in group tasks when there is nomonitoring |
|
|
groupthink |
the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctionaldecision-making outcome WHY |
|
|
sources of groupthink |
cohesive group strong leader isolation no alternative seeking threat |
|
|
symptoms |
! Feel invulnerable! Illusion of unanimity! Belief in inherent moralityof group! Stereotype outgroups! Pressure on dissenters! Self-censorship! Do not consideralternatives! Unrealistic optimism/underappreciate risks! No backup plan |
|
|
how to prevent groupthink |
impartiality subgroups divergent opinions "devil's advocate" anonymity |
|
|
group polarization |
group decisipons are more extreme than individual persuasive arguments social comparison |
|
|
approach inhibition theory |
high power -> seek goal low power -> inhibit A theory that maintains that high-power individuals areinclined to go after their goals and make quick judgments,whereas low-power individuals are more likely to constraintheir behavior and attend to others carefully |
|
|
deindividuation |
! Decrease in self-awareness resulting in decreasedself-regulation and greater conformity tosurrounding group norms |
|
|
situational factors |
weapon heat income equality socialrejection videogames |
|
|
temperature |
high tempo more aggression |
|
|
media and aggression |
due to social learning theory -> modelling and observational learning |
|
|
frustration aggression theory |
result of blocking, or frustrating, a person's efforts to attain a goal.[4] |
|
|
levels of aggression due to frustration aggression theory |
anticipation fullness amount farness |
|
|
learned helplessness,whereby people may give up believing they canachieve their goals |
yes |
|
|
neo associationistic account |
aversive event -> anger->agression |
|
|
gender aggression |
!Males much more likely to be involved inviolent and criminal behavior!Males may be more physically aggressive, butfemales may display more relationalaggression |
|
|
Dehumanization |
The tendency toattribute nonhumancharacteristics togroups other thanones own—forexample, by referringto them as rats, dogs,pigs, or vermin |
|
|
prosocial behavior |
Voluntarily helping others regardless ofmotive |
|
|
why |
social rewardss self,s personal distress -> to make self feel better selfisg empathic concern altruistsc |
|
|
empathic concern |
identifying and intention to help |
|
|
situational determinants |
bystander effect business ambiguity victim characteristics |
|
|
bystander effect |
People are less likely to intervene andhelp when others are present diffusion of responsibility pluralistic ignorance |
|
|
kin selection |
Tendency for natural selection to favorbehaviors that benefit the survival of geneticrelatives |
|
|
reciprocal altruism |
t can also be evolutionary advantageous tohelp nonrelatives if that help will bereciprocated at a later time |
