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;
59 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Why do people join groups?
|
Information:
Need for accuracy Informational social influence Identity: Social Identity Theory Need to feel good Normative social influence To get things done: Divide the labor |
|
|
4 features of groups
|
1. Similarity - what traits members of the group have in common
2. Cohesiveness - qualities of a group that bind members together and promote liking between them 3. Social Norms - beliefs about what behaviors are acceptable and members are supposed to obey 4. Social Roles - shared expectations in a group about how particular people are expected to behave |
|
|
social facilitation
|
the tendency for people to do better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance can be evaluated
|
|
|
group polarization
|
tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme in the initial inclinations of its members
Why? Persuasive arguments Social comparison |
|
|
process loss
|
interaction that inhibits good problem solving
No one listens to the expert Communication problems Failure to share unique information Stasser & Titus, 1985 Kelly & Karau, 1999 |
|
|
groupthink
|
When group cohesiveness is more important than considering the facts
|
|
|
Zajonc, 1969
|
roach experiment with spectator roaches
presence of others increases physiological arousal and therefor make simple tasks easier |
|
|
Why does the presence of others cause arousal? (3 theories)
|
1. Alertness
2. Evaluation apprehension 3. Distraction-Conflict |
|
|
social loafing
|
Presence of others relaxes us
Ringelmann (1913); Latane (1979) Why? Low Identifiability! When individual performance cannot be evaluated: Simple tasks > impaired performance Complex tasks > enhanced performance |
|
|
deindividuation
|
The loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people are in a crowd, leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts (Mob Mentality)
Why? No accountability Group norms |
|
|
causes of groupthink
|
Highly cohesive group
Group isolation Directive leader |
|
|
symptoms of groupthink
|
Illusion of invulnerability
Belief in moral correctness of group Stereotyped views of out-group Self-censorship Pressure to conform (mindguards) Illusion of unanimity |
|
|
how to avoid groupthink
|
Impartial leaders
Get outside information Divide into subgroups Secret Ballots |
|
|
Jury decision making
|
REVIEW NOTES
|
|
|
differences in competitors
|
Competitors:
Want to maximize their own rewards relative to their partner’s (they want to do better) Cooperators: Want to maximize the joint rewards Individualists Want to maximize their own rewards, with no concern for the partner’s outcomes |
|
|
competition vs cooperation
|
Competitive interdependence: one person’s gain is another’s loss
Cooperative interdependence: the outcomes of the group members are linked in a positive way (if we work together, we will all do well) |
|
|
propinquity effect
|
the finding that the more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friends
|
|
|
6 determinants of attraction and liking
|
Physical attractiveness
Proximity Familiarity Similarity Reciprocity Secrecy |
|
|
computer dance study (physical attractiveness)
|
Computer dance study:
Single undergrads Matched them randomly (computer randomization) to go on blind dates After date, had each rate the other – focused mostly on whether they would like to go on a second date with the other person Attractiveness best determinant |
|
|
Halo effect
|
What is beautiful is good
Attractive people seen as sociable, popular, intellectual, successful, healthier, happier, more sexual, more compassionate, etc. Why? Self-fulfilling prophecy Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid (1977) |
|
|
Westgate study (proximity)
|
Randomly assigned grad apartments
Occupants had not known each other Biggest indicator of friendship had to do with proximity |
|
|
what causes propinquity effect?
|
-familiarity?
Cognitive dissonance If you are spending a significant amount of time with someone/working or living in close proximity with them, you MUST be friends |
|
|
Moreland and Beach study (familiarity)
|
Confederates attended classes different numbers of times
Average attractiveness, no interaction The more they had attended the class, the more “attractive” they were rated by the other students |
|
|
causes of familiarity effect?
|
Evolutionary explanation – unfamiliar things are threatening
Cognitive explanation – familiar people are seen as more similar to us Note: Familiarity has the reverse effect for things we initially don’t like |
|
|
Why does similarity lead to liking?
|
Validate our own self-worth/social validation
Cognitive dissonance (maximize consistency about who we are) Expectancy-value theory (reward in a relationship – attractiveness; expectancy – how likely it is you will get to go out with someone) Similarity & propinquity Limitations if something bad happens to someone similar to us, differences can be rewarding |
|
|
why does reciprocity indicate liking?
|
Generally, we like those who like us.
Self-fulfilling prophecy We act more likeable to those whom we think like us. They, in turn like us for liking them… But, self-esteem moderates effect |
|
|
secrecy effect
|
footsie experiment
|
|
|
companionate love vs. passionate love
|
Companionate – Not necessarily experiencing passion or arousal
Passionate- Physiological arousal |
|
|
triangular theory of love
|
Love made up of intimacy, passion, commitment
Combined in various ways to form 7 types of love |
|
|
marketplace theory
|
Women more likely to value status in a mate, men more likely to value attraction
|
|
|
evolutionary theory
|
Love & attraction are functions of ability to propagate genes (Buss 1988, 1989, 1990)
Males: frequent pairings younger = healthier = more attractive Females: provider status = more resources = more attractive |
|
|
attachment styles
|
the kinds of bonds we form early in life influence the types of relationships we have as adults
1. Secure 2. Avoidant 3. Anxious/Ambivilant |
|
|
secure attachment
|
easy to get close to others, no worrying about abandonment
Happy, friendly, trusting relationships |
|
|
anxious/ambivilant attachment
|
seek intimacy but worry that others won’t reciprocate or stay; emotional highs and lows,
Obsession, jealousy, love at first sight |
|
|
avoidant attachment
|
uncomfortable getting close, jealousy, fear of intimacy
Relatively brief sexual encounters |
|
|
interdependence theory
|
Rewards and costs
Maximize rewards and minimize costs Rewards Love Money Status Information Goods Services Costs Time and energy Conflict Disapproval of others Opportunity to do other rewarding activities Comparison Level (CL): the quality of outcomes a person believes he or she deserves Reflects past relationship experiences Our personal belief about what constitutes an acceptable relationship Comparison Level for Alternatives (CL-Alt): assessing how our relationship compares to others that are available |
|
|
Investment Model theory
|
Expanded Interdependence theory to long term relationships (included “Investments”)
LOOK AT CHART IN SLIDES |
|
|
Equity Theory
|
Relationship satisfaction determined by the ratio of benefits to contributions. Contributions can be positive or negative
SEE IN NOTES |
|
|
communal vs. exchange relationships
|
Exchange: tit-for-tat
Communal: desire for/expectations of mutual responsiveness Close friendships & meaningful romantic relationships = communal Superficial interactions with strangers/acquaintances = exchange |
|
|
active vs passive, constructive vs destructive
|
Active destructive = Exit
Active constructive = Voice Passive constructive = Loyalty Passive destructive = Neglect |
|
|
prosocial vs. altruistic behavior
|
prosocial - any behavior performed with the goal of benefitting someone else
altruistic - benefiting another with NO benefit to yourself |
|
|
Evolutionary theory of helping behavior (Cunningham)
|
People are more likely to help people more closely related to them
|
|
|
Interdependence / Social-Exchange Theory of helping behavior
|
Maximize benefits and minimize costs
We examine the costs and rewards of helping and not helping 3 rewards of helping: Reciprocity Relieves distress Social approval This approach denies the role or even existence of altruism |
|
|
norms of helping
|
Norm of social responsibility: we should help others who depend on us
Norm of reciprocity: we should help those who help us Norm of fairness & social justice: rules about fairness and the just distribution of resources |
|
|
learning theory of helping
|
Emphasizes the importance of learning to be helpful
We learn social norms about helping and develop habits of helpfulness Reinforcement people help when they are rewarded Observational learning Modeling |
|
|
attribution theory of helping
|
People are more likely to help someone if they feel the person deserves it
We make attributions about other’s needs and then decide whether to help We feel sympathy and concern for those who suffer through no fault of their own |
|
|
empathy-altruism hypothesis
|
Batson
Pure altruism exists Empathy-altruism hypothesis When we feel empathy, we help for altruistic reasons When we do not feel empathy, we help for social exchange reasons STUDY TOI AND BATSON STUDY |
|
|
mood and helping: Isen & Levin, 1972
|
Those who found dime: 84% helped
Those who did not find dime: 4% helped |
|
|
Why do good moods increase helping?
|
Interpret events sympathetically
Mood-maintenance Good moods can increase self-attention (not always) |
|
|
when people will help even when they are in a bad mood
|
People in a bad mood will help under certain conditions
Negative-state relief hypothesis People help to alleviate their own sadness and distress Directly follows Interdependence/Social Exchange approach |
|
|
Good Samaritan study
|
Seminary students on way to lecture
IVs: Amount of time (Ahead of Schedule, On time, Late) DV: Helping |
|
|
Bystander effect
|
Kitty Genovese (1964)
Smoke-filled room study (Latané and Darley, 1968) IV: left alone; with 2 other real participants, or with 2 other confederates who pretended nothing was wrong DV: Percentage of participants who reported smoke Seizure study (Darley & Latané, 1968) Participants communicated over intercom. Heard a participant have a seizure IV: # of other participants DVs: 1) % who help; 2)mean time to help |
|
|
helping in communal vs. exchange relationships
|
Generally, more likely to help in a communal relationship than in an exchange relationship
|
|
|
5 steps for helping
|
1. Notice the event
2. Recognize it as an emergency 3. Feel responsible 4. Know how to help 5. Asses costs of helping |
|
|
when we will or won't recieve/ask for help
|
If we perceive that people are helping us because they genuinely care about us and our welfare, it makes us feel good
If accepting aid implies that we’re incompetent, it threatens our self-esteem People are likely to ask for help when they think they will be able to repay it in some form Receiving help can create an imbalance of power |
|
|
pratfall effect
|
when we think someone is perfect, then they make a mistake, we are likely to increase our liking
|
|
|
Ben Franklin effect
|
Asking someone to do a favor for you increases their attraction to you
|
|
|
principle of least interest
|
least interest = most power; if you are very dependent on the relationship you have very little power
|
|
|
urban overload hypothesis
|
Population density more important than population size,
If there’s a lot of people around, the situation tends to be over stimulated, people simplify lives by not tending to things |
