Social Psychology

Front 1

social dilemmas

Back 1

one must choose between acting in service of personal benefit or group benefit

Front 2

Roommates Dilemma

Back 2

choose to either clean the apartment or nap and see the outcome

Front 3

why might people cooperate?

Back 3

fairness, value the group outcome, long term strategy

Front 4

public goods

Back 4

individuals have the opportunity to contribute something that would provide collective benefit

Front 5

what can early cooperation establish?

Back 5

reciprocity

Front 6

social facilitation

Back 6

simple task leads to increased performance

Front 7

social inhibition

Back 7

complex task leads to decreased performance

Front 8

social loafing

Back 8

group induced reduction in individual output when efforts are pooled

Front 9

Ringlemann's rope pull

Back 9

effort decreased as more people were involved in the rope pull

Front 10

Latane's yelling task

Back 10

bigger initial drop, still decreased as more people were added

Front 11

diffusion of responsibility

Back 11

belief that the presence of others makes one less personally responsible for the outcomes

Front 12

Darley and Latane Helping and Seizures

Back 12

as group size increased, personal intervention decreases

Front 13

Latane and Darley's Model of Bystander Intervention

Back 13

notice an event, define as emergency, accept responsibility, assess ability to help, implement help

Front 14

what situational factors influence attraction?

Back 14

proximity, familiarity, similarity, reciprocal liking

Front 15

Festinger and Back proximity study

Back 15

randomly assigned MIT grad students to single dorm rooms, 2/3 of P's had best friends on the same floor

Front 16

familiarity

Back 16

we tend to like those familiar to us, mere exposure effect

Front 17

similarity

Back 17

tend to be attracted to those similar to us: demographic, attitudinal, physical and attractiveness

Front 18

reciprocal liking

Back 18

we like those who like us

Front 19

Curtis Miller reciprocal liking study

Back 19

manipulated perceptions of partner liking for one P: either likes or dislikes you

Front 20

symmetrical face attractiveness

Back 20

symmetrical faces rated as more attractive

Front 21

average face attractiveness

Back 21

average found to be very attractive; more faces put together the more attractive it is rated

Front 22

what is the goal of mate selection?

Back 22

successful offspring

Front 23

Buss Sexual Selection

Back 23

predicts that men and women want different things in a partner

Front 24

adaptive problems faced by men

Back 24

early offset of female fertility and paternal uncertainty

Front 25

adaptive problems faced by women

Back 25

huge child rearing investment

Front 26

What is attractive about females?

Back 26

features that mark fertility and good genes; large eyes, small nose, prominent cheekbones; low waist to hip ratio

Front 27

What is attractive about males?

Back 27

features that mark good genes; large chin and prominent cheekbones; bigger waist to hip ratio; wealth and status

Front 28

Buss's 37 cultures study

Back 28

predicted men would value youth, homemaking skills, chastity; predicted women would value wealth, intelligence, status and age; Buss found that men and women actually value very similar things

Front 29

Clark and Hatfield FSU study

Back 29

approached random students of the opposite sex and asked 1 of 3 questions (date, apartment, bed); if requester was a man, half would go on a date, a few go to the apartment, and 0 go to bed; if requester was a woman, half go on a date, 70% go to apartment and 3/4 go to bed

Front 30

Clark and Hatfield follow ups

Back 30

produced generally the same response; gay men respond more positively than gay women; bisexual women respond more positively to women than men

Front 31

what factors may have contributed to Clark and Hatfield results?

Back 31

fear of STI's, safety, social pressures

Front 32

increased collective identity

Back 32

increased feelings of group entitativity leads to increased cooperation

Front 33

social values

Back 33

persons preferences for certain distributions of outcomes between themselves and others

Front 34

individualist

Back 34

attempts to maximize absolute personal gain

Front 35

competitor

Back 35

attempts to maximize relative personal gain

Front 36

prosocial

Back 36

attempts to maximize absolute joint gain as well as maximize differences

Front 37

behavioral differences across SVO's

Back 37

prosocials cooperate more, prosocials cooperate more in some applied settings

Front 38

mixed motive decisions

Back 38

involve competing motivations like personal outcomes, fairness, and winning; involves sharing or splitting up endowment

Front 39

Dictator Game

Back 39

dictator split up an endowment and a player's pay based on dictators decision, average is 28.3% of endowment

Front 40

ultimatum bargaining game

Back 40

proposer offers how to split the endowment and responder accepts or rejects, if you reject you get nothing, proposer offers about 40% and 16% rejected

Front 41

where is tacit coordination applied?

Back 41

national security, business teams, personal relationships and crowd behavior

Front 42

social focal point theory

Back 42

coordinators attempt to identify a social trait that is relevant to the problem

Front 43

results of tacit coordination task

Back 43

preference questionnaire- couples higher than strangers

partner knowledge task- couples rated higher, strangers higher on mismatch than match

coordination task- couples rated higher

overall: couples match higher, but strangers mismatch lower than couples, couples should not be confident in likelihood of coordination success

Front 44

focal social actor hypothesis

Back 44

group members attempt to identify a FSA; if there is correspondence they tacitly coordinate by selecting the option associated with the FSA, select unique members choice

Front 45

intergroup coordination

Back 45

many coordination problems are faced by interacting groups rather than individuals

Front 46

consensual salience hypothesis

Back 46

groups should be better able to identify a population consensus by sampling their own response tendencies for majority responses

Front 47

disjunctive salience hypothesis

Back 47

groups should be better able to identify focal points by sampling the individual response tendencies of their members

Front 48

are groups or individuals better at tacit coordination tasks?

Back 48

groups

Front 49

mimicry

Back 49

we often mimic the nonverbal behavior of those around us like tapping the table or fixing our hair

Front 50

Chartrand and Bargh

Back 50

behavioral mimicking causes increased liking and smoothness in social interactions

Front 51

behavioral synchrony

Back 51

nonverbal synchrony causes more interpersonal liking such as walking in step

Front 52

attribution theory

Back 52

we are invested in understanding the reasons and causes for peoples behaviors

Front 53

attributions

Back 53

casual judgments about why an event or behavior occurred

Front 54

external attributions

Back 54

attributions about a situation

Front 55

internal attributions

Back 55

attributions about a person's disposition

Front 56

correspondence bias

Back 56

we often make internal attributions for others behaviors

Front 57

Quiz role study

Back 57

quizmasters ratings equal, contestants and observer ratings higher for quizmaster than contestant

Front 58

4 required elements for perceived judgment

Back 58

diversity, independence, decentralization, aggregation of individual judgments