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;
92 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Group |
2 or more people who interact and are interdependent |
|
|
Benefits of groups (Information, Identity, and Norms) |
Information: helps us to reduce ambiguity in the world Identity: Helps us to define ourselves, feel distinct from other groups Norms: Helps us to establish, maintain, practice norms |
|
|
Group Cohesiveness, it's effect on group members |
qualities that bind a group together and promote liking between members more cohesiveness = more likely for members to stay in group, take part in group activities, recruit new members |
|
|
How does group cohesiveness affect performance? |
When task requires close cooperation, performance is improved When maintaining cohesion is the most important goal, it can interfere with performance |
|
|
Why are groups typically not diverse? |
Homogenous groups are typically more cohesive 1) we are attracted to, likely to recruit members similar in age, sex, and beliefs 2) groups operate in ways that encourage similarity in its members |
|
|
How does diversity affect performance?
|
Diverse groups are more capable on group tasks than non diverse groups EX: Research on sales teams; those with more diversity were more effective/performed better |
|
|
Social Facilitation |
When in presence of others and behavior can be evaluated: performance improves for simple, practiced, well-learned tasks performance gets worse for complex tasks EX: Taking exam in crowded exam should allow you to do better if you know the material well |
|
|
Why does Social Facilitation occur? (Arousal) |
Presence of others = more physiological arousal Bodies become more energized to perform our task |
|
|
Social Loafing |
When in the presence of others and performance cannot be evaluated: we do worse on simple tasks and better on complex tasks |
|
|
Why does Social Loafing occur? (relaxation) |
Presence of others + lack of evaluation causes group members to become relaxed >>> unafraid of judgement; slack off on simple tasks, not afraid to mess up/try harder on complex tasks |
|
|
Deindividuation |
Loosening of normal social constraints when people can't be differentiates Increase in impulsive, deviant acts (mob mentality) EX: shoppers on Black Friday, KKK members clothing, online trolling |
|
|
Why does deindividuation lead to sometimes violent acts |
makes people feel less accountable, less personal responsibility increases our obedience to the group's norms |
|
|
When will a group make a good decision |
If most talented member can convince others that he/she is right |
|
|
Process Loss |
any part of a group's interaction that inhibits good problem solving EX: not trying hard enough to find the talented group member; most competent/talented might not want to be lone descender, communication problems |
|
|
Groupthink |
Type of group mindset where maintaining cohesiveness is more important than observing the situation in a logical manner High degree of normative social influence |
|
|
Conditions under which groupthink is most likely to occur |
Highly cohesive Isolated from contrary opinions Ruled by a directive, outspoken leader |
|
|
6 symptoms of groupthink |
Illusion of Vulnerability (plan is invincible) Belief in moral correctness of the group (shield from outside influence; god is on our side) Stereotyped views of the out-groups (simplification of opposing groups, their views) Self-Censorship (members don't voice opposing opinions) Illusion of unanimity (illusion everyone agrees, when really nobody is speaking up) Mindguards (dismissing viewpoints opposing that of leader; view of group's decision as being unanimous and invulnerable) |
|
|
Group Polarization |
Inclusion in a group increases likelihood that individuals' attitudes will become more extreme tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members |
|
|
Persuasive Arguments Interpretation (Group Polarization) |
Every individual brings their own ideas/set of arguments, some that haven't yet been considered by other members More discussion, more new arguments introduced, added to each member's log of arguments, the more polarized the view point |
|
|
Social Comparison Interpretation (Group Polarization) |
When people discuss an issue in a group, first explore how others in the group feel, then take observation of the emotional response, behavior, or attitude
This observation pattern makes us more likely to adopt a similar attitude |
|
|
Groupthink and Group Polarization in the election |
LOOK AT GROUPTHINK |
|
|
Double Bind for women leaders |
If warm and communal, women are perceived as having low leadership potential; however, if agent and forceful, perceived negatively for not acting like a woman should |
|
|
Why is it difficult for women to obtain leadership positions? |
The disparity between idealized traits of leaders (agentic) and societal views of women (communal) Double bind |
|
|
Prejudice (and 3 Components) |
hostile or negative attitude toward people in a specific group based solely on their membership in that group Cognitive (stereotypes), Affective (deeply-engrained emotional roots of our stereotypes), Behavioral (discrimination) |
|
|
Stereotypes
|
Generalization of a group of people; types of schemas applied to a group of people A cognitive process Can be positive or negative |
|
|
Why do we have stereotypes? When are they Adaptive? Maladaptive? |
Made to simplify the world, a means of sorting info; makes sense of our world by grouping people together Adaptive: when the stereotypes accurately identify attributes of a group Maladaptive: when our stereotypes blind us to individual differences |
|
|
When are positive stereotypes harmful? |
When they ignore or deny the individuality of a person; expecting them to perform as a member of their group rather than as an individual EX: expecting a young black man to be good at basketball |
|
|
Hostile Sexism |
Stereotypical views of women that women are inferior to men EX: women are less intelligent, rational, or competent than men |
|
|
Benevolent Sexism |
More subtle Stereotypical positive views of women; more prevalent in our culture EX: view of women as gentle, compassionate, without considering their agentic traits EX: putting women in positions of care because women are better at it |
|
|
Affective Component of Prejudice |
When negative emotions about groups are often deeply engrained and therefore difficult to stop Not likely to reason with affectively based prejudices |
|
|
Discrimination |
Behavioral component of prejudice behavioral output of a prejudice unjustified negative, harmful action toward members of a group because of their membership in a group EX: unequal treatment of black and white people in the war against drugs (increased arrests for African Americans) |
|
|
Microagressions |
slights, indignities that are small, sometimes not v noticeable acts of discrimination person carrying them out usually doesn't know their behavior is discriminatory EX: "Where are you from?" "You don't act like a normal back person" |
|
|
Factors affecting prejudice activation |
Stress Anger Recently suffered blow to self esteem Not in control of conscious intentions EX: pattern of AA men being killed |
|
|
Video Game research studying Discrimination |
Dependent variable: # of errors made when deciding to shoot or not Most common error: made with unarmed black men Conclusion: prejudice can be activated; participants were in crisis situation, guards for prejudices were lowered |
|
|
Milgram-Based study manipulating race and insults |
Teachers were the participants, giving shocks at their own discretion to learners (half were black, half were white) Learners insulted teacher halfway through to test possible activation of discrimination by insults/blows to self esteem Initially, white learners were given higher shocks After insults, white learners' levels remained largely stagnant while those of AAs skyrocketed; same patterns appeared with gay, women, other stereotyped groups Conclusion: Blows to self-confidence can prime/activate discrimination |
|
|
Types of Hidden Prejudices |
Suppressed and Implicit |
|
|
Suppressed Prejudice |
you know you hold it but intentionally hide in order to avoid disapproval; when situation becomes safe, prejudices are revealed EX: questioning Obama about Americanism without admitting to racism |
|
|
Implicit Prejudice |
you have biases, but aren;t aware of them can be at odds with explicit or stated attitudes |
|
|
Why do we suppress prejudices? |
1) sincere motivation to become less prejudiced 2) avoid being negatively labeled |
|
|
Implicit Association Test (IAT) |
Test of hidden prejudices; must quickly associate words with pictures of black/white people More likely to associate negative words with black people than white Criticism: can it be associated with real world behavior? Also, could be cultural biases/stereotypes rather than individual ones |
|
|
Social Identity |
part of our identity stems from our membership in groups EX: I define myself as a musician |
|
|
Ethnocentrism |
the belief that your own culture or identity is superior |
|
|
In-group Bias |
Tendency to favor those in our own group, give special preference Applicable even in trivial or temporary groups Motivated by desire to enhance self esteem; groups function to give us sense of belonging, and believing that we belong to the superior group improves self esteem |
|
|
Out-Group Homogeneity |
tendency to see those not in our group as being more alike, less distinct than those within the group blind to individuality of out-group members |
|
|
Realistic Conflict Theory |
prejudice and discrimination conflicts as a result of limited resources Source of a lot of prejudice against immigrants EX: discrimination toward Chinese immigrants, taking our jobs |
|
|
Scapegoating |
When frustrated/happy, people tend to displace aggression onto groups that are disliked, visible, and relatively powerless form of aggressions depends on norms by the in-group |
|
|
Causes of prejudice |
Scapegoating Realistic Conflict Theory Out-Group Homogeneity In-Group Bias Social Identity and Ethnocentrism |
|
|
Contact Hypothesis |
mere contact between groups is not enough to reduce prejudice possibly even encourages conflict |
|
|
According to contact hypothesis, what conditions need to be met to reduce prejudice? |
1) Both groups are of equal status 2) Both groups should share a common goal; interdepence |
|
|
Jigsaw Classroom |
class is broken into diverse groups, assigned topic to learn and present creates situation of interdependence, common goal shown to work; positive results both socially and academically |
|
|
4 tactics for responding to prejudiced comments |
Use questions Arouse cognitive dissonance Explain how the comments make you feel Be respectful; avoid self-righteous anger |
|
|
Propinquity Effect |
the more we see someone, the more likely to become friends EX: in a dorm, 41% next door neighbors identified as best friends, 22% 2 doors apart, 10% at opposite end of hall |
|
|
Mere Exposure Effect |
more likely to like a stimulus the more we are exposed to that stimulus exceptions when two people don't click on a fundamental level |
|
|
How does similarity in interests, experiences play a role in attraction? |
situations you choose to be in expose you to those with similar interests; when you discover and create new similarities, friendships begin |
|
|
Similarity in appearance and attraction |
we seek physical proximity to those similar in appearance to us in romantic relationships, more likely to like people of similar levels of attractiveness Most important in committed relationships; perceived similarity is more important than actual |
|
|
When is similarity not preferred in relationships? |
In low levels of commitment, we tend to choose dissimilar partners |
|
|
Reciprocal Liking |
we like people who like us in initial attraction, this can make up for dissimilarity EX: In-class activity; leaning in and smiling versus avoiding eye contact and leaning away |
|
|
Gender differences in physical attractiveness |
men are more likely to report finding attractiveness important, not true in observing real behavior |
|
|
What traits are favored in each sex? |
Female: large eyes, small nose, high cheekbones, small chin, high eyebrows, big smile, large pupils Males: large eyes, prominent cheekbones, large chin, big smile |
|
|
Familiarity in attractiveness |
people tend to prefer faces that resemble their own, familiar propinquity, similarity, reciprocal liking, and appearance all play into our need for familiarity |
|
|
Halo Effect |
type of cognitive bias; tendency to assume person with beauty must also possess other positive characteristics Attribute sociable, extroverted, and popular Cross-cultural differences, American traits vs Korean traits, self-fulfilling prophecy |
|
|
Cross-cultural assumptions associated with Halo Effect America vs Korea? |
People who are considered beautiful tend to be associated with having more of the traits valued in that culture In America, these traits are: strong, assertive, dominant In Korea, these traits are empathetic, sensitive, generous, honest, trustworthy |
|
|
Self-Fulfilling Prophesy and perceptions of beautiful people Phone Study |
attractive people are treated with a lot of positive social attention because they are beautiful, fostering good social traits + helps them build the skills that are commonly attributed to people with good looks according to the Halo Effect Phone Study: if men talking to a woman believe woman on phone is attractive, woman is more likely to give warmer, friendlier responses (as a result of the man's treatment of the woman as someone who is attractive) |
|
|
Companionate Love |
intimacy and affection felt for those we care deeply for no passion or arousal in the person's presence EX: mom |
|
|
Passionate Love |
Intense longing, physiological arousal; when feeling is mutual, we feel fulfillment and ecstasy |
|
|
What are attachment styles? |
relationship styles learned as infants that are internalized then generalized to our adult relationships can be fixed as we learn from new relationship experiences; can develop more than one style over time Secure, Avoidant, Anxious/Ambivalent |
|
|
Secure Attachment Style
|
56% trust, lack of concerns with being abandoned; feelings of worthiness and being well-liked In adult relationships: more likely to develop mature lasting relationships |
|
|
Avoidant Attachment Style |
19% Suppression of attachment needs because prior attempts to be intimate have been rebuffed In adult relationships: less able to trust, difficulty in developing close, long-lasting relationships |
|
|
Anxious/Ambivalent Attachment Style |
25% concern that others will not reciprocate one's desire for intimacy; higher than average levels of anxiety In adult relationships: want closeness, but worries partner will not return affection |
|
|
How is the brain affected by love? Areas, neurotransmitters |
VTA and caudate nucleus are the areas affected These areas are the centers for reward and motivation in our brains Stimulates release of dopamine neurotransmitter Similar to cocaine, chocolate, and gambling |
|
|
Social Exchange Theory |
our feeling toward a relationship depends on our perception of the rewards and costs, the kind of relationship we think we deserve, our chance of having a better relationship with someone else economic model of costs and benefits in relationships |
|
|
Rewards and Costs as defined by Social Exchange Theory in relationships |
Rewards: positive, gratifying aspects of a relationship EX: monetary support, taking care of you Costs: any negative aspect of a relationship EX: long distance, inconvenience, time consuming |
|
|
Comparison Level (high vs low) |
people's expectations in terms of rewards and punishments they are likely to receive in a particular relationship Revolves around a person's expectations; basis for relationship satisfaction High comparison level: expect high rewards, low costs; more likely to be unsatisfied Low comparison level: expect high costs, low rewards; more likely to be satisfied |
|
|
Comparison Level for Alternatives (high vs low) |
expectations about possible costs/rewards in an alternative relationship High comparison level for alternatives: perceive high likelihood that they could replace the relationship with a better one; plenty of fish in the sea Low comparison level for alternatives: perceive a low likelihood that they could replace the relationship |
|
|
Equity Theory (overbenefitted vs underbenefitted) |
Relationships that are equitable (in terms of costs/benefits for each partner) are the happiest and most stable Overbenefitted: lots of rewards, no costs; little time or energy spent underbenefitted: few rewards, high costs; much time and energy |
|
|
Exchange Relationships |
primary concern: equity Typically new acquaintances view favors as a desire for equity; seek immediate repayment for favors |
|
|
Communal Relationships |
Primary concern: responsiveness to other's needs Typically family members, close friendships, long-term romantic relationships Favors: don't want repaid immediately or to feel exploited when favors aren't returned; don't keep track of who is contributing what |
|
|
Prosocial Behavior |
actions intended to benefit others EX: picking u dropped material, donating money to charities |
|
|
Evolutionary theory on prosocial behavior |
prosocial behavior comes from point of selfishness; it increases our chance at survival kin selection, norm reciprocity |
|
|
Kin Selection |
we are more inclined to help people we are related to than those we aren't part of evolutionary theory on prosocial behavior |
|
|
Norm Reciprocity |
more likely to survive if we have help from others; more likely to receive this help if we help others |
|
|
Theories on why we help |
Evolutionary (selfishness and survival; kin selection, norm of reciprocity) Social Exchange Theory (selfishness, costs and benefits) Empathy-Altruism (empathy leading to altruism) |
|
|
Social Exchange Theory |
self interest, like with evolutionary theory we weigh benefits and costs, maximizing personal rewards (feels good to help, get help in return) and minimize costs (inconvenience, possible threats) |
|
|
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis |
when we feel empathy for another person, we attempt to help that person purely for altruistic reasons regardless of gains |
|
|
Individual factors that predict helping |
gender, cultural, religious, mood, in-group vs out-group |
|
|
How does culture affect helping? |
people in cultures with greater emphasis on helping traits (simpatía) are more likely to perform prosocial behavior |
|
|
What situational factors affect helping? |
number of bystanders (bystander effect, diffusion of responsibility), state of emergency (ambiguity/informational social influence, pluralistic ignorance) |
|
|
Bystander Effect
|
less likely to help when in presence of others EX: When materials are dropped in front of full class, students will feel less responsible than if only one student and materials were dropped |
|
|
Diffusion of Responsibility |
assumption that someone else in group is helping EX: Chatroom asking for help; strong correlation between response time and number of people in group |
|
|
Pluralistic Ignorance |
Bystanders assume nothing is wrong in emergency situations because no one else looks concerned EX: movie with guy lying on ground |
|
|
5 Steps in deciding whether to help in an emergency |
1) noticing the event 2) interpreting it as an emergency 3) assuming responsibility 4) knowing how to help 5) deciding to actually help |
|
|
Overjustification Effect |
giving strong external reasons (requirements) for volunteering will make them underestimate their intrinsic reasons for volunteering feeling required to volunteer=less likely to want to volunteer |
