Behavior Tragedy of the commons individual and what s good for the group commons dilemma conflict between what s good for the o Over resources property environmental protection money o Motivated reasoning and self serving bias we are selfish but expect unselfish behavior from others do not see ourselves as selfish o Cooperation vs competition Free rider problems others take while others give I ll take while others give cost off of efforts of Prisoner s dilemma options that involve o Defect cooperate turning partner in and getting reduced jail time o Cooperate cooperate staying loyal and both are punished with same amount of less punishment o Cooperate defect staying loyal but other person turns you in so you get more time o Defect defect if both say you didn t do it then both get more time o We model other s selfish behavior Diner s dilemma expensive and everyone else buys something cheap which benefits you How to reduce selfish behavior split bill equally you buy something o Identifiability best achieved in small groups and with salient events less likely to act selfishly if we are not anonymous salient behaviors are more socially desirable punishments for being selfish o Establish top down norms o Promote positive role models o Operant conditioning rewards incentives for altruistic behavior and social influence Altruistic punishment sacrifice own resources to punish someone else in the group who is breaking the rules has positive effects get people to behave o Legality and culture Intragroup Phenomena behaviors within a group o Social loafing and resources that would be invested if they were doing it individually people slack off in group project relative to amount of energy Because of Diffusion of responsibility Free riding occurs if there is no definite division of labor Deindividuation loss of self awareness in group o Smoke filled room study complete survey individually or in group those in group take longer to notice smoke in the room and once they do notice they are less likely to respond to dangerous smoke if others do not power of the situation in an ambiguous scenario Bystander effect Pluralistic ignorance false public norm in group is endorsed publically but majority of people disagree with the norm actual enjoyment objective data is a lot lower than the subjective thoughts o Ex norms for drinking alcohol and casual sex o Social Facilitation vs Social Inhibition being around others influences our behaviors Even if not a direct part of activity task the mere exposure of being around people will either facilitate or inhibit behavior If task is easy and people feel confident in it will be influenced to increase performance when watched by others and vice versa performance moderate amount of arousal is ideal effect Social Impact Theory Arousal status x immediacy x number o Of audience Occurs in animal kingdom o Group Polarization extreme attitudes are reinforced Start out in group where everyone has commonly held attitudes Favored ideas increase and opposed ideas decrease Extra information reassures pre existing beliefs Normative and informative social influence will change attitude to fit into group more and be socially correct Feel the need to unify group members schematic assumption Power and Leadership o 1 Power is not made up of resources more intangible variables such as charisma Not money muscles or votes o 2 Machiavellians do not maintain power Machiavellian extreme not concerned with welfare of supporters will do whatever it takes to get to power and to serve self even if unethical Bottom up support from subordinates Politeness respect and honor help maintain position o 3 Power is not unidirectional People don t stay in power if they are unsuccessful o Traits of good leaders Competent Decisive good at skill knowledgeable firm vision of what they see as success can differ objectively from what will work best for group see the consistency and stability heuristic after mistake Consistent after decision even when they are wrong we would rather o Effects of power on leaders Power corrupts Stanford prison experiment power of the situation positions of power can cause more cruel and aggressive behaviors when given the opportunity Why power corrupts o Feels good to be socially accepted and promoted by peers o Changes relationships between people hierarchy o Alters attention to focus on rewards and punishment to manipulate behavior operant conditioning rather than creative thinking o Increase in automatic processing o Decrease in openness and critical thinking o Decrease in inhibitions and increase in approach behavior more willing to break rules o Altruism people value altruistic leaders but don t choose leaders based on altruism hope that they will end up being altruistic Look for social skills extraversion communication confidence as key Because of social prosocial heuristic of the halo effect think they re better in altruistic qualities based on predictors o Norm violators look highly on those that break social norm violations Impoliteness social dominance explicit rule breaking Rated better as potential leaders power corrupts and corruption predictors empowers Inter Group Behavior Stereotyping and Prejudice benefits of groups o Social Identity Theory Groups are formed because we have need for relatedness connectivity intimacy and bonding Groups help us create a self concept and identity that are necessary for well being stronger Define ourselves by groups but power of situation is still o Ex define yourself as UMD student at large conference but as major within class Groups provide social support protection and confidence Patriotism and in group pride buffer against negative social stigma and stress thrive if identify as part of community Fulfillment and meaning find self worth reference to others rather than just self via association with others basking in reflected glory Minimal group effects paradigms tendency to form groups is innate Like those in our group better Causes conflict between groups Bias in resource allocation give more to those in our own o Intergroup behavior group In group out group bias o Perceive those in in group similar to us and those in out group dissimilar o In group variance and out group homogeneity see those in in group as unique and diverse and those in out group as homogeneous and all the same Extension of attribution bias and reciprocity norms More likely to make internal attribution about out group and external attribution about in
View Full Document
Unlocking...