View
- Term
- Definition
- Both Sides
Study
- All (127)
Shortcut Show
Next
Prev
Flip
SOA 223: TEST 3
Join groups- innate need to join groups. Survival advantages exist when people are in groups
|
Important source of info - important part of our identity - establish social norms
Most groups have 2-6 members [university isn’t a group, too many students]
Members of a group tend to be alike in age, sex, beliefs, and opinions
|
Social norms- powerful determinant of our behavior – all societies have norms about which behavior are acceptable
|
The power of norms to shape behavior becomes clear
When we violate them too often: we are shunned by other group members and in extreme cases pressured to leave the group
|
Group-
|
two or more people who interact and care interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other
|
Join groups-
|
innate need to join groups.
|
Social Roles- shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave
|
Most groups have a number of well-defined social roles
Like social norms roles can be very helpful, because people know what to expect from each other
|
Social norms-
|
powerful determinant of our behavior – all societies have norms about which behavior are acceptable
|
Two potential costs to social roles are that
|
People can get so far into a role that their personal identities and personalities get lost
|
Ex. Group and prisoner experiment`- the roles were assigned as either a guard or prisoner by a flip of a coin. The students quickly assumed their assigned roles to such an extent that the researchers ended the experiment after only six days. Many of the guards became quite abusive, thinking of creative ways of verbally harassing & humiliating the prisoners. The prisoners become passive, helpless, & withdrawn.
|
People got so far into their roles that their personal identities & senses of decency somehow got lost
The roles we assume can shape our behavior in powerful &unexpected ways
There is a cost to acting inconsistently with the expectations associated with them
Role expectations are especially problematic when they are arbitrary or unfair
|
Social Roles-
|
shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave
|
Gender roles
|
As women’s role in the US become independent their ratings of assertiveness increased! – Roles that people assume in groups all-powerful determinants of their feelings
|
Ex. Group and prisoner experiment`-
|
the roles were assigned as either a guard or prisoner by a flip of a coin.
|
Group Cohesiveness- qualities of a group that bind members together & promote liking between members
|
If group forms for social reasons the more cohesive, the better. The more cohesive a group is the more members are likely to stay in the group. Doing well on a task causes a group to become more cohesive.
If task requires close corporation between members then cohesiveness causes the group to perform well – cohesiveness gets in the way it maintaining good members relations becomes more important than solutions
|
Social facilitation The presence of others can mean one of two things
|
Performing a task with co-workers who are doing the same thing you are or
Performing a task in front of an audience that is not doing anything but observing you.
|
Group Cohesiveness-
|
qualities of a group that bind members together & promote liking between members
|
Ex. with the cockroaches, the individual cockroaches performed the task faster when other roaches were there than when they were by themselves
|
*As long as the task is a relatively simple, well-learned one- as escaping a light for cockroaches—the more presence of others improves performance
When working on this more difficult task, the opposite pattern of results occurred: The roaches took longer to solve it when other roaches were present than when they were alone
|
Presence of others
|
Makes us more alert; we might need to response to them (or vigilance) it causes mild arousal.
We are concerned how other people are evaluating us.
|
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.
|
Evaluation apprehension- causes mild arousal. Not just presence of others but presence of those evaluating us.
|
Other people are distracting any source of disruption will put us in state of conflict because its difficult to pay attention to 2 things at the same time.
|
Evaluation apprehension-
|
causes mild arousal.
|
Robert Zajonc argument
|
First, the presence of others increases physiological arousal (our bodies become more energized) and second when such arousal exists, it is easier to do something that is simple but harder to do something complex or learn something new
|
Why do people form groups: - groups is how our ancestors made it, they had to work together as a team
|
There aren't many things we can do on our own, majority of things require a group
Provide information; social comparison-- people want to know where they stand, we want to eliminate ambiguity
Membership in groups defines us ex. Greek life
-Most groups are composed of people very similar to each other, because most groups are groups that we enter into voluntarily
|
Membership in groups defines us ex. Greek life
|
We wouldn’t go through the whole process of a sorority if we didn’t want to be involved in it
|
Ex. Military groups
|
We choose what groups we want to enter into
|
Why do people form groups: -
|
groups is how our ancestors made it, they had to work together as a team
|
Ex. In a fraternity it’s how we should be brothers -- you have their back while they have yours (norm of loyalty)
|
Apply to all members of the group
|
Roles- applies to individual members
|
Most groups have a leader, which has different roles than others in the group
|
Group cohesiveness
|
Feeling of oneness, one for all and all for one, totally supportive
Made up of members who highly respect each other
|
Group Processes
|
Influence in Social Groups
|
Norms
|
are rules of how we should behave
|
Roles |
applies to individual members
|
Social facilitation
|
Example cycling: people must be peddling faster when other people around rather when they were peddling alone
Therefore concluding that people will do better when others around than when there alone
|
Low cohesiveness-
|
a bunch of strangers put together
|
On simple compared tasks that people will do better when others are present, on more difficult or more complex tasks their performance would be grey when others were present
|
Depends on the nature of the task and how good we are at the task
|
Evaluation apprehension-- afraid of being judged
|
When other people are around we are concerned of how their evaluating us, which would change the way, we are performing, which will cause us to perform worse
|
- Working as a task in a group can actually reduce the amount of effort or productivity rather when doing it alone
|
- so it’s a myth when working in a group enhances productivity
-Working in a group causes a decrease in effort when the individual person isn't being monitored and just the group is being monitored -- it creates social loafing (its unintentional)
|
Evaluation apprehension--
|
afraid of being judged
|
Attention diversion
|
-if you are poor at doing a task, it has to attain all of your attention, so when others are present they divert your attention
|
-Example cycling
|
people must be peddling faster when other people around rather when they were peddling alone
|
Mere presence-
|
presence of someone with the same species, if you are in the room with a lot of people, which will increase arousal
|
Social Loafing less pronounced if challenging, involving tasks, group consist of friends, culture is collectivist (interdependent self), and individual contribution can be monitored
|
Bigger group more social loafing, smaller group, lesser social loafing
|
Working as a task in a group can actually reduce the amount of effort or productivity rather when doing it alone
|
-- so it’s a myth when working in a group enhances productivity
|
- Free riding
|
conscience reduction of effort because we feel like we can get away with it
Occurs primarily because of a reduction of evaluation apprehension
Eliminate social loafing all together if they believe their social effort is being monitored
|
Latane’s clapping & shouting study
|
during the study they were blindfolded & had noise shutting headphones & told some studies they were doing it alone while others they told as a group --- when they thought they were by themselves they clapped & shouted louder
|
Social Loafing less pronounced if
|
challenging, involving tasks, group consist of friends, culture is collectivist (interdependent self), and individual contribution can be monitored
|
Deindividuation- abandoning restraint & loss of sense of individual responsibility
|
Increased responsiveness to situational cues – loss of evaluation apprehension
Decreased accessibility & influence of personal values (diminished self-awareness)
Increased impulsivity/ decreased self-regulation (disinhibition)
Extraordinary psychology state where were essentially lose our identity, and...
Happens very rarely, takes extraordinary circumstances for it to happen anonymous
Moderating variables affecting deinidividuation
|
Free riding
|
- conscience reduction of effort because we feel like we can get away with it
|
Deindividuation-
|
abandoning restraint & loss of sense of individual responsibility
|
- Group size
|
Arousal and demised self-awareness
Anonymity
belief you cannot be individualized identified
|
Group size
|
- Arousal and demised self-awareness
|
-Anonymity
|
- belief you cannot be individualized identified
|
On Halloween regarding trick or treating-- the experimenter would ask some trick or theaters their names when they went to the door and sometimes they didn’t
|
-When asking their names or not and the experimenter left to answer the phone to see how much the kids actually took after expressing for them to only take one piece of candy
|
Results |
When kids were alone and identified hardly any took the candy, when they were alone and anonymous more took the candy
When they were identified in a group they took a small amount of candy however when they were anonymous in a group 60% took more than one piece of candy
|
Helen dilemma- she has a choice to quit her current job or write a novel -- what is the probability that Helen needs for success to recommend her to write the novel (the novel would give her more success and more money) by themselves they said she would need a 1-in-3 risk while in groups they said 1-in-2 risk; meaning that while in groups we can become more rational
|
--Depending on the relationship of the dilemma people can become more conserved or more risky
|
Helen dilemma-
|
she has a choice to quit her current job or write a novel -- what is the probability that Helen needs for success to recommend her to write the novel (the novel would give her more success and more money) by themselves they said she would need a 1-in-3 risk while in groups they said 1-in-2 risk; meaning that while in groups we can become more rational
|
Group polarization
|
- [tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members] interaction & discussion strengthens average inclination of group members
|
High & Low Prejudice Groups before and after Group Discussion (Myers & Bishop)
|
For people already high in prejudice when meeting people high in prejudice as well, their prejudice goes even higher while people who were low in prejudice when interacting with people also low in prejudice will go lower in prejudice –People go along with people who share their attitudes, we are attracted to similar others
|
After group interaction everyone has moved closer together (this is for more negative)
|
Interaction increases homogeneity, it brings people together not pulling them apart
|
Interpersonal influence --
|
group polarization, brings groups closer to the poll where they originally want them to be
|
Normative Influence (social comparison explanation
|
)
|
Informational Influence (persuasive arguments explanation)
|
In our desire to be accurate, we look to others as sources of information, and alter our attitudes accordingly
Group makes riskier decisions than individuals do
- Risky shift- individuals make less risky decisions and after discussing with a group they make riskier decisions. – It turns out that groups tend to make decisions that are more extreme in the same direction as the individual’s initial predispositions
|
Risky shift-
|
individuals make less risky decisions and after discussing with a group they make riskier decisions.
|
Social comparison
|
-people discuss an issue in a group they first check out how everyone else feels
|
Groupthink |
Suppressing dissent in the interest of group harmony that results in faulty decision-making
|
Persuasive arguments-
|
all individuals bring to the group a set of arguments, some of which other individuals have not considered, supporting their initial recommendation.
|
Posthog explanations (citied examples) no body predicts the outcomes until after it happened
|
These things turned out badly and after we know the outcome we conclude groupthink
|
Conformity-
|
going along with everyone else because you don’t want to be the one who goes against the plan
|
Causes of Groupthink
|
High group cohesiveness, especially based on interpersonal liking
Directive leadership -insularity of group
Lack of formal method and procedures for exploring alternatives and critically evaluating decisions
High stress -low expectation of finding suitable alternatives
|
Conviction of moral superiority
|
- cannot be wrong with the decision they have made
|
Cited examples
|
JFK’s “Bay of Pigs”, LBJ and the Vietnam escalation, Challenger launch
|
Mind guarding-
|
when someone has info suggesting that the course of action might be a problem and hide it
|
Normative influences
|
-conformity pressure -going along w/ the group is what everyone wants to do
|
Illusion of unanimity
|
no one is objecting than everyone must “agree”
|
Groupthink |
remains skeptical even if it occurs but if it does-- the leader should stay out of the group for groups of action
|
Preventing Groupthink
|
Leader refrains from endorsing and evaluating solutions --Permitting outside scrutiny and input
Encouraging dissent - appointing a devil’s advocate and increasing diversity of group
Exhaustively search alternatives and criticize preferred course of action -Prepare contingency plans
|
The great person theory states that certain key personality traits make a person a good leader, regardless of the situation.
|
However research indicates that personality traits are surprisingly unrelated to leadership. Simonton found that only family size, height, and # publications...
Presidents from smaller families were more successful, presidents who were taller were more effective, people with more # of publications predicted more...
It is not regarding specific personality traits but the personality characteristics that are geared to the situation
|
Minority influence
|
Persuasion thru informational influence (private acceptance) |
Majority influence
|
can influence minority through both normative & informational influence -- on a jury 10 people favor ejection and 2 are opposed--- the 2 people feel pressured to go along with the 10 -- 11-1 & you are the only one left u have a lot of pressure to go along with the rest -- because they have to come to a unanimous agreement
|
Fiedler’s (1967, 1978) contingency theory of leadership states that leadership effectiveness depends both on how task-oriented or relationship-oriented the leader is and on the amount of control and influence the leader has over the group.
|
Leadership style on most effective depends on the control, if it is low or high situation control task-oriented would do better, however if it is moderate...
Most leadership styles are a blend of both
Eagly and colleagues (1990) found that, consistent with the stereotype, women do tend to lead more democratically than men. Female leaders who use a...
|
Prosocial behavior-
|
acts performed with the goal of benefiting another person
|
Altruism- the desire to help another person even if it involves a cost to the helper.
|
Social Exchange Theory
to minimize costs and maximize rewards
|
Altruism-
|
the desire to help another person even if it involves a cost to the helper.
|
-Social Exchange Theory
|
- to minimize costs and maximize rewards
|
- The idea peoples feeling about a relationship depend on their perceptions of the regards & costs of the relationship, the kind of relationship they deserve, & their chances for having a better relationship w/ someone else
|
Reciprocity norm
the expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they...
Kin selection
the idea that behaviors that help a genetic relative are favored by natural...
People can increase the chances that their genes will be passed along not only...
In a study people reported that they would be more likely to help genetic...
|
-Reciprocity norm
|
- The idea peoples feeling about a relationship depend on their perceptions of the regards & costs of the relationship, the kind of relationship they deserve, & their chances for having a better relationship w/ someone else
|
-Kin selection
|
- the idea that behaviors that help a genetic relative are favored by natural selection
|
Social Norms
|
- the implicitly or explicitly rules a group as for the acceptable behaviors, values and beliefs of it members
|
Empathy-altruism hypothesis-
|
the idea that when we feel empathy for a person, we will attempt to help that person purely for altruistic reasons, regardless of what we have to gain
|
- Good moods increase helping for several reasons, including they make us see the good side of other people, making us more willing to help them. Bad moods increase helping because of the negative-state relief hypothesis [helping someone makes us feel good, lifting us out of the doldrums].
|
-Helping behavior more likely occurs in rural settings – because of the urban overload hypothesis- cities bombard people with so much stimulation that they keep to themselves to avoid being overwhelmed.
|
Bystander effect-
|
the finding that the greater the number of bystanders who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to help
|
Bystander effect- the finding that the greater the number of bystanders who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to help
|
The likelihood of a given individual helping is reduced in the presence of bystanders when
The situation is ambiguous -the bystanders are strangers - others reactions are difficult to interpret
The number of bystander’s increases
|
Affective State of Potential Helper
|
Guilt (McMillen & Austin’s “liars”)
Sadness or reduced SE = More helping (negative state relief hypothesis)
Positive affect = Increased helping (Isen et al.’s free gift + wrong number study)
Gender of Helped
Men help more than women do, in experimental studies -Chivalric vs. committed helping
|
Diffusion of Responsibility-
|
the feeling that other bystanders will take responsibility in an emergency
|
-Positive affect
|
Increased helping (Isen et al.’s free gift + wrong number study).
|
Batson argues that pure altruism is most likely to come into play when we experience empathy for the person in need; that is, we are able to experience events and emotions the way that person experiences them.
|
Women are more likely to be helped than men
If there is a similarity to potential helper than there is an increased likelihood of helping
|
Pluralistic Ignorance
|
the belief that if others are not responding, it must not be an emergency
|
Aggressive action-
|
is intentional behavior aimed at causing either physical or psychological harm in a conspecific
|
Hostile aggression-
|
is an act of aggression stemming from feelings of anger and aimed only at inflicting pain.
|
Instrumental aggression-
|
is aggression that serves as a means to some goal just that causing pain.
|
... |
Involves some other goal, aggression-doing harm is a means to an end--- not the purpose of the action itself, and it’s a purpose to get to another goal -- ex.
|
Aggressive action
|
- can be physical or psychological, spreading a horrible rumor or assaulting someone else is an aggressive because it’s attended to cause psychological harm or distress
|
Eros-
|
born with an instinct toward life, posited by Freud
|
Thanatos |
according to Freud, an instinctual drive toward death, leading to aggressive actions
|
Amygdala & Hypothalamus : Aggressive behaviors and expressions of hostility/anger/irritation, etc. are mediated by neural activity in these limbic system structures.
|
-Serotonin is a chemical in the brain that may inhibit aggressive...
Involved in mood states, especially aggression, minimizing...
-Testosterone is a male sex hormone associated with aggression.
Elevated T may be both a cause and an effect of aggressive behavior
-People who use anabolic steroids (act like testosterone) one of...
Robert Sapolsky’s -- that level of testosterone was correlated...
Level of testosterone is the level of cause and effect of...
|
& |
Hypothalamus : Aggressive behaviors and expressions of hostility/anger/irritation, etc.
|
How does the desire to destroy to kill us go towards killing others
|
--- Ego, the ego redirects the disruptive impulse to others, we all have a drive to aggress and cause harm to others
|
Amygdala & Hypothalamus
|
Aggressive behaviors and expressions of hostility/anger/irritation, etc
|
-People who use anabolic steroids (act like testosterone) one of the side effects is a change in mood and personality -- specifically people become more hostile and aggressive
|
Professional athletes have higher levels of circulating testosterone in their blood, causing more aggression
|
Robert Sapolsky’s -- that level of testosterone was correlated with levels of higher hierarchy -- people on higher hierarchy had higher levels of circulating testosterone and the opposite for people with lower, have lower levels or circulating testosterone
|
Taking a baboon where in a original troop on a low level and putting him into another group where he was higher in hierarchy caused his level of circulating testosterone to increase
|
Aggression in a different way, instead of physical use it as relational [things regarding rumors, embarrassing factors, intentionally doing harms to others]
|
Subjects are people who are asked to rate boys and girls based on different set of criteria’s one group was told to rate...
In overt 16% boys and 2% girls for aggression
In relational 17-18% girls and only 4% boys for aggression
Boys are girls aren’t different in aggression their different in how they enact with the aggression
|
Robert Sapolsky’s --
|
that level of testosterone was correlated with levels of higher hierarchy -- people on higher hierarchy had higher levels of circulating testosterone and the opposite for people with lower, have lower levels or circulating testosterone
|
Aggression: innate instinct or learned social custom
|
Even in the most aggression-prone species, aggression is an optional strategy determined by previous social experiences...
Instincts occur when stimulus triggers a behavior carried there to the end
People can choose when to act aggressively, they can inhibit their aggressive impulses, and past experiences can...
If a particular behavior is consistent across culture, it’s usually rooted in natural selection on its instinct but if a...
|
Pain and discomfort as causes of aggression
|
Both animal & human studies show that pain will increase the probability that an organism will aggress.
Other forms of bodily or psychological discomfort (insults, crowding, heat, offensive odors) May also act to lower the threshold for aggressive behaviors.
|
Frustration Unpleasant affected state that is brought out when we are prevented or blocked from achieving a goal
|
Frustration usually always leads to aggressive –-The source of aggression is always frustration
|
- Egoistic deprivation- when I feel deprived, feel that I am getting less than what I should be getting, or I feel as if it’s unfair
|
Fraternal deprivation
isn't that I have been deprived but my in-group, seem like they have been deprived [example Al sharpen regarding blacks being discriminated and deprived still]
|
Frustration
|
Unpleasant affected state that is brought out when we are prevented or blocked from achieving a goal
|
Egoistic deprivation-
|
when I feel deprived, feel that I am getting less than what I should be getting, or I feel as if it’s unfair
|
People usually feel the need to reciprocate after they are provoked by aggressive behavior from another person. -People respond w/ parity, if they perceive that the act was aggressive they will respond back w/ an act of aggression
|
When something happens we have to infer what the person’s motives were -Whether it was done intentionally or not
If we feel as if it was intention then we would proceed in aggression compared to if we feel as if it was accidental when we would proceed in more kindness
|
-Fraternal deprivation
|
- isn't that I have been deprived but my in-group, seem like they have been deprived [example Al sharpen regarding blacks being discriminated and deprived still]
|
Social-cognitive learning theory ,
|
e., that we acquire social behaviors (e.g., aggression) by observing others, and the...
Designed to explain aggressive behaviors and any other behavior pattern by children
People acquire their behaviors through the process of shaping
Little kids had a huge aspect of behaviors that all couldn’t come through shaping, they learned...
Aggressive behaviors-- children acquire novel acts of behavior through observation
|
Novel aggressive remarks- things kids don’t spontaneously say until they mimic an adult model
|
Watching what happens to an adult model is going to have an affect on the children's behavior [whether praised or punished]
|
What we know about the world doesn’t necessarily always come from our direct experience however from other places, in this video symbolic media
|
Kids are exposed to a great deal or violence through symbolic media
|
After the experiment they were given the option to give out shock and the question is how much shock will they give out to the confederate
|
Those exposed to violent TV are more likely to increase their violence of aggressive and increase the intensity of shock...
People who are exposed to violent TV feel very little arousal when giving shock to the confederates while people in the...
-Concluding 1 of the reasons people will do more violence because they feel less arousal when doing so, they become less...
-For children, harsh punishment provides a model of aggression and does not prevent a child from engaging in the...
|
Control group
|
- viewed several hours of nonviolent TV Or other group who watched violent TV
|
The threat of mild punishment , swiftly administered, does seem more effective, consistent with principles of cognitive dissonance, self-perception, and self-justification.
|
Threats of mild behavior work better in the long run than threats of serious behavior
-It is adequate you get cognitive dissonance and a change, to change the behavior to match the behavior -- I don’t want to act violently
|
Catharsis |
-idea that it builds up inside us and if its not discharged we will blow and snap and commit a crazy act --- however this is false, instead the results showed the opposite – study of football players and interviewed them during the season and after, if catharsis is true they should decline their hostility over the course of the season—however the feelings of hostility increased significantly
|
Example was students were told to write an essay and a person “graded” their essay but the study was that they were all told it was the worst essay ever
|
Some were told they could vent by punching the bag while others were told to just sit there -- after that period they could take revenge on the grader & give...
When people let out their action is actually usually a counter behavior action
- if we act in a violent aggressive way, we change our attitude to match our behavior, most likely acting angrier in the future
|
Example |
was students were told to write an essay and a person “graded” their essay but the study was that they were all told it was the worst essay ever
|