Social Psych Exam 4 (Ch. 9 & 11)

UVA

group

two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other

social norms

which behaviors are acceptable for groups in a society

shared expectations about how particular individuals are supposed to behave within a larger group or society

group cohesiveness

qualities of a group that bind members together

group diversity

members of a group tend to have similar demographics; however, diverse groups often perform better at certain tasks

social facilitation

when people are in the presence of others and CAN be evaluated, they do BETTER on simple tasks and WORSE on complex tasks

Zajonc, 1969

found that cockroaches escaped light faster (simple task) when they were observed by other cockroaches

evaluation apprehension

concern about how others are evaluating us

why does the presence of others lead to arousal in social situations?

1) presence of others makes us more alert

2) people have evaluation apprehension

3) other people can be distracting

social loafing

when people are in the presence of others and CANNOT be evaluated, people do WORSE at simple tasks and BETTER at complex tasks

Ringelmann, 1913

found that people pulled on a rope less (simple task) in a group of 8 then they did individually, because rope pulling is not able to be evaluated individually

deindividuation

loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people are anonymous (aka “mob mentality”); causes lower individual accountability and more obedience to group norms (rather than individual beliefs)

process loss

any aspect of group interaction that prevents good problem solving from happening; often because groups fail to share unique information

transactive memory

when the combined memory of a group is more efficient than the memory of individual members; happens when different parts of tasks are delegated

groupthink

style of thinking that prioritizes group cohesiveness over factual accuracy

how do we mitigate groupthink?

1) remain impartial

2) seek outside opinion

3) create subgroups

4) seek anonymous opinions

group polarization

groups will make decisions more extreme than their initial inclination (if one person was cautious, group will be even more cautious and vice versa)

persuasive arguments interpretation

group polarization happens because all group members have different persuasive arguments that lead to the same conclusion

social comparison interpretation

group members analyze the group’s values and take a position that is similar but even more extreme than others – so that they can be seen as a “good” group member

great person theory

theory that certain key personality trats make someone a good leader, regardless of the situation (this is not quite the reality, personality has little to do with leadership quality)

transactional leaders

set clear short term goals and reward those who meet them

transformational leaders

inspire others to focus on common long term goals

contingency theory of leadership

theory that the effectiveness of leadership depends on

1) their leadership style (task-oriented or relationship-oriented) and

2) the amount of control leader has over a group

task-oriented leaders

more concerned with task completion than group satisfaction; they perfom well in very low or very high control situations

relationship oriented leaders

concerned with workers feelings and relationships; they perfom well in moderate-control situations

gender differences in leadership roles

men have more leadership roles because they are associated with agentic traits (assertive, controlling, dominant) and women are associated with communal traits (sharing, kindness)

social dilemma

conflict where the most beneficial action for an individual is not beneficial to everyone (when chosen by most people)

Liberman, 2004

found that subtly changing behavior norms by renaming game from “wall street game” to “community game” led to more cooperation

tit-for-tat strategy

encourages cooperation by first acting cooperatively, but then responding the same way your opponent did previously (either cooperative or competitive); ex. arms race with another country

Deustch and Krauss, 1960

found that threats are not effective in reducing conflict by conducting an experiment where trucks had to cooperate over a one lane road; groups without a gate made more money than groups with a gate, because gate closure was used as a threat

negotiation

form of communication between opposing sides where offers and counteroffers are made until a mutual agreement is reached

integrative solution

outcome to a conflict where parties make trade-offs based on what is important/unimportant to them; often very difficult if there is a lack of trust or bias when viewing other party’s proposal

prosocial behavior

any act done with the goal of benefitting another person

altruism

the desire to help another person even if it costs the helper; not concerned with self-interest

kin selection

idea that natural selection favors those who help their own genetic relatives

norm of reciprocity

idea that if you help someone, there is an increased likelihood that they will help you to some degree (based on self-interest)

group selection

idea that natural selection favors entire groups that have altruistic traits that make them more likely to survive as a society

social exchange theory

idea that people will only help when the benefits of helping outweighs the costs

empathy

putting ourselves in the shoes of others to understand events and emotions from their perspective

empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson)

when we feel empathy for another person, we will attempt to help them for purely altruistic reasons, regardless of what we have to gain

Toi and Batson (1982)

found that in high empathy situation, people always choose to help, but in low empathy situations, people defer to social exchange theory and only help if the benefits outweigh the costs. study about carol asking for help after being in an accident and falling behind in class

three basic motives of prosocial behavior

1) evolutionary psychology: helping is an instictive reaction to protect our kin

2) social exchange theory: rewards of helping outweigh the costs

3) empathy-altruism hypothesis: powerful feelings of empathy cause selflessness

altruistic personality

qualities that cause an individual to help others

gender differences in prosocial behavior

women are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior across cultures

in-group

group that someone identifies with. people help those from their in-group because it is easy to feel empathy towards them

out-group

group someone does not identify with. people help those from an out-group only when the outgroup is relevant to their lives in some way

cultural differences in prosocial behavior

cultures/socieities that value things like empathy are more likely to help strangers

in-group favoritism

people are more likely to help those within their in-group (i.e. religious people are very likely to help others as long as they identify with the same religious beliefs)

feel good, do good

when people are in a good mood, they are more likely to help (Isen and Levin, 1972)

feel bad, do bad

when people are in a bad mood because they feel guilty, they do good things to feel better

urban overload hypothesis (Milgram)

if you put urban dwellers in a calmer, less stimulating environment, they would help the same as anyone else (implies that willingness to help is less about personality and more about environment)

bystander effect

the greater the number of bystanders witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to help the victim or interpret the situation as an emergency

Darley and Batson, 1973

found that situational factors (like how much of a hurry someone was in) was a better predictor for noticing and helping a victim than personality factors (how kind/religious they are). study where seminary students help coughing man

pluralistic ignorance

when people think everyone else is interpreting a situation in a certain way (everyone is calm), when in reality they are not (everyone is actually freaking out)

Latane and Darley, 1970

people were more likely to interpret smoke filling the room as dangerous by themselves than when many people were all in the same room

diffusion of responsibility

as the number of bystanders increases, their sense of responsibility to help decreases

overjustification effect

people see their behavior as caused by extrinsic factors, making them underestimate how much their behavior is caused by internal reasons

how do we increase helping?

when people are more aware of the barriers to helping in an emergency, they can overcome those barriers (ex. bystander intervention training)