Chapter 8- Group processes social psych

intergroup conflict

conflict that occurs between two or more groups

Robber's cave

Experiment where boys, 11-12, were put into two groups at a summer camp and pitted against each other

Minimal intergroup situation studies

Tajfel brought people who didn't know each other and randomly put them in a group and studied if they showed ingroup bias even though you had no reason to care about your group

realistic group conflict theory

competition for resources, you feel the competition (robbers cave)

relative deprivation

thinking of yourself as a part of the group that is competing

How is relative deprivation split

1. egotistic deprivation

2. fraternal deprivation

egotistic deprivation

you feel that you are directly impacted because of your group membership

fraternity deprivation

whether you think your group is generally more disadvantaged

T/F You can have egotistic without fraternal, vice versa, or both at the same time

true

universal outgroup schema

You have a universal suspicion of outgroups (they are a SPY! Scary...)

identity and individual resources

My group vs yours

social dominance orientation

how much someone cares about maintaining their groups hierarchy

right wing authoritatianism

people who believe you are supposed to listen to authority and anyone who challenges authority (or the status quo) is wrong >:(

Why does right wing authoritarianism feel threatened

Because their values are being challenged

system justification

Justifying why our group has something and another group doesn't so we don't feel bad, the stronger this is the more upset someone is towards change

Integrated threat theory

there are many things that trigger conflict and make you feel threatened

ingroup love vs outgroup hate

if you have the option between benefiting your ingroup or harming an outgroup, you will typically pick benefiting your ingroup

contact hypothesis

under certain conditions, direct contact between members of rival groups will reduce ingroup prejudice

What conditions are needed for contact hypotheis?

Contact must be interpersonal

both groups must be equal

supportive social norms*

equal amounts in the groups**

*supportive social norms

if someone goes back to their ingroup and says "hey this outgroup isn't that bad" the ingroup will either listen or reject

**equal amounts in the group

their interaction was individual so they feel better about the change

imagine contact

imagine your contact with the outgroup going positively

GIRT

Graduated and reciprocated initiative tension

T/F GRIT typically wokrs

true

deterrence

build up your ability to retaliate so the other side is too scared to attack

T/F deterrence also works

false

Intragroup

what happens within the group, how you function with others

T/F groups have to be at least 3 people

true

norms

what you THINK the group finds acceptable

entitativity

a collection of people are seen as a single coherent thing

Factors influencing entitativity

shared goals and common fate

perceived similarity

importance- do you care

degree of interaction

proximity- closer=group

permeability/ duration- how often do members change

dyads

2 people (too small)

multiteam systems

alliances of separate groups (too big)

group development

groups starting from scratch

Tuckman's stage theory

1. forming- sizing everyone up

2. storming- conflict stage, who will have what roles

3. norming- everyone reconciles

4. performing- doing what the group is supposed to do

5. adjourning - dealing with the end of a group

1. forming

sizing everyone up

Gersicks punctuated equilibrium theory

Phase 1- 40-50% (forming)

transition- 5-10% (storming, rapid planning)

phase 2- most of remaining lifespan (norming and mostly performing)

completion- last 10-20% (doesn't always happen, dash to get things done)

T/F Gersicks theory defines development in time

true

2. storming

conflict stage, who will have what roles

3. norming

everyone reconsiles

4. performing

doing what the group is supposed to do

5. adjourning

dealing with the end of a group

T/F Tuckman's stage theory is in terms of behavior

true

socialization

joining an existing group

assimilation

the group makes you apart of them

accomidation

the group changes for the newcomer

Factors for influencing balance

relative prestige- is it hard to get into a group where the newcomer wont have much influence or when the newcomer comes the group status increases

number of newcomer- higher numbers, less impact

group cohesion- how much the members like the group

isolation/ isolation/ encapsulation

isolating the newcomers and surrounding them with long time members

infiltration/ building idiosyncrasy

pretending to be apart of the group then acting out

initiations and training (fraternity effect)

the harder it is to get in the more people get committed to liking it

conformity

acting in a way not because you believe in it but because its what is accepted

informative social influence

using options of other as information

normative social influence

going along with the belief in public but not believing it in public

T/F conformity = normative

true

factors of influencing conformity

type of task- easier to conform if the task is more difficult

group size- bigger= stronger conformity pressure

cohesion- how much you like the group, how much it would hurt if you were kicked out

culture

pressure of united or fellow deviates***

***united front

you against the whole group

***fellow deviates

someone in the group is also fighting with you

obedience

going along with someone who has some sort of power/ authority

factors influencing obedience

responsibility- if the authority figure takes responsibility

proximity to authority figure (or victim)

presence of fellow rebels (deviant)- if one person rebels, other are more likely to rebel

majority influence

can provide information and NORMATIVE influence

convergent thinking- people take opinions as true

better at compliance (changing behavior)

Minority influence

can only apply INFORMATIONAL

divergent thinking- you dont just look at the opinion but also other alternatives

more influence of demonstrability (central route persuasion)

better at conversion (changing attitude)

T/F conformity is talking about a big group of people

False, its talking about a small group

T/F obedience is just the leader

true

T/F factions are 50/50

false more 60/40 , 30/70

social facilitation

having others around enhance the default response

T/F you'll do better at things youre good at with an audience

true, same vice versa

Mere presence

having others around increases physiological arousal, which increases the dominant response

evaluation apprehension

you have to be worried about how others will think of you, which triggers arousal and reinforces dominant response

distraction conflict theory

people are distracting, conflicts your attention, creates arousal which reinforces dominant response

T/F loafing is easier than motivational gains

true

T/F motivation = performance

false

T/F putting in too much effort can damage performance

true

T/F facilitation has no impact on performance

false, facilitation has a DIRECT impact on performance

T/F loafing is more focused on performance

true

Diendividuation

people tend to be more extreme in groups than alone, loss of a sense of self

Social identity theory of diendividuation effects (SIDE)

deindividuation isn't losing your morals is changing your norms to who you're around

factors that influence deindividuation

anonymity of group

accountability

situational norm

crowd size

public self-awareness

additive task type

the best your group does as each individual's performance

disjunctive task type

whoever the strongest member is defines the group

Conjunctive task type

weakest member defines the groups

complementary (divisible) task type

task involves enough different areas that it can be divided by each member's strength

demonstrability

the extent to which one answer is better than others

T/F People have to be observing for facillitaion

false, someone can be blindfolded and deaf and you will still facilitate

social loafing

you dont try as hard when you are in a group than when you are alone

kohler effect

weakest member tries harder because they don't want to let everyone down

social compensation

stronger members try harder to compensate for the weakest link

factors influencing loafing

identifiability & evaluability- you can see what people did and its impact

accountability

importance of the task- how much you care about succeeding

relevance / dispensability- how much your effort will effect the outcome

group size- larger groups=more loafing

group norms- if the norm is to try, you will try

group cohesion- how much you like the the group

Deivdividuation

people tend to act more extreme in groups rather than alone

social identity theory of deindividuation effects (SIDE)

you conform to the extreme group

Still learning (13)

You've started learning these terms. Keep it up!