Social Test 3 CH 9-13 ( Group Processes, Attraction and relationships, prosocial behavior, agression, prejudice

Group

2 or more ppl that interact and are interdependent as their needs and goals cause them to influence each other

why do we join groups

seen from evolution, gathering food was better in groups

define who we are, strong need to belong to social group, feel distinctive from those that dont belong

factors that effect how ppl behave in groups and how groups function

social norms-which behaviors are acceptable, how all members should act

social roles-shared expectations in a group about behavior, how ppl in certain poisons should act. being too dedicated can lead to unethical behavior. how we construe the roles can lead to ethical or unethical

group cohesiveness-qualities of a group that bind members together and create liking between them (hanging with a group that u are close to rather than strangers) this usually is beneficial to performance, but if keeping a good relationship w/a member is more important than solving an issue, it can ruin performance

group diversity: members of a group tend to be alike. we may enjoy a group with similar others but we perform best with diversity

how a group effects individual performance

social facilitation: performing a simple task that is well learned better when others are watching, but perform worse on complex tasks—why does this happen?

arousal and the dominant response: the precense of others increases physiological arousal, which makes something we are good at easier to perform, but harder to do something complex.

why does the presence of other cause arousal

other ppl cause us to become alert (they will do something that requires our response), nervous abt how we are being evaluated (evaluation apprehension-not just ppl there but ppl there judging us=social facilitation), distracting us from the task (other distractions like noises, lights, etc, causes same kinds of social facilitation effects as other peeps)

social loafing

relaxing in the precense of others. when performance is not evaluated, the tendency to do worse on simple tasks but better at complex tasks

stronger in men than women and stronger in western culture, we are more likely to loaf in a diverse group because we bond with similar others but expect to cooperate less with different ppl

deindividuation

being in a group can cause this. loosing of normal constraints on behavior when ppl can’t be identified

aka-getting lost in a crowd can lead us can cause us to do things we would never dream of doing ourselves—the bigger the group and the more hidden ur identity, the more likely to do horrendous acts

effects of deindividuation

makes us feel less accountable: reduced likelihood that they will be singled out and blamed. we must speak to each person individually and put personal responsibility to dissemble the group.

increases obedience to group norms: more likely to act according to group rather than societal norms when deindividuated. can lead to pos or neg behavior

deindividuation also works even best online because its anonymous, to stop from bad comments, its best to tell a child their parent will read it, not that the comments will hurt someone else, this is because of influential norms

2 heads better than one

we usually have biases but being in a group helps us to make better decisions, but this is not always the case

when do group interactions inhibit good problem solving (process loss)

process loss: any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving

1. failure to share unique info: more like to talk about info they collectively share rather than things known to only some members

2. groupthink: is a decision process where maintaining group cohesiveness is more important than the facts

3. Self censorship: ppl decide to not voice their contrary opinions

transactive memory

combined memory of a group is more efficient than memory of the individual members

making groupthink less likely

remain impartial, seek outside opinions, create subgroups, seek anaoymous opinions

group polarization and why does it happen

groups tend to make decisions that are more extreme in the same direction as the initial predispositions of its members (we're usually unaware of this polarization)

happens:

persuasive arguments

social comparison: check to see if the rest of the group feels abt something

what makes someone a great leader, there is a theory

great person theory: certain key personality like (charisma, confidence, or intelligence) traits make a person a good leader regardless of the situation

leadership may not have specific personalities but they have specific kinds of leadership

2 types of leaders

transactional leaders: leaders set clear, short term goals and reward those that meet them

transformational leaders: leaders who inspire followers to focus on common, long-term goals

leadership needs to focus on characteristics, followers, and situation. this si the contingency theory of leadership.

leadship effectivness depends on how task or relationship oriented the leader is and the amount of control the leader has over the group

2 orientations for leaders

task-oriented: concerned with getting the job done that with workers feelings and relationships (high and low control situations)

relationship-oriented: concerted more with workers feelings and relationships (moderate control situations)

gender and leadership

its getting better for women to become leaders but still not there yet. why? good traits of leaders are seen as being controlling and dominate. women are also seen at better solving relational issues so they are put in situation with crisis where it is more likely to fail. men are usually put into situations where its already running smoothy.

groups are now becoming more diverse because we value diff traits

a reason we have conflict alot is because usually whats best for us may not be best for the entire group. the Panera experiment where ppl payed what they only could afford led to a social dilemma…

a conflict where if the most beneficial action for an individual is chosen by most ppl, it has harmful effects for everyone

the prisoners dilemma, what is it and how can we increase cooperation with it

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a game where two people must choose to work together or betray each other. If both work together, they get a good outcome. If one betrays while the other stays loyal, the betrayer wins big, and the other loses. If both betray, they both lose. It shows how selfish choices can lead to worse results.

playing the game with a partner u believe u will interact with in the future

changing the name of the game

priming like showing Chinese symbols lead to more cooperation while showing American flag lead to more competitiveness

another way to encourage cooperation is tit-for-tat strategy

encourages cooperation by first acting cooperatively but then always responding how ur opponent did on the previous trial (whether competitively or cooperatively)

makes more likely other person will cooperate because it shows ur willing to but u wont be exploited

lastly, allowing__instead of opposing groups to resolve conflict, why

individuals

because groups are known to lead to deindividuation. polarization, etc, so one person allows for a better communication and negotiation

do threats resolve conflict?

alot of teachers or parents use threats like detention but it is not an effective means of reducing conflict

negotiation

form of communication where opposing sides in a conflict offers and counteroffers are made and a solution occurs when both parties agree

integrative solution

solution to a conflict where the parties make trade-offs on issues that don’t matter much to them but are important to the other side.

its found that old style communication like face to face and having a mediatior is better for solving conflict

chapter 10-attraction and relationships

fun fact: opposites dont attract, its usually people with similarity

propinquity effect

the more we see and interact with ppl the more likely we are to be their friend—not just physical distance but also functional distance like how a building was designed indicating whether u will cross paths or not, this works because of the mere exposure effect

mere exposure effect

the more we are exposed to a stimulus the more likely we will like it, makes sense that close friends made in college because of the prop effect

we are more likely to be friends with those that have same opinions or personality or beliefs and also, same experiences. meaning, if u sign up to take yoga, those other ppl also signed up for that—putting ourselves in social situations for similar reasons that others have. what is actual vs perceived similarity/

how much similarity there actually is vs what beliefs we create about how similar we are to(this is important in committed relationships rather than flings)

appearance

we are more likely to become friends with, sit closer to, sit next to, and ask out people that look like us/similar in attractiveness, also more likely to match ourselves to ppl with similar popularity status

how genetics are affected

our DNA with our close friends end up being so similar its like we have eh same great great great grandparent. this happens because our predispositions to things like athletic build makes us more likely to choose similar activities

reciprocal liking

liking can make up for the absence of similarity, even knowing someone likes you increases ur liking towards them. knowing someone is interested in us disrupts our natural tendency to look at other attractive ppl. its Juan.

Playing hard to get can backfire because we like to know we are liked. it may increase how much a person wants you but not how much they like you.

physical attraction overrides other aspects, by both gender but more so male

what is attractive

the media tells us, but also what we find attractive is actually similar across cultures, we like symmetry suggested by evolution because indicates healthy and fit

composite faces are often found more attractive rather than the faces used to create them

higher attractive can be not nice—babies that are seen as more attractive are more taken care of in the hospital, people are higher paid, and students receive better evaluations, also better relationships because better soical skills because got more attention when younger

halo effect

cog bias—we assume that when an individual has one pos characteristic (like attractive) they also possess other pos characteristics (even unrelated)

even across cultures

it is seen in evolutionary psych that women more carefully choose a mate because they find success in the maturity of their offspring (aka seeking men with economic and career success) whereas males find success in the number, so they will seek more mates to increase that amount (looking for a woman who appears capable aka attractive), but when women were tested to be the approachers (aka they went up to the man) they had same traits that men did because being approached instead makes u feel more in demand and control, so its not just nature but nurture

how technology effects social connection

even the mere precense of a phone that isn t yours causes feelings of being disconnected and lower ratings of empathy and connectedness

pitfalls of online dating

does not actually succeed in compatibly

profiles not accurate

who’s fake: fakers are less likely to use I or me, s;so write things negatively, less words

3 types of love

companionate —feelings of intimacy and affection for someone w/o passion and physicological arousal

passionate- intense longing for a person w/physiological arousal

romantic—combining both companionate and passionate

Robert Sternberg

triangular theory of love, intimacy: feeling close and connected, passion: physical attraction and sex, commitment

attachment styles is defined as

expectations that ppl have abt relationships based on the realtionships they had with primary caregivers

3 types of attachment styles and want they mean—draws on research from John Bowlby

secure —trust, not concerned with abandonment, feeling worthy and well liked, baby cry when mom leave but better when mom back

avoidant —difficulty developing intimate relationships due to previous attempts being rejected, baby dont react when mom leave and suppress desire to be close to parent

anxious/ambivalent—concerned that others will not reciprocate one’s desire for intimacy, resulting in high levels of anxiety, cry when mom leave and keep crying when mom come back

creates schemas for what all our relationships will be like

alot of times we think we are in love but really its just__

physiological arousal

falling in love activates the same part of the brain that cocaine and eating chocolate , gambling do, so love really does feel like a drug. which part of brain is this?

VTA ventral tegmental area—dopamine rich, determined by fMRI

social exchange theory

ppls feelings abt a relationship depend on their perceptions of its costs and rewards, the kind of relationship they deserve, and their chances of having a better relationship with others

how satisfied u r with ur relationship also depends on comparison level

ppls expectations abt the level of costs and reward they are likely to receive in their relationship

low comparison ur happy in a real because u expect it to be difficulty and costly, high comparison ur unhappy in same relationship because u expect ti to have few costs. this is from our history of relationships with others

it also depends on comparison level for alternatives

ppls expectations abt the level of costs and rewards they would receive in alternative relationships

high comparison, more likely to leave, low comparison, more likely to stay

alot of ppl stay even when they know there are better alternatives. why and what does it mean?

because of the investment model

ppls commitment to relationship depends on their satisfaction AND how much they have invested in the relationship that would be lost by ending t

social theory has been critiqued for ignoring fairness in a relationship which is the equity theory, which is what? these are called exchange relationships

ppl are most happy with relationships where the costs and rewards are equal for both parties

Close family relationships are usually communal relationships

relationships where the primary concern for each person is being responsive to the other persons needs

one of best predictors of a breakup

investment and satisfaction plays a big role in detereming whether ur friends or not after, other reproach shows that staying in contact with an ex or even scrolling their social media can be distressing and make the breakup more challenging

how they deal with conflict and show signs of contempt, sarcasm, criticism

4 stages to dissolving a relationship

1. intrapersonal, thinks about dissatisfaction within relationship

2. dyadic, break up

3. social, tells others

4. moving on

4 types of behavior that occur in troubled relationships (destructive and constructive) the destructive ones harm the relationship more than the constructive help it. if one person acts D but the other person acts C the relationship will continue, but if both act D it will end ALSO partners who overbenefit in a relationship and partners who underbenefit are likely to feel dissatisfied with their relationships

harming the relationship (abuse, threats to leave) and allowing relationship to deteriorate (dont deal with problems, ignoring partner)

trying to improve relationship (discuss problems, make change) and remaining loyal to the relationship (supportive, optimism, waiting for it to improve)

Chapter 11-prosocial behavior

prosocial behavior

any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person, can be selfish, to get something in return possibly

altruism

desire to help another person even if It involves a cost to the helper, pure agape

kin selection (evo way to explain altruism)

the idea that behaviors that help a genetic relative are favored by natural selection—not limited to gender or culture, more likely to help family

connection between genes and helping in evolutionary psych. genes will be passed along by having children (own survival) but also their family having children (others survival)

norm of reciprocity (evo way to explain altruism)

also group selection!!! thought that groups that value altruism=more likely to survive

expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood they will help us in the future

social exchange: costs and rewards of helping

they will help us if we help them. ppl are aroused and disturbed when others ned help and they help in part to relive their own distrress. we also gain social approval and increased self worth. Negatives?: if costs are high we less likely to help. social exvchange theory says true altruism doesnt exist and only when the benefits outweigh the cost

Daniel Batson argues that some ppl truly do just help out of goodness. empathy says if u feel it, u will help, regardless. its defined as putting urself in someone else’s shoes and experiencing the event/emotions they way they are experiencing them. what is empathy-altrusim hypothesis

when we feel empathy we will attempt to help that person for altruistic reasons, regardless of what we gain

when empathy is high, we help despite any costs whether low or not (carol needs help and she disabled, u will see her everyday and be reminded u didn’t help her vs u won’t see her ever, results for helping her were same when both groups had empathy) but when empathy is low, the social exchange comes into play (now the group that would never see her chose not to help when not primed with putting themselves in her shoes or empathy) . so can we every truly do it out of selfless reasons. it depends how u define it,. if its just tangible items or praise then yes we can help without this interest, but if selfish also includes relief abt helping or just feeling good abt ur self then honestly no we can’t be altruistic

altruistic personality and will these ppl always help?

qualities that cause individuals to help others in a variety of situations. its not just abt persoanlity to predict whether u will help or not but also ur mood, environment, religion, etc

gender and helping

gender effects the types of help u do and the way u do it. women = more Likely to volunteer , risking their lives = men, cross culture is same

helping in vs out group

ppl often favor their in groups, but they also help outgroups, both for diff reasons: empathy for members of in groups, when they become relevant for out groups aka something in it for us

cultures that value simpatía (friendly, polite, good-natured, etc) are more likely to help strangers, also ppl who are religious are more likely to help if the person in need shares their same beliefs, but are no More helpful than non religious ppl towards out groups +may increase hostility

effects of mood and environment on prosocial behavior

feeling happier = more likely to help, when sad = this can also increase helping behavior because we are motivated to do activities that make us feel better, and when we feel guilty we will help more (ppl more likely to donate before going to confession than after). environment: ppl in small towns more likely to help than city nc they internalize altruistic values. but If city ppl are put into calmer situations with less stimuli they are just as likely to help.

urban overload hypothesis

Theory that ppl living in cities are constantly overloaded with stimulation and that they keep to themselves to avoid being overwhelmed by it

living In the town u grew up in also increases helping behavior, why

because ur attached to the community, interdepenence, wanting to keep reputation among community

how number of bystanders effect. greater number of bystanders = less likely to help. What is the bystander effect

the greater the number of bystanders who witness an emergency, the less likely any of them will help

what determines whether u will notice an event or not

John darley and Daniel batson did an experiment similar to the Good Samaritan. even something as simple as being in a rush can cause us to not notice an event, even if very religious or gave a speech abt he Good Samaritan, it did nothing to make them help more

in an intense emergency where its obv an emergency like a car crash the number of bystanders don matter, but when we dont know where that scream came from or if it was good or bad that number does matter: greater number of ppl that see an emergency, they less likely they are to know its an emergency. why does this happen?

we look to other in ambiguous situations and they may look not concerned but really its only cuz u dont: pluralistic ignorance: case in which ppl think that everyone else is interpreting a situation in a certain way, when really they are not.

even if we interpret a situation as an emergency we have to decide that its our responsibility, diffusion of responsibility

phenomenon where each bystanders sense of responsibility to help decreases as the number of witnesses increases

video games/songs and prosocial beahvior

listening to lyrics and playing helping video games can increase prosocial behavior but why: increasing empathy and accessibility of thoughts of helping others

ppl may not ask for help because they dont want to seem incompetent and dependent. some ppl also scared to help because of embarrassment of legal consequences or making it worse. how can we increase the likelihood that bystanders will help

simply being aware of thee bystanders effect and intervention. it only takes 1 then ppl will join, also reminding yourself of past times where u overcame inhibitions

the more ppl feel like volunteering is an external requirement the less likely they will volunteer in the future (overjustification effect), we should encourage volunteer but make them feel they have a choice as it helps the help and the helper

ch 12 agression

agression

intentional behavior aimed at causing physical harm or psychological pain to another person

without the harm its just being assertive

types of agression

hostile-stems from feelings of anger with the goal of causing pain or injury -trying to get through the stairs too make ur train and ur angry at ppl going to slow, so u angry and push and hurt them with that intention

instrumental-done to achieve some goal other than causing pain—trying to get through the stairs too make ur train and ur angry at ppl going to slow, but behave aggressivly just out of desire to make ur train

evolutionary view on agression

men: wanna make sure their mate doest have other mates, asserts dominance and secure higher status over other men

women: protect offspring

links between testosterone(reduces ability to control impulses so does alcohol, reduces activity ion orbitofrontal cortex, area for self reg) and aggression: challenge hypothesis and dual hormone hypothesis

challenge hypothesis: T relates to aggression n only when there are opportunities for reproduction

dual: T relates to dominance seeking behavior only when cortisol is not elevated. T only predicts agression when tther’s a chance to gain something (instrumental agg)

T can slightly increase agg but being aggressive increases T production

social cognitive learning theory

people learn, social behavior through observation, imitation, and culture. however, this behavior is also shaped by their thoughts and beliefs.

. For example, if someone expects that being aggressive will help them get what they want, they’re more likely to act that way.

Example:

A child sees their older sibling yelling to get their way. Over time, they imitate this behavior and start yelling when they want something too.

But let’s say another child grows up in a family that teaches patience and problem-solving. Even if they see others being aggressive, their beliefs and expectations might make them choose a different way to handle conflict.

So, aggression isn’t just something people are born with—it’s learned through experience, observation, and thought processes.

some agressive behavior does not need to be learned

how has agression changed over time and why?

we have become less aggressive as a society. this is because of culture, because certain groups that were once agg are not anymore and because of things like collectivism decrease aggression. higher violence also occurs in cultures that were originally based on herding vs those in agriculture-because agriculture u need to have cooperative straegies to survive but herding u need to fight for ur flock.

white men from the south have committed more homicides than whites men from the north in USA . certain children are more likely to bring guns to school? why and define it

The culture of honor in social psychology refers to societies where people, especially men, feel a strong need to defend their reputation, often with aggression. In the U.S., white men from the South historically have higher homicide rates than Northern white men because Southern culture values honor and responding to threats with violence. This mindset can also lead to some children being more likely to bring guns to school to protect their status or respond to perceived insults. distrust gov and believe ittt is their job to retaliate

gender and agression

women dont differ from men in their willingness to yell, be verbally abusive, punish their children, and express aggression, physical aggression, and same reasons for aggression like sexual jealousy, anger, to get partners attention, revenge etc

but woman are more likely to commit relational aggression through manipulation, rumors, exclusion

also seen that men have a higher threshold for what they deem as necessary for an apology-causes issues in relationships

alcohol and aggression

it reduces anxiety and lowers social inhibitions, making us less cautious than usual, impress the part of the brain in charge of planning and controlling behavior and the way we process info and the think-drink effect, when ppl expect alcohol to have certain affects on them It usually does

the effects of pain and heat

when it is hotter outside ppl tend to become more aggressive

we know that frustration is a major cause of agression. it occurs when a persons plans are messed up on the way to completing a goal or gratification. what is the frustration-agression theory

frustration-the preception that ur being prevented from attaining a goal-increases the probability of an agressive response

one thing that increases agression is ur closeness to a gaol or object of desire, the closer the greater expectation the more likely the aggression

frustration doesnt always produce agression but an annoyance and anger and a readiness to egress, what things will determine if u aggress or not

the size and strength of the person responsible for ur anger and their ability to retaliate, belief that u or ur group have less than you deserve, less than what u been led to expect or less than what ppl similar to u have

while men are more agressive than women under neutral conditions, being provoked overrides these gender differences, why?

eveyeone gets angry when provoked and anger reduces impulse control

weapons effect

the increase In agg the can occur because of the mere presence of a gun or other weapon

the precsne of these weapons trigger aggressive response when a person is already primed to respond that way because of frustration and anger

2 types of thinkers

deontological :ppl who beleive in absolute moral truths

utilitarian : ppl who believe the most moral decision is the one that does the greatest good for the greatest number of ppl-allows for gravely inhuman acts

dehumanization

the process whereby we deny another human being their full humanity, failure to consider mental states of others and limits empathy

its harder to harm someone u have made a perosnal connection with. when we dont, we dehumanize them and more easily hurt them

compassion collapse

the decreasing amount of compassion felt for victims of mass casualties vs the amount they feel for a single victim

its easier to act agg towards a whole group than one person because empathy requires effort and its alot of effort to empathize with an entire group vs one person. there was a bad water supply and the gov didn't care all those ppl were suffering until one face of a baby with a rash captured the attention

effects of media violence

watching violence does increase the frequency of agg behavior, angry emotions, and hostile thoughts. videogames played consistently especially if they reward killing seem to have a stronger influence. it is also numbing to ppl to difficult or violent or unpleasant events in all cultures. also makes u dehauminze the enemy. also seen In longitudinal studies they become more agreeive as teens and young adults

some ppl are born with a predisposition towards violence or learn from parents and sibling because of abuse or develop being agg as a perosanlity trait, this predisposition manifests in agg behavior AND their liking for violent shows or games-seems to have the stringiest relationship. kids rated agg vs non agg by teachers watched a violent film then played hokey. the children with agg ratings acted more aggressively. although that’s true, media pales in comparison to social and economic and genetic factors

habituation and sensitization

Habituation

Habituation is when repeated exposure to a stimulus causes a decrease in response over time. In terms of violent video games:

• If someone plays violent video games frequently, they may become desensitized to violence.

• They might show less emotional distress when witnessing real-world violence.

• Studies suggest that prolonged exposure can reduce empathy for victims of violence.

Sensitization

Sensitization is the opposite—it occurs when repeated exposure to a stimulus increases a person's response over time. In violent video games:

• Some individuals may become more aggressive or more reactive to violence.

• They might show heightened arousal or anger in response to real-world aggression.

• This can lead to increased aggression in behavior, though effects vary between individuals.

Some research suggests that habituation is more common (leading to emotional desensitization), while others argue that sensitization can occur in certain contexts, especially when individuals already have aggressive tendencies.

decrease aggression. children that are punished severely may decrease the behavior short term but end up becoming aggressive adults. How should punishment be conducted to decrease aggression?

punishment must be prompt and certain: followed quickly after the aggression occurred and unavoidable. this doesnt happen in the justice system so crime Is high