PSY 3310 Unit 3

affiliation in groups

-theory of social comparison

-information, support, assistance, align with behaviors attitudes, beliefs

theory of social comparison

people join with others to evaluate their accuracy of their personal beliefs and attitudes

-downward social comparison

downward social comparison

to maintain a sense of self-worth, people seek out and compare themselves to the less fortunate

identity and membership

-social identity theory

-collective self esteem

-sociometer model

social identity theory

how we categorize our identity based on the groups identity

collective self esteem

self worth is evaluated based on the group

sociometer model

self-esteem based in feeling of inclusion/exclusion in social groups

social facilitation

the enhancement of an individuals performance when that person works in the presence of other people

social loafing

the reduction of individuals effort exerted when people work in groups compared to when they work alone

how to reduce social loafing

-identify each group members contribution

-increase importance of task

-increase level of individual commitment

group cohesion

cohesion improves teamwork. development of strong and mutual interpersonal bonds among members. performance quality influences cohesion

common knowledge effect

the tendency for groups to spend more time discussing information that the members know (shared information) and less time examining that only a few members know

group polarization

when a group supports a decision, supported by the majority of the group, following a group discussion. the groups decision is more extreme that the individuals original inclination

groupthink

a set of negative group-level processes including illusions of vulnerability, self-censorship, and pressure to conform, that occur when highly cohesive groups seek concurrence when making a decision

four group level factors that combine to cause groupthink

-cohesion

-isolation

-biased leadership

-decisional stress

how to minimize groupthink

-leaders should remain impartial

-seek the opinions of people outside the group

-vote using secret ballot

-make members aware that they are all responsible for the decision of the group

ostracism

excluding one or more individuals from a group by reducing or eliminating contact with the person usually by shunning, or explicitly banashing them

traditional family

two or more people who are related by blood, marriage, and occasionally- adoption

-nuclear family- only parents and children

-two parent family- family with two parents, often a mother and a father

modern family

caring, commitment, and close emotional ties

-single parent families

-blended families

-foster families

-child-free families

-same-sex couples

family of orientation

the family that a person is born into

family of procreation

the family a person starts when they leave their family of orientation to start their own family

joint family

three or more generations of blood relatives live in the same house of compound. AKA multigenerational households

traditional family roles

-women- child-rearing and housekeeping

-men- protectors and providers

-currently more egalitarian roles

• second shift- women still tend to do more housekeeping and child-rearing

• positive outcomes when fathers endorse more equal sharing of household duties and mothers are in the workplace

Bowen’s family systems theory

each person in the family has a role to play and these roles come with certain expectations

attachment styles

-secure- parent is responsive to infants needs

-anxious-avoidant— parents not attentive

-anxious-resistant— inconsistent parenting

-disorganized- tumultuous childhood, erratic relationship with caregiver

coherence

adult gains insight about their childhood experiences and realizes that it does not mean they are unworthy of love or that others are untrustworthy

marriage market

choose the best option

homogamy

marrying someone similar

cohabitation

romantic partners live together but are not married

parenting styles

-authoritative- high demand high support

-authoritarian- high demand low support

-permissive- low demand high support

-uninvolved- low demand low support

empty nest

some parents may experience sadness when their adult children leave the home

boomerang generation

young adults mostly between the ages of 25 and 34 who return home to live with their parents while they strive for stability in their lives- often in terms of finances, living arrangements, and sometimes romantic relationships

sandwich generation

generation of people responsible for taking care of their own children as well as their aging parents

age in place

the trend toward making accommodations to ensure that aging people can stay in their homes and live independently

multigenerational homes

homes with more than one adult generation

social psychologist behind social comparison theory

Leon Festinger

self evaluation

people seek information about themselves in order to assess how their beliefs fit the social norms and to assess the level of their abilities

social comparison

the process by which people understand their own ability or condition by mentally comparing themselves to others

self evaluation maintenance model

our response to social comparison will be based on whatever can help to maintain, reinforce, or repair our self-esteem and self-concept

-if we engage in downward comparison, we are likely to place even more importance on that trait or ability in our self-concept, because it will bostler our self-esteem further

-when an upward comparison threatens our self-esteem, we are likely either to minimize that aspect of our self-concept or we will distance ourselves from the more successful comparator

-counterfactual thinking, social media, self-handicapping, spotlight effect

counterfactual thinking

the “what if” or “what might have been”

why social media intensifies counterfactual thinking

-likes, views, followers

-lifestyle comparisons

-curated highlight reels

self-handicapping

setting up an obstacle before engaging in a task as a way to give ourselves an excuse if we don’t perform well

spotlight effect

the belief that our behavior, our appearance, and even our internal states are obvious to others

individual differences that affect social comparison

-mastery goals

-fixed vs. growth mindset

situational factors that affect social comparison

member of comparators

-n-effect— more comparators —> less comparison n=10

local comparators

proximity to a standard

frog pond effect

-most people prefer to be a big frog in a small pond than a small frog in a bigger pond

-prefer less competitive environment for more downward comparisons

Dunning-Kruger effect

who overestimates, who underestimates their performance?

-unskilled individuals are often overconfident about their performance

-opposite of “imposter syndrome”

-more qualified, underestimate their performance

relevance

evaluate opinions and performance that we find self-relevant

similarity

compare ourselves to peers or those who are otherwise similar to us

downward comparison

when we compare ourselves to people who are doing worse than us on some trait or ability

behavioral consequences of downward comparison

more motivated to engage in behaviors relevant to the dimension of comparison

-cope with challenges, scorn, exaggerated sense of pride

consequences of downward comparison

self-enhancement effect— boost to self-esteem or self-concept

upward comparison

when we compare ourselves to people who are doing better than us on some trait or ability

behavioral consequences of upward comparison

-effort of self-improvement, feeling of admiration, act aggressively toward our more successful comparator

consequences of upward comparison

threatens self-esteem/self-concept, envy, joy, admiration