Block 4 Flashcards
Individual decision making pros and cons
Individual decision making pros:
Typically faster than group decision making
Best individual in a group usually outperforms the group
Accountability is easier to determine
Cons:
Fewer ideas
Identifying the best individual can be challenging
Possible to put off making decisions if let alone to do it
Transactive memory
Transactive memory is a shared system for encoding storing and retrieving information
It acquires knowledge about others knowledge
Each person stores relative knowledge for their specified domains
Identify the person with the necessary knowledge and receive the knowledge from them
Common in couples families and work groups
How do we know who’s what
Social categorisation (sex age) gives an idea of a strangers memory system
Negotiated entries in the directory
Perceptions of the relative expertise and partners in different knowledge domains
Knowledge of the persons access to information
Why do we only talk about things everybody already knows
Information - sampling process:
Shared info is more likely to enter conversations
Mutual enhancement process - my info is shared by others; I’m perceived as a good contributor
I feel good when others agree with me
Shared info is valid
How do u fix this?
Make unshared info - salient
Don’t rush
Extensive discussions
Individual assignments
Easy group polarisation example
People invent 10,20,30 you’re more likely to invest 40 due to group polarisation
Social comparison theory
Social comparison theory is we are motivated to be slightly more correct than others
Persuasive arguments theory
Persuasive arguments Theory is exposure to previously unconsidered arguments
Group think
Group think is where we try very hard to agree with each other
Direct pressure on dissenters to conform Illusion of unanimity Illusion of invulnerability Close minded Stereotypes views of our group
Why doesn’t group think
Janis theory: cohesive groups only
Keugulanskis group centrism theory: low capacity to process info; group strives for cog closure; willing to accept strong focused leaders
Barons ubiquity model: social identification, salient norms and low self efficacy
Why can’t people get along
Stereotype
Prejudice
Discrimination
These are all attitudes, thoughts and behaviours towards a distinguishable group of people, based solely on group membership
Affective - prejudice
A negative or positive attitude towards a distinguishable group of people, based solely on group membership
Behavioural - discrimination
Unjustified, negative, or harmful action towards a person because being member of a group
Cognitive - stereotyping
Stereotyping is generalisation about a group of people in which identical traits belong to all group members
Examples of prejudice stereotyping and discrimination
All lawyers are dishonest - stereotyping
A white man sitting on a bus next to a dark skinned person feels anxious- prejudice discrimination
Hiring committee evaluates all potential employees exclusively by their professional qualifications - nothing
A man from cancun in Mexico does not like Americans because he thinks they are all drink irresponsibly - stereotyping and prejudice
A women believes it will rain because she sees many grey clouds in the sky - nothing m
A college hiring a maths professor states that they will prioritise male applicants - prejudice and discrimination
Stereotypes examples
All blacks are good at sports - race
Men are strong and do all the work - gender
All teenagers are rebels - age
All Jews are greedy - culture
Mental shortcuts
Evolved to categorise groups into in groups and out groups
Short answer: social categorisation
Sorting people into groups on the basis of common feathers - makes our live easier
Are stereotypes heuristics
Stereotypes are heuristics. They’re mental shortcuts. People may use stereotypes because they contain a kernel of truth
Us v them
In group - “Us” the group you belong to
Outgroup - “them” groups you don’t belong to
Ingroup favouritism
Outgroup discrimination
We don’t like dissimilar others
Minimal group paradigm
Perceived outgroup homogeneity
Overestimating how similar members of others groups are to one another:
They are alike
They all look alike
They all dress the same
Perceived outgroup homogeneity
quarterone and jones - students rated similarity in musical preferences for students at their school and another school
Showed they perceived outgroup (other school) had similir music preferences to people in their school similar interst
The “they all like the same thing “
Singlism example
Singlism is the stigmatizing of adults who are single. It includes negative stereotypinf of singles and discriminations against singles
The big 5 on how we perceive solitude
Extroversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Openness Conscientiousness
Solitude seekers are perceived to be more
Introverted, disagreeable, neurotic and cold
More likely to be excluded
React more strongly to belonging cues
How to fix it. - the contact hypothesis
Equal status
Common goals
Cooperation
Support of authorities, law or custom
The contact hypothesis is supported for prejudice reduction
Challenged the four requirements may not be necessary
Why do we study interpersonal relationships
Because relationships are indispensable part of our lives and more importantly relationships matter.
They contribute physical and psychological well being
It covers wide range of people like siblings friends co workers class mates
These types of relationships differ in vast number of fronts, however they share common fundamentals
Challenges of doing relationship research
Topic is very personal / private
Hard to manipulate some variables in the labs
Not possible to randomly assign people into different conditions based on some relationship variables
Mostly based on self report longitudinal designs are still strong
Researchers need to come up with smart ways to measure relationship measures
How relationships start develop and end
Initiation (attraction, self disclosure)
Maintenance (interdependence, commitment, support, sexual relations)
Dissolution (conflict, break up, recovery)
Halo effect
We perceive those who look good as good at the same time
Similarity
Similarity suggest who is me and mine
Similarity suggests familiarity
Similarity contributes to mastery and connectedness
Positive interaction done by Moreland and beach
Exposure effect. - student sits 5 time, another 10 and another 15,
Asked to rate likeliness and attractiveness saw the one who was seen most as most liked and most attractive
Feedback loop
Once liking is developed, it feeds back on the other factors to reinforce, to strengthen the connection between
Once liking is mutual it translates into a friendship or partnerships
Moving from acquaintances to friendships
Characteristic that draw people are idiosyncratic characteristics about the individual (how attractive etc). But after that then it becomes less meaningful.
Benefit to reward patterns change
Different relationships have different exchange rules
Self disclosure
Sharing info about yourself to someone else
Effects are makes other like us (boundary conditions)
Feelings of connectedness
Facilaites coordination
Produce trust
Does self disclosure always produce likeability
No, there are certain norms we follow in our relationships to make the self disclosure effective
These are:
Not disclosing too much
Reciprocity in Convo (give back)
Keeping discloses parallel with there’s
Self disclosure breakfast club example
They barely know each other
they share superficial info about themselves
They share more personal info
They see each other as friends
Self disclosure gender
Reis studies showed women tend to self disclosure more than men
Also women disclose more to women
And men disclose more to men
And women particularly disclose about their feelings and emotions
Self disclosure with cultural differences
People in individualistic cultures self disclose more
Expression of their uniqueness as an individual
What is a close relationship
A relationship involving strong and frequent interdependence in many domains of life
Relationship interdependence
Cognitive
Behavioural
Affective
The investment mode of commitment
Caryl rusbult did the investment model of commitment
Satisfaction - how happy the relationship makes you
Quality of alternatives - are your alternatives to the relationship better or worse than the current relationships
Investments - anything you put into the relationship that you won’t get back in case the relationship ends
Subjective norms - your perception of your close others
Bowlbys attachment theory
Looks at low to high avoidance and low to high anxiety
Bowlby says if you had all fundamental needs of yourself given by your caregiver you will feel loved and be relied upon
It proved:
Around 60-65% of pop falls under this category - considered as having a secure attachment style
Around 15-20% of pop falls under This category - anxious attachment style
Dismissive: around 10-15# of pop falls under this category
Impact of ones attachment
Secure - easy to get close, comfortable with others, relationships easy form and last av 10 years
Anxious - want to be close to others but may not believe others want to be close to them, may want to emerge completely and be engulfed by partner, av 5 years
Avoidant - uncomfortable with others being close, worry about becoming dependant on other; wants less intimacy / closeness, av duration 6 years
Highly avoidant individuals may
Highly avoidant individuals may
Be less invented in close relationships
Express less grief following loss
Not use touch to communicate affection or intimacy
Fantasise about someone else while having sex
Highly anxious individuals may
Highly anxious individuals may be deeply invested in close relationships but have a high break up rate
Grieve intensely during loss and find it difficult to achieve resolution
Self disclose too much
Hold affectionate reps of self and others in sexual fantasises
Securely attached individuals may
Securely attached individuals may:
Value and enjoy their relationships
Grieve following a loss or breakup but achieve resolution
Provide ample partner support when evidence of distress
Sternbergs trianglur theory of love
Sternberg proposed a theory of love with theee components
Passions is the motivational component of love - sexual desire, craving for the person
Intimacy is the emotional component - the sense of bondedness
-emotional closeness / willingness to help others / sharing / openness
Commitment is the cognitive component - the decision to be together
Motivation to overcome difficulties
Component of love in a relationship over time
Passion develops rapidly and then declines over the course of the relationship
Both intimacy and commitment increase as the relationship continues - if not, the relationship will end when the passion ends
This provides a conceptual basis for the transformation of passionate love to companionate love
Sternergs characteristics of love
Liking - intimacy and friendly
Empty love - commitment and long term static relationships
Infatuation - passion ( a crush)
Compassionate love - intimacy + commitment (characterise a happy couple who shared many years together)
Fatuos life - passion + commitment - courtship one longs for person from a far
Romanticus love - passion + intimacy
Consummate love - all thre ideal, people Strive for, but hard to achieve and sustain
Some findings
Intimacy and commitment predict relationship stability
Married people score higher on commitment
Passion declines more sharply for women
Compatibility is important
Handling relationship conflict: communication styles
There are times when positive communication is harmful, and when negative communication is beneficial.
This varies by the directness of the communication
Handling relationship conflict: communication styles
Direct opposition > beneficial when diagnostic problem severity and partners feel able to resolve issues
Harmful when: disproportionate to problem severity and partners feel unable to resolve issues
Indirect opposition > beneficial when: successfully inducing guilt in partner reduces relationship insecurity
Harmful when: partners avoid dependence, resent implied obligations, and resist change
Indirect cooperation: beneficial when: reduces reactance in defensie partners and problems are addressed
Harmful when: serious problems remain unaddressed and partners continue problematic behaviour
Relationship dissolution
Sprecher- found that satisfaction and commitment drop signicsnt before breakups
