Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Groups > Chapter 4 - Formation > Flashcards

Chapter 4 - Formation Flashcards

1
Q

Five Factor Model

A 
Openness to experience
Conscientiousness
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Experience Sampling

A

Participants record their thoughts, emotions or behav at time they’re experiencing them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Group-level attachment styles

A 
4 basic styles
Secure
Preoccupied
Fearful
Dismissing

Two dimensions
Level of anxiety
Degree of avoidance

Figure 4.1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Secure

A

Self confident and willing to rely on others

Low anxiety + low avoidance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Preoccupied group attachment style

A

Seek out membership but worry excessively about rejection

High anxiety
Low avoidance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Fearful group attachment style

A

Insecure about themselves that they fear rejection

High anxiety + high avoidance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Dismissing group attachment style

A

Uninterested in joining groups

Low anxiety + high avoidance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Need for Affiliation Study

A

Study:
Students complete questionnaires while there’s two way mirror. Told they are being watched
Controlled: filled out their form
Results: those low in need for affiliation were unfazed. High need for affiliation were anxious and uneasy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Need for intimacy Study

A

Study: experience sampling
Participants described thoughts on pages
Those in high need for intimacy were more frequently thinking about others or actually interacting with others at that time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

***FIRO - fundamental interpersonal relations orientation theory + Who created it?

A

Theory of group formation
William Schmitz

Individuals NEED to receive and express INCLUSION, CONTROL, and AFFECTION (all social motivations). These are the three basic needs identified by FIRO-B

FIRO-b scale
B is for behavior
Pg 102
Each scale has an expressed and wanted score (shown in another flashcard)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

***What does firo theory assume?

A

That people join groups, and remain in them, because they meet one or more of their basic needs (inclusion, control, affection)

Ie. if Monet did not need to receive and express inclusion, he prob be content working alone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Relationality

A

The degree to which ones values emphasize maintaining connections to others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Beliefs About Groups (BAGS)

A

A Scale
Measures factors such as group preference (working alone vs. together), effort beliefs (people can be trusted to do their share/or not), negetive performance beliefs (group projects tend to fail/or not), positive performance beliefs (groups are highly effective/or not)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Collaborative Circle

A

close group
exchange ideas
critique in order to develop

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Affiliation*** + Festinger’s Theory of Social Compariso/2 Factor Theory

A

gathering of individuals in one location

2 factor theory - Ambiguous circumstance > psychological reaction (negative emotions, uncertainty, needs for info) > Affiliation and social comparison with others > Cognitive Clarity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Festinger’s Theory of Social Comparison/Two Factor Theory

A 
People, when facing ambiguous situations, seek out others so they can compare 
Cognitive Clarity
1. ambiguous/confusing circumstance
2. psychological reaction
3. affiliation and social comparison 
4. cognitive clarity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Schachter’s study of Group Affiliation

A

How do people react when in ambiguous situation that’s frightening?

Most join with other people to gain info

Study: electric shock on humans
Condition 1: low anxiety condition, room had no electrical devices, informed that shocks were mild

Condition 2: high anxiety condition, lots of electrical devices in the room, informed shocks would hurt badly

Then asked partcipant if thet wanted to wait for her turn alone or with others (63% in high-anxiety condition chose to affiliate). (only 33% in low-anxiety condition chose to affiliate)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Misery loves Miserable Company (esp. in dangerous situations)

A

From the experiment, did the women join so they weren’t alone? Or to gather info?

Study: replicated high-anxiety condition AND manipulated the amount of info that could be gained by affiliating with others

Told half women they could wait with women who were about to get a shock (thus they would be similar to the partcipants)

Told other half of women that they could join women who were waiting for their professors (thus these women were dissimiliar)

If the person they were waiting with didn’t have social comparison info (waiting for prof), they would not affiliate. People seek out those that are facing the same threat.

People prefer more though, gaining info from someone who has already gone through the experience.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Group Level Responses to Stress

A

Imminent Threat: Fight or Flight
Long-Term Threat: Tend (support and nurturing of group members) or Befriend (elaboration of supportive relations among members)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Downward Social Comparison

A

When self-esteem is low, people engage in this

-bolsters sense of competence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Upward Social Comparison

A

Comparing oneself to those that are superior/better off than them
-this gives hope and motivation (Therapy group members)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Abraham Tesser’s Self-Evaluation Model (SEM)

A

We celebrate others accomplishments, provided they perform well on tasks that are not of central to our sense of self-worth

  • individuals maintain self-esteem by associating with high-achieving individuals who excel in areas that are not relevant to their own sense of self-esteem
    OR
    -avoid association with high-achieving individuals who excel in areas that are imp. to the individuals self-esteem
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Self-Evaluation Model (SEM) Study

A

If students thought that given task was important (to self), they judged their performance to be superior to that of their close classmates

If task was not important to them personally, they felt they had performed relatively worse than their classmates

24
Q

Social Comparison

A

Tendency to compare oneself to others

  • gaining info from other people’s reactions
  • helps to reduce ambiguity, validation, evaluation of self
  • Cognitive clarity can come from directional comparison
25
Q

Principles of Attraction - Theodore Newcomb

A

iO PERMS FC

Proximity Principle
Elaboration Principle
Similarity Principle
Complementarity Principle
Reciprocity Principle
Minimax Principle
Familiarity Principle
Interchange Compatibility
Originator Compatibility
26
Q

Proximity Principle

A

Tendency to form relationships with people that are close by
-A.k.a Principle of propinquity

27
Q

Familiarity Principle

A

People show preference for the familiar rather than the unknown

28
Q

Elaboration Principle

A

Tendency for groups to expand in size as nonmembers become linked to a group member and thus become a part of the group itself
I.e. roommates bring over friends (komo, Gina) and they become part of our group

29
Q

Similarity Principle + Homophily

A

People are attracted to those who are similar to them in some way

Homophily: love of the same

30
Q

Complementarity Principle

A

Tendancy for opposites to attract when the ways in which people are dissimilar are congruent (complimentary) in some way
I.e Claud likes to lead groups, thus likes others that accept his guidance.
-If there’s a threat to self-esteem, people prefer complementarity over similarity

31
Q

Interchange Compatibility

A

When members have similar expectations about the group’s affection, control, and inclusiveness (the three social motives)

32
Q

Originator Compatibility

A

When people have dissimilar, but complementary needs with regard to expressing and receiving control, inclusion and affection.

I.e originator compatibility would be high if a person with a high need to control the group joined a group whos members wanted a strong leader

33
Q

Originator & Interchange Compatibility Study

A

Constructed group of varying compatibilities

In each group, one member with high need for control, one member with high need for inclusion, and 3 members with lower needs for control and inclusion. (interchangeable compatibility established)

Another group, set of incompatible people that varied in their need for affection, inclusion, and control

Result: cohesiveness was higher in the compatible groups and the compatible groups worked on problems far more efficiently than the incompatible groups

34
Q

Reciprocity Principle

A

Tendency for liking to be met with liking in return
Tendency for disliking to occur when disliked

Transivity

35
Q

Minimax Principle

A

People will join groups and remain in groups that provide them with the maximum number of valued rewards while incurring the minimum number of possible costs

Economics of Membership: favorable reward/cost ratio

36
Q

Social Exchange Theory - Comparison Level (CL)

A

Decision to join group is based on two factors: CL and CLalt

CL: Standard by which individuals evaluate the desirability of group membership

  • Influenced by previous relationships
  • Average of all outcomes
  • groups that fall above CL would be satisfied, below CL would be dissatisfied

Satisfaction with membership is determined by CL

37
Q

Social Exchange Theory - Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt)

A

Decision to join group is based on two factors: CL and CLalt

CLalt: the standard by which individuals evaluate the quality of other groups that they may join

The lowest level of outcomes a member will accept in the light of available alternative opportunities

Entering and existing groups is largely determined by CLalt

PG 122 study this chart

38
Q

Social Exchange Theory - CL + CLalt

A

CL = satisfaction level

CLalt = entering or exiting group

39
Q

When do situations form groups?

A

Ambiguous situations
Dangerous situations
Tasks and goal that can only be achieved by collaborating with others

40
Q

Deficiency needs

A

All the needs except self-actualization

Self-actualization is the growth need

41
Q

**Big 5 - High Score

A

Open, neurotic, conscientious, agreeable and extraverted

42
Q

**Big 5 - Low score

A

Closed, stable, careless, disagreeable, introverted

43
Q

**Person-Group Fit

A

People with similar traits join with others that are similar

44
Q

**Group-Person Fit

A

Group may pick someone who fits their group personality (i.e. sports team)

45
Q

**Social Motivation

A

Need for Affiliation
Need for Intimacy
Need for Power

46
Q

Need for Affiliation

A 
people with high need for affiliation join more groups
fear rejection (similar to ostracizing?)
47
Q

Need for Intimacy

A

tend to join more groups in order to find close relationships with others
tend to care more for others
do not gear rejection as a person motivated by affiliation

48
Q

Need for Power

A

join groups to influence others, i.e. organizing, structuring activities

49
Q

FIRO Scale

A

-inclusion, control and affection has a measure oh how much each need is expressed or wanted

Wanted: the extent to which you want or will accept that behaviour from another

SLIDE 10 under formation PowerPoint. Rewrite to memorize <3

50
Q

Emotions and Social Motivation

A

Approach vs. Avoidance
More positive experiences should increase motivation for belongingness vs. negative experience (decreases motivation)
-beliefs about group scale

51
Q

Social Anxiety and Phobia

A
  • When anticipating or interacting with others
  • Approx 5% of Americans and 6-7% of Canadians
  • 3 sets of features: affective, cognitive, somatic
  • must impact cognitively, occupation/academic and/or socially (1 out of 3)
52
Q

2 Factor Theory

A

Affiliation

Ambiguous circumstance > psychological reaction (negative emotions, uncertainty, needs for info) > Affiliation and social comparison with others > Cognitive Clarity

53
Q

Schachter’s Study of Affiliation

A
  • group affiliation

- how do people react in an ambiguous, frightening situation

54
Q

What happens when self-esteem is on the line?

A

Directional Comparison
-downward social comparison or upward social comparison

Abraham’s Tessers - Self-Evaluation Maintenance (SEM)

55
Q

Moving from Affiliation to Attraction

A

Affiliation: set stage for group to form

Attraction: leads to more meaningful relationships

56
Q

Sean Mackinnon - Do we sit near people who are like this?

A

Studied 18 Uni classes, people were more likely to sit beside someone who matched them by hair color and hair length than by chance

-174 participants were shown 8 diff images and asked how much they perceived that the person had similar values as them - people chose those who looked physically similar to them

57
Q

Social Exchange Theory (Part of Attraction)

A

Relationships are like economic exchanges, bargains where maximum outcomes sought with minimum investment (costs, rewards, commitment)

Outcome = Rewards - Costs

Groups (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions