exam 3 Flashcards
Informational social influence
we conform because we see other people as a source of information
When do people conform to informational social influence?
3 reasons
-when the situation is ambiguous
-when the situation is in crisis
-when others are the experts
Social norms - injunctive and descriptive
Injunctive: perceptions of what behaviors are approved/disapproved by others (ex: most people think its important to recycle)
Descriptive: perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations (ex: most people don’t recycle)
Normative social influence and example from everyday life
Conformity to be accepted by others, often results in public compliance and private acceptance
-but can have public and private acceptance
-example: women’s attempts to create socially desired body types
When will people conform to normative social influence?
N.I.T.S
Conforming to social influence depends on : importance of group to person, closeness in time and space, number of people in the group
Factors that lead to increased conformity
Group size (only 1 through 5 people), group importance (how much are they respected), when one has no allies
Minority influence - few influencing many
Consistency over time, consistent unanimity among members, not driven by self-interest
-cause private acceptance because of informational social influence
Propaganda - Informational vs normative influence - special occasions
Informational: giving incorrect information to the masses
Normative: rejection, ostracism for failure to accept beliefs
-the tolerance a person earns over time by conforming to group norms ; they can behave defiantly without retribution
social facilitation
Arousal from the presence of others and the knowledge you are being evaluated, doing worse on complex tasks
Social loafing
relaxation from the presence of others - knowledge of being evaluated, doing worse on simple tasks
Deindividuation
feelings of anonymity and reduced individuality resulting in loosening of normal constraints on behavior (ex: KKK wearing masks)
Nature of groups - size, roles, Stanford Prison experiment
- size 3-20
-advantages: people know what to expect, smoother interactions
disadvantages: people adopting roles too much
Decision making - groups do better or worse if…
-groups do better: relying on expertise, stimulated by others comments
-groups do worse: failure to pay attention to the expert (process loss), not sharing unique information, group think (solidarity is more important than facts)
causes of group think
-High group tension
-isolation
-directive leader
-stress
-poor decision making
Symptoms of groupthink
what happens while in groupthink
-illusion of invulnerability
-belief in morality of group
-self-censorship
-pressure to conform
-illusion of unanimity
-“mind guards”
Outcomes of group think
-not looking at alternative choices
-poor information search
-not developing a back up plan
group polarization - persuasive and social comparison interpretations of the group
-Persuasive: when someone brings a set of arguments no one has considered
-Social comparison: discussing how everyone feels about an issue
Leadership styles - transactional/formational
-Transactional: leaders who set short term goals and reward people that succeed
-Transformational: leaders who inspire followers to focus on long term goals
Contingency - task oriented, relationship
-Task: getting the job done, effective in high control work situations
-Relationship: feelings, effective in moderate control work
Gender and leadership - glass cliff
Glass cliff: women are thought to be better at managing crisis’, puts them in positions where its difficult to succeed
conflict vs cooperation in groups - mixed motive and zero sum
-Zero sum: one winner, one loser
-Mixed motive: both sides can win or lose
Reducing conflict - tit for tat
be cooperative first, respond the same way as your opponent
First impressions - mere exposure, functional distance, propinquity
Mere exposure effect: the more we are exposed, the more familiar we are, the more we like it
Functional distance: how likely it is for people to come in contact with each other
Propinquity: the more we see and interact with people, the more likely we are to like them
Similarity leading to liking
Opposites do not attract, similarities in appearance, interests, opinions, genetics and relationship are more likely to bring people together
Reciprocal liking
When we think someone likes us we will probably like them more, leads to self-fulfilling prophecy
Exchange vs communal relationships
Exchange: relationships governed by need for equity (coworker)
Communal: primary concern is being responsive to other persons need (boyfriend)
Attachment styles - avoidant, anxious, secure, disorganized
-Avoidant: distant caregiver, hard to develop intimate relationships
-Anxious: inconsistent caregivers, believes others won’t reciprocate intimacy
-Secure: responsive caregiver, lack of concern of being abandoned
-Disorganized: back and forth between distance and seeking proximity
Defining love - companionate and passionate
-Companionate: affection we have for someone no accompanied by arousal
-Passionate: love for someone accompanied by arousal
Double shot hypothesis
Men threatened by sexual infidelity, women threatened by emotional infidelity
