Study Guides (248,617)
Canada (121,638)
Psychology (1,882)
PSYB10H3 (128)
Midterm

Social Psych MIDTERM 2 NOTES.docx

12 Pages
39 Views

Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYB10H3
Professor
Steve Joordens

This preview shows pages 1,2 and half of page 3. Sign up to view the full 12 pages of the document.
Description
Chapter 5  Personal-social identity continuum: individuals perceive themselves differently depending on where they are at a particular moment in time. Can be perceived at two levels personal and social -> personal identity is where we think of ourselves as individuals -> social identity part is where we think of ourselves as members of social groups.  Self-Concept: what we know and think about ourselves  Intragroup comparisons: judgments result from comparing individuals within the same group (comparisons at the personal identity level)  Intergroup comparisons: judgments that result from comparisons between our group and another group (at the social identity level)  Self-Complexity: How an individual’s self-concept is organized, those who have high complexity have many “self identities” that are distinct from one another, whereas low complexity have many that overlap greatly. Those with high self-complexity are better at dealing with setbacks or failures in any one domain. Ie. professional setback/fired  Identity interference: occurs when two social identities are in conflict such that acting on one identity interferes with the performance of another. Ie. Student and athlete balance time between training and studies.  Western cultures have highly individualistic norms and independent self-concept: people will develop a self-concept as separate or independent of others.  Eastern cultures Collectivist and interdependent self-concepts: self-concept in terms of connections and relationships with others  Women are said to be more interdependent whereas men are more independent.  Which self that we describe ourselves to be really depend on the context. Ie. at work (hard working) or at a party we are fun.  Looking-glass self: tendency to incorporate other peoples judgments about us into our self- concept  Self-Schemas: mental frameworks that organize information, feelings, and beliefs about ourselves and guide our behaviour  Self-reference effect: We are more likely to remember information that relates to ourselves. It will be processed more efficiently and remembered better than other info. Ie. Meet a musician and an actor. You are a music person you remember more about the musician than the actor.  Self-awareness theory: the theory that when we focus attention on ourselves we become more in touch with our attitude and dispositions. When we focus attention on ourselves we compare and evaluate our behaviour against our standards/values of how we believe we should behave -> Subjective self-awareness: first level of self to emerge-> recognize you are separate from other objects in environment (most animals etc have) -> Objective self-awareness: the organisms ability to be object of own attention: ie. know you are seeing yourself in mirror (chimps etc have) -> Symbolic self-awareness: uniquely human, having an abstract concept of yourself through language  People tend to be unrealistically optimistic, they think they can do a lot of positive outcomes and avoid negative outcomes. (ie. new years resolutions usually not done)  Possible selves: images of how the self might be in future -> Dreaded possible self: what you don’t want to be -> Desired possible self: potential selves you want to be  Self-Efficacy: the belief one can achieve a goal through one’s own actions. -> Collective self-efficacy: belief that a goal can be achieve by working with others  Self-esteem: the degree to which the self is perceived positively or negatively.  Most common method to rate self-esteem is a trait-like evaluation like the Rosenberg scale.  State self-esteem: how you feel about self at a particular moment in time (ie. state self esteem can go up temporarily by say wearing better clothing, or putting on makeup) -> can have opposite effect, ie. for women self-conscious simply putting on a swimsuit  Implicit measures maybe better to measure self-esteem than explicit measures like the Rosenberg scale.  People with high self-esteem less vulnerable to a threat following a failure. Dijksterhuis used classical conditioning to pair words of self (I/me) with positive trait terms (nice, smart) and noticed peoples self-esteem were higher  Above-average effect: tendency for people to rate themselves as above the average on most positive social attributes (I’m better than most drivers)  We easily accept positive outcomes because of “us” whereas negative outcomes people are ore geared to reject as “not their fault”. Especially people high in self-esteem are quick to accept credit for successful outcomes  Self-serving attributions: The tendency to attribute positive outcomes to ourselves and negative outcomes to external factors  False uniqueness effect: we self-serve by viewing our skills/success as uniquely ours. Ie. if we got an A in the class we may be tempted to think it was one of the highest marks in class  False consensus effect: tendency to think our failures are more common than they really are ie. if we failed a test we may believe many people also did  People with low and high self-esteem are more aggressive than people with moderate self- esteem  Explicit self-esteem: overall attitude towards oneself that you are aware of and reports  Implicit self-esteem: attitude towards yourself that you are not aware of -> people with high self-esteem (explicit) may have low implicit self-esteem and act aggressive or defensive when threatened  People from western cultures have higher explicit self-esteem because of self-enhancement (tendency to maintain unrealistically positive view of oneself). Self-enhancement is more common in western cultures therefore they have higher explicit self-esteem. When we measure implicit self-esteem we don’t find that western have higher than eastern cultures (individualistic vs collectivist)  Downward social comparison: our performance compared with someone worse than us ie. comparing our math with a gr 5 math skill  Upward social comparison: comparing ourselves with someone better than us ie. me vs bill gates.  Social Comparison Theory: Festinger, we compare ourselves to others because there are no actual comparison yardsticks(methods) to evaluate ourselves therefore to compare with others can give us a good measure of our skill.  Self-evaluation maintenance model: perspective that to maintain positive view of ourselves we distance ourselves from those who are better than us on valued things and move towards others that are worse than us to protect our self-esteem.  Social identity theory: in a group context we will move closer to the positive others that we share an identity with but distance ourselves from other in-group members who perform poorly or make the group look “bad”  Black Sheep effect: rejected of a negative in-group member because the way the act or portray themselves threatens the “good image” of the group  Self-presentation: desire to not only perceive ourselves well but for others to view us positively also  Ingratiation: the attempt to make someone like us by praising them  Self-monitoring: peoples willingness and ability to change and monitor their behaviour to correspond with the social situation. -> Low self-monitors will prefect to act on their own views (focus on internal cues like their own beliefs for attitude) -> High self-monitors are good at monitoring their behaviour and adjusting their actions according to others expectations or the situation (focus on external cues such as how others will react for behaviour) -> High self monitors use nouns like they, us, we whereas low monitors use I, me  Self-handicapping: sabotage themselves so when they fail its expected and when they succeed its OMFG AMAZING!  Higher self-monitors tend to have higher self-esteem than low ones  For low self-monitors depression results when there is a discrepancy between the self and what individual thinks they should be  For high self-monitors depression results when there is a discrepancy between who they are and what others expect or think they should be  Introspection: attempts to understand self by self-examination, looking inward to assess their motives Chapter 12  Group: a collection of people who are perceived to be bonded together in a unit to some degree.  Entiativity: extent to which a group is perceived as being a coherent entity -> groups high in entiativity (true groups) have 1) members interact with each other often 2) group is important to members 3) members have common goals and outcomes 4) members are similar to each other in important ways  Groups impact members through Roles, Status, Norms  Roles: the set of behaviours that an individual in the group are expected to do -> Zimbardo prison experiment  Status: an individual’s position or rank in the group  Norms: rules within a group indicating how members should or should not behave  Cohesiveness: factors that bind a group together and make them want to stay -> higher cohesiveness is linked with higher status members within group -> Factors that affect cohesiveness is their status, the effort to enter group (harder/more exclusive the more cohesive), existence of external threats or competition, size (small groups more cohesive than big ones)  Benefits of joining a group: 1) Self-knowledge- our membership tells people what kind of person we are, ie. it may define our self-concept and is difficult to imagine not being in it. (like fritzley is a huge maple leafs fan) 2) self-esteem and status boosts 3) Social clout: oppressed groups join together to get better treatment ie. petitions boyctoss, strikes, petitions. -> Self-enhancement (boost own image) vs Self-transcendence (help others regardless of status) the greater self-enhancers the more important the group status and more strongly they identify, opposite for self-transcendence.  Groups splinter (break up) when current members find that the group has changed so much (subversion) that it is no longer the same group they originally joined (doesn’t represent their self-concept anymore), and when they feel nobody will listen to the protests to stop the change they leave.  Social Facilitation: Effects on performance resulting from presence of others -> Zajonc’s drive theory of social facilitation: When arousal increases from presence of others tendency to perform dominant responses: ones that are most likely to occur in a given situation rises. They can be correct or incorrect for any situation, so if the response is correct improved performance occurs, however if it is wrong it will impair performance. Ie. If you are skilled at this thing your tendency to perform the correct dominant response is higher than if you were unskilled at it.  However, social facilitation doesn’t occur just because people are around it depends on Evaluation Apprehension: Concern over being evaluated by others which can lead to increased arousal. Ie. if people paid no interest or were blindfolded social facilitation did not occur  Distraction-conflict theory: A theory suggesting that social facilitation stems from conflict produced when individuals attempt to pay attention to other people and task being performed -> Having to do task and having to worry about audience may lead to cognitive overload so they focus on a few key stimuli’s with resulting performance improved  Social Loafting: Reduction in motivation to work when performance is based on group work rather than independent evaluations.  Additive tasks: tasks where the group product is the sum of each individuals work. (some may do a lot of work whereas others slack on their parts) large crowd in sports game throwing stuff at players etc  Being anonymous causes individuals to have lower self-awareness and social identity. Thus demonstrating behaviour that they would never do outside the crowd  Social decision schemes: rules relating the initial members views to final group decisions -> majority-wins rule: group opts for decision most people vote for -> truth-wins rule: correct solution will be decided on as more people in group recognize it -> first-shift rule: groups tend to adopt a decision consistent with the first person who says it -> unanimity: usually used in legal systems ie. juries must vote unanimously  Dangers of group decision making -> Group polarization: tendency of group members to shift towards more extreme positions that those initially held due to group discussion -> Groupthink: the tendency of members of highly cohesive groups to assume their decisions can’t be wrong and all have the same beliefs/thoughts/consensus and others against it should be ignored (hard to accept criticism from “outgroups”) (occurs when high level of cohesiveness, and emergent group norms (ie. norms that suggest group is always right, superior etc) -> Biased processing of info by group: Confirmation bias: tendency to search for info that confirms with groups initial views -> Restricted sharing of info in group: not everyone knows everything  How to improve Group Decisions -> groupthink, biased processing, and restricted sharing of info are all barriers to decision making -> Devil’s Advocate technique: one group member is assigned task to disagree and criticize the plan no matter what, to find possible flaws in it -> Authentic dissent: one or more group members actively disagree with groups decision without being assigned the role.  Cooperation: behaviour in which groups work together to attain shared goals, where cooperation can be beneficial for both sides  Conflict: when individuals have conflicting interests  Social dilemmas: situation where each person can increase gain by acting one way (selfish) however, if other people also do it their outcomes are reduced (prisoners dilemma econ) -> reason to cooperate to avoid worst outcome for both but when they do there is a motivation to defect.  Tragedy of commons/public goods dilemma: when a resource shared amongst many people is depleted past levels of replenishment because of individual acts of greed  Factors influencing cooperation: -1 Reciprocity: treat others how they treated you Our tendency to reciprocate may stem from animal instincts of Reciprocal altruism: by sharing resources you increase chance of survival -2 Personal orientation: whether you like to work with others 1) cooperative (like to max outcomes with all) 2) individualistic orientation (max own outcome) 3) competitive (defeating others and increase own outcome) -3 Communication: can lead to cooperation or not depending how it is used. If beneficial effects and commitments are backed up by personal norms to honour them cooperation happens  Major causes of conflict: 1. Opposing interests 2. Recognition of such opposition 3. Belief that other side will interfere 4. Actions that produce interference  Faulty attributions: errors concerning the cause behind others behaviour  Faulty communication: the fact that individuals sometimes communicate with others in a way that angers or annoys them even though it’s not intended  Status quo bias: tendency to believe our views are objective and true whereas others are biased. Other views challenging the “status quo” are less accurate Type A: highly competitive, in a hurry, irritable Type B: calmer people  Resolving Conflicts -> Bargaining: opposing sides exchange offers, counter offers etc. either directly or through representatives. -> Techniques for bargaining include having an extreme initial offer, “big lie” convince them the breakeven point is higher than it actually is, or convince them you have an “out” ie. a better deal elsewhere  Integrative agreements: ones that offer greater joint benefits than simple compromise  Mediation: when two sides can’t come to an agreement, an unbiased third party attempts to resolve the conflict by offering suggestions to the conflicting parties  Arbitration: where the conflicting parties give up control to a third party who listens to the stories of both sides and imposes a decision (settlement)  Superordinate goals: goals that both sides seek that tie their interests together rather than drive them apart.  Organizational justice- Distributive justice (equity): individuals judgments about whether they get a fair share of rewards based on their contributions-> People may ask to change rewards Procedural justice: judgments based on fairness of procedures used to distribute rewards amongst group. Looks at consistency (if everyone was given same treatment), accuracy (if procedures are based on accurate contributions of people), opportunity to correct (if wrong info can they change), bias, and ethicality (if decisions were ethical). Ie. boss favouritism cant really do much may lead to “evening the score” ie. employee theft etc (more covert techniques) Transactional justice: extent to which people who distribute rewards explain or justify
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2 and half of page 3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit