* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Cards Social
Carolyn Sherif wikipedia , lookup
Social facilitation wikipedia , lookup
Human bonding wikipedia , lookup
Belongingness wikipedia , lookup
Introspection illusion wikipedia , lookup
Relational aggression wikipedia , lookup
Group polarization wikipedia , lookup
Self-categorization theory wikipedia , lookup
Interpersonal relationship wikipedia , lookup
Group cohesiveness wikipedia , lookup
Social loafing wikipedia , lookup
Albert Bandura wikipedia , lookup
Group dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Impression formation wikipedia , lookup
Social dilemma wikipedia , lookup
Attitude (psychology) wikipedia , lookup
Communication in small groups wikipedia , lookup
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Attitude change wikipedia , lookup
Elaboration likelihood model wikipedia , lookup
Self-perception theory wikipedia , lookup
Interpersonal attraction wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
branch concerned with how people influence & are influenced by others SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY bias toward socially attractive people as more intelligent, competent, talented, interesting, kind, sensitive PHYSICAL APPEARANCE (Perception bias) opinion forms in first 30 seconds; primacy effect FIRST IMPRESSIONS (Perception bias) overgeneralizations about the way a group of people think or act STEREOTYPES negative attitude toward a person or group of people PREJUDICE action against a person or group of people DISCRIMINATION when frustrated choose a powerless person or group to blame for situation SCAPEGOAT THEORY overestimate others behavior to internal causes & underestimate external causes FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR belief that good people are rewarded & bad punished. Leads to blaming victim JUST WORLD HYPOTHESIS negative info. Tends to be believed & weighted more heavily SOCIAL DESIRABILITY EFFECT tend to attribute behavior that results in good outcome for us to internal causes & bad outcome to external causes. SELF-SERVING BIAS We are attracted to those like ourselves SIMILARITY (Interpersonal Attraction) repeated exposure to someone increases likelihood of attraction PROXIMITY (Interpersonal Attraction) We are drawn to socially attractive people ATTRACTIVENESS (Interpersonal Attraction) we fall for people who match our own social attractiveness MATCHING HYPOTHESIS early in relationship; intense arousal, interest, desire for another PASSIONATE/ROMANTIC LOVE deep, caring affection for another COMPANIONATE/AFFECTIONATE LOVE Intimacy – feelings of closeness & connectedness Passion – physical & sexual attraction Commitment – commitment to maintain the love TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE (Sternberg) Consummate love – contains all 3 Fatuous love – based on passion & commitment attitude becomes more positive with continued exposure MERE EXPOSURE EFFECT conflict that arises when someone holds two or more inconsistent attitudes. Motivates us to reduce dissonance by changing attitude/behavior. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (Festinger) we rate more favorably experiences that require more effort to obtain. EFFOR JUSTIFICATION expose ourselves only to information that supports our choice SELECTIVE EXPOSURE when others attempt to change our attitudes PERSUASION individual who delivers the message PERSUASION SOURCE audience to whom a persuasive message is sent, usually one of the following ways: PERSUASION RECEIVER central route – receiver carefully ponders the content & logic of the message; results in most lasting attitud peripheral route – persuasion depends on non-message factors (attractiveness, emotion) information transmitted by the source PERSUASION MESSAGE medium through which message is sent (t.v., newspaper) PERSUASION CHANNEL adopt attitudes/behavior of others due to real or imagined pressure CONFORMITY line segments & conformity ASCH'S RESEARCH shared standards of behavior SOCIAL NORMS people tend to treat others as they have been treated RECIPROCITY NORM people whom we are like or wish to be like REFERENCE GROUP bigger the group the more likely we are to conform GROUP SIZE go along even though no authority over you COMPLIANCE agree to small request & later asked bigger request FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR request so large it is denied, then smaller request complied with DOOR-IN-THE-FACE gives us something & we feel obligated to give in return RECIPROCITY before you refuse more is offered THAT'S-NOT-ALL TECHNIQUE agree to a commitment first & then add disagreeable specifics later LOW BALLING perception that opportunity is restricted SCARCITY people follow direct commands from authority figures OBEDIENCE learner/teacher shocks; over 60% continued MILGRAM'S RESEARCH Mock prison at Stanford University; looked at the power of the situation we are in ZIMBARDO'S RESEARCH frustration produces aggression & may be directed at the Frustrator or displaced onto another target FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS behave aggressively by observing aggressive models & reinforcement of aggressive responses SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF AGGRESSION selfless concern for welfare of others that leads to helping behavior ALTRUISM whether people will come to the aide of a person in distress. Studied as a result of Kitty Genovese case BYSTANDER INTERVENTION people are less likely to help someone when others are present BYSTANDER EFFECT when people feel the responsibility for helping is shared among those present. DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY tendency to do better on easy/well-learned tasks when others are present. SOCIAL FACILITATION tendency to do worse on unmastered tasks when others are present. SOCIAL INHIBITION reduction in effort when working in groups SOCIAL LOAFING groups arrive at a riskier decisions than individuals would do RISKY SHIFT loss of identity as a result of being part of a large group. Social restraints are lessened & impulsive/aggressive decisions may dominate; mob mentality DEINDIVIDUATION group discussion strengthens an already existing dominant point of view; group shifts toward more extreme GROUP POLARIZATION when group emphasizes agreement or concurrence at the expense of critical thinking; motivation for harmony may result in bad decisions GROUPTHINK