* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Social Psychology - IB-Psychology
Survey
Document related concepts
Belongingness wikipedia , lookup
Memory conformity wikipedia , lookup
Albert Bandura wikipedia , lookup
James M. Honeycutt wikipedia , lookup
Milgram experiment wikipedia , lookup
Attitude (psychology) wikipedia , lookup
Social dilemma wikipedia , lookup
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Impression formation wikipedia , lookup
Introspection illusion wikipedia , lookup
Interpersonal attraction wikipedia , lookup
Self-perception theory wikipedia , lookup
False consensus effect wikipedia , lookup
Attitude change wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Social Cognition What is Social Psychology? What is Social Psychology? • Social Psychology: study of how people think, feel, and behave in social situations. • Social cognition: mental processes people use to make sense out of their social environment • Social influence: effect of situation and other people on an individual’s behavior Activities: 1. Pictures matching 2. What else do you know about …? 3. “hot or not” Person Perception Forming Impressions of Other People Person Perception • Person Perception: mental processes we use to form judgments and draw conclusions about the characteristics and motives of others Principles of Person Perception 1. Your reactions are determined by your perceptions of others 2. Your goals determine the amount and kind of information you collect 3. You evaluate people partly in terms of how you expect them to behave (social norms) 4. Your self-perception influences how you perceive others Social Categorization • Mental process of categorizing people into groups on the basis of their shared characteristics • Automatic and spontaneous, outside conscious awareness • Cognitively efficient but may lead to inaccurate conclusions –Example: Asian male, early 20’s, probably a college student Social Categorization Advantages: • Help organize and recall efficiently Disadvantages: • Ignores uniqueness • Fast conclusions can be wrong When important, we rely less on categorization! Implicit Personality Theories • Network of assumptions or beliefs about the relationships among various types of people, traits, and behaviors • Through previous social experience, we form schemas about the traits and behaviors associated with different “types” of people Implicit Personality Theories –Schemas: Mental frameworks • Can be useful as mental shortcuts in perceiving other people, but they are not always accurate Implicit Personality Theories • Attractiveness Bias: Implicit personality theory (“what is beautiful is good” myth) • Associate attractiveness with being more intelligent, happier, and better adjusted, competence, sociability, morality The Attractiveness Bias –Teachers rate attractive children as smarter, and higher achieving The Attractiveness Bias –Adults attribute cause of unattractive child’s misbehavior to personality, attractive child’s to situation –Judges give longer prison sentences to unattractive people • Researchers have found few differences between beautiful and plain people –Attractive people tend to be less lonely, more popular, and less anxious in social situations. –Attractiveness is not correlated with intelligence, mental health, or self-esteem –Attractive people are more likely to attribute other people’s approval of their accomplishments to looks rather than effort or talent. Focus on Neuroscience • The ventral striatum predicts reward: activity increases when an unexpected reward appears and decreases when an expected reward fails to appear Focus on Neuroscience • The ventral striatum is activated when we make direct eye contact with a physically attractive person (fMRI study) • When gaze is shifted away, activity in the ventral striatum decreases Effects of Personal Appearance The baby-face bias –people with rounder heads, large eyes, small jawbones, etc., rated as more naïve, honest, helpless, kind, and warm than maturefaced –generalize to animals, women, babies Interpersonal Attraction • Understanding prejudice helps illuminate reasons that some people to dislike / hate others. • It’s also important to examine why people like / love others! Keys to Attraction The Environment: • Physical proximity: as long as you don’t initially dislike the person, your liking for him / her will increase with additional contact. • Mere-exposure effect Keys to Attraction The Environment cont’d: • Circumstance can influence attraction. –Comfortable vs. uncomfortable physical surroundings. –Primacy effect? Keys to Attraction Similarity: • Attitudes, interests, values, backgrounds, beliefs. • People prefer relationships that are balanced (mutual acquaintances and that mentioned above). Keys to Attraction Similarity cont’d: • People who share attitudes tend to validate one another's view of the world. • BUT, what about reciprocal causality? Keys to Attraction Similarity cont’d: –Attraction can be both a cause and a consequence of similarity. –Ex: You like someone b/c his attitudes are similar to yours. But it may be possible that, as a result of liking him, your attitudes will become more similar to his. Keys to Attraction Physical Attractiveness: • Influences the conclusions of a person’s character. • Positive attribute –others’ good looks enhances our own public image. Keys to Attraction Physical Attractiveness cont’d: • Research states that mothers tend to show attractive babies more affection. • Give good-looking people the benefit of the doubt – can lead to self-fulfilling prophecy? Keys to Attraction Physical Attractiveness cont’d: • Matching hypothesis. –People tend to date, marry, etc. with those of similar attractiveness. –Fear of rejection? Compromise? Keys to Attraction Exchange: relationships based on trading rewards. • Reward theory of attraction: –Tend to like people who make us feel rewarded and appreciated. Keys to Attraction • Exchange cont’d: –Aronson’s (1994) gain-loss theory: suggests that increases in rewarding behavior influence attractiveness more than constant rewarding behavior. Keys to Attraction Exchange cont’d: –Ex: Meet future spouse at a local gathering. His / her behavior gradually changed form indifference to flatter. –You would be inclined to like this person MORE (in this situation) than if s/he immediately started the flattery. –“Keep score” of the exchanges? –Need equity (fairness) to develop & maintain relationship. Keys to Attraction Intimacy: Quality of genuine closeness and trust in communication with another person. • Communication progresses from “safe” superficial topics to deeprooted feelings. • Self-disclosure of feelings/thoughts –Reciprocity of emotions / exchanges when dealing with self-disclosure. Handout / Overhead • 4 - Attributes Rated Most Attractive by Members of the Opposite Sex • 5 – Activity: Dear Abby Activity • 6 - Making attributions assignment • 7 - Attribution Scale Activity • Take out a sheet of scrap paper • For each of the following slides, write a brief explanation of the behavior of the person in the pictures that follow. Watch the next 4 slides together • Katrina helpers Attribution Explaining Behavior Attribution • The process of explaining the causes of people’s behavior, including one’s own. Attribution • May be internal or external: –Internal: Based on characteristics of the person –External attribution: Based on situational factors 0 Which did you make most in the previous photos? Activities: • 8 - Practice identifying internal vs. external WHY DO WE DO THIS??? • What conditions might make us less likely to make attribution errors? Two-stage Model of Attributions Example: Joe laughs hysterically while watching a TV comedy. What can we conclude? Observer’s goal Automatic Attribution Controlled Attribution What kind of person is Joe? Person: Joe laughs easily Revision: could be a funny show How funny is the TV comedy? Situation: the TV show is funny Revision: maybe Joe laughs easily Errors in Attribution • Did you make more internal or external attributions? • Most people attribute the behavior of others to internal rather than external factors. • We call that tendency the fundamental attribution error • Did you make more external attributions for others? Attribution Biases The Fundamental Attribution Error: the tendency to attribute the behavior of others to internal, (personal) characteristics, while ignoring or underestimating the effects of external (situational) factors Story time! • 9 – Attribution of responsibility Attribution Biases Fundamental attribution error plays a role in: • Blaming the victim: The tendency to blame a victim of misfortune for having somehow caused the problem or not taking steps to avoid or prevent it. Attribution Biases Fundamental attribution error plays a role in: –just-world hypothesis: the assumption that the world is fair and that therefore people get what they deserve and deserve what they get –When evidence contradicts the “just world” people are more likely to have sympathy and demand justice Attribution Biases • Actor–Observer Discrepancy: tendency to attribute own behavior to external causes, and the behavior of others to internal causes (especially with negative outcomes) • less susceptible with friends and relatives. • One explanation: we have more information about the potential causes of our behavior than we do about other people’s behavior. Attribution Biases • The Self-Serving Bias: tendency to attribute own successes to internal causes and unsuccessful outcomes to external causes I DIDN’T DO IT! Attribution Biases • Cross-Cultural Differences –Western culture: people are in charge of own destinies; more attributions to personality –Some Eastern cultures: fate in charge of destiny; more attributions to situation Cross-Cultural Differences 0.70 0.60 United States Attributions to internal disposition 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0 India Age (years) 8 11 15 Adult Other attribution errors: • The self-effacing bias (or modesty bias): –collectivist cultures –opposite of the self-serving bias –blaming failure on internal factors, while attributing success to external factors Practice • 11 – Concept Check: Attribution Errors Kelly’s Covariation Theory of Attribution Handouts in notes Person vs. Situation Attributions • Have to decide whether behavior is due to something about personality, or whether anyone would do same thing in that situation Person vs. Situation Attributions • Kelley’s 3 questions in making an attribution – does this person regularly behave this way in this situation? – do others regularly behave this way in this situation? – does this person behave this way in many other situations? • Example: Susan is angry while driving in a traffic jam Kelley’s Attributional Logic (1) Does Susan regularly get angry in traffic jams? NO No personality or situational attribution YES (2) Do many other people get angry in traffic jams? YES Situational attribution: traffic jams make people mad NO (3) Does Susan get angry in many other situations? YES NO Personality attribution, general Personality attribution, particular Social Psychology of Attitudes Attitude: • Learned tendency to evaluate some object, person, or issue in a particular way • May be positive, negative, or ambivalent • Three components: cognitive, affective, behavioral Attitudes most determine behavior when: 1. Attitudes are extreme or frequently expressed 2. They’re formed through experience 3. You’re knowledgeable about the subject 4. You have a vested interest in the subject 5. You anticipate a favorable outcome or response from others for doing so. The Effects of Behavior on Attitudes • Cognitive dissonance: An unpleasant state of psychological tension (dissonance) that occurs when there’s an inconsistency between two thoughts or perceptions (cognitions). The Effects of Behavior on Attitudes • C.D. typically results when attitudes and behavior are in conflict • C.D. can change or strengthen an attitude so it’s consistent with a behavior that has already been performed Social Influence: Social Influence: Conformity, Obedience, and Compliance Conformity: Following the Crowd Conformity • The tendency to adjust one’s behavior, attitudes, or beliefs to group norms in response to real or imagined group pressure Conformity • 1951 • Solomon Asch’s studies investigated whether people would still conform to the group even when the group opinion was clearly wrong Asch’s Experiments on Conformity • All but 1 in group was confederate • Seating rigged • Asked to rate which line matched a “standard” line • Confederates were instructed to pick Standard lines the wrong line 12/18 times 1 2 3 Comparison lines Asch’s Experiments on Conformity • Results –75% conformed to at least one wrong choice –subjects gave wrong answer (conformed) on 37% of the critical trials Factors Influencing Conformity • Factors that Promote Conformity: – Facing unanimous group – Give response in front of the group – Haven’t committed to a different idea – Task is ambiguous – Doubt abilities – Attracted to / want to belong to the group Factors Influencing Conformity We conform for two basic reasons: • Normative social influence: behavior motivated by the desire to gain social acceptance and approval. • Informational social influence: behavior motivated by the desire to be correct – Conformity is decreased when we have an ally in our dissent from majority opinion, even if the dissenter’s competence is questionable. Factors Influencing Conformity • Was it informational or normative influence that caused the conformity? • Subjects claim informational influence: –subjects said doubting their own perceptual abilities led them to conform – didn’t report seeing the lines the way the confederates had Factors Influencing Conformity • Variations to test informational influence hypothesis – confederates voted out loud, but subjects wrote their vote down • Results – conformity dropped significantly • Suggests that the original subjects conformed due to normative influences, not informational Culture and Conformity • Individualistic cultures – emphasize independence, self-expression, and standing out from the crowd; – conformity seen as negative • Collectivistic cultures – More conformity – publicly conforming while privately disagreeing is regarded as socially appropriate Obedience Just Following Orders Obedience Complying with the command of an authority figure • Milgram interested in unquestioning obedience to orders Stanley Milgram’s Studies Basic study procedure • teacher and learner (learner always confederate) • watch learner being strapped into chair • learner expresses concern over his “heart condition” Stanley Milgram’s Studies • Teacher goes to another room with experimenter • Shock generator panel – 15 to 450 volts, labels “slight shock” to “XXX” • Asked to give higher shocks for every mistake learner makes Stanley Milgram’s Studies • Learner protests more and more as shock increases • Experimenter continues to request obedience even if teacher balks 120 “Ugh! Hey this really hurts.” 150 “Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now.” 300 (agonized scream) “I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can’t hold me here. Get me out.” 330 (intense & prolonged agonized scream) “Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart’s bothering me. Let me out, I tell you…” Stanley Milgram’s Studies • How many people would go to the highest shock level? • 65% of the subjects went to the end, even those that protested – far beyond all predictions Stanley Milgram’s Studies Percentage of subjects who obeyed experimenter 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 The majority of subjects continued to obey to the end Moderate Very Extreme XXX Slight (75-120) Strong strong Intense intensity Danger (435-450) (15-60) (135-180) (195-240) (255-300) (315-360) severe (375-420) Shock levels in volts Explaining Milgram’s Results • Invalid or unreliable results? –numerous replications support the results • Sadistic subject population? –videotapes of Milgram’s subjects show extreme distress Explaining Milgram’s Results • Did subjects think it was fake? –No way! It was very convincing. • Males are aggressive? –No … follow up with female subjects produced the same results What impacted the subjects? • Framework to obey –Expected to follow directions –Were paid What impacted the subjects? • Context – Trusted and respected the experimenter’s authority (Yale) – Didn’t want to appear rude; were all polite • Variations – office setting: 48% – orders given over the phone: 23% – ordinary man gives orders to continue: 20% What impacted the subjects? • Gradual, repetitive escalation –Start small – can be justified –15 volt increments are small • Experimenter’s behavior –Assured of experimenter’s responsibility for consequences What impacted the subjects? • Separation from the learner –Separate room –Depersonalized (flip a switch) –Pleas were to experimenter • Variations: –When in same room: 40% –Teacher required to force learner’s hand on a “shock plate” – 30% Explanations for Milgram’s Results • When teachers allowed to choose the shock level – 95% did not exceed 150 volts –3% went to 450 volts • More likely to disobey if they saw another teacher rebel – 10% Ethical Issues of Milgram • Accused of causing emotional stress, especially when subjects realized that they would kill if ordered to do so • Milgrams response: People are mad because the findings are unattractive – 84% later said they were glad to have participated – 1.3% said they were sorry • Ethical concerns led to the establishment of ethical guidelines Real world value? • Shows importance of social influence • Ilustrates that we can resist pressures • Conformity and obedience aren’t entirely bad Compliance and Persuasion What if you’re not in a group and you’re not an authority figure? Compliance and Persuasion • Compliance: When people adjust their behavior because of a request. The request can be explicit or implicit. • Persuasion: Deliberate attempt to influence the attitude or behavior of another when they have a choice. Sales! Cognitive Dissonance Theory • Contradictions are uncomfortable. • Because they're uncomfortable, contradictions motivate attitude change. Cognitive Dissonance Tactics • Ben Franklin Effect: enemies who do you one favor will want to do more • Hazing: get people to like their situation by making them suffer to get there • Counterattitudinal advocacy: when we state opinions we don't believe, we start to believe them • Labeling: get people to act a certain way by talking to them as if they already were that way Ben Franklin Effect • “Ben Franklin Effect”: Enemies who do you one favor will want to do more • Story • Why does it work? – Remember: Contradictions are uncomfortable; thus motivate attitude change. Ben Franklin Effect • Ben's political opponent originally had antagonistic views toward Ben. • Ben politely asked him for a small favor. • The opponent obliged. • After obliging, the opponent feels cognitive dissonance. • Ben is his enemy, and yet, he just did his enemy a favor. He just contradicted himself. Ben Franklin Effect Logical contradictions are discomforting. How can he get rid of this contradiction? There are two ways: – take back book (change behavior so it aligns with original attitudes about Ben) – decide Ben is actually a good guy (change attitudes about Ben so they align with new behavior) Ben Franklin Effect • It is very easy to change one's attitude to relieve dissonance, but very difficult to change one's behavior. • Thus, the political opponent becomes Ben's friend, and in fact, is even more willing to do more favors for Ben, to further relieve any evidence of contradiction between his thoughts and his actions. Ben’s Lesson: • To convert an enemy into a friend, try asking your enemy for a small favor. If your enemy obliges, he or she will be even more willing to do you more favors. Hazing • Get people to like their situation by making them suffer to get there Hazing • If you spend a lot of effort to get somewhere, and you don't like the end result, that's a contradiction. Why would you spend so much effort for something you don't even like? Contradictions make us feel uncomfortable and even stupid. Thus, we change our attitude about the situation, and say that we like it. Hazing • Experimental Basis: – Cult Infiltration Research • Real World Basis: – Fraternities – Military – Falling in love – Graduate students Hazing Lesson • Approval of a situation is greatly amplified if people have spent lots of effort to reach that situation. Sometimes an effortful path can be purposely planned in the interest of manipulating attitude. Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy • When we state opinions we don't believe, we start to believe them • Explanation: Cognitive dissonance – Why am I saying something that I don't believe? It's a contradiction and it doesn't make sense. Maybe I believe what I'm saying after all. Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy • Experimental Basis:Really Boring Tasks (Festinger & Carlsmith 1959) – College students spend an hour performing a series of excruciatingly boring and repetitive tasks. Three experimental conditions then follow: Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy Three conditions follow: 1. Control: Fill out questionnaire describing how much they liked the experiment. 2. Received $1 3. Received $20. Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy Results: Condition how much they liked experiment 1. Control they really hated it 2. Received $1 they liked it 3. Received $20 they either liked it a tiny bit or just didn't like it Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy Real-world basis: AIDS Prevention (Aronson 1991) • College students asked to compose a speech describing the dangers of AIDS and the importance of using condoms. Students were placed in one of several experimental conditions: Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy 1. Just compose the speech 2. Compose speech, then recite it on video camera for a high school audience 3. Compose speech, write a list of circumstances in which you have failed to use condoms, and then recite your speech on camera for a high school audience Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy • After the ordeal, students were given the opportunity to purchase condoms cheaply. • Results: Students in the hypocrisy condition were far more likely to buy condoms. • By reminding the students of their failure to use condoms, and then having them preach condom usage, Aronson induced dissonance. To remove this dissonance, students practiced what they preached. Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy Lesson • Simply asking people to compose an opposing argument can make them change their minds. Labeling • Get people to act a certain way by talking to them as if they already were that way • Explained by both cognitive dissonance and self-fulfilling prophecy. Labeling Explanation 1 • Cognitive dissonance: Why do you keep describing me as if I'm like that? I'm not really like that. But you keep treating me as if I'm like that, and it's making me uncomfortable. I'll change my behavior so that it agrees with your view of me. Labeling Explanation 2 • Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Labeling could be interpreted as a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. The difference is that with labeling, we are consciously constructing artificial expectations of a person. However, that person doesn't know it's artificial, so it's all the same to him or her. Labeling Experimental Basis • 5th Grader Trash Pickup (Miller, Brickman): Trying to solve the problem of how to get 5th graders to pick up their trash during recess. Labeling Three different experimental conditions: • Control: Researchers didn't do anything to the 5th graders. • Persuasion: 5th graders listen to lectures about environmental awareness and the consequences of improper litter disposal. • Labels: Adults at school label the 5th graders as really clean people. Labeling Results: Condition Control % of kids who put trash in the cans 25% Persuasion 25% Labels 85% Labeling Labeling Lesson: Get people to act a certain way by treating them as if they already act that way. Sales Techniques Cognitive Dissonance Reciprocity Norm Rule of Commitment Sales Techniques Based on cognitive dissonance • Foot-in-the-door • Four walls technique Foot-in-the-door • People are more likely to satisfy a large request after agreeing to a small one – Based on cognitive dissonance Foot-in-the-door – Ask for something small at first, then hit customer with larger request later – Small request has paved the way to compliance with the larger request – Cognitive dissonance results if person has already granted a request for one thing, then refuses to give the larger item Foot-in-the-door • Experimental Basis: Homeowner Front yard Signs (Freedman & Fraser, 1966) • Psychologists went door to door in Palo Alto, asking housewives if they would grant ridiculous requests. – Kitchen searches – Yard signs Foot-in-the-door Both experiments had two conditions. • First condition: subjects were asked only the large requests. • Second condition: psychologists preceded their large request with a a small request. For instance, they might first ask the housewives to sign a petition about driving safely before asking them to post the giant sign. Foot-in-the-door: Results Large request Kitchen intrusion Giant lawn sign Preceded by Large small request compliance request Yes 52.8% No 22.2% Yes 76% No 17% Foot-in-the-door Based on: –Rule of Commitment: Once you make a commitment, there is pressure to be consistent Foot-in-the-door Lesson Sell large requests by first asking for small ones. Smooth transition. Four walls technique –Question customer in such a way that gets answers consistent with the idea that they need to own object –Feeling of cognitive dissonance results if person chooses not to buy this thing that they “need” Sales Techniques Based on reciprocity norm: • Door-in-the-face • That’s not all Reciprocity and Sales –Rule of reciprocity: if someone gives you something, you feel obligated to return the favor Reciprocity and Sales • Door-in-the-face technique: Start with a request that’s likely to be denied. Then, admit that the initial favor was excessive and substitute a lesser alternative. • Appears the salesman has made a concession and the buyer feels obligated to give a little, too. Reciprocity and Sales • That’s not all: Salesman makes an offer, but before it can be refused, adds on something extra. • Appears to be a favor that you feel like you should reciprocate. Sales Techniques Based on Rule of Commitment • Low-ball technique Commitment and Sales • Low-ball technique: Get a commitment by understating the cost. Once committed, the cost of compliance goes up. • Person feels like they have to keep the commitment they made Preventing Reactance • Psychological reactance: if pressure is too blatant, has opposite of intended effect • leads to salespeople using softer techniques so that person feels they have a choice • often phrase pressure into questions – “would you please put your books and notes away for the quiz?” Defense Against Persuasion Techniques • Sleep on it—don’t act on something right away • Play devil’s advocate—think of all the reasons you shouldn’t buy the product or comply with the request • Pay attention to your gut feelings—if you feel pressured, you probably are Apply it! Assignment • Whole-class: Agree on a serious topic on which you would like to persuade others. (Example: smoking) • Groups: Each group will create a “sales presentation” using one of the persuasion techniques. Cooperation, Competition, and Conflict Cooperation, Competition, and Conflict • Cooperation: Any type of behavior in which several people work together to attain a goal. • Competition: Trying to attain a goal for one’s self while denying others that goal. • Conflict: When 1 group or person believes another stand in the way of their goal. Cooperation, Competition, and Conflict • Social Dilemmas: Situations in which actions that reward one person will, if adopted by everyone, produce negative consequences for everyone. Cooperation, Competition, and Conflict • Prisoner’s Dilemma: Scenario between 2 prisoners separated after arrest who must decide between silence and confession. – Both silent = both get relatively short prison sentences – Both confess = both get moderate prison sentences – One confesses = confessor goes free, partner gets very long sentence 1-Shot Prisoner’s Dilemma Game • Game in lab setting Player 2 Defects Cooperates Cooperates Player 1 – choice to cooperate or defect – consequence is monetary – highest vs. lowest individual payoff – highest vs. lowest total payoff Defects $3 $3 $5 $0 $0 $5 $1 $1 Emotions and Cooperation Player 2 Cooperates Cooperates Gratitude Gratitude Anger Defects Player 1 • Cooperation + cooperation • Failure to cooperate + failure to cooperate • Cooperation + failure to cooperate • Failure to cooperate + cooperation Guilt Defects Guilt Anger Disaffection Disaffection Resource Dilemmas • People share some common resource, thus creating inherent conflict between the interests of the individual and those of the group, and also between people’s short-term and long-term interests. • Example: Farmers using water from the same lake. Each would benefit from unrestricted water use, but if all do it, all will suffer. • We need to cooperate! Fostering Cooperation • Communication can reduce competition –Must be non-threatening –Relevant –Open –Praise for past cooperation –Tit-for-tat strategy (TFT) Fostering Cooperation • Rapoport’s Tit-for-Tat (TFT) strategy – first time you meet new partner, cooperate – for all other trials, do what they did to you on previous trial – can’t “win” with TFT – this strategy gets others to cooperate Fostering Cooperation • Why is TFT effective for cooperation? – it’s nice - cooperates from the start, encouraging cooperation – it’s not exploitable - discourages defection by reciprocating each defection – it’s forgiving - as soon as partner begins cooperating, TFT reciprocates – it’s transparent - partner quickly learns that best strategy is to cooperate Interpersonal Conflict Conflict is especially likely in a • Zero-sum game: One person’s gains are subtracted from the other person’s resources. The sum of the gains and losses is zero. Interpersonal Conflict Causes of interpersonal conflict: • Competition for scarce resources • Revenge • People attribute unfriendly or selfish motives to others • Faulty communication Managing Conflict • Bargaining: Each side produces offers and counter-offers until they find a solution that’s acceptable to both sides. • Third-party interventions: Outside mediator helps focus on important issues, defuse emotions, clarify positions, and make suggestions for compromise • Superordinate goals: Be made to feel that they are all part of the same group and share the same goals. Group Processes • Group Polarization • Social Loafing • Social Facilitation