Social psychology notes Assignment

Social psychology notes Assignment Words: 1390

A way of doing this is random number sampling egg number sampling using a phone book forever this is only applicable to those that have phone numbers, want to take part Therefore sampling can never be perfect. Problems Caveat – Most samples are psychology students who are predominantly white, wealthy and female. All weird ? Henries, Hein and Norwegian (2010) ‘the weirdest people in the world’ suggested that participants are mainly western educated, industrialized, rich and democratic.

Internet – usually the main draw of this for participants is that they earn money – Brisbane (2004) ‘human research and data collection via the internet’ – usually individuals that eke part are experienced at doing these studies, may second guess the studies Gosling (2004) ‘should we trust web based studies? ‘ Experimental studies Research manipulates a situation in order to observe the outcome of the manipulation There is usually random assignment of subjects to experimental conditions, large pool of subjects and are obtained through random sampling.

Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!

order now

Egg cutting cards, random numbers, flipping a coin. Deals with information regarding how one factor causes changes in another. Hopefully the results should be dependent on what they experience and not the groups hey were assigned into. Demand characteristics – cues that the participant reacts to. Covers field experiments and lab experiments.

Hypothesis A prediction stated in a way that permits it to be tested A variable manipulated in the experiment by the researcher DVD A variable measures in the experiment manipulation Experimental procedure Subjects are randomly assigned Correlation studies No manipulation only studies trends Researcher examines previously existing situations Identifications of associations between factors Uses: Naturalistic Observation archival research search survey Can’t make casual conclusions A third variable problem – results could be an outcome of confounding variables Interpersonal attraction lecture 6 15/2/2013 What are the functions Of social relations? Whose company do we seek? How is liking affected by proximity, familiarity and similarity? Functions of social relations Attachment in childhood children show incubation period on the time it takes to form attachment. Attachment is a stable and coherent pattern of emotions and behaviors in close relationships to other people (Bowl, 1973) Attachment gives a sense f comfort and security – provides information Child sensitive to facial expression of mother, especially when food is involved. Learns what the mother likes or dislikes.

Insinuators et al (1978) – The strange situations Avoiding attachment Secure attachment Anxious ambivalent attachment The child plays, mother leaves the room, child becomes distressed. Parent returns ? when parent returns the behavior of the child is measured. Secure – If the child is easily comforted thy approach the mother who acts as security and a secure base avoiding – shows little distress when distressed, ignores other suggests an inconsistent relationship ambivalent ? seeks mother but also shows hostility – torn and inconsistent Attachments are indicated by proximity seeking, safe haven, separation protest and secure base (Haze and Coffman, 1994) Can be suggested through relationships with other children and explore environment but use caregiver as a secure base.

Weiss (1974) – provisions of social relations integration worth Alliance guidance endurance attachment Larson (1982) what people actually do paged children and adults at random points during the day for a week After ACH page they had to write down what they were doing 3/as of the time they were with others – we are social creatures Ostracism and cybercafé Gingerers, Lieberman and Williams (2003) does rejection actually hurt? Interpersonal attraction – lecture notes Reading Interdependence and exchange – lecture notes Greg Maim ? Lecture 9 – notes Interdependence and exchange Relationships involve interdependence Social exchange and interdependence theory How is intimacy created? What are the effects Of relationship satisfaction and commitment?

What happens when problems arise? Intimacy Raise & Patrick (1996) Verbal or non-verbal disclosure A caring sympathetic response from the partner promotes intimacy Intimate feelings arise A mini experiment Ellsworth & Ross Investigated intimacy in response to direct gaze. Eye contact promotes intimacy, independent of content of speech. Satisfaction and commitment Satisfaction- the subjective evaluation of the quality of a relationship. Commitment- the positive and negative forces acting t keep a person in a relationship Satisfaction and interdependence Van Lange et al (1988) Costs decrease but sacrifices increase satisfaction Satisfaction and behaviors

Weiss & He-man (1990) Happy couples spend more time in shared activities, use more humor and engage in more affectionate touching There can be satisfaction in sacrifice – for example in western cultures with busy lifestyles and with children Commitment personal dedication ? I have it, I like it, I want to pep it Moral commitment -Entered into a contract, explicit values Constraint commitment – interdependence, practical constraints egg kids, money, house Constraint commitment Dragoons & Result (1992) availability of alternatives can decrease commitment Murray & Holmes (1998) Commitment can also decrease attractiveness of alternatives Rubout – the amount of investments put into a relationship, time, energy, emotions increase commitment Lesbian and gay marriages Appeal et al -Have as much satisfaction and commitment as heterosexual relationships. Kurd (1998) Power balance, alternative, rewards and investment are similar to the effects in heterosexual relationships Difference in social context may have a difference When problems arise Breakdown in communication Conflict begins Dissatisfaction may lead to dislike Attributions Relationship Distress Enhancing attribution Maintaining attribution

Positive event – taken out for dinner Internal stable global He is a sweet caring person External unstable specific Underlying reason Negative event – forgets anniversary Something happened at work Internal, stable, global He is always thoughtless, my feelings never matter Attributions and satisfaction Woolworth, Munroe & Jacobson (1985) – Happy couples make more relationship enhancing attributions Bingham & Bradbury – Distress maintaining attributions may decrease satisfaction over time Reciprocation The reciprocation of negative behaviors only leads to escalation. Factors that reverent lash back Commitment Raging & Result 1 998 perspective taking and empathy McCullough et al 1 997 Voice distress leading to the question of loyalty leading possibly to neglect and then to the exiting of the relationship Mutual bonds – lecture notes Interactions and behavior – lecture notes Groups and leaderships – lecture notes A group exists when a collection of people are interdependent and at least have the potential for mutual interaction Features of groups Cohesiveness helps create groups Cohesiveness is high when forces cause people to remain in a group

Cohesiveness is increased by mutual liking, group success and the importance of group goals (Coat et al, 1995) Assigning blame and incentives to exit if group is unsuccessful in achieving these goals. Group tasks Steiner (1972) Additive tasks – are tasks where everyone plays their part. Conjunctive task All group members succeed in order for the group to succeed, similar to that of a factory line where they are constrained by the weakest member. Disjunctive task ? There is one solution to a problem, meaning there is one star player. If one member succeeds so does the rest of the group. The quality of group decisions is influenced by: Brainstorming – criticisms of others is forbidden until later, wild ideas are welcome and then combinations and improvements are sought. Doesn’t work??

Taylor Berry and Block (1958) The Output Of brainstorming Of groups Of five was compared with the output of five people working on their own. Were given 12 minutes. Worked on abstract problems without obviously correct solutions egg, How to bring in more European tourists Group ideas were less good and had half as many ideas as the individuals, shows two heads are not better . 2 heads alone are better than one. Group Lorraine – group discussion results in more extreme decisions Stoner (1961) – groups make riskier decisions than individuals. Individuals are more conservative before talking in a group. Egg gave examples of what individuals should do in risky situations.

Carol and the restaurant. Should she quit current job and use savings to set up a business. 1-10 level of risk. Individuals are less conservative in group situations, make riskier decisions. Real life application, risky for banks. Group decision making persuasive arguments may cause opinions so become more extreme (Bauer et al 1 995) Group members persuade catheter people may engage in social comparison and try to appear better than average (Steals & Devalue (1987) People may polarize their view in order to promote their social identity – conform to the group norm to doubly emphasize (Mackey, 1 986) Could all of these occur at the same time?

How to cite this assignment

Choose cite format:
Social psychology notes Assignment. (2022, Feb 10). Retrieved May 24, 2024, from