Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

31 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Goals of group formation
1. Getting things done
2. Making accurate decisions
3. Provide sense of identity
4. Gain leadership positions (status)
5. Feeling acceptance (belonging)
Social facilitation effect
The tendency for individuals to do better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when surrounded by others
Social loafing
The tendency for individuals to do worse on simple tasks and better on complex tasks when in the presence of others (when we blend in with the crowd, when our individual contributions can't be measured)
Process loss
Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits problem solving
When promoting group cohesion is more important than considering facts in a realistic manner (pressure to reach a consensus)
Group polarization
Groups tend to make decisions that are more extreme than individuals would (whatever way the individuals are leaning, group discussion tends to make them lean further in that direction)
Groupthink syndrome
Belief in the inherent morality of the ingroup, false consensus effects, relying on stereotypes
Preventing groupthink
Avoid isolation, get outside input, encourage the expression of dissenting ideas, leader shouldn't indicate their favored solution
Titt-for-tat (reciprocal strategy)
Strategy that encourages cooperation and provides the best outcomes for PDG, cooperates on the first round with opponent and then reciprocates whatever the opponent did on the previous round
Tragedy of the Commons
Group draws from a common resource; if used in moderation the resource will replenish itself but if overused the resource will disappear
Self-interested behavior yields 2 outcomes:
1. Immediate positive outcome
2. Delayed negative outcome
Ex. oil, water supply
Public Goods Dilemma
A minimum number of people must contribute to a common pool in order to maintain a public good that is enjoyed by all members of the group
Reverse of commons dilemma:
1. Immediate negative outcome (contribution of thing)
2. Delayed positive outcome (public good available)
Ex. public radio
Factors than influence cooperation
Expectation that others are cooperating (or not)
Social norms (i.e., reciprocity)
Communication among participants
Barriers to cooperation
Lack of awareness of the problem
Perception that others aren't cooperating
Loose-knit communities
Not having the resources to act cooperatively
Zero-sum/distributive bargaining
When goals of each party are so interconnected that only one of groups can achieve the goal (i.e., scarce resources must be divided)
Integrative bargaining
Mutual gain solution where one party's achievement facilitates another's goals
Mixed-motives bargaining
Involves both corresponding and competing interests; the challenge is to maximize the integrative potential (mutual gain)
Fear hypothesis
Groups are more competitive than individuals because we're conditioned to expect that they are so and act aggressively
Identifiability hypothesis
Groups are more competitive than individuals because a group provides anonymity, and we're therefore less accountable for our actions
Greed hypothesis
Groups are more competitive than individuals because groups provide their members with social support to pursue one's own self interest
Generalized attitude toward members of a group (affect)
Generalized belief about members of a group (cognition)
Behaviors directed towards people on the basis of their group membership
Goals of prejudice/stereotypes/discrimination
1. Gaining material benefits
2. Managing self-image
3. Gaining social approval
4. Seeking mental efficiency
Minimal intergroup paradigm
Members of groups created randomly still give preferential treatment to other ingroup members (in-group bias)
Realistic group conflict theory
Negative prejudices and stereotypes emerge from actual intergroup competition for resources
PSD to manage self-image
We get a boost in self-confidence when we judge others because we feel like a part of an in-group
In-group identification - the closer you feel, the more likely you'll be to have out-group biases
Perceived out-group homogeneity
Overestimating how similar members of another group are to each other (an outgroup's similarity is much stronger than our ingroup's similarity)
Goal-based approach to ignorance
Provide a goal that individual groups can't take care of on their own, so they have to work together and avoid their conflict to achieve the goal
Frustration-aggression hypothesis
Theory that any unpleasant stimulation leads to emotional aggression to the extent that it generates negative feelings
Excitation-transfer theory
Theory suggesting that arousal produced in one situation can persist and intensify emotional reactions occurring in later situations
Goals of aggressive behavior
1. Coping with annoyance
2. Gaining material/social rewards
3. Gaining or maintaining social status
4. Protecting oneself or others