Samenvatting
1.1C People in Groups 2020/2021 ENG full summary incl. practice questions
- Instelling
- Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (EUR)
- Boek
- Group Dynamics
1.1C Social Psychology incl. practice questions, full summary.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 31 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 31 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
COURSE 1.1 PEOPLE IN GROUPSTUTORIAL NOTES GROUP 49
Problem 1: Head in the Clouds
Clarifying terms:
-arousal: the causing of strong feelings or excitement in someone / a state of
physiological and psychological excitation (e.g.: goosebumps, higher heart rate,
sweating)
-emotion: a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or
relationships with others
● Theories of emotions:
○ James-Lange theory of emotion
■ Stimulus - arousal - experience
■ No cognitive interpretation
■ Problem with this: too many emotions that will explain the same arousal (the same
happens when we are happy/angry)
■ (The theory that the subjective experience of emotion is the awareness of one’s own
bodily reactions in the presence of certain arousing stimuli) What turns the perception
into genuine emotion is our awareness of the bodily changes produced by the
arousing stimuli. These changes might consist of running or a pounding heartbeat but
only when we detect the biological changes do we move from cold appraisal to
emotional feeling. The claim is that the specific character of the biological changes is
crucial- so that we feel fear because we are experiencing the pattern of bodily
changes associated with fear; we feel happiness because of its pattern of changes in
the body, and so on.
○ Cannon-Bard theory of emotion
■ Stimulus - subcortical brain activity - arousal and experience at the same time (the
outcome is the emotion)
■ (The theory that a stimulus elicits an emotion by triggering a particular response in the
brain(in the thalamus), which then causes both the physiological changes associated
with the emotion and the emotional experience itself) it’s not easy to distinguish the
bodily changes associated with different emotions, because the bodily changes
associated with anger are actually rather similar to the change associated with happy
excitement.
○ Schachter-Singer theory of emotion
■ Stimulus - arousal - appraisal - experience
■ Example: walking in a park, a guy behind a bush, increased heart rate, realizing he’s
just walking: emotion is not fear but arousal increases
■ There is attribution/interpretation here
■ Cognitive evaluation before feeling the emotion
■ Experiment: the epinephrine drug injection (3 groups: drug-informed, drug-
uninformed, placebo): when we’re not sure what the source of our arousal is, we’ll
use cues from our environment (contextual cues)
■ Happens a lot with kids
■ (The theory that emotional experience results from the interpretation of bodily
responses in the context of situational cues). According to this theory, behavior and
, physiology are crucial for emotional experience. James was wrong, though, in
claiming that the mere perception of these bodily changes is sufficient to produce
emotional experience. That is because, in addition, emotion depends on a person’s
judgments about why her body and physiology have changed.
● The difference between:
■ Misattribution of arousal: we attribute our feelings with the wrong source (study of
epinephrine) Sometimes, the arousal-love connection is obvious, as when a person
feels a surge of sexual desire at the sight of a romantic partner. At other times,
however, the symptoms of arousal – such as a pounding heart, sweaty palms and
week knees – can be hard to interpret. When you’re in the company of an attractive
person, these symptoms may be attributed or ‘misattributed’ to passionate love.
■ Excitation-transfer: Dolf Zillman(1984) we transfer our arousal from one situation to
another (Capilano bridge)/ The process whereby arousal caused by one stimulus is
added to arousal from a second stimulus and the combined arousal is attributed to
the second stimulus. Purports that residual excitation from one stimulus will amplify
the excitatory response to another stimulus
● Excitation-transfer model (Zillmann):
The expression of aggression (or any other emotion) is a function of:
-a learned aggressive behavior
-arousal or excitation from another source
-the person’s interpretation of the arousal state, such that an aggressive
response seems appropriate
Example: coming out of the gym and aroused from that, going to the supermarket and getting overly
angry about a taken parking spot.
● Experiment with electroshocks:
○ with a woman in the room the men were less scared of shocks
○ when they were expecting severe shocks= arousal, they rated the women more attractive
Two- Factor Theory of Emotion: The theory that the experience of emotion is based on two factors:
1) physiological arousal and a 3) cognitive interpretation of that arousal.
Schachter has suggested the intriguing idea that emotions have two distinct components: a state of
physiological arousal that does not differentiate among emotions, and cognitions that label the arousal and
determine which emotion is experienced.
Stanley Schachter(1959) found that when people were frightened into thinking they would receive painful
electric shocks, most sought the company of others who were in the same predicament. Nervous and
uncertain about how they should be feeling, participants wanted to affiliate with similar others, presumably
for the purpose of comparison. Yet when they were not fearful and expected only mild shocks or when the
‘others’ were not taking part in the same experiment, participants preferred to be alone. As Schachter put it,
“Misery doesn’t just love any kind of company; it loves only miserable company”.
● Roller coaster experiment:
○ WITH NONROMANTIC PARTNER:
-higher ratings exiting (than entering) towards photographed ind.
ratings of seatmate attractiveness would not significantly differ
between those entering and exiting
, ○ WITH ROMANTIC PARTNER
-exiting: higher ratings of attraction towards romantic partner (than
entering)
-no difference between entering and exiting on ratings toward the
photographed ind.
Confederate: Someone who appears to be a research participant but actually is part of the research team.
Problem 2: Whodunnit?
Bystander effect : the larger the group an individual is in, the less likely he is to take action in a
critical situation.
Diffusion of responsibility: only witness? Burden clearly on your shoulders/ more witnesses?
Someone else should or has taken action.
Pluralistic Ignorance: The inaction of all the members of the group can itself contribute to a
collective ignorance that anything is wrong. So when situations are unclear: we take our cues from
other people.
The analysis of experiments:
- The laboratory smoke
The people who were alone, reported the incident.
People in a room with confederates that didn’t react out, had a low percentage of action taken.
- An epileptic seizure
There was a discussion going on. Through this process a person had a seizure. There were 3
groups of people. Each had more people in the room than the previous, therefore it took more time
for people to leave their place in order to help proving the bystander effect in action.
Why do people choose to help or not?
- Valuing the physical danger to a person.
- When people are trained(a nurse for instance) to handle emergencies: more likely to help
- Sexual attraction.
- Social relationship.
- Internal factor: Mood swings ( happy mood - more likely to help or in a bad mood because of
guilt – more likely to help. If in a bad mood because of others – less likely to help).
- Agreeableness ( the more agreeable, the more likely to help)
- Success rate ( the more successful, the more likely to help)
- Social settings guide your actions(what are the costs or benefits of helping: physical harm,
audience inhibition(or public embarrassment), involvement with police, lost workdays).
5 steps to decide to help ( Latane & Darley):
1. Notice the situation ( obstacles: no time, rush, more preoccupied with themselves, therefore don’t
notice what’s going on, density of city)
2. Noticing the situation as an emergency ( obstacles: pluralistic ignorance, wrong interpretation of the
relationship, ambiguity of the situation)
3. Take responsibility ( obstacle: diffusion of responsibility)
4. Decide how to help ( obstacle: not having enough knowledge to help, the relationship between the
victim and the helper)
5. Take action (obstacle: consequences of oneself, risks and gains, audience inhibition)
, Situational factors that may influence peoples’ response:
- Urban overload hypothesis. People in larger cities are less likely to notice other people around
them due to the high level of stimulus.
- ‘Just world’ hypothesis. When the victim might be to blame for the situation. (When they perceive
the situation might have occurred the fault of the victim): people showed brain activity indicating
greater sensitivity when learning about the pain of individuals who had contracted AIDS as a result
of a blood transfusion rather than drug use(using FMRI technology, John Decety 2010). More
modern examples of the just-world phenomenon can be seen in many places. The poor may be
blamed for their circumstances and victims of sexual assault are often blamed for their attack, as
others suggest that it was the victim's own behavior that caused the assault
- Social media and video games as external factor. The more prosocial video games people play,
the more prosocial they become. This is not the case when playing violent or neutral games(people
don’t get more violent).
- Cultural differences. The more individualistic countries tend to mind their own business first rather
than helping.
- People tend to help more when physical help is needed.
- When group members are familiar others, larger group size can encourage helping behavior
because:
1. If you shift your burden to someone familiar in the crowd, you might feel uncomfortable
2. Embarrassment of not doing anything will be bigger if you’re with a group you’ll be seeing
again.
3. Taking action among friends increases a sense of pride and unity within the group
The way to reduce the bystander effect:
1. Communicate with other people in a situation of pluralistic ignorance (you think something is wrong
but unsure). Communicate if help is necessary in this situation. Studies (Darley 1975) show that
communication helps with not being paralyzed.
2. Possibility of knowing the people in the group or later interacting with them.
3. Knowing the facts about bystander effect
4. Trying not to worry about the consequences of the situation.
5. In a situation of diffusion responsibility: making eye contact/point to a person in a group to take
action.
6. Having someone responsible around. Having a leader in a group.
Social impact theory:
proposes that the amount of influence a person experiences in group settings depends on
1. strength (power or social status) of the group,
2. immediacy (physical or psychological distance) of the group, and
3. the number of people in the group exerting the social influence (i.e., number of sources).
Thus, a group that has many members (rather than few members), high power (rather than low power), and
close proximity (rather than distant proximity) should exert the most influence on an individual.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper DonnaDahlia. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €3,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 52928 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen