PSY2012 – General Psychology
Term Paper Assignment: Exploration of a Professional Journal Article in Psychology
In the Palm Beach State/Florida Atlantic University Online Library, go to online academic database. Find
a recent research article from a scholarly journal in the field of psychology. It must have been published
less than 12 years ago. Be sure to select an article for which the full-text is available. Actual journals for
which full-text is available include Advances in Cognitive Psychology, British Journal of Social
Psychology, Journal of Positive Psychology, Issues in Forensic Psychology, Journal of Psychology,
among many others.
Note: Do not use newspaper or magazine articles or Websites such as Wikipedia to complete this
assignment. Visit Palm Beach State University’s guidelines against plagiarism.
Your selected article must meet all of the stated criteria or your assignment will not be accepted. Before
proceeding, please ensure that your selected article meets the following criteria:
Full-text is available in online database
Is a scholarly journal article in the field of sociology
Was published less than 12 years ago.
Get a sense of what the article is about by reading some key sections. Begin by reading the Abstract of
the article. Subsequently, read the Introduction and the discussion sections. Flip through the paper and
look at any figures or tables. Read as much of the paper as practical; get as much out of it as you can.
Write a paper of at least 2000 words in which you:
1. Identify your selected article, using a proper APA-style reference. See examples at the end of this
assignment.
2. Describe what type of article it is and how you can tell. For example, is it a primarily a review of
existing research, a report of new research, or an analysis of a professional issue? Describe how
you can you tell. If it is a research article, identify the type of research involved.
2. Summarize what you have learned about the content of the article. Be sure to include the main
purpose of the article, the major findings, and how the major findings are supported.
3. Explain how this article fits into the overall field of psychology. Then, identify the corresponding
chapter(s) from your textbook.
4. Explain why this article is different and similar from articles in non-scholarly periodicals, such as
magazines and newspapers.
How to properly cite your article
Author list (Year of publication) Title of article. Name of Journal, Volume number, page numbers.
Examples
Houston, D. M., McKee, K. J., Wilson, J. (2000). Attributional style, efficacy, and the enhancement of
well-being among housebound older people. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 309-317.
Iudicello, J. E., Woods, S. P., Scott, J. C., Cherner, M., Heaton, R. K., Atkinson, J. H., Grant, I. (2010)
Longer term improvement in neurocognitive functioning and affective distress among
methamphetamine users who achieve stable abstinence. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 32, 708-718.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
At least five pages long (2000 words).
Be typed, double-spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all
sides.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s
name, the course title, and the date. The cover page is not included in the required assignment
page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
Identify key concepts that provide a foundation for the study of adjustment.
Summarize the major psychological perspectives.
Use technology and information resources to research issues in psychology.
Write clearly and concisely about psychology using proper writing mechanics.
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and
language and writing skills, using the following rubric.
Points: 350
Criteria
Assignment 1: Exploration of a Professional Journal Article in Psychology
Unacceptable
Below 60% F
Meets
Minimum
Expectations
60-69% D
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Identify your selected
article, using a proper
APA-style reference.
Weight: 5%
Did not submit or
incompletely
identified your
selected article
using a proper
APA-style
reference.
Insufficiently
identified your
selected article
using a proper
APA-style
reference.
Partially
identified your
selected article
using a proper
APA-style
reference.
Satisfactorily
identified your
selected article
using a proper
APA-style
reference.
Thoroughly
identified your
selected article
using a proper
APA-style
reference.
2. Describe what type
of article it is and how
you can tell. For
example, is it a primarily
a review of existing
research, a report of
new research, or an
analysis of a
professional issue? If it
is a research article,
identify the type of
research involved
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or
incompletely
described the
type of article it i;
did not submit or
incompletely
described how
you can tell. Did
not submit or
incompletely
identified the type
of research
involved, if
applicable.
Insufficiently
described the
type of article it
is; insufficiently
described how
you can tell.
Insufficiently
identified the
type of research
involved, if
applicable.
Partially
described the
type of article it
is; partially
described how
you can tell.
Partially
identified the
type of research
involved, if
applicable.
Satisfactorily
described the
type of article it
is; satisfactorily
described how
you can tell.
Satisfactorily
identified the
type of
research
involved, if
applicable.
Thoroughly
described the
type of article it
is; thoroughly
described how
you can tell.
Thoroughly
identified the
type of
research
involved, if
applicable.
3. Summarize, in a
paragraph or two, what
you have learned about
the content of the
article. Be sure to
include the main
purpose of the article,
the major findings, and
how the major findings
are supported.
Did not submit or
incompletely
summarized what
you have learned
about the content
of the article. Did
not submit or
incompletely
included the main
purpose of the
Insufficiently
summarized
what you have
learned about
the content of
the article.
Insufficiently
included the
main purpose of
the article, the
Partially
summarized
what you have
learned about
the content of
the article.
Partially
included the
main purpose of
the article, the
Satisfactorily
summarized
what you have
learned about
the content of
the article.
Satisfactorily
included the
main purpose
of the article,
Thoroughly
summarized
what you have
learned about
the content of
the article.
Thoroughly
included the
main purpose
of the article,
Weight: 25%
article, the major
findings, and how
the major
findings are
supported.
major findings,
and how the
major findings
are supported.
major findings,
and how the
major findings
are supported.
the major
findings, and
how the major
findings are
supported.
the major
findings, and
how the major
findings are
supported.
4. Explain how this
article fits into the
overall field of
psychology. Then,
identify the
correspondingchapter(s)
from your textbook.
Weight 25%
Did not submit or
incompletely
explained how
this article fits
into the overall
field of
psychology. Did
not submit or
incompletely
identified the
corresponding
chapter(s) from
your textbook.
Insufficiently
addressed this
criterion.
explained how
this article fits
into the overall
field of
psychology.
Insufficiently
identified the
corresponding
chapter(s)
fromyour
textbook..
Partially
explained how
this article fits
into the overall
field of
psychology.
Partially
identified the
corresponding
chapter(s) from
your textbook.
Satisfactorily
explained how
this article fits
into the overall
field of
psychology.
Did not submit
or incompletely
identified the
corresponding
chapter(s) from
your textbook..
Thoroughly
explained how
this article fits
into the overall
field of
psychology.
Thoroughly
identified the
corresponding
chapter(s) from
your textbook.
5. Explain why this
article is different and
similar from articles in
non-scholarly
periodicals, such as
magazines and
newspapers.
Weight: 20%
Did not submit or
incompletely
explained why
this article is
different and
similar from
articles in nonscholarly
periodicals, such
as magazines
and newspapers.
Insufficiently
explained why
this article is
different and
similar from
articles in nonscholarly
periodicals,
such as
magazines and
newspapers.
Partially
explained why
this article is
different and
similar from
articles in nonscholarly
periodicals,
such as
magazines and
newspapers.
Satisfactorily
explained why
this article is
different and
similar from
articles in nonscholarly
periodicals,
such as
magazines and
newspapers.
Thoroughly
explained why
this article is
different and
similar from
articles in nonscholarly
periodicals,
such as
magazines and
newspapers.
6. Clarity, writing
mechanics, and
formatting requirements
Weight: 10%
More than 8
errors present
7-8 errors
present
3-4 errors
present
0-2 errors
present
5-6 errors
present
4/14/2020
Discovery Service for Palm Beach State College - Lakeworth
Record: 1
Title: Gender and socio-intentionality: Why are 'things' the way they are?
Authors: Teo, Thomas, ORCID 0000-0002-1646-5035. Department of
Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada, tteo@yorku.ca
Address: Teo, Thomas, Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele
Street, Toronto, ON, Canada, M3J 1P3, tteo@yorku.ca
Source: Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, Vol 40(1), Feb,
2020. Special Issue: Possibility for Women in Psychology and
Interdisciplinary Sciences: Theoreticians, Scientists, and Agents for
Change in the 21st Century. pp. 58-61.
Publisher: US : Educational Publishing Foundation
Other Journal Titles: Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology
Other Publishers: US : Division 24 of the American Psychological Association
US : Division 24 of the American Psychological Association, Society for
Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology
US : Division 24 of the American Psychological Association, the Division
of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology
ISSN: 1068-8471 (Print)
2151-3341 (Electronic)
ISBN: 978-1-4338-9334-6
Language: English
Keywords: gender, socio-intentionality, women, psychology, sciences, gender
issues, history, theory, feminism, political thought
Abstract: This comment responds to the four target articles published in this
special issue on 'Women in Psychology and Related Sciences.' It is
suggested that the articles have explanatory power for answering the
question, 'Why are things the way they are?' when it comes to gender
issues, by drawing on history, theory, feminism, political thought, and in
short, on the psychological humanities. The role of intersectionality and
neoliberalism in the articles as well as in everyday life are discussed,
and consequences for the analysis of gender are presented. It is argued
that psychology needs queering, but that gender remains a significant
category when analyzing psychology and related disciplines. It is
concluded that resistance needs solidarity and that the Journal of
Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology will benefit from the inclusion
of feminist and women’s perspectives. (PsycINFO Database Record (c)
2020 APA, all rights reserved)
Document Type: Comment/Reply
Subjects: *Feminism; *Human Females; *Human Sex
Differences; *Psychology; *Sciences; Feminist
Psychology; History; Intention; Sex Roles; Theories; Solidarity
PsycINFO Classification:
eds.a.ebscohost.com.db19.linccweb.org/eds/delivery?sid=329b543f-6877-45f5-a7ff-6ecdddc3d67c%40sessionmgr4007&vid=1&ReturnUrl=http%3a%…
1/5
4/14/2020
Discovery Service for Palm Beach State College - Lakeworth
History & Systems (2140)
Sex Roles & Women's Issues (2970)
Population: Human
Female
Format Covered: Electronic
Publication Type: Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication History: Accepted: Jul 10, 2019; First Submitted: Jun 28, 2019
Release Date: 20200127
Copyright: American Psychological Association. 2020
Digital Object Identifier: http://dx.doi.org.db19.linccweb.org/10.1037/teo0000131
PsycARTICLES Identifier: teo-40-1-58
Accession Number: 2020-05298-007
Database: APA PsycArticles
Gender and Socio-Intentionality: Why Are “Things” the Way They Are? / COMMENTARY
By: Thomas Teo
Department of Psychology, York University;
Acknowledgement:
I was honored that the special issue editors asked a person who uses the pronouns he/him/his and identifies
as a man to comment on the four target articles on women. I share the belief that ideas can be understood and
appreciated by all. Indeed, I value analyses of marginalization and I have learned a great deal from feminist
theorizing. Given these circumstances and the fact that I am close to two of the authors, it would be
inappropriate to advance a systematic critique, a summary, or an artificial tying together of arguments; rather I
seek here to articulate what I learned from these articles in a Gadamerian fusion of horizons that connect the
perspectives of the articles with my own. Indeed, I deepened my understanding of the status of women in
academic, political, and everyday life. In addition, if we know the current state of affairs, we can introduce
change that is needed if we value justice, equality, and solidarity.
Why are things the way they are? By “things,” social scientists (including psychologists) do not mean physical
and chemical objects and processes, but rather social “things” such as inequality, injustice, oppression, and
privilege. The answers that “things are the way they are” because of “God,” “nature,” a metaphysics of “living in
the best possible world,” or because of “choice,” are lazy explanations, even when they are dressed up with
seemingly sophisticated discourses. The idea that power is the source of such phenomena is equally idle if
arguments are not accompanied by studies that show how power plays out and is embodied in reality. Indeed,
the studies presented in this special issue make a meticulous case for how power operates when it comes to
women and gender in social life, academia, and subjectivity.
To address questions about the increasing limitations on women’s reproductive rights in the United States, the
policing of pregnancy, and the reduction of women’s rights to their bodies around the world (Cosgrove &
Vaswani, 2020), why academia is not a shining beacon for meritocracy (Febbraro, 2020), why the talk of choice
is misleading in science and why we need to understand historical trajectories and repetitions (Rutherford,
2020), and why there are gendered communications in interdisciplinary contexts (Osbeck, 2020), the authors
draw on feminist theory, philosophy, historiography, political science, and psychoanalysis. Clearly a
psychological perspective alone would be insufficient to answer these questions.
eds.a.ebscohost.com.db19.linccweb.org/eds/delivery?sid=329b543f-6877-45f5-a7ff-6ecdddc3d67c%40sessionmgr4007&vid=1&ReturnUrl=http%3a%…
2/5
4/14/2020
Discovery Service for Palm Beach State College - Lakeworth
The analyses rely on the psychological humanities to address the meaning of reproductive and gendered
academic life in specific societies. The four articles also demonstrate that analyses of the status of women,
gender, and sexism remain relevant to an understanding of how society as well as science and the discipline of
psychology operate, and of how power permeates the minds and actions of persons and is enacted in
particular contexts. Women can be the “object” of research (Osbeck, 2020), and gender can be a category that
constitutes research (Febbraro, 2020; Rutherford, 2020) or a political interest that is expressed in social life
(Cosgrove & Vaswani, 2020). Certainly—as the articles instantiate—gendered reality has become more
complex since the 1970s. Third-wave feminism, for instance, has shown that gender needs to be accompanied
by analyses of the diversity of women’s ontologies and experiences. Yet, this complexity does not mean that
one should abandon women’s studies.
As Febbraro (2020) and Rutherford (2020) point out in their articles, one concept that has challenged and
complicated the topic of gender (in science) is intersectionality. The two authors have a progressive
understanding in mind when they point out that gender oppression is compounded or eased when combined
with other social characteristics. Yet, intersectionality can also be used for regressive purposes, when it is
argued that we no longer need a psychology of women (or employment equity) and that liberal feminist
analyses have become obsolete, because things are more complicated than such claims would suggest. This
sentiment is sometimes expressed by students in my classes who use the concept of intersectionality to
dismiss feminist analyses. Yet, the articles make the case that gendered power, even when analyses have
become more intricate, remains a major structural source of power and resistance, even if not the only such
source.
The articles also demonstrate that the feminist movement, despite public constructions to the contrary, was
never a single-minded framework. To do justice to the complexity of problems, innovative shifts in the
theorizing of women’s experiences and lives have occurred since the beginning of the feminist project. There is
a long history of this movement in politics, academia, and research that has led to many qualifications,
differentiations, and diversifications in theory and practice as well as a backlash intended to turn back its
achievements. The four articles in this issue attest to the varieties of theorizing women, from grounding lives in
the consequences of laws and policies (Cosgrove & Vaswani, 2020) and academia (Febbraro, 2020;
Rutherford, 2020), to analyses about the possibility of gendered interdisciplinary research. Any antifeminist
backlash itself can be analyzed within feminist theory and the psychological humanities, as reflected in the
target articles.
Psychology has had an inclination to align itself with the powerful in society. There are many historical reasons
for this tendency, one of which relates to the lower status of the discipline that has frequently led psychologists
to embrace a rhetoric of natural science when it comes to constructions of sexism, racism, classism,
homophobia, ableism, and so on. Psychology is a status-quo discipline that has a difficulty grappling with
large-scale sociohistorical changes, with the idea that science and politics are entangled, or with how a
discipline such as psychology itself could be gendered. Psychology’s success has also depended on the
neoliberal expansion that focuses on individuals and their families, very much the same way that psychology
focuses on the individual. Neoliberal scholars have pointed out that the target of neoliberalism is the family
(Cooper, 2017), because the individual with attachments and obligations, or who would “do anything for the
family,” is an ideal instrument in a capitalist economic system. Collectively, Cosgrove and Vaswani, Febbraro,
and Rutherford, all of whom contextualize their analyses in the advancement of neoliberalism, suggest that
neither gender nor analyses of gender can be detached from the contexts of the history, culture, politics, and
society in which it appears. Psychological analyses cannot do without socio-intentionality, the idea that mental
phenomena refer to cultural-historical meanings of socially constituted objects and processes.
eds.a.ebscohost.com.db19.linccweb.org/eds/delivery?sid=329b543f-6877-45f5-a7ff-6ecdddc3d67c%40sessionmgr4007&vid=1&ReturnUrl=http%3a%…
3/5
4/14/2020
Discovery Service for Palm Beach State College - Lakeworth
Cosgrove and Vaswani (2020) locate pregnancy profiling, the new maternalism combined with racism, within
the neoliberal reality of the United States. They show convincingly, in defense of the relevance of the category
of woman, that reproductive rights are still at the center of feminist struggles and that, given the recent attacks
on Roe v. Wade in the United States, progress is not a given. They also demonstrate that mental health
screening is not only not antithetical to the neoliberal agenda but also fits perfectly its ambitions. In their
respective works, Febbraro and Rutherford point to the ways in which neoliberal ideas have contributed to
changing views of women in science from the 1970s. In particular, they challenge seductive neoliberal
concepts such as choice and meritocracy as sources of success in gendered fields of research. Choice and
merit depend on socially embodied or materialized premises; once the premises change, agency also
changes. The articles by Febbraro and Rutherford both demonstrate, despite different foci, that it is important
to know the history of debates to make an informed assessment of why things are the way they are, and how
they could be changed.
As the target articles show, sexist thinking and acting, and déjà vu arguments related to current gender role
reinforcements (as reflected in the studies on brain differences, wage gaps, pornography, mass media, and the
arts) indicate the importance of understanding the history of a phenomenon. Sexism in psychology and
science, and the popularity of the rhetoric of choice and merit, indicate that an analysis of gendered knowledge
and practices is still necessary. Osbeck’s (2020) classical idea that men and women are socialized in different
ways, and that this difference in socialization poses unique problems in interdisciplinary research and
collaboration, could be further augmented with analyses of the macrophysics and microphysics of power, given
that communication, normative structures, and expectations in various disciplines are infused with privilege.
Intrasubjectivity is embedded not only in intersubjectivity, but also in sociosubjectivity. The socio-intentionality
of choice cannot be ignored. But it would be imprecise to suggest that the articles are mainly about
neoliberalism.
It is always easy to argue that more recent theoretical developments should have been included, such as
posthuman studies (Braidotti, 2013) and their consequences for the analyses of women and gender. More
importantly, analyses that go to the heart of the conceptual framework of women’s studies may need to be
debated. Some of the authors cite or reflect an awareness of Butler’s (1990) significance for questions about
the meaning of gender and the concept of woman. Butler’s argument that feminist heterosexual models may
lead to gender norms that have homophobic consequences needs to be taken seriously. Analyses must
address sex, gender, and sexual desires, beyond binaries and rigidities. Such constellations do not contradict
the analyses provided in this issue, but they would raise new questions, for example, regarding how
transgender or nonbinary academics who work in interdisciplinary contexts are experienced and experience
interactions and materialities. It is time that the social sciences, and psychology in particular, are queered.
The authors cover socio-, inter-, and intrasubjectivity regarding what it means to live more or less gendered
lives and to experience oppression as pregnant or academic women, or as women more generally. Even if
there may be some disagreement among the authors as to the centrality of gender as a structural category, or
regarding the degree to which men and women are political concepts, all suggest that we must pay attention to
gender when it comes to politics and policy, to the history of science, or to the practice of interdisciplinary
research. Although the role of women in society and psychology has seen some positive change, progress is
not inevitable, seldom linear, and always context-dependent. Sometimes change moves in circles, sometimes
it is discontinuous, frequently it appears dialectical, and occasionally it ends. Thus, the fight for social justice is
never ending, as the articles underline in the context of a global reactionary movement characterized by an
increase in sexist, racist, and fascist thinking. Resistance cannot occur without solidarity. The articles also
provide a new perspective in a journal that in its past has lacked in the publishing of feminist or womeneds.a.ebscohost.com.db19.linccweb.org/eds/delivery?sid=329b543f-6877-45f5-a7ff-6ecdddc3d67c%40sessionmgr4007&vid=1&ReturnUrl=http%3a%…
4/5
4/14/2020
Discovery Service for Palm Beach State College - Lakeworth
centered analyses. Together, the articles represent a fresh starting point for detailed accounts of phenomena
from which theoretical and philosophical psychologists can learn about the importance of integrating social
characteristics into theoretical work.
References
Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cooper, M. (2017). Family values: Between neoliberalism and the new social conservatism. Brooklyn, NY:
Zone Books.
Cosgrove, L., & Vaswani, A. (2020). Fetal rights, the policing of pregnancy, and meanings of the maternal in an
age of neoliberalism. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 40, 43–53. 10.1037/teo0000139
Febbraro, A. R. (2020). Critical feminist history of psychology versus sociology of scientific knowledge:
Contrasting views of women scientists?Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 40, 7–20.
10.1037/teo0000133
Osbeck, L. M. (2020). Lost and found in the margins: Women, interdisciplinary collaboration, and integrative
development. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 40, 32–42. 10.1037/teo0000132
Rutherford, A. (2020). Doing science, doing gender: Using history in the present. Journal of Theoretical and
Philosophical Psychology, 40, 21–31. 10.1037/teo0000134
Submitted: June 28, 2019 Accepted: July 10, 2019
This publication is protected by US and international copyright laws and its content may not be copied without
the copyright holders express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the retrieval
software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user.
Source: Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. Vol. 40. (1), Feb, 2020 pp. 58-61)
Accession Number: 2020-05298-007
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1037/teo0000131
eds.a.ebscohost.com.db19.linccweb.org/eds/delivery?sid=329b543f-6877-45f5-a7ff-6ecdddc3d67c%40sessionmgr4007&vid=1&ReturnUrl=http%3a%…
5/5
Social Cognition
This section covers:
The importance of roles and norms
How we form judgments about others
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Social Psychology
How do interactions with others affect a person’s
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors?
Humans have evolved to be social beings
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Social Roles
What position does someone occupy in society?
What behaviors are expected from him or her?
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Attributions
Why did somebody behave in a particular way?
What caused the behavior?
Internal (dispositional)
Social Cognition
External (situational)
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Fundamental Attribution Error
A tendency to attribute
others’ behavior to
internal factors
Why is this woman yelling
at her companion?
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Other Attribution Errors
We make different attributions for ourselves and
others.
Actor-observer bias
Social Cognition
Self-serving bias
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Attitudes
May include cognitive, affective, and behavioral
components
Attitude on
gun control
Social Cognition
Cognitive
(beliefs, ideas)
“Gun owners are
more likely to shoot
a loved one than a
criminal.”
Affective
(emotions, feelings)
“Guns just make me
sick”
Behavioral
(actions)
“I vote for guncontrol politicians.”
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Persuasion
Related to characteristics of the communicator,
the message, and the audience
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Cognitive Dissonance
An uncomfortable state
that occurs when
behavior and attitudes
do not match
How can this state be
resolved?
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Stereotyping
A simplified set of traits that are associated with
group membership
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Prejudice
A preconceived opinion or attitude about an
issue, person, or group
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Discrimination
The biased treatment of people based on their
membership in a particular group or category
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Reducing Prejudice
Increase contact in cooperative activities
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Social Influence
This section covers:
How our behavior is influenced by others
How we interact with others
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Conformity
Behaving in ways that increase the likelihood of
gaining a group’s approval and avoiding rejection
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Compliance
Agreeing to do something simply because we
have been asked
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Obedience
Complying with instructions given by an authority
figure
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Social Facilitation
Occurs when the presence of other people
changes individual performance
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Social Loafing
Reduced motivation and effort by individuals who
work in a group as opposed to work alone
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Deindividuation
Immersion of the individual within a group,
making the individual relatively anonymous
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Groupthink
A type of flawed decision making in which a
group does not question its decisions critically
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Aggression
An action done with
the intent to harm
others
Several contributing
factors:
Biology
Frustration
Learning
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Altruism
Engaging in helping behaviors without the
expectation of any personal gain
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Bystander Apathy
People’s willingness to lend help decreases
when others are around.
Social Cognition
© 2016 Cengage Learning.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment