CoCo at Universität Würzburg

Flashcards and summaries for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg

Arrow Arrow

It’s completely free

studysmarter schule studium
d

4.5 /5

studysmarter schule studium
d

4.8 /5

studysmarter schule studium
d

4.5 /5

studysmarter schule studium
d

4.8 /5

Study with flashcards and summaries for the course CoCo at the Universität Würzburg

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

Describe three reasons why, according to Stanne et al. (1999), competition might have a negative effect on performance and psycho-social outcome variables

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

What are the negotiation-correlates of social motives?

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

What does a low index of cooperation in social interactions mean?

This was only a preview of our StudySmarter flashcards.
Flascard Icon Flascard Icon

Millions of flashcards created by students

Flascard Icon Flascard Icon

Create your own flashcards as quick as possible

Flascard Icon Flascard Icon

Learning-Assistant with spaced repetition algorithm

Sign up for free!

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

According to Stanne et al. (1999): what is outcome-and means-interdependence?

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

Describe the effect of first offers

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

How stable is SVO? Is SVO a trait?

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

Explain the SVO model of Bogaert et al. (2008), especially its mediators and moderators.

This was only a preview of our StudySmarter flashcards.
Flascard Icon Flascard Icon

Millions of flashcards created by students

Flascard Icon Flascard Icon

Create your own flashcards as quick as possible

Flascard Icon Flascard Icon

Learning-Assistant with spaced repetition algorithm

Sign up for free!

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

Social support for shared self-interest explanation

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

What are the false consensus and triangle hypothesis of SVO and expectations about others’ behavior

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

Explain the term "spotlight effect"! Give an example.

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

Describe two situational factors which, according to Schulz-Hardt et al. (2008) facilitate the expression of dissent that is actually present

This was only a preview of our StudySmarter flashcards.
Flascard Icon Flascard Icon

Millions of flashcards created by students

Flascard Icon Flascard Icon

Create your own flashcards as quick as possible

Flascard Icon Flascard Icon

Learning-Assistant with spaced repetition algorithm

Sign up for free!

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

How can SVO be measured with the decomposed game measure? What is it’s reliability? Is it a valid measure?

Your peers in the course CoCo at the Universität Würzburg create and share summaries, flashcards, study plans and other learning materials with the intelligent StudySmarter learning app.

Get started now!

Flashcard Flashcard

Exemplary flashcards for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg on StudySmarter:

CoCo

Describe three reasons why, according to Stanne et al. (1999), competition might have a negative effect on performance and psycho-social outcome variables

- competition can result in high levels of anxiety that interfere with performance

- can also lead to a lack of motivation by those who believe that they have nor chance to win

- psycho-social problem members of a group have a poor relationship to another or my even behave aggressive in an effort to win at all costs

- self-esteem shifts

CoCo

What are the negotiation-correlates of social motives?

- three social motives: prosocial, proself individualistic and proself competitive

- social motives affect negotiators use of distributive and integrative strategy

- prosocials tend to use more integrative strategy to achieve higher joint gains

- prosocials are more sensitive to the context of other negotiators´ behavior than proself, so prosocials tend to adopt their strategy to the motivs of the other party whereas proselfs generally use the distributive strategies regardless of the motive of the counterpart


(Social motives = goals in social interaction)

Prosocial/ cooperatively motivated negotiators (trying to maximize outcomes for self & other)

 more concerned about other: might

Pro-self negotiators (individualistic motives, trying to maximize for self)

Pro-self negotiators with competitive motives (maximize the difference between self & other)

epistemic motivation as newer research motive need for structure on use of negotiation strategy and negotiation outcomes

CoCo

What does a low index of cooperation in social interactions mean?

- Index of cooperation= (R-P)/(T-S)

- calculation of the degree of conflict is possible that appears in a Prisoner´s dilemma

- it is used by putting in the numbers of the different outcomes (e.g.) amount of money in the term

- only works if the outcomes are sorted like T>R>P>S- outcome is between 0 and 1

- 0: huge level of conflict of interests because there is a huge temptation to behave opportunistically and/or there is little difference between the outcomes for mutual cooperation and mutual defection

- 1: conflict is low because there is a reduced temptation to behave opportunistically and/or the reward for mutual cooperation is much great than the outcome of mutual defection

CoCo

According to Stanne et al. (1999): what is outcome-and means-interdependence?

Outcome-interdependence: When one’s outcome is affected by outcome of others

- specifies the relationship among the mutual goals and rewards the individuals are striving to achieve

- negative outcome- interdependence is required for competition to exist

Means-interdependence: When means leading to outcome are affected by others

- specifies the actions required on the part of the participants to achieve their goals

- it exists, when a task is structured so that two or more individuals are required to complete it

- negative means-interdependence can occur in a competition but is not necessarily needed, but if it exists the competition involves further direct oppositional interaction toward contrient goals (e.g. chess game)

CoCo

Describe the effect of first offers

First offer = have an anchoring effect in bargaining strategy
 Bargaining strategy follows principle of start high/low depending on role and concede only enough to avoid impasse

First offers (single or multiple issue negotiation) strongly influence the ultimate outcome, because the counterpart ‘‘anchors” on the opening offer
 anchoring effect: whenever people make a judgement on uncertainty, the first number is influences every number which comes up afterwards (e.g.: guess how many African nations are part of the UN) -> effects on the estimated number by people (even if the given number is completely random)  as maybe explanation for the first-offer effect
  reasons for it: confirmation bias – people search for positive arguments; even researchers are searching for positive evidence for hypothesis

underlying psychological reason for the first offer advantage is that counterparts insufficiently adjust for the strategic, self-interested positioning of the first offer

eastern cultures: often less open for too aggressive behavior in negotiations

CoCo

How stable is SVO? Is SVO a trait?

- no exact yes or no answer

- Possible biological predispositions -> trait

- A person’s SVO is shaped by the nature of social interactions that are experienced throughout a lifetime 

-> SVO is a result of biological predisposition, maturation of cognitive processes as well as of cultural influences and socialization (→ could mean that there is a constant basis but also a part that can vary)

- can be trained but effect depends on the prior SVO

- test-retest correlations are moderate to high -> trait

- stability has been questioned because SVO is very sensitive to influences of framing and manipulations -> state

- → it is a trait, but also a bit a state, because it depends on the situational context

CoCo

Explain the SVO model of Bogaert et al. (2008), especially its mediators and moderators.

- Conceptual model explaining why and when people with different social values select different behavioral strategies in social dilemmas

 describes the relationship between a person´s SVO and cooperative behavior

- the model suggests that cooperative behavior is influenced by a person´s natural inclination and by specific contextual factors

- cooperation in a specific context depends on two conditions:

1. cooperative goal: 

- based on the general (un)willingness to cooperate (individual inclination= trait) 

- moderator: incentives to cooperate (contextual influence=state)

- Mediator: context specific cooperative goal

2. expectations of the behavior of the interacting partner:

- based on the generalized expectations of others (individual inclination= trait)

- moderator: signals of trustworthiness (contextual influence=state)

- mediator: context specific expectations of reciprocity

1. 1+2 lead to individual cooperative behavior

CoCo

Social support for shared self-interest explanation

- behaving competitively when the other player is expected to cooperate is inconsistent with norms of fairness and equality

- so social support of the group members for the competitive pursuit of shared self-interest can reduce these normative constraints

- this kind of support does not exist for isolated individuals

- it was found that even the support of a single person can weaken normative and other conformity pressures 

- Idea that maximizing relative outcomes requires social support to a greater extent than does maximizing absolute outcomes

--> In-group favoring norm as an explanation?

CoCo

What are the false consensus and triangle hypothesis of SVO and expectations about others’ behavior

False consensus hypothesis: 

- we use ourselves as an anchor

- individuals with a particular social value orientation will expect others to have this same orientation more frequently than another orientation

Triangle hypothesis:

- this prediction is stronger for pro-self people as they hold a more homogeneous view than pro-socials, the reason is, that they more often behave competitive what makes the partner not cooperating as well so their view is reinforced

→ given the same information about a person, the two types expect another level of cooperation of this person

→ expectations mediate decisions in social dilemmas

CoCo

Explain the term "spotlight effect"! Give an example.

- People may assume that their actions are likely to occupy the attention of others as well (because they command so much of their own attention)

- people think that the social spotlight shines brighter on them as it is actually is

- so it is about how much people think that their actions are in the eyes of others 

- this is because one´s own actions are so much in the center of our own attention

-people as well overestimate the likelihood that those present will notice and remember their actions no matter if they are positive or negative

- example: being alone in a restaurant: people will feel like all eyes would be on them and that everybody thinks that they have no friends, some then try  sit in a nit so good seen corner or bring some work

CoCo

Describe two situational factors which, according to Schulz-Hardt et al. (2008) facilitate the expression of dissent that is actually present

Unanimity decision rule (=all members have to agree to the solution)
 -> minorities opinions matter, more arguments are exchanged, group members feel more satisfied with and more sure about their decision

Giving a veto right to everybody  enormous voice to minority

Majority needs to convince the minority

Every arguments needs to be put on the table 

Participation: if group members are being heard and are able to influence decisions by communicating their opinions the more often, they will express their dissent; without participation dissent is not transformed into innovation

Dialectical leadership (=leader is open to dissent and encourages ideas that express alternatives and counter the current solution) leads to high-quality decision making 

= Leadership related factor 

Critical norms (=common understanding in group/organization that independence and critical thoughts are essential to the collective work)
 --> members feel free to express their dissent, have a high degree of task reflexivity, and aren’t seen as disloyal by their co-members 

=Group norm related

CoCo

How can SVO be measured with the decomposed game measure? What is it’s reliability? Is it a valid measure?

- Decomposed game technique: respondents are required to evaluate pairs of outcomes for self and unknown other and to indicate the most preferred pair

 

Majority of research: participant need to decide in 9 items that propose 3 different outcomes which option is the best division of money etc. between themselves and an unknown other

- the game distinguishes between cooperative, individualistic and competitive SVO

= Respondents are classified into one of these three orientations if they make six out of nine choices consistent with one orientation

 

Reliability:

- test-retest coefficients range from 60-75% for the stability over time (moderate, but sufficiently high)

- Situational stability of technique: mixed result of the impact of the situation, maybe little influence of social desirability

Validity:

- contend validity: two limitations

- Method measures SVO as a categorical variable (a number of respondents can’t be classified,( up to 10%))

 substantial loss of information

- Usually only three social values are presented in the set of outcome distributions, but many more motives have been defined!

 decomposed game technique may not be able to capture subtle differences between different types of pro-selfs

-convergent and discriminative validity: 

- correlation of .67 between game technique and outcome, another study didn´t find one, there also exist constructs that are more correlated to one of the types, and also unsure whether trust and SVO are related

- Overlap between different techniques for measuring SVO is not yet firmly established 

- Few researchers have studied how SVO measures compare to related constructs

-ecological Validity: field studies do attest that there is at least a credible and ecologically meaningful prosocial-proself distinction

Sign up for free to see all flashcards and summaries for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg

Singup Image Singup Image
Wave

Other courses from your degree program

For your degree program CoCo at the Universität Würzburg there are already many courses on StudySmarter, waiting for you to join them. Get access to flashcards, summaries, and much more.

Back to Universität Würzburg overview page

Sozialpsychologie

Interventionspsychologie

Buchfragen

Sozialpsychologie

Sozialpsychologie

Methodenlehre

Allgemeine Psychologie 1

Methodenlehre

COM-AC at

Zurich University of Applied Sciences Winterthur

COPD at

Fachhochschule Gesundheit Tirol

Collab at

TU Kaiserslautern

COI at

Universität zu Lübeck

CoFi at

Universität Passau

Similar courses from other universities

Check out courses similar to CoCo at other universities

Back to Universität Würzburg overview page

What is StudySmarter?

What is StudySmarter?

StudySmarter is an intelligent learning tool for students. With StudySmarter you can easily and efficiently create flashcards, summaries, mind maps, study plans and more. Create your own flashcards e.g. for CoCo at the Universität Würzburg or access thousands of learning materials created by your fellow students. Whether at your own university or at other universities. Hundreds of thousands of students use StudySmarter to efficiently prepare for their exams. Available on the Web, Android & iOS. It’s completely free.

Awards

Best EdTech Startup in Europe

Awards
Awards

EUROPEAN YOUTH AWARD IN SMART LEARNING

Awards
Awards

BEST EDTECH STARTUP IN GERMANY

Awards
Awards

Best EdTech Startup in Europe

Awards
Awards

EUROPEAN YOUTH AWARD IN SMART LEARNING

Awards
Awards

BEST EDTECH STARTUP IN GERMANY

Awards
X

StudySmarter - The study app for students

StudySmarter

4.5 Stars 1100 Rating
Start now!
X

Good grades at university? No problem with StudySmarter!

89% of StudySmarter users achieve better grades at university.

50 Mio Flashcards & Summaries
Create your own content with Smart Tools
Individual Learning-Plan

Learn with over 1 million users on StudySmarter.

Already registered? Just go to Login