Social Psychology for Availability of Time- myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theSocial Psychology for Experience and Availability of Time. Answer: The five factors that might affect the decision making of a group are the nature of the decision made, experience, availability of time, confidentiality and comfort zone. In a group decision-making, the nature of the problem is a big factor that whether that will be consulted with other or not. Here one might take the decision if the nature of the decision is not that important where information needs to be sought from others. If there is previous, experience of similar situations then information seeking and sharing might not place and one may use his or her own mental models to predict what can happen and what needs to be done. Time is another factor, which affect group decision making because if there is less time than taking advices or suggestions gets restricted. An issue such as confidentiality inhibits the sharing of information. Lastly, comfort zone is also affects groups decision making, as here if the leader is comfortable handling an issue from their comfort zone then why will they involve others. Therefore, the groups will be built keeping in mind those factors that actually influence the group decision-making to give the best output such as previous experiences, an escalation of commitment, different cognitive biases and individual differences. If any decision making in the past has positive result then people are more likely to decide in a similar way. Cognitive biases are mainly thinking patterns that are based on the observations and generalizations. However, people are inclined more to those decision making towards which they feel more committed. Lastly, individual differences, which should be, keep in mind as people of lower socio economic background will make poor decisions because of their former decision-makings (Ford Richardson, 2013). Deindividuation is mainly the disappearance of identity or self-awareness normally in a group surrounding. This seems to occur when an individuals identity inside a group overrule their own identity and self-awareness. This can guides an individual to mob mentality as deindividuation inclines to block critical thinking and disagreement. In a group, it has been seen for maximum of the time that people are less individually responsible for their behavior and believe that they are able to act with further anonymity. However, individuals can identify themselves so strongly with the group that their individual feelings might not be valued (Mikal et al., 2016). Therefore, from this given situation the four specified factors that can increase deindividuation can be peer pressure, groupthink, anonymity and diffused responsibility. In this situation, it might be that due to the direct or indirect pressure from the members of the demonstrators might have got influenced other people. Groupthink might also play a vital role where there is delay of critical thinking. Other two factors can be anonymity where people might have thought that they cannot be find out from the group and lastly, diffused responsibility, which means that individuals might has pre conceived notions that they are not responsible for their actions. When people are, in a group, they always feel a shared responsibility and thus, they are less individually responsible for their actions therefore increasing deindividuation. Aggression while watching a football match is common which has few underlying causes as well. As this situation suggests that one of the causes of aggression can the spectators involvement with emotions like hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, ignoring the rules and a kind of sadistic pleasure in showing aggression. In sports, it actually becomes an indirect competition for the observers and they start indentifying themselves with the group that they are supporting. Like in this situation when the fans saw that, their favorite group is making mistakes they become aggressive because they are identified with them and keeping the competition in mind they are afraid of losing. The environment can be another cause that can lead the group into aggression. It is a stadium and as said it was very much crowed as well as noisy thus this may have over stimulated the aggressive group and made them thrash out with fear or frustration of their supported team loosing the game. Another reason can be tha t while observing a football match people go get excited and thus, use this as a medium to vent out their build up frustrations. Thus, this can be another cause for this situation as well. Lastly, few hooligans present among the spectators who have an internal belief that it is their job to cause chaos as well as violence in the stadium thus, they do this for purpose or may get pleasure from performing such undesired acts (van der Meij et al., 2015). The variables that determine peoples willingness to help others may include the characteristics of the individuals who provide help to others as well, as how others while helping them have responded them. The very first factor is the altruistic personality of some people who are more helpful than others are. Personal variables do have a role to play that influences the helping behavior in people thus, people who are more helpful than others mainly have a prosocial or altruistic inbuilt personality (Beilin, 2013). The next factor can be social responsibility, which influence people whether or not they will help others because if a person is socially responsible then they will never think of taking advantage when a person is in need. The next factor is empathy that is if people can perceive others need by putting themselves in their current situation then helping them will be easier. Thus, empathy also plays a vital role where it influences peoples helping behavior. Then there is moral reasoning where the decision of whether to help others or not are totally based on the concern for other individuals. Moral reasoning is the way people think about the fair and appropriate way through which they must act to help others. Lastly, another factor is gender differences. In situations where there is more need for physical help there; men are more inclined to help than women do. Women are more helpful in a situation, which requires long term caring and nurturance within close relationships. References Beilin, H. (2013).The development of prosocial behavior. Academic Press. Ford, R. C., Richardson, W. D. (2013). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. InCitation classics from the Journal of Business Ethics(pp. 19-44). Springer Netherlands. Mikal, J. P., Rice, R. E., Kent, R. G., Uchino, B. N. (2016). 100 million strong: A case study of group identification and deindividuation on Imgur. com.new media society,18(11), 2485-2506. van der Meij, L., Klauke, F., Moore, H. L., Ludwig, Y. S., Almela, M., van Lange, P. A. (2015). Football Fan aggression: the importance of low basal cortisol and a fair referee.PloS one,10(4), e0120103.