1 REPORT

ST

ED 311 SOCIO-
PSYCHOLOGICAL
THEORIES IN THE
PHILIPPINE
SETTING

ED 311,314,307
EULOGIO M. DE GRACIA
REPORTER
Physical Space and
Social Interaction

Reported by:
EULOGIO M. DE GRACIA
T-II/SAN JOSE ES/IMELDA DISTRICT

FOR ED. 311/Dr. Divina’s Class

 3

SUMMARY

Ways to set up spaces to

foster interaction and improve communication
in groups

The impacts of various furniture

choices and arrangements, windows and
lighting are discussed.
 4

SUMMARY

This topic demands an interdisciplinary focus since an adequate

synthesis of the scientific information available includes at least
the fields of architecture and interior design, psychology,
sociology, anthropology, and geography. Although reaching
consensus across such a diversity of theoretical orientations and
approaches is difficult, several useful points can be defended
within this broad review. Evidence suggests that even our
memories are divided into context dependent and context-
independent varieties, so both the physical and social
environment have an impact on human achievement.
1
• The physical environment can influence the social and task
interactions among the people in it.
• Primarily this influence involves relative accessibility of interaction
and the psychological and social interpretation of such interactions.
For example,
Physical distance represents a major determinant of social influence.
In a study of engineers, the majority of their work-related information
came from other people within six feet of their primary work area.
Another surprising study showed that the single best predictor
of one’s marital partner was proximity.
1
• These results must be balanced by numerous
studies demonstrating that the psychosocial
“buffer” between individuals and their physical
environment plays an important role in
determining how that interaction unfolds.
• How we interpret the intentions and motives of
others—as well as how we perceive and
understand our environment—can influence the
environment’s effect on us just as surely as can
its physical features.
2
• The physical environment can interfere with the
frequency and quality of social interaction.
• The importance of nonverbal cues in the facilitation of
interactions between and among people has been
recognized for some time; more recently, it has been
suggested that barriers to these nonverbal cues may
reduce the ease and efficiency of communication
• (for example, in e-mail and teleconferencing),
primarily through interfering with the establishment of
trust.
3
• Social interaction and the layout of space
reciprocally influence each other. It is thus
important to consider the nature and function of
work processes within and between groups or
teams when designing work areas to support
them.
• Not only should the initiation and
implementation of collaborative work be
considered, but also its maintenance and
coordination over time
Finally
• Whether or not the physical environment, in addition
to encouraging social interaction, can augment its
efficiency remains somewhat controversial.
• However, there is little doubt that proximity and ease
and availability of social exchange can be affected by
the structure of the environment; open spaces,
particularly open spaces incorporating symbolic
focus points or other directing elements, can facilitate
and coordinate the communication so necessary for
efficient collaboration within the office.
Recommendations

1. Having windows (as opposed to no windows) in

a room increases its social desirability; the bigger
they are (between ceiling and floor) the better.
Whether windows enhance task efficiency for a
room’s occupants remains controversial, although
moods and emotional tone can be improved by
natural light. Of course, the nature of the task is
important when considering windows; for example,
intimate behavior is usually not encouraged by
windows.
Recommendations

2. Typically, if the room is well lit (ideally with natural light), a high (or
sloping) ceiling encourages social interaction.
3. Furniture can support and encourage social
interaction if its arrangement removes any barriers
between and among people (e. g., a circle of chairs
would be preferable to lines of desks). The most
“unfriendly” arrangement for office furniture involves
the traditional “two-dimorphic-chairs-facing-a desk-between-them”
configuration. Of course, how
many people need to interact must inform furniture
configurations as well, and the broader culture
influences what individuals consider “friendly” or
“unfriendly.”
Recommendations

4. With some exceptions, couches are less formal

than chairs, but their advantages may be mitigated
if the group is not acquainted. Furthermore,
ergonomic seating considerations become
important if tasks involve long time periods.
5. To maximize social exchange, furniture should
provide no cues to relative status within the group.
Recommendations
6. How people are dressed may interact with what types of
furniture and furniture configurations they will find most
acceptable. For example, lying around on a big rug may
not be comfortable for women wearing miniskirts; they
might prefer the group sit around a table facing each other.

7. Configurations that allow open, essentially face-to-face

orientations with every other member of the group
(allowing for individual adjustments) encourage social
interaction more than those that do not.
Recommendations
8. In addition to supporting individual work with personal
workspaces, work areas should be purposefully organized
around the social and collaborative functions occurring in
the work place. Efficient communication within teams and
coordination/collaboration between teams can be
enhanced by a properly configured environment.
9. Group areas may even need more attention paid to
social “channeling” and other symbolic details than
personal work areas, since 60 percent of what people
learn occurs informally, and much of this happens within
teams.
Recommendations
• 10. The arrangement and configuration of
individual workspaces in relation to larger
aggregations of work areas for group and macro-
level communication can be informed by a
systematic analysis of task and skill coordination
needs. At the very least, wise designers and
facilities managers will create work areas that focus
on human performance at all levels of the
organization, specifically addressing work group
and team needs in addition to possible privacy
needs and other individual-level concerns.
Recommendations
Finally, the psychological, sociological, cultural, and symbolic features of
group processes, group dynamics, and social interaction may be even
more important than the structure of the environment in determining the
nature of social exchanges. Individual-, group-, and macro-level factors
have been identified that constrain the nature of conversations between
people, and the general efficiency and maintenance of communication.
Discovering precisely how best to support rewarding and productive
social interaction with the physical environment may require more
knowledge of how complex, reciprocally determined systems develop
and maintain themselves. Self-organizing systems—and modern offices
no doubt must be of this type— can produce emergent phenomena that
depend critically on initial conditions. Such realities suggest that even
small facilities accommodations and flexibility at the level of furniture,
components, and configurations may have profound organizational
effects.
 2ND REPORT
ED 307 PURPOSES
AND POLICIES OF
HIGHER
EDUCATION

ED 311,314,307
EULOGIO M. DE GRACIA
REPORTER
 RA No. 10931
Universal Access
to Quality
Tertiary
Education Act
[Noticeable Features]

Reported by:
EULOGIO M. DE GRACIA
T-II/SAN JOSE ES/IMELDA DISTRICT

FOR ED. 307/Dr. Divina’s Class

Sec. 2
Sec. 4
Sec. 5
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 7
Tertiary
Education
Subsidy
Sec. 7
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
 3 REPORT
RD

ED 314 SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY OF
TEACHING

ED 311,314,307
EULOGIO M. DE GRACIA
REPORTER
 Compilation of
Social Psychology
for Schooling by Jared Glass

Reported by:
EULOGIO M. DE GRACIA
T-II/SAN JOSE ES/IMELDA DISTRICT

FOR ED. 314/Dr. Divina’s Class

Self-Esteem Motivation
• A study (by Bushman & others, 2011) has found that college students
preferred a self-esteem boost over receiving a
paycheck, seeing a best friend, eating their favourite food, drinking alcohol or
even engaging in their favourite sexual
activity. If a high self-esteem individual has their self-esteem threatened (by
an unflattering comparison or failure), they
generally compensate for it by trying harder next time or blaming someone
else but someone with low self-esteem may blame themselves or give up.
•
Summary: Students with low self-esteem are more likely to give up and may
need extra positive reinforcement after
taking a knock to their self-esteem.

• Further Reading/Reference: p51 “Myers, D. G. (2012). Social psychology.

New York McGraw-Hill”.
Self-Efficacy vs Self-Esteem
• Self-efficacy is how competent an individual feels about their ability to perform a
certain task. “Children and adults with
strong feelings of self-efficacy are more persistent, less anxious and less
depressed. They also live healthier lives and are more academically successful.”
(p56, Myers, D. G. (2012). Social psychology. New York McGraw-Hill)
• A study (by Meuller & Dweck, 1998) showed that self-efficacy feedback leads to
better performance than self-esteem feedback. Children praised for working hard
(self-efficacy, performing a specific task) knew they could exert more effort next
time but children that were praised for “being really smart” (self-esteem, general
statement irrelevant to any specific task) were afraid to try again for the possible
fear of not looking so smart next time.
•
Summary: Praising self-efficacy (working hard on a specific task) leads to better
performance than self-esteem (general
praise) based praise.
Further Reading/Reference: p56 “Myers, D. G. (2012). Social psychology. New
York McGraw-Hill”.aggressively
 Aggression
• One of the ways aggression is learnt is by observational learning. In a study (by Albert Bandura &
others. 1961) found that children that had previously watched an adult act aggressively, would when
aggravated act aggressively too but children put through the same predicament without seeing initially
seeing the aggressive adult's actions were less likely to release their in anger in a destructive manner.
• In another study (by Berkowitz and others, 1978, 1989), it was found that even the sight of a weapon
can be an aggression cue. In an experiment, children that had just played with a toy gun had become
more willing to knock over another child's blocks. The same effect has been seen in adults where when
subjects in another experiment gave more electric shocks to a tormenter if a gun was visibly near by
(Berkowitz & LePage, 1967).
• When caregivers ignore children’s' aggressive behaviour and reinforce their non aggressive behaviour,
children have been found to become less aggressive (Hamblin & others),
• Contrary to what many people believe, the consensus amongst social psychologists is: “Venting to
reduce anger is like using gasoline to put out a fire.” - Brad Bushman (2002), Researcher.
• Summary: Seeing others act out aggression or even seeing a visual cue associated with aggression
can lead to
increased aggression. Venting aggression leads to increased aggression and can cause others to
follow the example.
Further Reading/Reference: p289, p290, p297 “Myers, D. G. (2012). Exploring social psychology. New
York McGrawHill”.
The Fundamental Attribution
Error
• This is the tendency for people “to underestimate the impact of situational
factors and overestimate the role of dispositional factors in controlling
behaviour”.
• For example, a student may look scruffy and have scuff marks on his/her
uniform which could lead to the conclusion that this is a particularly
sloppy student (dispositional) and disregard the possibility that this
student may have just been a victim of bullying (situational).
• Further Reading/Reference: Ross L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist ad
his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution
process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social
psychology (Col. 10. pp 173-220) New York: Academic
Press.
• [Link]
Stereotypes
• A study (by Steele & Aronson, 1997) found that just by telling black American
students that a test is diagnostic of their verbal ability, or having them state their
race before the test, lead to a drop in the test scores, just because of the
stereotypes associated with being a black American. That said, when Asian
women were made aware of their ethnicity
their math performance improved (Amabady, Shih, Kim & Pittinsky) but then
dropped again after being made aware of their gender.
• Summary: Stereotypes can produce both positive and negative results though in
many cases, the negative often seem to outweigh the positive. Stereotypes can
be reduced though. One way is to practice empathy by “looking through the world
through their eyes” which has proven to reduce stereotyping (Galinisky &
Moskowitz, 2000). Another is to change the orientation of the stereotype. An
experiment found that by encouraging black American students to think of
intelligence as malleable rather than fixed, their grades increased (Aronson,
Fried & Good, 2002)
• Further Reading/Reference: p31 “Plous, S. (Ed.). (2003). Understanding
prejudice and discrimination (pp. 3-48). New
York: McGraw-Hill
Deindividuation
• This is the diffusal of responsibility when in a group. This can lead from small
misdeeds to vandalism, riots and even murder by mobs. One of the factors that
contribute is the group size. Leon Mann (1986) found that when a large crowd
had massed around someone that threatened to jump off a building, the crowd
would bait the person with cries of “Jump!”. Though in a smaller group where
individuals were more accountable, people would not usually exhibit the same
behaviour. Another factor is Anonymity. A small group under the cover of night
exhibited much the same behaviours as the larger group when presented with a
suicide attempter. The same goes for wearing masks etc.
• In the other side, a study (by Beaman & others, 1970; Diener & Wallbom, 1976)
found that people made self-aware were
less likely to cheat. So being made self-aware produces the opposite effect of
deindividuation.
• Summary: Deindividuation can be combatted by making people self-aware (for
example, being made to wear name tags
in a well lit room to reduce cheating).
• Further Reading/Reference: p209 “Myers, D. G. (2012). Exploring social
psychology. New York McGraw-Hill”.
 The Bystander Effect
• “The bystander effect is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals
do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is
inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders,
the less likely it is that any one of them will help.
Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs.”
([Link]
• Every now and then these stories surface in the media. One is the story of Kitty Genovese
([Link] who was stabbed outside her apartment
while all any of the bystanders did was yell at the assailant, who later returned to murder and rape
her.
• Summary: The larger the group of bystanders, the less likely any of them are to help as the
responsibility of helping gets diffused amongst the entire group and doesn't fall on any individual's
shoulders. Making people aware of the bystander effect helps to reduce it. Another way is to place
responsibility on an individual by pointing and saying something along the lines of “You, yes you. I'm
pointing at you. Help me!”.
• Further Reading/Reference: p385 “Myers, D. G. (2012). Exploring social psychology. New York
McGraw-Hill”.
[Link]
[Link]
Groupthink
• “Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of
people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an
incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize
conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative
ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.” (
[Link]
• This can lead to important information being unvoiced or ignored as well as
opinions being strengthened (Group Polarization -
[Link] which leads to a more extreme
decision coming from a group than would come from the separate individuals
(for example, people tend to behave more extremely in a group
then when they are by themselves).
• Summary: Groupthink can be combated by encouraging critical evaluation,
including outside critique, not endorsing a specific position etc. Just being made
aware of he possibility of groupthink can aid against it.
Further Reading/References: p217 “Myers, D. G. (2012). Social psychology.
New York McGraw-Hill”.,
[Link]
 Conflict Resolution
• When resolving conflict, Dr William Ury, a world renown expert on negotiations and author of two best
seller books recommends an approach called: “taking the third side”. An approach where someone
assumes the role of neutral mediator and makes sure the conflicting parties follow set principles of
negotiating:
1. Separate the problem from the people, don't get into personal attacks.
2. Focus on underlying interests rather than express positions.
3. Generate a variety of options before deciding what to do.
4. Insist that the result be based on some objective standard (Market value, scientific judgment etc).
• For example, to solve a dispute between two students, they may be told to talk it out with the aid of a
mediator which instructs them not to resort to name calling (so the students can stay focused on the
problem), points out anything that the students may have in common (to form common ground and
potentially form a connection with the other student) and then generate a few different options of how
the problem may be solved so the students can choose the one they both agree most with. If for
instance, student A broke a possession of student B and the final agreement of the negotiations were
for student B to remunerate student A for the damages, the fourth point would be the price (to avoid
the students getting into a later quarrel about how much the object was actually worth).
• Summary: Having a third party to mediate negotiations between conflicting parties can greatly help
the effectiveness of the negotiations.
• Further Reading/Reference: Fisher. R., & Ury. W., with Patton, B. (Ed.) (2011). Getting to yes,
Negotiating agreement
without giving in (3rd cd., rev. ed.). New York: Penguin.
Normative Messages
• An experiment by Robert B. Cialdini (Department of Psychology, Arizona State
University) has shown that normalizing a negative behaviour to try change it can still
have a negative effect. In the experiment, to try stop the public from removing
petrified wood from an state park, one of two messages was displayed. The first
“Many past visitors have removed
petrified wood from the Park, changing it;s natural state” actually led to an increase in
petrified wood removal. This is because the underlying message is “many past
visitors have removed petrified wood”, making it a “normal” thing to do. The second
sign was much more effective in reducing theft: “Please don't remove petrified wood
from the Park, in order to preserve the natural state of the Petrified forest”. Because
this sign didn't normalize the theft, the amount of wood removed from the park
dropped drastically.
• Summary: When crafting a message, avoid normalizing a negative as by normalizing
it ,it is actually showing that it is the social norm and therefore more acceptable.
Saying something like “Many children drop out of school because of drug addiction.”
could have a negative effect as it normalizes the action as opposed to saying “Drug
addiction is very likely to cause a student to become a dropout.” which doesn't show
that it is the social norm since it doesn't address more than one person.
• Further Reading/Reference: Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the
Environment, Robert B. Cialdini.
 Persuasion
• The psychology behind persuasion is made up of two main routes; the Central and Peripheral
routes. The Central route is aimed at a more analytical and motivated audience who would be
very involved in the argument. This route makes use of cogent arguments that revoke enduring
agreement. The Peripheral route isn't addressed to an analytical or involved audience. This
audience may not know anything more than general knowledge on the topic. This route makes
use of cues to trigger liking and acceptance, though this is often only temporary.
• “Analytical people - those with a high need for cognition - enjoy thinking carefully and prefer
central routes (Cacioppo & others, 1996). People who like to conserve their mental resources -
those with a low need for cognition - are quicker to respond to such peripheral cues as the
communicator’s attractiveness and the pleasantness of the surroundings.”
• One may use the peripheral route when persuading disinterested students why they should stay
in school and the central route as to why a promising student should join the chess or debate
team etc.
• a variety of experiments have been conducted to explore various ways to stimulate people's
thinking by splitting up multiple points to multiple speakers, so each person only gives one
argument. Also by using rhetorical questions, repeating the message, getting people's
undistracted attention and making people feel responsible for passing on or evaluating the
message.
• Summary: Creating an argument specific to the type of audience will definitely impact it's
effect.
Further Reading/Reference: p180 “Myers, D. G. (2012). Exploring social psychology. New York
McGraw-Hill”.
 Buying Happiness
• A study (by Micheal Norton & others) revealed that when students were given money to
spend, the students that were instructed to spend the money on someone else later reported
to be more happy than students that were instructed to spend the money on themselves. One
of the reasons for this is that the act of giving is a social interaction which is a mentally
rewarding process.
• Harbaugh. Mayr and Burghart (2007) found that giving (in the form of charitable donations)
stimulates the same part of the brain as other rewarding stimuli ranging from looking at art and
attractive faces to cocaine.
• Micheal Norton & others also found that when a team was given money to put towards a group
activity, the team would go on to outperform competitors that were given money for each
individual to spend on themselves.
• Summary: Spending money on others can be very rewarding. Spending money as a team
can build and strengthen the team.
• Further Reading/Reference: p8 “Feeling Good about Giving: competitors The Benefits (and
Costs) of Self-Interested
Charitable Behavior”,
Lalin Anik, Lara B. Aknin, Michael I. Norton, Elizabeth W. Dunn
 Thank You and
Good Day
Keep Safe
Reporter
EULOGIO M. DE GRACIA
T-II/SAN JOSE ES/IMELDA DISTRICT

FOR ED. 314/307/311

Dr. Divina’s Class