Participation Expectations For each discussion activity, you are responsible for

Participation Expectations

For each discussion activity, you are responsible for posting at least one substantive initial response to the discussion questions posed, as well, as a reply to at least two other postings made by your classmates.

Your initial substantive posting should be a thoughtful reflection on at least one aspect of the discussion theme or question posed and can either initiate a line of discussion or be in response to someone else’s posting (i.e., adding your own perspective or additional research to it). Keep in mind that quality is better than quantity and “me too” and “I agree” type postings add little to the conversation. Your postings should demonstrate that you have read and thought about the course material. You are encouraged to reference your course textbook in your postings as well as other relevant outside literature.

Some points to keep in mind:

• Be clear and to the point in your postings.
• Edit your work. Your posts should be coherent and use proper grammar and spelling.
• Keep postings to 300-350 words. Quality is better than quantity.
• Contribute your own thoughts about the material you have read.
• Support your thoughts by referencing the textbook or other outside literature.
• Raise additional questions or points of discussion to stimulate further discussion
• If you have questions, show that you have already tried to find a solution.
• Respect the viewpoints of your peers. Ask for clarification if you don’t understand a point. Assume good intentions.
• Use the proper terminology introduced in the course readings.
• When using literature in your postings, make sure to provide references in proper APA Style.
• Show respect and sensitivity to peers’ gender, cultural and linguistic background, political, and religious beliefs.

You are strongly encouraged to take the time to review the following documents on writing quality discussion posting and on taking roles in discussions.

PREPARING TO WRITE

1. Read assigned material—critically—and take notes as you read: Who wrote this material (a respected expert? an activist with a specific aim or belief?) Do they have any possible biases? Are studies reliable and valid? (What kind of research was performed?) When was this material written? Are the definitions/conditions/opinions described still accur vant? ate/rele Is an opinion expressed? How might someone disagree? How does this material relate to other concepts and theories you are studying? (Remember, instructors choose readings with a plan in mind—try to imagine why they have assigned this reading) Does the article complement other things you have learned? Is it in opposition? 2. Read and understand the discussion question or topic provided by your instructor • What are you asked to do? (Formulate an opinion? Respond to a question? Explain a concept or theory?) • How are you asked to do this? What kind of information are you expected to include (e.g., supporting quotations or references, examples, etc.) Do you need to bring in outside research? 3. Sort out the finer details • Is there a word maximum? Minimum? (Most posts will be 1‐2 paragraphs maximum). • How many times are you expected to post? (Find out if you are required to post a certain number of times per question, per week, etc.) • How much of your grade is this component worth?Each post? Budget your time accordingly

A.re you expected to respond to other students’ posts? What proportion of original posts versus responses are you asked to provide?

INITIAL POSTS – An initial post is a response to the original question presented by the course instructor, or the opening post on a particular topic (i.e., not responding to other students’ posts). Consider each post a “mini‐thesis,” in which you state a position and provide support for it. If you are responding to a question, be sure to 1. Take a position: Provide a clear answer to the question (incorporate some of the wording of the question in your answer if possible). 2. Offer a reasoned argument: Provide an explanation for your point of view, and use evidence from your text, notes, or outside research (where appropriate) to support your point. 3. Stay focused: End with a summary comment to explain the connection between your evidence and the question (how your evidence proves your point). Your post might also introduce a question or idea that others can follow up on. But make sure you have answered the question first!

Discusssion Marking rubric.

A+ Discussion Post A+

Initial Post

/2.5 points

deliver information that is full of thought, insight, and analysis • make insightful connections to course content • make insightful connections to real-life situations • contain rich and fully developed new ideas, connections, or applications • contain no spelling errors and typos

Question of discussion is –

June 17 – June 20

Use this discussion area to complete the Reflection Activity in Unit 12.

For the final week of the course, you are asked to reflect on your learning process and what you found useful and not so useful. Please share your thoughts and your learning experience with your group on the discussion board.

Refer to the Outline for the specific dates for this discussion and when your initial response should be posted by. Discussion participation expectations can be found in the Assessments section of the course website.

During the week, be sure to spend some time reviewing and responding to the posts of your discussion group members.

• write in 310 words. follow proper guidlibes as given in begning. Use AP7 STYLE OWL PURDE. Provide refrence.
  Write in on own words.
  Some points to keep in mind:
  Be clear and to the point in your postings.
  Edit your work. Your posts should be coherent and use proper grammar and spelling.
  Keep postings to 300-350 words. Quality is better than quantity.
  Contribute your own thoughts about the material you have read.
  Support your thoughts by referencing the textbook or other outside literature.
  Raise additional questions or points of discussion to stimulate further discussion.
  If you have questions, show that you have already tried to find a solution.
  Respect the viewpoints of your peers. Ask for clarification if you don’t understand a point. Assume good intentions.
  Use the proper terminology introduced in the course readings.
  When using literature in your postings, make sure to provide references in proper APA Style.
  Show respect and sensitivity to peers’ gender, cultural and linguistic background, political, and religious beliefs.

These are the readings which i find useful are as follows

Readings1

. Automatic feedback on quizzes.

It guide me in improving my work and understanding areas needing more focus.

2. Access to a variety of learning materials, including videos,and extra content on courselink board, catered to different learning styles and helped reinforce the content.

Reading2

Attraction and Intimacy

Beginning in the late 1950s and continuing for about the next two decades, social psychologists who researched interpersonal were interested mainly in identifying the antecedents of interpersonal attraction. Indeed, social psychologists identified a great many factors associated with one person liking another. Since these early approaches, the study of social interaction and personal relationships has flourished. Researchers have focused much of their effort on defining and distinguishing between different types of relationships and measuring different relationship qualities. Researchers have distinguished, for example, intimate from non-intimate relationships and close relationships from casual friendships. Measures were devised for categorizing and comparing relationships in terms of their relative amount of intimacy, or passionate and companionate love.

More recently there has been a shift toward the dynamics of relationships that focus on how relationships are initiated, develop over time, and flourish or dissolve. Current research on social interaction and personal relationships focus less on relationships as objects, and more on the process of relating, and how relationships are maintained through everyday interaction and conversation. Thus, for example, relationships are examined not only in terms of the amount of intimacy they contain, but in terms of how intimacy is communicated in developing long-term relationships, and how the expression of intimacy within a relationship influences the future course of that relationship. Theoretical Models of Relationship Development How do relationships develop beyond the initial attraction stage? One theory of relationship development is based on the principle of reinforcement. Simply put, we like and seek out contact with others when we receive some reward in their presence, and we dislike others when we receive some punishment in their presence (Byrne & Murnen, 1988; Lott & Lott, 1974). For positive reinforcement to occur, we must come to associate positive affect with the presence of another person. If someone continuously smiles and waves to you, as he or she passes by and if you find this pleasing you will associate this feeling of pleasure with the other person. There are more indirect ways in which we may come to associate the presence of another person with positive affect. Imagine that you frequent a charming little café most afternoons. Walking into the café, you smell the wonderful baked goods. You anticipate drinking the best cup of coffee in the city. The sensual experience of the café is a sure fire way to improve your mood. If, every time you walk into the café the same person working behind the counter greets you, you may become attracted to this person and wish to pursue a relationship with him or her. That is, you may associate your improved mood with the presence of this person and not the atmosphere of the café.

A second view is based on the assumption that social norms govern our expectations for different kinds of relationships. According to the social norms theory of relationships we have different expectations for what we should do for others, and what others should do for us, in different types of relationships. Adherence to social norms promotes or maintains attraction and the smooth functioning of relationships. Violation of those norms causes attraction to decrease and relationships to deteriorate (Clark & Pataki, 1995). Clark and Mills (Clark & Mills, 1979; Clark & Pataki, 1995; Mills & Clark 1994) have researched extensively the norms that govern two types of relationships: communal and exchange relationships. According to Clark and Mills, for each type of relationship there are distinct rules that govern the intentional giving and acceptance of benefits. Communal relationships are characterized by feelings of responsibility for another’s well being. Included in this category are family relationships, romantic relationships, and friendships. Within communal relationships, benefits are given without expectation of repayment. If a friend does a favour for you, you do not feel obligated to immediately repay that friend with another favour. Similarly, if a parent buys a child new clothes the child is not expected to reciprocate with some other gift for the parent. Thus, following communal norms gives partners a mutual sense of security. Exchange relationships do not provide this sense of security. In exchange relationships there is typically little or no feeling of responsibility for another. Benefits given by one person to another are debts that the other must someday repay. Business relationships, or relationships with acquaintances, are often governed by exchange relationship norms.

In laboratory studies of communal and exchange relationships, relationship type is manipulated by having research participants interact with an attractive and friendly person who, in the communal condition, has expressed an interest in getting to know new people. In the exchange condition, research participants are told that this other person has established ties in the community, is married, and has no expressed interest in meeting new people. To demonstrate the power of social norms in communal and exchange relationships, Clark and Mills (1979) examined whether repaying someone for help would enhance attraction in exchange relationships but cause attraction to decrease in communal relationships. Male participants were asked to work beside an attractive female student (actually a confederate of the experimenters) on a word task that involved forming words with letter tiles. Points were awarded according to performance. In each trial, the participant was always allowed to finish first, and was awarded extra points. The participant was then asked if he wanted to transfer his extra letter tiles to the female student to help her finish (all participants agreed to do so). The female student responded by either thanking the participant, or repaying him by transferring some of her own points to the participant. Later, when participants were asked to indicate how much they liked the female student, a clear pattern emerged.

The need for affiliation

Human beings have a basic need to affiliate with others. Humans seek to connect or associate with one another for many different reasons. It is likely that our most distant ancestors sought to affiliate with one another because of their most basic needs for protection against harm, and for the pooling and sharing of resources and labour. In our times, the need for affiliation is more often related to the need to stave off loneliness, to gain social support, and add meaning to our lives. The need to affiliate is not equivalent in all people. Some people prefer to live like hermits and appear to have little or no need to affiliate with others. In contrast, some people continuously seek the company of others and find it unbearable to be alone. For some, the need for affiliation extends to other species. How many of us, when frustrated with the people in our lives, seek comfort and solace in the company of a cherished pet?

Our personal need to affiliate varies over time and from situation to situation. For example, we are most likely to affiliate with others in threatening or aversive circumstances. In a famous study by Schachter (1959), participants were informed that they were to receive painful electric shocks. Other participants were told that they would receive mild shocks that were not at all painful. All participants were told they had to wait 10 minutes before the experiment began. They were given the option of waiting alone or waiting in the company of other participants who were to receive the same level of shock. Whereas 63% of participants who expected to receive painful shocks chose to wait in the company of others, only 33% of participants who expected to receive mild shocks made the same choice. When faced with a greater threat, participants preferred to wait in the company of other participants who shared a similar fate.

Why is it that people want to affiliate with others in threatening situations? One explanation, based on social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), states that in ambiguous situations (i.e., in the absence of a standard for conduct), we seek out similar others in order to determine how we should act. Taylor and her colleagues (Taylor, Buunk & Aspinwall, 1990; Taylor & Lobel, 1989) examined social comparisons among cancer patients. They found that people in threatening situations look to others, not only for a standard for their conduct, but also for the purpose of self-enhancement. There are times when we make downward social comparisons; we compare ourselves to others who are faring worse than us that we may shore up our own sense that we are handling the situation relatively well. “I may be nervous, but at least I’m not falling apart like him.” Surprisingly, in threatening situations we may also make upward social comparisons; we compare ourselves to those who appear to be handling the situation better than us. These comparisons allow us to recognize that, because others are handling the situation well, there is opportunity for us to improve how we are handling it. Such comparisons may lead us to conclude: “If she can stay that calm, maybe I can too.”

Another explanation is derived from the concept of social support. Cassel (1974) and Cobb (1976) separately conducted influential reviews of the empirical literature on those variables that minimize the harmful effects of stress on individuals. From their reviews of human and animal research they concluded that individuals were better able to withstand the effects of stress when in the presence of others. For humans, it appears that strong and satisfying personal attachments to others was a particularly important factor for promoting physical health and emotional well-being. According to Cassel and Cobb, one of the most important functions of socially supportive relationships is the communication of feedback regarding how the individual is coping with a particular situation (Gottlieb, 1983). People choose to be with others when they find themselves in threatening circumstances. They choose to be with others partly because they can interact with them and through these interactions they derive social support. It is notable that in aversive circumstances that occur outside of the laboratory, we search for people with whom we have already developed an intimate, satisfying personal relationship. Although people waiting for painful and invasive dental surgery would prefer to wait in a room with strangers, they would probably prefer to wait with close friends or family members.

Reading -3

Factors Influencing Interpersonal Attraction

We meet many people over the course of our lives, yet few of these encounters lead to close relationships. Why do people sometimes form a close bond and say things like “It was love at first sight;” “We just clicked together;” or “I felt a tingle run through my body”?

PROXIMITY (PROPINQUITY)

We are more likely to become attracted to people who live relatively close to us. This finding has been replicated in a variety of settings, both with friendships and marital partners. Bossard (1932) examined marriage licenses issued in a large American city and found that, of 5000 applicants, over 1/3 lived within 5 blocks of each other, and as the distance between the residences of the engaged couples increased, the percentage of marriages steadily decreased. Other studies have shown that those who live near each other in dormitories or apartments are more likely to become friends than are those who live farther apart. Ebbesen, Kjos and Konecni (1976) found that the closer two people lived to each other in an apartment building, the more likely it was that they would become best friends as opposed to only good friends.

Clearly if one lives near someone, or attends the same classes, there are more opportunities to interact with this person. Increased interaction, though, is not the only reason for the effect of propinquity on interpersonal attraction. Research suggests that the greater familiarity that comes from repeated exposure to another person leads to a corresponding positive change in our evaluations of that person. Simply put, we hold more favourable impressions of people with whom we are more familiar than we do of people with whom we are less familiar. Zajonc’s (1968) work with a variety of stimuli provides strong support for the repeated exposure hypothesis. In one study, for example, it was found that the more often people were exposed to novel Chinese language characters the more positive were the attitudes that they expressed towards those characters after the exposure.

Other research demonstrates similar effects with pictures of human faces (Moreland & Zajonc, 1982). Mita, Dermer and Knight (1977) showed participants photographic portraits of themselves printed properly or with the image reversed (i.e., a mirror image). The participants’ friends were also shown the same two photographs. The researchers found that participants preferred the photographs printed in the reverse image, while their friends preferred the true image. Familiarity seems to be the best explanation for these findings. Because we see ourselves mostly in the mirror, and our faces are not perfectly symmetrical, the image of ourselves with which we are most familiar is a reverse one of that seen by others. Our friends, on the other hand, are most familiar with the true image, and that is the one they prefer.

Of course, repeated exposure to others does not necessarily lead to increased attraction. Sometimes familiarity may breed dislike or contempt. Increased exposure may decrease attraction by making unpleasant characteristics more noticeable. Indeed, Ebbesen et al. found that decreased distance increased disliking of others.

Similarity

“Birds of a feather flock together” is a common folk-saying about friendship. Social psychological research, for the most part, lends support to the common belief that similarity and attraction are positively related. According to Rubin (1973), married and dating couples exhibit considerable similarity in age, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, intelligence, physical attractiveness, and attitudes. The tendency for people who are similar to marry one another is called homogamy. Newcomb (1961) studied the effect of attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. By taking measures of attitude similarity before students arrived and met each other at a dormitory, and then repeating these measures along with measures of liking during the course of a semester, Newcomb showed that friendships at the end of the semester could be predicted by similarity of attitudes held by students at the start of the semester.

Laboratory research also found effects of attitude similarity on attraction. In a series of studies, all using a similar research paradigm, Donn Byrne and his colleagues (e.g., Byrne & Nelson, 1965) investigated this relationship. In these studies university students were brought into a laboratory, asked their attitudes, and, given a list of attitudes that were supposedly those of another person with whom they were going to interact. Actually, the experimenter programmed the attitudes they saw so that some were similar to those of the participant, while others were contrary to those of the participant. Based on the list of attitudes, participants were asked how much they liked the person they were to meet. The results of this series of studies were consistent. The amount that people like others appears to be a positive linear function of the proportion of similar attitudes they hold.

There are at least two ways in which the principles of propinquity and similarity may be complementary. First, people who share similar religious, ethnic, or socioeconomic backgrounds, and who are likely to share similar attitudes and values, are more likely to live in the same neighbourhoods, attend the same schools, and belong to the same religious, social groups and institutions. Therefore, people with similar attitudes may be more likely to interact than people who have dissimilar values. Second, propinquity creates more opportunity for social contact. The increased social contact allows for more opportunity to gain information about another person and discover shared attitudes that, in turn, form the basis for pursuing a more intimate relationship.

Physical Attractiveness

Physical attractiveness is one of the most powerful influences on interpersonal attraction. Walster et al. (1966) paid students $1.00 each to attend a dance. Participants were told that a computer would be used to pair them with dates matched to their particular characteristics. This premise allowed Walster et al. to collect data on the attitudes, personality, values, and physical attractiveness of each participant. Participants were, in fact, randomly paired up. Halfway through the dance, the participants rated how much they liked their dates. Regardless of their own level of attractiveness, participants preferred physically attractive dates. Moreover, self-esteem, intellectual ability, and personality traits were not predictive of liking.

Although physical attraction does not predict the long-term success of relationships, it appears to be an important influence on our initial encounters with others. Specifically, it appears that we tend to associate physical attractiveness with positive personality traits. A study by Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) supports the notion that, at least with regard to first impressions, we tend to judge a book by its cover. In their study, Dion et al. presented university-aged students with photographs of three people of a similar age to the students. The people pictured in the photographs had previously been rated by other students as average, above average, or below average in physical attractiveness. The participants rated these photographs on 27 personality traits and also judged the likelihood that the persons portrayed in the photographs would experience future happiness. Physically attractive people were rated as possessing significantly more socially desirable qualities, such as intelligence, warmth and poise, than either the average or unattractive stimulus persons. More attractive people were also judged to have better prospects for future success. These results held regardless of the combination of the sex of the participant rating the photographs and the sex of the person in the photograph.

Dion et al.’s findings have been replicated in diverse samples and settings. Even nursery school children seem to associate physical attractiveness with positive personality traits. Dion (1973) found that children as young as four years of age were likely to say that it was the attractive children they liked most, and that unattractive children “scared” them. Landy and Sigall (1974) conducted a study that is likely to be of great interest to students. Male judges rated essays that were purposefully constructed to be either poor (i.e., disorganized and ungrammatical) or good (i.e., well organized and clear). In two conditions, pictures of the purported authors were attached. In one condition, the photos featured attractive females. Unattractive females were in the other condition. In another condition, no pictures were attached. The judges gave the unattractive women less credit for the well-written essay and they were more punitive for the poorly written essay. In contrast, attractive women appeared to get more credit than they deserved when their work was poor.

Clearly, physical attractiveness is a potent influence on various social judgments. Everyone would, presumably, prefer a physically attractive partner. But this is not possible. The preference for a physically attractive partner appears to be tempered when we seek partners for long-term relationships. Regarding selection of a spouse, for example, some support seems to exist for the matching hypothesis (Berscheid et al., 1971). People tend to choose partners who are similar to them in physical attractiveness. Price and Vandenberg (1979) found that married couples, regardless of age or length of marriage, were similar in level of attractiveness. In part, matching may be explained by a desire to minimize the possibility of rejection by a much more attractive person. At the same time, we are not “settling” for someone who is much less attractive (Bernstein et al., 1983).

Reflect on your learning process and what you found not so useful

Reading I found which is not useful

Reading -1

1.) Repetitive Content:

Some of the readings felt redundant, particularly when similar points were reiterated across different sections. Streamlining the content to avoid repetition could enhance engagement and retention.

2.)Technical Glitches: when i was opening the courselink app to submit my discussion because internet and may be due to high using of courselink app it was getting hang and and i tried at 5 time when i got open and i was able to post my discussion.

Reading: 2

Especially this reading:

Theoretical Models of Relationship Development

How do relationships develop beyond the initial attraction stage? One theory of relationship development is based on the principle of reinforcement. Simply put, we like and seek out contact with others when we receive some reward in their presence, and we dislike others when we receive some punishment in their presence (Byrne & Murnen, 1988; Lott & Lott, 1974). For positive reinforcement to occur, we must come to associate positive affect with the presence of another person. If someone continuously smiles and waves to you, as he or she passes by and if you find this pleasing you will associate this feeling of pleasure with the other person. There are more indirect ways in which we may come to associate the presence of another person with positive affect. Imagine that you frequent a charming little café most afternoons. Walking into the café, you smell the wonderful baked goods. You anticipate drinking the best cup of coffee in the city. The sensual experience of the café is a sure fire way to improve your mood. If, every time you walk into the café the same person working behind the counter greets you, you may become attracted to this person and wish to pursue a relationship with him or her. That is, you may associate your improved mood with the presence of this person and not the atmosphere of the café. A second view is based on the assumption that social norms govern our expectations for different kinds of relationships. According to the social norms theory of relationships we have different expectations for what we should do for others, and what others should do for us, in different types of relationships. Adherence to social norms promotes or maintains attraction and the smooth functioning of relationships. Violation of those norms causes attraction to decrease and relationships to deteriorate (Clark & Pataki, 1995). Clark and Mills (Clark & Mills, 1979; Clark & Pataki, 1995; Mills & Clark 1994) have researched extensively the norms that govern two types of relationships: communal and exchange relationships. According to Clark and Mills, for each type of relationship there are distinct rules that govern the intentional giving and acceptance of benefits. Communal relationships are characterized by feelings of responsibility for another’s well being. Included in this category are family relationships, romantic relationships, and friendships. Within communal relationships, benefits are given without expectation of repayment. If a friend does a favour for you, you do not feel obligated to immediately repay that friend with another favour. Similarly, if a parent buys a child new clothes the child is not expected to reciprocate with some other gift for the parent. Thus, following communal norms gives partners a mutual sense of security. Exchange relationships do not provide this sense of security. In exchange relationships there is typically little or no feeling of responsibility for another. Benefits given by one person to another are debts that the other must someday repay. Business relationships, or relationships with acquaintances, are often governed by exchange relationship norms. In laboratory studies of communal and exchange relationships, relationship type is manipulated by having research participants interact with an attractive and friendly person who, in the communal condition, has expressed an interest in getting to know new people. In the exchange condition, research participants are told that this other person has established ties in the community, is married, and has no expressed interest in meeting new people. To demonstrate the power of social norms in communal and exchange relationships, Clark and Mills (1979) examined whether repaying someone for help would enhance attraction in exchange relationships but cause attraction to decrease in communal relationships. Male participants were asked to work beside an attractive female student (actually a confederate of the experimenters) on a word task that involved forming words with letter tiles. Points were awarded according to performance. In each trial, the participant was always allowed to finish first, and was awarded extra points. The participant was then asked if he wanted to transfer his extra letter tiles to the female student to help her finish (all participants agreed to do so). The female student responded by either thanking the participant, or repaying him by transferring some of her own points to the participant. Later, when participants were asked to indicate how much they liked the female student, a clear pattern emerged.