Running Head: FACEBOOK CONCESUS 1

FACEBOOK CONCESUS 2

Facebook Consensus

Kaytlin De Los Santos

PSY 3215

07/06/2020

The distinctive result of social influence is that our beliefs as well as our behaviors become more similar to the people who are around us. In most times the change happens in an impulsive and involuntary sense happens without an apparent intention of one person changing the other (Hale, & Hamilton, 2016). It is said that imitation is a flattery form and people would therefore like people who imitate them.

According to Hodges (2014), human beings have an innate similarity for coordination and conformity. This is very crucial to culture, groups as well as to dialogical relationships. It is also true that the dynamics of cultures, groups, and relationships depend on tendencies for divergence, differentiation, and dissenting. According to the authors, there is a remarkable convergent account of an intricate relationship of divergence and convergence in various contexts. This means that there is a conversational alignment. Imitation, mimicking, and synchrony among others all reveal a complex pattern of selectivity and fidelity which has now and then continued to surprise researchers.

Similarly, Hodges, (2014) believes that people are more likely to act like social personified dialogical partners learning how to act in ways that favor them as well as their ecosystem. The hypothesis being tested is that understanding is an ongoing activity to seek depth and intricacy in our knowing and doing. Children have been found for instance more likely to copy casually extraneous actions that an adult performs. However, it has been found that people will imitate things partially and that it is far too selective to some form of involuntary motor imitation. The people, therefore, do not follow others completely but the rater act selectively and discreetly to be loyal to the world.

In another article, (De Freitas, et al., 2019) examined the reason people respect anonymous charitable giving and whether and how the attributions of the donor’ identity or the beneficiary are affected when one is revealed to the other. In trying to find out why people are very concerned regarding the anonymity of the donor, credit or concealed benefits, it is found out that people differentiate anonymous from public gifts and they also appear to be finer distinctions basing on their mutual understanding of the donor and the beneficiary.

The author has found out that charitability judgments are fashioned by psychological systems for the choice of the best cooperative partners. This is to show that people have cognitive systems that they use to detect and to keep trail of signs indicating a character for generosity which includes how a donor gives their donations. This article hypothesis that the judgment of people about the charitability of a donor falls into a hierarchy since our righteousness intuitions are related to assessments of corporative partners. “The more the donors can expect to receive favors in return through either direct or indirect reciprocity, the less charitable they appear” (De Freitas, et al., 2019).

In the article “ motivation to support charity linked events after exposure to Facebook appeals”, the authors looks at the effect of Facebook on maintaining or solidifying existing offline relationships to allow people in the development of a public profile and to participate psychologically with the people they are able to share connections (Schattke, Ferguson, & Paulin, 2018). Social identity theory is very crucial in explaining the motivation for pro-social theory. Social identification for instance is found to every critical in participation in social movements.

According to the author of this article, there is a very big correlation between online and offline support intentions. Women who were involved in this study have been found to conform, in a way that suggests that they are empathetic, selfless, and generous as when compared to men. The study supports the hypothesis that the greater the emotional identification with the cause is, the strong the support is in both offline and online events.

The human being will often mimic and imitate others without them knowing. Mimicry has social benefits as it can help in building rapport between different groups of people or between two people. Copying others can broadly range from a non-conscious process to a conscious process (Genschow, et al., 2018).

In conclusion, people may sometimes end up making choices that they would not have otherwise made without them knowing as people tend to mimic the choices and behaviors of other people. Similarly, some people will may want to do the opposite of the others just to show that they are unique that the others by making a different choice. These social cues are everywhere from face to face to online interactions which makes it difficult to escape what others are doing on our own choices.

References

De Freitas, J., DeScioli, P., Thomas, K. A., & Pinker, S. (2019). Maimonides’ ladder: States of mutual knowledge and the perception of charitability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(1), 158. Retrieed from: https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2018-52104-001

Genschow, O., Klomfar, S., d’Haene, I., & Brass, M. (2018). Mimicking and anticipating others’ actions is linked to Social Information Processing. PloS one, 13(3), e0193743. Retrieved from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193743

Hale, J., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2016). Cognitive mechanisms for responding to mimicry from others. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 63, 106-123.Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763415302426

Hodges, B. H. (2014). Rethinking conformity and imitation: Divergence, convergence, and social understanding. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 726. Retrieved from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00726/full

Schattke, K., Ferguson, R., & Paulin, M. (2018). Motivations to support charity-linked events after exposure to Facebook appeals: Emotional cause identification and distinct self-determined regulations. Motivation Science, 4(4), 315. Retrieved from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-57163-001