Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social Psych > Exam I > Flashcards

Exam I Flashcards

1
Q

What is social psych

A

-scientific study of situations that cause people to change their attitudes behaviors and cognition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Example of experiment that test changes in attitude

A

-Boring task given to participants, confederates said “task is fun”

  • Conditions:
    1) participants get paid $1
    2) participants get paid $20
  • Participants getting paid $1 rated the task more enjoyable because they went through COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
  • Cognitive dissonance = when feelings (attitude) do not match behavior, causing anxiety, so people change attitude to relieve anxiety.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Example of experiment that measures changes in behavior

A

-Male college students asked to define fake vocab words

  • Conditions: (IV)
    1) Low self esteem group: experimenter tells participants they are doing a bad job

2) High self esteem group: experimenter tells participants they are doing a good job
- Takes a break and meets female confederate

  • Conditions: (IV)
    1) Female confederate moderately attractive

2) Female confederate highly attractive

Results:
-Men were more likely to hit on highly attractive confederate if they were in the high self esteem group and more likely to hit on moderately attractive confederate if in low self esteem group

(These men did not have self esteem issues, manipulated by experimenter)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Example of experiment that measures changes in cognition

A
  • Male and female pics from yearbook
  • Sorted by “male attractive”, “female attractive”, “male unattractive”, “female unattractive”
  • Gave pics to participants and asked them to measure personality out of a list of desirable and undesirable traits
  • Results:
  • The more attractive a person was the higher people rated them for personality
  • No sex differences)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Hindsight bias

A

-Overconfidence that you could have predicted the correct outcome that has already been revealed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The role of research (Counterintuitive findings)

Discussion study

A
  • Group 1: (control)- Just joined w/ no initiation
  • Group 2: (Mild)- A little more difficult to join, said easy sex words
  • Group 3: (severe)- Hard initiation. 12 obscene sex words

Results:
-People who went through the toughest initiation rated discussion and discussion members the best

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Study of Attraction

Scary bridge vs. Steady bridge

A

-Men on scary bridge more likely to call female experimenter than steady bridge men

Problems:
-No random assignment, stopped anyone that happened to be on the bridge

-Creates a SELF SELECTION BIAS: participants chose their conditions, which can create differences between groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Dispositional vs situation

-People who do crazy things are not necessarily crazy

A

Dispositions:

  • Study of competitiveness
  • Same game, changed name

Conditions: (IV)

1) Community game
2) Wall street game

Conditions: (IV)

1) Cooperative people
2) Competitive people

-DV= cooperative/competitive behavior

  • Results:
  • People were more cooperative in the community game than the wall street game despite their personality
  • Name affected the participants expectations/behavior
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

The Fundamental Attribution Error

A
  • Assuming anything a person does has to do with them internally
  • Assuming a target person acted a certain way due to the targets personality traits (Dispositional view)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Zimbardo Standford Prison Study

A
  • Regular college men (no trouble/problems prior)
  • 1/2 guards, 1/2 prisoners
  • Mock prison in renovated psych department
  • Cut short after 6 days bc got out of hand and violent
  • No clear dependent variable/measurements
  • Ethics and stress not okay today
  • Random assignment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Major theoretical perspectives of social psych (sub areas)

Sociocultural

Evolutionary

A

Sociocultural:
-Social influence across cultures

Evolutionary:
-Types of behaviors are so common from people that need them to survive, they pass them down to their chilrdren

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Experiments on evolutionary

Reaction time

A
  • Look at 9 faces and pick out what face is different

- Wanted to see if facial expressions affected this/reaction time (ex: 8 happy faces and 1 angry face)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Social learning theory

A

Noticing what other people are doing and following along

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Cognitive

A

Thinking processes about people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Personality

A

How people of different personalities react to social influences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Applied Social psych

A

Applying social psych to a real world situation

Ex: “How can you influence people not to use tanning bed?”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Some differences between social psych and sociology

A

-Sociology focuses on society and their roles, psych does not

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Kunen (1995) report on colee programs in prison

A

-20% lower reoffending rate than other prisoners

Problem:
-People were not randomly assigned, participants chose if they wanted to be in program (self selection bias)

-Poses the question, would we see these results before the program Are their differences between the groups that caused these results (no way of knowing w/o random assignment)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Conducting an Experiment:

JFK

A
  • People rated JFK more likable after messing up the “Bay of Pigs” act, because he was seen as almost perfect
  • Can’t just ask people why they don’t like someone bc usually they don’t know why they feel the way they feel (no control either)
  • Must conduct an experiement
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Conducting an experiment:

JFK phenomenon w high school senior

A

-Participants listened to a fake audio of a high schooler

Conditions:

1) Nearly perfect person (heavily involved, etc)
2) Mediocre person

  • Both people either went through tape without a blunder or with the blunder of spilling coffee
  • Nearly perfect persons attractiveness level went up when he “blundered”, while mediocre persons rating went down
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Designing an experiment:

Initiation experiment

A

Experimental question:
-Do people who go through a lot of effort to join a group like it better than those who go through less effort?

Cover Story:
-Recruited female college students for dynamics of group discussion

One factor (One IV):

  • Type of initiation
  • 3 levels of that factor (no initiation, mild, severe)
Two factor (DV/measures): 
-Rating of discussion and discussion members
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Designing an experiment:

(Initiation experiment)

Operational definitions for IV and DV

A

IV operational definition:
-How to create conditions

DV operational definitions:
-How to measure

Ex IV operation defs:
-Severe: Read 12 obscene sex words aloud and vivid description of sexual activity

  • Mild: Read aloud 5 words related to sex (not obscene)
  • Control: No task required to joining discussion
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Designing an experiment:

(Initiation experiment)

Results/conclusion

A

Results:
-All groups listened to same discussion tape

-But severe initiation people rated the discussion and discussion members higher than the other groups/conditions

Conclusion:
-Cognitive dissonance (people do not like to put in a lot of effort for nothing)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Lab experiments vs real life initiation situations (advantages/disadvantages)

A

Advantages in real life:

  • Saves time
  • No human subject approval

Advantage in lab:
-Control (setting, same recording, control over conditions)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Key aspects that create an experiment

A
  • Random assignment

- Enables cause-effect conclusion (internal validity)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Types of experiments

A

1) Lab
2) Field experiment (real world, w/ random assignment)
3) Survey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Ex of field experiment

Litter experiment, fliers on windshield in real parking lot

A
  • A lot of litter present in setting, fliers on windshield, seeing if they take it with them or drop it on the ground
  • Strength: Real life situation and setting, no pressure, more generalization
  • Weakness: No control
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Ex of survey

A

Change what’s on the survey/paper

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Internal Validity

problems w/o controlled experiments

A
  • Correlation does NOT equal causation

- W/o conducting an experiment results are just correlational

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Correlation does NOT equal causation:

Aggressive behavior example

A
  • Exposing kids to violent programs and measuring aggressive behavior
  • It is possible that a third variable that makes them more likely to score higher in either variable
  • Only way to determine causation is to conduct an experiment w/ random assignment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Aggressive behavior example (that can establish causation)

A

-Group of kids (both boys and girls), 30 min program,

  • Conditions
    1) non-aggressive tv show
    2) aggressive tv show

-then played hockey right after

Conclusion:
-Aggressive tv caused more aggressive play (w/ slight gender differences)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Define

Experimental realism

Mundane Realism

A

Experimental realism:
-Judgement of whether or not participants are engaged or not

Mundane Realism:
-How similar are the tasks in the experiment to the tasks in real life (things people do everyday)

Ex: Milgrim’s study had very high experimental realism, but very low in mundane realism

33
Q

Define

Cover story

Deception

A

Cover story:
-Fake story told to participants to explain to the participants why the study is being done

  • We do this to avoid self-presentation bias
  • Considered deception

Deception:

  • Deceiving someone
  • Human subjects committee tried to minimize deception, discomfort
34
Q

What do humans subjects applications do

A
  • Review and approve research

- Makes sure the risk is worth the benefits (minimizes risk)

35
Q

Social Proof:

Laugh tracks

A
  • Shows are more funny with laugh tracks

- Proof we deem something funny when other do

36
Q

Social proof examples

Tip jar

Club

Grocery store owner

A

Tip jar:
-Leaving a few dollars before shift

Club:
-Leaving many people outside despite room insider

Grocery store:
-Owner noticed people stopped shopping when their arms got tired (no shopping carts invented), he invented shopping carts but no one used them, so he hired confederates to talk around the store w/ them and people started using them

(Sends message that other people tip so you should, or a lot of people go to that club so you should, other people shop w shopping carts so you should)

37
Q

Modeling to help phobias

(Bandura)

Children afraid of dogs

A

Making kids afraid of dogs watch videos of other kids playing w/ dogs

3 conditions in a positive setting:

1) Video w/ no dog
2) Video of kids w/ dog
3) Video of modeling with dog (kids playing w/ dog)

1 condition in a neutral setting:
1) Modeling w/ dog

  • Condition w/ neutral setting and modeling helped kids the most
  • 1 month later positive w/ model helped kids the most
38
Q

Example of modeling to help shy kids

A
  • Baseline of shy children and % time socializing w/ peers (baseline for control and modeling had low baselines, baselines for typical peers had high baselines)
  • Showed several videos to shy kids to see if shyness improved
  • 3 conditions:
    1) Control film (dolphin vid)
    2) Modeling film (Shy kids isolated, then asked peers to play, and joins in)
    3) Typical peers

-6 weeks follow up control stayed the same, but modeling group was the highest (increased rapidly), typical peers were slightly lower than modeling

39
Q

Why do people eat fast food?

A

Seeing ads more frequently leads people to believe it is more typical to eat it, leading to more fast food consumption

40
Q

Seeking confirmation:

Researchers “joined cult” experiment

A
  • Wanted to see how they handled “doomsday” (flood), rescued by spaceship
  • No flood comes or spaceship, make it okay by the leader saying she got a message from the higher ups saying their believing saved the world
  • Called newspapers, spread the word BECAUSE THEY WERE UNCERTAIN. NEEDED OTHER PEOPLE TO AGREE TO FEEL LIKE THEY WERE RIGHT.
41
Q

Pluralistic Ignorance

A
  • Feeling different from everyone, but trying to blend in
  • Ex: Confused students not admitting their questions in a class, because they think others get it (seeing others not respond, you don’t respond)
42
Q

Kitty Genoverse Killing

Why didn’t people help?

A
  • 2 possibilities
    1) Pluralistic ignorance
    2) Diffusion of responsibility
43
Q

Ex w/ Percent helping a seizure victim

A

-Discussion about stress

  • Conditions:
    1) Alone w/ researcher
    2) Among a group of 5

Dv: If they helped researcher

  • Way more people helped when they were they were along vs in a group
  • Conclusion: Diffusion of responsibility
44
Q

Ex where participants do a survey and smoke enters the room

A

Conditions:

1) Alone
2) 2 Confederates ignoring smoke
3) 2 peers

DV: If they left/How long it took them to leave room

Results:
-Participants sat there for the shortest amount of time when alone, then 2 peers, then 2 confederates

Reason for Outcome:
-Pluralistic ignorance

  • Experiment also redone w/ friends or strangers
  • People were more likely to help when w/ a friend
45
Q

When is conformity more likely?

A

-When people are similar

46
Q

Copy Cat Suicide

A
  • When celebrities commit suicide and people copy and do it too
  • Only in locations where celebrities death made new/was publicized were there a spike in deaths
47
Q

Jonestown

A
  • Over 900 people commit suicide
  • People moved so far from home (couldn’t leave)
  • Practiced committing suicide
  • Had charismatic leader
  • Conformed to what others were doing
48
Q

Conformity

What do people generally think about it

Why is it useful

Synonyms to change connotations

A

What do people generally think about it:
-Negative connotation

Why is it useful:
-Useful for survival and functioning

Synonyms to change connotations:

  • Conformist –> team player
  • Deviant –> nonconformist
49
Q

Groupthink

A

-Usually happens in an inclusive group, “go go go” attitude, don’t let an outsider ruin your plan

50
Q

Ex of Groupthink (Nasa)

A

Nasa Challenger Failure:

  • Engineers said ship would probably not succeed in cold temps
  • Nasa workers wanted to keep going and ignore criticism
51
Q

Ways to reduce Groupthink

A

-Outsider/devils advocate worked to reduce groupthink by giving a fresh new perspective

52
Q

Conformity:

Asch’s Research

A
  • Cover story: Testing vision
  • Match line “x” to length if 1, 2, or 3
  • confederates chose wrong answer intentionally to see if participant would conform
  • When in inaccurate group got more “wrong” (conformed), than when alone (got nothing wrong)
53
Q

Why does conformity happen?

Informational social influence

Normative social influence

A

Informational social influence:
-Task= confusing/ambiguous, want to be correct so you do what everyone else is doing

Normative social influence:

  • “peer pressure”
  • Task= easy, you know the answer but you go w/ what others say so you are not judged, want to fit in
54
Q

Women who washed hands after using public restroom

A
  • When others were around washed way more than when alone in bathroom
  • Outcome: Normative social influence
55
Q

Factors that increase/decrease conformity

A

Increase conformity:

  • Unanimity
  • Group size 1-3 (then levels off)

Decreased conformity:
-Commitment to initial judgement

56
Q

Ex of conformity:

Shower water conservation

Electricity Use

A

Shower water conservation:

  • Asked people to turn water off when soaping
  • Signs had little effect on conformity
  • The more confederates there were turning the water off the higher the % of people that conformed and did it too

Electricity Use:

  • Neighborhood had their electric meter read and compared w/ others in their neighborhood
  • Heavy users use went down, light users went up (conform to avg)

Outcome:
-Social Normative Influence

57
Q

Why is alcohol PSA bad?

A
  • presents drinking/driving as a normal behavior

- does not provide a solution to the problem

58
Q

Ex of commitment to initial judgement (increase conformity)

A

-wrote answer on one of these conditions, then saw/heard other peoples answers, measured how many conformed

Conditions:

1) Control (didnt write answer)
2) Magic pad
3) Private (not shared
4) Public (shared)

  • # of errors decreased down the list
  • Committing to initial commitment makes resisting conformity easier
59
Q

Conformity is more likely if the group is ____

A

1) Experts
2) High Status
3) Similar to target person

60
Q

Autokinetic Effect (Ex of conformity)

A

-Pitch black room, light pinpoint on ceiling, participants have to judge how much the line moves (hard to do)

Conditions:

1) Alone- Drastically far apart
2) In group- Closer together
3) Alone again- Closest together

  • In group participant 1 says answer, participant 2’s guess drops drastically to match participant 1, and 3 conforms to the other participants answers as well
  • When alone again participant 1 conforms to be closer to the other two participants guesses get closer together
61
Q

Subject Identification (Ex of conformity)

A

-Tests if eyewitnesses will conform to match confederates

Conditions (IV):

1) Easy identification (slow)
2) Hard identification (fast)

Conditions (IV):

1) Important decision (need accuracy)
2) Unimportant decision

-When task was very important and difficult conformed way more (informational social influence)

62
Q

Injunctive Norms

Descriptive Norms

A

Injunctive Norms:
-Norms of what is normally right, motivated to be approved by others and not disapproved, (would people look down on you if you did it)

Descriptive Norms:
-Doing common behavior, what other people are doing

63
Q

Litter study (Injunctive norms)

A

-Setting: parking lot, Flier on windshield of car

Condition (confederates actions):

1) Confederate walks by
2) Confederate cleans litter

  • Way less % of people littered when confederate cleaned
  • Seeing someone clean up makes you feel they will be disapproved of if they litter (Injunctive norms)
64
Q

Litter study (Descriptive norms)

A

-Setting: parking lot, Flier on windshield of car

Condition (IV= cleanliness of parking lot):

1) Heavily littered setting
2) No litter setting
3) One piece of litter setting

  • Heavily littered setting= littering increased
  • No setting setting= littering decreased
  • One piece of litter= Lowest littering (activates descriptive norms)
65
Q

Littering study redone in mailroom

A

Conditions:

  • Clean
  • Littered
  • One piece of litter (watermelon)

-Found same results, one piece of litter= lowest litter rate

66
Q

Keep America Beautiful Ad (Indian crying)

Girls/Boys Littering Ad:

Descriptive and injunctive norms

A

Keep America Beautiful Ad (Indian crying):

  • Descriptive Norms message: People litter
  • Injunctive Norms message: People disapprove of littering

Girls/Boys Littering Ad:

  • Descriptive Norms message: Most people don’t litter
  • Injunctive Norms message: People disapprove of littering
67
Q

Descriptive Norms:

“Broken Window Theory”

Mailbox experiment:

A

“Broken Window Theory”:
-A setting that demonstrates one type of bad behavior produces several bad behaviors

Mailbox experiment:
-Money seen in envelope sticking out of the mailbox, will people steal or not

Conditions:

1) Clean mailbox
2) Graffitti mailbox= double the theft

68
Q

James-Lange Theory of Emotion

Vitamin partner experiment

A

James-Lange Theory of Emotion:
-You have a physiological response first and then you interpret it to an emotion

(Vitamin partner experiment):
-Takes same vitamin of partner

Conditions:

1) Confederate euphoric
2) Confederate angry

Conditions:

1) Side effects described before hand
2) Side effects not expected

Dv= mood/behavior

-People who did not expect side effects conformed to their parnter

69
Q

Responses to Conformity:

Compliance

Identification

Internal

A

Responses to Conformity:

Compliance:
-Do what you do (conform) to avoid punishment or gain rewards

Identification:
-Adapted opinion (conformed) because someone you admire does it

Internal:
-Conformed due to credible info, considered thoughtfully, researched

70
Q

Obedience:

Milgrim’s Test

A

Milgrim’s Test:
-Cover story: Testing punishment on learning, memorize word pairs

  • Learner was really an actor (voice recording)
  • Experimenter would not let teacher stop (had a script to keep him going)

Outcomes differed from anticipated results:
-Psychiatrists thought no one would go to 350volts

Reasons for high rates of obedience:
-Person has high status (white coat)/expertise

71
Q

Trends in Obedience (Milgrim’s Test)

Legitimacy

A

-When there was a doubt in legitimacy obedience goes down

Ex: 
-When experimenters disagreed
-When other teacher refused 
-When peers make the rules 
(obedience goes down)
72
Q

Trends in Obedience (Milgrim’s Test)

Distance

A

-If participants would shock person at 450 volts

  • As victim gets closer obedience goes down
  • As experimenter gets closer, obedience goes up
73
Q

Trends in Obedience (Milgrim’s Test)

Responsibility

A
  • When participants did not push the button themselves there was an extremely high rate of obedience
  • No one obeyed (450volts) when experimenter told them they could choose whichever voltage they wanted to use for punishment

(no personality differences)

74
Q

Perceptual Distortions

TITLE

Speaker “measured” for height

A

IV= How speaker was introduced w/ different titles (ex: student, demonstrater, lecturer, professor)
-Higher title taller the speakers were rated

75
Q

Perceptual Distortions

CLOTHING affects obedience

A

“dressed the part” increases obedience

Ex: catch me if you can

Ex: Security guard vs regularly clothed person asking you to fill parking meter

Ex: People honk more at lower status cars than the higher status cars

76
Q

Factors that Reduce Obedience:

A
  • Lower authority figure legitimacy
  • Bigger Distance
  • Less responsibility
  • Run down setting
77
Q

Steps bystanders must take

A

1) Define a situation as an emergency
2) Accept Personal responsibility in the situation
3) Consider the cost of helping

78
Q

Is there true altruism:

Egoistically

Altrustically

A

Egoistically:
-End-state goal of increasing the helper’s welfare

Altrustically:
-End-state goal of increasing the victims welfare

79
Q

Ex of Altruism:

Shock w partner experiment

A

-People offering to trade places with their shocked partners

Conditions:

1) No empathy (not similar)
2) Empathy (similar)

Conditions:

1) easy escape (excused very soon)
2) difficult escape (excused in another hr or so, unless switch w/ partner)

  • Easy escape and no empathy= helped less
  • Difficult escape and no empathy= helped more
  • Difficult escape and empathy= helped more

-Easy escape and empathy= HELPED MORE (ALTRUISM)

Social Psych (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions