Exam I Flashcards
(79 cards)
1
Q
What is social psych
A
-scientific study of situations that cause people to change their attitudes behaviors and cognition
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.
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)
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)
5
Q
Hindsight bias
A
-Overconfidence that you could have predicted the correct outcome that has already been revealed
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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)
13
Q
Social learning theory
A
Noticing what other people are doing and following along
14
Q
Cognitive
A
Thinking processes about people
15
Q
Personality
A
How people of different personalities react to social influences
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?”
17
Q
Some differences between social psych and sociology
A
-Sociology focuses on society and their roles, psych does not
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)
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
25
Key aspects that create an experiment
- Random assignment
| - Enables cause-effect conclusion (internal validity)
26
Types of experiments
1) Lab
2) Field experiment (real world, w/ random assignment)
3) Survey
27
Ex of field experiment
| Litter experiment, fliers on windshield in real parking lot
- 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
28
Ex of survey
Change what's on the survey/paper
29
Internal Validity
| problems w/o controlled experiments
- Correlation does NOT equal causation
| - W/o conducting an experiment results are just correlational
30
Correlation does NOT equal causation:
Aggressive behavior example
- 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
31
Aggressive behavior example (that can establish causation)
-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)
32
# Define
Experimental realism
Mundane Realism
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
# Define
Cover story
Deception
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
What do humans subjects applications do
- Review and approve research
| - Makes sure the risk is worth the benefits (minimizes risk)
35
Social Proof:
Laugh tracks
- Shows are more funny with laugh tracks
| - Proof we deem something funny when other do
36
Social proof examples
Tip jar
Club
Grocery store owner
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
Modeling to help phobias
(Bandura)
Children afraid of dogs
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
Example of modeling to help shy kids
- 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
Why do people eat fast food?
Seeing ads more frequently leads people to believe it is more typical to eat it, leading to more fast food consumption
40
Seeking confirmation:
Researchers "joined cult" experiment
- 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
Pluralistic Ignorance
- 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
Kitty Genoverse Killing
Why didn't people help?
- 2 possibilities
1) Pluralistic ignorance
2) Diffusion of responsibility
43
Ex w/ Percent helping a seizure victim
-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
Ex where participants do a survey and smoke enters the room
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
When is conformity more likely?
-When people are similar
46
Copy Cat Suicide
- 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
Jonestown
- 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
Conformity
What do people generally think about it
Why is it useful
Synonyms to change connotations
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
Groupthink
-Usually happens in an inclusive group, "go go go" attitude, don't let an outsider ruin your plan
50
Ex of Groupthink (Nasa)
Nasa Challenger Failure:
- Engineers said ship would probably not succeed in cold temps
- Nasa workers wanted to keep going and ignore criticism
51
Ways to reduce Groupthink
-Outsider/devils advocate worked to reduce groupthink by giving a fresh new perspective
52
Conformity:
Asch's Research
- 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
Why does conformity happen?
Informational social influence
Normative social influence
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
Women who washed hands after using public restroom
- When others were around washed way more than when alone in bathroom
- Outcome: Normative social influence
55
Factors that increase/decrease conformity
Increase conformity:
- Unanimity
- Group size 1-3 (then levels off)
Decreased conformity:
-Commitment to initial judgement
56
Ex of conformity:
Shower water conservation
Electricity Use
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
Why is alcohol PSA bad?
- presents drinking/driving as a normal behavior
| - does not provide a solution to the problem
58
Ex of commitment to initial judgement (increase conformity)
-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
Conformity is more likely if the group is ____
1) Experts
2) High Status
3) Similar to target person
60
Autokinetic Effect (Ex of conformity)
-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
Subject Identification (Ex of conformity)
-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
Injunctive Norms
Descriptive Norms
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
Litter study (Injunctive norms)
-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
Litter study (Descriptive norms)
-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
Littering study redone in mailroom
Conditions:
- Clean
- Littered
- One piece of litter (watermelon)
-Found same results, one piece of litter= lowest litter rate
66
Keep America Beautiful Ad (Indian crying)
Girls/Boys Littering Ad:
Descriptive and injunctive norms
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
Descriptive Norms:
"Broken Window Theory"
Mailbox experiment:
"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
James-Lange Theory of Emotion
| Vitamin partner experiment
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
Responses to Conformity:
Compliance
Identification
Internal
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
Obedience:
Milgrim's Test
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
Trends in Obedience (Milgrim's Test)
Legitimacy
-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
Trends in Obedience (Milgrim's Test)
Distance
-If participants would shock person at 450 volts
- As victim gets closer obedience goes down
- As experimenter gets closer, obedience goes up
73
Trends in Obedience (Milgrim's Test)
Responsibility
- 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
Perceptual Distortions
TITLE
Speaker "measured" for height
IV= How speaker was introduced w/ different titles (ex: student, demonstrater, lecturer, professor)
-Higher title taller the speakers were rated
75
Perceptual Distortions
CLOTHING affects obedience
"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
Factors that Reduce Obedience:
- Lower authority figure legitimacy
- Bigger Distance
- Less responsibility
- Run down setting
77
Steps bystanders must take
1) Define a situation as an emergency
2) Accept Personal responsibility in the situation
3) Consider the cost of helping
78
Is there true altruism:
Egoistically
Altrustically
Egoistically:
-End-state goal of increasing the helper's welfare
Altrustically:
-End-state goal of increasing the victims welfare
79
Ex of Altruism:
Shock w partner experiment
-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)
