final Flashcards
(112 cards)
social psychology
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: A branch of psychology concerned with humans as social beings
Study of how people:
- Think about others
- Interact/behave with others (in relationships and groups)
- Influence others (behaviours, beliefs, and attitudes)
- Are influenced by others
… “Influence” can be actual or implied (imagined– surveillance)
Social psychology is a large sub-area
attributions (definition + we make our contributions in cotnext from…)
ATTRIBUTION: explanation for the causes of events and behaviours
- An attribution is not a fact
… They are more in line with our individual, subjective perceptions of reality
We make our attributions in context, from:
- Cues and norms from the social environment
- Our personal biases
- Prior knowledge/experience
Central question– Do situations or dispositions cause behaviour?
- A variant of the nature vs nurture discussion
Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) (definition + factors that can mitigate the tendency for FAE)
FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR (FAE): bias that occurs when we judge others (not ourselves), in trying to explain why they did what they did
- We over-estimate internal, dispositional causes
- We underestimate situational factors/circumstances
- E.g. looking at a person who didn’t do their homework and saying “that person is lazy” – dispositional attribution (looking over the fact that maybe their home-life circumstances impacted this)
- E.g. “what a jerk!” (under-estimating why they actually acted like a jerk that day)
The tendency to make FAE is linked to victim-blaming (focusing on disposition/character-based explanations for behaviour)
- “It’s your own fault”
- “What did YOU do for this to happen?”
Factors that can mitigate the tendency for FAE:
- Personal experience– if we’ve been in that situation before
- Culture– people from collectivist/inter-dependent cultures are less prone to the FAE (focus is on interdependent self within the group rather than the interdependent self as the unit and agent)
actor-observer bias (definition + self-serving bias definition)
ACTOR-OBSERVER BIAS: what we do when explaining our behaviour
- We highlight external, environmental factors
- From our pov, we are aware of when situational demands cause us to behave in ways that are unusual/“out of character”
… We don’t always have this insight of looking at all circumstances when judging other people from the outside
- We look at what’s most saliant/noticeable, which is the person engaging in the behaviour, causing us to ignore all the other things around
SELF-SERVING BIAS: how we explain our “good” behaviour
- We attribute out successes to dispositions/internal factors, and explain failures as a result of situations/external factors
attitudes
ATTITUDE: your evaluation of any psychological object
- belief (conclusion based on factual evidence) with an emotional component
- Has a behavioural, emotional, and cognitive component
Attitude can affect behaviour, but Behaviour can affect attitudes
- attitudes and behaviour do not always align, and are only modestly correlated (between .3 and .4)
Attitudes can predict behaviour well, specifically:
- Accessible attitudes (they come to mind readily, very predictive of our behaviours)
- Long-standing attitudes (deeply engrained evaluations/beliefs about people, places, or ideas, that have persisted over time)
attitudes can shift in a variety of ways
where attitudes come from ( + recognition heuristic + bandwagon fallacy)
Experience (positive or negative) are the main factors that affect the formation of attitudes
RECOGNITION HEURISTIC: more likely to believe in something we’ve heard of a lot
- Our experiences shape our attitudes
- When we recognize one object and not the other one, we tend to give the recognized object more weight
BANDWAGON FALLACY: believing something is true because many other people believe it
dual process theory of attitude change (definition + peripheral processing + central processing)
DUAL PROCESS THEORY OF ATTITUDE CHANGE: the type of message (and our processing of it) influences likelihood of attitude change
Which ‘route’ is taken depends on the relevance of the message to the target ..
- Two modes of processing information: Central versus peripheral processing
PERIPHERAL PROCESSING
- Superficial
- Lacks deeper processing of the merits of the products
- Relies more on heuristics and cues, leading to faster but less lasting attitude changes
- E.g. a catchy tune or a cute animal on a commercial
CENTRAL PROCESSING
- Elaboration
- Elaborated processing of the message
- Deeper processing of the merits of the product
- E.g. we’ve listen carefully and examined the merits of the product for ourselves
attitude change- Persuasion Techniques (foot in the door + door in the face + halo effect + scarcity effect + mere thought effect)
Techniques that aim to change attitudes
FOOT IN THE DOOR: start with smaller request, then follow up with a bigger request
- Can be applied long term
- E.g. when buying a product, “subscribe and save _%” or asking for contact information at checkout
- E.g. “can you check our mail when we’re away … and then take out our garbage …. And also put out the bins?”
DOOR IN THE FACE: start with large request, then drop to smaller one
- E.g. “can you donate $45 a month? $20 is also good”
HALO EFFECT: one positive characteristic influences the ratings of other positive characteristics
SCARCITY EFFECT: attempting to pressure consumers to make a purchase by creating the impression that the opportunity to acquire the product is limited
- E.g. “this is a New York times bestseller”
- E.g. Black Friday (?)
SOCIAL PROOF:
- “If other people like it, you’ll probably like to too”; similar to bandwagon fallacy
MERE THOUGHT EFFECT: sometimes just thinking about something can induce more thoughts that fit with existing attitudes
- These thoughts make the attitude more extreme (polarized) (i.e. thinking about something you already feel strongly about will make that attitude stronger)
- A way our attitudes shift over time
attitude change- cognitive dissonance (definition + how ppl solve cognitive dissonance + cognitive dissonance vs reducing dissonance)
Premise– we are motivated to maintain consistency in our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours
- We like cognitive coherence, i.e. schemas and self-concept
- We don’t like it when something we do is “out of character”
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: unpleasant mental experience of tension resulting from when thoughts/beliefs/behaviours conflicting with each other (they’re inconsistent with each other)
- cognitive dissonance motivates us us to change our thoughts/cognitions
- happens when our behaviour is very discrepant from/at odds with our beliefs
- Conflict between attitude and behaviour
- Easier to change beliefs than behaviour
- e.g. cognition A (“Im an honest person”) is in conflict with cognition B (“I cheated on my exam”), which results in either a change in Cognition A (“Im not an honest person after all), a change in cognition B (“I didnt really cheat, I just saw someone’s answers”), or generation of cognition C that reconciles A & B (“I had to cheat because the test was unfair”)
Conflict → tensions due to conflict (unpleasant) → (dissonance) → we must change behaviour or beliefs to reduce the dissonance
- the psychological discomfort is strongly motivating for us
We may be motivated to shift attitudes due to cognitive dissonance
… Cognitive dissonance vs reducing dissonance
- (CD) Attitude– “Domestic abuse is bad and no one should put up with it”
- (CD) Behaviour– “I continue to stay in an absuive relationship”
- (RD) Attitude– “my partner does niot mean to hurt me, so it’s not really abuse”
- (RD) Behaviour– “I am not in an abusive relationship so there is no reason to leave”
…. Shifting attitude to justify behaviour
basis of cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger & Carlsmith’s Dissonance Theory + conclusion + alternative explanations- bem’s self-perception theory)
Festinger & Carlsmith’s Dissonance Study
Participants did a boring task (putting plastic spools into a tray, take them out, put them back again)
Two groups– they were aksed to lie
Some got paid $1, some got paid $20 to tell the next person that the task was “very enjoyable”
… The manipulation is the amount of money
…. Money represents external justification for doing something you’re not supposed to be doing – forced compliance
The $1 group reported higher enjoyment of the boring task compared to the $20 group
- The $20 had external justification for saying the task was enjoyable/lying
- The $1 group had very little external justification for saying the task was enjoyable/lying, so they experienced strong dissonance– to reduce dissonance, they changed their opinion about the task and created for themselves a more positive attitude shift toward it, in favor of it
Conclusion:
- discrepancy between lying about the task and what it was actually like caused an attitude change
Alternative explanations:
- We dont actually change our attitudes, but report that we have, for consistency
- BEM’S SELF-PERCEPTION THEORY: we infer our beliefs based on our behaviour
… maybe partifcipants looked to their behaviour and then inferred their attitude toward the task
schemas
SCHEMA: organized knowledge structure that we store mentally
- Derived from experience
- Guide our information processing about ourselves, other people, and places
The more we experience and engage with our experience, the more our schemas grow into complex organized networks
- They change overtime with experience
type of schemas (self-schemas)
SELF-SCHEMAS: schemas about ourselves
- Our own personalities, physical appearance, pet peeves, idealized selves
We have schemas and subschemas for other people that may be organized similarly (appearance, personality)
stereotypes and stereotype threat
STEREOTYPE: a special, social schema related to group membership
- We might make social judgments faster, but we lose some information
Stereotypes are often over-generalizations
- There is high variability within groups!
Most problematic when we don’t modify our stereotypes
- Resistance to new information
- Confirmation bias
stereotypes and attitudes (prejudice + stereotype + discrimination)
PREJUDICE: a learned, negative attitude and evaluation of a group and its members
- Like all attitudes, it has components of cognition, emotion, and behaviour
STEREOTYPE: the thoughts and beliefs that are held about a person due tot heir group membership
- The cognitive component of prejudice
DISCRIMINATION: behaving in certain (negative) ways toward the person due to their group membership
- The behavioural component of prejudice
- Prejudiced attitudes do not always translate into overt behavioural actions against individuals
stereotype threat
STEREOTYPE THREAT: a risk that occurs when a stereotype is activated inside the minds of a member of a highly stereotyped group
- Creates emotional response, that leads to cognitive overload and then underresponse
The risk is that, with the stereotype activated, the individual member might behave in a way that confirms the stereotype
Activation of the stereotype and self-fulfilling prophecy
- Activation of the stereotype creates experiences, which then leads to fulfillment of those expectancies
- E.g. In studies of stereotype threats, African-Americans will underperform on academic tests when primed with stereotypes about African-Americans in relation to lower academic abilities
- E.g. Similarly, women will underperform on mathematical tests when primed with stereotypes that women do poorly in math
… when priming with stereotypes (language and viduals), people will underperform
social influence (social facilitation + social interference)
We are under the influence of other people and society’s requirements of us, even when/if we think we are acting ‘independently’
Can be beyond our explicit awareness
SOCIAL FACILITATION (SF): performance is enhanced by the presence of others
SOCIAL INTERFERENCE (SI): performance is impaired by the presence of others
SF & SI explained by Robert Zajonc
Robert Zajonc explains SF and SI
Arousal and task difficulty explains SF and SI
- If the task is easy, the dominant response is to do well– SF
- If the task is difficult, the dominant response is to do poorly– SI
- E.g. typing ability
The mere presenced of others increases arousal … too much arousal is a problem
consequences of social influence
When we all line up at the subway doors (i.e. conformity) and let others exit = good
social loafing
SOCIAL LOAFING: Phenomenon in which individuals become less productive in groups – we exert less effort in a group task than one would in an individual task
- …. Each person feels less personally responsible for the group’s output (so the group’s output is less than when you work by yourself)
- “Hmmm… everyone seems to be doing less than they would be doing if they were alone”
The group’s output is less productive when loafing occurs in multiple individuals
Occurs because of diffusion of personal responsibility
Not always positive
Can be relatively mild
Can be countered by making sure that each member is individually identifiable and will be assessed individually
bystander non-intervention/effect
BYSTANDER EFFECTt: The more people present, the less likely any one person will attempt to help
- Not intervening when someone needs help whereas we would have helped if we were alone
- Groups/crowds can be a hindrance to our helping behaviour
- As an individual, you are less likely to provide help when there are other bystanders
BNI cognitive steps
There are many cognitive steps involved in our decision to help:
1) “Is this an emergency?”
- “Am I the only one who thinks there might be a problem here? Everyone else is just walking by … I’m probably wrong and it’s not an emergency”
- PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE: error of assuming that no one else in the group perceives the situation the same way that I do
- This appraisal of the situation is the first aspect of BNI
2) If we decide there is a problem and the person should be assisted … “Do I feel personally responsible to help?”
- DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY: the more people that are around, the less personally responsible we feel for helping out (or the consequences of not helping)
- the Second aspect of BNI
BNI + Latane and Darley’s Classic Studies
The percentage of people helping when in groups was markedly lower than the percentage of people helping when alone
Held across 3 conditions:
1) Smoke in laboratory
2) Woman in distress
3) Student having a seizure
BNI + other reasons people may not help
Personally distress (self-focus)
- If too much – is inversely related to empathy
- You cannot help if you are overly distressed
We may become afraid or negative consequences of helping
- Getting ourselves hurt
- Offending others
… Genuinely altruistic behaviour isn’t going to be constrained by these concerns
conformity
CONFORMITY: change in behaviour as a result of real/imagined group pressure and to be in line with group norms
- Opinions, feelings, behaviours generally move toward the norm
- Especially if in-group identification is a factor
