Module 6 Chapters 12 & 13 Flashcards
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Emphasis is the way
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Emphasis is the way other people influence our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
PERSON PERCEPTION
Refers to the
Ex:
4 basic principles
1. Your reactions to others are determined by
Ex:
2. Your goals in a situation determine
Exs:
3. You evaluate people partly in terms of
Exs:
4. Your self-perception influences how
Ex:
PERSON PERCEPTION
Refers to the mental processes we use to form judgements and draw conclusions about the characteristics of other people
Ex: what kind of judgment, belief, conclusion do you make about the man in lab coat compared to tank top and tattoos
4 basic principles
Your reactions to others are determined by your perceptions of them, which is subjective
Ex: Adult’s view of tattoos is different from teenagers
Your goals in a situation determine the kind of information you collect about others
Ex: random assigned roommate, how much information would you collect about them? A lot.
Ex: randomly assigned with peers for one assignment. Won’t collect info
You evaluate people partly in terms of how you expect them to act in that situation; people tend to follow social norms, which can vary from culture, time periods
Ex: expect biology partner to take good notes, cooperate, pay attention in class
Ex: roommate having a beer at 5am
Your self-perception influences how you perceive others and how you act on your perceptions
Ex: Norden’s perception on what partner to have in a computer science class is different from her son’s who just wanted someone nice
SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION
We group people, characteristics, and behaviors in an
Ex:
Pros:
Cons:
Ex:
SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION
We group people, characteristics, and behaviors in an immediate and spontaneous manner; we want to put people in a box
Ex: Gender, race, age, appearance, occupation
Pros: speeds processing time, helps us organize and remember information
Cons: we categorized based on superficial things, draw conclusions too easily, many times those conclusions are wrong
Ex: all women care about looks, so we should sell this product
EXPLICIT COGNITION
Deliberate, conscious mental processes involved in
IMPLICIT COGNITION
However, your social perceptions are not always completely conscious considerations. In many situations, you react to another person
EXPLICIT COGNITION
Deliberate, conscious mental processes involved in perceptions, judgments, decisions, and reasoning.
IMPLICIT COGNITION
However, your social perceptions are not always completely conscious considerations. In many situations, you react to another person automatically.
Automatic, nonconscious mental processes that influence perceptions, judgments, decisions, and reasoning
ATTRIBUTIONS: BACKGROUND
Attributions are explanations for
We tend to make attributions when
Ex:
We want to make sense
ATTRIBUTIONS: BACKGROUND
Attributions are explanations for our own and others’ behavior
We tend to make attributions when something unusual or bad happens
Ex: blind date, stood up
We want to make sense out of the world
ATTRIBUTIONS: BACKGROUND
2 different kinds
Ex:
Ex:
2 different kinds
Personal or Internal – focus on internal traits, characteristics in order to explain someone’s behavior
Ex: why did someone get a bad score on a quiz? Because they’re lazy and stupid
Situational – focus on external situational reasons to explain someone’s behavior
Ex: why did someone get a bad score on a quiz? Because they didn’t have much time to study, worked too many hours at their job
ATTRIBUTIONS: BACKGROUND
Attributions determine our
When we blame someone, we’re
Ex:
Ex: negative behavior: getting cut off on the road
Situational attribution: “ “ → Tolerant Reaction
Dispositional attribution: “” → Unfavorable reaction ()
Attributions determine our reactions to others and our decisions regarding them. When we blame someone, we’re less likely to help them.
Ex: Hear that a neighbor’s house burned down, left candle lit, her fault, would we help her?
Ex: negative behavior: getting cut off on the road
Situational attribution: “maybe that driver is ill.” → Tolerant Reaction (proceed cautiously, allow driver a wide berth)
Dispositional attribution: “Crazy driver!” → Unfavorable reaction (speed up and race past the other driver, craning to give a dirty look)
ATTRIBUTION ERRORS/BIASES
Fundamental attribution error – tendency to
We engage in this error/bias because we want a
Ex:
Ex:
Research Study: subjects listened to debate about death penalty;
The fundamental attribution error plays a role in
ATTRIBUTION ERRORS/BIASES
Fundamental attribution error – tendency to overestimate the role of personal causes and to underestimate the role of situational factors when making attributions
We engage in this error/bias because we want a correspondence/connection who people are and how they behave
Ex: boss mistreating employees, we want to think he’s just a jerk, instead of thinking something happened to him so he’s just taking out his anger on them
Ex: If a guy stops to help you pick up stuff you dropped, we want to think he’s nice, but it could be because he wants to be late to work
Research Study: subjects listened to debate about death penalty; passionate talking, we want to believe they really believe it, but it was actually randomly assigned
The fundamental attribution error plays a role in blaming-the-victim
ATTRIBUTION ERRORS/BIASES
The fundamental attribution error plays a role in Blaming-the-victim – the tendency to
Ex:
The blaming the victim explanatory pattern is reinforced by another common cognitive bias →
Blaming-the-victim – the tendency to blame an innocent victim of misfortune for having somehow caused the problem or for not having taken steps to avoid or prevent it.
Ex: many people blame the poor for their dire straits, the sick for bringing on their illnesses, and victims of domestic violence or rape for somehow “provoking” their attackers.
The blaming the victim explanatory pattern is reinforced by another common cognitive bias → Hindsight Bias
ATTRIBUTION ERRORS/BIASES
The blaming the victim explanatory pattern is reinforced by another common cognitive bias → Hindsight bias –
tendency, after an event has occurred, to
In everyday conversations, this is the person who
In the case of blaming the victim, hindsight bias makes it seem as if the victim should have
Hindsight bias – tendency, after an event has occurred, to overestimate one’s ability to have foreseen or predicted the outcome.
In everyday conversations, this is the person who confidently proclaims after the event, “I could have told you that would happen.” In the case of blaming the victim, hindsight bias makes it seem as if the victim should have predicted — and prevented — what happened
ATTRIBUTION ERRORS/BIASES
Actor-observer bias – tendency to use
Ex:
Ex:
Actor-observer bias – tendency to use personal attributions to explain OTHER people’s behavior, while focusing more on situational attributions when explaining your OWN behavior
Ex: in-person class, you copy a few answers from a peer, professor notices you and other people cheating. Explanation for cheating: “this isn’t like me, I just didn’t have a lot of time to study, normally hardworking” → external explanation for self. But if asked about other people cheating: “they’re lazy, stupid, etc.” → internal explanation
Ex: “People are so inconsiderate. When someone else litters… But there is no dustbin. When you yourself litter.”
ATTRIBUTION ERRORS/BIASES
Self-serving attributional bias – we take
Ex:
Ex:
Might be a helpful bias to
Self-serving attributional bias – we take credit for our successes but blame others or the situation for our failures
Ex: Why did you do well on the quiz? I worked hard. If you didn’t do well, then it’s the professor’s fault.
Ex: People who are depressed, low self-esteem, don’t do this because they think “I just got lucky, guessed correctly, won’t take credit” or “Maybe I’m not cut out for this, I should drop out”
Might be a helpful bias to protect us from depression or low self-esteem; makes us think we’re good at things
ATTRIBUTION ERRORS/BIASES
Self-effacing bias (in “culture and human behavior” box)
The self-serving bias is common in individualistic cultures such as Australia and the United States, but it is far from universal. In many collectivistic cultures, an opposite attributional bias is often demonstrated
Involves blaming failure on
For example
Self-effacing bias (in “culture and human behavior” box)
The self-serving bias is common in individualistic cultures such as Australia and the United States, but it is far from universal. In many collectivistic cultures, an opposite attributional bias is often demonstrated
Involves blaming failure on internal, personal factors, while attributing success to external, situational factors.
For example, compared to U.S. students, Japanese and Chinese students are more likely to attribute academic failure to personal factors, such as lack of effort, instead of situational factors. Thus, a Japanese student who does poorly on an exam is likely to say, “I didn’t study hard enough.” In contrast, Japanese and Chinese students tend to attribute academic success to situational factors. For example, they might say, “The exam was very easy” or “There was very little competition this year”.
ATTITUDES
Refers to
Non-Ex:
ABCE
What happens if your actions and beliefs conflict?
ATTITUDES
Refers to an enduring evaluation, positive or negative, of people, objects, and ideas
Non-Ex: always like broccoli
Affective Emotional Component
Behavioral Component
Cognitive Component
Emotional component
What happens if your actions and beliefs conflict? Cognitive Dissonance
ATTITUDES
example
Affective Emotional Component – Jill has a negative attitude toward fast-food restaurants
Behavioral Component –
Cognitive Component –
Emotional component –
Affective Emotional Component – Jill has a negative attitude toward fast-food restaurants
Behavioral Component – Predisposition to act in a particular way; boycott
Cognitive Component – beliefs, thoughts, ideas about the attitude object; discourage people from eating unhealthy
Emotional component – feelings and emotions about the attitude object; hate the greasy fries
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Major assumptions
There’s a pressure toward
Dissonance occurs when
Ex:
Dissonance →
When behavior is inconsistent with beliefs, what can you do?
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Major assumptions
There’s a pressure toward consistency between attitude and behavior
Dissonance occurs when the 2 are inconsistent
Ex: believe in being green, but then you put your coke can in the trash
Dissonance → tension, feel pressure to reduce it because it makes you feel better
When behavior is inconsistent with beliefs, what can you do? Change your attitude!
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Exception for external justification
If you behave inconsistently to your attitude because of reward or force,
If there’s no dissonance,
Ex:
Exception for external justification
If you behave inconsistently to your attitude because of reward or force, there’s no dissonance
If there’s no dissonance, no need to change your attitude
Ex: kidnapped to rob a bank, behaved in a way opposite of belief because you were forced for your life
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Festinger & Carlsmith Study
Subjects performed a boring task; turn screw a quarter of the way for 30 mins.
Researchers said go tell next subject the task was enjoyable and engaging; asking them to lie
2 conditions: ($1) small amount vs. ($20) large amount of money to lie
Completed questionnaire a week later about how they enjoyed the task
Which subjects felt dissonance, thus,
Festinger & Carlsmith Study
Subjects performed a boring task; turn screw a quarter of the way for 30 mins.
Researchers said go tell next subject the task was enjoyable and engaging; asking them to lie
2 conditions: ($1) small amount vs. ($20) large amount of money to lie
Completed questionnaire a week later about how they enjoyed the task
Which subjects felt dissonance, thus, needed to change attitude: those payed $1 change their attitude, said they enjoyed participating in the study
INFLUENCES ON ATTITUDE CHANGE
What factors affect the likelihood of attitude change?
-Expertise of the persuader –
ex:
-Likability of the persuader
—-
Ex:
—-
Ex:
-Frequency of communication –
Research found we prefer items; mere exposure effect:
INFLUENCES ON ATTITUDE CHANGE
What factors affect the likelihood of attitude change?
Expertise of the persuader – someone viewed as authority or expert, more influential, likely to change attitude
Trust mechanic, doctor
Likability of the persuader
Physical attractiveness
Ex: Attractive woman to sell product
Similarity
Ex: same religion, age, gender
Frequency of communication – repeating message you’ll persuade
Research found we prefer items;mere exposure effect: same ad popping up, more likely to choose that product because you’ve seen it over again
PREJUDICE DEFINITIONS
Prejudice (affective component) is a
Ex:
Stereotype (cognitive component) is a
Ex:
Discrimination (behavioral component) is
Ex
Video: Racial Bias in Facial Recognition
PREJUDICE DEFINITIONS
Prejudice (affective component) is a hostile or negative feeling,
Ex: hostile feeling toward blonde people = prejudice
Stereotype (cognitive component) is a generalization about a group of people (membership of group)
Ex: I think all blondes are stupid
Discrimination (behavioral component) is an unjustified negative or harmful action toward a member of a group
Ex: assigning final grades, pull up pictures, based on percentages, but if I see a blonde, I’m gonna give a full grade less than what she actually got
Video: Racial Bias in Facial Recognition
Falsely identify client for crime didn’t commit; systems are racially bias, less accurate, not very diverse, false positive on minority groups, technology is flawed, cities are banning it, introduced bill ban facial recognition use; arrest shoplifting through facial recognition, now he has to prove it wasn’t him
CAUSES OF PREJUDICE
Social categorization – first step to prejudice
definition: We _____
Video: Racially biased 911 calls
Consequences of in-group and out-groups
In-group bias or favoritism –
Ex:
Out-group homogeneity – perception that
Ex: ^conclusion that
Implicit attitudes –
Examples:
Implicit Association Test (IAT) – measures
CAUSES OF PREJUDICE
Social categorization – first step to prejudice
We create categories of “us” vs. “them”
Video:Racially biased 911 calls
Instances where police called unnecessarily; police are developing a community safety department, unarmed mental health workers in Albuquerque to replace 911 calls, trained expert, former 911 operator says there should be better way to reject biased calls, in Oregon you can be sued for these kind of calls
Consequences of in-group and out-groups
In-group bias or favoritism – positive feelings and special treatment towards people you’ve defined as part of your in-group and vice versa
Ex: Norden being working mom, shunned from group of moms
Out-group homogeneity – perception that those in the out-group are more similar to each other than they really are
Ex: ^conclusion that all stay-at-home moms are b*tches
Implicit attitudes – preferences and biases toward particular groups that are automatic, spontaneous, unintentional, and often unconscious (can be positive and negative)
Examples: Norden’s kid assuming all Indians are better at science and math
Implicit Association Test (IAT) – measures these unconscious attitudes,
REDUCING PREJUDICE
Contact hypothesis –
The reason white people are prejudice is because ___; help breakdown
Direct contact doesn’t really take place however
Ex:
Does mere contact work?
Conditions where contact may work better
If both groups have a ___: example?
Equal status – example
Jigsaw technique – children placed in small desegregated groups, each person gets one puzzle piece, only way for the group to do well, is if ___
This shows
Video: The Life and Work of Elliot Aronson – grew up in anti-semitic neighborhood; desegregation, highly competitive situation where black and brown people were made to fail, so they changed the nature of the room from competitive to cooperative, each kid had a piece of the action, each kid’s job to teach it to the others; results:
. Aronson learned from
REDUCING PREJUDICE
Contact hypothesis – direct intergroup contact might reduce prejudice
The reason white people are prejudice is because they’re ignorant, had no contact with black and brown people; help breakdown their stereotypes by getting to know different groups
Direct contact doesn’t really take place however
Ex: Milwaukee is one of the most segregated cities in our country
Does mere contact work? NOT ENOUGH
Conditions where contact may work better
If both groups have a common goal: soccer team white and brown working for same goal
Equal status – wealthy white homeowners employing black housekeeper, Mexican gardner, this contact might make it worse even though it’s contact; instead he needs to live by a wealthy minority homeowner
Jigsaw technique – children placed in small desegregated groups, each person gets one puzzle piece, only way for the group to do well, is if each person does their share
shows reduction in prejudice and stereotyping and better in school, more likely to interact with others
Video: The Life and Work of Elliot Aronson – grew up in anti-semitic neighborhood; desegregation, highly competitive situation where black and brown people were made to fail, so they changed the nature of the room from competitive to cooperative, each kid had a piece of the action, each kid’s job to teach it to the others; results: kids especially in minority groups did much better, played together, liked each other, school yard was integrated but only happened because of this. Aronson learned from Maslow positively influence and Festinger (cognitive dissonance)
CONFORMITY
Refers to a
2 kinds of social influence:
Informational – influence of
Ex:
Normative – we want to
Ex:
Asch Study Example
1950s, goal of study is to see how students perform on a visual perception task (he lied), brought in one true subject and then 4 confederates to work with the researcher, goal is to which of the 3 comparison lines is close to the standard line (obviously B) so it’s not informational social influence; but then confederates start saying wrong answer
Results:
CONFORMITY
Refers to a change in behavior due to the real or imagined influence of other people
2 kinds of social influence:
Informational – influence of other people leads us to conform because we see them as a source of information that we think will help guide our behavior
Ex: flight attendant telling you to put your mask on in plane emergency
Normative – we want to be liked and accepted by them
Ex: trying to get with popular clique so you wear pink every Wednesday
Asch Study Example
1950s, goal of study is to see how students perform on a visual perception task (he lied), brought in one true subject and then 4 confederates to work with the researcher, goal is to which of the 3 comparison lines is close to the standard line (obviously B) so it’s not informational social influence; but then confederates start saying wrong answer
Results: 76% of subjects conformed at least once
37% of the time subjects gave an answer they knew was wrong
CONFORMITY
Refers to a
2 kinds of social influence:
Informational – influence of
Ex:
Normative – we want to
Ex:
Asch Study Example
1950s, goal of study is to see how students perform on a visual perception task (he lied), brought in one true subject and then 4 confederates to work with the researcher, goal is to which of the 3 comparison lines is close to the standard line (obviously B) so it’s not informational social influence; but then confederates start saying wrong answer
Results:
CONFORMITY
Refers to a change in behavior due to the real or imagined influence of other people
2 kinds of social influence:
Informational – influence of other people leads us to conform because we see them as a source of information that we think will help guide our behavior
Ex: flight attendant telling you to put your mask on in plane emergency
Normative – we want to be liked and accepted by them
Ex: trying to get with popular clique so you wear pink every Wednesday
Asch Study Example
1950s, goal of study is to see how students perform on a visual perception task (he lied), brought in one true subject and then 4 confederates to work with the researcher, goal is to which of the 3 comparison lines is close to the standard line (obviously B) so it’s not informational social influence; but then confederates start saying wrong answer
Results: 76% of subjects conformed at least once
37% of the time subjects gave an answer they knew was wrong
