Psych Main - Social Flashcards
(91 cards)
1
Q
3 forms of self that make up the self-concept (Brewer & Gardner, 1996)
A
- Individual (Personal)
- Traits, Feelings, Beliefs - Collective
- Social identities - Relational
- Connections and role relationships
2
Q
3 tactics to achieve self-coherence (Baumeister, 1998)
A
- Restricting our lives to a limited set of contexts
- Revising and integrating our ‘autobiographies‘.
- Attributing change to the circumstances.
3
Q
4 Sources of Self-knowledge
A
- Introspection (Thoughts/Feelings)
- Self-perception (How I see myself based on my behaviour)
- Feedback from others
- Social Comparisons
4
Q
Van Gyn, Wenger & Gaul (1990)
A
Sports Bikes.
5
Q
Miller et al. (1975)
A
School - Tidy vs. Untidy.
6
Q
Snyder (1984)
A
Said person on the phone is an extrovert - therefore P’s treated them like an extrovert. Caused the person behind the phone to act like an extrovert.
7
Q
Festinger (1954)
A
We tend to compare ourselves with those who are similar or a little bit worse.
8
Q
3 Motives for seeking self-knowledge (Sedikides, 1993)
A
- Accurate self-assessment (least important)
- Self-Verification
- Self-Enhancement (most important)
9
Q
4 Ways to maintain/enhance self-esteem
A
- Self-serving attributions
- Above average effect
- Unrealistic optimism
- False consensus and uniqueness (Everyone thinks/does the same things I do. But I’m also very unique)
10
Q
3 Kinds of threats to our self-concept
A
- Failures
- Inconsistencies
- Stressors
11
Q
Strauman (1993)
A
Threats to self-concept arouse negative emotions and they contribute to physical illness.
12
Q
3 Main strategies of coping with threats to self-concept
A
- Escape
- Downplay the threat
- Attack the threat
13
Q
Self-Handicapping (Bergles, 1987)
A
Setting up excuses for failure before the event (e.g. the exam)
- provides an excuse for failure
- makes successes seem greater
14
Q
Berglas and Jones (1978)
A
Gave participants (easy or insoluble) problems; then manipulated feelings of security in their ability. They were told there were further similar problems to solve and the experiment was testing the effects of drugs on performance.
- The ‘secure’ (easy problems) group chose the drug which improves performance.
- The ‘insecure’ (insoluble problems) group chose the drug that inhibits performance i.e. a self-handicapping strategy.
15
Q
Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997)
A
Self-efficacy is your sense of competence and effectiveness
16
Q
Locus of control (Rotter, 1973)
A
Some people feel that what happens to them depends on external factors, others that it depends on their own efforts and skills
17
Q
Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997/1998)
A
- Actual/Ideal/Ought Selves
- Two types of behaviours:
1. Promotion/Approach Strategy - Motivated to be the best
2. Prevention/Avoidance Strategy - Motivated to avoid failing
18
Q
3 ways we present our self to others
A
- False Modesty
- Impression Management
- Self-monitoring
19
Q
Manago et al. (2008)
A
- MySpace was used for identity exploration and for realising ideal and possible selves. Presenting in desired ways.
- ’audience’ comments provide feedback and validation of emerging selves
- social comparisons were also important in constructing selves
20
Q
Zhao (2008)
A
We construct our identity on FB. But constrained by offline relationships.
- Pics, Lists, Descriptions
- We tend to be implicit - not direct in impressing but through our pics etc.
21
Q
Back et al. (2010)
A
Compared personality measures for self and ideal-self with observer ratings of Facebook profiles, and concluded that Facebook is a medium for expressing and communicating real personality.
22
Q
3 main types of automatic thinking
A
- Schemata
- Heuristics
- Biases
23
Q
Kelley (1950)
A
Schema of a guest lecturer as a warm or cold person - affects students ratings and behaviour regardless of the truth.
24
Q
2 Ways Schemas work and examples
A
- Guide what we notice by filtering out inconsistent inf.
- Vallone, Ross & Lepper(1985) both pro- and anti-Israeli students perceived the TV news items shown to them as hostile to their side - Influence what we encode and therefore the memories we construct
- Carli (1999) showed that participants ‘remembered’ details of the story of ‘Barbara and Jack’ which were consistent with the ending given.
25
Croxton et al (1984)
Students’ recall of person’s earlier behaviour depended on whether they were told that person liked or disliked them.
26
McFarland & Ross (1985)
Students rated their steady dating partners and were asked to do the same two months later. Their memories of the past fitted the current state of the relationship.
Holmberg & Holmes (1994) did a similar longitudinal study with newly weds after marriage and two years later – and noted a similar negative spiral.
27
Which Schemata is applied depends on what two things?
1. Accessibility
| 2. Priming e.g. medical student syndrome
28
Why are schemas so resistant to change?
Confirmation bias
- Ross, Lepper and Hubbard (1975) asked experimental participants to look at suicide notes to determine which were real. A third each of the participants were told that they were right 10, 17 and 24 out of 25 times. They were then told that they had been lied to and asked to estimate more correctly. Those who had been told higher numbers continued to guess high.
29
Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968)
‘IQ bloomers’ study: teachers were led to believe that some (randomly selected) children in class had done well on IQ test. Eight months later, they had made significant improvement because teachers (unconsciously) paid them more attention.
30
Rosenhan (1973)
tested mental health workers’clinical judgements by getting themselves interviewed in different hospitals, complaining of hearing voices. They were admitted for treatment - workers had explanations and were sure they had schizophrenia.
31
Parker et al. (1995)
Showed that violations (not errors) are associated with accidents (violations are deviations from safe-driving practices; errors involve making mistakes or lack of skill and judgement)
32
Mansteadet al (1992)
In a survey of 1500 drivers, Mansteadet al (1992) found‘ regular violators’ made higher estimates of other’ violations, whereas ‘irregular’ violators underestimate
33
Sherif (1937)
The Autokinetic effect.
Individuals were asked to estimate how far they thought the light moved, then tested them together in a group. Estimates in the group converged as they established a 'group norm'. This was close to the average of estimates they gave individually.
A group was asked to give estimates of how far they thought the light moved then they were asked to give individual estimates, these were very close to the group estimate.
34
Asch (1952)
Line Study: Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed with the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials.
Over the 12 critical trials about 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 25% of participant never conformed. In the control group, with no pressure to conform to confederates, less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer.
35
3 Main factors affecting the level of conformity people display (+ situation)
1. Personality
2. Gender
- females conform slightly more than males BUT the degree of conformity depends on the task – males conform more on ‘feminine’ tasks, females conform more on ‘masculine’ tasks (Eagly, 1978, 1983)
3. Culture
- Similar effects have been found in other countries, but members of collectivist cultures conform more (Bond & Smith, 1996)
36
2 Situational factors that increase Conformity
1. Unanimity
- Allen & Levine (1971) compared the effects of a competent and incompetent supporter (wearing thick glasses) on a visual task. Both reduced conformity
2. Group Size
- Milgram et al (1969) had a number of people look up on a busy street, while the percentage of passersby who looked up was calculated - Groups of 5+ most effective.
37
Latane (1981) - Social Impact theory
Social influence increases with each additional person in the group up to 5, but each addition has less impact.
38
Jetten & Hornsey, 2012
Textbooks imply that in the right circumstances, we conform blindly to majority. We overlook the people who did not conform in Asch’s study.
39
Hornsey et al (2003)
Hornsey et al (2003) showed that we resist conformity when our views relate to our morals or principles, or are important to our sense of self
40
2 Most important explanations for why we conform (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955)
1. Need to be Liked
- Normative Influence
2. Need to be Right
- Informational Influence
41
Moscovici et al (1969)
4 participants and 2 confederates did a colour perception task, involving 36 blue slides
- Consistent condition - confederates call blue slides ‘green’
- Inconsistent condition - confederates call 24 slides blue and 12 green
They found that when the confederates were consistent:
- Some changed overt responses (8.4% of answers were ‘green’)
42
How does minority influence work?
Moscovici (1980) argues that minority influence works through a process of conversion.
- Following the crowd is thoughtless - no brainer.
- Minority causes us to think and judge the situation and whether we're correct.
Nemeth (1986) argued that minority dissent stimulates novel, creative thinking and active information processing.
43
Milgram (1974)
25 (63%) of the participants obeyed and ‘gave’ most severe shock
44
3 Main factors 'breeding' obedience in Milgram's studies
1. Victim's distance
2. Closeness and Legitimacy of authority
3. Peer Pressure
45
5 Reasons why we choose to obey
1. We have a long history of obedience and respect for authority
2. Agentic Shift
3. . Blaming the victim
4. Gradual slippage
5. Little time for reflection when making the decision
46
Rochat & Modigliani (1995)
Studied citizens in a French village who defied authorities to help war refugees. Showed that people can resist, but this requires early action.
47
Triplett (1898)
Found that children were faster to wind string on a fishing reel when in pairs - Social Facilitation (Allport, 1920).
48
Drive Theory of Social Facilitation (Zajonc, 1965)
Presence of others --> Arousal --> Strengthens dominant response -->Enhances easy behaviour & Impairs difficult behaviour
49
Hunt & Hillery (1973)
Time taken for students to learn simple and complex mazes - Evidence for Drive Theory
50
Michaels et al (1982)
Observed pool players in a student union.
- Good players did better
- Poor players did worse
51
Cottrell (1972)
Argued that Social Facilitation happens because we believe others are judging us and we need to do our best.
He compared the effects on performance on well-learned tasks of an inattentive (blindfolded) audience, a merely present (incidental) audience, and an attentive audience. He found that people who were blindfolded did not display social facilitation.
52
Distraction-Conflict Theory (Sanders, 1983)
Argued that arousal (to others watching us perform) comes from a conflict of whether we should pay attention to the audience or the task.
53
Bond and Titus (1983)
Meta-analysis: social facilitation only accounts for 0.3-3% variation in behaviour.
54
Herman, Roth & Polivy, 2003
Showed that the presence of others may have more impact when people interact with each other.
55
Beffa-Negrini et al, 2002
Argued that online groups may require different kind of social facilitation.
56
Ringelmann (1913)
Rope pulling study. He found that the force exerted per person decreased as a function of group size. (‘the Ringelmann effect’) - Social Loafing
57
Ingham et al. (1974)
Evidence for the Ringelmann effect:
Ingham et al. found:
- individual performance in the pseudo-groups was lower than individuals alone (loss of motivation)
- individuals’ performance in the real groups was even lower (lack of co-ordination).
Latané et al (1979) showed the same effect for clapping, shouting and cheering.
58
Boyes et al (2004)
People in groups give lower tips than individuals.
59
Williams, Harkins & Latané (1981)
Showed Social Loafing in a pickle packing factory
60
Jackson & Harkins (1985)
Argued that Social Loafing occurs because social output is grouped together and it is hard to evaluate your own performance.
Harkins & Szymanski found that if you control for that and individuals are able to track their performance social loafing is minimised.
61
Kerr & Bruun (1981)
Argued that Social Loafing happens because individuals know that when the outcome is group based it is hard to judge who contributed what and therefore there is no pressure to do well
62
Techniques for reducing social loafing
1. Make the output or effort of each individual identifiable (Williams et al, 1989)
2. Increase members’ commitment to the task
3. Increase the value or importance of the task (in which case, we may compensate for the anticipated loafing of others) (Williams & Karau, 1991; Zaccaro, 1984)
4. Make the tasks meaningful or challenging (Harkins & Petty, 1982)
63
Stoner (1961)/Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969)
Group Polarization. The tendency for the group to make decisions that are more extreme than the mean of individual members’ initial positions, but in the same direction.
64
Palmer & Loveland (2008)
Found interview panel members’ evaluation of interviewees’ performance became polarised in post-interview discussion. Group Polarization.
65
Myers & Bishop (1970)
Found un/prejudiced high school students became less/more prejudiced after discussion with like-minded others. Group Polarization
66
2 explanations for Group Polarization
1. Like-minded others produce supportive but new arguments and these will strengthen the already-held opinion.
2. We seek social approval. Group discussion indicates which views are socially desirable and valued.
67
Janis (1971)
studied good and poor decisions made by US presidents and their advisers. Found evidence for GroupThink - when the desire to reach a unanimous decision overrides rational decision-making procedures
68
Antecedents and Symptoms of Groupthink
```
Antecedents:
- Highly cohesive group
- isolated from other viewpoints
- directive leader
Symptoms:
- illusion of invulnerability
- belief that the group is right
- Pressure to Conform
- Collective rationalisation
```
69
Techniques preventing group think
* Be impartial
* Encourage critical evaluation
* Use breakout subgroups
* Welcome outside critiques
* Have a second-chance meeting before deciding
70
Paulus et al. (1993)
Suggests that Group Brainstorming doesn't lead to better performance due to 4 factors:
1. Evaluation Apprehension
2. Social Loafing
3. Production Matching
4. Production Blocking
71
Stroebe et al., 1992
Suggested that we engage in group brainstorming because of illusion that it is effective (new ideas, fun etc.)
72
4 Theories on why we engage in Altruism
1. Social Exchange
2. Social Norms
3. Evolution
4. Genuine Altruism
73
How does Social Exchange explain Altruism?
1. Expect something in return
| 2. Negative-state relief
74
How do Social Norms explain Altruism?
1. Reciprocity
| 2. Social Responsibility
75
2 Routes to helping others (Batson, 1991)
1. You feel distressed when seeing others in distress and want to reduce your own distress.
2. You feel empathy when seeing others in distress and want to reduce their distress.
76
Batson (1981)
P's watched video of woman in distress. Emotions assessed. Empathy = Wanted to swap with the woman. Distressed = Helped themselves.
77
Schaller & Cialdini (1988)
Claimed that empathic participants experience a negative mood and they help in order to relieve their mood.
Evidence:
- if they are given an alternative way to improve mood (e.g. watching comedy) they won’t help.
However:
- Schroeder et al.’s (1988) participants were told that their mood had been frozen by a ‘mood fixing’ drug – they still wanted to help
78
Latane & Darley (1979)
Stimulated by the reporting of Kitty Genovese’s (1964) murder.
Found that we are less likely to help when others are present.
- In distressing situations we look to others as a guide for behaviour - Pluralistic Ignorance
79
Cognitive Model of Helping Behaviour (Latane & Darley’s, 1970)
Notice Incident --> Interpret as emergency --> Assume Responsibility --> Try to Help
Noticing:
- Latane & Darley’s (1968)
- Detecting Smoke Study
- Alone did better than with others
Interpreting:
- Informational Influence
- Illusion of Transparency
- Latane & Rodin’s (1969) ‘woman in distress’ experiment
- Interpretations justified inaction (e.g. ‘I didn’t want to embarrass her’
Responsibility:
- Darley & Latane’s (1968) ‘having a fit’ experiment
- With others = Diffusion of responsibility and no help
80
Factors influencing Bystander Apathy
1. Diffusion of responsibility
2. Audience inhibition
3. Social influence
4. Ambiguity
5. Communication
Situational:
1. Seeing others help
- (Bryan & Test, 1967)
- Changing tyre study
2. Time Pressure
- Darley & Batson, 1973
- More perceived time - More likely to help
3. Social similarity
- Levine (2005)
- Football fans study
4. Danger level
- Fischer (2006)
- Dangerous situations are unambiguous and the costs of not helping are higher.
81
How to increase helping behaviour
1. Reduce ambiguity
2. Increase sense of responsibility
3. Personalising requests
4. Role Models
5. Prosocial Music
82
5 Factors predicting initial attraction to strangers
1. Proximity
2. Physical Attractiveness
3. Perceived similarity
4. Complementarity
5. Reciprocal liking
83
Why does proximity increase liking?
1. Mere Exposure (Zajonc, 1968)
2. Availability
3. Expectation of future interaction (Berscheid (1976)
84
Walster et al (1966)
‘computer dating‘ study compared role of physical attractiveness, personality and intelligence in liking. Physical attractiveness = most important.
85
Landy and Sigall (1974)
Attractiveness stereotype. Attractive people = better grades on essays.
86
The role of physical attractiveness depends on:
1. Perceived match
2. Self-esteem
3. How we're treated
4. Social factors (culture, gender)
87
Byrne’s (1971)
Law of attraction = attraction is determined by the proportion of similarity.
88
Why similarity leads to liking:
1. Reinforcement of attitudes
2. Expectation of reciprocal liking
3. Easier social interaction
89
Duck (1988)
4 Phases:
1. Meeting
2. Getting acquainted
- Managing perceptions
- Uncertainty about how the other party feels
3. Forming & Developing relationship
- Seeking Inf.
- Affinity seeking
- Increasing intimacy (self-disclosure)
- Showing relationship is growing (shared activities)
4. Maintaining relationship
- Attending needs
- Shared routines
- Social network
- Development skills
- Managing the match to fit with our ideal standards (perceive)
90
Sprecher (1987)
Sprecher (1987) shows that we monitor the amount and type of our self disclosures to match the Other’s self-disclosures
91
Reis & Shaver (1988)
Reis & Shaver (1988): intimacy is the product of interactions that include:
1. Self-disclosure
2. Partner disclosure
3. Perceived partner responsiveness
