Social Psychology Flashcards
(125 cards)
1
Q
Automatic Thinking vs Controlled Thinking
A
Automatic = quick, not conscious, no deliberation of thoughts or intentions
Controlled = errorful, deliberate, carefully selecting the right course of actions, thoughts about the self and the world
2
Q
Schema
A
- Bartlett 1932
- Mental structures people use to organise knowledge about the social world
- Influence how people think, notice and remember
- Hierarchal
- Scripts: encompass knowledge / impressions of others, ourselves, social roles and events
3
Q
Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing
A
Snyder and Swann 1978
- Selectively seeking info which supports one’s belief
4
Q
Impression Formulation
A
Nativist View = mostly innate, emphasis on genes or evolution
Empiricist View = through senses, experiences and learning
Kantian Synthesis = experiences through schemas
5
Q
Asch’s Configural Model
A
- People make holistic judgements based on specific traits
- Central Traits: characteristics which are disproportionately influential in impression formation
- 1946: warm vs cold
6
Q
Judgmental Heuristics
A
Representative - select schema based on similarity between stimulus and schema
Availability - select info based on how easily it comes to mind
Anchor and Adjustment - selects a reference value and then revises it to estimate a conclusion
Conjunction Error - belief that a combonation of events is more likely to happen than 1 singuarly
7
Q
Counterfactual Reasoning
A
Imagining alternative outcomes to make people feel better. It is easier to mentally undo the past then to deal with the current strong emotions
8
Q
Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968/2003
A
Famous kindergarten study
9
Q
Shariff et al 2015
A
Priming with religious beliefs hindered people’s behaviour, but only in those who were religious in the first place
10
Q
Weber et al 1993
A
Doctors use availability heuristics when diagnosing
11
Q
Social Perception
A
Thinking about people and their behvaiour helps us to understand and predict the social world
12
Q
Lingering Influence
A
Primacy Effect = first traits we perceive in othres influence later traits
Belief Perserverance = tendency to stick to an initial judgement even in the face of info which forces us to reconsider
Thin Slicing = drawing meaningful infomation based on a small act
Negativity Bias = bad info has a stronger influence than good
Halo Effect = assumptions that if a person has positive traits, then they will have further positive traits
13
Q
Attribution Theory
A
- Heider 1958
- Need to understand and control the environment so leads to attributions
- Describes how people explain the causes of behaviour
- Dispositional vs Situational
14
Q
Covariation Model
A
- Kelley
- To form an attribution, we systematically note the pattern between the presence or absence of possible causal factors
- CONSENSUS = do different people have similar responses to the same situation?
- CONSISTENCY = does the same person react similarly over time?
- DISTINCTIVENESS = does the same person respond simiarly to similar stimuli
15
Q
Attributional Biases
A
Actor Observer Effect = we perrceive our behaviour as influenced by the situation but others by a personal disposition as we can see within our minds
Fundamental Attribution Error = tendancy to consider behaviour to reflect underlying proprties of people, so overlook situations.
False Consensus = tendency to believe our own behaviours are wideley shared
Self Serving Bias = attribute our own success to our disposition but failures to situation
16
Q
Jones and Harris 1967
A
Showed fundamental attribution error through writing pro and con essays on Castro, and those who were allowed to choose which view to write said the other person was Pro even though they knew the other person could choose
17
Q
Dimensions of Emotions
A
Pleasantness scale and arousal scale
- We can distinguish dimensions easily but pleasantness slightly better
18
Q
Non Verbal cues
A
Small amounts can convery substantial info
- Visible vs Paralinguistic
19
Q
Lau and Russell 1980
A
Athlets were more likely to say wins were due to internal factors and losses to situations
20
Q
James 1890
A
Me = self as observed, attitudes, traits, skills, possessions
I = self as observer, more than the sum of its parts, stream of consciousness and awareness
21
Q
Self Concept vs Self Esteem
A
Self Concept = overall set of beliefs that people have about their personal attributes. Organised into the most complex schema
Self Esteem = global evaluation of the self, feelings of self worth and competence, stable individual difference
22
Q
4 Functions of the Self
A
1) Self Knowledge = the way we understand who we are and organise info
2) Self Control = the way we make plans and execute decisions
3) Impression Management = the way we present ourselves to others and get them to see us how we want to be seen
4) Self Esteem = maintain positive veiws of ourselves
23
Q
Sources of Self Knowledge
A
1) Reflected Appraisal = symbolic interactions in which we learn about outselves through others responses (Cooley 1902). Looking Glass Self means we see ourselves the way others do but Shrauger and Schoeneman 1979 said we see ourselves the way we think others see us
2) Feedback = direct accectance or failure, impacts self esteem
3) Self Perception Theory = Bem 1972, when we are uncertain about thoughts/feelings so infer from observing our own behaviour
4) Social Comparison Theory = Festinger 1954, obtain accurate evaluations of the self by measuring ourselves to others. USC v DSC
5) Self Fulfilling Prophecy
24
Q
Self Control
A
Ability to subdue immediate desires to achieve a long term goal
- Form Implementation Intentions, arrange environments, ensure well rested to reduce depetion effect
25
Hart and Matsuba 2012
Self recognition develops around 18-24 months
26
Ross and Wilson 2003
Social Comparison Theory works with comparing old to current self
27
Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger 1957
- discomfort people feel when they have 2 conflicting cognitions that are inconsistent to self concepts
- threatens self image
- Festinger and Carlsmith 1959 = higher dissonance in group those told to lie and given a reward of $1 than those in a control and those rewarded $20
28
Postdecision dissonance
Feeling discomfort after making a choice between 2 alternatives. This is reduced by emphasising the benefits of the chosen option, then emphasising the negatives of the alternative
- Brehm 1956 = students in a high dissonance group will re-rate scores as higher
29
Justification of Effort
Aronson and Mills 1959 = those who put more effort into a group rated liking of the group higher
30
Punishment and Self Persuasion
If threat of punishment is severe than there is sufficient external justification from refraining from the behaviour but if punishment is less severe then it creates a greater need for internal justification so create a change in attitude via self persvasion
- Aronson and Carlsmith 1963 had children rate attractiveness of toys then told not to play with them. Those who had a severe threat rated toys as highly attractive but no change in attitude. Those with a mild threat rated them less attractive because they had to change internal justification
31
Davis and Jones 1960
If told someone is shallow and untrustworthy, then participants convinced themselves they did not like that person and they deserved the cruelty they faced
32
Self Evaluation Theory
Experience cognitive dissonance when someone close to us outperforms us in a central area to our self esteem. This can be reduced by becoming less close to them, changing our behaviour so we can outperform them or decide that area is no longer important to us
- Tesser and Smith 1980: more likely to give harder clues to friends than strangers if game had high relevance but switched if game had low relevance
33
3 Components of Attitudes
1) Affective - emotional, feelings of like/dislike
2) Behavioural - observable actions
3) Cognitive - thoughts / beliefs
34
LaPiere 1930s
92% of institutitions served a Chinese couple even though they had all previously said they would not
35
Mere Exposure Effect
If the stimulus is orginally neutral/positive then exposure breeds liking, even if it is subliminal
- Bornstein and D'Agostino 1992: people prefer pictures when shown for 5ms rather than 500ms
36
Attitude Behaviour Consistency
Factors influence the likelihood that people's attitudes will be consistent with behaviour
- Knowledge: firsthand experience
- Personal Relevance: more investment in yourself
- Attitude Acessibility: easier to bring to mind to act on it
- Behavioural Intentions: specific aims which are intended / planned
37
Theory of Planned Behaviour
Ajzen and Madden 1986, Ajzen 1991
- People's intentions are best predictors of their deliberate behaviours
-Specific Behaviours, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control
38
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Two ways in which persuasive communication can cause attitude change
CENTRAL = high motivation and ability to think, pay attention to quality and listen, lasting change
PERIPHERAL = low motivation and inability to think, don't pay attention, focus on surface characteristics, temporary change, may fade
39
Wilson and Brekke 1994
Everyone thinks advertising works better on others them themselves
40
Conformity
Change in one's behaviour due to the real or imagined presence of another
41
Informational Social Influence
See others as a source of info to guide our behaviour and their interpretation of an ambiguous intepretation is more correct
- Sherif 1936: estimates of light movement grew closer together the more people were in the room
42
Normative Social Control
Conform in order to be liked and accepted, results in public compliance but not necessarily private
- Asch 1951 = 75% conformed at least once with an average of 33% conformity
- However dropped to 23% when response given out loud in a private cubicle (couldn't see other people) and to 5.5% when at least one person agrees with you
43
Referent Informational Influence
Identify as a group member by following their norms and rules
44
Milgram 1963
It wa estimated by Psych Major,s, middle class adults and panel of psychiatrists that only 1% would reach 450 volts but it was actually 62.5%. Average max shock was 360. 80% continued to give shocks after the confederate cried out in pain.
Conformity dropped when in office building -> teacher placed learners hand on shock plate -> experimenter worked remotely -> two teachers present -> teacher chose shock level
Links to Hofling 1966 where 21/22 nurses administered a lethal injection because a doctor told them too
45
Barch et al 1996
Those in high importance groups are more susceptible to informational social bias then lower social groups, more conformity
46
Burger 2009
Even though participants were told they were allowed to leave, obidience rates did not significantly differ to Milgram, 1963
47
Cartwright and Zander 1968, Lewin 1948
Group = two or more people who interact and are inter-dependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other
48
Baumeister and Leary 1995
Groups most likely form due to evolutionary needs as it allowed better hunting, finding mates and better care for children
49
Social Facilitation vs Inhibition
SF: tendency to do better on simple tasks when peple are present e.g. Triplett 1898 = children wound up a fishing line quicker when in the presence of other children
SI: tendency to do worse on hard tasks when people are present
Zajonc 1965 = due to arousal
50
Why does social facilitation/inhibition happen?
1) Become more alert and vigilant
2) Make us apprehensive about being evaluated
3) Distraction
51
Latane et al 1979
Social Loafing = when in the presense of others, individual efforts lowers due to less motivation and being less noticeable
e.g., Ringelmann 1913 put less effort on pulling on a rope in a group than alone
52
Weber et al 2004
Social Dilemma = where the most beneficial choice for the individual will become the least beneficial for the group e.g. watching pirated TV shows could cause an entire subscription service to shut down and then no TV for anyone
53
Axelrod 1984
Prisoner's Dilemma can create a tit-for-tat strategy where behaviour is based on what the previous person did
54
Brewer 2007
Attracted to smaller groups as it creates more belongingness but also makes us feel more special and distinctive
55
Baumeister et al 2016
Groups allows us to understand the world and our place within it
56
Barley and Berhky 1994
When memebers follow clear roles, we feel more satisfied and perform well
57
Alter and Darley 2009
Groups tend to attract similar people before they join
58
Lea et al 2001
Deindividuation = lossening of normal constraints on behaviour when people cannot be identified
59
Watson 1973
Warriors whose identies were hidden were significantly more likely to kill, torture or mutilate captives
60
McLead 2013
Groups focus more on shared info than unique info
61
Proximity
- Best predictor of whether 2 people will be friends (Miller et al)
- Festinger et al = when asked about best friends, 41% were neighbours, 65% in the same complex, and those by stairwells had 2x more friends
- Why? availability, lower cost, anticipation of interaction, mere exposure effect, evolutionary adaptive, assumed to be similar
62
Similarity
- we like others who are similar to us in attitudes, backgrounds, interest, personality
- Lescowitz and Horvitz = prefer to befriend/date/marry those who were a similar age, ethnicity, education, class and religion
- Mayer and Ruller = likely to befriend someone with the same political beliefs
- Matching Hypothesis, Murnstein = couples rated similarly attractive
- Most important in long term relationships as it makes it easier to maintain, lower in short term such as flings or affairs
63
Physical Attractiveness
- Halo effect
- May be more socially skilled e.g. Hammermesh and Biddle = 12-14% more money
- Culture bound
- Symmetrical faces preferred
64
Technology
Proximity = not be as important as we can maintain relationships virtually e.g. long distance
Similarity = people seek others with similar "popularity" online
Familarity = Norton et al 2007 = knowledge of person increased after physical date, but liking decreased. Highlights that impression of online profile is not that accurate
65
Berschied and Walster
- Based on Hatfield and Sprecher 1986
- Passionate love = wildly emotional, uncontrollable, psychiological arousal, preoccupation with the other, strikes suddenly but ends fast
- Companionate love = affection to those we trust, caring, intertwined, tolerance, develops slowly but endures
66
Henrick et al 1988
Couples with more companionate love experience greater satisfaction and longevity
67
Sternberg 1986/97
3 distinct components of love
- Passion: motivational, physical attraction, constant thoughts, sexual desire
- Intimacy: emotional, closeness, promote welfare, high regard
- Commitment: cognitive, connection, responsibility, maintenance
These then form to make a triangle with 8 types (and no love) of love including:
Romantic = intimacy and passion
Companionate = intimacy and commitment
Factuous = passion and commitment
68
Lee 1976
Colours of Love
- Eros (passionate), Storge (friendship), Ludus (uncommitted), = primary
- Mania = eros and ludus = obsessive
- Pragma = storge and ludus = practical
- Agape = eros and storge = selfless
69
Bowlby 1969
Love is developed via attachments with the mother due to innate factors and closeness enhancing survical
70
Ainsworth 1978
There are individual differences in attachment, creating the strange situation paradigm and what attachment you had as a child affects you in adulthood (Hazan and Shaver 1987)
- SECURE: Child = distressed on separation but easily comforted upon reunion. Adult = comfortable with intimacy and interdependent
- ANXIOUS-AMBIVALENT: Child = distressed upon separation and reunion, shows anger, interfering mother. Adult = fear abandonment
- AVOIDANT: Child = not distressed at seperation, avoid contact, prefer to explore. Adult = self reliant, uncomfortable with dependence
71
Interdependence Theory
- Thibaut and Kelley
- Analyses the exchange and coordination of outcomes between interdependent partners
- We evaluate outcomes with standard in profitability, comparison level, and comparison level of alternatives
- Easier to maximise benefits when partners are similar
72
Equity Theory
- Walster et al 1978
- individuals try to maximise their outcomes using rules of fairness
- otherwise experience distress
- couples more likely to remain together if both experience equity
- Miell and Croghan 1996 = more important in the west
- Aron and Aron = the closer we get to others, the more they are incorporated into our life
73
Investment Model - Rusbult 1983
Rewards, Costs and Comparison level -> satisfaction, investment, quality of alternatives -> commitment -> stability
74
Whyte and Torgler 2017
Children pick friends from thier own set
75
Pinel et al 2006
Shared experiences fuel friendship and pormote attraction
76
Little and Rerrell 2002
Prefer faces of the opposite sex that resemble ourselves
77
Altruism
Desire to help another person, even if costs yourself
78
Darwin's Theory
- Natural Selection
- Kin Selection
79
Social Exchange Theory
Homans 1961
- Maximise rewards and minimise costs
- Helping can be rewarding due to the norm of reciprocity, investments in future, relief of bystander distress, gain rewards
- However can also be dangerous, cause pain / embarassment
- True altruism doesn't exist
80
Lloyd et al 1984
Importance of rewards was a good predictor of if couples stayed together
81
Empathy-Altruist Theory
When we feel empathy for a person, we are more inclined to help that person for altruistic reasons regardless of what we have to gain from it
- Toi and Batson 1982 = if empathy was high, more likely to help a struggling student outside of class but if low then would only help in class where costs were lower
82
Latane and Darley 1970
Bystander Effect
Emegency -> Notice Event -> Interpret as Emergency -> Assume Responsibility -> Knowledge of Assistance -> Make Decision
83
Gray et al 2014
Norm of reciprocity is genetically based due to links to survival
84
Algoe 2012
Gratitude evolved to ensure reciprocity
85
Davidio 1984
We are aroused and made uncomfortable by other people in distress so we help them to alleviate our own distress
86
Eagly 2009
Men more likely to be altruistic in emergencies but women in every day situations e.g. getting someone out of a burning building vs helping someone cross the street
87
Cialdini and Fultz 1990
People more likely to help when in a sad mood as helping can be rewarding
88
Milgram 1970
Urban Overload Hypothesis
- Less likely to help due to more stimuli
- When you put citygoers in a calmer area, then helping increases
89
Bringle 2005
Being made to volunteer makes your likelihood of doing it again decrease
90
Social Cognitive Learning Theory
Bandura
- Children imitate aggression from adults when adults were rewarded for doing so, but not in controls
91
Frustration-Aggression Theory
- Frustration (perception that you are being prevented from attaining a goal) increases the probability of an aggressive response
- Pain and discomfort increases aggression
- Hsiang et al 2013 = the hotter it is, the more violent crimes take place
- Barker et al 1941 = children who had to wait to play with toys, were more likely to throw or smash toys
- Involves goal proximity
- Frustration increases readiness to anger, not always creating an aggressive response
92
Hovland and Sears 1940
Displace anger
More lynching of African-Americans when cotton prices increased
93
How to decrease aggression
1) Do not use it as a punishment
2) Only use mild threat
94
Catharsis
Doing something aggressive to reduce feelings of aggression, but this is an oversimplified psychoanalytic notion. Aggressive behaviour tends to increase further aggression
95
Berkowitz 1993
Hostile aggression = stems from feelings and aims at inflicting pain
Instrumental = means to a goal
96
Nishett et al 1983
Murder rates linked to economic stress
97
Testa et al 2011
Main predictor of female spousal violence was mothers doing it
98
Carre et al 2014
Teaching children to feel more competent in their emotions reduced anger and testosterone
99
Richardson et al 1994
Teaching empahty reduces aggression
100
Prejudice
A hostile or negative attitude toward people in a distinguishable group based soley on the membership of that group
Affective = emotional aspect, negative emotions are often ingrained so difficult to change
Behaviour = discrimination, unjustified action toward a person due to membership of a group, Correll et al 2002 = more likely to shoot an unarmed black man than white in a video game
Cognitive = stereotypes and generalisations made about a group, certain traits are assigned to all members despite variation, simplifies the world
101
Illusory Correlation
Perception of a relation between 2 elements which doesn' exist or is exaggerated
102
Illusion of outgroup homogeneity
Those of an outgroup are more similar than those on the ingroup
103
McCrae et al 1994
Suppression of stereotypes doesn't always work as being told not to think something creates more intrusions
104
Word et al 1974
White students displayed discomfort when interviewing African-American candidates and rated them as more nervous, ineffective and incompetent. When the white students were interviewed by a researcher trained to act similarly, then they judged similarly to the African-American candidates
105
Shih et al 1999
Asian women performed better on a maths test when primed to think of their ethnicity and did worse when primed on gender
106
Causes for Prejudice
SOCIAL IDENTITY
- Ingroup bias
- Ethnocentricism
- Quattrone and Jones 1980 = more likely to say you'll agree with the judgement of ingroup
REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY
- Limited resources leads to conflict causing discrimination
- Feel threatened by outgroup so make them a scapegoat as they may already be disliked, so easily made powerless
- Sherif 1950a
107
Contact Hypothesis
- Mere contact is not sufficient to reduce prejudice as it can create opportunities for conflict
- Prejudices decreases when both groups are of equal status and share a common goal
- Page-Gould 2008 = black students had higher satisfaction when they had more friends of the majority race
- Sherif et al 1961 = removing conflict and competetion doesn't restore harmony and actually increased hostility and distrust. Instead made friends after co-operative activities to increase interdependence
108
Jigsaw Classrooms
- Designed to reduce prejudice and raise self esteem by placing children in small desegregated groups where they are dependent on one another to learn the material and do well
- Promotes integration due to feelings of cohesion, sharing info and increase empathy
109
Anzures et al 2013
If babies shown faces of 1 ethnicity, the they grow a preference but if they see multiple ethnicities then there are no preferences
110
Allport 1954
Hard to use logic and reason to fight prejudice due to strong emotional responses
111
Cuddy and Glick 2007
Stereotypes classified along 2 universal dimensions: compentence and warm/cold
112
Minard 1952
Black and White miners worked together well underground but didn't when back in segregated society out of work
113
Pettigrew and Tropp 2006
Repeated contact can modify stereotypes
114
When prejudice is reduced, it can cause:
Decategorisation: see people as individual rather than memmer of a group
Recategorisation: focus on a common membership
115
Maass 1999
Prejudice does not always have to be obvious, can be linguistic differences e.g. tendency to use concrete, specific language describing positive outgroup members or negative ingroup characteristics and abstract terms related to enduring traits in negative outgroup and positive ingroups
e.g. Him in particular is smart but she isn't acting too smart today
116
Jones and Nishett 1972
Actor-Observer Bias
- Attribute others behaviour to dispositions but our own to situation due to access to different info
117
Nusrath et al
Jigsaw classrooms increased communication skills, analytical skills, and enjoyment
118
Walter and Crogan
Jigsaw classrooms decreased racial prejudice
119
Lucas et al
Children under 4 representative heuristic hasn't fully developed so focus more on objective information, therefore making less biased decisions
120
Fantino et al
Conjuncion error less likely in 3 statements than 2
121
Fishbein et al
Individual's self evaluation is only influenced by reference group norms in the absence of objective criterion
122
Festinger and Carlsmith
Forced Compliance Paradigm
- paradigm where those in authority can make lower members change their judgements/attitudes against their better judgement e.g. the lying study
123
Metin
Don't use severe punishment as it reinforces the forced compliance paradigm
124
Nicholson and Lutz
Self esteem affects cognitive dissonance
125
Wagstuff et al
Social Facilitation and Inhibition related to levels of executive functioning and processing
- Facilitation = non-exec and temporal
- Inhibition = exec and frontal
