Social Psychology Flashcards
(47 cards)
1
Q
Information Processing Model
A
- McGuire (1965, 1985)
- Person must go through 5 steps for successful persuasion:
∙ Attention
∙ Comprehension
∙ Yielding (accept message)
∙ Retention
∙ Behaviour
2
Q
Cognitive Response Model
A
- Greenwald (1968)
- Listener active in persuasion process
∙ Creates list of pros and cons
∙ Made rationale choice - Strong messages should be more persuasive
- Persuasion is an effortful process
- Distraction influences persuasion
∙ Unable to create favourable and unfavourable responses
∙ Effect of attitude strength likely to be reduced
3
Q
Cognitive Response Model
A
- Petty et al. (1976)
- Participants either given
∙ Strong or weak arguments in favour of a rise in tuition fees - Distracted participants by asking them to record number of flashes on a screen while listening to the message
∙ Low distraction (0 flashes), medium distraction (4 flashes), or high distraction (12 or 20 flashes) - Measured agreement with message
- When low distraction stronger messages more persuasive than weaker messages
- Little difference with high distraction
∙ Stops you from creating arguments
4
Q
Cognitive Response Model
A
- Are we always logical?
- Eagly & Chaiken (1993) suggest we use numerous shortcuts (or heuristics) to guide persuasion
∙ Trust experts
∙ Persuaded by people we like
5
Q
Elaboration Likelihood Model
A
- Petty & Cacioppo (1986)
- Persuasive appeal → maintained and high processing ability → central → careful → depends on quality of arguments
- OR - Persuasive appeal → unmotivated or low processing ability → peripheral → heuristics → depends on heuristics
6
Q
Elabortation Likelihood Model
A
- Petty el al. (1981)
- Students exposed to strong or weak message about changes to the college system
- Proposed by expert or non-expert
- Changes were also either going to take place
∙ Next year (relevant to student)
∙ 10 years time (irrelevant to student)
7
Q
Behaviour predict attitude
A
- Can behaviour change attitudes?
- Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957)
∙ Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of unease produced by having two opposing cognitions - Change one cognition to make them match
- Easier to change attitude than behaviour to reduce dissonance
- Change attitude to make it match behaviour
8
Q
Behaviour predict attitude
A
- Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)
- Participants completed dull tasks for an hour
- Asked to tell the next participant the experiment is interesting
∙ $20 (low dissonance)
∙ $1 (high dissonance)
∙ Not asked (control group) - $1 condition creates greater dissonance than $20
∙ For $20 (but not $1) can justify based on money
∙ Rated how interesting study was
∙ $1 rated the tasks as more enjoyable than the $20 or control group
9
Q
Compliance
A
- Compliance is changing one’s behaviour in response to a request by another individual
- Numerous strategies used
- Reciprocity
- Motivated to help others who have helped us in the past
∙ Greater compliance when received help from others
10
Q
Compliance
A
- Reciprocity principle
- Regan (1971)
- Participants told that they were going to complete a task in pairs
- Partner disappeared for part of the experiment
- Returned with either:
∙ A soft drink for the other person (reciprocal condition)
∙ Nothing for the other person (control condition) - At the end of the study confederate asked participant to buy raffle tickets
- Participants bought more tickets when received soft drink
11
Q
Compliance
A
- Door-in-the-face: Someone agrees to a smaller request after refusing larger request
- Cialdini et al. (1975)
∙ Control group – no initial request
∙ Experimental group – First asked whether they would volunteer as a counsellor at youth offenders centre
✳︎ Almost everyone refused - Later asked whether they would chaperone offenders on a trip to the zoo
∙ 17% of control group agreed
∙ 50% of experimental group agreed
12
Q
Compliance
A
- Foot-in-the-door
∙ If someone agrees to a smaller request they will be more likely to agree to a larger request later - Freedman and Fraser (1966)
∙ Control group – No initial contact
∙ Experimental group – First contacted people in their homes to ask a few initial questions about soap - Later asked same participants whether they could make inventory of all household products
∙ 22% agreed when no initial contact
∙ 53% agreed when they received earlier contact - Foot-in-the-door technique increase compliance
13
Q
Compliance
A
- Low-ball: People remain committed to something after they learn of hidden costs
- Cialdini et al. (1978)
∙ Control – asked to attend at 7am
∙ Experimental – one committed, then told started at 7am (low-balled) - 31% of control group agreed
- 56% of experimental group agreed
- Experimental group also more likely to attend
14
Q
Conformity
A
- “A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or a group of people” (Aronson, 2008)
15
Q
Conformity: Sherif, 1936
A
- Participants placed in a dark room
- Small stationary light in distance (5 metres)
- Half participants made first judgement alone
∙ On later days repeated task in group of 2-3 people - Other half made first judgement as group
∙ Three group sessions, then final session on own
16
Q
Conformity: Asch, 1956
A
- Need clear correct answer
- Participants completed task with 6-9 other people
- Other people were confederates
∙ On first trial gave correct answer
∙ On later trials gave wrong answer - Asked to state answer aloud
∙ Participant second to last person to give their answer - 75% conformed at least once
∙ 5% conformed on all 12 trials
17
Q
Conformity: influences
A
- Informational influence: Influence based on accepting information from others as reflecting reality
- Normative influence: Influence due to people wanting to meet positive expectations of others
18
Q
Conformity: Cialdini et al, 1990- Others also influence us via social norms (rules on how to behave)
A
- Car park either
∙ Covered in litter (social norm – OK to litter)
∙ No litter (social norm – not OK to litter) - Found leaflet on windscreen
∙ Did they drop this on the floor?
= around 10% = clean
= around 40% = litter
19
Q
Conformity: norms
A
- Descriptive norms: How the majority of other people act
- Injunctive norms: How others expect you to act
20
Q
Conformity: Stanford Prison Experiment (Haney, Banks & Zimbardo, 1973)
A
- What happened in the Stanford Prison Experiment?
- Conformed to social norms
∙ Injunctive norm
∙ Descriptive norm - Deindividuation
- Problems:
∙ Ethics
∙ Acting - Prisoner 8612
∙ BBC Prison study
∙ Researchers?
21
Q
Minority influence
A
- Can minorities also influence behaviour?
- Moscovici et al. (1969)
- Minorities can influence behaviour
- Otherwise social change would never happen
- Suffragettes minority group that change society
- Key to change is minority must be consistent
- If consistent because demonstrates commitment
22
Q
Minority influence: Moscovici et al, 1969
A
- Groups of 6
- Shown blue
- Three conditions:
∙ Control – Stated colour - around 0% said green
∙ Inconsistent minority – 2 confederates said green on some trials - around 1% said green
∙ Consistent minority – 2 confederates said green on all trials - around 8.5% said green
23
Q
Obedience to Authority
A
- Obedience: Complying to orders from someone of higher social status (Miller, 1995)
- Milgram (1974) – original obedience study
24
Q
Obedience to Authority: Milgram
A
- In standard paradigm 65% gave maximum shock
- Obedience reduced when paradigm was varied
- Criticisms of Milgram (1974)
✳︎ Obedience? (Reicher & Haslam, 2011)
►‘Please continue’
= Request
►‘The experiment requires that you continue’
= Scientific rationale
►‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’
= Scientific rationale
►‘You have no other choice, you must go on’
= Command/order - Most likely to disobey after final cue (Burger, 2009)
25
Defining Groups
- What makes a collection of people a group?
- Need to have some form of social structure (Sherif & Sherif, 1969)
►Superior, subordinates
- Group exists when two or more people define themselves as members of the group (Tajfel, 1981)
►Only need a common identity
26
Minimal group paradigm
- Tajfel et al. (1971)
- 48 Bristol schoolboys
- Categorised into minimal group
- Tested whether people acted like a group
►Ingroup bias – favour own group
- Allocated credits between two groups
- Allocated more credits to their own group
27
Groups influence behaviour
- Social facilitation:
►Performance improves in the presence of others
►Triplett (1898) – People work faster when part of group than when on their own
- Social loafing:
►Performance declines in presence of a group
►Ringelmann (1913) – People put less effort in on own than in a group
28
Groups influence behaviour: Cotttrell et al (1968)
- Depends on whether our individual effort can be evaluated
►Can be evaluated → possible evaluation → social facilitation
►Cannot be evaluated → not concerned → social loafing
29
Groups influence behaviour: Sherif (1966) - Realistic conflict theory
- Conflict arises because two or more groups are competing for a scarce resource
►Money, prestige
- Harmony can be achieved by working on superordinate goal
30
Groups influence behaviour: Robbers Cave Experiment (Sherif et al., 1961)
- Recruited boys to take part in a summer camp
- Two groups (Eagles vs Rattlers)
- No knowledge of other group
- Phase 1 - Bonding phase
- Engaged in bonding activities
►Hiking
►Swimming
- Created cohesion
- Phase 2 – Competition
- Learnt of other group
- Engaged in competitive activities
►Tug of war, scavenger hunts
- Scarce resource (prizes and prestige)
- Increase in conflict between groups
- Phase 3 – Reducing hostility
- Need superordinate goals
►Goals that needed both groups to work together
►Solve problems together
- Created harmonious intergroup relations
31
Criticisms of Sherif et al. (1961)
- Are the findings reliable?
- Panthers vs Pythons
- Showed harmony between each other
- Camp Counsellors failed to evoke hostility
32
Groups influence behaviour: LeBon (1908)
- Studied crowd behaviour during French Revolution
- Crowds produce primitive behaviour
►Anonymous
►Lose personal responsibility
►Act without personal restraint
33
Groups influence behaviour: Reicher (1984)
- Crowd did not attack all buildings
►Attacked national companies
►Did not attack local facilities (e.g., shops and cafes)
- Appeared to be following some rules and social norms
34
Groups influence behaviour: Postmes and Spears (1998)
```
- Initially deindividution occurs
►Do not view themselves as an individual
- View as a member of a group
►Act in line with group norms
- Similar in Stanford Prison experiment
►Do not act as individual
►Act as part of a group (Prison guard)
```
35
Bystander Effect
- Kitty Genovese
- Returning home from working in a bar
- Stabbed by a man as she returned to her home
∙ Screams drove man away
- Returned 30 minutes later
∙ Raped and killed Kitty
- 38 people heard her scream
- No-one helped
36
Bystander Effect - Latane and Darley (1970)
- Bystander effect - People are less likely to help when they are with others than when they are alone
- Pluralistic ignorance
∙ Not realising it is an emergency
- Audience inhibition
∙ Not wanting to look foolish in front of others
►Incorrectly interpret situation as an emergency
►Not sure they have the ability to help
- Diffusion of responsibility
∙ Share responsibility for helping with others
37
Bystander Effect - Smoke filled room (Latane & Darley, 1970)
```
- In a lab, completed questionnaires
∙ Alone
∙ Two strangers
∙ Two confederates instructed to do nothing
- Smoke entered room
- Assessed how many people went for help
- Less likely in presence of others
```
38
Bystander Effect - Darley and Latane (1968)
- Sat is separate cubicles and communicated via a microphone
∙ Took part in pairs (self and victim)
∙ Took part in group of 4 (self, victim and 2 others)
∙ Took part in group of 6 (self, victim and 4 others)
- Heard ‘victim’ have seizure over microphone
- Assessed how many people went for help
- Helping deceased with more bystanders
39
Bystander Effect - Subway Train Studies (Piliavin et al., 1969)
- Field study on subway
- Male would stagger and collapse on subway
- Varied race
∙ White or Black
- Varied intoxication
∙ Drunk or sober
- Assessed helping
- Lower helping drunk Black person
- No. of bystanders did not affect helping
40
Bystander Effect - Does the bystander effect exist? - Fischer et al. (2011) conducted meta-analysis
∙ Searched pre-existing literature
∙ Use statistics to determine if an effect exists
- Found 53 studies looking at the bystander effect
- Effect was robust and replicated across studies
41
Bystander Effect - Can we reduce the bystander effect? - Beaman et al. (1978)
- Participants either
∙ Received lecture on the bystander effect
∙ Did not receive lecture
- Saw person who was in bicycle accident
- Bystander (confederate) did nothing
- More likely to help when received lecture
42
Altruism Versus Egoism
- Helping: An intentional act that benefits another living being or group
- Prosocial behaviour:
∙ Behaviour that benefits others
∙ Not driven by personal obligations
∙ Can be selfless or selfish
- Altruism: An act which is motivated by the desire to help, selflessly, without benefit to yourself
43
Altruism versus Egoism - Negative State-Relief Model (Cialdini et al., 1987)
- Seeing others in need causes distress
∙ Try to avoid distress
- Help to remove feelings of distress
- Helping is selfish
44
Altruism versus Egoism - Manucia et al., 1984
```
∙ Neutral – Recall route to university
∙ Happy – Recall happy event
∙ Sad – Recall sad event
- All participants given pill
∙ Would freeze their mood
∙ Other half not told this
- Asked is would make calls to established blood donors
- Highest helping when sad and mood not fixed
```
45
Altruism versus Egoism - Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (Baston, 1991)
```
- Helping dependent on empathy
∙ Shared feelings with the person in need
- Low empathy - Selfish
∙ Help when cannot escape situation
∙ Unlikely to help when can escape
- High empathy - Selfless
∙ Always help
```
46
Altruism versus Egoism - Batson et al. (1981)
- Watch someone receive electric shock
- Manipulated difficultly of escaping
∙ Told would only watch 2/10 shocks (easy escape)
∙ Told would watch all 10 shocks (difficult escape)
- Also manipulated empathy
∙ Similar
∙ Dissimilar
- Always help when high empathy
- When low empathy, only help if cannot escape
47
Altruism versus Egoism - Shepherd et al. (2018)
- Sperm and egg donation
- Measured egoistic motive
∙ Feelings of pride
- Measured altruism
∙ Desire to help others in society
- Pride predicted intention to donate and behaviour in men
- Pride predicted intention but not behaviour in women
