chap 13: social psych Flashcards
social psychology
studies how to understand thoughts, feelings, behaviours influenced by actual, imagined, implied presence of others
social cognition
how ppl perceive, interpret, categorize own and others behaviour
attitudes: stable in evaluation of things/ppl
- develop via socialization w parents, teachers, peers
ABCs model of attitudes
affective component: how we feel towards obj
behavioural comp: how we act towards obj
cognitive comp: how we believe abt obj
self perception theory
when ppl are uncertain abt attitudes, infer attitudes based on own behaviour
i.e. think awake until yawn, then tired
behaviour –> interpretation –> attitudes
cognitive dissonance
state of emotional discomfort when 2 beliefs contradict w e/o or a belief contradicts behaviour
person changes belief to justify actions
given $1 vs $20
- 20 ppl have less dissonance bcs less justification
- 1 ppl have inc dissonance, therefore begin to BELIEVE it was interesting to justify selves
attitude strength
stronger attitude = more predictable behaviour
i.e. vegan advocate, will go to protest
attitude specificity
more specific and attitude, more likely to predict behaviour
i.e. like ateez, will download music
implicit attitudes
attitude you’re unaware of i.e. bias
actions show it regardless of vocal belief
bogus pipeline technique
ppl hooked up to “lie detector” more likely to tell truth about attitudes
social desirability
state attitude that mirrors others or what you think they want from you
stereotypes vs prejudice
prejudice
- -ve and unjust feelings abt individs based on inclusion in group
stereotype
- oversimplified and generalized beliefs abt ppl
why do we sterotype/prejudice
- categorization effect: we categorize things based on similarity
- evolutionary perspective: may be adaptive value i.e. friend v foe
social identity theory
emphasis on cog factors of prejudice
- social categorization: person affiliates w group, sees how to act
- social identity: person forms identity w/in group
- social comparison: group members compares group favourably compared to others, feel superior
realisitc conflict theory
amount of actual conflicts b/w groups i.e. resource comp, determines amount of prejudice
peripheral route persuasion
focus on superficial info to change attitudes i.e. attraction to speaker
central route persuasion
focus on content, factual info and logic to change attitudes`
factors that inc persuasion
- source is trustworthy
- source is similar to us
- presents both sides of case
appeals to fear
make it seem like smth bad will happen if don’t comply
- needs reputable source, explicit recommendation of what to do to prevent bad thing
door in the face
ask smth big that will get turned down, then ask for small thing rlly wanted
foot in the door
agree to smth small before asking for smth bigger
dispositional attribution
behaviour was caused by characteristic of person i.e. rude bcs mean person
attribution
causal explanations of behaviour
situational attribution
behaviour caused by situation
i.e. rude bcs bad day
actor-observer effect
tend to make situational attributions abt own behaviour and dispositional towards others
- actors (us) w situational
- observers (others) w dispositional
excuse own actions bcs circumstance and hold others accountable
fundamental attribution error
tend to use dispositional attributions to explain others
self-serving bias
tend to attribute success to dispositional causes and failures to situational causes
- may be for self-esteem
depressive realism
depressed ppl have more realistic self image
negative effect
ppl are limited by social role
social role
set of norms for person’s social position
can be communal characteristics i.e. women must all act a certain way
injunctive norm
expectations of what must do i.e. signs saying don’t litter
descriptive norm
based on expectations of what we do
i.e. don’t litter at museum w/o instructions
conformity
tendency to yield to social pressure
- influenced by group size and unanimity: if even one person disagrees, less likely to conform
asch studies
supposed to match 3 lines to one on other paper
- start all giving correct answer, then group gives wrong one
- 75% conforms
conformity and culture
individ cultures: think conformity bad, want to stand out and have own identity
collective cultures: blending in = good, conforming is respecting others
obedience
following direct demands, usually given by authority figures
milgram experiment
see how ppl obey authority, even when hurting others
- person w lab coat, participant is “teacher,” actor is “leaner”
- teacher gives electric shock to learner if get answer wrong
-65% go to deadly dangerous lvls, all went min 300 votls
follow ups to milgram experiment
- salience of victim’s suffering: more obvious suffering is, less likely to obey
- i.e. see face - proximity to victim: if in same room, less likely
- responsibility: if have to put learner’s hand on electrode, less likely
- presence of disobedient person: if other ppl refuse to continue, will also stop
types of group tasks and productivity
- additive task: all members perform same task i.e. relay race
- productivity inc w more members - divisible task: divided among members i.e. project
- inc if have leader - conjunctive task: group is as productive as weakest member i.e. hike
- productivity based on group strength - disjunctive task: single solution needed, strongest member gives solution i.e. rlly hard math problem
group polarization
initial attitudes inc in group, ppl get more extreme in views
- in large groups, ppl w sim groups join tgt and ignore others
egoistic helping behaviour
help to reassure self or dec anxiety/guilt
- can also be for rewards
altruism
self-sacrificing behaviour to benefit others w/o concern for self
bystander effect
more help available, less likely to receive it
diffusion of responsibility: responsibility shared in large group, assume someone else will help
aggression and alcohol
aggro inc, even if THINK had alcohol i.e. placebo
relational vs direct aggression
relation aggression: snub, gossip, exclude to vent frustration
- inc in women
direct aggression: phys and verbal abuse
- inc in men
process of attraction
cog aspects we like of person
affectively experience feelings
behaviourally act towards person
factors of liking someone
- similarity, if similar like LONGER
- proximity
- self-disclosure, like ppl who share info and will give it in return
- situational factors i.e. funny 1st meeting
- phys attractiveness
sternberg’s triangular theory of love
3 factors: commitment, intimacy, passion
companiote love: high commitment and intimacy
fatuous love: high commitment and passion
romantic love: high intimacy and passion
consummate love: high all 3
types of relationships and attachments
secure: comfortable, don’t fear being close or abandoned
avoidant: uncomfortable trusting others
anxious-ambivalent: insecure and worried partner doesn’t love them, will leave
stages of loving relationship
exploration: trying possible rewards/costs of relationship
bargaining: implicitly negotiate relationship terms
institutionalization: become exclusive, shared expectations
brain involvement in social functioning
orbitofrontal cortex: social reasoning, reward eval, emotion and reading ppl
ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC): process rewards and punish, interpret non-verbal info
insula: empathy and reading others
insula and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC): perception of phys and emotional pain
