chapter 13: social psychology 2 Flashcards
social pressure
a set of psychological forces that are exerted on us by others’ judgements, examples, expectations, and demands
who influences us the most
people who’re physically or psychologically closest to us
how does social pressure arise
from the ways we interpret and respond emotionally to the social situations around us
is social pressure useful
it can be, promotes our social acceptability and helps create order and predictability in social interactions, but can also lead us to behave in ways that are foolish or morally repugnant
social facilitation
being observed improves performance
social interference/inhibition
an audience hinders performance
who studies social facilitation
zajonc
what did zajonc say about social facilitation
the presence of others facilitates performance of dominant actions and interferes with performance of non dominant actions
dominant actions
actions that are so simple, species-typical, or well learned that they can be produced automatically, with little conscious thought
non dominant actions
actions that require considerable conscious thought or attention
how does social facilitation/interference work
presence of an audience increases a person’s level of drive or arousal - tightened drive increases the person’s effort, but also interferes with controlled, calm, conscious thought and attention and worsens the performance of non dominant actions
what findings supported zajonc’s theory
the presence of observers does increase drive and arousal (self-reports and physiological indices - increased heart rate and muscle tension)
can facilitation and interference occur on the same task and what does that depend on + example
yes, depends on the performers’ skill
ex1: expert pool players performed better when watched by a group of 4
ex2: college students asked to explain something that they just learned, interference when they had been given negative feedback just before and decreased when given positive feedback
choking under pressure
the highly aroused mental state produced by any strong form of pressure to perform well can cause performance to worsen
working memory
control conscious attention and holds those items of information that are needed to solve a problem
when is chocking under pressure especially likely
with tasks that make strong demands on working memory
why does anxiety affect nondominant actions
they put heavy demands on working memory, anxiety creates distracting thoughts (about being evaluated, the difficulty of the task, about the consequences of failing) - usurp much of the limited capacity of working memory, interfere with concentration
students and math problems experiment
some told that they’re part of the team that will fail if they don’t do the task well - they performed much worse on unpracticed difficult problems, but not on the easy or practiced problems which were less taxing on the working memory
who described stereotype threat
Claude steele
stereotype threat
threat that test-takers experience when they’re reminded of the stereotypical belief that the group to which they belong to isn’t expect to do well on the test
stereotype threat examples
African Americans and IQ tests, older adults on working-memory tests, women on math tests, christians on science tests
when is stereotype threat first noticed
in elementary and middle school children, even in girls as young as 5
do white males also show stereotype threat
yes, for math, with the stereotype that white people have less math ability
what is stereotype threat an example of
self-fulfilling prophecy
how does stereotype threat work
it produces anxiety and mental distraction, undermines confidence while increasing motivation
how to overcome stereotype threat
being aware of it - leads test-takers to attribute their anxiety to stereotype threat rather than to the difficulty of the problems or to some inadequacy in themselves
or self-affirming thoughts before the test (listing your own strengths and values) - boosting confidence/reducing the importance attributed to the test
impression management
the entire set of ways by which people consciously or unconsciously modify their behavior to influence others’ impressions of them
goffman
an approach to thinking about human behavior based on Shakespeare’s metaphor: all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women are just players
goffman’s book
“the presentation of self in everyday life” - people are actors playing at different times on different stages to different audiences - not aware they’re performing
alternative to the stage metaphor
there need not be a division in our minds between the images we try to project and our sincere beliefs about ourselves - at any moment we may simply be trying to exhibit our best self, or those aspect that seem more appropriate
intuitive politicians
perform in front of others not just to tell a good story or portray a character at a given moment, but also to achieve real-life ends over the long term that may be selfish or noble
how do others influence our behavior
not just through their roles as observers and evaluators but also through the examples they set
normative influence
social influence that works through the person’s desire to be part of a group or to be approved by other
informational influence
social influence that works through providing clues about the objective nature of an event
what’s the advantage of social life
sharing information, we don’t have to learn everything from scratch, follow the examples of others and profit from trials and errors that they had
how is normative influence useful
promotes group cohesion and acceptance by the group - social groups can exist only if some degree of behavioral coordination exists
types of influence
informative and normative
when is normative influence first noticed and how
in 2- and 3-year-olds - shown a puppet doing something, will correct a person who fails to use the same words and actions when repeating the task
who when lines
Solomon Asch in the 1950s
Asch experiment procedure
college students shown a standard line and 3 comparison, asked to judge which one was identical to the standard - student seated next to last
Asch experiment results
Of more than 100 subjects, 75% were swayed by the confederates on at least one of the 12 trials, most (95%) responded independently at least once + on average, subjects conformed on 37% of the trials (on more than 1/3 of the trials on which the confederates gave a wrong answer, the subject also gave a wrong answer, usually the same one)
how are the results of replications of Asch experiment
replicated in 17 countries, decline in conformity in North America after the 1950s, some variation in different cultures, but still
conformity moral dilemma
present subjects with hypothetical moral dilemmas some of which people think are permissible and others which most people think are impermissible – subjects who rated the dilemmas in the presence of confederates who rated the impermissible dilemmas as permissible were more likely to also rate them the same way
what experiment did Cialdini do
the public signs one
public signs experiment + why
many past visitors removed wood (7.9%) vs please don’t (1.67%), baseline was 3%
by saying people have done it - social norm
the passive bystander effect
a person is much more likely to help in an emergency if they’re the only witness than if other witnesses are also present
college students passive bystander
filling out questionnaires hear the researcher behind a screen falling an crying out – 70% of those who were alone went to help and only 20% of people in pairs did
reason behind the passive bystander effect
diffusion of responsibility, questioning your initial judgement
how are facial expressions useful for living in a group
help members of a group know how to interact with one another, by seeing others’ expressions group members know who needs help, who should be avoided, who is most approachable for help
emotions in a group example
anger - allies share anger
fear - state of heightened vigilance
laughter - shared playfulness, lesser chance a person will be offended
sadness - empathy, others are motivated to help
spread of emotions experiment
Facial expressions of emotions flashed on a screen too quickly for conscious recognition can cause subjects to express the same emotion on their own faces and/or to experience brief changes in feeling compatible with that emotion
Reagan experiment
people listened to him talk with sound on/off, in both cases, students’ bodily changes indicated that they were responding to his performance, with emotions similar to his
what happens when a group is evenly split on an issue
compromise - each side partially convinced the other, the majority leaves the room with a more moderate view
group polarization
if a group isn’t evenly split, discussion typically pushes that majority toward a more extreme view in the same direction as their view
group polarization jury
mock juries evaluated traffic violations that were high or low initial judgements of guilt
after a discussion, rated the high ones even higher and the low ones even lower
group polarization military
discussion caused groups favouring a strengthening of the military to favour it even more strongly and groups favouring a paring down of the military to favour that more strongly
when are decisions made in a group better
when they arise from sharing the best available evidence and logic
what’s the bad side of group decisions
can arise from shared misinformation, selective withholding of arguments on the less-favored side, and participants’ attempts to please and impress one another
who coined the term groupthink
Iris Janis
groupthink
“a mode of thinking that people engage in when they’re deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”
how is groupthink avoided
if the leaders refrain from advocating a view themselves and encourage group members to present their own views and challenge one another + the groups focus on the problem to be solved rather than on developing group cohesion
examples of groupthink
Decision to sponsor the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, escalate the Vietnam War, cover up the Watergate burglary
norm of reciprocity
we tend to honor requests of people who have done things for us
when are we more likely to honor requests
when it’s from somebody who is a member of our in-group, if the request is small, if they did stuff for us
low-ball technique
the customer first agrees to buy a product at a low price and the product and then the salesperson “discovers” that the low price isn’t possible and the product must be sold for more
why does the low-ball technique work
customers, after agreeing to the initial deal, are motivated to reduce cognitive dissonance by setting aside any lingering doubts they may have about the product + exaggerate the product’s value, set their head on the purchase
foot-in-the-door technique
people are more likely to agree to a large request if they have already agreed to a small one
how does the foot-in-the-door technique work
Compliance with the first request induces a sense of trust, commitment or compassion toward the person making the request + induces a sense of commitment toward a particular product/cause
when is the foot-in-the-door technique most effective
in soliciting donations for political causes and charities - people who agree to make a small gesture of support such as signing a petition are more willing to make a larger contribution later
obedience
cases of compliance in which the requester is perceives as an authority figure or leader and the request is an order
when is obedience useful
it’s part of social training - parents and teachers
crimes of obedience
cases in which people, in response to others’ orders, carry out unethical or illegal actions
who did the shock experiments and when :)
Milgrim on the Yale university in the early 1960s
Milgrim’s experiment procedure
subject is the teacher, role to administer shocks to the learner when he makes a mistake on a test of verbal memory
labels on the electric shock machine
30 switches from 15volts to 450volts - “Slight shock”, “Danger, severe shock”, “XXX”
how did the learner react to shocks
o 75v – moaning, 150 – “Experimenter, get me out of here! I won’t be in the experiment any more! I refuse to go on!”, 180 – “I can’t stand the pain”, 270 – agonized scream, 300 – shouts that he will no longer provide answers, 315 and 330 – screams violently, 345 – no sounds
what did the experimenter in the Milgram’s experiment say if you wanted to stop it
“Please continue”, “The experiment requires that you continue”, “It’s absolutely essential that you continue”, “You have no other choice, you must go on”
how many people went to the end in the Milgrim’s experiment
65%
how did the subjects react in the Milgrim’s experiment
many pleaded to let them stop, signs of great tension (sweating, nervous tics), offered to switch places
replications of the Milgrim’s experiment
replicated a dozen of times, using many different groups as subjects, yielded the same results - same for women, college students, professionals, workers of various ages, backgrounds and cultures
how was the replication of Milgrim’s experiment today
for ethical reasons it stopped at 150 volts, but nearly as many went to that point
factors in the Milgrim’s experiment
the norm of obedience to legitimate authorities, the experimenters’ self-assurance and acceptance of responsibility, the proximity of the experimenter and the distance of the learner, the absence of an alternative model of how to behave, the incremental nature of the request
norm of obedience in Milgram’s
the volunteer comes to a Yale lab - must surely be legitimate authority - when moved to an office obedience dropped to 48%
how was obedience when subjects told learner is their responsibility
dropped by a lot
how was the proximity in the original experiment
the experimenter was in the same room, the learner was out of sight
how was obedience when experimenter left the room + when learner was also in the room + put hand on shock plate
23% till the end + 40% till the end + 30% till the end
when another person was there in Milgrim’s experiment and continued/refused to how was obedience
continued - 93% till the end
refused - 10%
how is foot-in-the-door connected to Pilgrim
having complied with smaller requests, subjects find it harder to refuse new bigger requests - to refuse to give a shock would be to admit that it was probably also wrong to have given previous ones
ethical criticism of Pilgrim
Was the study of sufficient scientific merit to warrant inflicting such stress?
Milgram’s debriefing
Before leaving the lab, they were fully informed of the real nature and purpose of the experiment – informed that most people obeyed orders to the end, reminded of how reluctant they had been to give shocks, and they were reintroduced to the learner who offered further reassurance
were the people happy to have participated in the Milgram thing
84% of subjects said they were glad to have participated, 2% said they regret it
non-ethical criticism of Milgram
results may be unique to the artificial conditions of the lab and have little to tell us about crimes in the real world
subjects maybe knew no sane scientist would let them actually hurt people
Milgram’s subjects had no opportunity outside of the stressful situation in which they received orders to think about it + motives for obedience for Hitler’s followers was different (antisemitism, nationalism)
what worth do social psychologists see in Milgram’s experiment
Preexisting beliefs about the legitimacy of the endeavour, the authority’s confidence manner, the immediacy of authority figures, the lack of alternative models of how to behave, the incremental nature of the requests or orders may contribute to real crimes of obedience like they did for Milgram’s
altruism
behaviors in which an actor tries to help another individual achieve some goal at some expense to the actor
mutualism/cooperation
two or more individuals coordinate their actions to produce some mutually beneficial outcome, especially one that couldn’t be achieved if working alone
characteristics of both altruism and mutualism
Both are a part of humans’ evolved nature – develop early in childhood, mediated by empathy, don’t increase w rewards, seen in chimps
social dilemma
the tension between acting for the good of the group (cooperation) and acting for one’s own selfish good at the expense of the others (defection)
the tragedy of the commons
grazing land - if I add one more cow it will benefit me a lot and be just a bit bad for others - everybody thinking like that, every cow dies
examples of the tragedy of the commons
global warming, group projects
main conflict in the tragedy of the commons
social working (contributing) vs social loafing (free riding)
purposes of cooperation
achieve goal, but also establish a reputation
cooperation - reputation example
in an economic game in which people can choose to share some, all, or none of their resources people behave more generously when they believe that others will learn about their choices than they do in anonymous conditions + when can choose who to play with, choose those who have a cooperation reputation
people will spend their resources to punish cheaters example
public-goods game – each player is given a sum of money and under conditions of anonymity must choose whether to keep the money or contribute it to a common pool
altruistic punishment
People are willing to give up some of their own earnings in order to punish a player who has contributed much less than their share to the public good
personal identity
thought of oneself as an independent person with self-interests distinct from those of other people
social identity
thoughts of oneself as an interchangeable member of a larger entitiy, whose interests are shared by all members
shadenfreude
pleasure at another’s pain
schadenfreude example
o Men, but not women, show activation in reward-related areas of the brain (left ventral striatum) when a competitor receives a painful electric shock + both males and females display activation in reward-related areas of the brain (bilateral ventral striatum) when a social competitor has rumors spread about them
when Is In-group favouritism and out-group discrimination evident
in preschool on the basis of sex and race
who and when Robbers Cave
Sherif, 1950s – with 11- and 12-year-old boys at a 3-week camping program in Oklahoma’s Robbers Cave Park
robbers cave procedure
divided boys into two separate cabins, assigned them separate tasks (each acquired characteristics, leaders, rules, names, norms of behaviors) + competitions
three changes in relationships between the boys in the robbers cave
within-group solidarity (set aside internal fights), negative stereotypes for the other group (see them as very different - dirty and rough), hostile between-group interactions (call each other rival names, accuse them of cheating, cheat in relationation + burned one of the banners)
how did sherif try to reduce hostility robbers cave
peace meetings between leaders (called traitors), individual competitions (just tallied up the results), sermons on brotherly love, joint participations in pleasant activities
superordinate goals
goals that were desired by both groups and could be achieved best through cooperation between the groups
