Exam 2 Flashcards
Social Norms
learned social rules
-help establish and maintain social order
-mindlessly following norms could be problematic
descriptive norm
how people are behaving- what we are ‘actually’ doing
Injunctive Norms
what is acceptable and unacceptable-what we should be doing
Loose vs tight norms
Tight cultures have strong social norms and little tolerance for deviance, while loose cultures have weak social norms and are highly permissive
conformity
a change in behavior or beliefs to agree with others
Informational influence
conformity from accepting evidence provided by other people
-Motivated by desire to be accurate
-Look to motivate when we don’t know the right answer
Normative influence
conformity based on a desire to fulfill others’ expectations
-Motivated by the desire to be accepted
higher conformity occurs if there is:
large group size, cohesive groups, high status members, people respond publicly
lower conformity occurs if there is:
1 dissenter, people make a public commitment to position
Ideomotor action
thinking about a behavior makes it happen more likely
Norm of reciprocity
expectation that people will help those who have helped them
Door-in-the-face technique
Asking for a larger favor first and then retreating to a smaller favor
Reciprocation: “meeting someone halfway”
That’s-not-all technique
once a product has been pitched, the seller then adds an additional offer before the potential purchaser has made a decision. “If you buy this, we will also throw in this for free!”
Foot-in-the-door techniques
Willingness to comply with a larger request after first complying with a smaller request
-We like consistency
Negative State Relief Hypothesis
-Seeing someone in distress makes us feel bad
-We help to eliminate our own negative feelings
Reciprocation
Norm of reciprocity- the expectation that people will help those who have helped them. Without a gift only 18% of people donate, but that doubles to 35% when they get a gift
6 principles of Persuasion
- Reciprocity
- Commitment
- Social proof
- Liking
- Authority
- Scarcity
commitment
desire to maintain consistency in what you’ve already said or done
social proof
desire to follow the lead of those who are similar to you
liking
desire to agree with a person who resembles you or shares the same values
authority
Desire to trust and agree with an “expert” based on visual cues (lab coat, uniform, power)
Scarcity
Desire to get something that is limited or difficult to obtain (time, quantity, or space)
Obedience
a change in behavior or beliefs as a result of the commands of others in authority
Milgram’s study
- “The effects of punishment on memory”
- Word pair memorization task
○ Machine 15 volts to 450 volts - “teacher”: delivers painful electric shocks to the learner for innocent answers
- “learner”: a middle-aged man with a heart condition (confederate)
Reactance
A motive to protect or restore one’s sense of freedom. Arises when someone threatens our freedom of action
Social facilitation
concluded that the mere presence of others can enhance performance
Dominate responses
responses that are likely to occur in a situation (habits, responses that are automatic)
-Easy or well-learned tasks -> the dominant response is usually correct
-Difficult or novel tasks-> The dominant response is not necessarily correct
Zajonc’s model of social facilitation
the presence of others increases arousal. Arousal increases dominate responding
-Enhancing performance on simple or well-learned tasks
-Worsening performance on complex or new tasks
The mere presence of others effect
???
Evaluation apprehension
Concerns for how others are viewing us
-Good-looking woman and the jogger study- wanted to see if the women sped up if they passed her. The men sped up and ran faster when the woman was facing the trail compared to when she was faced away from the trail
Distraction-conflict hypothesis
The conflict between paying attention to others and paying attention to the task
Overloads our cognitive resources and leads to arousal
Social loafing
The tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts towards a common goal than when they are individually accountable
Diffusion of responsibility
tendency for each group member to dilute personal responsibility for acting by spreading it among all other group members
How to eliminate social loafing
make people accountable, task harder, goals important to all, provide consequences for success/failure
Groupthink
the deterioration of group judgment produced by striving for consensus
Symptoms of groupthink
The illusion of invulnerability -“we’re good ppl and good decision-makers, we can’t make a bad decision”, Unquestioned belief in group’s morality “we’re going to make a good and moral decision”, Rationalization, Stereotyped view of opponent, Conformity pressure, Self-censorship, Mindguard, Illusion of unanimity
How can we prevent groupthink?
Be important thing is to reach the best decision, Have a devil’s advocate, Subdivide the group the feeling of unanimity, and Encourage and welcome criticism from outsiders, Before implementing, call a second-chance meeting
Self-censorship
refraining from expressing something (such as a thought, POV, or belief) that others could deem objectionable
Illusion of unanimity
Members of the group falsely perceive that everyone agrees with the group’s decision; silence is seen as consent.
Illusion of invulnerability
Members of the group ignore obvious danger, are overly optimistic and are willing to take extraordinary risks.
Collective rationalization
Members of the group develop rationalizations to explain away any warning that is contrary to the group’s thinking.
Deindividuation
When in groups, people often abandon normal restraint
-Lost sense of self-awareness and responsibility
-Group fosters anonymity and draws attention
Self-awareness theory
when we focus on ourselves, we evaluate and compare our current beh
Spotlight effect
which people tend to believe they are being noticed more than they are. Being that one is constantly in the center of one’s world, an accurate evaluation of how much one is noticed by others is uncommon.
determinates of leadership
manipulation, knowledge, socially adept
Approach/inhibition theory
-high power individuals pursue personal goals and make quick judgments
-low power individuals constrain personal behaviors and pay careful attention to others
Outgroup homogeneity effect
members of the outgroup are perceived as more similar to one another
Social roles
shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave. Think of the prison experiment, do the people make the place bad or does the place make the people bad?
Communal relationship
relationship in which the individuals feel a special responsibility for one another and give and receive according to the principle of need, such relationships are often long-term
Exchange Relationship
relationship in which individuals feel little responsibility toward one another, giving and receiving are governed by concerns about equity and reciprocity, such relationships are usually short-term
Social exchange theory
People make decisions about their relationship by weighing rewards and costs (rational or economic model of relationship
Equity theory
idea that people are motivated to pursue fairness or equity in their relationships
*benefits are proportionate to the effort both people put into it
Attachment theory
- Humans are born with few survival skills (unlike other mammals)
- Survival depends on close relationships with parents
- Early attachments to our primary caregivers shape our relationships for the rest of our lives
Attachment styles
-Anxiety-fear of rejection, abandonment
- Avoidance- uncomfortable with intimacy
-Secure- low in anxiety and avoidance
Relationship of non-heterosexual or non-monogamy couples
Non-heterosexual or non-monogamous couples face unique relationship dynamics and challenges related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and relationship structures. These relationships can vary widely in terms of communication, commitment, and negotiation of boundaries and expectations.
Propinquity effect
the more we see and interact with people the more likely we are to start a relationship with them -working together, going to school together, living by each other (doesn’t have to be romantic relationships)
functional distance
the closeness between places in terms of interaction opportunities
Mere exposure effect
The tendency for novel stimuli to be liked more or rated more positively after being repeatedly exposed to a person
Contrast effect
if we are exposed to a very attractive person, we begin to view others (and even ourselves) as less attractive
Matching hypothesis
We tend to choose partners those who are a match in attractiveness and others qualities
Maximization strategies
we seek the most attractive partners possible, leading to matching through the process of elimination
Equalization strategies
we seek partners who are about as attractive as we are
Complementary hypothesis
tendency for people to seek out others with characteristics that are different from and complement their own
Halo effect
The belief that physically attractive people have a wide range of positive characteristics
Reciprocal liking
We like those who like us. “I overheard you study”