Exam #2/ Group Norms & Applications of Social Psych

Question 1

The discipline of social psychology grew from both..

Answer 1

desire to understand the human condition

desire to identify and ameliorate social problems

Question 2

Applications of social psych in many areas

Answer 2

capitalizing on basic theories in social psychology, as well as the power of the social situation and perceptions of social norms

Question 3

persuasion application

Answer 3

marketing

Question 4

Social Cognition/Attribution

Answer 4

education/achievement

Question 5

Relationships:

Answer 5

marital counseling

Question 6

Intergroup and Intragroup processes

Answer 6

consulting/government/courtroom

Question 7

the study of norms

Answer 7

improving health, and saving the environment

Question 8

Social loafing

Answer 8

People work less hard at collective than individual efforts (in US)

Question 9

The “screaming study”

Answer 9

people screamed less loudly when they thought others were screaming with them and there was one group microphone

Question 10

Why loaf?

Answer 10

Collective effort model (Karau & Williams)

Question 11

Collective effort model (Karau & Williams)

Answer 11

groups reduce the expectancy that your individual effort will result in high performance for the group as a whole
groups reduce the belief that a good performance will be rewarded to you as an individual

Question 12

So if you are a team leader/manager, to reduce loafing. . .

Answer 12

Make output identifiable (screaming study2, when used individual microphones, it reduced loafing)
make task important or inherently rewarding/interesting
strengthen group cohesiveness –or strengthen motivation to belong to a group

Question 13

why does strengthing group cohesiveness or group motivation reduce loafing?

Answer 13

Groups of friends loaf less than strangers
Interdependent/Collectivist cultures don’t show social loafing –norms sometimes encourage the opposite (work harder in group)
Even in the US, after an exclusion people loaf less on a group task, presumably to gain group acceptance

Question 14

why do we value groups?

Answer 14

We value groups because they connect us to something larger than ourselves, protect us from anxiety, and make us feel as if we belong

Question 15

what are the cons of groups?

Answer 15

we don’t make better decisions in groups, and we don’t always work harder in groups

Question 16

One way to reduce negative effects of a group?

Answer 16

(‘devil’s advocate for Groupthink, identifiable output for Loafing

Question 17

how does social context change behavior through social norms?

Answer 17

Our automatic minds are always attending to what is normative in any situation, and even the implied actions of others tells us tell us what is appropriate to do to fit in
For example: Cialdini’s work on littering:

Question 18

Cialdini’s work on littering

Answer 18

Parking lot, flyers on cars, what do people do with it?
If lots of litter on the ground –implies group norm “we litter here” – most throw it on ground
If only one piece of litter on the ground – what is salient is the lack of litter elsewhere –implies “we don’t litter here” –fewer throw it on ground
-Both of these are descriptive norms

Question 19

descriptive norms

Answer 19

“what we do”

Question 20

prescriptive norms

Answer 20

demonstrates “what we should do

Question 21

what’s more influential in the littering experiment? descriptive or prescriptive norms?

Answer 21

prescriptive; Even more influential: If you see a person pick up a piece of litter and throw it in the recycling bin – strongest effect on anti-littering–

Question 22

norms in food choices

Answer 22

• Brock’s “I’ll have the salad” study
• Schwartz: 33% of fast food diners chose to downsize their portions when asked by a server. Whether offered a discount did not matter. A simple suggestion activates health goals as well as implied norms

Question 23

Brock’s “I’ll have the salad” study

Answer 23

fast food orders healthier when person in front of you orders a healthy option
-Leahy’s “contagious weight loss”

Question 24

Leahy’s “contagious weight loss”

Answer 24

• 2009 Shape Up Rhode Island (SURI) campaign, a 12-week statewide online weight loss competition. Participants joined with a team and could compete against other teams. 987 teams averaging between 5 and 11 members each
• Weight loss outcomes were determined by which team an individual was on. Participants who lost at least 5 percent of their initial body weight tended to be on the same teams.
• Individuals who reported higher levels of teammate social influence increased their odds of clinically significant weight loss by 20%.

Question 25

changing health behavior

Answer 25

• Heatherton: Movies and smoking (early studies)

- Diekman et al Condom use and romance novels

Question 26

Heatherton: Movies and smoking (early studies)

Answer 26

among kids who had never tried a cigarette, exposure to movie smoking was associated with more positive attitudes about tobacco and the perception that most adults smoke (smoking is normative).
Exposure to movie smoking at baseline predicted smoking initiation 2 years later. And the more they identified with smoking character, more likely exposure led to smoking.
This research led to voluntary changes in Hollywood regarding smoking in movies and TV – thought to have contributed to lowered smoking initiation, more negative attitudes towards smokers in your generation.

Question 27

Diekman et al Condom use and romance novels

Answer 27

“Swept away myth” counters condom use, romance readers have more ambivalent attitudes towards condom use compared to readers of other types of fiction. But this changes when people read romances with condom use “romantically” framed to seem more normative.

Question 28

why is saving the environment hard?

Answer 28

Group level: we often destroy the environment as a group, community, or nation – yet have positive attitudes toward the environment as individuals

Question 29

College recycling

Answer 29

when signs went up in dorms that showed how many pounds of recycling were collected each day – recycling increased 76%

Question 30

Goldstein’s hotel towel reuse rates

Answer 30

get explicit feedback about others choices

Question 31

California Energy Use Study

Answer 31

• Social norms influence people, but are we aware of how powerfully?
• social influence is often under detected

Question 32

California Energy Use Study/Study 1: Correlational

Answer 32

Asked how much each of the following influenced energy conservation efforts:
What others are doing to conserve energy (Normative)
To save money (Self-interest)
To save the environment (Value)
Participants SAID that beliefs about what others were doing (norms) had the least impact on their energy conservation behavior, but when you try to predict conservation from normative beliefs, money savings beliefs, and values and conservation -normative beliefs was the largest predictor of the three

Question 33

California Energy Use Study/Study 2: Experimental

Answer 33

Houses were randomly assigned to receive persuasive messages on front doors: normative, self-interest, or environment
In follow up calls, participants who received the normative messages rated their persuasive message as least motivating compared to the other two groups
BUT –when checked their change in electrical usage, normative message had greatest impact on actual conservation as measured by energy meters

Question 34

Social dilemmas

Answer 34

• Norms are especially important for social dilemmas
• commons dilemma
• public goods dilemma

Question 35

public goods dilemma

Answer 35

when in order for a public good to be created or maintained, a certain number of people in the community must contribute (public radio, blood banks)

Question 36

commons dilemma

Answer 36

when there is a shared resource that must be used responsibly by many people (air, water, energy, fish in the sea)

Question 37

“cautious cooperators”

Answer 37

Most of us? 80% of people are “cautious cooperators” - We WANT to cooperate, but are afraid of getting screwed

Question 38

commons and public goods dilemma

Answer 38

• in each case, what’s immediately good for self is at odds with what’s good for the group BUT, if everyone is selfish–the commons are depleted or the public good is never created
• 2 ways of doing well “pro self”/compete or “pro social”/cooperate.

Question 39

Weber’s “catalysts of cooperation

Answer 39

• establishing cooperative norms
• Public goods game in which each person could contribute to a pot of money, which if it got above a certain threshold it would be tripled and split among group. So can contribute or not on multiple rounds.
• Contributions were visible (but anonymous). Kellogg MBAs (so more likely to engage in pro-self behavior) –but some groups were experimentally manipulated to seem as if one member always donated

Question 40

results of Weber’s “catalysts of cooperation

Answer 40

When one person persistently contributed, cooperation and donations increased in those groups (those groups had higher levels of contribution, even after the catalyst’s donations were removed).
This was despite the attributions participants held
people thought maybe that person didn’t understand the rules, or that he/she “was a sucker”.
Nonetheless, began contributing more themselves and ultimately achieved the public good.
One person, even if initially the behavior was seen as stupid, changed the norms to be better for all

Question 41

the power of 1

Answer 41

1 person refusing to hurt another breaks the hold of destructive obedience (Milgram)
1 person stepping forward ends diffusion of responsibility (Latane & Darley)
1 small act of kindness eliminates the exclusion –aggression effect (Twenge)
1 cross-race friendship can reduce prejudice in both social circles (Aron)
1 person willing to voice a minority opinion breaks Groupthink (Janis)
1 person contributing to a common good can change group norms for the better (Weber)