exam 3: social psychology

Question 1

social psychology

Answer 1

examines behavior and mental life in social situations; interested in causality

Question 2

social perceptions

Answer 2

the process by which we come to know and evaluate other individuals

Question 3

steps for social perceptions (3)

Answer 3

• (1) observe the way that a person behaves
• (2) try to explain the behavior
• (3) form and impression of the other person

Question 4

Fritz Heider’s vs Harold Kelley’s theories of attribution

Answer 4

• Fritz Heider: interested in understanding the causes of behavior; proposed that each one of us is an intuitive scientist in the way we try to determine why other people do what they do; there are two attributions that we can make to explain the cause of another’s behavior (person’s disposition or situation)
• Harold Kelley: people make attributions for someone else’s behavior on the basis of three types of information (consensus, distinctiveness, consistency)

Question 5

Harold Kelley’s attribution factors (3) and what they mean

Answer 5

• consensus: how others react to the same stimulus; if consensus is low, we attribute the cause of the behavior to the person
• distinctiveness: how the person reacts to different stimuli; if distinctiveness is high, we attribute the cause of the behavior to the stimulus
• consistency: how the person reacts to the same stimulus at a different time; if consistency is low, we attribute the cause of the behavior to a specific circumstance

Question 6

fundamental attribution error

Answer 6

when we explain the behavior of others, we typically overestimate the role of personal factors, and we underestimate the role of situational factors

Question 7

Jones and Harris (1967) (study and findings)

Answer 7

• study: participants read essays presumably written by college students that were either in favor of or expressed views against Fidel Castro; one condition told the participants that the authors had freely chosen their position; the other condition told the participants that the authors were assigned to argue for a specific position; they were asked the attitude of the author; in the freely chosen condition, participants sensibly judged the author’s attitude; in the assigned condition, participants inferred the author’s attitude from the content of the essay (authors who wrote in favor of Castro were thought to have a more positive view of Castro, and vice-versa); participants ignored the situational cues and inferred the author’s attitude from the content of the essay itself
• findings: provided the first evidence for the fundamental attribution error; with the fundamental attribution error, we ignore situational cues and overestimate our attribution to the person’s disposition

Question 8

Ross et al. (1977) (study and findings)

Answer 8

• study: participants were assigned to play the role of either the questioner or the contestant in a quiz show; the questioners were instructed to write 10 challenging questions; contestants answered less than 40% of the questions correctly; audience members (the real participants) were told to rate the intelligence of the questioner and the intelligence of the contestant; they rated the questioners as above average and the contestants below average in intelligence, ignoring the fact that the questioners wrote the questions and were asked to write challenging questions
• findings: found evidence that supports the fundamental attribution error

Question 9

self-serving attributions

Answer 9

when we make attributions for our own behavior, we typically do so in a way that enhances our feelings of self-worth (take credit for successes and disown failures)

Question 10

social influence is…

Answer 10

pervasive

Question 11

social behavior is…

Answer 11

contagious

Question 12

the chameleon effect

Answer 12

behavioral mimicry

Question 13

Chartrand and Bargh (1999) (study and findings)

Answer 13

• study: participants worked in an experimental room with a confederate; at times, the confederate rubbed their face or shook their foot; participants were significantly more likely to rub their face when they were with a face-rubbing confederate, and they were more likely to shake their foot when they were with a foot-shaking confederate
• findings: people naturally mimic others, which is part of empathy

Question 14

empathy

Answer 14

people come to understand the experience of another person

Question 15

mood linkage

Answer 15

people tend to be happier when they are around happy people and sadder when they are around sad people

Question 16

conformity (definition, benefits (3), downsides)

Answer 16

• definition: the tendency to bring one’s behavior in line with group norms
• benefits: can promote harmony, group solidarity, and peaceful coexistence
• downsides: can lead to destructive or offensive behavior

Question 17

Solomon Asch’s experiment (1955) (study and findings)

Answer 17

• study: participants were told that they are in a visual perception experiment with five other individuals (all confederates) and asked which of the three comparison lines is identical to the standard line; on the first two trials, others’ responses were in line with theirs; on the third trial, the confederates gave the wrong answer; 37% of participants gave the wrong answer after others had done so, even though the answer was obvious
• findings: found evidence that supports the idea of conformity

Question 18

what strengthens conformity (7)

Answer 18

• when one is made to feel incompetent or insecure
• when the group has at least three members (in addition to you)
• when the group is unanimous
• when you admire the status of the group you are a part of
• when you have made no prior commitment to a particular response
• when your behavior is observed by other people in the group
• when your culture strongly encourages respect for social standards/customs

Question 19

reasons for conformity (2)

Answer 19

normative social influence and informative social influence

Question 20

normative social influence vs informative social influence

Answer 20

• normative social influence: people can form to social standards to avoid rejection or to gain social approval
• public conformity: we might change our behavior but we do not change our beliefs
• informational social influence: people can form to social standards because they believe that others’ behavior is correct
• private conformity: not only do you change your behavior, but you also change your beliefs (much more long-lasting)

Question 21

Stanley Milgram’s experiment (1963) (study and findings)

Answer 21

• study: participants were told that the research examined the effect of punishment on learning; the learner (confederate) is led to a joining room and strapped to a chair that is connected to an electric shock machine; the participants were teachers meant to test the learner; for every incorrect response, their task was to administer punishment by way of a brief electric shock which was bumped up each time it was used; the learner gets more restless before falling silent at 330V; despite this, the experimenter urged the participants to keep going until 450V; in the first experiment, 63% of the male participants complied up to the highest voltage; in subsequent experiments, Milgram found the same obedience to authority in females, as well
• findings: found evidence that supports obedience

Question 22

factors that affect obedience (4)

Answer 22

• the authority: higher obedience when the authority figure is perceived to be legitimate
• the victim: higher obedience when the victim is depersonalized
• the situation: higher obedience when the authority figure assumes responsibility for the victim’s welfare.
• obedience is highest when a behavior is increased gradually rather than all at once

Question 23

social facilitation vs social loafing

Answer 23

• social facilitation: the tendency for people to perform differently when in the company of others (better on “easy” tasks and worse on difficult tasks)
• social loafing: the tendency for people to exert less effort in group tasks for which individual contributions are pooled

Question 24

Norman Triplett (1898) (studies and findings)

Answer 24

• studies: first to study social facilitation; studied bicycle racing records and noticed that times were faster when they competed with others rather than when they pedaled alone against the clock.; asked 40 children simply to wind a fishing reel and noticed that performance was faster when children worked in the presence of others rather than when they worked alone
• findings: the presence of others creates “nervous energy” that enhances performance (researchers later found that people’s performance on difficult tasks is oftentimes worse when they are in the presence of others)

Question 25

Robert Zajonc (1965) (proposal)

Answer 25

• proposals: proposed a solution to Norman Triplett’s contradictory findings; proposed that the presence of others increases arousal, and that arousal enhances the “dominant response” (the response that is most likely to occur); for easy tasks, the dominant response is likely to be the correct response (perform well on easy tasks); for difficult responses, the dominant response is likely to be the incorrect response (perform poorly on difficult tasks)

Question 26

Ingham et al. (1974) (study and findings)

Answer 26

• study: blindfolded participants were asked to pull a rope as hard as they could; participants pulled the rope 18% harder when they knew they are alone than when they thought other people were pulling the rope with them
• findings: found evidence that supports the idea of social loafing

Question 27

Latané et al. (1979) (study and findings)

Answer 27

• study: participants were asked to clap as loud as they could; subjects produced less noise when they thought that they were part of a group relative to when they thought that they were clapping on their own
• findings: found evidence that supports the idea of social loafing

Question 28

reasons for social loafing (3)

Answer 28

people see their own contribution as unessential to a group’s success; people are less concerned about being evaluated individually; people may slack off in order to avoid looking like the star

Question 29

group polarization

Answer 29

the enhancement of a group’s prevailing inclinations through discussion within the group

Question 30

groupthink (definition, benefits (3), downside)

Answer 30

• definition: a group decision-making style by which group members convince themselves that they are correct
• benefits: tightly-knit, tend to value harmony, tend to have a strong leader
• downside: more insulated from other points of view

Question 31

attitude

Answer 31

a positive or negative reaction to any person, object, or idea

Question 32

persuasion

Answer 32

the process of changing attitudes in others

Question 33

two-track model of persuasion (founders and model)

Answer 33

• founders: Richard Petty and John Cacioppo
• model: central route to persuasion and peripheral route to persuasion

Question 34

central route to persuasion (definition, effectiveness, durability)

Answer 34

• definition: we are influenced by the strength and the quality of the argument
• effectiveness: effective when people have the ability and the motivation to think critically about the contents of the message
• durability: more durable and likely to influence behavior

Question 35

peripheral route to persuasion (definition, effectiveness, durability)

Answer 35

• definition: we are influenced by the superficial cues of the speaker (appearance of the speaker, slogans, one-liners, emotions, audience reactions)
• effectiveness: effective when people don’t have the ability and/or the motivation to pay close attention to the issue at hand and when it has more fleeting effects on behavior
• durability: durability of the change is not as long-lasting

Question 36

foot-in-the-door phenomenon

Answer 36

a tendency for people who agreed to a small action to comply later with a larger request

Question 37

Freedman and Fraser (1966) (study and findings)

Answer 37

• study: researchers posed as safe-driving volunteers and asked residents to permit the installation of a large, poorly-lettered “drive safely” sign in the front yard; very few people agreed to the request (17%), so they went to other homes with a request to permit the installation of a three-inch-tall sign that said “be a safe driver,” where nearly all agreed; two weeks later, the researchers approached the residents who had been asked to install a small sign and asked to install the larger sign; after consenting to the small sign two weeks previously, 76% of the participants consented to the larger request
• findings: we have a tendency to agree to a larger request after first agreeing to a smaller request (supports the foot-in-the-door phenomenon)

Question 38

role playing

Answer 38

when people adopt new roles, they strive to follow the social prescriptions of that role; at first, such role-playing might feel fake; over time, the role-playing becomes you

Question 39

Zimbardo (1972) (study and findings)

Answer 39

• study: (Stanford prison experiment) male college students volunteered to spend time in a simulated prison; some were guards, and some were prisoners; after only two days, the actions of the participants (both guards and prisoners) changed from role playing to reality (the guards began to mock the prisoners and devised cruel routines, and the prisoners broke down psychologically and tried to break out of the prison); the effect was so negative that Zimbardo had to call off the study after only six days
• findings: our actions have a direct effect on our attitudes (supports the idea of role playing)

Question 40

self-persuasion

Answer 40

we oftentimes engage in attitude-discrepant behavior, meaning we do things that we know are not good for us

Question 41

cognitive dissonance theory (founder and definition)

Answer 41

• founder: Leon Festinger
• definition: we hold many cognitions (beliefs) about ourselves and the world that sometimes clash; when this happens, we experience tension (cognitive dissonance); to relieve this tension, we try to bring our attitudes in line with our actions

Question 42

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) (study and findings)

Answer 42

• study: participants are told that the experimenter is interested in various measures of performance; they take part in multiple boring, lengthy tasks; as they are walking out, two groups are asked by the experimenter to tell the next participant that the study was really fun, where one group is paid $1 and the other is paid $20 to do so; participants in the third group were not asked to tell a lie; after leaving the room, all participants rated their enjoyment of the task (not the lying part); the control group and those in the $20 group reported low levels of enjoyment, while the group that was offered $1 reported significantly higher levels of enjoyment (control group did not have to violate their consciences, the $20 group had justification for the lie, the $1 received insufficient justification for lying); they changed their attitudes to match their behavior
• findings: changing one’s attitude serves to reduce cognitive dissonance (supports cognitive dissonance theory)

Question 43

prejudice

Answer 43

an unjustified attitude toward a group and its members

Question 44

what prejudice involves (3)

Answer 44

stereotypical beliefs (generalized beliefs about a group of people), negative feelings, a predisposition to discriminate against a group and its members

Question 45

social (3), emotional, and cognitive roots of prejudice

Answer 45

• social: social inequality (“haves” believe they deserve the material possessions they own), “us” versus “them” thinking, ingroup bias
• emotional: scapegoat theory
• cognitive: just-world phenomenon

Question 46

“us” versus “them” thinking

Answer 46

drawing mental circles around those who are similar and those who are dissimilar to oneself; causes ingroup bias

Question 47

ingroup bias

Answer 47

a tendency to favor one’s own group; caused by “us” versus “them” thinking

Question 48

scapegoat theory

Answer 48

prejudice offers an outlet for anger by providing someone else to blame

Question 49

just-world phenomenon

Answer 49

a tendency to believe that the world is just (those who have less deserve it)

Question 50

aggression

Answer 50

physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt or destroy; may be enacted reactively out of hostility or proactively as a calculated means to an end

Question 51

frustration-aggression principle

Answer 51

frustration creates anger, which, in turn, can generate aggression (frustration –> anger –> aggression)

Question 52

frustration-aggression principle

Answer 52

frustration crates anger, which, in turn, can generate aggression (frustration –> anger –> aggression)

Question 53

factors that affect attraction (3)

Answer 53

proximity, physical attractiveness (“average is attractive”), similarity

Question 54

mere exposure effect

Answer 54

repeated exposure to a novel stimulus increases the liking of the stimulus

Question 55

Moreland and Beach (1992) (study and findings)

Answer 55

• study: four equally attractive women sat silently in a 200-person class and attended a certain amount of times (0, 5, 10, or 15); there was a positive linear effect on attraction based on the number of times the women showed up to class
• findings: found evidence that supports the idea of the mere exposure effect

Question 56

Mita et al. (1977) (study and findings)

Answer 56

• study: college students were shown two pictures of themselves; one picture depicted their actual appearance, and the other depicted a mirror image; most participants preferred their mirror images, whereas friends preferred their actual photos
• findings: found evidence that supports the idea of the mere exposure effect

Question 57

passionate vs compassionate love

Answer 57

• passionate love: an intense, positive absorption in another person
• compassionate love: a deep, affectionate attachment to those with whom our lives are intertwined (evolutionary advantage because it keeps partners together while allowing them focus on co-nurturing their children)

Question 58

Carducci et al. (1978)

Answer 58

college men were aroused by various stimuli (fright, running in place, viewing erotic material, listening to humorous monologues); after being emotionally aroused, men rated both their own girlfriend and a bunch of other women as more attractive

Question 59

altruism

Answer 59

an unselfish regard for the welfare of others

Question 60

bystander effect

Answer 60

the presence of others lessens the likelihood that any 1 individual will offer assistance to someone in need (40% help alone, 20% help in the presence of others)

Question 61

the murder of Kitty Genovese (1964) (event and findings)

Answer 61

• event: a stalker repeatedly stabbed Kitty Genovese and raped her; she cried out for help, and the windows of 38 separate apartments lit up, but no one came to her assistance; the attacker fled the scene only to return and stab and rape her more; again, no one showed up; after the attacker fled the scene for good, someone called the police after observing the attack for 20 minutes
• findings: found evidence supporting the bystander effect

Question 62

decision scheme for providing assistance (3)

Answer 62

• (1) notice the incident
• (2) interpret the incident as an emergency
• (3) assume responsibility for helping