Final Flashcards
First impressions
We form Schemas quickly & automatically with the information available to us
Key characteristics when forming impressions
Trustworthiness/Warmth (friend or foe?). Competence/dominance (social status?). Elderly person –> low competence, high warmth, so we feel protective of them. A Homeless person –> low competence, low trustworthiness, we feel disdain. Charming Successful CEO –> high competence, high trustworthiness, we admire them.
Primacy Effect
Cognitive bias that influences how people process and remember information. Information presented first often has a disproportionately significant impact on perceptions or memory compared to information presented later.
How accurate are our impressions?
Impressions from faces: generally, inferred emotional expression, not very accurate.
Impressions from other sources: still not very accurate, can be somewhat accurate at judgements of what people are generally like (i.e. Extroversion).
Early studies showing we are capable of making accurate impressions: Ambady & Rosenthal (1992):
Thin slicing: we can make quick and accurate judgments even with very little exposure. However, this requires more effort & deliberate processing. Susceptible to bias.
What improves the accurace of our impressions?
Updating impressions as we get to know a person. When we are motivated, and put effort into being accurate. (i.e., when there are consequences).
Some factors that limit our accuracy in impression formation
Heuristics, Impression management, confirmation bias.
Heuristics
A quick mental shortcut to get an impression of someone.
Transference (Heuristics)
Applying the schema of someone you already know to understand someone new. (You meet someone that reminds you of a friend you like –> shift the positive feelings of the friend to this new person)
False Consensus (Heuristics)
Assuming everyone is the same as us, especially people we know and like. (Your friend posted a political statement that you disagree with and you’re shocked.)
Impression Management.
Putting our best face forward. People can use a variety of strategies to manage the impression that others have of them. Examples: self-promotion (competent), ingratiation (likeable), exemplification (dedicated), intimidation (domination), supplication (needy).
Confirmation Bias
We are eager to verify our beliefs but less inclined to seek evidence that might disprove them. The tendency to seek out and prefer information that supports our preexisting beliefs.
Attributions
Explanations we assign to the causes of an event, action, or outcome.
Attribution Theory
Analyzes how we explain people’s behaviour. Dispositions/Internal factors: such as traits, values, attitudes, beliefs, skills, intentions. Situations/External factors: events, weather, aspects of a context, circumstances, other people’s actions, accidents, chance.
Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)
When explaining the cause of another person’s behaviour, we tend to: Overestimate - the impact of internal/dispositional influences. Understimate - the impact of external/situational influences. The default explanation tends to be an internal attribution, in Western Individualistic culture.
Cultural Variation: FAE (individualistic cultures)
USA, Canada, Netherlands, Australia. Tend to put an emphases on independence, uniqueness, sufficiency. Therefore, they tend to commit FAE by not considering external factors.
Cultural Variation: FAE (collectivistic cultures)
China, Japan, Latin America, Eastern Europe. Tend to value community, needs of the group over the individual. Tend to be more sensitive to situational constraints and how people might adjust to meet the environmental situation. Therefore, they tend to commit FAE much less on average.
Self-Serving Bias
Tendency to explain our success with internal factors and to explain our failures with external factors.
Stereotypes
Mental beliefs/schemas/associations we have about groups. Automatic associations. These are associations and not judgments. Not always negative, can be positive or neutral. Learned & Perpetuated from our own personal culture and environment we group up in. Causes of inaccuracy: bias in the media, applying group characteristics to an individual.
Prejudice
Attitudes or affective (emotional) responses toward or about a group and/or its individual members, these are negative. Bias against a person based on their perceived group.
Discrimination
Negative behaviours directed against people because of their group membership; differential treatment. Often steming from prejudice attitudes.
Social categorization
Humans naturally categorize the world into different social groups based on a shared characteristic(s) or common attributes. (Race, gender, age, height, sports teams, shared beliefs, personal preferences, hobbies). Saves time and mental energy. Simplifies our otherwise chaotic environment. Often is accurate, and useful if you have no other info about a person.
In/Out Groups
In-groups: the groups we belong to. Female, student, Gen Z. Out-group: other groups we don’t belong to. Men, non-students, any other generation.
Social Categorization Costs
With categories in place this can lead to: applying stereotypes to these groups, in/out-group division or “Us vs Them” mentality.
In-group facoritism
Our group is better than theirs
Out-group derogation
we hate/dislike them
Overestimating group differences
They are not like us
Out-group homogeneity effect
They are all alike; we are unique and diverse
Contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954)
Reduction of prejudice through friendly contact. But contact alone is not enough. This led to Sherif’s idea of’ Superordinate goals.
Superordinate goals:
Goals that are so large they require more than one social group to complete
Realistic conflict theory (Robbers Cave Study)
This theory suggests that when groups perceive that their interests are in direct conflict or competition with the interests of another group, it can lead to negative attitudes, hostility, and discriminatory behavior between the groups.Groups competing for access to the same resources (land, water, food, championships etc.)
Social Identity Theory
A person’s positive self-view extends to their ingroup(s), i.e., in-group favouritism. Seeing outgroups in a negative light i.e., out-group derogation.
Overt vs Symbolic Racism
Overt: hate crimes, racial slurs, swastikas.
Symbolic: indirect forms of discrimination, such as social policies.
Explicit Attitudes
Conscious reporting of how we feel or believe. Can be updated easily be learning new information. Measurement: commonly measured via self-report questionnaires using Likert scales, but people might be unwilling or unable to tell the truth.
Implicit attitudes.
Automatic, unconscious/not aware of it reporting. Can potentially be updated with repeated exposure, but it is difficult. Measurement: indirectly via facial expressions, body language, implicit association tests.
Do attitudes influence behaviour?
Attitudes can have consequences on behaviour. But studies show attitudes have a weak link to behaviour. E.g. Abstract attitudes. i
When are attitudes most likely to predict behaviour?
When they are about a specific issue. When they are strong attitudes –> when we are certain about them (i.e. attitude strength) and they apply to situations with which we have experience (personal link).
Elaboration likelihood model
Central route: more thoughtful (more effort) –> choosing a new laptop based on stats, expert reviews. Peripheral route: more impressionable. –> choosing a new laptop based on factors such as its looks or brand.
Central route
Persuasive message: Audience (motivated, analystical) –> Processing (high effert; evaluate message) –> Persuasion (lasting change in attitude).
Peripheral Route
Persuasive message: Audience (not motivated, not analytical) –> Processing (low effort; persuaded by cues outside of message) –> Persuasion (temporary change in attitude).
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Disconnect between our actions and attitude = inner tension/dissonance. The more significant the discrepancy, the more we feel the dissonance. We are motivated to reduce the tension.
Post Decision Dissonance
Discomfort from believing there might have been a better option that what we choose. Gave
Social norms
Behaviours, traditions, beliefs and preferences. Commonly accepted and reinforced, change and evolve over time, not adhering to social norms can result in a “faux pas”.
Social influence
The way that people are affected by the real and imagined presence of others.
Social loafing
Not pulling your weight, individual efforts will not be evaluated. Group projects where by everyone gets one grade.
Social Facilitation
Working towards a goal where individual efforts are evaluated.
Conformity
Changing our perceptions, opinions, or behaviour in ways that are consistent with group norms.
Compliance
Changing our behaviour in response to direct requests
Obedience
Changing our behaviour in response to commands by perceived authority figures.
Informational social influence
Pressure to conform because we ant to be competent and have the correct information.
Normative social influence
Pressure to conform so that we gain approval/fit and not be met with disapproval.
The Stanley Milgram “Experiments”
To what extent would people comply when there are demands of authority? Recruited participants who were told this was a study on learning and punishment. Participant: would take the role of teacher, and was told to teach a list of pairs of words and punish wrong answer with a “mild shock”. Confederate: would take the role of “learner” and strapped into a chair that had pretend electrodes. Scripted responses from learner and experimenter. Experimenter would tell the participant to move up one shock level every time the confederate got an answer wrong. If the participant complied they would hear increasing distressing grunts and cries of pain from the confederate.
What people predicted from the Stanley Milgram effect
That participants would stop around 150 volts, and fewer than 1% would go all the way to max shock
Results from The Stanley Milgram Experiments
All 40 participants: at least 300v
26/40 experiments: (65%) All the way
The Stanley Milgram Experiments, further modifications
Milgram was disturbed by the results, so he decided to keep modifying: stated that the learner had a hart condition - 63% still complied, least compassionate when the learner could not be seen, when the learner could not be seen or head almost all participants obeyed till the end, when the learner was in the room 40% went to the end, when the participant had to put the learners hand on a shock plat 30% went to the end.
Modern replication “Burger study”
Recent replication achieved a 90% obedience rate in the presence of authority.
Instrumental Agression
Proactive aggression. Goal is to achieve something (social, emotional, physical). A means to an end - harmful behaviour as a purpose to it. I.e., War.
Hostile Aggression
Reactive aggression. Motivated by hostility. The goal is to harm someone. Emotional, impulsive, in the heat of the moment. Can also been calm and cool. I.e., Murder, road rage.
Theories of Aggression - Gender
Men: more likely to use direct aggression.
Women: more likely to use indirect or passive forms of aggression (this could be due to socialization).
Theories of aggression: Neural influences
Complicated behaviour, no one area controls it. There are neural systems, activation causes hostility increase and vice versa.
Theories of aggression: Environmental influences
Painful incidents, heat/hot weather, crowding, social provocation, social learning
Prosocial Behaviour
Actions that are intended to help others.
