L10 - Social Psyc Flashcards
First Impressions
- We form Schemas quickly & automatically with the information available to us
- Schemas = mental file folder
- Faces are the first thing we notice
Key characteristics when forming first impressions
- Trustworthiness/Warmth (Friend or Foe)
- Competence/dominance (Social status?)
Elderly person:
Low competence + High warmth
-> Feel protective of them
Homeless person
Low competence + low trustworthiness
-> Feel distain (robbing them of their humanity)
Charming Successful CEO
High competence + High trustworthiness
-> We admire them
High competance + low warmth = we fear them
How accurate are our first impressions?
Impressions from faces
- Inferred emotional expression
- Not very accurate
Impressions from other sources
- Not very accurate
- Somewhat accurate at judgments of what they are generally like (i.e. Extraversion)
Primacy Effect
The first pieces of information we encounter being remembered more strongly
Factors that limit accuracy in impression formation
- Heuristics
- Impression management
- Confirmation bias
Heuristics
Mental shortcut to get impression of someone
Heuristics - Transference
Applying the schema of someone you already know to understand someone new
Heuristics - False Consensus
Assuming everyone is the same as us, especially people we know and like
Impression Management
Self promotion
- being seen as competent
Ingratiation
- being seen as likeable
Exemplification
- being seen as dedicated
Intimidation
- being seen as dominant
Supplication
- being seen as needy
Confirmation Bias
Tendency to seek out and prefer info that supports our preexisting beliefs
Attributions
Causal explanations we assign to the causes of an event, action, or outcome (Hieder, 1952)
Attribution Theory
When explaining others behaviour, we tend to attribute the behaviour to internal or external factors
Dispositions/Internal factors
traits, values, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, skills
Situations/External factors
Events, weather, aspects of a context, circumstances, accidents, chance, other ppl’s actions
Self Serving Bias
Tendency to explain our success with internal factors and to explain our failures with external factors
Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)
When explaining the behaviours of others, we tend to overestimate internal factors and underestimate external factors
-> Can be overridden with cognitive effort
-> Has cultural variation
Ex. You overhear passenger insisting to be moved from an aisle to window seat
Individualistic society (USA, Canada, Netherlands, Australia)
- Western culture
- Emphasis on independence, uniqueness, sufficiency
- Tend to commit FAE by not considering external factors
Collectivistic society (China, Japan, LA, Eastern Europe)
- Value community, needs of group over individual
- More sensitive to situational constraints and how people might adjust to meet the environmental situation
- Tend to commit FAE much less on average
- Spanish Idiom: I was late = clocks fault
Stereotypes
Mental beliefs/schemas/associations we have about groups of people
-> Ex. Generalization
Automatic associations: not judgments, can be positive or negative
Where do Stereotypes come from?
- Learned & Perpetuated from our own personal culture and env. we grew up in
-> Parents, teachers, peers, media
Stereotypes - causes for inaccuracy
- Bias in the media
- Applying group characteristics to an individual
Prejudice
- Negative attitudes or emotional responses toward or about a group and/or its individual members
- 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 on a shared characteristic(s) or attributes
- Race, gender, age, height
- Sports teams
- Shared beliefs
- Personal preferences/hobbies
Why do we socially categorize people?
- saves time + mental energy
- simplifies our chaotic env.
- often is accurate/useful if you have no other info about a person
Social Categorization leads us to…
Divide into in/out groups
- Our identities are partly/largely derived from the various groups we belong to
- In-groups = group we belong to
- Out-groups = other groups we don’t belong to
Costs to Social Categorization
- Applying stereotypes to these groups
- In/out group division (Us vs. them)
In-group favourtism
“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”
Symbolic Racism
Indirect forms of discrimination, such as social policies
Overt Racism
Hate crimes, racial slurs, swastikas
Sears (1981) original characterizations
1.Black people no longer face much prejudice or discrimination.
2.The failure of black people to progress is bc of their unwillingness to work hard enough.
3.Black people are demanding too much too fast.
4.Black people have gotten more than they deserve.
Contact Hypothesis
Proposal that prejudice can be reduced through FRIENDLY CONTACT. Leads to the idea of:
- Superordinate goals: Goals that are so large they require more then one social group to complete
Robbers Cave Study
Two groups of children: Eagles & Rattlers
- Bonding phase (hiking, swimming) - developed cultural norms
- Competition phase (in-group favourtism)
- baseball, tug of war
- had prizes - Reconciliation phase
Realistic Conflict Theory (Robbers Cave Study)
- Groups competing for access to the same resources
(land, water, food, championships etc.) - Negative attitudes towards the other group develop
Social Identity Theory
- A person’s positive self-view extends to their ingroup (in-group favouritism) and seeing outgroups in a negative light (out-group derogation)
Explicit Attitudes
Conscious reporting of how we feel/what believe
- Can be updated easily by learning new info
Measurement:
- Self-report questionnaires using Likert scales
- Ppl might be unwilling or unable to tell the truth
Implicit Attitudes:
- Automatic, unconscious
- Not aware of it reporting
- Can be updated with repeated exposures, but it’s difficult
Measurement:
- Facial expressions
- Body language
- Implicit Association Tests (IAT - very common, uses reaction times)
Elaboration likelihood model
Dual Process Theory of Persuasion:
- Central Route: more thoughtful (more effort)
Ex. Choose laptop based on stats + reviews - Peripheral route: more impressionable
Ex. Choose laptop based on looks/brand
Cognitive dissonance theory
- When there is a 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
Strategies to reduce dissonance
- Change belief/attitude
- Change behaviour
- Change perception of original behaviour
Cognitive dissonance original study
Long boring task:
- 2/3 asked if they would lie to the next participant and tell them it wasnt boring (1$ and 20$ to lie)
- 1/3 no lie
- All would rate enjoyment
Results:
- Participants who were paid only $1 to lie experienced cognitive dissonance.
- The low payment was not a sufficient justification for them to lie, resulting in a state of discomfort or dissonance.
- To alleviate this discomfort, participants changed their attitudes about the task; they rated the enjoyment higher, which means they were more likely to lie about it.
Post-decision dissonance
Discomfort from believing there might have been a better option that what we choose
- Gave photography students a print
- Offered some of them the opportunity to change their mind later if they wanted
- Those who had the opportunity to change their mind liked their prints less!
- Dr. Gilbert on Hidden Brain
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 whereby everyone gets one grade
Social Facilitation
Working towards a goal where individual efforts are evaluated
-> Group project where everyone receives a grade based on effort
Conformity
changing our perceptions, opinions, or behaviour in ways that are consistent with group norms
Asch’s conformity theory
- One actual participant in a group of confederates
- Takes turns guessing which comparison line is the same length as the standard
- Had confederate purposefully say the incorrect answer
- Many ppl conformed to fit the norm
Informational social influence
Pressure to conform bc we want to be competent and have the correct info
- Ex. Looking to others to see how to behave in an emergency
Normative social influence
Pressure to conform so that we gain approval/fit in and not be met w disapproval
- Ex. Peer pressure
Compliance
changing our behaviour in response to direct requests
Obedience
Changing our behaviour in response to commands by perceived authority figures
Obedience - Milgram Experiement
Milgram asked: Will “normal” people harm others at the request of an authority figure?
- Participant: acted as teacher reading out words to learner
- Learner (actor): repeat the words back to the participant - if he got words wrong, teacher delivered electric shock (15v increasing to 350v)
- Experimenter: encouraged participant to shock learner when learner got words wrong
- Prediction: participants would stop shocking around 150v, fewer than 1% would go all the way at max shock
Milgram Studies Original Results
- all 40 participants at least 300v
- 65% all the way
Further modifications to Milgram
- Stated the learner had a heart condition - 63% still complied
- When learner could not be seen/heard: almost all participants went till the end
- When learner was in the room: 40% went to the end
- When participant had to put the learners hand on a shock plate: 30% went to the end
Replicating Milgram: Burger Study (2015)
With ethical considerations and testing men and women:
- 90% obedience rate in the presence of authority
Social Norms
Behaviors, traditions, beliefs, and preferences
- Commonly accepted and reinforced
- Change and evolved overtime
- Not adhering to social norms can result in a “faux pas” - embarrassing
Instrumental (proactive) Aggression
- Goal is to achieve something (social, emotional, physical)
- A means to an end - Harmful behaviour has a purpose to it
- Ex. War
Hostile (reactive) Aggression
- Motivated hostility
- Goal is to harm someone
- Emotional, impulsive, in the heat of the moment
- Can also be calm and cool
- Ex. Murder, Road rage
Theories of Aggression
- Gender
-> Men more likely to use direct aggression, women passive - Neural Influences
-> Complicated behavior, no single area controls it
-> Activation of neural systems causes hostility increase & vice versa - Environmental Influences
(Painful incidents, heat/hot weather, crowding, social provocation, social learning)
Painful Incidents
- Azrin (1967) rat studies: Rats being shocked would attack each other
- Physical And psychological pain causes frustration and aggression (Ex. stub toe)
Heat/hot weather
Experiment:
- Adults telling stories were more likely to finish them in
aggressive ways in hot rooms compared to cool - Ppl in hot conditions felt more threatened and aggressive
Correlational Studies:
- In major league baseball (1986-1988) when the temperature was over 30 degrees ⅔ more batters were hit by pitches
- Hotter days = more violent crimes
Crowding
- Stress from feeling like you don’t have enough space
- Animals allowed to overpopulate in a small area become more aggressive
- Highly populated urban areas = higher crime and emotional distress
Social provocation (attack or insults)
- “Eye for eye”
- Participants play a reaction time game - the winner can choose how much the loser gets
- The computerized opponents increase the shock, so do the real-life participants
Social learning (Albert Bandura)
Believed we also learn aggression by observation
- Watching others act and seeing the consequences
-> Rewards/punishments
Social learning - BOBO doll studies
(Bandura , 1960)
- Filmed adults being aggressive to BOBO
- Filmed adults playing and not being aggressive
- Showed children either the aggressive model, non-aggressive, or none
- Then kids would play in a room that contained a BOBO doll
Results:
- Kids who watched the aggressive model were more aggressive than the controls
- Further replications have shown rewards lead to more aggression, and punishment leads to less aggression
Prosocial Behaviour
Actions that are intended to help others (opposite of aggression)
- Alturism
- Egoism
Alturism
Doing something to help others without expecting anything in return
- Donate money
- Give blood
- Volunteer time
Is pure Alturism possible?
- Feels good to help
- Empathy for others being sad = motivation for helping
Altruistic behaviour in animals
Monkeys refused a machine that gave them food if it shocked another monkey
Batson & Powell (2003) Model of routes to helping - Viewing anothers distress could go 2 ways
Distress -> Egoistic (motivation to reduce own distress) -> Behaviour (possible helping - to reduce own distress)
Empathy -> Altruistic (motivation to reduce other’s distress) -> Behaviour (helping - to achieve reduction of other’s distress)
Reciprocal Alturism
Actions that help others, even if there is a risk, with the idea that it may be repaid in the future
Norm of reciprocity
States that we tend to automatically help those who have helped us before
- Helps societies succeed
Bystander effect
The presence of others inhibiting helping behaviours
Bystander effect Explanation 1:
Diffusion Responsibility
- Darley & Latane, 1968
- People in a group assume someone else has acted or someone else might be more skilled to do so
Experiment: Someone pretended to have a seizure
- When participants thought they were the only other person, 85% went to get help
- When participants thought there were 4 others, only 31% went to get help
Bystander effect Explanation 2:
Pluralistic Ignorance
- People are unaware of others’ true beliefs, or misinterpret social cues
Experiment: Participants were in a room and would see smoke under the door
- If other participants were in the room and did not react, 20% of people got up to look for a fire
- If they were alone 80%
Overcoming Bystander Effect
If one person takes action, the “spell” can be broken
- Leader/person with first aid training will step forward to help
- If ever need help in a crowded setting, point someone out specifically and ask for help
Factors influencing liking/attraction
- Mere exposure effect: familiarity
- Similarity
- Reciprocity: liking ppl that like you
- Physical attraction
->Halo effect: belief that beautiful people possess positive qualities
Attachment theory
Human babies develop strong emotional bonds with parent/caregiver as a survival instinct
- Very dependent as infants
- Seen in ducklings as imprinting (Konrad Lorenz)
- Approaching and following the first moving object the baby sees after hatching for 10 minutes = Irreversible bond
- Originally thought attachment came from those who satisfied nourishment
- Infants become attached to a caregiver that provides a “safe place”, comfort is most important
- Children develop internal working models of how relationships develop
-> This affects Attachment styles or how we interact with someone close to us
Attachment styles
- Secure: positive beliefs about self and others
- Anxious/Ambivalent: negative beliefs about self, positive view of others
- Avoidant: positive view of self, negative view of others
1986: added Fearful
