mt 2 Flashcards
nov 7 - nov 14
describe Asch’s (1951) line experiment. what kind of influence is happening?
-participant showed a reference line and 3 other lines, asked which matched the ref
-other “participants” would say what was clearly the wrong answer, causing the participant to also say the wrong answer (75% conformed)
-this is both normative and informational: can assume they wanted to fit in, but also that they didn’t trust their eyes/understanding of task
describe the findings of Goldstein’s 2008 experiment, room with a view
-gave one of 2 messages to hotel guests: standard environmental message; one with a descriptive norm (almost 75% of our guests who are asked to participate help by using their towels more than once) which was more effective
compare injunctive and descriptive norms
-injunctive: what we should do (eg we SHOULD protect the environment)
-descriptive: what people actually do (eg we do protect the environment)
describe Schultz’s 2007 study on norms and electricity use
-all households received descriptive norms (average household use in neighborhood) and half received “injunctive norms” (smiley or frowney face)
-those who used more than avg decreased their use, but when a smiley face was added, this decreased even more
-those who were told they used less increased their use, but when adding a frowney face, it increased by only 1%
-people moved toward the norm
what is minority influence (Moscovici 1967)? when is it most effective? what is a study that supports this (Czopp 2013)?
-when the majority conforms to the minority
-effective if seen as consistent + not self interested
-eg: participants who watched a discussion between a pro-environmentalist and someone who described neutrally; at the end the pro-environmentalist either confronted the other about not recycling or didn’t. when there was no confrontation, it reduced participants’ intentions to recycle
what are dynamic norms? describe a study which demonstrates how these might be useful (Sparkman 2017)
-dynamic norms: currently, only a minority engages in a behavior, but there’s reason to believe it’s increasing
-Sparkman: participants waiting to buy lunch, 2 conditions:
-static norm: says 30% of Americans make an effort to reduce meat consumption
-dynamic: says 30% has started to make an effort
-participants much more likely to eat meatless when shown the dynamic norm
briefly describe FIelding and Hornsey’s social identity approach (2016)
-broader theory to self; idea that it’s not just an individual, but also collective (social) identity/(ies), which are often meaningufl
-collective identities are comparative; we understand who we are as a group in comparison to others
what are some critiques of the PBE (psychological barriers explanation)?
-over-psychologizing: it’s all in our heads!
When we use psychology as the main explanation, we draw [ ] away from other factors that are important
-deficit-focused: [ ] on ways human psychology gets in the way of acting, rather than it could contribute
-implication of inevitability (downplays context): if it’s about how our brains work, we’re kind of screwed!
-barriers not exclusively psychological: the ‘dragons’ in Gifford’s paper all have a social aspect to them
-shifts blame (justify status quo?): blames indiv humans instead of holding powerful groups accountable
-barriers could easily be reframed to be positive (eg ignorance blocking action could be reframed as knowledge spurring action)
what are some critiques of Gifford’s “dragons of inaction”?
-“Ancient brain”: we can easily think abt longterm issues + invest a lot of time/energy into these issues
-Ignorance: people who are less aware are less likely to act, but that’s not inherently psychological – can be changed
-Denial + skepticism: have to think abt misinformation campaigns from fossil fuel companies/etc ; again not inherently psychological
-Social norms: can take away from us taking action, but if they go the other way they can motivate us
-Worldviews: some that might get in the way are some that are encouraged by indivs/groups that don’t want change to happen
-all these are psychological phenomena, but also influenced by people in power
what are some reasons ecological economists don’t believe that infinite economic growth is always good? what is some evidence that supports this?
-it’s p much always (if not always) connected to consumption / extraction / use of resources
-correlational evidence of links between economic growth + environmental harm (eg cutting down trees)
what are some issues with the idea of slow growth/degrowth re: the economy?
-can’t change the economy without other social policies which make it work (have to restructure)
-eg when there’s no growth, employers more likely to lay off/hire less
Howell and Howell (2008) found that for the poorest countries, income predicts ___% of happiness. for wealthy countries, it predicts ___ - ___% of happiness. why might this be the case?
-10%
-1 ; 3%
-it might be the difference between having/not having food/shelter/medical care
-when your basic needs are met, $$ is less of apredictor of happiness
what are studies saying about wellbeing across time?
in general, young people are experiencing higher anxiety/neuroticism, depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts, using more MH services (found in US, CA, Norway)
-in 2018, the combined wealth of the bottom 50% was equivalent to the combined wealth of ____ people
-in 2014, the wealthiest 20% of Cadns had ___% of private wealth in Ca
-26
-67%
explain the “limited cognition” category and list examples of “dragons” under this category
-humans are less rational than once believed
- ancient brain: our brain hasn’t evolved in 1000s of years; prioritizes issues w their immediate band / dangers / exploitable resources / the present
- ignorance: many don’t know the cause/extent of cc + what to do about it
- environmental numbness: climate change is outside of many people’s awareness / too much exposure can lead to habituation (numbness)
- uncertainty: perceived/real uncertainty ↓ the freq of pro-environmental behavior
- judgmental discounting: undervaluing distant/future risks
- optimism bias: people discount personal risks (incl environmental )
- Perceived behavioral ctrl + self-efficacy: many believe they can’t do anything as indivs (collective action problem)