Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Year 2 From Individuals to Society > Rob > Flashcards

Rob Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Sociology 101 flashcards
1
Q

What is evolutionary social psychology?

A

Explains human social behaviour in terms of evolutionary processes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is fitness?

A

The extent to which organisms with certain characteristics work in their environment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is altruism?

A

Behaviour which helps another individual’s fitness despite a fitness cost for the donor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the problem of altruism?

A
  • By helping others, you reduce your resources

- This may adversely impact your ‘fitness’ in your environment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is selective altruism?

A
  • Targeted helping improves survival of your genes (Helping organisms (family members) that ensures the survival of your genes)
  • Reproductive success enables the continuation of your genes
  • Relatives also share some of your genes
  • A relatives reproductive success may be considered in addition to your own
  • Selective altruism enhances genetic survival
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Brunstein, Crandell & Kitayama (1994)

A
  • Presented participants with hypothetical scenarios

- Ss asked if they would help individuals depicted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How woould selective altruism towards relatives elvolve

A

Dawkins (1979)
- Gene for selective altruism likely to survive than a gene for wholesale altruism

Hamilton (1964)

  • Developed original model for selective altruism
  • As relatedness, so does a tendency of self-sacrifice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is inclusive fitness?

A
  • Enables relatives to ‘thrive’ and therefore pass-on shared genes to later generations
  • People help other in their own self-interest on the basis of genetic commonality, which is derived from cues
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is reciprocal altruism?

A
  • Helping unrelated people

- “I’ll scratch your back…”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Is reciprocal altruism simply for the good of the group?

A

Axelrod & Hamilton (1981)

  • Used a simulation involving a variant of the Prisoner’s Dilemma problem
  • Across multiple helping incidents, the most efficient strategies excluded ‘cheats’ by eliminating indiscriminate helping
  • Targeting their help to people who would reciprocate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What did Trivers (1971) say about reciprocal altruism?

A
  • Reciprocal altruism improves fitness when favour is likely to be returned
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is social contract theory?

A

Cosmides & Tooby (1992, 2005)

  • Reciprocal altruism requires detection of ‘cheats’ (people who don’t reciprocate)
  • If cheat detection has a genetic basis, then reciprocal altruism can evolve
  • Argue humans evolved to detect cheats within social exchanges
  • People find it easier to solve problems when they are posed as a cost-benefit social exchange
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is a cooperative coalition?

A
  • Humans often band together in cooperative groups

- For them to work there must be some way to stop ‘free-riding’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is there to stop free-riding in a cooperative coalition?

A

Boyd & Richardson (1992), Henrich & Boyd (2001)
- Experimental evidence suggests cooperation increases where free-riders are actively punished

Price et al (2002)

  • Highlight an evolved ‘punitive sentiment’
  • Encourages social censure of slackers
  • Enhances cooperation and removes free-riding
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is pro-social behaviour?

A
  • Whole range of behaviour valued by society

Includes:
- Helping behaviour: intentionally helping another person or group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Social psychology definition of altruism

A

Helping behaviour, sometimes costly, that shows concern for fellow human beings and is performed without expectation of personal gain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Why do people help (pro-social behaviour)

A
  • Person variables

- Situation variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What are person-based factors of pro-social behaviours

A
  1. Biological factors
  2. Genetic factors (helping family increases likelihood of genes surviving)
  3. Mood - positive mood increases helping
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Warm glow of success

Isen (1970); Isen and Stalker (1982)

A
  • Teachers’ successful on a task (good mood) more likely to help with a subsequent fundraiser
  • Argument is that people who are in a better mood are less self-focused and more sensitive to the needs of others
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What are the social behaviours of bad moods

A

Different negative emotions = different effects

Anger leads to aggression
- Can be associated with righting an injustice (pro-social)

Guilt leads to increase pro-social behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Why does guilt increase pro-social behaviour?

A

Cialdini et al (1982)

  • Negative-state-relief hypothesis
  • Being in a negative emotion induces a drive to reduce that emotion
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is empathy?

A

Sensitivity to the emotional states of other people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What are the two types of empathic state (Batson (1991))

A

Egoistic - less concerned about others

Altruistic - empathy triggers concern for others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Perspective taking and empathic concern

A

Oswald (1996)
- Empathic concern requires perspective taking

Batson et al. (1997, 2003)
Distinction between:
- Imagining how another person feels in a situation (leads to altruism and empathy)
- Imagining how we would feel in that situation (although distressing you are less likely to help cause it is more self-focused)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What are the situational factors that influence pro-social behaviour?

A
  • The presence of other people

- People are more likely to act when they are alone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What is Latane and Darley’s (1968) Cognitive model

A

Bystander effect

  • The more people are around, the less likely someone is to help
  • People seek cues to action from others
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Latane and Darley (1970) Smoke in Room Experiment

A
  • Participants go to interview ostensibly about issues related to university life
  • They complete preliminary questionnaire
  • Smoke pours into room for several minutes

Conditions:

  • Alone
  • With two strangers (also study participants)
  • With two confederates who take no emergency action

Results:

  • Alone = 75% raise alarm
  • Two strangers = 38% raise alarm
  • Two confederates = 10% raise alarm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What is required for someone to help?

A 
Latane and Darley (1970)
Several phases to bystander intervention:
- Notices 'situation'
- Interprets situation as an emergency 
- Feel responsible 
- Decide whether to help
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What makes bystanders apathetic?

A
  1. Diffusion of responsibility - you’re not the only potential helper
  2. Audience inhibition - don’t want to make a mistake in front of many people
  3. Social influence - people look to others to determine what to do
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What are the 5 conditions of the Three-in-one experiment

A
  1. Alone
    - Know they are alone
  2. Diffusion of responsibility
    - Ps knows there is another person, but can neither see nor be seen by them
  3. Diffusion + social influence
    - Can see the other participant (confederate), but knows the other participant can’t see them
  4. Diffusion + audience inhibition
    - Participant knows there is another participant who can see them, but the participant can’t see the other person
  5. Diffusion + social influence + audience inhibition
    - Participant and confederate see each other
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What are the results of the three-in-one experiment

A
  • As time passes the more likely it is for the participant to help
  • The alone condition is the one where the participant is most likely to help
  • Next is the diffusion condition, and then the diffusion + influence (or inhibition)
  • Least likely condition to help is diffusion + influence + inhibition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What are the limits to the bystander effect

A

Latane & Rodin (1969)

  • Apathy is less likely if the bystanders know each other
  • Elevated if bystanders are strangers

Gottleib & Carver (1980)
- Among strangers, bystander effect is reduced if they believe they will interact with each other and account for their actions

Overall, bystander effect is strongest when observers are strangers for whom there is little prospect of interaction.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What is a group?

Johnson and Johnson (1987)

A
  • Groups comprise a collection of interacting individuals
  • Where two or more individual perceive themselves as a group
    Where there is a collection of interdependent individuals
  • Where a collection of individuals work towards a common goal
  • Where individuals strive to satisfy common needs through their collective with others
  • Where roles and norms structure the interactions between a collection of. individuals
  • Where. there is influence between individuals in a collection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What is group cohesiveness?

A
  • How the group ‘hangs together’
  • The property of a group that affectively binds people, as group members, to one another and to the group as a whole, giving the group a sense of solidarity and oneness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

How do we measure group cohesiveness?

A
  • Evaluate how much each member likes others in the group

- Look at the bonds that bind people to one another in groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What are the problems with measuring cohesiveness?

A

-Problems with. reducing cohesiveness to level of interpersonal attraction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

How can we explain shared phenomenon that makes a group at the individual level?

Mudrack (1989)

A

Hogg (1993)

- Self-categorisation can account for cohesiveness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

What is the basis unit of categorisation?

A

A prototype

  • People are categorised according to how similar they are to a group prototype
  • Categorisation of people into groups de-emphasises individual differences between people (depersonalisation)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

How does the cognitive system facilitate categorisation?

Turner’s self categorisation process

A
  • Maximising similarities between individuals who match a prototype (Assimilation)
  • Maximising differences between individuals match different prototypes (contrast)
  • Cognition and evaluation operate on category-relevant lines
  • The category matters to the way relevant information is processed and evaluated
  • Accounts for prejudice towards out-group members, and favouritism to in-group members
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What is group socialisation?

Hogg and Vaughan (2018) p 296

A

Dynamic relationship between the group and its members that describes the passage of members through a group in terms of commitment and of changing roles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

What are norms?

A
  • Shared beliefs about what is the appropriate conduct for a group member
  • Attitudinal and behavioural uniformities that define group membership and differentiate between groups
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What do norms do?

A
  • Norms are one way groups differ
  • Different groups have different norms
  • Norms provide the framework of acceptable behaviour for group members
  • Norms strongly influence behaviour
  • A way by which group membership can influence behaviour
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

What was the autokinesis study about?

Sherif (1936)

A
  • Argued that others’ behaviour indicates the range of acceptable behaviours

Range of possible behaviours = Frame of reference

  • Extreme positions are perceived as unacceptable
  • Middle range (average) behaviours = acceptable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Sherif’s (1936) autokinesis study method

A
  • Demonstration of developing a group norm using optical illusion (Autokinesis)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Sherif’s (1936) autokinesis study results

A
  • Groups of Ss formed group norm to which individuals adhered
  • When subsequently tested alone, former group members still adhered to prior group norm
  • Group reference frame was internalised
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Asch line study (Solomon Asch (1952)

A
  • In Sherif’s study, Ps uncertain of movement of spot
  • Ps look to group for certainty -> follow group norm
  • Asch looked at the influence of impact of norms when confidence (certainty) was high
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Asch line study method

A
  • Task is to judge which comparison line is same length as standard line
  • Each member of a group calls out answer they think is correct
  • All but one of the people in each group are confederates

How many Ps conform?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Asch line study results

A
  • 25% Ss make no erros
  • 28% Ss = eight (out of 12) errors
  • 47% Ss = one to 7 errors
  • Was a very easy task, when there are no confederates there was only a 0.7% error rate
  • As the iterations go on the confederates say the wrong answer more and more
  • Most of the time the participants went along with the confederates despite the fact that they know that the answer is incorrect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

What is an explicit norm

A

Formalised rules governing behaviour of group members

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

What are implicit norms

A

“Unwritten” rules of social conduct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Harold Garfinkel (1967) implicit norms study

A
  • Studied implicit norms through “ethnomethodology”
  • Breaking norms may lead to rapid social breakdown
  • Emphasises importance of implicit norms in everyday interactions
  • Got students to violate everyday norms
  • Forty students acted as if they were a lodger in their own homes
  • Told to conduct themselves in a polite fashion and to avoid getting personal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Harold Garfinkel (1967) implicit norms study results

A
  • Rapid and severe breakdown in cordial family relations

-

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

What are roles and what do they do?

A
  • Important for group structure
  • Differentiate people within groups
  • Patterns of behaviour that distinguish between different activities within the group, and that interrelate to one another for the greater good of the group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Roles vs. Norms

A
  • Norms apply to the whole group
  • Specific roles apply only to sub-sections of the group
  • Norms distinguish between groups
  • Roles function within groups to further group goals
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

What are the effects of roles on behaviour

A
  • Leadership is a group-based role
  • Influences the leader’s behaviour with respect to subordinates
  • Stanford prison experiment (although now subject to empirical criticism)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

What are the effects of roles on behaviour

Gersick and Hackman (1990):

A
  • Describe how role-based routine (habits) may have caused flight crew to forget safety procedure for unusually cold weather
  • Icing lead to an airliner crash
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

What are the two main issues with group performance?

A
  • How and why does performance of an individual change when in a group setting
  • How and why does group efficiency change as a function of its size
    (as size increased performance diminished)
  • Other studies contradict this e.g. Green (1989) “Presence of others can both facilitate and inhibit performance”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Zajonc (1965) Drive Theory

A
  • When other present, dominant responses are facilitated
  • Dominant responses are familiar behaviours
  • Non-dominant responses are less familiar behaviours (can be inhibited)
  • Presence of others increases arousal
  • Increases action readiness to respond to unexpected events
  • Unfamiliar tasks show a performance deficit
  • Familiar tasks show a performance increase
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Criticisms of Drive theory

Evaluation Apprehension

A

Cottrell (1972)

  • Mere presence not enough to automatically cause arousal
  • The presence of. others implies evaluation
  • Potential for negative evaluation = anxiety arousing
  • Associated arousal leads to dominant responding
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Markus (1978) - evaluation apprehension or drive theory study

A
  • Male participants undress, then. dress. in unfamiliar clothes (lab coat), then put their own clothes back on

Three conditions:

  • Alone
  • Presence of a incidental person (low evaluation)
  • Attentive audience (high evaluation)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Markus (1978) - evaluation apprehension or drive theory study

A

In the incidental (drive) condition:

  • Dressing with unfamiliar clothes inhibited
  • Dressing with familiar clothes facilitated
  • Attentive audience did not significantly add to drive effects
  • Results supported drive theory but not evaluation apprehension
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Distraction/ conflict study (Baron (1986))

A
  • Presence of others act as a distraction from task
  • Distraction leads to attentional conflict
  • Attentional conflict induces drive effects
  • Increased arousal facilitates dominant responses
  • Performance of difficult tasks -> inhibited
  • Performance of easy task -> facilitated
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

Advantages of Baron’s distraction/conflict study

A
  • Accounts for effect of any source that can facilitate (or inhibit) performance
  • Can be applied to improve performance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

What is the Ringlemann Effect?

A

(1913)

As group size increases, productivity of each individual drops

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

What is process loss (group performance)?

A

Group processes that prevent a group from reaching its potential productivity. Such losses include co-ordination losses and motivation losses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

What are additive tasks

A

a group task that can be completed by adding together all individual members’ inputs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Social loafing Latane et al.

A
  • Got Ss to shout as loud as possible
  • Ss were blindfolded and wore ‘white noise’ headsets

3 conditions:

  • Alone
  • Dyad (2 people
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

Social loafing results

A
  • The bigger the group, the less the volume of individual members
  • Both groups showed a production loss
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

What is social loafing?

Hogg and Vaughan, 2019, p288

A

A reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task (one in which our outputs are pooled with those of other group members) compared with working either alone or coactively (our outputs are not pooled)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

What is a disjunctive task?

A

An either/or group task that can be completed by selecting a single group member’s input to stand as the group product

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

Is the group product in a disjunctive task, necessarily the best input they could have chosen? (Thomas and Fink (1961))

A
  • Most competent group members may hold back

- Group may reject best suggestion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

What is a conjunctive task?

A
  • A group task requiring that all members complete it successfully
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

Process loss example: Brainstorming

A
  • A group technique aimed at enhancing creativity in groups by means of uninhibited generation of as many ideas as possible concerning a specified topic
  • Considered brainstorming is a good way of generating ideas
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

Does brainstorming have process loss? (Diehl and Stroebe (1987))

A
  • Participants generating ideas alone generated twice as many ideas
  • When in a group of people you have to wait your turn to speak –> production blocking
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

What is inter-group behaviour? (Conflict)

A
  • Behaviour among individuals that is regulated by those individuals’ awareness of and identification with different social groups
  • Any perception, cognition or behaviour that is influenced by people’s recognition that they and others are members of distinct social groups
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

What are personality approaches?

A
  • Grew from attempts to understand Nazi atrocities

- Argued such behaviour could only stem from an aberrant personality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

What is the authoritarian personality

Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson and Sanford 1950

A
  • Over-disciplining parenting can lead the child to have an unconscious hostility to parents
  • Society dictates that presenting this hostility to parents is not allowed
  • Child learns to redirect hostility elsewhere
  • Tendency to obey authority figures
  • F-scale is used to measure authoritarian personalities
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

Criticism of authoritarian personality

A
  1. Focuses on the individual, ignores societal influences
    - Pettigrew (1958)
    - Personality did not differ between North and South USA despite higher prejudice in the South
  2. Individual differences (in authoritarianism) cannot not explain wide-spread societal uniformity in prejudice
  3. Authoritarianism cannot explain sudden emergence of prejudice at certain points in history
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

How does realistic conflict arise?

A

Conflict arises from goal-striving

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

What is an incompatible goal

A

Groups competing for the same goal that only one can get

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

What is a concordant goal

A

Two or more groups that are all trying to achieve the same goal. One group cannot achieve the goal themselves, they need to work with other groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

Realistic conflict theory

Sherif, 1966

A
  • Ethnocentrism originates in real conflicts of interest between groups
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

Robbers cave study

Sherif (1966)

A
  • Participants attend a summer camp
  • Ps are divided into two groups

Studies have 4 stages:

  1. Arrival at camp
  2. Group formation
  3. Inter-group competition
  4. Conflict reduction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

Criticisms of Robbers cave studies

A
  1. Hard to generalise from this study as ps were 12 year old, middle class boys
  2. Set up is artificial
  3. Ethical issue because there was no consent from the kids
  4. Difficult to isolate variables responsible for realistic conflict
  5. Inadvertent researcher influence as they researchers were the ‘group leaders’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

Other realistic conflict study replications

A
  1. Blake and Mouton (1961) - conflict in business management training groups
  2. Diab (1970) - inter-ethnic conflict among young people in Lebanon
  3. Brewer and Campbell (1976) - Study of competition among tribal groups in Africa
  4. Tyerman and Spencer (1983) - difficulty replicating conflict between different scout groups
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

What are minimal group experiments?

A

A set of experimental procedures designed to create ad hoc groups on essentially arbitrary criteria with no knowledge of who else belongs to each group. Once such a situation has been created, people’s perceptions of or reward allocations to the group may be measured.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

Minimal group paradigm

Tajfel, Billig, Bundy and Flament (1971)

A
  • Group assignment on trivial criteria
  • Ps knew which group they were in.
  • Other group members anonymous
  • Ps have to allocate money to individual group members (identified only by their code number)
  • Ps could not award money to themselves
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

Minimal group paradigm results

A
  • Tendency to assign more money to in-group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

Social identity theory

Tajfel (1978); Tajfel and Turner (1986)

A
  • Group memberships has self-esteem implications

- Tend to evaluate in-groups positively to maintain a positive identity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

What is social identitiy?

A

The individual’s knowledge that he (she) belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him (her) of the group membership

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
91
Q

How do you maintain positive self-esteem

A
  • Achieved through differentiating groups based on features favouring the in-group
  • Differences in value-laden features will be exaggerated
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
92
Q

How does social identity theory account for the minimal group paradigm?

A
  • A way to boost group esteem (and hence self-esteem) is to allocate more money to the in-group
  • Thus the in-group is made ‘better’ than the out-group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
93
Q

How does social identity theory explain conflict between high and low status groups

A
  • Conflict can occur when groups perceive the current status quo can be changed
  • When status quo is seen as legitimate and cannot be changed there is social climbing and social creativity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
94
Q

How do people divide up their social world into groups?

A

Process of self-categorisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
95
Q

Self-categorisation theory

Turner (1985); Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell (1987)

A
  • Accounts for the cognition of categorisation

- The basis unit of categorisation is the prototype

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
96
Q

What are prototypes?

A
  • “Fuzzy” representation of the ideal object or group
  • Represents a given group and helps differentiate from other groups
  • Maximise the ratio of between-group differences to within-group differences
  • Accentuates group entitativity (meta-contrast principle)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
97
Q

How does the meta-contrast principle occur?

A

Assimilation:
- Maximising similarities between individuals who match a prototype

Contrast:
- Maximise differences between individuals who match different prototypes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
98
Q

How does the meta-contrast principle work?

A
  • Facilitates categorising individuals into groups
  • Categorisation of people into groups de-emphasises individual differences between people (depersonalisation)
  • Group members perceived as similar to the group prototype
  • Extent to which a member ‘fits’ the group depends on similarity to prototype
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
99
Q

Why is the meta-contrast principle (self-categorisation) a useful model?

A
  • A single process accounts for how social groups are differentiated
  • Cognition becomes organised along salient self-category lines
  • When people perceive themselves as part of the group, they adopt the norms of the group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
100
Q

Definition of leadership

A

A social influence process through which an individual intentionally exerts influence over others to structure the behaviours and relationships between a group or organisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
101
Q

What is great person theory?

Hogg and Vaughn (2018)

A

Certain characteristics acquired in early life may make for leadership

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
102
Q

Traits that make a great leader

A
  • Intelligence
  • Talkative
  • Taller
  • Healthy
  • Physically attractive
  • Self-confident
  • Sociable
  • Dominant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
103
Q

Criticisms of traits that make a great leader

A

Stodgill (1948)
- Evidence did not support trait approach

Stodgill (1974)

  • Correlation between traits and effective leadership low
  • Average r = .3
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
104
Q

What are the big 5 traits?

A
  • Extraversion
  • Agreeableness
  • Conscientiousness
  • Emotional stability
  • Openness to experience
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
105
Q

Why are people now using the big 5 as traits of an effective leader

A

Judge et al (2002)
- Big 5 traits r = 0.58 with effective leadership

Best predictors:

  • Extraversion
  • Openness to experience
  • Conscientiousness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
106
Q

What are the traits associated with bad leadership?

A
  • Narcissism
  • Machiavellianism
  • Psychopathy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
107
Q

Definition of transformational leadership

A

Approach to leadership that focuses on the way that leaders transform group goals and actions - mainly through the exercise of charisma. Also a style of leadership based on charisma.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
108
Q

What are the key components of transformational leaders?

Bass (1985)

A
  • Idealised influence
  • Inspirational motivation
  • Intellectually stimulating
  • Individualised consideration
109
Q

Why are transformational leaders good leaders?

Shamir, House and Arthur (1993)

A
  • Inspire their workforce
  • Enable the workforce to pursue ‘greater good’
  • Give group tasks meaning and focus
110
Q

Leadership styles: Lippitt and White (1943)

A
  • After-school clubs: different leadership styles

Groups led by confederates in one of three leadership styles:

  • Autocratic (leader is results oriented)
  • Democratic (leader takes input of members)
  • Laissez-faire (leader is hands-off)
111
Q

Lippitt and White (1943) leadership styles study results

A

Autocratic:

  • Better performance when leader was present
  • Worse when leader was absent
  • Group members depended on leader direction

Democratic:

  • Reasonably high performance regardless of presence or absence of leader
  • Members perform to an agreed norm
112
Q

2 main leadership styles

Fiedler (1965)

A
  1. Relationship-oriented style
  2. Task-oriented style

A person can score high on both dimensions
If you score high on both you are the ‘perfect’ leader

113
Q

What is contingency theory?

A

The leadership effectiveness of leadership behaviours or styles is contingent on the leadership situation - some styles are better suited to some situations or tasks than others are

114
Q

How does Fiedler measure leadership style?

A
  • Uses the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale
  • Leader assesses subordinate whom they get on least well with
  • High score indicates a relationship oriented style
  • Low score indicates task oriented style
115
Q

What are the situational factors for leadership style?

A

Leader style may interact with situational factors to determine group effectiveness

  • Leader-member relations
  • Task structure
  • Position power
  • Factors combine to form 8 types of situation
  • Fiedler presented correlations between leadership style and group performance for each of these 8 situations
  • Relationship oriented leadership most effective when conditions neither highly favourable or unfavourable
116
Q

Social identity and leadership

Haslam et al (2011)

A
  • Effective leaders tend to be those who embody group prototype most closely
  • Prototypical leaders are more effective than non-prototypical
117
Q

What are prototypical leaders?

A
  • Embody the group’s attributes
  • Make popular leaders so wield more influence
  • Are invested in the group and so are more likely to behave in group-serving ways
  • Attract attention because they embody the group’s prototype
118
Q

Risky shift

Stoner (1961)

A
  • Ps must decide on one of two courses of action

Course 1: more desirable outcome but higher risk
Course 2: less desirable outcome but lower risk

  • Ps decide alone
  • Ps then placed in groups

Results:

  • Risky shit
  • Groups opted for the riskier option than individuals did
119
Q

Group polarisation definition

A

Tendency for group discussions to produce more extreme group decisions than the mean of members’ pre-discussion opinions, in the direction favoured by the mean

120
Q

What causes group polarisation?

Brunstein and Vinokur (1977)

A
  • Persuasive arguments theory
  • People form opinions based on currently available information
  • Prevailing opinion expressed more
  • This polarises each person’s own position
121
Q

How does social comparison/normative conformity cause group polarisation?

A
  • People seek social approval

- Seek what the group norm is and shift position to this

122
Q

How does social identity theory account for group polarisation?

A

Assimilation:
- Where group. members’ views polarise to a perceived norm

Contrast:
- Where polarisation acts to exacerbate difference between in-group and potential out-groups

123
Q

What is groupthink?

A

A mode of thinking in highly cohesive groups in which the desire to reach unanimous agreement overrides the motivation too adopt proper rational decision-making procedures

124
Q

What do groups who make bad group decisions have in common?

A
  • Very close knit
  • Expressing alternative solutions not possible
  • Leader favours a particular solution
  • Creates an illusion of vulnerability
125
Q

What is required for an act to be defined as ‘aggressive’

A

Any form of behaviour directed towards the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment

126
Q

What are bio-social models of agression?

A
  • Theories which incorporate biological drive and a psychological element
  • In humans, the expression of aggression is not necessarily inevitable
127
Q

Bio-social models of aggression: Frustration-aggression hypothesis

Dollard et al (1939)

A
  • Aggression arises from state of frustration
  • Frustration is a pre-requisite for aggression
  • Goal striving causes arousal
  • Achieving a goal is cathartic
  • When goal attainment is frustrated, aggression often used to vent psychological arousal
  • Aggression is usually targeted towards the source of goal thwarting
  • Displacement (scapegoating) occurs if this is not possible
128
Q

Evidence for frustration-aggression hypothesis

A

Marcus-Newhall et al (2000):

  • Meta-analysis of 49 studies
  • Frustration leads to displaced aggression
129
Q

Criticisms of frustration-aggression hypothesis

A

Berkowitz (1962); Bandura (1973)

  • Frustration does not always lead to aggression
  • Aggression can occur in the absence of frustration
130
Q

How has the frustration-aggression model been modified in previous years?

A
  • Frustration did not always lead to aggression
  • Aggression is a dominant response in a hierarchy of responses
  • Frustration leads to an action readiness
  • This can lead to aggression depending on presence of aggressive cues
131
Q

Study of effect of weapon cue on frustrated participants

Berkowitz and LePage (1967)

A
  • In the presence of weapon cues, frustrated individuals responded more aggressively than non-frustrates Ps
  • The ‘weapons effect’
132
Q

Bio-social models of aggression: Excitation transfer

Zillmann (1979, 1988)

A
  • Residual arousal from an unrelated event can feed readiness to aggress in a new situation
  • Residual non-specific arousal is labelled from cues in the environment
  • If the cue primes an aggressive response, then aggression becomes the dominant response
133
Q

Evidence for excitation transfer

Zillmann and Bryant (1974)

A
  • Group 1 do non-arousing task
  • Group 2 do physical exercise (arousal) task
  • Two minutes later, half the Ps receive provocation (loud sound blast)
  • Six minutes later, Ps given opportunity to administer noise blasts to the person who provoked them
  • Participants in high residual arousal group administered more intensive sound blasts
134
Q

What are learning models of aggression

A
  • Consider where repertoire of aggressive responses arise from
  • Aggressive responding can be learned
135
Q

Learning models of aggression: Operant (instrumental) conditioning

Walters and Brown (1963)

A
  • Acquisition of a desired object through aggression can reinforce aggressive behaviour
136
Q

Learning models of aggression: Social learning theory

A
  • Anti- and pro-social behaviour can be learned

Socialisation and learning influences the:

  1. Acquisition of aggressive behaviour or behaviour sequences
  2. Instigation of overt acts of aggression
  3. Maintenance of aggression
  • By watching another person successfully enact a behaviour, an observer can learn that behaviour (Vicarious learning)
137
Q

Learning models of aggression: Vicarious learning

A
  • Seeing someone successfully aggress may produce changes in the observer’s aggression-related expectancies
  • Learning is enhanced if the actor is seen to be rewarded for the aggression (Vicarious reinforcement)
138
Q

Learning models of aggression: Aggressive scripts

Huesmann (1988, 1998)

A
  • People gain certain ‘scripts’ from experiences in life
  • If someone comes from a routinely aggressive household, they are more likely to be aggressive

Green (1998)
Ambiguous situations more likely interpreted as aggressive by people with a history of aggression

139
Q

What is the social information processing (SIP) model

Dodge (2006)

A

Sets out the information processing steps involved in aggressive responses

140
Q

What is the general aggression model (GAM)

Anderson et al (2011)

A

Brings together a range of previous approaches into a unified whole

141
Q

Bobo doll experiment criticisms

Baron and Richardson (1994)

A
  • Was use of Bobo doll target actual aggression?
  • Was it realistic to allow children to aggress in exactly the same circumstances as modelled aggression
  • Adult modelling in Bobo doll set-up very unlike aggression depicted on TV
142
Q

Further research of the bobo doll experiment

Libert and Baron (1972)

A
  • Children ages 5 to 9 watch a short clip from a film
  • Aggressive-programme group
  • Non-aggressive programme group
  • Subsequent task: Each child presented opportunity to help or ‘hurt’ another child with a task
  • Children in the aggressive-programme group pressed chose to ‘hurt’ significantly more
143
Q

Criticisms of the Libert and Baron (1972) further research on the bobo doll experiment

A
  • Button-pressing unrealistic of everyday aggression
  • Task does not allow for retaliation
  • Exposure to TV unrealistically short
  • Exposure to single TV clip unrepresentative of normal ‘TV diet’
  • Children may have thought experimenter approved
144
Q

Aggression field studies

Black and Bevan (1992)

A
  • Respondents cueing for cinema complete a questionnaire in one of four conditions:
  1. Waiting to see a violent film
  2. Having just seen a violent film
  3. Waiting to see a non-violent film
  4. Having just seen a non-violent film
  • Violent films lead to a tendency to be violent
  • In the violent film condition, there is a tendency to be more violent after watching the film
145
Q

Violent video games study

Barlett, Harris and Bruey (2008)

A

Studied violent cues depicted in video games and effects on:

  1. Hostility (hostile cognitions)
  2. Physiological arousal
146
Q

Violent video games study: Results

Barlett, Harris and Bruey (2008)

A

Players on maximum and medium blood settings showed:

  • Increased hostility
  • Increased physiological arousal
  • Used character’s weapon significantly more
147
Q

Results of Anderson and Bushman (2001) Video game meta-analysis

A

Meta-analysis of 35 research reports

Video game exposure associated with:

  • Increased aggressive behaviour
  • Reduced pro-social (helping) behaviour
  • Increased aggressive thoughts
  • Increased aggressive feelings
  • Increased physiological arousal
148
Q

What are the associations between video games and real crimes?

Beerthuizen, Weijters and van der Laan (2017)

A
  • Crime among young adults is associated with boredom
  • Computer technology gives young people something to do
  • New video games occupy the criminal so reduce crime
149
Q

Relationship between video games and violent crimes study

Markey, Markey and French (2015)

A

Compared changes in USA violent crimes with :

  1. Monthly changes in video game sales 2007-2011
  2. Changes in internet searches for violent game walkthroughs and guides
  3. Violent crimes following release of three popular games
150
Q

Relationship between video games and violent crimes study : Results

Markey, Markey and French (2015)

A
  • Higher video game sales were associated with lower concurrent violent crime
  • Higher game-related internet searches were associated with lower subsequent (after two months) aggravated assaults and homicides
  • Homicides significantly decreased 3-4 months following release of three popular games
151
Q

Why do we study attitudes?

A
  • Attitudes may influence behaviour
  • They can predict behaviour
  • They can change behaviour
  • They are thus useful to social investigators
152
Q

Do attitudes guide behaviour?

LaPiere (1934)

A
  • Actual vs self-report prejudice for chinese people in american restaurants
  • Found clear discrepancy between expressed attitude and actual behaviour
153
Q

What are the two routes through which an attitude can predict behaviour

A
  1. Automaticity (implicitly)

2. Volitionally

154
Q

What is the function of attitudes fir behaviour?

A
  • Efficient processing of information: processing shortcuts (Smith and Mackie, 2000)
  • Attitudes are pre-established evaluations which easily come to mind
  • Efficient “guides” to behaviour
155
Q

What characteristics do automatic processes have?

A
  1. Occur outside of awareness
  2. Unintended
  3. Uncontrollable
  4. Efficient

Social psychologists focus on two characteristics:

  1. Efficiency
  2. Lack of awareness
156
Q

What is an automatic attitude?

A
  • When attitudes come to mind effortlessly and inescapably

- Automatic attitudes are uncontrollable and unintended

157
Q

What is an attitude?

Fazio (1995)

A

Association between the internal representation of an object with an evaluation

158
Q

What is attitude strength?

A
  • ‘Strength’ refers to the strength of the association between object representation and evaluation
  • Strong object-evaluation association leads to faster attitude accessibility
  • Attitude accessibility is the speed and ease of attitude activation
159
Q

How are automatic attitudes developed?

Smith and Mackie, 2000

A
  • Whenever object representation and evaluation are paired in memory
  • Over time, the evaluation is incorporated into the representation of the object
160
Q

Automatic attitude development study

Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio, 1992

A
  • Ps evaluated a series of attitude objects (attitude rehearsal)
  • Control: Ps gave non-evaluative responses
  • Subsequent testing: Ps provided evaluations of the previously presented objects as quickly as possible

Results:

  • Attitude rehearsal led to faster responding
  • Repeated object-evaluation pairing enhanced attitude accessibility
161
Q

Study to see whether attitudes are accessed automatically

Fazio et al. (1986)

A
  • Phase 1: Identified response speed to 70 ‘good’ or ‘bad’ object words
  • RT indicates strength of feeling toward each object
  • Phase 2: Ps shown positive words and negative words
  • Ps indicate if word is positive or negative
  • A prime is presented just before each target word
  • Prime is a word from phase 1 identified as either positive of negative which Ps reacted to quickly
162
Q

Study to see whether attitudes are accessed automatically: Results

Fazio et al. (1986)

A
  • Faster responding when target and prime had some valence
  • Slower responding when valences inconsistent
  • Prime facilitated or interfered with task of indicating positivity or negativity of target words
  • Automatic evaluations (of the prime) occurred
163
Q

What is spontaneous behaviour in terms of automatic attitudes?

Fazio and Zanna (1981)

A
  • Attitude accessibility determines attitude-behaviour consistency
  • Spontaneous behaviour will occur when attitudes are easily activated
164
Q

How do attitudes guide spontaneous behaviour: Focusing attention

A
  • People attend things which are evaluatively salient

Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio (1992)
- Those who rehearsed their attitudes more likely to subsequently notice attitude object

Calitri, Low, Eves and Bennett (2009)
- Implicit attitudes to exercise were associated with visual attention to exercise cues

165
Q

How do attitudes bias our interpretations of things

A
  • Through assimilation and contrast.

- Ambiguous information may be interpreted as supportive of attitude

166
Q

What is the MODE model (Fazio, 1990)

A
  • Spontaneous behaviour occurs when either the motivation or the opportunity to make a reasoned decisioned is low, only attitudes that are highly accessible will predict spontaneous behaviour
  • Behaviour will not always be consistent with automatic attitudes when people are motivated or able to deliberate about doing the behaviour
167
Q

Critique of Fazio’s approach to attitudes

A
  • Fazio posits that attitudes are object-driven evaluation associations stored in memory
  • What is the nature of the memory associations?
  • is memory involved?
168
Q

Are object evaluations simply recalled from memory? (study)

Bargh, Chaiken , Raymond and Hymes (1996)

A
  • Ps unaware that they are making evaluative judgements
  • Ps presented normatively +ve and -ve words as subliminal primes
  • Primes followed by target. words which they merely have to pronounce
169
Q

Are object evaluations simply recalled from memory? (study results)

Bargh, Chaiken , Raymond and Hymes (1996)

A

Results:

  • Valence consistent –> faster response
  • Valence inconsistent –> slower response
  • Evidences automatic evaluation
  • Some prime-target pares were semantically unrelated –> the only thing they had in common was valence
  • Processes requiring memory of shared meanings between concepts can not explain these results

Either:
- All positive objects shared a common memory representation

or

  • People were making evaluative judgements ‘on line’ e.g. without reference to memory. of a single specific individual object-evaluation
  • Memory for a ‘single tag’ object-evaluation could not account for this
170
Q

Does context influence automatic attitudes?

Mitchell, Nosek and Banaji (2003)

A
  • Show attitudes are heavily influenced by contextual features of the situation
  • Attitude toward a target can change depending on the target’s salient feature (s) at the time of the evaluation
171
Q

Context influence on automatic attitudes study

Mitchell et al (2003)

A
  • Black athletes vs white politicians
  • When a task emphasised occupation ps automatically. evaluated black athletes as more positive than white politicians
  • But when a task emphasised race participants evaluated white politicians more favourably
172
Q

What is the more modern view on automatic attitudes

A
  • Attitudes are an evaluation of an ‘object-centred context’

- All salient value-loaded information contributed (target and context)

173
Q

What is an expectancy-value model of attitudes?

Peak (1955); Carlsoon (1953, 1956); Rosenberg (1953, 1956)

A

Attitudes comprise:

  • Expectancy of object having an attribute
  • Evaluation of attribute
  • An attitude is an overall summary of all salient attributes and their associated evaluations

(salient = relevant in that moment)

174
Q

What is overall attitude?

A

Combination of all relevant expectancy and evaluation terms

Attitude = sum of expectancy x value

175
Q

Do attitudes predict behaviour?

A

LaPierre (1934), Corey (1937)

- Attitudes not predictive of behaviour

176
Q

What is the correspondence (compatibility) principle?

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975); Ajzen and Fishbein (1975)

A
  • Measured appropriately, attitude can predict behaviour

Each behaviour has 4 characteristics:

  1. Specific action
  2. Directed toward or on a specific target
  3. In a context.
  4. At a particular time
177
Q

Study to demonstrate compatibility principle

Davidson and Jaccard (1979)

A
  • Predictions of birth control pill use over 2 years

Used attitude measures differing in specificity

  • “Attitudes towards birth control” (.08)
  • “Attitudes towards birth control pills” (.32)
  • “Attitudes towards using birth control pills” (.53)
  • “Attitudes towards using birth control pills during the next 2 years” (.57)
178
Q

Principle of compatibility in relation to organ donation study

Siegal et al (2014)

A

Students (non donors) completed questionnaire assessing:

  • General attitude to organ donation
  • Specific attitude to registering as a donor
  • Outcome measure: subsequent return of completed donor registration form
179
Q

Principle of compatibility in relation to organ donation study: Results

Siegal et al (2014)

A
  • General attitude: 18.5% variance in organ donation registration behaviour
  • Specific attitude: 46% variance in organ donation registration behaviour
180
Q

How do attitudes predict volitional behaviour?

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 1980)

A
  • Attitudes can predict behaviour so as long as principle of compatibility. is followed
  • Attitudes predict behaviour via behavioural intentions

(Intentions = mental link between attitude and behaviour)

181
Q

What is the theory of reasoned action (TRA)

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 1980)

A
  • Volitional behaviour is a product of rational decision process
  • Decision based on salient beliefs
  • Intention is most immediate influence on behaviour
  • Complete personal control is assumed
  • TRA identifies underlying determinants of behavioural intentions
182
Q

What are the two components of intention?

A
  1. Attitude towards the behaviour

2. Subjective norm

183
Q

What are subjective norms?

A
  • Comprise of approval/disapproval of referents towards behaviour

Function of:

  • Normative beliefs (expectancy term )
  • Motivation to comply (value term)

Social norm = sum of normative beliefs x compliance motivation

184
Q

How good is the TRA at predicting intentions and behaviour (meta-analysis)

Sheppard, Hartwick and Warshaw (1988)

A
  • Multiple correlation for predicting intentions: R = .66
  • Correlation for predicting behaviour: r = .53
  • Many daily activities are not under complete control
  • Need to include control component to predict these
185
Q

What is the theory of planned behaviour (TPB)

Ajzen (1985, 1988, 1991)

A
  • Incorporates control factors
  • Accounts for behavioural intentions in situations lacking complete control
  • Attitude towards the behaviour and subjective norm remain
  • Adds perceived behavioural control (PBC): ease of performing the behaviour
186
Q

What is perceived behavioural control?

A
  • PBC is a function of. control beliefs
  • It is the likelihood of helping or hindering factor being present (expectancy term)
  • Has the power to help or hinder (value term)

Two types of control factor:

  1. Internal factors (e.g. skills, abilities, knowledge)
  2. External factors (e.g. barriers, dependence on others)

PBC = sum of likelihood of factor x facilitating/inhibiting power

  • PBC influences intention because people intend to do behaviours which they have a chance of completing
  • Direct link between PBC and behaviour reflects extent to which PBC measures actual control
187
Q

How good is the TPB over the TRA study

Schifter and Ajzen (1985)

A
  • Study of weight loss among college students

- Addition of PBC improved prediction of intention from r = .65 to .72

188
Q

Comparing highly controllable with less controllable behaviours study

Madden et al (1992)

A
  • Compared highly controllable behaviours (e.g. taking vitamin supplements) and less controllable (e.g. getting a good night’s sleep)

Results:

  • Inclusion of PBC only improved prediction of intentions and behaviour for the less controllable behaviour
  • PBC useful only when complete control is not possible
189
Q

How good is the TBP for predicting behaviour?

McEachan et al. (2011)

A
  • Meta-analysis
  • Attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control predicted between 40% and 50% of variance in intention
  • Intention and perceived behaviour control predicted between 19% and 36% of variance in behaviour
190
Q

Critique of the TRA and TPB: The intention-behaviour gap

A

Gollwitzer (1993)
- Lack of 1:1 correspondence between intentions and behaviour

Gollwitzer (1993) Bagozzi (1993)
- TRA and TPB do not explain how intentions lead to behaviour

191
Q

What is the Rubicon Model?

Gollwitzer (1993)

A
  • Goal-directed behaviour is a 2 stage process
    1) Motivation phase: form intention (goal intention - what you want to achieve)
    2) Action phase: Form plan to pursue goal (implementation intention)
192
Q

What is an implementation intention?

A

Implementation intentions have 3 elements:

1) Specifies context (“where”)
2) Specifies time (“when”)
3) Specified action to achieve the goal (“how”)

E.g. “If I am on my way to college (where) tomorrow morning (when), then I will post this letter in the pillar box (how)”

  • It is a commitment to act in a specific situation
  • Situation cues memory for intended action
  • The situation is chosen to ensure opportunity for action
193
Q

Example of research that shows implementation intention: writing a report

Gollwitzer and Brandstatter (1997)

A
  • Students volunteer to write a report
  • Everyone intended to write the report (goal intention)
  • Condition 1: Ps provided implementation intention (state where, when, and how they will write their report)
  • Condition 2: Ps did not provide implementation intentions

Results:

  • Implementation intentions –> 71% wrote report
  • No implementation intention –> 32% wrote report
194
Q

Example of research that shows implementation intention: Breast cancer

Orbell, Hodgkins and Sheeran (1997)

A
  • Breast self-examination (BSE) intentions
  • All women intended to self-examine over next month (goal intention)
  • Intervention group provided implementation. intentions
  • Control group did not

Results:

  • Intervention group: 64% performed BSE
  • Control group: 14% performed BSE
195
Q

Example of research that shows implementation intention: Fruit consumption

Armitage (2007)

A
  • Implementation intentions as an intervention to increase fruit consumption
  • 120 participants allocated to either an implementation intention or a control condition

Results:

  • Significant increases in fruit consumption in the experimental condition
  • No significant increase in the control condition
  • Findings supportive of Gollwitzer’s model
196
Q

Deliberative (volition) vs automaticity in the MODE model (Fazio, 1990)

A
  • TPB may be compatible with models of automatic attitudes and spontaneous behaviour
  • Where opportunity or motivation exists behaviour is volitional, and there is a reasoned action approach to behavioural decision making (TPB)
  • Where opportunity or motivation is absent spontaneous behaviour may be influenced by automatic attitudes
197
Q

What are the 5 stages of persuasion?

McGuire (1969, 1986)

A

Interruption to any step can negate persuasion

  1. Get audience attention
  2. Get audience to comprehend message
  3. Get audience to accept (yield to) message
  4. Get audience to retain their new attitude
  5. Get audience to act on new attitude
198
Q

What is the message-learning approach to persuasion?

Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953)

A

3 important characteristics:

  1. Source or communicator
  2. Message
  3. Audience
199
Q

3 characteristics of the message-learning approach: Communicator (who)

A
  • The expertise heuristic
  • People tend to believe experts
  • This is a function of credibility
  • A critical feature of the expertise heuristic is the perceived competence of the communicator
200
Q

Study looking into the expertise heuristic

Bochner and Insko (1966)

A
  • Study of beliefs about necessary sleep hours
  • Students indicated how many sleep hours per night they thought was necessary
  • Average was 8 hours
  • Ps divided into several groups
  • One group given information about necessary sleep hours supposedly provided by YMCA instructor (low credibility)
  • Another group given some information but supposedly from a Nobel Prize winning sleep scientist (high credibility)
201
Q

Study looking into the expertise heuristic: Results

Bochner and Insko (1966)

A
  • Ps much more likely to believe the Nobel scientist

- Maximum change in Ps attitude occurred when scientist recommended 1. hour (7 hours difference from Ps 8 hours)

202
Q

3 characteristics of the message-learning approach: The message

Arkes, Boehm and Xu (1991)

A
  • Repetition (Familiarity heuristic)
  • Simply repeating a statement makes it seem more true
  • However, repetition may not work with a new or unfamiliar product: some ‘brand familiarity’ helps (Campbell and Keller, 2003)
203
Q

What is a fear message

Janis (1967)

A
  • The message in the message-learning approach being one that. causes fear
  • Fear will have the biggest impact on attitude change when the fear is moderate
204
Q

What medium is best for a message (message-learning approach)

Chaiken and Eagly (1983)

A

Best medium (written, audio, video) depends on message complexity

Simple messages: video
Complex messages: written material

205
Q

3 characteristics of the message-learning approach: The audience

Janis (1954)

A
  • Low self esteem –> more easily persuaded

McGuire (1968); Rhodes and Wood (1992):

  • Those with high or low self esteem are less easily persuaded
  • People with low self esteem tend to be more socially anxious and therefore may be distractible –> less likely to pay attention to the message
  • People with high self esteem are more self assured and therefore tend to have their own views and opinions and so are harder to persuade
206
Q

What are the complications of the message-learning approach?

A
  • McGuire assumed the audience actively processes the material
  • Ancillary features can also influence persuasion
207
Q

What are the dual-process models of persuasion?

A
  • Information processing models
  • Emphasise two routes for persuasion:
  1. High effort - deliberative route
  2. Low effort - automatic route
208
Q

What is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Petty and Cacioppo (1986)

A
  • Deliberative = central route
  • Low effort route = peripheral route
  • Elaboration likelihood = likelihood of using central route

Function of:

  • Motivation
  • Capacity/ability
  • Central route processing lead to stronger attitudes
209
Q

What are the additional ELM variables?

A

Peripheral cues:
- Increase persuasion when processing via peripheral route

Motivation:
- Motivation plays a role when elaboration likelihood is moderate

Argument quality:
- If engaging in central route processing then persuasion is more likely when your argument is good

Need for cognition:

  • Individual difference influence
  • Some people are more likely to use central route processing because they like to think more
210
Q

What are the differences between the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) and the ELM

A
  • The HSM overcomes some weaknesses in the ELM
  • Specifies when high- and low-effort processing might be used
  • The ‘sufficiency principle’
211
Q

What are the similarities between the HSM and ELM

A
  • HSM has a high- and low-effort routes to decision making

- Which route used depends on motivation and capacity/ability

212
Q

What is the Heuristic- Systemic Model (HSM)

Chaiken (1980, 1982, 1987)

A
  • High-effort route = systematic route (HSM)
  • Processes all available information in a comprehensive way
  • Low effort route defined more rigidly than for ELM
  • Low effort = heuristic route
  • Requires the presence of an existing heuristic (cognitive shortcut)
213
Q

Examples of heuristics

A
  • Experts are generally right
  • All these people agree so it must be true
  • Tabloid papers can’t be trusted
214
Q

What is the bias hypothesis?

A

Unlike the ELM, the HSM argues that even under systematic processing, heuristic information may still be used

215
Q

What is the sufficiency principle?

A
  • The HSM is more specific than the ELM in when systematic processing will be engaged
  • People want sufficient confidence in their judgements before accepting a position

Confidence sufficiency is determined by”

  • Sufficiency threshold
  • Confidence in the communication
  • If Confidence lower than sufficiency threshold person uses systematic route
216
Q

What is cognitive dissonance in the Hogg and Vaughn textbook

A
  • An unpleasant state of psychological tension generated when a person has two or more cognitions (bits of information) that are inconsistent or do not fit together
  • Festinger proposed that we seek harmony in our attitudes, beliefs and behaviour , and try to reduce tension from inconsistency between these elements
217
Q

What is cognitive dissonance?

A
  • Co-occurrence of inconsistent beliefs, attitudes or behaviours
  • Cognitive tension resolve by changing one of the beliefs/attitudes so both are consistent
  • Therefore, cognitive dissonance can be a route to attitude change
218
Q

What is the selective exposure hypothesis

A

Dissonance can lead to denial/avoidance and therefore there can be a resistance to persuasion

219
Q

When is avoidance of dissonance less likely?

A
  • Attitude is strong –> resources to rebut contradictory communication
  • Attitude is weak –> motivation to find out more –> attend communication
220
Q

What is self-perception theory?

Bem (1972)

A
  • Alternative to cognitive dissonance

- People infer attitudes from behaviour

221
Q

What if attitude is inconsistent with behaviour (self-perception vs. dissonance)

A

According to dissonance, you might change your attitude to resolve the inconsistency

According to self-perception, behaviour provides information about what the attitude should be

222
Q

What is the fundamental attribution error? (The correspondence bias)

Fiske and Taylor (1991, p67)

A

To attribute another person’s behaviour to his or her own dispositional qualities, rather than to situational factors

Correspondence bias:

  • Where behaviour seems to match a corresponding trait, there is a tendency to assume the trait is the cause
  • Changed because fundamental attribution error is not fundamental
223
Q

Study of correspondence bias (Castro essay)

Jones and Harris (1967)

A
  • Os read a pro- or anti-Castro essay

2 conditions:

  1. Ps told writer has a free. choice of pro- or anti-Castro stance
  2. Ps told write instructed on stance
224
Q

Study of correspondence bias (Castro essay): Results

Jones and Harris (1967)

A
  • In both conditions, Ps believed essays reflected the writer’s attitudes
  • Failure to consider situational influence in condition 2
225
Q

What is focus of attention (“Field” explanation of attribution bias)

Heider (1958)

A
  • Attributional processes are a function of perceptual experience
  • The actor is the most salient (i.e. obvious and animate) part of the ‘scene’
  • Scene therefore focus for any explanation
  • Background factors attract less attention
226
Q

Focus of attention experiment

Rholes and Pryor (1982)

A

Got people to re-focus attention onto the situation (rather than the actor)

Result:
Increased situational attributions

227
Q

Other influences of correspondence bias: Developmental factors

Kassin and Pryor (1985)

A

Dispositional explanations take time to develop in children

228
Q

Other influences of correspondence bias: Cross-cultural factors

A
  • Fundamental attribution error is not universal

- Common in western cultures; less so in non-western cultures

229
Q

Other influences of correspondence bias: Linguistic factors

Nisbett and Ross (1980)

A
  • In English language, actor and action are often described in the same terms (He was an honest man; he acted honestly)
  • Does not extend to describing situations
  • English language facilitates person-centred explanations
230
Q

Other influences of correspondence bias: Differential forgetting

Moore et al (1979); Peterson (1980)

A
  • People tend to forget situational factors more easily than dispositional factors
  • Causes shift towards dispositional explanations across time
  • Miller and Porter (1980) found conflicting evidence
231
Q

Does the fundamental attribution error have an adaptive role?

Fiske and Taylor (1991)

A
  • If a person acts in a particular way they are likely to act the same way in the future
  • Confers power of prediction
232
Q

What is the actor-observer effect?

Jones and Nisbett (1972)

A
  • An extension of the Correspondence Bias by including biases on an observer may have when explaining their own behaviour
  • Observers tend to attribute their own behaviour to situational factors
233
Q

What is the false consensus effect?

A
  • People ‘invent’ what they think other’s believe to explain (justify) their own behaviour
  • Assumed people use consensus information to validate own explanation of the social world
  • Research shows people do not use ‘real’ consensus information
234
Q

Perceptual focus (field) explanation in terms of the actor-observer effect

A
  • Similar to field explanation for FAE
  • Actor is more salient than background situation
  • Explanations of actor behaviour tend to be dispositional
  • Observer can not see their own behaviour
  • The situation forms the perceptual field
  • Observers explain own behaviour with reference to situation
235
Q

Perceptual focus study.

Storms (1973)

A
  • Experiment reverses perceptual field of actors and observers
  • Two people have conversation across a table (actor 1 and 2)
  • Each watched by an observer (observer 1 and 2)
  • Video cameras also record each perspective
  • Used recordings to change the actor/observer perspective
  • Actors now observe themselves and vice versa
236
Q

Perceptual focus study: Results

Storms (1973)

A
  • Actors and observers reverse attributions
  • Actors now attribute own behaviour to dispositional factors
  • Observes explained other actor’s behaviour to situational causes
237
Q

Information explanations of perceptual focus

A
  • Actors know their own motive, past behaviour, and context of current situation
  • More likely to attribute to situational factors
  • Observers unaware of contextual influences on behaviour
  • Less likely to make situational influences
238
Q

False consensus study

Ross Greene and House (1977)

A
  • Ps asked to walk around in a sandwich board proclaiming “Eat at Joe’s”

Results:

  • Ps who agree estimated that 62% of other students would also agree to walk around with the sandwich board
  • Ps who declined estimated that 67% of other students would also decline
  • Ps created their own consensus
239
Q

Explanations of false consensus: Company of others

Fiske and Taylor (1991)

A
  • People seek company of people similar to themselves
  • Falsely assume most people are similar to themselves
  • People similar to ourselves more likely to be salient when trying to recall census information
240
Q

Explanations of false consensus: Opinion salience

A
  • When inferring consensus information we tend to only consider salient information (our own opinions)
  • Therefore falsely believe other’s share our opinions
  • Considering alternatives reduces false consensus effect
241
Q

Explanations of false consensus: Self-esteem enhancing

A
  • Motivated to see ourselves as good, typical people
  • Maintains self-esteem
  • Therefore, falsely attribute our attitudes/beliefs to others
242
Q

What are self-serving biases in attributions?

A

Attributional distortions that protect or enhance self-esteem or the self concept

243
Q

What are the 2 types of self-serving bias?

A
  1. Self-enhancing bias

2. Self-protecting bias

244
Q

Explanations for self-protecting bias

A
  • People will accept ‘blame’ for failure if likely to have future control over cause
  • People with high and low self-esteem tend too take credit for success (Campbell and Fairey, 1985)
  • High self-esteem shows self-protecting bias with failure
  • Low self-esteem does not show self-protecting bias with failure
245
Q

Explanations for self-enhancing bias

Miller and Ross (1975)

A
  • People tend to do things they expect to succeed in
  • People work at succeeding
  • Self-enhancing bias reflects co-occurence of effort and success
246
Q

What is Group-serving biases (group attributions)

Pettigrew (1979)

A
  • Ultimate attribution error

In-group members attribute:

  • Dispositionally for in-group success
  • Situationally for in-group failure
  • Situationally for out-group success
  • Dispositionally for out-group failure
247
Q

Evidence for ultimate attribution error

Hewstone and Ward (1985)

A
  • Studied these group-serving biases in Malaysia
  • Used vignettes depicting desirable and undesirable behaviours
  • Vignettes identify actors in vignettes as either Malaysians or Chinese
  • Ps provide explanations for vignette actors’ behaviour
248
Q

Evidence for ultimate attribution error: Study

Hewstone and Ward (1985)

A
  • Demonstrated group-serving bias among the Malaysian participants
  • Desirable behaviour by Malaysian actor attributed disposition more than for Chinese actor
  • Undesirable behaviour by Malaysian actor attributed to situation more than for Chinese actor
  • Vice versa for Chinese
249
Q

Why do group-serving biases occur: Automaticity explanations

Bell et al (1976), Rosenfield and Stephan (1977)

A
  • Use of stereotypes
  • Expectancy-consistent behaviour attribute to internal factors
  • Expectancy-inconsistent behaviour attributed to external factors
250
Q

Why do group-serving biases occur: Self-esteem explanations

A
  • Derived from social identity theory
  • In-group members boost self-esteem from group-serving biases
  • Maintain positive in-group identity with favourable comparisons to out-groups
251
Q

What is the two-factor theory of emotion

Schachter and Singer (1962)

A
  • People use cues to ‘label’ (explain) ambiguous arousal

- Emotions differ according to how arousal is attributed

252
Q

What is emotion a product of?

A
  • Ambiguous physiological arousal
  • Cognition which labels arousal
  • Links arousal to an emotional situation
  • Identifies which emotion is experienced
253
Q

What are systematic attributions?

A
  • Attributions as trait-like

- “Attributional style”

254
Q

How can we use attributions to understand depression?

A
  • Learned helplessness

- Attributional style

255
Q

What is attributional style?

A

A tendency to make particular kinds of casual inferences, rather than others, across different situations and across time

256
Q

What is learned helplessness?

Seligman (1975)

A
  • Depression result of learned helplessness
  • Phase 1: Dogs receive electric shocks which they could not escape
  • Phase 2: 24 hours later the dogs were placed in a two-compartment box, shocks administered, dogs could easily escape shocks

Results:

  • Two thirds failed to attempt to escape
  • Control dogs (no phase 1) all escaped
257
Q

What was Seligman’s conclusion about learned helplessness

A
  • Phase 1 dogs ‘learned’ there was no connection between actions and receipt of shocks
  • Learned helplessness generalised to Phase 2 environment
  • Dogs look depressed
258
Q

How does learned helplessness have parallels to human depression?

A
  1. People experience events attributed as uncontrollable
  2. Reinforces helplessness
  3. Leads to passive behaviour in adverse situations and…
  4. Inability to learn from successful escape responses
259
Q

Defibrillator experiment

Goodman and Hess (1999)

A
  • Looked at depression in people with and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)
  • Shocks are not predictable, and can be distressing

Results:

  • Number of ICD shocks significantly predicted depressive symptoms
  • Depression could be linked to the (unpredictable) ICD shocks
260
Q

Criticisms of learned helplessness as account of depression

A
  • Critical feature of Seligman set-up was lack of controllability
  • More to depression than a lack of control
  • Learned helplessness does not account for the chronicity and generality of depression
261
Q

What are the two important factors in depression (attributional style)

A
  • Attributions of why the bad situation occurred

- Dispositional way people make attributions

262
Q

Three dimensions that make someone more vulnerable to depression?

Abramson et al (1978)

A
  • Attributions made along three dimensions

Internality - externality

  • Locus of cause
  • Accounts for self-esteem deficits in depression

Stable - unstable

  • Temporal permanence of cause
  • Accounts for chronicity of depression

Global - specific

  • Degree of influence cause has over other aspects of life
  • Accounts for generality/pervasiveness of depression
263
Q

What do people with a pessimistic attributional style do?

A

Tendency to attribute negative events to causes which are:

  • Internal (caused by themselves)
  • Stable (is an enduring factor)
  • Global (affects many aspects of their lives)

Also tend to attribute positive events to causes which are:

  • External (not caused by themselves)
  • Unstable (unlikely to be a causal factor again)
  • Specific (affects only this one aspect)
264
Q

Evaluation of attributional style as an account of depression

A
  • Attributional style implies consistency across time
  • Peterson et al. (1982)
  • Used attributional style questionnaire (ASQ)
  • Correlations of dimensions between two time-points (5 weeks) were .57 to .69
  • Attributions relatively stable (dispositional)
265
Q

Is attributional style related to depression (Study)

Seligman et al (1979)

A
  • 143 students provided information on attributional style and depression (BDI)

Results:

  • Correlations between attributional components and depression were:
  • Internality: .41
  • Stability: .34
  • Globality: .35
266
Q

Depressive realism study

Alloy and Abramson (1979, 1980, 1982)

A
  • Ps decide whether to press a button when a yellow light comes on
  • Either pressing the button or not pressing the button may be ‘correct’ depending on rules of the program
  • The Ps do not know rules

Two conditions:

  1. Loose condition
    - Ps start with $5 but loose up to 25 cents with a wrong decision
  2. Win condition
    - Ps start with no money but gain 25 cents on a correct decision
  • At end of experiment, Ps estimate how much control they thought they had
  • “Correct” answer should be zero control
267
Q

Depressive realism study: Results

Alloy and Abramson (1979, 1980, 1982)

A

Non-depressed people took the bright view:

  • Claimed control for winning
  • Externalised control for losing
  • Self-serving bias
Depressed people (indicated on BDI) more realistic:
- Estimated around zero control whether winning or losing
  • Depressive attribution was more realistic
268
Q

How can self-serving bias be adaptive if it distorts perceived reality?

A
  • Studies of coping with life-threatening illness show optimism as being adaptive

Carver et al (1993)

  • Study of adjustment to breast cancer
  • Found optimists less likely to ‘give-up’ than pessimists

Year 2 From Individuals to Society (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions