social Flashcards
what were social psychs largely looking at late 20th century?
attitudes, particularly cognitive processes involved
social neuroscience def
study of how our social behaviour both influences + is influenced by brain activity
social situation def
people that we interact w every day
person-situation def
joint influence of person variables and situational variables
evolutionary adaption def (w/ in social psych)
assumption that human nature, including much of our social behaviour, is largely determined by evolutionary past
describe the 2 fundamental motivations evolutionary adaptation has provided us w:
- self-concern - motivation to protect + enhance the self and the people psychologically close to us
- other concern - motivation to affiliate with, accept, + be accepted by others
kin selection
strategies that favour the reproductive success of one’s relatives, sometimes even at a cost to individual’s own survival
how does the concept of an in-group come into evolutionary adaptation?
people we were closest to were usually those we were related to - so in-group favouritism could b connected 2 kin selection
cerebral cortex def
distinguishing brain feature in mammals (including humans), part of brain involved in thinking
social cognition def
cognition that relates to social activities + helps us understand and predict the behaviour of ourselves and others
attitude object def
thing that is being evaluated
difference between moods n emotions:
moods r experienced in normal situations, but emotions r caused by specific events + are accompanied by high levels of arousal
reciprocal altruism def
cooperation by giving benefits to those who are in need, w/ the expectation of a return in the future
describe the prefrontal cortex
- part of brain that lies in front of the motor areas of the cortex + helps us remember the characteristics and actions of other people, plan complex social behaviours, and coordinate our behaviours w/ others’
- newest part of brain thru evolution, enlarged as social relationships between people became more frequent n complex
reconstructive memory bias
when we remember info that matches our beliefs better than info that doesn’t + reshape those memories to better align with our current beliefs
when r schemas used the most for judgement-making?
when people r tired (cognitive impairment) + have 2 remember more info (cognitive strain)
causal attribution
process of trying to determine the causes of people’s behaviour
when r we more likely 2 make personal attributions?
when the behaviour is unusual/unexpected in that situation
covariation principle def
a given behaviour is more likely to have been caused by the situation if that behaviour covaries (or changes) across situations
central traits
concepts that have a disproportionate influence on impressions
configure model (Asch)
all traits r combined together into a holistic perception guided by central traits
role schema def
guides ur expectations abt particular roles (fine undressing in front of Dr.)
‘content-free’ schema
not abt anything in particular, more just how the world works (e.g. causal schema - ideas abt what causes what)
how can u break down the behaviour you’re trying 2 explain?
can be broken down into person + the interaction they’re having w/ the stimulus (interaction happens w/ in the context of a social situation)
salience (stimulus) def
property of a stimulus that attracts attention
what impacts on salience?
- switching orientation of image (might change which properties r more salient)
- contrast (woman in room full of men would be more noticeable, would bring to mind woman schema)
- meaning - meaningful content more salient
accessibility
ease with which a schema comes to mind (some people just might be more likely to access a certain schema, but can also be influenced by salience n situation)
hostile media phenomenon
occurs when people w/ a certain standpoint perceive balanced media 2 be biassed against their own perspective
describe Heider’s Naïve Psychology
- outlined basic issues involved w/ attribution
- basic motivation - seek out causes of others’ behaviour in an effort to predict + control their environment
- people gather info + test their personal theories of cause and effect
- two kinds of attributions r internal and external
correspondent inference theory described:
behaviour is informative abt internal state when it:
1. has fewer ‘non-common effects’ (unique or special consequences of a person’s behaviour)
2. has fewer alternative causes
3. violates social norms
4. is unexpected or counter-schematic
5. is negative (mostly we behave positively, as dictated by social norms)
6. has an impact on the perceiver (hedonic relevance) - people make more confident personal attributions when the behaviour affects them
7. is/appears 2 b intentional and freely chosen (personalism)
Kelley’s covariation model brief description
attributions depend on assessment of consistency, distinctiveness, + consensus
1. if we don’t have info over time, rely on cues from one-off situation: causal schemas, discounting + augmenting principle
casual schemas def
well-known or culturally appropriate ideas abt what causes behaviour
discounting principle def
more causes available, less confident u can be - look for smth uniquely associated w/ this behaviour
augmenting principle def
u can be more confident of potential cause if there’s smth else that works against it; in spite of
when can u make an external attribution (Kelley’s covariation model)?
when distinctiveness, consensus, + consistency r high
when can u make an internal attribution (Kelley’s covariation model)?
when distinctiveness n consensus r low, consistency is high
Weiner’s Attribution Theory
success or failure can be seen as coming from either personal causes or situational causes
what r personal causes in Weiner’s attribution theory?
ability (stable) and motivation (unstable)
what r situational causes in Weiner’s attribution theory?
luck (unstable) and task difficulty (he thought it was stable, but can be unstable)
locus (Weiner’s attribution theory) def
whether the attributions are to the person or situation
self-handicapping
people will either claim or perform behaviours that r counter-productive (e.g. telling people u didn’t study for a test), can use this to manage other people’s beliefs/attributions abt u
name the 3 models of social cognition:
- the naïve psychologist
- the ‘cognitive miser’
- the ‘motivated tactician’
the naïve psychologist
people take a semi-scientific approach to understanding the world, rational n thorough
the ‘cognitive miser’
people have limited cognitive capacity + try to minimise effort (shortcuts, heuristics) - developed to contest naïve psychologist approach
the ‘motivated tactician’
- use heuristics strategically, depends on motivation and cognitive opportunity
- associated w/ dual process models
main heuristics
representativeness, availability, anchoring + adjustment
representativeness def + reason that it works
- when we base our judgments on info that seems to match what we expect 2 happen, while ignoring more informative base-rate info
- works bc objects or events in same category do tend to resemble each other
disfluency (associated w/ representativeness)
difficulty u might have w/ assigning someone to a category, don’t like people as much when they don’t meet ur expectations
how does representativeness play a role in attribution?
causal schemas based on similarity (e.g. a big effect should be produced by a big cause), underweighting randomness as a cause
availability def + reason it works
- frequency judgments based on the ease w/ which info comes to mind (e.g. figuring out how many lawyers in Dunedin - how easy is it to think of lawyers u know → must be a lot of them)
- works bc frequency is related to ease of retrieval BUT can also b influenced by salience, priming etc
anchoring n adjustment def + reason it works
- judgements tied to initial standards (e.g. if u knew the covid rate yesterday, u could adjust slightly + estimate for today)
- works bc previous judgements r often good approximations
fundamental attribution error def
tendency to over-attribute behaviour to internal factors
actor-observer bias def
tend 2 make more personal attributions for others (make fundamental attribution error for others more), make more situational attributions 4 ourselves
2-stage model of attribution
stage 1: automatic internal attribution serves as an anchor
stage 2: effortful adjustment for situational factors, if time + motivation permit
base rates def
the likelihood that events occur across a large population
processing fluency
ease with which we can process information in our environments
false consensus bias
tendency to overestimate the extent to which other people hold similar views to our own (happens bc our own views r highly accessible 2 us)
projection bias
tendency to assume that others share our cognitive and affective states
counter-factual thinking
tendency to think about events according to what might have been
optimistic bias
tendency to believe that positive outcomes are more likely to happen than negative ones, particularly in relation to ourselves versus others
what is ‘depressive realism’?
when people w/ clinical depression’s social judgments abt the future r less positively skewed + often more accurate than those who do not have depression
bias blind spot
tendency to believe that our own judgments are less susceptible to the influence of bias than those of others
affect heuristic
tendency to rely on automatically occurring affective responses to stimuli to guide our judgments of them (e.g. judge certain soap to be best option cause it has the prettiest packaging + thus triggers the most positive emotional response)
mood dependent memory
tendency to better remember information when our current mood matches the mood we were in when we encoded that information
mood congruence effect
when we r more able to retrieve memories that match our current mood
cognitive reappraisal
altering an emotional state by reinterpreting the meaning of the triggering situation or stimulus
affective forecasting
our attempts to predict how future events will make us feel, often not v accurate (tend to overestimate our emotional reactions to events)
self-reference effect
information that is processed in relationship to the self is particularly well remembered
3 aspects of self-concept:
physical characteristics, personality traits, social identity
self-concept clarity
extent to which one’s self-concept is clearly and consistently defined, higher self-concept clarity is positively related to self-esteem
private self-consciousness
tendency to introspect about our inner thoughts and feelings
public self-consciousness
tendency to focus on our outer public image + to be particularly aware of the extent to which we are meeting the standards set by others
self-awareness theory ((Duval & Wicklund, 1972)
when we focus our attention on ourselves, we tend to compare our current behaviour against our internal standards
self-affirmation theory
people will try to reduce the threat to their self-concept posed by feelings of self-discrepancy by focusing on + affirming their worth in another domain, unrelated to the issue at hand
looking-glass self
part of how we see ourselves comes from our perception of how others see us
labelling bias
when we r labelled, and others’ views + expectations of us are affected by that labelling (e.g. if teacher knows a child has ADHD might have a different view or expectation for them than if they thought they didn’t)
correspondence bias
when we attribute behaviours to people’s internal characteristics, even in heavily constrained situations
trait ascription bias
tendency for people to view their own personality, beliefs, and behaviours as more variable than those of others
self serving attributions def + example
attributions that help us meet our desire to see ourselves positively
e.g. self-serving bias - tendency to attribute our successes to ourselves, and our failures to others and the situation
group-serving bias/ultimate attribution error
tendency to make internal attributions about our ingroups’ successes + external attributions about their setbacks, while making opposite pattern of attributions abt our outgroups
group attribution error
tendency to make attributional generalisations about entire outgroups based on a very small number of observations of individual members
just world hypothesis (increases likelihood of victim-blaming)
tendency to make attributions based on the belief that the world is fundamentally just
defensive attribution
when we make attributions which defend ourselves from the notion that we could be the victim of an unfortunate outcome, and often also that we could be held responsible as the victim
what r people’s attributions abt victims motivated by?
- harm avoidance - this won’t happen 2 me
- blame avoidance - if this did happen 2 me, I wouldn’t be to blame
when r we less likely 2 attribute blame to the victim?
when we r similar to them
when r we more likely 2 attribute blame to the victim?
when we r similar to the perpetrator
self-schemas
cognitive generalisations about the self, from past experience, that organise + guide the processing of self-related information contained in an individual’s social experience
reverse correlation (really just memorise this, u don’t need 2 understand)
process that results in a composite image (from individual or group) that can be used to estimate + interpret participants’ mental representations
flow def (Csikszentmihalyi)
full absorption in a task, at optimal balance of skill n change
mindfulness (Csikszentmihalyi)
attending to present experiences in an objective + non-judgemental way
self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1989) description
u have an actual self + self-guides (ought - societal expectations of us, ideal - personal goals)
1. ppl motivated to reach point where all selves match
2. discrepancies between selves create specific types of negative affect:
actual-ought discrepancies –> high arousal (anxiety)
actual-ideal discrepancies –> depression
regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 2012)
- two focuses:
promotion focus - attainment of goals (sorta same as ideal self)
prevention focus - avoidance of negative outcomes (ought) - regulatory ‘fit’ between ur focus + the nature of tasks u r doing leads to positive affect
what happens when u have low self-complexity?
more reactive to both criticism n positive feedback
what happens when u have high self-complexity?
buffer against threats to self-esteem, more stability in a person’s reactions bc they have multiple domains to draw on to maintain self-esteem
self-evaluation maintenance theory basic description
only some things r important to be good at, other things u can be bad at + it’s not damaging to self concept
what determines whether being bad @ smth is damaging 2 self-concept?
- relative performance
- closeness (how close r u to the person ur comparing urself 2)
- importance of domain 2 self-concept
basking in reflective glory/BIRGing def
when we use + advertise our ingroups’ positive achievements to boost our self-esteem
self-presentation
to present a positive self-image to others, with the goal of increasing our social status
affect def
general term for entire range of feeling states
basic emotions theory
discrete states that evolved to mobilise the organism to deal w/ fundamental life tasks (some emotional states r more fundamental to our experience, e.g. anger), relies on evolution
evidence 4 basic emotions theory: Ekman
cross-cultural agreement for these basic emotions, but no consensus for others
Facial Action Coding System (FACS)
set of facial muscle movements that correspond to a displayed emotion - not created by Ekman, but further developed by him
dimensional theory/core affect model
base emotions aren’t special, just different dimensions
emotions as pure physical arousal (top down interpretation)
- James-Lange - physiological responses cause emotion (we r afraid because we run away)
- embodied emotion (Niedenthal), version of James-Lange theory - emotion concepts r grounded in body simulations (when we experience emotion, part of it is also encoded in the body - not just abstract representation in head)
emotion as arousal n attribution (2-factor theory of emotions)
- awareness of unexplained arousal
- interpretation of the arousal
emotions as pure attribution (appraisal theories)
all believe emotion u feel is simply result of attributional analysis
e.g. Smith & Lazarus, 1990:
1. primary appraisals (relevance, valence)
2. secondary appraisals (accountability, coping ability, stability)
outline the affect infusion model
4 types of social judgements:
1. direct access (previously stored judgment of smth)
2. motivated processing (desire a certain outcome, e.g. maximising self-esteem)
3. heuristic processing
4. substantive processing (more constructive, more effortful judgments - more likely to be influenced by current emotional state)
what r the 3 components of attitude structure?
cognition (thought), affect (feeling), and behaviour (action)
countervailing function def
unconsciously people r becoming more fond, but consciously people r growing tired of seeing same stimuli
theory of planned behaviour
idea that we may develop attitudes thru some sort of cognitive calculation
1. beliefs abt outcomes + evaluation of outcomes → attitude towards the behaviour
what r the factors influencing behaviour?
- behavioural, normative, and control beliefs
- intention (immediate precursor 2 behaviour - if nothing gets in the way, u will engage in behaviour if u intend 2 do so)
- actual behavioural control
behavioural beliefs
attitude towards behaviour
normative beliefs
what other ppl think abt behaviour
control beliefs
perceived control over the behaviour
Fazio’s MODE model as an integrative framework for attitude accessibility (spontaneous) + theory of planned behaviour (more thought out)
motivation + opportunity as determinants of the attitude-behaviour relationship
1. high motivation + opportunity - theory of planned behaviour
2. when either is low, ppl will rely on attitude accessibility
attitude accessibility (Fazio) description
attitudes r an association in memory
1. strength of association increases w/ attitude rehearsal, direct sensory experience
2. highly accessible attitudes predict spontaneous behaviour
automaticity
happens without effort, attitudes may come to mind in spite of efforts for them not to
principle of attitude consistency
for any given attitude object, affect, behaviour, + cognition are normally in line with each other
high self-monitors vs low ones
- high self-monitors - those who tend to attempt to blend into the social situation in order to be liked
- low self-monitors - those who are less likely to do so
when is it most effective 2 show a fake news warning to combat sleeper effect?
b4 showing story, as opposed to after (but this only works for the first time the news is presented)
spontaneous (a.k.a peripheral or heuristic) attitude change
occurs as a direct or affective response to the message
thoughtful (a.k.a. central or systematic) attitude change
based on our cognitive elaboration of the message (consider pros + cons of message, question validity of communicator + message)
inoculation
building up defences against persuasion by mildly attacking the attitude position
psychological reactance
strong emotional response we experience when we feel our freedom of choice is being taken away
self-perception theory (main opponent to dissonance theory - NO motivational component)
when we use our own behaviour as a guide to help us determine our thoughts and feelings
insufficient justification
when the social situation actually causes our behaviour, but we do not realise that the social situation was the cause
over-justification
when we view our behaviour as caused by the situation, leading us to discount the extent to which our behaviour was actually caused by our own interest in it
cognitive dissonance
discomfort that occurs when we behave in ways that we see as inconsistent, such as when we fail to live up to our own expectations
cognitive dissonance is reduced by:
- adding new, congruent beliefs to counteract the discrepancy (if smoking - think abt ‘positive’ aspects of it)
- directing the discrepancy to an external source - if someone/smth forced u to carry out a behaviour, then ur not to blame
- changing behaviour to be consistent with attitudes
- changing attitudes to be consistent with behaviour
post-decisional dissonance (or spreading alternatives)
feeling of regret that may occur after we make an important decision
message learning approach/Yale attitude change approach
persuasive message → attention to message → comprehension of message → acceptance of message → attitude change
1. attitude change only occurs at end of these steps (can b no interference @ any stage)
perceptual fluency
faded out statements not believed as much as statements that r visually clear and easy to see
when r fear appeals most effective?
when there is fear paired w/ practical advice
dual process model approach/elaboration likelihood model
2 routes to persuasion: central route (depends on reactions 2 message content - effortful)
peripheral route (persuasion depends on cues peripheral to content - not effortful)
1. which route u take depends on motivation + opportunity
Johansson et al., 2014
ppl to choose between pairs of faces + then face is replaced w/ the one they didn’t choose
1. hardly anyone noticed (choice blindness)
2. participants asked to rate attractiveness of the photo they chose, reversed their preferences (justification)
effort justification paradigm
when u put more effort into achieving a goal than it warranted, so it has to have been worth it (alicent)
when is attitude change driven by dissonance compared 2 self-perception theory?
if big discrepancy between behaviour + attitude → dissonance
if small discrepancy → no dissonance + attitude change is a self-perception driven phenomenon
latitude of acceptance
variance in people’s attitude (range of attitudes they’d be willing to endorse)
what do u use to determine whether arousal is present or not?
misattribution cue
foot-in-the-door technique (consistency norm)
persuasion attempt in which we first get the target to accept a rather minor request, and then ask for a larger request
perseverance effect
once you’ve made a decision, u search for evidence that it was a good choice → later attitude becomes much more positive
lowball technique (consistency norm)
salesperson promises customer smth desirable with the intention of getting person to imagine themselves engaging in the desired behaviour
bait-and-switch technique
occurs when someone advertises a product at a very low price + when u go to store to buy product u learn that the low price product has been sold out, only more expensive options available
imagining compliance (consistency norm)
would u volunteer at a women’s charity?
- if u predict yes, more likely 2 volunteer (being Consistent)
door-in-the-face technique (reciprocity norm)
start by making unreasonably large request, then lower size of request (other person feels that they should mirror the concession u made)
pre-giving technique (reciprocity norm)
giving a gift and then asking for assistance/making a request
that’s not all! technique (Burger, 1986)
sold cookies n cupcakes but framed them in different ways
1. cupcake for 75 cents, cookie for 25 cents vs. cupcake is a dollar + cookie is a bonus u get for buying cupcake → 50% increase in purchasing (free gift that ought to be reciprocated)
informational social influence
change in opinions or behaviour that occurs when we conform to people who we believe have accurate information
when is informational social influence/conformity most likely 2 occur, and what does it produce
occurs when the situation is ambiguous
produces private acceptance (attitude change)
normative conformity description (reality is not ambiguous)
based on a motivation to be liked or accepted by your group, produces compliance (doesn’t necessarily result in attitude change)
how big does majority need 2 b (Asch, 1955) to produce normative conformity?
4 people - addition of more people after that doesn’t make much difference
obedience
behaviour change in response to a direct order
when r people most likely to drop out in the Milgram obedience study?
at the categorical differences in the shock generator - decision points where they have to decide to continue or not
entitativity
sense of being in a group
drive theory (Zajonc)
presence of others –> arousal –> increases likelihood of dominant response
1. if ur bad at smth, then u will perform worse + vice versa
Price’s Law (economics)
half of performance in a group is accounted for by square root of size of group (e.g. group of 9 has 3 people doing half the work, 6 doing other half)
social dilemma
situation that creates conflict between individual + collective interests (e.g. group wants to get ditch dug, individual doesn’t want to put in much effort)
game theory
studies interactive decision-making, where the outcome for each participant or ‘player’ depends on the actions of all (e.g. prisoner’s dilemma)
Nash equilibrium
cell that u gravitate to in a dilemma + whatever u do, u can’t get into a better cell by acting unilaterally
what helps w/ social dilemmas?
- communication only helps when given v clear instructions abt what to talk abt + how to work out the problem
- tacit communication (signalling intentions thru behaviour)
- change the payoff matrix (rewards 4 cooperation, penalties 4 non-cooperation)
- changing group membership so that individual behaviour is seen as group behaviour
perceptual accentuation
merely saying smth belongs in a certain group makes ppl perceive it differently
out-group homogeneity effect
view out-group as far more similar to one another than the in-group is to one another
how best to combat prejudice (Robbers Cave experiment)?
found that prejudice was most effectively combatted thru both groups needing to work together towards a certain goal (see each other in this context as a member of the same group)
illusory correlation paradigm
misattribution of causality, could b random but we don’t pay attention to cases that don’t confirm correlation
attention theory description
way that we learn categories is by relating info to smth we already know, and then adding a tag onto it
1. more likely to encounter + encode features of majority-group members than minority members
2. think abt new group in terms of distinctive features
3. negative traits r also more distinguishable bc they’re less common - therefore when minority does them it’s more salient
why r people so committed 2 fighting for groups they belong to?
motivational drive (prejudice increases self-esteem)
Devine’s 2-stage theory of prejudice
- stereotypes r automatically activated in the presence of member or symbol of stigmatised group
- if the person becomes aware of these thoughts and is motivated, they’ll feel compunction (guilt) + actively inhibit discriminatory behaviour
3 models of stereotype change (Weber & Crocker, 1983)
- bookkeeping - gradually accumulate evidence abt the validity of ur stereotypes; not super likely
- conversion process - anecdote of someone who might not have liked Americans, but had a sudden moment of change (possibly due to getting to know a certain American); not super likely
- more likely to undergo a process of subtyping - ur overall attitude doesn’t change, but u create a subtype that has diff. Beliefs associated
contact hypothesis - def + conditions needed 2 work
reduce prejudice thru exposure
conditions needed:
1. equal social status
2. institutional support
3. sustained, close, informal contact
4. pursuit of common, superordinate goals
instrumental aggression
goal is not to hurt someone, hurting someone is in the service of this other goal
personalism + aggression
if we perceive someone as intending 2 harm us, we’re more likely to attribute that to a person’s aggressiveness
Freud thought that life was driven by death instinct + life instinct. how does death instinct relate 2 aggression?
death instinct drives ppl to return to original state of nonbeing
1. self-harm if directed inwards
2. aggression when turned outwards
ethology approach 2 aggression
ppl r aggressive by nature, evolved + comes out when necessary
aggression as adaptation
could help w/ acquiring resources, enhancing status, defence, sexual rivalry, discouraging infidelity, acquiring/retaining mates
naturalistic fallacy
when u say that smth is good just bc it’s natural
Crabb, 2000 (what would ppl do in some sort of instinctual state w/ out controls such as the state)
- have u had homicidal fantasies?
- little less than half said yes, twice as many men than women
- conclude that most likely eliciting events r frustration + personal threats
- how would u do it, how do u know how? - learned thru media, supports learned theory of aggression
media violence + irl aggression
- desensitisation - exposure to violent stimuli decreases irl sensitivity
- priming aggressive schemas - might prime u to think in aggressive terms
- conformity - some1 sufficiently imbued in a certain media landscape might use that as a framework 4 what is normal/appropriate (porn)
- interaction with pre-existing violent tendencies - media might provide a trigger for ppl w/ pre-existing violent tendencies
frustration-aggression hypothesis
aggression is the consequence of thwarted goals
revised version of frustration-aggression hypothesis
aggression is a product of various internal + external forces
1. frustration (+ other negative states) create a predisposition to act aggressively
2. whether that predisposition materialises as aggression depends on cues (priming)
when can minority influence create conformity?
when the minority is consistent (e.g. giving same incorrect response each time) conformity may b produced in the majority participants
Baron et al., 1996
- on easy tasks, participants conformed less when they thought that the decision was of high (vs. low) importance
- on difficult tasks, participants conformed more when they thought the decision was of high importance
social power
ability of a person to create conformity even when the people being influenced may attempt to resist those changes
authoritarianism
tendency to prefer things to be simple rather than complex and to hold traditional values
social intelligence
ability to develop a clear perception of the situation using situational cues
how does exposure 2 violence increase aggression?
thru:
1. reinforcement
2. modelling
3. priming cognitions related to aggression
4. desensitisation
