Social (Module 4 Ch 14) Flashcards
Memorize by 11/14
Social Comparison Theory
We understand ourselves by comparing us to others
Upward vs Downward Social Comparison
Comparing ourselves to someone better than us
VS
Comparing ourselves to someone worse than us
Enlightenment Effect
Once we learn about a concept, it changes our real world behavior for the better
Halo Effect
When someone has one good trait, we assume that they have many good traits
Ex: physical attractiveness
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Once we believe in a concept, we behave in a way that causes that concept to happen
Ex: stereotypes
Attitude
Favorable or unfavorable beliefs, feelings, or actions towards a specific object, idea, or person
What are the 3 components of an attitude?
Affective - what does it make you feel
Behavioral - what does it make you want to do
Cognitive - what do you think about it
What are the 3 dimensions of an attitude?
Strength - stronger attitudes are more influential on decision making and less likely to change
Accessibility - how easy an attitude is to tap into (stronger attitudes are easier to access)
Ambivalence - having both positive and negative feelings towards something
What are the 4 components of attitude change?
Source - the person trying to cause change
Receiver - whose attitude you’re trying to change
Message - what you say to create the change
Channel - the way the message is delivered
Cognitive Dissonance
When we have two differing attitudes in our head, it causes us discomfort
We resolve this internal conflict by changing one attitude
Self-Perception Theory
We change our attitudes by looking at our behaviors
Impression Management Theory
We express different attitudes based off the impression we want to give, which is influenced by the environment we’re in and what’s considered acceptable in said environment
Persuasion
Attempting to change someone’s opinions, beliefs, or choices by arguing a different position
Elaboration Likelihood Model
There are two paths to create attitude change: central and peripheral
Central path to attitude change
The focus is on the message or strong argument
Creates more long term change
Can be utilized to change strong opinions
Peripheral path to attitude change
The focus is on everything but the message or weak argument
Creates more quick change that is not likely to be long-term
Foot in the door
Starting with small, reasonable requests, then moving on to larger and larger requests until you get to the one you actually want/care about
Door in the face
Starting with an absolutely absurd request that you’re expecting a “no” to, then following it up with something that seems much more reasonable by comparison (the thing you actually want)
Attributions
How we explain other people’s behaviors
Stable vs Unstable attributions
The cause of the behavior is unlikely to change
VS
The cause is likely to change
Internal vs External attributions
About that person that is doing the behavior (more likely in individualist cultures)
VS
About the external factors or environment that may be influencing the person doing the behavior (more likely in collectivist cultures)
Fundamental Attribution Error
Everything being held equal, we are more likely to make internal attributions, especially when trying to explain other people’s behavior
Gets weaker when applied to the self
Defensive Attribution Error
We make internal attributions for our successes and external attributions for our failures
AKA Self-Serving Bias
Prejudice
A biased attitude towards a group of people based on unfair or inaccurate generalizations of what the group is like
Often operate outside conscious awareness and can be very different than our conscious beliefs
Discrimination
The unfair treatment of one group of people over another on the basis of prejudicial attitudes
Implicit Associations Test
A way of measuring implicit bias or the unconscious association between two things
Stererotypes
Shortcuts in order to process and understand new people (a type of schema)
Ingroup vs Outgroup
A group that you’re a part of
VS
A group that you’re not a part of
Ingroup/Outgroup Bias
Exhibiting positive feelings towards ingroups and negative feelings or stereotypes towards outgroups
Subtyping
If we encounter someone that doesn’t fit our stereotypes, we see them as an exception (subtype) rather than abandoning our stereotype altogether
Perceptual Confirmation
We interpret information in a way that supports our stereotypes, making them stronger as a result
Illusory Correlation
We believe we’ve encountered more instances of a stereotype being confirmed than we actually have, strengthening the stereotype
Outgroup Homegeneity
We believe that members of an outgroup are more similar than the members of an ingroup
Contact Hypothesis
One way to decrease prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination is through contact/positive interactions with an outgroup
Superordinate Goals
Trying to decrease prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination by giving two groups a goal that they must work together to complete (forcing them to work as a team)
Common Knowledge Effect
When you are put into a group, you’re more likely to talk about information that you all have in common
Shared info is safe info (avoids rejection)
Social Loafing
People usually don’t work as hard when they’re in a group as they would if they were working individually
Social Facilitation
When the presence of others improves our performance (the opposite of social loafing)
Group Polarization
The group’s opinion on a subject can become more extreme than any individual member’s opinion on the subject
Groupthink
When you’re more likely to agree with others in the group because you don’t want to risk bringing up a contrary opinion and being rejected
Deindividuation
When your individual identity becomes less important to you than your group identity, causing people to engage in behaviors they wouldn’t normally engage in if they group wasn’t present
Social norms
Societal rules about what is and isn’t acceptable behavior
Conformity
Going along with a group’s behavior or opinions without being directly asked
Adhering to social norms
Compliance
Going along with a direct request
Obedience
Type of compliance in which you go along with a direct request from an authority figure
Informational Influence
Type of conformity in which you go along with the group because you genuinely believe they’re right
This means the behavior will continue even when the group is not present
Normative Influence
Type of conformity in which you don’t agree with the group, but you go along with them anyway because you don’t want to be rejected
This means the behavior will be reverted or changed when the group is not present
Unanimity
Conformity is more likely to occur if the entire group is agreeing on a behavior or opinion
How does group size influence conformity?
Larger groups exhibit more pressure on the individual, making conformity more likely to occur
Co-conspirator
Conformity is undermined when someone is willing to go against the group, because it makes others that also disagree more likely to stand against the group as well
You don’t have to agree with the co-conspirator, you just have to disagree with the group
Anonymity
Normative conformity (but not informational) decreases when you’re expressing the behavior or opinion in an anonymous fashion
Minority Social Influence
When a small number of individuals within a larger group shift majority opinion by presenting a consistent, unwavering message (utilizes central path to attitude change)
Milgram Shock Study
Seeing the extent to which people will obey authority, even when it harms someone else
65% went all the way to 450 volts
Closeness
People are more likely to obey when the authority figure is closer to them physically, as well as when the demand and action are closer in time (do it now vs do it later)
Legitimate Authority
People are more likely to obey if they believe the person telling them what to do has genuine authority
Prestige helps create legitimate authority
Depersonalized Victim
It’s easier to separate yourself from the consequences of your actions if you depersonalize the person being affected (take away their identity or view them as less of a person)
Dehumanization
Portraying groups of people as devoid of basic human qualities or rights
Defiant Models
Obedience is undermined when someone else is willing to go against the authority figure
Similar to the co-conspirator in conformity
Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
Intimacy - sharing deep emotional feelings or thoughts (being open)
Passion - hot, physical attraction or lust
Commitment - your desire or intent to stay in a relationship with another person
What are two important things to note about Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love?
It doesn’t just apply to romantic relationships, and as a result, not every relationship has (or should have) all 3 types of love
The types of love that are prominent in a relationship can change across time
Consummate Love
When all 3 types of love (passion, commitment, and intimacy) exist in equal amounts in a relationship
What are the 4 determinants of attraction?
Matching Hypothesis, Facial Symmetry, Attitude Alignment, Proximity
Matching Hypothesis
People tend to be in relationships with people who are of equal attractiveness
AKA Assortative Mating
Facial Symmetry
We find symmetrical faces more attractive
Attitude Alignment
The longer you’re in a relationship with someone, the more similar your attitudes become
This is less likely to occur with strongly held beliefs or identities
Proximity
It’s harder for a relationship to grow if you’re not in close proximity
This is what makes long distance so difficult
Sexual Strategies Theory
Men and women face different problems when looking for partners, so they approach relationships differently
Aggression
Violent or harmful behavior that is intended to cause physical or psychological damage to someone else
What brain structures and hormones are involved with aggression?
Hypothalamus, amygdala, prefrontal cortex (and frontal lobe overall), hippocampus
Testosterone and serotonin
Relational Aggression vs Physical Aggression
Trying to harm someone else’s relationships (more common amongst women)
VS
Trying to cause physical harm to someone else (more common amongst men)
Hostile Aggression vs Instrumental Aggression
Aggression that occurs spontaneously as a result of negative emotional states
VS
Aggression that occurs in order to accomplish a goal
Roles
What you’re trying to do in your current place in society can influence your levels of aggression
Stanford Prison Experiment
Randomly assigned guards and prisoners and put in fake prison
Ended early because guards ended up causing so much mental and physical harm to prisoners
NOT good science - the guards were coached on how to be aggressive and the prisoners were coached to have emotional breakdowns
Prosocial Behavior vs Altruism
Any kind of helping behavior/action that benefits others
VS
Selfless concern for (and helping of) others, often involving exposing oneself to greater danger
Empathy vs Compassion
The ability to share the feelings of others and understand their situations
VS
Feeling concern for another who is suffering and being motivated to help relieve that suffering
Kin Selection
We are more likely to help those that are biologically related to us, and the more closely related we are, the more likely to help
Evolutionary perspective
Reciprocal Altruism
If you help me, I’ll help you
Most common type of altruism observed
Social Exchange Theory
We give aid to others when the rewards of helping outweigh the potential costs
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
In order to help someone without getting any benefit to yourself, you need to be able to empathize with them
Many people don’t believe this exists because they see the positive emotional state that results from helping someone as a benefit
Egoistic vs Empathic Motivation
Helping someone in order to relieve your own distress about the situation
VS
Helping someone in order to reduce the distress of the person in need
Bystander Effect
You’re more likely to get help if there are fewer people around
Kitty Genovese
Diffusion of Responsiblity
When there are many people around to witness an emergency, an individual’s perceived responsibility to act/help decreases
Social Responsibility Norm
Idea that we as a society have a responsibility to help those that are more vulnerable, like children, the elderly, and the sick
Confederates (in experiments)
People who participate in the experiment along with the real participants, except they actually work for the experimenter
