Social Psych Flashcards
Attribution Error/Making causal attributions from observed behavior
People make attributions of behavior based on situations or one’s personality depending on if the behavior is considered common. For example, if someone were to be chased by a wasp, we would expect a normal fear response toward being stung by running away. Kelley (1967) proposed a logical model of attribution that includes three questions: 1) does the individual typically behave this way in this situation?, 2) do other people typically behave this way in this situation?, and 3) does this person behave this way in many other situations? Although people typically follow this logic when given the time, most people usually take shortcut, or biased, methods of attribution of behavior. This can take the form of person bias/fundamental attribution error, where one makes behavior attributions on the person rather than the environment (e.g., Kelley is dancing at the party being too excited rather than a party is an exciting place to be). Research on fundamental attribution error has been criticized for having poor external validity and being limited to true within Western countries due to an emphasis on individualism.
Group Polarization
Group polarization is a phenomenon in which uneven groups that are split into two ideologies lead to the majority opinion being strengthened. This primarily occurs when the majority portion of one group holds a certain opinion, or when one group discusses the opinion amongst themselves. For instance, post-discussion about military improvements between two groups showed one side favoring improvement more strongly and the other group favoring sizing down the military more strongly than either originally had. Researchers believe that group polarization can occur in two different ways. First, informational explanations propose that during group discussions, arguments favoring the other side rarely occur, like an echo chamber of opinions where group members are consistently validated in their own opinions. Second, normative explanations propose that group members have a desire to be seen favorably by other members, and opinions become more extreme through either one-upmanship (i.e., try to become superior vocal advocates) or group differentiation (i.e., exaggerate their opinions to be seen as different from their detractors). An example of group polarization could be individuals arguing against animal product consumption; in an effort to differentiate themselves from cruel meat-eaters, group members might try to one-up each other with their greater knowledge of how eating animal products harms the local ecosystem.
Insufficient Justification Effect
The insufficient-justification effect can occur when someone, with free will, changes their attitude to justify their behavior. Cognitive dissonance occurs after engaging in behavior contrary to a previously-held attitude, so the individual will change their attitude to reduce dissonance. Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) demonstrated this by offering one group $1 and another group $20 to recruit other students and convince them that their spool-loading task was actually fun and not truly boring. They concluded that because the $20 group still believed the task was boring and the $1 group instead recalled it being fun, the latter group ended up convincing and justifying to themselves that the task must have been enjoyable as they were paid so little for their effort. In other words, they had to change their attitude towards the task because there was little external justification for why they freely chose to complete the task and be paid so little to recruit others.
Implicit & Explicit Stereotypes
Stereotypes are schemas we hold about groups of people and overlooking individual differences and may be culturally-influenced. Stereotypes allow us to make quick initial judgements about people, but they could be either exaggerated misconceptions or accurate portrayals. Stereotypes can quickly be used in negative ways to perpetuate prejudicial behaviors and attitudes towards other groups of people. Explicit stereotypes are public and private conscious beliefs and views about other groups of people. Implicit stereotypes are automatic judgements about other groups of people, usually driven by emotional processes, that can quickly influence our actions towards them, regardless of our conscious beliefs. Two tests can be used to examine implicit stereotypes: 1) priming, in which mental associations are examined by quickly activating a concept to prime the individual to then retrieve related concepts (e.g., being primed with a black face followed by more quickly choosing negative adjectives), and 2) implicit association tests, when individuals are asked to quickly associate concepts with terms, and the quicker the response, the stronger the association (e.g., black faces being more quickly associated with negative words than positive ones). Implicit stereotypes specifically can allow microaggressions and unconscious discrimination to occur; for instance, individuals with implicit stereotypes of women succeeding in STEM fields (e.g., women are unable to handle the workload) might unintentionally direct conversations towards the women’s ability to work on large projects, even if the individuals believe women belong in STEM fields. Education has a strong role in reducing explicit stereotypes by challenging conscious beliefs with knowledge, whereas exposure to positive representation of the stereotyped group (e.g., classical conditioning) can be effective in reducing implicit stereotypes.
Accountability, Reputation, & Reciprocity/Forces for Cooperation
Individuals make conscious and unconscious decisions to promote their interests by cooperating with others. Some factors increase one’s desire to cooperate, and a program called tit-for-tat is evidence of their importance. When someone is seen as accountable for cooperating, it strengthens their good reputation as someone who both aids and also reciprocates help. Subsequently, people have a desire to cooperate with that person as it seems likely they will not take advantage, and long-term, they might receive assistance back. Although the research supporting these factors is very artificially transactional, people in real life may truly keep tally of helpful and reciprocal actions and thus follow suit with cooperation depending on the other’s reputation.
Other forces for cooperation include fairness, in which people are neurobiologically predisposed to dislike cheaters and instead prefer equal rewards. Additionally, people are motivated to cooperate more when they think of themselves as a group member, likely due to feeling greater solidarity with those who are alike in some way (e.g., being introduced as students from the same college rather than being introduced as students in different majors).
Irving Janis’ Groupthink
In Irving Janis’s 1982 book titled Groupthink, he described a strong desire among group members to come to agreed-upon decisions rather than critically reflect or entertain alternative options. Essentially, these groups silence dissenting opinions and develop strong group solidarity, seeking cohesion over and above ethical decision-making processes. A classic example is the Challenger explosion, in which NASA managers ignored warnings about the dangerousness of the launch timing in order to meet their timetable. The Challenger example is also reflective of how groupthink strengthens inner group solidarity and opposition to outside opponents at the risk of poor decision-making (e.g., the U.S.’s pressure to lead the space race). Groupthink is more likely to occur among groups whose leaders are over-involved in decisions and whose members are too focused on cohesion rather than exploring dissenting opinions. Thus, groupthink can be avoided by allowing non-leader members to discuss decisions while also incorporating different or dissenting opinions in discussion. However, even with the Challenger explosion example, it is always possible that circumstances naturally lead to policy disaster regardless of groupthink.
Broken Windows Theory of Crime
The BW Theory was developed by Kelling & Coles positing that crime is more likely to occur when the surrounding environment is unkempt, chaotic, and dirty. Tagging, property damage, and litter are signs of disorder and disrespect of the law that are considered normative within that community. The cleaning up of communities and restoring law-and-order to New York communities between the 1980’s-90’s was seen as responsible for the large reduction in crime and violence. This theory was confirmed by researchers in the Netherlands who additionally showed that people were more likely to steal money from the mailbox and jaywalk in areas they manipulated to look disorderly (e.g., litter, graffiti).
Pygmalion Effects
Pygmalion effects are self-fulfilling prophecies in which the attributions and expectations placed on others may influence resulting reality. This has a mythical basis in the story of Eliza Doolittle who became a ‘fine lady’ due to others’ beliefs that she could speak like one. The Pygmalion effects speak to both opportunities provided to these groups as well as the groups believing in themselves. Research has shown that in the classroom, children who were randomly assigned to a high intellect and lower scoring group were treated differently by their teachers. The teachers both created an environment that promoted learning spurts for the high intellect children as well as promoted these children’s self-concepts to believe they were truly capable of higher scores; these resulted in actual higher scores compared to the other group. In another classroom example, research has also showed that attributing certain qualities to kids (e.g., that they are tidy and better at math) results in far greater improvements than simply persuading the children to do better, implying an influence in the children’s self-concept. Research has shown the same effects in businesses where employees believed to have promise are treated better by their bosses and the employees themselves have a greater self-concept that they can achieve more. Pygmalion effects can backfire in instances where an individual’s strong self-concept gets in the way of an attribution, and they actually perform poorer on what they were expected to accomplish (e.g., a strong football player is told she will be really great at theater, and ends up performing really poorly in play auditions).
Robber’s Cave Experiments
Robber’s Cave Experiments was a study by Muzafer & Sherif (1961) that was the third attempt at essentially investigating what would be considered realistic conflict theory and intergroup strife. Two groups of 11-12 year old, white, Protestant boys from fairly similar backgrounds were placed in two camping groups and encouraged to form bonds and their own identities (Eagles & Rattlers). Eventually, the two groups faced one another to compete for prizes and resources only one group could win. This led to three outcomes: 1) within-group solidarity where stronger identity bonds and loyalty were formed within their own groups, 2) negative stereotyping of the opposite group despite the boys being very similar in demographic (e.g., the Rattlers perceived as dirty), and 3) hostile between-group interactions involving raids and burning of flags on opposite teams. The researchers made two attempts at peace, with the former being a failure and the latter successful. Initially the researchers tried to bring the groups together for pleasant activities, but they still resulted in conflict. Then, the researchers used superordinate goals (i.e., coordinated goals that both need to accomplish to survive or obtain a resource) which was theorized to be successful because it likely blurred the lines between group identities (e.g., Eagles vs Rattlers instead to one group accomplishing a water repair task). Criticisms of the study included a lack of the boys’ consent, a lack of real-world application to ideological or religious-fought conflicts, and the experimenters technically served as a third group. However, the study did support the theory that conflict happens when there is fighting for resources.
Foot-In-The-Door Effect
The foot-in-the-door (FITD) effect was discussed by Freedman & Fraser (1966) which was essentially rooted in the saying “give them an inch, they’ll take a mile”. The FITD effect proposes that individuals are more likely to accept a larger request if they already accepted a smaller one by the same individual or group. Freedman & Fraser (1966) demonstrated this by interviewing housewives about soap use and following with larger requests for home visitations. Essentially, some of the housewives were directly asked for home visitations (large request) and others asked to take an 8-question survey (small request), and after acceptance, then asked to complete a home visitation. The researchers showed that the housewives who accepted a small request first were significantly more likely to accept the larger request than those given the larger request outright. The FITD effect is an effective sales technique because it can create cognitive dissonance in the individual who accepted. In other words, because the individual accepting has already created a good judgement of the salesperson (e.g., trust), they will be less likely to accept doubt in further requests, even if the next request is more imposing. If the individual does not buy or accept the next request, it may be dissonant with their belief that the seller was good or trustworthy with the first, smaller request.
Milgram Obedience experiments
Milgram’s experiments conducted in the 1960’s were meant to ask important social psychological questions about crimes of obedience. Milgram carried out incredibly difficult experiments with a confederate who secretly faked distress to electric shocks and an unknowing participant who would provide voltage shocks in increasing intensity to the confederate with every wrong answer on a test. Participants were consistently encouraged to continue even if they faced distress at the cries, and most people completed to the end (around 65%). This research has been replicated among multiple groups, demographics-wise and internationally. Milgram came to a few conclusions:
i. People follow a norm of obedience where those perceived as legitimate authority figures influence greater obedience,
ii. People being led by authority figures who are deemed responsible thus take less responsibility themselves and obey more,
iii. The physical distance of the confederate, authority figure, and participant makes a difference, in which the further the authority and the closer the confederate, the fewer completers,
iv. People who are not provided a model to stop obeying tend to obey further than those that were provided a model, and
v. People tend to feel pressure at having both already given incremental shocks that were painful (cognitive dissonance) so keep going, and the increments in shocks were so small it was difficult to determine when to stop.
Milgram’s experiments drew both ethical and generalizability critiques. Given the distressing and coercive nature of the experiments, professionals questioned the appropriateness and ethics of having put the subjects through the test despite most reporting later that there was little harm done. Too, the applicability of lab conditions was questioned; participants likely knew no man was actually being hurt and had no time to break and reflect on their actions whereas those who commit atrocities and genocide are well-aware of their actions and may live normal lives, including going home.
Bystander Effect
b. The bystander effect speaks to two influences, conformity and diffusion of responsibility, that tend to lead to emergency events being largely ignored by bystanders when there are more individuals present. Some individuals may feel less responsible to help if others are present, and in other cases people may feel they need to conform to the actions of others. If others also do nothing, a person might feel stupid, different, or weird for helping or be left questioning what is the right thing to do based on implied information and norm influences. Others’ inaction provides information that intervening may not be a smart idea and also establishes a norm that intervening would be a very abnormal action because no one else has helped out yet. The bystander effect can also be influenced by how well someone knows the person in need of assistance, with familiarity driving greater action than less familiarity. Too, if other bystanders indicate that it is indeed an emergency, it leads to less hesitation to help. An example of this could be an assault occurring during middle school period; the more kids are present, the less chance there is someone will intervene
Cognitive Dissonance
Leon Festinger coined cognitive dissonance theory (CDT) in 1957 that posits we are motivated to resolve the dissonance/contradiction/inconsistency between our beliefs and behaviors. CD might be handled adaptively where we may adjust our opinions or make new, careful and conscious choices about our actions, or maladaptively by making the decision to ignore information that contradicts our already held beliefs. After making significant decisions, we also are motivated to push away doubts. Ultimately, these are behaviors meant to mitigate the discomfort of CD. An example of CD is as follows: Bob regularly drinks energy drinks at work and suddenly learns about its cancer-causing effects, but he feels he needs to drink it to function. Bob might attempt to adaptively make a healthier decision to quit drinking energy drinks altogether. Bob may instead maladaptively choose to find contradictory articles that support his belief that drinking energy drinks is not harmful, so he mitigates the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Or, Bob may rationalizes that drinking them is better than not as he could make a dangerous accident at work without the caffeine.
Ash’s Conformity Experiments
Asch conducted experiments in the 50s that examined people’s conforming behaviors. Asch began by gathering confederate students and one participant in a room to judge the length of lines with the participant answering close to last. The confederates were instructed to answer incorrectly despite the test having obvious answers. While the results might differ based on culture and the standards of present day, at least 75% of participants conformed to the confederate’s answers and a wrong answer was given by the participant at least 1/3 of the time. Participants afterwards stated that the lines were clear to them but doubted what they were perceiving in some way, indicating some informational influence. As well, normative influence played a role in conformity as those who wrote down their answers rather than answered aloud were much less likely to conform, indicating less risk and concern with appearing odd or dissenting with written answers. Finally, when there was a single confederate who answered differently than the other confederates, the conformity in participants’ answers dropped even more significantly, almost as if they resisted influence and deemed it safe to disagree with the majority.
Zimbardo
Zimbardo completed his prison experiment in 1971 at Stanford, conceptualizing a mock prison with students assigned as prisoners or guards, randomly. The point was to examine how situations and roles might influence behaviors. This experiment was carried out realistically, where prisoners were arrested and guards given costumes and authoritative tools. The students easily fell into their respective roles, as the prisoners were in distress and humiliated while the guards used aggressive, intimidating tactics to establish rules. The simulation ended much earlier than expected and overall gave professionals significant concerns about ethics and questions of informed consent due to the psychological distress on the behalf of the ‘prisoners’. The experiment showed how the situation may have led to people both conforming as well as feeling robbed of individual decisions on both sides.
