Social Psych Flashcards
Kurt lewin
Field theory 1930s
Behavior is a function of the interaction between ppl and env
Life space
Field theory - tension moves people
Valence
Gordon alport
Defines social psychology how a persons thoughts feelings and beg are influenced by the presence of other people
Zygarnic effect
We remember unfinished tasks better than finished tasks (remember that which you’re unsure about)
Social comparison theory
Low self esteem (compare to those less fortunate)
When unsure of our opinion or ability, we compare ourselves to others who are similar
Attribution theory
Causal attributions
- external or situational
- internal or dispositional
Fundamental attribution error
Underestimate situational causes of others
That is, overestimate the dispositional of others
Belief in a just world
Result of fundamental attribution error
Prisoners dilemma game
People compete straight away
Self perception theory
When internal cues are absent, we infer feelings and beliefs from behavior or external cues
Self verification theory
We need and seek confirmation of our self concept whether positive or negative
Social identity theory
Self esteem through personal and social identity. Social identity is enhanced by believing the I group is attentive and belittling tha out group
Life events relate to happiness how
Short term but not long term
Personal fable
Adolescence (formal operational)
Uniqueness and invulnerability
Two types of relational aggression
Reactive - easily provoked, difficulty controlling impulses, react aggressively - intent to retaliate
Proactive - means of achieving a goal
Incomplete consideration of alternatives and consequences can lead to
Groupthink
Actor observer effect
Our own actions are seen as more influenced by circumstances or the task itself
Self-serving bias
Get job applied for - attribute to self
Don’t get job - circumstances - external
Influenced by the outcome of our behavior
Not apply to depressed (opposite)
Attitudes
Correlatin with behavior
Stable predispositions
bUT correlation between attitude and behavior is weak EXCEPT under certain circumstances such as specific, well informed, and consistent with social norms
Attitude change
Cognitive Constance theories
Discomfort when cognition a are inconsistent - so change cognitions
Fritz heiders balance theory
Liking and agreeing go together
When not in balance, you shift to agree or change opinion
Festingers cognitive dissonance theory
Contradiction between belief and behavior
Likely to change belief if believe that behavior was voluntary
Participate unpleasant activity for $500 versus $1
$1 likely to change attitude (must be invested since no incentive)
Attitude change
Source-> target
Factors for change
Understanding
Attention
Acceptance:
Characteristics of source
Content
TargetAttitude change
Acceptance
Source
Prestige (expertise)
Trustworthiness (credible)
Attractiveness
Similarity (like them)
Attitude change
Characteristics of message
Brief
Repeated (exposure)
Moderate difference
Some targets prefer one sided
Inclined already to agree, less educated, unlikely to hear other side
Some two sided
Initially opposed, well edu, likely to hear other side
Fear and attitude change
Not influential unless message includes clear concrete way to avoid consequence
Attitude change
Context
Inoculation - small amount of persuasive argument to raise your defense against that argument
OR weak against own idea prevents new strong idea
Forewarning - if told content before hears argument lowers effectiveness UNLESS target wants to be liked by the source
Attitude change
Targets
Low self esteem, low iQ - simple argument most pursuasive
High - more complex more pursuasive
Pro social behavior
When will a bystander act to help a stranger in distress?
Fewer people around more likely to help
May fear helping wrongly or worry they’ll be blamed for situation later on - evaluate cost
Assume others will help - diffusion of responsibility
If distress is conspicuous do help, personally involved do help
Social influence and by stander effect
Look to others for how to behave when situation is ambiguous
Cooperation - Robbera cave experiment
High cohesion within group and high conflict between groups
Super ordinate goals resulted in loss of conflict
Aggressive behavior
Social learning theory
Bandura
TV
Learned
Bobo dolls
Aggression
Catharsis
Deindividuation
Draining aggression - not supported and leads to more aggression
Crowd effect - lessens inhibition and ncrwSes aggression
Social Role theory
Or script theory
We internaliSe our social roles and eventually become these rolls
Zombardo’s prison study
Assigned roles determine behavior or strongly influence it
Pseudo patient experiment
Rosenhan
Drs treated confederates as crazy -psychotic
Roles influence the behaviors of others
But other patients generally not fooled
Obedience - submit to authority
Milgrim
Teacher and learner - shocks
People obey when they think a person is a legitimate authority
Subjects underestimated how much they and others would obey
Conformity
Due to social pressure conform behavior
Influences:
Deviancy: if we already feel different and we want to avoid disapproval - more likely to conform
Unanimous in judgement
Group size: as increases so does conformity
Cohesiveness; as above
Anonymous: less conformity
The more different the more pressure to conform
Low iq high need for approval low self esteem authoritarianism
Minority influence
Under the following conditions:
bEST: Position is firm and consistent but not perceived as biased or rigid
Not a member of a familiar social group arguing in favor of that groups interest
Idiosyncrasy credit: hx of conforming then occasionally differing - spending brownie points
Compliance - agree to behave a way because asked
Foot in the door
Door in the face
Jack Brent and reactance theory
Agree to small request then asking for larger
Asking big then asking for less (fake compromise)
Opposite of compliance - higher pressure lead to feeling of losing choice and digs in
Social power - influence needs power French and Raven propose 5 or 6 power relationships - often combine Coercive Reward Legitimate Expert Referant power Informational
Power to punish Reward Actual, Milgrim experiment Superior skill or knowledge Admire or like Has info we need
Group behavior
Social facilitation
Social loafing
Sometimes we perform better in front of others
- task simple or well learned
When others are there to pick up the slack, we slack - simple, boring, and require same effort for everyone - reduced if believe contributions are identifiable or necessary - or when seen as challenging or personally relevant
Group decision making
Group polarization or risky shift
Group think - Janis
Generally superior
But tendency for more extreme positions after group discussion ( risky if in risky direction ) - more likely if pursuasive and if perceived as in group
Cohesive groups with a strong leader where dissent is stifled and criticism stifled - can produce extreme views. Assign a devils advocate or leader refrains from giving opinion
Crowding
High density situations enhance whatever feeling you’re already having
Less if distracted
Men more sensitive
Field theory - as get near approach/avoid conflict
Strength of both increase but negative increases more
The Y and the chain
The circle and the all channel
Centralized communication networks - info flows through one person - only person likely to be satisfied
Efficient for simple tasks
Decentralized communication networks - info flows freely - all people likely to be satisfied
Health belief model
Perceived susceptibility Perceived severity Perceived benefits Perceived barriers Providing cues to action (reminders)
Threats of retAliation
Work to deter violence if threatened is of high power
Increase aggression if the retaliatory has previously provoked the person
Group tasks Additive Conjunctive Disjunctive Compensatory Complementary
Add- addition of individual efforts so outcome is combination
Con - product determined by least competent member
Dis- product determined by most skilled member
Compensatory - average input (judges)
Complementary - more than sum of parts (orchestra)
Subjective validation
Barnum effect
Forer effect
Evaluating as accurate because find it personally meaningful
- accepting as uniquely personal not realizing could be applied to anyone
Contrast effect
What precedes or presented together effects judgment (shades of color, attractiveness, performance etc)
Social facilitation
Social inhibition
Increased arousal may underlie - do a better job with others around
Do worse when others around
Adverse impact
Hiring rate for a minority group is less than 80% of majority group
Decrease cohesiveness
Heterogeneous
Not directive leader
Better decision making
Decentralized network
Higher worker satisfaction
