Social Psychology Flashcards
Social-cognitive approach to personality
people behave differently due to individual differences in self-schema
self-schemas provide a framework for organising and storing information about our personality
self-schema
cognitive representations of oneself that one uses to organise and process self-relevant information
consists of the important behaviours and attributes
self-reference effect
remember things much better if they’re related to you, as they are processed through self-schemas
self-awareness
understanding we are separate entity from others
self-recognition test
mark placed on forehead and then person/ animal is placed in front of a mirror, self-awareness is assumed if they touch the mark on their forehead
self-concept
personal summary of who we are
self-perception theory
our own behaviour as a basis for inference, intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards
external/ extrinsic motivations
behaviour driven by rewards, rewards don’t have to be related to the behaviour
externally motivated behaviours not reflective of the self
may reduce motivation to repeat the behaviours in the future if they were externally motivated
internal/ intrinsic motivations
behaviour driven by self-interest
no explicit reward for behaviour
behaviour is rewarding in itself
internally motivated behaviours more reflective of the self, associated with increased motivations to repeat behaviour
self-fulfilling prophecy
idea that if someone has an expectation if you, you will most likely follow through with that expectation
social comparison theory (as a source of the self)
use others to evaluate our own abilities and characteristics
think of ourselves in terms of what makes us unique
upward (people better off than us) versus downward (people worse off than us) comparisons
upward social comparison
when we compare ourselves to someone who is better than us, often to improve ourselves
downward social comparison
when we compare ourselves to someone who is worse than us, often to make ourselves feel better
Study on student alcohol abuse
Shows that context and environment can influence the self
Amount consumed after graduation goes down
often reduce quantity consumed but not always frequency
suggests a drinking identity whilst at uni may be important part of the self-concept which then reduces after graduation
Lindgren et al. (2022)
Drinking identity, consumption and social networks reduce after graduation
reductions in drinking come before changes in identity
context may promote drinking, which changes personality
suggests that this personality change is stable until context is removed, then it reverts
so suggests context is very important for the self
Independent (western) cultures self-concept
coherence through seeing self as independent, separate from others, expressed in inner thoughts and feelings
describe self with general attributes: smart, shy, outgoing
interdependent (eastern) cultures self-concept
coherence through web of social connections with others
describe self using roles and/ or relationships: daughter, religion
three simultaneous selves
ideal self
ought self
actual self
actual self
the person we think we are right now, including the good and bad qualities, group membership, and other self-concept components
ideal self
the person we hope to become, the best version of our potential, with positive or enhanced qualities and realised dreams
ought self
what other people want us to be, includes cultural, parental and romantic partner expectations
self-presentation theory
we adapt to fit into the situation
we present ourselves to make an impression
impression management and self-monitoring (which can be exhausting)
self-control
ability to override thoughts, emotions and behaviours (requires effort)
implement behaviours which are appropriate for the situation
self-expression
actions consistent with self-concept (actual self)
self-presentation
actions shape others impressions of us in positive ways (ought or ideal self) - we may inhibit certain behaviours
low self-monitoring
act as they truly see themselves
consistent with self-schema
high self-monitoring
act as the situation calls for
impression formation
regulatory focus theory
promotion focus: engage self-control to promote ideal self, often intrinsically motivated - to better yourself
prevention focus: engage self-control to promote ought self, used to fulfil one’s obligations, often extrinsically motivated (avoiding punishment) - focus on who we should be
self-discrepancy theory
when our different selves do not align can lead to mental health problems and poor self-esteem
self-esteem
how good you feel about yourself
indicates how you are doing in terms of successes and social acceptance versus failures and social rejection
confidence in one’s abilities
self-worth or respect
what does it mean that we are risk-averse?
we usually chose situations where we can succeed
internal locus of control
people can affect what happens to them
good and bad experiences are people’s own making
better coping, less anxiety
external locus of control
people who believe that what happens to them is outside of their control
higher rates of psychological disorders
poorer self-esteem
cultural differences in self-esteem
self-enhancement is absent in some Asian and interdependent cultures compared to the West, found in Heine & Lehman (2003)
how does witnessing a good or bad performance by someone else affect us?
if performance is good = we feel bad
if performance is bad = we feel good
Brewer and Weber (1994)
participants assigned to majority or minority group
randomly assigned
if participants were in the majority and witnessed: another majority do good = they feel bad, majority does bad = they feel good, minority performance does not affect majority
if participants were in the minority: if minority is good = they feel good, if majority performance is bad = they feel bad
pattern reversed in majority and minority
sources of the self
personal thoughts and emotions - rewarding, anxiety inducing
other people’s reactions - similar to self fulfilling prophecy, others expectations shapes your behaviour
social comparison theory - upward or downward comparison
minimal group paradigm
experimental method to study group conflict
to be considered a minimal group paradigm:
there must be no face-to-face contact
participants must not know which groups other people belong to
group allocation must be fairly meaningless
responses could not be justified by strategic motives (arbitrary)
Robber’s Cave experiment (Sherif et al. 1954)
Participants were 22 boys with a medium age of 12
they were divided into two groups in a scout camp
findings show that hostility can occur between groups with the introduction of competition
when the competition was removed the conflict didn’t stop until they had to work together for a goal that benefitted everyone
Realistic group conflict theory
fighting over resources
evolutionary and economic account as to why group conflict occurs
groups usually compete when resources are contested
for example Israel and Palestine over land
supported by Robber’s Cave and other experiments
group competition leads to ethnocentrism
ethnocentrism
where the outgroup is vilified and the ingroup is glorified
Who came up with social identity theory
Tajfel, 1971
Social identity theory to explain intergroup conflict
alternative explanation of group conflict
we derive self-esteem from our valued group memberships
we feel comforted and validated by shared experiences and opinions
key part of building self-esteem from group membership is believing outgroups are inferior
in-group
those who belong to our social group
viewed as similar to ourselves
view members as unique and novel
out-group
those who belong to other social group
viewed as dissimilar to ourselves
view members as similar/homogenous (stereotypes)
self-categorisation
seeing oneself as a member of a social group rather than a unique individual
social identity
the way we feel about our group memberships
even if we identify with a group, it may not be a strong influence on our behaviour
sources of group membership
events remind people of group memberships
direct reminders from others
presence of in-group members
presence of out-group members
intergroup conflict (being treated differently reminds you)
how does group membership influence self-esteem?
when our group wins we feel great
refer to group as ‘we’ more after a win
we tend to rely on groups successes to hide our failures
group membership can protect self-esteem
Cialdini and Borden (1976)
Basking in Reflected Glory study
football teams
students football teams they were more likely to refer to the winning team as ‘we’
in-group favouritism
perceptions of other in-group members become favourable
positivity towards in-group based on group membership not based on unique personal characteristics
in-group favouritism
perceptions of other in-group members become favourable
positivity towards in-group based on group membership not based on unique personal characteristics
out-group homogeneity effect
seeing out-group as less diverse than in-group
fewer out-group members known
out-groups treated more negatively
focus on group membership, no attempt to learn individual characteristics
Billig and Tajfel (1973)
Schoolboys divided into group X and W
allowed to divide points between their group and the other group members
they gave more points to their group and wanted out-group to be disadvantaged even if it cost them points
preferred taking 11 points for their group and 7 points for outgroup, rather than 17 points for each group
Lemyre and Smith (1985) findings
people feel better about themselves after discriminating against out-groups
stigma
devalued social identity
typically associated with minority status
being part of a stigmatised group can cost the persons performance and self-esteem
stereotype threat
impairment due to knowledge that others devalue ones group
performance not impaired if group membership is not highlighted or external excuse for failure is present
Spencer et al. (1999)
stereotype threat
men and women, maths test
told there was gender differences vs. told there’s not
if the women highly identified with their gender they felt stereotype threat and performed worse in the maths test when told there was gender differences
what are social norms?
accepted ways to think. feel act
often informed by group membership
observe group members attitudes or behaviours
Asch (1951)
line judgement task
confederates gave wrong answer and participants frequently went along
only 25% never conformed
private conformity
personally convinced that group is correct; conform even when group is not present
public conformity
behave consistently with norms that are not privately accepted as correct
culture differences in conformity
conformity found in both Western and non-Western cultures
effects are stronger in interdependent Asian cultures (they emphasise group membership more)
false consensus effect
overestimating the extent to which others agree with our attitudes, preferences and behavioural choices
(presume people agree with us)
group polarisation (dangers of conformity)
idea that when we follow the group too much can lead to very polarising beliefs (very different from others)
groupthink (dangers of conformity)
not thinking individually, just going with the group
pluralistic ignorance (dangers of conformity)
assumption that a certain issue is not a problem anymore so it is just ignored
foot-in-the-door (promoting conformity)
start with small request then gradually increase what you’re asking for
door-in-the-face (promoting conformity)
start with unrealistic offer then decrease it to what you actually wanted
rule of reciprocity (promoting conformity)
do something for someone and they may do something for you
low-ball technique (promoting conformity)
just lying to get what you want, hide the real costs of something
salience of group (promoting conformity) in Stanford Prison experiment
they felt like they belonged to the prisoner or guard group, he gave them uniforms etc. to make the group salient
example of how authority figures can promote conformity
obedience study by Milgrim shows authority figure increased conformity
What is an attitude?
a cognitive representation that summarises evaluation of an attitude object (e.g. belief)
attitude objects
can be the self, other people, things, actions, events or ideas
ways to measure attitudes
self-report on attitude scales
observation of behaviour
physiological measures (e.g. EEG, heartrate, skin conductance)
reaction time measures