Social Psychology Flashcards
Social psychology
How thoughts feeling and behaviors are influenced by our surroundings.
Attributions
are explanations for events / actions including others behaviors.
Dispositional attribution:
behavior is determined by internal factors (like ability mood effort traits)
Situational attribution
behavior determined by the environment factors external to the person
What attribution do we favor?
Dispositional attribution
Correspondence bias:
we make dispositional attributions for other behaviors when the situation can better explain the behavior.
Ex even though people were told that the author was instructed to write a pro castro essay (situationsal explanation), they still said the author was pro castor (dispositional attribution)
(more updated fundamental attribution error)
Cross cultural differences in correspondence bias
Collective cultures : less likely to focus on situational vs. dispositional
They do still make it, just lesser extent, and more likely to correct it after highlighted
Actor observer bias
For other people’s behavior
We make correspondence bias
Cause of behavior : gps isn’t working (situational attribution)
Attribution: that jerk cut in line (dispositional attribution)
For our own behavior
We make the correct situational attribution
Cause of behavior: gps isn’t working
Attribution “”
Self Serving Bias
Failure:
Our own
Situational attribution
Others
Dispositional attribution
Success
Our own
Dispositional
Others
Situational attribution
Attitudes
Evaluation of a person idea or object
Positive negative or neutral
** people want to hold correct attitudes
3 components of attitude
Affect
Cognitive
Behavioral
Social psychology looks at
(attitude)
Changing attitudes
Persuasion
Attitude persuasion and the Yale Method
Messenger
- Credibility
- attractiveness
Message
- Subtle (important but not obvious)
- Sidedness (helps if people are on your side)
- Timing (primacy vs. recency)
Audience
- Self-esteem
- Intelligence
- All should be more average / medium
Yale Method
Explains when a message is persuasive (messenger, message, audience)
Does not tell us about the strength of attitude change
Elaboration likelihood model
The model aims to explain different ways of processing stimuli, why they are used, and their outcomes on attitude change.
Central route
Peripheral route
Central Route
Critically engaged with material
Based on logic and reasoning
Stronger arguments = better
Attitude change
Resistant to counter persuasion
Longer lasting
Peripheral route
Do not critically engage
Heuristics
Who is telling the message
What emotions are associated
Positive characteristics
Attitude change
Susceptible to counter persuasion
Short lasting
The foot in the door method
We want to behave in a consistent manner
We want to hold consistent attitudes
If you get someone to agreer to a small favor
Much more loikley to agree to a larger one
Door in the face technique
Bigger ask - rejection, smaller ask - accept
Ask for something outlandish, then compromise for something smaller
Other person more willing to compromiser too (social reciprocity)
Cognitive dissonance: def
experiencing an uncomfortable mental state because i held two inconsistent attitudes/behaviors/beliefs
Cognitive dissonance ex
Things that are important to us cause more cognitiv =e dissonance
Physchologically and physiologically uncomfortable
Bringing future behaviour in line with attitudes (ex. Stop smoking)
Rationalize/ deny discrepant attitudes (8 years, my lungs cna recover)
Add new cognition (smoking helps me deal with depression)
Bring attitudes in line with behaviour (I like R and B)
How to change behaviour
Peresausion (Yale and ELM)
Get to agree to simpler task (foot in door technique)
Get them to compromise cause we compromised (door in the face technique)
Create cognitive dissonance
Obey
Tendency to do what powerful people tell us to do
Milgram’s study of obedience
Rigged student word shock study
People who disobey more
Stronger moral development
Lower in right wing authoritarianism
Obedience is highest when
Experimenter close
Seen as legit
No defiers
Learner was further away
Asch experiment
(Milgram’s teacher)
(conformity)
1 participant, many actors
Actors guess wrong on purpose
Participant will conform even though they know the answer is wrong
75% conformed one
25% never conformed
Conformity is the highest..
Group 3+ people
Everyone agrees
Feeling incompetent/insecure
Admire group status
No prior commitment to response
Culture emphasizes social respect
Types of social influence
Approval Motive:
Normative influence:
Informational influence:
Approval Motive:
want approval from other people
Normative influence:
want to be good group members; what are other people doing, we do that in order to fit in.
Behavior changes; attitudes remain the same
Informational influence:
when you are not sure what behavior is appropriate so you look to others to copy their behavior
Look to other for hints as to what reality is
Your attitude and behavior changes
Social facilitation
What you do well you do well in front of others
Social inhibition
What you do not-so-well, you will do worse around others
Latane, Williams and Harkins (1979)
Slapping experiment
Effort put in
Most effort alone
Less effort the more people there are
Soundproof boxes and blindfold
Most effort alone
When thought there were more people less effort
(groupwork)
Social Loafing
Reasons
Accountability (easy task)
If rewards are spread equally / proportionally
The more group members there are, the larger the social loafing
Decreases for difficult tasks where efforts are anonymous
Groupthink
(intelligent) Groups reach consensus about a decision to keep harmony
Holier than thou, think are more moral
Ignore / silence people who disagree
People feel they can not disagree leader that is respected
Moral superiority
Group Formation
We psychologically identify with groups of people who we admire or are similar to
Ingroup
Outgroup
Tajfel (1970) – we identify with seemingly “meaningless” groups
* Similarities in liking a painting
* Estimating the number of dots on a page.
Group formation s
Being part of a group is a source of self esteem for ourselves
Derogating against another group makes us feel better about ourselves
We feel affiliation with a group even when we are told that group membership was part of random assignment
Outcomes of group formations:
Attitude
Cognitions
Behaviour
Stereotypes:
Overgenerelized beliefs about a whole group
About n individual based on their membership of a group
Influence how we interpret behaviour
Forms the basis of our prejudice
Fisk (2002)
Stereotype Content Model
Attitudes are contingent on our stereotypes
Intergorup attitudes and prejudices
Negative attitude towards someone/a group of people because they are a member of a group
Ex anti asian hate in COVID
Discrimination
Negative behaviour towards someone because theta re a member of that group
In group favoritsm
More willing to lie to help an in group member
Mor elikley to help in gorup member than out group member
