Social Psychology Flashcards
Social comparison theory
People evaluate their own abilities and opinions by comparing themselves to others.
Upward comparison: comparing yourself to someone perceived as better/more successful, motivates self improvement but could cause feelings of inadequacy
Downward comparison: comparing yourself to someone perceived as worse/less successful, boosts self esteem and comfort
Enlightenment effect
Understanding of psychology principles improves your self awareness and decision making, leading to more thoughtful/intentional behavior
Halo effect
Perception of one positive trait influences your overall impression, causing other traits to be viewed more favorably
Self-fulfilling prophecy
Belief held about a person that causes the belief to come true
Attitude
Reflect how we think/act/feel towards something, characterized by positive/negative feelings, beliefs and behavioral tendencies toward it
Components of attitudes
Affective: refers to emotional aspect of attitude, how we feel about things, whether we like them or not
Behavioral: how our attitudes influence our actions and behaviors, what we do as a result of our attitude
Cognitive: beliefs or thoughts about an entity, involves information or perception
Dimensions of attitudes
Measure how attitudes vary in strength or nature
Strength: how firmly held an attitude
Accessibility: how easily an attitude comes to mind when one is faced with an object
Ambivalence: presence of mixed/conflicting feelings about an object
Cognitive dissonance
Discomfort/tensions we feel when we hold two contradictory beliefs/attitudes, or engage in behavior that conflicts with existing beliefs/attitudes. Motivates us to change our attitude, behavior, or create new cognition (to justify contradiction) to reduce inconsistency to reduce discomfort
Self-perception theory
People infer their own attitudes/beliefs through observing their own behavior, especially when they don’t have strong pre existing attitudes. Therefore our own behavior leads us to adopt new attitudes
Impression management theory
People change attitudes and behaviors to create a desired impression to be consistent with social expectations or gain approval. Attitude changes as a result of a need to manage impressions of others. Causes people to present beliefs/attitudes aligning with social norms/expectations
Elaboration likelihood model
Explains how people process persuasive messages and how likely they are to change as a result
Central route: involves careful, thoughtful processing of persuasive messages, and is likely to be lasting if the person is motivated and thinks deeply about the issue
Peripheral route: involves attitude change based on attractiveness or emotional appeal over careful consideration. This change is more temporary
Foot in the door vs door in the face technique
Foot in the door: small request is made first to gain compliance, followed by greater request. People are more likely to agree to the second because they already agreed to the first
Door in the face: large request that is likely to be rejected, followed by smaller more reasonable request. People are more likely to agree to the second one because it seems relatively more reasonable
Attribution
How people try to explain causes of behaviors events or outcomes
Stable: factor is fixed and does not change
Unstable: factor is not fixed and can change over time
Internal: causality assigned to personal traits, feelings, abilities
External: causality assigned to situational factor
How do individualist vs collectivist cultures affect attribution
Individualist: emphasize personal responsibility and internal attribution
Collectivist: emphasize situational elements and external attribution
Attribution errors
Fundamental attribution error: while judging others, we tend to overemphasize personal (internal) characteristics and ignore situational (external) factors
Defensive attribution error: explaining things in a way that defends us from feelings of vulnerability or mortality
Stereotypes
Generalized beliefs or expectations about members of a group, simplify complex social information, lead to oversimplified or incorrect assumptions
Subtyping
Occurs when ppl see individuals who do not fit a stereotype, and believe they are exceptions to the rule, creating a subtype to maintain the original stereotype
Perceptual confirmation
Tendency to see what we expect to see, and interpret ambiguous behavior in a way that confirms our pre existing stereotypes or beliefs
Illusory correlation
Perception of a relationship between two variables when it does not exist
Adaptive conservatism
Tendency to favor familiar/“safe” groups. Has roots in evolutionary psychology (was once necessary to group together with people for survival), leads to prejudice/mistrust against unfamiliar groups
Out-group homogeneity
Perception that members of an out group are more similar to each other than members of one’s in group, leads to stereotyping/belief that all members of a group are “all the same”
Contact hypothesis
Proses that under certain conditions (equal status, cooperation and support from authorities/institutions), direct contact between members of different groups reduces prejudice
Common knowledge effect
People are more likely to talk about info that group members know, because shared info is safe. Familiar info is an indicator of in group status, unfamiliar info is an indicator of our group status
Social loafing
We don’t work as hard in group projects as solo, because we perceive that people will do our work for us
Group polarization
The opinion of the collective group when they get together is more extreme than the opinions of one individual, because people don’t want to offer opposing opinions
Groupthink
You are more likely to agree with group than say no for fear of rejection
Deindividuation
People abandon their individual identity for the sake of the group identity, engaging in activities they may not normally
Group influence
Conformity: going along with group behavior or opinion without being directly requested
Compliance: going along with group behavior with direct request
Obedience: type of compliance where direct request comes from authority figure
Informational vs normative influence
Informational: going along with a group because you genuinely believe the group is right, behavior will persist after group leaves
Normative influence: going along with the group to avoid rejection, not because you think they are right, behavior will change after group leaves
Correlates of conformity
Unanimity, group size = correlated w/ conformity
Anonymity, presence of co-conspirator = inversely correlated w/ conformity
Milgram study
Obedience study where people are instructed to administer a deadly shock to someone by an authority figure
Correlates of obedience
Physical closeness of authority figure, legitimate authority, depersonalized victim
Temporal closeness of request and action, depersonalized victim, defiant models = inversely correlated with obedience
Sternberg’s triangular theory of love
Intimacy: sharing deep emotions, thoughts and feelings
Passion: hot, physical attraction (lust)
Commitment: desire/intent to stay in the relationship
Matching hypothesis
People will be in relationships with people of equal levels of attraction
Correlates of attraction
Facial symmetry, proximity to each other, similar level of attractiveness = correlated with attraction
Types of aggression
Relational: trying to harm other’s relationships
Physical: trying to cause physical harm
Hostile/hot: out of emotion
Instrumental: aggression used to reach a goal
Identity/societal role can affect aggression
Kin selection
More likely to help people related to us
Reciprocal altruism
“You help me, I’ll help you”
Empathy-altruism hypothesis
To help someone without any physical benefit for yourself, you must have empathy for them. Some disagree, say that all empathy is for an emotional benefit
Bystander effect
More likely to help someone when there are fewer people around (ties into conformity/group size)
Social responsibility norm
Humans have a responsibility to help those more vulnerable
