Social Psychology Flashcards
Social psychology
How ppl’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by others
Social cognition
Inferences abt ppl’s thoughts, beliefs, abilities, etc that we use to understand and eval others
What are the 2 types of social cognition inferences
Category-based inferences: inferences based on info abt the categories to which a person belongs (e.g. stereotyping)
Target-based inferences: inferences based on info abt an indiv’s behavior
True or false: we’re accurate in our snap judgements of ppl
TRUE
- We make social judgments abt ppl we don’t know well
- Judgements can be made quickly and w some degree of accuracy
- Ambady study – participants were accurate in prof evals after watching thin-slices
How are first impressions formed
Schemas and stereotypes
Stereotype
- Type of category-based inference based on ppl’s category membership
- Often inaccurate
- Not necessarily bad, but can be – can lead to prejudice and discrimination
Prejudice vs discrimination
Prejudice: negative EVALUATION of another person based on their category membership
Discrimination: negative BEHAVIOR TOWARDS another person based on their category membership
How to reduce prejudice
Contact w outside group – facilitates learning –> reduction in fear and anxiety
Illusory correlation
- A person perceives a stronger correlation btw things than there actually is
- Minority groups and negative events are more attention-grabbing, and both combined are extra attention-grabbing –> skews perception of frequency
- This can be one of the ways we form stereotypes
What does the impression formation task show
- 2 groups of hypothetical ppl, but A is twice as big as B
- Same ratio of pos to neg statements given, BUT ppl tend to have more positive view of group A members than group B members
–> indicates that number of exposures influences impression formation
Attribution + 2 types
Inference abt the CAUSE of a person’s behavior
Situational attribution: we decide a person’s behavior was caused by a TEMPORARY aspect of the situation
Dispositional attribution: we decide a person’s behavior was caused by a ROOTED tendency to act/think/feel a certain way
Three attributional questions to determine which type of attribution
1) Consistency: does the person do this regularly?
2) Consensual: do most people do this?
3) Distinctive: does this person perform similar actions?
Low consistency + high consensus + high distinctiveness –> situational
High consistency + low consensus + low distinctiveness –> dispositional
Fundamental attribution error
- Dispositional attribution instead of a situational one – we assume they always act a certain way when it rlly was just circumstantial
- Ppl usually don’t consider the situational causes bc they’re often invisible + situational attributions are difficult to make
- Strength of error varies btw cultures and ppl
Zimbardo 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment
- Would “good” ppl do “bad” things if placed in a bad situation?
- Started fine, but then guards started acting their role
- Considered extremely extremely unethical today – experiment had to be cut short
- Zimbardo claimed it as an example of the influence of social roles + how roles, even tho randomly assigned, made ppl do things they could have never imagined
- Problems: original ad may have primed them to act a certain way (guard/prisoner dynamic)
Actor-observer effect
- We make situational attributions for our own behaviors but dispositional attributions when others do the same thing
- OFten occurs bc we have more info abt our own motives than others’
Rational ideal vs irrational reality
Ideally we’re rational thinkers but we rlly aren’t
Rational choice theory
We make decisions by determining how likely something is to happen and judging the value of the outcome
Are humans better at judging probabilities or frequencies
FREQUENCIES
Frequency: the number of times smthn will occur in a given timeframe
Probability: The likelihood of smthn occurring
- Both adults and children naturally good at estimating freqs –> suggests it’s “natural”
- Bad at thinking in terms of prob – more abstract/less familiar + it depends on how the problem is described
Availability heuristic
Mental shortcut (heuristic) where ppl rely on info most readily available to them
Representativeness heuristic
Mental shortcut (heuristic) where ppl estimate the probability of an event by comparing it to a known situation
E.g. you assume someone has a cold if they have a cough and runny nose
Conjunction fallacy
Ppl think that 2 events are more likely to occur together than either indiv event
Framing effects
Ppl give different answers to the same problem depending on how the question is framed (e.g. 70% success rate vs 30% failure rate)
Sunk-cost fallacy
- Type of framing effect where ppl make decisions abt a situation on the basis of what they’ve alr invested into it
- Occurs bc of risk aversion
Risk aversion
Ppl tend to avoid losses more than they want to achieve gains
Optimism bias
Ppl believe that compared to other ppl, they’re more likely to experience positive events and less likely to experience negative ones
Anchoring
- Ppl rely too heavily on the first piece of info they receive when making decisions
- Use it as “anchor” to compare other data to
Prospect theory
Ppl choose to take on risks when evaluating potential losses + avoid risks when evaluating potential gains
Certainty effect
Assumption of prospect theory – suggests that ppl give more weight to guaranteed outcomes (e.g. majority choose 100% chance at $3K instead of 80% chance at $4k)
Group behavior
How we behave around others
Social influence
Ability to change or direct someone else’s behavior
3 basic motivations of interpersonal interaction
1) Hedonic motive: experience pleasure + avoid pain
2) Approval motive: acceptance + avoid rejection
3) Accuracy motive: believe what is true + avoid believing what is false
Overjustification effect
A reward DECREASES a person’s intrinsic motivation to perform a behavior
Reactance
- Unpleasant feeling that arises when ppl feel like they’re being coerced (e.g. by a reward or punishment)
- Causes participants to do the thing they were coerced NOT to do to prove a point
Norms
Standards for behavior widely shared by members of a culture
E.g. norm of reciprocity: ppl should benefit those who have benefitted them
Door-in-the-face technique
Influence strat that involves getting someone to accept an offer by getting them to refuse a large request first and then accept a smaller offer
Example of norm of reciprocity: you conceded by making the price cheaper or smthn, so they feel obligated to concede by buying the product
Normative influence
Another person’s behavior provides info on what is the norm
Conformity
Tendency to do what others do simply bc they’re doing it
Describe the Asch line experiment
- Examining conformity
- 7 confederates + 1 real participant; all were asked to compare lines
- Confederates purposefully answered line length comparison wrong to see if the real participant would conform
- Throughout multiple trials, 75% of participants gave the wrong answer and conformed at least once
- On avg, ppl conformed on 1/3 of of the 12 trials
- Conformity caused by both normative and informational influence
Variations in study found that:
- Presence of ally, privacy when giving answer –> LESS conformity
- More confederates –> MORE conformity
Normative influence
Conformity results from a concern for what others think of us
Informational influence
Conformity results from feeling the group is giving them useful information (e.g. maybe the group sees smthn that I don’t)
Confederate
Fake participant who is actually “in” on the experiment with the researcher
Obedience
Tendency to do what an authority figure tells you to do
Describe the Milgram experiment
- Examining obedience
- Fake memory test where the “teacher” would punish the “learner” by administering shocks
- Voltage would increase after each wrong answer (went up to 450 volts)
- Rigged so the participant was always chosen to be the “teacher” and confederate to be the “learner”
- If the participant objected, the experimenter would tell them to continue
- 65% of participants obedient to the very highest shock lvl
- Considered unethical; participants were highly stressed during the experiment + some didn’t even receive a proper debrief (even tho follow-up questionnaire responded that they were glad they participated)
- Not all participants believed the study was real in the first place
Variations in study found that:
- Closeness of confederate or experimenter influences obedience
- Respectability of env; less respectable env –> less obedience
- # of “teachers” + their opinion; adding more confederate teachers and having them become disobedient –> less obedience
Attitude vs belief
Attitude: enduring pos or neg eval of a stim
Belief: component of attitude; enduring piece of knowledge abt a stim
Persuasion
Attitudes or beliefs influenced by communication from another person
Elaboration likelihood model
2 “routes” of persuasion:
1) Central-route: attitudes or beliefs changed by appeals to LOGIC AND REASON – works best w good evidence
2) Peripheral-route: attitudes or beliefs changed by appeals to HABIT OR EMOTION – works best when ppl aren’t motivated to weigh evidence
Foot-in-the-door technique
Make a small request and then follow it up w a larger one
Cognitive dissonance
- Unpleasant state that arises when a person recognizes the inconsistency of their actions, beliefs, or values
- Causes ppl to try to alleviate it; one way is to eliminate the inconsistency (e.g. sometimes ppl value things just bc they paid for them one way or another)
Bystander effect
- Failure to offer help by those who observed someone in need when others are present
- May be motivated by uncertainty + diffusion of responsibility, not a lack of caring
Diffusion of responsibility
Possible explanation for bystander effect; ppl feel a diminished sense of responsibility when surrounded by others acting the same way
Kitty Genovese case
- Murdered in NYC; 37 witnesses but no one called the police – demonstrates bystander effect
Darley & Latane study
- Examined bystander effect
- Phone calls with varying #s of ppl and one confederate who would fake a medical emergency
- As # of ppl on call increased, % responding decreased + avg response time increased
CCTV vs lab bystander effect studies
In real world (observed by CCTV), ppl seem much more ready to help
