Social Psychology Flashcards
FIRST IMPRESSIONS OVERVIEW
- People readily gather first impressions of others - even based only on a still photograph shown for a tenth of a second
- First impressions are lasting - enduring for months and even in the face of contradictory evidence
- Usually pretty accurate
PERSONALITY TRAITS WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN IN FIRST IMPRESSIONS
○ Extroversion
○ Conscientiousness (responsible, organised)
○ Agreeableness (nice)
○ Neuroticism (emotional stability, bad moods, anxiety)
○ Openness to experience (curious, creative)
MOSTLY ACCURATE
2 THINGS WE WANT TO KNOW
• WARMTH (OR THE OPPOSITE if you are low in this)
○ Friendly, helpful, agreeable, kind-hearted, trustworthy
• CONFIDENCE
○ Ability to do things
• Judgements of these 2 things usually are not accurate
DRAW INFO IN FIRST IMPRESSIONS FROM
○ Facial cues § Baby-facedness § Familiarity § Fitness § Emotional resemblance (similar emotions to ourselves) ○ Demographic characteristics ○ Behaviours
ATTRIBUTION DEFINE
We often find ourselves trying to figure out why people act in a particular way
Process is called making an attribution
(process of first impressions)
ATTRIBUTION THEORY
we credit others’ behaviour to either INTERNAL DISPOSITIONS or EXTERNAL SITUATIONS or a combination of both
3 TYPES OF THINGS WE CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING ATTRIBUTION THEORY
Consensus
Consistency
Distinctiveness
Consensus (Attribution Theory)
○ Extent to which other people react to the same stimulus or event in the same way as the person that we are considering
○ (this could be people who tend to behave the same way in a situation STRONG or people who differ in their reaction a lot WEAK)
Do others regularly behave this way in this situation?
Consistency (Attribution Theory)
○ Extent to which the person In question reacts to the stimulus or event in the same way on different occasions (i.e. across time)
○ Does this person regularly behave this way in this situation?
Distinctiveness (Attribution Theory)
○ Extent to which the person in question responds in the same manner to different stimuli or events
○ Does this person behave this way in many other situations?
WHAT LEADS TO INTERNAL DISPOSITIONAL THEORY
LOW: Consensus/Distinctiveness
HIGH: Consistency
WHAT LEADS TO EXTERNAL SITUATIONAL THEORY
HIGH: Consistency, Distinctiveness, Consensus
ATTRIBUTIONAL ERRORS
○ The correspondence bias occurs when people infer dispositions from situationally induced behaviours (Gilbert & Malone, 1995)
§ Variation of the Fundamental Error and the Observer Bias
NORMAL ATTRIBUTION PROCESS + WHY CORRESPONDANCE BIAS ARISES
NORMAL
Situation Perception = Behavioural Expectation = Behaviour Perception = Attribution
CORRESPONDER BIAS: Situation Perception (People lack awareness of actors objective or subjective situation) = Behavioural Expectation (people have inappropriate expectations for how a person will behave in such a situation) = Behaviour Perception (people have an innacurate perception of the actor's behaviour) = Attribution (people lack the motivation or capacity to correct for the trait inferences that may have arisen)
WHY DOES CORRESPONDER BIAS OCCUR
- Dispositional attributions are economical (low cost of being wrong)
- Committing the correspondence bias is not likely to have drastically bad outcomes
- Dispositional attributions satisfy the need for control (i.e. to understand and predict the world)
STEREOTYPES
THOUGHTS
a generalisation about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the group
STEREOTYPES CAN BE BASED ON
any kind of group membership ○ Race ○ Gender ○ Age ○ Religion ○ Where you go to university ○ Sexual orientation ○ Political beliefs Career
PREJUDICE
FEELINGS
Hostile or negative feelings toward a distinguishable group of people based solely on their membership in that group
Discrimination
BEHAVIOURS
Unjustified negative or harmful action toward a member of a group, simply because of a membership in that group
STEREOTYPES AND ATTRIBUTIONS OVERVIEW
- Due to the correspondence bias, we usually blame internal characteristics rather than the situation when attributing the behaviour of stereotypes individuals
- But attributional processes can also lead us to maintain our stereotypes when confronted with stereotype inconsistent behaviour
STEREOTYPES AND ATTRIBUTIONS TYPES OF BEHAVIOURS + RESULT
Consistent behaviour (internal attribution) = stereotype maintained Inconsistent behaviour (situational attribution) - stereotype maintained
SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES DEFINE
• When our beliefs and expectations create reality by influencing our own or others’ behaviour
PYGMALION EFFECT EXPLAIN
○ Person A believes that Person B has a particular characteristic
○ Person B may begin to behave in accordance with that characteristic
EXAMPLES OF PYGMILLIAN EFFECT
• EXAMPLE 1
○ Study by Rosenthal & Fode
§ Divided students into 2 groups and gave them randomly selected rats
§ Differing expectations (all rats were same)
□ Group 1: ‘maze dull’ rats (told rats were dumb)
□ Group 2: ‘maze bright’ rats (told rats were smart) - ran mazes faster - maybe put in more effort to teach them
§ All students trained rats to run mazes
• EXAMPLE 2
○ Study by Rosenthal & Jacobsen 1968
§ Gave 1Q tests (‘academic blooming test’) to students (around yr 3 age)
§ Randomly selected several kids and told the teacher they were ‘bloomers’ (these were the same as other students however)
§ After 1 year, returned and retested students
§ “bloomers showed significant improvements in their IQ scores (maybe they were treated differently) - children didn’t know they were expected to be ‘bloomers’
ATTITUDE DEFINE
tendency to think, feel, or act positively or negatively towards objects in our environment
made up of affective states and cognitions
AFFECTIVE STATES
emotions (temporary reaction a certain situation) and moods (long lasting, don’t know what caused it)
COGNITION
thoughts, beliefs, perceptions
ABC MODEL OF ATTITUDES
Everything influences everything (triangle)
Affect and Cognition affect Behaviour
can be opposite as well
Eg of ABC Model
C - puppies are the best
A - Joy
B - cuddle
C - toxic glue (vegemite)
A - Ewww
B - Spit it out
WHEN WILL ATTITUDES GUIDE OUR BEHAVIOUR
When the attitude is specifically relevant to the behaviour
when outside influences are minimal - free from social pressures
when we are very aware of that attitude
when attitude is more general
BEHAVIOURS IMPACTING AFFECT/COGNITIONS
Embodiment (eg. moving body in some way to recording of tuition increase (Wells and Petty), Approaching and avoidance behaviours
): influences attitudes
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
when behaviors are inconsistent with affective attitudes and cognitive attitudes, it leads to tension - ‘cognitive dissonance’
to reduce dissonance we can:
change behaviour or attitude
amount of dissonance is determined by situational factors such as reward and the reason
When you have two perceptions that differ (both can’t be true at the same time) you feel tense and uncomfortable and want to make these align more
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE EXAMPLE
Festinger and Carlsmith
participants completed boring task
asked to lie and say it was fun
some people given $1 to lie and some people given $20
$20 had less amount of affective attitude change
DISSONANCE AND AFFECTIVE ATTITUDE CHANGE
SMALL REWARDS
acting in a manner inconsistent with affective attitude = wasn’t rewarded (had no good reason - no justification) = large amount of dissonance = large amount of affective attitude change
cant convince themselves they lied so they start to believe it was a fun task
LARGE REWARDS
acting in a manner inconsistent with affective attitude = was rewarded (had a good reason - can be justified) = small amount of dissonance = small amount of affective attitude change
EXAMPLE OF DISSONANCE AND AFFECTIVE ATTITUDE CHANGE
participants asked to eat grasshopper by either a nice or nasty experimented and then they rates how much they likes grasshoppers
nice experimenter = they didn’t like it (only doing it cause the experimenter was nice = less dissonance)
Nasty experimented - they did like it (large dissonance - why did they eat it if they didn’t like it and experimenter was nasty - can’t be justified)
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR DEFINE
helping like behaviours towards other
THE BYSTANDER EFFECT
when the presence of others inhibits helping
Diffusion of Responsibility: As the number of people present increases, individuals feel less personal responsibility and help becomes less likely
BYSTANDER EFFECT EXAMPLE STUDY
THE SEIZURE STUDY
Participants talk about campus life - (either talking to one person or multiple people)
one ‘participant’ has a seizure and asks for help
if participants thought they were alone (presumed available ppl to help) more percentages attempted to help (this dropper with the number of ppl)
EMERGENCY INTERVENTION DECISION TREE OVERALL
- Notice the emergency
- Interpret as emergency
- Assume responsibility
- Know what to do
- Decide to help (eg. weigh costs)
FAILURE AT ANY STEPS LEAD TO INACTION
NOTICE THE EMERGENCY
the situation isn’t always perceived as an emergency
Good Samaritan Study
students asked to prepare a sermon and report to the lab. and there is a groaning victim in the alley
manipulation: LOW (told they are early), MEDIUM (told they should go now, HIGH (told they are late)
less people stopped as it went from low to high
INTERPRET AS EMERGENCY
Ambiguity of situation - look to others
cues to an emergency:
man/woman physically fighting in streets
one couple said “i don’t know you”
other said “i don’t know why i ever married you”
more than 3x as many observers tried to stop the assault by a stranger
ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY
Bystander effect/diffusion of responsibility
sense of responsibility decreases as the number of witnesses increases
most likes under conditions of anonymity (difficult to tell what others have done - they don’t know each other)
KNOW WHAT TO DO
Expertise
bystanders more likely to offer direct help when they feel competent to perform the actions required
Eg. bystanders with first responder training more likely to help bleeding victim that those without, same for heimlich training and choking victim
DECIDE TO HELP
weigh costs of helping vs. not helping
costs of not helping+benefits of helping: (risk to person in need, warm glow of helping, enhanced reputation)
costs of helping+benefits of not helping: (personal risk, legal concerns - liability)
WHO GIVES HELP
people who are more helpful in one situation are more likely to be helpful in another
minor emergency - religious people are only slightly more helpful planned helping (volunteering) - religious faith is a good predictor of helping
WHO RECEIVES HELP
people are more likely to help others who appear less responsible for their situation
likeness breeds liking and liking elicits helping
WHAT CORRELATES MOST WITH ATTRACTION
physical attractiveness for both males and females (r=80-88)
ATTRACTIVENESS
vary across time and culture but some transcend this
FACTORS OF ATTRACTIVENESS
symmetry: nonsymmetrical features can indicate odd genes or environmental stressors
composite faces: faces which are made up of 2 or more faces = more average looking is more attractive
pupil dilation: universal, pupils dilate when we are interested and contract when we are bored/disinterested
(pupils dilate in low light, under threat)
ATTRACTION IN WOMEN
signs of arousal: red lips, flushed cheeks
neotenous (child-like) features (i.e., full lips, round mouth, big eyes)
ATTRACTION IN MEN
signs of maturity and dominance large jaw thin lips prominent brow facial hair height (5'9 and up) v shape torso
AROUSAL
arousal can be interpreted as attraction
experience of emotion arises in part from our awareness of our body’s arousal (arousal+label - reason we are aroused = emotion)
AROUSAL EXPERIMENT
BRIDGE EXPERIMENT
male participants approached by male/female research assistant in the middle of a suspension bridge or sturdy bridge
more people called the assistant if they were on the arousing bridge (suspension)
SIMILARITY
similarity wins over complementary
more likely to share
age,religion,ethnicity,education, beliefs in common
SIMILARITY EXPERIMENT
similarity-liking effect
correlation between interpersonal attraction and actual similarity r=.47
correlation between interpersonal attraction and perceived similarity r=.39
actual similarity = no effect of similarity at later stages of relationship
perceived similarity = stage of relationship did not matter
MATCHING HYPOTHESIS
people pair up with those who are similar in physical attractiveness
generally avoid people who are “out of our league”
PROXIMITY
being closer increases attraction
dorm building friendships: more likely to be close friends if they are situated closer in a dorm
study of adolescents in Swedish town revealed decreasing odds of friendship with increasing distance between households
analysis of marriage licenses revealed 30% of all couples lived within 5 blocks of one another. increased distances saw fewer marriages
The Mere Exposure Effect
what is unfamiliar is potentially dangerous + arouses negative feelings
if nothing negative happens after repeated exposure to the unfamiliar stimulus, negative feelings decrease and positive feelings increase
AFFECT
if we meet someone and have
positive feelings = we like them
negative feelings = we dont like them
affect may have either a direct effect on attraction
or
associated effect on attraction
Direct Effect of Affect
we like people who make us feel good (through words/actions) and dislike the opposite
Associated Effect of Affect
when a positive emotion is due to someone else but it gets associated with a person (familiar scents, good weather)
SELF DISCLOSURE DEFINE
the sharing of personal information is one of the most important factors in the development and maintenance of a relationship
MAIN FINDINGS OF SELF-DISCLOSURE
people who engage in intimate disclosures tend to be more than people who disclose at lower levels
people disclose more to those whom they initially like
people like others as a result of having disclosed to them
INFLUENCES ON HUMAN ATTRACTION
Physical Attractiveness Arousal Similarity Proximity Affect Self-disclosure
TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE
Robert Sternberg
three components of love
intimacy (feelings of attachment, closeness, connectedness)
passion (drives that lead to romance, physical attraction and sexual consummation)
Commitment (short term - decision to care for the other, long term - commitment to maintain the relationship)
8 types of love
TYPES OF LOVE
Infatuation: passion only
Liking: intimacy only
Empty love: commitment only
Fatuous Love: Passion+Commitment
Romantic love: passion +intimacy
Companionate love: Intimacy + Commitment
Consumate love: all three
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
humans are fundamentally tuned to do what others do
we are shaped by evolutionary forces (cooperation/shared thinking and behaviour - sociable is the basis to survival)
SOCIAL INFLUENCE EXTREME EXPERIMENT
If you grew up completely isolate: No language = social construct No symbolic thought (no language) No interpretation of the world (colours etc.) Human existence is fundamentally social
If there is no one around who thinks like you and confirms the way you see the world - it becomes impossible to think in that way (the world is a social construction) - social isolation denies this possibility
NATURE OF HUMAN SOCIABILITY
need for belonging, status and identity
brain evolved to manage social relationships and coordinate groups
INFLUENCE HIERARCHY
Celebrities Publishers Fans Friends Family
Up - more reach but not much influence on micro world
down - less reach but more influence on micro world
FORMS OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Mere presence (social facilitation/inhibition) Conformity Obedience Compliance Group Influence
SOCIAL FACILITATION DEFINE
Triplett
Dynamogenic factor theory: the presence of others is a stimulus arousing the competetive instinct
test: winding fishing reels alone, or in presence of others
You do your best alone but in the presence of other people doing the same task you do it even better
SOCIAL FACILITATION IN ANIMALS EXPERIMENT
eating behaviour of chicken alone and in company
full chickens (already eaten) eat 2/3 again as much grain in company as it had already eaten
Simple maze = running in a straight line (which is the dominant response for cockroaches)
New response = turning a corner to run away from light (something new to learn)
Manipulation: a glass and many other cockroaches as an audience
Simple + audience = faster running
Complex + audience = inhibited running
SOCIAL FACILITATION/SOCIAL INHIBITION
Drive theory:
arousal increases dominant (things people are good at or a natural at) responses
dominant response is correct - facilitation
dominant response is incorrect (something not done well) - inhibition
SOCIAL FACILITATION HUMAN EXPERIMENT
drivers take 15% less time to travel the first 100 yards at an intersection when there is another driver beside them. that when they are lone
Expert players got better when observed
Not experts got worse when observed
(sport: squash)
SOCIAL LOAFING DEFINE
slack off when individual efforts cannot be monitored
CAUSES
Larger group size = less responsibility
low expectancy - working hard wont help
low instrumentality - nobody will notice anyway
SOLUTIONS
Increase relevance and commitment make individual performance identifiable increase group cohesiveness
eg. breaking a big group into smaller groups so they feel belonging to the group and that it is important
CONFORMITY NATURE
copying what others do is a universal tendency
When put into an unfamiliar situation eg. Going to uni, you follow what others are doing
no such thing as a nonconformist (they just conform to different norms):
Or chose to violate norms
Not able to not conform to any norms - behaviour would have to be random
If you do the opposite of a group your behaviour is still determined by the group
CONFORMITY DEFINE
when we adhere to, or adjust, our thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviours to be consistent with the standards of a group or society
CONFORMITY EXPERIMENTS
DOT
Our eyes are always moving
Effect: when in a dark room with a solitary source of light the light will be perceived as moving because your eyes are moving
Asked how far is it moving
Spontaneously agree (no one expected them to agree but they did)
Humans want to be like other humans - we create norms and want to follow rules to be the same
Another variation: one person taken out of group and another put in (will they conform as there is no connection to group) = they do conform
MILGRAMS
over 35% conform but know they are wrong
SITUATIONS THAT STRENGTHEN CONFORMITY
when feeling incompetent or insecure
group has 3+ people
admiring the group
no prior commitment to any response
being observed (absence of anonymity)
culture encourages shared norms (France vs Norway)
group is unanimous
BREAKING CONFORMITY
we often conform to others, without any coercion, even if they are obviously wrong
power of conformity is challenged by the presence of a non-conformist (someone who rebels against the social norm
SHERIF VS ASCH
SHERIF (dots)
Correct response is unclear = informational social influence = private acceptance of group norms
ASCH (lines)
Correct response is clear = normative social influence = public compliance to group norm
FIELD STUDIES OF CONFORMITY
Mann - Bus Stop in Jerusalem
more people joined a queue when there were more people already in the queue
Milgram - New York ‘Looking Up’
more people looked up if 2 or more people looked up
CONSEQUENCES OF CONFORMITY
POSITIVE Structure Predictability Helpful Interventions NEGATIVE Tyranny of group opinions loss of authentic self - deindividuation Irrational behaviour
CONFORMITY VS REPEATED EXPOSURE
hearing the same opinion 3 times from the same person is almost as effective in inducing conformity as hearing 3 people voice the same opinion
Eg. Joseph Goebbels - propaganda success
COMBATING THE PRESSURE TO CONFORM
seek autonomy and authenticity
groups should be able to handle dissent
represent individual opinions
promote individuality
OBEDIENCE DEFINE
behaviour change produced by the commands of an authority
(creates social structure)
EG STUDY: Milgram (1974)
VARIABLES INFLUENCING OBEDIENCE IN STUDY
MILGRAM
role of proximity between, teacher, learner and experimenter
E at hand: 62%, E by remote 45%, E by phone 21%
Victim at hand 49%, victim by remote 65%
forcing victims hand on electrode 30%
effect of disobedient subject before them: 10%
Situation is ambiguous (presence of experimenter guarantees no harm is being done to the ‘student’)
VARIATIONS OF MILGRAM
legitimacy of authority
run down office building or uni
social influences
disobedient subject
COMPLIANCE PROFESSIONAL TECHNIQUES SUMMARY
THE FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR TECHNIQUE
THE LOW-BALLING TECHNIQUE
THE DOOR-IN-THE-FACE TECHNIQUE
Works because the person wants to stay consistent
FOOT IN THE DOOR TECHNIQUE COMPLIANCE
start with small request and then escalate to a larger one
eg. people will comply with putting a sticker on their window that says drive carefully rather then putting a sign in their front yard.
once they’ve put the sticker up they are more likely to put the sign up
THE LOW-BALLING TECHNIQUE COMPLIANCE
obtain acceptance and then change offer to a worse one
asked to participate at 7am - less likely
asked to participate: yes
asked to participate at 7am - more likely
THE DOOR-IN-THE-FACE TECHNIQUE COMPLIANCE
First large request, after refusal, smaller request
GROUP INFLUENCE
How easy it is to be part of a group and act in discriminatory ways to others
Group X/Y (colour of shoelaces or where they are sitting)
When given choice of distributing reward they distribute only to their group (distinction of group x/y is so strong)
GROUP IDENTIFICATION
produces group conflict
dangers of tribal consensus
hatred, absolutist belief (us and them)
GROUP THINK DEFINE
mode of thinking when you are in a cohesive in-group when the members strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action
GROUP THING RESULT
consensus more important than reality
ignore disconfirming information
surpress dissent (by filtering information)
EG. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Castro
EXAMPLES OF GROUP INFLUENCE
take pride in things you didnt do (win Olympics) and hate people you haven’t met
Ideological commitment is the enemy of community flexibility
RESISTING INFLUENCE
GULLIBILITY VS SCEPTICISM
System 1
Thinking fast: making a quick judgement on what others tell you, relying on shortcuts, no effort (Gullibility)
System 2
Thinking slow: rational, objective, fact based, scientific, difficult (Scepticism)
Capacity of human mind to find meaning in meaningless situations (bullshit generator = generates a saying which seems deep but has not meaning whatsoever) = makes us vulnerable to social influence processes
Choosing one - easy (fast thinking) - Gullibility
Admitting the different factors - hard (slow thinking - Scepticism
EVERYDAY IMPLICATIONS OF GROUP INFLUENCE
EG. group-based social justice movements
Problem: we all are a part of many groups (woman, man, rich, poor, ethnicity)
Paradigm (reaffirms group differences)
